Datasets:
Fawazzx
/
10K

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
id
int64
394
1.89B
cases
stringlengths
15
383k
labels
stringlengths
38
1.08k
instruction
stringclasses
1 value
1,891,439
The facts ofthe case are as followsThis Laxman was married to Shantabai (P.W. 3) who is thedaughter of one Bhika Ganpat Nikam (P.W. 2) a Railwayemployee working at a Railway crossing at Gartad DistrictDhullia.This crossing is situated on the Dhulia-ChalisgaonRailway line.Bhika was, residing in one of the quartersintended for such people near the Railway crossing with hiswife Gangubai, his sons Ramrao, Laxman and Bharat.Shantabai was married some five years before the occurrenceand lived with her husband, Laxman at Ganeshpur Pimpri inTaluka Chalisgaon.Some days before Nag Panchami of the year 1962 Shantabai wasbrought to her parent's place.Laxman wanted his wife back andarrived at Gartad to take her away to his own house.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedMarch 19, 1964, of the Bombay High Court in Criminal AppealNo.M. R. K. Pillai, for the appellant.D. P. Bhandari and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.The Judgment of the, Court was delivered byHidayatullah C. J. This is an appeal from the judgment ofthe High Court of Bombay setting aside the acquittal of theappellant Laxman Kalu Nikalje and convicting him under s.302 with a sentence of imprisonment for life.Bhikaput in some excuses saying that he had no money and he couldonly send his daughter back after he gets his.pay on the21st or the 22nd.The excuse given by Bhika and his wifeGangubai was that they could not let the girl go withoutgiving her some.presents and that money was needed for thepurchase of these presents.However, as Laxman insisted ontaking his wife away immediately, a sum of Rs. 10 wasborrowed.It is said in one place that money was borrowedfrom one Tarachand and in another, from Laxman himself.Gangubai in the, company of Shantabai went to Dhulia to makesome.purchases and returned ,on August 10 in the afternoon.It appears that a train was then due and Laxman is said tohave insisted that his wife should go with him by thattrain.The parents, however, said that it was notauspicious to send the girl at night and that they could inthe morning.It does not appear that any quarrel over thetook.Whether Laxman was reconciled to this suggestion orwas still angry is not known.In the evening at about 7P.m.Laxman was sitting with Shantabai and Ramrao outsidethe quarter and Bhika was chopping some fuel at the back ofthe hut, Kamlabai (the widow of Ramrao), Gangubai, Bharatand 687Laxman were inside the room.According to Shantabai, Ramraoand Laxman had a few words and on that Laxman took out aknife and stabbed Ramarao on the shoulder and ran away.Ramrao shouted and so did Shantabai; Bhika and othersarrived on the scene.They carried Ramrao, on a cot to, theRailway Crossing and when the train arrived, it was stoppedby showing the danger signal.On the train' Bhika told the Guard that hisson-in-law had stabbed the injured man.The, Railway guardnoted this fact in his log book.Ramrao was carried to theDhulia hospital and was found to have died before his entryin the hospital.A report of the incident was then alsomade, in which the name of Laxman was mentioned as theassailant.The" police, after investigation, prosecuted Laxman.On be-half of the prosecution, Shantabai was the main witness andin fact the only eye-witness.Gangubai and Bhika did notclaim to have seen the actual happening.On behalf of thedefence, Kamlabai, the wide of Ramrao was, examined and itis, because of the -contrary versions of these two, ladiesthat the conflicting decisions in Court and the Court ofSessions have taken place.- According to Shantabai it washer husband who had in flicted the injury.According toKamlabai the injury was caused by one Kacharu, a son ofBhika who has been missing from home for over 15 years andwho had arrived and quarrelled with Ramrao and assaultedhim.In support of the defence evidence of Kamlabai, threeother witnesses were examined.One was C. Ananda Patil,M.P. who stated that his jeep had stopped near the levelcrossing because the gates were shut and the, train was due.He heard shouts from the quarter of Bhika and went there andenquired what had happened and he was told that, the "elderbrother had stabbed the younger brother".In other words,his evidence was to the effect that it was Kacharu the eldermissing brother of Ramrao who, had stabbed the victim.Twoother witnesses who are railway employees also came forwardto depose that after this incident they had met Kacharu andthat Kacharu had threatened them and told them that he wouldcause them injury asking them about "circumstances of hisfamily".These two persons made a report to their superiorofficer and in that it is mentioned that on the 10th, 11thand 13th August they had seen Kacharu.Kamlabai also madetwo written reports to the D.S.P. on the 26th and 27thAugust alleging that an innocent, person was beingprosecuted instead of the right offender, namely, Kacharu.She adhered to her story in the Court of Sessions and saidthat these reports were prepared to, her dictation.The learned Sessions Judge who tried the case did not acceptShantabai's evidence in view of two or three contradictions688which were brought out in her cross-examination on the basisof her previous statement in the committal court.Hethought that in all the circumstances Kamlabai's versionappeared to be the more probable, supported as it was by theevidence of Ananda Patil and the other two railway employeesto whom we have referred.On appeal the High Court wentinto this question exhaustively.The learned Judgesdiscussed the matter both from the point of view of actualevidence led in the case and also probabilities.Thelearned Judges discarded the evidence of Kamlabai holdingthat she was interested in saving Laxman, the appellant,because he was related in a distant way with her.If the evidencewhich has come before the High Court in support ofKamlabai's version had existed before the incident tookplace, it would have been a significant but not conclusive 689fact.It is, however, clear that these persons speak tohave seen Kacharu after the incident and not before.Onlyone witness said that he was living for five months with hisparents.It is.significant that the father and the motherwere not closely questioned about Kacharu living with themfor as many as five months.That apart, if Kacharu had beenliving in the village for as many as five months, much moreevidence would have been available, to prove the fact.Theevidence which has, been brought before the Court is of hisdoings on the 10th and after the 10th of August and there isnothing to show that there was any other thing he had donein the village before.The fact is that he had disappearedfrom home as many as 15 years ago and it is unlikely that hewould have appeared just at the crucial time when Laxman hadgone to fetch his wife and had a difference of opinion asto; whether she should go by the evening train or themorning train.In our opinion advantage was taken of thefact that Kacharu had disappeared from home.There was norisk in naming him as the assailant with a view to savingLaxman from the charge, which was immediately broughtagainst him not only by his father-in-law but also by hisown wife and was reported to, the guard on the Railway train
['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,177,343
P.C vide order dated 16.4.2010 and revisionary Court has also dismissed the Criminal Revision 85/2010 vide order dated 1.11.2010 filed by the complainant before the Sessions Court, Chhatarpur.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that complaint of the applicant was supported by statement of various witnesses and such evidence could not be brushed aside in such a manner at preliminary stage and therefore, learned JMFC be directed to register the complainant.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was a case registered against the complainant and therefore, to counter that case he prepared a fake complaint after 2-3 months of the incident and therefore, JMFC has rightly dismissed the complaint.Consequently, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly dismissed the revision.Complainant could prepare interested witnesses in his favour and therefore, for consideration of their evidence corroborative evidence was required.P.C filed by the applicant may be accepted.
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,216,321
Case diary is available.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is an application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 06.02.2017 in connection with Crime No. 70/2017 registered by Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar for offences punishable under Sections 354-D, 509 of IPC and under Section 11/12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is a young boy aged about 23 years.The only allegation against him is that he was constantly following the prosecutrix and used to utter some indecent words while making indecent gestures.It is submitted that because of the enmity between the father of the prosecutrix as well as the applicant, a false report has been lodged.It is further stated that the applicant has no criminal past and he undertakes to stay away from the prosecutrix.He further undertakes not to follow the prosecutrix or to make any indecent gestures or to pass any indecent remarks.It is further stated that there is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with the prosecution case.MCRC.2939/2017 The application is opposed by the counsel for the State.It is directed that the applicant namely Bhura @ Aslam Khan be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees forty thousand only) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court to appear before the Trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.The applicant is directed to appear before the SHO, Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar on every 1 st and 15th day of every month.It is made clear that in case of bail jump or failure on the part of the applicant to appear before the SHO, Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar, this order shall automatically loose its effect.Certified copy as per rules.
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
188,195,336
This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Asif S/o.Rahim Qureshi, who has been arrested by Police on 21.8.2020 in Crime No.265/2020, Police Station Sendhwa City, District Barwani under Section 294, 323, 324, 326 of the IPC and u/s. 25(b) of the Arms Act.-: 2 :-because of which he has been falsely implicated in this case.To show his bona fide, he is ready to deposit Rs.50,000/- in the trial Court and also to bear the expenditure of treatment of the injured.Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2020.09.19 15:16:46 +05'30'As per prosecution story, on 8.8.2020, complainant - Hasin Qureshi lodged the report in the Police Station disclosing commission of offence that his son - Shahruk has lended Rs.50,000/- to the present applicant.In the evening he was sitting in his shop with his son then, the applicant came there and he demanded the amount from him.But, instead of returning the amount, he later on came there with sharp-edged weapon from the shop of his brother and gave blow on his son, but complainant intervened and sustained incised wound and fracture in the thumb of his left hand.On the basis of the complaint, the police registered the crime for the aforesaid offences against the present applicant.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that except offence/s u/s. 326 of IPC and u/s. 25(b) of the Arms Act, all other offences are bailable offences.He further submits that even offence u/s. 326 of IPC is not made out and at the most it is case of offence u/s. 323 of the IPC which is a bailable offence.However, he has admitted that there was some loan transaction between them and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34492/2020 Asif S/o.Rahim Qureshi.V/s.State of M.P.He, therefore, prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State by submitting that as per medical opinion, offence u/s. 326 of IPC has rightly been charged against the applicant.Case-diary perused.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the submission made by the counsel for the applicant, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is allowed subject to deposit of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand) by the applicant before the trial Court.In addition, the applicant is also directed to deposit Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand) before the trial Court for treatment purposes of the injured.The applicant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the trial Court on all such dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. Amount of Rs.50,000/- so deposited by the applicant may be kept in the FDR of any nationalised bank and the same shall be subject to the final outcome of the case.The complainant/injured may withdraw the amount of Rs.10,000/- so deposited by the applicant.Before releasing the applicant from the custody the jail authorities are directed to medically examine them in order to rule THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 34492/2020 Asif S/o.Rahim Qureshi.V/s.State of M.P.-: 3 :-C.C. as per rules.( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,881,969
JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.By the impugned order learned Additional Sessions Judge directed that witnesses are to be examined afresh, and being aggrieved, the accused petitioner has preferred this revision.Mr. Biplab Mitra, learned senior advocate appearing for the petitioner contended that observation of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that examination of 12 witnesses earlier in absence of this petitioner was not recorded under Section 299 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Code) is bad in law.There were two accused persons in the sessions case namely Debasish Mondal alias Dibakar Mondal and this petitioner and the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate (hereinafter referred as S.D.J.M.), Alipore committed the case to the Court of Sessions along with accused Dibakar after filing the case against the petitioner for the present.From the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Alipore, the case was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Court and after framing charge against Dibakar Mondal 12 witnesses were examined.It was clear to the learned Additional Sessions Judge that this petitioner did not appear and as such the evidence of 12 witnesses recorded by him in the trial of Dibakar Mondal should be treated as recording of evidence under Section 299 of the Code against this accused petitioner.In the meantime this petitioner was produced before the learned Additional Sessions Judge and after framing of charges some of the witness(sic) were further examined in chief and cross-examined on behalf of this petitioner.Thereafter the learned Judge by the impugned order has again directed examination of witnesses afresh on the basis of petition filed by the learned Public Prosecutor in-charge of the prosecution in this sessions case.Mr. Mitra contended that recording of evidence in sessions trial under Section 231 of the Code covers both the provisions of Sections 273 and 299 of the Code.After examination of 12 witnesses in the trial against Debasish and after examination of some witnesses including cross-examination against this petitioner the order of the learned Sessions Judge for a fresh trial and recording of evidence afresh is illegal and improper.The procedure adopted by the learned Judge is not only bad in law but unknown in law.Accordingly the said order should be set aside and the learned Additional Sessions Judge may proceed with the examination of further witnesses who have not yet been examined and there cannot be recording of evidence afresh of all witnesses.Mr. Kazi Safiullah, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was right by observing that in the sessions case provisions of Section 299 of the Code were not followed.There was no such report before the learned Judge as this petitioner was never produced before the Sessions Court and the learned Trial Judge.Reports of execution of warrant or non-execution and other processes, if any, were lying in the Court of learned Magistrate.Therefore, the order passed by the learned Trial Judge was not bad in law.I have duly considered the arguments canvassed before me by the learned advocates of the parties and I have also carefully perused the certified copy of impugned order dated 6.8.2003 passed by the learned Trial Judge and the annexures made with this application.Learned S.D.J.M. after receiving the charge-sheet took cognizance of offence and supplied copy of relevant papers to accused Debasish Mondal.Thereafter, Debasish Mondal absconded and warrant was issued against him and in the meantime this petitioner was brought under arrest and was produced before the learned S.D.J.M. who directed production of this accused petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.On 31.3.2003 learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against this petitioner and on the same day he filed the case against Debasish Mondal for the present.It appears that thereafter P.W. 1, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 were further examined in chief by the prosecution and the said witnesses were cross-examined on behalf of this petitioner.The learned Public Prosecutor who was conducting the case filed a petition praying for examination of witnesses afresh and the learned Trial Judge by the impugned order allowed the said prayer and rejected the objection of this petitioner that the witnesses examined earlier in the trial of Debasish Mondal should be treated as examination of witnesses against him also under the provisions of Section 299 of the Code.As the learned Judge directed recording of fresh evidence and alteration of charge the accused petitioner has preferred this revision.Urgent xerox certified copy be given to the parties, if applied for, expeditiously.
['Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,881,974
The petitioner/Accused No.2 has filed the above Criminal Original Petition to call for the records of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Tiruvellore District in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 on his file and quash the proceedings therein so far as it relates to the petitioner herein.The complainant has filed the complaint with the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri, Tiruvellore District in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 against three accused persons namely A1, the father of the complainant, A2, the brother of the complainant and A3, the uncle of the complainant for an alleged offence under Sections 467 of IPC and 467 r/w 109 of IPC.The complainant submits that the Land measuring 42 Cents comprised in S.No.23/3C at Peruncheri Village, coming under Thatchoor Group I Revenue Village is the ancestral property and inherited by the accused 1, accused 2 and the complainant herein.The above mentioned land happens to be the Joint family property and the complainant has got undivided 1/3 Share in the same.While so, the accused No.1 approached the complainant and demanded him to sign in the Sale Deed to be executed for the above S.No.23/3C for which the complainant did not accept.It is alleged by the petitioner that he had come to know that A3 had forged his signature in the document and the said document dated 25.09.1995 has been registered as document No.438 of 1995 on the file of Sub-Registrar Office at Ponneri.It is alleged that the 1st and the 2nd accused received Rs.18,600/- for above as Sale consideration from Subhash Chandra Goel.The complainant had issued Advocate notice dated 24.11.1995 to the Accused No.1 and 2, the purchaser Subhash Chandra goel and the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri.Only the Sub-Registrar, Ponneri received his notice and the other three are evading to receive notice.The complainant alleges that he is taking steps to file partition suit before Civil Court.The complainant further submits that as he has not signed in the Sale Deed, the said Sale in favour of Subhash Chandra Goel and Sons is not valid and does not bind the complainant.Therefore, the complainant has alleged that the accused No.3 has committed offence under Section 467 of IPC, since he forged the signature of complainant and that Accused 1 and 2 committed the offence under Section 467 r/w 109 of IPC as they abetted A3 to prepare the forged document.The complainant, in support of his claim, has filed 5 documents and mentioned 5 witnesses including himself.The petitioner/accused 3 in his counter has submitted that the allegations in the complaint is purely Civil in nature and the ingredients of the offence under Section 467 of IPC are not made out.The complainant/respondent has filed Criminal Original Petition No.24597 of 2007 to set aside the order of the learned Magistrate passed in C.C.No. 355 of 1996 and get expert opinion of the Finger Print Bureau.This Criminal Original Petition has been allowed.This is a connected matter.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to determine the genuineness of the Sale Deed, the matter has to be adjudicated, in the interest of Justice to be meted out to the parties.So, the Criminal Original Petition No.23458 of 2007 has got to be dismissed.Accordingly, it dismissed.The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.mps/mraToThe Judicial Magistrate No.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,882,035
This application is filed for quashing and setting aside the complaint / FIR registered as Crime No.15/2007 with Police Station, Deopur, Dhule for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and further proceedings thereof.It is the case of the applicants that applicant no.1 is a deserted woman, who has been dragged by her husband in the dark without any valid reason.On 21.3.2000 the marriage of the applicant no.1 was solemnised with one Mr. Rahul Shinde and out of the said wedlock, one son namely Jay @ Dhruv was born.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::1. Rule.On 15.12.2006 husband and in-laws of the applicant no.1 started giving ill-treatment to her.Therefore, she filed a complaint which is registered as Crime No.166/2006 for offence punishable under Section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C. against the husband and her in-laws.On 14.2.2007 the husband was arrested in connection with the said crime.The husband of the applicant no.1 filed HMP No.217/2006 under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of false and bogus documents.On 29.11.2006 the C.J.S.D., Dhule passed order below Exh.1 in said H.M.P. and thereby rejected the said application for divorce.The applicant no.1 filed Criminal Application No.41/2007 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for maintenance.On 3rd February, 2007, the husband and in-laws of the applicant no.1 filed criminal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 3 complaint through respondent no.2 who is wife of brother of the husband of applicant no.1 at Police Station being Crime No.15/2007 under Section 498-A, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. against all the applicants.It is the case of the applicants that respondent no.2 wife of brother of her husband filed false complaint without any basis.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::The complaint filed by respondent no.2 is filed to counter blast earlier complaint filed by the applicants against the members of the family for cruel treatment being Crime No.166/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 420 of I.P.C.against the husband and in-laws.He further ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 4 submitted that so far as applicants 2 to 7 are concerned, they are not connected at all with the allegations in the crime.Even, against applicant no.1 false complaint is filed since earlier complaint was filed by the applicant no.1 against the husband and in-laws.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::856) the learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that any further proceedings based upon Crime No.15/2007 will be abuse of process of court and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.The learned Counsel took me through the contents of the application and annexures thereto and various statements recorded by the police during ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 5 investigation and submitted that by any stretch of imagination, the said allegations in the complaint cannot be sustained and any further proceedings would be abuse of process of court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 invited my attention to the contents of the affidavit-in-rply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and submitted that investigation is completed, though charge-sheet is not filed.Since the investigation is completed, this Court may not entertain the application.The learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that the allegations made in the present application are afterthought.In fact, the applicant no.1 had given consent for divorce.However, subsequently she withdrew that consent.Applicant no.1 was not ready and willing to reside with her husband and in-laws and she wanted to reside with her parents and, therefore, she filed false complaint against the husband and in-laws with an intention to implicate them false.It is submitted ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 6 that in fact there were illicit relations in between applicant no.1 and servant namely Bhatesh Patil who was working in the shop of father-in-law of the respondent no.2 and on that ground applicant no.1, her parents, and her relatives were threatening that, they will not allow her to stay in matrimonial house and they were insisting her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents.On 18.9.2006 when respondent no.2 was in the house on that day mother of respondent no.2 and brother Pankaj were also present in the house, at that time applicants 1 to 7 entered in the ig house and they removed golden ornaments i.e. bangles of Rs.40,000/- and Mangalsutra worth Rs.50,000/- and chain of Rs.10,000/- and they asked her to leave the house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::However, respondent no.2 believing that they will return golden ornaments to her and they will treat her properly, she did not file complaint immediately.The learned Counsel for respondent no.2 took me through each and every statement made in the affidavit-in-reply filed by him on behalf of respondent no.2 and submitted that if contents of the F.I.R. are perused, clear offence is disclosed under Section 498-A and other sections of IPC.Therefore, this application may not be entertained.After hearing the learned Counsel appearing ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 7 for the applicant, the learned A.P.P. and the learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, I am of the considered view that so far applicants no.2 to 7 are concerned, any further proceedings based on Crime No.15/2007 would be abuse of process of law and abuse of process of court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::If at all the incident of snatching the golden ornaments and torture to the complainant had happened on 18.9.2006, the complainant should have lodged complaint immediately on the next day or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 8 within one or two weeks.However, the complaint for the alleged incident came to be filed on 3rd February, 2007 which itself creates clear doubt in the mind about the said incident in question.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::ig They are not residing at the place of the incident in ordinary course.They are from different place and, therefore, to rope in the applicants 2 to 7 in the alleged incident stated in the complaint that they have committed offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. It is difficult to accept and digest the same for the simple reason that Section 498-A of IPC is attracted against husband or his relatives.The relation of the applicant no.1 with respondent no.2 is that the applicant no.1 is wife of brother of the respondent no.2' 's husband.I find considerable substance in the contention of the Counsel for the applicants that to attract section 498-A of I.P.C., "husband and his relatives" cannot be read as to book the applicants 2 to 7 in the said offence since, they ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 9 are relatives of the applicant no.1 and not the ordinary residents of the said house where alleged incident took place.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::Yet the charge-sheet is not filed in the matter, according to the learned A.P.P., because of stay to the further proceedings granted by this Court.However, because of the interim relief, charge-sheet is not filed.So this Court may vacate interim relief to enable the police to file charge-sheet.In my considered view, so far the applicants no.2 to 7 are concerned, they are not ordinary residence of the same house where the alleged offence has taken place.Secondly, the complaint has been filed belatedly, just to counter blast the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 ::: 10 earlier complaint filed by the applicant no.1 in the month of September, 2006, no satisfactory explanation has been offered by the respondent no.2 for filing belated complaint.Even if the statements of witnesses are taken into consideration, any further proceedings on the basis of the Crime No.15/2007 against the applicants no.2 to 7 would be a futile exercise consuming time of the investigating machinery or the court and it will be sheer abuse of process of law and court.Such proceedings should not be allowed to be continued.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::The applicant no.1 used to reside in the said house and she is wife of brother of respondent no.2' 's husband.to be filed, as contended by the learned A.P.P., the concerned Court may take into consideration the evidence available on record.However, in case of applicants no.2 to 7, on careful reading of the contents of the complaint, the contents of the application and annexures thereto, affidavit-in-reply filed by the learned A.P.P. and respondent no.2 and on perusal of the papers made available by the A.P.P., I am of the considered view that the provisions of any of the sections which are mentioned in the said F.I.R. are, prima facie, not attracted and any further proceedings so far as applicants 2 to 7 are concerned, will be only abuse of process of court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::Therefore, application is allowed partly.The Complaint / F.I.R. in Crime No.15/2007 with Police Station, Deopur, Dhule for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 504, 506 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. so far it relates to applicants no.2 to 7, is quashed and set aside.Since the matter is pending for considerable period, the concerned police officer to file charge-sheet within one week and, thereafter, further proceedings in the matter should be disposed of, expeditiously by the concerned Court, preferably within three months from filing of the charge-sheet.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:23:52 :::
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,882,082
Appellants Ranjeet Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Bhabhuti Singh were sons of Kodu Singh.Appellants Madan Singh and Narvada Singh @ Turti Singh were real brothers.All the above appellants and Vijai Raj Singh belonged to the same family.Kodu Singh had taken forcible possession over land of Chhitu Prasad deceased, which was in front of his house and had constructed boundary walls over it.On the evening of 20-11-1978 at about 4 p.m. Chhitu Prasad deceased was demolishing the unauthorized wall constructed by Kodu Singh by a Fawara.He has kept his licensed gun with bandolier of cartridges near the wall.Dev Narain (P. W. 1), son of Chhitu Prasad deceased, was grazing his buffalo towards west of above disputed land.Hearing his exhortation, Chhitu Prasad ran towards his house with Fawara.When he reached at the back of house of Dashrath Gadariya, appellants Chhatra Pal Singh, Maidan Singh, Narvada Singh and Genda Singh all armed with lathis also came there and all the appellants surrounded Chhitu Prasad deceased and started inflicting injuries on him with their respective weapons.On the alarm raised by Chhitu Prasad, Dev Narain (P. W. 1) rushed to save him and appellants Raghuraj Singh and Genda Singh inflicted lathi blows on him.On the alarm of Dev Narain (P.W. 1), Brij Kishore (P.W.2) and Nand Lal (P. W. 3) also came there and they challenged the appellants.The appellants thereafter ran away.When Dev Narain (P.W. 1) and others went to the deceased, they found him dead.Dev Narain (P. W.1) started for police station Rajapur and in the way at Veermau he took Chaukidar and came to police station, where he lodged oral report at 9.10 p.m. Chik, F. I. R. (Ex. Ka-1) was prepared by Head Constable Ram Ujagar Yadav (P. W. 4), who made an endorsement of the same at G. D. report (Ex. Ka-2) and registered a case against all the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 379 IPC.Investigation of the case was taken up by Sri Radhey Shyam Saraswat (P. W. 6), who interrogated Dev Narain (P. W. 1) at the police station and thereafter came to the spot on 21-11-1978 where he conducted inquest of the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report (Ex. Ka-8) and other relevant papers.He sealed the dead body and sent it for post mortem.The I. O. inspected place of occurrence and prepared site plan (Ex. Ka-10).The I. O. also took into possession blood stained and simple earth from the spot and prepared recovery memo.He interrogated other witnesses.Autopsy on the dead body of Chhitu Prasad deceased was conducted on 22-11-1978 by Dr. R. N. Gupta (P. W. 5), who found incised wounds, punctured wounds and contusions as ante mortem injuries and cause of death due to coma on account of ante mortem injuries on head.The appellants pleaded not guilty and contended that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity.Appellant Kodu Singh further contended that his house was constructed by his ancestors and boundary wall in his sahan was constructed 16 years ago.In the year 1975 the boundary wall had fallen due to rain and he had repaired it near Dewali festival.On the date of occurrence, Dev Narain (P. W.1) was demolishing his wall by Fawara and Chhitu Prasad was present there with his licensed gun and bandolier of cartridges.His sons Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh appellants objected Dev Narain from demolishing their wall.On it, Chhitu Prasad fired on him (Kodu Singh).He bent down and escaped injury.Chhitu Prasad started reloading his gun.Apprehending danger to his life, Kodu Singh inflicted injuries on him and when Dev Narain rushed, he also sustained lathi injuries.Appellant Ranjeet Singh contended that Dev Narain (P. W.1) attacked on him with lathi and he caused injuries on him in his self defence, he also adopted statement of his father Kodu Singh.Jageet Singh adopted statement of his father Kodu singh.The other appellant contended that they were falsely implicated on account of enmity.The prosecution in support of its case examined Dev Narain (P. W. 1), Brij Kishore (P. W.2) and Nand Lal (P. W. 3) as witnesses of fact, besides Head constable Ram Ujagar Yadav (P. W.4), Dr. R. N. Gupta (P. W. 5), Radhey Shyam Saraswat, I. O. (P. W. 6) and Dr. A. K. Saxena (P. W. 7).The appellants examined Daddu Singh (D. W. 1) in their defence.JUDGMENT U.S. Tripathi, J.This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 21-4-1981 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Banda in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 1980 convicting appellants Kodu Singh (since dead), Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh (since dead) under Section 148 IPC and 302 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of one year under Section 148 IPC and imprisonment for life under Sections 302 read with 149 IPC, convicting appellant Chhatra Pal singh, (since dead) under Section 148 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and convicting appellants Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Raghuraj Singh (since dead), Maidan Singh, Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh and Genda Singh (since dead) under Sections 147 IPC and 325 read with 149 IPC and sentencing each of them to undergo R. I. for a period of six months under Section 147 I. P. C. and R. I. for a period 21/2 years under Sections 325/149 I. P. C. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The prosecution story, briefly stated, was as under :--Appellants Kodu Singh, Chhatra Pal singh, Raghuraj Singh and Genda Singh were cousin brothers as Gaya Prasad, father of Kodu Singh, Chandrabhan Singh, father of Chhatra Pal Singh and Raghuraj Singh and Kallu Singh, father of Genda Singh were real brothers.Chhitu Prasad deceased had filed a civil suit against Kodu Singh.In the meantime, Kodu Singh armed with Farsa, Ranjeet Singh armed with spear, Jagjeet Singh armed with Farsa, Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh armed with lathis emerged out from the house of Kodu Singh and came to the spot.Bhabhuti Singh picked up the gun of Chhitu Prasad deceased.Kodu Singh exhorted to kill Chhitu Prasad.Injuries of Dev Narain (P. W.1) were examined on 23-11-1978 by Dr. A. K. Saxena, who found contusions and abrasions on his person and prepared injury report (Ex. Ka-13).The I. O. interrogated other witnesses and on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet.9. Appellants Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Chhatra Pal Singh were charged with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with 149 IPC, while appellants Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Maidan Singh, Turti @ Narvada Singh and Genda Singh were charged with the offences punishable under Section 147 IPC and 302 read with 149 IPC.The learned Sessions Judge on considering the evidence of the prosecution held that all the appellants were members of unlawful assembly, but the object of the members of unlawful assembly was not to murder Chhitu Prasad, but Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh knowingly caused injuries on Chhitu Singh, which were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death.That other appellants Vijai Raj Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Maidan Singh, Narvada Singh and Genda Singh can be held responsible for causing grievous injuries to Chhitu Prasad deceased.With these findings, he convicted appellants Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh under Section 148 I. P. C. and 302 read with 149 I. P. C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and R. I. for one year on each count respectively.He further convicted appellant Chhatra Pal Singh under Section 148 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and convicted appellants Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Maidan Singh, Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh and Genda Singh under Sections 147 and 325 read with 149 I. P. C. and sentenced on each count respectively.Aggrieved with their above conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up in this appeal.Appellant Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Chhatra Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Genda Singh died during pendency of the appeal.The appeal preferred by appellants Ranjeet Singh, Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Maidan Singh and Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh only remained for consideration.We have heard Sri R. B. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri A. K. Jain, learned A. G. A. for the respondents and have perused the evidence on record.The appellants have not disputed injuries on the person of the deceased and his death on account of above injuries as well as injuries on the person of Dev Narain (P. W. 1).Dr. R. N. Gupta (P. W.5), who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chhitu Prasad deceased stated that he found following ante mortem injuries on his person :--Two incised wounds in an area of 15 cm x 12 m on the top of head and on the right side one of the size of 4.5 cm x 1 cm.and the other 5 cm x 1.5 cm.Both cavity deep and situate at a distance of 5 cm from each other.Wounds were lying obliquely.Underlying bone and nasal bone were cut.Brain matter was coming out.2. 3 punctured wounds in an area of 11 cm x 7 cm on the right side of head and on the temporal area 1.5 cm x 5 cm x cavity deep and 2 cm x 0.6 cm x cavity deep.Underlying bone was cut.Contusion 10 cm x 3 cm on lateral side of right fore arm in the middle underlying bone was fractured.Contusion 8 cm x 6 cm on the back of right palm.Two contusions in an area of 13 cm x 8 cm on the front side of chest outer and lower part measuring 10 cm x 4 cm and 8 cm x 2 cm oblique and parallel to each other.Contusion 6 cm x 2.5 cm on upper one third of right thigh, oblique,There was congestion between scalp and vault Brain was cut and congested and membrances were cut and clotted blood present.Both anterior fossa bones were cut.Cause of death was coma on account of ante mortem head injuries.The above medical evidence has not been challenged and injuries of deceased are admitted.Therefore, the prosecution has established the death and cause of death of Chhitu Prasad deceased.Dr. A. K. Saxena (P.W. 7) stated that he examined Dev Narain (P.W. 1) on 23-11-1978 at 4.15 p.m. and found following injuries on his person:--One contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on the outer aspect of left upper arm, 10 cm below from the shoulder top.Colour of the contusion was brownish.Multiple line of abrasion in an area of 5 cm x 2 cm on the back of right fore arm, 12 cm below from back of elbow.He further stated that injury No. 1 was caused by a blunt object, simple in nature and injury No. 2 was caused by friction and was simple in nature.The duration of injuries was about 4 days.However, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that injuries on Dev Narain (P.W. 1) were examined on 3rd day of the occurrence and not on the date of occurrence, while he had gone to police station on same and it appears that injuries were subsequently manufactured.Head Constable Ram Ujagar Yadav (P.W. 4) has stated that on the date of occurrence after lodging report he asked Dev Narain (P.W. 1) to go to hospital but he stated that he had to perform funeral ceremony of his father and therefore, he was not sent to hospital and he was sent to hospital on 23-11-1978, The above explanation appears convincing specially when Kodu Singh and Ranjeet Singh have admitted in their statements under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that injuries on the person of Dev Narain (P.W. 1) were caused in self defence.Therefore, injuries on the person of Dev Narain (P.W. 1) are also admitted and late examination of his injuries does not affect the prosecution case and as it is admitted that he sustained injuries in the same transaction.Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh had been convicted under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and 148, I.P.C. Kodu Singh and Jagjeet Singh have died and the appeal preferred by them has abated.Therefore, first of all we have to consider appeal preferred by Ranjeet Singh regarding his conviction and sentence under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C.The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial Court has held that the object of the members of unlawful assembly was not to murder Chhitu Prasad, but appellant Ranjeet Singh, Kodu Singh and Jagjeet Singh convicted under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and if the common object of unlawful assembly was not to commit murder of Chhitu Prasad, they could not be convicted with the aid of Section 149 and at the best they could be convicted for their individual's role.But since there was no specific charge under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter against them, they could not be convicted and sentenced under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C.He further contended that the appellants had acted in exercise of right of private defence and therefore no offence was made against them.It is true that the trial Court held that the common object of members of unlawful assembly was not to murder Chhitu Prasad, but the trial Court had further observed that Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh were inimical and they knowingly caused injuries on Chhitu Prasad, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death and therefore they are guilty under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. It is settled that object of individual members of unlawful assembly may develop on the spot even if they had no specific common object from the beginning and in such case the individual intention and knowledge of the particular accused can be taken into consideration while recording conviction.Moreover, if the finding of trial Court is erroneous on the above point, it will not help the appellants specially when they are convicted with the aid of Section 149, I.P.C. In such circumstances, we have to consider whether the common object of Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh was to commit murder of deceased or not as the other appellants were convicted only under Section 325/149, I.P.C. and the State has not preferred any appeal against their acquittal under Section 302/ 149, I.P.C.Before entering into the above question, we would like to refer that the factum of incident and injuries on deceased and Dev Narain (P.W. 1) is admitted to appellants Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh and Ranjeet Singh and these persons have set up a plea of self-defence.Kodu Singh had taken a plea in his statement under Section 313, Cr. P. C. that the disputed land belonged to him and he was in possession over it since long.On the date of occurrence Dev Narain (P.W. 1) was demolishing their boundary wall and Chhitu Prasad was standing there with his gun.When Ranjeet Singh and Jagjeet Singh objected Dev Narain (P.W. 1) from demolishing wall Chhitu Prasad fired on Kodu Singh, but he escaped injuries by leaning down.When Chhitu Prasad started reloading his gun, apprehending dangers to their lives, they acted in self-defence.Therefore, it is to be considered whether the above appellants had got right to act in self-defence.The case of the prosecution was that the land over which disputed wall existed was owned by Chhitu Prasad and Kodu Singh and others had forcibly constructed wall over it.Chhitu Prasad had filed a civil suit, which was decreed in his favour on 30-9-1978 i.e. prior to the occurrence of this case.It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that admittedly Chhitu Prasad had not filed any execution of the above decree and possession was not delivered to him through Court and therefore the above appellants had right to protect their boundary wall.The copy of judgment of original suit No. 14 of 1976 Chhitu Prasad v. Kodu Singh decided on 30-9-1978 by Munsif, Karvi (Ext. Ka-17) shows that above suit was decreed ex parte with the direction that the defendant (Kodu Singh) shall not make any construction or interfere in any way with plaintiffs (Chhitu Prasad) possession over plot No. 3114 in dispute.But there is no evidence and no survey report.Though Kodu Singh had filed written statement in the said suit pleading that disputed 'Hara' was not lying in plot No. 3114, but he had not led any evidence in support of his above plea and the suit of Chhitu Prasad was decreed ex parte.Thus, assuming that Kodu Singh has constructed wall over said land, he was a trespasser and therefore, the right of private defence of property will not extend to him and other appellants.The evidence on record is that Kodu Singh armed with Farsa, Ranjeet Singh armed with ballam (spear), Jagjeet Singh armed with Farsa, Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh armed with lathis emerged out from the house of Kodu Singh and came to the spot.The medical report shows that Chhitu Prasad deceased had sustained incised wounds, punctured wounds and contusions.Meaning thereby injuries on his person were caused by sharp edged weapons, pointed object weapons and blunt object i.e. Farsa, Ballam and lathis.As mentioned above, appellant Kodu Singh and his sons have admitted that the injuries on the person of deceased were caused.The appellants have also not challenged the evidence of prosecution witnesses regarding possession of Farsa, ballam, lathis by those five appellants.Arrival of above accused persons with deadly weapons on the spot indicated their common object and intention and there was also premeditation on the part of those 5 appellants and that they had intention of committing more harm than that was necessary for the purpose of self-defence.As mentioned above, Chhitu Prasad had obtained a decree of permanent injunction in respect of the land in dispute against Kodu Singh and others and at the time of occurrence he had gone to the spot to demolish the wall which was unauthorizedly raised over his land.It has also been admitted by Kodu Singh that Dev Narain (P.W. 1) was demolishing wall with Fawada.However, he contended that Chhitu Prasad was standing with his licensed gun.On the assumption that it was the accused party which was in possession of the land, the complainant party could not have said to have committed or attempted to have committed offence of criminal trespass.Both Shiv Ram and Vijay Kumar were unarmed.On arrival of the 5 accused, Bhabhuti Singh took out the gun of Chhitu Prasad deceased.In case gun was in the hands of Chhitu Prasad deceased and shot fired upon Kodu Singh had missed the aim and if the above 5 accused started attacking on him with Farsa, Ballam and lathis, he must have tried to save him even with the but of the gun and in such circumstances, some sort of injury, even superficial, must have been sustained by any of the above accused person.The absence of injury on any of the 5 accused persons supports the case of the prosecution that gun of Chhitu Prasad was lying on the ground and he could get no occasion to use the same.This circumstance of the case further indicates that Kodu Singh and other accused had even no apprehension of any sort of death or grievous hurt on any of the 5 accused and therefore, they got no right of private defence of person.33, Now we have to consider whether the 5 accused namely Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh who armed with Farsa, Ballam and lathis simultaneously emerged out from the house of Kodu Singh and came to the spot were members of unlawful assembly the common object of which was to commit murder of Chhitu Prasad.As mentioned above, Ranjeet Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Bhabhutt Singh were sons of Kodu Singh and Vijai Raj Singh also belonged to their families.On coming to know that Chhitu Prasad and Dev Narain (P.W. 1) were on the spot and were demolishing the wall, they simultaneously emerged out armed with deadly weapons.This itself suggests that there was premeditation on the part of above accused persons and from the acts committed by them, it is evident that they had intention of committing more harm than was necessary for purpose of self-defence and therefore their common object was to commit murder of the deceased and not simply causing grievous hurt, as the injuries on the person of Chhitu Prasad deceased were caused on vital parts and those injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause his death.It may be said that the other accused Chhatra Pal Singh, Raghuraj Singh, Maidan Singh, Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh and Genda Singh, who came to the spot subsequently while Chhitu Prasad was running to save his life and other 5 appellants were chasing him, had no common object to commit murder of the deceased, but this argument cannot be extended in case of Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Ranjeet Singh, Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh.Since those accused persons were not convicted under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C, and the State has not filed any appeal, we would not enter into the controversy regarding above accused, who came to the spot subsequently.But on account of it, it cannot be said that Kodu Singh, Ranjeet Singh Jagjeet Singh, Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh were not members of unlawful assembly, the common object of which was not to commit murder of Chhitu Prasad deceased.It is true that the trial Court had not convicted Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. on the assumption that the common object of unlawful assembly of which they were members was not to commit murder of Chhitu Prasad, but to cause only grievous hurt, but the acquittal of Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh under Section 302/149, I.P.C. will not affect the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Sections 302 read with 149, I.P.C. as the finding of the trial Court regarding Bhabhuti Singh and Vijai Raj Singh is apparently erroneous, and on this ground, conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302/149, I.P.C. cannot be interfered with.In view of our above discussions and observations we find that appellant Ranjeet Singh was rightly convicted under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C.So far the appeal preferred by Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Maidan Singh and Turi Singh @ Narvada Singh, is concerned, their participation as members of unlawful assembly cannot be doubted, as it has been fully established by eye-witness account of Dev Narain (P.W. 1) Brij Kishore (P.W. 2) and Nand Lal (P.W. 3).Deo Narain is an injured witness and his presence on the spot is admitted to the appellants.Brij Kishore (P.W. 2) was at his house and hearing the shrieks he reached the spot and saw the occurrence.Nand Lal (P.W, 3) was returning his house from village Grubrol and reached at the back side of house of Dashrath Gaderia and saw the occurrence.Their presence on the spot, is thus natural and probable.There is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony.Their evidence is corroborated by medical evidence.F.I.R. which was promptly lodged and other circumstances of the case.Ordinarily a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.It is true that when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship for form being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.In the above case surprise was expressed over the impression, which prevailed in the mind of Members of Bar that relatives were not Independent witnesses.It is clear from the evidence of above ocular witnesses that the foundation with the above witnesses had motive to falsely implicate the appellants has not been established in this case.Therefore, their testimony regarding participation of the other accused cannot be discarded simply because they are close relatives of the deceased.Undisputedly, injuries on the person of Chhitu Prasad deceased were grievous and therefore, the conviction of appellants Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Maidan Singh, Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh under Sections 147, 325/149, I.P.C. can also not be interfered with.In view of what has been discussed above, we find no force in the appeal.Accordingly, the appeal preferred by Kodu Singh, Jagjeet Singh, Chandra Pal Singh, Raghuraj Singh and Genda Singh stood abated on account of their death.The appeal preferred by Ranjeet Singh, Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Maidan Singh and , Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh is dismissed.The conviction and sentences of appellant Ranjeet Singh under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and that of appellants Bhabhuti Singh, Vijai Raj Singh, Maidan Singh and, Turti Singh @ Narvada Singh under Sections 147 and 325 read with 149, I.P.C. awarded by trial Court are confirmed.Let a copy of this order be sent to C.J.M. Banda within a week.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,392,407
(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
19,039,325
the case law referred by the ld. counsel for the petitioner accused persons are not applicable in this case as facts of said case were distinguishable.I have considered the submissions of the ld.advocates for the parties.Perused the materials lying in the record as well as in the C.D. It appears that in the petition of complaint that the defacto complainant wife made allegation of 3 torture upon her by all the accused persons including the present petitioners on demand of dowry.In the complaint, she also referred to certain salish meeting at village wherein the accused persons allegedly admitted their fault.It further appears that at the time of making statements u/s.164 Cr.P.C. she again made specific allegation of torture and demand of dowry against the accused persons including the present petitioners.In the case of Gita Mehrotra (supra) it was stated that mere casual reference of the names of the family members in the matrimonial dispute without allegation of active involvement in the matter would not justify taking cognizance against them.But in the case in hand, there are specific allegation of torture and demand of dowry including cash against all the accused persons including the present petitioners.Whether those allegations will stand proved during trial or not cannot be prejudged.Accordingly, I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case for quashing the present proceeding against the present petitioners.During hearing, it was submitted that petitioner no.2 is a school teacher and that in the event the court below is permitted to proceed with the trial a time frame may be given for early disposal of the same.It appears from the order impugned that the matter is in the stage of framing charge.After framing of charge, the trial will proceed.It appears from the charge sheet that there are only 11 witnesses in the witness column.
