id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,439,099 |
The Judicial Magistrate-II, PollachiDespite opportunities having been given, none represented the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner also was called absent.The Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track Court-II), Coimbatore.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,911,837 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with crime No.23/2017 registered at Police Station Udaypura, District Raisen (M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 202, 166-A(B) and 120-B & 32 of IPC.It is alleged that on advertisement for appointment for the post of Gram Rojgar Sahayak, the co-accused Deepak filed application with necessary documents.Thereafter, on complaint that co- accused Deepak had got the said service by producing forged diploma of DCA, which was one of the essential requirement for that post, above case has been registered against the applicant and others.The allegation against the applicant is that the applicant and other co-accused Shubham Sharma requested Rajendra to give his mark-sheet, which was handed over to the applicant and the same got manipulated and used for the recruitment of co- accused Deepak.On investigation, it has been found that by taking the photocopy of certificate of diploma in MCA of one Rajendra Singh, by deleting his name and photo and by printing photo and name of the co-accused Deepak forged certificate of diploma of DCA has been prepared.On query, it has been informed by Shri Makhan Lal of National University of Journalism and Communication that certificate in question has not been issued from the said Institute.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is an innocent person and he has been falsely implicated in the case.On the date when the application was to be submitted to the Authority, co-accused Pawan Rajoria met with another co- accused Deepak, and thereafter, co-accused Deepak put his signature on the application and gave the necessary documents like mark-sheets of Class-X ,Class-XII and B.Sc.1st year to him.The selection committee, after examining the record, issued the appointment order in favour of the co-accused Deepak, therefore, the applicant has not committed any fraud.He further submits that on the basis of memorandum statement of Rajendra, he has been roped in this false case.On these grounds leaned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.Though co-accused Durga Prasad Lodhi has been released on anticipatory bail, but the allegation against him was that he did not obey the order of C.E.O. of Jila Panchayat, Raisen, thus the case of the applicant is distinguishable from that of the co-accused and on the basis of parity, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the present applicant.Hence, the anticipatory bail application of applicant- Chandrashekhar Badkur under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE A.Praj.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,914,916 |
(11.01.2017) This revision application takes exception to the order dated 14.09.2015 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No.147/2014 whereby framing charges under Section 306, in alternative, Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC').The facts in short are that, the deceased Vineeta wife of applicant No.1-Santosh Singh was residing in her matrimonial house.On 13.06.2014 Vineeta was carried to the hospital by the applicants for treatment of burn injuries sustained by her from gas stove while using it at home.Since the injuries were severe in nature, therefore, the police was informed about the same.The dying declaration was recorded and later Vineeta died on account of the burn injuries.F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Ashoknagar bearing Crime No.414/2014 for commission of offence under Section 306, 34 of IPC upon receiving the complaint from the family members of the deceased.After completion of-( 2 )- Cr.R.No.924/2015 investigation, the chargesheet was submitted before the competent Court.The trial court on perusal of the chargesheet concluded that the material available on record is enough for framing charges punishable under Section 306, in alternative, Section 302 and 498-A of IPC against the applicants/accused.The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicants have been falsely implicated by the family members of the deceased, whereas, the dying declaration reveals the truth that, the deceased sustained burn injuries due to an accident.The circumstances which have been alleged regarding on the applicant
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
14,391,618 |
This common order shall govern disposal of I.A. Nos.8077/2015 & 7641/2015 filed in CRA No.185/2015 on behalf of appellants-(i) Amarat @ Imarat S/o Gopi and (ii) Bapu @ Bapulal S/o Bhonaji, I.A. Nos.5008/2015 & 7642/2015 filed on behalf of appellants-(i) Kamal S/o Chainsingh, (ii) Jagdish S/o Bhonaji and (iii) Ramprasad S/o Arjun in CRA No.230/2015 under Section 389 (1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.These are first applications filed for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail by the appellants.These appellants suffered conviction and jail sentence as under :-As per the prosecution story, the dispute arose due to group rivalry between the complainant and the accused persons.On the date of incident i.e. 07.10.2011 at about 10 PM, co-accused Meharban, Umrao Singh and Ram Prasad came to the village Abdapur in tractor and in a jeep.Umrao Singh hit the injured Komal due to which he fell down.Thereafter, the present appellants who were in the tractor trolley and armed with lathi (piece of wood) and Farsi came down and inflicted injuries on the deceased as well as other injured persons.So far as the present appellants are concerned, Kamal inflicted injuries on Ram Singh, Jagdish on Kali Bai and Amarat inflicted injuries on Bapu by Farsi.These applications are filed claiming parity with co- accused Ranglal (appellant No.5) who was also holding lathi in his hand.Kamal inflicted injuries on Ram Singh.He sustained two injuries.PW-21 Dr. Bhairav Gupta examined him after the incident.According to him, injury No.1 is lacerated wound in right parietal region of head and Injury No.2 was bruises on his left elbow.Kali Bai, who was inflicted injuries by Jagdish suffered one lacerated wound on left parietal region of her head.Bapulal suffered six injuries out of which, Injury Nos.1 & 2 were incised wound and 4, 5 & 6 were lacerated wound while injury No.3 was an abrasion.According to the X-ray report, injured- Bapulal suffered fracture of shaft of left humerus right fifth metacarpal, right third proximal flemings,left second metacarpal etc. So far as the deceased was concerned, the deceased as per the P.M. report suffered as many as 14 injuries.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that injuries caused to injured Ram Singh, Kali Bai and Bapulal who were as per the prosecution story got inflicted injuries by these appellants suffered injuries by lathi and the injuries caused to Ram Singh and Kali Bai were simple in nature with no corresponding fracture.So far as the injured Bapulal is concerned, the incised wound caused by Farsi on him, which was as per the prosecution story was caused by appellant- Amarat were simple in nature and only those injuries, which were caused by hard and blunt object were grievous in nature.There is no specific allegation as to who caused such injures on Bapu or on the deceased, and therefore, their case stands on same footing as that of appellant No.5 Ranglal.On the contrary, the learned counsel for the State opposed the application on the ground that injuries suffered by Bapu specially the fracture in humour bone show the extent of force used against him.So far as the appellant-Bapu @ Bapulal in I.A. No.7641/2015 is concerned, no overt act was assigned to him.After going through the order for granting bail to appellant No.5 Ranglal, it is apparent that it was decided on merit considering the role and weapon assigned to him.So far as the present appellants are concerned, as stated above, the weapons they were holding and the injuries they caused according to the prosecution story on the injured persons were similar to those caused by co-accused Ranglal, and therefore, they stand on the same footing as appellant No.5 Ranglal.Accordingly, after due consideration of the aforesaid material and evidence available in the case, record of the lower court and without expressing any opinion on merit of the case on the grounds of parity with co-accused Ranglal I.A. Nos.8077/2015 & 7641/2015 filed by appellants-(i) Amarat and (ii) Bapu @ Bapulal in CRA No.185/2015 and I.A. No.5008/2015 filed on behalf of (i) Kamal and (ii) Jagdish in CRA No.230/2015 are allowed.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.30,000/- each and solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellants shall be released on bail for their appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12th January, 2016, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.So far as the appellant-Ramprasad in I.A. No.7642/2015 in CRA No.230/2015 is concerned, as per the prosecution story, he reached on the spot in a jeep alongwith Meharban and Umrao and these are the three persons, who brought other co- accused in a tractor trolley on the spot, and therefore, though no specific role is assigned to him in inflicting injury on the injured and the deceased, he played the main role alongwith other co-accused Meharban and Umrao, and therefore, no case is made out for grant of bail to this appellant.Accordingly, this application is dismissed.Certified copy, as per rules.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,918,954 |
Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1554 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 5 of 6and RMT.[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ramesh @ PT Ramesh, son of Pasupathy, aged about 33 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.3.The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case relied on by the detaining authority is not Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1554 of 2019 similar in nature and the offences in the ground case are totally different.Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:I am aware that Thiru Ramesh @ PT Ramesh is in remand in M5 Ennore Police Station Cr.No.309/2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.He has not moved any bail application for M5 Ennore Police Station Cr.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Ramesh @ PT Ramesh are taking action to take him out on bail in M5 Ennore Police Station Cr.No.309/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.The detenu, namely, Ramesh @ PT Ramesh, son of Pasupathy, aged about 33 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.(M.M.S.,J.) (T.K.R.,J.) 16.10.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssm1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal,Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
|
143,921,820 |
Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Shorn of details, the case of the prosecution against the appellant husband and the other accused persons being his parents Namita Jana and Kanailal Jana i.e. mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased respectively is to the effect that the appellant husband was married to one Minakshi and she was subjected to cruelty and dowry demand by her husband and her in-laws.It is alleged that as a result of torture she died and her death was caused by hanging amounting to dowry death for which all three accused persons have been charged under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).On 14 October, 2010, Bijay Krishna Chowdhury, father of the deceased Minakshi lodged a complaint with Barasat P.S. on the basis of which the First Information Report was drawn up and Barasat P.S. Case No.1848 dated 14 October, 2010 was registered.In the written complaint filed by Bijay Krishna Chowdhury it was alleged that his daughter was married to the appellant husband and out of their wedlock two sons were born.After six months of their marriage Minakshi was subjected to torture, cruelty and dowry demands.The specific allegation in the complaint is that Minakshi was subjected to mental torture by her parents-in-law and Somenath never protested the torture by his parents.Minakshi would on occasions visit the complainant and his family.On 14 October, 2010 at 6.00 pm, the complainant was informed by the appellant husband that Minakshi has died due to hanging and he immediately rushed to the matrimonial house.Two sons were born to her out of wedlock.In particular reference to the appellant husband, this witness further deposed that, the appellant husband did not protest to such torture, on the contrary, he followed their advise.He further deposed that, the accused persons used to ask his deceased daughter to bring some cash from her father's house.The accused persons on one occasion forcibly took cash of Rs.50,000 from this witness.He further deposed that on 14 October, 2010 i.e. within four years ten months of their marriage he was informed by the appellant husband that Minakshi had hanged herself.He along with others went to the matrimonial house of Minakshi and found his daughter lying on the bed and a short cloth of curtain hanging from the ceiling.He was interrogated by the police.In cross-examination, he deposed that he had not stated in the FIR the reason why any of the accused persons inflicted torture on the deceased.He further stated that he had not shown any kind of fear or threats the accused persons with the help of political leaders.He stated that the marriage between the appellant husband and Minakshi was negotiated and arranged with his permission.He further deposed that he was in regular touch with his daughter and she would visit him during the Puja holidays.He stated that his grand sons are now residing with him.He deposed that he knew Minakshi.He stated that he had heard that there was dispute between the deceased and Somenath which was due to the demand for money.He identified all the accused persons.In cross-examination, he stated that he was involved in an altercation on two or three occasions with the appellant husband in the locality.PW-8 (Tapan Roy), is a local resident.He deposed that he knew Minakshi Jana as she belonged to the locality.He was present at the time of marriage.He came to know about the death of Minakshi "on the day of Saptami Puja in 2010".He deposed that he had heard that Minakshi had reported to the local club that she had been tortured on many occasions.He also deposed that he heard that her in laws used to pressurize Minakshi to bring money.He identified all the accused persons present in the Court.In cross-examination, he stated that he had a truck and coal business and he remained busy throughout the day.PW-9 (Dr. Supriti Garai), is the doctor who was posted at Barasat District Hospital at the relevant point of time and conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of Minakshi.She deposed that she had prepared the post-mortem report and identified the same (Ext.7).PW-10 (Ajoy Gopal Nag), is a local resident and was present at the morgue when the inquest was conducted.He had signed as the witness to the inquest report.He identified his signature in the inquest report.PW-11 (Uttam Ghosh), was a police constable associated with the Barasat P.S and had carried the dead body of Minakshi to the morgue.He identified the dead body to the doctor for post-mortem examination.PW-12 (Shib Sankar Singha), is the Sub-Inspector of police who was posted with the Barasat P.S at the relevant point of time.He had gone to the place of occurrence of death on 14.10.2010 and recorded the statements of the available witnesses on that day.He prepared a rough sketch map (Ext.8).He had also seized a number of articles (Ext.4 & 5).With C.R.A No. 765 of 2013 Bijay Krishna Chowdhury................Both these appeals arise from the same order and are taken up for hearing in terms of the earlier orders passed by this Hon'ble Court.In CRA 608 of 2013, the appeal is preferred against the conviction of the appellant husband, Somenath Jana under Section 498A/304B of the Indian Penal Code.The connected appeal being CRA No.765 of 2013 has been preferred against the same judgment and order insofar as it acquits the other accused persons i.e. the in-laws of the deceased daughter-in-law.By the impugned order the appellant husband has been convicted of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under Section 498A and to pay a fine of Rs.2000, in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.The appellant husband has also been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and has been directed to pay a fine of Rs.5000, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months of the offence punishable under Section 304B Indian Penal Code.On arrival, the complainant found Minakshi lying in the bed and a piece of curtain cloth was hanging on the ceiling fan.It is also alleged in the complaint that certain gold articles, furniture and cash etc., were given to the accused persons.It is an admitted fact and this would also be borne out inter-alia from the post-mortem report that Minakshi had committed suicide and her death was caused due to hanging.Upon receipt of the complaint the police investigated the case and submitted a charge-sheet against the three accused persons.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, North 24 Parganas and thereafter transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge, Second Court, Barasat for trial and disposal.Thereafter, charges were framed under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and a number of documents had been proved as exhibits.The defence did not adduce any evidence.The defence of the accused persons was one of innocence and false implication.In examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., after recording of examination was over the accused persons reiterated that they were innocent and they have been falsely implicated by the father of the deceased.In conclusion of the trial, the Trial Judge by a judgment and order dated 20th July, 2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant husband as morefully stated hereinabove.The other accused persons being the in-laws of the deceased were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.Hence, the present appeals.The only allegation against the appellant husband is that the appellant husband was a mute spectator to the alleged cruelty inflicted upon Minakshi.He further contended that the FIR is completely silent about the alleged demand of Rs.50,000 in cash by the appellant husband or his family members.The entire story of the alleged demand, according to him, was belated and an afterthought.In particular, PW-3 had spoken about the demand for a four-wheeler car which was not even mentioned by the complainant, father of the deceased (PW-1).Similarly, the evidence of Sanjoy Chakraborty (PW-4) was also not credible.Significantly, PW-4 had deposed of a Salish (mediation) being held which was not a fact stated by the father of the deceased PW-1, either in the evidence or in the FIR.Mr. Mukherjee further contended that the evidence of all the witnesses in the locality was hearsay.Mr. Mukherjee laid much emphasis on the cross-examination of PW-3 (Debasish Bhattacharyya) who had stated that "our locality is known as Chakrabortypara.Myself and the men of the locality were annoyed with the accused persons all along.We considered them as inferior class of people".Mr. Mukherjee also contended that the entire evidence of all the local residents being PW-3, PW-4, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-10 respectively was neither credible nor convincing and should not have been given any weight.There is no case made out either in the FIR or the evidence of any demand for dowry or cruelty.There are no circumstances relating to torture and the entire case made out for dowry is weak, unconvincing and nebulous.According to Mr. Mukherjee, the Trial Court failed to appreciate that there was any incident of dowry demand or cruelty and the entire evidence in this regard is vague, bereft of particulars, based on surmises and conjectures.There was no case of torture, leave alone a continuous case of torture which was been made out either in the FIR or in the evidence of any of the witnesses.He submitted that there was sufficient evidence before the Trial Court to convict the in-laws of the deceased.He further submitted that both in the FIR and the evidence there was overwhelming evidence to convict the in-laws.He placed reliance on the FIR and the evidence to show that there were specific allegations of cruelty, torture and dowry demand made out against both the in-laws.He lodged a complaint with the Barasat Police Station.He identified the signature on the FIR (Ext. 1), the police made an inquest over the dead body which was signed by him.PW-2 (Lakshan Tripathi), was the Assistant Sub-Inspector.He had filed the formal FIR (Ext.1).He had performed the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Minakshi Jana.He identified the inquest report (Ext.3).In cross-examination, he deposed, that he had no personal knowledge about the facts and circumstances of the instant case but knew the meaning of dowry.PW-3 (Debasish Bhattacharyya), is a local resident of 'Chakrabortypara' where the deceased and the appellant were residing.He deposed that he knew Minakshi Jana.He deposed that Minakshi came to the matrimonial house which was near his house.He further deposed that Minakshi was not happy in her matrimonial house and was debarred from mixing with others by the accused persons.He deposed that he had heard sounds of crying of Minakshi Jana at night.He deposed that the accused persons used to ask her bring cash from her father's house.He deposed that the father of Minakshi had given a four wheeler car to the accused.He deposed that on the date of the incident he had come to know at night that Minakshi had hanged herself.He had identified all the accused persons in the dock.In cross-examination, he deposed that he came to know Bijay Krishna Chowdhury the father of the deceased on the date of the death of Minakshi Jana.He deposed that he had never threatened the accused persons nor made any financial demand on any of the accused persons.He deposed that the accused persons had come to the locality after purchasing their house.He deposed that his locality is commonly known as 'Chakrabortypara' and he and the other residents of the locality were annoyed with the accused persons all along after they shifted into 'Chakrabortypara'.He stated that "we considered them as an inferior class of people".He deposed that he had never filed any complaint nor gone to any authority in respect of torture or cruelty meted out to the deceased or the fact that she had been debarred from mixing with others by the accused persons.He further stated that he had not invited to the marriage of Minakshi and Somenath.PW-4 (Sanjoy Chakraborty), is also a local resident and neighbour living in the same locality as the accused persons.He identified all the accused persons.He stated that he knew all the accused persons.He stated that he also knew the deceased Minakshi Jana.He stated that he had heard that Minakshi had committed suicide.He stated that the accused persons would torture Minakshi and demand cash and dowry.He stated that several salish (mediation) meetings were held in the locality over the issue of cruelty and dowry meted out to Minakshi on diverse occasions.He stated that he had tried to convince the accused persons not to commit any act of atrocities or make any demand cash or dowry upon Minakshi at such salishes.He stated that he had heard from the father of Minakshi that he had given cash to the accused.In cross-examination, he stated that, he had never told the police that he had heard from the father of Minakshi that he gave cash to the accused.He said that he was not the head man of his village.He stated he had not lodged any complaint in respect of the demands made out of Minakshi before any police station or any authority.He stated that he had been trying to evict the accused persons from the locality for a long time.PW-5 (Pallab Chakraborty), is a colleague of Bijay Krishna Chowdhury and a signatory to the inquest report.He identified his signature on the inquest report.PW-6 (Santanu Chowdhury), is a cousin of the deceased.He stated that Minakshi had been murdered by the members of her matrimonial house and he reiterated the case made out in the FIR.He arrested all the accused persons and had received all the documentation in connection with the case.He had recorded all the statements of the witnesses and conducted the investigation.In the light of the aforesaid evidence and by a pain staking judgment the Trial Judge held that in the light of the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased duly corroborated by the evidence of the local residents being PWs-3, 4, 7 and 8, the charges under Section 304B and Section 498A of the IPC were proved against the appellant husband.In the aforesaid backdrop, I will now examine the rival contentions of the parties, the evidence and the impugned judgment.It is a fact that in the FIR the complainant had mentioned that gifts in the form of cash aggregating to Rs.50,000 had been given.But, this was in the form of National Savings Certificate and not cash.It is only for the first time in the evidence of the complainant (PW-1) that he mentioned that a sum of Rs.50,000 in cash had been forcibly taken by the accused persons but there are no particulars, date or time of such demand.The other statement of PW-1 that "I used to give cash to my daughter for giving them" is vague and bereft of particulars.There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the death concerned.The certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,926,452 |
This Criminal Revision has been preferred challenging the judgment and order dated 30.01.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge (FTC), Namakkal in C.A.No.7 of 2008 confirming the conviction and sentence dated 08.01.2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.It is the case of the prosecution that on 28.04.2006, around 07.45 am, Arun Prasad (PW1) was driving his Pulsar motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN30 K 5914 and the deceased Boopathy was on the pillion and they were proceeding from south to north in Moganoor - Namakkal main road towards Moganoor and at that time, a tractor with trailer bearing Registration No.TN31 V 3209, driven by the accused, came in the opposite direction and there was a head-on collision between the two vehicles, due to which, both Arun Prasad (PW1) and Boopathy (deceased) were thrown on the ground resulting in serious injuries to them.Both of them were rushed to the nearby Balaji Hospital by Ambulance and from there, they were sent to the Government Hospital, Salem.En route, Boopathy succumbed to the injuries.Arun Prasad (PW1) was admitted in the hospital and on his complaint (Ex.P1), the police registered a case in Crime No.408 of 2006 and after completing the investigation, filed a final report in C.C.No.264 of 2006 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Namakkal for the offences under Sectionshttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 279, 337 and 304-A IPC against the accused.Charges for said offences were framed and when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.No witness was examined on behalf of the accused nor any document marked.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court by judgment and order dated 08.01.2008 in C.C.No.264 of 2006 convicted and sentenced the accused as under:Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused preferred Criminal Appeal in Crl.Challenging the concurrent findings of the two Courts below, the accused has preferred the present revision petition under Section 397 r/w.401 Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in 4P.C, this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence as a second Appellate Court.However, where it is shown that there has been a manifest mis- appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, the power of this Court to interfere stands preserved by Sub-Section (1) of Section 401 Cr.P.C. The prosecution hinges on the evidence of Arun Prasad (PW1), who was driving the motorcycle when the accident took place.It is not in dispute that the accused was the driver of the tractor and a trailer was also attached to the tractor.It is the specific defence of the accused that the accident was not on account of a head-on collision as projected by the prosecution, but the accident had occurred when the two wheeler hit the trailer.Learned counsel took this Court through the evidence of Arun Prasad (PW1), who in his examination in-chief has stated that the tractor and his motorcycle collided.However in the cross-examination, he has stated that the tractor came to the main road from an adjacent street and was proceeding on the right side.He has further admitted that he wanted to avoid the front wheel of the trailer hitting his motorcycle and therefore he swerved the vehicle.From the evidence of Arun Prasad (PW1), it transpires that the Tractor was not coming on the opposite side, but has entered thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 road from a street.One cannot expect a tractor to have a speed of a car or a bus, especially a tractor with a trailer attached.Puthuvai Nathan (PW9), the Motor Vehicle Inspector who inspected the tractor, trailer and the motorcycle, has stated that he did not find any damage or marks of collision in the front portion of the tractor.However, he had found that the motorcycle was heavily damaged.Had there been a head-on collision, there should have been some dent in the front portion of the tractor or even a scratch mark to show signs of collision.Therefore, under such circumstances, this Court is unable to infer that the Tractor with the trailer was driven by the accused rashly and negligently resulting in the accident in question for sustaining the conviction and sentence of the accused.In the result, this criminal revision petition is allowed.The orders of the Courts below are set aside.The petitioner is acquitted of all charges in the case.Fine paid if any, shall be refunded to him.17.09.2019 Speaking order: Yes/No Index: Yes/No gpahttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 ToThe Additional District Judge (FTC), NamakkalThe Judicial Magistrate No.1 Namakkal.The Inspector of Police Namakkal Police Station Namakkal Districthttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 P.N.PRAKASH J., gpa Crl.R.C.No.1534 of 2012 17.09.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,931,930 |
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalwan, in Regular Criminal CaseNo.34 of 2009, for the offence punishable under Sections 417, 420, 467,468 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to sufferimprisonment of varying terms and fine, had preferred Criminal Appealbearing No.118 of 2016, before the Court of Sessions at Nashik.2] In the appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, bythe judgment and order dated 18 th October, 2019 was persuaded to partlyallow the appeal and the applicant accused No.1 was acquitted of theoffence punishable under Section 420 of IPC; however, the conviction andsentence, for the offence punishable under Section 419, 467 and 468 of the 1/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 ::: 913 IA 1 OF 2019Indian Penal Code was confirmed.The applicant was given three weeks timeto surrender before the trial Court to undergo the sentence imposed by thetrial Court.::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 :::3] The gravamen of indictment against applicant/accused No.1 isof impersonating the accused No.2 and executing forged equitable mortgagefor availing the loan from the bank.4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicanthad not committed any forgery as alleged.5] The learned APP on the other hand submits that the learnedSessions Judge has assigned cogent reasons to uphold the conviction.It is anopen and shut case and, therefore, the applicant does not deserve to bereleased on bail.6] The applicant was on bail during pendency of the trial beforethe learned Magistrate as well as appeal before the learned Sessions Judge.The time granted by the learned Sessions Judge to surrender before the trialCourt expires today.The applicant being agriculturist appears to have sootsin society.The legality, propriety and the correctness of the impugned orderrequire consideration.6] In view of aforesaid facts, the execution and operation of theimpugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence for the offence 2/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 ::: 913 IA 1 OF 2019punishable under section 419, 467 and 468 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Nashik, in Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2016,dated 18th October, 2019 is hereby suspended during the pendency of thisRevision Application.::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 :::7] The applicant/accused No.1 Popat Ramchandra Bagul, bereleased on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and asurety in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned J.M.F.C. Kalwan.8] Interim Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 3/3 ::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 09/11/2019 03:57:09 :::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,935,428 |
CRM 16931 of 2014 BD Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1st December, 2014 in connection with Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 437/2014 dated 28.05.2014 under Sections 376D/292A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ranjit Sarkar ... Petitioner Mr. Pabitra Talukder.... For Petitioner.Mr. Saryati Dutta.... For State.The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to Dum Dum Police Station Case No. 437/2014 dated 28.05.2014 under Sections 376D/292A/506 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned advocate of the petitioner submits that the said petitioner is in custody for last two hundred five (205) days and charge sheet has already been submitted.Learned advocate of the petitioner further submits that even after last rejection of the bail prayer, till today charge has not yet been framed.Heard the learned advocate of the State.Having considered the materials available in the case diary and also considering the long detention of the petitioner for last two hundred five (205) days and since charge sheet has already been submitted and there is no likelihood of early conclusion of the trial as the charge has not yet been framed even after last rejection of the bail prayer of the petitioner herein, we are of the opinion that further detention of the petitioner in this case is not necessary at this stage.Therefore, the petitioner namely, Ranjit Sarkar, be Bail released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) with one surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, subject to further condition that on 2 being released on bail, the petitioner will report to the Officer-in-Charge, Dum Dum Police Station once in a month till the completion of the trial.The application for bail, thus, stands allowed.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J) (Sudip Ahluwalia, J)
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,439,598 |
(a) under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA (P) Act and ins sentenced of death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(b) under Section 120B IPC and is sentenced to death;(c) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(d) under Section 3(3) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(i) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Police Constable K.B. Bhanawat, Buckle No.22579 and is sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(j) under Section 307 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code for attempting to commit the murder of PW9 Police Constable Vijay Krishna Nagare.PW42 PSI K.G. Thakur, PW11 Shankar Ganpat Sawant, PW54 Shankar Ramachandra Jadhav and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life;(k) under Section 27 of the Arms Act and is sentenced to death:A-2 Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao-(a) under Section 3(4) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month;(b) under Section 212 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month;3. A-7 Shamkishor Shamsharma Garikapatti-It is prosecution version that on 12.9.1992 at about 03:20 hours and incident of shoot out took place in J.J. Hospital Campus at Mumbai, which is a Government Hospital having occupancy of 1500 beds.It is alleged that having made preparation, such as procuring sophisticated weapons like AK-17 rifles, pistols, revolvers, dynamites and hand-grenades and by firing the shots through the said weapons, accused have committed murder of (1) Prisoner Shailesh Shankar Haldankar, who was undergoing treatment in Ward No.18 in the said hospital; (2) Police Head Constable Chaintaman Gajanan Javsen; and (3) Police Constable Kawalsingh Baddu Bhanawat.The two policemen were on guard duty of prisoner Shailesh Shankar Haldankar.It is prosecution case that in Mumbai City, criminal gangs operate and they commit organized crime and cover large sum from industrialists, businessmen, professional, hoteliers etc. As "khandani" (protection money).It is also stated that sister of Dawood Ibrahim (a gangster) had married one Ibrahim Parker who was man of confidence of Dawood Ibrahim.Ibrahim Parker was shot dead at his residence on 26.7.1992 in Nagpada locality and an offence, under Crime No.589/93, under Section 302 IPC was registered in that connection.Deceased Shailesh Haldankar was suspected to have pointed him out.It is also alleged that the said Shailesh Haldankar was a person belonging to the gang of Arun Gawali, the arch rival of Dawood Ibrahim.On the night between 30.8.1992 and 31.8.1992 Shailesh Haldankar Bipin Shere, Raju Batata and Santosh Patil had fired shots at one Masukh Rawat in the Kumbharawada locality and therefore the offence (at Crime No.460/92) under Section 307 IPC was registered against them and as such Shailesh Haldankar.Bipin Shere and Raju Batata were wanted accused in the crime.On 2.9.1992 at about 8.00 a.m. or so, Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere and their associate Raju Batata (now deceased) were noticed by some one in Kumbharawada locality and the police was informed.On information, police party chased them and noticing police party they tied to scare away the police by brandishing the weapons i.e. the swords and choppers.Somehow or the other, the police succeeded in overpowering Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere.Third person Raju Batata managed to escape in the melee.At the same time, number of persons who had gathered there, on seeing the commotion man-handled Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere.The police successfully persuaded the members of the public to maintain peace and thereafter Shailesh Haldankar and Bipin Shere were removed to J.J. Hospital for treatment of injuries sustained by them.They were transferred to J.J. Hospital and kept in Ward No.18 on the third floor.A guard comprising of one head constable and two constables was posted on duty to prevent the escape of prisoners.It is prosecution version that on 12.9.1992 at about 2.00 a.m. PW42 PSI Thakur had gone for guard duty check at the J.J. Hospital.After checking guard of Bipin Shere, he went to ward no.18 to check the guard of the prisoner Shailesh Haldankar.In the said ward, Shailesh Haldankar and other patient (PW10) Siddiq Ahmed Amin were sleeping on cots.Shailesh Haldankar was handcuffed.PSI Thakur went inside the cabin and sat on the said cot.He receded in the southern veranda and when he was rushing towards the bath room through the verandah, he heard somebody saying 'udharse bhaga maro saleko' meaning (the person) had run way by that side, kill the bastard'.Before rushing towards the bath room he had closed the said southern door of the ward and no sooner the aforesaid utterances wee herd, he noticed that a number of shots were fired on that door.He went inside the bathroom.PW9 PC Nagare who had become alert and who had taken the position with the rifle in his hand noticed very same person whom he had seen inside the ward earlier coming towards the southern door of the cabin, therefore, he fired one shot through his rifle in his direction.Therefore, he receded a little and fell down by the side of the cot.Thereafter, that person entered inside the room and fired shots indiscriminately towards Sailesh haldankar.HC Javsen and PC Bhanawat were also hit by those bullets.At the time, he heard hue any cry in the ward.Because of the injury sustained on his migh, he felt giddy.PW9 PC Nagare has identified the person who was seen by him in the ward, who had uttered the word 'hands-up, hilo mat nahi to maar dalenge', and who had entered the cabin and fired the shots at Shailesh Haldankar, HC Javsen and PC Bhanawat to be the accused No.6 Subhashsingh Thakur.CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF A-29. Suryarao (A-2) has disclosed that A-7 Shamkishore was known to him since year 1988 and was frequently visiting his residence in Shanti Niketan Society on LBS Road, Ghatkopar.He had sold his motor Car No.It is further disclosed that his disclosed that his election to the post of President was not liked by his political rivals and the aid rivals lost no time in mobilising a campaign against him for no confidence motion.In the month of July, 1992 the news had appeared in the "Navashakti" Marathi Daily that he had sent Shamkishor Garikapatti (A-7) to the residence of R.C. Patil (PW61 President of Thane District Congress Party) to tell him to stop the campaign against him and that Dawood Ibrahim had telephoned to R.C. Patil asking him to stop the campaign against him.Thereafter, he had issued a press-note denying these allegations.On 2.9.1992 at the behest of A-7, A-2 accompanied with his wife Priti and PW34 Himmat Raval had gone to Seema Holiday Resort in car belonging to Shri Palsule, driven by Driver Halim (PW62).He requested Pappu Kalani to ask R.C. Patil (PW61) to stop the campaign against him.Pappu Kalani promised him to do the needful through his contacts and further told him that A-7 was the man of his confidence and he should help him.Next day, he contacted A-7 on phone and enquired with him as to whether he had received any message from Pappu Kalani.Then A-7 replied in negative and told him that he was doubtful whether Pappu Kalani had gone to Delhi.He further disclosed that on 12.9.1992 at 6.30 a.m., he got a telephone call from A-7 asking him to see him before 9.30 a.m. with an air-conditioned car.At 8.45 a.m. again A-7 telephoned him.Thereafter, he accompanied by bodyguard PC Laxman Vishe (PW12) left for Bombay in the Contests Car No. MH-04-A-1445 driven by PW17 Shripad Tambe.When he reached at the residence of A-7 at Ghatkopar, A-7 told him that early in the morning Arun Gavli's men had fired at his friend and he is to be taken for medical treatment to the hospital and he should make arrangements for his transportation.A-7 asked him to use his official vehicle as it would be safer and he accepted the said suggestion.Thereafter. A-7 asked him to go to Sagar Hotel at Nagpada where a person would meet him and take him to the injured and after meeting the said injured he should take the injured to Goregaon in his official car.A-7 also informed him that a he has booked suite in a Hotel in Juhu where he could relax.Then the car was driven to Sagar Hotel and from there with the assistance of a young Muslim boy it was brought towards Bombay Central Area in from of a chawl.The said boy took him to the building where he saw one person with a bandage around his abdomen, having height of 5.6", slim built and a shallow complexion.He mer another person there who gave his name as DR.Subhashsingh Thakur (A-6) was also present there.He was knowing A-6 because he met him twice before at the instance of A-7 at Seema Holiday Resort owned by Pappu Kalani situated at Varap village on Kalyan Murbad Road.He then enquired about the condition of the patient with Dr. Bansal.The injured was brought to the Contessa Car by Dr. Bansal with the help of two other persons.Dr. Bansal as well as then injured sat in the car along with him and then the car was driven to Hotel Centaur at Juhu.From there the car was taken Hotel Holiday Inn at Juhu because there was none to receive them at Hotel Centaur.He got down from the car alongwith his body guard P.C. Vishe (PW12) and asked driver Tambe (PW17) to take the injured to the hospital as per the directions of Dr. Bansal.Thereafter, Vijay made telephone call and left the said room.Sometime thereafter, A-7 telephoned him and requested him to go back to Bombay Central where he had gone before.At about 1.00 p.m. driver Tambe returned from the hospital when he asked him as to whether he had left Dr. Bansal and the injured and he told him that he dropped them at Goregaon.Thereafter, he and PW12 PC Vishe sat in the car and at his behest driver Tambe drove the car to Hotel Sagar where the very same Muslim young boy who had helped him in the previous visit to lead to place, was waiting for them.A-6 came down and sat by his side and then asked the driver to proceed towards the Petrol Pump situated opposite to J.J. Hospital.A-6 asked the driver to stop the car there telling that "Savtya" was coming.After a few minutes "Savtya" came there and then A-6 asked him as to where he was going and he told him that he was going towards hotel Holiday Inn.When the car reached near Lido Cinema in Santacruz locality at about 2.30 p.m., A reached near Lido Cinema in Santacruz locality at about 2.30 p.m., A- 6 asked the driver to stop the car in front of a petrol pump and then A- 6 and Sunil Sawant got down and walked away.When they were travelling in the car, A-6 opened the zip of the airbag and showed him a stengun and four revolvers.Then they went to Hotel Holiday Inn and he collected the keys of room no 315 from the receptionist.It is his further say that near the Reception counter, he heard someone talking about the shoot out incident in J.J Hospital and he realised that he had helped the gangsters of Dawood Ibrahim in fleeing.He became restless and returned to Bhiwandi at 6.00 p.m. On 13.9.1992 at 10.00 a.m., he received a telephone call from A-7 and then he complained to him that he had unnecessarily put him in trouble but A-7 got annoyed and threatened him and asked to keep quite on the issue and forget about it.It is further started that on 13.9.1992 at the instance of A-7, he met Pappu Kalani and A-7 at Seema Holiday Resort and then Pappu Kalani told him that he should not tell anybody about the removing of the injured persons and others in his official car failing which he would finish him and his family.On 14.9.1992 at about 9.00 a.m., when he was about to leave his residence.Baba Gabriel and one unknown person met him and informed him that A-7 had asked him to come at his residence with his official car.At that time, A-7 also telephoned him and asked him in a threatening tone to bring the car otherwise his family would be butchered.He got frightened and asked driver Badruddin Chimkar to get Maruti 1000 car bearing No.The bodyguard police constable was also with him.A-7 then asked him to bring Himmat Raval, who was known to A-7 and he was also taken from his residence.The car was then brought to the residence of A-7 at Ghatkopar and then A-7 boarded the said car and it was brought to Vile Parle.In a flat on the ground floor, he met a male person aged about 30/35 years.Himmat Raval got down from the car and stayed behind and the said male person then boarded the said car and asked the driver to proceed towards Pali Hill side.On reaching there, Vijay who had met them earlier at Hotel Holiday Inn came there.He had come there in a white coloured Maruti Car alongwith 2/3 persons.They were Carrying their suits cases with them.At about 2.00 p.m. at the behest of A-7, driver Badruddin Chimkar drove the car towards Santacruz and when the car reached one locality, probably Daulatnagar in Santacruz area, A-7 asked him to stop the car and went in a multi-story building.He saw A-6 there with one more person.A-6 sat in the car and A-7 asked to proceed towards Manor.In the meanwhile two blue coloured Maruti cars arrived there.One of the cars bearing No.Mp 09 D-9634 identified by him and he saw Satish Rao, Ms. Meena Rao and his friend Himmat Raval getting down from the car.He also noticed other 5 to 6 persons getting down from another car.He took A-7 aside and requested him to relieve him because he did not want to go ahead with them.A-7 agreed to relieve him on the condition that he should give him Maruti 1000 car bearing No.MH-04-A-5353 belonging to Bhiwandi-Nizampura Municipal Council with the policeman on duty.He agreed to spare the said car with out a policeman.A-7 agreed and also gave him Maruti car No.He his bodyguard and Himmat Rawal sat in the said car and came back to Bhiwandi.Mr. and Mrs. Rao, A-6 Subhashsingh, and others went ahead in the Maruti 1000 motor car and the other vehicle.On the sam day, at 7.30 p.m., he returned to Bhiwandi and left the motor car MP-09-D-9634 at the residence of Himmat Raval.Thereafter, he took another car of his friend Mohan Amre and visited Kalava to see Rajaram Salvi, Agripada Leader.He intercepted it and found it to be occupied by Mr. Satish Rao and his wife Mrs. Meena Rao, A-7 and Driver Badruddin Chimkar.he asked driver Badruddin Chimkar to come next day morning at 9.a.m.On the same day at 9.00 a.m. A7 telephoned him and asked him for his car with the policeman to be sent at his residence but he refused to oblige him.On 16.9.1992 at 9.00 a.m.m A-7 telephoned him and informed him that he has done the job without his help (probably the reference was for not providing the car with a policeman).A-7 was rude on phone saying that he could do anything and nobody can stop him.Thereafter, as instructed by him driver Tambe (PW-17) re-wrote the logbook.It is his further say that on 19.9.1992, when he learnt that Mumbai police had come to Bhiwandi and were making inquiries of the motor car bearing No.MH-04-A-1445 and its driver.he got frightened and contacted A-7 on telephone and informed him accordingly.For our purpose, it is necessary to refer to relevant part of shoot out incident at the J.J. Hospital.He stated that he murdered one Paul 'Newman', belonging to Arun Gavli's gang.After the murder he started staying with Sunil Sawan at Kathmandu, Nepal.During that period, he used to often come to Delhi, Gonda and Bombay.When he was in Kathmandu, one Kim Bahadur Thapa, a Corporator (who was his mentor) was killed by members of Chhota Rajan gang.To avenge the killing of Kim Bahadur Thapa, he killed Sanjay Raggad, Diwakar Churi and one Amar Juker, all belonging to Chhota Rajan gang with the help of his associated Brijeshsingh (Absconding accused) and others.It is his say that after previous involvement in murder cases, he was living at Delhi with one Brijeshsingh.Deceased Sunil Sawant Suggested him that since number of days, they have not participated in any 'game' and they should go to Bombay.Thereafter, they came to Bombay and started living in flat in Queens View Apartment near Lido Cinema at Juhu owned by deceased Manish Gangaram Lala.On 11.9.1992 he was informed by Sunil that In J.J. Hospital the killer of brother-n-law of Dawood Ibrahim was admitted and he was required to be murdered.Sunil was taking instructions from Dawood Ibrahim by contacting him on telephone.It is his say that Sunil informed him that everything was set and when they would reach at the hospital, at the point of AK-47 rifle policemen should be asked to raise their hands and thereafter remove the bullets from their rifles and then go in the ward, finish the killers and return.At about 1.00 or 1.30 a.m., Sunil informed Brijeshsingh to go along with some persons of Nazir at J.J. hospital to find out the situation.After one hour he was informed that one police constable was on duty and it would be case to carry out the work.At about 3.30 a.m. on 12.9.1992, he alongwith other persons went to J.J. Hospital.He was having 9mm pistol with magazines.Others were also having loaded pistol or revolver.Pradhan and Brijesh were also having AK-47 rifles with extra magazines.They went in two fiat cars.When they entered the gate, they saw one watchman was standing near the staircase.Najir and his man caught the colour of Ravi Sorte to make a show as if a policeman was talking an accused.On seeing them, the policemen who was on guard only closed the door for entry to the ward.Then Brijeshsingh knocked the door put none opened.At that time, he felt that there was no setting and, therefore, he asked Brijeshsingh that they all should go back.During that time, Brijeshsingh fired three to four times from his AK-47 rifle on the closed door.Again He asked Brijeshsingh to return.Meantime, someone else fired at them from the opposite door.Thereafter, they all moved towards the side from where they were fired.During that time, policemen continued to fire towards them from one door or other and they also retaliated.Thereafter, Brijeshsingh came towards him quickly and told that he has killed all the persons inside the ward and asked them to move from that place.Finally they reached at the house of Najir Jariwala.There they found that Pradhan was having bullet injury in his abdomen and Ravi was injured on his hand.They contacted Chhota Shakeel at Dubai who gave them assurance for arranging a doctor and that he would be giving information to Dawood.It is his say that he is a resident of Shanti Niketan, Ghatkopar (W), Bombay.He is B.Sc.and that after graduation he started business of transportation of liquid chemicals.In January, 1985 he was playing a cricket match at Shell colony ground in the morning.At about 10.30 a.m. or so, he noticed one person running across the ground and he was profusely bleeding.While running, he collapsed on the ground.He was identified as Subhashsingh Thakur (Accused no.6) by Mangesh More and Mahboob Kunji.They took him to Dr. Lad's hospital, Dhar.Dr. Lad examined him and removed bullet from his body and informed him that it was a police case.He asked him to inform the police or remove the injured to government hospital, otherwise he would inform it to police.He got frightened and left the hospital.Next day, he came to know that accused no.6 had fired at police and in relation police had fired at him and he had sustained bullet injuries.In the year 1987 Subhashsingh Thakur asked him to help in the said case.Subhashsing was acquitted from the said case.Thereafter, he has narrated other incidents wherein A-6 Subhashsingh was involved.It is his say that while he was having meeting with Subhashsingh, Himmat Raval, the then Vice President of Bhiwandi Nagar Parishad, introduced him with Suryarao (A-2).At that time, Pappu Kalani told Suryarao that he should help him (A-7 Kishore).On 12.9.1992, at about 6.00 a.m., he got a telephone call from Subhashsingh Thakur who told him that there was firing at J.J. Hospital and one of his friends was badly injured in the incident and he wanted to remove him immediately and safely out of Bombay and asked him to call official vehicle of Suryarao (A-2) and to send the same to Sagar Hotel at Nagpada with his official car.Subhashsingh Thakur once again telephoned him at his residence and informed that on 12th September, 1992, in the early morning at about 4.00 a.m., he alongwith Sunil Sawant, Brijeshsingh, Pradhan, Nirmalsingh, Prasad Khade, Bacchisingh, Pappu, Babloo and two three muslim boys of Nazir stormed into ward no. 18, J.J. Hospital and fired at Shailesh Haldankar in which Shailesh Haldankar and two policemen were injured and died subsequently.He also informed him that Suryarao had come with his car and removed the injured.At about 2.00 p.m., he received telephone call from Suryarao.Who informed him that he dropped the injured at Andheri and that he was leaving for Bhiwandi.Thereafter on 14.9.1992, Subhashsingh rang him and informed that he wanted to leave Bombay and asked him for the same vehicle which removed the injured.He again contacted Suryarao and asked him to come at his residence with his official vehicle.At 10.00 a.m. Suryarao came to his residence with white colour Maruti 1000 Car No.He was accompanied by Himmat Raval, his driver and a police constable in uniform.Thereafter they went at And Sharma's house.Anil Sharma took them at the Guest House, where he met Manishlal, who informed him that Subhashsingh was intending to leave Bombay for Gujarat.Thereafter he was narrated in detail how they reached upto Sagar Petrol Pump.It is his say that as Suryarao was having some work, he returned to Bhiwandi in another vehicle of Satish Rao (PW22) with Himmat Raval and his driver.He kept Maruti 1000 car.Subsequently, from Vapi they returned to Bhiwandi and left the car at Suryarao's house.In cross-examination, he stated that Mukhtiyar Manzil is at a distance of 2 minutes walk from the J.J. Junction and J.J. hospital is at a distance of about 4 minutes walk from J.J. Junction and that in the Mastan Talao locality, there are number of lanes.The J.J. Junction and the Nagpada Junction are at a distance of about 1/2-3/4 km. from Nagpadu and that Mastan Talao is at the distance of 5 to 10 minutes walk from Nagpada junction.He has also stated that there are number of mutton shops in mini bazar, near Mastan Talo and that he was not knowing whereabouts of his son.Similarly, PW66 Sayyed Rais Ahmed Jariwala has stated that he and absconding accused Nazair were staying in room nos.11 and 12 in Shankar Building, Mastan Tank Lane.This evidence alongwith confessional statements would indicate that accused before carrying out the target selected a place which was nearby J.J.Hospital.PW12 Laxman Vishe.who was armed police constable attached to Thane Police Head Quarter.was assigned the duty of regular Guard to A-2 who was the President of Bhiwandi-Nizampur Municipal Council at the relevant time.It is his say that A-2 Suryarao was having two houses and two wives.One at Najrana Compound in Bhiwandi Town and other in Gokul Nagar.It is his further say that on 12.9.1992 at about 8.00 a.m., he accompanied A-2 in Contessa Car.At that time he was in police uniform.A-2 directed the driver Tambe to take the car to highway via Bhiwandi Vegetable Market.One person who was standing in the Bhiwandi vegetable market was taken inside by A-2 and that person got down at Thane highway.After passing one bridge an Old Agra Road, car was taken to a building in Ghatkopar area.A-2 got down from the car and asked him to wait in the car.After 15/20 minutes A2 returned to the car and directed to drive the car to Sagar Hotel at Nagpada Junction.There, he and A-2 got down from the car.Both the persons after having a talk with each other sat on the rear seat in the Contessa car.After about 5 minutes of driving, the said boy asked the driver Tambe to stop the car near mutton lane. A-2 and the said boy got down from the car and A-2 asked him to wait near the car.The two then went through a by lane and disappeared.After 10/15 minutes, A-2 came back followed by 3 persons.One of the three persons was given support by taking his arms on their shoulders by the other two persons.One more person followed them with a suitcase in his hand.Of the two persons, one person was the very same person who had met them near Sagar hotel and who had led them to the mutton lane.The person who was ill and the person who was having briefcase occupied the car along with Suryarao and other two persons went away.Thereafter, they went to hotel Holiday-Inn in Juhu locality.On enquiry A-2 told him that the patient was son of his friend and that he was suffering from kidney trouble and required to be taken to the hospital.After half-an hour drive, they reached Hotel Holiday Inn and he alongwith A-2 got down there.One young person of 25/30 years age led them to room no.315 and thereafter he went down stairs saving that he will be going to the hospital alongwith the patient. A-2 received a number of telephone calls in the room and also made number of phone calls.After half an hour.A-2 enquired with the Reception Counter about arrival of Car.Thereafter, they came down and A-2 enquired from the driver as to whether the patient reached safely to the hospital and the driver Tambe replied affirmatively. A-2 then asked the driver to take the car to Sagar Hotel in Nagpada locality.The very same person who had met them in the morning in the Sagar Hotel and who guided driver to take the car to mutton lane met them.He occupied the seat in the rear by the side of A-2 and helped the driver to take the car again to the very same place i.e. the mutton lane.A person having 5'9" height and strong built of about 28/30 years of age came there in a short while and sat on the rear seat by the side of A-2 Suryarao.That person asked the driver to take the car to the Petrol Pump near J.J. Hospital.The person who had helped the driver to take the car to mutton lane from Sagar Hotel got down from the car after they reached mutton lane.When the car reached near the Petrol Pump, one person came there and told the said tall person that the person for whom he was waiting will be reaching there within a short time.Saving so, the said person went away 5/10 minutes thereafter, a person of about 30/32 years of age came there wearing a Kurta Pyjama and a Bohara Muslim cap and having a tin of Paan Parag in his hand.The tall person introduced the said person to A-2 as Savtya (deceased).Thereafter, all of them left for hotel Holiday-Inn.The car was stopped on way in Santacruz locality near a petrol pump at the behest of Savtya.On the way.Savtya got down from the car and went away in a lane and disappeared.The car was stopped on way in Santacruz locality near a petrol pump at the behest of Savtya.On the way.Savtya got down from the car and went away in a lane and disappeared.They stayed there for half an hour.He then questioned A-2 as to why they had come to that place.A-2 replied that all the Municipal Members of Bhiwandi-Nizampura Council were expected to come there for a meeting to be attended by the son of Shiv Sena Leader Bal Thackery.The Muncipal Members as well as the son of Bal Thackeray did not come there.Thereafter, A-2 asked the driver Tambe on take the car to Thane.A-2 went inside the bungalow of Shiv Sena leader Anand Dighe.Within half an hour, he returned to the car and then they went to Bhiwandi at the residence of A-2 near Najrana Compound.On 26.9.1992, he was called at the DCB CID Office for an identification parade held by the Special Executive Magistrate and in that parade he identified the person who met them near Sagar Hotel and led them to mutton lane as accused no.1 Jahur Ismail Faki.On 22.10.1993, after the arrest of A-6, identification parade was held and he identified A-6 by saying that he was the very same person who sat in their car when they visited mutton lane second line.He was the person who asked the driver Tabme to bring the car to the petrol pump near J.J. Hospital and on way to the hotel Holiday Inn, he got down in Santacruz locality.Similarly PW26 Ramesh Shankar Patil, who was armed police constable and Guard to accused no.2, corroborates the prosecution version with regard to travelling of A-2, A-6 and A-7 by Maruti car.It is his say that on 14.9.1992, at 8.30 a.m., he accompanied A-2 Suryarao in a white coloured Maruti bearing No.MH-04_A-5353, being driven by Badruddin Chimkar driver.There was a metallic nameplate of 'President Bhiwandi.Nizampura Municipal Council' affixed on the front side of the car.A-2 directed the driver Badruddin to take the car to Dhamankar Naka at Bhiwandi.When they approached Dhamankar Naka, a person was standing there and A-2 asked him to sit inside.On making enquiry, he came to know that he was Himmatbhai Raval (PW34).A-2 told driver to drive the car towards Bombay via Pipeline.After about 30/35 minutes, after crossing the Mulund Check Naka along the highway, A-2 asked the driver to take right turn.He realised that they were in Ghatkopar locality.When the car entered in the compound, A-2 asked the driver to stop the car. A-2 asked him to wait.A-2 alongwith Himmatbhai went away after 15 minutes came back alongwith one another person.At that time, one NE 118 car was there.A-7 occupied the rear seat of Maruti 1000 car and asked the driver to follow the said NE 118 Car.After some time, both the cars reached a colony, namely Post and Telegraph Employees Colony.After getting down from the car, Himmatbhai and A-2 went in a building nearby and returned after about 15/20 minutes.Thereafter, after driving the car for about 20 minutes, the driver stopped the car and Himmatbhai got down from the car and one person (accused no.4) boarded that car.Then under the guidance of A-4, the car was taken to a place where there was a big garden.There was a gate to the compound.The watchman on duty was wearing uniform having nameplate reading Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company (BSES).The car was taken inside the compound, where A-2, A-4 and A-7 got down from the car and he continued to wait near the car.The car was driven nearby a multi storey building.The car taken inside the compound.Then a tall person (A6) wearing a salvar-Kamij came there.Thereafter, A-6 accompanied them and led the car to Sagar Petrol Pump at Vasai.There one blue colour Maruti 800 car was standing at the petrol pump.In that car one woman, one another person and Himmatbhai Raval were there.Occupants of both the cars got down.A person came there from the petrol pump and led all of them to a first floor room at the petrol pump.He and driver stayed near the car.The remaining person returned to the car after 30/35 minutes.They all boarded their respective cars for going to Shirsat Fata.On the way, they all got down from the cars.Persons got down from the blue Maruti 800 Car and took the seat in the Car MH-04-A-5353, A-6 and A-7 also sat in the same car.He alongwith A-2 and Himmatbhai sat in the blue Maruti 800 car.PW 27 Manohar Padarinath Gabdule, a police Naik who was on duty of maintaining EPR register at JJ hospital has stated that at about 1.40 a.m./1.45 a.m., a woman and a man went to the cabin of clerk Borge, PW 21 and enquired about a patient who had met with an accident namely, Aziz Khan.As there was no one of that name admitted in that hospital, they went away.It is his further say that at about 2.30 a.m. both of them again came and asked the clerk Borge who supplied the information that generally the patients in accident cases are admitted in the ward Nos. 17, 18 and 19 and both of them had gone upstairs.He has also identified absconding accused Mohd. Hussain who accompanied her.Confessional statement of A6 that inquiries were made at the hospital, gets corroboration from the say of PW 27 who was on duty at JJ hospital that one man and woman went to the cabin of clerk Borge for making inquiries.PW 54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav was watchman of the J.J.Hospital and his duty time at the relevant time i.e. on 12.9.1992 was between 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. He was posted at the main gate near the statue of Parsibaba in the new building and his duty was to check the persons entering the hospital.On that night at about 3.55 a.m. nine persons having weapons like revolvers n their hands, entered through the main gate and came in the direction of the staircase when one of the persons had caught the collar of another person and they were making enquiry about his other associates.He guessed that they might be the policemen having come for some enquiry.When he asked them whether they had entry pass with them, they told him that they are police inspectors and how dare he could ask them for entry pass.Some of those persons went upstairs and some stayed at the ground.A-10 Khade caught him and dragged to one corner and threatened him that he should not move and at the same time accused no.9 Bacchisingh hit him by the revolver but on his face and resultantly, he fell down and became unconscious.He regained consciousness later on when he was taken to casualty ward.In the test identification parade, he identified accused no.6, Subhashsingh Thakur to be the person who was holding the collar of the person and asking him to show his other associates, and accused no.9 and accused no.10, but refused to identify them in the dock.Thereafter he was declared hostile.This also corroborates the say of A-6 in his confessional statement.PW 6 Constable Anant More has stated that at about 3.30 a.m. to 3.45 a.m., he noticed three persons entering Ward No. 18 through the main door.He also noticed that two of them were having AK 47 rifles in hands.The third person was also armed with a weapon.They had entered the hall by firing shots.He stated that it was nor possible for him to fire at them in the open place and shots were fired in his direction, therefore, it was not possible to fire in the opposite direction.He rushed to the southern side of the ward, entered the door, shots were fired at that door, but he could not fire from his weapon in retaliation by the side of the door.He heard the sound of firing.He saw that the patients were frightened, some of them were taking shelter underneath the cot or in the corners.Some had pulled "chadder" on their bodies and kept quiet.The prisoner, whom he was guarding had taken shelter underneath the cot.After the firing stopped, he went to the gallery, where other constables were guarding Shailesh Haldankar.PW10, Siddiq Ahmed Amin (hostile witness) who was in the same room where deceased Shailesh Haldankar was kept, stated that he heard some loud shouts of people and therefore, he woke up.One police inspector was there having a revolver in his hand and talking with some one outside the room.He heard shots being fired.The firing stopped after 2/3 minutes.As he got frightened, took shelter under the cot, and after the firing stopped, he went to the hall, continued t sit there till policemen came there.Ex. Nos. 2A to 2D (CA's exhibit) are consistent with the fire of 7.62 mm rifle bullets.From the CA report, it is evident that the assailants have used 9 mm pistols and AK 47 rifles in the incident.As per the confessional statements of Subhashsingh Thakur, Bachhisingh A-9, Ex. 239 and Prasad Khade A-10, Ex. 237 in all 12 fire arms like AK-47 assault rifles, 9 mm pistols, 32 revolvers, 38 revolvers and also two hand grenades were taken by 10 assailants in the J.J. Hospital.Further, PW 42 PSI Krishnavatar Thakur (complainant and hostile witness) has supported the prosecution entirely on the incident, but refused to identify accused No. 6, Subhashsingh Thakur and admitted identifying one person in the TI parade.He proved Ex. 140, the FIR.He admitted that he saw a person near the door of the cabin, with a weapon like AK 47 rifle and claimed that he had fired one shot at him and closed the door by latching it from inside and claimed that 4/5 persons were present in the Ward No. 18 and that he was hiding in the bathroom as he had exhausted all the six rounds from his revolver.After some time, he went to the cabin, saw constable Bhanawat fallen down by the side of the cot of Shailesh Haldankar and head constable Javsen lying in the cabin.He also claimed that constable Nagare PW9, was lying underneath the cot of Shailesh Haldankar.He patted him and gave the call "Nagare, salvar-Kamij and Nagare opened his eyes for a moment and again closed the eyes.He noticed the blood and all the bodies were bleeding having fire rem wounds.Thereafter, he went downstairs, notice the blood stains all along the staircase.He said that doctors examined 4 injured in the casualty ward.Javsen and Bhanawat were declared dead.Constable Nagare, PW 9 had injury on his leg.Nagare was taken to the operation theatre.He gave the description of the person as aged about 25/26 years, height about 5.8", strong built, fair complexion, wearing a metal framed spectacle, round face, wearing white full shirt and pant, shirt tucked in side the coloured pant.Description of the other person who was holding an automatic weapon was given by him as aged about 22/25 years, medium built, height about 5'6", wearing snuff coloured shirt, dark colour pant.The description of the first person tallies with accused No. 6, Subhashsingh Thakur.From the evidence of hostile witness PW25 Girish Kumar Shrinath Singh, who is owner of petrol pump namely 'Sagar Auto Dealers' at Sativali near Vasai, it is apparent that on 14.9.92, at about 3.30 p.m., one lady and two three other persons including one constable