id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
7,361,114 |
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.21.12.2016Index: Yes / NoInternet:Yes / NossnToInvoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the criminal proceedings of the case in C.C.No.20950 of 2005 pending trial as against them on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Heard Mr.R.C.Paul Kanakaraj, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/police.It is revealed from the records that based on the complaint lodged by one E.Babyammal, the respondent happened to register a case in Crime No.927 of 2005 as against the petitioners alleging that they have committed the offences punishable under Sections 451, 354, 294(b) and 506(ii) of I.P.C., r/w.As per the case of prosecution the listed witness No.6, Solomon S/o.Thomas came to be in occupation of a portion of the house belonging to the 1st petitioner Babyammal which is situated at No.30, Dr.Natesan Road, Triplicane, Chennai-5 for preparing sweets for selling in his sweet stall under the name and style of Sangeetha Sweet Stall.The 2nd petitioner is none other than the son of the 1st petitioner Babyammal.Since the smoke emanated from the kitchen spreaded over the house of complainant Srividhya which is located proximity to the house of the petitioners, she had lodged a complaint before the Pollution Control Board.On receipt of the complaint, the officials from the Pollution Control Board came to the house of Babyammal and warned LW 6 Solomon and they had also instructed him to vacate the rented premises.That on 11.07.2005, at about 10.30 a.m. when LW 6 Solomon was vacating the premises, the petitioners 1 and 2 had rushed to the house of the complainant Srividhya and abused her with filthy language and during the course of verbal altercation they had pulled her hand and pushed her down under the impression that their tenant Solomon (LW6) was made to vacate the rented premises because of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the Pollution Control Board.Soon after the occurrence, the complainant had lodged a complaint with respondent/police.As aforestated a case in Crime No.927 of 2005 came to be registered against the petitioners.On the next day morning at about 10 a.m., when he was taking bath, he happened to hear sound from outside.After taking bath, when he came out, he was informed that the petitioners had pushed her daughter down.Therefore, Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 also would not attract in this case.Keeping in view of the above fact, this Court is of considered view that the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20950 of 2005 pending against the petitioners on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are liable to be quashed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.20950 of 2005 pending against the petitioners on the file of the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai are quashed.1. XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-600 008The Sub-Inspector of Police,D-3, Ice House Police Station,Chennai District, Tamil Nadu,The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.T.MATHIVANAN, J., ssnCRL.O.P.No.27987 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 200921.12.2016
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,611,892 |
Respondent No. 4 in person.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKEWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ?AJIT BHARIHOKE, J.(ORAL)1. Prem Nath Sharma, vide this petition, seeks to challenge the order of learned ACMM dated 14th May, 2009 in complaint case titled "Prem Nath Sharma Vs.Diwan Chand & Ors." whereby the complaint filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn and accused persons were acquitted.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 1 of 7M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 1 of 7The preliminary enquiry into the complaint went on till 25th March, 2000 when the learned ACMM, after examining as many as 17 witnesses, summoned respondents No. 1 to 4 and Diwan Chand (since expired) & Shaheen Das (since expired) for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/323 IPC.Learned ACMM also summoned respondent No. 4 Head Constable Prem Singh and Surjeet Lal, Inspector (since expired) under Sections 217 read with Section 34 IPC.On 25th January, 2008, learned Magistrate partly examined the complainant and recorded the statement of PW2 Shanti Swaroop Sharma.On 14th May, 2009 the petitioner sought to withdraw his complaint claiming that he has compromised the matter with the respondents.Learned ACMM recorded his statement in this regard, which was duly signed by the petitioner.In view of the said statement, learned ACMM allowed the withdrawal of complaint under Section 257 Cr.P.C and acquitted the respondents.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14 th May, 2009, the petitioner has approached this court claiming that the Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 2 of 7 withdrawal of the complaint is the result of his counsel Mohd. Saleem colluding with the accused persons and he, because of his old age, could not comprehend the import of his statement recorded by the learned ACMM on 14th May, 2009, which led to the impugned order acquitting the respondents and others because of withdrawal of the complaint.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 2 of 7I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.Petitioner has also filed written submissions in support of his petition.The plea of the petitioner is that he was never ready and willing to withdraw the complaint on 14th May, 2009 and he was pushed into making the statement for withdrawal of complaint on 14 th May, 2009 by his counsel Mohd. Saleem, who colluded with the accused persons.It is submitted that the petitioner, on 14 th May, 2009 was aged about 75 years and because of his old age, he was misled into making the statement before the court.Thus warrant trial case procedure was applicable in this case and Section 257 Cr.P.C, which relates to summons trial cases, was not attracted.Thus, petitioner has urged for setting aside of impugned order.Learned counsels appearing for the respondents submit that there is no infirmity in the order of the learned ACMM dated 14 th Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 3 of 7 May, 2009 for the reason that the learned ACMM was cautious enough to record the statement of the petitioner and obtained his signatures on the same.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 3 of 7In order to appreciate the contention of the parties, it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the impugned order of learned ACMM dated 14th May, 2009:"The matter in dispute has been amicable resolved out of the court with the assistance of their respective counsel.Statement of complainant recorded separately.The matter is at the stage of pre-charge evidence.Charge is yet to be framed by the court.Surety bond cancelled.Original documents be returned to the parties, if any, after cancellation of endorsement on the documents.File be consigned to RR".From the record, it also transpires that before passing the impugned order, the learned ACMM recorded the statement of the petitioner Prem Nath Sharma, which reads thus:"I am the complainant in the present case.I have amicably settled my dispute with the accused persons.The accused persons have apologized for their mistake and tendered unconditional apology to me.Accused Kalo @ Poonam Sharma and Shani were my neighbours and we had good relations with each other .The matter Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 4 of 7 has been sorted out with the able assistance of my counsel and the advocate for the opposite parties out of the court.I do not want to litigate with the accused persons.I am 76 years old and want to live peacefully and maintain harmonious relationship with the accused persons.I may kindly be permitted to withdraw my complaint dated 8/1/90 for the offences alleged to be committed by the accused persons as mentioned in the complaint."M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 4 of 7On perusal of the above, it is obvious that withdrawal of the complaint was permitted on the basis of statement made by the petitioner Prem Nath Sharma, which was duly signed by him.Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides, if the complainant, at any time before the final order is passed in a complaint case pertaining to an offence triable as a summons trial, satisfies the Magistrate that there are sufficient grounds for permitting him to withdraw his complaint against one or more accused, the Magistrate may permit him to withdraw the same and in that eventuality, the Magistrate shall acquit the accused person/s against whom the complaint is so withdrawn.From the summoning order dated 25th March, 2000, it is apparent that one set of accused persons were summoned under Sections 147/148/323 IPC and other set of accused persons have been summoned under Section 217 read with Section 34 IPC.The above offences are triable in accordance with the summons trial procedure, therefore, Section Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 5 of 7 257 CrPC is squarely applicable to this case.From the statement of the petitioner, it is obvious that he voluntarily sought to withdraw his complaint on the ground of amicable settlement with the parties.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 5 of 7Thus, the previous delay in the proceedings cannot be made a ground to permit the petitioner to get out of the statement made to the court.Petitioner, in his written submissions has tried to canvass that he was persuaded and compelled by the learned ACMM to withdraw the aforesaid complaint.This allegation of the petitioner runs counter to his other plea that his counsel colluded with the respondents and did not explain to him as to what was happening in Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 6 of 7 the court and as a result, he was misled into making a statement for withdrawal of the complaint.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 6 of 7(AJIT BHARIHOKE) JUDGE JULY 13, 2011 akb Crl.M.C. No. 3224/2009 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,618,326 |
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant is in jail since 04/09/2020 in connection with Crime No.604/2020 registered at Police Station Ashoka Garden, District Bhopal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.The allegation against the applicant, in short, is that the applicant along with the other co-accused, on the date of incidence, in the night, entered into the company running by Amit Garg and fled away with 30Kg Aluminum frames and pipes, thereafter, the matter was reported to the police station and after investigation charge-sheet has been filed.The police arrested him and on the basis of memorandum, lodged more than one cases against him.After investigation charge-sheet has been filed.Before this incidence, no previous criminal case has been registered against the applicant.Having heard both the counsel for the parties.Jail authorities and State Government are directed to follow the guidelines issued by the Health Ministry in the wake of Novel Corona Virus, before and after releasing the applicant.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,624,652 |
Respondents No.2 to 5- not noticed so far.It be noted vide the impugned judgment, respondents No.2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer the imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/- (six thousand) in default of which to suffer simple imprisonment for one month each .Upon the perusal of the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 of the said charge on the ground that there are material discrepancies between the evidence of Ramakhtyar (PW/1) and the medical evidence.3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the learned trial Judge has acquitted the respondents No.2 to 5 of the said charge upon misreading and misappreciation of evidence.M.Cr.C. No.4820/2017 (Ramavtar and others Vs.Upon perusal of the record, we find that learned trial Judge framed the charge against respondents under Section 326 and 326 read with Section 34 IPC for causing grievous injury with a hard and sharp object to Ramakhtyar (PW/1).We also find that Ramavtar has stated in his evidence that the respondents No.2 to 5 inflicted injuries on the posterior part of his left hand, right elbow and thigh with lathis.Dr. Rakesh Sharma (PW/6) has medico legally examined him and gave his MLC report Ex.He has stated in his evidence that he has found an incised wound size 3x cm skin deep on the gap between his left hand index finger and little finger and swelling on his right hand size 3x3 cm.He has also stated that he has taken X-Ray of right hand little finger and found fracture in it, whereas as per his X-Ray report Ex.8., he has stated that he suffered fracture in ulna bone.In view of the aforesaid evidence, we find that there are material inconsistencies between the evidence of Ramkhtyar (PW/1) and the medical evidence regarding his injuries.Thus, we hold that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly acquitted respondent Ramdin of the charge under Section 326 of the IPC and the remaining respondents No.2 to 5 of the charge under Section 326 read with 34 of the IPC.C. No.4820/2017 (Ramavtar and others Vs.State of M.P. and others) Karnatka (2007 (4) SCC 415) and Ashok Rai Vs.State of U.P. and others (2014 AIR SCW 3406).Consequently, we dismiss the application in limine at the state of admission itself.Accordingly, this case is finally disposed of.7. Let the record of the trial Court be sent back with a copy of this order without delay.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 326 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.