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,396,220
Eventually, the second respondent lodged certain cases against her husband, he, in turn, suing her for divorce by filing a petition before the Family Court.M.C. No.898/2016 Page 1 of 6While the said petition was pending adjudication, the second respondent lodged criminal complaint (CC no.14/2015) on 17.12.2014 impleading Raman Narula and five others as prospective accused, they including the petitioner, father of Raman Narula, as the second accused.M.C. No.898/2016 Page 2 of 6 Narula and Ruchika Narula, the mother and sister respectively of her husband Raman Narula, on the allegations that they had abetted Raman Narula in entering into a bigamous marriage during the subsistence of her marriage.The Metropolitan Magistrate, however, was not impressed with this plea and thus declined to issue any process against Pushpa Narula and Ruchika Narula.In the said signed statement, the petitioner had indicated that the complainant was a patient of multiple sclerosis and her condition was incurable and, on this account, Raman Narula had found it impossible to lead a life long normal marital life with her.He described the programme that was held on 29.05.2014 to be "Sai Sandhya".Against the substantive material prima facie showing that the said function was actually the Roka ceremony and it was followed by a function which was actually the marriage ceremony, Anisha Kaura having moved in to live with Raman Narula under the same roof as the petitioner and she having given birth to a daughter in due course, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the facts in entirety.The petition and the applications filed therewith are dismissed.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,398,650
During pendency of the Appeals, the Appellant / original accused no.2Algu Muttu Shankar Pandiyan @ Mohd. Ayyub expired on15/08/2013 as per the report received from Kolhapur prison.Therefore, the Appeal on his behalf has abated.For the sake ofconvenience, all the Appellants are referred to as the accused at theserial numbers mentioned in the impugned Judgment and Order.In all, there were 14 accused.Deceased Naresh Ananda Gaikwad was the President ofRepublican Party of India ('RPI') for District Thane (Rural) and was aCouncilor of Ambernath Municipal Council.On 08/11/2002 at about5.45 p.m. when he was present in his office, the accused nos.2 and 11to 14 entered with weapons.The accused nos.11 and 12 werecarrying revolvers and the others were carrying choppers and theyassaulted the deceased.The accused nos.11 and 12 fired bullets atthe deceased and the others assaulted him with choppers.Theincident was witnessed by Prashant Channe and Devidas Asadi whowere present in the offence, as also by Naresh's driver Anant Gaikwad.The accused, after threatening the witnesses, went away in arickshaw.Naresh Gaikwad was initially removed to the hospital of Dr.Singh and on his advice, was removed to the Central Hospital,Ulhasnagar.However, Naresh was declared dead before admission atthe Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar.Thereafter, Prashant Channelodged his FIR naming the accused as the assailants.Theinvestigation was conducted.The police visited the spot andconducted the spot panchanama.The prosecution case has unfolded through the evidenceof PW 1 Prashant Channe.The deceased Naresh Gaikwad was hismaternal uncle.PW 1 has deposed that the deceased Naresh wasPresident of Republican Party of India for District Thane (Rural) andwas a Councilor of Ambernath Municipal Council.Naresh's wifeSudha was also a Municipal Councilor from another ward.PW 1 wasURS 7 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 8 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.dochimself was an office bearer of the RPI at Ambernath.DeceasedNaresh had his office at Navre Park Road at Chinchpada.PW 1 wasknowing all the accused present before the Court.He has furtherdeposed that the accused no.12 Inden was earlier working with thedeceased as a party member but about two to three years prior to theincident, he had joined another political party.According to him, theaccused no.12 and the deceased were not on good terms.PW 1 was an eye witness to the incident and hehas deposed that on 08/11/2002, he had gone to the office of thedeceased at about 5.30 p.m. PW 2 Devidas Asadi was also present inthe office.PW 1 was sitting on a chair and the deceased was sittingon the revolving chair facing the window.PW 2 was standing on theleft side of the deceased.At that time around 6.15 p.m., the door ofthe office was suddenly opened from outside and the accused nos.2and 11 to 14 and one Kallu entered the cabin of the deceased.PW 1had deposed that the accused nos.11 and 12 were holding revolversand the accused nos.2, 13, 14 and Kallu were holding choppers.Theaccused nos.11 and 12 fired shots at Naresh.This witness claims tohave heard 4 to 5 shots.The other accused assaulted the deceasedURS 8 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 9 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docwith choppers on his head, neck and stomach.Before leaving, the accused no.12 put hisrevolver on the left occipital region of the deceased and fired one shotand thereafter they all went out of the cabin and office.PW 1 hasfurther deposed that he and Devidas Asade came out of the office andon their inquiry, the driver Gaikwad told them that the assailants hadgone away in an autorickshaw towards the side of Dargah.Thiswitness, along with others, put Naresh in an autorickshaw and tookhim to the hospital of Dr. Singh who, in turn, advised them to takeNaresh to the Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar.By that time, Naresh'swife Sudha and their two children had reached there.PW 1 then tookthe deceased in a Qualis car to the Central Hospital at Ulhasnagarwhere he was declared dead before admission.PW 1 then went toAmbernath Police Station and lodged his FIR.At the time of lodging of the FIR, PW 1 had not mentionedname of Kallu.In his cross-examination, some minor omissions werebrought on record.One of the omissions was in respect of the actualnumber of shots which he had heard.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::serving in the office of the deceased since about 12 years before theincident.He was present in the cabin of the deceased on 08/11/2002at about 6.15 p.m. when the accused nos.2 and 11 to 14 and oneKallu entered the cabin.The accused nos.11 and 12 were holdingrevolvers and the others were holding choppers.At that time, Naresh's wife Sudha andchildren came there.Anand Gaikwad, the driver, then took them tothe Central Hospital at Ulhasnagar.At about 7.30 p.m., the policecame to the office and recorded statement of this witness.In the cross-examination, some omissions were brought on record in respect of thetiming of arrival of PW 1 in the cabin and in respect of the omission tomention Kallu's name in his statement before the police.PW 3 Anand Gaikwad was the driver of the deceased.She submitted that thecabin of the deceased was having small area of 10ft.DATE :- 10 MAY, 2018JUDGMENT (PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-All these Appeals arise of the same Sessions Case No.46 of2003 before the Additional Sessions Judge-3, Kalyan.In all theseAppeals, the respective Appellants have challenged the sameJudgment and Order dated 16/08/2011 passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge-3, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.46 of 2003.Therefore, all these Appeals are disposed of by this commonJudgment.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::Criminal Appeal No.1389 of 2011 is preferred by theoriginal accused no.14 Anwar Abdul Aziz Pathan.Criminal AppealNo.1390 of 2011 is preferred by the original accused no.12 Inden @Mohiddin Sayyed Ali Shaikh and Criminal Appeal No.248 of 2012 ispreferred by the original accused no.2 Algu Muttu Shankar Pandiyan@ Mohd. Ayyub, original accused no.11 Rahimtullah @ Pappa SayyedAli Shaikh and original accused no.13 Firoz Abdul Aziz Pathan.The trial of accused no.4Manoj Lalan Choubey was separated and except the Appellants, therest of the accused were acquitted.The Appellants were convicted forcommission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer imprisonment forlife and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment ofURS 3 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 4 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docfine, to suffer R.I. for three years.The Appellants were convicted forcommission of offence punishable under Section 452 read withSection 34 of the IPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for five yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,to suffer R.I. for one year.The Appellants were convicted forcommission of offence under Section 504 read with Section 34 of theIPC and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine ofof Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. forthree months.The Appellants were also convicted for commission ofoffence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the IPCand were sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of ofRs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to suffer R.I. forthree months.The substantive sentences were directed to runconcurrently.While convicting the Appellants, the learned trial Judgeacquitted the Appellants from the offences punishable under Sections120B, 147, 148, 452, 504, 506 and 302 read with 149 of the IPC,under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Arms Act and under Section201 read with Section 34 of the IPC.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::Statements of various witnesseswere recorded.Post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of thedeceased.One pistol and a knife were recovered from the spot.The case wascommitted to the Court of Sessions for trial.The accused pleaded notguilty to the charges framed against them and claimed to be tried.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::During trial, the prosecution examined 30 witnesses.However, it is not necessary to refer to the evidence of all these 30witnesses.It is sufficient for the purpose of this Appeal to consider theevidence of the important eye witnesses who had deposed against thepresent Appellants.As mentioned earlier, except the presentAppellants, all the other accused were acquitted and the charge ofconspiracy was not proved.The learned trial Judge has also relied onthe evidence of the eye witnesses to convict the Appellants.As mentioned earlier, the prosecution case against thepresent Appellants is based on the evidence of the eye witnesses.PW1 Prashant Anant Channe was the nephew of the deceased.He hadwitnessed the incident and had lodged the FIR.PW 2 DevidasNarsappa Asadi was another eye witness who was present in the officewhen the incident had taken place.PW 3 Anant Shivram GaikwadURS 6 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 7 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docwas the driver of the deceased Naresh Gaikwad and he had seen theincident from the window.This witness was outside the officecleaning the vehicle of the deceased.PW 4 Namvar @ MunnaDayashankar Pathak had seen the Appellants coming out of the officeof the deceased with weapons and going away in a rickshaw bearingno.PW 5 Hemraj Paragji Someshwar was a shopowner who had heard the Appellants talking with each other that theywould eliminate the deceased.He has also deposed that theaccused no.12 used to tell him that he would kill Naresh Gaikwad ashe had demolished his shop.These are the important witnesses onwhose evidence the prosecution has relied heavily to prove their caseagainst the Appellants.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::The FIR did not mention thatwhile going, the accused no.12 had fired the last shot by putting hisrevolver on the left occipital region of the deceased.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::Hewas cleaning the vehicle when the incident occurred.He was outsidethe office but he had seen the incident from the window of the cabin.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::At 6.15 p.m. he had seen that the afore-mentioned accused came tothe office in a rickshaw and went inside holding their weapons.Heheard firing of two to three shots.Then he went towards the windowand saw from the window that the accused nos.11 and 12 wereholding revolvers and others were assaulting the deceased withchoppers.Thereafter PW 1 tookthe deceased in a rickshaw to a nearby hospital and then this witnesshad taken deceased's wife and children to the Centeral Hospital atUlhasnagar.According to him, the accused no.12 had constructedtwo shops which were demolished by the municipality and therefore,he was holding grudge against the deceased.He was cross-examinedmainly on the point that it was not possible to see inside the cabin ofthe deceased.His evidence was also criticized on the ground that hedid not carry his master in the car and the deceased had to beremoved in a rickshaw.PW 4 Namvar @ Munna Dayashankar Pathak was playingcricket on an open ground near the office of the deceased.On hearingthe shots of fire, he rushed towards the office of the deceased and sawURS 11 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 12 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docthe accused nos.1 and 11 to 14 coming out of the office and boardinga rickshaw bearing no.While going, the accusednos.11 and 12 threatened the people around the office.This witnesshad accompanied the PW 1 when the deceased was taken to thehospital of Dr. Singh and then to the Central Hospital, Ulhasnagar.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::PW 5 Hemraj Paragji Someshwar was a shop owner.Theaccused no.11 had his office near the PW 5's shop.According to thiswitness, on 08/11/2002 at about 5.30 p.m., the accused nos.13, 14and Kallu were playing cards with this witness.At that time, theaccused nos.2 and 12 came there in a rickshaw and the accused no.12said that Naresh Gaikwad was alone in the office and on that day theyshould eliminate him.The accused no.12 told this witness thatNaresh Gaikwad had demolished his shop and that he would kill him.This witness has stated that even two to three months prior to theincident, he was aware that the Naresh was going to be murdered.As far asthe incident of assault and the roles played by these assailants areconcerned, these are the important witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::Besides these important witness, the prosecution hasexamined PW 13 Dr. Ramesh Deshmukh who had conducted the post-mortem examination.PW 13 has given a list of 20 injuries suffered bythe deceased and according to his deposition, injury nos.1, 3, 4 and 5were firearm injuries and the others were incise wounds.Accordingto him, the injury nos.3 and 4 were caused by the same bullet as theinjury no.4 was an entry would and the injury no.3 was the exitwound.Thus, it appears that there were 3 bullets which havepenetrated the body of the deceased.A piece of bullet was found inright cerebral hemisphere.According to him, the cause of death was'acute cardio respiratory arrest due to haemorrhagic shock due toinjury to liver with cerebral injury due to firearm'.We have heard Mr. N. N. Gawankar, learned Counsel forthe Appellants and Ms. P. P. Shinde, learned APP for State.With theirassistance, we have read the entire evidence and we have gonethrough the record and proceedings of the case.Mr. Gavankar submitted that the conduct of the eyewitnesses was unnatural and the evidence discloses that they couldURS 13 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 14 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docnot be present at the spot.He furthersubmitted that the injury no.1 described in the post-mortem notesshows that the bullet had travelled from the right intestine upwards asthe exit wound was above the intestine but below the umbilicus.Gavankar submitted that this injury was not possible if thedeceased was sitting and if the assailant had fired at him from astanding position.He further submitted thatthe bloodstained clothes of the eye witnesses were not seized by theInvestigating Officer which is a serious lacuna in the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::He further submitted that there were important omissions of theimportant facts which were mentioned in the deposition before theCourt which were not stated by the witnesses before the police.On the other hand, Mrs. Shinde, learned APP for State,submitted that the evidence of eye witnesses was cogent and reliable.That, by itself, can form the basis for conviction.She submitted thatthe omissions referred to by the defence were very minor and they donot impact the prosecution case in any way.X 10 ft.andtherefore from the short distance, tract of the bullet in the body of thedeceased was not unusual and therefore, the medical evidence wasnot contrary to the ocular evidence.She submitted that the occipitalregion is close to the temporal region and there was no distinctive linebetween these two regions and therefore, the evidence of the eyewitnesses who were not medical experts, should not be treated asrunning contrary to the medical evidence.Having considered the rival submissions, we agree withthe submissions of the learned APP Mrs. Shinde.In our opinion, theURS 15 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 16 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docpresence of the eye witnesses at the scene of offence was natural andthe defence has not thrown any doubt regarding their presence at thespot at the time of the incident.PW 2 was working in the office sincepast many years.PW 1 was the nephew of the deceased and also aparty worker.PW 3 was the driver of the deceased.Therefore,presence of all these witnesses in the office of the deceased at the timeof the incident was not unusual.PW 1 and PW 2 have corroboratedeach other on all material aspects of the assault committed by theAppellants in the deceased.Only because Kallu's name wasintroduced in their subsequent statements to the police, that by itself,cannot be a reason to discard their evidence in respect of the rolesplayed by the Appellants.There is no inconsistency between theevidence of PW 1 and PW 2 insofar as the roles played by each of theassailants is concerned.Their evidence is fully corroborated by theevidence of PW 3 Anand Gaikwad.The spot panchanama shows thepresence of a window in the cabin of the deceased.PW 3 who waspresent outside the office could very well see the incident which tookplace inside the cabin.Mr. Gavankar submitted that the PW 1 hasstated that he heard 4 to 5 shots but the medical evidence shows thatthere were only 3 bullets which were fires and had penetrated theURS 16 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 17 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docbody of the deceased.This, according to Mr. Gavankar, was a majorinconsistency.The witnesses were not expected to remember each ofthe circumstance with precision.In any case, if the witnesses havestated that they heard 4 to 5 shots and if only 3 bullets had penetratedthe body of the deceased, this fact, in our opinion, is not verysignificant which would affect the prosecution cased.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::The evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 is corroborated bythe evidence of PW 4 to the extent that the assailants had left theplace together in a rickshaw.PW 4 was playing cricket nearby andreached the spot on hearing the sound of shots being fired.Thiswitness has seen all the Appellants with their weapons.There isnothing in his cross-examination which throws doubt on his evidence.We do not agree with the submission of Mr. Gavankar thatthe witnesses have falsely stated that just before leaving, the accusedno.12 put the revolver on the occipital region of the deceased andfired the last shot and that there was no such injury on the occipitalURS 17 of 19 ::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 ::: 18 APEAL 1389-11 @ Others Judgment.docregion.As we have discussed, the prosecution witnesses have statedthat before leaving, the accused no.12 put his revolver on the leftoccipital region and fired one shot.The very fact that the witnesseshave stated that it was on the left side would mean that it was not onthe backside of the head.It is very difficult for a layman to describewhere the temporal region ends and the occipital region begins.There is an injury on the left side of the head and therefore, the eyewitnesses are not contradicted by the medical evidence.The injuryno.5 specifically shows that there was firearm wound above the leftear penetrating the skull.This, in fact, shows that the evidence of PW1 is supported by the medical evidence.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::We do not find force in the submission of Mr. Gavankarthat since the bloodstained clothes of the witnesses were not seized bythe police, their presence is not established by the prosecution.In thisconnection, since their evidence is wholly reliable, we do not find t hatthe omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to seize clothes ofthe witnesses goes to the root of the matter destroying the prosecutioncase.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::As mentioned earlier, the evidence of PW 3 and PW 5establishes that the accused no.12 was holding a grudge against thedeceased for demolition of his shops and that is the reason why thisoffence was committed.Thus, the prosecution has established thatthere was a motive to commit the offence.All the Appellants cametogether with their respective weapons and have assaulted thedeceased as described by the eye witnesses.In our opinion, therefore,the prosecution has established their case against the Appellantsbeyond reasonable doubt.With the result, we do not find any merit inthe Apeals.Hence, the following order.(i) The conviction and sentence of the Appellants under the impugned Judgment and Order dated 16 th August 2011 is hereby confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 24/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 24/05/2018 23:02:33 :::
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,400,148
a None for the complainant.rt This is a first Criminal Appeal under Section 14-A of the ou Act of 1989 against the order dated 13.9.2017 passed by the Special Judge, Damoh in Bail Application No.549/2017 by which C the application filed by the appellants for grant of bail under h Section 439 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that according to the prosecution case, the complainant was looking after the construction work, which was going on under the guidance of the Gram Panchayat.The accused persons were insisting that they would look after the construction work on behalf of the Sarpanch and on this issue some scuffle took place.So far as injuries of the injured persons are concerned, they are sh simple in nature and only offence under Section 323 of the IPC has been registered apart from the offences under sections 294, e ad 506/34 and 341 of the IPC.There is nothing on record that such incident took place only because the complainant party belongs Pr to SC/ST category.The appellants are in jail from 12.9.2017 and there is no possibility of their absconding or tampering with the a hy prosecution case.Per contra, the counsel for the respondent/State vehemently ad opposed the application.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE C Digitally signed by CHRISTOPHER PHILIP CHRISTOP DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482005, st=Madhya Pradesh, HER PHILIP 2.5.4.20=8b08d804553df19ff5378dc648 d203e10f08e120c9c20505ca205b5cf060 dbf3, cn=CHRISTOPHER PHILIP Date: 2017.11.14 15:33:10 +05'30' H ig h C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,400,250
Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.The applicant is apprehending his arrest for offences punishable u/s. 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of I.P.C. & Section 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered with Police Station Jahangirabad, Bhopal.The contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that some of the applicants have filed a writ petition in this Court for quashing the FIR.The Writ Court by a consent order disposed of the writ petition by laying down certain terms and conditions therein.The relevant terms and conditions for the said purposes is that the accused persons shall cooperate in the investigation in the query and they have been not arrested without giving them a clear seven days notice.The investigation is pending since 1997 and now at the fag end of the investigation, the police want to arrest the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that during investigation there is no default committed by the applicant and he appeared before the Investigating Agency as and when required with documents.It was further submitted that the main accused Shriniwas Tiwari, the then Speaker of the M.P. Vidhan Sabha has been granted benefit of anticipatory bail by the Supreme Court.Similarly, other accused persons namely Satyanarayan Sharma and Arun Tiwari have been granted bail by the Supreme Court.Copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court has been produced for perusal.It is submitted that notice for arrest was served on 21st June, 2015 and thereafter also he appeared before the Investigating Agency.He, therefore, prays that the application for anticipatory bail be allowed.The bail application has been vehemently opposed by Shri Deepak Awasthy, learned Govt. Advocate and shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant.After hearing the rival submissions at length and considering the fact that applicant in this petition is beneficiary of order issued by the State Government and the main allegation is against Shriniwas Tiwari who has already been enlarged on bail by the Supreme Court, this application is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of applicants arrest, in connection with Crime No.153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahagirabad, Bhopal, (M.P.), he be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned.The applicant would abide the conditions mentioned in Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. This order shall remain in force only for a period of three months from today or till filing of challan whichever is earlier.C. stands disposed of.C.C. on payment of usual charges.
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,904,054
This petition arises in the following circumstances:The deceased Geeta was married to the petitioner Rajneesh son of Trilok Chand Singhal.On January 4, 1996 itself at about 4.05 P.M., Mahesh, the brother of the deceased, made a statement at Police Station Rajouri Garden by way of a complaint.According to the complaint, after a few days of marriage of his sister, her mother-in-law, Nirmala, and father-in-law, Trilok Chand, started making demands on account of dowry.They taunted her for bringing insufficient dowry.The deceased was ill-treated, abused and given beating by Munish, younger brother of the petitioner, Trilok Chand, and Nirmala.This situation came about a year before her death and after the time of marriage of Munish.They used to deride her saying that Munish's wife had brought more dowry as compared to her.The deceased used to complain about the behavior of her in-laws over the telephone and on her visits to the parental home.On her last visit on January 3, 1996, she complained that Trilok Chand and Nirmala had told her that unless a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to them she will not be permitted to return to the matrimonial home.A day after, on January 4, 1996 the complainant received a telephone call from Rajneesh that Geeta had consumed something and was admitted in DDU Hospital.Her condition was so serious that the complainant on reaching the DDU Hospital found that Geeta was not even fit to make a statement.In his complaint he expressed his suspicion that the crime was committed by her in-laws.Pursuant to the complaint a search of the matrimonial home was made but nothing was recovered.After the death of the deceased an FIR was registered at Police Station Rajouri Garden on January 5, 1996 under sections 498A and 306 IPC.On January 5, 1996 a search of the matrimonial home of the deceased was allegedly conducted for the second time and the police claimed recovery of a suicide note in the handwriting of the deceased from under her pillow.ORDER Anil Dev Singh, J.This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India was assigned to a learned Single Judge of this Court.Pursuant to the order of the learned Single Judge the file was placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice on the administrative side for assigning the matter to a Division Bench.However, Hon'ble the Chief Justice considered it appropriate to constitute a Full Bench to hear the matter.This is how the petition was listed before us for disposal.The police also asserted that C.F.S.L report supports their claim.On culmination of the investigation a challan was filed before the Metropolitan Magistrate against Rajneesh, Munish, Trilok Chand and Nirmala accusing them of having committed offences under sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. On the filing of the challan, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed the following order on March 23, 1996:-"Present: APP for State.Fresh challan filed today.Let it be checked and registered.Accused Trilok, Smt. Nirmala are not arrested, as directed by Hon'ble Court (Accused not to be arrested till 20.4.96).Accordingly case be put up on 29.3.1996."On May 8, 1996 Mahesh Kumar, brother of the deceased wrote a letter to the Chief Justice of this Court with the grievance that despite the fact that his sister was murdered and the case was covered under section 302 I.P.C., the police had registered the FIR under sections 498A and 306 I.P.C. It was also asserted that the police was conniving with the accused persons and had manipulated the investigation.It was also stated that the admitted signatures of the deceased were not sent to the C.F.S.L. It was also pointed out that opinion of another handwriting expert was sought and the handwriting expert on April 27, 1996 gave a categorical finding that the suicide note was a forged one and was not in the handwriting of the deceased.It was inter alia prayed therein that the fresh investigation be ordered in the case.The letter was treated as a criminal writ being Criminal Writ Petition No. 359/96 and was posted before a Division Bench.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by order dated December 11, 1996 directed the D.C.P. (Crime) to carry out further investigation.Accused Rajneesh Kumar feeling aggrieved of the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has filed this petition under section 482 of the Cr.P.C.Dissatisfied by the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, the U.P.S.C. filed a revision petition.This revision petition was dismissed by the first Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Hyderabad.The matter was finally carried to the Supreme Court.Petition No. 2040 of 1995 seeking "reinvestigation" but the learned Magistrate, rejected the petition vide order dated November 4, 1995 observing that "rightly or wrongly that Court had passed an order and it had no power to review the earlier order".Here again the learned Magistrate fell into an error.He was not required to "review" his order.The order of the learned Magistrate dated March 16, 1995 closing the case and of November 4, 1995 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant as well as the order of the learned Sessions Judge dated March 8, 1996 dismissing the revision petition are set aside.The matter is remitted to the learned Metropolitan Magistrate for its disposal in accordance with law.However, the magistrate did not accept the report and ordered reinvestigation of the case.The appellant moved the High Court for quashing of the proceedings on the ground that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to order reinvestigation on receipt of the report.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly."
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,405,921
Shri Awdhesh Bhadoriya, counsel for the complainant.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 22/8/16 passed in S.T.No.265/2005 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, District Bhind whereby the appellant has been convicted as under with default stipulation:Sections Imprisonment Fine Default Stipulation 302/149 of Life Rs. 1000/- 1 year's R.I.I.A.No. 748/17, 2nd repeat application u/S. 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence moved on behalf of appellant- Komal Singh after rejection of earlier one which was dismissed on merits on 13/01/2017 is taken up and considered along-with the reply of the State and the medical report filed.The present application is solely based on the ground of ill-The health status report of the appellant submitted based on the opinion of Cardiologist at the J.A. Group of Hospital, Gwalior discloses advise to petitioner undergoing Coronary Artary Bypass Surgery.The report further discloses that the medication prescribed by the Cardiologist is being given to the appellant from the Jail dispensary.In view of the guideline of the Cardiologist, I.A. No. 748/17 for release of the petitioner is dismissed with a direction to the State to subject the appellant to Bypass Surgery at the earliest at Gwalior and if the Surgery is not possible at Gwalior, then the appellant be taken to any other medical center within or outside the State where the said Surgery is conducted after consulting a Cardiothoracic surgeon.It is further made clear that State is directed to file compliance report in this regard within a fortnight.as per rules.
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,406,426
The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the cognizance order dated 16.08.2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar, in Complaint Case No.2789 of 2019 (Bijli and others vs. Tara Devi and another), under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 IPC., Police Station Jalalpur, District Ambedkar Nagar whereby the applicants have been summoned and the order dated 09.12.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, in Criminal Revision No.117 of 2019, whereby revision filed against the aforesaid order has been dismissed.Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent and have been falsely implicated.Learned counsel further submitted that the alleged complaint wherein the applicants have been summoned was already dismissed by learned Magistrate on 13.2.2019 as opposite party no.2 (complainant) had failed to produce any witness in support of complaint.Learned counsel also submitted that against the said summoning order, revision was filed by the applicants but the Sessions Judge concerned, without applying his judicial mind dismissed the revision filed by the applicants illegally and in cursory manner.Learned counsel further submitted that the whole criminal proceedings is nothing but an abuse of process of law.Learned A.G.A. vehemently submitted that there are sufficient material on record to show that cognizable offence is made out and at this stage, the truthfulness and veracity of the prosecution evidence cannot be adjudged.From perusal of record, it is clear that a complaint dated 09.07.2018 was filed by opposite party no.2 (complainant) Tara devi against the applicants wherein specific allegation was levelled that on 17.06.2018 the applicants entered into the house of the complainant, dragged her out of the house and caused injuries by fits and kicks to the complainant as well as Priya, daughter of the complainant.The record further shows that on 13.12.2019, the said complaint was dismissed under Section 203 of Criminal Procedure Code as no one appeared before the Court on the date fixed.Later on, the opposite party no. 2 on 25.2.2019, filed another complaint alleging the same facts and in that complaint, the statement of complainant under sections 200 and statements of P.W.1 Priya and P.W.2 Rakesh were recorded by learned Magistrate.Thereafter the applicants were summoned vide impugned order for trial for offence under sections 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC.Record further reveals that revision was filed by the applicants before the Sessions Judge, Ambedkar Nagar and after hearing and applying his judicial mind, the revision was dismissed.
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
190,406,440
Petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR 239/2013 under Sections 354-A/506IPC registered at PS Lajpat Nagar.Status report has been filed.Respondent no.2/complainant is present in the Court and has been duly identified by the IO.She confirms of filing of affidavit dated 9 th July, 2017 along with the writ petition.Petition stands disposed of.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,318,195
Heard with the aid of case diary.This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 25/3/2019 in connection with Crime No.46/2019 registered at Police Station Gorakhpur, Distt.Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 326, 294, 327/34 and 506-II of IPC and also Section 25 of the Arms Act.As per prosecution story, on 15/1/2019 at about 12 noon, applicant and co-accused Nikki @ Lallu Chaudhary and Jittu Chaudhary demanded Rs.300/- for drinking wine from Jitendra Mali and Niranjan, brother-in-laws of complainant Rupa Patel.When they denied to give money, co-accused Nikki @ Lallu Chaudhary assaulted Jitendra Mali by sword on his head due to which Jitendra sustained grievous injury.When Niranjan came to rescue him applicant Chhotu @ Bhola Chaudhary assaulted him by sword due to which he sustained injury in his left leg and co-accused Jittu Chaudhary assaulted Niranjan by stick.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 23/04/2019 10:12:24
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,320,675
As per the prosecution case, on 13.11.2019 applicant Samiuddin and co-accused Farzanadeen executed an agreement to sale of plot and house located at Vivekanand Ward, Katni in favour of complainant Vijendra Kumar and Sushma Devi for Rs.9,00,000/- and also took an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- from them.Thereafter they came to know that applicant and co-accused had already sold that plot and house to one Harita Sitpal.Thus they committed fraud with the complainant Vijendra Kumar and Sushma Devi.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case.The applicant is in custody since 11.02.2020 and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The amount so deposited by the applicant in fix deposit, shall be subject to final outcome of the case.C.C. on payment of usual charges.
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,322,625
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A.Perused the record.Apart from this, the brother of applicant had also lodged a report against aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu and some other persons, which was registered as Case Crime No. 14 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 I.P.C., P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi.To substantiate the same reliance has been placed on annexure no. 8 to this application.Beside this, a relative of the applicant namely Smt. Maya Devi has also lodged an F.I.R. against Sandeep@Sonu which was registered as Case Crime No. 182 of 2017, under Sections 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C., P.S.- Gyanpur, District- Bhadohi.Indignated because of the aforesaid background, Sandeep@Sonu hatched a conspiracy against the applicant and contrived to lay a trap in order to embroil the applicant in such kind of controversy as is involved in the present case and managed to get this entirely false case lodged through one Laxmi, who also originally hails from the district Bhadohi.Even on the day of incident she is said to have gone to the applicant in the hope of getting a job.Argument is that all these circumstances and the manner in which they have been described by the victim are giving rise to the parallel probability of she being either a consenting party in the whole episode or of being an instrument who was simply baiting and laying trap upon the applicant in order to make scandal out of it at the behest of somebody who in the present case was none else than the aforesaid Sandeep@Sonu with whom the details of enmity have already been described.Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court.The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length.It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required and is also ready to accept all the conditions which the Court may deem fit to impose upon him.It has also been pointed out that the accused is in jail since 23.5.2018 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,324,942
Case diary is not available.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is possessing the copy of the charge sheet and he has submitted the same for perusal of the court.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the charge sheet.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in connection with Crime No.507/17 registered at Police Station Garhakota for the offence under Sections 452, 354, 354-B, 294, 506-B of IPC and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act.As per the prosecution case, on 13.9.2017 complainant lodged the FIR that on 12.9.2017 she was in her house at about 10.30 pm the sound of opening the door was come then she opened the door of her house then co-accused Dharmendra, applicant-Virendra and Rajju @ Rajesh Valmeek entered into the house and co-accused Dharmendra caught hold the complainant's hand with bad intention and pulled her kurti due to which kurti was torn.The complainant raised the alarm then her mother came.The applicant also torn the blouse of his mother.Thereafter both the co-accused person pulled out the complainant from the house.On the false report of the complainant, the case has been registered against the applicant.It is also submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and he is ready to furnish bail as per the order and shall abide by all conditions as may be imposed by the Court.He further submits that the applicant is in jail since 26.9.2018 and the trial will take long time for its final disposal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent- State opposes the bail application.After perusal of the charge sheet it seems that the applicant was absconding since 12.9.2017 i.e. from the date of incident.Trial of the case is going on and the prosecutrix has been shown to be examined.Looking to the aforesaid and circumstances of the case, at this stage it is not proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.Hence, the application is dismissed.C.C. as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge skm Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 12/10/2018 05:30:01
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,328,302
Heard on admission.Having perused the impugned judgment and the petition of appeal, I find this appeal being arguable.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Learned Panel Lawyer has taken notice of admission of this appeal on behalf of the respondent-State.Hence, no further notice is required to be sent to it.Heard on I.A. No.21462/2016, 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 18.10.2016 passed by the Special Judge Tikamgarh under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "the Act") in Special Sessions Case No.06/2014 titled State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Prithvipur, district Tikamgarh Vs.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2016, hence there is no likelihood of the appeal being heard on merits in recent future.Besides that, the appellant has a good case on merits.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A.The execution of remaining jail sentence of appellant Halke Raja alias Halke Singh is hereby suspended and it is ordered that he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousands Only) with one solvent surety of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, subject to depositing the fine amount, if any.On being released on bail, the appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court first time on 14.3.2017 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard, until further orders of this Court.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to inform the complainant/aggrieved persons regarding the filing and hearing of this appeal through the concerned police station.Record of the trial court be called for.List the case with the record for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,328,610
As per the prosecution case, applicant used to harass the prosecutrix, who was minor and on 19.01.2019 he caught hold of her hand.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.Charge-sheet has been filed.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer.C. 5536/2019 (Sagar Nidane Vs.State of M.P.) 2 dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the trial Court during the pendency of trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.C.C. on payment of usual charges.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,333,060
They have no criminal history and concerned police is adamant to arrest them only to crush their reputation.Learned counsel further submits that if the applicants are enlarged on bail they will not create any hindrance in the investigation.Learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer for bail but did not dispute the factual submission raised by learned counsel for the applicants.Let the copy of this order be also sent to concerned Sessions Judge forthwith for information and compliance.Since the certified copy of this order, in view of the COVID-2019 pandemic, may not be easily available to the applicants and the applicants are unable to get certified copy of this order, they may file computer generated copy of this order from the official website of this Court and self-attested by the learned counsel for the applicants, before the concerned Magistrate/Court/Authority/Official.The concerned Magistrate/ Court/ Authority/ Official, before accepting such computerized copy, filed by the applicants, as a genuine, shall verify its authenticity from the official website of this Court and proceed further in view of the direction issued by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.4.2020, passed in Suo-Motu PIL No.564 of 2020 which reads as under :-A soft-copy of this order shall be sent to all concerned Courts and Tribunals; the learned Advocate General; the learned Additional Solicitor General of India; the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India; State Public Prosecutor and the Chairman of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh."Office is also directed to send a computerized copy of this order to the lower court concerned through e-mail or the fax, as the case may be, forthwith.Order Date :- 13.7.2020 saurabh
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,336,255
This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.It is alleged that on 06.03.2015 at about 10.00 AM the prosecutrix had gone to attend the call of nature in the field of Mannu Baghel.At that time, the applicant Raju Kushwah came there and caught hold her, thrown her on the ground and committed sexual intercourse with her.The prosecutrix is minor.On her report the crime was registered at Police Station Mihona.On behalf of the applicant, it is submitted that the applicant is innocent.The applicant has been falsely implicated because of enmity.In the MLC no definite opinion has been given by the Medical Officer regarding the sexual intercourse.An affidavit of Mannu Baghel has been filed who is the owner of the field in which, the alleged incident took place.Mannu Baghel 2 M.Cr.C. No. 7999/2015 Raju Singh Vs.has deposed that no such incident has taken place in his field because he was there at the field on the date of incident.On the date of the incident she was only 13 years.It is also stated that in the MLC report no definite opinion has been given but for confirmation slides and clothes were sent for examination.The FSL report has confirmed semen in the items.The applicant and the prosecutrix are of the same village.There is no dispute regarding the identification.(S.K. Palo) JUDGE Sateesh
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
106,337,526
Order on Criminal Misc.This is an application for recall seeking recall of order dated 26.7.2019 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Singh, whereby present application has been dismissed for want of prosecution and interim order granted on 24.4.2013 has been vacated.Perused the affidavit filed in support of the recall application.Cause shown for non-appearance of counsel for applicants at the time when present application was taken up in the revised list before Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.K. Singh is sufficient.Order dated 26.7.2019 is recalled and application is restored to its original number and status.Order Date :- 23.1.2020 HSM Court No. - 28 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 13891 of 2013 Applicant :- Najim And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- I.M. Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Mohammad Farooque Ansari,Ratnesh Srivastava Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
10,633,941
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.31807/2019 (Ashwin Nighaskar Vs State of M.P.) Indore, Dated: 11/9/2019 Shri A.S. Garg learned senior counsel with Shri R. Shukla learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant/State.Shri Ajay Jain learned counsel for complainant.Heard on the question of grant of bail.This is an application made by the applicant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail during trial.Notice of this application was served on the State counsel.As per prosecution story, the applicant induced the complainant to invest money in share market and on such inducement the applicant invested huge amount of money.Thereafter the applicant though returned part of the invested amount but complainant considered himself to be duped by the applicant and thereafter he lodged a report.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the dispute is civil in nature and the complainant himself has admitted that he has received the returns from the money invested by him in the share market.Learned counsel further submits that share market is prone to fluctuations and there may be losses as well, just as there are 2 gains and it cannot be stated that the applicant has committed any sort of cheating.He further submits that another co-accused has been granted bail in this matter.He submits that the applicant was an agent of a broker and he was authorized to receive money from the complainant as an agent which the complainant also knew and the complainant had no grievance till he received positive returns but when the complainant had faced losses he filed FIR 3 years after the last date of transaction.(Shailendra Shukla) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2019.09.12 17:36:40
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
10,634,203
It appears from the record that the complainant Jitendra Bhuyia (PW-6) was travelling in Katni Bhusawal passenger on 23.08.2000, and was going to his home Khurd Morli Bihar, when the train arrived at Itarsi Station the appellant Bharat alias Sooraj came into the train and sat with the complainant.After some time they became friend and they also eat together foote and bheege chane.During the course of chit-chat after some time the accused brought a cup of tea for the complainant.When the complainant consumed the tea he became unconscious.When the train reached at Katni Station the police found the complainant in unconscious condition, thereafter he was admitted in Katni Hospital by G.R.P. Police.Dr. Jyotsna Batwe (PW-4) examined the complainant and given the report (Ex.P/4).She also admitted the complainant in the hospital for further treatment.The complainant was unconscious when he became consciousA.S.I. B.M. Dwivedi (PW-1) registered the crime No.0/26/2010 under Sections 328 and 379 of IPC.During investigation police arrested the appellant and information given by the appellant was note down in Ex.The appellant admitted his offence and he gave the information to the Police that he mix Antiwan tablet in the tea and when the complainant became unconscious he theft Rs.6,000/- from his pocket and suitcase of the complainant.(20.08.2018) This appeal has been filed under 374(2) of Cr.The appellant was not present when the complainant was examined before the Court, therefore, the Court below failed to conduct face to face identification parade.There was no witness or direct witness of the occurrence.Therefore, it is prayed that the conviction and sentence passed by the learned lower Court be set-aside and the appellant be acquitted from the aforesaid charges.-3- Cr.A. No. 489/2013 on 23.08.2010 he lodged the First Information Report (Ex.P/1) at G.R.P. Katni.He also gave the information that he kept Rs.3,000/- in his residence at Indore.Thereafter, police seized Rs.3,000/- from the possession of the appellant and prepared memo (Ex.P/5).On 21.04.2011 the case was received by Sessions Court Hoshangabad and on 29.04.2011 the case was made over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad.During trial the prosecution examined B.M. Dwived (PW-1), Tulsiram (PW-2), Dr. Jyotsna Batwe (PW-4), J.P. Pandey (PW-5), Jitendra Bhuyia (PW-6) and B.S. Chouhan (PW-7).The accused did not examine any witness in support of his defence.Thereafter on 07.03.2013 the trial Court passed the judgment and held guilty appellant and also passed the sentence, which has been already mentioned in para No.1 of this appeal.The main point raised by the appellant in this appeal is that no Test Identification Parade was conducted and face to face identification was also not done before the trial Court because the appellant was not present at the time when the complainant was examined before the lower Court.-4- Cr.A. No. 489/2013On 15.12.2011, the complainant was examined before the lower Court.It is also appeared from the evidence of Jitendra Bhuyia (PW-6) that after perusal of the photo pasted upon the arrest memo he identified the accused and said that the person is same, who committed the incident with him.In his cross examination, no ground has been raised for creating any suspicion.She deposed that on 20.08.2010 the complainant Jitendra Bhuyia (PW-6) was brought in the hospital by Constable Uma Shanker Dubey No.74 of G.R.P. Katni.As per his statement offence was registered upon the basis of report No.0/26/2010 received from G.R.P. Katni.Tulsi Ram (PW-2) is the witness of memo Ex.P-4 prepered under Section 27 of Evidence Act and the seizure Ex.He admitted his signatures upon both the documents.He also support the fact that theEven the witness Tulsi Ram did not support the fact that money was seized at Indore, but the evidence of B.S. Chauhan (PW-7) is found reliable on this point.Learned lower court discussed the statement of PW-7 and did not find any reason to disbelieve the testimony of the aforesaid witness.If we see the statement of aforesaid witness then it appears that Ex.P/4 and P/5 are duly proved by his evidence.In his cross examination there is no reason is found to disbelieve the witness.
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,625,842
This criminal revision is directed against order dated 02.04.2016 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa, in Sessions Trial No.37/2016, (State of M.P. Vs.Amongst other provisions, the charge-sheet was also filed under Section 324 of the IPC; however, since, in X-ray examination, no bony injury was detected, the victim got himself examined in Arihant Hospital and Research Centre and in the CT Scan report, dated 23.11.2015, a fracture in the skull was found.No charge-sheet under Section 307 of the IPC was filed but the victim of his own accord, got himself examined in a private Hospital and obtained a CT scan report showing a fracture in the skull.Such document cannot be considered for framing the charge and learned trial Court erred in committing the matter to the Sessions Court and learned Sessions Court committed grave error in framing charge on the basis of such document.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has supported the impugned order.It may be noted here that the accused persons are said to have caused injury above the right eye of the victim with the butt of the Khurpi.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
78,628,687
No.39 akd [Adjourned] C. R. M. 2866 of 2018 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 15.05.2018 in connection with Shyampur Police Station Case No. 09 of 2018 dated 06.01.2018 under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/332/333/224/225/379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 9 of the MPO Act and Section 3 of the PDPP Act. (G.R. Case No. 43 of 2018) And In Re: Munshi Matiar Rahaman ... ... Petitioner Mr. Sardar Amjad Ali .. Sr.Advocate Mr. Rabindra Nath Pal .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee .. Ld.Public Prosecutor Ms. Faria Hossain .. Advocate Ms. Trina Mitra .. Advocate ... ... for the State Heard both the parties.Liberty to mention.
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,630,061
Heard Mr. V.S. Parmar along with Mr. Hariom Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State.This bail application has been filed by the applicant Pushpendra Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 37 of 2019 under Sections 366, 376, 323, 506 IPC, P.S. Erach, District Jhansi during the pendency of the trial.In respect of an incident which occurred on 11.3.2019, an F.I.R. dated 12.3.2019 was lodged by Atar Singh, father of the victim, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0037 of 2019, under sections 366 IPC, P.S. Erach, District Jhansi.In the aforesaid F.I.R. Pushpendra Singh, the applicant herein, was nominated as the named accused, whereas, two unknown persons were nominated as accused.The prosecutrix was medically examined on the same day.As per the prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. that on 11.3.2019 at around 6:00 pm, the prosecutrix had gone out of the village to attend the call of the nature.At that moment, the applicant Pushpendra Singh is alleged to have taken her along with him.As such, no criminality can be attached to the present applicant.He lastly submits that there was a change in the stand of the prosecutrix in her statement recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C, for which there is no explanation offered.On the aforesaid factual premise, it is urged that the applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail.However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State and upon perusal of the material brought on record as well as the complicity of the applicant and without making any comment on the merits of the case, I find that applicant has made out a case for bail.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
786,309
ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J.This revision petition is directed under Section 397/401 of Criminal Procedure Code (in brief "the Code") by the present applicants against the order dated 12-10-04 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Harda in S.T. No. 273/04 whereby direction for framing the charges under Section 307/149 of Indian Penal Code has been given and in pursuance of the same the charges are framed against the present applicants.Prosecution case in brief is that on 25-6-2003 at about 10.30 in the morning when the complainant Ms. Nandini was at her residence alongwith her father Ramdas Sharma at the same time applicants came there with common intention to cause death of the complainant and her father and by saying that they will end of the life of the complainant and her father assaulted them by hard and sharp object "Chhuri" and also by sticks whereby the complainant and her father have received so many injuries, then incident was reported immediately to Police, Harda at about 11.00 a.m. where a Crime No. 242/03 was registered and charge-sheet was filed after holding investigation against the applicants.Both the injured complainants were examined by the doctor who prepared the M.L.C. also.On committal of the case, above said charges were framed against the applicants by the Trial Court.Hence, this revision.On the other hand, Counsel of the State has supported the impugned order and justified it and prayed for dismissal of this revision petition.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,631,854
On information being received at Police Station - Sector-1, Pithampur, a "Merg" was registered in this regard.The learned trial Judge, vide the impugned order has framed a charge under Section 306 of IPC against the petitioner.Challenging the impugned order, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have never instigated, provoked, suggested, incited or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide.Cr.R. No.1625/2016 5Cr.R. No.1625/2016 8
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,638,793
(21/06/2018) Per Rohit Arya, J., This appeal by an accused under section 374 Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11/06/2008 passed in sessions trial No.376/2006 by I Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore, convicting the appellant under section 376 IPC and sentenced to suffer ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo six months additional imprisonment.Further, under section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment with fine of Rs.3,000/-.The prosecution story, in brief is that on 26/07/2006, information was received at the Police Station on telephone that in the village Sutarkhedi, Sitanagar Colony, Ringhroad, a woman (Roshini, since dead) was found having injuries on the body in an unconscious condition.On the basis of said information, Roznamcha was entered at No.1378 on 26.7.2006 and Assistant Sub Inspector D.R.Vaskale reached the spot.Thereafter, the injured was sent to the Civil Hospital, Mhow for treatment.After primary medication, due to the serious condition, the injured was referred to M.Y.Hospital, Indore.She died on 27.7.2006 at 12.37 pm during treatment.Thereafter, at Police Station Samyogitaganj, marg under 2 Cr.and then, original marg under section 174 Cr.P.C., was registered at crime No.39/06 by Police Station Kishanganj and the investigation set in motion.2 Cr.During the investigation, it surfaced that in the night of 26/07/2006, the accused Jugal alias Ohdadbaba resident of village Giroda has committed rape upon the deceased and thereafter caused injuries on her private part with hard and blunt object as a result she died in the intervening night of 27 th/28th July, 2006 at 12.37 pm.Vide exhibits P/2 & P/3 various items were seized, Spot panchnama was prepared (exhibit P/6), Spot map was prepared (exhibit P/7), naksha panchayatnama was prepared (exhibit P/17), seized the danda (exhibit P/18).The dead body was sent for post mortem.The accused was arrested and prepared arrest memo (exhibit P/5).All the seized articles were sent for FSL examination.On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused before the concerned Court.Dr. Bharat Vajpai (P.W.14) has conducted post mortem (exhibit P/15).He has assessed the age of deceased as 23 years and found the injuries; (i) abrasion x cm over left anterolaterlal knee; (ii) abrasion 5 x 3 cm over right anterior knee; (iii) two abrasions 12 x cm over left lateral post mid thigh 1.5 cm apart;(iv) three abrasions 1 x 1/8 cm over left upper posterolateral arm; (v) one abrasion x cm over left posterior upper forearm; (vi) three abrasions 12 x cm over right posterior lateral mid upper gluteal region; (vii) abrasion 8 x cm over left loin above iliac crest posterior aspect; (viii) lacerated wound x x cm over left mid lateral planter foot; (ix) right side labia majora shows contused swelling over mid and upper part 6 x 3 cm, on right side para urethral tear 3 x x cm, on left side para urethral tear 3 x x cm (not clear) on right side vagina wall posterolateral tear 3 x 1 cm wall deep.Lower Vulva (not clear) shows cuticle tear 1.5 x 1 cm.Right side moris pubic area shows ecchymosis 6 x 4 cm area subcutaneously inner anterolateral lower costal abdomen wall ecchymosed 8 x 6 cm between muscle.R anterior and anterolateral lower costal inner tissues are ecchymosed 10 x 8 cm distantly on left side on postolateral vaginal wall tear 2.5 x x cm is present.Reddish fluix oozing slightly from vagina.3 Cr.All the injuries are caused by hard and blunt object and shows read colour of ecchymosis and are within 24 hours prior to death and opined that death was caused due to shock haemorrhage.Evidence of internal and external genital organ present.Viscera, tissues, vaginal and swab slides, clothings and pubic hair are present for examination.As such, deceased had suffered death within 24 hours since examination.The prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses and placed Exhibits P/1 to P/22, the documents on record.The accused has not examined any witness in his defence.The trial Judge on the basis of the material placed on record framed charge punishable under Sections 376 IPC and 302 IPC against the accused/appellant.The accused denied the charge and claimed to be tried.The Trial Judge while carefully examining the evidence of sole eye-witness, Ambaram (P.W.5) read with evidence of witnesses; Manjubai (P.W.6) and Shailendra (P.W.7) has found that there is consistency in their statements that the deceased was last seen with the accused/appellant and sexually assaulted the deceased.On the basis of overwhelming evidence of occurrence of the incident and involvement of the accused/appellant coupled with the corroborative medical evidence, i.e.,, post mortem report (exhibit P/15) and the evidence of Dr. Savita Joshi (P.W.1) who has initially treated the deceased before whom the deceased had disclosed that rape was committed upon her, Dr. Nilesh Dalal (P.W.12) as well as the obtaining circumstances, the trial Court has concluded that the accused/appellant has established physical relationship and sexually exploited against her wish and thereafter, caused grievous injuries with a danda (stick) on various parts of her body including that of private part and due to which, she died.The said fact has been established from the statement of the eye-witnesses, Amabram (P.W.5), Manjubai (P.W.6) and Shailendra (P.W.7).
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,886,955
C.R.M. 5388 OF 2013 In Re: Bachhu Mondal. . . .Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11th April, 2013, in connection with Kumarganj Police Station Case No.53/12 dated 13-4-2012 under Sections 147/148/149/186/333/353 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. S. Khandakar. . .For the petitioner.Mr. M. R. Reja . . .Accordingly, we refuse such prayer and reject this application.