came in a car, having red light on the top, at his petrol pump and while sitting in his cabin they had called tea and drinking water from the nearby hotel.He had paid the bill.PW17 Shripad Tambe (hostile) was the driver of Contessa Car belonging to Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council.He has stated that he was shown 2 shoots of papers.He has further admitted that the entry also indicates that on 1.9.92, 45 litres of petrol was filled up in the tank.He has denied that Suryarao A-2 asked him to adjust the entries of 12.9.92 and 13.9.92 in the register.He has further denied the suggestion that he managed to procure a false certificate of illness from Dr.Soutakke (PW37).He has admitted that on 20.9.92 he boarded a luxury bus for going to Banglore along with his 3 friends, Ramesh, Anil and Suresh.He stayed in Banglore for 2 days and then went to Mysore.Driver Tambe re-wrote the logbook at his instance.This is corroborated by aforesaid evidence and that of PW37 Dr. Kantilal Vishnu Sontakke, who gave certificate of illness to Tambe on 19.9.92 when he visited Indira Gandhi Memorial hospital.Then, there is evidence of PW19, Matatil Damodar Itty who was working as Engineer in Bhiwandi Nizampur Council and was required to look after the maintenance and repairs of the Municipal vehicles.He stated that each vehicle had got a logbook and a petrol slip book.He has admitted that the Art.Nos.61 and 60 were the same logbooks, which he had produced before the police under Punchnama.He has stated that the police called one officer from the Municipality and took 2 logbooks in their possession from that officer.Those books consisted on one log book of Contessa Car and one slip book.He had signed the panchnama Ex.72-A. PW23 Ashok Bagul is another panch witness.Accused No.2 Suryarao produced some pages from a book.The police took charge of those papers and put the same in the packet.A detailed panchnama Ex.76A was drawn.In the period between 1988 to 1993, Ratnadeep son of Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao and one Narayan Bhoir were his partners in the said business.He remained as President and Vice President of Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Council.JUDGMENT Shah, J.These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.8.2001 passed in TADA Special Case No.31 of 1993 passed by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay at Bombay.By the impugned judgment and order, out of 24 accused, the Designated Court convicted A-6 Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh Thakur. A-2 Jaywant Dattatraya Suryarao and A-7 Shamkishor Shamsharma Garikapatti for the various offences as under:-A. Subhashsingh Shobhnathsingh(e) under Section 5 of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(f) under Section 6 of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(g) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Shailesh Shankar Haldankar and is sentenced to death an to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(h) under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Police Head Constable C.G. Javsen, B.No.18005 and is sentenced to death and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month more;(a) under section 3(4) of the TADA (P) Act and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- only, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month;(b) under Section 212 of Indian Panel Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years na to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month."2. A-1 Jahur Ismile Faki, A-3 Mehaboobi Aziz Khan. A-4 Anil Amarnath Sharma, A-8 Ahmed Mohmed Yasin Mansoori, A-9 Jaiprakashsingh Shivcharansingh @ Bacchisingh and A-10 Prasad Ramakant Khade were acquitted for the offences for which they were charged.For A-11 to 24, it has been stated that some were shot dead during the trial and some were absconding.Therefore, the trial of the accused, present in the court, was separated.Against the said judgment and order-(a) A-2, Jayawant Dattatraya Suryarao has preferred Criminal Appeal NO.975 of 2000;(d) The State has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1101 of 2000 against the acquittal of A-1 Jahur Ismile Faki, A-3 Mehaboobi Aziz Khan, A-1 Anil Amarnath Sharma, A-8 Ahmed Mohmed Yasin Mansoori, A-9 Jaiprakashsingh Shivcharansingh @ Bacchisingh and A-10 Prasad Ramakant Khade.It is also alleged that they attempted to commit murder of six other persons including PW11 Shankar Ganapat Sawant - a patient undergoing treatment in ward no.18, Yunus Mohamed Dadarkar - a relative of a patient, PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav - watchman on duty, PW9 Constable on guard duty, Vijay Krishna Nagare, PW42 PSI Thakur, the Police Officer on duty to exercise the supervision over the guard and a staff nurse Smt. Chandrakala Vithal Vinde, who was on duty.Thus, it is alleged that all the accused have committed the offence punishable under Sections 120B of IPC read with 3(2)(i), 3(2)(ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the 'TADA') and Section 302 read with section 34 in the alternative section 302 read with section 114, in the alternative read with Sections 149, 307 read with section 34, in the alternative section 307 read with section 114 in the alternative section 307 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 read with section 5 of the Arms Act.Police Constable Nagare (PW9) was sitting on the stool between the cots.Head constable Javsen and PC Bhanawat were sitting on the very same cot on which Sailesh Haldankar was lying.It is alleged that all the accused came from the room of absconding accused Nazir Jariwala by two fiat cars.Accused no.8 Ahmed Mansoori and deceased Sunil Sawant went ahead on scooter.They were followed by cars.The blue car was in front and was occupied by accused no.6 Subhashsingh and others.Other car was occupied by other accused.Both the cars entered through the western side gate of J.J. Hospital.Some accused took their position near the staircase and accused no.6 and others went upstairs.It is alleged that accused no.6 made a show by catching the collar of absconding accused Ravi Sorte and played a hoax that he was the police man who had caught the criminal by uttering the words "saale tumhare baki satthi dikhao".PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhav, a watchman on duty, who was standing near the staircase in the main building in front of the lift at the ground, after noticing the weapons in the hands of accused, suspected that probably they might be the policemen.However, when he attempted to go ahead to make an enquiry, A-10 Khade caught him and threatened him that he should not move and at the same time accused no.9 Bacchisingh hit him by the revolver butt on his face.It is stated that PW54 Shankar Jadhav fell down in semi-conscious state and re-gained consciousness late on when he was taken to casualty ward.PW6 Police Constable Anant More, an unarmed constable attached to Police Head Quarter, Thane, on 12.9.1992, was on guard duty in Ward No.18 of J.J. Hospital because one of the accused, who was lodged in Kalyan Prison was admitted in that ward for treatment.His duly hors were from 3.00 a.m. to 6.00 a.m., he noticed three persons duly armed entering the said ward at about 3.40 a.m. two of them were having AK-47 rifles.He rushed to the southern side wall of the ward.There was a door in that wall and the shots were being fired at that door itself and, therefore, he could not fire from his weapon in retaliation.The prisoner whom they were guarding had taken shelter underneath the cot.He went in left side room, wherein another prisoner was admitted, who was being guarded by a guard from Mumbai and noticed that the accused and two policemen were lying in the pool of blood on the ground in the said room.His statement was recorded by Byculla Police Station Staff.After the accused entered the aid ward all of a sudden WP42 PSI Thakur head the words "hands up, do not move, else we will kill you".At that time, PW9 PC Nagare attempted to close the door but it was not fully closed.Further PSI Thakur heard four rounds having been fired on the door which was sought to be closed and noticed that a person was standing outside the door at a distance of 1-1/2 or 2 feets.He went out from the southern side of the cabin.At the time, deceased Shailesh was uttering "release me, they have come to kill me".Then he noticed that the person who was standing outside the western door was in the same position and one or two persons were there at a distance of about 7/8 fet behind that person.He also noticed 3-4 other persons in the ward.He fired one shot in the direction of the said person.He fired one more shot and then receded through the very same door back to the veranda.Other facts stated by the prosecution witnesses are not relevant and, therefore, they are not narrated.After completion of the investigation, accused were tried for various offences and convicted as stated above.Relevant Part of Evidence:To prove the story, the prosecution has relied upon confessional statements, evidence of injured witnesses and other corroborative evidence.We would first refer to the relevant part of the confessional statements of A-2, A-6 and A-7 and thereafter other evidence led by the prosecution to connect the accused with the crime.MP-09-D-9634 for their return.He also met Shri Anand Dighe, Thane district Shivsena Chief.On 15.9.1992 at about 1.30 hrs., he saw Maruti Car No.MH-04-A-5353 near Pious High School.A-7 advised him to send driver Tambe out of Bombay for 3/4 days and int he meantime he would try to subside the matter through the sources of Pappu Kalani.He also advised him to make efforts to subside the matter through his sources.He also called Smt. Tambe wife of PW17 Tambe) and paid her an amount of Rs.500/- for domestic expenses and told her that her husband had gone out of Bhiwandi and would return after 3-4 days.Confessional Statement of A-6;In his confessional statement, he has narrated history of his anti social activities in detail.After half an hour.Dawood made call and informed that one doctor would be reaching shortly.One doctor thereafter came and gave injections to Pradhan and Ravi.Doctor informed him that treatment to Pradhan is not possible.Doctor also informed on telephone to Chhota Shakeel that Pradhan is required to be operated.Chhota Shakeel thereafter informed that he will send some other doctor.Another doctor came and told that operation of Pradhan is required to be done urgently and he was not having operation accessory.Thereafter, he contacted Kishore-A-7 for making some arrangement and informed him that Pradhan has sustained bullet injury.Thereafter, A-7 informed that Suryarao has left Bhiwandi and would be reaching there within a short time.When Suryarao came alongwith Najir's boy, he introduced himself to Suryarao and told him that due to internal conflict one of his persons has sustained a bullet injury and was required to be taken to hospital immediately.Suryarao enquired where he was to be taken.Then he told Suryarao to take him in Hotel Holiday Inn where a boy named Vijay would meet him to make further arrangement.At about 12.00 noon he received telephone call from Sunil and Pradhan has reached hospital of Dr. Mohan Gedam and Vijay was present there and that in a short while the car would be going back to Hotel Holiday Inn.He telephoned Suryarao (A-2) in Hotel Holiday Inn and asked him to bring back the car to the residence of Najir Jariwala.Suryarao agreed.After sometime, Suryarao came there alongwith Brijeshsingh.He asked Brijeshsingh to leave alongwith one boy of Najir and thereafter he sat in the car alongwith Suryarao.Najir's boy took them near a petrol pump.Suryarao thereafter left the place and they left for the flat of Manishlala.On 14.9.1992, he informed Kishore that he wanted to leave Bombay and whether he could arrange car of Suryarao.Finally, Kishore was asked to come in the car of Suryarao at BSES guest house by 4.00 p.m. In the car of Suryarao, they reached at Sagar Petrol Pump, Vasai.it is his say that finally he reached to Delhi and thereafter went to other places.For the purpose of this appeal, other part of the statement is not required to be narrated.Confessional Statement of A-716. A-7 has also revealed the detailed facts about the incident and that he was arrested on 18.7.1993 by Delhi Police.He has narrated that finally he left Bombay and went to other places including Delhi and Vaishnodevi.Independent Corroboration to the Aforesaid Statements.Before referring to the other evidence, we would refer to the evidence of some hostile witness who corroborate the above confessional statements.Then the said person occupied the rear seat with A-7 and directed the driver to drive the car on the High Way.After 20/25 minutes they reached near the garage on the high way.A-2 drove the blue Maruti car and asked his driver to leave all the occupants of the Car MH-04-A-5353 to Vapi and come back.They came back to Gokul Nagar In Bhiwandi.he was called by the police for test identification parade in the DCB CID Office near Crowford Market at Mumbai.He was shown 10/11 persons in a row.He identified A-4 Anil Amarnath Sharma as the person who had boarded the car near the railway crossing and who had guided the driver to take the car to BSES guest-house.In cross-examination, there is nothing which would affect the version given by the witness or which may support the accused.Next import witness is PW9 Vijay Nagare, who at the relevant time was posted on the guard duty in the J.J. Hospital in which Shailesh Haldankar was lodged.It is his say that Shailesh Haldankar was sleeping in a cot having handcuffed with the upper side rod of the cot.Other two police constables Javsen and Bhanavat were also sitting on the said cot.PSI Thakur came there in mufti to check the guard on duty.He also sat there on the cot where Shailesh Haldankar was sleeping.At about 3.40 a.m. or there about, he saw one person inside the ward and in front of the room.He was having firearm like a rifle in his hand.He shouted loudly "hands up, do not move else we will kill you".Immediately, shots were fired like crackers.He tried to close the door but the door was not fully closed.PSI Thakur thereafter fired one shot in the direction of the said person through his revolver.Thereafter, door was closed.He took his rifle in position to defend himself.Shailesh Haldankar attempted to get up by force t rescue himself by freeing his hands from the handcuff.At that time, constables Javsen and Bhanavat caught hold of him so that he does not run away.To that, Shailesh Haldankar pleaded that assailants have come to kill him and they should allow him to go away.He also heard that shots were being fired on the door which was closed.Thereafter, PSI Thakur receded from another door towards the verandah.He noticed that very same person whom be had seen inside the ward earlier had come near the southern door of the cabin and thereafter, he fired one shot from the rifle in his direction and before he could fire the second round, the bullet which the said person had fired hit his right thigh.He receded a little and fell down by the side of the cot.Very person who was firing from outside entered the room and fired shots indiscriminately at Shailesh Haldankar as well as other two police constables.It is his say that at that time there was hue and cry in the ward and because of injury he felt giddiness.He identified A-6 - Subhashsingh Thakur in the test identification parade by stating that he was the person whom he had seen firing the shots indiscriminately and who uttered the words "hands up, hilo mat nahi to maar dalenge".Other Corroborative EvidenceHe saw Shailesh Haldankar and two policemen lying in the pool of blood on the ground in the said room.He noticed some 30-35 cartridges lying there.Then the police came there.They took the injured for treatment.In all 6 persons were injured including PWs 9, 10, 11, 42, 54 and one nurse and one Yunus Dadarkar.He had sneaked in the hall by crawling.He did not identify any one in the Court and denied having identified accused No. 6, Subhashsingh Thakur in the TI parade and denied giving the description of other two persons who had followed Subhashsingh Thakur.Brief halt of A2 and others at Bombay Suburban Electricity Supply Company (BSES) Guest House:PW 63 Arvind Pinge was in charge of a BSES guest house.Marol, Andheri.According to him on 12.9.1992, one Felix Alex D'souza, PW 29 (a hostile witness), came to him and told him that the nephew of Union Minister of Energy, Mr. Kalpanath Rai was staying in BSES guest house and he would like to introduce him.He has stated that he had brought him at his residence.He has stated that they had received a telephone message from Delhi from one S.P. Rai, P.A. of Kalpanath Rai, the then Minister of Energy for booking the accommodation.Later, he came to know that nine guests were staying in two rooms and he had asked who these guests were.Later on, he came to know that the guests were involved in shoot out in the JJ Hospital.PW 31 Aravindam Kunjimani (a hostile witness) was working as a cook in the BSES Guest House.He had shown two rooms to the guests and they stayed in those rooms.He did not identify anyone.PW 18 Prabhakar Durve, the Chief Security Manager Holiday-Inn establishes that room no.315 was occupied by VIP who arrived there on 12.9.1992 at 11.10 a.m., which was in the name of Suryarao and was signed as S. Rao.Departure was shown on the same date.In the Chemical Analyst's report, Ex.147, the bullet retrieved from the right thigh and the left thigh of deceased Shailesh Haldankar have been opined by the chemical analyser to be the fragment of 7.62 mm bullets.The CA Ex. 1 is one 303 rifle which was carried by Nagare and Ex. 3 K is the one 303 inch rifle empty and Ex. 7 is four intact 303 rifle cartridges.These facts show that PW 9 Nagare had fired one bullet from 303 rifle and the other four bullets were intact in the rifle and the result of Analysis shows that Ex. 3K has been fired from Ex. 1 i.e. 303 rifle.These circumstances go to show that PW 9 Nagare did fire one round aiming at Subhashsingh Thakur (A-6) and the circumstances that Shaliesh Haldankar was shot dead from AK 47 rifle is also made out from the CA reports.He himself had a brushing injury on the lift leg and he had noticed the trail of blood upto the big tree outside the building.He had handed over his service revolver and empty cartridges.In his cross examination, he admitted that he had submitted his resignation because a cash reward of Rs. 1 lakh was reduced to Rs. 25,000/- which he did not accept as he was not happy about it.He also stated that he had suffered mental depression was spending sleepless nights and was taking tablets for the same.This incident was a part and parcel of his worries and was feeling tense about the safety of his family.In the FIR, Ex. 140, he had described two persons, one person who had fired at the constable and killed them by firing from an automatic rifle and also who had fired at him at the southern side of the "verandah".On that day, he had seen only tow cars having come there one after another with the gap of 5/10 minutes.One of those persons tried to connect some number on telephone but as the phone was not connected, they went away.In his cross-examination, he stated that his brother Ajay told him that a lady guest has come in a car having the red light on the top and she wanted to go for the toilet.As the lady guest had arrived in the car having the red light on the top, he though that she might be some VIP and, therefore, he led her to the self-contained room.On the right corner of both the papers the vehicle number 1445 was entered.He has stated that he had gone to Crowford market and a policeman came there to call him to be a panch witness.Accused No.2 Suryarao was present in the DCB, CID office.In his present, he made a statement that he had torn the pages from the log book and had kept those pages at Bhiwandi and he would produce the said pages from Bhiwandi.Accordingly, the panchnama was drawn.he has further stated that the police along with Suryarao took them to the house of Suryarao in a jeep.He along with co-punch signed the panchnama.Hostile, witness PW22 Satish Bhujang Rao, an Interior Decorator, resident of Ghatkopar (W), Bombay has stated that he knew accused no.7 Shamkishore and Himmat Ravat (PW31).Shamkishore used to treat his wife as his elder sister.In the year 1989-90, when Shamkishore was arrested by the police in a case of attempt to murder, he stood surety for Shamkishore.Himmatbhai Raval had entrusted him the job of fixing PVC tiles at the residence of Suryarao at Gokul Nagar at Bhiwandi and he did the job.He had no occasion to meet Suryarao.Himmatbhai Raval had paid the amount for the above work.He saw Suryarao only in DCB CID Office.Further, he had no occasion to see accused no.6 Subhashsingh Thakur and that he has seen him for the first time in the dock.Whenever Shamkishore came to attend the dates in the court in connection with that case, he used to stay at his house.PW34 Himmat Rupchand Raval, businessman, resident of Bhiwandi, Distt.Thane was also a hostile witness.He stated that he knew accused no.2 Suryarao since 1984, who was sitting in the dock before the court.They were having cordial relationships.He also knew accused no.7 Shamkishore since 1986, who was sitting in the dock before the court.Thereafter, he has not supported prosecution version as narrated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.From the aforesaid evidence led by the prosecution following facts emerge:If the confessional statements of A2, A6 and A7 are taken into consideration as they are, then the Designated Court has rightly convicted themThe aforesaid statements are corroborated-(a) By the confessional statements of other accused as discussed by the Designated Judge.(b) By the evidence of PW 12 Laxman Vishe and PW 26 Ramesh Patil.(c) By evidence of PW9 who was an injured witness at the time of incident.He received bullet injury in the incident.(d) For the movement of A2, A6 and A7 and 12th and 14th after the incident, there is no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of two independent witnesses who were bodyguards of A-2, who was President of Bhiwandi Municipal Corporation.(e) The confessional statement of A-6 gets corroboration from PW27, who has specifically stated that at about 1.40/1.45 p.m. A-3 and absconding accused Mohd. Hussain went to the clerk Borge and made enquiry about patients.It also gets corroboration from PW54 Shankar Ramchandra Jadhay.(g) Evidence of PW25 Girish Singh, PW17 Tambe and that of PW37 Dr. Sontakke corroborates the statement of A-2 with regard to movement of car on 12th and 14th as well as asking driver Tambe to go out of city as directed by A-7 as police was making enquiry about movement of car.(h) Hostile witnesses PW22 Satish Rao and PW34 Himmat Rawal admitted that they were having relations with A-2 Suryarao and A-7 Kishore since years.On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, learned counsel for the accused submitted that judgment and order passed by the Designated Court is illegal and errnoeous as-(a) Provisions of TADA are not applicable.(b) Confessional statements are not admissible in evidence and in any case are not true, voluntary and reliable.(c) Identification of A-6 doubtful.Learned senior counsel Mr. Rajinder Singh appearing on behalf of accused no.6, Mr. Sushil Kumar appearing for accused no.7 and Mr. Niteen Pradhan, Advocate appearing for accused no.2 submitted that the present case is one of grand rivalry and the provisions of TADA would not be applicable: there is nothing on record that accused intended to create any terror and at the most intention to commit the murder of Shailesh Haldankar could be inferred.For this purpose, it is pointed out that only minor injuries are caused to other persons except the intended men and the injuries caused to other police constables who were on duty and who are dead were unintentional.The prosecution version as revealed from the confessional statements and other evidence is that there are two gangs operating in Mumbai, i.e. one of Dawood Ibrahim and other of Arun Gavli.There activities are of eliminating or causing harm or injury to those who do not obey their dictates and of extortion from builders, hoteliers, industrialists, professionals and other persons.Necessary information was collected and after equipping themselves with sophisticated weapons they went to the hospital where patients and staff on duty went helter-skelter, witnesses turned hostile.Therefore, we have considered confessional statements with the other evidence connecting the accuse with the crime.He sought assistance with regard to the no confidence motion which was sought to be moved against him and in return as per his say, Pappu Kalani had asked him to help A-7 when such help was sought for.Further, as per his own say, A-6 was introduced to him on 12th.All throughout in a suspicious manner, the official car, with police guard was taken from one place to another.Even after coming to know about the incident on 12th he on 14th along with his car moved the accused from place to place and aided them in moving out of Bombay.In these circumstances, it would be difficult to hold that A-2 was not having any knowledge with regard to the fact that A-6 and others were involved in shoot out at the J.J. hospital or that he was not assisting the said culprits.No doubt, it is true that incident of firing must have happened within few minutes, at the same time, it is the say of PW9 that he saw A-6 thrice--once, when he tried to come in the room from northern gate, again when he came from southern gate and finally when he entered the room and fired shots indiscriminately.PW47 Madhukar Yadavrao Shirsat of Athavaline Police Station, Surat recorded the statement of injured Pradhan at Surat and he also described Pradhan as having 5'6" height, medium built and of shallow complexion.PW48 Dr, Karia who had examined Pradhan at about 2.30 to 2.45 a.m. on 14.9.1992 at the residence of Dr. Kamble at Surat has also described the patient as 28/30 years of age having 5'6" height, shallow complexion, thin built.3. Sanction to prosecute under TADA granted by the competent authority cannot be said to be in any way illegal or erroneous.Confessional statements of A2, A6 and A7 are corroborated:-(a) By the confessional statements of other accused as discussed by the Designated Judge.(b) By the evidence of PW12 Laxman Vishe and PW26 Ramesh Patil.(c) There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW9 who himself is an injured witness and who was police constable on duty in ward no.18 for the deceased Shailesh Haldankar.He got bullet injury at the relevant time.There is no reason to disbelieve the identification of A-6 by him.(d) Evidence of PW25 Girish Singh, PW17 Tambe and that of PW37 Dr. (sic) corroborates the version of A-2 with regard to movement of car on 12th and 14th as well as asking driver Tambe to go out of city as directed by A-7 because police was making enquiry about movement of car.Hence, in our view, the Designated Court was fully justified in convicting the A2, A6 and A7 and we uphold the same.SENTENCE REGARDING A-2:As a responsible citizen, he ought to have informed the concerned police authorities.To this, learned counsel for A-2 submitted that when the police failed to give protection to the person who was in custody, it would be difficult to imagine that police would have given such protection to him or could have saved him from the wrath of the gangsters.From the role played by A-7, it is clear that he was vitally involved.At his instance, on 12th and 14th. A-2 was compelled to bring the cars of Bhiwandi Nagarpalika that two with the police guard, for giving treatment to injured accused and for facilitating further to move from one place to another.Considering the overwhelming evidence against A-7, particularly the evidence of Pw26 and confessional statements, it cannot be said that learned Judge has committed any error in convicting A-7 and sentencing him to suffer RI for 10 years.REGARDING A-6:Death Reference Case No.1 of 2000:It is his say that after going to the hospital as Brijeshsingh knocked the door and none opened, and at that time, he felt that there was no setting and he asked Brijeshsingh that all should go back.During that time, Brijeshsingh fired 3-4 times from his AK-47 rifle on the closed door.Again he asked Brijeshsingh to go back from that place.Meantime, someone else fired at them from the opposite door.Subsequently, Brijeshsingh came towards him quickly and informed that he has killed all the persons inside the ward and asked them to move from that place.Criminal Appeal No. 1101 of 2000Hence, this appeal is also dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,960,866 |
C.R.M. No.2435 of 2017 p.d.In re:- Anirban Dey @ Anirban De .... Petitioner.Mr. Abhra Mukherjee ... For the petitioner.Mr. Prasun Dutta, Ms. Zareen N. Khan ... For the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the learned Judge, Special Court being the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Alipore.2 The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Shivakant Prasad, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,960,879 |
Shri Arvind Parashar, counsel for the complainant.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, as prayed by the learned counsel for the applicants, application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. filed by applicant No.3, namely, Lala is hereby dismissed being withdrawn.The remaining applicants have an apprehension of their arrest relating to Crime No.167/2015 registered at Police Station - Bagchini, District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 326, 325, 324, 302, 502 of IPC.Learned counsel for applicants No.1, 2 and 4submits it is alleged against applicants No.1, 2 and 4 that they participated in the crime of murder, however, looking to the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. given by deceased Kareem, co-accused Lala assaulted him on his head with a stick.Doctor who performed the postmortem has found pus in brain and meninges and deceased Kareem died due to consequence of that head injury.There is no 2 Mcrc.3578.2017 Nizam and others Vs.State of M.P.allegation against applicants No.1, 2 and 4 that they had participated in the crime and assaulted the deceased on his vital part of body.No common intention of applicants No.1, 2 and 4 can be presumed with co-accused Lala.Prima facie, no offence under Section 326 or 302 of IPC is made out against applicants No.1, 2 and 4 either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of IPC.Nothing is to be recovered from applicants No.1, 2 and 4 and the police is harassing them.Under these circumstances, applicants No.1, 2 and 4 pray for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the application.Learned counsel for the complainant also opposes the application.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-Section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicants so desire, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,967,345 |
The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:The deceased, Kaliyan, was the husband of A-3. A-1 is the brother and A-2 is the father of A-3. P.W.2 is the niece, while P.W.3 is the daughter of the deceased. A-3, her husband, the deceased, and P.Ws.2 and 3 were all living under the same roof.A-1 and A-2 were also living nearby.Then and there, she used to complain about the same to A-1 and A-2 who in turn, used to warn the deceased.All of them took a decision to do away with him.On 19.10.2000 at about 1.00 A.M., when P.Ws.2 and 3 were sleeping inside the house, the accused came inside and asked them to go out; but, they refused.Immediately, A-1 sat on the chest of the deceased and throttled him.A-2 squeezed the testicles and A-3 was by their side.After finishing the crime, they went away.This was witnessed by P.Ws.2 and 3. A-3 and P.Ws.2 and 3 were sitting outside because they were intimidated by A-1 and A-2 that P.Ws.2 and 3 should not open their mouth.P.W.3 due to fear, informed to P.W.4, a nearby shop owner, who in turn, informed to P.W.5, the Village Menial, at about 9.00 A.M. He informed to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, who went over to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of Kaliyan.Then, he proceeded to Cuddalore O.T. Police Station, where P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police was present.At about 1.45 P.M., P.W.1 gave a report, Ex.P1, to P.W.12, on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No. 1090 of 2000 under Section 174(3) of Cr.P.C. Ex.P11, the printed First Information Report, was despatched to Court.3. P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P2, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P13, the rough sketch.He conducted inquest on the dead body of Kaliyan in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses and prepared Ex.P15, the express report, was sent to Court, and further investigation was proceeded with.Thereafter, the dead body of Kaliyan was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for conducting autopsy.4. P.W.9, the Senior Assistant Surgeon, attached to Government Head Quarters Hospital, Cuddalore (N.C.), on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kaliyan and found the following factors:"R.M. Present in all limbs.Eyelids closed.Abdomen distended with gas, scrotum and penis swollen.Edematus, on cut section of scrotum - gushes of foul smelling gas came out."The Doctor issued Ex.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.This is an appeal by the appellants three in number, who stood charged and found guilty by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, as stated below.(1) A-1 was charged under Sections 302 and 506(II)(2 counts) of I.P.C., found guilty as per the charges and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, under Section 302 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 506(II) of I.P.C. under each count.(2) A-2 was charged under Sections 302 read with 34 and 506(II) of I.P.C., found guilty as per the charges and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for six months, under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. and also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under Section 506(II) of I.P.C.(3) A-3 was charged under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C., for which she was sentenced to imprisonment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months.On interrogation of the witnesses present, the Investigating Officer came to know that it was a case of murder.Then, he altered the provisions of law to Section 302 of I.P.C. Ex.Nose - No discharge of blood - Mouth & lip swollen.Tongue - protruded.Jaws - clenched.Teeth - complete.Ears - No bleedings.Throat - Bloated with skin blasters present.P4, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of Asphyxia and death would have occurred 36 to 40 hours prior to postmortem.He also found alcoholic contents in the stomach.On 22.10.2000, A-1 and A-3 were arrested, when A-1 gave a confessional statement, which was recorded.P.W.13 gave a requisition to the Judicial Magistrate for recording the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, P.W.11, the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Cuddalore, recorded the statements of P.Ws.2 and 3, which were marked as Exs.P9 and P10 respectively.On 31.10.2000, A-2 was arrested.All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department for chemical analysis pursuant to a requisition given by the Investigating Officer.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report before the committal Court.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges referred to above, were framed against the appellants/accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution marched 13 witnesses and relied on 15 exhibits and 4 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they denied as false.No defence witnesses were examined.On hearing the arguments advanced by either side, the trial Court found the appellants/accused guilty as per the charges, and awarded the punishments referred to above.Hence, this appeal at the instance of the appellants.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia made the following submissions:In the instant case, P.Ws.2 and 3 were examined as eyewitnesses.Thereafter, P.W.5 informed to the Village Administrative Officer P.W.1, and it was P.W.1, who gave Ex.P1 the report on the strength of which a case came to be registered.While the evidence of P.W.2 was like that, the same could not be believed.Both P.Ws.2 and 3 were close relatives of the deceased.The Court heard the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) on the above contentions.The Court paid its full attention on the submissions made, and made a thorough scrutiny of the available materials.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,967,397 |
By consent, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.This Petition is directed against the orders dated 29 th July, 2011 and 15th July, 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge, CBI, Daman in Sessions Case No. 131 of 2010 under FIR No. 64(A)/93-Bom.rejecting the application for discharge.The Collector of Daman went on maternity leave in the beginning of year 1993 and, therefore, the petitioner was given an additional charge of the Collector in her absence.At that time, 13 applications seeking permission for N.A. land by original accused nos. 7,8 and 9 were made before the petitioner.The petitioner along with other 1 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 ::: WP1620_2016.doc accused, i.e., accused no. 2/Architect and the other staff from his office, i.e., accused nos. 3 to 6 conspired and without following the proper procedure, gave permission for N.A. in favour of original accused nos. 7 to 9 thereby causing wrongful gain to them and therefore, was prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 13(2) r/w. section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Thereafter the petitioner preferred an application for discharge under section 227 of Cr.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::Hence, this Petition.For the definition of Judge, he relied on-::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::All 1 2012 Cri.L.J. 4053 4 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 ::: WP1620_2016.doc these factors are present when the petitioner was holding the charge as a Collector and gave permissions for NA land.He referred and relied on the report of the Development Commissioner filed on 11 th October, 1993 which was submitted to the Ministry of Home Affairs wherein the details about the non-culpability of Narayan Diwakar and the action taken against the architect is mentioned.He submitted that though a picture is created by the prosecution that on the last day of his charge as a Collector, the petitioner gave permissions for NA land hastily in favour of the accused is incorrect.The Collector has not taken maternity leave for fixed period but she has extended her leave on the last day also.Moreover, he has been exonerated from any culpable liability by the Development Commissioner.L.J. 2787 3 1972 Cri.L.J. 849 (V 78 C 212) 4 AIR 1977 SC 822 5 AIR 1979 SC 826 6 AIR 1980 SC 499 7 AIR 2004 SC 1012 6 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 ::: WP1620_2016.doc revenue administration of the district and shall exercise the powers of superintendence and control within the district and over the officers subordinate to him.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::The permission or relaxation of the conditions imposed at the time of grant of permission of non-agricultural purpose is a function of the Collector.Section 32 lays down the procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to another.The learned counsel highlighted sub-section (c) of Section 32 for details of the procedure.Procedure for conversion of use of land from one purpose to another -(2)(c) may, after due enquiry, either grant the permission on such terms and conditions as he may specify subject to any rules made in this behalf by the Government; or refuse the permission applied for, if it is necessary so to do to secure the public health, safety and convenience or if such use is contrary to any scheme for the planned development of a village, town or city in force under any law for the time being in force and in the case of land which is to be used as building sites in order to secure in addition that the dimensions, arrangement and accessibility of the sites are adequate for the health and convenience of the occupiers or are suitable to the locality; where an application is rejected, the Collector shall state the reasons in writing of such rejection.::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::On facts, the learned counsel Mr. Venegavkar argued that the 8 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 ::: WP1620_2016.doc petitioner was holding the additional charge of Diu, Daman as a Collector and the date on which he was supposed to vacate the charge, he gave 13 permissions for NA land to the co-accused.(a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath:(c) receiving evidence on affidavit;::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::17 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 ::: WP1620_2016.doc::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 18 / 18 ::: Uploaded on - 01/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 02/02/2017 00:45:37 :::
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,967,829 |
(18-04-2017)This miscellaneous appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 07.12.1999 passed by the Court of III Additional District Judge, Bhopal, in Miscellaneous Civil Case No.69/1996; whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed for setting aside ex parte decree of divorce dated 07.09.1995 passed against appellant Manorama, was dismissed.The facts necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous appeal may be summarized as hereunder:The notice of the civil suit was served upon appellant Manorama and she appeared in the Court.She was represented by an advocate.She prayed for time to file written statement on two occasions but failed to file any written statement.Subsequently, on 31.07.1995, she failed to appear in the Court; therefore, the Court proceeded ex parte against her.Thereafter, on 07.09.1995, an ex parte decree of divorce was passed against her.More than a year after that, i.e. on 30.09.1996, she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting the ex parte decree dated 07.09.1995 aside.Hence, this miscellaneous appeal.In this miscellaneous appeal before the High Court, respondent husband Harish Malik has not appeared.During the course of the proceedings, the parties entered into a compromise.As a result, the appellant deposed in the in favour of respondent Harish.As a result, the trial Court by its judgment dated 19.12.1996 acquitted the respondent of the charge under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Respondent Harish cheated her by assuring her that he had withdrawn the case for divorce; therefore, she did not appear in the proceedings under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Consequently, this ex parte decree of divorce was passed against her.However, even after passing of the decree, she continued to live with the respondent.In the reply before the Court of Additional District Judge, respondent husband Harish has submitted that even after passing of the decree of divorce, the parties lived together in order to see as to whether or not they could still live together and remarry ? However, the experiment failed and therefore they had separated.She is an educated lady and was represented by a counsel.The case was adjourned on several occasions and on 28.06.1994, it was dismissed in default of appearance of the respondent/husband Harish.It was restored on 19.04.1995 and application under section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act was disposed of.Thereafter, the case was adjourned twice for filing written statement.Consequently, this miscellaneous appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,967,910 |
(Passed on 16th September, 2019) This order shall govern the disposal of Criminal Revision No.2265/2019 and Criminal Revision No.2571/2019 preferred by the petitioners.Both the criminal revisions arise out of the impugned order passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra in Sessions Trial No.16/2016 on 13.03.2019, whereby the charges under Sections 326, 324, 294, 506-II, 34 of IPC have been framed against the petitioners.The facts leading to filing of the instant revision petitions are that on 04.10.2018 when complainant Uday Bhan Singh was standing infront of his house, at that time accused persons came on the spot and abused him.When he tried to stop them, the accused Ajan Singh assaulted him with axe and caused injury on the right middle arm and another accused Ravindra Singh bite with teeth on his nose.When Rajbihari came to rescue him, then the accused Ravindra Singh also bite him on his right hand.The accused persons also threatened to kill him.On the basis of report, FIR has been registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 324, 294, 506, 326, 34 of IPC at Crime No.354/2018 by Police Station Bhitarwar, District Gwalior.After completing investigation,-( 3 )- Cr.R. No.2265/19 & Cr.R No.2571/2019 charge sheet was filed against the petitioners before the concerned Court.The trial Court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 324, 294, 506, 326, 34 of IPC and after considering the evidence, all the accused have been discharged from the offence punishable under Section 452 of IPC by the impugned order.Being aggrieved by the order of framing of charge, the petitioners have filed the instant revisions, on the ground that the framing of charge against the petitioners is contrary to law and not sustainable in the eye of law.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State supported the impugned order and submitted that looking to the allegations against the petitioners, the charges were rightly framed against the petitioners, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the revision.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents available on record.The material on record discloses the grave suspicion.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,969,383 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard through video conferencing.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 20.11.2019 passed in SPLCase No.200031/2015 by Special Judge (MPDVPK Act), Sabalgarh, District Morena (M.P.) whereby appellant- Munna Lal has been convicted as under:I.A.No.7100/2020, first application u/S.389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of sole appellant-Munna 2 CRA-723-2020 Lal is taken up and considered.This fact has been considered in para-63 of the impugned judgment.The case relates to attack on Police party, wherein firearm was used with a view to give threat to the Police and get the accused escaped, who was in custody of the Police.Perused the available record.The appellant has committed the offences under Sections 396, 120-B, 302/149 of IPC & Sections 11, 13 of MPDVPK Act, Section 307/149 of IPC read with Section 120-B of IPC and Section 225/149 part-2 read with Section 120-B of IPC and tried to get escaped the accused from the custody of the Police.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
143,971,313 |
Counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the third bail application preferred under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No. 184/2018 registered at Police Station Raun District Bhind (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections341, 324, 323, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC and added Section 326 of the IPC with direction to the Trial Court to expedite the trial.Accordingly, the same stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid direction.(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE Prachi PRACHI MISHRA 2019.02.13 17:22:44 +05'30'
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,197,745 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the District & Sessions Court, Thiruvallur (Special Judge for S.C. & S.T. Act) to consider the surrender and pass appropriate orders on the bail application filed by the petitioner on the same day in connection with Crime No.327 of 2017 on the file of the respondent police.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case for the alleged offences under Section 294-B, 341, 394 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Amendment 2015 and that in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the said Act, the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail application and therefore, the petitioner has come forward with the said prayer.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) takes notice for the respondent.Considering the submissions of both sides and also considering the nature of the prayer in this case in view of the specific bar under Section 18 of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act that the petitioner cannot move any anticipatory bail, the District & Sessions Court, Thiruvallur (Special Judge for S.C. & S.T. Act) is directed to consider the bail application, in the event of the petitioner filing such petition in connection with Crime No.327 of 2018 pending on the file of the respondent police, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and consider the same in accordance with law on the same day.With this observation, this criminal original petition is disposed of.12.07.2018Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking ordermkNote: Issue order copy on 13.07.2018ToThe District & Sessions Court, Thiruvallur .(Special Judge for S.C. & S.T. Act)The Sub Inspector of Police E-3, Minjur Police Station Thiruvallur District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH,J,mk Crl.OP.No.17726 of 201812.07.2018
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,204,000 |
It is alleged that these accused had planned to do away with Rajini @ Rajinikanth as he was the hindrance for A1 to grab the said property.It is further alleged that on 23.11.2007 around 10.00 p.m. all these five accused along with one juvenile by name - Narayanan joined together, went to the house of the deceased killed him by attacking him with knife and also by strangulating him to neck and then dumped the dead body into the drinking water sump and closed it.The occurrence was not witnessed by anyone.It is further alleged that, thereafter, all the five accused and the juvenile had stolen away the movable properties, including the motor cycle of the deceased.That was also not witnessed by anyone.It is the further case of the prosecution that Mr.Rajaram returned to Puducherry on 20.04.2008 from France.Therefore, before the arrival of Mr.Rajaram, he wanted to remove the dead body from the water sump and to dispose of the same.Therefore, with the help of the other accused, he removed the dead body of the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth from the water sump and cut into two pieces, put them in two nylon bags, carried the same and threw them in the river near Uppanar River Bridge at Vanarapet.This was also not witnessed by anyone.Rajaram, on returning to Puducherry on 20.04.2008, found the deceased absent in his house.While he opened the house, he found that the motor cycle of the deceased was also not seen.He went in search of the deceased to various places, but, he could not find him anywhere.Therefore, he went to Muthialpet Police Station on 20.04.2008 and made a complaint at 09.05 a.m. P.W.12, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, commenced inquiry into the said allegations.He sent the police personnel in search of the deceased.S.NAGAMUTHU, J.The appellant is Accused No.1 in S.C.No.22 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry.Totally, there were five accused in the above said case including the appellant herein.The rank of the accused was, however, not altered.Thus, A1 and A3 to A5 faced the trial.The trial court, by judgement dated 07.04.2016, acquitted A3 to A5, however, convicted A1, the appellant alone for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- [no default sentence was imposed] and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- [no default sentence was imposed] for the offence under Section 302 of IPC; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 201 of IPC.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 has come up with this criminal appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Rajini @ Rajinikanth.His father was one Mr.Rajaram.Rajini @ Rajinikanth was residing at Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry.His father-Mr.Rajaram, had gone abroad and settled there for many years.The house in which the deceased was residing was in the name of Mr.Rajaram.Rajaram was closely related to A1-Mr.Perumal Raja @ Perumal.The accused wanted to grab the house property owned by Mr.Rajaram and Rajini @ Rajinikanth.But, the deceased could not be traced out anywhere.While so, on 21.04.2008, Mr.Rajaram was murdered by a gang of six people and in connection with the same, a case was registered in Crime No.204 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 r/w 149 of IPC on the file of Grand Bazaar Police Station.The said case was under investigation.While so, one Mr.Arumugham, the father of Mr.Rajaram made yet another complaint at Odiansalai Police Station on 24.04.2008 at 09.00 a.m. in respect of the missing of his son Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth.P.W.27, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Odiansalai Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No.80 of 2008 for "Man Missing".P.20 is the complaint and Ex.P.21 is the FIR.Then, he forwarded both the complaint and the FIR to the jurisdictional court and commenced the investigation.The investigation in Crime No.204 of 2008 relating to the murder of Mr.Rajaram was taken up by P.W.30, the then Inspector of Police, Grand Bazaar Police Station.In connection with the said case, on 25.04.2008 at 06.45 p.m., P.W.30 arrested A1, the appellant herein, in the presence of witnesses.On such arrest, A1 made a voluntary confession and from out of the voluntary confession of A1, it came to light that Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth had also been done to death already.In the said confession, A1 disclosed that the dead body of the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth was concealed in the water sump at the house of the deceased for some time and, thereafter, it was removed, cut into two pieces, put into two nylon bags and then they were thrown into the river near Uppanar River Bridge at Vanarapet.He also disclosed the place where he had hidden the other properties stolen from the house of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place and identified the place where he had thrown the nylon bags.Accordingly, the police went to the said place and took out the nylon bags.On request made by the investigating officer, the postmortem was conducted on the spot itself.The dead body was beyond recognition.Thereafter, he forwarded A1 to the court for judicial remand.In that case, he arrested the other accused also, produced them for judicial remand.Thereafter, the relevant papers relating to Crime No.204 of 2008 were transferred to the file of Odiansalai Police Station and based on the same, P.W.27 altered the case in Crime No.80 of 2008 on the file of Odiansalai Police Station into one under Sections 302, 201 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC.He was present at the time when the dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered from the river channel and when the postmortem conducted.Then, on the confession of A4, the other properties stolen from the house of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered.In order to ascertain the identity of the dead body, superimposition test was conducted using the photograph of the deceased-Rajini @Rajinikanth which proved that the dead body was that of the deceased.On completing the investigation, P.W.33 laid charge sheet against the accused.The case as against the juvenile accused has been dealt with by the Juvenile Justice Board separately.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.P.W.10 has spoken about the fact that one Mrs.Punitha, a relative of the deceased had tried to sell out the property.Her evidence is not incriminating to the accused in any manner.P.W.12 has spoken about the complaint made by Mr.Rajaram on 20.04.2008 about the missing of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth.P.W.21 has spoken about the arrest of A4, confession made by him and the consequential recovery made out of the same.He has also spoken about the arrest of A1, his confession and the consequential recovery and the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the Uppanar River channel.P.W.24 has spoken about the postmortem and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.25, the photographer has spoken about the photographs taken at the house of the deceased including the water sump.P.W.26 has spoken about the photographs taken at the channel where from the dead body of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered.P.W.27 has spoken about the registration of the case in Crime No.80 of 2008 on the file of the Odiansalai Police Station for Man Missing on the complaint of one Mr.Arumugham.He has further stated that on 27.04.2008, he altered the case into one under Section 302, 201 and 380 r/w 34 of IPC on coming to know from out of investigation in Crime No.204 of 2008 on the file of Grand Bazaar Police Station that Mr.Rajini @ Rajinikanth had been killed.P.22 is the alteration report.P.W.28 has spoken about the formal arrest of these accused made on 02.05.2008 in the prison as directed by the investigating officer.P.W.29 has spoken about the superimposition test conducted for the skull with the photograph of the deceased.The superimposition test proved that the dead body was that of the deceased.P.W.30 said that when he was the Inspector of Police of Grand Bazaar Police Station, he took up the case in Crime No.204 of 2008 on 21.04.2008 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 r/w 149 of IPC for investigation.He has further stated that in connection with the said case, he arrested A1, the appellant herein on 25.04.2008 at 6.45 p.m. in the presence of P.W.21 and another witness.While in custody, it is alleged that A1 made a voluntary confession in which he disclosed that the dead body of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth was initially concealed by him along with other accused in the water sump and thereafter, it was removed, cut into two pieces, put in nylon bags and was thrown into the channel near the bridge on the Uppanar River.He has further stated that in pursuance of the said disclosure statement, the dead body was recovered.He has further stated that on the confession of A4, the properties stolen from the house of the deceased-Rajini @ Rajinikanth were recovered.He has further stated about the investigation done in the other case.P.W.31 has spoken about the statement made by the juvenile accused under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. P.Ws.32 and 33 have spoken about the further investigation done by them and P.W.33 has further spoken about the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellant/A1 alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.As we have already pointed out, most of the witnesses, who were examined to speak about the vital circumstances, have turned hostile.The death was, according to the medical evidence, a homicide.Now the only question is that from out of the only circumstance that the dead body of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered on the disclosure statement of the appellant/A1, whether he could be convicted.The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the disclosure statement would not have been made by the accused on 25.04.2008 as it is alleged.He would submit that P.W.12 has stated that on 22.04.2008 itself, he came to know that the culprits who murdered Mr.Rajaram had murdered the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth also.The learned senior counsel has further pointed out that he has further stated that on 24.04.2008 itself when the Inspector of Police examined him he told the same.This argument does not at all persuade us.When that be so, it is not possible that the death of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth came to the knowledge of P.W.12 on 21.04.2008 itself.When that be so, the evidence of P.W.12 wherein he has given a contrary statement cannot carry any weightage of.From the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer and from the evidence of P.W.30 were are fully convinced that the appellant was arrested only on 25.04.2008 and on his disclosure statement only the dead body of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth was recovered from the river channel.The appellant/A1 has got no explanation to offer in respect of his exclusive knowledge that the dead body was lying in the channel.Thus, the appeal fails and the same deserves to be dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,442,081 |
Prosecution allegations are that on 23-5-1985 at about 11 a.m., Sushil was returning on a motor-cycle from Patan and going to his village.Ratan (PW2) and Bhura alias Vijay (PW4) were riding with him on pillion seat.When the motor-cycle reached near the culvert at village Rosra, they found accused persons coming on a tractor from the opposite direction.They are alleged to have been armed with weapons like Pharsa, Ballam and Lathi.The appellants have earlier existing inimical relationship with the deceased.Sensing danger, deceased Sushil turned his motor-cycle to run away and in that attempt went into a nearby agricultural field and fell down.He was chased by the appellants and given pharsa blows by appellants Rokad Singh, Ramkumar and Santhosh, as a result of which, the deceased fell down.He was thereafter assaulted mercilessly by all the accused persons.Telephonic message of the rioting was conveyed to Shri D. K. Sharma (PW22), Sub-Inspector who immediately rushed to the site, village Funsar and recorded the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-3 at 1.15 P. M. In the meantime Prahlad (PW6), Raghunath (PW11) and one Ratan being told about the incident, by appellant Rokad Singh, went to the spot and found the deceased Sushil injured.They immediately took him to the Medical College Hospital, Jabalpur where he was declared dead.Information about this death was given to the police at P. S. Garha by Prahlad and Ratan and on that basis, Marg Ex.P-39 was recorded.Dr. Nagpal (PW-1) conducted post mortem examination of the dead body and found as many as 23 injuries on the person of the deceased.According to this report, he had, in the company of the deceased and Vijay alias Bhura Patel, gone to Patan on a motor-cycle and were returning home.They saw a tractor coming from the opposite direction driven by appellant Ramkumar, who was armed with a pharsa.Santosh was also with him on the tractor and was having pharsa.All other accused persons were standing at the culvert.Motor-cycle of Rokadsingh was parked on the left side of the road.They sensed danger and therefore, deceased turned his motor-cycle and fell into an agricultural field.He started running and was chased by the appellants.He was watching the incident from a distance of about 20 yards.All of them brutally assaulted the deceased and turned towards him and Vijay.They, therefore, ran away.While running away, they heard a gunfire sound.Based on this Dehati Nalishi, F.I.R. Ex.P-4 was recorded at P. S. Patan at 23.10 hrs.This report mentions all the 8 appellants.JUDGMENT Gulab C. Gupta, J.This judgment shall also govern disposal of Cr.Appeal No. 825/87 filed by Co-convict Suresh Kumar alias Chhannu as they relate to the same Judgment of the Addl.Sessions Judge and therefore, deal with common questions of fact and laws Appellants Rokad Singh, Ramkumar and Santosh remained convicted under Sections 148 and 302, Indian Penal Code while all other appellants remained convicted for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year's RI and life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each by Judgment dated 23-6-1987 passed by Shri A. K. Saxena, 8th Addl.The appellants are challenging legality and validity of their conviction and sentence by filing these appeals under Section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code.Appellants are alleged to have formed an unlawful assembly to cause death of Sushil alias Vakeel and with the object in view, armed themselves with deadly weapons and actually caused death of said Sushil on 23-5-1985 at about 11 a.m., 12 accused persons were prosecuted for the said offence but the four who were charged with offence of conspiracy have been acquitted while the appellants (8 in number) have been found guilty.According to Dr. Nagpal, all the injuries were ante mortem and the deceased died as a cumulative effect of those injuries.The appellants were thereafter charged with offences as aforesaid and put on trial before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P.3 was the F.I.R. on the basis of which investigation has started.According to the learned Judge Marg Ex.P-39 could not be accepted as F.I.R. as it was subsequent in time and not recorded at the appropriate place.The learned Judge further held that Ratan (PW2) and Vijay Kumar (PW4) were eye witnesses, riding on the pillion seat of the motor-cycle driven by the deceased and their evidence, which was trustworthy, was sufficient to justify the appellants' conviction.He, however, filed written submissions on 14-9-1992 which have been taken into consideration.As against this, Marg Intimation Ex.P-39 is recorded at Garha Police Station on the information given by Prahlad (PW6) and one Arjun at 14.00 hrs.and mentions Ramkumar and Rokadsingh etc. responsible for the injuries.The word "Vagairah" cxSjg appearing immediately after Rokad Singh is said to be an interpolation and has been accepted as such.The intimation only mentions that Sushil was being brought to Medical College but at the casualty, doctor examined him and declared him dead, body was kept in the mortuary and intimation of death was given.This marg intimation does not mention the place of the incident, the manner in which the incident had taken place and many other details, which are contained in Dehati Nalishi contained in Ex.Ratan (PW2) has deposed on oath that he got the report lodged as per Ex.P-3 at village Nunsar (Para 9).In his extensive cross examination on the subject, he has insisted that the report was lodged.According to him, there were so many others including Maheshilal and the report was written at a parchhi in front of the house of Karan Baretha.The report itself does not mention the particular place where it was recorded but only mentions that it was recorded at village Nunsar.No other evidence has been produced.Since Ratan Patel (PW2) has insisted that this report was written at his instance and bears his signatures, there is no reason to doubt about its correctness.It is, however, true that this report was written on a plain paper.This is, however, natural because it was not written at the police station where all printed forms are available.It is also not necessary that F.I.R. mast always be written on a printed form.Yet, another objection taken by learned counsel for the appellants is that this F.I.R. was not sent to the Magistrate as required under Section 157 Criminal Procedure Code.Report Ex.P-3 does not mention that it was sent to anyone.Similarly, F.I.R. recorded on the basis of this information also does not mention any thingin this behalf.In cross-examination Shri Sharma (PW22) was asked several questions about this report but no question was asked about this report being sent to the Magistrate.If the appellants doubted that the report was not sent as required they should have been asked specifically about it.However, in cross examination, it was suggested to the witness that the report was not sent to the Magistrate from village Nunsar and he admitted the same.He, however, insisted that the report had been sent from the police station and its details are mentioned in the Dak Book (Para 47).If the appellants wanted further information, the record could be produced on their making such request.Apparently therefore, the so-called defect in recording the report and sending the same to the Magistrate are imaginary.In this view of the matter, the opinion of the learned A.S.J. that report Ex.P.3 was the F.I.R. and since it mentions all the 8 appellants, there was no difficulty whatsoever in charging them and putting them on trial.Then the next important question is whether Ratan (PW2) and Vijay Kumar (PW4) were with the deceased, riding on the pillion seat of the motor-cycle and have seen the incident.According to him, before returning, they had taken their break fast in the hotel run by Badde Maharaj.Prosecution has examined Badde Maharaj, whose real name is Suraj Prasad (PW23).He has deposed on oath that he had seen Ratan and Vijay coming out of the canteen with the deceased and had given a permit of Bamboos and Ballis to be handed over to Kihilal and thereafter all the three went towards Nunsar on a motorcycle.This witness has been subjected to long cross-examination during which he has admitted that he has also been a witness in prosecution in a case against Dharamdas, the father of the appellant Rokadsingh.He was also witness in several other cases.He, however, denied that he has any illwill or that he was against the appellants.His evidence does not indicate that he had any illwill against the appellants.His evidence would, therefore, establish that Ratan was seen with the deceased immediately before the incident.Nanhebhai (PW19) is the person actually running the canteen and has deposed on oath that deceased Vakeel was in the company of others and had taken his breakfast at about 11 a. m. He states that the deceased Vakeel went towards village Nunsar on a motor-cycle.This witness, however, does not say that other two persons who had taken breakfast with Vakeel, had also gone with him on the motor cycle.For this reason, he was declared hostile and cross-examined with reference to his case diary statement Ex.P.26 in which he had named Ratan (PW2) as one of the persons in the company of the deceased.Under the circumstances, evidence on record establishes beyond reasonable doubt that Ratan (PW2) and Vijay Kumar (PW4) were with the deceased at the time when the incident took place.He has seen the deceased lying badly injured.According to him, he asked the deceased as to how he got injured and was told that the appellants have caused those injuries by using pharsa, ballam and lathis.The learned trial Judge has held this part of the evidence of Prahlad to be a little doubtful as according to the learned Judge, a person so injured could not possibly have named the appellants.The view expressed by the learned Judge does not amount to discrediting this witness.It only indicates that the approach of the learned Judge had been little more careful and cautious.This Court, however, finds no justification for becoming so overcautious.The fact remains that the deceased did not die on the spot and died while he was being transported to the hospital.Raghunath (PW11) is another witness who had gone to the spot on hearing the news of the incident from Rokadsingh and had seen the deceased lying injured in an agricultural field.He also states that on being asked the deceased informed that the 8 appellants had caused injuries to him.He, along with Prahlad (PW6) took the deceased to Medical College Hospital where he was declared dead.It is true that this witness is related to the deceased but for that reason alone, his evidence cannot be discarded.Though he has been subjected to long cross examination, nothing has been suggested to him to indicate that he bears any illwill against the appellants.The evidence of a related witness like Raghunath cannot be equated with a witness who is interested in securing conviction of an accused person or is on inimical terms with the accused."Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical evidence, as the sole touch-stone for the test of such credibility.The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story, consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the "credit" of the witnesses; their performance in the witness box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation."