|
73,625,135 |
A cheats."Sumesh Narula .........Accused/ PetitionersState of West Bengal ........ Opposite Party No. 1........ Opposite Party No. 1...... Complainant/Opposite Party No. 2Asha Arora, J.:The petitioners have approached this Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the proceeding of GR Case No. 1805 of 2014 arising out of Taltala P.S. Case No. 242 of 2014 dated 26/12/2014 under section 420/120B of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 20th Court Calcutta.The facts in brief leading to the present application may be summarized as follows:The opposite party no. 2/complainant lodged a written complaint dated 24/12/2014 at Taltala P.S. against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under section 420/120B. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint the above mentioned criminal proceeding was initiated.Investigation culminated in the submission of the charge- sheet under section 420/120B IPC against the petitioners wherein it is alleged that on 18/10/2014 the accused persons dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver stock of IMFL and beer to M/S Luxamee Kutir Udyog Liquor Division and after receiving the same, they neither paid the bill amount of Rs. 8,18,304/- nor returned the stock to the complainant.The accused issued four cheques to the complainant which were dishonoured due to insufficient fund.There was continuous business transaction between the parties.The said cheques were dishonoured.A private complaint was filed by the first respondent alleging that the appellant had committed offences under section 406, 409, 420 and 417 IPC.On the aforesaid facts it was held that non payment or under payment of price of goods by itself does not amount to commission of offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust.It is essentially a civil dispute.In the absence of allegations in the 11 complaint showing existence of the ingredients of the alleged offences, the complaint was quashed.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,626,001 |
Heard on this second application i.e. I.A. No.14651/2019 under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Sukhnandan.The appellant stands convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter.Prosecutrix lodged the report on the instigation of Sarpanch, who was having political rivalry with the appellant.So many persons were present near the place of incidence.List the matter for final hearing in due course.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.09.23 16:50:59 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,631,053 |
This criminal revision has been filed to call for the records pertaining to Crl.M.P.No.4471/2014 in C.C.No.70/2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore, and to set aside the same.The second respondent is the defacto complainant.He gave a complaint before the Ukkadam Police Station against the petitioners herein.The revision petitioners filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.4471 of 2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, under Section 239 of the Criminal Procedure Code.After hearing both sides, the learned Magistrate, dismissed the petition on 24.03.2015, on the ground that there are enough materials to frame charges against the petitioners under Sections 448, 452,506(ii) of IPC and Section 75(1)(c) of the TNCP Act.Aggrieved against the impugned order in Crl.MP.No.4471 of 2014 in C.C.No.70 of 2014 dated 24.03.2015, the revision petitioners preferred the present Criminal Revision before this Court.When the matter came up for hearing on 27.08.2018, there was no representation on the petitioners.Hence, the Criminal Revision is dismissed.
|
['Section 448 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.
|
73,633 |
JUDGMENT P.K. Bhasin, J.Pursuant thereto FIR no. 119/2002 was registered by the police but till date no charge sheet appears to have been filed in the Court.It was alleged by the complainant (respondent no. 2 herein) in its complaint that it had entered into a hire purchase agreement while financing one Truck to M/s Shree Sanmati Rice Ltd. Seventeen monthly Installments were fixed between the parties for the loan amount sanctioned by the complainant company and petitioner no. 2 herein was the guarantor for the re-payment of the loan amount.However the borrower defaulted in paying the monthly Installments and even the financed vehicle was not given back to the complainant.So the complainant lodged a complaint with the police as well as filed a complaint in the Court.Notice of this petition was given to the State as well as respondent no. 2-complainant.On 27.09.2007 Mr. Jatan Singh, advocate, appeared for respondent no. 2 and affirmed that the dispute had been amicably resolved and so the complainant was no more interested in pursuing its complaint based on which the police had registered an FIR and he supported the prayer of the petitioners for quashing of the FIR.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,642,903 |
The brief facts which are required to be stated are that the deceased Darshana alias Darshan Kaur d/o Joginder Singh - PW.2 was married to one Ravail Singh about 11 months prior to the date of occurrence.According to PW.2 at the time of marriage he gave sufficient dowry but Jagir Kaur, the mother-in-law of the deceased, and the accused were not satisfied with the amount of dowry given in marriage.Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.At the very outset it is relevant to mention that the second appellant, namely, Lakha Singh also known as Lakhiwinder Singh s/o Gian Singh stated to have died on 03.12.2005 as per the death certificate enclosed along with the special leave petition papers and the application filed on 25.07.2006 in this Court.Therefore, the special leave petition itself, which was stated to have been filed on 25.07.2006 on behalf of Lakha Singh alias Lakhiwinder Singh, has become infructuous.However, in the criminal miscellaneous petition for substitution application, also filed on 25.07.2006, the first appellant has made a prayer to substitute her as the legal representative of the deceased Lakha Singh and pursue his appeal as well in order to enable her to get the monitory benefits from the employer of the deceased Lakha Singh who was stated to have been employed in the Punjab State Electricity Board.In the above-stated background we heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the State in these appeals.According to the prosecution, there was a demand for cash amount of Rs.30,000/- apart from a stereo set and scooter by way of dowry which the deceased Darshana was compelled to ask and get from her parental house.Three days prior to the occurrence, the deceased was stated to have gone to her parental house, met PW.2 and requested him to arrange for the cash amount of Rs.30,000/- in order to fulfill the demand, when she stated to have also told PW.2 that she was being repeatedly tortured at the instance of the accused in her matrimonial home.PW.2 stated to have promised his daughter that he would arrange for the money in three to four days time after harvesting the crops and that she can return back to her matrimonial home.On 03.11.1987, PW.3 Jagir Singh stated to have witnessed the torture meted out to the deceased Darshana at the hands of the accused in the morning and in the evening he came to know about the death of the deceased whose body was lying in the Civil Hospital at Taran Taran.PW.3 stated to have met Joginder Singh (PW.2) at his village called Nandpur and informed him about the torture meted out to his daughter in the morning and the subsequent death in the evening.Thereafter, PW.2 went to the hospital along with PW.3 and after identifying the body of his daughter he lodged a complaint with the Police Station Jhabal which came to be registered as FIR No.246/87 Exhibit PE/2 for offences under Section 304B read with 34 IPC as well as under Section 498A IPC.The complaint was registered as against the appellant, her husband Lakha Singh s/o of Gian Singh as well as Jagir Kaur alias Jagire, mother-in-law of the deceased, who in the meantime passed away.PW.1 was the doctor who conducted the postmortem issued Exhibit ‘PA’ the postmortem certificate under Exhibit PA/1 PW.1 stated to have prepared a pictorial diagram showing the seat of injuries.He also stated that stomach and its contents along with a portion of small intestine with its contents, a portion of large intestine with its contents, a portion of liver, spleen and kidney were handed over to police along with letter dated 04.11.1987 addressed to Chemical Examiner, Patiala in five Jars sealed with the seal bearing impression ‘KS’ for its report.The Chemical Examiner Reports were marked as Exhibit ‘PF’ to Exhibit ‘PG’.PW.5, the Sub-Inspector of Police stated to have recovered a letter from the brassier of the deceased which was marked as Exhibit ‘PH’.There were other letters produced by PW.2 said to have been written by the deceased addressed to him which were marked as Exhibit ‘PH’ to ‘PK’.The trial Court after detailed consideration of the evidence placed before it, both oral as well as documentary, found the appellant as well as her husband Lakha Singh guilty of the offences falling under Section 304B read along with 34 IPC as well as under Section 498A IPC.The trial Court after reaching the said finding convicted them for the abovesaid offences and imposed the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment each for the offence under Section 304B IPC and two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 498A IPC apart from a fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The sentences were directed to run concurrently.On the appeal preferred by the appellant as well as her husband having been rejected and the conviction and sentence having been confirmed, the present appeals have been preferred before us.m) The specific significance to be attached is to the time of the alleged cruelty and harassment to which the victim was subjected to, the time of her death and whether the alleged demand of dowry was in connection with the marriage.Once the said ingredients were satisfied it will be called dowry death and by deemed fiction of law the husband or the relatives will be deemed to have committed that offence.i) The death of the deceased occurred 11 months after her marriage thereby the main condition prescribed under Section 304B, namely, within seven years of the marriage was fulfilled.ii) The death of the deceased was not normal as evidenced by the version of PW.1 postmortem doctor, the postmortem certificate and also Exhibit ‘PG’, the report of Chemical Examiner.iii) The evidence of PWs.2 and 3 read along with Exhibit ‘PH’ to ‘PK’ disclose that there was a demand for payment of cash of Rs.30,000/- apart from a stereo set and a scooter.iv) According to PW.2, father of the deceased 3 to 4 days prior to the unfortunate death of the deceased his daughter came to his house and expressed her dire need for payment of Rs.30,000/- as demanded by her in-laws and that she was being harassed on that score.Blood from the heart was sent for chemical examination.Mouth pharynx and essofigus did not show any abnormality.But blood stained froth was present.Stomach and its contents were sent to the C/Examiner for the Chemical Examination”In the cross-examination, PW.3 stated that the mouth of the deceased girl was swollen and there were other injuries on other parts of her body.Along with Exhibit ‘PF’ the Chemical Examiner covering letter Exhibit ‘PG’ made it clear that although no poison was found in the viscera, there were causes or reasons for non-detection of poison such as the poison having been excreted from the body, detoxicated, matabolised by the system or the poison being such as test for the same do not exist in view of countless number of poisons.