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,887,014
The linear bruises 2" x " on posterior lateral aspect of left forearm.One diffused swelling 5" x 3" on anterior aspect of lower part of left chest.On dissection 6th to 9th rib fractures were detected.The dissection wound showed extra vasation of blood in and around the injuries.He opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above injuries which were antemortem and homicidal in nature.He deposed that he recovered arrows in between left deltoid and pectoralis muscle.Injury nos.1,2,3,4 & 7 may be caused by tangi.Other injuries may be caused by lathi.He deposed that they have a pond numbered 198 at Uttara Mouza.The pond is owned and possessed by his father and recorded in his name.On 31st July, 1983 on hearing the news of catching fish from the pond he and his father came to Uttara pond and found that the appellants were catching fish from the said pond.His father resisted whereupon appellant nos.1,2 & 3 and one Gunadhar dipped his father into the water.Gunadhar was injured in the pond.He rescued his father and the appellants chased them.They entered the house of Kanai Hembram.The appellants encircled the house of Kanai.Appellant no.1 dragged his father out of the room and appellant no.7 assaulted him with arrow.Appellant no.2 assaulted his father with tangi on his right leg.His father fell down.Thereafter, appellant no.7 assaulted his father on both the legs.He tried to rescue his father whereupon he was assaulted by tangi on his head.Appellant no.7 assaulted him with the back of an axe.He lost his senses.He regained his senses in the house.He was examined by the Investigating Officer and was sent to hospital.He was in the hospital for a month.P.W.11 was the Sub-Inspector of police attached to Jhargram Police Station.On 31st July, 1983 at about 4:30 P.M. he received the written complaint from one Nirupama Mahato and drew up the formal FIR (Exhibit-4).He took up investigation of the case.He visited the village at around 7:00 P.M. De-facto complainant showed him the P.O. He came to the house of Prafulla Mahato and found him and P.W.10 in injured condition.He examined P.W.10 and sent the injured persons for treatment to Jhargram hospital.He prepared a sketch map but the same is missing.He could not find the weapons of assault.He did not find any blood stain marks either near the pond or outside the house of Kanai as the same were washed away by rain.Prafulla died on the way to hospital.He directed U.D. case to be started and also directed S.I. S.K. Sen, to hold inquest over the dead body of Prafulla.Upon his transfer he handed over the charge of investigation to S.I. S.K.De.He proved the seizure list in respect of seizure of arrow, blood stain, wearing apparels (Exhibit-5).He identified the arrow (Mat. Exhibit-1).P.W.12, Bhogin Chandra Soren was posted as A.S.I. of police at Jhargram police station.He took the injured persons to Jhargram hospital.P.W.13, Surendra Nath Sen was posted as S.I of police to Jhargram Police station.One incised wound 1" x " X " in front of left tibia anterior aspect.One diffused swelling round about left ankle.On resection fracture of left tibia and fibula.One diffused swelling in lower half of right leg.On resection both bone of tibia of right leg seen.One incised wound 2 " x " in middle third of right leg.One arrow found to be impacted at the junction of left deltoid and pectoralis muscile.On further resection of arrow injury it is found to be on the backward and posterior.The size being 1" x " x 3 Capsule of the shoulder joint is found to be torn.One diffused swelling on the middle of forearm is broken.P.W.8, Bhudu Ch.Kar was a constable attached to Jhargram police station who deposed that he could not serve notice upon prosecution witness, Chandrakanta Hansda.P.W.9, Thakurdas Mahato is a witness of inquest.He has proved his signature at the inquest report (Exhibit-3/1).P.W.10, Jogesh Chandra Mahato is an injured eye-witness.He held inquest over the dead body of Prafulla at Jhargram hospital.P.W.14 is the second Investigating officer of the case who submitted charge-sheet.P.W.15 is an officer of J.L.R.O., Jhargram.P.W.16 is the J.L.R.O., Jhargram who deposed that plot no. 198 was standing in the name of the deceased Prafulla Kumar Mahato.He proved the report of the Circle Inspector (Exhibit-6).From the aforesaid evidence on record it is clear that deceased Prafulla owned and possessed a pond in plot no.198 within Uttara Mouza.On receiving information fishes were being stolen from the pond he along with his son P.W.10 went to the pond and found that the appellants were catching fish.He resisted them whereupon there was an altercation between him and his son on one hand and the appellants on the other hand.It appears that one Gunadhar had died at the spot.Appellants surrounded the house and appellant no.1 dragged Prafulla from the house, appellant no.3 assaulted Prafulla with an arrow on the left side of his chest.Then appellant no.2 assaulted Prafulla with a tangi on the right thigh.Prafulla fell down and appellant no.7 again assaulted him with tangi on both his legs.At that time his son (P.W.10) came out of the house and tried to save him.P.W.10 was also assaulted with tangi by appellant nos. 1 and 7 and he fell down on the ground.They were dragged to the pond by the miscreants.It appears that the incident was promptly reported by P.W.1 to the police station and in the evening Prafulla and his son, Dipak @ Jogesh were sent to hospital for treatment.Unfortunately, Prafulla died on the way to hospital.It has been argued that there is no explanation as to the cause of death of Gunadhar at the pond and therefore, the prosecution case ought not to be believed.Over the issue of death of Gunadhar, a criminal case being Jhargram P.S. Case No. 21 of 1983 dated 31st July, 1983 was registered against Prafulla, Dipak @ Jogesh (P.W.10) and others.I have been informed that the said case has resulted in an acquittal.On the other hand, Prafulla and Dipak @ Jogesh (P.W.10) appear to have been assaulted infront of the residence of P.W.2 and not at the place where Gunadhar had died.P.W.1, in cross-examination admitted that she had deposed in the counter case over the murder of Gunadhar that she had not seen the incident.It appears from an analysis of evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.5 that they had come to the place of occurrence after the incident and found Prafulla and Dipak @ Jogesh lying flat near the pond.Hence, the said witnesses cannot be said to be as eye-witnesses of the incident.He, however, admitted in cross-examination that he was inside the house which was surrounded by mud walls and he did not move from the said place as he was suffering from paralysis.Accordingly, it is difficult to rely on his version as an eye-witness of the incident.However, the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.10 does not appear to suffer from any defect or embellishment.P.W.2 was the owner of the house where P.W.10 and his father had sought refuge and had seen the incident of assault which occurred in front of his own house.They have specifically mentioned the roles of appellant nos.1,2, 3 & 7 in the assault of the victim and P.W.10 himself.Such assault is corroborated by the medical witnesses in the instant case.However, with regard to the charge of theft of fish, I do not find that any stolen fish was recovered from the possession of the appellants.Hence, the charge of theft cannot be said to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt against any of the appellants.It appears that one Gunadhar had died in the commotion which occurred in the pond.Prafulla, the deceased, and his sons including P.W.10 were accused of the murder of Gunadhar but had been acquitted.In the backdrop of such circumstances, mere presence of the appellants at the place of occurrence without anything more cannot give rise to the inference that they shared the common object with the appellant nos.1,2,3 & 7 to assault the deceased and P.W.10 and thereby causing the death of the victim.Hence, I am of the opinion that other appellants namely, appellant nos.4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 are entitled to the benefit of doubt.Accordingly, conviction and sentence of appellant nos.1,2,3 & 7 are upheld for commission of offence punishable under Sections 304 (Part-II)/149, Sections 324/149 and Section 148 IPC and they are, however, acquitted of the charge under Sections 379/149 IPC.With regard to the other appellants namely, appellant nos.4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 they are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.Period of detention suffered by the appellant nos.1,2,3 & 7 during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off against substantive sentence under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.If they fail to do, the trial court shall be at liberty to execute the sentence in accordance with law.The appellant nos.4,5,6,8,9,10 & 11 shall be discharged from their bail bonds after six months from date in terms of Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The lower court records along with a copy of this judgement be sent down at once to the learned trial court for necessary action.I record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Ms. Sreeparna Das, learned advocate, as Amicus Curiae in disposing of the appeal.Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis on compliance of all formalities.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.) as
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.
78,890,940
allowed debajyoti CRM No.11766 of 2018 In re : Md. Lokman @ Md. Luqman ..... Petitioner.Mr. Tarique Quasimuddin, Mrs. Zainab Tahur ..... For the Petitioner.Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Mr. Arani Bhattacharya ..... For the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.05 of 2016 dated 03-01- 2016 under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/333/ 353/186/379/427/435/436/506/332/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and read with Sections 25(i)(a)/27/35 of the Arms Act.The petitioner claims to have been a bystander who has been wrongfully implicated in the criminal case.The State says that the petitioner has been on the run for more than three years and the trial has reached the final stage.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.( Suvra Ghosh, J. ) ( Sanjib Banerjee, J. )
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,898,294
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant in S.T. No. 169-A of 2013, Case Crime No. 726 of 2013, under Sections- 452, 302/34, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Kotwali Konch, District- Jalaun, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.In the aforesaid trial the applicant was summoned under Section 319 Cr.Learned A.G.A has opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicants but could not point out anything material to the contrary.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions noticed above, without commenting upon merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be released on bail.
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,913,386
Dipak Misra, J.In this appeal, by special leave, the assail is to the judgment ofconviction and order of sentence dated 02/05/2012 passed by the HighCourt of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1644 of 2005,whereby the Division Bench, placing reliance on the dying declaration ofthe deceased Champaben, has affirmed the decision of the learned TrialJudge, who had found the accused-appellants guilty of offence punishableunder Section 302/34, 332 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (forshort, “the IPC”).The broad essential facts, which need to be stated for the adjudication of this appeal, are that the deceased, Champaben, was staying with her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and children in a hut near the Water Tank, Macchipir Area, Baalvatika, Ahmedabad and the said hut was sold off by her mother-in-law.The said transaction had brought the deceased Champaben and her children to a miserable state of penury and eventually they were forced to live on the footpath.As alleged, the mother-in-law and brother-in-law had left them in the lurch and went to live elsewhere.On 13.12.2001, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused-appellants attacked her and gave her fist and kick blows and then A-3, namely, Chinabhai caught hold of her and Balubhai Hemabhai Chunara poured kerosene and set her ablaze.A- 2, Shailesbhai @ Pappu Balubhai Chunara, aided and abetted the offence.On the basis of the statement made by the deceased on 13.12.2001, the criminal law was set in motion and accused persons were arrested.The dying declarations of Champaben were recorded regard being had to her sinking condition.After completing the investigation, the prosecution laid the chargesheet under Sections 302/34, 323 and 114 of the IPC before the competent Court which in turn committed the matter to the Court of Session.The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence brought on record and placing reliance on the dying declarations of Champaben, convicted the accused persons and imposed the sentence.Suffice it to say, all of them were convicted under Section 302/34 IPC, apart from separate sentence imposed under Sections 323 and 114 of the IPC.The learned trial Judge repelled the plea of the defence that there were three dying declarations and there was manifest inconsistency and hence, they did not deserve acceptance.On an appeal being preferred, the High Court adverted at length to the legal acceptability of the dying declarations and found that there was actually no inconsistency and accordingly affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.We have heard Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Hemantika Wahi learned counsel for the State.There is no dispute that the conviction has been recorded on the sole basis of the dying declaration.As the material brought record woule reveal, on the date of occurrence, the deceased was immediately taken to L.G. Hospital, where initially she was treated by Dr. Sandip, PW-2, and there is an endorsement in the case papers that “alleged history of burns over body by Shailesbhai Chunara’s friends at Water tank, Baalvatika.” After the said endorsement, the treatment commenced and about 3.15 p.m. she was taken to Dr. Kunjan Patel, who recorded the history of injuries and noted that she had suffered severe burn injuries being burnt by three persons, namely, Balubhai Hemabhai, Shailesbhai Balubhai and Chinabhai Balubhai.Thereafter, a dying declaration was recorded after the investigating agency requisitioned the presence of Executive Magistrate, namely, Binodbhai Mafatbhai Patel (PW-3).On a perusal of the said dying declaration, we find that Dr Kunjan Patel had certified that patient was conscious and fit for making a dying declaration.The Executive Magistrate has recorded the dying declaration in the questionnaire form wherein the deceased had clearly stated that she had a quarrel with the accused- appellants and they had caused burn injuries on her legs, chest and other part of the body.The learned Magistrate has also deposed that he had taken care that no one else was present at the time of recording of the dying declaration.Mr. Bharadwaj learned counsel for the appellant attacking the acceptability of the dying declaration has urged that when there are more than one dying declaration, and inconsistency is perceptible, the Court should be extremely careful before placing reliance on it.To bolster the said submission he has drawn inspiration from the decisions in Lella Srinivasa Rao v. State of A.P[1], Amol Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh[2], Sharda v. State of Rajasthan[3] and State of Rajasthan v. Sharavan Ram & Anr.[4].In Lella Srinivasa Rao (supra) the Court, appreciating the evidence on record, noticed that there was inconsistency between the two dying declarations and, therefore, thought it unsafe to base the conviction on the basis of the second dying declaration.In Amol Singh (supra) the Court noticed certain inconsistencies between one dying declaration and the other.A dying declaration, therefore, enjoys almost a sacrosanct status, as a piece of evidence, coming as it does from the mouth of the deceased victim.Once the statement of the dying person and the evidence of the witnesses testifying to the same passes the test of careful scrutiny of the courts, it becomes a very important and a reliable piece of evidence and if the court is satisfied that the dying declaration is true and free from any embellishment such a dying declaration, by itself, can be sufficient for recording conviction even without looking for any corroboration.If there are more than one dying declarations then the court has also to scrutinise all the dying declarations to find out if each one of these passes the test of being trustworthy.Dr. Kunjan Patel also had made an endorsement and at that time he had recorded the three names and thereafter the Executive Magistrate had recorded the dying declaration.He, at the time of entry to the hospital, only mentioned the same as a requisite endorsement.While the patient was in that condition, the Magistrate was called to record the dying declaration.About the fitness of the patient Dr. Kunjan Patel had examined the patient and clearly stated that she was in a fit and conscious condition to give a dying declaration.The said submission suffers from fundamental fallacy inasmuch as Dr. Sandip was only making an endorsement at the time of entry into the hospital.He was not recording any dying declaration.It was only an endorsement which was required for the hospital record.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,934,426
Immediately, another person known to the complainant namely, Kulbeer Singh-petitioner No.2, hit the complainant with an iron rod on his head.Thereafter, two-three other associates of the petitioners started beating the complainant.The complainant managed to reach his home and was taken to hospital by his brother.Present petition has been filed under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short as Code) against order dated 17th November, 2009 passed Crl.R.P. No.38/2010 Page 1 of 5 by Additional Sessions Judge, vide which charges under Section 308/341/427 read with Section 34 IPC were ordered to be framed against present petitioners.R.P. No.38/2010 Page 1 of 5Brief facts are that on 11th October, 2007 at about 8.20 p.m., Yogender Singh, the complainant was going to his go-down at Mundka road on his motorcycle.Petitioner No.1 Ajit Singh, who was known to him attacked him with an iron rod, the blow of which fell on his elbow.Under these circumstances, ingredients of Section 308 IPC are not made out at all.These injuries were caused with an iron rod.This, however, does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting the trial.In the light of above principles, it is to be seen as to whether in the present case prima-facie, there are sufficient grounds for framing charges against the petitioners or not.R.P. No.38/2010 Page 3 of 5R.P. No.38/2010 Page 3 of 5As per prosecution case, the injured was hit with an iron rod over head.The nature of injury in the MLC report is stated to be simple but there is no denying the fact that complainant was hit on the head with an iron rod.Here, both the petitioners have been named by the complainant in his statement.Thus, prima facie the involvement of both the petitioners is there in this case.Copy of this order be sent to trial court.
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
789,355
According to the appellants and the co-accused the excommunication was motivated by jealousy on account of them being educated and fairly affluent, as against, the semi-literate and never-do-well condition of the other inhabitants of the Harijan Vasti.Deceased Akaram is the husband of P.W. 4 Muktabai, the father of P.W. 5 Kushaba and brother of P.W. 11 Nilappa.Akaram and Nilappa were living together with their wives and children.Namdeo who has not been examined, is a brother-in-law of Akaram.On 9-6-1989, the inmates of Akaram's residence came back after doing the day's work.Kushaba was sent to fetch pulses from the shop of one Pawar.On the way he had to pass the wada of Pawar.On the way he had to pass the wada of Pawar.While passing this wada, Kushaba heard the sounds of a musical instrument called Dholki being played unmelodiously.Kushaba went into the wada and entered the room in which a drama rehearsal was in progress.Certain persons were assembled in that room and they included appellant No. 2 Dadasaheb.Heated words ensued and very soon the two were at each other's throats.Those present, including P.W. 10 Arvind, intervened and set apart the disputants.The occupant of the room, Eknath Jagtap, came at this stage and drove away the whole crowd from his room, Kushaba went to the shop of Pawar, purchased the pulses he had been asked to buy and delivered the same to his mother.The mother, Muktabai was informed of what had taken place.Kushaba then left for a place which he describes as Samaj Mandir or Takiya.For sometime he stayed at the Takiya, conversing with the boys assembled there.While returning home he sighted the appellants and the acquitted-accused in the courtyard of Sopan Karpe.Sometime thereafter came to him, the voice of his mother screaming in pain.Kushaba went running.The sight that met his eyes was that of Akaram lying on the ground and seated by his side the wounded, Muktabai.Appellants and the acquitted accused rushed at Kushaba as soon as they sighted him.The explanation for the shouts that had attracted Kushaba, comes from the testimony of Muktabai.Muktabai sustained two injuries when she came to the rescue of her fallen husband.The incident over, the culprits fled.Nilappa fetched Namdeo.The bother-in-law of Akaram.He also brought the Police Patil and Sarpanch on the scene.Akaram had passed away and therefore, his corpse was left on the spot.Muktabai and Kushaba were removed in a tempo to Kavathe-Mahankal.Nilappa was confused, horror-stricken and under a great deal of tension.What exactly he said when giving the report, was neither complete nor accurate.The police registered an offence and started investigating.The wounded persons were sent to the Rural Hospital at Kavathe-Mahankal where they were examined by Dr. Khot.Certificates issued by Dr. Khot are at Exhs.Akaram had sustained two incised wounds, one somewhere on the chest, and, the other on the head.The first injury was a serious one and sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to lead to death.Kushaba had three incised wounds - two over his back and one over his shoulder.Muktabai had two contused lacerated wounds on the face.Appellants were arrested and the investigating officers started interrogating the appellants and their co-accused.Muktabai was discharged immediately after treatment, whereas Kushaba underwent hospitalisation for about 8 days.Appellants and their co-accused, all denied the truthfulness of the narration given by the prosecution witnesses.Appellant No. 1's version was that he and his son/appellant No. 2 were going for bhajans in the evening.Both of them had to pass the road facing the house of Akaram.When they came to that spot, they found Akaram and Kushaba drunk and abusing each other.On this, appellant No. 1 fled and taking a bus went to Kavathe-Mahankal where he contacted the P.S.O. at the Police Station.The said P.S.O. kept him waiting at the Police Station and did not reduce to writing the report given by him.What happened after his departure to the Police Station was not known to him.Appellant No. 2 took the same stand as his father and added that Kushaba struck him with an axe on the head.This blow felled him down after which he lost consciousness.When he next woke up, he found himself at the Rural Hospital at Kavathe-Mahankal.JUDGMENT Daud, J.This appeal takes exception to the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellants for the commission of offences punishable under sections 302, 307 r/w. 34 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case was that appellants and the acquitted-accused though Harijans of village Karoli, Taluka Kavathe-Mahankal, Dist.Sangli and living in the Harijan Vasti had been black-listed, if not virtually excommunicated, by their fellow Harijans.While she was at home, the appellants and the acquitted-accused came in a body and stood outside her home.They were uttering filthy abuses.She protested against the same and Akaram followed suit.Angered at the Akaram's intervention, the appellants and the acquitted accused inflicted a severe beating on his person.Appellants Nos. 1 and 3 used axes while the others used sticks.Also beaten with these instruments was Kushaba.Appellant No. 3 says that he was at home taking his meals when the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 left home to take part in the bhajan recitals.From the direction of the house of Kushaba came shrieks of his father.He therefore went to the spot and found Kushaba and Akaram, each handling an axe.Appellant No. 2 was lying on the ground with an injury.Appellant No. 3 was about to pick up the wounded appellant No. 2 when he was struck on the head with an axe by Akaram.At this stage a number of persons had assembled.Appellant No. 1 fled from the spot and appellant No. 3 succeeded in bringing appellant No. 2 to their home.Two or three hours later, appellant No. 1 came in a Police jeep and he as also appellant No. 2 were taken to the Kavathe-Mhankal Rural Hospital in the said jeep.All the three appellants gave out that they had been falsely implicated because of factional enmity.These included Nilappa, Muktabai, Kushaba, Arvind and Dr. Khot.The learned trial Judge found that there was evidence connecting appellants with the commission of offences punishable under section 302 and 307 r/w 34, I.P.C. Appellant No. 3 was additionally convicted under section 323, I.P.C. Various terms of imprisonment and fine were imposed, and, in default of the payment of fine, the defaulter was to undergo additional R.I. for an additional term.The three brothers of appellant No. 1 were acquitted.Mr. Pradhan, representing appellants, raises a two-fold submission.The first contention is that the charge framed by the trial Judge misled his clients in the conduct of their defence.They had been charged for various offences on the ground of being constructively liable for the said offences and not as the actual perpetrators thereof.Alternatively, the witnesses examined on the subject were thoroughly unreliable.The accounts given by them at the trial differed from what they had said at the stage of investigation and no two witnesses were consistent in the versions given by them at the trial.The discovery evidence was a farce and completely unreliable.Appellants Nos. 2 an 33 were therefore entitled to an acquittal on the ground that if guilty of having taken to violence, they had done so in the exercise of the right of private defence.As to appellant No. 1, in the event of it being established that he had resorted to violence, the same was for the purpose of defending the person of his sons.In any event, whatever was done by appellant No. 1, was so done, on the spur of the moment, without premeditation and in a sudden quarrel.Those contentions are disputed by the learned Public Prosecutor who says that the verdict of the Additional Sessions Judge should be affirmed in its entirety.First and foremost they had been supplied with the charge-sheet and all papers accompanying the charge-sheet.But apart from that, we will have to consider the background event which took place at Pawar Wada.Amongst those assembled at the Pawar Wada were appellant No. 2 and Arvind.Appellant No. 2 was playing a Dholki.Kushaba came to the room where the instrument was being played, and gave expression to this annoyance at the unmusical sounds emanating from the room.Heated words were exchanged and the two were at each other's throats.A fight broke out and all of them were driven away from the room by Eknath Jagtap.In cross-examination, Arvind frankly admits that Kushaba was the first to take to violence as also abuses.Nilappa, with Namdeo carried the injured persons to Kavathe-Mahankal.On the way the party travelling by the tempo had enough time to drag in as many as persons as they could.But the Officer who recorded the statement of Kushaba has been examined and he has proved the said contradictions.The part played by the acquitted accused has to be totally excluded.The rest of Muktabai's testimony comes to this : Appellants had come in front of her house.Appellants Nos. 1 and 3 were carrying axes and appellant No. 2 had a stick.Filthy abuses were directed against the lady by appellant No. 2 Muktabai pointed out that the abuses should not have involved her name.Far from pacifying appellant No. 2, this only made him more abusive.Akaram came out of the house to advise the appellants to move to their own house and utter abuses which they were doing, instead of standing in front of his house and making a scene.As Akaram tried to get up, appellant No. 1 rushed at him and struck him on the chest with an axe.In relation to Kushaba, Muktabai says that he was beaten up by all the accused.Appellant No. 3 struck him on the back with an axe while the others struck him with sticks.Kushaba has been contradicted with Exh. 33 which is a clear admission by the witness that the instrument used for beating him by appellants Nos. 2 and 3, were sticks.At the trial Kushaba does not say that appellant No. 1 was armed with an axe.Admittedly barring appellants Nos. 1 and 3, the remaining four assailants had sticks.No stick blows were detected on the body of Kushaba.One does not understand why appellant No. 2 would consider it necessary to conceal a stick used by him in the crime at the house of his uncle, the 5th accused.Why accused No. 5 would have allowed his house to be turned into an arsenal, passes comprehension.The injuries on the persons of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3 were trifling ones.The killing of Akaram etc. was not the result of a sudden quarrel.On the contrary it was a calculated act to take revenge upon Kushaba for having insulted appellant No. 2 at the Pawar Wada confrontation, where the killing is motivated by a desire to be avenged, the same amounts to murder and not second-degree homicide.To sum up, the appeal will have to be partly allowed.The conviction and sentence recorded against appellant No. 1 is altered and limited to the offence punishable under section 302, I.P.C. For the other offences found not established against him, we quash the trial Court's conviction and sentence.Fine, if paid by appellant No. 1 on the said count, be refunded unto him.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
78,938,628
Soundaranayagam, an affluent individual, owned several properties in Kodaikanal and other places.“jpUkjp.Nuh];Nkhp 04.06.2016-k; Njjp jdJ fzth; jpU.nrse;jpuehafj;jpd; kiwtpw;F gpwF ee;jtdk; Estate cs;s gq;fshtpy; jdJ rikay; Ntiyf;Fk; kw;Wk; cjtpf;Fk; Njtp kw;Wk; vyprngj; MfpNahUld; ,Ue;J te;Js;shh;.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their name., his Will dated 11.03.2016 to his wife Rosemarie and after her death, it is to go to his son Rabindranath.In the said Will, Soundaranayagam has referred to other properties, about which, we are not concerned.Soundaranayagam and his wife Rosemarie were residing in the house bearing Door No.Soundaranayagam left behind as his heirs the following persons:(ii) Rabindranath/son(iii) Mahadevan/sonAdmittedly, Rabindranath and Luxshmi were not living in the house bearing Door No.Luxshmi is said to be living in the house adjacent to the house bearing Door No.W1/974a and Rabindranath is said to be a resident of Nilakkottai.The accused Susila in this case is the wife of Rabindranath.On 23.07.2016 Luxshmi gave a 3/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 typewritten complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal, alleging that her sister-in-law Susila (Rabindranath's wife) had given a glass of Mirinda to Rosemarie around 12 noon on 23.07.2016, which Rosemarie consumed a little, but, she did not drink in full.It is the further case of Luxshmi that she came into her mother's house around that time and observed that the drink had chemical smell and taste and suspecting foul-play, she questioned Susila, for which, Susila did not give proper answer.The event that is said to have been taken place in the house can be better described by extracting the relevant paragraph from the complaint dated 23.07.2016 of Luxshmi:"The juice in my mother's glass had a very strong chemical smell and taste, while the juice in Mrs.Susila's glass seemed normal.I believe that some poison may have been added to my mother's glass by Mrs.Susila.When I asked Mrs.Susila what she had done and told her that I was going to have the drink tested, she attempted to grab the glass away from me, 4/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 pushing me into the wall and spilling much of the drink in the process.However, I have managed to save a sample of the juice and also both the glasses."Beneath the complaint, the Inspector of Police has made the following endorsement:"Received this petition, then registered a case in Kodaikanal PS.No.345/16 u/s.328 IPC on 29.07.2016 at 13.00 hrs."On receiving the complaint, the Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.345 of 2016 on 29.07.2016 under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code against Susila and took up investigation of the case.Luxshmi, the defacto complainant was not satisfied with the investigation and, therefore, she filed Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15867 of 2016 for transfer of investigation, in which, this Court passed the following order on 29.08.2016:Under such circumstances, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, the investigation in Crime No.345 of 2016 is ordered to be transferred to the file of 5/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 the Additional Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District, Kodaikanal Sub-Division, which shall be monitored by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Dindigul District."After completing the investigation, Mr.Chandran, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kodaikanal, has filed a final report against Susila in P.R.C.No.1 of 2017 before the learned District Munsif-cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, for an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, challenging which, Susila is before this Court for quashing the prosecution.In support of his contention, he raised a very seminal objection to the charge sheet, namely, that the police had not even questioned and recorded the statement of Rosemarie, who is the alleged victim in this case.When this was put to the learned Government 6/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 Advocate (Criminal side), he took instructions from the Inspector, who was standing behind him and submitted that since Rosemarie was not in a position to speak or give statement because of her old age, the police had not recorded her statement.This created a suspicion in the mind of this Court and, therefore, this Court passed the following order on 16.06.2017:"The Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal or District Munsif, Kodaikanal, whoever is available to visit Mrs.Rosemarie Soundaranayagam at W1/972, Nanthavanam Estate, Ganeshpuram, Perumalmalai, Kodaikanal, and report whether she is capable of giving a statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Registry shall convey this order by phone.Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal visited Rosemarie at her residence in 7/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 W1/974a and has sent a detailed report dated 17.06.2017 stating that Rosemarie is fit as a fiddle and she is capable of giving a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with regard to the allegations in the First Information Report.Therefore, the contention of the police that Rosemarie was not fit enough even to give a statement stands belied by the report of the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.To recapitulate the facts in this case, Rosemarie is the victim.But, unfortunately, the police had not taken any care to record her statement and had merely gone on the ipse dixit of Luxshmi and a maid by name Devi.He may also take steps to have the statement of Rosemarie recorded by a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Of course, this Court cannot direct the Investigating Officer as to how he should investigate a case.If Mr.Venkat Raman, Deputy Superintendent of Police, decides to have the statement of Rosemarie recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he may approach the Judicial Magistrate, Palani, because the District Magistrate -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal is the committal Court in this case.That apart, the District Magistrate -cum- Judicial Magistrate had already visited Rosemarie on the orders of this Court.Therefore, it will be in the interest of justice, if the District Magistrate -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal does not record the 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure statement of Rosemarie.9/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017In the event of the Judicial Magistrate, Palani recording the statement of Rosemarie under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the instance of the present Investigating Officer, then the learned Magistrate may even videograph the statement in the presence of the counsel for the accused as provided under proviso to Section 164(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Until then, all further proceedings in P.R.C.No.1 of 2017 before the learned District Munsif -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal, is hereby stayed.The presence of Susila before the District Magistrate -cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal is hereby dispensed with until filing of the supplementary report.Until then, neither Luxshmi nor Rabindranath/Susila shall go anywhere near the residence of Rosemarie.” 10/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judicial Magsitrate, Palani, recorded the 164 statement of the above said Rosemarie.The learned Judicial Magistrate after assessing the said Rosemarie, has made the following observation:“I hereby certified that Mrs.Rosemary is physically fit to have a conversation and my opinion is that she could recollect only long term memories and she is not in a position to recollect short term happenings in her life.From my conversation with her, I hereby give my opinion.As I entered the room, I introduced myself to Mrs.Rosemary and I asked to Mrs. Rosemary to identify the doctor, who accompanied me inside the room whereas she was unable to identify the doctor and her reaction was that as if she met him for the first time.The doctor told her about treatments given by him to her at Kodaikanal, but she could not recollect any such happenings.Since she did not talk anything I started recording the statement in Questionnaire form.” 11/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017It is also seen from the questions that have been put to Rosemarie that she has been asked about her daughter-in-law, who is the petitioner herein.The said Rosemarie did not say anything adverse against the petitioner and she was not even able to recall the incident, where she was alleged to have been offered with juice.As directed by this Court, the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken up the case for further investigation.He has examined nearly 32 witnesses.The most important witness in this case is Devi, who was the servant-maid, who was working in the house of Rosemarie and who was the eyewitness for the entire incident.She has reiterated the incident and has categorically made allegations against the petitioner.It is also seen from the statements of certain other witnesses, who have corroborated the statement made by Devi.The scientific officer Sankar Kumar had already analysed the glass tumbler containing juice and he has already found that it contained Monocrotopas, which is a poison.The Doctor Balaji, who was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police had stated that Monocrotopas is a poison, which has very serious effect on the body and will also lead to death, if it is consumed beyond a quantity.12/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017After analysing the statement taken from 32 witnesses, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has come to the following conclusion and has also filed a supplementary report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kodaikanal.mtUf;F Short Memory loss vDk; FiwghL cs;sJ vd;gJ mtuJ thf;F%yj;jpypUe;Jk; mtUf;F rpfpr;ir nra;j kUj;Jth;fs; kw;Wk; mth;fsJ cwtpdh; rhl;rpfs; %ykhfTk; njspthfpaJ. 23.07.2016-k; Njjp Nuh];Nkhpapd; kUkfs; Rrpyh jdpahf ,Uf;Fk; jdJ khkpahh; Nuh];Nkhpf;F kpuz;lh [{]py; Monocrotopas vDk; tp\j;ij fye;J nfhLj;jJk;> mij Fbj;j Nuh];NkhpAk; jd;Kfj;ij Rspj;Jf; nfhz;L Fbg;gij epWj;jpAs;shh;.me;j Neuj;jpy; Njtpapd; jftypd; Nghpy; mq;F te;j Nuh];Nkhpapd; kfs; yl;Rkp Nkw;gb [{i] Ritj;J ghh;j;J Nuh];Nkhpf;F nfhLf;fg;gl;l kpuz;lh [{]py; tp\k; fye;jpUg;gjhf re;Njfg;gl;Lk> RrPyh gf;fj;jpy;vLj;J tUk;NghJ vjphp Rrpyh> thjp yl;RkpAld; rj;jk; Nghl;Lk; mthplkpUe;J me;j lk;sh;fis gwpf;f Kad;Wk; mtiu Rtw;wpy; js;sptpl;Ls;shh;.mg;NghJ ,uz;L lk;sh;fspYk; ,Ue;j [{]; mtuJ Milapy; rpe;jpaJ Nghf kPjk; ,Ue;Js;sJ. mijAk; rkhspj;J jdJ ifapy; cs;s lk;sh;fis Njtpaplk; nfhLj;J kiwj;J itf;f nrhy;ypAk; vjphp Rrpyh me;j ,lj;ijtpl;L nrd;w gpwF me;j lk;sh;fis Njtpaplk; ,Ue;J jpUk;g ngw;W mjpy; Nuh];Nkhpf;F nfhLf;fg;gl;l tp\nebAld; tPrpa lk;siu Njhl;l Ntiy nra;j ghf;fpauh[;> fl;bl Ntiy nra;j Nltpl;rd; MfpNahh;fis Kfh;e;J ghh;f;f nrhd;dNghJ mth;fSk; mjpy; nfhba tp\ thil tPRtij czh;e;Js;shh;fs;.NkYk; me;j lk;sh;fs; RFSL-f;F mDg;gp ghh;j;jjpYk; mjpy; xU lk;shpy; Monocrotopos mlq;fpAs;sjhfTk; kw;nwhU lk;shpy; xd;Wk; fyf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk; Ma;twpf;ifapy; cs;sJ. NkYk; ,Uf;if kUj;Jth; nfhilf;fhdy; 14/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 jpU.ghyh[p mth;fSk; ehd; nfhLj;j Ntz;LNfhspd; Nghpy; fUj;Jiu toq;ifapy; Monocrotopos tp\k; fye;j kpuz;lh [{i] rpwpjsT cl;nfhz;lhy;> rpwpjsT tpOq;fhky; Ritj;J Jg;gptpl;lhy;> tha; kw;Wk; ehf;fpy; vhpr;ry; Vw;gLtJld; cs;tha; Njhy; topahf ,uj;jj;jpy; gut tha;g;G cz;L vd;Wk;> mg;NghJ Monocropotos tp\j;jpid KOtJk; cl;nfhs;Sk; NghJ Vw;gLk; cghijfs; epfoyhk; vd;Wk;> ,e;j tp\j;jpid Koikahf cl;nfhz;lhy; the;jp> tapw;Wtyp> jir kw;Wk; euk;G jsh;r;rp cz;lhfyhk; vd;Wk;> gpd;dh; tp\j;jpy; msT $Lk;NghJ mjpf vhpr;ry; Rug;G> mjpf jz;zPh; Rug;G jhdhf rpWePh;> kyk; fopjy; Nghd;w cghijfs; cz;lhfp ,Wjpahf %r;R jpzwy; thapyhf kuzk; epfoyhk; vd;W $wpAs;shh;.vdNt ,t;tof;fpy; rhl;rpfs; 1 Kjy; 32 tiu cs;sth;fspd; thf;F%yq;fspypUe;Jk;> 1 Kjy; 23 tiuAs;s rhd;whtzq;fis ghprPyid nra;jjpypUe;Jk;> vjphp Rrpyh> jdJ khkpahh; Nuh];Nkhpf;F Qhgfkwjp cz;L vd;w Fiwghl;il ed;F czh;e;Jk;> mij jdf;F rhjfkhf gad;gLj;jpAk; jdJ fztUf;F> jdJ khkdhhpd; capy;gb nfhilf;fhdy; ee;jtdk; v];Nll; gq;fsh Nuh];Nkhpapd; fhyj;jpw;Fg; gpwF jd; fztUf;F fpilf;f Ntz;baij Kd;$l;bNa fpilf;f Ntz;Lk; vd;w nfl;l cs;Nehf;fj;JlDk;> 23.07.2016-md;W Rkhh; 12.00 kzpf;F Nuh];Nkhpapd; tPl;bd; rikayiwapy;> 15/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017 kpuz;lh [{]py; Monocropotos vDk; tp\j;ij fye;J nfhLj;J> cl;nfhs;s nra;J> nfhiy nra;Ak; cs;Nehf;fj;Jld;> nfhiy Kaw;rp nra;Js;sjd; %yk; ,.j.r.GphpT 307-d; gb jz;bf;fyhFk; Fw;wj;ij vjphp Rrpyh Ghpe;Js;shh; vd;gij vdJ Nky;tprhuizapy; cWjp nra;fpNwd;.”The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the victim herself did not make any allegations against the petitioner and in this case a calculated attempt is being made to harass the petitioner and make her undergo a criminal trial.The learned counsel submitted that Rosemarie is presently being taken care only by the petitioner and the entire criminal prosecution is an abuse of process of law, which requires the interference of this Court.K.Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there are sufficient materials for the Court below to frame charges in this case and the statements that have been given by the witnesses cannot be analysed before this Court and it requires appreciation of evidence, which can be done only during trial.The learned counsel submitted that a time limit can be fixed for the completion of the proceedings.16/22http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.(MD).No.7354 of 2017Sivanandaraaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent submitted that the petitioner had made a calculated attempt to get rid of her mother-in-law, in order to grab the property.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,788,161
as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) Judge SS SATEESH KUMAR SEN 2019.04.08 19:10:23 -07'00'This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 02.07.2015 passed in S.T. No.58/2014 passed by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Jaura, District Morena (M.P.) whereby the appellant has been convicted as under :State of Haryana reported in 2006(1) SCC (Cri) 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 598/2015 (Banti Sharma @ Shri Kumar Vs.State of M.P. ) 757 has been pressed into service which lays down that in matters where fixed period of sentence is awarded, appellant can be released on bail after undergoing substantial period of sentence.In view of the above facts, in the considered opinion of this court, the appellant has suffered substantial period of sentence and further looking to the fact that there is no likelihood of early disposal of the appeal in near future, this court is inclined to grant bail to the appellant, by way of suspension of sentence.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits, I.A. No.1688/2019 is allowed and it is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant- Banti Sharma @ Shri Kumar will remain under suspension subject to the verification that the amount of fine has been deposited, on the appellant's furnishing bail bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) with two solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000/- in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned CJM, for appearance of the appellant Banti Sharma @ Shri Kumar before the concerned CJM on 24.06.2019 and on such further dates as may be fixed by him which shall be of frequency of not less than once a year.In case, the appellant Banti Sharma @ Shri Kumar is found 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 598/2015 (Banti Sharma @ Shri Kumar Vs.State of M.P. ) absent on any date fixed by the concerned C.J.M. then the said C.J.M. shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest for securing his presence without first referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.Appellant shall register his name, current and correct residential address and contact number if any, with the Collector of the district within which the appellant reside.The Collector of the District concerned shall maintain a register titled as "Community Service Volunteer" for recording the aforesaid information and utilize the services of the said volunteer as and when natural/man- made calamity strikes or any crisis affecting public at large arises, for rendering voluntary service to dispel the calamity/crises.The Registry shall communicate the copy of this order to Collector, District Morena.
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,788,756
The 2 petitioner did not report to work since 6th August 2017 and he has been treated as absent.It has been further submitted that the petitioner had been engaged as temporary and contractual volunteer.The guidelines which relates to the eligible mode of induction, training, duties and termination of volunteer service for Civic Police Volunteers mentions that in the event the volunteer is involved in any criminal case, the volunteer will be ineligible for continuing in the service.authorities requesting for allotment of work in his favour.The said representation has not been answered by the respondent authorities.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties, if applied for, as early as possible.(Amrita Sinha, J.)