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,208,170 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J) The petitioner himself is the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 14.11.2018 passed by the second respondent, under which, the detenu has been branded as "Goonda" and detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).2.As per the grounds of detention passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:(i) Crime No.202 of 2016 on the file of Nanguneri Police Station under Section 379 (Sand Theft) IPC.(ii) Crime No.195 of 2016 on the file of Eruvadi Police Station under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC.The grounds of detention read that on 04.11.2018 at 22.55 hours one Samidurai and his associates trespassed into the compound of Nanguneri Police Station and threatened towards the Sentry Police and subsequently the detenu and his associates has damaged the front glass of the car bearing Registration No.TN-09- BL-3301, which was parked in the police Station by pelting stones.7.This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the materials placed on records.In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl No.134 of 2018 dated 14.11.2018, passed by the second respondent is quashed.The detenu, Samidurai, son of Sundarapandi, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention / remand is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,442,098 |
Palanivelu of Coimbatore to the petitioner herein after the respondent underwent treatment at the local hospital.It is submitted that the further allegation is to the effect that the respondent was subjected to undergo several surgeries as the petitioner assured full cure of the ailment suffered by the respondent and that the respondent was not fully cured.As per the complaint, the respondent has sought for the medical records which were not furnished to the respondent and thereby the petitioner is said to have committed criminal breach of trust and cheating.Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the allegation levelled against the petitioner as per the private complaint filed by the respondent is to the effect that the respondent/complainant was referred by a leading doctor namely Dr.It is contended that only thereafter, the respondent/complainant by filing protest petition, the present impugned complaint was taken on file against the petitioner for the offences as stated above.I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the impugned complaint.It is a very unfortunate case wherein a patient namely the respondent herein has come forward with the allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating against the petitioner, who is a leading Surgeon in the field of gastroenterology and a former Professor of Madras Medical College and Stanley Medical College, after the respondent/complainant all along took treatment from the petitioner as the respondent was referred by another leading Surgeon from Mofussil for specialized treatment as the petitioner is an expert in the field of Gastroenterology.Accordingly, the proceedings pending against the petitioner in C.C.No.1374 of 2004 on the file of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected Crl.
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,211,107 |
Shri Ashish Singh Jadon, counsel for the complainant.Heard on I.A.No.4938 of 2020 an application for permission to assist PL in the matter.For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed and Shri Ashish Singh Jadon is permitted to assist PL in the matter.This is first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Applicant is arrested in connection with Crime No.406 of 2019 registered at Police Station Dharnavda district Guna, in relation to the offence punishable u/S.307, 294, 323, 325/34 of IPC.(Purushottam Meena Vs.State of M.P. ) applicant is first offender having no criminal history.Co-accused Lakhan Meena has already been released on bail.As per prosecution story, the injury is on the non-vital part of the body, therefore, no offence under Section 307 of IPC is made out.The applicant is ready to contribute Rs.5000/- in the PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App and further ready to abide with all the conditions which may be imposed by this court while considering this application for bail.On these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State opposed the bail application of the applicant.However, he does not dispute the factum of completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.Counsel for the complainant also opposed the bail application stating that the injuries are medically corroborated and the fracture has been found in the leg of the injured.Considering the alarming situation of Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19), this Court deems it appropriate to allow this application for grant of bail taking into consideration the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No.1/2020 and directions have been issued to all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of prisoners in order to decongest the prisons.The Supreme Court has observed as under :-The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.7.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 Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, concerned who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.State of M.P. ) given a pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence.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.CC as per rules.(Vishal Mishra) Judge Rks.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,212 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J.This is a plaintiffs second appeal against concurrent findings of the two Courts below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of title, possession and mesne profits claimed at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per year, in respect of the land situated at Survey Nos. 278 and 279 (new survey No. 216), area 16 'Bigha' 12 'Biswa', in village Amkheda, Tahsil Chachoda, District Guna.The appeal was admitted on 12-7-1991 for hearing on the following substantial questions of law : --Whether the plaintiff had acquired the rights of a Bhumiswami?Whether the defendants had a right to take over possession of the land in dispute after the abolition of Zamindari?Had the defendants become 'Pakka' tenant as claimed?"The facts in brief are thus:According to the plaintiff the land in dispute was given to him on Patta' (ExtP/1) dated 2-8-1943 by Kishorilal, the ex-Zamindar; the plaintiff was recorded as a tenant in the Khasras of Samvat 2007 and 2008; after the enforcement of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and Tenancy Act, Samvat 2007 (for short, the 'Act') the plaintiff became 'Pakka' tenant as defined under Section 54(vii) of the Act, and after the enforcement of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short, the 'Code') on 2-10-1959, he became Bhumiswami under Section190 of the Code.The orders of the Revenue authorities including that of the Board of Revenue are illegal and void; therefore, the delivery of possession to the defendants was illegal; the defendants are in illegal possession from whom the plaintiff is entitled to claim the possession on the basis of his title which he acquired by operation of law.3A. The defendants contested the suit and contended that no 'Patta' was ever given to the plaintiff either by Kishorilal or his brother Ramkishan; Kishorilal died before 1950 and Ramkishan, who had no issues, pre-deceased him; on the death of Kishorilal, his son Rajaram became Zamindar; the land was mortgaged with possession by Kishorilal as a security for re-payment of a loan; Kishorilal was the manager of the family; therefore, execution of the Patta (Ext.P/1), allegedly by Ramkishan, the brother of Kishorilal, was without any authority, which did not grant any right to the plaintiff of a tenant or of a sub-tenant nor any right of Pakka' Krishak" accrued to him; proceedings under Section 319 of the Qanoon Mal, Gwalior State, Samvat 1983 (for short, the 'Qanoon Mal') were initiated, wherein the Tahsil Court held that the land was given as a security for repayment of loan, which would be evident from columns Nos. 5 and 6 of the Khasra entry of Samvat 2007 (1950-51) (Ext.P/8), which respectively speak "BANKATLAL S/O JAINARAYAN, CASTE MAHESHWARI, R/O KUMBHARAJ, GARECH MU.8 SAL BARUYE BASHRAT SADAR; BI.LA KARJA PATTA BILL 840 KARJA." The plaintiff did not acquire any right under Section 247 of the Qanoon Mal, of 'Haq Maurusi" or 'Dakhilkar" as he did not cultivate the land personally nor remained in possession for a period of 12 years; the defendants' servants cultivated the land and gave a certain quantity of crop in lieu of loan.The proceedings under Section 319, Qanoon Mal (numbered as Case No. 48/1950) culminated on 22-5-1950, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, according to which the plaintiff agreed to hand over the possession in Samvat 2010, but as the plaintiff did not do so, proceedings under Section 91 of the Act were initiated for restoration of possession.The Tahsildar in case No. 15/55X3/4, by order dated 304-1956, copy of which is Ext.D/1, directed restoration of possession, holding that the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, Samvat 2008 (for short, the 'Zamindari Abolition Act') had no retrospective effect on the agreement or contract entered into between the ex-proprietor and the money lender, as the land was not given on 'Patta' but was mortgaged as a security in lieu of loan, which remained in "Khudkasht' of the ex-proprietor and was being cultivated by the defendants' servants.The matter went up to the Board of Revenue, but the plaintiff having failed in obtaining the possession, instituted the suit.Before parting with the case, in para 33 of the judgment the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has given false evidence and has used a forged document, i.e., Ext. P/l, by interpolation and fabricating the entries therein and, therefore, ordered to prosecute the appellant under Sections 467 and 471, Indian Penal Code, and for that a separate proceeding was ordered to be initiated under Section 479A, Criminal Procedure Code.In appeal, the decree was confirmed.Hence, this second appeal.Indisputably, the defendants were Zamindars.Further, the inquiry for taking cognizance of the offences and the subsequent trial will take another inning.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
144,214,294 |
A large amount of cash and materials were gifted at marriage as dowry.After marriage, on the insistence of husband, the father of victim bore the expenses of foreign trip undertaken to celebrate honeymoon.After returning from abroad, husband and in- laws started insisting the victim to ask her father to buy a plot at Jaipur.When said demand was not met, the victim as alleged in FIR was subjected to mental and physical cruelty and was prevented from going out of her matrimonial home.On 02.06.2018 and 23.09.2017, the parents of the victim visited the matrimonial home, when it is alleged that besides the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim, the petitioners started instigating the co-accused husband to insist for fulfillment of dowry demand.It is further alleged in the FIR, that petitioners further instigated the husband co-accused to teach a lesson to the victim who should be 4 M.Cr.The expenses of rent of accommodation used by the victim and her husband was incurred by the victim from her limited personal resources.The co-accused husband further failed to bear the burden of domestic expenses in the rented accommodation.(19/2/19)Inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR and the charge-sheet alleging offence punishable u/S. 498-A, 34 of IPC and Sec.4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Padav, Gwalior, vide Crime No.150/2018 which later matured into Criminal Misc.Appeal No.6011/18 pending adjudication before the JMFC, Gwalior.2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioners who 2 M.Cr.C. No. 3392/2019 are both sisters-in-law (Nanad) have primarily raised two grounds in support of challenge to the impugned prosecution which are as follows:-The JMFC, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to take cognizance of the impugned prosecution as the offence was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said trial Court at Gwalior.That no offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is made out from the bare reading of the prosecution story.Petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 are residing at Bangluru since their marriage from 2007 and 2011, respectively and thus have been falsely implicated.Anuradha Saxexna and others Vs.State of M.P. and another.While counsel for the victim has relied upon the judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Sujata Mukherjee Vs.Prashant Kumar Mukherjee reported in 1997 SCC (Cri.) 673 (See para 7) and in Abraham Ajith and others Vs.Inspector of Police, Chennai and another reported in 2004 SCC 3 M.Cr.Taking up the first ground of territorial jurisdiction, the bare reading of FIR discloses that the marriage took place on 22.01.2017 between the victim and co-accused Ashish Gupta at Jaipur.Prior to the marriage, during the proceeding, which took place on 06/07.11.2016 for fixing up the marriage, demand of dowry was made by the co-accused husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim.It is also alleged that since January, 2018, the victim alongwith her husband started staying away from the house of father-in-law and mother-in-law, but the behavior of husband co- accused did not change for the better.C. No. 3392/2019Accordingly, the proceedings against the appellants were quashed and the appeal was allowed.C. No. 3392/2019When the allegations made against the petitioners are tested on the anvil of aforesaid statutory provision and its interpretation, it 11 M.Cr.Consequently, present petition is allowed, the FIR and the charge-sheet bearing Crime No.150/2018 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana Padav, Gwalior and the consequential Misc.Criminal Case No. 6011/18 before the JMFC, Gwalior so far as, it relates to offence punishable u/S. 498-A of IPC stand quashed.No order as to cost.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
911,507 |
Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are asfollows:Raman-appellant herein, Narayanan (PW-1), Nadi (PW-6)and Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty-deceased were living atEdayattur, District Mambarakunnu.On 21.04.2000 at about8:00 p.m., PW-1 and PW-6 were chatting by the side of theroad when they heard the appellant and the deceasedindulging in wordy quarrel.PW-6 intervened and separatedthem.PW-6 returned tothe courtyard of the house of PW-1 along with Unnikrishnan.The appellant alleged to have uttered abusive languageagainst Unnikrishnan who in retaliation pulled the appellant'sshirt collar.The appellant is alleged to have stabbedUnnikrishnan in his abdomen with knife (MO.1).Unnikrishnan collapsed on the spot and uttered that he wasfinished.PW-6 bandaged the wound of Unnikrishnan.PW-1 3informed Velayudhan (PW-2), the younger brother ofUnnikrishnan about the incident who arrived at the spotwhere Unnikrishnan was lying on the embankment by theside of the road.PW-2 and others took Unnikrishnan to theDistrict Hospital, Manjeri, where the Casualty Medical Officerexamined him but he was declared dead.4. PW-6 went to Melattur Police Station and madestatement on the basis of which First Information Report (Ext.P4) came to be registered by Abdulla (PW-9), Sub-Inspector.After registering the case, K. Manoharakumar, CircleInspector (PW-10) went to the Hospital and conducted InquestReport (Ext. P1) on the body of Unnikrishnan-deceased.TheInvestigating Officer seized clothes (MO2) of the deceased.Hesent the body of the deceased to the Medical College Hospital,where Dr. Cyriyac Jose (PW-13) conducted post mortemexamination.PW-10 visited the place of occurrence andprepared scene-cum-seizure mahazar (Ext.P2), recoveredblood-stained soil and stones (MO 3).He arrested theappellant and the clothes (MO 4) worn by him were taken intopossession under Seizure Mahazar (Ext. P3).Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.At the instance 4of the appellant, knife (MO 1) was recovered.Furtherinvestigation was conducted by D. Rajan (PW-11) and Majeed(PW-12), both Circle Inspectors.PW-11 and PW-12 recordedthe statements of the witnesses.On receipt of post mortemreport (Ext. P8) and report of chemical analysis (Ext. P7), PW-12 filed a charge sheet against the appellant for an offencepunishable under Section 302, IPC.The trial court found a prima facie case against theappellant and, accordingly, charged him for the murder ofUnnikrishnan.During trial of the case, the prosecutionexamined as many as 13 witnesses.The appellant in hisstatement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure denied his involvement in the commission of thecrime.He pleaded that on the day of occurrence when he wasgoing to his house, the deceased took quarrel with him and itwas PW-6 who intervened and separated them.He stated thatUnnikrishnan came back from his house to the place ofoccurrence and he was holding a knife in his hand andsuddenly held his neck.A scuffle ensued between them, inwhich the knife accidentally struck into the abdomen of the 5deceased.He pleaded that due to fear he ran away from thescene of occurrence.The learned trial Judge, on analysis of the entire oral anddocumentary evidence on record, found the appellant guilty ofthe offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordinglysentenced him as aforesaid.Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before theHigh Court, which came to be dismissed by a Division Bench.Hence, the appellant has filed this appeal by special leavequestioning the correctness and legality of the judgment of theHigh Court.We have heard Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, Advocate for theappellant, and Mr. R. Sathish, Advocate for the respondent-State and with their assistance examined the material onrecord.It is not in dispute that Unnikrishnan @ Bapputty diedbecause of knife injuries caused to him.PW 13, Dr. CyriyacJose in the post mortem Report has given the details of theinjuries noticed in the abdomen of the deceased.In theopinion of the doctor, the injuries found on the body of the 6deceased could be caused by knife (MO 1).PW-6 is the eye-witness of the occurrence who has given the entire descriptionof the incident in the First Information Report (Ext. P4), whichhas been corroborated by him in his deposition before theCourt.It is his evidence that on the day of occurrence atabout 8.00 p.m. when he was chatting with PW-1 by the sideof the road, the appellant came there and in front of the houseof Unnikrishnan, the appellant and Unnikrishnan indulged ina wordy quarrel.He and PW-1 intervened and separated themwho were locked in a push and pull war.PW-6 advised bothof them to go to their respective houses.He stated that hewent with PW-1 and when they reached in front of the houseof PW-1, the appellant and Unnikrishnan again startedhurling abuses against each other and in the processUnnikrishnan pulled the collar of the shirt of the appellantwho in retaliation stabbed Unnikrishnan in his abdomen witha knife and as a result thereof Unnikrishnan uttered that hewas finished.He also stated that the appellant ran away fromthe scene of occurrence with the knife.Intestine ofinjured Unnikrishnan had been protruded through the woundand he bandaged the said wound.PW-2, the brother ofinjured Unnikrishnan, was also called at the spot.They tookthe injured to the hospital where he was declared dead by thedoctor.10. PW-1 deposed that on the day of occurrence he was inthe kitchen of his house, he heard a commotion outside andwhen came out on the road side, he noticed the appellant andUnnikrishnan quarrelling with each other.PW-6 intervenedand separated them and at that time he saw Unnikrishnancollapsing on the road and uttered that he was stabbed byRaman.He along with PW-6 carried injured Unnikrishnanand laid him on the raised portion near his house andthereafter he informed PW-2, the brother of the deceased,about the incident.The evidence of this witness corroboratesthe presence of PW-6 on the spot, whose evidence has beenfound sufficient, cogent and convincing by the courts below.The prosecution has proved the recovery of knife from thepossession of the appellant at his instance.The evidence of 8PW-6 has not been shattered or impeached by the appellant.PW-6 has given truthful narration of the events leading to theunfortunate death of the deceased at the hands of theappellant.The testimony of PW-6 is consistent andconvincing which finds corroboration from the evidence of PW-1 and the medical evidence of the doctor.The appellant hasnot disputed the presence of PWs-1 and 6 on the scene of theoccurrence.He has also not disputed the recovery of knife(MO 1).The trial court and the High Court both havedisbelieved the defence version of the appellant that in theprocess of scuffle the knife had accidentally struck the body ofthe deceased and, in our view, the finding and reasoningrecorded by the courts below to that extent cannot be foundfaulty.This Court on 15.02.2008 issued notice to therespondent limited to the question of sentence.Onindependent scrutiny of the oral evidence of PWs-1 and 6, asnoticed above, we find that it was the deceased who firstpulled the collar of appellant's shirt and tried to press hisneck, but in the process, the appellant inflicted knife blow in 9the abdomen with a view to escape from the clutches of thedeceased, but the appellant clearly exceeded the right ofprivate defence.In these circumstances, his case fell underSection 304 Part I IPC.We, accordingly, convict the appellantunder Section 304 Part-I IPC for causing the death ofUnnikrishnan @ Bapputty and sentence him to suffer rigorousimprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-.Indefault of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simpleimprisonment for one month.In the result, for the afore-said reasons, this appeal ispartly allowed to the extent of holding the appellant guilty ofthe offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I, IPC, andimposing the aforesaid sentence upon him.
|
['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.
|
911,547 |
The girl was very near the truck and the accused therefore gave a swerve to his truck to the right in order to gain time to allow the girl to cross the road.The girl Basanti crossed the road and the accused then again turned back his truck to his side and wanted to proceed further.ORDER Nevaskar, J.1. Accused Gulamsaeed was convicted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Depalpur (Hatod) under Section 304A, I. P. C, and was sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment.The appeal filed against this conviction was unsuccessful.The accused has now come up in revision.The material facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:In the evening of 8-2-1951 at about 5-30 or 6 P. M. accused was driving his goods truck M.B.G. 1260 while proceeding from Indore to Dhar.At Machal a place between Indore and Dhar there was Bazar day and temporary shops were set up by the side of the road leaving a narrow portion of it free for traffic.When the accused was taking this truck through the Bazar an eight year old girl named Basanti came running from the left and wanted to cross the road and go to the right.At a distance of about 15 paces from the place where the girl crossed the accused was required to stop the truck as his attention was called by the persons standing in the Bazar that a girl was hurt by the truck and found Basanti lying in a precarious condition.Accused and the owner of the truck who was also there proceeded to the Thana where the report was lodged.From this account of the incident-It is clear that both from the circumstance that it was a Bazar day and people were moving about making purchases and also from the fact that only a small portion of the road was free for passage it can be accepted that the truck was.proceeding at comparatively moderate speed.This is corroborated practically by all the witnesses except P. W. 6 Motiram who says that it was proceeding at a brisk pace.Considering the evidence as a whole it can be held to be proved that the truck was proceeding at a moderate speed.Witness Motiram was actually engaged in.It is also clear that the driver saved the girl and allowed her to cross by a timely action on his part in giving a swerve to his truck on to the right.After the girl had crossed naturally he would proceed further by taking the truck to his side.The girl apparently does not seem to have been run over.Nor does it appear that she was hit by the front part of the right side of the truck.In fact when the girl tried to cross he did act with appropriate-promptness to avoid the accident and rightly gave a swerve on to the right.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,158,266 |
C.R.M. 24 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02/01/2019 in connection with Durgachak P.S. Case No.195 of 2018 dated 01/12/2018 under Sections 447/323/307/354/379/34 of the gd Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Rabindranath Das @ Rabindra Das & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. Amal Krishna Samanta ...for the petitioners.Mr. Rana Mukherjee Mr. Santanu Chatterjee ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Durgachak P.S. Case No.195 of 2018 dated 01/12/2018 under Sections 447/323/307/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In addition, the petitioners will report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.) 2
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
911,624 |
The P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade is the complainant.He has stated that on the relevant date he was doing labour work in the forest department at village Karchundi and he was expected to supervise the forest and as a part of his duty, he was to see that nobody should take their cattle in the forest for grazing purpose.On the day of incident, he had been to the said forest at about 11 a.m. He took round of the forest and thereafter, went to the cattle shed of one Babasaheb Bhosale of village Karchundi, adjacent to the forest.He took meal there.The appellant / accused herein came at the said cattle shed and told the complainant that he has purchased the grazing land on auction from the department.crapl299.99 9 The witness states that they accordingly, went to grazing field.However, they did not notice other persons cattle grazing there.Thereafter, the accused started abusing him.Babu Shinde came there and inquired about the abusing.The accused thereafter, beat him with iron bar on left leg and when he was giving another blow, the complainant caught hold the said blow with his left hand.The persons gathered there.He raised shouts.Babasaheb Bhosale and Babu Shinde rescued him.Pandurang Bhandari and watchman were also there.He was then taken to the civil hospital at Beed for treatment and was in the hospital for about 21 days.There was fracture injury to his leg, his leg was put in plaster for about 12 weeks.He further stated that his complaint was recorded and due to injury to his hand, he put thumb mark on the complaint as he could not sign.In his cross-examination, P.W.1 Murlidhar dienied the suggestion that to protect forest, he used to climb on the trees in the forest.The appellant herein was tried by the Special Judge, Beed for an offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. in Sessions Case No. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:12 ::: crapl299.99 2 53 of 1998 and by his judgment and order dated 25th June, 1999 convicted the appellant for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo R.I.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:12 :::for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo R.I. for 15 days.Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court, the appellant has challenged the same in this appeal.The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows:As stated by P.W.1 Murlisdhar Zhade, the alleged incident took place on 7.9.1998 at about 1.30p.m.approximately in the forest at village Karchundi.It is the case of the prosecution that Murlidhar Ksishan Zhade is serving in the forest department and as a part of his duty, he is expected to supervise the forest and to see that nobody should take their cattle in forest for grazing purposes.On 7th September, 1998 as a routine, as a part of duty, he had gone to village Karchundi, took round to the forest at ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:12 ::: crapl299.99 3 about 11 a.m., he then went to cattle-shed of Babasaheb Bhosale from village Karchundi, which is adjacent to the forest, took meals at the cattle-shed.Accused Pandurang Shinde then came to the cattle-shed of Bhosale, there was some talk between accused and P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade about grazing of cattle as according to accused he has taken on auction some land from forest for grazing purpose, however,the other villagers used to graze the said portion which was taken on auction by Pandurang Shinde and he accordingly, requested P.W.1 Murlidhar Zhade to see that the other persons should not graze their cattle in the portion which is taken on auction by Pandurang.P.W.1 accordingly, accompanied Pandurang Shinde to see the place from the forest department in respect of which grievance is made by Pandurang so as to see whether the cattle of any other villagers are being gazed in the said portion.However, P.W.1 noticed that no cattle was being grazed in the said portion and some cattle were in the field of the agriculturist excluding the forest area.On this count, there ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 4 was some exchange of words between Pandurang and P.W.1 Murlidhar.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:12 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::It is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant abused the P.W.1 Murlidhar on his caste.The complainant P.W.1 Murlidhar belongs to Matang community which is scheduled caste, while accused Pandurang belongs to Maratha community and is not a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes.Accused / appellant Pandurang then beat Murlidhar with iron rod, gave one blow on thigh and other blow on palm.Babasaheb Bhosale then came there and rescued the complainant.Complainant was then taken to Civil Hospital, Beed for treatment.The P.W.2 doctor on duty examined P.W.1 Murlidhar and treated him.The VII Asstt.The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried, his defence was that of total denial and that he was falsely involved in the said crime.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that most reliable eye witness was not examined by the prosecution and the P.W.3 Pandurang Namdev Bhandari, panch witness and P.W.4 Babu Namdeo Shinde turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.The testimony of the other witnesses did not corroborate the complaint.There is no intention for the appellant to commit the offence.The evidence and the complaint do not show that the accused had intention to cause grievous injury and he had no knowledge that it will be an injury as per section 322 of I.P.C. and its explanation.It is clear that when accused is punished u/s 325 of I.P.C., prosecution should have proved there was intention or knowledge of accused person that it will become grievous injury.Burden of proof ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 6 lies on the prosecution.The learned Counsel also submitted that there is delay in lodging the complaint, which is not explained.She also submitted that though the medical evidence and statement of complainant corroborated each other, the P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde in his cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::examination admitted that injury No.2 can occur due to falling ig from the tree which is more serious than injury no.1 and the complainant was appointed for protection of the forest, and he used to climb on the tree for that purpose.She also submitted that another most important requirement of section 27 of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 7 Evidence Act is that the place from which weapon is recovered, should be mentioned in the recovery panchanama, which fact is missing in the panchanama and, therefore, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.The learned Counsel further submitted that the weapon of assault was not properly recovered and hence, that piece of evidence cannot be believed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::ig The Counsel for appellant, therefore, prayed that the appeal may be allowed.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the evidence of the complainant P.W.1 Murlidhar is corroborated by the evidence of Medical Officer P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde and, therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned judgment and order.To bring home the guilt, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::crapl299.99 8 With the assistance of learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P., I have perused the entire material brought on record including Record and proceedings received from the trial Court.However, some other persons are grazing their cattle in the said field and, he requested the P.W.1 to take those cattle belonging to other persons to the cattle pond.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::He has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 10 reiterated that accused asked him why his cattle were taken by him in the cattle pond, some one month's back.He has further stated that it is not correct to suggest that he sustained injury as he fell down from a tree in the forest.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::7. P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde had examined complainant ig Murlidhar and issued injury certificate.This witness noticed following injuries on the person of P.W.1 Complainant Murlidhar:"(1) Contused lacerated wound over left leg (shin) with tenderness and of cracking sign over left shin (leg) the size was 3 cm.x 2 cm.deep to bone, age of injury may be within 24 hours and may be caused due to hard and blunt object.(2) Contusion with tenderness on left palm near first MP joint, size 3 cm.x 3 cm.Age of injury may be within 24 hours, probable cause may be blunt and hard object."P.W.2 Dr. Shinde has further stated that he advised for X-ray for the injury sustained by the patient Murlidhar and accordingly, X-rays were taken under supervision of the radiologist in the civil hospital.P.W.2 stated that X-ray No.DHB ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 11 left 2185 of left leg shows fracture of tibia and fibula upper 1/3rd, while another X-ray No.DHB No.2186 of left palm shows dislocation of left 1st IP joint.According to this witness both the injuries were of grievous nature and he issued certificate accordingly.He has identified his signature on the certificate and also produced X-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::had also brought Medico Legal Register with him.The P.W.2 doctor in his examination-in-chief stated that Injuries No.1 and 2 referred by him in the medical certificate, are possible by iron rod.In his cross-examination, he has stated that Injury No.2 which is on left palm is possible due to fall from the tree.He has specifically denied suggestion that the injuries No.1 and 2 are not possible due to beating with iron rod.denied suggestion that the injuries No.1 and 2The injury certificate is on record, which shows the nature of injuries as grievous.In the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 12 history column, it is written - "H/o alleged assaulted - today."::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::The prosecution did examine P.W.3 Pandurang Namdeo Bhandari, as panch witness.However, he was declared hostile.Therefore, the A.P.P.sought permission to cross-examine him.He has stated in his cross-examination that he himself and one Popat are working as watchman since last four years at the forest at village Karchundi.The forest is in survey No.49 at vilage Karchundi.There are trees in forest.Some of them are big and some of them are small.Barring that he has not supported the prosecution story in any manner.9. P.W.4 Babu Namdeo Shinde was examined by the prosecution.However, he was also declared hostile and, cross-examined by the A.P.P. He has stated nothing which can be useful for the prosecution.10. P.W.5 Mahadeo Malhari Veer has stated in his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 13 evidence that he knows accused Pandurang and complainant Murlidhar.Complainant is watchman in forest of Karchundi.He is having nearabout 36 sheep, which he used to take to forest for grazing.He has stated that he is not aware about the incident at all.Therefore, this witness was declared hostile and A.P.P. was permitted to cross-examine him.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::examination to support the prosecution case.11. P.W.6 Sahebrao Govindrao Gaisamudre, Police Head Constable stated that on 7.9.1998 he was on duty at civil hospital, Beed.On that day at 6 p.m. he received a letter from the medical officer informing him that M.L.C. case is admitted in the hospital.He went there and recorded statement of Murlidhar Zade as per his version.The witness admitted the statement Exh.13 shown to him and his signature thereon as also the contents thereof.He stated that he took thumb mark of Murlidhar on the F.I.R. after it was read over to the complainant, as there was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 14 injury to his left hand and saline was to his right hand.He sent the said statement to the Police Station, Beed town.The said papers were further forwarded to Neknoor police station as the offence was committed within the jurisdiction of that police station.In his cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned the time on the F.I.R. as to when it was recorded.12. P.W.7 Mohan Vithal Jadhav, P.S.I. Neknoor has stated that on 12.9.1998, Crime No.78/98 was given for further investigation to Head Constable Tupe.He has stated that during investigation, Head Constable Tupe recorded of witnesses namely Babu and Mahadeo, and that he called them and verified their statements and they stated that the statements are recorded correctly.13. P.W.8 Madhukar Ganpatrao Tupe, Head Constable, Neknoor Police Station, stated in examination-in-chief that he was attached to Neknoor Police station on 10.9.1998 as P.H.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::On 12.9.1998, the accused produced one iron rod and the same was attached under panchanama in presence of panchas at Exh.26/C.Upon perusal of the spot panchanama, it appears that the said panchanama records that on the spot, no any marks were found.The witness admits the panchanama shown to him and his signature thereon as also the contents of the panchanama, to be correct.The complainant in his statement before the Court has specifically stated that the accused beat him with iron bar on left leg and when he was giving another blow, the complainant caught hold the said blow with his left hand.The persons gathered there.He was then taken to the civil hospital at Beed for treatment and was in the hospital for about 21 days.There was fracture injury to his leg, his leg was put in ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 16 plaster for about 12 weeks.All the suggestions have been denied by the complainant in his cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::The evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde corroborates the evidence of the complainant.The evidence of P.W.2 has been discussed in paragraph 7 herein above in detail.Therefore, it is not necessary to repeat the same once again.ig The injury certificate, which forms part of the evidence of P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar Shinde, unequivocally indicates in History Column- "H/o alleged assaulted - today".Therefore, extract of M.L.C. register dated 7.9.98 at 6.45 p.m. does disclose the history that the complainant was assaulted.The incident had also taken place on the same day in the afternoon.Therefore, taking into consideration the evidence of the complainant and also the P.W.2 Dr. Indrakumar and other evidence brought on record by the prosecution, in my opinion, the trial Court has taken correct view in the matter.There is evidence of the complainant, corroborated by medical evidence and, therefore, the appellant herein has been rightly convicted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 17 for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. Both the injuries are grievous in nature.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::The Medical Officer has specifically stated in his evidence that Injury No.1 is not possible due to fall.Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court.For a few days, he was in jail.However, taking into consideration the date and year of the alleged offence, which took place in the year, 1998 and the appellant / accused has not misused the bail granted to him during pendency of this appeal and also the argument of the Counsel for the appellant that the alleged offence is the first offence and the appellant has not committed any other offence and also, taking into consideration that all the three alleged eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution story and also the evidence of the prosecution on the point of recovery of the iron bar is shaky, I am of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the sentence awarded by the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 ::: crapl299.99 18 trial Court i.e. R.I. for three months is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the order of the Special Judge, Beed directing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days, is maintained.However, the sentence awarded by the trial Court i.e. R.I. for three months is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant.The order of the Special Judge, Beed directing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer R.I. for 15 days, is maintained.The appellant - accused need not be sent to jail.His bail bonds shall stand cancelled.[ S.S. SHINDE, J ] .....Kadam/* ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:48:13 :::
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
911,636 |
The opening line of the northern boundary reads:A line commencing on the western side of the river Hooghly at a point.The Schedule to the aforesaid Act defines the boundaries north, east, south and west.The facts here being what they are, the boundaries On the east and the south do not concern me.The boundaries on the north and the west do.Other jurisdictions then begin.It will not perhaps be out of place to recall to one's mind the object of the Act. The object is to "relieve the original side of the High Court", to relieve the High Court in exercise of its ordinary original criminal jurisdiction.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,175,673 |
Brief facts of the case are that on 13/07/1999 deceased Rajesh Kushwaha was going towards his house along with Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) and Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16).On the way, when they reached near "Shriram Pan Bhandar" situated at Niwarganj, near Kamaniya deceased Rajesh told them to wait for two minutes as he wanted to smoke a cigarette.Then he went to Shriram Pan Bhandar, took a cigarette and started smoking it.At that time appellant Shriram who was sitting at the pan bhandar asked Rajesh to pay for cigarette, upon which Rajesh said that he had no money at that time and asked him to take the money by the next day.On that appellant Shriram abused him and they had some altercation between them.At that time co-accused Shrinath Gupta was already standing outside the shop and appellants Shripal and Krishna Kumar Kesharwani also came there.Shrinath Gupta, Shripal and Krishna Kumar Kesharwani caught hold of deceased Rajesh and Shrinath took scissor from his shop and assaulted Rajesh Kushwaha by scissor.He inflicted injury on Rajesh Kushwaha by scissor on his chest and other body parts.Co-accused Shrinath and appellants Shriram -:3:- & Krishna Kumar Kesharwani asked to kill him.On hearing the shouts Vinay Chouhan and Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla came to rescue him, but appellants threatened to kill them also, therefore, they ran away to their own house out of fear.On hearing shouting of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha, Sandesh (PW/9) went to the house of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and told him that something has happened with Rajesh.Thereafter, Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8), Sandesh (PW/9), Naseem (PW/14) and Anupam (PW/7) reached the spot where they saw Rajesh lying in an injured state.They asked Rajesh what had happened and Rajesh told them that appellants had assaulted him by scissor.They took Rajesh to Victoria Hospital, Jabalpur where Rajesh died due to injuries sustained by him in the incident.On that Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) went to Police Station, Lordganj and lodged the inquest report (Ex.P/15) and F.I.R. (Ex.P/14), which was written by Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15), the then SHO, Lordganj and registered Crime No.321/1999 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and investigated the matter.During investigation Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) went to spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/16) and also seized clotted blood from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/17).Thereafter, he went to Victoria Hospital and prepared inquest memo (Ex.P/2) of the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and sent his dead body through Constable Meersingh (PW/2) to Civil Hospital, Jabalpur for postmortem alongwith an application (Ex.P/27), where on 14/07/1999 Dr. M.S. Kukrele (PW/12) conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and gave Postmortem report (Ex.P/25).He also seized blood stained cloths from the dead body of the deceased and gave it in a sealed packet to the concerned Constable, who produced the same at Police Station, Lordganj, which was seized from his possession by Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) on 16/07/1999 and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/3).During investigation on 14/07/1999 Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) recorded the case diary statement of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9).He also arrested the co- accused Shrinath and appellants Shripal, Shriram, and Krishna Kumar and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/24) and seized their cloths, which they were -:4:- wearing at the time of their arrest and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/20 to Ex.P/23) respectively.These criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 11/06/2001 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, -:2:- Jabalpur in S.T.No.553/1999, whereby learned III Additional Sessions Judge found appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced as under :-Although, co-accused Shrinath had filed Cr.A.No.1002/01 against the aforesaid judgment along with appellants Shripal and Shriram but later he withdrew his appeal, so this Court vide order dated 29/06/2013 dismissed his appeal as withdrawn.Thus, this judgment shall only consider the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to Shriram, Shripal (Cr.A.No.1002/01) and Krishna Kumar Kesarwani (Cr.A.No.883/01).On the information of co-accused Shrinath, he also seized one scissor from his possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/19) and seizure memo (Ex.P/20) and sent all the seized articles to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for chemical examination.After completion of investigation he filed the charge-sheet before the JMFC, Jabalpur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where S.T.No.553/1999 was registered.Learned III Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur framed the charge against the co-accused Shrinath for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and charge under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants i.e. Shriram, Shripal and Krishna Kumar Kesarwani.The applicants abjured their guilt and took the defence that they were innocent and have falsely been implicated in the case.However, after trial learned III Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced them as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, appellants Shriram and Shripal filed Cr.A.No.1002/2001 and appellant Krishna Kumar Kesarwani filed Cr.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly, wrongly found the appellants guilty for the offence.The so called eyewitness of the incident Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) did not support the prosecution story and turned hostile.There are several contradiction and omissions in the statement of so called eyewitness Vinay Chouhan (PW/17).He admitted in his statement that he was accused in 22-25 criminal cases, which shows the character of this witness.He also admitted that he knew the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha since last 10 years, even then on seeing that Rajesh Kushwaha is lying in an injured condition, he ran away from the spot and did not report the incident to the Police.This behavior of the witness is highly improbable.Even other witness Anupam (PW/7), admitted in his statement that when he had reached on spot, Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) and Chintu @ Sunil (PW/16) were also present there and Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) admitted -:5:- in his statement that in the hospital he saw Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) and police personnel were also there at that time.But had Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) seen the incident, he would have told the police regarding incident on the same date.So his statement that he saw the incident can not be believed.Learned trial Court wrongly believed his statement.Regarding dying declaration of the deceased, Anupam (PW/7) and Naseem (PW/16) did not support the statement of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) and Anupam (PW/7) deposed that Rajesh was not able to speak.Even according to prosecution Anupam (PW/7), Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) took deceased Rajesh Kushwaha to Victoria Hospital, where he died, then Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) went to Police Station, Lordganj to lodge the report, while Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) in his statement clearly stated that he firstly went to Police Station, Lordganj and informed the Police about the incident and thereafter went to Victoria Hospital and after the doctor declared Rajesh dead, he again went to P.S. Lordgang and lodged the report.But prosecution did not produce earlier report lodged by Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) at Police Station Lardganj.Even compliance of provisions of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. was also not proved because no such acknowledgment had been submitted along with charge-sheet regarding delivery of copy of the FIR to the Court of Judicial Magistrate concerned.So the FIR (Ex.P/14) lodged by Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and the statement of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) regarding dying declaration of deceased Rajesh also become doubtful.Learned trial Court wrongly relying on their statement found the appellants guilty.Although, Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) deposed that he seized blood stained clothes of the appellants and also seized one scissor at the instance of appellant Shrinath, but prosecution did not file any FSL report showing that seized clothes of appellants and scissor had blood stain, so the recovery of clothes and scissor has no value.Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellants guilty for the offence.In addition learned counsel for the appellant Krishna Kumar Kesarwani also submitted that in the FIR (Ex.P/15) it is mentioned that firstly Shripal, Shrinath and Shriram assaulted the deceased by scissor, and -:6:- Krishna Kumar also came there at that time and assaulted Rajesh Kushwaha, which shows that the appellant Krishna Kumar Kesarwani has falsely been implicated in the incident.He had no common intention with other accused persons to assault the deceased.Learned trial Court without appreciating these facts, wrongly found the appellant Krishna Kumar guilty of having common intention for murdering of deceased alongwith other co-accused persons.State of Bihar, AIR 1992 SC 125, Din Dayal Vs.Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences.Point of determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal and argued before this Court.On the point that deceased Rajesh Kushwaha died on 13/07/1999 due to injuries sustained by him by sharp edged weapon like scissor and his death was homicidal Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) deposed that on the date of incident on the information of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) he went to Victoria Hospital where he prepared inquest report (Ex.P/2) of dead body of deceased Rajesh Kushwah, which was also proved by Sunil Varma (PW/1) and Ashok (PW/10) witness of that report in which it is mentioned that Rajesh died on 13/07/99 due to injuries sustained by him.Jitendra Singh (PW/15) further deposed that he also sent the dead body of deceased Rajesh for postmortem along with the application (Ex.P/27) through Constable Meersingh (PW/2) and Dr. M.S. Kukrele (P.W.12) who conducted the postmortem of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha deposed that on 14/07/1999 he was posted as Chief Medical Officer at Medical Hospital and he conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha.He started conducting -:7:- postmortem at 1:00 PM and found following external injuries on the dead body of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha:-Stab injury size 2 x 1 cm x 8 cm left nipple region on chest.Stab injury size 2 x 1 cm x 8 cm right epigastric region below xiphisternum.Stab injury size- 2 x 1 cm x 6 cm at midclavicular line on the 9th rib region.Stab wound size 2 cm x 1 cm x 6 cm situated 5 cm lateral to right side of umbilicus, .Incised wound size1 cm x 0.7 x muscle deep mid of left shoulder.Incised wound size 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep 4 cm inferior to left elbow.Incised wound size 1 cm x cm x muscle deep upper part of right arm anteriorly.He further deposed that in his opinion all the injuries were ante mortem in nature and could be caused by sharp cutting penetrating object and cause of death was hemorrhagic shock resulting from multiple injuries and mode of death is homicidal.Duration of death within 24 hour from the postmortem.In this regard his statement also corroborated from PM report (Ex.P./25).On that point appellants did not challenge the statements of above mentioned prosecution witnesses.There is no infirmity in their -:8:- statements in this regard.So there is no reason to disbelieve their statements in this regard.From their statements it is clearly proved that on 13/07/99 Rajesh Kushwah sustained injuries caused by sharp cutting penetrating object and died due to those injuries and his death was homicidal.On the point whether appellants had common intention of murdering Rajesh Kushwah and in furtherance of their common intention co-accused Shrinath assaulted Rajesh Kushwaha by scissor with intent to kill him and thus they murdered him, Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) deposed that on 13/07/1999 at around 9:30 PM when he and his colleague Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) were standing near his house at Andherdev, at that time deceased Rajesh Kushwaha came there and asked them to drop him to his house.On that they went along with deceased Rajesh Kushwaha to drop him to his house.On the way at Kamania Gate, Niwarganj deceased Rajesh Kushwaha told them to wait for two minutes while he comes after smoking a cigarette and then he went to Shriram Pan Bhandar.He and Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) stood 7 feet away from that shop.At the same time, they heard the conversation between the deceased Rajesh and appellant Shriram in connection with the money transaction.At that time appellant Shriram was sitting on the shop and his brother co-accused Shrinath was standing outside the shop.While the dispute was going on between appellant Shriram and deceased Rajesh, appellant Shripal and Krishna Kumar also came there.Shriram, Shripal and Krishna Kumar caught hold of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and co-accused Shrinath brought scissor from the shop and inflicted on his chest.At that time appellants Shriram, Shripal and Krishna Kumar were shouting "kill him! He should not escape alive".When he and Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) came to rescue him, appellant Shrinath threatened to kill them also, so he and Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) ran away from the spot.His statement is also corroborated from the statement of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8), who deposed that at the time of incident he was having food at his house, Sandesh (PW/9) came to his house and told that something had happened with Rajesh, then he went along with Anupam (PW/7) to the spot, where he saw Rajesh Kushwaha lying there in injured state.He asked Rajesh Kushwaha what had happened on which Rajesh -:9:- Kushwaha told them that he had gone to smoke cigarette at appellant Shriram's betel shop, where he clashed with Shriram, Shripal and Shrinath.They assaulted him by scissor and appellant Krishna Kumar also came there and he too assaulted him.Then he took Rajesh on rickshaw to Victoria Hospital, where Doctor declared him dead.Thereafter, he went to Police Station, Lordganj and lodged FIR (Ex.P/14) and also logged inquest report (Ex.P/15).His statement is also supported from FIR (Ex.P/14) and inquest report (Ex.P/15), which was also proved by Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15).His statement is also corroborated by the statement of other witness Sandesh (PW/9), who also deposed the same.Prosecution story is also supported from circumstantial evidence collected by the Jitendra Singh Bisen (PW/15) during investigation.He deposed that on 13/07/99 he arrested appellants and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/24).He also seized blood stained clothes of appellants from their possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/22 & 23) and also seized one scissor from the possession of appellant Shrinath on his information and prepared information memo (Ex.P/19) and seizure memo (Ex.P/20).That also strengthens the prosecution story.Although Anupam (PW/7) deposed that Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) and Vinay Chauhan (PW/17) also came on spot and inquired what had happened to Rajesh but both Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) and Vinay Chauhan (PW/17) denied from the fact that they had reached on spot after the incident.Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) also deposed that they did not see Vinay Chauhan (PW/17) on the spot.So in this regard statement of Anupam (PW/7) who also turned hostile, is not believable.Likewise according to Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) at the time of incident Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) was also with him while Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) in his statement clearly denied from the fact that at the time of incident he was on the spot along with the deceased and Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) and saw the incident.But only on the ground that Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution story, the statement of Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) can not be discarded.Although Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) deposed in his cross-examination that he saw Vinay -:10:- Chouhan (PW/17) and Sunil Verma (PW/1) in the Victoria Hospital, but this witness could have been confused regarding the presence of Chintu @ Sunil Bhalla (PW/16) and Vinay Chauhan (PW/17) in the Hospital, after the incident as they in their statements had clearly denied from the fact that they went to hospital after the incident and Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) also admitted that he did not talk to them in the hospital.Although the reaction of Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) after the incident seems quite unnatural as when he saw the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha lying in an injured state he did not even try to rescue him and ran away from the spot to his house and did not inform the police and other persons regarding incident on the date of incident.Different people behave and react differently in different situations.Human behaviour depends upon the facts and circumstances of each given case.How a man would behave in a particular situation, can never be predicted".Some become hysteric and start wailing.Some start shouting for help.Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from -:11:- the spot as possible.Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants.Every one reacts in his own special way.Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, the ill- equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case".Regarding the fact that deceased Rajesh Kushwaha narrated the incident to Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) on the spot that appellants had assaulted him, there is no contradiction in their cross-examination.There is no evidence on record showing that these witnesses had any enmity with the appellants, so there seems no reason for them to falsely implicate appellants in the case.Although Anupam (PW/7), who also reached the spot along with Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9), clearly denied from the fact that Rajesh Kushwaha narrated the incident to him, Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) and deposed that deceased Rajesh was not able to speak, but only on the basis of the statement of Anupam (PW/7) who also turned hostile the statements of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) and Sandesh (PW/9) that deceased Rajesh Kushwaha narrated the incident to them on the spot when they reached the spot, cannot be doubted.There is no significant difference between the statement of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8), Sandesh (PW/9) and Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) regarding the incident.Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8) deposed that deceased Rajesh Kushwaha told him that he had gone to smoke cigarette at appellant Shriram's betel shop where he clashed with Shriram, Shripal and Shrinath.They assaulted him by scissor and appellant Krishna Kumar also came there and he too assaulted him.Sandesh (PW/9) stated that deceased Rajesh -:14:- Kushwaha told him that he had gone to appellant Shriram's betel shop for having betel, where he clashed with Shriram, Shripal and Shrinath and after some time Krishna Kumar Kesarwani also came there and they all assaulted him by scissor.Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) stated that when altercation between Shrinath & Shriram and deceased Rajesh Kushwaha was going on appellants Shripal and Krishna Kumar Kesharwani also came on the spot.Thereafter, co-accused Shripal and appellants Shriram and Krishna Kumar Kesharwani caught hold of the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and co-accused Shrinath took out a scissor from his shop and assaulted Rajesh Kushwaha by scissor.So there is not much difference between the statements of Ajay Kachwaha (PW/8), Sandesh (PW/9) and Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) regarding incident and involvement of all appellants in the incident.Constable Bhopal Singh (PW/5) clearly deposed that on 14/07/1999 he took copy of FIR from Police Station, Lordganj to the Court of concerned Judicial Magistrate, where he handed over that report to the Court munshi Mahesh Tiwari and got receipt (Ex.P/4) from him.Appellants did not challenge his statement in his cross-examination, so there is no reason to disbelieve his statement in this regard.Although prosecution did not produced FSL report of seized articles for proving the fact of presence of blood stains either on the scissor or on clothes of appellants.In these circumstances there is no value of seizure of clothes and scissor, because scissor is commonly found in a betel shop.But, this evidence is a corroborative piece of evidence.Where incident is proved from direct evidence, there is no adverse inference of not proving the circumstantial evidence which is only corroborative piece of evidence.Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) clearly stated that at that time appellant Shriram was sitting on the shop and his brother co-accused Shrinath was standing outside the shop.While Rajesh Kushwah went to Shriram's shop, some dispute occurred between Shriram and Rajesh, meanwhile appellant Shripal and Krishna Kumar also came there.Shrinath, Shripal and Krishna Kumar caught hold the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and Shrinath brought scissor from the shop and inflicted on his chest.At that time Shriram Shripal and Krishna Kumar were shouting "kill him! He -:15:- should not escape alive".From the above statement of Vinay Chouhan (PW/17) it appears that at the time of incident, Shriram, Shripal and Krishna Kumar caught hold of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha and co-accused Shrinath assaulted him by scissor.At that time appellants Shriram Shripal and Krishna Kumar were shouting "kill him! He should not escape alive".Which shows their common intention with co-accused Shrinath.From the statement of Dr. MS.Kukrele (PW/12) it appears that the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha sustained as many as 12 injuries by sharp and penetrating object.He also deposed that in internal examination of the dead body of deceased Rajesh Kushwaha he found injuries on his right lung, which is vital part of the body.Which also shows that the co-accused Shrinath knowingly that deceased Rajesh Kushwaha could die from the injury inflicted by him assaulted Rajesh Kushwaha, which shows his intention to kill him.Learned counsel for the appellant Krishna Kumar Kesarwani also submitted that in the FIR (Ex.P/15) it is mentioned that firstly Shripal, Shrinath and Shriram assaulted the deceased by scissor and later Krishna Kumar Kesarwani also came there and assaulted the deceased Rajesh Kushwaha, which shows that the appellant Krishna Kumar Kesarwani has falsely been implicated in the offence.He had no common intention with other accused persons to assault the deceased.But the facts of that case differ from this case.
|
['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.