“From postmortem findings and police history it appears that death has occurred due to some poison”.In Exhibits ‘PH’ and ‘PJ’ it was clearly mentioned that the deceased was harassed from last night, namely, 02.11.1987 and her miserable condition was created at the instance of her mother-in-law, wife of her husband’s brother, the appellant herein and the brother himself, namely, second accused, who is no more.In Exhibit ‘PJ’ she while referring to such harassment meted out to her by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law and his wife also mentioned about the demands made by them, namely, cash, scooter and other articles.All the above factors clearly established the legal requirements for an offence falling under Sections 304B and 498A IPC with the aid of Section 113B were conclusively proved and the conviction and sentence imposed, therefore, do not call for interference.The appellant Kashmir Kaur is on bail.The bail bond standscancelled and she shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out theremaining part of sentence, if any.The appeal so far as appellant No.1 isconcerned stands dismissed.The appeal so far as appellant No.2 i.e. accused Lakha Singh @Lakhiwinder Singh is concerned, as held by us in the opening part of thisjudgment stands dismissed as having become infructuous even at the time itcame to be filed.Accordingly, the application for substitution alsostands dismissed.…..……….……………………………..J.[Dr.B.S. Chauhan] …………….………………………………J.[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]New Delhi;December 12, 2012
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,642,925 |
I) Appellant Nos.1 and 3i. Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of sections 302/34 of the CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 2 of 49 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 2 of 49In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 3 of 49In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Furthermore, the benefit of section 428 CrPC has been granted to the Appellant Nos.1, 2 and 3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'Appellants').The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on 15.02.2011, the Appellants along with 'K' (juvenile in conflict with law/JCL), in furtherance of their common intention committed robbery at Bharat Medicos, 65 South Anarkali Extension, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'crime spot/medical shop') using deadly weapons, and during the course thereof committed murder of Mr. Mulakh Raj Batra (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by firing a bullet on his forehead.On 15.02.2011 around 11:55 P.M., ASI Mangal Singh (PW-4) recorded DD No.48A [Ex.PW-4/A] in relation to the underlying incident.Pursuant thereto, SI Sandeep (PW-25) reached at the crime spot where Constable Sandeep (PW-12/16) was already present.On enquiry from one CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 4 of 49 Gulshan Kumar, PW-25 got to know that the deceased was taken to a hospital.Subsequent thereto, PW-25 proceeded to the hospital where the deceased was found to be admitted.Statement of the son of the deceased, namely, Mr. Bharat Batra (PW-3) was recorded [Ex.PW-3/A also Ex.PW- 25/A].CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 4 of 49Crime team arrived and inspected the crime spot as well as took photographs thereof.Visual site plan [Ex.PW-23/A] was prepared by PW-23 at the instance of PW-3. PW-23 seized the country made pistol/firearm, live cartridge therein, fired bullet, fired bullet shell, and lifted the blood from the crime spot, vide separate seizure memos Ex.PW-3/K, Ex.PW-3/D, Ex.PW- 3/C, Mark PW-3/PX-3 and Ex.PW-3/E, respectively.A motorcycle bearing no.DL-4S-6051, which was parked outside the medical shop, was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-3/B. Blood stained clothes of the deceased were seized from the hospital vide seizure memo Ex.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 5 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 6 of 49 " The cause of death was cranio cerebral damage consequent upon penetrating injuries to skull could be possible to cause death projectile of fire arm.Injury No.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and injury No.2 & 3 could be possible to cause by nails.All injuries were ante mortem in nature and old in duration.Time since death was around 24 hours."On 10.04.2011, Appellant No.2 was arrested in another FIR being FIR No.73/2011 at Police Station Krishna Nagar, Delhi, and pursuant to his arrest therein he also made a disclosure statement with respect to the present case.On 15.04.2011, Appellant No.2 was formally arrested by PW-21 with the permission of the court [vide arrest memo Ex.PW-11/A].On 21.04.2011, TIP of Appellant No.2 was conducted by PW-20, wherein the latter identified the former [Ex.PW-7/B].Thereafter, Appellant No.2 was taken into police custody and his disclosure statement admitting to the commission of the underlying offence was recorded on 25.04.2011 [Ex.PW-11/B].On 26.04.2011, Appellant No.1 was arrested at the instance of Appellant No.2 from his house at Kanti Nagar, Delhi [vide arrest memo Ex.PW-15/C] and his personal search was conducted [Ex.PW-15/D].On CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 7 of 49 interrogation, Appellant No.1 admitted to the commission of the crime and his disclosure statement was recorded [Ex.PW-15/E].Pursuant to his disclosure statement being recorded, Appellant No.1 also produced a mobile phone of black colour make 'Nokia' from an almirah of his house, which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-15/B. Pointing out memo of the crime spot was also prepared at the instance of Appellant No.1 [Ex.PW-15/A].CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 7 of 49Insofar as 'K' is concerned, he was arrested by Surat Police in Surat, Gujrat in another case.Pursuant to his arrest, 'K' made a disclosure statement to the Surat Police, admitting his complicity in the commission of the underlying offence along with Appellant Nos.2 and 3 and one more unknown person [Ex.PW-17/B].Production warrants of 'K' were obtained by PW-23 on 24.05.2011 and on 27.05.2011 Surat Police produced him in muffled face.Thereafter, he was formally arrested vide arrest memo Ex.Pointing out memo was prepared on 08.06.2011 [Ex.PW-23/C].On CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 8 of 49 04.07.2011, TIP of 'K' was conducted, however, he refused to participate in the same.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 8 of 49Subsequently, Appellant No.3 was arrested on 09.12.2011 on the basis of secret information, from Gali No.18 West Kanti Nagar, Delhi [vide arrest memo Ex.PW-23/D].Pursuant to his arrest, Appellant No.3 made a disclosure statement admitting his complicity in the commission of the offence [Ex.PW-23/H].Around 11:00 P.M. when he was present at the medical shop along with PW-20 and the deceased, a boy aged 25-26 years came to take medicine as he had purportedly met with an accident.After taking a painkiller the boy left.However, after 10-15 minutes around 11:30 P.M. that boy came again.By CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 23 of 49 that time two shutters of the medical shop were already down and only one shutter was open.Further, that another boy was standing outside the medical shop and talking on the phone.The boy who purchased the medicine put a gun on his forehead and asked for cash, mobile and other valuables.PW-3 tried to snatch the firearm from that boy and in that process firearm fell from his hand.Thereafter, two more boys came inside the medical shop and while one of them was carrying a firearm, other was carrying a knife.One of them put a firearm on PW-3; other put a knife on PW-20; and the third one snatched the mobile phone from the deceased which he had taken out to call the police.Thereafter, one of the boys fired the fatal bullet.The assailants also left behind a bike while they were trying to run away.On being declared hostile, during the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-3 deposed that the boy who had purchased the medicine came to the medical shop for the second time around 11:40 P.M and was carrying a firearm.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 23 of 49It was then deposed by PW-3 that PW-20 came to the medical shop at 8:30 P.M and at 9:00 P.M. the first assailant came to CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 24 of 49 buy medicine.After buying the medicine the first assailant kept standing outside, on the counter of the medical shop.Another boy who was his associate was also standing outside the medical shop with a bike and after half and hour both of them left from there.Around 11:10 P.M., the first assailant who purchased the medicine came back to the medical shop and put a firearm on his head.After two minutes, two more assailants came inside the medical shop, one with a knife and other with a pistol.The two assailants carrying the firearm put the same on his forehead, and the third assailant carrying the knife took PW-20 inside, near the inverter.Subsequent thereto, PW-3 caught the hands of both the assailants who had put the firearm on him, and in that process, firearm of one of the assailants fell.The deceased asked PW-3 to catch hold of both the assailants so that in the meanwhile he could make a call to the police.Thereafter, while fleeing from the crime spot, one of the assailants fired the fatal bullet.The assailants also took away the mobile phone of the deceased and some petty articles from the shop, however, left behind their bike.Subsequent thereto, PW-3 was again declared hostile and the APP was again granted permission to cross-examine him.During the course of cross-examination, PW-3 CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 25 of 49 deposed that the painkiller was bought at 11:00 P.M. Further, that the two other assailants came inside the medical shop after the first assailant was caught; and of the two boys who came subsequently, one of them snatched the mobile phone of the deceased and the other fired the fatal bullet.