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
7,979,667
Cas.8/1995 Page 1 of 82Vide ex-parte judgment dated 16th July, 1997, this Court granted the probate to the petitioner in respect of the will dated 02nd August, 1988 executed by late Shanti Devi.On 26th July, 1997, Surinder Aggarwal, nephew of the husband of the testator filed I.A.10969/1997 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 16th July, 1997 on various grounds inter-alia that H.L. Bedi who was appointed as a trustee by the testator in the trust deed dated 30th June, 1988 expired during the life time of the late Shanti Devi and therefore, the testator revised her will dated 02nd August, 1988 by executing a subsequent will dated 21st October, 1994 in which she appointed six trustees who had the option to co-opt the petitioner as a trustee as he was the tax consultant of the testator; the testator bequeathed Rs.50,000/- to her domestic servant, Bidhi Chand and the balance estate to the trust.Copy of the will dated 21st October, 1994 was Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 2 of 82On 25th May, 1998, Jitender Aggarwal, other nephew of the husband of the testator, filed I.A.10434/1998 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 16th July, 1997 on the ground that he was not served with the summons.The applicant pleaded that the testator was very close to her; had great affection towards the applicant and had met her several times in her life time.On 26th March, 2001, I.A.10434/1998 and I.A.10969/1997 were allowed on the no objection of the petitioner.However, no reply was filed either by Surinder Aggarwal or by Jitender Aggarwal.On 25th April, 2003, Sneh Lata, niece of the husband of the testator filed I.A.4743/2003 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 16th July, 1997 on various grounds inter-alia that Shanti Devi had no issue; the applicant used to look after her; Shanti Devi was alone and most of the time, she used to live with the applicant; Shanti Devi had full confidence and faith in the applicant and she used to treat the applicant just like her own daughter and she had even opened a joint savings bank account (SB-5923) with the applicant with the Union Bank of India at Kaithal, Haryana; Shanti Devi lived under the love and care of the applicant in the last days of her life and Shanti Devi out of Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 3 of 82 love and affection voluntarily, without any pressure and in her full consciousness, executed a will dated 07th December, 1994 in favour of the applicant, making the applicant sole and absolute owner of all her bank accounts, shares and FDRs; the will dated 07th December, 1994 was the last and final will of Shanti Devi; and the applicant was the only person legally entitled to inherit the properties mentioned in the said will.The applicant further pleaded that the petitioner was, in no way, related to late Shanti Devi; the husband of late Shanti Devi was an Advocate by profession and he expired on 17th January, 1986; C.S. Aggarwal was a junior Advocate with late Sh.Asa Ram Aggarwal (husband of late Shanti Devi), who used to file Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns of Shanti Devi after her husbands death; Shanti Devi never executed the alleged will dated 02nd August, 1988; the signatures of Shanti Devi, if any, on the alleged will dated 02nd August, 1988 had been fraudulently obtained by C.S. Aggarwal under the garb of filing Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns; Shanti Devi only knew Hindi and Urdu and did not know English language but could sign in English; and it is very unlikely that a person who did not know English would execute a will written in English.Cas.8/1995 Page 3 of 82Vide order dated 22nd September, 2000, this Court directed Surinder Aggarwal, the objector, to file the original will referred in his application.The objector, Sneh Lata cross-examined the petitioners witnesses, namely, PW-1, C.S. Aggarwal and PW-2, Anil Sharma.PW-1, C.S. Aggarwal deposed that late Shanti Devi was resident of flat no.3, 4th Floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi and she died on 04th January, 1995 at Delhi.The death certificate was exhibited as Ex.Cas.8/1995 Page 5 of 82PW-2, Anil Sharma deposed that he witnessed the will dated 02nd August, 1988 executed by late Shanti Devi.He deposed that late Shanti Devi signed the will in his presence and in the presence of the other witness A. Jhunjhunwala, a Chartered Accountant.He identified the signatures of the testator on the will at point Mark A, his signatures at point Mark B and the signatures of A. Jhunjhunwala at point Mark C on Ex.PW-2 deposed that the contents of the will were read over to the testator and she signed the will and the Schedules after understanding the contents of the will in his presence and in the presence of A. Jhunjhunwala.He further deposed that the will was registered in 1988 and the testator, Shanti Devi as well as both the witnesses were present at the time of the registration of the will.He denied the suggestion that the will dated 02nd August, 1988 was got signed and registered through mis- representation that the document was relating to taxation.15. OW-1, Dr. Gagan Singla deposed that he was studying MBBS from PGI, Rohtak from 1993 to 2000 and was residing in the college hostel.He deposed that the late Shanti Devi was his maternal grandmother; again said she was the aunt of his mother (wife of the brother of maternal grandfather).He deposed that the will dated 07th December, 1994 (Ex.OW1/1) was in his handwriting.He further deposed that Hansraj, the other attesting witness, was a resident of Patiala and has since died.He deposed that he came to Delhi from his hostel at Rohtak when Hansraj was already present there.Hansraj was his uncle i.e. brother of his father.He further deposed that he came to Delhi on a routine visit and was not aware why Hansraj had come to Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 6 of 82 Delhi.He further deposed that the will was attested by the Notary Public and he as well as Shanti Devi and Hansraj signed the register of the Notary Public.She further deposed that the petitioner was a Junior Advocate with late Asa Ram Aggarwal (husband of late Shanti Devi) and he used to file Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns of late Shanti Devi after her husbands death.She further deposed that C.S. Aggarwal fraudulently obtained the signatures of late Shanti Devi on the will dated 02nd August, 1988 under the garb of filing of Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns.She further deposed that Late Shanti Devi knew Hindi and Urdu and didnt knew English.She further deposed that she was in possession of the residential Test.She deposed that Shanti Devi was suffering from cancer and died because of cancer.However, she could not tell when the cancer was detected.She was not even aware of the complete name of the doctor who treated late Shanti Devi.She further deposed that late Shanti Devi could walk within her house in the last year of her life.She was not aware of the year of death of late Asa Ram Aggarwal.She could not tell when the joint bank account with late Shanti Devi was opened.During the course of the hearing dated 05th December, 2018, this Court examined the objector, Sneh Lata and her son, Dr. Gagan Singla in exercise of power under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act. The objector, Sneh Lata admitted that she was present when the will dated 07th December, 1994 was signed by late Shanti Devi who handed over the will to her immediately after the execution.The signatures of late Shanti Devi on various documents were shown to the objector.Dr. Gagan Singla in his statement dated 05 th December, 2018, under Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 8 of 82 Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, could not tell the date, month and year of death of late Shanti Devi.He could not tell the date, month and year when he met her last time.He could not even tell when Shanti Devi last visited his house.He met the testator once in 1994 but did not remember the date of meeting her.He deposed that late Shanti Devi asked her to prepare a will whereupon he prepared the will which was signed by the testator in his presence and in the presence of his uncle, the other attesting witness.Cas.8/1995 Page 8 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 16 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 17 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 18 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 19 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 9 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 10 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 14 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 15 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 16 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 17 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 18 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 19 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 20 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 21 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 22 of 8220. Will dated 21st October, 1994 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 23 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 24 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 25 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 26 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 27 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 28 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 23 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 24 of 82Copy of the Trust Deed dated 30th June, 1988 is Second Schedule to the will.It was further submitted that the wills dated 21st October, 1994 and 07th December, 1994 set up by the objector were forged and fabricated documents; it is in the handwriting of her son, Dr. Gagan Singla, who is one of the attesting witnesses and the other attesting witness who is the brother of the husband of the objector; the objector, Sneh Lata took prominent part in the execution of the will dated 07th December, 1994 which confers substantial benefits on them; the propounder has failed to remove the suspicions; and the assets of the testator have to be used for charitable purposes.Late Shanti Devi bequeathed Rs.20,000/- to her domestic servant, Bidhi Chand and the balance estate to the Charitable Trust.The will was drafted by Mr.Anil Kher, Senior Advocate which is mentioned in the will.Sneh Lata was present there at that time.The will dated 07th December, 1994 set up by the objector, Sneh Lata suffers from following serious suspicious circumstances:-70.10 No independent person, neighbor or a person known to the testator, was present at the time of execution of the will although the testator was staying in a prime location near Reserve Bank.Late Shanti Devi had a domestic servant, Bidhi Chand.Even he was not present at the time of the will.If Sneh Lata was close to Asa Ram and Shanti Devi, she would have naturally known all these facts by heart.The suspicions establish a high degree of probability that both the wills dated 21 st October, 1994 and 07th December, 1994 are fabricated documents.The onus to remove the above suspicions was on the objector.However, the objector Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 62 of 82 miserably failed to remove the suspicions.The will dated 21st October, 1994 set up by Surinder Aggarwal and the will dated 07th December, 1994 set up by Sneh Lata are disproved.This petition is allowed and probate/letters of administration in respect of the will dated 02nd August, 1998 (Ex.P/2) of late Shanti Devi is Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 78 of 82 granted to the petitioner upon filing of administration and surety bonds.The petitioner is seeking letters of administration in respect of the will dated 02nd August, 1988 of late Shanti Devi Aggarwal (hereinafter referred to as Shanti Devi).The petitioner instituted this petition on 22nd February, 1995 on the averments that Shanti Devi died at New Delhi on 04 th January, 1995; Shanti Devi was the permanent resident of Delhi at the time of her death and she was staying at flat No.3, 4th floor, Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001 at the time of her death; Shanti Devi executed her last will and testament dated 02nd August, 1988 duly registered with the Sub- Registrar as document No.5217 in Book No.3, Volume No.473 at pages 146 to 160 on 08th November, 1988; the husband of late Shanti Devi pre- deceased her and there were no class-I legal heir; Shanti Devi was the owner of the properties mentioned in the will; Shanti Devi bequeathed Rs.20,000/- to her domestic servant, Bidhi Chand and the balance estate to a charitable trust, Asa Ram Shanti Devi Memorial Charitable Trust of which H.L. Bedi and C.S. Aggarwal (the petitioner) shall be the first trustees; the petitioner is Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 1 of 82 the executor of the will and is entitled to grant of the probate.The petitioner has placed on record the original death certificate of Shanti Devi; original will dated 02nd August, 1988 and the copy of the complaint dated 16th February, 1995 made to SHO, P.S. Parliament Street against certain relatives of late Shanti Devi.Last and final opportunity was granted to Surinder Aggarwal on 31st October, 2002 to produce the original will subject to cost of Rs.3,000/-.Cas.8/1995 Page 4 of 82On 03rd March, 2005, Sneh Lata produced the original will dated 07th December, 1994 which was taken on record.On 23rd May, 2005, this Court framed the following two issues:The original will was marked as Ex.First Schedule to the will is the statement of the total wealth and assets of the testator.The Second Schedule to the will is the Trust created by the testator for charitable purposes.He deposed that the will was written on 07th December, 1994 itself but he did not remember the exact time when the will was written.Cas.8/1995 Page 6 of 82OW-2, Sneh Lata deposed that she was the real niece of the husband of late Shanti Devi who had no issue and she used to look after her and most of the time, Shanti Devi used to live with her and used to treat her like a daughter.Shanti Devi executed the will dated 07th December, 1994 in her favour.The will dated 07th December, 1994 was attested by her son, Dr. Gagan Singla and Hansraj as the attesting witnesses.The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the order dated 27 th July, 2000 before Punjab and Haryana High Court in which the Succession Certificate was stayed.Cas.8/1995 Page 7 of 82 house of the testator and she handed over the vacant possession to Life Insurance Corporation of India, which was the landlord.She further deposed that she donated the articles lying in the above house to Anath Ashram at Daryaganj, New Delhi.Cas.8/1995 Page 7 of 82OW-2, in her cross-examination, deposed that late Asa Ram Aggarwal (husband of late Shanti Devi) was a Judge of the Supreme Court and he resigned from there and started his practice of law.She was not aware of the names and addresses of any of the close friends of late Asa Ram Aggarwal and late Shanti Devi.She also could not give the names of the neighbors of late Shanti Devi.Will dated 02nd August, 1988 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 9 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 10 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 11 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 12 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 13 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 14 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 15 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 20 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 21 of 82 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 22 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 11 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 12 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 13 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 25 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 26 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 27 of 82Cas.8/1995 Page 28 of 82Will dated 07th December, 1994 Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 29 of 82 Submissions of the petitionerCas.8/1995 Page 29 of 82As per the said will, Shanti Devi bequeathed Rs.20,000/- to her domestic servant, Bidhi Chand and the balance estate to a charitable trust, Asa Ram Shanti Devi Memorial Charitable Trust of which H.L. Bedi and C.S. Aggarwal (the petitioner) shall be the first trustees.The will dated 02nd August, 1988 has two Schedules.The First Schedule to the will is statement of the wealth and total assets of the testator whereas the Second Schedule is the Trust created by the testator for charitable purposes.The petitioner appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and proved the death certificate as Ex.Anil Sharma, appeared in the witness box as PW- 2 and deposed that late Shanti Devi executed the will, Ex.P/2 in his presence and in the presence of A. Jhunjhunwala, Chartered Accountant.PW-2 further deposed that the contents of the will were read over to the testator and she signed the will and the Schedules after understanding the contents in his presence and in the presence of the other witness.PW-2 identified the signatures of the testator, his signatures as well as signatures of other witness at points A, B and C on the will, Ex.He further deposed that the will was registered and the testator as well as both the witnesses were present at the time of registration.The objector, Sneh Lata challenged the will dated 02nd August, 1988 on the sole ground that the petitioner was a junior Advocate with late Asa Ram Aggarwal (husband of late Shanti Devi) and he used to file Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns of Shanti Devi and he fraudulently obtained the Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 57 of 82 signatures of C.S. Aggarwal in the garb of filing Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns.However, Sneh Lata has relied upon the will dated 21st October, 1994 set up by Surinder Aggarwal.It is on record that PW-2, Anil Sharma was filing Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns of the testator and he deposed that the will was read over to the testator and she signed the will after understanding its contents.The will, Ex.P/2 and the Schedules are signed by the testator at points Mark A. The testator and the witnesses appeared before the Sub-Registrar on 08th November, 1988 for registration the will.The will was witnessed by Mr.Anil Sharma who was well known to the testator as he was filing the Income Tax and Wealth Tax returns of the testator and other witness is a Chartered Accountant.Neither the executor nor the witnesses to this will are the beneficiaries of the will.The objector claims to be at the residence of late Shanti Devi on 07th December, 1994; Hansraj, brother of the husband of Sneh Lata, came there from Patiala; the objectors son, Gagan Singla came there from Rohtak; and Late Shanti Devi asked Gagan Singla to prepare the will whereupon he prepared a will which was signed by her in his presence and in the presence of Hansraj and they both signed the will.70.1 Sneh Lata admitted in her cross-examination that Late Shanti Devi was suffering from cancer at the time of execution of will dated 07th December, 1994 but no evidence has been placed on record by the objector to show her physical and mental condition at that time.70.3 The will dated 02nd December, 1994 is an unregistered document not scribed by any regular deed writer.70.4 Sneh Lata took prominent part in the execution of will which confers the entire estate of the testator on her.70.5 The will is in the hand writing of the objectors son, Gagan Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 59 of 82 Singla.Cas.8/1995 Page 59 of 8270.6 There is no evidence to the effect that the will was read over and explained to the testator or the testator read the will.70.7 The depositions made in the will dated 07th December, 1994 appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances.The will dated 02nd August, 1988 (Ex.P/2) records that the testator had a desire that her estate be applied for charitable purposes for which purpose she had set up a trust named Asa Ram Shanti Devi Memorial Charitable Trust.The testator attached the statement of total wealth/assets to the will as First Schedule which contains the list of the entire estate and the trust deed as Second Schedule to the will.The will Ex.P/2 was drafted by her counsel.No reference has been made either to the will dated 02nd August, 1988 or the Charitable Trust created by the testator and no reasons have been mentioned in the will for changing the earlier will.The signatures of late Shanti Devi on the will dated 02nd August, 1988 (Ex.P/2) are trembling whereas the signatures on the will dated 21st October, 1994 as well as the will dated 07th December, 1994 are not trembling.Late Shanti Devi was aged about 76 years at the time of execution of will dated 02 nd August, 1988 whereas she was aged more than 80 years at the time of execution of second and third wills.70.11 It is unbelievable that the testator who had earlier executed the registered will dated 02nd August, 1988 and had created a charitable trust, did not summon any neighbor or acquaintance to witness the will and signed the will propounded by the beneficiary.If the testator was desirous of executing of a will, she would presumably summon close friends/acquaintance to witness the execution of the will.70.12 Surinder Aggarwal admitted the will dated 02nd August, 1988 (Ex.P/2) but claimed that it was superseded by subsequent will dated 21 st October, 1994 in which the testator appointed six trustees of the charitable trust.Sneh Lata relied upon the will dated 21 st October, 1994 set up by Surinder Aggarwal.If the testator had decided to give his entire estate for a charitable purpose in the will dated 02nd August, 1988 as well Test.Cas.8/1995 Page 61 of 82 as 21st October, 1994, then why did she suddenly change her mind to bequeath the entire estate to Sneh Lata.All these claims appear to be false.Sneh Lata appeared in the witness box as OW-2 and admitted in cross-examination that she was not even aware of the names and addresses of any close friends of Asa Ram and Shanti Devi.She was also not aware of the names of their neighbors.She was not even aware that which Doctor treated Shanti Devi for cancer and when was cancer detected.Both the wills appear to be wills of the objectors.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,797,105
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 15:38:21 ::: 8::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 15:38:21 :::We, therefore, pass an order as under :(1) This petition for criminal contempt is admitted on the charge framed against the contemnor.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 15:38:21 :::cri.cp07.18.odt (3) The office is directed to list this matter before this Court as and when the proceedings in Crime No.538 of 2018 are concluded.::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/05/2019 15:38:21 :::
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,797,306
CRL.A. 915/2005 1 of 7The appellant as per the impugned judgment is indicated to have been convicted for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 342/368/373/376 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3,4,5 & 6 of the ITPA and vide the impugned order on sentence dated 11.05.2005 was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 342/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months qua the offence punishable under Section 368/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and further sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 373/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five months with the appellant having also been sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 376/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five months with the appellant having also been sentenced qua the offence punishable under Section 3 of the I.T.P. Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month.The appellant is also vide the impugned order on sentence indicated to have been sentenced qua CRL.A. 915/2005 2 of 7 the offence punishable under Section 4 of the I.T.P. Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years qua the offence punishable under Section 5 of the I.T.P. Act with the appellant having also been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years, to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of the payment of the fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one month with all the sentences having been directed to run concurrently with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C and the period of detention already undergone by the appellant be directed to be set off.The appellant as per the nominal roll is indicated to have earned one year, four months and three days of remission.As per the impugned judgment there were three other co-accused in the instant case, i.e., Geeta, Sadhu Ram & Mishri Lal who have since been declared proclaimed offenders as per the charge of allegations framed against the appellant which inter alia indicates to the effect that the appellant one month prior to 25.08.2003 in furtherance of her common intention with the co-accused, i.e., the proclaimed offenders Geeta, Sadhu Ram & Mishri Lal purchased or otherwise obtained the possession of prosecutrix Ms. X under the age of 18 years with the intention that she at any stage be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful immoral purpose or knowing it to be likely that she will at any stage be employed or used for any such purpose and that in furtherance of the common intention with other co-accused, i.e., the proclaimed offenders had wrongly confined the prosecutrix, Ms.the age of the prosecutrix had necessarily to be below the age of 18 years on the date of the alleged commission of the offence which is apparently not borne out through the testimony of the prosecutrix herself nor from the ossification test conducted as also reflected through the impugned judgment through the testimony of PW-13 Dr. Anil Kumar who has examined the X-Ray of the prosecutrix had opined her age to be between 18-20 years as also brought forth through the report, i.e., Ex.PW13/A and the statement of the prosecutrix herself with her statement recorded on 28.05.2004 when she had stated that she was 30 years of age and coupled with the factum that the testimony of the prosecutrix indicates that the incident had taken place sometime 10 years before the recording of her testimony when apparently she would be 20 years of age atleast and thus the testimony of the prosecutrix itself is an indicator that at the time of the commission of the offences, the prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years.Even the testimony of PW-7, Dr. Anju Goyal, Senior Surgeon, Department of Obstetrics and Gynae, Lok Nayak Hospital indicates that the prosecutrix had stated that she had been brought CRL.A. 915/2005 6 of 7 from Karnataka on 20.07.2003 for marriage and which also indicates that the prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years on the date of the alleged commission of the offence in view of the ossification test on the record through Ex.PW13/A.In view thereof, the conviction of the appellant qua the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 373/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is thus set aside.The impugned judgment dated 10.05.2005 and the impugned order on sentence dated 11.05.2005 are modified to this extent.The impugned judgment and the impugned order on sentence in relation to the convictions of the appellant and sentences imposed for the commission of the offences punishable under Section 342/368/376/109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3,4,5 & 6 of the I.T.P Act, 1956 in relation to FIR No. 285/03 PS Kamla Market in Sessions case no. 1/04 are thus upheld.The present appeal is disposed of accordingly.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,812,173
Heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A.Learned counsel for the revisionists has submitted that the revisionists are innocent persons, who have no criminal history but they all have been falsely implicated in this case, which is a counter blast of Case Crime No. 65 of 2013 U/s 302 I.P.C. P.S. Daukee, District Agra, lodged by the revisionists against O.P. No. 2 and others for murder of their father.It is further contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, which has been lodged with the aid of section 156(3) Cr.p.C. It has further been submitted that from the perusal of the entire evidence on record it appears that no offence is made out against the revisionists under Sections 147, 336, 427, 506, 323, 504, 148 I.P.C., therefore, the impugned order dated 25.03.2016, which has been passed without appreciating the evidence on record, be set aside.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the aforesaid submissions and has submitted that in wake of the prima facie evidence available against the revisionists, the court below has rightly rejected the discharge application, moved by the revisionists, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case.Considered the submissions.Only prima facie evidence as available on record is to be considered by the court concerned at the initial stage of framing charges.In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005 SCC (Cri) 415, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that at the time of framing charge, what the Trial Court is required to see and consider, are only the Police Papers referred to under Section 173, Cr.P.C. and documents sent with it.The accused cannot be permitted to produce documents to put forth his defence case for purpose of seeking discharge.In Soma Chakravarty v. State (through CBI); 2007 (2) SCC (Cri) 514, it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that at the time of framing of charges the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.The revision is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
79,821,182
The complaint is 3 annexed as Annexure-P/2 from page 17 to 20 of the petition.The Doctor has denied that he had ever committed any kind of malpractice and in paragraph-4 of the complaint, gives the sequence of events on various dates on which he was approached.He further states that the amount of expenditure that was to be incurred in the procedure was also disclosed to the father of the child.(01.02.2018) The present petition has been preferred under section 482 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners herein for quashing proceedings in complaint case No.2961/2006, whereby the order dated 28.07.2005 passed by the Court of learned JMFC, Chhindwara, cognizance of an offence under section 500 of IPC for defamation, was taken against the petitioners herein.The petitioners no.1 to 3 are associated with the Dainik Bhaskar News Paper in their capacity as Chief Editor, Editor and local Editor respectively.The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows.A news article was printed in the Chhindwara Edition, of the Dainik Bhaskar, which is marked and annexed herein as Annexure-P/3 of the petition.It bore a news article with the headline "ccZjrkiwoZd fudkyk ckfydk ds nkrks dk dsi ".In the said article an emotional reportage of an incident that had taken place with a young girl aged 8 years was published whereby, a Doctor (Dentist) had initially disclosed Rs.8000/- as the expenditure for capping four of her teeth.The said amount was paid to the Doctor in two installments by the father of the child.However, subsequently, the Doctor is stated to have inflated the expenditure for the procedure to Rs.40,000/-.Upon the amount not being paid by the father of the girl, the Doctor is stated to have removed the caps forcibly in the utmost barbaric manner resulting in pain and bleeding to the child.It is pertinent to mention herein that there is no name of the Doctor who had treated the child and neither is the name of the hospital mentioned in the said news article, where the procedure is said to have taken place.The respondent filed a complaint case under Section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioners seeking their prosecution under 500 IPC on account of his fair name being besmirched on account of the reportage.In the complaint case, in all there are five accused persons which includes the father of the child.
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,953,107
(31.08.2017) The applicant is assailing the order dated 15.03.2016, whereby the Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Criminal Revision No.202/2011 has relegated the matter to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kolaras, District Shivpuri on the ground that perusal of the charge-sheet reveals commission of the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') is prima facie made out against the applicant.Brief facts of the case are that at the relevant time, the applicant was posted as Sub-Engineer in the Rural Engineering Service Department, Shivpuri.Panchayat and Rural Development Department of the M.P. Government sanctioned Rs.8,00,000/- for construction of new-( 2 )-R.No.401/2016 pond in village Madbasa, Block Badarwas, District Shivpuri.This work was to be done under the scheme of grain in lieu of work (Kam Ke Badle Anaj Yogna).The first instalment of Rs.2,00,000/- was released for the construction of pond and the same was carried out under the supervision of the accused.On 25.05.2006 Sub-Divisional Officer (RES), Sub-Division No.2, Shivpuri inspected the work and found that construction of the pond was done by using the tractors in place of the labours.It was revealed that the accused had deployed labours only for 2 to 3 days.Afterwards, the work was started with the tractors.The muster roll book which was given was kept blank and the applicant misused the government money by creating the fake muster roll book.Being aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the prosecution/State of M.P. preferred the revision petition before the Sessions Court which was partly allowed by the impugned order which is subject matter of the present revision application.-( 7 )--( 8 )-R.No.401/2016 available on record.
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,964,381
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.18 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police, pursuant to theamicable settlement effected between the parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 16.02.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the 2nd and 3rd respondents have agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.18 of 2016pending on the file of the respondent police.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Courtconsidered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthis regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab andanother [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and othersvs.State of Punjab and another [(2014) 6 SCC 466] and State of MadhyaPradesh vs. Manish and others [(2015) 8 SCC 307] and observed as under:If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.The jurisdiction of this Courtmay not be allowed to be exploited by the accused, who can well afford towait for a logical conclusion.The antecedents of the accused have also to betaken into consideration before accepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated16.02.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.18 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police in respect of thepetitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memos dated 16.02.2016 shall form part of this order.The Sub Inspector of Police, Pandalgudi Police Station, Aruppukottai Taluk Virudhunagar DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. .
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,974,337
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to direct the respondent to file charge sheet in Crime No.271 of 2012 within a stipulated time.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the respondent.3.On 08.08.2012, a motor accident took place, in which, three vehicles were involved.Raju, the driver of vehicle No.TN19A 3906 sustained serious injuries and he was admitted to the hospital.In connection with the said accident, a case in Crime No.271 of 2012 was registered on 09.08.2012 under Section 279 and 337 IPC.Raju, who was taking treatment in the hospital died subsequently on the same day.Pursuant to which, the Police filed an alteration report dated 10.08.2012 adding Section 304-A IPC.Since there was no progress in the investigation, Jayanthi, the widow of Raju filed the present petition for a direction to the respondent Police to complete the investigation within a stipulated time.4.On 21.06.2018, this Court passed the following order :After the death of the injured, the Police filed an alteration report, altering the offence to one u/s 304-A IPC.If closed, the Magistrate is directed to send a certified copy of the closure order.Call on 5.7.2018.5.Pursuant to the directions of this Court, learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Athur has sent a report dated 03.07.2018, wherein, she has stated as follows :"I have joined as Judicial Magistrate at the office of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Attur on 02.05.2016 as per the order of the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.I further humbly submit that, after receiving the official memorandum cited in the reference above, I have perused the entire case records in respect of Crime No.271 of 2012 Thalaivasal Police.The original FIR had been registered u/s 279, 337 IPC and the same was subsequently altered as U/s 279, 304[A] IPC.But the staff concerned has registered the section in the FIR Index Book only U/s 279, 337 IPC.I most humbly submit that, since the offence U/s 279, 337 IPC are punishable below six months then the officer had closed the FIR on 26.09.2013 U/s 468 Cr.P.C. since the Police have not filed any report within the stipulated time U/s 468 Cr.P.C.6.Accepting the report, this Court, in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C., sets aside the order dated 26.09.2013 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Court No.II, Attur closing the FIR in Crime No.271 of 2012 under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and a further direction is given to the respondent Police to complete the investigation in Crime No.271 of 2012 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and either file a Closure Report or a Charge Sheet as the case may be under due intimation to the de facto complainant.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is closed.2.The Inspector of Police,Thalaivasal Police Station,Salem.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.P.N.PRAKASH, J.gyaCRL.OP.No.14753 of 201809.07.2018
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,976,159
In a nutshell, it has been agreed by and between the parties to the union that respondent No.2/complainant (wife) shall be paid a sum of Rs.5,38,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand only) towards all her claims qua stridhan, maintenance (past, present and future) and permanent alimony including the claims qua her son Master Luv Upadhyay.Counsel for the parties further state that pursuant to the afore-stated settlement between the parties to the union, a sum of Rs.3,88,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Eighty Eight Thousand only) has already been received by respondent no.2/complainant (wife).The balance sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only) has been brought to the Court in cash and has been handed over to the respondent No.2/complainant (wife).The latter acknowledges receipt thereof.W.P. (CRL) 1684/2016 Page 5 of 6Through: Mr. Tushar Sannu, Advocate for Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel (Criminal) and SI Manju, PS- Begum Pur for R-1 Mr. Durga Manyu Gupta, Advocate with Mr. Aijazuddin Khan and Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocates for R-2 along with R-2 in person CORAM:HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL) CRL.M.A.8830/2016 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.The application is disposed of accordingly.W.P. (CRL) 1684/2016 Page 1 of 6W.P.(CRL) 1684/2016The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of FIR No.931/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Begum Pur, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom.On a complaint instituted by respondent No.2/complainant (wife), the subject FIR was registered against the petitioner No.1 and his parents, who are arrayed as petitioner Nos.2 and 3in the present petition.The settlement recorded by way of a joint statement dated 16.05.2015 is annexed to this petition as Annexure B. The said joint statement dated 16.05.2016 recorded before the Principal Judge (North-West), Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi is as follows:-W.P. (CRL) 1684/2016 Page 2 of 6"Joint Statement of Smt. Arti Sharma @ Arti Tiwari W/o Shri Rahul Sharma D/o Sh.I. P. Tiwari, aged about 30 years, R/o H. No.85, 2nd Floor, Pkt-I, Sector-20, Rohini, Delhi-86, DH Shri Rahul Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o J-1297, Mangol Puri, Delhi-83, JD On S.A.:We have resolved our matrimonial disputes and differences including stridhan, maintenance-past, present and future, permanent alimony amicably today in the court.I shall pay the balance amount of Rs.1.50 lacs to my wife at the time of quashing of FIR u/s 498A/406/34 IPC before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which shall be filed within two months from the second motion.However, I shall have the visitation rights to meet the child once in two W.P. (CRL) 1684/2016 Page 3 of 6 months on first Saturday of the alternate month in the Children Room, Family Courts, Rohini, Delhi from 10.00 AM to 12.00 PM.In the present case, it is observed that pursuant to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, a decree of divorce by mutual consent dated 12.04.2016 has already been obtained by the parties from the court of Judge, Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi.Respondent No.2/complainant (wife), who is present in Court and has been duly identified by the IO in the subject FIR, namely, SI Manju, Police Station- Begum Pur, states that in pursuance to the settlement arrived at between the parties to the union, she is no longer keen to proceed with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Since the dispute between the parties, which arose out of a matrimonial discord between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant (wife) and resulted in the registration of the subject FIR, has been settled amicably by way of a joint statement dated 16.05.2015, without any undue influence, pressure or coercion, no useful purpose will be served by proceeding with the subject FIR and the proceedings arising therefrom.Resultantly, the FIR No.931/2014, under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC, registered at Police Station- Begum Pur, Delhi and the proceedings arising therefrom are hereby set aside and quashed qua all the three petitioners subject to their paying an aggregate sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in cash, to Master Luv Upadhyay within a period of two weeks from today.A copy of the receipt thereof shall be provided to the IO in the subject FIR.With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,984,804
C Since the applications arise from the same crime number, h they are being disposed of by a common order.After the investigation was over and the charge sheet was filed sh before the learned Court below, the applicants herein responded to a notice issued to them by the Police with e regard to the date on which the charge sheet is being ad filed and appeared before the learned court below and Pr filed their applications for bail which were rejected and the applicants were taken into custody.C.No.17501/2016 dated 20.10.2016 passed M in Rajendra Kori Vs.of In view of the above, I am inclined to allow the instant rt applications and direct that the applicants be enlarged ou on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-each (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with C one solvent surety in the like amount each to the h satisfaction of the Trial Court.ig Certified copy as per rules.H (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2017.11.29 11:07:00 +05'30'
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
58,987
According to the Petitioners, on 1st December 1998 in respect of the dishonor of a cheque No. 283824 for a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs, the Respondent No. 2 AFGIS instituted a complaint case against the Petitioner No. 3 PAAM Pharmaceuticals (Delhi) Ltd. [`Company'] and its Directors and senior management personnel under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(`NI Act') and 415/420 IPC.Even before a summoning order could be issued in this complaint, the AFGIS instituted another complaint on 24th February 1999 against the same parties in respect of the dishonour of two cheques bearing Nos. 283825 for Rs. 4.5 lakhs and No. 283826 for Rs. One crore under Section 138 NI Act and 415/420 IPC.A summoning order was passed on the second complaint on 23rd September 1999 by the learned MM.The AFGIS instituted a third complaint on 25th September 2000 in regard to the same set of transactions against the Company and its Directors for the offences and employees under Sections 405/420/467/468/471/477A/ 120B IPC.The third complaint, being CC No. 458 of 2001 did not advert to the fact of the pendency of the earlier two complaints.On 12th November 2003 a third summoning order was issued by the learned MM summoning the Petitioners for the offence under Sections 405/420/467/468/471/477A/ 120B IPC.The complaint filed by AFGIS on 25th September 2000, CC No. 458 of 2001, in which the summoning order dated 12th November 2003 was passed, states that AFGIS made an investment of Rs. One crore with the Company for the subscription of non-convertible debentures (NCDs) of Rs. 100/- each earning a rate of 18 per cent per annum for a period of thirty-six months.It is stated that the Company pledged 5 lakh shares of the Company with the AFGIS as security till the debentures certificates were handed over.It is stated that despite the assurances, the complainant was not handed over the debenture certificates.AFGIS then decided to sell the five lakh shares pledged with them.It transpired that the shares were issued from the promoters' quota and had a lock in period of three years and therefore could not be sold.The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. , the subsequent complaint on the same set of facts was bad in law.He also relies upon the judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala 2001 II AD (Cr.) S.C. 513 to the effect that if on the same transaction a second FIR could not be registered, then by the same analogy a third complaint also could not have been registered.It is further pointed out that in terms of Clause 8(a)(ii) of the agreement entered into between the parties, the AFGIS was to be issued as security shares 'out of promoters' quota in tradable shares'.Therefore, the very basis of the third complaint was non-existent.Para 4 refers to the fact that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 1 crore with the Company on 20th October 1995 for issuance of secured redeemable NCDs.It also refers to the fact that the cheques were issued by the Company towards interest on the said NCDs.The said complaint pertained to the dishonor of one cheque dated 30th September 1998 for the sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs.The second complaint filed on 24th February 1999 is on the same set of facts but in relation to the dishonor of the two cheques dated 31st December 1998 for a sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs each.Neither of these complaints makes a reference to the fact that an agreement had been entered into between the Company and the AFGIS concerning latter's investment of Rs. 1 crore in the NCDs of the Company.They make no reference to the clauses of that agreement.
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,929,027
His earlier two applications bearing IA No.9588/2014 and IA No.11695/2015 were dismissed as withdrawn.On the other hand Shri Punit Shroti, learned Penal Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the application.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the case in hand is clearly distinguishable with that of Bhagwan (supra).In Bhagwans case the deceased went to the land of the appellant to irrigate the same by claiming the possession, whereas in the present case even assuming that the appellant has exercised his right of private defence of the property, in that case also it is not the case of the prosecution that deceased Samhar Singh was in way trying to dispossess the appellant from his land.In fact the incident took place on a trivial ground that deceased Samhar Singh was grazing his cattle in the field of the appellant, which certainly cannot be said to be a threat so serious to the property of the appellant, which may entitle him to exercise his right of private defence and to cause death of Samhar Singh.Apart from the above, there is also evidence on record that the present appellant has caused injury to the deceased on account of a previous enmity, which has been stated by Ku.Urmila Singh Gond (PW-4), who happens to be the daughter of the deceased, who has stated in para 3 of her statement as under:3- vfHk;qDr fkoeaxy flag dqYgkM+k ls vfHk;qDr fkoeaxy flag MaMk ls esjs firk ds lkFk ekjihV dj jgs FksA EkS NqMkus ds fy;s xbZ vkSj eSus dgk fd esjs firkth dks er ekjks NksM+ nks] rks vfHk;qDr fkoeaxy us cksyk fd lEHkj us gekjh nkbZ dks ekjk gS rks ge bls tku ls ugha NksM+sxs vkSj bls tku ls ekj nsaxsA This statement was also given by her to the police under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.Be that as it may, at present looking to the overt-act of the present appellant, his application for suspension of sentence cannot be allowed.Accordingly, IA No.8916/2016 filed by the appellant No.1 is hereby dismissed.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,929,566
This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, on behalf of applicant Akhilesh.It is alleged that applicant since harassed the deceased and made persistent demand of dowry so much so he entered a illicit relationship with his associate at dispensary named Razia.Accordingly, the case has been registered.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated.He is Doctor by profession and runs a Homeopathic clinic for over seven years.He is a reputed person.He is having two children, daughter five years and son 13 months.The marriage was solemnized before seven years since the date of commission of suicide by the deceased.That 2 M.Cr.C.No.24892/2019 (Dr.Akhilesh Vs.State of M.P.) apart, learned counsel submits that he is in jail and only his father is at home and his children are not looked after properly in his absence.The co-accused Razia has been granted bail vide order dated 10.6.2019 in M.Cr.Hence, he prays for enlargement on bail on such terms and conditions this Court deems fit and proper.2 M.Cr.Hence, the applicant does not deserve bail.Upon perusal of the case diary, the submissions advanced and without commenting on rival contentions, but looking to the fact that investigation is complete, challan has been filed, co-accused Razia has been granted bail, two small children are at home without parents, the applicant is held entitled for grant of bail.Consequently, without commenting on merits of the case, the application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is hereby allowed and it is directed that the applicant Akhilesh be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court, on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 on the following conditions.:-(i) The applicant shall report on every second Saturday of every months between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon before the Investigating Officer or Station House Officer, P.S., Balwada.3 M.Cr.(Dr.(iii) Violation of any of the aforesaid conditions shall make him liable for cancellation of bail at the instance of either party.A copy of the order be sent to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rohit Arya) Judge Patil Digitally signed by Shailesh Patil Date: 2019.07.10 09:59:47 +05'30'
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A 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.
1,689,307
Sometime in May or June 1956 a literary and cultural institution of Bombay known as Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan republished a book entitled 'Religious Leaders'.There is no gainsaying that this book contains some highly objectionable and provocative passages about the character and dignity of the Prophet Mohammad which are likely to injure and hurt and in fact did injure and hurt the feelings of the Muslims including the petitioner.The petitioner, therefore, with the avowed intention of getting the said book proscribed started a very spirited propaganda in his daily--the Siyasat,--quoting objectionable passages from the said book, accompanied at times with his own articles and comments thereon and preceded by prominent head lines designed to catch the attention of the reading public.The offending passages having meanwhile come to the knowledge of the Registrar of the aforesaid Bharitya Vidya Bhawan he issued a communication which was published in the Pioneer of 4th September, 1956, expressing his regrets for the publication of the said book and ordering its prompt withdrawal from circulation.K. M. Munshi the then Rajyapal of Uttar Pradesh and general editor of the said Bhawan also issued a communication which was published in the Pioneer dated 6th of September, 1956 expressing his regrets for the said publication and assuring everybody concerned that he himself had the highest respect for the Prophet of Islam and his teachings and that he had ordered the withdrawal of the said publication forthwith.The said notice which is marked Annexure 'A' and is to be found on page 29 onwards of the paper book after stating the usual preamble, runs as follows :"Now, therefore, in pursuance of the provisions of Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950 (No. 4 of 1950) as amended from time to time, you Sri Ishaq Ilmi are hereby informed that the grounds for your detention are, as stated below :That you have with a view to promote communal hatred among them exploited the religious sentiments of the Muslims by working them up to a communal frenzy over rcpublication of the book entitled 'Religious Leaders' by the Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay.Although this book was written by American authors H. Thomas and Dana Lee Thomas and published in the year 1941 and has been in circulation since then in many countries, the Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan republished it only two months ago.You have started and fomented intensive agitation among Muslim masses since 28-8-56 over the said republication through the columns of daily paper 'Siyasat' of which you have been the Editor and Publisher.You have incited communal feelings of the Muslims by publishing provocative matters through the said daily with the object of promoting communal hatred among the Muslims, created disaffection and discontent among the Muslim, towards the Government and persisted in activities calculated to disturb the public peace and tranquillity, in spite of the fact that the Publisher and the General Editor have expressed their unqualified regret and also stopped sale of the said book and withdrawn its unsold copies.The specific instances of the matter that you have published in the 'Siyasat' to incite the Muslims to commit breaches of the peace are enumerated below:(a) In the issues of Daily Siyasat dated 28-8-56, 30-8-56 and 31-8-56 you deliberately reproduced those extracts from the biography of Prophet Mohammad in the Book 'Religious Leaders' which you considered to be objectionable and not fit for publication, under, highly provocative and incitingheadlines along with your comments and Urdu translation of the original English text and thereby gave undue publicity to the extracts referred to above with the object of creating communal bitterness among the Muslims.(The relevant portions are enclosed in red lines in the attached copies of the Siyasat dated 28-8-56, 30-8-56 and 31-8-56.)(b) You published a provocative appeal to the Muslims under inflammatory and provocative headlines in the issue of Daily Siyasat dated 29-8-56 at page 1 exhorting the Muslims to launch vigorous agitation to organise strikes, stage fearless and courageous demonstrations and hold meetings in the mosques on 31st August, 1956, after prayers to protest against the aforesaid book, and pass resolutions urging the Government to dismiss Sri K. M. Munshi from his office and to take the action to punish him and proscribe the aforesaid book.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Daily.Siyasat dated 29-8-56).(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Daily Siyasat dated 31-8-56).(e) That you published a news item in the daily Siyasat dated 1-9-56 at page 2, under highly provocative headlines to the effect that Muslims should sacrifice their lives, property etc., rather than tolerate even slightest insult to the Prophet and their religion and culture.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the daily Siyasat dated 1-9-56).(f) That you published in the daily Siyasat, dated 1-9-56 at page 4, a statement under highly provocative and inflammatory headlines alleging that the publication of the said book, and education of Muslim children in Government schools, through the books which contain matter likely to affect adversely their religious teaching and beliefs are in pursuance of deep-laid conspiracy.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 1-9-56).(g) That you published an article in the Daily Siyasat dated 2-9-56 at page 1 under provocative headlines exhorting the Muslims to observe general strike on 7-9-56 throughout the country, fly black flags over shops and houses, wear black badges, hold meetings after Jumma prayers, vigorously agitate for legal action against the General Editorfor proscription of the said book and continue agitation until their demands were conceded, (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 2-9-56).(h) That you 'published the inflammatory speeches delivered by you and Sarvasri Vimal Mehrotra, S. K. D. Paliwal, Shamshe Ninai, Saidullah Khan in a meeting convened by you in Mohammad Ali Park on 2-9-56,.in the Daily Siyasat dated 3-9-56 at pages 1 and 4 under inciting headlines.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 3-5-56).enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 4-9-56).(m) That you published a news item in the Daily Siyasat dated 6-9-1956 on page 1 under inciting headlines about the agitation and taking out of a procession by Muslim students of Oral and their shouting of slogans "K. M. Munshi Murdabad", "Governor U. P. Pursi Chhore".This news was published at a time when communal tension was rapidly increasing.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat, dated 6-9-1956).(n) That you published a news item in.the daily Siyasat dated 6-9-1956 on page 2 under provocative headlines eulogising the action of Muslim students of Aligarh University, imputing motives to Jan Sanghis of Delhi and certain papers of defaming the Muslim students for the agitation and demonstration organised by them and inciting the Muslim students to continue the agitation until the demands were fulfilled.This news was given publicity at a time when the atmosphere was surcharged with communal bitterness.(The relevant portions are enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 6-9-1956).(o) That you published an article in the daily Siyasat dated 6-9-1956 at page 4 under inciting headlines exhorting the Muslims to volunteer for offering satyagrah at the house of Sri K. M. Munshi in order to force him to resign and also to offer satyagrah at the house of the Prime Minister and at the Parliament House in case Sri K. M. Munsif did not resign or was not dismissed.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 11-9-1956).(s) That you published an article in the daily Siyasat dated 12-9-1956 at page 1 under inflammatory headlines that the agitation should continue although the Congress, the Hindu Mahasabha and Jan Sangh have been trying to suppress it.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 12-9-1956).(v) That you published a news item under inciting headlines in the daily Siyasat dated 15-9-1956 at page 2 that a narrow minded and communal class existed in this country which believed that by insulting the religious leaders and wounding the religious beliefs of other communities they were doing a great national service.It has further been alleged that in the Congress regime in which religious protection has been assured the hearts of the people, evidently referring the Muslims are being broken, (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 15-9-1956).That as a consequence of incitement and provocation given to the Muslims by rabidly communal and inflammatory head-lines, news items and comments published in the Siyasat as mentioned in para 2 and the agitation started by you in the State, a number of incidents involving breaches of peace and public tranquillity took place in several towns of U. P., as mentioned below :A general meeting of the Intermediate students of the Muslim University was held on 30th August, 1956, and speeches were made to the effect that the whole of the Islamic world was disturbed.On the 31st August, 1956 a meeting of the Aligarh Muslim Union was held.Resolutions were passed and the students took out a procession in which slogans of 'Pakistan Zindabad' were shouted, which shows the extent to which feelings of the Muslims were roused by the matter published by you.On the same date at a post prayer meeting presiding over by Sri Shabbir Khan highly inflammatory speeches were made.and the procession gave rise to a strong wave of resentment among all other communities at Aligarh and there was a general feeling that the activities of the Muslims were treacherous and seditious.It was felt that a book which was published long ago had suddenly been utilized to incite the communal feelings of theMuslims.Muslim mobs at Aligarh were worked up to a frenzy by the statement made by you that Sri K. M. Munshi was guilty of a most dirty offence against the whole Islamic world.On the 1st of September, 1956, the boys of the schools attached to the Muslim University took out effigies of Sri K. M. Munshi in a procession.The girls of the Girls College attached to the Muslim University also went out in a procession shouting slogans "Pakistan Zindabad' and 'Congress Raj Muradabad'.Accordingly a hartal took place on September 7, 1956, provocative meetings and processions were organised in which anti-national and anti-Government slogans were shouted, which incited the feelings of other communities and created a tense situation.As a counter-agitation, a combined meeting of Hindu Mahasabha, Bhartiya Jan Sangh, Ram Rajya Parishad, R.S.S. Sangh and Arya Samaj was held on September 11, 1956, in which the Muslims were held to be responsible for communal disturbances at Agra, Muradabad, Mau, Orai, Bara Banki and bomb explosions at Delhi.On September 14, 1956, a procession of students (except Muslim University students) paraded the town shouting, among others, the slogan ''Panchmargi Bharat Chhoro" (fifth columnists leave the country).While this procession was passing through the Bazar, the Muslims showered brick-bats as a result of which a communal riot took place in Aligarh.These incidents in Aligarh culminating into a communal riot are clearly attributable to the communal frenzy created among the Muslims by you.A procession of the Muslims was taken on September 1, 1956, to the residence of the District Magistrate in the evening and on the same day a meeting of the Muslims was held in Mohalla Athai.Resolutions were passed which criticised Sri K. M. Munshi and demanded a. ban on the book and legal action against the Publisher.As a result of the processions and the meeting communal bitterness pervaded the town.On the 7th September, 56 the Muslims displayed black flags on their houses and shops and wore black bands on their arms.Some Muslim students of Government Intermediate College, Orai, attended their classes with black bands on their arms but absented themselves from the prayers, which was reseated by the Hindu students who left the College at 11-30 A.M. and formed a procession which started shouting among others, thefollowing slogans :''Pakistan Murdabad." "Kale Jhande Phank do.""Pakistani Gunda Shahi Nahin Chalegi." "Legi Musalrnano Bharat Chhoro." When the procession passed by the Nabi ki Masjid some students hauled down a black flag from a shop.Some Muslims came out o the adjoining lanes and stabbed some students.In the rioting that ensued one Bishambhar Dayal Raizada a prominent citizen of Oral, was stabbed to death, which caused anger among the Hindus, particularly refugees, who looted some shops and stabbed some persons.As a result of rioting eight persons lost their lives.The Muslims at Orai were aggressors in committing serious acts of violence due to communal frenzy and excitement created by your agitation and publication in the Siyasat.(c) That the Muslims of Moradabad started communal agitation on the 2nd of September 1956, after leading bitterly communal and inflammatory matter published by you in the Siyasat.The Muslims held A meeting on the 2nd of September 1956 in which highly inciting speeches were made.A Hindu youth present in the meeting stood up and protested against the anti-national speech of one of the speakers.A mob of agitated Muslims raided the Kotwali where the arrested persons were detained.The Muslims were dispersed with a lathi charge.Thereafter stray incidents of stabbing and marpit took place throughout the city and curfew had to be imposed.This was followed by another procession of Muslims, which reached the Sheo Market shouting, among others, the slogan 'Pakistan Zindabad' which was resented by the refugees on whom some processionists threw brickbats, as a result of which one refugee was injured.Thirteen of the processionists were arrested at the spot.(e) That the Muslims at Bareilly were communally excited on reading the daily Siyasat dated the 29th and the 30th August 1956, which were read out to the Muslims by the workers of Jammat Raza Mustafa, Bcreilly and held a number of meetings in various mohallas inciting frenzy and bitterness.On September 7, 1956 a procession of Muslims shouted anti-national slogans 'Hindustan Murdabad' 'Pakistan Zindabad'.About the same time some members of the Hindu Mahasabha, Bhartiya Jan Sangh and a number of refugees started counter demonstration and shouted counter slogans.At the crossing of Maniharan ki Gali when the Muslims were returning from Jumma Prayer, there was exchange of hot words between them and the Hindus, which resulted in brick-batting between the sides resulting in injuries to 24 persons.(f) That on account of the communal frenzy created among the Muslims by publication of inciting matter by you in the 'Siyasat' in respect of the book 'Religious Leaders' protest meetings were held in most of the mosques of Kanpur city on 21st August 1956, after Jumma prayers.Oaths were taken from the Muslims that they would always be ready to 'sacrifice themselves and their children and would be ready to face bullets of the police.' A public meeting was held inside the Idgah (Faithfulganj) from 2 to 4 P.M. on 31st August 1956 the sentiments of the Muslims present were whipped into communal frenzy by the inflammatory speeches exhorting them that the forefathers had killed those persons, who had insulted their prophet and religion.In this meeting a loudspeaker was used without any permission with the result that that a case under Section 118 of the Cantonment Act has been registered against the organizers of the meeting and those who spoke at the meeting.Two public meetings one each at Mohd AH Park and Faithfulganj were .held on the 2nd of September 1956, in which the speakers communally incited the Muslims present.As a result of communal bitterness created among the Muslims elaborate law and order arrangements had to be made to prevent breaches of the peace in the city.You exhorted those present in this meeting, that agitation should continue until the Government took action against publication of the book and the Governor was dismissed.You said that volunteers should be enlisted for offering 'Satyagraha' and taking resort to hunger strike in front of Council House and Government House, Lucknow.Consequently Sri Wazarat Shikoh resorted to hunger strike at the council House on 10th September, 1956 and was arrested.In another secret meeting held at your house on the night between the 8th and 9th September, 1956 you told those present that section 144 Cr. P. C., should be defied in the city.You condemned the counter agitation launched by the Hindus.You also asserted that the major community that is the Hindus, was carrying on counter agitation with the connivance of the Government.You also suggested that workers should be sent to those districts in which there was no agitation.(h) That on the 16th September 1956 at Kanpur, you suggested to your co-workers that the Muslim fire-arms licence holders should be told that they should use their firearms in cases there was need to do so.You told them that the Hindus were carrying on counter-agitation at the instigation of the Government and should be taught a lesson.In mohalla Bansmandi, Kanpur, on the same date, you told your workers that under the Congress regime the interests of the Muslims were at stake.It was high time to remove the Government.The Muslims should be told to repeat the history of Karbala at this juncture.In mohalla Fahimabad, Kanpur you instigated the Muslims to launch 'jehad' against the Government.It is that you were determined to create communal frenzy and hatred against the Hindus on the 16th September 1956 and advocated violence against them.When in the evening of the 16th September 1956, at about 8 p.m. some of your co-workers informed you about the proceedings of the meetings held by the Hindu Maha Sabha at Arya Samaj Hall, Kanpur, on the same evening and told you that slogan of 'Ishaq Ilmi Murdabad' was shouted and the 'Holy Quran' was dishonoured you told your colleagues that time had come to take severe action against the Hindus.You exhorted them to run to their mohallas and alert the Muslims to be prepared for all eventualities.You and a number of your followers came out in communal excitement armed with lathis and dandas on the public road in front of your office deliberately violating orders under section 144 Cr. P. C., which were in force in the city.The police reached the spot at the nick of time.You and your followers offered resistance to the police during arrest and caused injuries to some police officers and also attempted to seize the revolver of a sub-inspector of police.Eventually the police over-powered you and others by application of force and arrested you and some of your followers.Some made good their escape.It is evident that you were bent upon creating communal riot in the city on that night and if you and your followers had not been arrested there was every likelihood that Kanpur would have been in throes of a serious communal trouble.In order to appreciate the various points arising out of the impugned detention order a brief statement of the facts leading upto it are very necessary.The petitioner was the printer, publisher and editor of an Urdu daily known as 'Siyasat' in Kanpur.On the night of 16th September, 1956 the petitioner was arrested by the Sisaman police Kanpur for committing breach of an order promulgated under Section 144, Cr. P. C. and was remanded to jail custody by a first class Magistrate of Kanpur the following day.The petitioner applied unsuccessfully for bail both before the Magistrate as well as the Sessions Judge on 25th September and 5th October, 1956 respectively.An application for bail was then moved on his behalf in this Court but was alleged to have been withdrawn as he had been ordered to be detained under the Preventive Detention Act. Thereafter on 9th November, 1956 the police submitted a charge sheet against the petitioner under Sections 147, 353, 332, 356 and 188, I. P. C. before a first class Magistrate of Kanpur but his trial under those sections has been held up for one reason or the other which need not concern us in the present proceedings.The position, therefore, is that the petitioner is at the moment under detention both under the ordinary law as well as the Preventive Detention Act.Three days later--i.e., on 8th October, 1956--the petitioner Was served with the statutory notice under Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act , (Act 4 of 1950) as amended from time to time.This detention order was subsequently confirmed on 1st of December, .1956 by the Advisory Board constituted under Section 8 of the said Act and the petitioner was informed by the Home Secretary of the U. P. Government on the 21st of December, 1956 that the Governor of U. P. had sanctioned the petitioner's detention for a period of 12 months from the date of his detention.Having concluded our narrative of the material facts with which we are concerned in the present proceedings, we shall now return to the notice which was given to the petitioner under Section 7 of the Preventive Detention Act on 8th of October, 1956 and inasmuch as it- was assailed on a number of grounds by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we propose to quote all the material parts of it in full.(c) That you published an inflammatory statement alleged to have been made by one Abdul Rashid of Baisatkhana Kanpur at page 1 of the Daily Siyasat, dated 30th August 1956, under provocative headlines.The statement was to the effect that death was preferable to tolerance of insults to the Prophet and that the Muslims of the area in which Sri Abdul Rashid resided were full of anger and excitement over the matter published in the Book (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 30-8-56.)(d) That you published a statement alleged to have been made by Sri Saidullah Khan Rizvi in the daily Siyasat, dated 31-8-56 at page 4 under provocative and inciting head-lines to the effect that this insulting and heart-breaking publication has left a permanent sore on the hearts of the Muslims and.(i) That you published a news item in the daily Siyasat dated 3-9-56 at page 4 under provocative headlines propagating that the agitation was spreading like wide fire and should not cease until their demands for dismissal of Sri K. M. Munshi and proscription of the book were conceded.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of Siyasat dated 3-9-56).(j) That you published editorial in the Daily Siyasat dated 4-9-56 at page 2 under provocative headlines that the Government was only secular in name and not in its actions, that it was of the major community, i.e., Hindus, specially of Brahmins, and that the Army was non-secular in its composition as the number of Muslims in the Defence Forces was going down day by day.(k) That you published an article in the 'Siyasat' dated 4-9-56 at page 4 under inflammatory headlines exhorting the Muslims to continue the agitation until their demands were met, (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 4-9-56).(l) That you published news items in the daily Siyasat dated 5-9-56 at page 1 under alarming and inflammatory headlines that communal disturbances had occurred at Agra and Moradabad and that refugees had been aggressor in the riot at Agra and that communalists had created disturbances in a meeting organised by Muslims to express their resentment over the book at Moradabad resulting in one death or injury to one man and the arrest of Maulana Qasim, who addressed the meeting.(p) That you published a news item in the daily Siyasat, dated 8-9-1956, at page 1 under alarming headlines that Jan Sanghis had held a meeting at Mau on 31-8-1956, in which they had raised slogans 'khun ka badla khun' and planned for a serious not in the town and that after the said meeting the Hindus had attacked members of the other community and that one man was killed and several others injured as a result of the riot.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat, dated 8-9-1956).(q) That you published a news item in the daily Siyasat, dated 9-9-1956 at page 4 under inflammatory headlines that the communal disturbances at Moradabad, Orai, Gorakhpur and Bahraich had occurred in which peaceful Muslims had been attacked by Hindus as a result of which several persons had been killed and arrested.This news item was published when bitter communal feelings had been created between the two communities by you through your agitation.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 9-9-1956).(r) That you published an article in the daily Siyasat dated 11-9-1956, at page 1 under highly provocative headlines that the spirit of Godse had entered the souls of those who were against this agitation and if the Muslims would yield to intimidation they would not be able to say even Namaz.(t) That you published a news item at page 4 of the daily Siyasat dated 13-9-1956 under inciting headlines laying the responsibility for communal riots on the Government and Hindu communal ogranizations, alleging that they have defamed the Muslims, (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the.Siyasat dated .13-9-1956).(u) That you published a news item at page 4 of the daily Siyasat dated 14-9-1956) under provocative headlines and charged the Government officials with communal bias against the Muslims and held them to be responsible for fanning communal disturbances; (The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 14-9-1956).(w) That you published an alarming news item in the daily Siyasat dated 16-9-1956 at page 1 under inciting and alarming headlines that the Jan Sangh and Hindu Mahasabha have started communal disturbances with the connivance of the Congress and that after Orai, Moradabad Jabalpur and other places, Aligarh has been made their target.In the meetings and processions, it was alleged heart-breaking communal slogans were shouted and communal bitterness created.It was further asserted that in a Varanasi meeting it was proposed to rename Aligarh as "Argun Garh" -and Muslim University as 'Arya Vishwa Vidyalaya'.(The relevant portions are enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat, dated 16-9-1956).(x) That you published an alarming news item, at page 2 of the daily Siyasat dated 16-9-1956 tinder provocative headlines about the communal riot at Aligarh in which you accused Hindu students of Aligarh for their high handedness and precipitating communal riots in pursuance of a pre-arranged plan and also attributed inflammatory statements and objectionable slogans to them.(The relevant portion is enclosed in red lines in the attached copy of the Siyasat dated 16-9-1956.)These meetings.That you have been a fanatical communalist and as a result of your rabidly communal activities to agitate and excite Muslims in the past the following action had to be taken against you :(a) That you were arrested in Kanpur on the 29th March 1950, under Section 151 Cr. P. C., for communal activities and released after two months.(b) That you were arrested on 2nd May 1951, under Section 151 Cr. P. C., for publishing an objectionable headline in your paper 'Siyasat', dated Ist May 1951, regarding rumours of killing of children by Kanpur refugees and sale of their cooked flesh at Kanpur Hotel owned by the refugees.(c) That in August 1951 you propagated cow slaughter in the open and had to be arrested under section 107/117 Cr. P. C.(e) That you were arrested on the 29th January 1954, under section 107/117 Cr. P. C.f by Sisamau police in Kanpur for communal activities and sent to Aligarh to stand your trial under Section 124A, I. P. C. You were released after the trial in January 1955 and resumed your communal activities again."Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner attacked the validity of the said detention on a number of grounds.Briefly stated his contentions were :(i) That in publishing passages from the said book and his comments thereon in his daily, the petitioner was exercising his fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed to him by the Constitution and that in doing so he had not transgressed the permissible limits.(ii) That some of the grounds for the petitioner's detention were irrelevant and vague and had no proximate or rational connection with the maintenance of public order; and(iii) That for various reasons, which we shall enumerate later on in the course of our judgment, the order of detention was a mala fide one.His contention, therefore, was that for the reasons aforesaid the detention of the petitioner under the Preventive Detention Act was illegal, and he was entitled to be set at liberty forthwith.At this stage it would be appropriate to mention that the learned D. G. A. appearing for the opposite-parties while countering all the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner urged two further points in his turn, which we regard in the nature of preliminary objections and as they concern the competency and maintainability of the petition itself we consider it proper to notice them first before going on to the main contentions in the case.He based this argument on the fact that apart from his detention under the Preventive Detention Act the petitioner was also in detention under Sections 147, 188, 356, 332 and 352 I. P. C., his applications for bail having been either rejected by the courts concerned or withdrawn by him.The petitioner being, therefore, in lawful custody anyhow the present petition was infructuous as it would not help to secure his release from detention.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has countered this by saying that in every habeas corpus petition the detaining authorities are required to justify the detention in question.If they cannot justify that the petitioner is entitled to an order ofrelease and if he is required to be kept under custody under some other valid arid lawful order the said order of release can always be made a conditional one.Otherwise, he argued, the petitioner who was detained both under the ordinary law where he could apply for and possibly get bail and the Preventive Detention Act which he attacks as being unlawful is in the impossible position of not being able to secure his release from detention under any circumstance.The second point raised by the learned D.G.A. in this very connection was that inasmuch as an order directing the release of the petitioner, in a case in which he was also in lawful custody under the ordinary law, would be infructuous we would not grant the relief prayed for on the principles of brutum fulmen.We have considered this argument of the learned D.G.A. but do not find ourselves in agreement with it.If the order is passed in the conditional form as stated above the petitioner having secured to get the main impediment removed from his way could try for his release on bail for offences under the ordinary law.Besides, it is to be remembered that in the present case the petitioner was refused bail by the learned Sessions Judge not because of any special gravity of the offences with which he was charged, but because of the 'communal tension' which prevailed in Kanpur at that time.2. Order under the Preventive Detection Act served on the petitioner 5-10-56Grounds of detention served on the petitioner 8-10-56Advisory Board confirms the detention order 31-12-56State Government's order fixing the period of the petitioner's detention for one year from the date of his detention 18-12-56Aforesaid order of the State Government served on the petitioner 21-12-56Copy of the present habeas corpus petition served on Advocate General Uttar Pradesh 23-4-58Present habeas corpus petition filed and admitted.in the High Court, 16-5-562 and 3 and para.That paragraph sets out the grounds on which the detention of the petitioner was based in clear and unequivocal language.Both the orders.of detention recited that the petitioner was directed to be detained because it was necessary to make such an order:
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,689,312
Heard learned counsel for the parties.The sole appellant, along with Umesh Babanrao Khutwad [Accused No.1],Subhash Maruti Avasare [Accused No.3], Sunil Maruti Avasare [Accused No.4] andRakesh Tukaram Pawar [Accused No.5], was convicted by the Trial Court underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "I.P.C."] andsentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.On appeal being preferred, theHigh Court acquitted Accused Nos.4 and 5, set aside their conviction under Section302/34 I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 323 and they were sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-;in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.This appeal by special leave hasbeen filed by the appellant.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of thisappeal submitted that case of the appellant is quite distinguishable from that ofSubhash Maruti Awasare [Accused No.3] and Umesh Baburao Kutwad [AccusedNo.1] as in the first version of the occurrence disclosed by the deceased in the oraldying declaration said to have been made before Baburao [P.W.9], who was policeconstable, the name of this appellant was not disclosed, but the names of AccusedNos.1 and 3 were disclosed.The first information report was lodged after the saidoral dying declaration.Accordingly, the criminal appeal is allowed, conviction and sentence of theappellant are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge.The appellant, who is incustody, is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with anyother case.[B.N. AGRAWAL] ......................