|
176,649,597 |
2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to these appeals are that:A. Madhusudhan, deceased had gone from Anandpura to Sagar on being asked by his uncle Prahlad (PW.1) to collect the outstanding dues in respect of sale and purchase of ginger from K.B. Sreenath (PW.2) and K.S. Kiran (PW.12).As Madhusudhan did not turn up, Prahlad (PW.1) got worried and contacted K.B. Sreenath (PW.2) and K.S. Kiran (PW.12) to find out the whereabouts of Madhusudhan.Both K.B. Sreenath (PW.2) and K.S. Kiran (PW.12) informed Prahlad (PW.1) that Madhusudhan had collected Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- respectively from them at about 12.30 P.M. and left for Anandpura.Prahlad (PW.1) contacted all his relatives and friends to find out the whereabouts of Madhusudhan but all in vain.B. K.B. Sreenath (PW.2) and K.S. Kiran (PW.12) filed a complaint FIR No. 148/2005 (Ex.P-84) in the Police Station, Sagar against unnamed persons suspecting that Madhusudhan had been kidnapped.In the meanwhile there were rumors in Anandpura that the appellants had looted the money and killed Madhusudhan as some persons i.e. Nagesh (PW.4); Sirajuddin (PW.5); Nagendra (PW.3); and Chandrashekar (PW.6) had come forward and informed that they had seen Madhusudhan, deceased in the company of appellants on 8.8.2005 at 12.45 P.M.C. In view of this, an FIR was lodged on 11.8.2005 against the appellants and one Lakshmeesha under Section 365 r/w Section 34 IPC at Police Station Anandpura.The Police tried to trace Madhusudhan as well as the appellants.It came to the knowledge of the investigating agency that the deceased was seen in the company of the appellants in a Maruti van bearing Registration No.KA-15-3112 on which “Kadala Muttu” had been written on the back side.Thus, the Investigating Officer tried to search for the said vehicle and came to know that it belonged to Jayanna @ P. Aya (A.3).D. The location of mobile phone of Jayanna @ P. Aya (A.3) was put on surveillance/watch and thereby he was arrested on 12.8.2005 at Anandpura and on the same day Rafiq @ Munna (A.2) was arrested by a separate team of police at Bangalore from the house of Felix D’Costa (PW.10).Madhuranatha (A.1) surrendered before the police on the same day.They made certain voluntary statements, on the basis whereof, recoveries were made.Jayanna @ P. Aya (A.3) took the police and others persons (recovery witnesses) to the forest area and pointed out to a place wherefrom the dead body was exhumated.Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.These criminal appeals have been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 8.9.2010, passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal Nos.833, 855 and 864 of 2008 by which the High Court has affirmed the death sentence and confirmed the judgment and orders of the learned District & Sessions Judge dated 11/17.7.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.152 of 2005 with certain observation about the charging Sections of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’) by which and whereunder the appellants have been convicted under Sections 364/302/201 r/w Section 34 IPC and for the offences punishable under Section 364 r/w Section 34 IPC, sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo a further imprisonment for a period of 18 months.They have been further convicted under Section 201 r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default to undergo further RI for a period of 12 months.All the three appellants have been further convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and awarded death penalty.Only the trunk of the body was found as the head had been chopped off and thrown in the nearby Nandi river.Prahlad (PW.1), Srinivasa (PW.15), Shivananda (PW.16), Devaraja (PW.17) and K. Keshavamurthy (PW.22) witnessed the said recovery and identified the corpse.However, in spite of the efforts made by the police, the head could not be recovered.Immediately thereafter recovery of most of the looted amount had been made from the appellants.A mobile phone belonging to Jayanna @ P. Aya (A.3) purchased from the loot amount was also recovered.A gold ring belonging to the deceased was given to the Investigating Officer by Felix D’Costa (PW.10) from whose house Rafiq (A.2) had been arrested in Bangalore.E. After completing the investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants and trial commenced.F. In the court Nagesh (PW.4) and Chandrashekar (PW.6) corroborated the prosecution case to the extent that they had seen the deceased in the company of all the three appellants on 8.8.2005 at about 12.45 P.M. Pranesh (PW.11) and Sadananda (PW.13) supported the case of extra-judicial confession as made by Madhuranatha (A.1) before (PW.11).A.1 had also approached PW.13 for help to contact the police and disclosed that he had committed the murder of Madhusudhan alongwith Rafiq (A.2) and Jayanna @ P. Aya (A.3).G. Recovery of the dead body was supported by Shivananda (PW.16) and Devaraja (PW.17).K.B. Sreenath (PW.2) and K.S. Kiran (PW.12) had supported the prosecution case deposing about payment of money to Madhusudhan on 8.8.2005 at about 12.45 P.M. to the tune of Rs.4,00,000/-.The issue of motive was proved by Prahlad (PW.1), K.B. Sreenath (PW.2), Felix D’Costa (PW.10), Pranesh (PW.11), K.S. Kiran (PW.12) and Sadananda (PW.13).The same stood affirmed by the report of the DNA test.The Investigating Officer Bhaskar Rai (PW.47) proved all the recoveries and furnished the details as to how the investigation was carried out and how the arrest of the appellants was made.H. On the basis of the above, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants under Sections 364, 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC.No conviction was made under Sections 120A or B IPC.I. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred appeals before the High Court which have been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order with respect to death sentences while maintaining the other sentences as well.However, the court made a passing observation that the charge should have been framed under Section 364A IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.Hence, these appeal.Mr. N.D.B. Raju and Mr. Amit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants have agitated all the issues which had been raised on behalf of the appellants before the Trial Court as well as before the High Court and have taken us through the evidence recorded before the Trial Court.In the absence of any material on record to prove that his head was chopped off by any of the appellants, their conviction is bad, particularly in view of the fact that there is no evidence to show that the appellants had buried the lower portion of the corpse in the forest and threw the head in the flowing river.More so, the High Court had taken a view that the conviction under particular provisions of IPC by the Trial Court was not justified, meaning thereby that the Trial Court did not frame the charges properly.Even the money shown to have been recovered from the appellants had been planted and not actually recovered.Most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are relatives of the deceased.There are material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses and a large number of witnesses to some of the recoveries have been withheld.Only the police personnel have been made the recovery witnesses though large number of persons had gathered and were available for being made the recovery witnesses.The video prepared at the time of exhumation of the dead body was not presented in the Trial Court and that Jayanna (A.3) on whose behest it is alleged that the dead body was recovered is not shown in the photographs taken at the time of exhumation.One of the alleged witnesses of recovery i.e. Pranesh (PW.11) had been dis-believed by the Trial Court and another witness i.e. Sadananda (PW.13) has been dis-believed by the High Court.They are the witnesses of extra- judicial confession as well.In such a fact-situation, none of the said witnesses are trustworthy.Under no circumstance the appellants could have been awarded the death sentence.Thus, the appeals deserve to be allowed.On the contrary, learned counsel appearing for the State had opposed the appeals contending that the Investigating Officer was not asked in cross-examination any of the question raised before this Court for the first time, either in respect of the videography prepared at the time of exhumation or about the absence of Jayanna (A.3) in the photographs taken at that time.Thus, in view of the above, the appeals are liable to be dismissed.We are of the considered opinion that both the courts below have taken into consideration the evidence and appreciated the same meticulously.The prosecution has relied on the following circumstances to prove its case:I. The motive of the offence was robbery and in pursuance to which the accused persons murdered the deceased, robbed him, chopped off the head and buried the trunk of the body.The head and the weapon of offence were thrown in Nandi River.PW-11 deposed about the motive and produced cash amounting to Rs. 39000/- and a mobile phone along with its SIM purchased from the total cash of Rs. 50000/- deposited by A- 1 with him.III. A-1 made an extra-judicial confession before PW-13, requesting PW-13 to save him and on his advice, surrendered before the police.Voluntary disclosure by A-3 about the location of the dead body and wherefrom, the dead body was exhumed.V. PW-1 identified the trunk of the dead body from the tattoo.The Post Mortem Report and the manner in which the body was found irrefutably point to a homicidal death.A-2 was arrested from the house of PW-10 who had produced two worthless articles and a gold chain-MO5 before the police left by A-2. PW-1 had identified the said gold chain to be that of the deceased.Recovery of Rs. 1,01,000/- from the house of A-1 and Rs.2,02,700/- from the house of A-2 concealed in the cattle shed which is un-explained and un-accounted.The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable or point to any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.The court has to examine whether evidence read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 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.
|
176,659,551 |
The petitioner undertakes to affirm and stamp the petition as per the Rules within 48 hours of resumption of normal functioning of the court.The petition is taken up through video conference on the basis of such undertaking.The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the complainant and the present petitioner was having a matrimonial relationship and the initial case has been initiated out of vengeance.The learned advocate for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail, but however failed to controvert the contention that there was a matrimonial relationship between the parties.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed.In the event of arrest the petitioner shall be released on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the satisfaction of the arresting officer or the investigating officer of the case and on condition that she shall meet with the investigating officer once in a week, until further orders.The aforesaid order shall be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.CRM 4706 of 2020 and CRAN 2902 of 2020 are disposed of.(Sahidullah Munshi, J.) (Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) 3
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,662,040 |
It is also contended in the FIR that while going, the girl has taken away Rs. 75000/- and certain golden ornaments with her and joined the company of accused Imran.In her statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. she has attributed the role to the applicant is only of facilitation to his brother Imran.The main role of ravishing is attributed to the accused Imran.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Let the applicant Farukh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,666,404 |
[01] Ct.25 suman C.O.3637 of 2017 Archana Datta (Biswas) Vs.Sandipan Datta Mr. Monish Sen ...for the appellant Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty Mr. Chhandak Dutta ...for the opposite party This is an application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the wife /petitioner against her husband/opposite party praying for transfer of Matrimonial Suit No.1330 of 2017 from the 3rd Court of the learned Additional District Judge, North 24th Parganas at Barasat to the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Durgapur.In her application, the petitioner has stated that her marriage was solemnized on 9th November, 2016 with the opposite party.Since after marriage she was subjected to physical and mental torture.Ultimately she had to leave her matrimonial home on 22nd February, 2017 and took shelter at her paternal home at Durgapur.Sometimes in the month of July, 2017 the petitioner 2 received summons of Matrimonial Suit No.1330 of 2017 and came to know that the opposite party has filed the said suit in the 3rd Court of learned Additional District Judge at Barasat, North 24 Parganas for judicial separation.It is further pleaded by the petitioner that she lodged a compliant before the learned A.C.J.M., Durgapur under Section 498A/323/403/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code against her husband on the basis of which Durgapur P.S. Case No.72 of 2017 has been initiated.She also filed a proceeding under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband before the learned A.C.J.M., Durgapur.Since the said two proceedings filed by the petitioner are pending in Durgapur and the opposite party would have to appear in the said two proceedings at Durgapur, the Matrimonial Suit may also be transferred to Durgapur for convenience of the petitioner.She will have to change train thrice and travel by bus to reach Barasat to represent the matrimonial suit.Considering such predicament the matrimonial suit may be transferred to Durgapur.The opposite party has controverted the allegations made out by the petitioner in the aforesaid application by filing affidavit-in-opposition.Therefore, he has prayed for rejection of the application under Section 24 of the C.P.C.I have heard Mr. Monish Sen and Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, learned advocates for the petitioner and the opposite party respectively.Learned advocate for the petitioner submits to the tune of what has been stated in the application under Section 24 of the said Act. Mr. Tanoy Chakraborty, learned advocate for the opposite party, on the other hand, submits that while deciding an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. respective convenience and inconvenience of both the parties should be looked into.Section 24 is not a one way traffic where the prayer of the wife/petitioner should be granted overlooking the practical difficulty of the opposite party.The opposite party resides at Salt Lake and he will face the same difficulty to attend Durgapur Court to represent the matrimonial suit.While disposing of an application under Section 24 of the C.P.C. arising out a matrimonial proceeding, convenience of wife is the primary consideration which should be looked into by the Court favourably.I am not also unmindful to note that the opposite party may also suffer inconvenience to attend Durgapur Court.Office is directed to send copy of this order to both the learned Additional District Judge at Barasat and the learned District 5 Judge, Purba Burdwan for information and compliance of this order forthwith.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,668,787 |
The brief facts, arising out of this appeal, are that informant Moolchand (PW-1) lodged the first information report (Ex.Ka.1) (hereinafter referred as "F.I.R.") at P.S. Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi on 31.1.2014 at about 11.30 a.m. against his elder brother appellant-Bhaiya Lal and his nephew Gajraj (son of appellant Bhaiya Lal) with the allegation that due to a land dispute, on 31.1.2014, appellant Bhaiya Lal put soil in front of his (informant's) house, whereupon Kalavati (informant's wife) objected.Thereafter appellant Bhaiya Lal went on his tube well and started hurling abuses; Kalavati (deceased) and her son PW-4 Balram also went on tube well and objected the appellant to hurl abuses.It has further stated in the F.I.R. that on such objection, appellants Bhaiya Lal and Gajraj, at about 10:30 a.m. inflicted blows by lathi on the head of the deceased Kalavati due to which, she fell down on the Kharanjaa (pavement made bricks or stone) and died.They, also caused injuries with lathi to PW-4 Balram (son of informant).After the occurrence, leaving the dead body of deceased Kalawati at the place of occurrence.PW-1, Moolchand rushed to P.S. Mohabbatpur Painsa, District Kaushambi and lodged the F.I.R. stating that injured Balram (PW-4) had been carried to hospital by neighbourer.On such information PW-7 Head Const.Siyaram registered Chick F.I.R. (Ex.Ka.2) as Case Crime No. 8/2014 and entered the information in relevant G.D. Report (Ex.Ka.3).Investigation was entrusted to PW-8 S.I. Ram Rekha Yadav who rushed at the place of occurrence, inspected the dead body of deceased Kalavati; conducted the inquest proceedings; prepared inquest report as well as other relevant papers, necessary for conducting the post mortem examination, sealed the dead body of deceased and sent it for post mortem to District Hospital, Kaushambi.3. PW-9, Dr. S.N. Mishra conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased on 1.2.2014 at 12:30 p.m. According to him, rigor mortis was present overall in both limbs of the deceased, her eyes were closed, bleeding seen from her nose and mouth.According to him, following injuries were found on the body of the deceased, at the time of examination:-(i) Contusion 2 c.m.x 1.5 c.m.on bridge of nose, middle, no fracture of nazul nose, oozing of blood from nostril.(ii) Swelling 3.5 c.m.x 2.5 c.m.on right side forehead 2.5 c.m. above right Eye brow.(iii) Lacerated wound 2 c.m.x 0.5 c.m.x muscle deep on middle of lower lip.(iv) Lacerated wound 8 c.m.x 1 c.m.x deep up to bone present outer posteriorly just on right side of midline on right Parietal region of top of skull.(v) Contused swelling (Red) 5 c.m. x 4 c.m.on left side of skull , 4 c.m. above left ear.(Parietal region)According to him, both the parietal bones below the injury no. 4 and 5 were fractured in the area of 16 c.m. and blood was clotted below the injury no. 5 and death of deceased was caused about one day before due to coma, caused by head injuries, fracture and intracanial subdural haemorrhage.5. PW-10, Dr. Saurabh Singh, examined the injuries of Balram (PW-4) on 31.1.2014 and found the following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wound on Lt. Temporal region 3 c.m. x 5 c.m.(ii) Swelling over Lt. Temporal region 5 c.m. x 4 c.m.(iii) Swelling on left shoulder.According to him, injuries were fresh and caused by blunt object.Injured was referred for C.T. Scan to Beli Hospital.PW-8, S.I. Ram Rekha Yadav, after conducting the inquest proceedings, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex.Ka.10); took the sample of plane and blood stained earth, prepared the recovery memo; recorded the statement of witnesses and after conclusion of investigation, filed a charge-sheet (Ex.Ka.11) under Sections 304, 504 and 323 I.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kaushambi who took the cognizance of the offence and since the offence was triable by the Court of Session, after providing the copies of relevant police papers as required under Section 207 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ''Code') committed the case to Court of Sessions for trial.Charges were framed by the Trial Court against the appellants under Section 304 read with 34 I.P.C., under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 504 I.P.C. which were read over to the appellant, who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.Prosecution, in order to prove its case, PW-1, Moolchand (informant), PW-2, Datadeen, PW-3 Shivdani, PW-4 Balram, PW-5 Manju Devi, PW-6 Bacchi Devi, PW-7 H.C. Siyaram, PW-8 S.I. Ram Rekha Yadav, PW-9 Dr. S.N. Mishra and PW-10 Dr. Saurabh Singh were produced.Among these witnesses, PW-1 Moolchand, PW-3 Shivdani and PW-6 Bacchi Devi are the witnesses of fact produced by the prosecution as eye witnesses, whereas, rest are formal witnesses.After conclusion of prosecution evidence, the statement of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code wherein they denied the prosecution story and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case.Learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellants from charge of Section 504 I.P.C. but convicted and sentenced them for offence U/s 304 Part I read with Section 34 I.P.C. and under Section 323 read with Section 34 I.P.C. as above.Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, this appeal has been preferred.Heard Sri Sushil Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Aniruddh Sharma, learned A.G.A. for the State; and perused the record.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that though the appellants are innocent, committed no offence and have been falsely implicated in this case, but he is not pressing this appeal on the merit of the case.Learned counsel further submitted that even if the prosecution evidence is believed and proved, since the appellants have not inflicted the injury on the body of the deceased Kalavati with the intention to cause her death, the weapon used in the said incident is not dangerous weapons as it was lathi and the alleged incident was occurred on the spur of moment, the said offence would fall in the category of Section 304-II I.P.C. and it would not be fall in the category of Section 304-I I.P.C. Learned counsel has further submitted that both the appellants are father and son.Appellant Bhaiya Lal, was aged about 60 years at the time of incident, whereas, appellant Gajraj was aged about 25 years, they are family members of the informant, there was no enmity between both the parties, they have no criminal history; and they are illiterate persons having rural background.The learned Trial Court failed to consider the difference between Section 304-I I.P.C. and Section 304-II I.P.C. as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and without applying judicial mind convicted the appellants for 10 years rigorous imprisonment which is excessive.Learned counsel further submits that the appellants are very poor person, languishing in jail since six years.The alleged offence falls in the category of Section 304-II I.P.C. hence, adopting the lenient view, a minimum sentence should be awarded to the appellants and the appeal is liable to be disposed off, accordingly.Per-contra learned A.G.A. has submitted that the prosecution has succeeded to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Appellants have caused the death of an unarmed women by causing a grievous injuries on her head who was their nearest relative.They have also inflicted injuries on the body of PW-4 Balram, son of deceased.Learned A.G.A. further submitted that causing a severe injuries on the vital part of the body of deceased and causing thereby death of helpless unarmed women, comes into the category of an offence as described under Section 304-I I.P.C. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.I have considered the rival submission of learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.PW-1 Moolchand, husband of the deceased, has stated that on the day of occurrence i.e. 31.1.2014; a quarrel was going on between his wife Kalavati (deceased) and the appellant (Bhaiya Lal) because the appellant was putting soil in front of his house and as the deceased objected, appellant hurled abuses.According to him, thereafter appellant Bhaiya Lal went on his tube well and started to hurl abuses, the deceased (Kalavati) also reached there i.e. place of occurrence and objected the appellants from hurling abuses whereupon the appellants Bhaiya Lal and his son Gajraj assaulted by lathi on the head of the deceased whereby serious injuries were caused on her head and mouth; she fell down on the kharanjaa (pavement of bricks) and when his son Balram (PW-4) tried to intervene, they also assaulted him and caused serious injuries to him.PW-4 Balram is an injured witness, he also stated that at the time of occurrence, appellants (Bhaiya Lal and Gajraj) were hurling abuses to his mother and when she objected, appellants assaulted her by lathi and when he tried to intervene, they also assaulted him.According to him, due to injuries caused by the appellants, his mother Kalavati had died on the spot; appellant fled away and he was brought to District Hospital for treatment.Stating that severe head injury was caused to him and his mother he further stated that the said occurrence was happened nearby the appellant's tube well.18. PW-3, Shiv Dani, who is an independent witness, has also stated that at the time of occurrence, upon hearing noise, he saw that a quarrel was ensuing between the appellant Bhaiya Lal and Kalavati and in the meantime while hurling abuses, appellant Bhaiya Lal went towards his tube well and thereafter appeared with his son, carrying lathies and by hurling abuses, assaulted deceased Kalavati and Balram (PW-4).He further stated that deceased Kalavati received severe injures, fell down and died on the spot.Balram (PW-4), who was seriously injured, was carried away to the hospital.19. PW-5 Manju Devi and PW-6 Bacchi Devi, daughters of deceased, have also stated that the appellants have assaulted by lathi and caused severe injuries to their mother Kalavati and brother Balram (PW-4) whereby her mother had died on spot.The evidence of these witnesses are corroborated with the medical evidence led by PW-9 Dr. S.N. Mishra and PW-10 Dr. Saurabh Singh.These witnesses were cross-examined by the defence counsel but nothing has come out to create any doubt in prosecution evidence.In addition to above F.I.R. has been lodged without any delay.Apart from that, learned counsel for the appellants has also not made any submission on merit.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,669,671 |
In this regard, the petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28.10.2010 passed by Sixth Addl.Sessions Judge, Sagar, in Criminal Revision No.195/2010, affirming rejection of his complaint against the respondents in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 324, 307 and 392 of the IPC.The complaint was filed on 31.8.2009, impleading as many as 7 persons including the respondents as accused.According to the petitioner, at the time of lodging of the FIR, although he had stated that all the seven persons including the respondents were involved in attempting to kill him by inflicting injuries with various weapons yet, the scribe only recorded the names of Sattu @ Satyanarayan Kesharwani, Sunnu @ Sohan, Avinash Kesharwani and Chhota @ Akash Kesharwani.Thereafter, on 13.8.2009, he made a representation to the Superintendent of Police against non-registration of case against the respondents, while inviting attention to the aforesaid misconduct of the writer of the first information as well as to the fact that in the statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate as his dying declaration, their names and respective roles were clearly mentioned.In support of the allegations made in the complaint, the petitioner subjected himself to examination and also produced 8 other witnesses including the Executive Magistrate and Medical Experts.A bare perusal of the order-dated 16.8.2010 (supra) would reveal that the complaint was dismissed for the following reasons -(i) At the time of recording of the so-called dying declaration, condition of the petitioner was not so critical as to justify need for calling of the Executive Magistrate for the purpose.(ii) Gopal Singh, the Executive Magistrate, was not able to explain as to whether he was called to the hospital by the treating doctor or by the investigating officer.(iii) In the statement recorded by the Executive Magistrate, on 5.8.2009, the respondent nos.1 and 3 were not specifically named as offenders.(iv) No cogent explanation was furnished by the petitioner for not mentioning the names of the respondents in the FIR as well as in the case diary statement recorded on 5.8.2009 only.(v) There was no medical opinion suggesting that while lodging the report or giving statement before the investigating officer, the petitioner was not in a fit mental condition.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in his examination, Gopal Singh, the Executive Magistrate, clearly stated that he had recorded the dying declaration upon receipt of letter of request from the investigating officer.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,671,473 |
Learned counsel appearing for the Applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw the Application to the extent of Applicant No.1 - Aruntara d/o.Ashirwadam Tipric and Applicant No.2 - T. Anita w/o.Santosh, with liberty to file application for discharge before the concerned Court.2. Leave granted.The Application to the extent of Applicant No.1 - Aruntara d/o.Ashirwadam Tipric and Applicant No.2 - T. Anita w/o.Santosh is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.However, we make it clear that liberty granted today will be available to Applicant Nos.1::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 4 and 2 for three weeks from today.In case the Application for discharge is filed within aforesaid period before the concerned Court, the concerned Court to decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, however, within six weeks from the date of filing of such application.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::It is submitted that Applicant No.6 is resident of Nizamabad, and she does not have any relations with the matrimonial family of the informant.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::Learned counsel appearing for Applicant Nos.3 to 8, referring to the amended Application, further submits that during the pendency of this Application, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad, and on the basis of said charge-sheet, the criminal case bearing R.C.C. No.97 of 2018 came to be registered against the Applicants.Therefore, relying upon the averments in the Application, grounds taken therein and the annexures thereto, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants submits that the Application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.2, invites our attention to the allegations in the F.I.R., and also the statement of the witnesses recorded during the course of investigation and submit that after proper investigation, charge-sheet has been filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dharmabad.The Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material and on the basis::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 7 of said material the trial can proceed.Therefore, it is submitted that the Application is liable to be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::With their able assistance, we have perused the averments in the Application, annexures thereto and the copy of the charge-sheet which is placed on record.Upon perusal of the contents of the First Information Report, there are general allegations that the Applicants / accused demanded Rs.5,00,000/- from the parents of the informant.It is alleged that on account of said demand, there was ill-treatment to the informant at the hands of the Applicants.It appears that there are::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 8 some specific allegations against Applicant Nos.1 and 2, whose application has already been withdrawn by the counsel appearing for the Applicants.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::So far as present Applicants i.e. Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, the allegations are omnibus and not constituting alleged offences against them.Applicant Nos.3 to 5 are sisters of the husband of the informant, Applicant No.7 is husband of sister-in-law of the informant and Applicant No.8 is husband of Applicant No.3, who is another sister in law of the informant.It appears that applicant Nos.3 to 8 are residing separately.So far as Applicant Nos.3 to 8 are concerned, there are no specific allegations quoting specific instances of their::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 9 involvement and therefore, further continuation of proceedings of R.C.C. No. 97/2018 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmabad, will tantamount to abuse of process of law.::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::The Supreme Court in the case of Geeta Mehrotra and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another1 in the facts of that case held that casual reference to a large number of members of the husband's family without any allegation of active involvement would not justify taking cognizance against them and subjecting them to trial.There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.Marriage is a sacred 1 (2012) 10 SCC 741 2 (2000) 3 SCC 693::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 10 ceremony, the main purpose of which is to enable the young couple to settle down in life and live peacefully.But little matrimonial skirmishes suddenly erupt which often assume serious proportions resulting in commission of heinous crimes in which elders of the family are also involved with the result that those who could have counselled and brought about rapprochement are rendered helpless on their being arrayed as accused in the criminal case.There are many other reasons which need not be mentioned here for not encouraging matrimonial litigation so that the parties may ponder over their defaults and terminate their disputes amicably by mutual agreement instead of fighting it out in a court of law where it takes years and years to conclude and in that process the parties lose their 'young' days in chasing their 'cases' in different courts."::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::In view of the discussion made herein above, we are of the opinion that Application of the Applicant Nos.3 to 8 deserves to be allowed.Application of Applicant Nos.3 to 8 is allowed.The further proceedings on the basis of::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 ::: cra2738.18 11 the charge sheet in Crime No.132/2018 registered with the Police Station Dharmabad, District Nanded, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 325, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent proceedings of R.C.C.No.97 of 2018, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharmabad, qua Applicant No.3 - Anupama w/o Dr. K. Nagraju, Application No.4 - Palde Ashajyoti w/o N. Vijay Kumar, Applicant::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::- Palde Amrata d/o Ashirwadam, Applicant No.6 - Rajlaxmi d/o Line Rajayya, Applicant No.7 - Reddy Rajaiah s/o Reedy Sri Rajaiah and Applicant No.8 - Dr. K. Nagaraju s/o Gangaram, stands quashed and set aside.The Criminal Application is partly allowed and the same stands disposed of accordingly.[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/FEB19::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/02/2019 23:37:45 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,667,254 |
Date: 4th April, 2017 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):1. Heard.2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.This Criminal Application takes exception to the charge sheet bearing Charge Sheet No.71 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class at Shirpur, District Dhule.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::3800.2016 Appln..odt 31 2010 AIR SCW 4975 2 AIR 2013 SC 181 3 2015 [4] Bom.C.R.[Cri.] 423 4 2015 All M.R.[Cri.] 2615::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 5 Therefore, he submits that the application deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::On the other hand, the learned APP appearing for respondent - State relying upon the allegations in the FIR, and also the statements of the witnesses submits that, the Investigating Officer has collected sufficient material, and on the basis of said material the trial can proceed.Appreciation, even in a summary manner, of the averments made in a complaint petition or FIR would not be permissible at the stage of quashing and the facts stated will have to be accepted as they appear on the very face of it.State of M.P. and Ors.6, and submits that, in para 16 of the said judgment, the 5 [2014] 3 SCC 383 6 2015 Cri.L.J. 2031::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 7 Supreme Court after discussing the facts of the case of Neelu Chopra and Anr.Bharti7 and also in the case of Geeta Mehrota [cited supra], observed that, the said cases neither purport to nor can be read as laying down any inflexible rule beyond the principles of quashing which have been mentioned above and applied to the facts of the cases therein which are distinguishable.It is held that, the question whether the appellant therein had in fact been harassed and treated with cruelty is a matter of trial and at the stage of considering the prayer for quashing the FIR, it cannot be said that no case is made out.Thus, quashing of proceedings before the trial is not permissible.He further pressed into service the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Swapnil and ors.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::We have also carefully perused the allegations in the FIR, the statements of the witnesses, and also all other documents placed on record.So far as applicant no.1- Piran Onkar Salve, applicant no.2-Ushabai Piran Salve, applicant no.4-Kokilabai Hemraj Salve and applicant no.6 Hansraj Piran Salve are concerned, there are specific allegations in the FIR to the following effect:-::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::v'kk izdkjs eh lkljh ukanr vlrkuk] ek>s irh galjkt gs /kMxkao ;sFks oS|dh; O;olk; djhr gksrs- R;kauk oS|dh; O;olk;kr eh ns[khy enr d: ykxyh- ijarw ek>s lkljs&fiju] lklw&m"kkckbZ] tsB&gsejkt] o tsBk.kh&dksdhGkckbZ] u.kan&lqfe=k gs eyk okbZV okbZV cksyqu eyk ?kjhp cl.ksl lkaxr vls- ek>s irh] ek>h lklq o tsBk.khps ,sdwu ek>s pkjh«;koj la'k; ?ksr vls o R;kgh dkj.ks eyk irh o lklq] tsBk.kh gs gkrk cqDD;kauh ekjgk.k d:u ftos ekj.ksph /kedh nsr vls- rjh ns[khy eh vkt uk mn;k ek>s lkljps yksdkaps okx.ksr cny gksbZy o d/kh dkGh vkiyk lalkj lq[kkpk::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 10 gksbZy ;k vk'ksoj eh] ek>s lkljps yksdkaiklwu gks.kkjk ojhy loZ =kl lgu d:u eh irhdMs ukanr gksrh- njE;ku eyk irh iklqu nql&;kank fnol vlrkauk eyk lklq] lkljs] tsBk.kh ;kauh izpaM HkkaM.k d:u] ek>s lklq lkljs o tsBk.kh ;kauh ek>s ojhy ueqn L=h/kukps yXukr p<foysys nkfxus dk<qu Bsoqu ?ksrys-?kjkps ckgsj dk<qu fnys Eg.kwu eh ek>s irh lkscr /kMxkao ;sFkhy Dyhuhd e/;s 4 & 5 fnol jkghyh- R;kuarj lnjph ckc eh ek>s vkbZ oMhykauk dGfoyh rsOgk ek>s vkbZ oMhykaph o ek>s lklq lkljs ;kaph cSBd gksoqu eh] ek>s irh lkscr osxGh [kksyh d:u jgkos vls Bjys o eh irh lkscr /kMxkao ;sFks :e d:u jkgq ykxyh- R;kosGh ns[khy ek>s oMhykauh ?kj lkekukP;k loZ OkLrq ?ksoqu fnY;kr Eg.kwu eh irh lkscr 6 & 7 eghus /kMxkao ;sFks jkghyh- ijarw ;k dkGkr ns[khy ek>s lkljps yksd irh] lklw] lkljs] tsB] tsBk.kh o u.kan ;kauh] eh ekgs:u iSls vk.kkos o eksB&eksB;k oLrq vk.kkO;kr Eg.kwu ekx.kh d: ykxys R;koj eh udkj fnyk vlrk] eyk ek>s lkljps yksd f'kohxkG d:u gkrk cqDD;kauh ekjgk.k d:u ekufld o 'kkfjjhd NG d:u =kl nsoq ykxys-::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::In addition to above, in later part of the FIR, so far as applicant no.6 Hansraj Piran Salve is concerned, there are serious allegation against him of assaulting the wife, abusing in filthy language, detaining ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 11 in the house, giving threats to kill her, and giving all sort of mental and physical harassment.Therefore, keeping in view the specific allegations in the FIR, which are supported by the statement of the witnesses, we are not inclined to entertain the application of applicant no.1-Piran Onkar Salve, applicant no.2-Ushabai Piran Salve, applicant no.4-Kokilabai Hemraj Salve and applicant no.6 Hansraj Piran Salve.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::So far as applicant no.3 Hemraj s/o.Piran Salve and applicant no.5 Sumitra d/o.Piran Salve are concerned, we are of the opinion that, the allegations as against them are omnibus and general in nature.It appears that, applicant no.5 Sumitra d/o.Piran Salve is married sister of applicant no.6 Hansraj, husband of the respondent no.2, and residing since her marriage at Shahada.Therefore, keeping in view the ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 12 exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal12 wherein it is held that, in those categories of the case which are mentioned in para 108 of said judgment, the High Court would be able to quash the F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra- ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give 12 AIR 1992 SC 604::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 13 an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 14 which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, in our opinion, the cases of the applicant no.3 Hemraj s/o.Piran Salve and applicant no.5 Sumitra d/o.Piran Salve would be covered under category nos.1 and 5 of the above mentioned categories.In the result, application of applicant no.3 Hemraj s/o.Piran Salve and applicant no.5 ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 15 Sumitra d/o.Piran Salve succeeds.Hence, the light of following order:::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::ORDER i] Application of applicant no.1-Piran Onkar Salve, applicant no.2-Ushabai Piran Salve, applicant no.4-Kokilabai Hemraj Salve and applicant no.6 Hansraj Piran Salve stands rejected.ii] Application of applicant no.3 Hemraj s/o.Piran Salve and applicant no.5 Sumitra d/o.Piran Salve stands allowed.The further proceedings, on the basis of charge-sheet bearing Charge Sheet No.71 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirpur, qua applicant ::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 ::: 3800.2016 Appln..odt 16 no.3 Hemraj and applicant no.5 Sumitra, stands quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::v] The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and confined to the adjudication of the present application only.::: Uploaded on - 05/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/04/2017 00:53:09 :::
|
['Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,673,899 |
Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is rejected and application dismissed.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,456,330 |
Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 06.08.2004 made in C.No.E3/PR-16/04 on the file of the respondent and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages and other attendant benefits.According to the petitioner, he got married with one Kavitha on 10.03.2003 and due to the said wedlock, a female child was also born to them.After the delivery of the child, his wife committed suicide at her parental house, No.8, Kannanur Mariamman Kovil Street, Elango Nagar, Coimbatore by consuming cow dung powder, a poisonous substance.Learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even as per the prosecution, the occurrence had taken place at the parental house of the deceased Kavitha and at the time of consuming poison, the petitioner was not present, however, based on the complaint given by P.W.1, father of the deceased, case was registered under Section 498 (A), 304 (B) and 506 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. After the trial, the petitioner was acquitted.According to the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is only a honourable acquittal, as the petitioner was not acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.There is no appeal pending against the judgment of acquittal, dated 22.09.2005 made in Sessions Case No.40/2005 on the file of the Sessions Court, Coimbatore.It is seen from the copy of the judgment, dated 22.09.2005 rendered by the Sessions Court, Coimbatore that the alleged occurrence had taken place only at Door No.8, Kannanur Mariamman kovil street, Elango Nagar, Coimbatore, which is the parental home of the deceased.Learned Sessions Judge, recorded acquittal on the ground that the charges levelled against the petitioner as accused in the sessions case was not established by the prosecution.Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the sessions case ended in acquittal.On the aforesaid circumstances, the only point for determination is whether the dismissal of the petitioner from service, in view of the pendency of the sessions case is sustainable in law.As contended by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry are (1) the petitioner had earned bad reputation to the police department, in view of the criminal case registered against him (2) though the petitioner had approached this Court and got Anticipatory Bail and appeared regularly before the concerned police, as directed by this Court, the same was not intimated to the respondent, which would be suppression of facts and disobedience in the police department and (3) that the petitioner appeared before the Revenue Divisional Officers in the enquiry conducted pertaining to towards the alleged dowry death of his wife, but not intimated about the same to the respondent.As per the copy of the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court, it is seen that the petitioner, who was the accused in the criminal case, had asked P.W.1, father of the deceased, to send the petitioner's wife and child to his house on completion of one month, after his delivery.Though P.W.1 had agreed to send her with the child, he said he would send her after some time, for which the petitioner / accused scolded P.W.1 by saying that he would take back his wife and the child on the next day morning and he asked him to do whatever he would like.As per the judgment of the Sessions Court, it is made clear that the deceased Kavitha consumed cow-dung-powder, a poisonous substance, at her parental house in the absence of the petitioner herein.Hence, the learned Sessions Judge, recorded acquittal on all the charges framed against the petitioner herein and he was not merely acquitted by giving benefit of doubt.K.Venkatramani, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that criminal case was registered against the petitioner solely based on the complaint made by the defacto complainant, father of the deceased, as there was no prima facie case made out against the petitioner to prosecute him under Section 498(A), 304-B and 306 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned senior counsel contended that the alleged occurrence had admittedly taken place only at the parental house of the deceased, wife of the petitioner herein and at the time of consuming cow-dung- powder by the deceased, the petitioner was not present, hence, it cannot be said that the deceased, due to dowry harassment, had committed suicide.As found by the learned Sessions Judge, there is no evidence to establish that it was dowry death, punishable under Section 304 B IPC.It is also not known as to how the act of consuming cow-dung-powder by the deceased was not prevented by her father and his other family members, though she was in her parental home.As per the judgment rendered by the Sessions Court, it is seen that the petitioner being the husband of the deceased went to the house of the defacto complainant who was none other than his father-in-law and father of the deceased and asked him to send his wife along with the child, for which the father of the deceased was not willing and he replied that he will send his daughter only after some time, for which the petitioner said that he would take back his wife and child on the next day morning, hence, it would not be a sufficient reason or cause for the deceased consuming cow-dung-powder.Earlier there was no allegation of dowry harassment and no evidence available to punish the petitioner / accused under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, as found by the Sessions Court.Hence, he was acquitted on the ground that the charges levelled against him were not proved.Having considered the facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, in the light of various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that the acquittal recorded in favour of the petitioner has to be construed, as honourable acquittal and in this case, the departmental enquiry is not an independent proceeding, but the same is solely based on the criminal case, that was pending against the petitioner, however, that ended in acquittal.No order as to costs.vga / tsvnToThe Commandant, T.S.P. IV Battalion,KovaipudurCoimbatore 42
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,456,715 |
The entire incident has been changed.The changes go to the root of the matter.One accused has also been added.Gist of the allegation in the impugned First Information Report is that on 06.07.2018 the prosecutrix had gone with her cow for grazing to the field.Nanhke @ Saddik and Nanhe (petitioner) called the prosecutrix.Thereafter, they remove her clothes and took her photographs and thereafter outraged her modesty.The prosecutrix raised an alarm whereupon they fled.The prosecutrix informed her father about the incident.Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.Heard Shri S.N. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer :-"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the First Information Report, lodged at Case Crime No. 137 of 2018, under Sections 354(Ka), 354(Kha), 354(Ga), 504, 506 of I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Section 66/67 of Information Technology Act (I.T. Act), Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012(POCSO Act, 2012), Section 3(1)(c) & Section 11 of Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention & Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station-Baghrai, District Pratapgarh, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition."Shri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. on the basis of averments made in the paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit filed on 24.04.2019, submits that the investigation has been completed and chargesheet has been prepared in the matter in question but the same could not be filed due to interim protection given by this Court in the present case.Shri S. N. Ojha, learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the present case, this Court has passed an order on 01.03.2019 which is reproduced below:The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No.0137 of 2018, under Sections 354 (KA.), 354 (KHA.), 354 (GA.), 504, 506 Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986, Section 66/67 of Information of Technology Act (I.T. Act), Section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act, 2012) and Section 3 (1) (c) & Section 11 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention & Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State Shri S.P. Singh.We have gone through the contents of the impugned First Information Report.Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the impugned First Information Report, the prosecutrix has made allegations against the petitioners, both brothers, of committing offence of outraging modesty.In the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., however the allegation has been converted into one of rape.Father of the prosecutrix suggested that the prosecutrix should be married first.It has thereafter been alleged that on 07.07.2018 at about 6 P.M. the naked photographs of the prosecutrix were forwarded by the petitioners on Facebook.Father of the prosecutrix went to the house of the accused whereupon it was suggested by Nasreen Bano wife of Nanhke @ Saddik (petitioner No.2) that the prosecutrix should be married to Nanhe (Petitioner No.1).Thereafter, hot words were exchanged, including in relation to the castes.The prosecutrix has stated in the statement that she was grazing her cattle.Nasreen Bano induced her to go in the fields.Nasreen Bano left the prosecutrix with her husband and brother-in-law (Devar).Nasreen Bano further suggested that whatever they wanted to do they could do, she would keep a watch.Thereafter, husband, Nanhe (Devar) and Mohd. Chand, all of three, committed rape.When prosecutrix raised an alarm they fled.They threatened the prosecutrix with knife that she would be killed.On returning back she informed her parents.They further told that her photograph has been taken and has been circulated on Facebook.Considering the difference in statement and particularly the fact that in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., even allegation of gang rape has been made while adding another accused to the incident, we hereby direct that notice be issued to serve respondent No.4, also through Station House Officer, Police Station Baghrai, District Pratapgarh.State counsel to ensure compliance.The petitioners be not taken into custody till the next date of listing.The petitioners are directed to join investigation.We hereby direct the Investigating Officer to file his affidavit as to under what circumstances the F.I.R. version and the version given by the same prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C., can be reconciled.Not only offence of rape has been added, but also an accused.9. Let counter affidavits be filed.10. List on 25.04.2019."
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,457,598 |
No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 8 of 42 of the accident.All claims arose from the same motor vehicular tragedy.The facts of the case are that on 22nd September, 2014, at around 5:15 in the evening, a passenger bus was plying in western Uttar Pradesh, it was packed with over 82 passengers, against the permitted seating capacity of 52+2 passengers in terms of the insurance policy.Little did the passengers, know that they were moments away from a disaster.En route, one of the passengers had told the conductor and the driver of the bus that there was smell of gas in the bus and it should be looked into.Other passengers too, joined in the chorus of the requests and protests.One of the passengers had deposed that he had personally requested the conductor and the driver to stop the vehicle but they paid no heed to him.Similarly, the repeated requests of the other passengers too, went unheeded.The bus was being driven at a very high speed, as if to defeat time itself.Moments later, smoke emanated in the bus and then it exploded, resulting in 31 fatalities and 51 grievous injuries.The injured were maimed for life.Miraculously, both the driver and the conductor escaped unhurt.What was the fault of the passengers? None.They were innocent.The driver and conductor were at fault for ignoring the repeated calls and entreaties for caution and the need for immediate safety measures to be taken.The rash and negligent driving of the offending bus is evident.The State Government acknowledged the bus blast tragedy which had affected scores of families.Their misery, occasioned from the blast in the bus, is not in dispute.Although, the owner of the vehicle did take a stand that there was nothing on record to prove that they were travelling in the said bus; that they have not produced any passenger tickets in this regard.The said statement is ex facie callous as it shows complete disregard for human life and limb.In this case, the non- production of passenger tickets could have been only because of the same having been destroyed in the fire caused due to the blast in the bus, the numerous deaths and extensive life-altering injuries; the ghastly aftermath in which human bodies would have been flung about and the same cannot be said to cast an impediment on the injured persons.The factum of their injuries and casualties due to the blast in the bus has been recorded by the jurisdictional police.Therefore, their being passengers in the offending bus, stands proven.The bus owner-Mr.The requisite premium amount was paid in cash, it has been so testified in evidence.The respondent contends that the letter seeking correction of the policy, for endorsing its coverage from 17+1 persons to 52+2 persons was in the context that the policy was not in consonance with the Cover Note, as stated in his affidavit.He has categorically denied that he had paid any additional monies or premium in cash for the corrective endorsement.The same amount is also mentioned in the first para of the document.The insurance company has accepted the monies in cash or through banking transactions, which is noted in the subsequent document of 28.11.2014; it mentions that it is drawn on ICICI Bank, Chennai.Details of the said financial instrument, as may be, ought to have been produced by the insurer to promptly ascertain whether such payments were made by the vehicle owner.But the insurer chose not to do so.The insured had deposed as under (pdf pg.R3W1/A. My affidavit Ex.It was already insured.One passenger alighting from the bus has deposed that he smelled gas inside the bus and told the conductor and the driver to get it checked.There was an immediate and simultaneous chorus of protest and requests from a number of the other passengers to check the smell or leakage of gas, but throwing caution to the winds the bus sped on, unmindful of their protests, requests and entreaties.Moments later, the gas spread in the bus, there was an explosion ending many lives and permanently maiming many others.That on the most unfortunate day of 22.09.2014, I have boarding the Bus bearing No. DL 1PA 0359 from Khurja for going to Jahagirabad, Bulandshahr U.P. and many other passengers were also travelling in the same Bus.That on the date of accident, inspite of the objections raised by the passengers the driver & conductor of the said Bus has loaded the Gas Cylinder in the Bus without caring the life of the passengers.The Bus driven by its driver at a very high speed and negligent manner, at about 5.15 p.m. when the Bus reached near Village: Kutubpur on Jahagirabad road there was a smell of gas spread in the Bus due to lekage of gas from Cylinder.The passengers asked the driver as well as conductor of the Bus to stop the Bus as there was a leakage of Gas but the driver as well as conductor did not pay any attention towards the request made by the passengers and drove the Bus carelessly at a very high speed, resulting whereof the gas caught fire and spread into the bus and made a heavy blast.That I hardly saved my life as I was standing at the back door due to heavy rush in the Bus and after hearing the crying of the other passengers & feel the smell of burning, I had jumped out from the running Bus when the driver slow the speed for a moment just before the blast.That after hearing huge crying of the passengers due to the heavy burning, public persons gathered on spot and try to set off the fire and made a call to the police as well as fire brigade, after some time police arrived on spot & inquired about the accident and all the injured were taken to the Govt. Hospital, Bulandshahr U.P.That this accident has seen by me through my necked eye as stated above and nothing has been conceal.Similarly in his cross examination, it was recorded as under:The route of the bus was from Khurja to Jahangirabad.The police never recorded my statement.(Vol.The police had orally enquired from me at the spot.) I cannot tell the name of the police official.I remained at the spot for about one hour after the accident.The police had reached at the spot after 45 minutes of the accident.I myself did not inform the police about the accident.One passer by had informed the police regarding the accident but I do not know the whereabouts of informer / passerby.I do not have any bus ticket to show that I was travelling in the said bus.(vol.Conductor did not give me any ticket as he was not giving ticket to the passengers traveling for short distance.) I had boarded the bus from Khurja and was supposed to go to Bypass Bulandshahr - Jahagirabad.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 36 of 42That on the most unfortunate day of 22.09.2014 my Son namely Santosh & his friend Govind boarding the Bus bearing No. DL 1PA 0359 from Khurja for going to Jahagirabad, Bulandashahr U.P. and many other passengers were also travelling in the same Bus.That the conductor as well as the driver of the said Bus was very careless & negligent towards his duty and intentionally & knowingly carrying the goods in the said Bus which was prohibited by Law for fetching the huge amount by illegal means, inspite of the objections raised by the passengers they have loaded the Gas cylinder in the Bus without carrying the life of passengers.The Bus driven by its driver at a very high speed and negligent manner, at about 5.15 p.m. when the Bus reached near Village Kutubpur on Jahagirabad road there was a smell of gas spread in the Bus due to lekage of gas from Cylinder.The passengers asked the driver as well as conductor of the Bus to stop the Bus as there was leakage of Gas but the driver as well as conductor did not pay any attention towards the request made by the passengers and drove the Bus at a very high speed and carelessly resulting whereof the gas caught fire and spread into the bus and made a heavy blast.That after hearing huge and crying of the passengers due to heavy burning, public person gathered on spot and try to set off the fire and made a call to the police, after some time police arrived on spot and all the injured were taken to the Govt. Hospital, Bulandshahr U.P. but due to the serious condition my son was refer to and admitted in Safdarjung Hospital New Delhi on the same day, where he died during the course of treatment on 04.10.2014 and post mortem was conducted by the Doctor's.The accident happened on account of explosion of a gas cylinder which was being carried by a passenger in the bus.Who knows, the driver might have charged him more money for carrying the said gas filled cylinder in the bus.These appeals impugn the award of compensation passed by learned MACT on the ground; that there was no valid insurance policy between the appellant-insurer and the owner of the offending motor vehicle, on the date MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 8 of 42It extended some ex gratia payments to the affected parties.The owner and the driver of the vehicle MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 9 of 42 were arrested, but within a week, they were granted bail.The Court is informed that they continue to remain on bail.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 9 of 42The injured/claimants and kin of the deceased sought compensation on various grounds from the insured/owner of the vehicle.Vipin Kumar produced its Registration No. DL-1-PA-3059 and on the insurance Cover Note bearing No. CVL 0464404 dated 17.09.2014, against third-party claims.A premium of Rs. 36,968/- is stated to have been paid by the owner for the Cover Note.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 10 of 42It is untenable and ought to be rejected.The vehicle owner contends that the said letter of request, purportedly seeking endorsement of enhancement of passenger carrying capacity in November, 2014, was never written by him nor was any additional premium paid by him either in cash or by way of any banking transaction, such as cheque or Demand Draft.The owner had produced the following documents i.e. Cover Note:No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 17 of 42No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 18 of 42The insurers version of Certificate of Insurance and Policy Schedule issued on the basis of the said Cover Note is as under:-No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 19 of 42The letter seeking endorsement upto 52+2 persons reads as under:-No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 20 of 42Accordingly to the insurer, the receipt of additional premium (pg. 291) and the corresponding endorsement (pg.339) read as under:-No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 21 of 42No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 22 of 42The appellant states that the Cover Note which was given to them by the insurers agent and had been filed before the learned Tribunal is as under:-No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 23 of 42Copy of the same has been handed over to the learned counsel for the vehicle owner.The latter submits that this new document was never a part of the records of the learned Tribunal, instead what is found on the record of the learned Tribunal is the document reproduced in para 12 (supra).The "insurers copy" reproduced below shows some discrepancies such as: i) seating capacity shows 17+2, yet significantly the imprint of 52+2 is shown below the 17+2 and ii) the agent code has been added in handwriting, which according to the respondent is a self-serving endorsement and does not make the insurers copy more reliable, because the Cover Note number is the most relevant and significant identifier of its veracity.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 24 of 42No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 25 of 42The amount of Rs. 36,968/- as insurance premium, is the computation for four heads of insurance cover.There is an overwriting on the first figure i.e. Rs. 7,843/- by the amount of Rs. 18,130/- with a dark hand written imprint.How this larger amount came about, is not explained by the insurer.On the insurers copy, which has been shown to the Court, the Cover Note issued to the vehicle owner has the amount of Rs. 36,968/-, which is inscribed at the lower end of the body of the said document.However, this figure is inexplicably missing from the document now produced by the insurer.It has two additional endorsements, one on top of the page showing the address of the office of the insurer as Sector 40-C, Chandigarh and another endorsement of claim intimation number, and then the Cover Note number.The document on record of the learned Tribunal does not have these endorsements.The owner had deposed in his cross examination that he had paid the entire monies in cash to the insurers agent.The insurer contends that the insurers Proposal Form alongwith documents annexed thereto i.e. Registration Certificate and prior insurance certificates, clearly show that details of the vehicle were not properly filled MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 26 of 42 in.Therefore, the insurance policy issued by them was in breach of good faith hence it would be void ab initio.It reads inter alia:-No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 26 of 42134 of MAC APP.R3W1 Statement of Sh.Vipin Kumar recalled for examination chief as has been examined as R3W1 in case no. 526/16 vide affidavit Ex.At the time of MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 34 of 42 accident owner was not present in the bus.I was travelling in the bus in a standing position on the back gate of the bus.I had seen a passenger carrying cylinder of 5 kg.The driver had charged more amount for the said cylinder.I do not know the name of said passenger had boarded the bus from Khurja.I do not know whether any passenger was igniting by Beedi' or not.There was a smell of gas in the bus just about 500 mtrs before Qutubpur.I do not know whether any passenger was trying to stop any passenger igniting the Beedi' or not.It is wrong to suggest that there was no fault on the part of the driver for the said accident.The driver was negligent as he did not stop the bus despite request regarding the smell of gas in bus).I had jumped out of the bus just 25-30 mtrs.before the spot of accident when I heard noise from inside the bus that there is a smell of gas.It is correct that the road on which the bus was running was in a bad condition.It is wrong to suggest that I was not traveling in the said bus.I have come to depose before the court on asking of claimants, my evidence affidavit was prepared by the ld counsel for claimants.It is wrong to suggest that the driver / conductor had not permitted the carrying of cylinder in the bus.It is wrong to suggest that driver / conductor did not know about the cylinder in the bus.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to favor the claimants.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 34 of 42xxxxxxx by Mr. V K Gupta, Adv for defendant no. 4 / insurance company.In between the bus had stopped for about 15 - 20 times after I boarded the bus and where I jumped out of the bus.I felt the smell of gas after about 1 hour of my MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 35 of 42 boarding the bus.I did not tell the driver about the smell of gas in bus.It is wrong to suggest that I did not see the gas cylinder in the bus.The fire had broken out in the bus in the middle portion of the bus.There were 80 - 90 passengers in the bus and the bus was fully packed, all the seats were full and the passengers were packed in standing positions and even 8 - 10 passengers were travelling on the roof of the bus.Even some passengers were traveling on the entry / exit gates of the bus.It is wrong to suggest that the said bus no. DL-1PA-0359 has falsely been involved in this case.It is wrong to suggest that I am not eye witness of the accident nor I was traveling in the said bus.It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely to favour the claimants.It is wrong to suggest that inspite of gas leakage I as well as the other passengers did not take any step for removal of the gas cylinder from the bus or that I as well as other passengers were themselves responsible for the accident.It is wrong to suggest that my claim is false or that I am deposing falsely.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 35 of 42In MACT 197/2006 the claimant- Ganesh Chands evidence by way of an affidavit, is as under:I, Ganesh Chand Sharma S/o Sh.Ramesh Chand Sharma,a aged about 44 years R/o K-II-9, Block-K-II, Sangam Vihar, Delhi-62, do hereby solemnly affirm & declare as under: ......That the deponent along with his wife has filed the above noted matter for getting the compensation on account of premature death of his son due to injuries sustained by him on 22.09.2014 when he was Travelling in the Bus bearing No. DL 1PA 0359, the petition bears the signature of the deponent and the same is correct and the contents of the petition may kindly MAC.APP.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 37 of 42That due to the carelessly and negligently act of the driver and conductor of the Bus many passengers were burnt resulting into their deaths and some also badly burnt and a Case Crime No. 319/2014 U/S 285/337/338/427 IPC was registered at P.S. Shikarpur, Distt.Bulandshahr U.P. against the respondents.Had the respondent no.1 been vigilant, cautious enough and ought to have driven the vehicle in question by observing proper look out and taking necessary precautious and pay attention towards the request made by the passengers, the said accident has been very easily averted and the deceased could not sustained fatal injuries.It is the duty of the respondent no. 1 to drive the vehicle in question by observing the Traffic rules.The aforesaid testimony makes it clear that the bus was carrying over 80 to 90 passengers, eight to ten passengers were travelling on the roof of the bus as well.The passenger concerned had boarded the bus from Khurja.He denied the suggestion that the driver or conductor had not permitted the carrying of the cylinder in the bus.The dangerous and combustible substance was permitted by the conductor and the driver to be carried in an overcrowded passenger bus, exposing everybody in it to extreme harm.Sadly, the harm did occur as a result.The harm could have been averted, had the conductor and the bus driver been vigilant and/or paid heed to the requests of the various passengers.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 38 of 4231. PW-2, Subhash, by way of affidavit, had further deposed as under:The passengers asked the driver as well as conductor of the Bus to stop the Bus as there was leakage of Gas but the driver as well as conductor did not pay any attention towards the request made by the passengers and drove the Bus at a very high speed and carelessly resulting whereof the gas caught fire and spread into the bus and made a heavy blast.There is nothing on record to show that the conductor was qualified and/or licensed to undertake such duties.Under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, a bus can ferry passenger on a route only with a qualified conductor.In the present case, there was nothing of this sort.This too shows callousness of the driver towards the safety and security of the passengers.Surely, neither the driver cared about the safety of the passengers nor did the conductor have the sensitivity, alacrity or care about human safety.The Court is of the view that even if the person officiating as the conductor, was not duly licensed or trained as a bus conductor, he would have very well known that carrying of a gas cylinder in a bus packed with passengers was to put to threat the lives of everybody travelling in it.All the more, when there were repeated calls that there was leakage of gas in the bus.For the driver to rush-on despite the entreaties and requests of the passengers, establishes callousness, rashness and negligence on his part.The tragedy occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the insured vehicle.The claims are maintainable under s. 140 and 164 of the M.V. Act.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 39 of 42The compensation shall be payable by the insurer, with right to recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle in terms of Mukund Dewangan vs Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 14 SCC 663 and Shamanna & Anr vs Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors (2018) 9 SCCThe Court would note that as per the Cover Note, the liability of the insurer extends only to 52 passengers.No claim had been referred to the insurance company for the driver and conductor.The latter have been compensated ex-gratia by the State Government to some extent, i.e. apropos their injuries.Be that as it may, the insurer is liable to pay compensation for claims apropos the 52 persons only, the total number of onboard passengers was 82, out of which 31 had died and 51 others have been injured.In the circumstances, the highest amount payable in 52 claim petitions shall be considered and this amount shall be distributed on pro-rata basis amongst the claimants.Since the accident happened on 22.09.2014, almost half a decade ago, the learned Tribunal is requested to dispose-off the claim petitions within a period of four months from the date when the case is next listed before it.LCR be returned to the learned Tribunal before the aforesaid date.The parties shall lead their evidence in support of their claims.The learned counsel for the parties submit that they will the assist the learned Tribunal on every date when the case is so listed and shall not seek an adjournment in the matter.The release of the said monies shall be subject to adjustments in case there is enhancement of compensation by the learned Tribunal.No. 23/2019 and connected matters Page 41 of 42The statutory amounts, alongwith interest accrued thereon, shall be retained in the FDRs and shall be subject to adjustments, in case there is enhancement of compensation by the learned Tribunal.The appeals are disposed-off in the above terms.NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 20, 2019/RW/AB MAC.APP.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
176,458,767 |
Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 1 of 8On 08.05.2010, SI Naveen Kumar of AATS (West), Paschim Vihar, received an information that a person, namely, Shyam Lal, residing in Village Sodawas, District Alwar or Rajasthan was engaged in procuring/purchasing girls from Delhi and used to sell them off in the said village as also in village Girwas of the same District.On this information, a raiding party consisting of police officers went to Village Sodawas, along with secret informer.One Shyam Lal was apprehended on being pointed out by the secret informer and was interrogated.Shyam Lal took them to another house in the same village.The appellants were found sitting outside the house.Both of them were apprehended on being pointed out by Shyam Lal and were interrogated.V.K.JAIN, J.On 18.7.2009, the complainant Ravinder came to PS Sultan Puri and lodged an FIR, stating therein that his child 'M', aged about 4 years, had gone to market along with his sister-in-law Jyoti, but got separated from Jyoti on account of crowd in the market, and he had not been able Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 1 of 8 to trace her.An FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered on the aforesaid complaint made by Shri Ravinder Kumar.Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by them to the police, a child, namely, 'M' was found inside the house, outside which the appellants Veena and Ashok @ Pappu, who are sister and brother, were found sitting.As many as six persons, three sent for trial, but three persons, namely, Vimla, Mukesh and Kartar were discharged by the Trial Court, whereas Shyam Lal died during the course of trial.Vide impugned Crl.Identical punishment was awarded to them under Section 373 of IPC.Being aggrieved, the appellants are before this Court by way of this appeal.Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 2 of 8It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that no documentary evidence has been collected by the Investigating Officer to prove that the house from which the child is alleged to have been recovered belonged to or was possessed by either of the appellants.They have also pointed out that no witness from the village has been examined to prove that the aforesaid house was occupied by the appellants.The contention is that in the absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the child was recovered from the custody of the appellants.The deposition of PW-7 SI Naveen Kumar which finds full corroboration from the deposition of PW-8 Head Constable Dilbag Singh would show that the appellants, who were found sitting outside the house in village Sodawas made the disclosure statements Ex.PW- Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 3 of 8 7/G and PW-7/H. In her disclosure statement, the appellant Veena, inter alia, stated that she could get the child 'M' who was with her recovered.In his disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/H, the appellant Ashok Kumar made an identical statement to the police.Since pursuant to the statements made by the appellants, the police discovered the fact that a child had been kept in the house outside which they were sitting and the child 'M' was actually recovered by the police from a house in village Sodawas pursuant thereto, the said statements are admissible in evidence under Section 27 of Evidence Act, to the extent indicated above.Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 3 of 8In State of Maharashtra vs. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471, the respondent accused, while in police custody, made a statement stating therein that the dead body was kept concealed in the field; he would take it out and produce the same.The dead body was thereafter recovered, as pointed out by the respondent.The High Court, however, did not rely upon the aforesaid circumstance inter alia on the reasoning that two other possibilities, one being that the respondents could have seen someone else placing the dead body at that spot and the second being that the respondent could have been told by somebody else that the dead body was placed there, could not have been ruled out.Rejecting the Crl.Second is that he would have seen somebody else concealing it.And the third is that he would have been told by another person that it was concealed there.But if the accused declines to tell the criminal court that his knowledge about the concealment was on account of one of the last two possibilities the criminal court can presume that it was concealed by the accused himself.This is because accused is the only person who can offer the explanation as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is a well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself.The statements made by the appellants and the recovery of the child 'M' pursuant to the above-referred disclosure statements made by the appellants Veena and Ashok discloses three possibilities.The first possibility is that they themselves had kept the child 'M' in the house in which she was found by the police.The second possibility is that they had seen someone keeping the child in the aforesaid house.The third possibility is that someone had told them that the child 'M' had been kept in the aforesaid house of village Sodawas.The presence of the appellants outside the house, at the time police reached there along with Shyam Lal, corroborates the above-referred inference.The prosecution has thus been able to prove that the child 'M' who was kidnapped from Delhi on 18.07.2009 was found in custody of the appellants.It would be pertinent to note here that the complainant came in the witness box as PW-6 and stated that his child 'M' who had gone to the market of Sultan Puri along with her aunt Jyoti got missing from the market and the report Ex.PW-6/A was lodged by him with the police in this regard.They do not claim to be related to the child.The child may have been kept in the house only to make her work as a child labour.Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 6 of 8For the reasons stated hereinabove, while affirming conviction of the appellants under Section 368/34 IPC, I acquit them of charge under Section 373 of IPC.Coming to sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant Veena submits that she is a lady who has already spent more than 3 years in custody and, therefore, needs to be dealt with leniently, particularly when there was no evidence to show that the appellant was engaged in business of pushing the minor children into prostitution and there is no evidence of her involvement in any other case.The learned counsel for Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 7 of 8 the appellant Ashok, brother of the appellant Veena, makes similar submission and also submits that he has three minor children to look after and he also had spent three years in custody.Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 7 of 8In the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellant is reduced from 7 years each to 4 years each.However, there shall be no reduction of the fine imposed on them.The appeals stand disposed of.One copy of this order be sent to concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.Trial Court record be sent back.Crl.A. Nos. 1142 and 949/2013 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,764,588 |
PC read with Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek quashing of FIR bearing No. 99/2002, PS Connaught Place, New Delhi under Section 406/409/420/424/467/467/477A read with Section 120B IPC.The said FIR was registered in pursuance of order dated 19.2.2002 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi on a criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners who are Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Director, Chartered Accountants and Finance Controller respectively of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited.It was alleged in the complaint that in or around December, 1994, petitioner nos 1 to 3 approached respondent company and requested it to subscribe to the equity share capital of M/s. Sun Air Hotels Limited to the tune of 25% equity share capital amounting to 70 lac equity shares @ Rs.10/- per share aggregating to Rs.7 crores.Induced by the assurances of the accused, the complainant company made payment of Rs.7 crores for the allotment of shares M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited, which in turn allotted and issued 70 lac shares to the respondent company.Apart from that 25,94,824 fully paid up equity shares of Rs.10 each aggregating to 2,59,84,240/1 were also issued to the respondent company.Thus at the time of filing of complaint, respondent company was holding 95,94,824 fully paid up equity shares of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited.Besides, on the request of petitioners no. 1 to 3, the respondent company also provided interest bearing security deposit of Rs.8 crores, on the premise that its deposit was safe and the same would help in the early completion of the Hotel Project.After taking huge money from the respondent company, M/s. Sunari Hotels Limited also approached the financial institutions and banks for loan for the construction of hotel M/s. Sunari Hotels Limited thus raised a sum of Rs.42 crores as term loans from the financial institutions and bank i.e. Industrial Development Bank of India (Rs.10.5 crores).Tourism Financial Corporation of India (Rs. 21 crores) and Oriental Bank of Commerce (Rs.10.5 crores).It was alleged in the complaint that petitioners had fraudulently and illegally got allotted and issued equity shares worth Rs.21 crores of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited, in the name of themselves, relatives and family members without having contributed any cash, for which the complainant has lodged a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes and Railway) and a case was registered vide FIR No. 90/2000 with the Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under Sections 406/409/420/424/467/467/477A read with Section 120B IPC.On further inquiry the complainant company came to know that the petitioners have manipulated the accounts of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited by making false documents, fabricating valuable securities and have used the said forged and fabricated documents and the books of accounts of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited with a view to illegally siphon off the funds of M/s Sunair Hotels Limited, borrowed by it from various agencies for the construction of the hotel.The funds illegally siphoned off from M/.s Sunair Hotels Limited were later on dishonestly used/utilized by the accused for subscribing to the additional share capital worth Rs.10.75 cores in M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited through bogus benami companies.The money received by these benami companies from M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited were allegedly shown to have been paid further on to various sub-contractors.When inquiries were made from the sub-contractors it was revealed that they had never carried out any construction work for M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited.In fact many of the so-called/alleged sub-contractors were employees of the petitioners or Sunair Hotels Limited and were earning meager salaries.In para 15 of the complaint, the respondent gave details of certain companies namely M/s. Bansal Estate Private Limited, M/s. Isha Metal Pvt. Limited, M/s. Atul Constructions and Finvest Private Limited.It was alleged that huge amounts were shown to have been paid to these companies which were controlled by either of the petitioners.Various instances of bogus expenditure shown in the books of accounts of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited were also given in para 16 of the complaint.JUDGMENT O.P. Dwivedi, J.The moot point for consideration in this writ petition is whether recourse to investigation in the affairs of company under Section 235 to 242 of the Company Act is the only way to launch prosecution in respect of alleged/suspected commission of cognizable offences under IPC by the office bearers of the company or the police can investigate such allegations of its own or under orders of Court, if approached by the aggrieved person/shareholder.Through this petition under Section 482 Cr.It was alleged that modus operandi adopted by the accused was that during the construction of the hotel project, the accused persons misappropriated the funds of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited by creating false documents, fabricating valuable securities and falsifying the books of accounts of M/s. Sunair Hotels Limited.Other instances of alleged misdeeds of the petitioner were also given in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the complaint.On receipt of this complaint, learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order dated 19.2.2002 19.02.2002 Present: AR of complaint with counsel.File perused.The material on record contains allegation of breach of trust, forgery falsification of account, etc. against the respondents.Copy of the order, complaint and the annexed documents be sent to the SHO, complainant counsel to file the same today itself.MM/ND 19/2/2002On the basis of said order, FIR No. 99/2002 was registered under sections 409/411/424467/477A read with 120B IPC.During investigation, the police has submitted status reports from time to time.A perusal of status reports indicates that police has found some substance in the allegations regarding bogus entries showing payments to some companies and sub-contractors.It may be that after investigation is over, the police may file challan or final report for closure of the case depending upon the nature of the evidence they gather during investigation but at this stage, it appears that allegations made in the complaint regarding these alleged bogus payments and falsification of accounts are not entirely groundless.Shri N.K. Kaul, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the respondent has already approached Company Law Board and vide order dated 13.6.2001, the Company Law Board rejected the application filed under sections 397/398 of the Company Act filed by the respondent, therefore, a parallel investigation by police into the same allegation is not permissible.A perusal of the said order dated 13.6.2001 passed by the Company Law Board shows that it deals mainly with the allegation of fraudulent allotment of shares amongst petitioners without actual payment of money.The Company Law Board was of the view that no fraud appears to have been committed in the said allotment.The criminal complaint filed in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate was not confined to alleged fraudulent allotment of shares by the petitioners.The alleged fraudulent allotment of shares by the petitioners among themselves was subject matter of earlier FIR being No. 90/2000 registered at P.S Connaught Place, New Delhi.The present FIR No. 99/2002 was registered at P.S Connaught place, New Delhi, mainly on the allegations regarding siphoning off the company's funds by the petitioners by making bogus entries in the account books in the name of benami companies who in turn made payment to fictitious sub-contractors.Thereafter, son-in-law filed another company petition under Sections 397/398 of the Act on the similar ground.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,390,117 |
1. Heard both sides.Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal.The appeal was dismissed by order dated 12.6.2017, hence, this petition.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::One of the main ground for rejecting the application ofthe petitioner for parole is that the petitioner has beenconvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392,397 and 302 r/w 34 of IPC.Rule4(13) states that prisoners convicted inter alia for dacoity willnot be eligible for furlough.Thereafter, by notification dated26.8.2016, it is stated that those prisoners who cannot bereleased on furlough would not be eligible to be released onparole.The application of the petitioner is dated 9.11.2016that is after the said notification, hence, this notificationwould apply to the case of the petitioner.However, we areof the opinion that the case of the petitioner would not fallunder Rule 4(13) but it would fall under Rule 4(2) of theRules.Rule 4(2) of The Prisons (Bombay Furlough andParole) Rules, 1959 states that the prisoners convicted of theoffences under Section 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the IPCare not entitled to be released on furlough.As stated earlier,jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 3 ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::Office to communicate this order to the petitioner whois lodged in Nasik Road Central Prison, Nasik.::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 17/04/2018 01:26:49 :::
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,939,401 |
This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Arguments heard.Subsequently, the decree holder filed an application under section 250 of Land Revenue Code.The learned Tehsildar Jawad, District-Neemuch allowed the application vide order dated 05.07.2016 and directed the Revenue Inspector to deliver possession to the applicant in compliance of decree passed in his favour.The public servants went to the disputed land where the incident took place.It is alleged that the present applicant used criminal course and obstructed the public servants in discharge of their duty.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that when the first application of co-accused Govindram was filed, it was not clear as to how the revenue authorities went on the disputed land and what order they were trying to implement, and therefore, the application was withdrawn.He further submits that the co-accused Govindram @ Govindbhai Banjara S/o Shri Prathviraj @ Parthaji to whom the land belonged was granted bail by this Court in M.Cr.In the application filed by co-accused Govindram, the counsel for the State was directed to obtain necessary instructions in this regard.Accordingly, counsel for the State has informed that the public servants went to the spot to get the aforesaid order passed by Tehsildar-Jawad executed.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 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.