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 26 of 49A perusal of the testimony of PW-3 in relation to the timeline of sequence of events would reveal that, he first deposed that the first assailant came to the medical shop to buy painkiller at 11:00 P.M. and left around 11:15 P.M. Thereafter, the time was varied to 9:00 P.M. and 9:30 P.M., respectively.Subsequent thereto, the time when the first assailant came to buy medicine was again stated to be as 11:00 P.M.Insofar as, the time when the first assailant returned to the medical shop is concerned, PW-3 initially deposed that first assailant returned at 11:30 P.M.; then as 11:40 P.M.; and thereafter again varied it to as 11:10 P.M.However, these inconsistencies with respect to time being minor in nature can be overlooked if deposition with respect to other aspects inspires confidence.In relation to the sequence of events, even though PW-3 initially did not depose anything about an associate accompanying the first assailant to purchase a painkiller; subsequently another associate was introduced by him, CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 27 of 49 who was deposed to be standing outside the medical shop along with the first assailant.Insofar as the deposition of PW-3 with respect to the second visit by the assailants is concerned, he initially deposed that the other two assailants came inside the medical shop after the firearm of the first assailant fell down, pursuant to being snatched by him.To the contrary, it was subsequently deposed by PW-3 that the other two assailants came inside the medical shop two minutes after the first assailant, and in his attempt to catch hold the hands of both the assailants carrying the firearm, one of the firearm fell.Although, on being cross-examined by the APP, PW-3 again deposed on the lines of his earlier statement.In relation to the aspect whether cash was taken away from the medical shop or not, PW-3 intially deposed that the assailants took away cash from the medical shop, whereas, subsequently PW-3 mentioned nothing about cash being taken away but only petty articles.It would also be relevant to note that nothing was stated by PW-3 in his statement to the police in relation to petty articles being taken away by the assailants from the medical shop.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 28 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 28 of 49Further, although PW-3 initially deposed that the mobile phone of the deceased was snatched by one of the assailants, it was subsequently deposed by him that the mobile phone fell down.Furthermore, contrary to his deposition in court, PW-3 in his statement to the police [Ex.PW-3/A] neither mentioned, inter alia, that either of the assailants was carrying a knife; nor that deceased carrying the knife had taken PW-20 inside near the inverter.There was also no mention of the fact that the assailants carrying firearms had put the same on his forehead; or that another boy was standing outside the medical shop, who ran away with the other three assailants.Coming to the aspect of number of assailants involved in the commission of offence and the role alleged to be played by the Appellants therein.On the first date of examination i.e. 27.01.2012, PW-3 deposed that Appellant Nos.1 and 2 subsequently entered the medical shop and the former fired the fatal bullet.On being declared hostile, during the course of cross- examination by the APP, PW-3 deposed that one of the two assailants who came subsequently fired the fatal bullet.There was no mention of any fourth person being involved in the commission of the offence or that he saw a fourth person standing outside the medical shop.PW-3 further deposed that due to lapse of time he cannot identify the assailants.On that date, PW-3 was again declared hostile and permission was granted to the APP to cross-examine him.During the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-3 deposed that even though on 27.01.2012 he had identified two assailants in the court, due to lapse of time he has forgotten their faces.PW-3 even refused to identify the assailant whose firearm had fallen down; who snatched the mobile phone from the deceased; who was standing outside the medical shop during the course of commission of the underlying offence.PW-3 was even confronted by the APP with his statements made to the police [Mark PW-3/PX1 and PW- 3/PX2], wherein it was stated by him that Appellant No.2 bought medicine from the medical shop; Appellant No.3 snatched the mobile phone from the deceased; and 'K' fired the bullet from the firearm, but to no avail.Further, PW-3 even refused to recall whether a live cartridge and an empty shell were recovered from the crime spot, despite he being a witness to those recoveries.On the next date of examination i.e. 17.02.2014, during the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-3 surprisingly identified Appellant No.2 as the person who came at the medical shop to first buy the medicine and then again came first with a firearm, which was snatched by him; even though he had refused to so identify him on the last date of hearing.Further, PW-3 identified Appellant No.3 as the other person who was carrying the firearm.However, he was not able to identify whom out of Appellant No.2 or Appellant No.3 fired the fatal bullet.Furthermore, PW-3 also deposed that a live cartridge was seized; and sketches of the firearm, cartridge and empty shell were prepared in his presence.A bare perusal of the testimony of PW-3 would show that in his testimony in relation to the number of persons involved in the commission of the offence and the role played by the Appellants, there are material contradictions.Initially there was no mention of a fourth person being involved in the commission of the offence, whereas, after the arrest of Appellant No.3, an attempt has been made to factor in the involvement of a fourth person.It would also be relevant to note that even in the statement of PW-3 to the police [Ex.PW-3/A], there was no mention of any fourth person standing CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 31 of 49 outside the medical shop.PCR form [Ex.In relation to the aspect who fired the fatal bullet it would be relevant to note that PW-3 first identified Appellant Nos.1 and 2 as the assailants who entered the shop subsequently, and the former as the one who fired the fatal bullet.Thereafter, he refused to identify either of the Appellants.But subsequent thereto, he identified Appellant No.2 as the person who bought the painkiller and from whom he had snatched the firearm; and Appellant No.3 as the second assailant carrying a firearm, who entered the shop subsequently.At this point, it would also be relevant to note that PW-3 in his statement to the police had stated that 'K' fired the fatal bullet.Moreover, even though first it was stated by PW-3 to the police that 'K' fired the fatal bullet and thereafter in court that Appellant No.1 did; on a subsequent date i.e. 17.02.2014, PW-3 deposed that he was unsure as to whom out of Appellant Nos.2 and 3 fired the firearm.Therefore, resiling from his earlier statement completely by not even mentioning the CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 32 of 49 name of either Appellant No.1 or 'K' with the other appellants, between whom he was confused as to who fired the firearm.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 32 of 49Further, the testimony of PW-3 has remained inconsistent in relation to the aspect who bought the medicine from the medical shop.PW-20 alike PW-3 initially deposed only about three assailants.However, subsequently four assailants in total were introduced, of which two were deposed to have come first and two thereafter.But, PW-20 thereafter deposed in court that he saw three assailants running away.Even in his statement to the police, PW- 20 had stated only towards the role played by three assailants viz. Appellant Nos.2 and 3 and 'K'.What was least expected of PW-20 was to be able to identify the assailant who allegedly took him inside near the inverter.However, there is no clarity in his testimony even in relation to that aspect.PW-20 in court was also not able to identify Appellant No.3 as the person who snatched the mobile phone of the deceased, even though in his statement to the police [Ex.PW-23/N] he had stated to that effect.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.The present batch of criminal appeals instituted under the provision of section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'CrPC'), assail the judgment and order on sentence dated 07.01.2017 and 21.01.2017, respectively, rendered by the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in Sessions Case no.67/2011; emanating from FIR No.65/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject FIR').By way of the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 07.01.2017 and 21.01.2017, respectively, Deepak Yadav (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.1'); Ravi @ Munna (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.2'); and Babu Musahid @ Ali @ Akram (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.3'), were convicted and sentenced as under: I) Appellant Nos.1 and 3Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of sections 392/34 IPC read with section 397 IPC.In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of one month.II) Appellant No.2 i. Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of sections 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under the provisions of sections 392/34 IPC read with section 397 IPC.Thereafter, PW-25 returned back to the crime spot and the rukka was prepared and sent for registration of the subject FIR.After registration of the subject FIR, investigation of the case was assigned to Inspector Ajab Singh (PW-23).The deceased succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the hospital on 21.02.2011 and the body was thereafter shifted to the mortuary.On 22.02.2011, Dr. S. Lal (PW-5) conducted post-mortem [Ex.PW-5/A] on the body of the deceased.Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased:"1. Partially healed contused lacerated wound (fire arm entry wound) of size 1.5 X 0.2 cm with stitches over it over left temporal area placed 4.5 cm posterior to lateral end of eyebrow and 5 cm.above the ear pinna associated with spectacles hematoma around the left eye.The wound enter the cranial cavity by making a hole of size 1 X 1 cm with beveling seen on inner table over posterior aspect of left side frontal bone and perforating the brain from left side to right side through and through and coming out from right side parietal area by making a exit wound.Hole on left parietal bone of size 2 X 1 cm with beveling on outer table and then by making an exit wound of size 2 X 0.2 cm with stitches on parietal area.The exit bone placed 5.5 cm above the right pinna and 1 cm from the mid line.The direction of the bone left to right and backward direction.Superficial lacerated wound three in number varies in size from 1.5 X 0.1 cm to 0.5 X 01 cm over middle of forehead.Nails mark, crescent shape of size 0.3 X 0.1 cm over bridge of nose.On internal examination sub scalpel bruising seen on left fronto- parietal and temporal region under injury No. 1 and occipital area.Defuse sub arrachnoid hemorrhage with laceration of brain seen in the track with contusion and oedema of brain present."The cause of death was opined to be as follows:PW-14/A. On 08.06.2011, PW-23 recorded disclosure statement of 'K' [Ex.PW-14/B], and supplementary disclosure statement was recorded on 08.06.2011 [Ex.PW- 23/B].On 17.12.2011, TIP of Appellant No.3 was conducted, however, he refused to participate in the same.At the trial, the prosecution had examined 26 witnesses in support of its case.The Appellants in their respective statements under section 313 CrPC have stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case.However, they have chosen to not lead any defence.Broadly, the Trial Court has based the conviction of the Appellants on the following grounds:i. The testimonies of PW-3 and PW-20;CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 9 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 24 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 25 of 49During the course of cross-examination on behalf of the appellants on 04.03.2015, PW-3 deposed that PW-20 came to the medical shop at 8:30 P.M and the first assailant bought the painkiller at 11:00 P.M. He was even confronted with his previous statement to the police [Ex.PW-3/A], where time when PW-20 came to the medical shop was mentioned as 9:00 P.M. It was further deposed that first assailant returned to the medical shop at 11:10 P.M, however, in his statement to the police [Ex.PW-3/A], with which he was confronted, the time was mentioned as 11:40 P.M. Further, PW-3 deposed that he had stated to the police that the assailant carrying the knife took PW-20 inside; one of the assailants was carrying a long knife; the assailants carrying the firearms had put the same on his head; deceased asked him to apprehend both the assailants; some petty articles were taken away from the medical shop by the assailants and they left behind their bike; the assailant who was standing outside the medical shop also ran away with the CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 26 of 49 other three assailants, however, none of these details were confronted to be so mentioned in the statement given by PW-3 to the police.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 29 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 29 of 49Pursuant to the arrest of Appellant No.3, on being re-called for examination, PW-3 for the first time on 29.04.2013 deposed that he saw one more person standing outside the medical shop, who ran away with the other three assailants.PW-3 in his statement to the police has stated that Appellant No.2 bought the medicine, however, in his testimony in court deposed that latter came to the medical shop subsequently.Thereafter, during the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-3 refused to identify Appellant No.2 as the person who bought the medicine; and on a subsequent date surprisingly identified the latter.Furthermore, PW-3 was not even able to identify the person who snatched the mobile phone of the deceased, despite having identified Appellant No.3 before the police.To justify these contradictions in the testimony of PW-3, learned APP would invite our attention to an application filed by PW-3 before the Trial Court, wherein it was stated that the accused persons on 27.01.2012 threatened him after his deposition in court.However, this submission would not come to the aid of the prosecution, since even if we were to consider the submission in relation to PW-3 being threatened on 27.01.2012 CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 33 of 49 to be true, it is evident that it did not hold PW-3 from deposing against the Appellants on subsequent dates.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 33 of 49In relation to the sequence of events, it has been deposed by PW-20 that he reached at the medical shop around 9:00 P.M. The first assailant came to purchase the medicine around 10:45 P.M. and after taking the same he left.At that time, PW-3 and the deceased were present along with him at the medical shop.Ten minutes after leaving, the first assailant came back to the medical shop along with an associate.Both of them were carrying firearms.They jumped over the counter of the medical shop and came inside.They asked PW-3 for all the valuables, to which PW-3 objected and caught their hands, and in that process firearm of one of the assailants fell down.In the meanwhile, a third assailant who was carrying a knife came inside the medical shop and pulled down the shutter thereof.Further, the third assailant caught hold of PW-20 and took him behind the rack where he was made to sit on the floor.PW-20 further deposed that from behind the rack he was not able to see what was happening in the front and could only hear the noise of PW-3 shouting and the sound of bullet being fired.After firing the bullet all the assailants ran away.PW-20 thereafter came to the counter of the shop and noticed that the CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 34 of 49 deceased had received a bullet injury on the right side of his forehead.PW- 20 further deposed that later he came to know that the assailants had also taken away the mobile phone of the deceased.PW-20 was thereafter declared hostile and permission was granted to the APP to cross-examine him, wherein it was deposed by him as follows:CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 34 of 49" It is correct that the assailant who came first was wearing grey colour shirt and black jeans and he told me that he has met with an accident and bought painkiller for Rs.10 and he came back alone after 20-25 minutes and brought out a pistol from his shirt and threatened to hand over the cash, mobile, jewelry and ring failing which he would fire from the pistol.It is correct that when we tried to catch hold of that person, the pistol fell down from his hand.this happened after the arrival of the second person and we tried to catch hold both of them and then the pistol had fallen down from the hand of one of them.It is correct that Mulkh Raj Batra asked us to apprehend the assailant otherwise he would run away and then he brought out mobile phone to call the police at 100 number and then the other two assailants came at the shop.PW-20 identified Appellant No.2 as the associate.However, during the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-20 deposed that out of Appellant Nos.2 and 3, one of them came first to buy medicine.PW-20 also refused to identify Appellant No.3 as the person who snatched the mobile phone of the deceased.During the course of cross-examination by the APP, PW-20 further admitted that before the police he had stated that Appellant No.2 bought the painkiller and thereafter came again to the medical shop with a firearm; Appellant No.3 snatched the mobile of the deceased; 'K' fired the fatal bullet.Nothing has been deposed by PW-20 against Appellant No.1 and the former has attributed no role to him, either in his deposition in court or statement to the police.CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 36 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 37 of 49CRL.A. Nos.231/2017, 317/2017 and 493/2017 Page 37 of 49Further, PW-20 in his statement to the police had stated that Appellant No.2 bought the medicine from the medical shop.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,650,552 |
(i) The deceased Chinnathambi was a resident of Udachiyarvalasai village and his elder daughter one Kavitha was married to the first accused Nagasundaram ten years prior to the occurrence.Due to some misunderstanding, Nagasundaram and Kavitha were living separately for 3 ½ years prior to the occurrence.Kavitha was residing in Tiruppur and working in a textile shop.The first accused Nagasundram was under the impression that because of the deceased Chinnathambi, his wife deserted him.He quarrelled with him and also intimidated him.(ii) On 03.07.2015, the deceased Chinnathambi, after completing his work at Panaikulam, returned to his village in a bicycle and on the way, had liquor in a liquor shop.Kundan's son is my brother-in-law's son.I gave my daughter in marriage to Kundan's son and he divorced her.He was not liking me.He poured petrol on me and set fire to me.My shirt and all got burnt.That is all."(Left Thumb Impression) In the footnote, Dr.has endorsed as follows:"Patient conscious orient throughout giving statement."(Sd/-) 6/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018(iv)After recording the statements, the learned Judicial Magistrate [PW12] also obtained a certificate from the Duty Doctor, Shanmugapriya and the Doctor has certified that the patient was conscious, oriented and aferbile throughout giving the statement.PW11, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station received the intimation from the Hospital on 04.07.2015, went to the Hospital at about 02.00 pm and recorded the statement of the deceased Chinnathambi and registered a case in Kenikarai Police Station in Crime No.310 of 2015 as against the accused Nagasundaram and Siva for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC at about 03.00 pm in Ex.P11 and the same was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate concerned through the Head Constable [PW10] and was handed over to the Court concerned on 04.07.2015 at about 06.00 pm.(v) Periyasamy [PW15], Inspector of Police, Kenikarai Police Station, on receipt of the information, went to the place of occurrence on 04.07.2015 at about 03.45 pm, prepared an observation mahazar [Ex.P16], rough sketch [Ex.P17] at about 04.00 pm in the presence of PW7 and PW8 7/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 and also recovered a match box branded as ship [MO5], a health card issued by United Arab Emirates to the first accused Nagasundaram with an identity card with photo [MO4] and a Hercules Cycle [MO6], a burnt Lungi [MO1], a burnt belt [MO2] and a 7up bottle with petrol smell [MO7] and earth with and without bloodstain [MO8 and MO9] under a cover of Mahazar Ex.He also recorded the statement of the deceased Chinnathambi, Laxmi [PW1], Uma Maheswari [PW5], Kumar [PW6] and others.(vi) On 05.07.2015, at about 06.00 am, the deceased died in the Hospital and on receipt of that intimation, he made a request for altering the offence to Section 302 IPC, went to the Hospital and conducted an inquest in the presence of the Panchayatars on 05.07.2015 at about 11.30 am.The inquest report is marked as Ex.He arrested the accused on 06.07.2015 at about 06.00 am at Valantharavai Bus stop, recorded their confession statement in the presence of Maheswaran, Village Administrative Officer [PW4] and another, recovered a motor cycle.He also recorded the statement of PW5 and PW6 under Section 164 (5) Cr.P.C and also sent the recovered 8/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 samples for chemical analysis.The further investigation was conducted by one Balamurugan, Inspector of Police [PW16].His elder daughter was married to the son of the Kundan and the marriage ended in divorce.He would further submit that the evidence of the wife of the deceased [PW1] as well as the evidence of PW5, PW6 also establish the case of the prosecution and all the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence would also establish the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.