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
16,893,626
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the friend of the detenu, namely, Venkatesh, son of Krishnamurthi, aged about 29 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1141/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 4.9.2014, passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982) the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail in Crl.M.P.No.593/2009, on the file of the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, in Crime No.26/2009, under Section 379 IPC; and in Crl.M.P.No.2392/2012, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Cr.
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,938,820
The State of West Bengal & Ors.Ms. Disha Shukla Mr. Partha Chakraborty Mr. Aloke Chatterjee Mr. Chayan Debnath Mr. Nirmalya Karmakar......For the Petitioner.Mr. Samrat Sen .....For the State.A status report on the progress of investigation shall be filed by the Officer-in- Charge, Minakhan Police station/investigating officer on 5th July, 2016, when the writ petition shall be listed under the heading 'Motion'.(Dipankar Datta, J.)
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 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.
1,689,457
ORDER B.M. Gupta, J.Although both the petitions have been filed by different petitioners impugning the different orders, yet both are arising out of one case, hence, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Vide M.Cr.C. No. 4256/05 order dated 13th July, 2004 and vide M.Cr.C. No. 4400/05 order dated 30th August, 2005 passed by the JMFC, Mungawali in criminal case No. 111/04 have been impugned, by which cognizance under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC/ 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B of IPC has been taken against the petitioners while applying the provisions of Section 190 of Cr.P.C.3A. The factual matrix in brief, being necessary to be known, is that with regard to the death of Kallu @ Balkishan S/o Babulal Jatav merg No. 1/03 was registered at police Station, Bahadurpur, Distt.After conducting enquiry and coming to the conclusion that the mode of death is homicidal, FIR crime No. 1/03 was registered against unknown persons under Section 302/201 of IPC at the same police Station.After conducting investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 15th June, 2004 for the offence punishable under Section 304/201 of IPC against only two petitioners viz Mangilal @ Manga and Tulsiram.On 13th July, 2004 the learned Magistrate vide first impugned order, while observing that the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 of IPC appears to be made out on the basis of the charge- sheet papers, passed the impugned order against the aforementioned two petitioners.This order has been impugned firstly on the ground that upto that time, there was no document available on the record in support of this order.Countering the contention, Shri Mahore, the learned Deputy Govt. Advocate, has submitted that on the basis of the statement of Harnam Singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., offence of murder has been made out.But, on perusal of the statement of Harnam Singh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 10th April, 2003, it does not appear that he is stating anything with regard to the offence of murder committed by these two petitioners.His statement is also based on the information given by these two petitioners.The relevant part of his statement goes as under:--- mu yksxks us ;g Hkh crk;k Fkk fd dYyw VsDVj ls fxj x;k gS vkSj ej x;k gSA blfy, dYyw dks vFkkbZ [ksMk ds ikl iqfy;k ds ikl j[k vk;s gSA Thus, he only states that as per the information given by the petitioners, the deceased fell down from a tractor and died and they kept his dead-body near the culvert of Athaikheda.The other statements recorded during investigation of Tulsiram, Manga, both the petitioners, Sangram Singh, Pappu, Bhagwandas, Nimma Khan, Narayan and Harnam are also to the same effect.These witnesses have also not stated anything with regard to committing murder by these two petitioners.Even on behalf of the State, except the aforementioned statement of Harnam, nothing has been mentioned in support of this impugned order.Although as per the post-mortem report dated 3rd January, 2003, the cause of death has been mentioned as homicidal in nature but on this ground alone, it cannot be said that there is evidence against the petitioners that they have committed the murder.In view of this, the observation of the learned Magistrate that on the basis of the documents on record, the offence of murder appears against the petitioners, cannot be sustained as the same appears erroneous.3B. With regard to the same impugned order dated 13.7.04 related to M.Cr.C. No. 4256/05, a preliminary objection has also been raised on behalf of the State, that the impugned order dated 13th July, 2004 was revisable, but instead of filing the revision, petition has been filed, hence, it is not maintainable.As mentioned hereinabove, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioners under Sections 304 and 201 of IPC.Instead of taking cognizance under the same offences, if the cognizance has been taken by the learned Magistrate under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, the order being interlocutory, does not appear to be revisable.With regard to another petition M.Cr.C. No. 4400/05 in which order dated 30th August, 2005 has been impugned, on perusal of the copy of the order-sheet dated 27th December, 2004, it appears that one application under Sections 319(2) and 190 of Cr.P.C. was filed for taking cognizance against other two petitioners of this petition i.e. Sangram Singh and Narayan.The case was fixed for reply of the application on various dates.Vide order dated 28th March, 2005, it appears that the learned Magistrate directed the applicant/complainant Bhagwan Das, the brother of the deceased, that if in support of the application some evidence is available with him, that can be produced.On 21st June, 2005 one application was moved on behalf of Bhagwan Das that he wants to produce one more witness Bablu, and for whom he sought time.The same 3rd was given.His statement was recorded on August, 2005 under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, on the basis of this new evidence, on 30th August, 2005, the second impugned order has been passed taking cognizance against these two petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B of IPC.The provisions of Section 208 of Cr.P.C. being related to the case instituted otherwise than police report i.e. on a private complaint, hence, not relevant for the present dispute and not required to be considered herein this order.Section 207 of Cr.P.C. provides that in any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following:(i) the police report;P.C.(Section 200 to 203 of Cr.P.C.)As discussed hereinabove, on the documents filed alongwith the charge-sheet, there appears no evidence of murder against any of the four petitioners, hence, both the orders related to both the petitions being erroneous and an abuse of the process of the Court, deserve to be set aside.
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,689,510
S. N. VARIAVA, J.Leave granted.Heard parties.By this Ordera Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, under Section 482 of the CriminalProcedure Code, for quashing an Order dated 8th July, 1994 passed by aSpecial Judge constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act(hereinafter called the said Act) has been dismissed.On 8th July, 1984 the Trial Court took cognizance against theAppellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 ofthe I.P.C. and Section 5(2) of the said Act. The Appellant then approachedthe High Court with Miscellaneous Petition No. 578 of 1984 and got a stayof the trial.Having obtained a stay of the trial the Miscellaneous Petitionwas got adjourned.from time to time.By this method the Appellant hassuccessfully delayed trial for 7 years.He submitted that thepower to pass an interim order, like a stay order, was part of the inherentpower of the Court.This was acase under the Income Tax Act. Certain amounts were imposed as penaltyupon the assessee for concealment of income and for furnishing inaccurateparticulars.The assessee preferred appeals and prayed for stay of recoveryof the penalties.The Tribunal declined to grant stay on the ground that ithad no power to do so.The Appeal stands dismissed.There shall be no Order as to costs.
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
168,954,338
1 10.08.2017 3 sdas C.R.M. 7779 of 2017 In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 08.08.2017 in connection with Shyampur Police Station Case No. 272 of 2017 dated 21.06.2017 under Sections 341/354C/354D/506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act.And In Re : Sanjib Samanta ..... petitioner Mr. Mrityunjoy Chatterjee, Mr. Bhaskar Hutait .....for the petitioner Mr. Ranadeb Sengupta ....for the State Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.In the event the petitioner fails to appear before the Trial Court, without any justifiable cause, the said Court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail in accordance with law without further reference to this Court.This application for bail is, thus, allowed.(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,690,114
(a) P.W.2 Poojiammal is the wife of the deceased Poadiappan, who is the poosari of Karumariamman temple, Maithandapalli.P.W.1 Muniappan went to the temple on Friday Morning and poojai was performed by the deceased Poadiappan and as requested by the poojari, the deceased, P.W.1 stayed in the temple.The accused was brought by one Chinnaraj on the said Friday Evening to cure some disease to the accused.P.W.1, accused and Chinnaraj stayed in the temple on Saturday and Sunday and they informed the deceased that they would leave the temple on Monday.Since the deceased said that he would perform poojai, they stayed at temple on Monday also.When the deceased poojari intervened, the accused also stabbed the deceased on the neck above the left chest with back sharp portion of M.O.1 Thirisoolam.When P.W.2 came running, the accused also stabbed P.W.2 on her right axilla (tyJ my;iy) with back sharp portion of M.O.1 Thirisoolam.P.W.1 shouted and P.W.3 Ellappan came.The deceased died on the spot.(c) P.W.1 took P.W.2, the wife of the deceased to Hosur Government Hospital in the tempo and on the way, P.W.1 got down at Soolagiri and went to police station.P.W.1 gave the complaint Ex.P-1 at 8.00 a.m. on 19.11.1996 to P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Soolagiri, who registered the same in Crime No.498 of 1996 under Sections 324 and 302 IPC.Ex.P-10 is the printed FIR.P.W.9 sent the copy of FIR to the Court and higher officials.P.W.9 gave information to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police at 9.00 a.m. when he came to police station.(d) P.W.12 took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence, viz., Maithandapalli Karumariamman temple at 9.15 a.m. and prepared rough sketch Ex.P-16 and observation mahazar Ex.P-2 in the presence of P.W.5 Perumal and one Appavu.P.W.12 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 10.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. in the presence of panchayatars.Inquest report is Ex.(e) On receiving the requisition Ex.P-9, P.W.10, Dr.P.W.10 found the following external injuries:-An incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x 10 cm over the left supra clavicular region seen.On exploring the wound left subclavicular artery of vein were found severed.Doctor P.W.10 has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemmorrhage due to injury to major blood vessels about 24 to 30 hours prior to autopsy.He issued post-mortem certificate Ex.(f) In the mean time P.W.2, the injured was admitted in the Hosur Government Hospital by her daughter-in-law Maragadham.P.W.7 found the following injury:-Contusion 5 cm x 5 cm over right sided chest lateral aspect with stab wound 2 cm x 2 cm x depth could not be measured over it, because of fresh bleeding from the wound.(g) P.W.12 examined the injured Chinnaraj and sent him to hospital for taking treatment for the injury suffered by him.P.W.12 came back to the police station and then went to Hosur Government Hospital and examined P.W.2, who was taking treatment as inpatient.(h) P.W.7, who gave treatment to Chinnaraj issued wound certificate Ex.As per wound certificate Ex.P-8, P.W.7, doctor found the following injuries:-(1) Lacerated injury 2 cm x 2 cm x 3 cm depth over left arm.(i) P.W.12 continuing the investigation arrested the accused on 19.11.1996 at 4.00 p.m. in the presence P.W.6, Village Administrative Officer and Thalayari.The accused gave confession statement, the admissible portion is Ex.P-3 in the presence of the above witnesses and took P.W.12 and the above witnesses and produced M.O.1 Thirisoolam, hidden in a bush nearby banian tree, situated in the Maithandapalli road.P.W.12 recovered the same under Ex.P-4 seizure mahazar in the presence of the above said witnesses.He sent the accused for remand and also the material objects to the Court of Judicial Magistrate.After completing investigation, P.W.12 filed the final report.Serological report is Ex.P-15 and the chemical report is Ex.Prosecution has not examined Chinnaraj, the injured during the occurrence as not available.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating evidence made available against him by the Prosecution/State, he said that he did not know anything and also stated that false case has been foisted against him.6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent/State.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence, in that, it is not believable that P.W.1 stayed in the Karumariamman temple, the place of occurrence, from Friday and till the occurrence took place on Tuesday, especially, when the poojai for P.W.1 was performed by the deceased on Friday itself and since it is stated by P.W.1 that on the date of occurrence he went to Maithandapalli for drinking tea.As regards P.W.2, it is submitted by the learned counsel that her evidence is also unbelievable since she has stated that she used to stay in the village during night and as such, according to the learned counsel, she could not have been present during occurrence time and witnessed the occurrence.Then by referring the injuries said to have been caused as per the medical evidence of P.W.7 and the wound certificate Ex.P-5 issued by P.W.7 to P.W.2 and also P.W.10, post-mortem doctor and post-mortem certificate Ex.P-11 issued by P.W.10 to the deceased, it is argued that such injuries could not have been caused by the accused attacking with the back portion of M.O.1 Thirisoolam which could have been blunt.Then, he submitted that P.W.2 has not identified the accused and therefore, the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in the scene of occurrence is very much doubtful.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the accused that non-examination of Chinnaraj, who was also attacked with the said M.O.1 Thirisoolam by the accused and who also witnessed the entire occurrence, is fatal to the case of prosecution.Then, the leaned counsel also argued that P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that the accused was brought at 9.00 a.m., whereas it is the evidence of P.W.12 that he arrested the accused at 4.00 p.m. and as such, there is contradiction in the evidence of prosecution with regard to the arrest of the accused.Then, it is also submitted that there have been contradiction in the evidence of P.W.6 and P.W.12 with regard to the recovery of M.O.1 Thirisoolam.It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that in the complaint Ex.P-1 preferred by P.W.1, the entire occurrence is stated that on 19.11.1996 at 6.00 a.m. the accused stabbed Chinnaraj with M.O.1 Thirisoolam on his left upper hand causing blood injuries and when the deceased intervened, the accused stabbed the deceased with M.O.1 on his neck causing the death of the deceased and when P.W.2 intervened she was also stabbed with M.O.1 on the back side of her right axilla.As regards the argument advanced for the accused that the death could not have been caused by attacking with the back portion of M.O.1 blunt portion, it is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the back portion of M.O.1 is also a sharp portion and therefore, the assault made with the said back portion of M.O.1 caused immediate death of the deceased by the accused.Therefore, the trial Court considering such satisfactory evidence let in on the side of the prosecution, rightly found the accused guilty under Section 304, Part-II, I.P.C., and as such, the conviction and sentence need not be disturbed.The occurrence took place on 19.11.1996 at 6.00 a.m. in Karumariamman Temple where P.W.1, who came to perform poojai on Friday, stayed till the date of occurrence, viz., on Tuesday.P.W.1 stayed with the accused and Chinnaraj, who brought the accused to cure some disease.On the day of occurrence, viz., on Tuesday at 6.00 a.m. the accused by stating as to why he is not taking him back to his place, stabbed Chinnaraj with back portion of M.O.1 Thirisoolam by taking the same from nearby ant-hill(g[w;W) and when the deceased tried to intervene, the accused stabbed the deceased with back portion of M.O.1 on his neck above the left chest and when P.W.2, the wife of the deceased came running, the accused attacked her with back portion of M.O.1 on her right axilla(tyJmy;iy).The deceased died on the spot.Then, P.W.2, the injured (wife of the deceased) was taken in tempo by P.W.1 to Hosur Government Hospital and on the way P.W.1 got down and gave complaint Ex.P-1, in which the entire occurrence is clearly stated.The occurrence took place at 6.00 a.m. The complaint Ex.P-1 was given at 8.00 a.m. to P.W.9 and the printed FIR reached the Court at 10.30 a.m. on the same day.The accused was arrested at 4.00 p.m. on 19.11.1996 and he gave confession statement, the admissible portion is Ex.P-3, on the basis of which M.O.1 Thirisoolam was recovered in the presence of P.W.6 and another.14. P.W.3 was examined on 16.3.1999 with regard to the occurrence that took place on 19.11.1996 and as such, he could have stated mistakenly that the accused was brought at 9.00 a.m. But he has not stated that the accused was brought as such at 9.00 a.m. by the police.Therefore, there is no force in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/accused that there is contradiction in the evidence of prosecution with regard to the arrest of the accused.Since the accused stabbed the deceased in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel, the offence under Section 304 Part-II, I.P.C. is attracted and accordingly the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as set out above and such conviction and sentence does not call for any interference.At the time of stabbing the deceased, when the injured P.W.2 came running she was also attacked with the back portion of M.O.1 causing simple injury as per the evidence of the doctor P.W.7 and wound certificate issued by him Ex.P-5 and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court under Section 324 I.P.C. as regards P.W.2 does not call for any interference.In the result, the Criminal Appeal fails and is dismissed.The First Additional Sessions Judge of Dharmapuri and Chief Judicial Magistrate of Krishnagiri at Krishnagiri is directed to secure the custody of the appellant/accused to undergo the remaining portion of sentence.
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
169,013,483
offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.The brief facts of the case are that on 16.8.2011 Dr. K.K.Sharma from Paliwal Hospital, Bhopal had informed to the Police Station Jahangirabad on phone that one patient Dipika Soni was admitted in the hospital, who had consumed poison.Thereafter the Investigation Officer contacted the victim, but she was not competent to give any evidence.At about 10:50 PM in the night Dipika Soni had expired.After due investigation a charge sheet was filed.The only allegation made against the respondent that he was sending various SMS messages to the deceased.However, it is not the case in which presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act may apply.It is for the prosecution to prove that the over-acts as alleged against the respondent fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC.The deceased had an opportunity to inform about such messages to her parents and to take steps against the respondent, and therefore it cannot be said that the overt-acts as alleged against the respondent may fall within the purview of Section 107 or 109 of IPC.(N.K. GUPTA)
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
169,015,782
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 5 th July 2005 passed below Exh.48 in R.C.C. No.69/2004 by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Raver, the original accused have approached this Court by filing the present criminal application.Brief facts, giving rise to the present application are as follows:Deceased wife of petitioner No.1 had filed complaint before the Magistrate against the petitioners for having committed offence under ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 ::: Cri.The learned Magistrate by order dated 15 th July 2004, issued process against all the accused for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.The applicants-accused, on their appearance before the Magistrate, filed an application Exh.48 for recalling the order of issuance of process on the ground that the petitioner No.1 - husband had filed Hindu Marriage Petition bearing Petition No.34-A/2003 against his wife before Additional District Judge, Burhanpur, District Khandwa and the learned Additional District Judge, Burhanpur, by judgment and order dated 8th May 2003 dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce and by suppressing the said fact, the complainant -::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 :::Mirabai has lodged the complaint before the Court for the offence punishable under Section 494 of Indian Penal Code.The learned Magistrate, however, by order dated 5th July 2005 passed below Exh.48 in the said case refused to recall the order of issuance of process only on the ground that he cannot review his own order of issuance of process.Hence the present application.Appln.2010/2005 4 Section 494 of Indian Penal Code is liable to be quashed and set aside and the complaint filed by Mirabai bearing R.C.C. No.69/2004 is liable to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 :::6. Leaned Counsel for the petitioners, in order to substantiate his submissions, placed reliance on the following two judgments of Apex Court :(II) Pashaura Singh Vs.State of Punjab & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No.2122 of 2009 (arising out of SLP (Cri.) No.5910/2006)I have also heard the learned A.P.P. for the State.So far as the penal provisions of Section 494 of Indian Penal Code are concerned, it requires the ingredients namely (a) the accused must have contracted first marriage; (b) he must have married again; (iii) first marriage must be subsisting and spouse must be living.::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 :::Rule made absolute in above terms.( V.K. JADHAV, J.) vvr ::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 04/09/2016 00:52:07 :::
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,690,232
JUDGMENT Hemeon, J.On the 10th December 1950, Kodiaya.Ramiya, Suriya and Raghiya were, according to the police, found gambling in the Arambha bazar, Waraaeoni Tahsil, Balaghat district, and the constable on duty who had seized the gambling articles was taking them with those persons to the police-station.On the way there, he was set upon by Kondiaya and others who removed the flash and other articles and took to flight.Offences under Sections 332, 342 and 392, Penal Code were registered and investigation began.Kondiaya, Ramiya, Suriya and Raghiya were in due course arrested and released on bail on 15th December 1950 by the First Class Magistrate, Waraseoni.On 19th and 22nd December 1950, remands were asked because a 5th person said to have teen involved in the incident was absconding.Remand was accordingly granted until 27th December 1950, but 4 days previously Mohammad Hasan appeared through his counsel before the Magistrate and filed an application for bail.
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
169,027,048
Learned counsel for the parties heard.This is second bail application on behalf of applicants (1) Pappu Bheel, (2) Madanlal Bheel and (3) Udam Singh Bheel filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.169/2018 registered at Police Station Chachoda, District Guna for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 506-B and 323 of IPC.First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 02.11.2018 passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the bail application of applicant No.3 Udam Singh Bheel, S/o Kaluram Bheel as allegation against him are of causing head injury, which is a vital part.The same is dismissed as withdrawn.As far as Madanlal is concerned, allegation is that he had hit with farsa on toe on the right leg of the father of the complainant whereas in MLC report, there is no injury in the toe on the right leg of complainant's father.Similarly allegation of Pappu is to have caused injury in the wrist of the complainant which is similar and on non-vital part.Therefore, applicants Madanlal and Pappu pray for bail on the ground of parity with Komal Singh vide order dated 07.12.2018 passed in M.Cr.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and on the basis of parity, applicants are also entitled for anticipatory bail as Komal Singh was extended this benefit.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that this is is a fit 2 MCRC-51752-2018 case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Consequently, this application of the applicant No.1 Pappu Bheel and applicant No.2 Madanlal Bheel under Section 438, Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed.It is directed that in case the applicants appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.01.2019 and furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.Forty Thousand only) each they shall be enlarged on bail.It is made clear that if the applicants fail to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 07.01.2019, this order shall lose its effect.The applicants shall make themself available for interrogation by the Investigating 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.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) V. JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2018.12.24 13:26:24 +05'30'
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
16,902,738
(Passed on day of April, 2017) Per :Ved Prakash Sharma, J.A Division Bench of this Court comprising two of us (Hon'ble Shri Justice P.K. Jaiswal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Virender Singh) while considering the prayer for suspension of custodial sentence under Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') in Cr.A. No.1248/2005 expressing its reservation to subscribe to the legal proposition made by a co-ordinate Bench (Gwalior Bench) of this Court in Raghuvar Cr.A. No.1248/2005 2 Singh @ Raghuveer Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2015 (2) JLJ 218, has referred the question of law to be answered by a larger Bench.Pursuant to this Hon'ble the Chief Justice has been pleased to constitute this Bench.The question of law referred to this Bench is as follows :Cr.A. No.1248/2005 2Appellant Dashrath, vide judgment dated 20.06.2005 rendered in S.T. No.15/15 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur, was convicted for offences punishable under Section 376 & 302 of IPC, 1860 (for short 'the IPC') for subjecting 10 years old girl child to rape and committing her murder.He was ordered to suffer RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1000/- under Section 376 of IPC and further to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 302 of IPC with usual default stipulation.He also made an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail which Cr.A. No.1248/2005 3 came to be rejected on 16.04.2007 as not pressed.Cr.A. No.1248/2005 3Accordingly, the Bench felt inclined to suspend the sentence of life imprisonment that was imposed against the appellant.The effect of bail granted during trial loses significance when on completion of trial, the accused persons have been found guilty.
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
169,034
The formal FIR was drawn up by P.W. 13, S.I. Sadhan Chandra Saha, who registered Nandigram P.S. Case No. 2 dated 11.08.1984 vide (Ext.1) series and took up the investigation of the case.The crux of the prosecution case is that on 11.08.1984 at about 12 O'clock the victim Prafulla Nayek, when he was collecting seedling from his land at Mouza Amtala, the accused Phani Bhusan Roy, his son accused Sukumar Roy, his wife Urmila Roy alias Tobi Roy and Tarani Roy, the wife of his elder brother entered into the land with lathi, bhali etc., in their hands and an altercation ensued between the parties when Phani told the victim that he purchased the land and as such he would cultivate the land.In course of altercation the accused Phani struck Prafulla on his head with lathi and accused Sukumar hit Prafulla with a bhali which pierced the abdomen of Prafulla.The local people on hearing hue and cry rushed to the place of occurrence and in the meantime the accused persons took their heels.The informant with the help of villagers took the victim to Nandigram PHC where he was declared dead.The I.O. on the basis of FIR lodged by Pashupati Nayek took up investigation and he visited Nandigram.PHC where he held inquest of the deadbody of Prafulla vide (Ext. 4).The I.O. also visited spot and seized alamats from the place of occurrence vide (Exts. 2 and 6), examined witnesses.JUDGMENT Sankar Prasad Mitra, J.By the said judgment the appellants were convicted and sentenced under Section 304 Part 1/34 of IPC to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a direction to set off the period of detention in jail custody against the period of sentence.However, by the said judgment accused Urmila Roy alias Tobi Roy, Tarani Roy and Bhanu Das were acquitted.Moreover during the pendency of this appeal the appellant Phani Bhusan Roy expired and as such the appeal has been abated against him.He also seized one tangi with stain of mud, one blood-stained bhali from the house of accused Bhanu Das, (Exts. 3 and 7), prepared sketch map, (Ext. 5) and inquest report (Ext. 4).The I.O. also sent the napkin with which the body of the victim, Prafulla was wrapped along with blood-stained weapons to the forensic science laboratory for chemical examination.The I.O. P. W. 13, Sadhan Chandra Saha also sent the deadbody to Tamluk Hospital through Constable No. 33, Nimai Chandra Biswas for P.M. examination.Since the S.I. Sadhan Chandra Saha was transferred form the station the next man S. I. Gour Gopal Roy, P.W. 14 took up the investigation and in course of examination he examined Sankar Bhunia, collected P. M. report and the report of the chemical examiner and ultimately submitted chargesheet against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447/304 of IPC.The accused Sukumar Roy was charged under Section 304 Part 1/34 of IPC and he pleaded not guilt to the charge.The defence case as appearing from the trend of cross-examination as also his examination under Section 313 of Cr.PC is that he is innocent and land bearing Dag No. 743 at mouza Amtala was purchased by him from Prarulla (victim) and in spite of warning the victim who was uprooting seedling from the said land did not leave the place and as a result altercation ensued and in the course of altercation he attacked Prafulla with a bhali (ballam) and accidentally it pierced the abdomen of Prafulla.It is otherwise claimed by the appellant, Sukumar that he did this in exercise of his right of private defence to protect his property and body.However during the trial the learned Trial Court found sufficient evidence against the appellant and he was pleased to convict him under Section 304 Part I/34 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years.Admittedly, the incident occurred on plot No. 743 at mouza Amtala.Therefore, at best it can be said that the appellant and the victim were co-sharers of plot No. 743 where the incident occurred.It is the prosecution case that the victim Prafulla was assaulted by the appellant, Sukumar with a bhali (ballam) which pierced the abdomen and as a result intestine and omentum came out through the wound.The incident of assault upon the victim on that particular date i.e. on 11.08.1984 was seen by P.W. 1, Pasupati Nayek, P. W. 2, Nidhiram Nayek both being cousin brother of the victim, P. W. 3, Bhudar Chandra Das, neighbour, P. W. 4, Sankar Kumar Bhunia, neighbour, P. W. 5, Surapati Jana, labour engaged by Prafulla and P. W. 8, Saktipada Jana, labour also engaged by Prafulla.All of them in chorus voice confirmed that it is the appellant, Sukumar who hit the victim Prafulla with bhali which pierced his abdomen and as a result he died.The testimonies of these witnesses as to the cause of death of the victim find corroboration from Dr. Saroj Ranjan Bhowmick, P.W.9 who held the P.M. examination of the victim.P. W. 9 on dissection of the body of the victim found the following injuries :(i) One penetrating wound 2" x 3/4 x 4" deep over the right side of the abdomen at the level of umbilicus about 2" lateral.Intestine and omentum coming out through the wound.On dissection the wound was seen penetrating to the intestine and injuring the abdominal scrota.The whole peritoneal cavity was full of blood about 2/2 1/2 lbs.(ii) One incised wound 2" x 1/2" x 3/4" muscle deep over the thenar eminence right palm.(iii) One incised wound over the vault of the scalp right side 21/2" x 1/2" with bone scratch mark.The doctor opined that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of abdominal injury which are anti-mortem and homicidal in nature.He however opined that injury Nos. 1 and 2 can be caused by sharp-cutting weapon and injury No. 3 on the vault of the scalp can be caused by lathi or blunt substance.Therefore, the victim Prafulla died unnatural death which was homicidal and anti-mortem in nature and it is the appellant, Sukumar who inflicted injury upon the body of the victim with bhali (ballam) causing his death.We have gone through the evidence on record as also the decision cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,897,072
JUDGMENT Lahiri, J.In April 1943, the Government of Bengal received reports from the Collector of Burdwan about acute economic distress in certain parts of that district and sanctioned certain sums of money on various dates amounting to a total of about 4 lacs under the Famine Code to be spent on Test Relief operations under the provisions of the said Code.The District Board, in its turn, carried out the operations by "Agents" who used to be employed on a commission basis.Purulia-Ambalgram road under P. S. Kethgram was one of the 52 Centres where Test Relief operation in the shape of earth work was taken up and one Gulzar Shaikh (who has since died) was employed as an agent at this Centre.Under Section 63 of the Famine Code read with para.6 of the Famine Manual, the Collector directed that the Agent would employ his own men and the District Engineer would have to pay the Agent the following: (a) Cost of temporary staff employed and (b) Supervision allowance to the Agent [vide Collector's order dated 11th May 1943-Ext. 1 (41)].Acting under this order, the District Engineer authorised the Agent to appoint the following temporary staff (1) One Pay Master for every 500 labourers, (2) one Work Sircar for 200 labourers, (3) one dafadar for every 100 labourers [vide Ex. 68 (1)].To supervise the work of the Agents there was to be a Supervisor under the District Board.The duties of the Agent in carrying out the works were specified in various circular orders and instructions issued by the District Enginers from time to time, as will appear from Exs.The following were some of the more important duties of the Agents and Supervisors : (1) Men from neighbouring districts are not to be employed for the relief works of the Burdwan District.(2) Agents should maintain a Muster Boll which will be signed by Supervisors in course of inspection.(3) Measurements of earth work are to be entered daily in Measurement Books to be maintained by the Agents and they are to be submitted once a week along with Muster Bolls and Paysheets to the District Engineer.(4) Measurements are to be checked regularly and Muster Rolls are to be checked daily by Supervisors and their initials are to be affixed at the end of the entries of each date.(5) Entries in Measurement Books, Paysheets and Muster Rolls are to be made without leaving any blank space.Supervisors and Sub-overseers are to sign the paysheets and Muster Rolls whenever they visit any centre and corrections, if any, are to be signed by the Supervisor.Exhibit 1 (29) shows that allowances at the rates of 8, 6 and 4 p. c. were sanctioned for the Agents upon daily labourers employed by them upto 500, 501 to 2000 and above 2000 respectively.The system followed in carrying out the earth work was as follows: (a) Gangs of Coolies working in a centre and consisting of males, females and children were employed in different batches working under a mate who was himself a coolie and also a representative of the coolies working under him and used to receive payments on behalf of all the members of his gang on affixing his thumb impressions on pay-sheets, (b) Attendance of coolies used to be recorded in muster rolls maintained for the purpose and paysheets used to be drawn up showing the quantity of earth work done by each batch and the amounts of money paid by the Agent against the receipt containing the thumb impression of the mate to whom the payment is supposed to have been made and also the signature of the witness of payment, the signature of the Sarkar and a certificate by the Supervisor about the accuracy of the entries, (c) Daily wages were to be paid at the rate of -/8/- for a male and -/6/- or -/7/- for a female labourer against a daily output of 100 cubit feet of earth work, (d) The Agent used to receive payments from the District Board on production of periodical abstracts of paysheets certified as correct by the Supervisor.One Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya was the supervisor of the District Board and Ghulam Rahaman, Mirza Ghulam Hossain, Abdul Based and Gora Chand Chakravarty were members of the temporary staff maintained by the Agent Gulzar Shaikh (deceased) in the Purulia-Ambalpur Section of the Test Relief operations.The prosecution case is that the deceased Agent had submitted a bill for Rs. 16,732-12-6 claiming the amount as actually spent by him against 21,09,322 cubic feet of earth work done in the Purulia Ambalpur Section and had received an amount of Rs. 16,599 in several instalments from the District Board on the strength of paysheets submitted from time to time.As a result of departmental enquiry, however, it transpired that the total quantity of earth work shown in the pay-sheets was considerably in excess of the work that had been actually done, that payments alleged to have been made to mates had been artificially inflated by including the names of fictitious and non-existent persons in the muster rolls and by showing that a particular person had worked for a larger number of days than he had actually done and that payments were shown to have been made in the paysheets against forged thumb impressions and in this way the District Board had been cheated to the extent of a considerable sum of money.The prosecution case further is that the accused named above along with one Abadhut Majhi entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the District Board of Burdwan by fabricating muster rolls and paysheets and making false entries as indicated above.One of the co-conspirators according to the prosecution case named Bholanath Majhi, made a confession at the time of the investigation and he has been examined as an approver in the case.A finger-print expert and a handwriting expert examined thumb impressions and the handwriting appearing in the different paysheets and compared them with the specimen thumb impressions and handwritings of the different accused taken in Court and as a result of his examination the finger-print expert gave it as his opinion that: (a) the specimen of the right thumb impression of the accused Ghulam Rahaman was identical with the finger-impressions in the pay sheets against the names of 108 mates who were named by the expert in his evidence; (b) the specimen of the left thumb impression of Ghulam Rahaman was identical with the thumb impressions in the pay sheets against the names of four mates; (c) the specimen of the right middle finger impression of Ghulam Rahaman was identical with the finger impressions in the pay sheets against the names of four mates; (d) the specimen of the right thumb impression of the accused Mirza Ghulam Hossain was identical with the finger impressions in the pay sheets against the names of 39 mates; (e) the specimen of the left thumb impression of the accused Mirza Ghulam Hossain was identical with the finger impressions in the paysheets against the names of 66 mates; (f) the specimen of the left thumb impression of the accused Abdul Based was identical with the finger impressions in the pay sheets against the names of 15 mates; (g) the specimen of the left thumb impression of the accused Gora Chand Chakravarty was identical with the finger impressions in the pay-sheets against the names of thirty-one mates.We need not refer to the opinion of the handwriting expert; because nothing hinges on that opinion in this appeal and that opinion has not also been relied upon by the Court below.Upon the aforesaid allegations all the four appellants named (1) Ghulam Rahaman, (2) Mirza Ghulam Hossain, (3) Abdul Based, (4) Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya were placed on their trial on a charge under Section 120B, Penal Code and besides that common charge Ghulam Rahaman was specificially charged under Section 467, Penal Code on 116 counts in respect of each thumb impression alleged to have been forged by him; Mirza Ghulam Hossain was similarly specifically charged under Section 467, Penal Code on 105 counts in respect of the thumb impressions alleged to have been forged by him; Abdul Based was similarly specifically charged under Section 467, Penal Code on 16 counts in respect of the thumb impressions alleged to have been forged by him; Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya was also specifically charged under Section 420/109, Penal Code on eight counts.Besides these four persons Gora Chand Chakravarty, who has not appealed to this Court, was also placed on the trial on charges under Sections 120B and 467, Penal Code, the charge under R. 467 being on 31 counts and Abadhut Majhi who has been acquitted was charged under Section 120B, Penal Code only.It appears from the oral and documentary evidence in the case and it is not also disputed that the accused Santosh was employed as the Supervisor under the District Engineer and his duty was to sign the certificates in the pay sheets and generally to maintain the measurement books.The other four accused were members of the temporary staff employed by the Agent Gulzar Sheikh and no fixed duty was allotted to them and by turn one or other of them kept the muster roll or drew up the pay sheets or signed as witnesses of payment.406 witnesses were examined by the Court of the committing Magistrate and 357 witnesses by the Court of Session, because some of the witnesses examined by the committing Magistrate had died and others were not available and the evidence of still others was tendered for cross-examination.Besides the oral evidence the prosecution produced hundreds of exhibits and sub-exhibits to prove the complicity of the different accused.As a result of the trial all the assessors unanimously found the accused Abadhut Majhi not guilty of the offences charged against him and the learned Additional Sessions Judge accepted that finding and acquitted him.With regard to the remaining five accused, two of the assessors found them not guilty of the offences and this opinion was rejected by the learned Judge.One other assessor found the accused Gora Chand Chakavarty not guilty under Section 120B but guilty under Section 467, Penal Code and the other accused guilty of all the charges against them.The learned Judge rejected the opinion of not guilty under Section 120B, Penal Code in favour of Gora Chand because the materials on the record do not afford any ground for differentiation between the charge under Section 120B and the charge under Section 467, Penal Code.The fourth assessor found all the accused except Abadhut Majhi guilty of all the charges against them and this opinion was accepted in its entirety by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.In the result the accused Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 for each of the two charges under Sections 120B and 420/109 and in default of payment of the aggregate fine of Rs. 300 to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months more.Ghulam Rahaman and Mirza Ghulam Hossain were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 150 for each of the two charges under Sections 120B and 467, Penal Code and in default of payment of the aggregate sum of Rs. 300 to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 3 months but the sentences of rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently; Abdul Based and Gora Chand Chakravarty were similarly sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 for each of the two charges under Sections 120B and 467, Penal Code and in default of payment of the aggregate sum of Rs. 200 to Buffer rigorous imprisonment for an additional period of two months, the sentences of rigorous imprisonment to run concurrently in each case.In awarding the sentences, the learned Judge very rightly took into consideration the impecunious condition of the accused and also the fact that they were helpless tools in the hands of the principal conspirator, the agent, named Gulzar Sheikh who had died.In the case of Gora Chand Chakravarty he rightly observed that this accused joined in the conspiracy at a very late stage and in the case of Abdul Based it was found that the number of instances in which he was implicated were fewer.Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence the present appeal has been filed by four viz., Ghulam Rahaman, Mirza Ghulam Hossain, Abdul Based and Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya.Out of these four, again, Santosh Kumar Bhattacharjya filed an application from jail praying for an order that his name might be struck off from the category of the appellants as he did not desire to prosecute the appeal.This petition is dated 17th September 1948, and the signature of the petitioner is attested by the jail clerk, Sailendra Nath Biswas.As we have accepted the evidence of the finger print expert and the evidence of other witnesses to have proved that the names of imaginary persona were introduced into the muster rolls and pay sheets it does not matter whether or not the appellants' names were mentioned in the confession.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,711,288
The complainant in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. deposed that the present applicant had caught hold her hand and tried to take her in a gali.The incident is dated 20/11/2015 and the FIR was lodged on 20/12/2015, after a period of one month.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE MISHRA
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,715,839
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.451 of 2017 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Panagudi, Tirunelveli District as against the petitioner.2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent person and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.451 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.3.The learned Government Advocate (criminal side) would submit that the investigation is still pending and this petition is in premature stage and hence, he prayed for dismissal of this petition.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.The investigating machinery has to step in to investigate, grab and unearth the crime in accordance with the procedures prescribed in the Code.It is also relevant to rely upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India passed in Crl.A.No.255 of 2019 dated 12.02.2019 - Sau.13.In view of the foregoing discussion, we allow the appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the aforementioned complaint case to its original file for being proceeded with on merits in accordance with law.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2087 of 2018 However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate.19.09.2019 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no vsd To1.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Panagudi,Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P(MD)No.2087 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,721,811
P.C.. Certified copy as per rules.(J.K. MAHESHWARI) JUDGEThis is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Sections 307, 450, 323, 457, 506-B/34 of IPC in connection with Crime No.236/2015 registered at Police Station Gohparu.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 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.
18,972,283
This Criminal Original Petitions have been filed by the same petitioner to quash the proceedings in Crime No.95 of 2016 dated 07.03.2016 and Crime No.513 of 2016 dated 25.10.2016 thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of I.P.C and 143 and 188 of I.P.C respectively as against the petitioner.2.The case of the prosecution is that (i) on 07.03.2016, at about 2.00 p.m., the petitioner along with 57 students were gathered blocking the road at Thiruvarur Depot of TNSTC, , against the staff of TNSTC, Thiruvarur, since the petitioner was assaulted by them and (ii) on 25.10.2016, at about 10.30 a.m., the petitioner along with some college students organized a rally gathering in front of the Revenue Department Office for demonstration and raised slogans to take action against the college Prof. M.Kumaran for teasing woman student of the college, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority.On the basis of the above said allegations, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of IPC in Crime No.95 of 2016 and under Sections 143 and 148 of IPC in Crime No.513 of 2016, on the file the first respondent.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioner and others.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.Therefore thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143, 188 and 341 of I.P.C. as against the petitioner.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioner.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,723,240
He is the permanent resident of Murar, District Gwalior.as per rules.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the applicant.It is hereby directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Authority.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,972,782
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25/9/2018 whereby his representation for appointment to the post of Patwari has been rejected.Thereafter the petitioner had filed representation seeking appointment which has been rejected by the impugned order.As against this learned counsel for State has supported the impugned action.The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.C.C. as per rules.(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge BDJ Digitally signed by Bhuneshwar Datt Date: 2019.09.19 17:40:01 -07'00'
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,897,303
1 SCC 335 nocase was made out for quashing the aforesaid proceedings.As urged before us by the counsel for the petitioner, on 11thDecember, 1995 a complaint was made by respondent No. 5 to Dy.
['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.