|
189,394,263 |
Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Makdoom Sheikh had land in the village Bhavanipur, which he had bought from Punya Pratap uncle of appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna.There was a dispute regarding that land between the Makdoom and the appellants.A case regarding that land was also pending in the Court between Makdoom Sheikh and Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna.On 14/11/2005 in the morning when Makdoom Sheikh was getting ready to go to Lucknow and Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) were also going with him to drop him up to main road on bicycle.They were behind Makdoom Sheikh.On the way at 06:30 AM when Makdoom Sheikh reached at Jamuna Yadav's garden, due to previous enmity appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja armed with gun, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji armed with sword and Phool Singh and Devendra Singh @ Raja armed with stick came out from the rice field where they were hiding and stopped Makdoom Sheikh.Appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja fired gunshot on Makdoom Shiekh, who sustained injuries on his mouth and forehead and fell down.At that time Raju Ahirwar and Lakshmi (PW/3) and some other people were also present on the spot.They saw the incident.Appellant Phool Singh on seeing Pappu Sheikh told, "Catch hold of him should not escape alive", on that Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) ran away from the spot to save themselves and hid in the village.After the appellants went away from the spot Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) went on the spot where he saw that Makdoom Sheikh had died.Thereafter Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) lodged the FIR (Ex.P/1) at Police Station Dharampur, which was written by Sub-Inspector R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) and on the report he registered Crime No.82/05 against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 302 of the IPC and investigated the matter.During investigation he went to spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/5) and seized blood stained soil, simple soil and two blood stained stones from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/7) and also seized bicycle, bag and clothes from the spot and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/8).He also prepared inquest report (Ex.P/4) of the dead body of Makdoom Sheikh and sent his dead body along with an application (Ex.P/20-A) for postmortem through Constable Sahendra Singh to P.H.C., Ajaygarh, where Dr. R.M. Gupta (PW/9) conducted postmortem of the dead body of deceased Makdoom Shiekh and gave postmortem report (Ex.P/20) and also gave query report (Ex.P/21).He also seized blood stained clothes of Makdoom Sheikh from his dead body and sent the same to P.S. Dharampur in a sealed packet through concerning constable Sahendra Singh, which was seized by Chandra Kant Panday (PW/13) from his possession and prepared seizure memo (Ex.P/36).During investigation R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) also recorded the case diary statements of witnesses Lakshmi (PW/3), Jafar Ali (PW/4), Munnilal (PW/6), Dashrath @ Raju (PW/5), Kunwariya Bai, Pappu Sheikh (PW/1), Sakhina (PW/2), Abdul Rasid, Mohd. Jabbar and Jalim.On 15/11/05 he arrested appellants Phool Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/13 & Ex.P/14) and on the information of Rudra Pratap Singh he seized one sword and on the information of Phool Singh he seized one stick and prepared information memo ( Ex.P/9 & Ex.P/10) and seizure memo (Ex.P/11 & Ex.P/12) respectively.On 26/11/2005 he arrested appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/32 & Ex.P/33) and on the information of appellant Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja one double barrel gun and on the information of Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja one single barrel gun were seized from their possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/24 & Ex.P/25), seizure memo (Ex.P/31 & Ex.P/29).On the same day he also arrested Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji and Devendra Singh @ Raja and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/34 & Ex.P/35) and on the information of Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji he seized one sword from his possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/26) and seizure memo (Ex.P/30) and on the information of Devendra Singh @ Raja he seized one stick from his possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/27) and seizure memo (Ex.P/28).(ii) Right maxillary,mandibular and temporal part were fractured teeth was also broken size 4"x 4" x3"(iii) Two round shaped hole size "x1/2" x 4" were present on left costal region of chest.Margins of these wound was dark brown in colour and hole on the clothing worn by the disease 6 were also present which were matched from the hole of wound.(iv) Contusion and abrasions were present on both the knees and thighs (v) Hematoma size 8"x6" was present on maxillary and mandibular region.All the injuries were ante mortem in nature.On internal examination, it was found that his right maxillary and mandibular, nasal & occipital bone were fractured.Brain was also ruptured.Profuse blood clots were present in the brain.Left costal bone was also fractured.Lungs were punctured and spleen was ruptured.in the stomach broken teeth was found.He also took bundy, kurta, baniyan dhoti and chaddi from the dead body and sealed it in a packet and handed over to concerned constable.In his opinion deceased Makdoom Shiekh died due to multiple fractures of the scalp and face and injuries to the vital organs and brain and the time of death was between 24 to 36 hours from the post mortem.Although Dr. RM.Gupta (PW/9) did not clearly opine that the deceased also sustained injuries of firearm and also stated that he did not find any exit wound on the dead body of the deceased but he opined that the injury found by him on the left costal region of the deceased could be caused by gunshot.He also stated that the clothes seized from the body of the deceased were handed over to the concerning constable in a sealed packet.R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) deposed in his statement that he sent those seized clothes alongwith draft (Ex.P/37) to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar from where report Ex.P/38, Ex.P/39 & Ex.P/40 were received.(01/12/2017) As per :- Rajeev Kumar Dubey, J This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 28/08/2006 passed by Sessions Judge, Panna, District Panna in S.T.No.1/2006, whereby learned Sessions Judge found the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as under:-He also sent all the seized articles for chemical analysis to Forensic Science 4 Laboratory, Sagar alongwith draft (Ex.P/37) through S.P. Panna, from where FSL report (Ex.P/38, Ex.P/39 & Ex.P/40) were received.After completion of investigation Police filed charge-sheet before Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Ajaygarh, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where on that charge-sheet ST.No.1/2006 was registered.Learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 148, 302 and in alternate 302 /149 of the IPC and also framed charge under Section 25(1-B) A & 27 of the Arms Act against appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Ramji and under Section 25(1-B) B of the Arms Act against appellants Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji and Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna.Appellants abjured their guilt and took the defence that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the offence.However, after the trial learned trial Court acquitted the appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Ramji for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) A & 27 of the Arms Act and appellants Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji and Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) B of the Arms Act, but found the appellants guilty for the abovementioned offences and sentenced them as mentioned above.Being aggrieved by that judgment, appellants filed this criminal appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Court without appreciating the prosecution evidence properly, wrongly found the appellants guilty for the offences.Except prosecution witness Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) all other eyewitnesses of the incident i.e. Laxmi (PW/3) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) turned hostile.They did not support the prosecution story.Similarly, in the statement of Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) there are many contradictions and omissions.From the facts coming out in his cross-examination it is clear that the incident was not seen by this witness.He gave false statement in this regard.His statement is also not corroborated from the medical evidence.So, his statement regarding incident cannot be believed.It appears from the record that Police sent copy of the FIR to the concerning 5 Magistrate after two days of the incident i.e. 16/11/05, which also makes prosecution story doubtful.The seizure of firearm from possession of the appellants was also not proved.Even, learned trial Court in his judgment found that sized arms were not used in the incident.From the medical evidence also it is not proved that the deceased Makdoom Sheikh sustained gunshot injury.Dr. RM.Gupta (PW/9) did not opine that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by the firearm.On the contrary he admitted in his cross-examination that he did not find any exit wound of gunshot fire and also no pellets in the body of the deceased.Learned trial Court without appreciating all these facts wrongly found the appellants guilty for the offence.On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State submitted that there is ample evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellants.Learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences.Point of determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants for the aforesaid offences is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memo of appeal and argued before this Court.On the point that Makdoom Shiekh died on 14/11/2005 and his death was homicidal which amounts to murder, Dr. RM.Gupta (PW/9) who conducted the postmortem of deceased Makdoom Sheikh deposed that on 15/11/05 he was posted as Assistant Civil Surgeon at Community Health Center, Ajaygarh and on that date he conducted autopsy of dead body of Makdoom Sheikh.On his examination, He found following injuries on the dead body of deceased Makdoom Sheikh :-(i) Crush injury on mid frontoparietal reason size 6"x 2" x 2"In the report Ex.P/38, it is mentioned that all clothes of the deceased (Article J-1 to J-11) were sent to ballistic Section for ballistic examination.In the report of ballistic examination (Ex.P/39) it is mentioned that a hole of gunshot was found on the clothes of the deceased i.e. jacket, kurta, sweeter, baniyan (Article C-1 to C-4).In the report mentions about presence of nitrite on clothes of the deceased which clearly shows that the injuries sustained by the deceased on his chest were caused by the gunshot fire and deceased 7 Makdoom Shiekh died on 14/11/05 and his death was homicidal which amounts to murder.On the point whether on 14/11/05 at around 6.30 PM appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja armed with gun, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji armed with sword and Phool Singh and Devendra Singh @ Raja armed with stick gathered near Jamuna Yadav's field situated at village Bhavanipur with intent to kill Makamdoom Shekh and in furtherance of their common object appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja murdered Makdoom Shiekh by gunshot fire, Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) deposed that on the date of incident at 7:30 PM deceased Makdoom Sheikh was going to Lucknow from Bhawanipur so he went along with him to Maharajpur to drop him on bicycle.When they crossed village Bhawanipur, he got down from bicycle and Makdoom Sheikh went away.At that time appellants Bade Munna, Chote Munna, Babbu, Phool Singh, Chuttu Raja and Ramji were hidden behind the rice straw and appellant Bade Munna fired on Makdoom Sheikh by gun.Makdoom Sheikh sustained gun shot injury in his chest and fell down.Thereafter, appellant Chuttu Raja also fired on his head and appellant Babbu, Ramji armed with sword and appellant Munna and Phool Singh armed with stick were also present there.After the incident he fled away from the spot and reached his house, where he informed Laxmi (PW/3) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) regarding incident and lodged the FIR and marg report with the Police (Ex.P/1 & Ex.P/2).But his statement is not supported by the statement of other eyewitnesses Laxmi (PW/3) and Jafar Ali (PW/4).Laxmi (PW/3) only deposed that on the date of incident deceased Makdoom Sheikh went to road side from his house on bicycle and Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) also went behind him on foot but sometime later Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) and Jafar Ali (PW/4) came back and informed him that somebody had murdered Makdoom Sheikh.They did not disclose the name of assailant to him and clearly stated that he did not see the incident.Jafar Ali (PW/4) also deposed that at the time of incident when he was going towards 8 Maharajpur for taking bicycle of Makdoom Sheikh, on the way Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) met him and told that somebody had murdered Makdoom Sheikh and his dead body was lying outside the village.Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) did not disclose the name of the assailant of Makdoom Sheikh to him and Jafar Ali (PW/4) clearly denied from the fact that he saw the incident.Although prosecution declared these two witnesses hostile and also asked leading questions to these witnesses, but nothing came out from their cross-examination which could support the prosecution story.Although only on the ground that Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) was the relative of the deceased and his statement is not corroborated from the statements of other eyewitnesses of the incident, his statement can not be discarded, but in these circumstance his statement should be scrutinized carefully.Otherwise also there are many contradictions and omissions in his statement.His statement is also not fully corroborated from the medical evidence.In the FIR lodged by Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) it is mentioned that as soon as Makhdoom Sheikh reached near Jammu Yadav's garden, appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja armed with gun, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji armed with sword and Phool Singh and Devendra Singh @ Raja armed with stick came out from the rice field where they were hiding and stopped Makdoom Sheikh.While in his Court statement he did not depose that appellants came out from the rice field where they were hiding and stopped Makdoom Sheikh.In the FIR it is mentioned that appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja fired gunshot on Makdoom Shiekh, who sustained injuries on his mouth and forehead and fell down.While in his Court statement he deposed that as soon as Makdoom Sheikh reached near Jammu Yadav's garden appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna fired on him twice, the bullet hit his chest and he fell down.Then appellant Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja fired on his head.But when Makdoom Shiekh had already fallen down how was it possible for appellant Krishna Pratap Singh to fire on his head from the field.He also deposed that at the time of incident he was 50 feet away from Makdoom Shiekh, then 9 how he could identify appellants and also arms possessed by each of them, while they were hidden in the rice field.He mentioned in his FIR that at the time of incident Jafar Ali (PW/4) was with him and Laxmi (PW/3) was also present there.While in his Court statement he deposed that after the incident he ran away from the spot to his home and on the way he met Jafar Ali (PW/4) and narrated the incident to them and to Laxmi (PW/3) when he met him at home.In the FIR it is mentioned that when appellants went from the spot he (Pappu Sheikh) came to the spot and saw the dead body of deceased Makdoom Shiekh and then he went to his home while in his cross examination he stated that as soon as he heard the noise of gunshot he ran towards his house.Likewise, Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) mentioned in the FIR that appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja fired gunshot on Makdoom Shiekh, who sustained injuries on his mouth and forehead and fell down.But from the statement of Dr. R.M.Gupta (PW/9) who conducted autopsy of dead body of deceased Makdoom Shiekh and postmortem report given by him and other evidence produced by the prosecution it does not appear that the injuries sustained by deceased Makdoom Shiekh in his face and head were caused by the gunshot fire.On the contrary Dr. R.M.Gupta (PW/9) stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased Makdoom Shiekh on his face and head could be caused by stone.Although Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) deposed in his Court statement that the appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna fired on him twice, the bullet hit his chest and he fell down then appellant Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja fired on his head.But, it is not mentioned in the FIR that the appellant Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna fired on Makdoom Shiekh twice and the bullet hit his chest, which also shows that in the Court statement he changed his version after seeing the report.Even regarding Dasrath @ Raju (PW/5) it is mentioned in the FIR that he was present on the spot at the time of incident, but he clearly denied from the fact that he was present on the spot and saw the incident and only deposed that on the date of incident at 12:00 PM when he came back from his field, he saw the dead body of the deceased lying outside the village.Had Pappu Sheikh 10 (PW/1) seen the incident there would not have been so much of contradiction in his statement and it could also be supported from the other evidence.Munni Lal (PW/6) only deposed that on the date of incident at 12:00 PM when he came back from his field, he saw the dead body of deceased Makdoom Sheikh lying outside the village.Kadir Sheikh (PW/7) only deposed that on the date of incident at 8:00 AM he heard that Makdoom Sheikh had died and his dead body was lying outside the village.Then, he went to the spot, where he saw the dead body of deceased Makdoom Sheikh.Sakhina (PW/2) wife of the deceased only deposed that on the date of incident she was at Faridabad and Jalim informed her on phone that Makdoom Sheikh had died.On that, she came to Bhawanipur, where Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) told her that appellants have murdered Makdoom Sheikh, but this witness is also not an eyewitness of the incident and gave the statements as narrated to her by Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) about the incident, while statement of Pappu Sheikh (PW/1) as regards to witnessing the incident is not reliable, so the statements of this witness is of no importance.As regard to circumstantial evidence although R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) deposed that on 15/11/2005 he arrested appellant Phool Singh and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/13) and on his information seized one stick and prepared information memo (Ex.P/10) and seizure memo (Ex.P/12) and also arrested appellant Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/14) and on his information seized one sword and prepared information memo (Ex.P/9) and seizure memo (Ex.P/11).He further deposed that On 26/11/2005 he also arrested Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji and Devendra Singh @ Raja and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/34 & Ex.P/35) and on the information of Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji he seized one sword from his possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/26) and seizure memo (Ex.P/30) and on the information of Devendra Singh @ Raja he also seized 11 one stick from his possession and prepared information memo (Ex.P/27) and seizure memo (Ex.P/28).And in the FSL report it is mentioned that on the Sword (Article F) which was seized from the possession of appellants Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji and stick (Article G) which was seized from the possession of appellant Devendra Singh blood was found.But there is no evidence on record to the effect that appellants Phool Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna, Devendra Singh @ Raja and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji assaulted the deceased by stick or sword.So only on the basis of seizure of stick and sword from their possession it cannot be inferred that appellants Phoolsingh, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna, Devendra Singh @ Raja and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji were also involved in the incident.Although R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) also deposed that on 26/11/2005 he arrested appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja and prepared arrest memo (Ex.P/32 & Ex.P/33) and on the information of appellant Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja seized double barrel gun and prepared information memo (Ex.P/24) and seizure memo (Ex.P/31) and also seized one barrel gun from the possession of accused Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja and prepared information memo (Ex.P/25) and seizure memo (Ex.P/29).But in this regard his statement is not corroborated by the statement of Sundarlal (PW/11) and Ittu Khan (PW/12) independent witnesses of the information memo (Ex.P/25) and seizure memo (Ex.P/29).Even in the information memo it is mentioned that both the guns were licensed guns of appellant Phool Singh, which were seized by the R.C. Tiwari (PW/14) from the possession appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja.So his statement becomes doubtful in this regard which can not be believed.Learned trial Court also did not find his statement reliable on that point and did not find prove the seizure of guns from the possession of appellants Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja and Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and acquitted them from the charge for the offence punishable under Section 25(1-B) A & 27 of the Arms Act. So on the basis of that seizure no adverse inference can be drawn against appellants 12 Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja.Hence, appeal filed by the appellants is allowed and the conviction and sentenced passed by the trial Court against appellants as aforesaid stands set aside and appellants are acquitted from the aforesaid charges.Appellants Phool Singh, Rudra Pratap Singh @ Chote Munna, Devendra Singh @ Raja and Ram Pratap Singh @ Ramji are on bail.Their bail Bonds are discharged.Similarly, appellants Bhanu Pratap Singh @ Bade Munna and Krishna Pratap Singh @ Chhuttu Raja are in jail, hence it is directed that they be released forth with if not required in any other case.The seized guns sent to District Magistrate with the direction that on producing valid license within one year, the same be returned to Phool Singh, failing which the same be disposed of according to law.The remaining seized property be destroyed.Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,399,846 |
The petitioner is arrayed as A3 in R.C.No.2(A) of 2006 which is now pending in C.C.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai.The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is one of the Directors of M/s.Suasa Project Infrastructure Development Company Pvt.Ltd., and the Company applied for Secured Over Draft to the tune of Rs.15 lakhs in the Sowcarpet Branch of Andhra bank, Chennai and it was sanctioned on the basis of 50% Books of Accounts and on the petitioner's guarantee as well as other Director viz., Hari Sesha Reddy.The petitioner has not offered forged documents to the Bank.Loan was repaid to the Bank fully and the account was closed on 20.11.2004 itself.He along with A9 produced forged property documents and introduced A21 Smt.This petition is filed to call for the entire records pending in C.C.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial Institutions, Chennai-600 001 and quash the same.The discharge petition in Crl.MP.No.44/2009 was dismissed by the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and Financial Institutions, Chennai on 16.11.2009 under misconceived facts and law.Subsequently because the surety were absconding, chargesheet was filed against this petitioner and other accused.The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even prior to filing of the FIR, i.e, on 06.01.2016, he repaid entire loan amount and closed loan account on 29.12.2005 itself.The only contention raised by the petitioner is that even much prior to the filing of FIR, they repaid the entire loan amount and therefore, as per the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.In this case, the charges against the petitioner in C.C.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial Institutions, Chennai has to be quashed.On careful reading of the above referred decisions and perusal of the material records of the present case which involve heinous and serious offences under Sections 120 B, r/w. 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 and Sections 13(2) r/w. 13 (1) (d) of P & C Act and substantive offence under Sections 420 & 468 r/w. 471 IPC.After framing such serious charges of forgery, the petitioner wants the proceedings to be quashed on account of settlement with the Bank.The inherent power of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., should be sparingly used.In this case, the offence was committed with a deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of consequence to the society at large.Under the above said circumstances, to quash the proceedings merely on the ground that the accused has settled the amount with the bank is not sustainable.10.In this case, the charges against the petitioner along with other accused A3 to A13 are under Sections 120 B, r/w.420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Sections 13(1) r/w.13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantiate offence under Sections 420 and 468 r/w. 471 IPC.In this case, the allegation against this petitioner/A3 is that he is the younger brother of A2/A.Subramaniam.He was the Director of M/s.He along with the second petitioner/A9, R. Harisesha Reddy took M/s. Suasa Projek Infrastructure Development Co., Pvt. Ltd.,(A31) and applied for SOD of Rs.15 lakhs.He along with A9 produced forged property documents and introduced A21/Vijaya as R. Muniyammal, owner of the property offered as security.He along with A21 executed demand promissory note and composite agreement on 09.01.2004 in their capacity as Directors of M/s.After framing of such serious charges of forgery, the petitioner wants the proceedings to be quashed, on account of settlement with the Bank.The inherent power of this Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C., should be sparingly used.In this case, the offence was committed with a deliberate design with an eye of personal profit regardless of consequences of the society at large.Under these circumstances, the petitioner prays to quash the proceedings merely on the ground that the accused have settled the amount is not sustainable.In the light of the above discussion, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and serious nature of the offence, this court is not inclined to quash the proceedings.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.08.2017(1/3)Index :Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-speaking ordergvTo1.The XI Additional Special Judge for CBI cases relating to Banks and financial Institutions, Chennai-600 001The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, Chennai.No.28399 of 2009and M.P.No.1 of 200902.08.2017
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,405,515 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 7012 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 31.08.2018 in connection with Tangra P.S. Case No. 165 of dated 28.08.2018 under Sections 498A/504/34 I.P.C.And In Re:-Shri Surajit Sengupta and another ... Petitioners Dr. Rajib Kumar Kundu, Advocate ..for the Petitioners Mr. Anwar Hossain, Advocate Ms. Ratna Ghosh, Advocate .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Tangra P.S. Case No. 165 of dated 28.08.2018 under Sections 498A/504/34 I.P.C.The petitioners are the husband and the mother-in-law of the de facto complainant.According to the petitioners, though the marriage took place some time in February this year, the marriage has not been consummated.The petitioners claim that the wife has some problems and the petitioners lodged a complaint in July 2018, following which the present counter-complaint was filed by the wife.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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,406,389 |
Petitioners challenge the order of learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, passed in Crl.As against the closure of case registered in Crime No.751 of 2008 for offences u/s.341, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 120 IPC on the file of second respondent as 'mistake of fact', the first respondent/de facto complainant has moved a protest petition by way of M.P.No.4664 of 2009 before learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.Under orders dated 31.12.2009, the protest petition stands allowed and learned Magistrate took cognizance for offences under Sections 341, 325 and 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. Against such order, the accused persons are before this Court by way of this revision.3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned counsel for first respondent and learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for second respondent.In refusing to accept the final report which informed the case to be one of mistake of fact, learned Magistrate informed that the allegations in the complaint found support in 161(3) Cr.P.C. statement of the complainant and some of the eye-witnesses.Though some of the witnesses had informed the occurrence, wherein the complainant suffered injury to have taken place in a manner other than that stated by the complaint, the Magistrate saw therein proof of the occurrence and further found support for his decision from the accident register and the wound certificate of the complainant.This order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case before the trial Court.6.Considering the age of the first petitioner, this Court directs the Court below to dispense with his personal appearance before it, upon his swearing to an affidavit informing his address for service, that he duly would be represented by his counsel on all hearing dates, that he would, at no instance, dispute his identity and that, he would appear before the trial Court as and when required.Upon the first petitioner doing so, the Court below may seek his presence before it, solely on the important hearing dates.7.This Criminal Revision stands dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.24.11.2015Index:yes/noInternet:yes/nogmC.T.SELVAM, J.1.The XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.107 of 201024.11.2015
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,407,746 |
Item No. 27And In the matter of: Jagadish Debnath Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioner Mr. Bidyut Kumar Roy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Posta Police Station Case No. D2-297 of 2013 dated 02.08.2013 under sections 353/114 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary.According to the Petitioner, he has paid an amount of `40,000/- as directed by the West Bengal Taxation Tribunal against the demand of `10,71,700/-, besides the penalty.Hence, we allow this application and direct that in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,418,102 |
Before defendant No.1 was appointed as Chairperson, Mrs. Nirmala Malhotra was the Chairperson of the Trust.At that time, Ms. Devyani Sircar, Ms. Zakia Sultana (plaintiff No.2) and Ms. Renu Talwani (plaintiff No.3), Dr. S.V. Saluja and Ms. Rumma S. Sunder (defendant No.1) were the five trustees of the Trust.It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 was appointed as Chairperson of the Trust on 1.3.2005 because of the vacancy caused due to the death of erstwhile Chairperson Mrs. Nirmala Malhotra.Obviously, in the agenda there was no item regarding the removal of the defendant No.1 from the post of Chairperson.In this meeting Begum Zakia Sultana, Ms. Devyani Sircar, Ms. Renu Talwani and Dr. S.V. Saluja are shown as present.The minutes show certain decisions, including the decision that the staff be given a months salary as a token of respect to deceased trustees; conduct of a function to distribute certificates to students who had completed the secretarial course and the computer course on 12th November, 2005; a decision to extend the building premises; payment of administration expenses and scrutiny of applications for scholarships to be conducted by Ms. Renu Talwani and Ms. Devayani Sircar and certain other decisions.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 4 of 19There is no dispute with regard to the persons present during the meeting.He also highlighted the following alleged illegalities committed by the defendant No.1 :-(e) She opened a new bank account and the learned Single Judge has ordered to close the said account.(f) Defendant No.1 opened two new bank accounts in 2005 & 2006 itself with two new inductees, but this fact was never brought to the notice of the court.(h) She replaced them with three new inductees in February-March 2008, during the pendency of the case, but did not inform the court.(i) Defendant No.1 opened another bank account in Syndicate Bank but again did not inform the court.Delhi Mahila Samaj Trust (hereinafter referred to as the Trust) is a public trust.In this suit filed under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC), the Trust is made plaintiff No.1 and on its behalf the suit is filed through its Managing Trustee Ms. Devyani Sircar.The plaintiff No.2 is another trustee Smt. Zakia Sultana who has since died, Mrs. Renu Talwani is the other plaintiff No.3 These plaintiffs arrayed two defendants, namely, Smt. Rumma FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 1 of 19 S. Sunder, who was the Chairperson of the Trust and as per the averments made in the plaint, she was allegedly removed from the said position on account of purported acts of mismanagement of the Trust and embezzlement of Trust money.The other defendant is ING Vysya Bank Ltd., where account of the Trust is maintained.The plaintiffs in the said suit prayed for declaration, permanent injunction and rendition of accounts.In nutshell, the plaintiffs want to restrain the defendant No.1 from holding herself out as the Chairperson of the Trust; interfering with the functioning of the Trust; and possession of the Trust property from her.They also want defendant No.1 to render true and proper accounts as well as realization of the Trust funds and property allegedly misappropriated by her.Specific prayer about the proper administration and management of the Trust is also made along with some other consequential reliefs.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 1 of 19To put it precisely but in brief, in the plaint the plaintiffs have alleged various acts of mismanagement and misappropriation qua defendant No.1 because of which defendant No.1 was removed from the position of Chairperson in the Meeting of Trustees convened on 25.10.2005 and Mrs. Zakia Sultana was appointed as Chairperson in her place.There are also allegations that the defendant No.1 had created a back-dated notice dated 4.11.2005, which was sent to the trustees, for holding a meeting on 28.11.2005 and fabricating the minutes of the said supposedly held meeting, inducting two new trustees, namely, Ms. Cynthia Masih and Dr. Raj Kumari Kubha and FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 2 of 19 removal of Mrs. Zakia Sultana and Mrs. Renu Talwani from their position of trustees.In this backdrop, one of the prayers is to declare the appointment of Ms. Cynthia Masih and Dr. Raj Kumari Kubha as unauthorized and illegal.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 2 of 19Since the Trust is a public charitable trust, as mentioned above, an application under Section 92 of the CPC was also filed.The plaintiffs also filed another application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 CPC for ad interim injunction against the defendant.By the same orders, the plaintiffs application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 has also been disposed of giving partial relief.They are, therefore, allowed to continue.Appointment of Ms. Cynthia Masih and Dr. Raj Kumari Kubha in their place is, thus, not found to be in order.To this extent, directions in the application are in favour of the plaintiffs.However, at the same time, the learned Single Judge has also held that prima facie removal of defendant No.1 from the possession of Chairperson has not been established as there was no validly passed resolution to that effect and, therefore, she continues to be the Chairperson.Furthermore, prayer of the plaintiffs that she should not be allowed to act as Chairperson is not accepted.It is this FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 3 of 19 portion of the impugned judgment the holding to be not removed validly and is allowed to continue as Chairperson, with which the plaintiffs feel offended and present appeal is limited to this aspect.In view of the limited controversy which is raised in this appeal, we shall take note of those facts which are necessary to determine this controversy.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 3 of 19Re: Removal of the defendant No. 1 as Chairperson:However, the plaintiffs, on the other hand, have disputed recording any such minutes.According to the plaintiffs, when the issue of mismanagement and misuse of the Trust fund was discussed in the meeting, the defendant No.1 got agitated and walked out of the meeting.Thereafter, remaining four trustees, who were present, convened a special meeting and unanimously passed a resolution appointing Mrs. Zakia Sultana as the Chairperson of the Trust.On these minutes produced by the plaintiffs, following remarks have been made by the learned Single Judge :-FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 5 of 19It is noteworthy that while the copy of the resolution of the Special Meeting bears the signatures of Mrs. Devyani Sircar; Dr. S.V. Saluja; Mrs. Renu Talwani as well as Ms. Zakia Sultana, the minutes of the meeting dated 25th September, 2005 contain only the signatures of Ms. Zakia Sultana; Ms. Renu Talwani and Ms. Devyani Sircar.So far as this meeting is concerned, the plaintiffs have placed a copy of the minutes on record which show that the defendant No.1 - Ms. Rumma S. Sunder was in the chair.The minutes however bear the signatures of only Begum Zakia Sultana and Ms. Devyani Sircar.The plaintiffs have contended that in this meeting the appointment of Ms. Zakia Sultana as chairperson of the board was confirmed.The defendant no. 1 has disputed that any such meeting of the board of directors was held by the plaintiffs on 11th November, 2005."Further discussion on this aspect is found in paras 44 & 45, which are to the following effect :-The plaintiffs have objected that the defendant no.1 has appointed herself as a chair-person of the trust.The defendant no.1 has placed a copy of the resolution dated 26th June, 2004 passed in a meeting held at B-19, Sujan Singh Park, New Delhi which was the residence of Ms. Nirmala Malhotra.In this meeting, Mrs. NIrmala Malhotra, the erstwhile chairperson of the Trust handed over the keys of the almirahs of Delhi Mahila Samaj Trust along with all important documents of the trust to Ms. Rumma S. Sunder, defendant no.1 herein and also nominated her to be the acting chair-person to take full charge and responsibility of the trust, which was accepted by her.Ms. Nirmala Malhotra had so appointed the defendant no.1 as an acting chair-person keeping in view her failing health.Ms. Renu Talwani was a special invitee and was inducted on the board of trustees in this very meeting.On 1st march, 2005 this appointment of defendant no.1 as Chairperson by Ms. Nirmala Malhotra was confirmed in the meeting of the board of trustees.No notice setting out allegations against her was admittedly issued or sent to her.The plaintiffs have not placed a single communication to support any protest made against any action or omission of the defendant no.1."FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 6 of 19In the first instance, there was no agenda item regarding removal of defendant No.1 from the post of Chairperson.Such a business could not have been transacted in the absence of specific agenda.Removal of a person as FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 7 of 19 Chairperson is a serious matter for which there has to be specific agenda and notice thereof to all the trustees.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 7 of 19Even if it is preserved that the defendant No.1 got agitated and walked out of the meeting, the minutes produced by the plaintiff record that thereafter the trustees convened a special meeting and passed resolution appointing Mrs. Zakia Sultana as Chairperson being the senior most trustee.How such a special meeting could be convened there and then, is baffling.A validly appointed trustee can be removed only after following the procedure as laid down.Therefore, the prima facie opinion of the learned Single Judge even on this aspect would not call for any interference.Whether the defendant be restrained from acting as Chairperson in view of the allegations made by the plaintiffs against her?(a) Despite her removal as Chairperson and later on as trustee, defendant No.1 continued to act as the Chairperson of the Trust as well as trustee.(b) Defendant No.1, along with one more trustee, illegally removed three plaintiffs/trustees on 28.11.2005 and inducted two new trustees on the same day.(k) Defendant No.1 completely frustrated the said mechanism evolved by the learned Single Judge by surreptitiously inducting three new ladies in the trust.(l) She was charge sheeted under Sections 420, 468 & 471 IPC for cheating, forgery and using forged document as genuine document.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 11 of 19In the meeting dated 19.8.2008 it was specifically recorded that it was pointed out that the Board of Trustees has not assigned any functions to Ms. Devyani Sircar.(n) Tried to pass a resolution to increase the maximum number of trustees with the support of three new inductees to validate their induction in excess of maximum number of five trustees.(o) Minutes book are being written by defendant No.1 herself and they are not being shown to the plaintiff trustees.Sometimes, merely rapidly read out in the meetings.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 12 of 19(r) Till the end of September 2008, the funds deposited in ING Vysya Bank, ordered to be closed by this Court, have not been transferred to the aforementioned de-frozen accounts.FAO (OS) No. 380/2008 nsk Page 13 of 19(a) Though as per the plaintiffs defendant No.1 was allegedly removed as Chairperson on 25.10.2005 and then as trustee on 13.12.2005 as per the plaintiffs contention, fact remains that she continued to function as trustee and Chairperson even thereafter, which would demonstrate that such removal was only on paper.That should be avoided.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,789,985 |
Heard on admission.Having perused the impugned judgment, record of the trial court and the petition of appeal, I find this appeal is arguable.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Hence, no further notice is required to be sent to it.Also heard on I.A. No.11772/2017, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to them during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 23.05.2017 passed by the Ninth Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No.329/2009 titled State of M.P. through Police Station Gorakhpur, Jabalpur Vs.Rishi and another, appellant Rishi stands convicted under Section 324 of the IPC and appellant Dhananjay stands convicted under Section 324 read with 34 of the IPC and each of them sentenced to suffer RI for three years with a fine of Rs.1000/- (one thousand) with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants remained on bail during trial of the case.He submits that appellant Rishi remained in jail for a period of one year, six month and 29 days and appellant Dhananjay remained in jail for a period of two years, three months and 25 days out of the total sentence of three years awarded to them vide the impugned judgment.Thus, both the appellants had already been in prison for a substantial period.He submits that the appellants had already deposited the imposed fine amount.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2017, therefore, there is no likelihood of it being heard on merits in recent future.The appellants have a good case on merits.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A. Learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the prayer.On being released on bail, the appellants shall mark their presence before the Registry of this court first time on 15.01.2018 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this court.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ac/-
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,579,981 |
It may be mentioned at the outset that second respondent Vandana Jain was married to Nitin Jain, petitioner in Crl.M.C. 658/2016 he, in turn, being the son of Anil Kumar Jain, petitioner in Crl.M.C. 1968/2017, the marriage having been solemnised at Delhi on 03.03.2009, the said couple having lived here for some time before moving to Nigeria.There is some material available to show that the couple had returned to India in August, 2009 and that, on or about 15.09.2009, petitioner Nitin Jain took second respondent Vandana Jain (complainant) to her parental home in Janak Puri, Delhi leaving her there, he himself returning to Nigeria.It appears that, on 30.11.2009, Nitin Jain served a legal notice on Vandana Jain through his counsel in Nigeria calling her upon to join his company, accusing her, inter alia, of having abandoned the matrimonial home, she sending reply, through her counsel, on 15.01.2010, refuting the allegation of desertion, and instead accusing Nitin Jain and his family of various acts of commission or omission, including desertion and of having subjected her to cruelty (physical and mental).The complainant who is appearing in person has stated that she has spoken to her husband who has no objection in reconciling with her, so as to avoid break down of the matrimonial home.It has been stated by the complainant that her husband has stated that he will not be able to come to India unless and until he is asked by his parents to do so and therefore, a direction be given to Mr.This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the parent-in-laws and sister-in-law of the complainant in respect of FIR no. 55/2011 under Section 498/406/34 IPC registered with P.S. Dabri in respect of which investigation is still inconclusive.The case of the petitioners is that the husband of the complainant is staying in Nigeria and they have no control over him.On merits, however, the contentions of the petitioner Anil Kumar Jain, and his wife Shasi Jain, were accepted and the order directing charge to be framed against them was set aside.At the same time, note was taken of the submissions of petitioner Anil Kumar Jain respecting payment of Rs. 15 lakhs to the complainant, this being reflected in the following observations:-The charge sheet which was filed by the police clearly discloses that the husband of the complainant was residing in Nigeria and he could not be traced.The charge sheet also took note of the fact that during the course of investigation, when the petitioners had prayed for bail, the dispute was settled between them and the complainant on deposit of Rs.15 lakhs by the order of the High Court.The complainant had accepted such amount towards settlement of her matrimonial disputes.Both these petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) arise out of a criminal case relating to first information report (FIR) no. 55/2011 of police station Dabri, registered at the instance of the second respondent.Since they relate to facts which are substantially common and have been pressed through the same advocate for each of these petitioners, his Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 1 of 12 submissions being overlapping, they have been heard together and are being decided through this common order.Vandana Jain made a complaint to crime against women cell (CAW) on 19.01.2010, which after inquiry was converted into FIR no. 55/2011 on 12.02.2011, the investigation taken up into acts of commission or omission constituting offences punishable under Sections 498A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).It culminated in report (charge-sheet) under section 173 Cr.P.C. being submitted through the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) on Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 2 of 12 06.05.2013 by which prosecution was sought against Nitin Jain for offences under Sections 498A/406 IPC, the names of others, including his parents (Anil Kumar Jain & Shasi Jain) having been shown in column no.12 (persons not sent up for prosecution).The Metropolitan Magistrate before whom the charge-sheet was presented took cognizance, by order dated 13.09.2013, of offences under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC observing that specific allegations had been also made against Anil Kumar Jain and Shasi Jain, summoning both of them along with Nitin Jain as accused.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 2 of 12Earlier, during the course of investigation Anil Kumar Jain, Shasi Jain and one Neha Jain (who was not summoned) had moved this Court for anticipatory bail by application (no. 923/2011).The said application came up before a learned single judge of this court on 08.07.2011 when the submissions of both sides were noted with directions given as under:-"1.After hearing submissions, the complainant Ms. Vandana Jain, who is present in Court along with her counsel, has pointed out that she is prepared to settle all the matrimonial disputes and part company from the petitioner no.1 in case an amount of Rs. 15 lacs is paid to her towards full and final settlement of her entire claim of permanent alimony, stridhan etc., as was agreed before the learned Mediator in District Court, Dwarka.The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that he has no reservation about accepting the aforesaid proposal.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 3 of 12The learned counsel for the petitioners has shown the Court three drafts for a sum of Rs.5 lacs each in the name of the complainant for the purpose of final settlement as was agreed between the parties on the last date of hearing.Nitin Jain, husband to come to India to sort out the matter once and for all, as to whether he would like to reconcile or part company from the complainant.The learned counsel for the petitioners has contested the claim of the complainant that the husband is under the influence of his parents and therefore, does not want to come to India.It has been stated by him on instructions that if the husband wants to reconcile with the complainant, they have absolutely no objection but they certainly cannot exercise an influence over the husband to come to India.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that an opportunity be given to the parties to have a relook on the entire matter and make sincere efforts to save the matrimonial home.In the meantime, the petitioners shall deposit the aforesaid amount of Rs.15 lacs with the Registrar General Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 4 of 12 of this Court within a week, which shall be kept in a fixed deposit for a period of one year and shall be subject to the orders passed in this petition or alternatively by the Trial Court in the charge sheet which may ultimately be filed in respect of the FIR in question.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 4 of 12The petitioners may not be arrested in the meantime, however, they shall join the investigation as and when required by the IO.7. List on 22.9.2011".It is clear from the submissions at the hearing, as indeed the observations recorded in the above quoted two orders, as also the subsequent orders on bail application no. 923/2011, that Nitin Jain failed to return from Nigeria even though he was fully aware of the ongoing investigation into the above-mentioned FIR, this being re- inforced by his communication dated 17.02.2010 from Nigeria addressed to Inspector CAW Cell, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure D (page 158 of the paper book of the first captioned petition).The bail application no. 923/2011 was disposed of by this Court on 22.09.2011, the order reading thus:-So far as the present petitioners are concerned, to show their bonafide they have deposited a sum of Rs. 15 lacs without admitting their liability to pay any amount and without prejudice to their rights and contentions.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 5 of 12I have heard the learned APP as well as the complainant, who is present in Court.Having regard to the facts of the case, I feel that anticipatory bail may be granted to the petitioners.Accordingly, the petitioners shall, in the event of their arrest, be enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of IO/SHO.The petitioners shall not leave the country without the permission of the trial court and they shall surrender their passport to the Investigating Officer.The petitioners shall not change their address without informing the Court and the IO shall not tamper with the evidence.The amount which has been deposited by the petitioners shall be released to the complainant on her furnishing an undertaking before the Registrar of this Court that she will be bound by such terms and conditions which ultimately trial court may pass in respect of the said account.The complainant has stated that her original passport is with the petitioners.The learned counsel for the petitioners has denied that the original passport of the complainant is with them.The petitioners shall file their affidavit in the Court stating that the passport of the complainant is not with them, within a period of ten days from today.On the affidavit being filed, the complainant shall be at liberty to apply for a duplicate/fresh passport to the competent authority.With these directions, the petition is allowed.8. Dasti."An undertaking in terms of the above-mentioned order was submitted by the complainant.Subsequently the complainant approached this Court by Crl.M.A. 2816/2012 in the context of bail application no. 923/2011, her grievance being with respect to non-release of the interest that was accruing on the fixed deposit receipt of Rs.15 lakhs.The said Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 6 of 12 application was resisted by the petitioner Anil Kumar Jain.The Court, however, found no substance in the opposition and by order dated 25.04.2012 allowed the interest amount to be released to the complainant observing thus:-M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 6 of 12This is an application filed by the complainant for release of the interest amount.On the last date of hearing, notice was issued to the non applicant through counsel.The non applicant has not filed any reply to the application.However, a request for release of the interest amount by the complainant has been contested.It is further prayed that the said amount be released to the non applicant.This has been contested by the complainant who is present in person.I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the complainant.Having regard to the fact that the amount of Rs. 15 lacs was deposited in order to compensate the complainant for dowry articles as well as to maintain herself and her minor son.I am not inclined to stop the release of the interest amount in her favour.Let the interest amount be also released to the complainant on the same terms and conditions on which the principal amount has been released.With these directions, the application is disposed of".It may be noted that in the undertaking that was furnished by the complainant on 07.09.2012 pursuant to the above order, she had Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.After the Metropolitan Magistrate had taken cognizance and issued process by order dated 13.09.2013, endeavour was made to secure the presence of the persons who had been summoned as accused.While the petitioner Anil Kumar Jain and his wife (Shashi Jain) appeared, the presence of petitioner Nitin Jain could not be secured.On the same date, the Metropolitan Magistrate considered the question of charge.She found no case made out for charge under Section 406 IPC to be framed though holding that a prima facie case was made out to put Nitin Jain, Anil Kumar Jain and Shasi Jain on trial for offence under Section 498A IPC.It may be observed here that the said order cannot be said to be binding against petitioner Nitin Jain inasmuch as at that stage he was an absconder having failed to appear even pursuant to the proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. Be that as it may, petitioner Anil Kumar Jain and his wife Shasi Jain challenged the order framing charge before this Court by Crl.One of the contentions urged before this Court was that the order taking cognizance was bad in law on account of it having been passed after expiry of period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. in relation to the offence under Section 498A IPC, its gravamen showing acts of commission relating Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 8 of 12 to period prior to 15.09.2009 (whereafter the couple had not lived together).M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Initially an amount of Rs.15 lakhs was deposited with the Registrar General of Delhi High Court but on the request of the complainant, the same was released in her favour.The complainant who is present in person admits of her having received the aforesaid amount".xxx Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 9 of 12M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 9 of 1229.Apart from this, admittedly, the complainant accepted Rs.15lakhs towards settlement of her matrimonial dues.The husband of the complainant who is the son of the petitioners is untraceable".After petitioner Anil Kumar Jain had been discharged by order dated 09.12.2015 passed in Crl.Rev. 66/2015, he moved an application before the Metropolitan Magistrate, seeking restoration of the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs which had been deposited by him in terms of the directions in the application for anticipatory bail.His request to that effect was rejected by the Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 29.03.2017, it reading thus:-"The application filed at this stage is not only without merits but has been filed with an intention not only to befool the complainant but also to obtain illegal orders from this court as the non applicant/complainant had entered into a full and final settlement for alimony and istidhan/dowry articles and there was no mention of the FIR or its outcome at the time of entering into settlement.It is but clear that applicant is intentionally trying to harass the complainant by first entering into full and final settlement, settling all his claim and then seeking back the amount given by him in lieu of istridhan/dowry articles.Hence, the application of the applicant stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- upon applicant to be deposited with DLSA for filing this application which not only lacks merits but it has been filed for harassing the non applicant/complainant and misguiding the court."The first captioned petition (Crl.M.C. 658/2016) has been preferred by Nitin Jain challenging the summoning order passed on 13.09.2013 pressing the petition only on the ground of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., though some submissions were made to the Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.This plea cannot be accepted in view of the declaration of law on the subject in Sarah Mathew (supra) referring to which similar plea by his father Anil Kumar Jain was repelled by a co- ordinate bench of this Court in order dated 09.12.2015 in Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 10 of 12The petitioner Nitin Jain being a fugitive, aware all along of the proceedings pending against him before Metropolitan Magistrate, has the liberty to appear before the concerned criminal court and raise all contentions on merits of the accusations leveled against him.His petition Crl.M.C. 658/2016 does not call for any further directions.Petitioner Anil Kumar Jain insists that he is entitled to restitution of the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs which was released to the complainant pursuant to the above-noted proceedings.It may be that the criminal case insofar as the said petitioner is concerned has come to an end.But, as is noted by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the impugned order dated 29.03.2017, the amount of Rs. 15 lakhs had been tendered, in absence of the petitioners son from India, on his behalf "towards full and final settlement" of the "entire claim of permanent alimony, srtidhan. etc. of the complainant".This was a proposal which was initially mooted through the mediation process in district court, Dwarka, it being mentioned before the learned single judge at the time of hearing on the bail application no. 923/2011 on Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.At any rate, Nitin Jain, son of Anil Kumar Jain, has continued to elude the legal process in India.It is clear from the above-noted developments that he had tendered the amount of money for and on behalf of his son.The case against the son Nitin Jain is still pending and has not reached conclusion.In these circumstances, no question arises of the complainant being called upon to return the money.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 11 of 12The petition Crl.Both the petitions are, thus, dismissed.R.K.GAUBA, J.FEBRUARY 26, 2019 nk Crl.M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.Page 12 of 12M.C. No. 658/2016 & conn.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,809,462 |
This criminal revision under section 102 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 has been filed against the order dated 05.02.2019 passed by Additional Sessions Judge First/ Special Judge, Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Sultanpur and order dated 20.12.2018 passed by Juvenile Justice Board rejecting the bail application of revisionist who is more than 16 years at the time of incident.The present revision has been filed with regard to Case Crime No.91 of 2018, under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act registered at Police Station Peeparpur, District Amethi.Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that as per a reading of first information report, allegation has been levelled against the revisionist that he sexually exploited the prosecutrix on the pretext of promise of marrying her.Learned counsel submits that the first information report not only is belated but is also not borne out from the medical report which clearly indicates that no injury mark was seen, the pregnancy test was negative and that she has not undergone any recent sexual activity.Learned counsel for revisionist has submitted that the revisionist is in jail since 17.04.2018 and trial is at the evidence stage.Learned counsel for revisionist has also drawn attention to the report of District Probationary Officer with the submission that nothing adverse has been recorded against the revisionist and merely recommendation has been made that there is scope for reform in case the revisionist is kept in protected home.