(iii) The accused are relatives of the deceased.Since both these appeals are arising out of the one and same judgment, they are taken up together for hearing and are disposed of by way of this common judgment.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram found the appellants / accused guilty for the offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC, convicted and sentenced them as follows:Accused Section of Sentence of Fine amount Law imprisonment (in Rs) 302 r/w 34 To undergo 25,000/-, in imprisonment default, to IPC A1 for life undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year 3/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 A2 302 r/w 34 To undergo 15,000/-, in imprisonment default, to IPC for life undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one yearThe brief facts of the prosecution case, in a nutshell, are as follows:While crossing the Valuthur burial ground, he lied over 4/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 the road for a while.At that time, the accused Nagasundaram and Siva came in a motorcycle.The first accused poured petrol on the deceased and the second accused set fire with a match box.At that time, Uma Maheswari [PW5], the second daughter of the deceased and her husband [PW6] were in search of the deceased and they have seen the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence.PW5 and PW6 took the deceased to his house and thereafter, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram on 04.07.2015 in a 108 Ambulance and admitted in the Hospital at about 07.25 am.(iii) An intimation was given to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram [PW12] on 04.07.2015 at about 10.00 am from the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram.Accordingly, PW12 went to the Government Hospital at about 10.20 am and ascertained the condition of the patient from the Duty Doctor.The Duty Doctor also certified that the patient was conscious, oriented and afebrile.Thereafter PW12 recorded the dying declaration (Ex.P.12) from the deceased Chinnathambi and the English translation of it runs as follows:5/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 "Q: What is your name?A: Chinnathambi.Q: Which is your village?A: Udachiyarvalasai.Q: Are you married?A: Yes.I am married.Q: Do you have children?A: One son and two daughters.My son is abroad.Q: What happened to you?A: Yesterday evening, I went from Vilakkuthoppu to the cemetery and sat there.Two persons came in a bike, poured diesel on me and set fire on me.Both of them are known to me.One of them is Ramaiya's son and the other is Kundan's son.He examined the Postmortem Doctor [PW2] and filed the final report in this case.(vii) During the trial, 16 witnesses were examined, 23 documents were marked and 9 material objects were produced.After the prosecution evidence was closed, the incriminating materials were put before the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C and the accused denied the same.In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court found the appellants guilty, as stated supra.Heard Mr.R.Gandhi, learned Counsel for the first accused / appellant in Crl.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, learned Counsel for the second accused / appellant in Crl.A(MD)No.150 of 2018 and Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.9/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018R.Gandhi, learned Counsel, in support of his case, has raised the following points:Immediately after the occurrence, they are said to have witnessed the accused crossing them in a motor cycle.Though they are said to have witnessed the deceased with burn injuries, they did not take any steps either to provide treatment to the deceased or to lodge any complaint.Therefore, the learned Counsel would contend that these witnesses are planted in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution that they have witnessed the accused crossing them from the place of occurrence in a motor cycle.10/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018(iii) The occurrence has taken place at 10.00 pm on 03.07.2015, but the accused was taken to the Government Hospital on 04.07.2015 at about 07.40 pm by the Driver of the 108 Ambulance.(iv)In the Accident Register entry as well in the medical intimation to the learned Judicial Magistrate, it is referred that the deceased sustained 91% burn injuries and therefore, it is highly doubtful that the deceased was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give the statement of dying declaration after 12 hours of the incident.The Doctor [PW2], who conducted postmortem, admitted in his evidence that a person, who sustained 90% burn injuries, cannot be in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration.Moreover, the dying declaration [Ex.P12] was not properly certified by the Doctor that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration.(v) In the dying declaration, the deceased has stated that the occurrence has taken place on 03.07.2015 in the evening.But, in his statement [ExP1] to the Head Constable [PW11], he has stated that the occurrence has 11/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 taken place on 03.07.2015 at about 10.00 pm.Therefore, it is not safe to rely upon the dying declaration alone to sustain the conviction on the accused.(vi) PW1, PW5 and PW6 have stated in their evidence that the deceased has informed them about the incident, but the narration of the incident by PW1, PW5 and PW6 are contradictory to each other.(vii) The case rests on circumstantial evidence and to establish the case on circumstantial evidence, motive is a vital part.In this case, motive has not been established by the prosecution.PW1, PW5 and PW6 have stated about the motive.PW1, in her evidence, would admit that the first accused was working in abroad and after his return, asked for accounts, but 12/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 his wife did not account for and therefore, suspecting her fidelity only, he deserted his wife.Neither herself nor her husband is responsible for their separation and moreover, the marriage between the first accused and the elder daughter of the deceased was soleminised ten years prior to the occurrence and they have been living separately for the past 3 ½ years.Therefore, there is no nexus to establish the motive as against the appellant / first accused.Moreover, Kavitha wife of the first accused was also not examined to substantiate the motive.In the absence of the motive, the prosecution cannot sustain the conviction.Therefore, he prays for interference.The learned Counsel for the second accused submitted that he is sailing with the above submissions made by the learned Counsel for the first accused.In addition to the same, he would submit that no motive is attributed by the prosecution as against the second accused.According to him, PW6, the son-in-law of the deceased, is having a motive as against the second accused, since the second accused, when he worked under PW6, on contract basis, for the construction of a water 13/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 tank at Thondi, caused some nuisance under the influence of liquor, without doing any work.Moreover, there was an incident three to four days prior to this occurrence, where the second accused assaulted PW6 with a knife near his eye and in this regard, PW6 is also said to have lodged a complaint as against the second accused before the Devipattinam Police Station.Therefore, he prays for interference at the hands of this Court.Per contra, the learned Addtional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State made his submissions as follows:(i) Though there is a delay in reporting the incident, the dying declaration was recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate [PW12] in the presence of the Duty Doctor one Shanmugapriya.Before recording the dying declaration, the Doctor has certified that the patient was conscious, oriented and afebrile.(ii)The learned Judicial Magistrate [PW12] has also ascertained the condition of the deceased by putting certain questions and the deceased has replied perfectly 14/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 for those questions.The deceased, in the dying declaration, has specifically stated that two persons, who are also his relatives, one is the son of Ramayee and another is the son of Kundan, have poured petrol and set fire.The first accused is the son-in-law of the deceased, who married the elder daughter of the deceased and due to some strained relationship, they were living separately for more than three years prior to the occurrence and the case 15/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 of the prosecution is that the first accused, under the impression that the deceased is responsible for their separation, has committed the offence with the help of his relative the second accused.Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeals.This Court has paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions made on either side and also to the materials placed on record.Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place on 03.07.2015 at about 10.00 pm.But the deceased was taken to the hospital only on the next day at about 07.25 am.The Accident Register [ExP13] would disclose that the deceased was brought to the Hospital by 108 Ambulance Driver.The prosecution has attempted to project that the second daughter [PW5] of the deceased and her husband [PW6] were in search of the deceased and found the accused passing in a motorcycle from the place of occurrence after the occurrence.Though PW5 and PW6 are said to have found the deceased at the burial ground immediately after the occurrence, their conduct in not taking the deceased to 16/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 the Hospital and taking him to his house with burn injuries and taking him to the Hospital only on the next day morning at 07.25 am creates a doubt on their testimony.In fact, in the Accident Register [Ex.P13] it was recorded that the deceased was brought to the hospital by a 108 Ambulance Driver.Though it is not necessary that the Doctor, who has recorded the Accident Register, must record all the persons who accompanied the deceased at the time of admission in the hospital, considering the circumstances of the present case, that the deceased had sustained severe burn injuries to the extent of 91%, the story of the prosecution that PW5 and PW6 have taken the deceased to the residence and kept him for the whole night without providing treatment in such a condition and taken him to the hospital on the next day, cannot be an acceptable one and therefore, the evidence of PW5 and PW6 cannot be relied on in this case.Admittedly, PW1 is a hearsay witness.Apart from the evidence of PW1, PW5 & PW6, the other available evidence is the dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram [PW12] on 04.07.2015 17/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 at about 10.20 am from the deceased in the Government Hospital, Ramanathapuram in the presence of one Dr.Before recording the dying declaration, the