189,731,672
The State of West Bengal & Anr.and another delivered on December 18, 2017 in CRR 2885 of 2009 in the matter of Sri Babulal Nahata & Ors.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:MumtazKhan CRR No. 3406 of 2015 Ajay Jalan & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.The instant revision has been preferred by the accused persons /petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 2258 of 2014 arising out of Hare Street Police Station Case No. 642 of 2014 under Section 406/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the court of learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata.During inspection he noticed that the petitioners being employers/Managing Director/Directors and the persons responsible for the conduct of the business of the said company though deducted a sum of Rs. 2,33,742/- from the salary/wages of the employees as employees share of Provident Fund contribution for the period from March 2012 to October 2014 but not deposited the amount with the statutory fund in violation of Section 6 of the Act read with Para 38 of Employees Provident Fund Scheme.Accordingly, he lodged a complaint against the petitioners for commission of an offence punishable under Section 406/409 of the Indian Penal Code.On the basis of above complaint a case was started against the petitioners at the Hare Street P.S. and investigation ensued and thereafter on completion of investigation a charge sheet was submitted against the petitioners under Section 406/409/34 of the Indian Penal Code.S.K. Aggarwal and Ors.reported in (1998)6 Supreme Court Case 288, R.L. Kanoria & 4 Ors.State of West Bengal & Ors.reported in (2003) 3 CHN 400, Prabhash Kumar Basu Vs.State of West Bangal with Inderjit Singh Oberoy Vs.State of West Bengal reported in 2015(3) CHN (Cal) 755, Aneeta Hada Vs.Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited with Anil Hada Vs.Godfather Travels and Tours Private Limited with Avnish Bajaj Vs.State and Ebay India Private Limited Vs.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,141,323
P.Ws.1, 2, 4 are thefather, brother and mother respectively of the deceased.P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and the deceased were all residing in their own house atAmmapatti village.The accused also belongs to the same village.The accusedhas got a daughter by name Pandeeswari.The deceased had developed intimacywith her.This was opposed to by the accused.During the month of April 2010,the accused had gone to a village near Madurai on account of his work and he wasstaying there.His daughter Pandeeswari and his wife were in the occurrencevillage.It is the further case of the prosecution that the wife of the accusedhad informed the accused about the intimacy between the deceased and theirdaughter.Enraged over the same, on 27.04.2010, accused had come to theoccurrence village at about 1.15 p.m. The deceased was sleeping in his house.P.Ws.1 to 3 and 4 were engaged in some work near their house.At that time, itis the case of the prosecution that the accused trespassed into the house of thedeceased and cut the deceased with aruval on his neck.After causing an injuryon the neck of the deceased, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.On hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, P.Ws.1 to 4 rushed towards thehouse of the deceased.At that time, they found the accused fleeing away fromthe house of the deceased with an aruval in his hand stained with blood.Thereafter, in an attempt to take the deceased to a hospital, they brought himout of the house.When they had taken him near the house of one Prakash, thedeceased succumbed to the injuries.They brought back the body and kept it infront of the house of the deceased.Thereafter, P.W.1 proceeded to PeraiyurPolice Station and preferred a complaint under Ex.P.1 at 2.00 p.m. P.W.12 wasthe then Sub-Inspector of Police, in-charge of the said Police Station.P.14 is the first information report.Thenshe forwarded Exs.He handed over the same to the learned Magistrateat 6.00 p.m. P.W.12 handed over the case diary to P.W.13, the then Inspector ofPolice, attached to Peraiyur Police Station for investigation.3.Taking up the case for investigation, P.W.13, proceeded to theplace of occurrence at 2.45 p.m and prepared an observation mahazar in thepresence of P.W.5 and another witness under Ex.Then he recovered thebloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under themahazar, Ex.P.5, in the presence of the same witnesses.Then, he conductedinquest on the body of the deceased between 3.15 p.m and 5.15 p.m and preparedEx.P.16, the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1 to 4 andrecorded their statements.Internal examination:Neck-Hyoid bone normalThorax, Heart and Lungs-Pale.Abdomen, Liver, Spleen, Kidneys-Pale.Stomach:Contains semi solid food material (rice) around 100 ml present.Intestines:Contains semi solid food material (rice) around 50 ml present.*************[Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J] The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.338 of 2010, on the fileof the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.The Trial Court has convictedhim under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 302 ofI.P.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine ofRs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month foroffence under Section 449 of I.P.C. Challenging the said conviction andsentence imposed by the trial court by judgment dated 30.11.2010, the appellanthas come up with this Criminal Appeal.On thebasis of Ex.P.1, she registered a case in Cr.No.130 of 2010 under Sections 302of I.P.C against the accused.Thereafter, he forwarded the body for post mortem.4.P.W.8 was the then medical officer attached to ThirumangalamGovernment Hospital.During autopsy, he found the following external and internalinjuries on the body of the deceased:"External injuries:Left side of neck- a cut injury - oblique in nature 5 cm below the left ear, 4cm below the angle of left mandible.10 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm : Left sterno cleidomastoid; left carotinal artery.External and internal jugular veins and all thenerves were transversed cut.Clotted blood.(n.c) No other external injury.Skull:Brain matter-pale."6.P.W.8 gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofhemorrhage and shock due to vital organ injury (left carotid and internal andexternal jugular vein), most probably between 20 to 22 hours prior to theautopsy.7.Continuing the investigation, P.W.13 examined few more witnessesand recorded their statements and went in search of the accused.On the sameday at 8.15 p.m, near Peraiyur bus stand, P.W.13 arrested the accused in thepresence of P.W.6 and another witness.In thesaid confession statement, he disclosed that he had hidden the aruval near theAmmapatti Nayakkar Mudam Odai in a bush.In pursuance of the said disclosurestatement, he took the accused and another witness and identified the said placeand took out M.O.1, aruval and produced the same.P.W.13 recovered the sameunder Ex.P.7, mahazar.Then he returned to the police station along with theaccused and the weapon recovered.Thereafter, he forwarded the accused to thecourt on 28.04.2010 for judicial remand.Then, he examined few more witnessesincluding the doctor and the witnesses for the mahazar.On his request, thematerial objects including aruval were sent for chemical examination by thelearned Judicial Magistrate.Ex.P.12 is the chemical analysis report.Accordingto the same, human blood was found in the bloodstained earth seized from theplace of occurrence, on the aruval and on the baniyan and Lungi recovered fromthe body of the deceased.P.13 is the serologist report.According to thesaid report, human blood found on the above material objects belongs to 'O'group.Then, he handed over the case dairy to P.W.14 for further investigation.8.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed chargesagainst the accused under Sections 449 and 302 of I.P.C. Since the accuseddenied the charges, he was put on trial.During such trial, on the side of theprosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 16 documents wereexhibited, besides five material objects.9.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, in respect of the incriminating evidences, he denied thesame as false.However, he did not choose to examine any witness or to exhibitany document on his side.Having considered the above materials, the trialCourt ultimately found him guilty under both the charges and accordingly,punished him.That is how, the appellant is now before this Court with thisCriminal Appeal.10.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and also perused the recordscarefully.11.At the outset, in this case, we have to state that there is noeye witness to the occurrence.P.Ws.1 to 4 have only seen the accused fleeingaway from the scene of occurrence with M.O.1 aruval.Whether this fact asspoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4 has been proved or not needs to be considered at thefirst.A perusal of these evidences would go to show that they haveconsistently stated that they had engaged in some work in their house at thetime of occurrence.At that time, according to them, the deceased was sleepinginside the house.He was alone.When they heard the alarm raised by thedeceased, they were attracted to the place of occurrence and when they werenearing the house, they found the accused fleeing away from the place ofoccurrence with aruval.Thus, from the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4, the fact thatthe accused was found fleeing away from the scene of occurrence has beenestablished.12.But, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant wouldcontend that since these witnesses are closely related to the deceased andhighly interested in the case of the prosecution, their evidences should berejected.As has been consistently held by the courts, simply because, thewitnesses are either closely related or interested in the case of theprosecution, their evidences cannot be straight away rejected.It all dependsupon the facts and circumstances of each case.Though the witnesses are closelyrelated and highly interested, if their evidences inspire the confidence of thecourt, there is no legal impediment to act upon their evidences.In this case,of course, it is true that P.Ws.1 to 4 are the family members of the deceased.But the appellant/accused has not brought on record anything to disbelieve theirevidences.Though the learned counsel made an attempt to show that there arecontradictions between the present evidences and their earlier versions statedin their respective 161 Cr.P.C statements, a close reading of the cross-examination of these witnesses would go to show that they were not contradictedwith reference to any contradiction in their earlier versions.Therefore, theabove argument of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves only to berejected.Their presence also cannot be doubted, because they live in theoccurrence place.The occurrence has taken place in their house.According tothem, they engaged in some work near their house.Therefore, the fact that theywere present at the place of occurrence is quite natural.Thus, their presencecannot be doubted and their evidences cannot be rejected.In view of the same,we hold that through P.Ws.1 to 4, the prosecution has proved that this accusedwas found fleeing away from the place of occurrence, when the deceased raisedalarm.13.It is their further evidence that immediately they went into thehouse and found the deceased with injuries on the neck.When he was enquired,he told them that it was this accused who caused the injury on his neck, becausehe had intimacy with the daughter of the accused.The oral statement of thedeceased made to these witnesses falls within the ambit of Section 32 of theEvidence Act as oral dyeing declaration of the deceased.The said statement ofthe deceased also falls within the ambit of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. Fromthe said oral dyeing declaration made by the deceased, it has been furtherestablished that the injury on the deceased was caused only by this accused.14.The bloodstained earth recovered from the place of occurrence bythe Investigating Officer, has been analysed by the Chemical Analyst andaccording to his opinion, there was human blood which was of 'O' group.In thebaniyan and lungi found on the body of the deceased, human blood was noticed andthe same was also of 'O' group.Thus, it has been clearly established that thedeceased was cut at the place of occurrence by this accused.15.Next comes the recovery of M.O.1-aruval.It is the case of theprosecution that on the same day, the accused was arrested and on such arrest,he gave a voluntary confession in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.Inpursuance of the said confession, he had taken P.W.13 and another witness to thesaid place and produced the aruval.Though the learned counsel for theappellant argued that the evidence of P.W.6 as well as the evidence of P.W.13 inrespect of the arrest and confession of the accused cannot be believed, we donot find any cogent reason to disbelieve the said evidences.Based on the abovedisclosure statement of the accused, M.O.1 was discovered.According to thechemical analyst report, it also contained 'O' group human blood.Thus, thearuval has also been linked to the crime.P.W.1 has also identified that M.O.1is the one which was taken by the accused at the time when he was found fleeingaway from the scene of occurrence.Thus, the chemical analyst report alsocorroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 that it was this accused who caused theinjury on the deceased with M.O.1 aruval.This argument is based on the fact that the fatalinjury was on the neck.In our considered opinion, this argument deserves onlyto be rejected for the simple reason that there was no injury on the vocal cardor wind pipe or to the lungs.The injury was only on the neck more particularlyon the left carotid artery and internal and external jugular veins.With thisinjury, we are of the view, that the deceased would have raised alarm and wouldhave been in a position to speak for some time.During the course of crossexamination, nothing has been elicited from P.W.8 about the stand taken by theaccused that the deceased would not have been in a position either to raisealarm or to speak.17.P.W.8-doctor, who conducted autopsy has opined that the death wasdue to the injury on the neck, more particularly on the left carotid artery andinternal and external jugular veins.He has further opined that the death wasdue to shock and hemorrhage due to the said injuries.In our consideredopinion, in view of the said medical evidence, the act of the accused squarelyfalls within the ambit of third limb of Section 300 I.P.C.18.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that evenassuming that the accused had caused the death by causing injury, still theoffence would fall only under Section 304(i) of I.P.C. According to him, sincethere was a single injury on the neck and since the accused had acted due tosustained provocation as his daughter had been spoiled by the accused, the actof the accused would fall within the ambit of first exception to Section 300I.P.C.19.But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that itis a clear case of murder and the same would not fall within the ambit of firstexception to Section 300 I.P.C.20.We have anxiously considered the said submissions.It is theadmitted case of the prosecution that the deceased had developed intimacy withthe young daughter of the accused.The accused had gone elsewhere for somecoolie work.His wife intimated the same to him.Therefore, he had returned tothe village.On getting information from the wife that his daughter was spoiledby the accused by developing intimacy, surely the accused would have beenprovoked.The said provocation would have surely been sustained in his mind.When he went to the house of the deceased, it is not in evidence that he wentwith aruval, so as to suggest pre-meditation on his part.The accused has notalso caused more than single injury.For a moment, we are not prepared to saythat in all cases, where there is a single injury, the offence would fall withinthe ambit of first exception to 300 I.P.C. On the contrary, we only say that inthis case, had it been the intention of the accused to do away the deceased andin the backdrop of sustained provocation, we are of the view that the very factthat the accused did not repeat the cut would go to show that he had nointention to cause the death of the deceased.From the totality of thecircumstances available, it could be inferred that prior to the occurrence,there might be some wordy quarrel between the accused and deceased, which hasresulted in the crime.21.Coming to the quantum of sentence, at the time of commission ofthe offence, the accused was hardly aged 47 years.He has got a big family tolook after.He is a poor man living on coolie work.While imposing sentenceupon him, these factors are also relevant factors which should be taken intoaccount.Appreciating all the above circumstances, more particularly his familybackground and events which led to the occurrence, we are of the view thatimposing a punishment of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years besides fine ofRs.1,000/- will meet the ends of justice.Sofar as the offence under Section449 of I.P.C is concerned, since it has been proved that the accused had enteredinto the house of the deceased, we hold that the said charge has been proved andthe quantum of punishment is also very reasonable.22.In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed in thefollowing terms:i)the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused inS.C.No.338 of 2010 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai underSection 302 I.P.C is set aside and instead, he is convicted under Section 304(i)I.P.C and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.ii)The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for theoffence under Section 449 of I.P.C is confirmed.iii)The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shallbe set off under Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.1.The The Inspector of Police, Periyur Police Station, Madurai District.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,147,943
in brief) and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to suffer further simple imprisonment for one year.The trial Court directed that if fine is recovered, Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) from the same be paid to the Complainant as compensation.The case of the prosecutrix (without naming, and hereafter referred as "victim") has been referred to the District Victim Compensation Board, Hingoli with recommendation to give adequate compensation to the victim.She mentioned her age as 16 years and occupation to be labour, residing at Nai Abadi, Jamgavan, Tq-Kalamnuri.mentioned that she was doing labour work to support herself as well as her younger sister.She does not have her parents or brother and she only has a sister as named in the F.I.R. (examined as PW-14).(I will refer to PW-14 Only as - sister of victim).The parents died when the victim and her sister were children and both the sisters were then residing with their grand-mother at Jamgavan.The grand-mother died two years back and thereafter both the sisters have continued to ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 5 reside in the house of the grand-mother.In the same village, she has maternal uncle Khandu (PW-2) and maternal aunt but they never visit the victim.Her paternal uncle and aunt reside at Khambala but they never visit the victim and her sister.Gangubai Khude (PW-5) is neighbour and beyond the house of Gangubai, the accused Baburao Dakhore lives.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The F.I.R. mentions regarding the incident that about eight months before, accused Baburao came to the house of victim and made allegation expressing suspicion that the victim had stolen his ring and he told both the sisters that they should not reside there.So saying, the accused drove out the two sisters outside their house.Both the sisters went to maternal uncle Khandoji at Jamgavan and told him as to what has happened and he explained to the accused and helped them to re-enter their house.After this incident, after about eight days, in the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 6 night at about 9.30 p.m., sister of victim went to the house of accused to watch T.V. At that time victim was alone at home.The accused came to the house of the victim which is a room made of tins and moment he came, without letting her understand anything, he took out handkerchief from his pocket and pressed it against her mouth and tied the same to her mouth.She tried to resist but accused did not let her succeed.The F.I.R. then give details as to how rape was committed on the victim and it is stated that the accused then threatened her that if she tells the incident to anybody, she and her sister would be killed.When the rape was committed, the accused had, with the help of Odhani of the victim, tied both her hands behind.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::After the rape and after giving threat, the accused went away.After some time her sister came back home and she opened the handkerchief which was tied to the mouth of the victim and the Odhani by which her hands had been tied.She told the incident to her sister.Out of fear they did not ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 7 tell the incident to anybody.The F.I.R. stated that as they did not tell the incident to anybody, the accused started coming to places where the victim went for labour work and used to signal her to come aside and took opportunities to further forcibly rape her, every 8-10 days.In the last eight months, the accused took opportunities to rape her when nobody was at her home or in the field.Her stomach started showing and she consulted a mid-wife in the village and the lady told her that she was pregnant by five months.She gave this information to the Sarpanch and the villagers brought the victim at the Police Station.She has told the facts to lady Constable Dalvi and Madhuri Dhule (PW-4) of Mahila Dakshata Committee.Thus, the F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::(B) On receiving the F.I.R. to above effect the offence was registered at the Police Station and investigation was taken over by PW-16 A.S.I.Sayed Irshad Ali.He went and arrested the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 8 accused.The statements of witnesses were recorded.As the relatives and villagers were not ready to accept the victim girl, she was sent to Remand Home.It appears her sister was also sent off to Remand Home.The clothes of the victim were seized on 29th September 2013 (Panchnama Exhibit 39).The clothes of the accused were also seized (Panchnama Exhibit 40).These facts are as follows:-There is no dispute regarding the fact that the victim was doing labour work and taking care of herself and her younger sister.Parents of these sisters died when they were still younger children.The above evidence of the victim ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 18 regarding the first encounter with the accused regarding rape, is corroborated by the evidence of PW-14, the sister of victim.This sister of the victim deposed that on the day concerned, she had gone to the house of accused to watch T.V. and she came back at about 10.00 p.m. and found that the mouth of her sister was gagged and that her hands had been tied.She untied the mouth and hands and inquired as to who tied her.She deposed that the victim told her that the accused had come to their house.PW-14 has corroborated the victim even regarding the earlier incident of allegation of stealing of gold ring and the accused trying to force them to leave the house and the uncle intervening.The evidence of victim then shows that after the first incident, when she started going for labour work in the fields of others, the accused would follow her and used to give signals to her to come aside and that he used to forcibly commit intercourse with her with intervals of about eight days.Evidence is that this continued for about eight months and such incidents occurred from time to time either in the field or at her house.Victim deposed that consequently she became pregnant and her evidence shows that she did consult a mid-wife who told that victim was carrying pregnancy of five months.The evidence of PW-7 Uttam Jadhav shows that actually his wife Parwatibai is the Sarpanch.The village Jamgavan is about 1 k.m.from New Abadi.Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 has been ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 3 filed by the Appellant - original accused who has been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Child Case No.1 of 2013 on 29th April 2015 under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ("the Act"::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 has been filed by the victim seeking enhancement in the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 4 compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::(Rupees One lakh).The case of prosecution, in short, is as follows:-(A) On 25th September 2013 at about 5.00 p.m. the victim filed F.I.R. (Exhibit 37) at Akhada Balapur Police Station.Police collected extract from the school admission register (Exhibit 44).When the victim was examined by the medical officer, it transpired that she was carrying twenty weeks pregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::There were no external injuries found.On completing the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed.Charge was framed by the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 4 of the Act and under Section 376 (2) (h) (i) of the Indian Penal ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 9 Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).The accused pleaded not guilty.His defence is of denial.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The prosecution examined in all sixteen witnesses to bring home the guilt.The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution, decided to convict the accused only under Section 4 of the Act and not under Section 376 of I.P.C. as it was of the opinion that punishment under Section 4 of the Act is of greater degree.Thus, the conviction and sentence as mentioned above.I have heard learned counsel for the Appellant-accused.He has taken me through the whole evidence of witnesses.According to him, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly and came to wrong and erroneous conclusions.The offence of rape had not been established.The sister of the victim should have ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 10 been treated as a tutored witness.It should have been seen that there was delay of more than eight months in reporting the matter to the Police.The accused has been implicated in the offence at the instance of politically rival group.According to learned counsel the offence should have been held as not proved and the accused deserves to be acquitted.According to him, regarding the age of the victim there is no other evidence other than her own evidence and the evidence of PW-11 Sulochana Mukhade, Head Mistress of the school.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The ossification test was not done.Due to earlier incident of theft of ring the accused wanted the victim to leave the area and because of this victim filed false case.The basis on which school entry was made regarding date of birth of victim was not brought before the Court.D.N.A. test was not done.There was no witness of alleged multiple sexual assault.There was no evidence of resistance, shouting etc. ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 11 .With regard to the Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 the counsel for accused submitted that the accused has not been able to pay even the fine of Rs.35,000/- which was imposed and he would not be in a position to pay any enhanced compensation.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Advocate Mrs. Bajpai in Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 submitted that if the facts of the present case are perused, the accused really deserved to be convicted under Section 6 and not under Section 4 of the Act. The victim had been kept in the Remand Home after the incident came to light and now as she has become major, she has been asked to leave the Remand Home and she is facing hardships of the life as she has no support and the amount of compensation deserves to be increased.Relying on Section 29 of the Act it is stated that there is presumption that the accused committed the offence and thus according to the counsel, no interference in the Judgment is called for.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::When the evidence from school was ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 13 available, then if ossification test was not done, it would not make any difference looking to the higher value given to school record in Rule 12 of the Rules of 2007 which the Hon'ble Supreme Court applied even in the case of determining the age of the prosecutrix.Thus according to the A.P.P., the Appeal of the accused deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::In the present matter, the prosecution examined the two maternal uncles of the victim as PW-2 Khandoji and PW-3 Topaji.Two neighbours of the victim i.e. PW-5 Gangubai Khude and PW-6 Devidas Tambhare were also examined.All these four persons turned hostile and were cross-examined by the prosecutor and have been discredited.PW-7 Uttam Jadhav is husband of the Sarpanch of the village.The victim appears to be referring to PW-7 Uttam as if he himself was the Sarpanch.The evidence shows that when the incident came to light, this PW-7 Uttam collected the villagers and the victim was taken to the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 14 police station.At the police station, PW-16 P.S.I. Sayed Irshad Ali called lady police constable Dalvi and PW-4 Madhuri Dhule of Mahila Dakshata Committee and the F.I.R. shows that these ladies made the victim comfortable so as to register the offence and F.I.R. came to be filed.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Going through the material available, some of the facts are almost unchallenged and can be treated to be admitted.Both the sisters were earlier residing with their grand-mother in the house at New Abadi, Jamgavan.This Abadi is at short distance from the main village Jamgavan.The grand-mother Janabai died about two years before the incident ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 15 came to light and after the death of the grand-::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::mother, both the sisters alone continued to stay in the house left by the grand-mother.The evidence brought on record shows that when the incident came to light, neither the relatives nor the villagers wanted to help the victim and her sister and consequently the police sent them off to the Remand Home.Keeping such unsympathetic relatives and villagers in view, it would be appropriate now to refer to the evidence of the victim PW-8 herself.She deposed that her parents died in her childhood and she was living with her grand-mother and her sister who was 13 years old.Her uncles PW-2 ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 16 Khandoji and PW-3 Topaji along with aunts reside at Khambala.She does not visit them.Grand-mother died two years ago and since then she and her sister were residing in the house.She and her sister were doing labour work and maintaining themselves.The uncles and aunts refused to maintain them.PW-5 Gangubai is their neighbour and so is the accused.The house of accused is after one house.The victim further deposed that the accused had once come to her house and made allegations that she has stolen his gold ring and he suggested that the victim and her sister should not reside in that house and in the village.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Victim deposed that she then went to her maternal uncle Khandoji and told him about the incident and came along with her uncle who assured that he would convince the accused.Victim deposed that her uncle convinced the accused and thereafter she and her sister continued to reside in their house.Her evidence is that eight days thereafter at about 9.00 p.m. her sister had gone to the house ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 17 of the accused.The F.I.R. shows that sister had gone to watch T.V. Evidence of victim is that at such time accused entered her house when she was alone and he took out handkerchief and pressed the same on her mouth and gagged her mouth with the help of handkerchief.He took out Odhani from her person and tied both her hands.The evidence then gives details as to how the accused forcibly removed her clothes and forcibly committed intercourse on her.Her evidence is that she attempted to shout but the accused over-powered her.He then threatened to kill her and her sister if the incident was disclosed to anybody.Then he went away.Victim PW-8 deposed that after some time her sister came home and freed her mouth and her hands.She told the incident to her sister but the incident was not told to any other person out of fear of accused.This evidence clearly proves rape and age is immaterial.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The evidence of PW-14, the sister shows that the victim did told her at that time that the accused had committed forcible intercourse on her.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Noting in the recording of evidence shows that the sister of victim PW-14, at the time of her evidence, appeared to be frightened and the evidence was adjourned for 2-3 days.In her further evidence, PW-14 deposed that when she went back home, she found that there were no clothes on the person of her sister and the victim did tell her that the accused had threatened to kill them ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 19 if the incident is disclosed.Her evidence is that because of this, they did not inform anybody.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Her evidence further is that Sarpanch came to know about the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 20 incident and came to her house and collected some persons from the village and made inquiries from her in presence of those persons.Thereafter the victim says that she disclosed about the acts of the accused.Consequently, she was taken to the police station and she gave the details to the police.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::According to him, on 25th September 2013 he came to know about pregnancy of the victim and he collected 10 - 12 people and went to the house of the victim.The two sisters were sleeping.They were woken up and brought to the square of the village and inquires were made from the victim.His evidence shows as to how at that time victim disclosed about the acts of the accused in forcibly committing intercourse on her.He deposed that the victim along with her sister and the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 21 villagers was taken to the police station and complaint of the victim came to be recorded.His evidence shows that police had gone to the house of the accused and brought him also to the police station.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The evidence of PW-4 Madhuri Dhule of Mahila Dakshata Committee and PW-16 P.S.I. Sayed Irshad Ali shows that on 25th September 2013 the villagers had brought along the victim to the police station and as the victim made the allegations of rape, the P.S.I. called PW-4 and a lady constable and these ladies talked to the victim.The F.I.R. was then recorded and the same came to be registered.The evidence of PW-16 Sayed Irshad Ali shows that the victim was then sent to PW-13 Dr. Manjusha Adhav at the Government Hospital, Nanded and the victim was examined.The evidence of PW-13 Manjusha shows that on examination the victim was found to have uterus size of 20 weeks, external ballotment present, ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 22 relaxed.No external injuries were found.The witness deposed that X-ray could not be advised in the situation because the victim was pregnant.Looking to this if ossification test was not done, fault cannot be found with prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The prosecution examined PW-11 Sulochana Mukhade, Head-Mistress of Shri Shivajirao Moghe Primary Residential School at Kandli Phata, Akhada Balapur.The witness deposed that as per entry recorded in the school record, date of birth of victim is 10th June 1997 and that the contents were true as per the school admission register and that it bears her ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 23 signature.The witness admitted that the entry in the school record had been made on the basis of transfer certificate received from the earlier residential school, Shirali.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::The prosecution seized clothes of the victim as well as of the accused vide Exhibits 39 and 40 and examined PW-9 Arvind Tarfe as well as PW-10 Devidas Kurude in this regard and Investigating Officer PW-16 has deposed about the same and C.A. Reports are also proved.However, the C.A. Reports have not brought on record any incriminating material against the accused on this count.This is natural looking to the fact that there was a gap between the various incidents of forceful intercourse and incident coming to light.PW-3 Topaji went further to give all admissions sought by the accused in the cross-::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::examination to the extent of even saying that the character of the victim was not good.Without any semblance of regret, he admitted that it was true that he was not maintaining the victim and her sister.No doubt PW-8 victim in her cross-examination deposed that she had to leave the Ashram school as there was nobody to look after her grand-mother and nobody was providing food to her grand-mother, and her uncles and aunts were not looking after her and her sister and they had totally neglected them.She deposed that she had not told about the incident to her aunts and ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 25 uncles and added that even if she would have told the same to them, it would have been in vain.The evidence of PW-2 and PW-3 read with evidence of other hostile neighbour PW-5 Gangubai shows that while Gangubai had good relations with the accused, she admitted that the relatives of the accused and the victim had compromised the case.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::It is apparent that the victim did not compromise but these witnesses who are relatives and neighbours of the victim, appear to have decided between them that the matter should be treated as compromised.Same is the condition of evidence of PW-6 Devidas.He was also confronted with his police statement.PW-2, PW-3, PW-5 and PW-6 thus deserved to be ignored as it is apparent that they do not have any regard for truth, leave aside having sympathy for two young girls like PW-8 and PW-14 struggling to survive on their own in such hostile set up.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::I have gone through the cross-examination of PW-8, the victim.Regarding the incident, she stated that she had sustained injuries to her hands but accepted that she had not sustained injuries because of forcible intercourse to her private part.She deposed that at that time after the first incident, she did not intend to tell about the same due to the threats which had been given by the accused.Her evidence is that she did not attend the labour work for a day and thereafter she had started going for labour work.The cross-examination then shows suggestions from the accused denying the incident which the victim did not agree.Reading the evidence as a whole of PW-8 the victim, it cannot be said that she was shattered in her evidence in any manner.So is the condition of cross-examination of PW-14, the sister of the victim.There is no material to hold that she was tutored as claimed by counsel for Accused.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::There is no substance in the argument that there was delay of eight months in filing of the F.I.R. The evidence shows that the victim along with her still younger sister was herself a minor at the time of incident and did not have any support from any side and appears to have become the victim of the circumstances.She did not have the courage to go and seek help.The evidence rather shows that the villagers forcibly took her and her sister to the police station once the victim talked to a local mid-wife regarding her difficulty as she became pregnant.Possibly victim may have anticipated hostile villagers and thus kept quiet till it became unavoidable.The victim became pregnant is not in dispute.The accused has tried to vaguely claim ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 28 that there was rival political group because of which the case has been filed.In the cross-::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::examination of PW-7 Uttam Jadhav he accepted that there was a group Gram Panchayat for village Jamgavan, Jamgavan Tanda and Jamgavan New Abadi.He accepted that there are separate panels in election of Gram Panchayat.He accepted that his wife had contested election in a ward from Nai Abadi and one Sawarnmala Baban Khude has contested election from opposite panel.He accepted that one Baban Khude is brother of son-in-law of accused.On the basis of drawing such remote relations, the accused is trying to show that he is being made the victim.In the democratic set up as is existing, elections are bound to be there and there are bound to be opposite panels and the candidates are bound to have relatives or friends.This does not mean that helpless girls like the victim and her sister would come forward to depose against the accused only because he happens to be some distant relative of opposite candidate of the ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 29 wife of PW-7 Uttam Jadhav.In fact the evidence rather shows that this PW-7 Uttam Jadhav had forced and taken the victim along with her sister to the police station and put them before the police after having questioned them in the square of the village.The sisters rather landed up in Remand Home due to PW-7 Uttam's initiative.There is no substance in the defence taken by the accused that he was being made a victim due to politics in the village.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::In the present matter, the victim did not reach the level of matriculation.The date of birth from school record is no doubt not from the first school attended but it appears to be from entry in the school record maintained in ordinary course and going through the evidence of PW-11 Sulochana Mukhade, I do not find any reason to doubt the entries made in the school record.It ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 32 cannot be said that the entries have been manipulated or changed or corrected or that they had been made in anticipation.Accepting this, it is clear that at the time when complaint was filed on 25th September 2013 the victim was about 16 years and three months old and the first incident of rape occurred eight months before the date of filing of complaint.Clearly the victim was less than 16 years of age at that time.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 amending the I.P.C. was implemented with effect from 3rd February 2013 when the age became 18 years with regard to the question of consensual sex.In the present matter firstly there is no evidence that it was a case of consensual sex.Rather, the evidence shows that the accused managed to commit forcible intercourse on the victim on first occasion and when victim did not gather courage to ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 33 make the incident public, he continued to take disadvantage so as to keep on violating her from time to time.The very nature of such acts is that the accused would take care to quietly reach the victim for the purpose.Circumstances in which victim was caught cannot be construed as consent.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Thus looking at the incident from point of view of Section 375 of I.P.C. or the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act 2012, in any case the accused must be held to have committed the offence as charged.Although I am finding this from the present record, I am not proceeding to disturb the conviction order as has been passed which would be under lesser Section which is Section 4 of the Act. This is because there is no Appeal for punishment under higher Section.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::I have gone through the Judgment of the trial Court as regards of the merits of the matter ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 35 and found that the trial Court correctly discussed the evidence and came to the right conclusion regarding the incident.The trial Court concluded from the evidence that the victim was 16 years and about three months old at the time of filing of the complaint; that there was no substance in the defence of the accused; that the evidence of the victim and her sister was consistent and corroborative to each other; that the accused had failed to impeach the evidence of these sisters;::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::that the New Abadi was about a Kilometer away from the main village and was having less population (thus giving opportunity to the accused to reach out to the victim for repeated acts of violation);that the accused was in a position to take precaution to conceal his activities; that the evidence of PW-7 Uttam was natural where he deposed that he collected people and took the victim to the police station; and that the offence against the accused had been established.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Going through the material, there is no substance in the Appeal of the accused.As there is no Appeal from the State that the conviction should have been under Section 6 of the Act, I am not disturbing the order of the trial Court on that count.As regards Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 filed by the victim to enhance the amount of fine, the trial Court has discussed the aspects and considered the income of the accused and his living standard and social status and observed that the accused would not be able to pay huge amount of fine and therefore the trial Court settled the amount at Rs.35,000/-.I do not find any reason to disturb this.Even the amount of Rs.35,000/- as imposed against the Appellant -accused has not been deposited by him as yet.Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 however may have to be partly allowed.In the eventuality ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 37 of the fine being recovered, the amount of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) should be paid to the victim as compensation instead of Rs.25,000/- as ordered by the trial Court.The District Legal Services Authority, Hingoli can however be directed to pursue the matter regarding giving adequate compensation to the victim.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::For the above reasons, I pass the following order:-O R D E R (I) Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 seeking setting aside of the conviction and sentence imposed vide impugned Judgment and Order, is rejected.However, as regards direction No.5 in the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court, the amount of Rs.35,000/-shall be substituted in place of Rs.25,000/- as mentioned by the trial ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 ::: cria482.15 38 Court.Thus if fine is recovered, the whole of the fine shall be paid to the victim as compensation.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::(II) As regards Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016, the same is partly allowed in view of the above directions whereby the fine of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand) if recovered, would fully go to the victim.In addition, looking to facts of the matter specially that victim is helpless orphan with no support, I hereby direct/request the District Legal Services Authority of Hingoli District under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to take up the matter of compensation as well as rehabilitation of the victim, keeping in view the direction No.6 in the impugned Judgment and order of the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::Registry of the District Court shall assist victim to open Savings Account in Bank if help is necessary.(IV) Both the Appeals, i.e. Criminal Appeal No.482 of 2015 and Criminal Appeal No.181 of 2016 are disposed of, accordingly.[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.] asb/AUG16 ::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 00:34:58 :::
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,148,087
Briefly stated, it was the case of the prosecution that, when the prosecutrix had been to village Manyarkheda at her parents house and resided there for the period of 5-6 months, on one day when the prosecutrix was alone, the accused entered into the house in the midnight and committed rape on the prosecutrix and threatened her not to disclose the said incident to anyone or else he will kill her.Vide the impugned Judgment, the appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 451 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the 'I.P.C.') and is sentenced to suffer rigorous ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-2- Cri.Apeal115.2016 imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 451 of I.P.C. Both the sentence are directed to run concurrently.Appellant is hereinafter referred to as the 'accused'.It was further alleged that, keeping the prosecutrix under threat the accused repeatedly had forcible sexual intercourse with her.The prosecutrix did not disclose about the alleged incident to her parents or anyone from her parental side till she was at village ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-3- Cri.Apeal115.2016 Manyarkheda.The prosecutrix then returned to her matrimonial house.8-10 days thereafter she started receiving some pain in her abdomen.She was therefore taken by her in-laws to the government hospital at Jalgaon and thereafter to one private hospital.On her medical examination, it was revealed that, the prosecutrix was pregnant and was carrying the pregnancy of around 4 months.The prosecutrix then disclosed that, the accused had committed rape on her and because of that, she has incurred the pregnancy.Thereafter the prosecutrix accompanied by her in-laws went to Police Station, Varangaon and lodged the report against the accused on 27.01.2014, whereupon the investigation was set in motion.During the Course of the investigation, blood samples were taken of the prosecutrix, the feotus in the womb of the prosecutrix, the accused and the husband of the prosecutrix for the purpose of conducting the DNA test.In the said test, it was revealed that, the accused was the biological father of the feotus in the womb of the prosecutrix.Before receiving of the DNA test report the other investigation was completed and the ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-4- Cri.Apeal115.2016 charge-sheet was also filed against the accused for the offences under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of I.P.C. in the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court at Bhusawal.Since the offences charged against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned J.M.F.C. At Bhusawal committed the said case to the Sessions Court.The accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.In order to prove the guilt of the accused, as many as 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.The defence of the accused was of total denial.The accused did not enter into the witness box nor examined any witness in his support.The learned Additional Sessions Judge on his assessment of the oral as well as documentary evidence brought before him held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 451 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment as noted herein above.::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-5- Cri.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned Judgment on various grounds.Learned Counsel submitted that, the evidence on record sufficiently demonstrates that, before lodging the report against the accused there were certain opportunities for the prosecutrix when she could have very well disclosed that, the accused had forcible sexual intercourse with her but she did not make any grievance and remained silent.Learned Counsel submitted that, silence on part of the ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-6- Cri.Apeal115.2016 prosecutrix leads to an inference that, the prosecutrix had willingly submitted herself for sexual intercourse with the accused.The learned Counsel further submitted that, the trial Court has drawn some unwarranted inferences though there was no evidence in that regard.Learned Counsel, therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned Judgment and order and consequently to acquit the accused of the charges levelled against him.Shri A.A. Jagatkar, learned APP appearing for the State supported the impugned Judgment and order.Learned APP submitted that, DNA report has conclusively proved that, the accused did have forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.Learned APP submitted that, the prosecutrix has given a complete account of the alleged misdeeds committed by the accused.He further submitted that, nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the testimony of the prosecutrix.The learned APP further submitted that, because of the report of DNA test, the guilt of the accused has been fully proved and learned trial Judge has therefore rightly held the accused guilty ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-7- Cri.Apeal115.2016 for the offence under Section 376 and 451 of I.PC.Learned APP, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal.I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP.I have also perused the impugned Judgment and the evidence on record.Perusal of the impugned Judgment reveals that, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has fully relied upon and believed the testimony of the prosecutrix in holding the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 451 of I.P.C. It further appears that, the DNA test report had also much weighed in the mind of the learned additional Sessions Judge while holding the accused guilty for the aforesaid offences.On 27.01.2014 when the prosecutrix lodged the report against the accused in the Police Station at Varangaon, she was carrying pregnancy of around 4 months.As was alleged by the prosecutrix, she had incurred the pregnancy because of the rape committed by the accused on her.The question ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-8- Cri.Apeal115.2016 therefore arises why the prosecutrix did not lodge the report against the accused for the period of about 4 months.As per the version of the prosecutrix, she did not lodge the report because of the threat given to her by the accused that, he will kill her if she makes any complaint against him.The accused had denied that, he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix without her consent.The accused had also denied that, any such threat was given by him to the prosecutrix at any point of time.In a case of rape the most important witness is always the prosecutrix and if her testimony inspires confidence and appears fully believable the conviction of the accused can be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix without seeking any corroboration to her version.It is also a well settled principle of law that, the occurrence of any offence is to be reported as early as possible.The delay in lodging the FIR provides a legitimate basis to suspect the truthfulness in the allegations made.It is further true that, delay in filing the FIR in cases of rape is not to be viewed with the same sensitiveness as in other cases and delay in lodging the FIR itself may not be ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-9- Cri.The only reason which has been assigned by the prosecution to justify the said delay is that, the accused had threatened the prosecutrix that, he would kill her if she discloses the alleged occurrence or makes any complaint against him.It has to be therefore ascertained from the evidence on record whether the threat which the prosecutrix had complained of was in fact given by the accused and whether it was such intimidation which prevented the prosecutrix from making any disclosure of the occurrence for more than 4 months.It has to be stated that, the charge of criminal intimidation was also framed against the accused and in that regard a specific point was framed by the learned trial Judge ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::Apeal115.2016 while delivering the Judgment in the matter.The said point no.3 reads thus :The learned trial Judge has answered the said point 'in negative'.In para-33 the discussion is made by the learned trial Judge as to why he has answered the said point in negative, which reads thus :I answer point No.3 in negative."Surprisingly the learned trial Judge while deciding point no.1 relating to offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. had made a one line observation that, 'there is explanation for delay in lodging the FIR and not complaining to the relatives immediately'.I reiterate that, threat given by the accused was ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-11- Cri.Apeal115.2016 the only reason given by the prosecution for occurrence of delay in lodging the FIR.The learned trial Judge has in clear terms held that, the prosecution has failed in proving that, there was any criminal intimidation from the side of the accused.Delay occurred in lodging the FIR was liable to be explained by the prosecutrix.In her testimony before the Court, the prosecutrix has deposed about only one instance that occurred in the midnight, however, on which day it occurred has not been stated by the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix has testified that, on that day after having committed rape on her the accused gave threat to her not to disclose the said incident to anybody otherwise he will kill her.In her entire further testimony there is no even iota of evidence that, at any time after the alleged occurrence the accused ever met her, threatened or intimidated her.The prosecution has not brought ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-12- Cri.Apeal115.2016 on record any evidence to show that, there was a continuous threat by the accused, which prevented the prosecutrix from making any disclosure of the alleged occurrence or making any complaint against the accused.For a moment even if it is accepted that, the prosecutrix was really under the threat when she was residing at Manyarkheda, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecutrix as to what prevented her from lodging report against the accused immediately after she returned to her husbands house.It further appears improbable and unconscionable that, the prosecutrix could not have disclosed the said fact even to her husband and that even at that time the threat of the accused was persisting.As has come on record, the prosecutrix started suffering pains in her abdomen few days after she returned to her matrimonial house.At that time the prosecutrix was in 4th month of her pregnancy.It cannot be digested that, the prosecutrix could not have realized that, the pains in her abdomen were having nexus with her pregnancy.However, it is the matter of record that, even at that time the ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:42 :::-13- Cri.Apeal115.2016 prosecutrix did not disclose to her husband or her in -laws that, she was sexually abused by the accused.It is not in dispute that, even at that time the prosecutrix did not unveil that, she was subjected to rape by the accused while she was at her parental house.It has come on record that, VPT test was done at Civil Hospital, Jalgaon and the said test came positive.The concerned Medical Officer at that time opined that, the prosecutrix was pregnant.Surprisingly even at that time also the prosecutrix did not utter a single word that, she was sexually abused by the accused.It is the further matter of the record that, the prosecutrix was then taken to the sonography centre of Dr. Manali Chaudhari at Aayush Hospital, Jalgaon and the sonography test was done.Dr. Manali Chaudhari then certified that, the prosecutrix was carrying pregnancy of 15 weeks and 1 day.It is undisputed that, before conduction of the sonography ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::-14- Cri.Apeal115.2016 test also the prosecutrix did not tell to her husband or her in-laws about the rape committed on her by the accused.The evidence on record shows that, only after it was diagnosed by Dr. Manali Chaudhari after conduction of the sonography test that the prosecutrix was carrying pregnancy of 15 weeks, for the first time the prosecutrix disclosed that, the accused, who was the friend of her brother had committed rape on her and that the foetus in her womb was the "sin" of the accused.From the prosecution material on record, it does not appear that, the prosecutrix was noticed to be under great fear while unveiling the fact that the accused had committed rape on her.It is also not the case that prosecutrix was reluctant to disclose the name of the accused as a culprit.In the circumstances, the question arises that the fact which the prosecutrix did disclose after it was exposed that, she was pregnant, why was not disclosed by her at the earlier occasions.Even if it is accepted that, immediately after the occurrence it could not have become possible for the prosecutrix to disclose about the alleged occurrence to her parents or to her brother, in no case it can be accepted that, the said threat was persisting ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::-15- Cri.Apeal115.2016 even after she returned to her matrimonial house.After returning to her matrimonial house the prosecutrix could have certainly disclosed about the alleged occurrence when she started pain in her abdomen.She could have also disclosed the said fact before her medical examination while giving the history of pain.It was also possible for her to disclose the said fact before going for the sonography test.The evidence on record shows that, the prosecutrix all the while kept silence and disclosed about the occurrence for the first time when doctor Manali diagnosed that, she was pregnant and was carrying pregnancy of 15 weeks.In absence of any evidence to show that, the alleged threat by the accused which the prosecutrix complained of, continued to have its influence on her even when she found herself pregnant and that such state of influence continued so much that, she could not disclose the occurrence to anyone, even within her family, for long 4 months until time she could no longer keep the event a secret, because of her 4 months pregnancy, the possibility of the accused having sexual ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::-16- Cri.Apeal115.2016 intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent is difficult to be ruled out.There appears substance in the argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the accused that, some untenable inferences are drawn by the learned trial Judge.It is not understood as to on what basis learned trial Judge has observed that, the inference can be drawn that, the prosecutrix was not of normal understanding and that is why she did not immediately complain to anyone.It is nowhere the case of the prosecution that, the prosecutrix was not having normal understanding.On the contrary, her brother has candidly deposed that, the prosecutrix was quite normal.From the evidence on record also, ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::In her testimony before the Court, the prosecutrix appears to have correctly answered the questions put to her in the examination-in-chief as well as in her cross-examination.It is nowhere observed by the trial Judge that, the prosecutrix did not understand any question put to her either in her examination-in-chief or in cross-examination or that she was taking more time in understanding the questions put to her or that, there was a general impression formed after having observed the demeanor of the witness that, she may not be of normal understanding.After having considered the entire material on record, it is revealed that, the prosecution has failed in brining on record any unimpeachable evidence proving the guilt of the accused.The evidence which has been brought on record is not free from doubt.It would be unsafe to confirm the order of ::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::-18- Cri.Apeal115.2016 conviction which is based on such doubtful evidence.Hence, the following order.i) The Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhusawal on 30th September, 2015 in Sessions Case No.401 of 2014 is quashed and set aside.ii) The appellant - accused namely Pralhad s/o.iii) The fine amount paid, if any, by the appellant - accused shall be refunded to him.The appeal thus stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.(P.R. BORA) JUDGE ggp::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 25/03/2018 01:41:43 :::
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,151,400
I.A. No.11805/2020, an application for urgent hearing, is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Matter is heard through video conferencing.The applicant has filed this first application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 18.07.2020 by Police Station Kampoo, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.267/2020 registered for offence under Sections 452, 354, 354-A and added Section 376 of IPC.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant- Salim Khan that the applicant has not committed any offence.Initially, the case has been registered under Sections 452, 354, 354-A of IPC, thereafter Section 376 of IPC has been added on the basis of complaint made by the prosecutrix which is afterthought and based on false story.Hence, prays for grant of bail to the applicant.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-27713-2020 (SALIM KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) regarding measures in respect of COVID- 9 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Hence, prays to reject the bail application of the applicant.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.From perusal of record, it is seen that intially the case has been registered under Sections 452, 354, 354-A of IPC and thereafter Section 376 of IPC has been added after recording of statements of the prosecutrix under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C of IPC and looking to the nature and gravity of offence, at this stage, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this first bail application filed under Section 439 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-27713-2020 (SALIM KHAN Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,163,950
2/ The appellant has been convicted for committing murder of her two children namely Karan @ Gudda age 9 years and Ayushi age 7 years.3/ Prosecution case is that on 7/8/2009 at 8.30-9.00 a.m. a report was received from Prahlad Singh that appellant being his 2 wife resides with him and that he has 9 years old son Karan Singh @ Gudda and 7 years old daughter Ayushi.On the day of incident his son Karan was standing near him and daughter Ayushi was with appellant then appellant had taken Karan also inside the room and locked the room from inside.He had heard his son Karan shouting 'papa' and had found that the door of the room was closed from inside.He had tried to push the door but the door did not open then his uncle Mohan Singh etc. had opened the door and it was found that appellant was having an iron 'Musal' and Karan Singh and Ayushi were lying unconscious having injuries on the head and bleeding.Apart from the appellant and two children there was no other person inside the room and appellant had caused injuries to the two children.Children were taken to the hospital, where during the course of treatment, they had died, hence the offence under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the appellant.The FIR was registered in the police station Neemuch Cantt.Vide Ex. P-1, Naksha Panchanama Ex. P-4 & Ex.P-5 was prepared.The blood of the deceased was seized in a plastic box Ex.P-6, iron Musal was seized vide Ex.Blood stain cloths such as Saari, Blouse, Petikot were seized.Photographs of the deceased Ex. P-25 to Ex.P-29 were taken and both children were sent to hospital where they were declared dead.(Delivered on 4/12/2019 ) PER PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA 'J'.By this appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. appellant has challenged judgment of First Additional Sessions Judge Neemuch dated 5/1/2011 in Sessions Trial No. 103/2009 convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and awarding the sentence of life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500 and default imprisonment of one month.Seized articles were sent to FSL and after completing the investigation challan was filed.The appellant had abjured the guilt, therefore trial had taken place in which appellant has been convicted in the manner indicated above.4/ Learned counsel for appellant submits that since the appellant was suffering from mental disorder as is reflected from deposition of PW-1,PW-3,PW-4, PW-5 & PW-9, therefore, it is a case falling under section 84 of IPC.He submits that only one and two injuries were found on the deceased therefore, the offence under Section 304 Part I is made out.5/ As against this learned counsel for state has supported the impugned judgment.6/ Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record it is noticed that PW-3 Prahlad Singh has deposed the details of incident and stated that on the day next to Rakhi in the morning at 8.30 a.m. all of them had planned to go to Sanawad when his son Karansingh had demanded Rs. 20 and he had said that he will give it on the way.In the meanwhile appellant had taken Karan inside the room and had closed the room from inside.At that time both Karan and Ayushi were inside the room.Thereafter he had heard his son shouting 'papa' then his nephew had looked inside the room from the window and had seen that both the children were lying on the floor and appellant was having a Musal which she was waving.Thereafter the door of the room was broken and appellant was stopped and children were taken to hospital.Statement of PW-3 Prahlad is supported by statement of PW-1 Kamal Singh, PW-2 Rajendra Singh and PW-5 Mohan Singh.PW-4 Rahul who is a child witness, has deposed the details of the incident and has supported the prosecution case.7/ PW-8 Dr. Vijay Bharti had done postmortem and had given postmortem report Ex. P-21 in respect of Ayushi.He had found 3 x 1/2 cm x bone deep lacerated wound on right parietal region 4 and fracture of the bone below it.The brain was cut in the right parietal region and brain membrane was also ruptured.He had opined that death was caused on account of head injury.He had also done postmortem of Karan Singh and had given the postmortem report Ex. P-22 and had found that there was a lacerated wound 4 x cm x bone deep on the right parietal region and another lacerated wound 3 x 1 cm x bone deep on the left backside of head.He had also found that skull bone on left occipital and right parietal region was fractured, brain membrane was ruptured and the brain was cut on left occipital lob and right parietal region.He had opined that Karan had died on account of head injuries.8/ The investigation officer PW-9 O.P. Shrivastava has proved seizure of blood from spot Vide Ex.Trial court has noted that in the photographs Ex. P-8, the blood on the seized Musal was clearly visible.No doctor has been examined by appellant to prove the unsoundness of mind.Only the certificate Ex. D-1 has been produced but even the doctor giving the said certificate has not been examined to prove it.No such material has been produced by appellant which could establish that at the time of incident for the reason of unsoundness of mind, the appellant was incapable 10 of knowing the nature of the act or differentiate between right or wrong.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
741,728
Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as under:-Siddiq (P.W.-1) was residing with his wife RasithaBegum, sisters - Amsath (Hamsath) Begum, Sabeetha Begum 3(P.W.-4), Faritha Begum (P.W.-5) and brother Aliyar in a rentalhouse at Mehbobapalayam, Minachipuram, Karaikudi.P.W.-1is working as a Cleaner in Kalakai Vadivel Murugan Lorry.Onthe southern side of the house of P.W.-1, Muthuraman (A-3),an auto-driver, and his wife Tamilarasi (A-2) are residing.On 28.03.1995 at about 9:45p.m., P.W.-4 went to the lorry shed where P.W.-1 is workingand informed the latter that since morning hours of28.03.1995 Rasitha Begum was missing from the house.Healong with P.W.-4 came to his house at about 11:00 p.m. andstarted enquiring the whereabouts of his wife in theneighbourhood, but he could not locate her.Later on,Amsath, the second sister of P.W.-1, told him that in themorning at about 9:30 a.m. her sister-in-law (Rasitha Begum)had gone to the shop of a tailor master to get her blouse fromhim and at that time she was wearing a new saree.P.W.-1 4went in search of Rasitha Begum to the shop of tailor master,Katinivaasal, New Road, and house of his in-laws atDevakotai, but she could not be located at any place.On29.03.1995 at about 9:30 a.m., P.W.-1 returned home andagain made an enquiry from Smt. Mumtaz (P.W.-3) - aneighbour, in regard to the reason of his wife missing from thehouse.P.W.-3 alleged to have told him that on 28.03.1995 atabout 10:30 a.m., she saw Rashita Begum and A-2 werequarrelling with each other, but she did not think it proper tointervene since it was practically their daily habits to enterinto heated exchanges upon petty issues.P.W.-3 alsodisclosed that on 29th morning when she along with FarithaBegum (P.W.-5), Fathima Beevi, and Rakhumat Biwi hadpeeped through the eastern side window of the house of A-2and A-3, they could notice Rasitha Begum lying on the floor oftheir house and her both legs and hands were tied.They alsonoticed one rice bag and some household materials foundplaced upon her dead body.Thereafter, P.W.-1 went to thePolice Station and lodged complaint [Ex. P-1], on the basis ofwhich Sub-Inspector Murugan (P.W.-17) registered Crime No. 5145/95 [Ex. P-14] under Section 302, IPC in Karaikudi (North)Police Station.Balakrishnan (P.W.-18), Inspector of the Police Station,went to the spot of incident and prepared Mahazar [Ex. P-4]and Death Investigation Report [Ex. P-15] in the presence ofPanchayatraras.He prepared spot map [Ex. P-16] andrecorded the statements of P.W.-1, P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and othermaterial witnesses.On the same day, he sent the dead bodyof Rasitha Begum to the Government Hospital, Karaikudi, withrequisition [Ex. P-2] for conducting post-mortem.On10.04.1995, P.W.-18 arrested A-2 and A-3 near KaraikudiWater Tank.The Investigating Officer recorded theconfessional statement of A-2 in the presence of Govindam(P.W.-12) leading to the recovery of 22 carat black beadsgolden Karukumani.He took A-3 to Thirumurugan AmmanSannidi Jewellery Shop and recovered M.O.M. 02 [Ex. P-7]from there in the presence of Saminathan (P.W.-13).On18.05.1995, A-1 was taken to the Police custody from judicialcustody.Dr. Seenivasan (P.W.-2) on 29.03.1995 conducted thepost-mortem on the dead body of Rasitha Begum and as perPost-Mortem Report [Ex. P-3], he noticed the followinginjuries:-"External Injuries:-Signs of decomposition present whole body edematous except limbs.Foul smelling discharge from the nostril and mouth.Tongue outside.A handkerchief seen in the mouth.The testimony of this witness has not established thatA-1 was present in the house of A-2 and A-3 at the time andon the day of the murder of his wife.He scribed complaint [Ex. P-1] at theinstance of P.W.-1 in the latter's house.He admitted in hiscross-examination that after writing complaint [Ex. P-1], thesame was read over to P.W. 1 who after accepting the contentsthereof as correct signed it.The intimation about the missing of RasithaBegum was sent to P.W.-1, who was away from his house inconnection with his employment at the lorry shed.It is herevidence that on the morning of 29.03.1995, dead body ofRasitha Begum was found lying inside the house of A-2 andher both hands and legs were tied with ropes and one rice bagand other household materials were found placed upon herbody.She along with P.W.-Faritha, Fathima Bibi and somemore persons informed P.W.-1 about the incident, who rushed 19to the place of occurrence and on seeing the dead body of hiswife inside the house of A-2, he went to police station forreporting the incident of murder.In cross-examination, sheadmitted that P.W. 1 is her cousin.This witness admittedthat the death of Rasitha Begum was discussed in Jammatmeeting.JUDGMENT 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 841 OF 2008 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.5799 of 2007]Krishnan .....Appellant VersusState represented by Inspector of Police ..... Respondent JUDGMENTLokeshwar Singh Panta, J.1. Leave granted.Krishnan has filed this appeal against the judgment andorder dated 07.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of theMadurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in CriminalAppeal No. 826/1996, confirming the conviction and sentence 2for life in respect of the offence committed under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short "theIPC"] in Sessions Case No. 41/1996 dated 30.08.1996awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.Three accused - Krishnan [A-1], Tamilarasi [A-2] and herhusband Muthuraman [A-3] were charged in Sessions CaseNo.41/1996 on the file of the Court of Principal SessionsJudge, Sivaganga. A-1 and A-2 were tried under Section 302read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 380 of the IPC. A-3 was tried under Section 414 of the IPC.The learned trialJudge held A-1 and A-2 guilty under Section 302 read withSection 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment forlife.All the accused were acquitted of the charges underSections 380 and 414 of the IPC. A-1 challenged hisconviction and sentence before the High Court in CriminalAppeal No. 816/1996 whereas A-2 preferred Criminal AppealNo.Internal Injuries:Abdomen distended with gas.Thorax - Ribs normal; Lungs congested; Heart empty; Neck - Echymosis and congested present in anterior aspect of neck; Hyoid bone- fracture, send for H.P.E.; Stomach contains 50 ml of digested food particles; Intestine distended with gas; liver 7 congested `spleen congested; kindly congested; bladder empty; Uterus - gravid 10 weeks size; skull contains in the left parietal region 6cm X 4 cm in size.No evidence fracture of skull.Brain partially liquefied.Specimen preserved - stomach, intestine, liver, spleen, kidney, hyoid bone."In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was as a result ofstrangulation of the neck of the deceased and asphyxia withinduration of 24 - 30 hours prior to the post-mortem.After completion of the investigation and on receipt of thePost-Mortem Report [Ex. P-3] and other documents, chargesheet was laid by P.W.-18 against A-1, A-2 and A-3 forcommission of the alleged crime.The learned JudicialMagistrate, Karaikudi, committed the trial to the learnedSessions Judge, who framed the charges against A-1, A-2under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and underSection 380, IPC, for removing 14 gms.gold ornaments fromthe body of the deceased and A-3 was charged under Section414, IPC.The accused denied the charges and claimed to betried.The prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in 8support of its case.In their statements recorded underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accusedpersons denied their involvement in the commission of theoffence and stated that they have been implicated in a falsecase at the instance of the Police and lastly they pleadedinnocence.However, no defence evidence has been led bythem.It is the admitted case of the parties that there is nodirect evidence connecting A-1, A-2 and A-3 in thecommission of the crime.The prosecution case entirely restsupon circumstantial evidence.The learned Sessions Judgerelied upon the evidence of P.Ws.-1, 3, 4, 5, 17 and 18 andheld A-1 and A-2 guilty of the murder of Rasitha Begum and,accordingly, sentenced them imprisonment for life whereasthey were acquitted under Section 380, IPC.A-3 has beenacquitted for offence under Section 414 of the IPC for lack ofcogent and convincing evidence against him. A-1 and A-2filed the above mentioned two separate appeals under Section374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the High Courtagainst their conviction and sentence.The Division Bench of 9the High Court dismissed both the appeals by common orderand confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-1and A-2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.Krishnan (A-1) is the appellant before us in this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties andexamined the material on record.She admitted having joined the demonstration andprocession on the leadership of Palani Baba.On closescrutiny of the testimony of P.W.-4, we find that she has notproved the presence of A-1 in the house of A-2 and A-3 whenthis witness saw Rasitha Begum going to their house in themorning at about 10:30 a.m. on the day of incident of murder.P.W.-4 stated to have informed her brother P.W.-1 atabout 9:00 p.m. on 28.03.1995 about missing of her sister-in-law from their house.She claimed to have seen A-1 in hisSilver Workshop on the day of incident of murder.She also stated thatA-1 is running a workshop nearby her house.19. P.W.-17-Sub Inspector and P.W.-18-Inspector of Policein their testimony stated that A-1 being a member of IndianCommunist Party, was involved in several demonstrations andagitations staged in Karaikudi area by the Communist Partyagainst the administration.It is the evidence of P.W.-18 thatin the year 1994 all political parties had demonstrated againstthe civil administration for inadequate and improper supply ofdrinking water facility from Karaikudi to Tirupattur and in thesaid agitation, members of Indian Communist Party includingA-1, had also participated in which one Kannan, a member ofCongress Party, received beatings.He admitted that a casewas registered against him regarding handcuffing of Kannanand in the said case A-1 appeared as a witness and deposedagainst him.P.W.-18 then stated that RTO also held enquiryabout the same incident in which one Ramachandran, amember of Indian Communist Party, Karaikudi, deposedagainst him.P.W.-17 has admitted in cross-examination that 21during strike staged by all political parties in 1994, somedemonstrators received injuries at the hands of Police Force.For the said incident, an inquiry was held by RTO against himand PW-18, who at the relevant time were Incharge of thePolice Station and later on they were transferred from thePolice Station, Karaikudi.He then stated that a criminal casewas also registered against him and PW-18 for the sameincident, in which A-1 appeared as a witness and deposedagainst them.In the teeth of the evidence of PW-17 and PW-18, undoubtedly they are hostile witnesses deposing againstA-1, who appears to have been framed later on in the crime bythese witnesses mainly on suspicion and improbability.There is absolutely no evidenceappearing on the record to establish that A-1 had illicitrelations with A-2 and in the absence of any cogent, believableand satisfactory evidence, A-1 could not be held guilty of themurder of the deceased only on hypothesis and suspicion.Ifthe entire incident was narrated by PW-4 to her brother PW-1before lodging a complaint (Ext. P-1) by him, it was butnatural for PW-1 to have disclosed the name of A-1 in thecomplaint as an assailant, on the basis of which FIR (Ext. P-The evidence of P.W.-3, P.W.-4and P.W.-5 regarding removing of jewellery from the dead bodyof Rasitha Begum by A-1 and A-2 coupled with the version ofP.Ws.-14 and 18 and the confessional statement allegedlymade by A-1, was not found believable and reliable by thelearned trial Judge and accordingly they were acquitted of thecharge under Section 380, IPC.On the same set of evidence,no acceptable evidence was found against A-3 for holding himguilty of offence under Section 414, IPC, and he has beengiven benefit of doubt.On independent analysis of the entire evidence onrecord, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove thecharge of murder of Rasitha Begum against A-1 beyondreasonable doubt.As noticed in the earlier part of thejudgment, we find material discrepancies, inconsistency andvital improvements in the testimony of P.Ws.-1, 3, 4 and 5 inregard to the presence of A-1 at the house of A-2 and A-3 atthe relevant time on the day of occurrence.Having given ourcareful consideration to the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties and in the light of the evidencediscussed above and tested in the light of principles of lawhighlighted above, it must be held that the evaluation of thefindings recorded by the trial court and affirmed by the HighCourt suffers from manifest error and improper appreciationof evidence on record.Thus, on the basis of the evidenceappearing on record, two views are possible, A-1 is entitled tothe benefit of doubt.In the result, the appeal is allowed.........................................J. (S. B. Sinha) ........................................J. (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)New Delhi,May 08, 2008
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,173,711
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.This application is, accordingly, disposed of.CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 & CRL.M.A. 40458/20193. Vide the present petition, the petitioners seek direction thereby to quash FIR no. 0202 dated 15.10.2019 , registered at Police Station EOW, New Delhi for the offences u/s 420 /120 B IPC and Sec 66 IT Act, 2000 and CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 Page 1 of 3 all consequent proceedings emanating therefrom.CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 Page 1 of 3Stae of Maharasthra Though Sr. Police Inspector and Anr, in criminal writ petition 4361/2018, High Court of Bombay vide order dated 26.10.2018 held that " the ingredients of an offences under which are attracted by invoking and applying the section 420, 408, 379 of the Indian Penal Code are covered by Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and prosecuting the petitioner under both the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act would be a brazen violation of protection against double jeopardy."Accordingly, the said Court set aside the FIR insofar as the investigation into the offences punishable under the Indian Penal Code.The said judgment of Bombay High Court was challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).Thus, according to the law of the land, regarding the protection against double jeopardy, the accused cannot be prosecuted under Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act simultaneously.CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 Page 2 of 3In view of above, the petition is disposed of.Pending application also stands disposed of.(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE NOVEMBER 18, 2019 ms CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 Page 3 of 3CRL.M.C. 5833/2019 Page 3 of 3
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
74,174,086
pk CRM No. 2556 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.3.15 in connection with Bagnan P.S. Case No. 63/15 dated 13.02.15 under Sections 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Sk.Rafik Ali & Ors.498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner no. 1 is the husband and rests are his relations.At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submit that although he is not admitting any of the allegations made against the petitioners but as a matter of good gesture and as it is the moral obligation of a husband, the petitioner no. 1 to maintain his wife, he is now agreeable to maintain the de facto complainant/wife according to his ability and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as her maintenance.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the maintenance for this 2 month shall be sent to the de facto complainant/wife within two weeks from this date and thereafter by seventh of each succeeding month.On the face of such submission, the learned counsel for the State has also not opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.Having regard to the voluntary offer and undertaking of the husband/petitioner no. 1 to maintain the wife, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by taking them into custody.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands allowed.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release the petitioners shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the State to do the needful.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Ishan Chandra Das, J.)