|
['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.
|
458,098 |
JUDGMENT Mr. Y.K. Sabharwal, J.On 16th June, 1987, four Army Officers, Col.S.S.Sahota, Major Jaspal Singh, Captain B.K.Chottri and Captain A Shrivastava were murdered.Col.Sahota was Commanding Officer and Major Jaspal Singh was second in command of Unit 8 Jat.Captain Chottri was also an Officer of same unit while Capt.Shrivastava belonged to 302 Field Ambulance.These officers were murdered by Lance Niak Inder Pal Singh and Sepoy Mahavir, petitioners herein, also belonging to 8 Jat.The petitioners preferred a petition under Section 164 (1) of the Army Act, 1954 (For short 'The Act') on 31st December, 1988 against the finding and sentence of the General Court Martial.By letter dated 13th February, 1991, petitioners were informed that the said petition was considered and rejected by the Central Government.By letter dated 7th October, 1992, petitioners were informed about rejection of their post confirmation petition dated 7th March, 1991 filed under Section 164(2) of the Act and hence this petition.The petitioners were charged with the following offences:--"First Charges Army Act Section 69 (against both the accused.Committed a Civil Offence, that is to say, Criminal conspiracy, contrary to Section 120-(6) of the Indian Penal Code.In that they together, at field, between 28 May, 1987 and 16th June, 1987, entered into a conspiracy to do an illegal act, to sit to murder IC-1480 7N Col S.S. Sahota and IC-28739 W Maj.Jaspal Singh both of 8 JAT.Second Charge Army Act Section 69 (against both the accused.) Committing a civil offence that is to say, Murder, contrary to Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.In that they together, at Field on 16th June, 1987, by causing the death of IC-28739W Major Jaspal Singh of 8 JAT, committed murder.Third charge Army Act Section 69 (against accused No. 1).Committing a civil offence, that is to say, murder, contrary to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in that the, at Field, on 16th June, 1987, by causing the death of IC-41176A Cap B.K.Chottri of 8 JAT, committed murder.Fourth Charges Army Act Section 69 (against accused No. 1), Committing, a civil offence, that is to say, murder, contrary to Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In that he, at Field, on 16th June, 1987, causing the death of MS-1173A Capt.In that he, at Field on 16th June, 1987, by causing death of IC-14807N Col. S.S. Sahota of 8 JAT, committed murder."The thrust in present petition is to challenge the legality of death penalty imposed on the petitioners.LJ.65 (Delhi High Court) and T.S. Ramani v. The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Jail, Madras and Ors., 1984 Crl.892 (Madras High Court).Though provision of Sections 235(2) and 354(3) are not applicable but to say that the petitioners were not heard on question of sentence is not correct as would be apparent from the following answer given by petitioner No. 1: "I am 27 years old and my character has been very good throughout in the civil and military life.I have an illiterate wife and small daughter.I am married for the last about two and a half years.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,825,818 |
gya CRL.OP.No.7214 of 2015and WP.No.5515 of 201531.08.2015
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,827,767 |
This is first application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.255/2014, Police Station Kudila, District Tikamgarh, offences registered under sections 354 and 506-B of I.P.C.During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicant / accused seeks permission to withdraw this application.Hence, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,330,716 |
M.A. 18453/2011 Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.Criminal M.A. stands disposed of.+ CRL.1. Vide the instant petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.11.2011 of District Judge & Addl.Sessions Judge, Incharge North-West District, Rohini Courts whereby the ld.Trial Judge directed the respondents to be released on anticipatory bail.M.C.3913/2011 Page 1 of 4Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the accused in the present case are 21 in number.Three ladies were gangraped by them on 02.02.2009 and on same date, complaint was lodged to the police.Thereafter, petitioner filed the petition before this court and vide order dated 06.03.2010, whereby this Court directed the police to record the statement of the prosecutrix / petitioner.Thereafter, police filed the chargesheet under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, 1860 on 02.09.2010 and thereafter the matter was placed before the trial court and vide order dated 15.11.2010, ld.Trial Judge again directed the police to investigate further.Again on 24.12.2010, ld.Trial Jude passed the order and directed the Senior Officer of the police to monitor the instant case.However, only one section i.e. 323 of IPC was added in the said chargesheet.On 16.10.2011, ld.Trial Judge has recorded in the said order that the statements of complainant were recorded on 23.03.2010, pursuant to the order dated 16.03.2010 passed by Delhi High Court.In the said order, I note 21 alleged accused has been mentioned in the complaint.After considering all facts, ld.Trial Judge vide order dated 16.10.2011 passed the order that in spite of the fact that as per the Crl.M.C.3913/2011 Page 2 of 4 statement, prima facie seems to be commission of offence such as causing hurt by dangerous weapons and means, wrongful confinement, assault / use of criminal force with the intent to outrage the modesty of the complainants, kidnapping or abducting with the intend to wrongfully confine one of the complainants, commission of rape, attempt to commit rape, commission of gang rape, attempt to commit gang rape, attempt to commit murder, robbery, causing hurt in committing robbery, lurking house trespass or house breaking by night in order to commit offence and causing grievous hurt while committing such house trespass.M.C.3913/2011 Page 2 of 4As per the material on record, cognizance has taken for offences under Section 324/326/354/365/366/392/394/342/376/511/ 307/452/457/459 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the 21 respondents / accused.Counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that in order dated 11.11.2011, it is also recorded by the ld.Trial judge that all 21 respondents / accused was granted interim protection vide order dated 13.10.2011, whereas the order was passed on 13.10.2010 and the applications of all the accused were dismissed.M.C.3913/2011 Page 3 of 4The present petition is against the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents / accused persons after seeing the entirety into view of the case.The police investigated the case and filed the chargesheet twice.Moreover, the cognizance has already taken for the offences mentioned in Para - 8 of above.Keeping the facts and circumstances of the instant case into view, I am not inclined to interfere with the order passed by ld.Trial Judge.Accordingly Crl.M.C. 3913 is dismissed.The observation made in the present order shall not come in the way in disposal of the matter on merit before the Trial court.SURESH KAIT, J NOVEMBER 28, 2011 jg Crl.M.C.3913/2011 Page 4 of 4M.C.3913/2011 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,334,885 |
The criminal revision has been filed by the petitioners/A1 and A2 against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai in C.A.No.204 of 2011 dated 07.02.2014, in which, the appellate Court, while dismissing the appeal so filed by the present petitioners has upheld the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in C.C.No.4758 of 2003 dated 22.08.2011, in which, the trial Court had convicted the present petitioners for commission of offences under Sections 120(B), 420, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo two months R.I. each for the offence under Section 120(B) of I.P.C. and six month R.I. each for the offence under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 of I.P.C. and directed to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month S.I. each for the offence 120(B) of I.P.C. and directed to pay a fine of Rs.12,000/- each for each section in deafult to undergo four month S.I. each for the each offence under Sections 420, 419, 468, 471 read with 478 of I.P.C.2.The case of the prosecution is that one E.Gopinath, K.Subramania Rao, Gugan, R.Elumalai were entered into a criminal conspiracy during the year 1996 to cheat the Customs Department regarding Duty Drawback admissible to M/s.Sara Leathers, Chennai and R.Gugan insitaged Gopinath to open a current account with IOB, Choolai Branch and the said Gopinath opened A/c No.1482 in the name of M/s.Sara Leathers, No.27, De Mellows Road, Perambur Barracks, Chennai 12 and R.Gugan prepared a letter by using the letter head of M/s.Sara Leathers (original) addressed to AC( Drawback) Seaports Customs Department, as if, the said letter was given by the original exporter, M/s.Sara Leathers, which was entrusted to K.Subramania Rao by M/s.Sara Leathers through M/s.Sky Speed Freight Forwarders (P) Ltd., forged the signature as Manager of the company and induced the Customs Department to issue A/c payee cheques to IOB, Choolai.R.Gugan got two rubber seals made in the name of State Bank of Mysore, Thiruvanmiyur and IOB, Choolai affixed the same on the letter intimating the change of bank as if the said letter was given by the original exporter M/s.Sara Leathers.In this regard, it is relevant to point out the following lines:P.W.1 in his evidence has stated that on the basis of search warrant Ex.P2, P.W.2, Shanmugam, the Preventive Officer conducted search on 20.12.1999 in the residence of A2 Gugan and recovered 9 documents under Mahazer Ex.P.W.2, Shanmugam, Preventive Officer has stated that he recorded Ex.P.W.22, Thiru.Bhosaley was working as Assistant Government Examiner in the Office of Government Questioned documents at Hyderabad and he speaks about the documents were received from S.P. Of Police, SPE.K.Subramania Rao submitted the same to Customs Department.Subramania Rao and R.Gugan induced the Customs department to issue cheques to credit the drawback amount of Rs.1,66,014/- by submitting fabricated letter and obtained various cheques for that amount.R.Gugan deposited the same into the account of IOB, Choolai.Gopanath who is shown as Proprietor of M/s.Sara Leathers at No.27, De Mellows Road, Perambur Barracks.Gopinath given blank cheques to R.Gugan, who in turn prepared the cheques in the names of M.Prakash, N.Krishnan, R.Krishnan, M/s.Chitra Leathers.K.Subramania Rao impersonated as M.Prakash and encashed the cheques.R.Gugan impersonated in the names of R.Krishnan, N.Krishnan and encashed the cheques in their names and also R.Gugan impersonated as the Proprietor of M/s.Chitra Leathers, a non-existing firm, opened a current account No.195 with TNSC Bank, Periamet Branch, Chennai and encashed the cheques in the name of M/s.Chitra Leathers.R.Elumalai fraudulently and dishonestly received a cheque for Rs.50,000/- in his name, thus the above said four persons have beneficiaries of these amounts and cheated the customs department to the tune of Rs.12,66,014/- and caused wrongful loss to the customs department and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120(B) read with 419, 420, 409, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.3.After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police, SPE, CBI, ACB, Chennai filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and other accused before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, where the case was taken on file in C.C.No.4758 of 2003 and the case against Gopinath was separated in C.C.No.8510 of 2007 and as prima facie was found against the accused persons, they were charge sheet for the commission of offence under Sections 120(B), 420, 409, 419, 468, 471 read with 468 of I.P.C.4.In order to prove the case of prosecution, on the side of prosecution, as many as 23 witnesses, P.W.1 to 23 were examined and Exs.P1 to 85 were marked.However, on the side of the accused, even though no oral evidence was let in, Exs.D1 to 4 were marked.The trial Court, after completion of trial, on the basis of materials produced on records by the prosecution, found the accused for the offence and sentenced them as stated above.5.Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction passed against them by the learned trial Judge, the petitioners/A1 and A2 filed an appeal in C.A.No.204 of 2011 before the learned VI Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, where the same was dismissed vide its judgment dated 07.02.2014 and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court.Against the said judgment, the present revision has been filed.The appellate Court, while upholding the judgment of the conviction held that the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the investigation officer has proved on records of the links in the entire case.11.In the present case, it is undisputed fact that P.W.1 was working as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department and he conducted a search on 20.12.1999 in the residence of Guhan, A2/second petitioner herein.P.W.3 was also working as Preventive Officer in the Customs Department and he also had conducted search on 20.12.1999 at the residence of Subramania Rao, the first petitioner herein.P13 statement dated 27.12.1999 of accused Subramania rao, wherein, he admitted that he along with the accused Gugan and Elumalai entered into criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the same, received duty drawback in respect of M/s.Sara Leathers by sumitting forged documents.He recorded the confession of Subramania Rao, where, he was admitted that he received Rs.4,50,000/- by fraudulent manner.Rajachandiramohan, who was the Branch Manager, Indian Overseas Branch, Choolai Branch.P.W.16 Thiru.Senguttuvan gave loan of Rs.15,000/- to one Manoharn, for which Manoharan has given Ex.P 65 cheque dated 18.04.1996 for a sum of Rs.18,5000/- in the name of Sara Leathers and he encashed the same.P.W.13 Thiru.Veerabhadra Reddy, who was an appraiser of customs, Chennai speaks about the procedure for sanction of drawback .CBI, ACB, Chennai for examination and he examined the documents in his office and came to the conclusion and forwarded his opinion to CBI, ACB, Chennai.Thereafter, P.W.23, Thiru.Ponnalagan, completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet3.The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,338,174 |
Prior to marriage between the appellant and respondent, respondent married with one Manju, resident of village Barkisarai, and one son named Bholu @ Abhijeet was born out of the wedlock of respondent- husband and his ex-wife late Manju, who died due to carelessness of the doctor during the course of delivery.(19.05.2020) Per Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava,J.:By this first appeal under Section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), the appellant has assailed the validity of the judgment and decree dated 16.10.2019 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge Dabra, District Gwalior in Case No. 88/2015 (HMA), by which the petition preferred by the respondent under Section 13 of the Act has been allowed.It is pertinent to mention here that in this case appellant Smt. Maya shall be referred hereinafter as 'wife' and respondent Raju Rajoriya shall be referred hereinafter as 'husband'.In order to appreciate the appellant's challenge to the impugned judgment and decree, few facts need mention, which are stated infra.Since there was no one to lookafter his son, therefore, respondent had married the appellant.After some time, the wife's behaviour towards the respondent's son was not good and she used to beat his son.On convincing his wife, she used to quarrel with the husband with abusive language.On 8.3.2013 at 6.45 pm when husband called his wife and son Bholu @ Abhijeet, he did not find any response from them then he went on the roof of his house and saw that his wife was drowning his son in a drum filled with water and his son's head was under water, due to which his son Bholu @ Abhijeet died.In relation to this offence, the wife had been convicted by the competent Court vide judgment dated 22.6.2016 and she was sentenced to life imprisonment.Thereafter the wife was released on bail, and while on bail the wife had got registered a false report against the husband along with Rajesh, Mukesh and Vimal in Police Station Dabra, district Gwalior.The wife had also got registered a case under Section 307 of IPC against the husband and another in Police Station Karera, wherein during investigation it was found that the wife had herself caused injuries to her and FIR was lodged with a view to make pressure in the case filed under Section 302 of IPC.Therefore, the husband (respondent herein) had filed a petition seeking divorce under Section 13 of the Act. The wife filed written statement and prayed for dismissal of the petition for divorce.-( 3 )- FA No. 1904/2019The trial Court, after framing issues and after appreciation of due evidence collected and available on record allowed the petition for divorce under Section 13 of the Act vide impugned judgment and decree.Learned counsel for the appellant-wife has submitted that the impugned judgment and decree is based on surmises and conjectures.The trial Court has not discussed and considered the evidence adduced by the appellant and wrongly misread the same.The trial Court has granted the divorce to the husband merely on the ground that the wife had been convicted by the competent court under Section 302 of IPC, but has ignored the fact that an appeal against the conviction is pending before this Court wherein there are reasonable chances of appeal being allowed.Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and allowing the instant first appeal.Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent-husband has submitted that the trial Court has rightly allowed the divorce petition after appreciating the entire evidence available on record, and prayed for dismissal of the appeal filed by the appellant-wife.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record.In the present case, the trial Court has granted decree of divorce in favour of respondent-husband on the ground of cruelty.The fact that the appellant-wife had been convicted under Section-( 4 )- FA No. 1904/2019 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, for causing death of respondent's son Bholu, remained unrebutted from the side of the appellant.It has also come on record that when the appellant was on bail in the aforesaid case, she lodged a false report against the respondent in Police Station Dabra, District Gwalior as crime No. 716/2013 under Sections 451, 323, 506-B of IPC.The appellant had also lodged another FIR against the respondent for the alleged offence under Section 307 of IPC wherein the investigating authority found that the respondent has been falsely implicated by the appellant in a concocted case in order to make pressure upon the respondent for compromise in the case under Section 302 of IPC.Though defence was taken by the appellant that since the respondent-husband wanted to take divorce from the present appellant-wife, therefore she had been falsely implicated in the aforesaid case under Section 302 of IPC, but the fact remains that the competent Court after detailed analysis of the evidence available on record had convicted the appellant in the said case.In paras 23 and 26 of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has observed that from the evidence and the documents produced by the respondent, it is clear that there was no dispute between the appellant and respondent prior to the death of respondent's son Bholu on 8.3.2013 but thereafter the appellant- wife has filed First Information Reports against the respondent- husband in Police Station Dabra as Crime No. 716/2013 and in Police Station Karera, District Shivpuri as Crime No. 774/2013 under Section 307 of IPC, which falls within the purview of 'cruelty' by the appellant-wife.Hence, appeal filed by the appellant- wife appears to be devoid of substance and is hereby dismissed.No order as to cost.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,338,826 |
(Patherya,J.) (Samapti Chatterjee,J.) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,341,963 |
2) Brief facts:(a) A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 41 of 2008 atPS Yercaud, District Salem dated 16.02.2008 got registered byMahimaidoss (PW-8) stating that on 14.02.2008, John Bosco(since deceased), who was employed as the driver in his travelagency, along with one Madhan (since deceased), took aMaruti Van from him but did not return for two days.(b) On the very next date, i.e., on 17.02.2008, one more FIRgot registered by one Asokan bearing No. 88 of 2008 statingthat when he went to irrigate his fields, he found a whitecolour sack floating in the well.He immediately informed thesame to the local police and when the sack was opened, amale body with hands tied at the back was found.(c) On the basis of FIR dated 16.02.2008, Crime No. 41 of2008 was registered at Yercaud Police Station and during the 2 pendency of investigation, FIR No. 88 of 2008 got registeredand a body was found which was identified as of John Bosco.9) It is the case of the prosecution that theappellants-accused planned to earn quick money by robbing acar and selling the same and for that purpose on 14.2.2008they went to Yercaud and engaged the taxi of the John Bosco(since deceased) under the guise of sightseeing.John Bosco 6 (since deceased) also took one Madhan (since deceased) on theway.The appellants-accused asked the driver-John Bosco todrop them at Periyar Nagar, Salem at the house of thegrandfather of one of the accused.After reaching there, theappellant-accused found that the grandfather was notavailable.R.K. Agrawal, J.1) The above appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 639 and 688 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein againstSignature Not VerifiedASHA SUNDRIYALDate: 2018.04.16 the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Fast Track CourtDigitally signed by16:14:10 ISTReason:No. II, Salem, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 wherein learned 1 Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the appellantsherein under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 364and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘theIPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life withsubstantive sentences under the IPC.(d) During investigation, Sivashankar (A-1 therein) wasapprehended and he confessed about committing the crimealong with (A-2 and A-3) appellants herein stating that theyabducted John Bosco and his friend Madhan and taken themin the Maruti Van being driven by John Bosco to one of therelatives of Accused No. 2 therein where they caused death ofJohn Bosco and Madhan by strangulating them one by oneusing a rope and drowned their bodies in water streams usinggunny bags.A-1 also took the investigation officer to the placewhere the body of Madhan was found in a gunny bag.The Court framed chargesunder Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read withSection 302 and 379 of the IPC.(f) Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, videjudgment and order dated 18.09.2009, convicted all theaccused for the commission of crime under the chargingSections and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.(g) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated18.09.2009, the appellants-accused preferred Criminal AppealNos.639 and 688 of 2009 before the High Court.The DivisionBench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated23.11.2009, dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellantsherein.(h) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated23.11.2009, the appellants herein have preferred theseappeals by way of special leave before this Court.3) Heard Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for theappellants-accused and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counselfor the respondent-State and perused the records.Point(s) for consideration:-4) The only point for consideration before this Court in thepresent facts and circumstances of the case is whether the 4 High Court was right in dismissing the appeals preferred bythe appellants-accused?5) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants contendedthat the courts below failed to appreciate that the convictioncannot be based upon a retracted confession and it can beused only in support of other evidence.He further contendedthat the courts below erred in convicting the appellants wherethe cause of death is not known.6) Learned counsel further contended that there are severallacunas in the prosecution version.In support of the same, hecontended that the lower courts failed to appreciate that theowner of the phone recovered from Accused No. 1 therein isnot PW-8 and some other person and the said person wasnever examined by the prosecution.Further, on 14.02.2008,at about 10.30 a.m., PW-11 has seen the accused along withthe deceased whereas the dead bodies have been found after agap of several days and the possibility of intervention of someother person cannot be ignored.7) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants finallycontended that the High Court ought to have appreciated thefact that there was no complete chain of circumstantialevidence in the prosecution case and there are variousdiscrepancies inherent in it, hence, the benefit of doubt shouldbe given in favour of the appellants while setting aside thejudgment and order passed by the High Court.8) Per contra, learned counsel appearing on the behalf ofRespondent-State submitted that the judgment and orderpassed by the Division Bench of the High Court upholding thedecision of the Sessions Court is as per the terms and dictatesof law and should not be inferred with and the evidenceagainst the appellants-accused are sufficient enough to bringhome the guilt.The appellants-accused invited John Bosco into thehouse for taking liquor and they killed both of them bystrangulating their necks with a rope.Accused No. 1 thereintook the mobile phone and the Accused No. 3 therein took theYashika Camera of one John Bosco.Accused No. 2 thereinconcealed the said van in the house of his grandfather.Thenumber plate of van was changed with a sticker.Thereafter,they wrapped the dead bodies into separate gunny bags andthrew the gunny bag containing the dead body of John Boscointo the well of PW-1 and threw away the dead body ofMadhan to some other place.10) The appellants-accused were charged and prosecutedunder Sections 302 read with 34, 364, 201 read with Section379 of the IPC.As in the given case no direct evidence of theincident is available, the prosecution heavily relied upon the 7 circumstantial evidences.To prove the case, the prosecutionhas examined as much as 27 witnesses and produced differentrelevant documents.11) In the FIR, bearing No. 41 of 2008, lodged by PW-8, atYercaud Police Station, he had specifically mentioned that hebought a mobile phone in the name of some other person andhanded over the same to John Bosco.PW-8 is the owner of thevehicle which was being driven by John Bosco at the time ofthe incident, and also happens to be his maternal uncle.PW-8 also tried to contact John Bosco over themobile phone but it was switched off.Mr. Asaithambi(PW-26), the investigation officer, stated in his deposition thaton 25.02.2008, PW-8 handed over the bill of the said mobilephone to him.During investigation and while tracing the IMEInumber of the mobile phone, it was revealed that the said 8 phone was being used by Accused No. 1-Sivasankaran.Based on his confessional statement, PW-26 foundthe dead body of Madhan as well as the mobile phone of JohnBosco and a rope was also recovered with which they allegedto have murdered the deceased.The dead body was identifiedby his mother and the same was further proved by skullimposition test.He further informed the whereabouts of otheraccused persons on the basis of which they were arrested fromYercaud junction.However, he retracted from the givenstatement in the court.12) Accused No. 2-Suresh was apprehended by PW-20 atSalem Railway Station based on the information given byAccused No. 1 and on the basis of his information, therecovery of the alleged Omni Van was affected by PW-26.Further, Anbalagan (PW-11), who was a Taxi driver at YercaudTaxi stand had deposed that the appellants-accused hadspoken to John Bosco on 14.02.2008 for hiring a taxi forsightseeing.Thereafter, he noticed that the 9 appellants-accused boarded the vehicle of John Bosco andMadhan also boarded the same vehicle from a short distance.PW-26 deposed that on the basis ofthe confession of Accused No. 3, Yashika Camera wasrecovered.The dead body of John Bosco was recovered fromthe farm of PW-1 on 17.02.2008 on his information and thesame was identified by the mother and father of the deceasedand was further proved by skull imposition test.The Nokia phone was recovered from AccusedNo.1 and it is not the case that it was used for thecommission of crime and similarly the motor cycle sorecovered was of the father of Accused No. 3 and no evidencehas been adduced or produced by the prosecution as to howthese objects have a bearing on the case.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,034,302 |
The petitioner is innocent.going to stop his car, but sped it up and fled away by breaking the barricades erected by the police.The petitioner has not co-operated with the investigation.After five months of the incident, he surrendered before the Court.He did not cooperate with the investigation.Even when taken on remand, he did not reveal the truth before the police.On the interrogation, he revealed that when walked away from the clutches of the police, he concealed the liquor in a deserted area, but nothing was found in that area.Co-accused Deepak and Kamal have named him as the main accused, who got the illicit liquor loaded in both the vehicles viz. orange colour Maruti Car and grey colour EcoSport.He himself was driving the EcoSport at the time of the incident.The police laid a picket at Soumya Fanta.After some time, they noticed both Maruti Suzuki Car and EcoSport.They asked the drivers to stop the vehicles.The driver of Maruti Suzuki stopped the vehicle, but the driver of EcoSport slowed down his vehicle pretending that he is going to stop the vehicle, but suddenly sped it up and fled away from the spot by breaking the barriers.Heard through video conferencing with the aid of case- diary.As declared by the petitioner, this is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.There is no evidence, except the disclosure statement of co- accused Deepak to implead him in the present case.The police have foisted false case against him.His custodial interrogation is not required.All the allegations are false and frivolous.The trial would take time as the functioning of the Courts is at a halt due to Covid-19 for the past about eight months.He is a permanent resident of Subhash Nagar, Narayangarh, District - Mandsaur.There is no possibility of his absconding.He is ready to comply with the conditions to be imposed by the Court.It is further contended that the police have recorded 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42343 of 2020 Jitendra Kumar Vs.State of M.P.two disclosure statements of Deepak.In the first statement, he revealed nothing, but in the second statement name of the petitioner is said to have been revealed.This makes the police case suspicious.He has not committed the alleged offence.The police want to arrest him just to harass him.He is ready to co-operate with the investigation if his liberty is protected.He shall abide by all the conditions to be imposed by the Court, therefore, he be granted bail.In respect of criminal record, it is submitted that in Crime No.07/2008, U/s.451, 294, 506-B, 427, 34 IPC of Police Station - Narayangarh, the petitioner has been acquitted.So far as Crime No.187/2020 under Section 384 IPC is concerned, the complainants have compromised the case and two joint affidavits, first of Kailash, Devilal, Surendra and second of Shaitan Singh, Mukesh and Mahesh have been filed.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has strongly opposed the application stating that along with co-accused Deepak and Kamal, the petitioner was transporting illicit liquor for sale during the period of lockdown when there was a complete ban on sale - purchase of the liquor.It is further argued that the petitioner was named in the FIR.Co-accused has revealed he was the person, who fled away from the spot.He is the registered owner of the Ecosports.He deceived the force pretending that he is 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.The police party, who barricaded the road, have seen him on the spot and have also noticed that the EcoSport was loaded with brown colour boxes, which are similar to the boxes, that ordinarily used to pack the liquor.In their police statements, Constables - Kaushal Pratap Singh, Udal Singh, S.S. Yadav and Dhanpal Singh have named the petitioner as the person, who fled away from the spot.It is further averred that the investigation regarding the batch number, supplier, Warehouse and the liquor shop to which the seized liquor was supplied is pending, therefore, the petitioner be not granted bail.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.42343 of 2020 Jitendra Kumar Vs.State of M.P.In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no evidence that the Constables, who named the petitioner were acquainted with him, therefore, their statements, which have been recorded after about two months of the incident cannot be relied upon.Learned Panel Lawyer submitted that without giving the opportunity to explain, the police statements of the Constables cannot be discarded at this stage.According to the prosecution case, the police received information that some miscreants are transporting illegal liquor in an orange colour Maruti Suzuki car bearing registration No. MP-14-CB-0791 and in a grey colour unnumbered EcoSport Car.The police recovered 21 boxes, containing 1050 quarters/189 bulk litres of country-made foreign liquor from the Maruti Suzuki car.On interrogation, the occupant of the Maruti car, Deepak revealed that the petitioner was driving the EcoSport.The member of the police team has also named the petitioner as the person fled away from the spot.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the record.On due consideration of the facts narrated by the learned Panel Lawyer and the evidence available on record to support them, coupled with the ownership of vehicle (EcoSport) and the conduct of the petitioner, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for granting bail to the petitioner is made out, therefore, the petition is dismissed.(Virender Singh) Judge Pankaj Digitally signed by Pankaj Pandey Date: 2020.11.07 10:31:44 +05'30'
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,348,265 |
It is alleged that the work of installation of street lights of electric poles and light fittings in Ward Nos.1 and 28 of Municipal Corporation, Ahmednagar was allotted to accused No.1 Sachin suresh Lotake, a registered contractor.He did not complete that work.The applicant was working as Head of the Electric Department of the Corporation.The applicant has prayed for bail in connection with Crime No.I-58 of 2018, registered in Police Station, Tofkhana, Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 201, 420, 406, 409, 467 and 471 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::2 ba1000-2018However, by making collusion with the present applicant and other four officers of the Corporation, on the basis of false and bogus bills, he withdrew the amount of Rs.34,65,441/- on the false pretext that he has completed the work assigned to him.Therefore, the applicant also came to be connected with the above-numbered crime.The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was working as the Head of the Electric Department of the Corporation.As seen from the statement of the Chief Auditor namely Chandrakant Kharat, it was not the duty of the applicant to visit the site to verify whether the entries taken in the measurement book were correct as per the factual position.After receiving the measurement book, that was signed by the Sectional Engineer, Deputy Engineer ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 ::: 3 ba1000-2018and City Engineer, a note was being prepared by the concerned Department for sanction of funds.The said note was required to be signed by the Sectional Engineer, City Engineer and the Head of the Department.Thereafter, a note was being placed before the Audit Department for sanction.After it was scrutinized by the Audit Department, it was being placed before the Auditor of the Department.After the Auditor examined those papers and signed the note and the bills, the same was being placed before the Deputy Commissioner, Additional Commissioner and then Commissioner for final sanction.The learned counsel submits that since the applicant was not the person, who actually took measurement of the work that was done at the site, he was not responsible for the bogus entries, if any.He then submits that the officers, who were supposed to visit the site and prepare the bills, have been released on bail.Therefore, on the principle of parity also, the applicant is entitled for the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::The learned A.P.P. strongly opposed the application.He submits that in the preliminary enquiry, conducted by the Additional Commissioner and Assistant Director of Town Planning, it was noticed that ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 ::: 4 ba1000-2018it was the duty of the present applicant to verify whether the work was completely done as per the order and then sign the bills.However, though the work was incomplete, the applicant signed the bills and helped the contractor in getting the bills sanctioned.The learned A.P.P. submits that there is fraud of Rs.34,65,441/-.According to him, the applicant is prima facie responsible for the said fraud.Therefore, he is not entitled for the relief of bail.The learned A.P.P. prays that the application may be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::Perused the statement of the Chief Auditor Chandrakant Kharat as well as the questionnaire with the answers given by the Commissioner, which was forwarded to the Investigating Officer.Neither in the statement of the Chief Auditor nor in the answers given to the questionnaire, there is mention that it was the duty of the present applicant to actually visit the site where the work was being done and verify with reference to the entries made in the measurement book that the work was completed as per those entries.There were a number of other officers, who were responsible for verifying the entries in the measurement book prior to placing of the bills before the applicant.As seen from the orders ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 ::: 5 ba1000-2018passed by the Trial court, accused No. 5 Dilip Raghunath Zirpe, the Chief Accounts and Finance Officer, Vikram Dagdu Darade, the Deputy Commissioner, Sachin Suresh Lotke, the Contractor and Balasaheb Chandrakant Savale, the Electricity Supervisor, who were under an obligation to verify the work actually carried out as per the order, have been released on bail by the Trial Court.Bharat Tryambak Kale, who was serving as Clerk in Electric Department and was holding password for operating the computer system for processing the bills, also has been released on bail by this Court.In the circumstances, considering the role attributed against the present applicant, even on the principle of parity, he is entitled to be enlarged on bail.::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::The observations made in this order, being prima facie in nature, would have limited effect for deciding the present application only and would not influence any other proceeding arising out of the present crime.In the result, I pass the following order :- ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount, on the following conditions:-(b) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.(iii) The bail bonds shall be furnished before the Trial Court.(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/ba1000-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 08/09/2018 01:37:40 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,515,388 |
Certified copy as per rules.Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2017.11.22 15:19:40 +05'30' of rt ou C h ig HTHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH CRA-1303-2013 sh (MAHESH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) e 9 ad Jabalpur, Dated : 21-11-2017 Pr Mr.M.K.Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Narendra Chourasiya, learned Government Advocate for the a State.hy Heard on I.A.No.14343/2017, which is a fourth repeat application ad for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under section rt 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and fine of ou Rs.2000/- and for an offence under section 506(2) sentenced to RI C for 6 months with default stipulations.h Learned counsel for the State has received a report from jail to the ig effect that the appellant has been in jail now for six years and 26 H days.As more than 50% of the jail sentence has already been completed by the appellant and the appeal is not likely to be heard in near future, I am inclined to allow I.A.No.14343/2017 and suspend the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon the appellant and direct that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appellant shall now appear before the Registry of this Court on 19.7.2018 and on such other dates as may be directed by the office.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
251,555 |
Advocate General for Govt. of Tamil Nadu in all Crl.For Respondent No.2 ... Mr.(iii) On 24.04.1989, the said property has been purchased by BhagchandUttamchand Galada/A1 and his other family members from the legal heirs of JohnTapp vide registered sale deeds.The patta is also stands in their names.(iv) In the above said property, there were two tenants, one is Mani Iyerand another Zavior Michael, the father of the second respondent herein.As per the joint memo,the said Zavior Michael handed over the possession to Galada in compliance ofthe consent decree passed by this Court.(vi) While being so, on 02.09.2010, Galada/A1 and his family members havedecided to sell the property to one Reuban and executed power of attorney in hisfavour.In that enquiry, the defacto complainant and his family membershave requested not to proceed further and prayed to close the said petition,since the matter was already settled and the second respondent and his familymembers have stated that the said petition was sent due to some distress andwithout consent of Zavior Michael.(ix) Galada/A1 is a permanent resident of Chennai and even the defactocomplainant is a resident of Chennai and it is only the father of the defactocomplainant who is living in Kodaikanal.The complaint failed to lay down thefactual foundation for making out the offence as alleged.(x)E.N.Palanisamy/A2 is the Managing Director of M/S.Mookambikai TextileMills at Vada Madurai and he is having high reputation and respect in thesociety.In fact, the second respondent and his family members are very wellknown to the petitioner since from the year 1990 and on several occasions, thepetitioner had helped the second respondent monetarily and on humanitariangrounds.They had also approached the petitioner to get aid for education andmedical expenses.While being so, the second respondent had lodged a falsecomplaint and without appreciation of facts and materials, the first respondentregistered the case and investigated the matter in an improper way.Since the consent decree is in existence, the secondrespondent has estopped from making contradictory statements in other forum.(xii)The Apex Court consistently held that there should not be secondF.I.R. for the same offence, in this case also on the complaint, an enquiry wasconducted in C.S.R.No.501 of 2010 on the file of the first respondent and afterenquiry, the matter was closed on 15.10.2010, thereafter on 27.04.2011, theimpugned F.I.R. has been registered on the very same complaint, which is totallyagainst the principles laid down by the Apex Court.(xiii)On perusal of F.I.R., the date of alleged occurrence said to havetaken place on 23.04.2010 and the complaint was sent to the Director General ofPolice on 25.09.2010 and thereafter, after enquiry on 15.10.2010, C.S.R.No.501of 2010 was closed as withdrawn.The saidSivanandi who is serving as Inspector General of Police, Tamil Nadu hadintroduced one Palanisamy, who is the petitioner/accused No.2 herein, a millowner so as to render assistance to the informant family.The petitioner/A2 hadgiven a false hope that he would give all legal assistance.Petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 8741 and 9385 of 2011 filed underSection 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the recordspertaining to F.I.R.No.203 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent policeand to quash the same.!For Petitionerin Crl.O.P(MD)No.8741/2011 ... Mr.Vijay Narayan, senior counsel for Mr.R.R.KannanFor Petitionerin Crl.M.Ajmalkhan in both Crl.The petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.8741 and 9385 of 2011 have been filed by thefirst and second accused in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the Inspector ofPolice, Kodaikanal.2.The averments in the petitions are as follows:(i) The case has been registered against the petitioners/A1 & A2 andothers under Crime No.203 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448,294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C.(ii) The property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage, Kodaikanaltown, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp and hebequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and thesame was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the fileof the District Judge, Madurai.In orderto evict the tenants, the said Galada/A1 has filed R.C.O.P.Nos.2 & 3 of 2001before the District Munsif at Kodaikanal against the above said tenants.PendingR.C.O.P. Proceedings, one tenant Mr.Mani Iyer entered into compromise betweenGalada, accordingly he vacated the premises by filing joint memo before the RentControl Court.(v) On 10.12.2003, eviction order was passed in R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001against Zavior Michael.Against that order, he filed R.C.A.No.1 of 2004 and thesame was allowed on 09.10.2009 by the Appellate authority/Subordinate Judge atPalani and thereby the eviction order was reversed.Thereafter, the saidGalada/A1 filed C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.853 of 2010 before this Hon'ble Court and on24.08.2010, both parties entered into compromise and accordingly joint memo hasbeen filed and consent decree was passed by this Court.The petitioner herein isthe first accused.On perusal of an F.I.R., no offence is made out and that theentire proceedings arising out of a civil transaction, which is according to thepetitioners/accused have already been settled and attained finality.The presentcomplaint has been preferred by the defacto complainant only in order to threatand harass the petitioner for certain extraneous reasons and considerations.(viii)In order to justify the illegal occupation of the property, on25.09.2010, son of Zavior Michael, the second respondent herein made arepresentation to the Director General of Police, Chennai, seeking policeprotection for him and his family members.The impugned F.I.R. has been registered on27.04.2011 after one year from the date of alleged occurrence and there is noexplanation for the said delay in registering the case.The complaint lodged bythe second respondent is clear abuse of the process of the Court and clearviolation of the consent decree passed in civil revision petition.Hence, theyprayed for quashing the F.I.R.3.The gist and essence of the counter affidavit filed by both therespondents are as follows:(i)On the complaint preferred by the defacto complainant before theDirector General of Police, Tamil Nadu, on 25.09.2010, preliminary enquiry wasconducted and inasmuch as prima facie case was established to proceed againstthe accused, a case was registered in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of theKodaikanal Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420I.P.C. and investigation was going on.In the civil revision petition, which was ended in compromise, withoutthe knowledge of the family of the defacto complainant, a joint memo ofcompromise was entered purportedly at the behest of the second accused, whoacted as the power agent of the father of the defacto complainant and one Reubanwith the active connivance of certain powerful persons just to grab the landsheld by the family of the defacto complainant for more than 40 years.They have not vacated on their own volition from thepremises.On the other hand, they were forcibly evicted by using force and thebuilding which stood for more than 85 years were demolished on 07.02.2011 by oneReuban and his henchmen, who came to the spot with pockalines and bulldozerstook possession of the building forcibly before demolishing them.The strong armact was perpetrated with active connivance of powerful people and land grabbers.(iii) The defacto complainant presented a petition before the DirectorGeneral of Police, Chennai on 25.09.2010 stating that at the behest of certainpowerful people, his family is being harassed to vacate the property which wasunder their possession and enjoyment for more than 40 years.He was also allegedthat they have been receiving threatening calls and the family head, being apastor, a peace loving person engaged in welfare activities were forced to signblank papers and inasmuch as the rowdy elements armed with deadly weapons arefrequently visiting their abode, they fear for their life and hence requestednecessary action.On the same day, it appears that they got in touch withone Father Joseph, 72 years old leader of the Minority Community EducationFoundation and appraised of their predicament and on seeing their plight, hetook up cudgels on his behalf and sent petition to the President of India amongothers which was forwarded to the hierarchy of Officials and reached theSuperintendent of Police, Dindigul, who verified the veracity of the complaintand directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai, in-charge,Kodaikanal Sub-Division to register a case and investigate the same.On theinstructions given by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nilakottai, in-chargeof Kodaikanal Sub-Division on 27.04.2011, the aforesaid case has been registeredand the investigation was taken up which is perfectly legal.(iv) This is a case where the accused No.1 has used his political andpolice power so as to throw away the defacto complainant's family withoutfollowing the due process of law.Since the accused No.1 had continuouslythreatened the informant family, the informant's father Zavior Michael met hischildhood friend one Sivanandi, who is arrayed as A3 in this case.Thepetitioner/accused No.1 had gained confidence of informant's family by givingsuggestions to the family.In the mean while, A2 and A3 have been gained by A1and they have shifted their loyalty in favour of A1 for extraneousconsiderations.On 23.04.2010,the defacto complainant appeared before the Director General of Police andlodged the present complaint seeking action against the accused No.1 and otheraccused persons.The said complaint was forwarded to the Inspector General ofPolice, South Zone, Madurai for enquiry.On receipt of the said complaint, theInspector General of Police, South Zone, Madurai, had forwarded the same to theDeputy Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal to register a case and investigateinto the matter.Though, a specific direction was given by the then InspectorGeneral of Police, South Zone, that the then Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kodaikanal had colluded with the accused and not registered any F.I.R. againstthe accused.Instead the then D.S.P. Kodaikanal under the pressure from the thenInspector General of Police, West Zone (Sivanandi) had closed the complaint on15.10.2010 as if the informant's father Zavior Michael had requested him to dropall further proceedings against the accused persons and withdrawn the complaint.Thepetitioner/A2, Reuban/A4, Deva/A6, Soleman/A7, Subbaiah/A12, Thannashi/A13 werepresent in the house.(vi)The respondent police has come forward to register the case againstthe accused, because of the consistent effort of informant's family.One of theaccused is presently serving as Inspector General of Police and others arehighly influential persons.That on 04.10.2010, the firstaccused and other accused had threatened the informant's family members andobtained their signatures under coercion so as to use the same for illegalpurpose.So the averments made in the quash petitions are not correct.Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the petitions.4.The petitioners in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.8765 to 8767, 8773, 9058, 9282 of2011 filed the above said petitions for anticipatory bail stating that they areinnocent and their names have been falsely implicated in this case.Now they areapprehending for arrest at the hands of the respondent police, hence they havecome forward with these petitions for seeking anticipatory bail.Heard thelearned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for respondent.The quashpetitions have been filed by the first and second accused to quash the F.I.R.registered in crime No.203 of 2011 for the alleged offence under Sections 147,148, 448, 294(b), 387 and 420 I.P.C. pending on the file of the firstrespondent police.6.Admittedly, the property bearing D.No.41/67, Welwyn inn Cottage,Kodaikanal town, Dindigul District, is originally belongs to one John Tapp andhe bequeathed the property to his legal heirs by a will dated 09.10.1939 and thesame was probated vide order dated 16.12.1941 in O.P.No.58 of 1941 on the fileof the District Judge, Madurai.John Tapp bequeathed all the reminder of hisproperty movable and immovable wherever situated to his nephew Victor Tapp andthat has been properly probated, after the death of the said John Tapp, VictorTapp was filed O.P.No.58 of 1941 before the District Court, Madurai and Lettersof Administration has been issued.The said Victor Tapp/Legatee died on14.07.1972 at Greenwich, London.The licence to hold the immovable properties in India hasbeen granted in favour of the following four persons viz., (1) John Edward Tapp(2) Mary Eleanor Rogers (3) Victor Alfred Henry Tapp and (4) Robert ArthurWilliam Tapp.Since the heirsof the said Victor Tapp want to dispose the property, they obtained apermission from Reserve Bank of India.On 08.08.1988, the heirs executed thepower of attorney in favour of one Rajendrakumar Pukharajmal Lunkad.The firstaccused had purchased the property along with three persons vide registered saledeed dated 24.04.1989 from the power of attorney of legal heirs of Victor Tapp.The land and building namely, 'Welwyn' bearing D.No.17/99 is situated at OldS.No.50, New T.S.No.22, Kodaikanal Town with an extent of 1.44.0 hec.and thesaid property was rented out to the tenants namely, Zavior Michael, who is thefather of the defacto complainant/R2 and one Mani Iyer.Since dispute arosebetween the above referred tenants, the petitioner/first accused had preferredR.C.O.P.Nos.2 and 3 of 2001 against Mani Iyer and Zavior Michael before the RentController-cum-District Munsif Court, Kodaikanal.R.C.O.P.No.2 of 2001 wasended in compromise and dismissed as settled out of Court and R.C.O.P.No.3 of2001 was ordered in his favour.The order was passed by recording joint memo filed bythem.The present complaint was presented by the defacto complainant on25.09.2010 to the Director General of Police for taking steps.7.The learned senior counsels appearing for the petitioners/accused raisedthe following grounds for quashing F.I.R.(i) This case has been generated only on the property dispute.They may very well produce the documents before the investigatingagency and put forth their case.If the charge sheet is filed, they can workout their remedy to file the petition to quash the charge sheet.Now the investigation is going on, witnesses were examined andSections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. statements were recorded.So it is very pre-maturedstage to decide the quash petitions.Hence, he prayed for the dismissal of thepetitions.While perusingthe documents filed by the accused, the said Zavior Michael, who is none otherthan the father of the defacto complainant/R2 has declared as a tenant.In hisown document, he himself filed a suit in O.S.No.30 of 1989 on the file of theDistrict Munsif Court, Kodaikanal against John Edward Tapp and R.P.Lunkad andsought for a prayer as follows:"For declaring the plaintiff is the "statutory tenant" under the RentControl Act and consequently, pass an order of permanent injunction against thedefendant restraining the defendant, their subordinates, men or agents seekingto interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment until theplaintiff evicts under due process of Court of law. "(ii) It is pertinent to note that the first accused herein filedO.S.No.179 of 1990 for declaration of title and recovery of possession.Thewritten statement filed by Zavior Michael on 12.04.1993, in which, he has statedas follows:"The defendant is in physical possession of the entire extent of suitproperty and all the building therein.The defendant took the suit property onlease from Mrs.Henderson the power agent of Mr.Victor Tapp who was managing thesuit property as care taker.(iii) Furthermore, Zavior Michael filed another suit on 17.05.1995 fordeclaration of title that he is the owner of the property and also forconsequential injunction.So his statement hasclearly proved that the father of the defacto complainant was only a tenant.Furthermore, the first accused herein had filed R.C.O.P.No.3 of 2001 andeviction has been ordered against which, Zavior Michael preferred R.C.A.No.1 of2004, which was allowed, against which, the land lord, who is the first accusedherein had preferred C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.853 of 2010, which was ended incompromise.A joint compromise memo has been filed and that has been recorded.But now the second respondent/defacto complainant has disputed the compromisememo filed before this Court.So the above facts are clearly proved that it isonly a civil dispute.At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the complaint givenby the second respondent, in which, it was stated as follows: "Subject: Request for police protection since our entire family is facingthreatening of life by anti-social elements with deadly weapons and lot ofmuscle power-immediate action requested."While perusing the complaint, he never mentioned that since R.C.A.No.1 of 2004has been allowed, C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.853 of 2010 has been filed and ended incompromise.The complaint was received by the Director General of Police, TamilNadu, Camp on 25.09.2010 and forwarded the same to the Inspector General ofPolice, Southern Zone, Madurai, for enquiry and report.Then, DeputySuperintendent of Police, Kodaikanal was directed by the Inspector General ofPolice, Southern Zone, Madurai to register the case and investigate.Afterenquiry, report has been sent on 09.11.2010 to the Director General of Police,Chennai, in which, it was specifically mentioned that the defacto complainanthas given a letter stating that no need to pursue the same.The letter dated05.10.2010 was signed by the defacto complainant, son-in-law, daughter,daughter-in-law.On that basis, C.S.R.No.501 of 2010 has been closed.But it isnot the case of the defacto complainant/R2 that after giving complaint on25.09.2010, he was forced to give such statement and their signatures wereobtained.One Rev.Joseph, leader of Minority Community Education andFoundation on knowing the plight of the defacto complainant, had written aletter to the Hon'ble President of India and other officials and a communicationwas given to the Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District from the office ofthe Hon'ble President of India for taking appropriate action.18.On perusal of the file relating to C.S.R.No.501 of 2010, it is seenthat one Rev.Joseph, Chennai Education Foundation, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, hassent a representation to the Hon'ble President on 01.10.2010 stating thatatrocities at Minority(Christian) Community at Dindigul, Tamil Nadu.Thatcomplaint was sent along with the news published in Nakkeeran (Tamil Bi-WeeklyMagazine).On that basis, report has been called for on 20.04.2011 and resultof enquiry was forwarded by Additional Superintendent of Police, Dindigul.19.The learned senior counsel for the petitioners/accused submitted thatclauses-(3) and (7) in the referred para-102 in 1992 SCC (Crl) 426 (cited supra)are applicable to the facts of the present case.He has not filedany application to set aside the order passed in C.R.P.(NPD)(MD)No.853 of 2010.He filed only C.R.P.Sr.No.38719 of 2011 to recall the order made in C.R.P.,which was yet to be numbered.Then only, R2 filed C.R.P.Sr.In pursuance ofthat, 'Lobo Cottage' has been purchased and registered on 07.02.2011, in which,the defacto complainant had appeared before the sub-Registrar's office,Kodaikanal and he signed and affixed his Left Thumb impression before the Sub-Registrar at Kodaikanal.After the complaint dated 25.09.2010, Lobo Cottage hasbeen purchased in the name of the defacto complainant's father and he is inpossession.The alleged occurrence said to have been taken place afterentering into compromise.(3)It was obscene.Therefore, this would have been a proper case for the High Court tolook into the allegations with the openness and then to decide whether to passany order in the interests of justice.In our opinion, this was a case wherethe High Court ought to have used its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.The compromise decree is validtill it was set aside by the concerned Court.The Judges' record is conclusive.(ii)The present complaint was preferred on 25.09.2010, in which, thedefacto complainant had sought for protection.(iv) Already on the basis of the complaint dated 25.09.2010, the case hasbeen closed as withdrawn and for the same, the defacto complainant/R2 had nottaken any steps.(v) On 07.02.2011, though they were alleged to transfer from the disputedproperty to Lobo cottage, no complaint has been given till the case has beenregistered on 27.04.2011 on the basis of the complaint given on 25.09.2010,which was already closed.Hence, F.I.R. was registered on the basis of thecomplaint dated 25.09.2010, which is not sustainable.(vi) On 27.01.2011, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into betweenthe father of the defacto complainant and one of the accused viz., Reuban, Lobocottage has been purchased in the name of the father of the defacto complainantand he was put in possession.(vii) The conduct of the defacto complainant and his family members hasshown that the clause-7 of the para-102 of the dictum laid down in (State ofHaryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others) (i.e.) where a criminal proceedingis manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciouslyinstituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused abuseof process of Court.38.In fine, The Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos. 8741 and 9385 of 2011 are allowed.F.I.R. in Crime No.203 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police, Kodaikanal Police Station, Dindigul District, is hereby quashed.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.Since the F.I.R. in respect of the Crime No.203 of 2011 is quashed, Anticipatory Bail petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.8765 to 8767, 8773, 9058, 9282 of 2011 are dismissed as infructuous.1.The Inspector of Police Kodaikanal Police Station Dindigul District.2.The Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.3.The Record Keeper V.R.Section, High Court.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,156,528 |