learned Judicial Magistrate confirmed the condition of the patient from the Duty Doctor and the Doctor has certified that the patient was conscious, oriented and afebrile.The learned Magistrate, before recording the dying declaration, had also made certain questions about his name, village and children to ascertain his condition and thereafter, he recorded the dying declaration.The deceased in his dying declaration has stated that two persons, who came in a motorcycle poured petrol on him and set fire.Those persons are his relatives and one is the son of Ramayee and another is the son of Kundan.He also stated that he gave his elder daughter in marriage to the son of Kundan and the marriage ended in divorce.Therefore, the son of Kundan was inimical towards him and he set fire by pouring petrol.After recording the dying declaration, the learned Judicial Magistrate obtained a certificate from the Duty Doctor Shanmugapriya about the condition of the deceased and she certified that “the patient was conscious, 18/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 oriented and afebrile throughout giving the statement”.This statement recorded in the dying declaration is corroborated from the entry in the Accident Register [ExP13].The Doctor, PW13, who admitted the deceased on 04.07.2015 at 07.25 am has recorded in the Accident Register as “alleged to have suffered for thermal burns by two persons (two males), using diesel and fire around 10.00 pm on 03.07.2015 near Valuthoor sudukadu”.The Doctor [PW13], who admitted the deceased in the Hospital, recorded that the patient was conscious at the time of admission.A statement was also recorded from him in Ex.P1, wherein he has also stated about the occurrence and the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offence.Apart from the same, PW1 the wife of the deceased has also stated that her husband told her about the occurrence that these two accused have poured petrol over him and set fire.It is true that there is a contradiction in the statement of PW1, PW5, PW6 and Ex.As discussed supra, 19/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.However, the dying declaration recorded from the deceased in Ex.At this juncture, we feel it relevant to extract the findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sohan Lal Vs State of Punjab, (2003) 11 SCC 534, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:“According to the learned Counsel for the accused, the circumstances under which the deceased Kamlesh Rani died have been narrated differently on five different occasion.First, there is the version in the FIR lodged by Bansi Ram [PW2] second, is the version given in the deposition of Bansi Ram [PW2], third, is the dying declaration recorded by the Naib Tahsildar Lakhbir Singh [PW6] (Ext PN), fourth, is the version in the statement of Kamalesh Rani recorded under Section 161 CrPC and fifth, the version given in the deposition of Jit Singh (PW7) under cross examination.The learned Counsel contended that each one of the versions is inconsistent with the others and, therefore, taking an over all view, as each one of the versions conflicts with the uphold the conviction of the appellants.Although, at the first blush, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants 20/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.We have already analysed the deposition of Bansi Ram [PW2] in the light of the deposition of Usha Rani [PW3].A cumulative reading of the two, together with the medical endorsements made on the bedhead ticket of G.N.D. Hospital, clearly rules out Bansi Ram as having received any information from deceased Kamalesh Rani.It is true that both in the FIR as well as in the deposition of Bansi Ram [PW2], an exaggerated version had been given.Merely, because Bansi Ram takes it upon himself to give an exaggerated and coloured version of the circumstance under which Kamalesh Rani died, we do not think that it would be proper to reject the dying declaration [ExtPN], which we have tested on the anvil of the law laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Laxman [(2002) 6 SCC 710] and found it to have passed.We are, therefore, not inclined to accept the contention that the dying declaration (ExtPN) needs to be rejected because the FIR of Bansi Ram and the deposition of Bansi Ram do not tally with it.”Moreover, the case of the prosecution is also strengthened by the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence.The Inspector of Police [PW15] went to the place of occurrence on 04.07.2015 at about 03.45 pm and recovered a 7up bottle with petrol smell [MO7], match 21/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 box [MO5] and identity card of the first accused [MO4], and a burnt belt [MO2] from the place of occurrence.It is an admitted fact that the first accused was working in abroad and returned to India.He availed the health card from United Arab Emirates and an identity card with photo [MO4] and it was recovered from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar [Ex.P18], even before his arrest.This recovery of the identify card of the first accused from the place of occurrence further corroborates the case of the prosecution.The motive between the first accused and the deceased, as projected, is that the elder daughter of the deceased was married to the first accused and due to the strained relationship, they were living separately for more than 3 ½ years and the first accused was under the impression that it is because of the deceased, his wife is living separately.The accused has also admitted in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that he is the son-in- law of the deceased and they have been separated in the 22/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 year 2014, pursuant to an enquiry held in the All Women Police Station.The first accused also filed a written statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that the second daughter [PW5] of the deceased was married to an another community man [PW6] and it was objected to by him and therefore, they were having enmity against him.The materials available on record not only establish motive as against the first accused, but also form a chain of events, unerringly point towards the guilt of the first accused and therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.Therefore, the appeal in Crl.Insofar as the second accused is concerned, the prosecution has not established it's case beyond reasonable doubt.In the dying declaration [Ex.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 second accused that he is the son of Ramayee.The version in Exp1 appears to be exaggerated to an extent of adding this second accused/ appellant [Crl.A(MD)No.150 of 2018] as well adding of PW5 and PW6 as witness to the occurrence based on their conduct in not taking the deceased to the hospital immediately.As we discussed earlier the presence of PW5 and PW6 near the scene of occurrence at the time of occurrence was disbelieved by this Court and therefore, this exaggerated version in ExP1 alone is not sufficient to sustain the 24/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 conviction as against the second accused.We have given our reasons for not believing the evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.6 and rejecting Ex.In our opinion, the evidence of P.W.1 is trustworthy.The dying declaration recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate - P.W.12, thus, inspires our confidence.At the risk of repetition, the deceased has not given the name of A.1 and A.2, but has referred to the names of their parents in the dying declaration.In the country side, the rustic villagers normally identify a person with reference to his parents.That is what the deceased has done in this case.Therefore, the appeal filed by the second accused in Crl.A(MD)No.150 of 2018 deserves to be allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused in S.C.No.119 of 2016, dated 03.02.2015 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram are liable to be set aside.25/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 201821.In the result,(i) Crl.The conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused in S.C.No.119 of 2016, dated 03.02.2015 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram is confirmed.The trial Court is directed to secure the first accused and confine him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.(ii) Crl.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, VR / ER Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.27/28http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 P.N.PRAKASH, J., AND B.PUGALENDHI, J., dsk Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in Crl.A(MD)Nos.150 and 176 of 2018 20.05.2020
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,657,941 |
It appears from the FIR lodged by Uma Shankar Shukla (PW-1), brother of deceased, on 27.01.2004 at 08.15 AM at Police Station Dariyabad, Barabanki, that his brother deceased Brij Mohan Shukla was a social worker and thus used to help such aggrieved persons in the village who would fall victims to any type excesses, therefore, he invited the ires of their opponents and also some other people who developed enmity against him for one reason or the other.On the date of incident and lodging of FIR, the informant and his deceased brother namely Brij Mohan Shukla were returning home from Dariyabad market.They alighted from a jeep on a Pukki (Metalic) road near Tikait Nagar, and started for their village on foot.The deceased stopped for a while to pass urine while the informant walked a little away.In the meantime, when it was about 5 O' Clock in the evening, accused Ganga Prasad, son of Chhotey Lal, Ram Newaj son of Bhai Lal (who was carrying a banka), Chhotey Lal son of Lakshman and Ram Avadh alias Nanhu son of Sukai (who were carrying Lathis), Janwari son of Keshav Ram and Sangam Lal alias Goli son of Sukhai (who were carrying knives), emerged from the south direction of a field having mustard crop.They rushed to the deceased while hurling abuses, like "SALA NETA BANTA HAI.AAJ ISE JAAN SE MAAR DO." (Brother in law (abuse) is becoming a leader, therefore, he be killed today).Deceased Brij Mohan Shukla cried for help and ran towards the field of one Sanjay.Hearing the cries of his brother, the informant turned back but by that time, the accused persons had felled the deceased on ground and started the assaults.Hearing the hue and cry raised by the informant, Jogendra (PW-3) son of Budhaee Lodh, Nangoo (PW-2) son of Hasan Ali and some other villagers reached the spot and also witnessed the incident.Having seen the people approaching the scene of occurrence, the accused persons took to their heels, leaving the deceased on spot who succumbed to the injuries there itself.Leaving the dead body which lay in a field, the informant went to inform the police for taking legal action.Pursuant to the F.I.R. , the investigation started and vide the inquest report (Ext. Ka 8) inquest proceedings were conducted by S.O. Suresh Kumar Verma, who had reached the scene of occurrence with police force.The inquest proceedings started on 27.01.2010 at 