['Section 406 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.
73,059,242
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are victims in Crime No.78 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(2) IPC , 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, Section 3(1)(r), 3(1(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015).He further submitted that on 25.03.2020 at 06.00 P.M. a group of twenty persons belonging to Most Backward Community attacked the petitioners with 3/8http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.12189 of 2020 wooden rods and also abused them in the name of caste and due to which the petitioners sustained injuries on their head, mouth and hand and the vehicles of the petitioners were also damaged.He further submitted that as per Annexure I, S.No.41 of Rule 12(4), of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Rules 2016, (hereinafter referred as “the Rules” for brevity) the petitioners are entitled for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- each, on payment mode by 25% at First Information Stage, 50% when the charge sheet is sent to the Court and 25% when the accused are convicted by the lower Court.He further contended that on registration of FIR, the petitioners have received only a sum of Rs.25,000/- and yet to receive another sum of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/-.4/8http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No. 12189 of 2020Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the second and third respondents would submit that the petitioners are entitled for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in which they are entitled to receive 25% immediately after registration of FIR and the 25% of Rs.2,00,000/- goes to Rs.50,000/- in which they received a sum of Rs.25,000/- and they are yet to receive a sum of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/-.This petition has been filed seeking direction directing the first respondent to release the pending monetary relief of Rs.25,000/- to each victim of atrocities in the case registered with Crime No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Vettavalam police Station as per Annexure I, S.No.41 of Rule 12(4), of the Sc/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Rules 2016 at the earliest.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the entire investigation has been completed and though the petitioners have made repeated request to the first respondent by way of repeated representations, the first respondent did not consider the same and had not paid the remaining amount as per the Rules.Hence the present petition.It is seen that on a complaint lodged by the first petitioner, the third respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.78 of 2020 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 506(2) IPC, 3(1) of TN Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Schedule Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015).As per, Annexure I, S.No.41 of Rule 12(4), of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Rules 2016, the petitioners are entitled to have compensation for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- in which they were paid a sum of Rs.25,000/- after registering the FIR and they are yet to receive a sum of Rs.25,000/-. S.No.41 of 5/8http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.12189 of 2020 Schedule Annexure I of Rule 12(4) reads as follows:No. Name of the Offence Minimum Amount of Relief 41 Committing offences under Two lakh rupees to the Indian Penal Code the victim and or specified in the Schedule his dependents.The to the Act punishable with amount would vary if such punishment as specifically specified under the Indian otherwise provided Penal Code for such in this schedule.offences [Section 3(2) (va) Payment to be made read with schedule to the as follow: Act] 25 percent at First Information Report(FIR) stage;50 percent when the charge sheet is sent to the Court.Considering the above facts and circumstances of case, the first respondent herein is directed to pay the remaining sum of Rs.25,000/- out of Rs.2,00,000/- to each of the petitioners herein, forthwith.With the above direction, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of.13.08.2020 bkn Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/Non speaking order 7/8http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.12189 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.12189 of 2020 20.08.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,059,539
CO No.56 of 2015 Smt. Rita BandyopadhyaySri Debabrata Bandyopadhyay Mr. Chittapriya Ghosh ... for the petitioner.Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee ... for the opposite party.Although, this application appear under the heading " Extension of Interim Order" but since both Mr. Chittopriya Ghosh and Mr. Sanjay Mukherjee, learned advocates appearing for the respective parties submitted that they are ready to proceed with the hearing of this application, this application was taken up for hearing for final disposal.In this application under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the petitioner/wife has prayed for transfer of the Matrimonial Suit No.35 of 2010 with Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act filed by the opposite party/husband and pending before the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court at Durgapur, Burdwan to the Court of the learned District Judge, Birbhum at Suri.From the respective pleadings filed by the parties in this application it appears that the matrimonial suit was filed in the year 2009 and the same is still pending disposal.It appears that when the cross-examination of the petitioner/wife was about to commence, the application under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act was filed by the opposite party/husband.In the said application a direction was passed by the Court directing the petitioner to produce the eight-year old child before the Court.The said minor child is studying in a 2 school at Suri and it would be extremely difficult for the said child to be regularly produced for visitation by his father, in the Court at Durgapur.The petitioner has further stated that she had previously appeared before the Court at Durgapur to contest the matrimonial suit but since the said matrimonial suit is pending for a long time it has now become difficult for her to regularly visit the Durgapur Court along with her said minor child.From the records it appears that a complaint was lodged under section 498A and some other sectionss of the Indian Penal Code, a criminal case has been initiated against the opposite party/husband before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Birbhum and the opposite party/husband is duly contesting the said criminal proceeding.Mr. Mukherjee appearing for the opposite party/husband submitted that since the opposite party/husband once arrested in side the Court premises of the learned Judicial Magistrate(2) at Suri when he had visited the said Court for the purpose of contesting the proceeding initiated against him under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the opposite party is apprehensive of further arrest being caused by the petitioner/wife.Mr. Ghosh appearing for the petitioner submitted that such apprehension of the opposite party/husband as submitted by Mr. Mukherjee is unfounded as the trial of the criminal case initiated against the opposite party/husband under section 498A and other sections of the Indian Penal Code has already commenced and unless the opposite party is convicted in the said proceeding, there is no question of further arrest.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the opposite party/husband is already contesting the proceeding initiated against him under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate (2) at Suri as also the said criminal proceeding under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code before 3 the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Suri, Birbhum and as such he will not suffer any prejudice if the matrimonial suit and the said Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 is transferred to the Court at Suri as prayed for by the petitioner.Considering the fact that the said Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 under section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been filed by the opposite party/husband in the said Matrimonial Suit No. 35 of 2010 it would be extremely inconvenient for the minor child to be regularly present before the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court at Durgapur, Burdwan.In these circumstances, I find that the petitioner has been successful to establish her prayer for transfer of the Matrimonial Suit No.35 of 2010 with Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 as prayed for in this application.Accordingly, CO No.56 of 2015 stands allowed.The Matrimonial Suit No.35 of 2010 and Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 are withdrawn from the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court at Durgapur, Burdwan and transfered to the Court of the learned District Judge, Birbhum at Suri.The District Judge, Burdwan is directed to forthwith transmit all the records of the Matrimonial Suit No. 35 of 2010 (Sri Debabrata Bandyopadhyay v. Smt. Rita Bandyopadhyay) as also the records of Misc.Case No.8 of 2014 from the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Special Court at Durgapur, Burdwan to the Court of the Learned District Judge, Birbhum at Suri.It is needless to mention that the proceeding in Matrimonial Suit No.35 of 2010 shall commence before the Court of the learned District Judge, Burbhum at Suri from the stage of cross-examination of the petitioner/wife.Since the said Matrimonial Suit No.35 of 2010 is pending for last five years, the learned District Judge, Birbhum at Suri is requested to dispose of the said matrimonial suit, expeditiously preferably within March 31,2016 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.With the aforesaid directions CO No.56 of 2015 stands disposed of.Certified website copies of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
730,636
JUDGMENT Chaturvedi, J.This is an appeal preferred by Krishna Biharilal a former clerk in the office of the High Court, Gwalior, who has been convicted under Section 161, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment by the learned Special Judge, Gwalior.The State has preferred an appeal against the order of the learned Special Judge under the impression that the learned Judge has constructively acquitted the appellant under Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act. A charge had been framed against Krishna Biharilal appellant under both these sections.The case for the prosecution is that one Ismail Khan P. W. 6, paid a bribe of Rs. 110 to the appellant for the purpose of expediting the appeal against his daughter Zamila in file C. S. A. No. 46 of 1951 (Fazil Khan v. Zamila) which was at that time pending in the High Court.On behalf of Zamila in that file the witness Ismail had engaged two Vakils and according to his own statement made in Special Judge's Court he had paid Rs. 26 to Mr. Ali Mazhar and had engaged Mr. Anand Bihari Mishra on Rs. 15 but had paid Rs. 10 only as he could not pay the remaining Rs. 5 to Mr. Mishra.Now the sum of Rs. 110 alleged to have been paid to the appellant is made up of several items.Ismail Khan said that he could not locate where the file was, so he went to the High Court office and paid the appellant Rs. 2 for inquiry.The appellant asked him to come after three months and had demanded Rs. 100, so he came first time with Rs. 90 after three months, and gave that sum to the appellant.Then Ismail sent another Rs. 10 by Money Order at the home address of the appellant and this item is well proved as on 184-52 the Money Order of Rs. 10 had been received by the appellant Krishna Biharilal which was addressed to his home address.It is alleged by Ismail Khan that he again came to Lashkar and then paid Rs. 10 for expediting the disposal of the file.As the file was not expedited he submitted an application to the High Court which led to the arrest and prosecution of the appellant and which ultimately resulted in this conviction.Now the application filed by Ismail P. W. 6 in the High Court which had initiated the prosecution has not been produced by the prosecution in this case and there is no doubt that this application was important.Ismail contended in that application that he had mentioned that Rs. 110 were paid as bribe to the appellant.On behalf of defence it was argued that in that application it was mentioned that Rs. 110 were given to the appellant, for Court-fees and not as bribe for any work connected with the case.In my opinion it was the duty of the prosecution to have produced the original application.Of course, a copy was produced in the trial Court and from that copy it is clear that the allegations of Ismail P. W. 6 were to the effect that the appellant had demanded Rs. 110 for Court-fees.It must be mentioned here that Ismail was 'challaned' in this case and was subsequently tendered pardon and made approver and then brought as a prosecution witness in this case.So his statement must be corroborated in material particulars.It might be sufficient to say that the statement about cash payment of Rs. 90 on the one occasion and Rs. 10 on another occasion had not been corroborated in material particulars in this case, and, so the allegation of these payments has to be eliminated from consideration,The question therefore remains only for the allegation in respect of payment of Rs. 10 for which a Money Order was sent.Several letters (Exs.P/l, P/2, P/4, to P/8 had been produced in this case which were alleged by the prosecution to have been in the handwriting of the appellant.This handwriting has not been proved.Trllok Chand P. W. 1 and Krishna Gopal P. W. 2 were produced to prove the signatures and handwriting of the accused in these letters.It appears that he had requested Ramnarain to write his letters.The procedure employed was that Ismail used to give reply paid post card to Ramnarain and Ramnarain used to write on the post card whatever Ismail would request him to write and then on the reply paid post card he would write down his own address.In my opinion such a clerk does not deserve to be kept in service in the office of the High Court.This however has nothing to do with the question of his guilt under Section 161, I.P.C. which has to be determined on the legal evidence in this case.The appellant admitted that he had received a Money Order from Ismail Khan P. W. 6 and he sought to furnish an explanation.Ismail was directed to send the Money order to the appellant and Ghanshyamdas says that he had paid Rs. 10 to the appellant on that very day and that when the appellant received Money Order he had paid the money to Ghanshyamdas.Now this statement of Ghanshyamdas D. W. 5 and Krishna Biharilal appellant, who himself went to the witness-box, is amply corroborated by two other witnesses.Regarding payment of Rs. 100 in person, Ismail, the complainant, in this case has deposed that the sum was paid to the accused to order to have the hearing of the appeal of his-daughter expedited.But it appears that Ismail, the complainant, at one time complained to the High Court that the accused obtained the amount, from him on the pretext to make up the deficiency in the Court-fees.With regard to the payment of Rs. 10 the accused admits receiving it by Money Order.He, however, contends that he gave this amount to Ismail at.the instance of Ghansham, the clerk (Moharir) of Mr. Anand Bihari Mishra Vakil and it was this money that was returned by Money Order.It is said that taking him aside, the Moharir said that Vakil Sahib had asked him to-pay Rs. 10 out of his pocket in order to enable Ismail to present an application in the appeal referred to above, to get the hearing of it expedited.The moharir also said that Ismail was an unreliable person and that if the accused advanced the sum of Rs. 10 for that purpose, Ismail was sure to return it to the accused.This statement itself shows that an advantage was sought to be taken of the position of the accused as a clerk of the High Court.The object of lending this money was alleged to be to present an application for expediting the hearing of the case.But Ismail has stated on oath that no application was given for the purpose.My learned brother feels inclined to give him the benefit of doubt.It is said that an appeal was preferred against one Zamila in this Court.Zamila's father Ismail (P. W. 6) gave Rs. 110 to the accused in order to secure expeditious hearing of the appeal aforesaid.At the time of making the demand, it is said, the accused had asked him to come after three months.Last sum of Rs. 10 was given when Ismail had been to Lashkar some time later.When all these payments failed to produce desired result Ismail submitted a petition to the High Court.This led to the arrest and present prosecution of the accused and Ismail both.Ismail was granted pardon as he turned approver.This was to discharge a loan of Rs. 10 made by him at the instance of Mr. Anand Bihari's clerk.Before considering the question whether payment of two sums of Rs. 10 each, one by money-order and the other personally in cash several months later, has been proved or not it will be necessary to consider the question whether certain post-cards said to have been written by the accused and intended for Ismail had been proved or not.But they failed to support the prosecution on that point, P. W. 1 Tilokchand having stated that he was unable to identify handwriting of the accused went on to state that Ex. P/5 appeared to have been written by him.In the cross-examination he admitted that he had only a few occasions to see the handwriting of the accused.They are:P/5 to P/8 were intended for Ismail and that they were received on his address and that he made them over to the latter.He further admits that he had occasion to write letters addressed to Krishna Biharilal (accused) at the instance of Ismail.and typing, Mr. Mishra had asked him to pay the same from his own pocket, but that Ismail had not paid his previous dues also.He therefore requested the accused to pay Rs. 10 from his own pocket to Ismail as a loan and assured him that the money would be returned to him immediately after Ismail had- left.By this device, according to him, Ismail would be induced to send the money.Accused accordingly gave Rs. 10 and he received back the amount a short while later.Ismail then sent Rs. 10 by money-order to the address of the accused and the latter on receiving the same paid them to Ghanashyamdas.Some support is sought to be taken for this seemingly unnatural story from the statements of P. W. Ramnarain who proves the admission of Ismail that he had to repay a loan of Rs. 10 taken from a clerk and that of D. W. Gopaidas who too proves admission of Ismail to the same effect.This Gopaldas was the scribe of the money-order.The story that Rs. 10 were paid by the accused on the persuasion of Ghanashyamdas, with whom, according to his own statement, he was not intimate in order to enable him to obtain Rs. 10 for making the application when accidentally he arrived there is not easily believable.If Ismail was not prepared to pay for making the application for expediting the hearing where was the hurry about it when vacation was approaching.Then after money was recovered no application seems to have been made for the purpose.The statement of Ramnarain and Gopaldas no doubt partly help the defence in proving an admission of Ismail supporting the theory of loan but the trial Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and noting their demeanour has not chosen to rely upon their statements on account of their worth as well as on account of the other circumstances of the case and unnatural and complex version set up by the accused.As regards appeal No. 26 of 1954 filed by the State it has not been pressed before me.
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,064,273
By way of instant appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 14.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur, in Special Session Trial No.331 of 2002 State Vs.Murashlin and another, arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2001 under Sections 323/34 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur, whereby the accused-appellants have been sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional one month rigorous imprisonment on the first count and six months rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional one month rigorous imprisonment on the second count.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Heard Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Om Narain Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The facts leading up to this appeal appear to be, as discernible, from the record and particularly the first information report that the informant Gangaram lodged the written report on 16.05.2001 at 23:10 hours, at Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur, regarding some incident with the allegations that the informant Gangaram had gone to take wages for reaping the crops at the house of Murashlin, Murtaza and Rashid where the accused-appellants were not paying wages as per agreement and were giving less wages with regard to agreement entered into between them.The accused-appellants started quarreling with the informant and the accused-appellants also called him by name of his caste and assaulted with Lathi and iron rod and also threatened with knife and countrymade gun.On alarm being raised, Sompal, Karanpal and Atar Singh and others arrived on the spot and saved the informant whereupon the accused-appellants after extending threat to life disappeared from the scene.This report was taken down in the concerned Check FIR Ext. Ka-5 at Case Crime No.267 of 2001 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3 (1) 10 SC/ST Act, Police Station Deoband, District and on the basis of the same, a case was registered in the concerned general diary Ext. Ka-6 on the aforesaid date and time at aforesaid crime number under aforesaid sections of IPC and SC/ST Act, at Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur.After lodging of the first information report, the injured Gangaram was medically examined by Dr. M.L. Sathiya PW-3, at C.H.C. Deoband, Saharanpur, on 16.05.2001 at 07:50 p.m. who noted following injuries:"(1) Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep outer to right eye associated with traumatic swelling in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm, fresh blood present, kept under observation.(2) Red abraded contusion 2.5 x 1 cm at top of left shoulder.(3) Red abrasion 1 cm x .5 cm at left leg below knee.Complain of pain in abdomen was informed.Injuries were found to be simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt object.The investigation ensued and the same was entrusted to Circle Officer Shiv Ram Yadav PW-5 who took the investigation on 17.05.2001 and recorded statement of the informant, Head Moharrir Jai Prakash Singh and also recorded statement of the accused and on 18.05.2001 recorded statement of the prosecution witnesses Sompal, Karanpal etc., on their pointing out prepared site plan of the place of the occurrence as Ext. Ka-3 and after completing the entire investigation, filed charge sheet Ext. Ka.4 against the accused-appellants.Consequently, proceeding of the case was committed to the court of Sessions from where it was transferred for conduction and disposal of the case to the aforesaid trial court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur who in turn heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with the case against the accused-appellants, accordingly, framed charges under Sections 323/34, 506 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused-appellants who abjured charges and opted for trial.The prosecution, in order to prove guilt of the appellant examined as many as six witnesses namely Sompal PW-1, Karanpal PW-2 are eyewitnesses.Gangaram PW-4 is the injured-informant.Shiv Ram Yadav PW-5 is the Investigating Officer.Ashok Kumar PW-6 is a constable, he has proved entry made in the Check FIR and general diary in the handwriting of constable Jai Prakash.Except as above, no other testimony was adduced by the prosecution.Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., wherein they termed their implication false.All the defence witnesses have deposed on point that on the day of occurrence, some altercation took place at the flour mill of accused-appellant Murashlin where the informant Gangaram along with others beat the accused-appellant Murashlin and his wife.Thereafter, evidence for the defence was closed.Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction, the present accused-appellants have moved in appeal before this Court.It has been urged on behalf of the accused-appellants that this case is absolutely false and counter version already raised by the accused-appellant Murashlin against the informant Gangaram was pending in the competent court of the law at Deoband.No such incident ever took place.The testimony of the injured Gangaram when compared with the ocular testimony of other two prosecution witnesses of fact and with the medical examination report Ext. Ka-1 is, on the face, contradictory.It has been further urged that the description of the incident hardly inspires confidence.The motive created for causing the incident has not been properly proved by the prosecution nor was there any motive existing for committing the offence in question.The sentence awarded to the accused-appellants under circumstances is not justifiable and is too harsh.In fact the informant Gangaram has himself assaulted the accused-appellants for which he should be punished but the police in collusion with the informant has wrongly filed charge sheet against the accused-appellants.Learned AGA has replied to the aforesaid contention by submitting on various legal as well as factual aspects of the case and has summed up that the incident has been very much proved by the testimony of the injured/informant Gangaram.The incident has been described by the prosecution witnesses with all particulars.The learned trial Judge while appreciating merit of the case was impressed by consistency of the aforesaid facts and proof of the same, therefore, rightly recorded conviction and awarded just sentence against the accused-appellants.Also considered the rival submissions.In the light of the submission raised by both the sides, the moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has been able to establish the charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 323/34 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act beyond all reasonable doubt?Bare perusal of the first information report establishes fact that the incident in question allegedly occurred on 16.05.2001 around 6:30 p.m. at Labkari within Police Station Deoband, District Saharanpur when the informant Gangaram went to the house of the accused-appellant Murashlin then some altercation took place on account of payment of wages for reaping the crops which was agreed upon between the informant and the accused-appellants that 25 Kg.(5 Garhi) of wheat shall be charged for the work done in the agriculture field measuring 1 Bigha, whereas, the accused-appellants insisted for payment of wages at the rate of 4 'Gahri' per Bigha.The accused-appellants did not pay the wages to the informant Gangaram instead started abusing him and called him by name of his caste and beat him with Lath and iron rod and threatened with knife and countrymade gun.On alarm bring raised, Sompal, Karnpal and Atar Singh came on the spot along with others who saved the informant.In the backdrop of the aforesaid allegations, testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact and particularly that of the informant becomes vital.His evidence qua the incident tallies with the description of the incident given in the first information report that he was beaten by the accused-appellants on the day of the incident with Lathi and iron rod.The accused-appellant Murashlin was possessing Lathi and Rashid assaulted by fist wherein he received injuries.Injury report Ext. Ka-1 has been proved by Dr. M.L. Sathiya PW-3 wherein he found three injuries on the persons of the injured Gangaram while he examined him on 16.05.2001 at 7:50 p.m. Injury no.1 was stated to be lacerated wound 3 cm x 1.5 cm x muscle deep outer to right eye associated with traumatic swelling in an area of 6 cm x 3 cm, whereas, the other two injuries were stated to be red abraded contusion 2.5 x 1 cm at top of left shoulder and red abrasion 1 cm x .5 cm at left leg below knee.All injuries were reported to be simple in nature.The testimony of the injured Gangaram on the point reflects that he had gone to the house of the accused-appellants for demanding wages and as per testimony of the prosecution witnesses of fact namely Sompal PW-1 and Karanpal PW-2, both the witnesses though accompanied the injured Gangaram up to the house of the accused-appellants but were standing outside the house, whereas, the injured Gangaram entered into the house of the accused-appellants and the incident took place in the 'Gher' (circle of the house of the accused-appellant Murshalin).In this context, the contention has been raised that for application of Section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, it is necessary and essential that the incident must have taken place at public place and it must have been done with a view to humiliate the victim in the presence of the public.Now the point of causing injury on the person of the injured Gangaram is to be considered vis-a-vis testimony and circumstances of this case.In that regard, cumulative testimony of the injured Gangaram PW-4, Sompal PW-1 and Karanpal PW-2 is indicative of fact that in the alleged incident, some injuries were caused which were reported to be simple in nature although injury no.1 was kept under observation but no supplementary report has been brought on record.The injuries sustained by the injured Gangaram could have been caused on 16.05.2001 at 6:30 p.m. as opined by the doctor.Therefore, the point of injury sustained by the injured Gangaram in the incident stood proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused-appellants under Section 323/34 I.P.C. Therefore, conviction recorded by the trial court under Sections 323/34 IPC is upheld.However, insofar as the quantum of imposition of sentence upon both the accused-appellants is concerned, obviously the accused-appellants have no previous criminal history nor has any criminal history been described by the prosecution against them.The injuries were caused to the injured Gangaram after some altercation took place between both the sides on non-payment of the wages.That way, fine initially imposed by the trial court to the extent of Rs.500/- is enhanced to Rs.2000/- and the aforesaid fine shall be deposited by the accused-appellants within two months.In case of non-deposition of fine, the concerned convict will have to suffer additional imprisonment for two months.Accordingly, sentencing part of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 14.01.2005 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Saharanpur, in Special Session Trial No.331 of 2002 State Vs.Murashlin and another, arising out of Case Crime No.267 of 2001 under Sections 323/34 IPC and 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Deoband, District- Saharanpur is hereby modified to the extent as aforesaid while the accused-appellants are exonerated of charge under Section 3 (1) (10) SC/ST Act.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
730,689
The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that on dated 22.2.2000, one Suresh Kumar Gupta came to PS Bhajanpura and gave his statement to the duty officer, on the basis of which FIR bearing No. 59/00 for offence under Section 363 IPC, copy of which is Ex. PW 2/A, was registered.As per said statement of Suresh Kr.Gupta, he has been running a cloth shop at main market Bhajanpura, and his maternal nephew Neeraj, S/o Rajeshwar Dayal, R/o B-20, Gali No. 4, Bhajanpura, Delhi, who was studying in Pandit Yaadram Public School, Bhajanpura and whose school is over by 1.30 PM, had gone to school at about 7.30 AM, but had not yet returned from the school and his particulars/description are as follows : aged about 11 years, height 3-1/2 feet, colour wheatish, round face, and lean body, who is wearing brown shirt and coca cola colour trouser, coat and socks, black leather shoes and having school bag.Since despite their best efforts, he could not be traced out, hence he suspect that he has been kidnapped and therefore, legal action be taken.On the basis of said statement of Suresh Kr.Gupta, FIR under Section 363 IPC was registered and matter was handed over to SI Tej Ram for investigation.During the course of investigation, the accused Ajay Kr.Tripathi Along with the ransom amount of Rs. Three lacs was apprehended at Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara and therefore, at his instance, dead body of Neeraj was recovered and on his pointing out, shoe and school bag of deceased Neeraj were recovered and postmortem on the dead body of Neeraj was got conducted in which cause of death was opined as "asphyxia due to smothering".K.S. Pal, Ld. ASJ, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi and during the trial, matter was transferred to this Court.The prosecution in order to establish its case examined as many as 27 witnesses.Of these important one being, PW-11 Rakesh Gupta, uncle of the deceased, PW-2 Suresh Kumar Gupta, the complainant, Rajeshwar Dayal, father of the deceased as PW-4 Smt.The main witness of the prosecution is Rakesh Gupta PW-11, he deposed in the court that on 22.2.2000 at about 2 PM, while he was sitting at his shop at Bhajan Pura he was informed by his elder brother Rajeshwar Dayal that his son Neeraj had not come back from school.Thereafter, they also informed about the same to Suresh Gupta who is his brother in law and he Along with Pankaj, his elder nephew went in search of Neeraj, but Neeraj could not be traced out despite their best efforts and thereafter they came back to the house of their brother Rajeshwar Dayal and at about 7.15 PM he attended the telephone call and the caller informed him that Neeraj is with him and demanded for Rs. three lacs for his release and he informed about the said fact to the family members and information was also given to the police in this regard and he got installed tape recorder on the said telephone No. 2171598 through his friend Surender Arora and after sometime police also reached their house and was informed in this regard.On the next day at about 7 PM , same person called by phone on the same number and asked if money had been arranged and when he replied that money could not be arranged he again asked for arranging the money and will give call afterwards.At about 8.50 or 9 PM call was made by the same person and when he stated that money had been arranged, he told him to give that amount of Rs. three lacs ahead of Majnoo ka Tila at red light Gurudwara and turn towards right side and near the wall of a garden where STD and ISD with two plus is written and wall is to be climbed inside and on the tree on which there would be the writing of 'YES' money bag is to be kept there and to leave the place.The caller on the phone had also assured him that he will give proof of Neeraj when he will go to that pointed place.Thereafter, he went to PS informed the police and police asked him to reach the spot with money and police would follow him.Thereafter, he along with the amount of Rs. three lacs keeping in a cloth bag reached at the pointed place at 10 PM but as it was dark inside the park, and he did not see anyone he returned back along with the bag.On the next day morning at about 8.30/9 AM he received a phone call by the same person who asked him as to why he did not bring cash yesterday and thereafter he asked him to bring the cash amount at Sheeshganj Gurudwara and informed him that inside the Gurudwara in the gents toilet he would found a token of 142 in a aala and in return of said token 142 he will get the bag containing clothes and kara of Neeraj from the Ghathari Ghar and after keeping the said bag he will place the bag containing cash amount and said token is to be kept in the same aala and after receipt of ransom amount Neeraj would reach their house.After attending the said call, he went to PS and informed the police in this regard, on which a raiding party was formed and police asked him to do as he was told to do on phone and police team would be with him.Thereafter, he Along with money bag containing Rs. three lacs reached Sheeshganj Gurudwara where SI Meena and other police party met him there and told him one Dilbag Singh Sardarji of the police had been made to sit in the gathri ghar and he should not worry.Accordingly, he went to the toilet at Gurudwara and took the token from the aala and collected the gathri from the gathri ghar and in place of bag containing coat and kara of Neeraj, he placed money bag containing Rs. three lacs and placed the said token in the aala itself and hided himself in the side of Gurudwara.At about 7.30 PM, he saw SI Meena along with other police officials apprehending that person who was having the thaila in his hand and that person was Ajay Kumar Tripathi who was known to him being neighbourer and was residing in the neighborhood as a tenant and the brother of said Ajay Kumar, Sanjay was friend of Neeraj.On search of thaila which was in the hand of Ajay Tripathi Rs. three lacs were recovered and from his pocket one map and Rs. 15/-in cash were recovered and said Ajay Tripathi is the accused present in the court.He also added that said Ajay Tripathi had visited their house on the birthday and had presented a gift which was earlier to this incident.The police seized the said currency notes vide memo EXPW 10/G bearing his signature at point B and the map recovered from the pocket of accused was seized vide memo EXPW 10/A and the said map is EXPW 10/B. The kara and coat which were found in the bag were handed over by him to the police which were seized vide memo EXPW 10/F. The accused was arrested vide personal search memo EXPW 10/C. He informed about the incident at his house to Suresh Gupta.He remained throughout with the police and from there accused was taken near Gali No. 9 at the corner at Thana road where the accused led the police party and pointed out towards the lanter of the nala.Meanwhile, Suresh Gupta also reached there and the accused got recovered the dead body of his nephew Neeraj.Both hands and legs of Neeraj were found tied.The star witness of the prosecution PW-2, Suresh Kumar Gupta has testified that on 22.5.2000 at about 2.30 PM while he was present at his shop at B-5, Bhajanpura, main market, dever of his sister and Pankaj, son of his sister informed him that Neeraj younger son of his sister who had gone to school had not returned.Thereafter, they went to search for Neeraj but he could not be traced out despite their best efforts.He also went to PS Bhajanpura and lodged a missing report in this regard, on the basis of which FIR was lodged and copy of the same is EXPW 2/A which bears his signature at point A. He also added on the same day at about 7 PM one telephone call was received by Rakesh, dever of his sister at his sister's house and Rakesh told him that Neeraj was kidnapped by some person and Rs. three lacs was demanded by the kidnapper and one the date when he visited the house of his sister Rakesh informed him that he received a telephone call and kidnapper had asked him to bring ransom amount at Majnoo ka tila on 23.2.2000 and Rakesh went to that place, but kidnapper was not found there.On the next day he went to the house of his sister.Rakesh again informed him that a phone call was received by him on that day in the morning as kidnapper had asked him to come to Sheesh Ganj Gurudwara, Chandni Chowk along with ransom amount.At about 8/8.15 PM, they received a phone call from Rakesh that Ajay Kumar Tripathi who has been residing in Bhajanpura was found lifting the ransom amount and he was apprehended but till 12 night he received no further information.Therefore, he went to PS Bhajanpura at about 12.50 in the night and at the instance of duty officer, he went to gali No. 9 Bhajanpura where accused Ajay Kumar along with the police officials were found present.Accused Ajay Kumar Tripathi pointed out the corner of the gali No. 9 that dead body was kept there and thereafter dead body of Neeraj was recovered from the drainage and the pointing out memo in this respect is EXPW 2/B which bears his signature at point A. He also added that on 25.2.2000 he had gone to mortuary GTB Hospital and he identified the dead body of his bhanja Neeraj and his statement in this regard is EXPW 2/C. In cross examination by the Ld. defense counsel, said PW 2 further added that on that day the police had gone to his sisters house after lodging the FIR.He also added that on the next day of incident, he was present at his sisters house when the ransom call was attended by Rakesh and the call was to hand over the ransom money at Majnoo ka Tila.Further Suresh Kumar Gupta, complainant lodged an FIR which is exhibited PW 2/A. Rajeshwar Dayal PW-4 has deposed in the Court that his son Neeraj was studying in 4th standard in Pandit Yaadram School, Tanki Road, Bhajanpura and on 22.2.2000, Neeraj had gone to the school at about 7.30 A.M. but did not come back till 2 P.M. and thereafter they searched for Neeraj and at about 4 P.M., he telephoned at 100 number regarding the missing of his son but till 6 P.M. he could not get any clue and as such Suresh Gupta, who is his brother in law (sala) went to PS Bhajanpura and lodged the missing report in this regard.At about 7/7.15 PM, when he was along with his brother Rakesh Gupta and brother in law Suresh Gupta were present at his house a telephone call was received by his brother Rakesh Gupta who informed that neeraj had been kidnapped and kidnapper has been demanding Rs. three lacs as ransom and therefore a taping system of the phone was installed at his phone connection by one Surender Arora.His brother in law Suresh Gupta went to PS and informed police about the said telephone call on which police came to their residence and recorded his statement.In the cross-examination by the Ld. defense counsel.He further added that on the date of incident his son Neeraj had gone to school from his house in his precence at about 7.30 AM and his son used to go on foot and come back to his house on foot.On that day, when his son Pankaj came to his shop and informed him that Neeraj had not returned from the school he immediately called for his brother Rakesh and his brother in law Suresh Gupta.He also added that Suresh Gupta his brother in law had gone alone in PS to lodge the FIR.He also added that his statement was recorded by the police at about 8/8.15 PM on that very day i.e. on 22.2.2000 at his house.He also added that the distance between the place of recovery of his sons dead body i.e. corner of the gali No. 9 and his house is about a walking distance of 10 minutes.He denied the suggestion that he has been deposing falsely.Smt. Santosh PW-5, who is the mother of the deceased, deposed in the Court that on 22.2.2000, at about 7.30 AM, her son Neeraj who was studying in 4th class at Pandit Yaadram School left from their house for the school and he was in school uniform.He used to return at about 1.30 PM, but on that day he did not return home and so she informed her husband through her son Pankaj.He brother and devar were also called at home.One telephone call was received in the evening at their phone No. 2171598 which was attended by her devar but informed that someone had kidnapped her son and asking for money for releasing him.She also added that caller had demanded Rs. Three lacs for the release of her son.In the cross-examination by the Ld. defense counsel, he further added that police had come to their house in the evening and she was present at the house when the telephone call was attended by her devar.She denied the suggestion that she had been deposing falsely.The Investigating Officer, PW-27 has deposed to the steps taken by him during investigation and states as that on 22.2.2000, while he was present in the PS and was on emergency duty, duty Officer handed over him FIR of this case copy of which is EX.PW 2/A for investigation.He added that thereafter, he went to the house of Neeraj, the child who was missing in B Block Gali No. 4, Bhajanpura and recorded statement of his parents.On enquiry from school going children he was informed that Neeraj had attended the school on 22.2.2000 and after the school he went towards his house and school children had seem him up to corner of Gali No. 10, Bhajanpura.In the meantime, while he was present in the PS, Rakesh Gupta came and informed that he received a telephone call at phone No. 2171598 that Neeraj is in caller's custody and he had demanded Rs. three lakhs as ransom for the release of the child.Thereafter, he added Section 364A in this case and he along with SHO and other police staff went to the house of Neeraj and interrogated his parents and confirm about the telephone ransom call.Thereafter, telephone No. 2171598 was kept under observation from Dilshad Garden Telephone Exchange and they have deputed HC Ved Prakash from telephone exchange for observation.In the evening on 23.2.2000, Rakesh Gupta uncle of deceased came to the PS and informed that the kidnapper again contacted him on phone and asked him to come with Rs. three lakhs at Rashtriya Vigyan Park, Majnoo Ka Tila by giving the detail of location and to place the money near a keekar tree in which the word 'Yes' would found written inside the said park.Rakesh Gupta also informed him that they had connected the said telephone with another telephone for recording the conversation, but he could not operate the same.Thereafter, he contacted at the telephone exchange Dilshad Garden and came to know that telephone call to phone No. 2171598 was made from a phone at 25 Khyber pass and owner of said phone is one Budhiraja.The concerned employee had also disclosed about the telephone No. but he did not remember the same.Thereafter, a raiding party was constituted consisting of himself SHO Inspt.Ranvir Singh Khatri, SI Sanjeev Sharma and other staff and Rakesh Gupta along with the ransom amount was proceeding ahead of them as per their instruction and went at Rashtriya Vigyan Park, Majnoo Ka Tilla and they hided themsleves outside but Rakesh Gupta was frightened and could not deliver the ransom amount near the keekar tree and nobody was visible as it was dark at that time.Thereafter, they went to 25 Khyber pass one Jagdish Ka dhaba where one phone booth was also there inside it and one Jugal Kishore Budhiraja met them and on inquiry as to who made telephone call to phone No. 2171598, he disclosed that one person aged about 25/26 years, wearing some dirty clothes and he got extended the calls several times and he took the slips of the said telephone bill and handed over to him which is already exhibited as Ex. X and now exhibited as EX PW 27/A. The said bill was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW 12/A. he recorded the statement of said Jugal Kishore Budhiraja who produced the bill and thereafter, they returned to the PS.On 24.2.2000, in the morning while he was present in the PS along with SHO and other staff.Rakesh Gupta uncle of the abuducted child came to the PS and told that kidnapper had again telephoned asking him to bring money at Gurudwara Sheeshganj and narrated about the details in this regard.On which the matter was discussed with the SHO and Rakesh Gupta was asked to reach with money there.SHO along with SI Sanjeev Sharma and Ct.Dilbagh Singh and other police officials met him there and police officials were in civil clothes.Dilbagh Singh, driver of the SHO was directed to sit with Sewadar in gathrighar and other police officials also took their position in the Gurudwara.As per directions of the kidnapper, Rakesh Gupta had taken token No. 142 from toilet and received a polythene bag from the gathri ghar against said token and said bag was found containing coat and kara of Neeraj and thereafter, he replaced the bag containing Rs. 3 lacs and deposited the same into the gathri ghar and received back token No. 142 and kept said token at gents toilet as instructed by the kidnapper earlier.In the meantime, one public person named Harbans Singh was requested to join the proceedings and he agreed for the same.Dilbagh Singh was sitting in the gathri ghar wearing the dress of Sewadar of Gurudwara.At about 7/7.30 PM, Ct.He further added that on interrogation the accused confesses his guilt and told that he had kidnapped the boy and had committed his murder on the same day and he hided the dead body beneath, the pulia of nala in gali No. 9, Bhajanpura.Accused was arrested and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex. PW 10/C and from his search the site plan prepared on a plain paper indicating site of Majnoo ka tila and on the back side of the same, some writing was there and the said writing and the site plan were matching with the information which the kidnapper had given earlier for handing over the ransom money near keeker tree in Rashtriya Vigyan Park near Majnoo ka tila and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PW 10/A and said site plan is Ex. PW 10/B. The bag with accused was found carrying containing the amount of Rs. 3 lacs which were wrapped in a newspaper and after verifying the said notes were again wrapped in a newspaper and put in the same cloth bag and sealed with the sale of TRM and was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 10/G and the disclosure statement of accused is Ex. PW 10/E and at the request of public witness Harbans Singh, thereafter he was discharged.Thereafter, the accused had taken them in gali No. 9, Bhajanpura and pointed out towards the nala at the corner of the gali and stated that he had placed the dead body of child Neeraj in the nala beneath the lanter and thereafter, his dead body was taken out from the said nala.The photographer was called who took the photographs of the dead body at his instance.The hands and feet of the deceased boy were tied with a plastic type polythene and the dead body was identified by Rakesh Gupta and dead body was sent through Constable in the mortuary at GTB Hospital.Thereafter, the accused pointed his house bearing No. 246, Gali No. 10, Bhajanpura where he stated to have killed the boy in the room of the house and pointing out memo in this regard is Ex. PW 21/A. Thereafter, they returned to the PS and accused was put behind the bar and case property was deposited in the malkhana.He also added that he had prepared the site plan of the house as pointed out by the accused and the said site plan is Ex. PW 27/B. He had also prepared the site plan from where the dead body of the deceased boy was recovered and the same is Ex. PW 27/C. He also added that in the morning of 25.2.2000, Rakesh Gupta, uncle of the deceased and other relatives met him and their identification statement was recorded and the same is Ex. PW 11/A and Ex. PW 2/C and after postmortem accused was taken out from the lock up and on interrogation the accused disclosed that he had placed the school bag and shoes of the boy near Majnoo ka Tila as he had reached there for satisfaction of the parents of the deceased for delivering of the ransom amount there and his disclosure statement in this regard is Ex. PW 25/A. Thereafter, the accused after being produced before the Ld.MM was granted two days police custody remand.He also added that they went at the house of deceased boy where Rakesh Gupta and Suresh Gupta met him and was handed over a telephone instrument and the cassette which was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 11/C. Thereafter, he recorded statement of Surender Kumar Gupta, who had given the instrument.Thereafter, he recorded statement of Shivdutt Sharma, S/o Pandit Yadram, who is the owner of house No. 246, Gali No. 10, Bhajanpura and stated to have given a room of the said house to accused Ajay Kumar Tripathi on rent.He also added that on the next day, i.e., on 26.2.2000, he joined Ct.Virender, photographer Michal Bosco and Driver /Ct.Dilbagh Singh in the investigation of the case and accused was taken out from the lock up and he pointed out Rashtriya Vigyan Park and pointed out the wall where he had made sign of plus and STD/ISD is written on the wall and pointed out the bushes and got recovered school bag of the boy and the bag was checked and found containing shoes, books and some note books of the boy and photographs of the same were also obtained and thereafter the same were sealed in a parcel and taken into possession.He also added that Ct.Ashok and HC Dharampal who were on petrolling duty met them and they were joined in the proceedings there.He also added that the parcel was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW 16/A. He also added that he prepared the site plan of the place of recovery of the school bag and the same is Ex. PW 27/F. He claimed to have recorded the statement of Ct.Ashok Kumar, HC Dharampal of PS Timarpur and of photographer Michal Bosco.He also added in his deposition that thereafter, the accused took them to Jagdish Ka Dhaba, 25 Khyber Pass, on the STD booth and pointed out the same and told that on the night of 23.2.2000 at about 8.50 PM, he made telephone call from that STD booth to phone No. 2171598 and Jugal Kishore Budhiraja, present at that time had identified the accused and told that he is the same person who had made the phone call on 23.2.2000 at about 8.50 PM for which he had already handed over the phone bills to the police and his pointing out memo is Ex. PW 12/B. He also recorded the statement of Jugal Kishore Budhiraja and Ct.Virender Singh in this regard and thereafter they returned to PS.He also added that on 3.3.2000, the print out of the telephone No. 2171598 which was received from telephone exchange which are collectively Ex. PW 21/C. He also added that on 13.3.2000, he called the draftsman from police deptt.and on his pointing out, he prepared rough notes and prepared scaled site plan which is Ex. PW 20/A. He also added that during the course of investigation, he collected the scaled site plan and photographs which were taken at the time of recovery of the dead body and at the time when accused had pointed the site at Rashtriya Vigyan Park and where school bag and shoe of the deceased were recovered.He also added that during the course of investigation, he collected the postmortem report Ex. PW 1/A. He also added in his deposition that in the TIP, the father of the deceased Rajeshwar Dayal has duly identified the school bag, books, note books and shoe of the deceased boy before the concerned link MM.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.A. No.645/2004 is directed against the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Karkardooma, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 77/2003 arising from FIR No. 59/2000 PS Bhajan Pura, whereby the learned Judge vide his order dated 9.7.2004 has held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 364A IPC, but acquitted him under Section 302/201 IPC and further by his order dated 13.7.2004 sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment together with find of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of said fine, additional RI for two months for an offence under Section 364A IPC.Again in the morning of 24th the telephone call for ransom amount was attended by Rakesh and Rakesh had informed about the call to the PS in the morning itself.He denied the suggestion of Ld. defense counsel that the dead body was not recovered in his presence as the same was already recovered during the day time and accused was falsely implicated at the instance of the police.The testimony of PW-11 stands corroborated by that of PW-10, Harbans Singh who is a public witness.He also added that he had correctly recorded the statement of witnesses and filed the challan in the court.He identified the telephone instrument as Ex. P-1 and cassette as Ex. P-2 which were handed over to him by Rakesh Gupta.He had also identified the school bag as Ex.P 9 and pair of shoe as ExP 10 and the books and the note books bearing the name of Neeraj Gupta collectively as P 11, which were found in the said school bag.In the cross examination by the Ld. defense Counsel, further added that they had received copy of FIR for investigation of this case in the evening after 6 PM.He also added that the distance between the house of victim and the rented room of the accused were he was living in 4/5 minutes waking distance.He also added that till the arrest of the accused from the Gurudwara he did not disclose the fact of the case to the authority of Gurudwara.He also added that accused had made disclosure statement at Gurudwara Sheeshganj after his arrest after 7.30 PM.He denied the suggestion that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case or that he has prepared the memos falsely.He also denied the suggestion of Ld. defense counsel that nothing was recovered from the possession of the accused in Gurudwara or that accused had not made any disclosure statement in Gurudwara or that dead body of the victim was not recovered at the instance of the accused.Another important witness to which reference may be made is PW-12, Jugal Kishore Budhiraja who states that he deposed in the court that he has been running a dhaba at 25, Khyber Pass and inside dhaba there is a telephone booth and telephone number of said STD is 2921009.... He also added that on 23.2.2000, at about 8.45 PM, one boy came to the booth for making a call and he made three calls continuously and bill of the said phone was handed over to the police by him which was seized by the police vide memo Ex. PW 12/A bearing his signature at point A. The number mentioned in the said bill is Ex. X and point A is the number where call was made.He also added in his deposition that the accused person present in the court is the same boy who had come to his shop on 23.2.2000 to make the aforesaid call.The pointing out memo of the accused is Ex. PW 12/B in respect of the booth bears his signature at point A. In the cross-examination by the Ld. defense counsel, said PW-12 added that police had come after an hour of the phone on the same day and at that time accused present in the court was not with them and he had handed over the bill on 23.2.2000 itself and police had obtained his signature on seizure memo.Thereafter, when police came on 26.2.2000, stayed with him about half an hour.He denied the suggestion of Ld. defense counsel that the bill Ex.-X does not belong to his STD booth or that he has been deposing falsely at the instance of the police.In 313 statement the accused denied the allegations of the prosecution and claimed that he has been falsely implicated, but choose not to lead any evidence.Counsel for the appellant vehemently argues that prosecution has not been able to show that deceased was kidnapped by the appellant and or killed, therefore his case does not fall under Section 364A IPC.We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and with the assistance gone through the material placed on record.We find from analysis of depositions of witnesses that there is ample material on record to show that appellant was caught red-handed with the ransom amount.There is also evidence on record that the appellant made calls for ransom and there is evidence on record to show that the appellant got recovered the dead body of Neeraj.There is also medical evidence of Dr.Gaurav Aggarwal, PW-1 that the deceased died due to "asphyxia due to smothering".In that view of the matter, we find that the trial court has rightly held the appellant guilty under Section 364A IPC.However, we also find that the trial court went wrong in acquitting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 and 201 IPC.The material on record sufficiently links the appellant with the kidnapping.In that view, the reasoning of the trial court to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant has committed an offence under Section 364A appeals to us and we find no reason to interfere with the same.For the offence under Section 302 IPC, we sentence the appellant to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of said fine, additional RI for two months.Consequently, while holding the appellant guilty under Section 302, 201 and 364A, we disposed of Crl.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