The prosecution case, in brief, is as under:Accused No.1 - Baliram is father, accused No.3- Bhagwan is the brother and accused No.4 - Gayabai is the mother of accused No.2 -Vaijinath.Accused No.5 - Meerabai is the wife of accused No.3 Bhagwan.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 7 B) At the time of marriage, parents of Ashamati had agreed to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- and a golden ring weighing 5 grams towards dowry.Parents of Ashamati paid Rs.10,000/- and golden ring weighing 5 grams at the time of marriage.They had promised to pay balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- subsequently.C) About one month after marriage accused persons started subjecting Ashamati to cruel treatment on account of balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-.Whenever Ashamati was visiting her parents house, she used to inform about cruel treatment at the hands of accused to her family members.The father and brother of Ashamati had attempted to convince accused persons.As there was no improvement in the behaviour of accused, Ashamati stayed with her parents for about 4 to 5 months.Thereafter Pandharinath, brother of deceased Ashamati, Balasaheb Wamanrao, maternal uncle of Ashamati alongwith some other persons, had been to house of accused.Pandharinath and ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 8 others requested accused persons to maintain Ashamati properly with a promise to pay balance dowry amount at the earliest.Accused No.4 Gayabai gave threat that in case of failure to pay balance dowry amount, Pandharinath and his family members could not see Ashamati.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::D) Subsequently, on 28th March, 2001, on account of marriage of younger brother, Ashamati had been to her parental house.On that occasion also she informed about cruel treatment at the hands of accused persons.Soon after marriage, Pandharinath had gone to the house of accused alongwith Ashamati.None of the accused had attended the marriage, A table fan of "Cinny" make was given to accused No.2 Vaijinath by way of traditional present.All accused demanded balance amount of dowry and accused No.4 Gayabai gave threat of causing death of Ashamati on failure to pay balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-.E) On 21st April, 2001 Pandharinath, brother ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 9 of Ashamati, had gone to Pokharni.All accused persons and Ashamati were found in the temple at Pokharni.Accused persons had arranged "Abhishek" to Lord "Narsinha" and hosted meals for about 500 to 1000 people from village Pokharni.Pandharinath had attempted to talk with Ashamati, but accused persons had not permitted Ashamati to talk with him.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::F) On 29th April, 2001, Pandharinath and his family members received a message from one Ananta Manjulnath, that Ashamati was missing from the house of accused since early morning.Immediately, Pandharinath and others went to village Daithana.Inspite of extensive search, Ashamati was not found.At about 4.30 p.m., Pandharinath returned back to his village Narsapur.G) On 30th April, 2001, one Limbaji Rambhau informed Pandharinath and his family members that the dead body of Ashamati was found floating in the well situate in the land of Eknath Sopan ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 10 Avhad.At about 4.00 p.m. after receiving this message, Pandharinath and other family members went to Daithana.The dead body of Ashamati was found in the well situate in the land of Eknath Avhad.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::H) On the very day, i.e. on 30th April, 2001, Pandharinath, elder brother of Ashamati, filed First Information Report in Daithana police station on the allegation that accused persons subjected Ashamati to cruel treatment on account of demand for balance dowry amount and because of such cruel treatment, Ashamati committed suicide.They had received entire dowry amount at the time of marriage.Ashamati died accidentally due to fall in the well when she had gone for attending nature's call.The prosecution has examined PW-2 Pandharinath Gangadhar Jamare, who is an informant in this case.He deposed that the deceased Ashamati was his real sister.About two years prior to her death, Ashamati was married with accused No.2 Vaijinath.Accused No.1 Baliram is the father, accused No.4 Gayabai is mother, accused No.3 Bhagwan is brother of accused and accused No.4 Meerabai is the wife of accused No.3 Bhagwan.PW-2 Pandharinath further deposed in his examination-in-chief that, at the time of marriage, they had agreed to pay dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- and the golden ring weighing 5 grams.At the time of marriage, they paid Rs.10,000/- and golden ring of 5 grams.It was agreed that the balance amount shall be paid after harvesting season.Soon after marriage, Ashamati started to reside with accused at village Daithana.Within ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 18 about one month soon after marriage, all accused persons started insisting Ashamati for bringing balance amount of dowry of Rs.10,000/- from her parents.All the accused were subjecting Ashamati to cruel treatment.Whenever Ashamati used to visit their house on the occasions of festivals, she was informing about cruel treatment at the hands of the accused persons.Pandharinath himself and his father used to convince the accused persons that the balance amount shall be paid after harvesting season.At the time of Panchami festival, they had brought Ashamati to their house.Ashamati stayed with them from Panchami festival upto Makar Sankrati festival.Then she went back to her matrimonial house along with maternal uncle Balasaheb Wamanrao Punjare, Bhaurao Shesherao and Devidas Marotirao Jambre.Pandharinath had also gone to Daithana along with Ashamati and other persons.On that occasion, all the accused persons demanded balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::PW-2 Pandharinath further deposed that, subsequently, on 28th March, 2001, marriage of his younger brother was solemnized and on that occasion, they had brought Ashamati to their house.Ashamati informed them that accused persons were subjecting her to cruel treatment because of non-payment of balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.Accused No.2 - Vaijinath used to beat Ashamati on and often, whereas the remaining accused were insisting Ashamati to bring balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.PW-2 Pandharinath further deposed that soon after the marriage of his younger brother, he had gone to the house of accused along with Ashamati, and they had given a table fan to the accused.On that occasion, all the accused persons were asking him about the balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-.cria50.03+ 20 .PW-2 Pandharinath further deposed that on 21st April, 2001 he had gone to Pokharni for offering his prayer to the temple situate at Pokharni.There he met with Ashamati at Pokharni.Ashamati attempted to talk with him but the accused persons had not allowed Ashamati to talk with her brother Pandharinath.He further deposed that on 29th April, 2001 a person by name Ananda from village Daithana had come to their village and informed that Ashamati was missing from the house of accused.Pandharinath himself, his parents, younger brother went to village Daithana and searched for Ashamati, but she was not found.On 30th April, 2001 one Limbaji Rambhau Lokhande informed that the dead body of Ashamati was found in the well situate in the land of Eknath Sopanrao Avhad.Immediately they went to the land of Eknath Avhad.They found the dead body of Ashamati in the well.On the same day, Pandharinath filed F.I.R. in Daithana police station.The accused persons own about 10 acres land.In the land of accused well is not situate.When he had seen the well situate in the land of Eknath Sopanrao, the water was at a level of about 5 feet from ground level and there were three steps upto the water level.He further stated that, after going to the house of accused, accused No.4 had informed that during morning hours Ashamati had gone for attending nature's call at about 5.00 a.m. and since then she had not returned back to the house.On the next day Limbaji Rambhau had come to their village and informed that the dead body of Ashamati was found in the well.He further stated that prior to the incident, at Pokharni village, accused No.2 and Ashamati had offered "Abhishek" to Lord Narsinha; and they had hosted meals to entire village.The further suggestions put to PW-2 Pandharinath, were denied by him.The prosecution has examined PW-3 Balasaheb Wamanrao Punjare.He deposed that deceased was his sister's daughter.She was married with accused No.2 about two years prior to her death.At the time when the marriage was settled, parents of Ashamati had agreed to pay dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- and golden ring weighing 5 grams.The prosecution has examined PW-4 Bhaurao Sheserao Shinde.In his examination-in-chief PW-4 Bhaurao deposed that Ashamati was married with accused No.2 about two years prior to her death.At the time of marriage, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was settled as dowry amount and a golden ring.Out of the agreed amount, at the time of marriage Rs.10,000/- were paid and golden ring was given.The remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was agreed to be paid after one year.About three months after marriage Ashamati returned to her parent's house.Ashamati informed him that the accused persons subjected her to cruel treatment because of non- payment of balance amount of Rs.10,000/-.Gangadhar, father of Ashamati had convinced her.At the time of Panchami festival again Ashamati came to her parent's house.Ashamati stayed at the house her parents up-to Makar Sankarant.On that occasion, Ashamati informed that the accused ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 27 persons had directed her not to return to their house unless and untill balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid.PW-4 Bhaurao further deposed that his land and land of father of Ashamati are adjacent to each other and so they are having cordial relations.As all these three Criminal Appeals are arising out of one and the same Judgment and order passed by the trial Court, all these Appeals are being decided by this common Judgment.In Sessions Trial No.121 of 2001 there were in all five accused, namely, accused No.1- Baliram s/o Mahadu Avhad, accused No.2- Vaijinath s/o Baliram Avhad, accused No.3 - Bhagwan s/o Baliram Avhad, accused No.4 - Sow.Gayabai w/o ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 4 Baliram Avhad and accused No.5 - Meerabai w/o Bhagwan Avhad.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::By Judgment and Order dated 7th January, 2003 in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2001, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani convicted accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 Gayabai Avhad for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P. Code").For the offence under Section 498-A of the I.P. Code, accused No.2- Vaijinath is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.For the offence under Section 304-B of the I.P. Code accused No.2 - Vaijinath is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.For the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the I.P. Code, accused No.4- Gayabai is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to suffer simple ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 5 imprisonment for fifteen days.For the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with 34 of the I.P. Code, accused No.4 Gayabai is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.It is directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.The trial Court acquitted accused Nos.2 Vaijinath and accused No.4 Gayabai for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the I.P. Code.The trial Court acquitted accused No.1 - Baliram Avhad, accused No.3 - Bhagwan and accused No.5- Meerabai for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 and 304-B read with 34 of the I.P. Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 is filed by original accused No.2- Vaijinath and accused No.4- Gayabai, challenging their conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with 34 of the I.P. Code.Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2003 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal of original ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 6 accused No.1 - Baliram Avhad, accused No.3- Bhagwan Avhad and accused No.5- Meerabai Avhad for the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 304 and 306 read with 34 of the I.P. Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2003 is filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court to original accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 - Gayabai Avhad.Crime No.26 of 2001 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 read with 34 of the I.P. Code was registered in Daithana police station.I) Investigation was entrusted to P.S.I. Sampate.The dead body of Ashamati was referred for post-mortem after inquest panchnama was drawn.The panchnama of scene of offence was drawn.Statements of witnesses were recorded.Viscera was ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 11 forwarded to C.A. After receipt of post-mortem report and report of C.A., charge-sheet came to be filed against accused persons.Learned Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Parbhani in due course.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::A charge for an offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the I.P. Code was framed against all the accused persons and the same was read over and explained to them.All accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Ashamati had not committed suicide.On account of untimely death of Ashamati, accused are falsely involved.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 12After recording the evidence and conducting full fledged trial, the trial Court convicted accused No.2 - Vaijinath and accused No.4 - Gayabai for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P. Code and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine, as afore-stated.The trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 from all the charges with which they were charged.Hence Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2003 is filed by the State challenging the acquittal of accused Nos.1, 3 and 5, as afore-stated.Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2003 is filed by the State for enhancement of sentence imposed by the trial Court on accused Nos.2 and 4, as afore-stated.Learned counsel appearing for original accused Nos.2 and 4 - Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 submits that accused Nos.2 and 4 have been falsely implicated in the present case.They never subjected to any cruelty to ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 13 Ashamati.He submits that it is not the case of the prosecution that Ashamati died homicidal death, but it is the case of the prosecution that Ashamati committed suicide.Referring to the evidence of PW-1 Dr. Muna Afreen, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ashamati, learned counsel submits that PW-1 Dr. Muna Afreen specifically stated in her cross-examination that, in such cases it cannot be ascertained whether the death caused is accidental or suicidal.Learned counsel therefore submits that the prosecution has failed to establish conclusively that Ashamati had committed suicide.Learned counsel further submits that Ashamati died accidentally due to fall in the well when, early in the morning, she had gone for attending nature's call.Learned counsel further submits that accused Nos.2 and 4, both are innocent and they have not at all committed any offence.It is therefore submitted that Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::As against this, learned A.P.P. appearing ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 14 for the State submits that while settling the marriage, it was decided that parents of Ashamati would pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards dowry.However, due to financial difficulties, father of Ashamati had paid only Rs.10,000/- and it was stated that remaining dowry amount would be paid subsequently.Referring to the evidence of PW-2 Pandharinath, PW-3 Balasaheb and PW-4 Bhaurao, learned A.G.P. submits that due to non payment of dowry amount, the accused persons subjected Ashamati to the ill-treatment and therefore she committed suicide.He further submits that though the trial Court has held accused Nos.2 and 4 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the I.P. Code, the sentence awarded to them is very less and therefore it is submitted that Appeal for ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 15 enhancement of sentence deserves to be allowed.Learned A.P.P. therefore prays that Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003, filed by the accused Nos.2 and 4 may be rejected, and Criminal Appeal Nos.326 of 2003 filed against acquittal of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5, and Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2003 filed for enhancement of sentence imposed on accused Nos.2 and 4 may be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellants and learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.We have carefully perused the entire original record.To prove its case, the prosecution has examined five witnesses.The prosecution has examined PW-1 Dr. Muna Afreen d/o Abdul Gaffar.She deposed that on 1st May, 2001 she was serving as medical officer in the Primary Health Centre, at Daithana.PW-1 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 16 and Dr. Devale conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ashamati.Accordingly, they prepared post- mortem report.She deposed that post-mortem report Exhibit 19 bears her signature and the contents of the same are correct.She further deposed that as per their opinion, the cause of death of Ashamati was due to asphyxia due to drowning.Viscera was preserved and forwarded to C.A. In the viscera, poison was not revealed as per report of C.A. .During the course of cross-examination, PW-1 Dr. Muna Afreen stated that, in such cases it cannot be ascertained whether the death caused is accidental or suicidal.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::It is the case of the prosecution that death of Ashamati was suicidal, as against this, it is the case of the accused that death of Ashamati was accidental.It is clear from the evidence of the medical officer who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Ashamati, that she was not sure whether the death of Ashamati was ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 17 accidental or suicidal.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Particularly accused No.4 gave threat that if the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- is not ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 19 paid, they shall not be able to see even the nail of Ashamati.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::The accused had given threat to end the life of Ashamati, if the balance amount is not paid at the earliest.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::He further deposed that Ashamati committed suicide only because of ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 21 the cruel treatment given by the accused persons, as their demand for balance dowry amount was not fulfilled.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-2 Pandharinath has stated that, the marriage of Ashamati was settled after Ashamati and accused No.2 had approved each other.After the marriage was settled, Pandharinath and his family members had gone to the house of the accused for "Tila" ceremony, and after said ceremony, the accused persons came to his house for "Kunku" ceremony.After these ceremonies, marriage was performed.About 8 to 10 days after marriage, for the first time Ashamati came to their house, she stayed with them for about eight days.By that time the accused persons had not started demanding balance dowry amount.He further stated that they had not filed any complaint even when Ashamati was informing them repeatedly at the time of her every visit that she was subjected to cruel treatment.He further stated that his family owns about 15 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 22 acres land.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Thus, from careful perusal of the evidence of the informant Pandharinath, it appears ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 23 that he has not specifically stated the date and time when alleged ill-treatment was given to Ashamati by the accused persons.He has made general allegations that for the non-payment of balance amount of dowry all the accused were subjecting Ashamati to cruel treatment.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::About three months soon after marriage, Ashamati had come to her parent's house.When he had been to the house of parents of Ashamati, she informed him that because of non- payment of balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/- accused were subjecting her to cruel treatment.PW-3 Balasaheb, informant Pandharinath and others had gone to the house of accused along with ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 24 Ashamati.On that occasion all the accused insisted for payment of balance dowry amount and on failure, they gave threat of causing death of Ashamati.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-3 Balasaheb stated that his village is at a distance of about 15 Kms.from Parbhani town.Village Daithana is at a distance of about 22 Kms.from Parbhani town on opposite side.His statement was not recorded by police.He had not stated before the police that Ashamati had informed him that the accused persons subjected her to cruel treatment on account of balance dowry amount of Rs.10,000/-.About 8 to 10 days after Makar Sankrant, he had gone to village Daithana with deceased Ashamati and others.Thereafter, he never met Ashamati.He does not remember whether the accused persons had come to the house of informant prior to the marriage of Ashamati for "Kunku" ceremony.He had not gone to the house of accused at the time of "Tila" ceremony.As PW-3 Balasaheb ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 25 was not present, he does not know as to how much amount was given at the time of "Tila" ceremony to the accused.PW-3 Balasaheb has further denied the suggestion put to him by the counsel appearing for the accused.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Thus, from careful perusal of the evidence of PW-3 Balasaheb, it is clear that his statement was not recorded by the police, nor he himself has stated before the Police that Ashamati had informed him that the accused persons subjected her to cruel treatment on account of non-payment of balance amount of dowry.For the first time, PW-3 Balasaheb has deposed before the Court that accused persons were ill-treating Ashamati on account of alleged non-payment of balance dowry amount.PW-3 Balasaheb was not present either for "Kunku" ceremony or "Tila" ceremony and therefore he had no personal knowledge about exact amount which was agreed to be given as dowry and how much amount of dowry was paid and how much was remained to be paid.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::He further deposed that he himself, Dasu, maternal uncle of Ashamati and Pandharinath had gone to the house of accused along with Ashamati.They tried to convince the accused persons that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to them.However, accused No.4 Gayabai gave threats that if the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- is not paid, they shall not be in a position to see even the nail of Ashamati.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::PW-4 Bhaurao further deposed that, subsequently, at the time of marriage of her brother, Ashamati had come to her parent's house.On that occasion also Ashamati informed that the accused persons were subjecting her to cruel treatment because of non-payment of balance dowry ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 28 of Rs.10,000/-.About fifteen days thereafter he came to know that Ashamati was missing from the house of the accused after she had gone for attending nature's call.Thereafter he came to know that the dead body of Ashamati was found in a well.He further deposed that he himself, Pandhari and other villagers went to Daithana.The dead body of Ashamati was found in the well.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::During the course of cross-examination, PW-4 Bhaurao has stated that informant or his family members are not his relatives.The house of informant is away from his house and it is situate in Dhangar Galli.He is the member of village Gram Panchayat.Bhanudas is the Sarpanch and they belong to same party.Informant Pandhari and his family members are the members of opposition party, still their relations are cordial.He further stated that police had recorded his statement.He stated that contents of his statement that Gangadhar, father of Ashamati had informed him about the cruel treatment given to ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 29 Ashamati by the accused, are correct.He was unable to assign any reason as to why in his statement before the Police it is not mentioned that Ashamati had informed him about her cruel treatment at the hands of the accused.He does not remember the day or the date of marriage of Ashamati.He also does not remember the year when marriage was performed.He was present in the meeting when the marriage was settled, the meeting was held in the house of Gangadhar.The meeting was held about one month prior to the marriage.He does not remember the name of maternal uncle of Ashamati.They had been to the house of the accused along with Ashamati one day prior to Makar Sankrant.He was unable to tell the year when he had been to the house of the accused at the time of Makar Sankrant, but he had gone about one and half months back.PW-4 Bhaurao further denied the suggestions put to him by the counsel appearing for the accused.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 30Thus, it is clear that the prosecution has brought on record the contradictions, omissions and improvements in the evidence of PW-4 Bhaurao.Though in his examination-in-chief he has specifically stated that Ashamati had informed him that the accused persons subjected her to cruel treatment, in his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that it is recorded in his police statement that Gangadhar, father of Ashamati had informed him about the cruel treatment given to Ashamati by the accused.Thus, it is clear that the evidence of PW-4 Bhaurao is hear say, regarding the alleged ill-treatment given to Ashamati by the accused persons.PW-4 Bhaurao had further admitted that contents in his police statement were correct.PW-4 Bhaurao was unable to tell the day and date of the marriage of Ashamati.He further stated that though he was present in the meeting when the marriage was settled, however he was unable to state the date of such meeting.Thus, oral testimony of PW-4 Bhaurao is not at all inspiring confidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 31The prosecution has examined PW-5 Prashant Pandurang Sampate, A.P.I., who was the investigating officer in this case.He has deposed about the manner in which he has carried out the investigation.We have discussed the evidence of all the witnesses, in detail.It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of settlement of the marriage, it was agreed that father of Ashamati would pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a dowry.It is further the case of the prosecution that out of the said amount of dowry, only an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid at the time of marriage and an amount of Rs.10,000/- was remained to be paid, and on account of non-payment of the said amount, the accused had given ill-treatment to Ashamati.However, the prosecution has failed to prove that due to non-payment of the dowry amount, the accused persons had ill-treated to Ashamati.In this regard, we have carefully perused the ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 32 evidence of PW-2 Pandharinath who is informant and real brother of the deceased, PW-3 Balasaheb, who is the maternal uncle of deceased and PW-4 Bhaurao who is the friend of father of deceased Ashamati.All these three witnesses have made general statements that, due to non-payment of dowry amount all the accused persons were subjecting Ashamati to cruel treatment.However, these witnesses have not given any details or particulars as to on which date and at which time such ill-treatment was given to Ashamati.No specific instances are quoted and only general and vague statements are made.Further, regarding the ill-treatment given to Ashamati by the accused persons, the oral testimony of all these prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-2 Pandharinath, PW-3 Balasaheb and PW-4 Bhaurao, is same, similar and stereo-type.All these witnesses have stated that, all the accused were subjecting Ashamati to cruel treatment, and nothing more than that is deposed by these witnesses.Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 33 failed to establish that accused persons have committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the I.P. Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::As against this, it is the defence of the accused that on the day of incident, early in the morning Ashamati went to the field, to attend nature's call and accidentally she fell in the well.Thus, it appears that the accused have taken a probable defence.Therefore, the possibility of accidental death of Ashamati cannot be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 34As observed earlier, there are various contradictions, omissions and improvements in the oral evidence of PW-3 Balasaheb and PW-4 Bhaurao.We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the trial Court.The trial Court, in Para 29 of the Judgment, referred to the contradictions in the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 Bhaurao.Thereafter in Para 30 of the Judgment, the trial Court has observed as under:"In view of these contradictions appearing in the statements of PW.3 Balasaheb and PW.4 Bhaurao at the most it can be said that these witnesses have improved their versions to the effect that Ashamati had informed them about her cruel treatment at the hands of accused persons.However, because of these contradictions in the statements of PW.3 Balasaheb and PW.4 Bhaurao remaining part of their statements can not be disbelieved."The afore-said findings recorded by the ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 35 trial Court are perverse.When the trial Court has concluded that there were contradictions and improvements in the oral testimony of PW-3 Balasaheb and PW-4 Bhaurao, the trial Court ought to have discarded such untrustworthy and unreliable evidence.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::The trial Court ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 36 has further observed that, even otherwise there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove abetment by instigation or intentional aiding.It is further observed that, no cogent and reliable evidence is adduced to show that accused persons or any of them instigated Ashamati to commit suicide or that they intentionally aided her to commit suicide.Thus, the trial Court has concluded that, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused persons or any one of them abetted in commission of suicide by Ashamati.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::The trial Court has further held that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 ::: cria50.03+ 37 persons or any one of them abetted in commission of suicide by Ashamati.However, on the same set of evidence, the trial Court has held that accused No.2 - Vaijinath and accused No.4 - Gayabai have committed the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the I.P. Code.On the same set of evidence, the trial Court has acquitted original accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 from all the offences with which they were charged.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::Thus, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded by the trial Court so far as convicting and sentencing accused Nos.2 and 4 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code are perverse and the same are liable to be quashed and set aside.So far as the findings recorded by the trial Court thereby acquitting accused No.1 - Baliram, accused No.3- Bhagwan and accused No.5 - Meerabai from all the offences with which they were charged are concerned, the same are in accordance with the evidence brought on record.The prosecution has failed to establish that accused Nos.1, 3 and 5 have committed any of the offences with which they were charged.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 40For the reasons afore-stated we are of the opinion that Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 filed by original accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 - Gayabai Avhad, deserves to be allowed.For the reasons afore-stated Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2003 filed by the State challenging the acquittal of original accused No.1- Baliram Avhad, accused No.3- Bhagwan Avhad and accused No.5- Meerabai Avhad for the offences with which they were charged is liable to be dismissed.So also Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2003 filed by the State for enhancement of the sentence awarded by the trial Court to original accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 - Gayabai Avhad also deserves to be dismissed.In the light of discussion in foregoing paragraphs, we pass the following order:::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 41 O R D E R (I) Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 is allowed.(II) The impugned Judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003, in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2001, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani thereby convicting and sentencing accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 Gayabai Avhad for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed and set aside.(III) Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2003 i.e. original accused No.2 - Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4 Gayabai Avhad are acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 42 (IV) The impugned Judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003 in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2001, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani thereby acquitting original accused No.2 Vaijinath Avhad and accused No.4- Gayabai Avhad of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby confirmed.Gayabai Avhad shall stand cancelled.(VI) The Appellants - Vaijinath Avhad and Gayabai Avhad shall furnish the Personal Bonds of Rs.15,000/- each and surety of like amount each, under Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before the concerned trial Court at Parbhani.::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::cria50.03+ 43 (VII) The impugned Judgment and order dated 7th January, 2003 in Sessions Trial No.121 of 2001, passed by 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, thereby acquitting original accused No.1 - Baliram Avhad, accused No.3 -Bhagwan Avhad and accused No.5- Meerabai Avhad of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is also confirmed.(VIII) Criminal Appeal No.326 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal No.329 of 2003 are hereby dismissed.[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.] asb/APR18 ::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 27/04/2018 01:52:38 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,158,359 |
This is an application under Section 482 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Baruipur, South 24- Parganas in G.R.No.The petitioner lodged a complaint on 04.05.2010 at Baruipur Police Station on the allegation that the O.P.s who were tenant under her in her one room premises had allegedly asked her to be in their room and when she entered into the room the door of the said room was locked by the said two persons and four persons came out under the bed and forcefully tried to outrage the modesty of the petitioner and physically hurt and petitioner and as a consequence thereof the petitioner was faint.She was taken to hospital for treatment.2 It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the IO has excluded two major section i..e 376 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code without any cogent reason and did not serve notice upon the petitioner before submitting the chargesheet.The petitioner after receiving the witness summons came to learn about such exclusion in the charge sheet.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,516,215 |
Considered I.A. No.10256/2019, which is repeat application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellants - Jeevan S/o Ramchandra and Dharmendra S/o Baliram.The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the 9 th Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide its judgement dated 24.07.2019 passed in S. T. No.525/2013 as under :-Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in this matter both the complainants - Sitaram and Jitendra have entered into compromise with the present appellants - Jeevan and Dharmendra and the factum of compromise has been duly verified by the Principal Registrar of this Court and verification report dated 09.01.2020 is placed on record in which it has been mentioned that the complainants Sitaram and Jitendra have appeared before the Principal Registrar and stated that they have amicably settled their dispute with 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.6814 of 2019 (Jeevan & another vs. State of MP) the present appellants and has termed compromise to be a voluntary act on the part of the complainants and on this ground, suspension of jail sentence has been sought.The substantive jail sentence of the appellants - Jeevan & Dharmendra are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount (if not already paid) and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 18.02.2020 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Appeal is already an admitted appeal.List for final hearing in due course.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,166,648 |
Shri Narendra Tiwari, learned counsel with Shri R. Singh for the respondent.Heard on I.A No.22236/2019 for taking additional documents on record.For the reasons mentioned therein, the documents are taken on record as they are concerned with the present case.Also heard on I.A No.22233/2019, which is the third application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant.The appellant-accused has filed this appeal against the conviction and sentence dated 15/10/2018 passed by Xth Special Judge (PASOCO), Jabalpur in Special Sessions Trial No.9/2017 convicting the appellant-accused under Sections 354, 354-A and 354-D of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I for 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/-; R.I for 1 year and R.I for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulations.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the messages exchanged between the accused and the victim discloses that there was intimacy between them and when their affair came to the notice of the parents of the victim, false allegations have been levelled.Now the appellant has learnt a sufficient lesson for his deeds.It is further submitted that there is a fair chance to succeed in the case.Looking to the short sentence if the appellant is not released on bail, his right to appeal would get frustrated.The disposal of the appeal will take time and during trial he was on bail.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of appellant be allowed and the period of his remaining jail sentence be suspended and he be released on bail.The learned counsel for the victim has opposed the application stating that if the appellant is released on bail, he can harass the victim again and, therefore, the application be rejected.Learned G.A has opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of trial court, in view of this Court the appellant is entitled to get suspension of sentence.List the appeal for final hearing in due course as per listing policy.Certified copy as per rules (J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE mms Digitally signed by MONSI M SIMON Date: 28/01/2020 17:25:57
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
251,694 |
(i) The appellant-accused was also a tenant in the same house at Braham Puri, where the prosecutrix was residing.On 30.5.1998, the appellant came to the spot, where Shaila Gupta, the prosecutrix, was washing clothes.The appellant, who was known to her, told her that her father had suffered a serious head injury at the hands of one Nawab and had called her at the police station, along with money.She, accordingly, lifted the box containing money and left her house with him.The appellant took her to the bus-stand, where they reached within half an hour by boarding a three-wheeler scooter, where three other persons were already present, besides them.From the bus stand, she was taken to Bareilly and kept there by the accused at the house of his sister.She was made to sleep with accused Raju.She was stripped naked and the accused had also removed her clothes.The appellant had sex with her against her will.Next day, when they were returning from Bareilly, they were apprehended.Thereafter, based on her own statement, they stayed at the house of appellant's/accused's sister.She had also been given clothes by her.JUDGMENT Manmohan Sarin, J.The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the appellant on the point of sentence, sentenced the appellant-accused to three years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, two months rigorous imprisonment under Section 363, IPC, rigorous imprisonment of five years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 366, IPC, and in default, rigorous imprisonment of four months and seven years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 376, IPC and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for four months.All substantive sentences to run concurrently.The appellant preferred an appeal against the sentences and conviction.It was further ordered that in case the appellant deposits the fine, he shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety of the like amount.The appellant is stated to be on bail.Before dealing with the pleas, urged by Mr. S.S. Sharma, Counsel for the appellant, the case of the prosecution, as set up, may be noticed:On the first night, she slept in the room with his sister.On the next day, Nar Singh and Ramesh, who were also in the three-wheeler scooter, came to Bareilly.Accused-Raju, Nar Singh and Ramesh consumed liquor.The accused took the money, which she had carried.(ii) The prosecutrix gave her age as 14-15 years, at the time of incident, which was also so stated by the father of the prosecutrix.The medical examination of the prosecutrix by the Doctor revealed that hymen was intact.Dr. Sonal had opined that the hymen of girl can remain intact even after coitus, if the opening is patulous enough to complete penetration and the sexual act may be completed without rupture of hymen.Dr. Sonal also noted that the prosecutrix had neither complained nor given any history of sexual intercourse.Systemic examination was within normal limits.The local examination did not reveal any external injury.She was not sure whether the girl was subjected to sexual intercourse or not.Dr. Sonal also stated that she did not carry out a per-vaginal examination.The Radiologist, Dr. S.C. Bhalla, found the bony age of the prosecutrix to be above 14 and less than 16 years.He deposed that it was correct that no exact age can be determined by ossification test.The learned Additional Session Judge held that in the tradition bound society in India, a lady would be extremely reluctant to admit that any incident affecting her chastity had occurred.A victim of rape would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience.The inherent bashfulness and feminine tendency to conceal the outrage of masculine sexual aggression are factors, which are relevant to improbabilise the hypothesis of false implication.Accordingly, discrepancies or contradictions, which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case should not be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case.The learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected appellant's contention that if the margin of two years was applied, the prosecutrix age would come to about 18 years.In the examination-in-chief, she had deposed that one Itwari, accompanied the prosecutrix and the appellant to Bareilly.In cross-examination, it was stated that he accompanied to the bus stand and not to Bareilly.In the examination-in-chief, it was not mentioned that Nar Singh and Ramesh had come to Bareilly.Report lodged by her did not mention that she was induced to come out of the keeping of her father and of the house on inducement by the accused.In the statement of the prosecutrix's father, it was mentioned that the prosecutrix had left taking her ear-rings, chain, pendant and cash, while the prosecutrix stated that she was only wearing the ear rings.Emphasis was also laid on the medical report, where no injury was found on the person and the hymen was found intact.The learned Additional Sessions Judge held that no inherent infirmity or mutually inconsistent facts were brought out.There was no past evidence of any enmity.He held that irrespective of the discrepancies regarding the number of persons present in the three-wheeler scooter or accompanying the prosecutrix, the offence of kidnapping had been committed by the accused, when he induced the prosecutrix to leave the house on the representation that she was being called by her father, who had suffered injuries.He held that only with the intention to project herself as a chaste girl, the prosecutrix might have introduced the facts concerning the presence of some persons in three-wheeler.He held that the circumstances in which prosecutrix left the house, boarded a three-wheeler scooter, reached bus stand, boarded a bus and went to Bareilly and had taken away cash and ornaments from the house are at best suggestive of her willful association with the accused in the escapade.At best, she was a consenting party.However, in view of the age, being 14-16 years i.e., less than 18 years; law presumes a total mental incapacity to consent.A minor girl is not competent to give her consent to some one to take her out of the keeping of lawful guardianship of her parents.Law protects young persons, female of less than 18 years.He submits that while on one hand, the inherent bashfulness and feminine tendency to conceal the outrage have been brought into play, material omissions, discrepancies and contradictions are sought to be held as mere trivial matters of details and not necessary for constituting the ingredients of kidnapping and rape.The contradictions are sought to be explained as an attempt to project herself as a chaste girl, by claiming the presence of some persons in the three-wheeler and at Bareilly.Mr. Sharma has taken me through the statements of the prosecutrix, her father and the medical evidence, as recorded.I have considered the omissions, contradictions and inconsistencies, as pointed out by Mr. Sharma.The submission of Mr. Ravinder Dudeja is that once the report itself gives the upper and lower limit, the margin would get adjusted within that limit.Accordingly, she would still be a minor, incapable of giving consent.Apart from the ossification report, she herself has given her age as 14-15 years and her father had also similarly deposed.The accused, it is stated, slept with her only once, she did not raise any alarm as her mouth is claimed to have been gagged.She complained to appellant's sister about the act but she did not mention this fact before the Magistrate.Further, the factum of leaving the house with the cash box but as per her father with ear rings, chain and pendant are suggestive of a willing escapade.Moreover, the medical evidence, as noted, has shown that the hymen was intact.No external injury was detected or noticed.The prosecutrix had given no history of sexual intercourse.Dr. Sonal opined, "I am not sure whether the girl was subjected to sexual intercourse or not." Neither the clothes of the prosecutrix were seized nor the vaginal smear taken.Dr. Sonal also had not carried out the per-vaginal examination to find out if the girl was virgin or not.The aforesaid circumstances do cast a shadow of doubt on the allegations of rape.The prosecutrix was aged 15 years and was washing clothes on a water pump, near to her hutment.The accused forcibly took her to a nearby structure and raped her.The prosecutrix offered resistance, but the accused gagged her and having raped her, went away to another village.The prosecutrix reached back her home and informed a woman and her father and a report was lodged with the police.On medical examination, the hymen was found ruptured in multiple radial tears edges of which showed healing at most places and mild tenderness.Sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, as per the medical opinion was committed 5 to 7 days before.The age of the prosecutrix was determined as 15 years based on ossification report.The Trial Judge convicted the accused.He was not allowed bail.During the trial as also during the hearing of the appeal by the High Court he remained in jail.Taking into consideration the period of remission for which he would have been entitled and the time which has elapsed from the date of commission of the offence, we are of the opinion that the accused-respondent need not now be sent to jail.It would meet the end of justice if he is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone by him and to a fine of Rs. 2,000/- with further simple imprisonment of one year and nine months in default of payment of fine a passed by the Trial Court.The appellant is allowed time till 1st May, 2000 for payment of fine.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,172,481 |
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner through next friend Akshay Kumar @ Achchhey with following main relief:"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Habeas Corpus' commanding the opposite parties to produce the corpus before this Hon'ble Court and save the right of personal liberty of the corpus from the illegal detention of Opposite Parties, and pass an appropriate order for her release from Women/Girl Child Protection House, Mill Area, Raebareli immediately.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,181,277 |
1.The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will cooperate in the trial ;The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trials;The petitioner will not leave India without previous 3 Mcrc 2373-2021 permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The learned concerned Magistrate and the prosecution are directed to ensure following of Covid-19 precautionary protocol prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court, the Central Govt. and as well as the State Govt during release, travel and residence of the petitioner during period of bail as a consequence of this order.The petitioner as a Shiksha Swayamsevak shall render physical and financial assistance to government primary school situated nearest to residence of petitioner for ensuring hygiene and sanitation and for removing deficiencies of infrastructural amenities in the said school from the skill/resources of the petitioners.C.c as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge ojha YOGENDR A OJHA 2021.02.2 4 10:40:29 +05'30'[;g lEcaf/kr okMZ ds okMZ vf/kdkjh 'kgjh {ks= ds ekeys esa vkSj@;k mDr xzke iapk;r ds ljiap vkSj lfpo xzkeh.k {ks= ds ekeys esa dh 4 Mcrc 2373-2021 la;qDr ftEesnkjh gksxh fd] ;kfpdkdrkZ }kjk iznRr lwpuk dks lajf{kr djsA] The registry of this Court shall communicate this order through Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior to the Collector, District Education Officer, Block Education Officer of the district/block concerned for information and compliance.A copy of this order be supplied to the Legal Aid Officer, SALSA, Gwalior who is directed to communicate this order to the District Education Officer, Block Education Officer of the district/block concerned to verify as to whether petitioner has complied with condition No.8 or not and submit report once every month.In case, report regarding condition No.8 is not filed or report is found to be wanting in any manner then Registry is directed to list this matter as PUD before appropriate Bench.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for information.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,183,844 |
Mr. Fakhruddin Khan i/by Mr. Vikas Tiwari for theApplicant.Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for the Respondent-State.PI Dattaram V. Girap attached to Ghatkopar P.Stn.CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.DATE : 26th NOVEMBER, 2019P.C. :Applicant seeks his enlargement on bail in CrimeNo.648 of 2018 registered with Ghatkopar Police Station forthe alleged ofences punishable under Sections 354D, 509,500, 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' forshort), under Sections 12 of the Protection of Children fromSexual Ofences Act, 2012 ('POCSO' for short) and underSections 66(K), 67, 67(B) of the Information Technology Act.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 21:05:04 :::17 years old.Victim alleged that the applicant tried toextort money from her, threatening to upload her obscenepictures, on the internet and social media.Statements ofthe victim under Section 164 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 give clear account of, the manner in whichshe has been subjected to sexual harassment.Resultantly,she was forced to abandon her college.Soon after thecomplaint, hand-set of applicant was seized.InvestigatingOfficer could see his mobile containing obscene photos ofthe victim and threats to upload her obscene pictures.Evidence shows, one witness Amar Thombre, had seenobscene photos of the victim on face-book account andsoon thereafter, he informed the victim to delete photos.Prima-facie, it appears that the applicant uploaded obscenephotos of the victim on social media.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 21:05:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 28/11/2019 21:05:04 :::
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,187,668 |
14.06.2019 Index: Yes Internet: Yes uma ToThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.302 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Karaikal, Puducherry.The petitioners have been shown as A1 and A2 in the final report.The 2nd respondent had given a complaint before the respondent police on the ground that the petitioners had opened a savings bank account for the 2nd respondent in Indian Bank and had obtained savings bank passbook and cheque book in the name of the 2nd respondent.Thereafter, the petitioners have forged the signature of the 2nd respondent in a cheque and have presented the same before the bank and the cheque got dishonoured resulting in the initiation of the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The 2nd respondent has therefore alleged that the petitioners have committed the offence of cheating and forgery.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire complaint of the 2nd respondent is false since the complaint was given only as a counter-blast to the proceedings initiated by the petitioners under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint itself came to be lodged only after the 2nd respondent received the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd respondent challenged the 138 proceedings in Crl.The learned counsel further submitted that an issue which the 2nd respondent could have taken as a defence in the 138 complaint, has now become a subject matter of a final report and therefore, the entire proceedings is an abuse of process of Court.Till date, the 2nd respondent has not engaged any other advocate.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and also the materials placed on record.The specific case of the 2nd respondent is that a cheque leaf has been forged and thereby he has been cheated by the petitioners.The minimum that is expected from the 1st respondent during the course of investigation is to get an expert opinion with regard to the signature found in the cheque.Without doing that, the 1st respondent has merely taken a statement from various persons and have laid a final report for an offence of cheating and forgery.This Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above direction.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
2,518,861 |
10.2018 10 Allowed md.CRM No. 7746 of 2018 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12th September, 2018 in connection with Raiganj Women Police Station Case No. 24 of 2015 dated 13.06.2015 under Sections 417/376/313 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Sohag Alam ... Petitioner Mr. Somoipriyo Chowdhury, Advocate Mr. Avishek Bhandari, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Arijit Ganguly, Advocate Mr. Sanjib Kumar Dan, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Raiganj Women Police Station Case No. 24 of 2015 dated 13.06.2015 under Sections 417/376/313 of the Indian Penal Code.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,425,710 |
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:(a) The deceased Dakshinamurthy was an auto-rickshaw driver.The accused Muralidharan and another accused Maheswaran were friends.P.W.1 Mohan Kumar was also known to the accused Maheswaran.Some days prior to the date of occurrence, the deceased Dakshinamurthy eve-teased the sister of Muralidharan, the accused.Over this, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased.In order to take revenge upon the deceased, Maheswaran and Muralidharan, the accused hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of the deceased.(b) In pursuance of this, on the midnight of 8/9.2.1994 at 12 O'clock, the accused Maheswaran and the appellant Muralidharan along with Mohan Kumar, P.W.1 came to the house of the deceased and requested him to take them in his auto-rickshaw and to drop Mohan Kumar in their house as Mohan Kumar drank excessively.Therefore, the deceased took all the three and went to Singanallur area.(c) While they were proceeding towards Singanallur, Maheswaran asked the deceased to stop the auto-rickshaw stating that P.W.1 developed vomiting sensation.Accordingly, the auto was stopped.The accused-1 and 2 got down from the auto-rickshaw and took P.W.1 to roadside to enable him to vomit.The deceased also got down from the auto and was standing near the auto-rickshaw.Suddenly, Maheswaran and Muralidharan, the accused-1 and 2 came near the deceased and began to attack him.Maheswaran with aruval gave a cut on the head of the deceased with the weapon and the appellant Muralidharan with a knife stabbed the deceased repeatedly.On noticing this, P.W.1 got panicky and ran away from the scene.The deceased fell down with injuries.The accused-1 and 2 sped away from the scene.(d) The deceased then got up with bleeding injuries, drove his auto-rickshaw and came near Maniam Theatre.He stopped near the auto-rickshaw stand and inform P.W.2 Sivakumar who is the another auto-rickshaw driver, as to what happened and requested him to take him to the Government Hospital.Accordingly, P.W.2 took the victim in his auto-rickshaw to the Government Hospital and admitted him.(e) P.W.15 doctor examined him and gave treatment and then sent intimation, Ex.P.20 to the Out-post police station.After examining the victim, he gave accident register, Ex.In spite of treatment, the deceased died at 4.00 a.m. on that day.Therefore, the doctor P.W.15 Dr. Ramachandran who was on duty gave death intimation, Ex.P.21 to the police station.(f) In the meantime, P.W.2 went and informed the relatives of the deceased about his admission in the hospital and went to the Singanallur Police Station and gave the complaint, Ex.At the outset, it shall be stated that the evidence of P.W.2 Shivakumar, auto-driver, who took the deceased to the hospital when he was in serious condition and gave the complaint to the police is so natural and trustworthy.According to P.W.2 when he was sleeping in the auto stand in the mid-night, the deceased came in his auto with full of bleeding injuries all over the body and woke him up.When P.W.2 saw the deceased sitting in the auto, he was shocked to notice that the condition of the deceased was so serious.When P.W.2 asked about the reason for the injuries, the deceased told him that he was attacked by A.1 Maheswaran and A.2 Muralidharan in view of the earlier incident in which he had eve-teased the sister of Muralidharan.Then P.W.2 took him to the Government Hospital where he was admitted.P.W.15, the doctor gave treatment and sent the intimation, Ex.P.20 to the Out-post station.In Ex.Similarly, in Ex.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The same was registered for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. After the death of the deceased, the Singanallur Police received the death intimation.(g) On receipt of the message, P.W.17, Inspector of Police took up investigation and went to the spot and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch and collected blood-stained earth and sample earth etc. Then, the case which was originally registered under Section 307 I.P.C. was altered into one under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.17 He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the hospital.Then, he sent a requisition to the doctor to conduct autopsy on the dead body.(h) P.W.10 doctor commenced post-mortem on 9.2.1994 at 2.15 p.m. and found 15 injuries all over the body and gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries.P.15 is the post-mortem certificate.(i) On 12.2.1994, P.W.17 arrested A.1 Maheswaran, A.2 Muralidharan and recorded their confession.In pursuance of the confession, M.O.3 aruval was recovered from A.1 Maheswaran and M.O.2 knife was recovered from A.2 Muralidharan.P.W.18, another Inspector of Police took up further investigation and examined the witnesses on 21.2.1994 at about 3.15 p.m. Mohan Kumar, P.W.1 surrendered before the police and handed over the wrist watch, M.O.1 said to have been given to him by the A.1, Maheswaran.P.W.1 was arrested as A.3 and then he was sent for judicial remand.(j) On 26.2.1994, P.W.18, Inspector of Police requested the Chief Judicial Magistrate to arrange for recording the confessional statement of the said Mohan Kumar under Section 164 Cr.P.C. P.W.12, the Judicial Magistrate recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. from Mohan Kumar (A.3).Subsequently, on the request made by the Inspector of Police, P.W.14, Chief Judicial Magistrate granted pardon on 27.2.1994 to the accused No. 3 and treated him as an approver Then P.W.19 another Inspector of Police continued the investigation and examined the other witnesses.After completing the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused-1 and 2 for the offence under Section 302 read with 120B I.P.C.Even before the commencement of trial, A.1 Maheswaran died.Therefore, the appellant Muralidharan alone was tried for the offence under Sections 120B and 302 I.P.C.During the course of trial, P.Ws.1 to 19 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.13 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he simply denied his complicity in the offence.The trial Court on appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case against the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and convicted him thereunder.Hence, this appeal.That apart, P.W.3 would not have seen the deceased going along with other accused, since P.W.1 did not refer to the presence of P.W.3 when the deceased left from his house in his auto-rickshaw.The evidence of P.W.10, post-mortem doctor would clearly show that the deceased having sustained 15 grievous injuries all over the body would not have driven the auto for about 2 kilometers and as such, the evidence of P.W.2 giving the details of the oral dying declaration cannot be believed. "In reply to the above submissions, Mr. Raja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the evidence of P.W.2 is so natural, since he was the person who took the victim to the hospital which is corroborated by Exs.P.20 and P.25, the intimation and the accident register and he informed the relatives immediately and then went to the police station and gave Ex.P.1 complaint mentioning about the oral dying declaration given by the deceased and also the evidence of P.W.2 is well corroborated by the evidence of the doctor and as such, the evidence of both P.Ws.1 and 2 is supported by other materials like medical evidence etc., and the recovery of the weapons from A.1 and A.2 and consequently, it has to be held that the reasonings given by the trial Court for imposing the conviction are perfectly justified.We have given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged by both the counsel and gone through the records.P.20 reached the police station immediately.At 2.00 a.m., P.W.2 went to the police station and gave the complaint Ex.In Ex.P.1, he had clearly stated what the deceased told him.On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.2 the case was originally registered against A.1 and A.2 alone.Then, on 12.2.1994, A.1 and A.2 were arrested and M.Os.2 and 3 were recovered from them respectively.Only on interrogation, P.W.17 Inspector of Police came to know about the involvement of Mohan Kumar (P.W.1).When P.W.1 searched for Mohan Kumar on the basis of the confession given by A.1 and A.2, he decided to surrender before the police.On the basis of the pardon, he was taken as an approver and cited as one of the witnesses.On the other hand, he went and stayed with his grandfather's house.Only on coming to know through the newspapers that he was also being searched for in the said murder case, he surrendered before the police.Thereupon, the confession statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.A reading of Ex.P.18, the 164 statement and the evidence of P.W.1 would make it clear that the confession given by P.W.1 with reference to the occurrence is quite consistent and reliable.Much was said about the doctor's evidence.P.W.10 the doctor stated that the deceased could not have driven the vehicle for about two kilometers.We have also noticed the nature of injuries.But, the fact remains that P.W.15, the Doctor who examined the deceased, found that the deceased was conscious and he was able to answer the questions.He further stated in his deposition that the details of the incident, time, date and all other particulars were given by the deceased himself.So, the evidence of P.W.15 would clearly indicate that the deceased was conscious enough to give the particulars of the incident and also answered the question put by the doctor.In the above circumstances, we cannot give much importance to the opinion evidence given by P.W.10 that after sustaining these injuries, he could not have driven the auto.It is also noticed from the deposition given by P.W.2 who refers to the oral dying declaration made by the deceased has not been challenged in the cross-examination.Though P.W.3 would state that a statement had been obtained by the Head Constable from the deceased Dakshinamurthy in the hospital, P.W.17, the Inspector of Police emphatically denied having obtained any such statement from the deceased.Under these circumstances, having regard to the reliability of the evidence adduced by P.W.2 and also the evidence of P.W.1 which finds corroboration through the other materials, we are of the considered view that there are sufficient materials to find the accused guilty for the offence of murder.Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the accused is perfectly valid and the same is liable to be confirmed and accordingly confirmed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,430,217 |
Counter affidavit filed by learned A.G.A. today in the Court is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no.117 of 2019, under Sections 376D, 342, 328, 120B IPC, Police Station-Dadon, District-Aligarh is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was registered by Arvind Kumar Maheshwari, uncle of the victim under Section 376D, 328, 120B, 342 IPC on 13.05.2019 for the incident said to have been taken place on 11.05.2019 against Ms. Shivani(applicant), Samir, Sakim and Sohail.The allegation is that the victim herself is 17 years of young girl and the applicant is a lady.The victim resides in her neighbourhood.On account of differences between the mother and father of the victim, an open offer was made by the applicant to the victim to visit her house at the time of her convenience.On the fateful day, the applicant has administered some intoxicants and after consuming the same, victim started feeling unconsciousness.She was asked to lay down in the room whereupon rest of the accused persons committed gang rape upon her.After getting consciousness, she felt pain over her private organ and there was bleeding therefrom.The only role attributed to the applicant is that she has mixed some intoxicant.The role of gang rape has been attributed to rest of co-accused Samir, Sakim and Sohail and the role of the applicant is clearly distinguishable from the above said co-accused persons against whom the victim has attributed the role of gang rape in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.The role of the applicant stands on different footing than that of other co-accused person.Let the applicant-Smt.
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,432 |
Index : yesInternet : yesJI.The Secretary toGovt.of Tamil Nadu, Home (Prison)Department, Fort St.The Superintendent,Central Jail No.2,Tihar, New Delhi.(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, by name Lakshman Singh of New Delhi, who is nowconfined in Central Jail No.2, Tihar, New Delhi, has filed this Petitionseeking for a direction to the respondents to produce him before this Courtand set him at liberty.Based on the averments made in the affidavit filed in support ofthe above petition, this Court directed the learned Government Advocate to getinstruction with reference to the grievance expressed by the petitioner.Pursuant to the same, on behalf of the second respondent, Additional DirectorGeneral of Prisons, Chennai-8, Tamil Nadu, has filed counter affidavit,highlighting various aspects.It is seen that the petitioner herein, who is a life convict andnow confined in Central Prison, Tihar, New Delhi, was convicted underSections-302 read with 34, 148, 449 and 395 read with 397 IPC.and sentencedto undergo imprisonment for life, RI for 3 years, RI for 10 years (2 counts)respectively, the sentences to run concurrently, in S.C. No.139 of 1985, byJudgment dated 31.12.1986 of the Sessions Court, Chengleput.As such, he remained at large for a totalperiod of 352 days.In addition to the above information, learned Government Advocatehas brought to our notice various Government Orders relating to prematurerelease and it is contended that inasmuch as the petitioner was also convictedunder Section 397 IPC., ie., for dacoity, he is not eligible for prematurerelease.We do not find any valid ground to accept the case of thepetitioner.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,435,686 |
C.R.M. 14026 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on September 09, 2010 And In re.: Nirmal Barman & 3 Ors.This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioners who apprehend arrest in connection with Tufanganj Police Station Case No. 196 of 2010 dated 28.7.2010 under Section 498A/49A of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and the State.We have perused the materials produced before us in the case diary and we are of the considered view that this is a fit case for admitting the petitioners with an order under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on their surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,874,519 |
The petitioners are A-1 to A-4, in the case registered in Crime No. 287/97 by the respondent, the Inspector of Police, Annamalai Nagar Police Station.The victim in this case is one Malarkodi, a married woman.On 26-6-1997 one Dhanam, the mother-in-law of the victim was admitted in Muthiah Medical College Hospital at Annamalai Nagar.On 27-6-1997 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim along with her brother-in-law Kolanjinathan left the village Vanathirayan Pattinam, Udayar-palayam Taluk and came to see her mother-in-law in the hospital.In the evening they were informed that the said Dhanam had to undergo an operation.The victim and the said Kolanjinathan went to Chidambaram and purchased white cloth and worshipped in the Natarajar temple.Then, in order to go back to hospital, they were waiting for the bus near Gandhi statue.Since they were informed that the bus would not come, they were walking towards the hospital.It was at about 8.00 p.m. When they came near Muthiah Nagar bridge, the victim Malarkodi went to the left side of.the road in order to pass urine.Kolanjinathan was standing at a distance.At that time, three persons suddenly pounced upon her and forcibly took her into 'kattamani' plants.The said Kolanjinathan on seeing the incident cried, but he was threatened by another accused.Immediately, the said Kolanjinathan came to the Police Station and informed about the incident suspecting that the victim was likely to be raped and murdered.The said victim was traced only next day evening at about 6.00 p.m. She stated that four persons, the petitioners herein took her forcibly to a nearby Kattamani bush and raped her one after another.She came to know the names of all the petitioners when they were conversing with each other.After committing rape, she was taken in an Auto and dropped near the Muthiah Hospital.On this statement, the case was altered into one under Section 376, I.P.C.She was examined by the Doctor, who gave wound certificate for the injuries found on the victim.The Doctor also took smear and pubic hair for chemical analysis.On 29-6-1997 at about 10.00 p.m. all the petitioners (A-l to A-4) were arrested and confessions were obtained from them.On the date of remand, a requisition was given by the investigating agency to the Magistrate for directing to conduct potentiality test on the accused.Accordingly, after the written consent, obtained from them, the learned Magistrate directed for the potentiality test.The Doctor examined them on 1-7-1997 and gave a certificate that they are potent.On 4-7-1997 the petitioners filed an application in C.M.P. No. 2034 of 1997 under Section 54, Cr.P.C. for a direction to be issued to the Government Doctor, Chidambaram to take sample blood and semen from the petitioners and send the same along with vaginal smear taken from the victim girl, to the Director, Molecular Biological Research Institute.Hyderabad to conduct D.N.A. test and to find out whether the semen found in the vagina of the victim girl tallies with the sample blood and semen of any of the petitioners.On 15-7-1997 on behalf of the respondent, a counter was filed stating that the accused persons were already subjected to potentiality test and that all the accused were said to have committed rape on the victim girl and the prayer for comparison in the said petition is not reasonable and proper, as the overt act of all the accused on the victim girl were continuous and cogent acts.However, the learned Magistrate sent a requisition to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Thanjavur, in order to know whether the D.N.A. test could be possible, as requested by the petitioners.The learned Magistrate received a reply stating that the vaginal smear taken from the victim woman on 29-6-1997, after two days of the rape, may not be a true representative sample of seminal residues and that it may not be a useful bio-specimen for reliable analysis.Thereafter, after hearing the parties, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application stating that the said test is not possible in this case and would not give any fruitful result and further, the presence of semen on the vaginal part need not be a must, since mere penetration would amount to rape as per the section.Now, this order passed on 18-8-1997 is challenged in this revision.In the meantime, the petitioners filed an application in Cr. M. P. No. 3837 of 1997 before the Sessions Court, Cuddalore for bail.When the bail application was taken up, on being questioned by this Court the investigating agency informed that identification parade was not conducted.When the matter was taken up on 18-8-1997, the Investigating Officer was not present.The Police Constable, who appeared before the Court was not able to say anything about the steps taken for conducting identification parade.Under these circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection.So, on the basis of this, the Sessions Judge has passed the following order:-Heard both.The Police Constable who appeared before this Court is not able to speak anything about the direction or steps taken in this case.The petitioners are in custody nearly for the past 50 days.The learned P. P. has no serious objections.Under such circumstances, the petitioners can be released on bail with stringent condition.There-fore, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their each executing a bond for Rupees 5,000/- (five thousand) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of J.M.I., Chidambaram and also on condition that they should remain at Mayiladuthurai and appear before the J.M., Mayiladuthurai daily at 10.30 a.m., until further, orders.From these things, two things are clear.When such a serious offence of mass rape had been reported to the police, it is not known as to why there were no steps taken by the Inspector of Police, who investigated the case, for requesting the learned Magistrate to arrange for the identification parade.Moreover, even on the hearing of the bail application, the Inspector of Police was instructed, rather directed by the Sessions Judge to make arrangement for conducting the parade.I am at a loss to understand as to why this direction had not been complied with.Furthermore, the Inspector of Police was conveniently absent on 18-8-1997, when the bail application was finally disposed of.In fact, the learned Sessions Judge had pointed out this inaction of the police in the said order itself.Identification parade is a valuable evidence, especially when the accused were not earlier known to the victim.Despite the direction of the Court, this was not done.This would create an impression that the Inspector of Police want-only did not do his duty, probably to help the petitioners.Furthermore, the very fact that the Inspector of Police was absent on the date when the bail application was ordered on 18-8-1997 and the very fact that the learned Public Prosecutor did not raise any objection, would create some sort of doubt in the mind of this Court against the Investigating Officer.So, the victim would have got the opportunity of seeing them on seeing their physical features clearly.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,745,272 |
This revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Coimbatore passed in C.A.No.469 of 2004 dated 24.01.2007 conforming the judgment made in C.C.No.485 of 2000 dated 06.10.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pollachi.2.The learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pollachi convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Coimbatore, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court.He would further contend that P.W.3 could not have seen the occurrence at all, since, in the cross-examination he has categorically admitted that he was behind two buses, namely, the bus which made the accident as well as the Government bus.Therefore, he could not have seen the accident as stated by him.Secondly, the evidence of P.W.4 is very clear and according to him, he only contends that he has seen the incident 100 feet away from the accident spot and his contention is that there were three buses going, whereas, the version of P.W.3 is that there were only two buses going.He would further contend that, P.W.5 has given an entirely different version that there was a lorry and two buses and the bus first overtook the lorry and then overtook the government bus and was driven.He would further contend that since, there were total contradictions between the versions of P.W.3 to P.W.5, the lower court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the accused/ revision petitioner.4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that, according to the evidence of P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, the complaint was given at 1.15 p.m., whereas, the evidence has been recorded at 9.30 a.m., whereas, the Inspector of Police would contend that when he was in the police station, complaint was lodged in his presence.Therefore, there is contradiction in respect of the timing of complaint and starting of investigation.He would also further contend that according to the Inspector of Police, the investigation started at 10.30 a.m. When there are such vital contradictions, the court ought not to have convicted the accused/ revision petitioner.He would further contend that none of the witnesses, excepting the Investigation Officer has stated from which direction the bus was going on and where the deceased has crossed the road.When there is no specific allegation regarding the way in which the vehicle was driven and the way in which the accident has occurred, the court ought not to have granted the conviction and sentence.Side) would contend that all the three eye-witnesses have categorically stated that the revision petitioner was the driver of the offeding vehicle and he was trying to overtake the vehicle, namely, the bus standing in the bus-stand and the deceased person was only walking in the road and met with the accident and died on the spot.Therefore, they cannot be construed as person who has not seen the accident.He would further contend that, at the same time, the evidence of the Investigation Officer is very clear and he has spoken about the direction.Therefore, the contradictions have not been taken much note of.6.Heard both parties.By consent of both the parties, the main revision itself is taken up for final disposal.7.Though unfortunately, a 60 years old person died when crossing the road, even as admitted by the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has totally failed to prove that there was rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the vehicle to seek for conviction.8.In this case, the prosecution has relied upon the so-called eye-witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.5, but, when we analyse the evidence of P.W.3 to P.W.5, P.W.3 categorically states that he was behind the offending vehicle as well as the bus which was standing in the bus stand and that he was driving a two wheeler.In the evidence, he has also categorically stated that he only saw the front portion of the bus hitting the person, but, if he was really standing much behind the two vehicles, he could not have seen what has happened, coupled with the fact that he has not stated from which side, the vehicle was going and where the deceased was crossing the road and how the accident occurred.9.Similarly, when we examine the evidence of P.W.4, he has categorically stated that there were three buses going, two busses and a government bus and the revision petitioner over-took the government bus.He would further admit in the cross-examination that he saw the accident 100 feet away from the occurrence spot.In the evidence, he would also state that the vehicle was overtaking the government bus which was also on the move.10.Similarly, when we analyse the evidence of P.W.5, according to him in the chief examination itself, he would say that he was coming along with P.W.4 when the accident took place and that the bus driven by the revision petitioner first overtook a lorry an then overtook a Government bus and then hit against the deceased person who was walking on the Northern direction, and the person died on the spot.But he does not say the he has seen the accident as to how the accident took place.In the cross examination, he states that he was a van driver by profession.Then he could not have missed the correct identity.11.When we also consider the evidence of the conductor of the bus driven by the revision petitioner and who was examined as P.W.11, he would state that there was a bus stop and in the bus stop, the Government bus was standing and the bus which was driven by the driver was overtaking the bus and also would admit that the deceased person was crossing the road on the front of the government bus from West to East.Therefore, he crossed the road and the accident has taken place.Infact, this has been elicited in the cross-examination.12.When we analyse the evidence of the Sub-Inspector of Police, examined as P.W.9, he would state that when he was in the police station on 15.08.2000 at about 1.15 hours, P.W.3 came and gave a complaint and that has been registered as F.I.R. Ex.But, when we examine the evidence of the Investigation Officer, examined as P.w.12, he says that when he was in the police station on 15.08.2000 at about 9.15 hours in the morning, he had received the F.I.R. registered by P.W.9 and went to the occurrence spot at 10.00 a.m. and examined the witnesses and prepared the observation mahazer Ex.P6 and rough sketch Ex.P.7 and conducted the inquest enquiry between 10.30 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and prepared the inquest report Ex.Therefore, there is contradiction in respect of the time when the F.I.R. was registered.The Sub-Inspector of Police, examined as P.W.9 says that the F.I.R. was registered at 1.15 hours and the Inspector of Police, examined as P.W.12 says that he received the F.I.R. at 9.15 in the morning and started investigation at 10.00 a.m. which is a vital contradiction.At this stage, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner fairly submitted before the Court that the revision petitioner was the driver of the vehicle which is admitted.The accident is also admitted.But, it was beyond his control.As it shakes his conscience, the revision petitioner would like to compensate the deceased person and has voluntarily come forward to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the family members of the deceased person.17.Hence, at the time of acquittal of the revision petitioner, the gesture made by the revision petitioner is accepted.The revision petitioner is permitted to deposit the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation to the family members of the deceased person within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the credit of C.C.No.485 of 2000 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1 at Pollachi.18.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi is directed to issue notice to P.W.2, since P.W.2 is the son of the deceased and ascertain the details of the family members of the deceased and then disburse the compensation amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only), deposited by the revision petitioner to the family members of the deceased.The judgment passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No.1, Coimbatore in C.A.No.469 of 2004 dated 24.01.2007 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.485 of 2000 dated 06.10.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pollachi, is set aside.At the same time, the gesture made by the revision petitioner in seeking to pay compensation is also recorded.1.The Additional District, Fast Track No.1, Coimbatore.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi.B.RAJENDRAN,J., priCrl.R.C.No.138 of 2007 28.01.2013
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,454,487 |
The sole ground raised for quashment of the aforesaid prosecution against the petitioner is that rival parties have settled the scores and thus do not wish to pursue the prosecution in question.The allegation against the petitioner is of causing gunshot injury on the chest of injured with a country-made pistol.Principle of law in regard to compounding of non- compoundable offence has been laid down in the case of Narinder Singh and Ors.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,455,566 |
sdas allowed C. R. M. No. 10175 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.11.2019 in connection with Bizpore Police Station Case No. 559 of 2019 dated 23.09.2019 under Sections 341/323/354B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly application for anticipatory bail is allowed.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
187,456,111 |
This revision has been filed u/S.397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 02.09.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sardarpur, District- Dhar in S.T. No.214/2016, whereby learned Judge framed the charge against the applicants for the offences u/Ss.294, 323, 506, 313, 34 of IPC.Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 21.04.2016 at about 9:30 am at village Ladgaon, Amjhera, District-Dhar, applicants came to the shop of Samarthmal and abused him and applicant Dasharth and Manohar assaulted him by stick.On hearing him shouting, Samarthmal's daughter-in-laws Shobha and Shivani came to rescue him and applicants assaulted them also due to which Shobha sustained injury on both her wrists and waist and Shivani on her waist.Applicants also threatened to kill them.After the incident Samarthmal lodged the report at Police Station Amjhera on which crime No.99/2016 was registered for the offences u/S.294, 323, 506/34 of IPC against the applicants.During the investigation, it was found that at the time of incident injured Shobha was pregnant and due to injuries inflicted by the applicants she had a miscarriage.So after investigation, police filed charge-sheet against the applicants for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506,and 313, 34 of IPC.On that charge- sheet S.T. No.214/16 was registered.During trial of the case learned A.S.J. by order dated 02.09.2016 framed the charges against the applicants, for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506,and 313, 34 of IPC.Being aggrieved from that order applicants filed this criminal revision.Learned counsel of the applicants submitted that in the FIR, and case diary statement of complainant Samarthmal and injured Shobha and Shivani, recorded by the police soon after incident, it is not mentioned that Shobha was pregnant at the time of incident and the applicants caused injury on her abdomen due to which she had a miscarriage.Police recorded the supplementary case diary statement of Shobha, After two months of the incident wherein it is mentioned that she was pregnant at the time of incident due to injuries inflicted by the applicants she had a miscarriage, which is an afterthought.No medical document was produced by the prosecution along with charge-sheet in support of that statement.So there is no evidence on record to frame the charge against the applicants for the offence under Section 313 of IPC.Learned trial Court committed mistake in framing the charge for offence under Section 313 of IPC against the applicants.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that in the medical examination report of Shobha clearly mentioned that bleeding was found in her vagina at the time of examination.Doctor also in his query report mentioned that Shobha had a miscarriage.So there is ample evidence to frame the charge u/S.313 of IPC against the applicant.Although in the FIR, and case diary statement of complainant Samarthmal and injured Shobha and Shivani recorded by the police soon after incident, it is not mentioned that at the time of incident Shobha was pregnant and the applicants caused injury on her abdomen and due to which she had a miscarriage.But in Shobha's supplementary case diary statement it is clearly mentioned that she was pregnant at the time of incident and had a miscarriage due to the incident.So there is prima facie evidence to frame the charge against the applicants for offences u/S.313 of IPC.So in the considered opinion of this Court trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge for the offence 313 of IPC against the applicant.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,874,571 |
JUDGMENT R.K. Batta, J.The appellant was tried for the murder of his wife by burning under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the said charge and sentenced the appellant to undergo life imprisonment as also fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default R.I. for six months.The period of detention during the trial has been set off in terms of section 428 Cri.The prosecution case, as unfolded by the dying declaration of the deceased Nirmala is that on 28-3-1990, at about 3 p.m., there was a quarrel between her and her husband namely the appellant.The quarrel had taken place over the issue of sale proceeds of a pair of bullocks sold by her husband.The appellant was demanding money from the deceased and since the deceased refused to part with money, the appellant beat her.In a fit of anger, the deceased threw the money, upon which the appellant closed the door of the house and said: "you have thrown the money, now you must die." On hearing this, the deceased, in a fit of anger, poured Kerosene on her person and the appellant set her on fire by closing the door.The appellant made attempts to extinguish the fire and also sustained burn injuries on his hands in the process.The deceased was taken to the hospital.The appellant was also hospitalised on account of injuries suffered by him.The dying declaration of the deceased to the above effect was recorded by the Executive Magistrate Namdeo Ambagade on 20-3-1990 at 4 p.m.He also drew out attention to the evidence of P.W. 9 Pandurang Gourkhede who has stated that the deceased told him that she had set fire to herself as also the report which was sent from the hospital to the police station which is at page 79 of the paper book.In the light of the above submissions, it has been urged that no reliance can be placed on the dying declaration of the deceased and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal.Alternatively, it was submitted by learned Advocate for the appellant that the deceased had herself poured Kerosene and the incident in question not only was a matter of spur of movement, but also on account of grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased herself.The prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of the charge, but some of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution version.Firstly, insofar as the incident is concerned, there were no eye witnesses and the persons who were present at the time of the incident were only the appellant and the deceased.The prosecution case as we have already stated, has been unfolded by the deceased who was the sole witness to the incident.Having come to the conclusion that the dying declaration is voluntary, reliable and trustworthy, we shall now examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant as to whether the offence in question amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the incident in question took place on the spur of the movement due to grave and sudden provocation of the deceased.On the other hand, according to the learned A.P.P. the dying declaration of the deceased establishes beyond doubt that the appellant-accused had intention to kill since not only he stated to the deceased that she should die, but also closed the door and set her on fire after she had on her own poured kerosene on her.The totality of the incident as revealed by the deceased has to be looked into in order to determine the issue involved.Initially, there was quarrel between the deceased and the appellant over the sale proceeds of a pair of bullocks.The appellant was demanding the sale proceeds, but the deceased refused to part with the same.As a result of which, the appellant is reported to have beaten the deceased.In a fit of anger, the deceased threw the money upon which the appellant closed the door and told the deceased : "You have thrown the money, now you should die".Thereafter, in a fit of anger, the deceased poured kerosene on her and the appellant set her on fire.According to the deceased, the appellant was in a state of intoxication when he set her on fire and subsequently tried to extinguish the fire, as a result of which he suffered burn injuries on his hands and was also hospitalised.The entire incident does not establish the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased since if it was his intention to kill her, he would have never tried to extinguish the fire and in the process, suffered burn injuries on the hands.There was certainly no premeditation for the crime.There was sudden quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as also the heat of passion which is even revealed by the deceased when she speaks of fit of anger.For the aforesaid reasons, we hold the appellant guilty for the offence under section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.Learned Advocate for the appellant, placing reliance on a Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. R. Varadraju, reported in 1995 Criminal Law Journal 1429, has urged before us that a lenient view in the matter of awarding sentencing be taken as the appellant is in jail for almost more than five years now and the said term should be treated as sufficient and the appellant be released as having already undergone the imprisonment which is to the tune of more than five years.The learned A.P.P. strenuously urged that there is no reason to take a lenient view in the matter since on a petty quarrel, the husband had killed his wife.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case under consideration, we are of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met by sentencing the appellant to R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default S.I. for three months.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of the appellant to undergo life imprisonment under section 302 I.P.C. passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in S.C. No. 541/90 is set aside and instead the appellant is convicted under section 304 Part II I.P.C. and is sentenced to R.I. for seven years.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,162,231 |
Heard on IA No. 9473/2015, which is an application for correction in the main petition.It is submitted that due to inadvertence mistake offence under Section "304 IPC" has wrongly been mentioned as "304-B IPC".Counsel for the applicant prays to correct the same.Considering the averments mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Correction be carried out on board today.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 3.9.2015 in connection with Crime No. 132/2015, registered at Police Station Satanwada District Shivpuri for the offences punishable under Section 304 of IPC.As per prosecution story on 24.8.2015 at about 7:30 PM, on the terrace, Annu and applicant accused Sughar Singh were quarreling.Santosh came to disperse them but the applicant Sughar Singh very aggressive and pushed Varsa the deaf girl.Varsa ( 2) M.Cr.C No. 11276/2015 dashed with Santosh.Both, Santosh and Varsa fell down from the terrace.Due to the injuries during treatment Santosh passed away.Counsel for the applicant prays that the applicant has no criminal antecedent.Trial would take considerable time.Hence, benefit of regular be given to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application for bail.Considering the above, without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE dcs/-
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,194,175 |
The petitioners had been in continuous business transaction with the opposite party for the period of four years.There was a running course of business between the petitioners and the opposite party from 1st October, 2012 and 31st March, 2016 and payment of Rs.85,77,633/- (Rupees eighty five lakh seventy seven thousand six hundred thirty three) was made to the opposite party by the petitioners in connection with that business transaction.It has been alleged by the petitioners that the petitioners found that the material supplied by the opposite party were not up to the standard quality and materials were defective for which the petitioner No. 1 had to suffer both financially as well as loss of business reputation.This issue was discussed with the management of the opposite party and they decided not to make payment for supply of defective materials.From the letter dated 17th June, 2016 issued by the opposite party, the petitioners came to know that the opposite party made undue claims.In the said petition of complaint the complainant alleged that he was induced and deceived to execute the deliveries of the goods and the accused dishonestly and fraudulently represented that they had never defaulted to make payment to any supplier and also if there were any defects in goods supplied to the accused no. 1 then the accused no. 1 had never extracted any discount from the supplier and would have sent back the defective goods to the supplier.On the assurance of the accused the complainant supplied goods valued at Rs.13,58,640/- (Rupees thirteen lacs fifty eight thousand six hundred only) .It was specifically averred in the petition of complaint that as per the working arrangement between the complainant and the accused every transaction was a fresh contract and both parties were free to negotiate fresh terms on every invoice, which was raised by the complainant.The complainant subsequently alleged that acting upon the assurance of the representation made by the accused no.1 it supplied goods valued at Rs.13,58,640/- vide invoice dated 25th April, 2015 amounting to Rs.4,47,774/- on 27th April, 2015 amounting to Rs.4,53,546/- and on 28th April, 2015 amounting to Rs.4,57,320/-.The accused No. 4 was a middleman and an introducer of the complainant with the accused no. 1 and its Director.The complainant company served a letter to the accused as failed to meet the Directors of the accused company.Getting no other alternative the complainant company sent a letter to the accused company demanding the payment of the dues.The accused company informed the complainant vide their letter dated 21st June, 2016 that good supplied were of inferior quality.It has been specifically alleged in the petition of complaint that the accused cheated the complainant by conspiracy with themselves and falsely representing rosy picture that the firm was well-established and had an excellent reputation in the market and never defaulted any payment.On the basis of the said petition of complaint, summons were issued upon all the accused persons to face trial for a commission of the alleged offences punishable under Section 417/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,212,363 |
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2 is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the informant/opposite party no.2, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.This bail application has been moved by the applicant who is involved in Case Crime No. 128 of 2018, under Sections 363, 366, 376 (1) I.P.C., 3/4 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 3 (2) (5) of S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station-Khiri, District-Allahabad.As per prosecution version, on 26.06.2018 at about 11:00 P.M. in the night, prosecutrix aged about 16 years had gone out of her residence.Later on, she could not return at her home.First information report was lodged on 28.06.2018, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C. against the applicant in suspicion.She has gone with the applicant and married with him.Learned counsel for the informant submitted that informant has no objection in releasing the applicant on bail.Accordingly, she was minor at the time of occurrence.However, he admitted this fact that all the epiphysis of the wrist, elbow and knee joints of the prosecutrix were fused and as per medical report her age was above 18 years at the time of occurrence.Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. admitted that she has gone with the applicant and solemnized marriage with him on her own sweet will.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find it a fit case for enlarging the applicant on bail.Let the applicant- Vindhyawasini Soni, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.Application stands allowed.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,882,399 |
Her son and daughter-in-law at all material times wereresiding at Kuwait.S.B. Sinha, J.1. Leave granted.Interpretation of Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 188of the Code of Criminal Procedure fall for our consideration in this appealwhich arises out of a judgment and order dated 12.04.2006 passed by theHigh Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application No.358 of 2005 dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by the appellant herein.Appellant indisputably is a citizen 2of Mauritius.A Complaint Petition, however, was filed before the Chief JudicialMagistrate, Navsari by the said respondent alleging physical and mentaltorture by her husband (the first accused).Allegations primarily against theappellant therein were that the first accused used to consult her and she usedto instigate him.As the couple was residing at Kuwait, indisputably the entire cause ofaction arose at Kuwait.An application was filed by her stating that the complaint petitionfiled without obtaining the requisite sanction under Section 188 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure was bad in law.The same was dismissed.A joint application with her son was thereafter filed by the appellantfor quashing of the entire complaint petition which was withdrawn.Appellant, however, filed a fresh application on or about 6.12.2004raising a contention that as she is a citizen of Mauritius and as the entirecause of action took place at Kuwait, the order taking cognizance is bad in 3law.Whereas the learned trial judge rejected the said plea, the RevisionalCourt on a revision application filed by the appellant thereagainst, allowedthe same.Principles analogous to resjudicata have no application with regard to criminal cases.An accused hasa fundamental right in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to beproceeded against only in accordance with law.The law which would applyin India subject of course to the provisions of Section 4 of the Indian PenalCode and Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is that the offencemust be committed within the territory of India.If admittedly, the offencehas not been committed within the territorial limits of India, the provisionsof the Indian Penal Code as also the Code of Criminal Procedure would notapply.,(2005) 12 SCC 1] Where a jurisdictional issue is raised, save and except for certaincategories of the cases, the same may be permitted to be raised at any stageof the proceedings.The appeal is allowed with costs.Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).[S.B. Sinha] 12 .....................................J.[Lokeshwar Singh Panta]New Delhi;May 13, 2008
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
18,836,170 |
The appellants in Crl.P.W.1 is his younger brother.All these witnesses were residing at Kambukaranthottam in Vembathi Village, Erode District.P.W.1 and the deceased, being the brothers, had jointly purchased 10 acres of land from one Mr.S.M.Chenniappan few years before the occurrence.The third accused Mr.Palanisamy had his land on the East of the said land.All these accused are also closely related to each other.They also hail from the same village.In respect of the boundary lying between the above said land belonging to P.W.1 and the deceased and that of the third accused, there were frequent quarrels between the two groups.P.13 is the Wound Certificate.4.She complained of pain in her dorsum of the right hand and she was not able to move her fingers; and5.She complained of pain in her dorsum of the right hand and she was not able to move her fingers.Exhibit P.14 is the Accident Register.X-ray taken revealed that the injuries 2 and 3 are grievous in nature as there were fractures.According to him, these injuries would have been caused by weapons like Aruval and Spade handle.While they were in the said hospital, P.W.14, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to Apakudal Police Station received intimation from the hospital about the occurrence and admission of the injured in the hospital at 4.00 p.m.. On the same day, he proceeded to the Lotus Hospital and found that none of the injured was in a position to speak.Therefore, he recorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P.W.15, who was the then Inspector of Police-in-charge of Apakudal Police Station, took up the case for investigation.At 7.00 p.m., on the same day, he proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined one Tamilarasu.Since it was so dark, he could not prepare Observation Mahazar.Thereafter, he returned to the Lotus Hospital where he examined P.W.4 and Mr.Chinnappan who had brought all the injured to the hospital.On 13.09.2004, at 6.30 a.m., again P.W.15 went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar in respect of the place of occurrence in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness.At that time, however, he did not recover the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.He recovered the material objects (the weapons used in the occurrence) M.Os.3 to 7 from the place of occurrence.Some of the weapons were stained with blood.Then, he returned to the Lotus Hospital where he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements.Then, on secret information, he went to Thalavaipettai Bus stop and arrested A.2,3,5 in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.On such arrest, the third accused gave a voluntary confession in which, he had disclosed that 'Kutheeti' and Aruval had been hidden in a thorn bush.The said statement was recorded.Based on the said confession, the accused took the police and the witnesses to his land and produced the weapons (Kutheeti and Aruval) M.Os.1 and 2 from there.Sutured material was seen in that area;4.There was fracture in the right side of the skull bone extending from parietal to temporal bone;5.On removing the fractured bones from the left side of the skull suturing was done in the dura matter of brain left side;6.On opening the dura extending blood clots present over the both side of the brain; and7.Fracture basal on both side present.On opening the Thorax: About 300 ml of blood clots present in the left side thoracic cavity.Fracture of 2,3, 4th ribs present in left side.According to the Doctor, the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries.A.No.966 of 2006 are the accused 1 and 2 and the appellants in Crl.A.No.948 are the accused 3 to 7 in S.C.No.72 of 2005 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode.Totally, there were 9 accused.The accused 8 and 9 have been acquitted by the trial Court.The appellants/A.1 to 7 have been convicted and sentenced as detailed below:-AccusedOffenceSentence ImposedA.1Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonmentUnder Section 324 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.A.2Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C., 10 years rigorous imprisonment A.3Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 304 (Part II) I.P.C., 10 years rigorous imprisonment A.4Under Section 147 I.P.C., 6 months rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 I.P.C., 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A.5Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 324 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A.6Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 324 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment A.7Under Section 148 I.P.C., 1 year rigorous imprisonment Under Section 325 I.P.C., 2 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment Further, the trial Court acquitted the accused from some of the charges as stated below:-AccusedOffenceA.1Under Sections 342 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (2 counts)A.2342 r/w 149, 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (3 counts)A.3342 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (3 counts)A.4342 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (2 countsA.5342 r/w 149 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (2 counts)A.8147, 342, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (3 counts)A.9147, 342, 302 r/w 149 and 307 r/w 149 I.P.C., (3 counts)Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with these appeals.The deceased in this case was one Mr.On 12.09.2004, P.W.1, the deceased, the wife of the deceased Mrs.Palaniammal, P.W.2, P.W.3 and one Tamilarasi were engaged in removing weeds in the above said land.It was 11.30 a.m. At that time, the third accused had engaged a bulldozer to level his land.P.W.7, Mr.Kumarasamy was the Driver of the bulldozer.While so levelling, the sand was pushed into the land belonging to P.W.1 and the deceased thereby encroaching upon their land.A.3, Palanisamy retorted saying that they would do so only.Suddenly, all the accused came to the place of occurrence, all armed with weapons.A.1 was armed with an Iron Rod; A.2 was armed with a Kutheeti (spear); A.3 was armed with Aruval; A.4 was armed with Stick; A.5 was armed with Spade; A.6 was armed with Aruval; A.7 was armed with Spade handle and A.8 and A.9 were not armed with any weapon.On emerging at the place of occurrence, suddenly, they started mounting attack on the prosecution party.A.8 and 9 (since acquitted), held P.W.1 and restrained him from escaping.A.1 attacked Rajammal (died before trial) with Iron Rod on her head causing a single injury.For this overt act, he stood charged for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. A.2 attacked the deceased on his head with spear causing a long injury.A.3 attacked the deceased with Aruval on his head causing a long injury.A.5 attacked P.W.2 with spade on her head.A.6 attacked P.W.3 with Aruval on her head.A.7 attacked P.W.3 with Spade handle on her right hand.In the said occurrence, as stated above, P.Ws.2 and 3, the deceased Palanisamy and Mrs.Rajammal sustained injuries.The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.7, the Driver of the bulldozer.They raised alarm which attracted P.W.4 towards the place of occurrence.On reaching the place of occurrence, P.W.4 found the injured lying on the ground with extensive bleeding injuries.Immediately, P.W.4 along with one Gurusamy and Chinnappan made arrangement to rush the injured to the Lotus Hospital at Erode.4. P.W.6 Dr.John Gurupatham, examined all the injured on 12.4.2009 at about 2.40 p.m. So far as the deceased is concerned, he found as many as 9 external injuries.P.7 is the Accident Register copy relating to the deceased.The following are the injuries (as described in Ex.P.7) :-1.A lacerated injury with exposing bone fronto temporo parital region with oozing blood;2.A lacerated injury measuring 10x4 cm on the right parital region with oozing blood;3.Swelling and ecchymosis of both eyes noticed;4.Swelling on the left hand dorsum;5.A small = cm length laceration on the left knee;6.A small = cm laceration on the left leg toe;7.Oozing of blood on the left ear;8.Bleeding was found through nose and mouth; and9.A small contusion on the right upper leg.Scan examination was conducted on the head of the deceased which revealed as follows:-1.Diffuse Subarachnoid Haemorrhage.2.RT.Fronto Parietal ICH.3.Diffuse Cerebral Edema.5.Depressed fracture in the left fronto parietal region. While on treatment, he died on 14.09.2004 at 3.30 p.m.5. P.W.6, on the same day, examined Rajammal (since deceased).He noticed a lacerated wound measuring 5x2x2 cms on the left parietal region and the underlying bone was found exposed.There was bleeding also on the said injury.P.10 is the Accident Register for Mrs.Rajammal.On the same day, at 2.40 p.m., he examined P.W.2 Mrs.Eswari.He found as many as 8 injuries on her which are as follows:-A lacerated wound measuring 2x2 cms on the right parietal area;A lacerated injury measuring 4 cm and 2 cm on the frontal area;3.A lacerated injury measuring = cm x = cm near the root of the nose; 4.Two contusions measuring = x = x2x2 cms found on the right cheek;5.A contusion measuring 4x2 cms on the right shoulder;6.A small contusion on the middle of left thigh;7.A contusion measuring 3x3 cms on the right fore hand; and8.A contusion measuring 2x2 cms on the left fore hand.Exhibit P.12 is the Accident Register issued by him.X-ray taken on the right hand disclosed fracture of the radius.The injuries 1, 2 and 7 are grievous hurts.According to his opinion, all these injuries would have been caused by attack with spade handle and stick.On the same day, he examined P.W.3 Suseela.He noticed the following 5 injuries:-1.A lacerated injury measuring 5x2x2cms on the occipital region of the head;2.An abrasion measuring 2x2 cms below the said injury;3.An abrasion measuring 1x1 cm on the right fore hand;On returning to the police station, at 6.00 p.m., he registered a case in Crime No.249 of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 325, 326 and 307 I.P.C. In the F.I.R, P.W.1 had mentioned about the participation of all the 9 accused and their individual overt acts.Admittedly, the distance between the police station and the house of the learned Judicial Magistrate is 8 k.ms.Thereafter, P.W.14 forwarded the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation.They were recovered under the Mahazar in the presence of witnesses.While the investigation was in progress, on 14.09.2004, at 3.30 p.m., P.W.15, received intimation from the Lotus Hospital about the death of the deceased.P.W.15 thereafter, held inquest on the body of the deceased and then forwarded the body for postmortem to the Government Hospital at Erode.P.W.5 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and he noticed injuries which are as follows:-1.A sutured wound 10 cm length present in the left side of the head extending from left frontal to parietal bones;2.A sutured wound of 6 cm in length present in the mid parietal region extending to the occipital region;3.Bleeding left ear with blood clot present; and4.A sutured abrasion in the left shoulder.On opening the scalp : Extensive blood clots present over the left parietal, frontal and temporal region;2.Multiple irregular fracture of left side skull bone of frontal, parietal and temporal and occipital bones with displacement;3.There was loss of bone in the left frontal bone.Continuing the investigation, P.W.16 examined P.Ws.10 and 12 and recorded their statements.Then, he arrested A.1,4,6,8 and 9 on 16.09.2004 at 2.30 p.m. They were sent for judicial remand.Then, he gave a request to the Court for sending the material objects (M.Os.1 and 2) for chemical examination.M.Os.1 and 2 were sent for chemical examination by the learned Judicial Magistrate.According to the said reports, human blood was found in the said weapons.Then, on completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet on 21.04.2004 against all the 9 accused under Sections 147, 148, 342, 342 r/w 349, 307, 307 r/w 149, 302, 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as 12 charges, which are as follows:-Charge Numbers Accused Offence under SectionsCharge No.1A.4,8 and 9147 of IPCCharge No.2A.1,2,3,5,6 and 7148 of IPCCharge No.3A.8 and 9342 of IPCCharge No.4A1 to 7342 r/w 149 of IPCCharge No.5A.1307 of IPCCharge No.6A.2 to 9307 r/w 149 of IPCCharge No.7A.2 and 3302 of IPCCharge No.8A.1 to 4 and 9302 r/w 149 of IPCCharge No.9A.4 and 5307 of IPCCharge No.10A.1 to 3 and 6 to 9307 r/w 49 of IPCCharge No.11A.6 and 7307 of IPCCharge No.12A.1 to 5, 8 and 9307 r/w 149 of IPCSince all the accused denied the charges, the trial Court went ahead with the trial.Since Mrs.Rajammal, one of the injured in the said occurrence died during the course of trial, she could not be examined.P.Ws.2 and 3 are the injured eye witnesses.P.Ws.1 and 7 are eye witnesses to the occurrence, but not injured.P.W.4 is the person who took all the injured to the hospital.P.W.6 is the Doctor who treated the injured at Lotus Hospital, Erode and P.W.5 is the Doctor who conducted Postmortem on the body of the deceased.P.W.9 has spoken to about the photographs taken by him regarding the place of occurrence.P.W.13 is the Doctor who treated the injured at Lotus Hospital.The others are police officials.When the incriminating evidences were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness on their side nor did they mark any documents.Having considered the above materials, the trial Court acquitted A.8 and A.9 holding that the prosecution has not proved the case against them beyond reasonable doubt.Relying on the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 coupled with the medical evidence, the trial Court found A.1 to 7 guilty and accordingly convicted them as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment.That is how, the appellants are before this court with this appeal.I have heard Mr.He would further submit that even the blood stained clothes belonging to the witnesses have not been recovered.This, according to the learned Senior Counsel, is a very serious lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer which goes to the very root of the case of the prosecution.He would also submit that the non-recovery of the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence would go a long way to show that the very origin of the case is doubtful.He would further submit that the medical evidence in respect of the injuries sustained by the deceased also does not corroborate the so called eye witness account.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the medical evidence would completely falcify the evidences of the eye-witnesses.The learned Senior Counsel would also submit that though it is stated in the recovery mahazar that many of the weapons seized were stained with blood, only M.Os.1 and 2 were sent for chemical examination and there is no explanation offered by the prosecution as to why the rest of the weapons were not sent for chemical examination.The learned Senior Counsel would nextly point out that the recovery of the Material Objects, namely, M.Os.1 and 2 at the instance of the 3rd accused on his disclosure statement cannot be true.For this purpose, the learned Senior Counsel would take me through the evidences of P.W.2, who would say that the Material Objects, namely, M.Os.1 and 2 were thrown at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence by the assailants and they were recovered by the police from the spot.The learned Senior Counsel would further submit that since there are number of accused, number of injured, number of injuries and number of weapons, there is every possibility of false implication of these accused and the same cannot be ruled out.Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and so, the accused are entitled for acquittal.The learned Counsel for the other appellants have adopted the said argument of Mr.But the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for State would stoutly refute all the above grounds raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the accused/appellants.In respect of non-recovery of the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that since it was too late in the night on the day of occurrence, when P.W.15 visited the place of occurrence, he could not recover the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence.On the next day, when he went to the place of occurrence at 6.30 a.m. since there was no blood stains found, he recorded the same.He would also submit that in this case the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and the injured witnesses in the place of occurrence cannot be doubted.He would further submit that as per the settled position of law, their evidences should generally be accepted by this Court unless there are certain material infirmities in their evidences.He would also submit that a close scrutiny of the evidences of the injured eye-witnesses and the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 7 is made, it would certainly go to show that they have spoken to only the truth and truth alone.The evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3 are duly corroborated by the evidences of P.Ws.1 and 7, the learned Public Prosecutor contended.That apart, according to him, the medical evidence also clearly goes to corroborate the eye-witness account, more particularly, the account of the injured eye witnesses.The complaint was preferred within a very short time after the admission of the injured in the hospital and the complaint and the First Information Report had reached the court without any delay.At the outset, before going into the rival contentions, I wish to place on record the following lapses on the part of the respondent.As I have already narrated, the two accused, namely, the 8th and 9th accused about whose presence and overt acts, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 have deposed at length, have been acquitted by the trial court.Thus, the acquittal of the accused Nos.8 and 9 thereby disbelieving the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 remains unchallenged.As I have already pointed out, the 4th accused has been convicted under Section 147 of IPC and the accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 5 to 7 have been convicted under Section 148 of IPC; that means according to the trial court, the assembly had a common object to prosecute.As I have already pointed out, there were also charges against the accused under Sections 307 read with 149 (3 counts) and 302 read with 149 of IPC.But, he succumbed to the injuries soon thereafter.The weapons used are also dangerous weapons according to the prosecution.In view of the said facts and in view of the specific finding that these fatal injuries were caused by the accused, undoubtedly the act of the accused would fall both under the first limb and the third limb of Section 300 of IPC and so, the assailants should have been convicted only under Section 302 of IPC.Strangely, the trial court has concluded that the accused had no intention to kill the deceased and so the offence committed by them would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC.If the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 and 7 are believed, then the appropriate punishment in respect of the attack on the deceased should have been only under Section 302 of IPC.The learned Public Prosecutor has no explanation to offer as to why no appeal was preferred challenging the same also.It was with a common object.P.W.4 and another person had come to the place of occurrence on hearing the alarm raised by them.At that time, they noticed all the witnesses fallen on the ground with bleeding injuries and there was also extensive blood stains on the earth.The learned Public Prosecutor would however submit that according to the evidence of P.W.15, since it was too late in the night, P.W.15 could not notice as to whether there were blood stains found in the place of occurrence.When he visited the place of occurrence at 6.30 p.m. on the next day, he found that there was no blood stains.That is the reason why, according to him, the blood stained earth could not be recovered.But, this explanation cannot be accepted at all.It is in the evidences of the injured witnesses that blood had fallen on the earth and it was found at various places.It is also the evidence of P.W.15 that on the night, he had arranged for a police constable to guard the place of occurrence and accordingly, he guarded.It is therefore mysterious as to how blood stains disappeared from the place of occurrence.The disappearance of the blood stains from the place of occurrence has not been explained by the prosecution.Thus, the explanation offered by P.W.15 for non-recovery of blood stained earth cannot be accepted.Therefore, I have got every reason to hold that it is a lapse on the part of the Investigating Officer.In the above referred to cases, the Honourable Supreme Court has acquitted the accused, also on the ground that the blood stained earth found on the place of occurrence was not recovered.It was in those circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court, on the ground that the blood stained earth was not recovered coupled with the other vital grounds, had to acquit the accused.Here the occurrence had taken place near the boundary of the lands belonging to the accused and the prosecution party.P.W.4 had seen all the injured persons lying on the spot.Totally, there were four injured in this case.They sustained each at least two injuries.By all probabilities, had it been true that a group of people mounted attack on another group of people, they would have caused number of blows on the injured and they would not have rest contend with one blow each.As I have already narrated, from the materials available on record, it strikes the mind of the Court that P.W.15 and P.W.1 had taken note of the number of injured, the number of injuries and the nature of injuries and thereafter the complaint has been fabricated roping in all the persons belonging to the very same family including two women.The prosecution suffers from lot of infirmities and lapses which create doubt in the mind of the Court and the said doubt, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants earlier, have not been explained away by the prosecution.The fine, if any, paid by the appellants/accused shall be refunded to the respective accused and the bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand discharged.jbm/tsiTo1.Inspector of Police, Appakudal Police Station, Bhavani Taluk.2.The I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,477,105 |
The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;(RAMDUTT NAMDEV @ RAJU Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 6 Jabalpur, Dated : 22-10-2020 Heard through Video Conferencing.Shri Bramhadatt Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Earlier three bail applications i.e. M.Cr.Third bail application M.Cr.It is alleged that the complainant has given written complaint to the effect that when she was at her house and preparing food in the kitchen, all of a sudden family members assaulted her and thereafter, covered her face and two others tide her hands and poured something and set her on fire.On the basis of aforesaid, offence has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicants submit that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.He has not committed any offence.The applicant is brother-in-law (Dever) of the victim.All the family members were residing separately.There are general allegations levelled against the applicant in regard to demand of dowry.No specific allegation has been attributed to Signature Not Verified SAN the applicant regarding setting her to the fire.He further submitted that the victim has stated that all the family members participated in the alleged incident and they set her to the fire.With these submissions, he prays for dismissal of the application.Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available in the PDF format.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,565,806 |
2 At the relevant time, i.e. in the year 2001, the petitioner was posted as President, Cantonment Board, Deolali.The Cantonment Board consists of 7 elected members and 7 nominated members.It is presided over by the President of Board, who happens to be a Station Commander of the Army at the Station.Respondent no.2 was one of the elected persons.He alongwith another elected person, one Mr. Vilas Pawar by the letter dtd.21st June, 2001 complained to the petitioner of illegal construction, F.S.I. violations and encroachment on the Cantonment space by builder, Basant N. Gurnani at his old residence-cum-shop on Vadner Road in civil area of Cantonment Board Deolali and requested the petitioner to take suitable action of stopping the work of construction and removal of encroachment.The letter also alleged that open violation of F.S.I. and Cantonment Act cannot take place without connivance of the Cantonment officials.By the intimation dtd.The letter further alleged that because the demand for gratification was not met, ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 ::: Dusane 3/5 wp1570.2002 respondent no.2 had started writing letters to the Board Office as well as the members of public at large, abusing their family in general.The petitioner then by his letter dtd.1 This petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.") seeks quashing of the private Complaint No.2024 of 2001 filed by respondent no.2 for the offence punishable under Section 500, Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.") pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nashik Road, Nasik.By the order dtd.21 st August, 2001, ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 ::: Dusane 2/5 wp1570.2002 the trial Court has issued process under Section 500 I.P.C. against the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::21st May, 2001, both the complainants were called for the hearing before the petitioner.Soon thereafter, the petitioner received letter dtd.30th May, 2001 from Basant Gurnani and his brothers complaining against respondent no.2 of demand of illegal gratification from persons carrying out construction work in the Cantonment area.7th July, 2001 forwarded the complaint of Basant Gurnani to respondent no.2 and Mr. Vilas Pawar for their comments.Then on 14th August, 2001, respondent no.2 filed the complaint herein alleging that forwarding of copy of the letter received from Gurnani Brothers to Mr. Vilas Pawar also alongwith respondent no.2 amounts to defamation within the meaning of Section 499 I.P.C. According to respondent no.2 this act on the part of the petitioner was intentional with sole motive to cause damage to his reputation.::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::3 Ms. Masurkar, the learned advocate for the Petitioner submits first that in view of Section 36 of the Cantonment Act, every member of the Board is a public servant within the meaning of Indian Penal Code.As such the petitioner is entitled for protection under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C. of prior sanction to prosecute.Since respondent no.2 has not taken prior sanction, the complaint filed by him is liable to be dismissed.Her second submission is that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner are with oblique motive and amount to abuse of process of court, because the ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 ::: Dusane 4/5 wp1570.2002 same has been filed with intent to settle score with Gurnani Brothers in respect of the civil disputes that respondent no.2 has with them.The third arguments is that since the complaint dtd.Lastly, Ms. Masurkar submits that after filing of the complaint, respondent no.2 has in fact tendered apology to the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::4 There can be no dispute that the petitioner would be a public servant in his then capacity as the President of the Cantonment Board.His act of forwarding copy of the letter of Gurnani Brothers to respondent no.2 and Mr. Vilas Pawar for their comments thereon was patently in the course of his duty as such.Therefore, he is entitled to protection under Section 197(1) Cr.PC.and cannot be prosecuted without prior sanction under Section 197(3) Cr.P.C. The petitioner is not even alleged to be the author of the imputations.The only allegation against the petitioner that he has published the imputations made by Gurnani Brothers.All that the petitioner had done was to forward to respondent no.2 and Mr. ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 ::: Dusane 5/5 wp1570.2002 Vilas Pawar the response of Gurnani Brothers to the complaint made by them.This was obviously part of the hearing of the complaint.All these aspects have been lost sight off by the Trial Court.Therefore the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b).::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::(Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/02/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/02/2017 00:20:23 :::
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,694,764 |
Arguments heard upon the aforesaid three M.Cr.C., which have been filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. Case diary of Crime No.191/2018, registered at Police Station Begamganj, District Raisen under Sections 363, 366-A, 343, 376 of I.P.C. and under Sections 5-L read with Section 6 of POCSO Act also perused.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant Smt. Sumitra that only allegation against the applicant that she told the prosecutrix to go with Devi Singh, who will left her in the house of Anil.The applicant is a lady having no any criminal record, therefore, she should be enlarged on bail.Learned counsel for the applicant Rajendra Bansal submitted that prosecutrix is a major lady and was a consenting party.He also filed a photograph taken in the zoo of Indore.The photograph shows 2 M.Cr.C. Nos.40208/2018, 33665/2018, 42935/2018 that the prosecutrix is a major lady and was a consenting party with Rajendra.Learned counsel for the applicant Devi Singh also submitted that the prosecutrix is a major lady and her age is not proved by any reliable document.The prosecution has not filed any document for proving the age of the prosecutrix.It is also submitted that the prosecutrix has been examined before the lower Court.He draws attention towards various paras of the statements and argued that sufficient opportunity was available with the prosecutrix to raise the alarm.She was accompanied with the applicant at about five days but she did not raise any alarm.He also submitted that some documents show that the age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years.Samagra I.D. was prepared on 01.02.2013 in which the age of 16 years has been mentioned therefore, at present the prosecutrix is the girl aged about 20 years.Looking to the aforesaid all arguments and the material collected by the prosecution and also taking into consideration the fact that the prosecutrix has already been examined before the First Additional Sessions Judge, Begumganj, Raisen, without commenting on the merits of the case all three applications are allowed.All three applicants Devi Singh, Rajendra Bansal and Sumitra Bansal, be released on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.It is directed that the applicants shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.These M.Cr.(B.K.Srivastava) Judge 3 M.Cr.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
188,735,087 |
Heard on the question of admission of this appeal.Having perused the impugned judgment and petition of appeal, this appeal being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of this appeal on behalf of the State.Hence, no further notice is required to be sent to it.Heard on I.A. No.13140/2015, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C., moved on behalf of the appellant for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to him during the pendency of this appeal.Vide the impugned judgment dated 2.7.2015 passed by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.61/2014, State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur Vs.Dharmendra, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 354 of the IPC and 7 read with 8 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and under 323 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder on first count rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and second count rigorous imprisonment for six months with a fine of Rs.200/-, with default stipulations.Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the appellant.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.Record of the trial court be called for.List the case for final hearing after the receipt of record in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,890,232 |
Rajinder Singh had gone on a cycle and settledin a field at some distance from the field where Rajinder Kaur,the prosecutrix, had reached to cut/collect the grass.Theappellant, Satpal Singh, caught hold of her and out of fear, thesickle in her hand fell down.They knew each other and it was a case ofconsent.The appellant has falsely been enroped in the crimejust to extract certain amount of money from him.The appealdeserves to be allowed.On the other hand, Sh.Rajeev Gaur `Naseem', learnedcounsel for the respondent-State, has vehemently opposed theappeal contending that the prosecutrix was a minor at thetime of the incident and even if, she was a major, there was noconsent of the prosecutrix for sexual intercourse.More so,there had been no demand of money by the prosecutrix or herfather, Balbir Singh (PW 11).Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been preferred against the Judgmentand Order dated 7.03.2007 passed by the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl.Appeal No. 337-SBof 1994, by which the High Court has upheld the convictionOrder of the Trial Court dated 20th/21st July, 1994 passed inSessions Trial No. 21 of 1993, however, the High Courtreduced the sentence from seven years to five years for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian PenalCode (hereinafter called as, "IPC").Rajinder Kaur (PW 15), the prosecutrix, and herbrother Rajinder Singh (PW 16) had gone to fields for collectingcattle fodder.The appellant took her to thenearby wheat field and raped her.She raised an alarm andupon hearing the same, her brother, Rajinder Singh (PW 16),came running to the place of occurrence.But by then, theappellant escaped from the scene.The prosecutrix came toher house along with her brother and told her mother Smt.Balwant Kaur that she was raped by the appellant.The fatherof the prosecutrix, Balbir Singh (Complainant) (PW 11), wasnot present at home and he was informed about the incident 2 when he returned home in the evening.Balbir Singh (PW 11),after having consultation with his brother Kulwant Singh,went to Police Station, Shahbad.However, the police officialson duty asked him to come on next day.When Balbir Singh(PW 11) reached the Police Station on next day, he found thata Village Panchayat had already assembled there and effortswere made to compromise the matter.However, Balbir Singh(PW 11), agreed not to launch criminal proceedings in case,the appellant was fined to the tune of Rs. 5000/- and "betaken in procession after blackening his face and be paraded inthe village".Ultimately, the Panchayat imposed fine of Rs.1100/- only on the appellant, out of which Rs. 600/- weredonated in the Gurudwara and Rs. 500/- in the temple.Beingdissatisfied with the dictate of the Panchayat and runningfrom pillar to post to convince the Panchayat members tocome to a justifiable solution, Balbir Singh (PW 11),complainant, approached the Superintendent of Police,Kurukshetra on 16.07.1993 i.e. after about four months of thedate of incident.On the instructions of the Superintendent ofPolice, Kurukshetra, an FIR was lodged against the appellant 3 and one ASI Ram Kumar on 16.07.1993 under Sections 376,201 and 217 IPC.ASI Ram Kumar was arrayed as an accusedfor the reason that there had been allegations against him thathe forced the matter to be compromised in order to screen theappellant from the crime.According to her, as the allegedrape had taken place long ago, the vaginal swap could not betaken and, therefore, there was no possibility to prove thealleged act of rape by way of medical report.However, sheopined that possibility of rape could not be ruled out.The charges were framed against the appellant and ASIRam Kumar on 14.09.1993 under Sections 376, 201 and 217IPC.Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Thus, the trial was conducted and after recording thestatements and considering the case in totality, the Trial Courtconvicted the appellant under Section 376 IPC and sentencedto seven years' Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed fine to thetune of Rs.5000/-.In default of payment of fine, he was 4 directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment of six monthsmore.However, ASI Ram Kumar stood acquitted.Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the appeal beforethe High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the High Court,vide impugned Judgment and Order dated 7.03.2007, upheldthe conviction of the appellant, but considering the mitigatingcircumstances, reduced the sentence from seven years to fiveyears.Hence, this appeal.Abhinav Ramakrishna, learned counsel for theappellant, has raised only two issues namely; (a) that therehas been inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and theprosecution could not furnish any explanation for the sameand; (b) that the prosecutrix was major and the Courts belowhave recorded a wrong finding of fact that she was a minor.The prosecutix and the appellant had been studying in thesame school.The delay occurred because ofthe intervention of the Village Panchayat and non-cooperationof the Police officials.The Panchayat did not agree to thesuggestion of Balbir Singh (PW 11), that the appellant "betaken in procession after blackening his face and paraded inthe village." The complainant approached the Superintendentof Police, Kurukshetra.Thus, no fault can be found with theprosecution case as delay in lodging FIR stood explained.Appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made bylearned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In the instant case, admittedly, the FIR was lodged afterabout four months of the commission of offence and that wasdone on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, 6 Kurukshetra.There is ample evidence on record to show thatthe Panchayat had intervened on the next day of the incidentand it pressurised the complainant to compromise the caseand settle it outside the Court.The Panchayat met severaltimes and ultimately imposed a fine of Rs.1100/- on theappellant, out of which the appellant deposited/donatedRs.600/- and Rs. 500/- in Gurudwara and Templerespectively, and obtained receipts also.The receipts hadbeen produced before the trial Court by Piara Singh (PW 6).However, Balbir Singh (PW 11), complainant, had beendemanding that "the appellant be fined to the tune ofRs.5000/- and be taken in the procession after blackening hisface and be paraded in the village".It was not accepted by thePanchayat, therefore, the complainant had raised thegrievance before the Superintendent of Police, Kurukshetra.Maya Ram, Sarpanch, Village Dhantori, was examined asPW8 and was declared hostile.However, in the examination-in-chief, he stated as under :-"A Panchayat was convened to settle this issue.Members of Panchayat assembled 7 from four-five villages including the relatives of both the parties.This dispute/issue was settled by the Panchayat by imposing the fine of Rs.1100/- on Satpal Singh."Balbir Singh (PW 11) has stated that he went to thePolice Station on the same day.His statement was recordedthere and was asked by the Munshi to come on the next day.When on the next day, he went to the Police Station at about8.00-8.30 a.m. along with his daughter Rajinder Kaur, theprosecutrix, and brother, he noticed 15-20 persons fromdifferent villages, including a few from his village, who hadadvised him to settle the matter for the reason that he had tomarry his daughter.They had also advised not to get hisdaughter medically examined as it would be a hurdle for himin arranging her marriage.But the complainant did notaccept their suggestion and approached the higher authorities.Both the courts below have considered this aspect atlength and reached the conclusion that delay occurredbecause of the intervention of the Panchayat, as the Panchayat 8 had insisted to compromise the case, rather than moving theinvestigating machinery.The High Court observed as under :-The respectables in the village could be expected to intervene in this matter to seek compromise, so as to avoid the stigma for a young girl.In a rape case the prosecutrix remains worried about herfuture.She remains in traumatic state of mind.The family ofthe victim generally shows reluctance to go to the policestation because of society's attitude towards such a woman.Itcasts doubts and shame upon her rather than comfort and 9 sympathise with her.Family remains concern about itshonour and reputation of the prosecutrix.Gurmeet Singh &Ors.AIR 1996 SC 1393).This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons,objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR.Delay in lodgingFIR more often than not, results in embellishment andexaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought.Kurukshetra on 2.05.1990 on the basis of School LeavingCertificate issued by Government Primary School, Dhantori.The question does arise as to whether the date ofbirth recorded in the School Register is admissible in evidenceand can be relied upon without any corroboration."Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined.A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and weight of its probative value may be nil.. . . . .Where a report is given by a responsible officer, which is based on evidence of witnesses and documents and has "a statutory flavour in that it is given not merely by an administrative officer but under the authority of a Statute, its probative value would indeed be very high so as to be entitled to great weight.The probative value of documents which, however ancient they may be, do not disclose sources of their information or have not achieved sufficient notoriety is precious little."Therefore, a document may be admissible, but as towhether the entry contained therein has any probative valuemay still be required to be examined in the facts andcircumstances of a particular case.State of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 326; 14 Ram Murti Vs.State of Haryana AIR 1970 SC 1029;Dayaram & Ors.Dawalatshah & Anr.AIR 1971 SC 681;Harpal Singh & Anr.Bodh Raj AIR 2008SC 632; and Ram Suresh Singh Vs.Prabhat Singh @ChhotuSingh & Anr.In these cases, it has beenheld that even if the entry was made in an official record bythe concerned official in the discharge of his official duty, itmay have weight but still may require corroboration by theperson on whose information the entry has been made and asto whether the entry so made has been exhibited and proved.An act of helplessness on the faceof inevitable compulsions is not consent in law.More so, it isnot necessary that there should be actual use of force.The concept of `Consent' in the context of Section 375 IPChas to be understood differently, keeping in mind the provisionof Section 90 IPC, according to which a consent given underfear/coercion or misconception/mistake of fact is not aconsent at all.Consent is different from submission.[Vide Uday Vs.State of Karnataka AIR 2003 SC 1639;Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar Vs.State of Bihar AIR 2005 SC 20 203; and Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs.State of A.P. (2006) 11SCC 615.]In the State of H.P. Vs.Consent for the purpose of Section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having fully exercised the choice between the resistance and assent."Rajinder Kaur (PW 15), the prosecutrix, has deposed thatthe sickle in her hand had fallen down out of fear when theappellant caught hold of her.She had given teeth bites andbroken the buttons of the shirt of the appellant in order torescue herself from his clutches.She raised a hue and cryand her brother, Rajinder Singh (PW 16), who was working inanother field at some distance, came to the spot.The Trial Court considered the issue of consent atlength and recorded the following findings :-"There is positive and cogent evidence in the statement of Mst.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
189,120,189 |
The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 498(A), 294(b) and 506(2) of IPC, as against the petitioners.Hence they prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.C.Prabakaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.04.04.2019 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No ssr/rri To
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.