7,306,930
2 Version of the prosecution is that on 26.10.2004, DD No. 2 (Ex.PW-4/A) was received in the police post DDA Flats, Police Station Jahangir Puri wherein it was reported that an accident had occurred at the T point, Jahangir Puri.ASI Kishanjeet (PW-11) reached the spot.A motor-cycle bearing No DL-8SV-1285 and a blue coloured shirt was found lying there.The injured had already been removed to the BJRM Hospital.The MLC of the injured was collected.He was a boy aged between 20-22 years and had been brought dead to the hospital.Cut injuries were found on his body.Information was transmitted to the Police Station Jahangir Puri.3 The dickey of the motor-cycle contained papers which revealed that the motor-cycle belonged to one Bhim Singh (PW-9).The house of Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 2 of 35 Bhim Singh at E-9, Prashant Vihar was located.Bhim Singh identified the motor-cycle to be that of his son who had left the house on this motor-cycle.Bhim Singh thereafter identified the dead body as that of his son.FIR was accordingly registered under Section 302 of the IPC.4 Statement of Bhim Singh (PW-9) was recorded.As per his version, there was a dispute qua their house E-9, Prashant Vihar where he was residing on a portion of the first and second floor; his brother Rajinder was residing on another portion of the said floor and their elder brother Attar Singh was residing on the ground floor.This house was owned by their mother Ramo Devi who has since expired.On 25.10.2004, a quarrel had taken place between his two brothers Rajender and Attar Singh; Rajender had received injuries; on hearing the incident PW-9 along with his son Abhishek had gone down; when Abhishek tried to intervene, accused Joginder and Vinod Kumar who had also reached there on their motor-cycle started abusing Abhishek.Both Joginder and Vinod threatened Abhishek that they will settle the dispute with him.Further version of PW-9 being that when Abhishek was going to the hospital on his motor-cycle to visit his uncle Rajender, the accused persons followed him.Accused persons were arrested vide memos Ex.PW-21/H, Ex.PW-9/X and Ex.Pursuant to the disclosure statements made by him he got recovered a kitchen knife the alleged weapon of offence from a construction park near the APMC dispensary as also a blood stained pant which was lying in an iron trunk; the same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/H & Ex.PW-9/J. He had also pointed out the place from where the motor-cycle (allegedly used by the accused persons) was recovered.This was vide memo Ex.PW-9/K. 7 On 27.10.2004, the house of accused Sanjay was raided at Sarai Pepal Thala where accused Sanjay was arrested.His disclosure Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 4 of 35 statement Ex.PW-9/M was recorded.He got recovered a knife/dagger which was dug out from under the soil near the sewer which was the second weapon of offence and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/P. Sanjay also got recovered a blood stained shirt which was lying under the bed Ex.PW-9/Q alleged to be the shirt of Joginder.8 On 31.10.2004 at the pointing out of PW-9 accused Joginder was arrested.His disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/S was recorded.Pursuant to his disclosure statement, he got recovered a blood stained chocolate coloured pant and a shirt belonging to the co-accused Sanjay having blood stains on the collar of the shirt; the same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/U.He reiterated the version of PW-9 that accused Joginder and Vinod had threatened Abhishek and Bhim Singh "dekh lenge kaam tamam kar denge" when Abhishek had tried to intervene to save him in the quarrel between Rajinder and the family of Attar Singh.These facts are admitted.25 As per the version of Bhim Singh (PW-9), on 25.10.2004 at about 10:00-10:30 PM, a quarrel took place between his two brothers i.e. Rajender and the family of Attar Singh i.e. his wife Savitri and sons Sanjay and Bijrender.On hearing this quarrel, PW-9 along with his son Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 14 of 35 Abhishek (the deceased) came down.Abhishek tried to intervene and sought to pacify his cousin i.e. son of Attar Singh.Meanwhile, the accused Joginder and Vinod who were living elsewhere came there on their motor-cycle; they had also learnt about the incident; they started abusing Abhishek.Rajender suffered injuries; so also Savitri Devi the wife of Attar Singh.Accused Joginder and Vinod threatened Abhishek that since he had tried to intervene that they would settle the matter with him.The pointing out memo-cum-possession memo of this motor-cycle is Ex.PW-9/K. A perusal of Ex.PW-9/K shows that this motor-cycle had blood stains on the right side of its body i.e. on its handle covers.The fact that this motor-cycle was registered in the name of their brother Sanjay is also not in dispute.32 The aforenoted collected evidence proved on record thus establishes that on 25.10.2004 at about 10:00-10:30 PM a quarrel had taken place between Rajender on the one hand and the wife and sons of Attar Singh on the other hand.The other two sons of Attar Singh namely Vinod and Joginder had come to E-9, Prashant Vihar on hearing about this quarrel.Abhishek had also tried to intervene in this quarrel but in this course, he was intimidated and received threats at the hands of Vinod and Joginder.Rajender had suffered grievous injuries.Savitri Devi had also received injuries.33 By 12:20 PM Abhishek was already a dead man; he had been removed to the BJRM Hospital where he was brought in dead which was evident from his MLC (Ex.PW-1/A).45 The blood stained cream coloured pant of Vinod had also been sent to the CFSL; the CFSL vide its report (Ex.He has chosen not to file any appeal.He has got recovered the second weapon of offence i.e. the dagger from near the dispensary APMC where it was dug out from the earth and had blood stains upon it.This had been seized and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/P. The serological examination of this dagger had evidenced human blood of group A origin on the said dagger.55 The post mortem doctor (PW-6) in his subsequent opinion Ex.1 The two appellants Vinod Kumar and Joginder are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 05.06.2010 vide which they had been convicted for an offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC and each of them had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life as also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for a period of Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 1 of 35 one year.For the offence under Section 201 of the IPC each of the two convicts had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of four years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for a period of one month.The third convict Sanjay had been convicted for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC and he already having undergone the sentence imposed upon him, he has not assailed his conviction.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 1 of 35In the morning at about 02:30-03:00 Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 3 of 35 AM, the police had come to his house wherein he was informed that a motor-cycle was lying at the T point of Jahangir Puri; on PW-9 reaching the spot he identified the motor-cycle to be that of his son; he was taken to the BJRM Hospital where he thereafter identified the dead- body of his son Abhishek.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 2 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 3 of 355 On this statement of PW-9 (Ex.PW-9/A), rukka was taken at 05:00 AM in the morning of 26.10.2004 and the FIR under Section 302 of the IPC was registered against the accused persons.10 Ravinder Kumar (PW-15) was a witness to the recovery of the Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 5 of 35 knife which had been recovered at the instance of accused Sanjay.He had however not supported the version of the prosecution and had been declared hostile.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 5 of 3511 The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution was the MLC of the victim which had been proved Ex.PW-1/A showing that the victim had been brought in a dead condition to the hospital.12 The post-mortem on the victim was conducted by Dr. L.C. Gupta (PW-6).The following injuries were noted upon his person:-Two incised wounds of elptical safe were present at back of right flank.One incised wound present at left side back of spine.Two incised wounds at front of top of right shoulder.One incised wound at right middle finger.One incised wound at lateral aspect of left arm.Two stabbed wounds at left arm.One incised wound at the left side face which extending to tip of chin and fractured the mandible and teeth which were missing from their shockets.Incised wound left side face.Incised stabbed wound chest cavity deep at right side fourth intercostals space.One incised wound at left side chest lower part.Abraided bruise at left shoulder radish.Imprint abrasion at left side upper chest having size 12x2 cm.13 Cause of death was shock resulting from internal hemorrhage Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 6 of 35 consequent to ante-mortem injury to right lung which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and mode of death was homicide.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 6 of 3514 The opinion on the two weapons of offence Ex PW-6/A was also given by the said doctor; opinion being to the effect that the injuries on the person of the deceased could have been caused by the said weapons.15 Initial investigation was carried out by ASI Kishan Jeet (PW-11) who along with HC Ramesh Kumar (PW-14) had reached the spot.This was pursuant to DD No. 2 received through constable Suresh Malik (PW-4).Inspector Satpal Yadav (PW-21) was the Investigating Officer.He was joined by HC Rajvir Singh (PW-12).PC were recorded.In their statements, all the accused persons pleaded innocence.They have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.17 Two witnesses were led in defence by accused Vinod.DW-1 and DW-2 have both set up a defence that accused Vinod was working as a driver in the bus owned by DW-1 and on the fateful day he was on duty; he had been picked up by the police in the early hours of 26.10.2004 Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 7 of 35 from his house and has been falsely implicated.This defence however did not find favour with the Court.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 7 of 3518 On the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the prosecution, the accused persons had been convicted for the offences as noted hereinabove.19 Arguments had been addressed at length by the learned counsel for both the appellants.20 On behalf of accused Vinod, arguments had been addressed by the counsel Mr. Mukesh Sharma.Besides oral submissions, written arguments had also been filed.It is pointed out that this is admittedly a case of circumstantial evidence; there is no eye-witness account; unless and until all the links in the chain stand complete, the conviction of the appellant cannot be founded.Submission being that the version of PW-9 has to be read with great circumspection and caution as he was an interested witness being the father of the victim.It is pointed out that Guddu, the prime witness i.e. the person who had first removed the injured to the BJRM hospital has not been examined; in fact no effort has been made by the prosecution even to trace him.Further submission being that the Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 8 of 35 recovery of the kitchen knife (Ex.P-8) which had been sought to be foisted on the appellant is clearly doubtful as the sketch of the knife (Ex.PW-9/L) as also its seizure memo Ex. (PW-9/H) show that the knife was blood stained but at the time when the FSL had examined it, it had opined that there was no blood found on the knife.This creates a doubt on the aforenoted recovery; no credence can be placed upon such a recovery; PW-15 who was a witness to this recovery has also turned hostile.Testimonies of these witnesses were unduly ignored by the trial Judge.In the alternative it has been submitted that all cases of death do not qualify as a murder and even presuming that death of the victim had occurred at the hands of the appellants, this case is not covered under Section 302 of the IPC but at best can be covered under Section 304-II of the IPC and to support this submission, reliance has been placed upon Explanation IV of Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 8 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 9 of 35Submission being that the recovery of the shirt purported to have been got recovered by co-accused Vinod from the house of third accused Sanjay cannot be read against the present appellant for two reasons; firstly this recovery was effected pursuant to the disclosure statement made by another co-accused and secondly for the reason that there was no evidence brought forward by the prosecution to establish that this shirt which was recovered from the house of Sanjay in fact belonged to Joginder; no witness of the prosecution has adduced evidence to the said effect.There is also no evidence to establish that the shirt button which was seized from the spot (vide memo Ex.PW-9E) was in any manner connected with the shirt; this seizure is also doubtful for the reason that the versions of PW-9, PW-11 and PW-21 on this point are clearly contradictory; whereas PW-9 has deposed that the button was recovered Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 10 of 35 from under the rear wheel of the motor-cycle; PW-11 has deposed that it was recovered under the tyre and the third witness has deposed that when he revolved the handle of the motor-cycle, one button was found implying thereby that it was recovered from under the front tyre.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 12 of 35 revenge against Abhishek for having intervened in the quarrel which had taken place just minutes before between their mother and other brothers on the one hand and their uncle Rajender on the other hand.The recoveries which were the weapon of offence as also blood stained motorcycle which was used in the crime and which was recovered at the pointing out of the accused Vinod clinched the matter; submission being that the accused persons can in no manner escape their fate.On the issue of recovery which has been vehemently argued by both the learned counsel for the appellants, submission of the learned public prosecutor is that any information given by the accused in his disclosure statement which leads to the discovery of a fact can be read and is an admissible piece of evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act; this is dehors the fact that the said accused has not specifically stated that he could get the aforenoted recovery effected.To support Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 13 of 35 this submission, learned public prosecutor has placed reliance upon judgment in the case of Antulay 30 Cr. L. J 659 as also another judgment of the full Bench of Allahabad High Court reported as Misri Vs.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 10 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 11 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 12 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 13 of 3523 We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, appreciated their arguments and perused the record.24 Record reveals that the property E-9, Prashant Vihar was owned by Ramo Devi, the mother of Bhim Singh (PW-9), Rajender (PW-10) and Attar Singh.All three were real brothers.The ground floor of E-9, Prashant Vihar was in occupation of Attar Singh and his family comprising of his wife Savitri Devi and sons Sanjay and Bijender.The first floor and second floor was in joint occupation of Rajender Singh and his family as also Bhim Singh and his family.On the date of the incident, the other two sons of Attar Singh i.e. accused Vinod and Joginder were living at Sarai Pepal Thala.Thereafter Abhishek on his motor-cycle went to see his uncle Rajender who had been removed to the BJRM Hospital; the accused persons i.e. Joginder and Vinod also followed him on their motor-cycle.26 On this version of PW-9, a lengthy cross-examination had been effected but the credibility of this witness remained untarnished; he stuck to his stand.Suggestions have been given to this witness qua disputes inter-se between the brothers qua the property E-9, Prashant Vihar and Civil Suit No. 2017/99 pending before the High Court on this count.However, on a specific query put to the accused persons (question No. 9) that Bhim Singh and Abhishek had tried to pacify this quarrel by intervention, there was an evasive reply; it was not even a denial; the answer was in the form of "I do not know".Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 14 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 15 of 3527 The fact that this quarrel had in fact taken place is evident by the cross FIRs which had been registered qua this incident.FIR No. 897/2004 (Ex.PW-17/A) which had been registered at Police Station Prashant Vihar on the same day at 12:30 PM on the complaint of Rajender; the accused were Savitri Devi and her two sons Sanjay and Bijender.The second FIR i.e. FIR No. 898/2004 (Ex.PW-17/B) was also registered under Section 308 of the IPC at a later point of time in which the complainant was Savitri Devi and her two sons.The MLC of Savitri Devi (w/o Attar Singh) had been recorded by the doctor at the BJRM Hospital noting simple injuries upon her person.Rajender had been examined in the hospital at 11:25 PM.28 This incident had occurred between 10:00-10:30 PM on the said day and testimony of PW-9 on this count was also corroborated by the version of Rajender (PW-10).He had deposed that on the fateful day his bhabhi Savitri Devi at about 10:30 PM started quarreling with him along with Sanjay and Vinod; he received grievous injuries; Sanjay had an iron rod and Savitri was having a danda.PCR had been informed.Abhishek, his nephew had come down to intervene into the matter.Meanwhile Bhim Singh and Joginder and Vinod, the other two sons of Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 16 of 35 Attar Singh had also reached the spot.PW-10 has reiterated that Vinod and Joginder had threatened Abhishek that because of his intervention, they would set him right "dekh lenge kaam tamam kar denge"; at that time, he was conscious; he was thereafter removed to BJRM Hospital.He has further deposed that accused Vinod and Joginder had tried to forcibly take possession of a part of the portion of E-9, Prashant Vihar although as per the family settlement, Attar Singh had been allotted his share in the property at Sarai Peepal Thala.Thus the fact that there were disputes between the brothers qua this property has come on record.29 Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of the Court to the version of PW-9 wherein he has stated that "after that" i.e. after Rajender had been removed to the hospital, Joginder and Vinod had threatened Abhishek; emphasis being on the words "after that"; submission being that the testimony of PW-10 on this score that he had heard the accused persons threatening Abhishek is an incorrect version and in fact PW-10 had already been removed to the hospital at the time when these threats had been extended by the accused and he could not have heard the said threats; as such his testimony is liable to be disbelieved.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 16 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 17 of 35A lengthy cross-examination had been effected of this witness.He has even gone on to give the timings of the incident; he has reiterated that the quarrel between Rajender and the family of Attar Singh had occurred between 10:00-10:30 PM; it has been reiterated that Abhishek had tried to intervene to pacify the family of Attar Singh not to beat Rajender; accused Joginder and Vinod had also entered the scene of the incident on their motor-cycle; when Abhishek tried to intervene, he was threatened by the accused Joginder and Vinod that they would set him right; Rajender had received grievous injuries in the incident; he was removed to the hospital; Abhishek had gone after his uncle to visit him in the hospital which was between 10:30-11:00 PM.Even presuming that this sentence "after that" has to be taken in the context in which the argument had been addressed, the earlier version of PW-9 clearly shows that when Joginder and Vinod had entered the scene of incident on their motor-cycle, they had started abusing Abhishek.Obviously they were in Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 18 of 35 a rage.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 18 of 3531 The motor-cycle being driven by Abhishek was bearing No. DL- 8SV-1285 LML which was found lying at the T junction of Shiv Dharam Kanta, Jahangir Puri (place of incident) when PW-11 along with PW-14 had reached the spot.This motor-cycle was in the name of PW-9; it had been taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/C. The motor-cycle which was driven by the accused persons was bearing No. 2932; it was a Hero Honda motor-cycle; the pointing out memo of this motor-cycle was prepared at the instance of accused Vinod; it was standing on the ground floor of his residence i.e. 65, Sarai Pepal Thala.This Crl.These metallic handles when examined by the CFSL had opined to contain human blood group of A origin which was also the blood group of the deceased.On a specific query put to the accused persons on this score, there was again an evasive reply in the form of "I do not know"; it was not even a denial.This was yet another piece of clinching evidence; as the accused were unable to explain as to how human blood of A origin was detected on the handle of their motor-cycle which was parked on their ground floor verandah.Both the injured parties had been Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 20 of 35 removed to the hospital.Abhishek had gone to visit his uncle Rajender on the motor-cycle of his father.This was between 10:30-11:00 PM.DD No. 2 (Ex.PW-4/A) was received in the police post Jahangir Puri at 12:20 PM giving information that at the T point of G.T.K. Road, Shiv Dharam Kanta, Jahangir Puri a dead-body of an unknown person was lying; this information was received at 12:20 PM meaning thereby that the murder of Abhishek had already been committed between 11:00- 12:20 PM.34 The quarrel between Rajender and the family of Attar Singh; the intervention of Abhishek enraged Joginder and Vinod, being followed by their extending threats to Abhishek had thereafter culminated into this murderous attack on Abhishek.All this had happened within a span of less than 1- hour.Cross FIRs (Ex.PW-17/A & Ex.PW-17/B) under Section 308 of the IPC were registered qua the first part of the incident.In fact Rajender was under medical examination at the BJRM hospital (his MLC reflects the time as 11:25 PM) and Abhishek was on his way Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 21 of 35 to see him when around the same time at the T junction of Jahangir Puri; he was attacked and murdered.The revengeful grudge which Vinod and Joginder were nursing against Abhishek had led to this assault.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 21 of 3535 This Court is constrained to draw this conclusion not only on the evidence which has been collected and discussed hereinabove but also additional evidence which has been collected by the prosecution and which shall be discussed herein later.36 Section 6 of the Evidence Act reads herein as under:- "Section:-6, Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places."It reads as under:-The Crl.The requirement of this Section is that these statements which are sought to be admitted must have been made contemporaneous with the act or immediately thereafter and not at such interval of time as to allow fabrication or to reduce the statement to a mere narrative of past events.A transaction as the term used in this Section is defined "as a group of facts so connected together as to be referred to by a single name, as a crime, a contract, a wrong or any other subject of enquiry which may be in issue.The statements of PW-9 and PW-10 were contemporaneous or almost contemporaneous with the transaction in issue and the interval between the first incident and second incident was so short that there was no time for fabrication; these declarations of PW-9 & PW-10 qualifying as "res gastae" and are relevant facts under Section 6 of the Evidence Act.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 22 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 23 of 35At the cost of repetition and as noted supra the threats and intimidating words uttered by the accused persons to Abhishek were between 10:00-10:30 PM; Rajender had been removed to the hospital and was examined at about 11:25 PM; after Rajender had left for the hospital, Abhishek followed him on his motor-cycle to visit him; accused persons followed thereafter; at the T junction of Jahangir Puri Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 24 of 35 i.e. just 1-2 kilometers away from the BJRM Hospital, the deceased was found dead.The first DD recording his death was returned in the Jahangir Puri Police Post at 12:20 PM; he had obviously died prior in time.PC was that the complainant party wanted to grab their fathers property and because of other litigations pending against them, a false case had been registered against them.This defence which they had taken in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.PC did not find mention in the cross-examination conducted by the learned defence counsel upon the witnesses of the prosecution.This defence was also not the defence taken by DW-1 and DW-2 who had set up a totally contradictory and conflicting defence; their version being that on the fateful day Vinod was working as a bus driver and he was on duty on the said day.It was thus rightly disbelieved by the trial Court.The false answers given by the accused in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.PC also persuades this Court to hold that this false statement is an additional link in the chain of circumstances which had been collected by the Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 25 of 35 prosecution against the accused persons.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 24 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 25 of 35This is evident from DD 2A (Ex.PW-4/A).42 The role and the evidence collected qua the other two accused i.e. Vinod and Joginder shall be discussed separately.43 Role of accused Vinod Accused Vinod was arrested at 05:00 PM on 26.10.2004 itself.He made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-9/G) followed by a subsequent disclosure statement (Ex.PW-21/H) which was also made on the same day.Pursuant to the aforenoted disclosure statements of Vinod, he had Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 26 of 35 got recovered a knife (did not contain blood stains) as also a cream colored pant.This was from a sewer near the construction park near the APMC dispensary.It had been taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/H. The cream coloured blood stained pant was found in an iron box at his residence at Peepal Sarai; it was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/J.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 26 of 3544 Vehement argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the knife was not blood stained and thus could not be connected with the crime.On this score, the accused in his disclosure statement had stated that he had washed this knife after this incident.The law on the evidentiary value of a disclosure statement is well settled.A disclosure statement made in police custody is hit by the bar of Sections 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act; it cannot be read in evidence except to the limited extent that it leads to the discovery of a fact and falls within the parameters of Section 27 of the said Act. As per the disclosure statement of Vinod, he had washed the knife.This part of his disclosure has necessarily to be ignored.However the non noting of blood on this weapon by the CFSL would not by itself wash away the recovery as has been vehemently argued.This recovery memo Ex.PW-9/H has been Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 27 of 35 attested by the public witness PW-9; the police witness to this memo i.e. PW-12 has also remained consistent on his stand.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 27 of 35PW-22/3) had opined human blood group A on the said pant which was also the blood group of the deceased.46 The motor-cycle recovered from the court-yard of the residence of Vinod at his pointing out also had blood stains of group A origin on its right side i.e. on its metallic handles.The blood on this motor-cycle of the accused remained wholly un-explained by them.47 Role of Accused Joginder Record shows that Joginder had been arrested on 31.10.2004 from Azad Pur Food Mandi vide memo Ex.PW-9/H. He has made his disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/S. Pursuant to this disclosure statement, he had got recovered a pant and a shirt which had been taken out from the box of the bed in his house at 65, Sarai Pepal Thala.Both the shirt and the pant had evidenced human blood but reaction could not be known.48 Accused Vinod had also got recovered a blood stained shirt from Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 28 of 35 the takht of his house on which two buttons were missing; as per the prosecution this shirt belonged to co-accused Joginder.It had been taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/Q. The vehement submission of the learned counsel for accused Joginder that this recovery has been got effected by Vinod pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Joginder and as such cannot be read against Joginder as also the additional submission that even otherwise there is no evidence to connect this shirt as the shirt of Joginder.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 28 of 3549 Ex.PW-9/E is the seizure of a button (Ex.PW-12) which was alleged to be the missing button of the shirt of accused Joginder.This button had been seized from the spot.On this count, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the report of the crime team (Ex.PW-20/A) as also the photographs which had been taken of the spot; submission being that neither in the crime team report and nor in the photographs does this button find mention; this seizure has been falsely planted upon Joginder.To further advance this argument it has been pointed out that the seizure memo of all the other exhibits show that they were joint seizures whereas the seizure memo of the button is the seizure memo of single item which again throws a doubt on this seizure Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 29 of 35 and to support this submission attention has been drawn to the other seizure memos; Ex.PW-21/E is seizure memo of two rupess; Ex.PW- 9/D is the seizure of other combined exhibits; seizure memo of the plastic chair and T.V. had been proved as Ex.PW-9/E. 50 PW-9 Bhim Singh, PW-11 ASI Kishan Jeet and PW-21 Inspector Satpal Yadav have all been consistent in their version that from the spot a button of a shirt had been recovered which had been taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW-9/E after sealing it in a match box.There is no discrepancy in their versions.In fact all of them in their lengthy cross-examination conducted on this score stuck to their stand that the button was lying under the rear wheel of the motor-cycle.In fact no cross-examination has been effected of PW-11 on this score at all; his testimony had remained unrebutted.This button had been sent to the CFSL who had vide its report examined the button Ex.2A along with the buttons Ex.B-1 to B-7 which were present on Ex.6 (a shirt which had been got recovered at the instance of accused Vinod and purported to be the shirt of Joginder) and the CFSL on the examination of its design, number of holes, diameter and thickness had opined that this button belongs to the said shirt.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 29 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 30 of 3551 Thus by cogent evidence the prosecution has been able to establish that the missing button which was recovered from the spot i.e. the scene of crime was the same button of the shirt which had been got recovered at the instance of accused Vinod.The evidence collected up to this point can be read; i.e. that the shirt recovered at the instance of Vinod could be read, if incriminating, against his co-accused Joginder.52 However how this shirt is connected to accused Joginder has not been answered by the prosecution.Not a single witness of the prosecution has come into the witness box to state that this shirt which had been recovered at the instance of accused Vinod was the shirt of Joginder.This recovery thus cannot be foisted upon Joginder.53 In view of the aforenoted evidence finding on this score we need not deal in detail with the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for accused Joginder on this score.However trite it is to say that Section 30 of the Evidence Act is a provision engrained in the Statute; this refers to statements made by one co-accused against the other and their evidentiary value.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 31 of 35 fact is an admissible piece of evidence may not be relevant at this stage in the context of the findings returned aforesaid accepting the proposition that the recovery of the shirt made at the instance of accused Vinod could be read as a piece of evidence against co-accused Joginder, yet there being no further evidence adduce by the prosecution to show that this shirt in fact was the shirt of Joginder, we need not delve any further into this argument.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 31 of 35PW-6/B had opined that the aforenoted weapons Ex PW-9/P and Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 32 of 35 Ex.PW-9/J could have caused the injuries as noted in the post-mortem of Abhishek.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 32 of 3556 The sum total of the evidence collected by the prosecution establishes the following circumstances:-(i) Last seen:- PW-9 & PW-10 have proved this circumstance.(ii) Motive:- Motive of the crime has been spelt out and explained in the oral testimonies of PW-9 and PW-10 which was corroborated by the cross FIRs Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B. The interference by Abhishek in the quarrel between the family of Attar Singh and Rajender when Abhishek was siding with Rajender further infuriated Joginder and Vinod who were already nursing a grudge against the family of Abhishek and Rajender qua the property at Prashant Vihar for which a litigation was pending interse the parties.(iii) Recovery:- Recovery of two weapons of offence, one at the instance of accused Vinod and the second weapon at the instance of accused Sanjay stood proved.So also the blood stained pant of accused Vinod and the human blood group A originated on the metallic handle bar of the motor-cycle parked in the court yard of the residence of the accused Vinod and Joginder and which was admittedly owned by their Crl.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 33 of 35 third brother Sanjay.Chocolate coloured pant and shirt recovered at the instance of accused Joginder having blood stains upon it also stood proved.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 33 of 35(iv) Medical opinion:- The post mortem doctor had opined that the 12 injuries caused upon the victim Abhishek could well have been caused by the two weapons which had been sent to him for an opinion.The fact that there were 12 wounds inflicted upon the victim is undisputed.All the injuries were by and large grievous.The facts of the case thus do not qualify for the lesser offence under Section 304 of the IPC as had been argued by the counsel for accused Vinod.(v) Scientific evidence:- The report of the CFSL had opined human blood group of A origin on the weapon of offence (recovered at the instance of the accused Sanjay), metallic handle bar of the motor-cycle, cream coloured pant of accused Vinod as also human blood on the pant and shirt got recovered at the instance of accused Joginder.Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 34 of 35Appeal No. 959/2010 Page 35 of 35
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
730,768
when the complainant closed his shop and collected that day's earning of Rs. 23.000/- into a polythene carry bag, kept it into the dicky of his scooter and was going towards Madhushala Bar near Jagat Restaurant to meet his brother Ravi Sharma who is running Madhushala Bar, and while he was going towards Buldi via Amravati Road, at that time near Hislop College Hockey Ground at 2230 hours, the petitioner and his two associates suddenly came before the complainant from behind on scooter and tried to stop him.Due to fear, the complainant drove his scooter fast but was accosted near Mafco Daily Needs Corner, Maharajbagh Canal Road.The petitioner and his associates got down from the scooter and asked the complainant to open the dicky and take out the money by whipping out knives.On 16.4.1999 Shri Ulhas Joshi, the Commissioner of Police, Nagpur City passed an order that the petitioner be detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (Amendment of 1996) (Mah. LV of 1981) (for short "M.P.D.A. Act of 1981) in order to prevent him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The detention order came to be passed by the Commissioner of Police in exercise of powers conferred on him under Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of M.P.D.A. Act of 1981 read with Government Order, Home Department (Spl.) No. DOS.The Detaining Authority in the grounds of detention dated 16.4.1999 communicated to the petitioner found that the petitioner was a dangerous person defined under the provisions of M.P.D.A. Act of 1981 on the basis of 14 cases committed by the petitioner since the year 1989 in the jurisdiction of Sitabuldi and Sadar Police Stations.The Detaining Authority found that inspite of the arrest of the petitioner and various prosecutions launched against him in the said cases along with the three detentions under the National Security Act, 1980, the petitioner's criminal activities have increased blatantly without any remorse and he has no respect for law and that he restarts his violent criminal activities with renewed vigour once the petitioner is released from custody or from detention, thereby creating terror and a sense a insecurity in the minds of the people of the locality where the petitioner resides and operates.The Detaining Authority found that the recent activities of the petitioner are such that his detention under the M.P.D.A. Act of 1951 was in the interest of the society as the petitioner was found acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The grounds of the detention relied upon by the Detaining Authority are the offences committed by the petitioner in the jurisdiction of Sitabuldi Police Station under Section 392 read with 34 Indian Penal Code registered vide Crime No. 61/99 on the complaint of Shri Ram s/o Satyanarayan Sharma who is running Ankur Wine Shop at Dharampeth, Nagpur.The facts of the case are that on 21.1.1999 at about 2200 hrs.Out of fear, when the complainant opened the dicky, the petitioner snatched the carry bag containing money and threatened him, "Turn Dukan se Nikle aur Paise Dicky me Rakhe, Tabse Ham Tumhara Picha Karte Aye".He was further threatened, "Mai Tumhe Do-tin Mahine Se 3000/- Rs. Pratimah Dene Ko Bola Tha.Tumne Diya Nahi, Abhi 1 Tarikh Se 5 Tarikh Tak Her Mahine 3000/- Rs. Meri Lottery Ke Dukan Me Jama Karna" and left the spot on their scooter.The Sitabuldi Police Station was able to arrest the petitioner on 30.1.1999 and produce the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No. II, Nagpur and came to be released in the case on bail, whereas the associates of the petitioner Joney alias Anil Vaidya and Umesh were found to be absconding till date.It was also found that after the petitioner was released on bail, he had threatened the complainant and therefore police picket was deployed in front of petitioner's house to have check on him.The Detaining Authority also found that the petitioner has been continuously terrorising the people of nearby locality/local residents to deter them from going against the petitioner by threatening them with dire consequences and as the witnesses are afraid of the petitioner due to grave danger to their lives and property at the hands of the petitioner, they are not willing to come forward and lodge complaint against the petitioner.But the police with much efforts could trace out these witnesses and after taking them into confidence have recorded their statements in camera after giving them assurance that their anonymity will be maintained and they will not be called upon to give evidence in any Court of law or any other forum.The statements of witnesses are recorded by the police in the form of witness 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D', & 'E'.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,076,992
Dayan Krishnan, ASC, for the State along with Sh.A. Menon.The present order will dispose of four appeals - Crl.A. 229/2011 - Tariq Mehmood & Anr.All the appellants - Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl. A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar were tried together with several other accused.By common judgment and order dated 24.12.2010 and 15.01.2011 of Ms. Pinki, learned ASJ/Designated Court, Saket, New Delhi (which have been challenged in the present appeals), these accused/appellants were convicted for committing various offences.These appeals were heard on several dates.During the course of hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted that having regard to the nature of evidence and the fact that the principal accused Abdul Majeed was held guilty and awarded 10 years sentence for the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC, (which was the maximum punishment to him), was reduced to 8 years Rigorous Imprisonment by this Court, in a previous order and that the same was to run concurrently with the sentences for the other offences, it was urged that having regard to the allegations leveled against these appellants, Tariq Mehmood and Ishaq Ahmed (in Crl.A. 229/2011), Arshad Khan; Mufti Mohd. Asrar and Ghulam Mohd. Dar, and the findings of the Trial Court, they would not be contesting or pressing for setting-aside of the conviction.The appellants were also present; they were present pursuant to production warrants issued by the Court.They concurred with the statements made on their behalf by the counsel.The prosecution case was that the principal accused Abdul Majeed, in conspiracy with several others, had plotted committing various subversive and terrorist acts in India.These included possibility of kidnapping several Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 986/2011 Page 2 highly-placed individuals, and also getting some terrorists, who were lodged in Indian jails, released in bargain.The role attributed to Abdul Majeed was a prominent one; he is alleged to have purchased a plot with a view to stay in India to provide hideout to the others, some of whom were from Pakistan and also to mastermind operations and provide logistic support.Although the present appellants and the other accused, i.e. Abdul Majeed, Mohd. Amran and Mohd. Ashraf were named in the same First Information Report (FIR), and also arraigned (charged) along with these appellants, in view of the fact that some of them pleaded guilty, the order of conviction and sentence was passed much earlier.These orders were made by the learned Designated Judge (POTA).The relevant sentences awarded by the learned Designated Judge(POTA) on 15.10.2003 were noticed by the Trial Court in the impugned judgment, in the form of a chart.C.8(c) Vide order dated 18.01.2010 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait, Judges, Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 775/03, the order on sentence in respect of accused Abdul Majeed was modified.C. 8(d) The sentences awarded vide order dated 15.10.2003 passed by Sh.S.N. Dhingra, learned Designated Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.The appeal stands disposed of modifying the order of sentence dated 15.10.2003, but limited to the sentence imposed for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.We direct that for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC, the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The appeal stands disposed of as aforesaid.................A. 229/2011 , Crl. A. 281/2011 , Crl. A. 307/2011 & Crl.No other allegations were leveled or proved against him.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,083,829
C.R.M. 12108 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on August 09, 2010 And In re.: Biswajit Laskar & 2 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 Taherpur Police Station Case No. 167 of 2009 dated 29.8.2009 under Sections 420/406/427 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioners and for the State.In case they surrender, their prayer for bail will be considered in accordance with law.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,086,070
On due consideration, I.A. No.6273/16, moved on behalf of the applicant, is allowed and the documents annexed therewith are taken on record.Also heard arguments on the bail application.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in Sessions Trial No.346/15 arising out of Crime No.127/15 registered at Police Station Chicholi District Betul, against him and co-accused persons namely Rubab Shah and Mohar Singh for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 202 and 34 later added 120-B of the IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, pending on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Betul.As per the prosecution, on 21.05.2015 Kamal lodged an FIR alleging therein that in the night between 20.05.2015 to 21.05.2015, an unknown offender(s) committed murder of his father Jugram with sharp edged weapon by slitting his throat and threw his dead body on a road-side.Thereupon, the police registered a case against unknown offender under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC.In the course of investigation, the police found that the relation between the deceased and co-accused Mohar Singh are of Jija and Sala.Co-accused Mohar Singh's father Channu gave five acres land to his son-in-law/deceased.Ever since, co-accused Mohar Singh bears enmity with the deceased and he got the deceased murdered with the help of remaining accused of the case.He further submits that the prosecution case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence and that the police had not collected any incriminating evidence against the applicant during the investigation which connects him with the murder of the deceased.He further submits that deceased's wife Bhagoati (PW-1) has stated in her evidence that prior to murder of her husband in one night co-accused Mohar came to her resident with the applicant and co-accused Rubab.At that time, co-accused Rubab simply asked her about the deceased.He further submits that his Court has granted regular bail to co-accused Rubab.He furthers submits that the applicant is the permanent resident of Harda district and that he does not have any criminal antecedents.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer mainly on the ground that the applicant is a permanent resident of District Harda, whereas the offence occurred in the territorial jurisdiction of revenue district Betul.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN)
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
73,611,125
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No. 296 of 2016 pending on the file of the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/12 CRL.O.P.No.19310 of 2016 Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 of I.P.C and Section 7(1)(C ) CLA Act, against the petitioners.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.11.2011 the Sub- Inspector of Police, Oomachikulam, cautioned to remove a greeting banner erected at the Alathur Vilakku, at that time the accused persons gathered and shorted slogan by saying action should be taken against the police officials who tore the banner without any intimation and blocked the bus and as such caused disturbances to the public and transport movement.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 of I.P.C and Section 7(1)(C ) CLA Act, in C.C.No.296 of 2016, on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai.Further he submitted that the petitioners or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioners or others restrained anybody.However, the officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Section 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/12 CRL.O.P.No.19310 of 2016 ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341, 188 of I.P.C and Sectiion 7(1)(C ) CLA Act. He is not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No. 296 of 2016 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Madurai, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.09.10.2020 Index :Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/non-speaking order ksahttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/12 CRL.O.P.No.19310 of 2016The Inspector of Police, Omachikulam Police Station, Madurai.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 11/12 CRL.O.P.No.19310 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ksa CRL.O.P.No.19310 of 2016 09.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 12/12
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.