8-15 PM.Learned counsel also submitted that when Uma Shankar (PW-1) had gone to market on bicycle there was no explanation as to why he handed over his bicycle to his nephew and then returned home in a marshal Jeep with his deceased brother.It appears that his father had also been murdered and thereafter, it was the occurrence of murder of Mithlesh Shukla.From the narration of facts in the statement of this witness regarding several incidents of murder, it appears that there were inimical relationships of the family of deceased with other people of the village and there had been some incidents of killing in his family itself.After he had lodged the report at the police station and returned home, then the IO/SO came to the spot at 8 O' clock in the evening.He visited his residence for few minutes and then went to the scene of occurrence.It is also evident from his testimony that the inquest proceedings of the dead body were conducted on the next day at 10 O'clock.It is also mentioned in the statement that this witness left for Tuesday market on bicycle at about 11 O'clock and the deceased who had gone to market by jeep met him at 1 O'clock.They did not eat anything in the market and some of the villagers also met them there.It was a chilly winter season but there was no fog.They had also met some other villagers at about 3 O'clock in the market.The accused persons emerged from the mustard crop.This witness was aware that the deceased had stopped for passing urine and that is why he walked about 8-10 paces ahead and then stopped while holding two vegetables bags, one of which belonged to the deceased brother.It was a wheat crop field.There were other crops like potato crops standing on the side of road.When the deceased fell down, his head lay towards South-East and the legs towards North-West.He was also assaulted when he was on run and crossed the potato field.He received the second blow only at that time with a Banka on the backside of his head.On 28.01.2004, he was asked to go at 06.15 hours with constable Raj Narain Yadav and the copy of FIR to the scene of occurrence where he met the Station Officer, Suresh Chandra Verma.At that time there was a crowd near the dead body.The Station House Officer invited the panch witnesses from the gathering and conducted inquest proceedings.The dead body was sealed and stamped.The original panchnama also bore his signature.Thereafter, the dead body was handed over to him with requisite papers for being carried for postmortem examination at about 10.15 hours.He in turn handed over the dead body with specimen seal and accompanying papers to autopsy surgeon who tallied the specimen seal with the seal affixed on the cover sheet of the dead body.Thereafter he broke open the seals.The witness and the other police constable identified the dead body.That very day at 3.30 PM the doctor conducted the postmortem examination and handed over the police papers, one stamped packet and 2 copies of postmortem reports of the dead body.He identified the entries of the daily diary report regarding the status of dead body when it remained in their custody while being taken for postmortem examination.At the time of registration of the case at the police station the witness was on picketing duty.He was not able to tell as at what time on 27.01.2004 the Station Officer had returned from the scene of occurrence.On his arrival at the scene of occurrence this witness had met Constable Santosh Kumar, Manoj Kumar Tiwari and other police personnels who were present there.He had taken the dead body in a tractor hired by the family members of the deceased from the scene of occurrence.In his cross examination he has submitted that he returned from picket duty in the morning at 5.00 O'clock when he was informed by the literate Constable Sugreev that he was required by the Station Officer to arrive at the scene of occurrence.He alongwith his colleague, Constable Ram Narain Yadav, went in a police jeep to police station Tikait Ganj and from there walked up to the scene of occurrence.He had noticed the injuries present on the dead body of deceased.He had also seen the presence of injuries on the neck and face.The surface of land was wet due to presence of dew.The wheat crop was standing in field.There used to be foot prints on walking inside the field.After postmortem examination, he handed over the dead body to complainant Uma Shankar.He had not prepared any memo regarding the transfer of custody of the dead body.He did not meet the Circle Officer on the spot but met him only after the postmortem examination.The Investigating Officer had not noted in his statement that in the same tractor trolley the family members of the deceased had also travelled with the dead body and brought it back after postmortem examination.On the basis of that report he wrote Chik No.5 of 2004 in the presence of SO Suresh Kumar Verma.It was also signed by the SO himself.He also proved the exhibit.This witness clarified that he had written the Chik only on the basis of written report submitted by the complainant.He has denied the defence suggestion that there was any direction from the SO to register the FIR.After writing of Chik, an entry was also made in the G.D and on both the documents the time was noted as 12.15 hours.Information about the incident was also sent to the senior officer namely Circle Officer.The SO had set out with the police force soon after writing of Chik and recording of FIR.The entire exercise at police station had taken about one hour time.This witness has denied the defence suggestion that after registration of the FIR there was an ante-timed entry in the Chik and the GD was manipulated with subsequent entry on return of SO from the scene of occurrence.He had appeared in the court of CJM with case property containing incriminating materials/case property for inspection and preparation of docket in order to deliver them for chemical examination.After completing the usual procedural formalities, the articles were handed over to this witness for depositing in the Forensic Science Laboratory for testing.As the specimen seal had been kept inside a packet, the witness was asked to get it opened.Thus, he returned to the court of CJM and took out the sample seal from the pocket only under the orders of the Court.However, since he was late by that time, therefore, he went to police station and deposited the packet etc. Next day, he again received the articles from police station and delivered them in the FSL, Lucknow.He has reiterated the fact that till the articles remained with him, they were not touched, nor did any one even get a chance to tamper with them.He has also supported such entries of these dates made in the daily diaries.He had handed over the articles to the clerk of FSL who had earlier raised the objection.He has also denied all the defence suggestions which were contrary to the prosecution case.He has also remained unshaken in the cross examinations.Shri Ram L. Chaudhary (PW-7) stated that he was posted as S.I. at police station Dariyabad with SO, One Suresh Kumar Verma on 1st and 4th February 2004, when 5 accused persons were arrested by the police.When SO Verma along with a police party [that also included PW7] was searching for accused persons , he was tipped off by an informer that accused Ram Awadh and Janwary who were present near Daryabad railway station, had moved towards the railway station.Thus the police party promptly reached there and parked the vehicle outside the railway station.Having received the signal, the police interrupted the accused persons, who attempted to run away.The dead body was of average built with rigor mortis present all over.The witness has clarified that injury nos.1 and 3 could cumulatively cause the death of deceased.Injury nos.1,2,and 3 are possible from one or more than one sharp edged weapon.He had not found any everted injury because the injuries were only bone or muscle deep.Thus, the injuries as noticed on the dead body were possible from the weapons recovered at the instance of the accused persons and the probable time of death also appears to be the same as suggested in the prosecution story.He had succeeded Suresh Kumar Verma (PW-10) and taken over the investigation.During investigation, he had also come to know that a separate case had been registered under the Arms Act. This witness had a limited role to play in the investigation of this case to the extent of filing of a charge sheet against the accused persons and recording the statements of some witnesses.Suresh Kumar Verma (PW-10) was posted as SO of Dariyabad Police Station.The Case Crime no.4/04 was registered in his presence.He undertook the investigation of this case and set out with police force for the scene of occurrence.The dead body of the deceased was lying in a field.As there was no provision of light there, the inquest could not be carried out.Some police personnel were left at the spot to protect the dead body.Thereafter, he came to the village in search of the accused persons but they had absconded from their houses.The deceased had met him there at 01.00 PM.Hon'ble Ved Pal, J.(Per Uma Nath Singh, J.) These four appeals arise out of a judgment dated 14.07.2008, passed by learned Additional Sessions judge, Barabanki , in Sessions Trial No.164 of 2004, holding six accused/appellants (herein) guilty of offence under Sections 302/149 IPC, and sentencing them each to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5000/-; with direction to undergo further RI for two months in case of default of payment of fine, besides the conviction and consequent sentence of RI for one year under Section 147 IPC.Regarding the charge of offence under section 148 IPC, except accused Chhote Lal and Ram Awadh who were not found guilty, other co-accused/appellants namely Ganga Prasad, Ram Newaj, Sangam Lal and Janwari have been convicted and sentenced to undergo two years R.I. in addition to the sentences imposed upon under Sections 302/149 IPC and 147 IPC.Learned Trial Court has directed all the sentences to run concurrently.and was completed on the next day i.e. on 28.01.2004 at 8-30 AM.A number of injuries of different nature were found present on the dead body of deceased by the police officer, during the course of inquest proceedings.They are like:(i) incised wound on right thigh near testicles; (ii)two abrasions on right side of the testicle; (iii) three abrasions on the left thigh;(iv) four incised wounds towards the left of naval point in abdominal region;(v) protruding of intestine; (vi) incised wound with bleeding on the right side of the naval point ; (vi) incised wound over the naval point; (vii) incised wounds at nine places around the chest; (viii) incised wound with blood stains on the right shoulder; (ix) incised wound with blood-stains on chin; (x) incised wound with blood stains on the eye-brow of left eye; (xi) incised wound on head ;(xii) incised wound with blood stains on neck and near the ear and ; (xiii) two incised wounds with blood stains towards the right side of the back and also below.In the inquest report, it is noted that the cause of death of deceased was the cumulative effect of all the injuries.The dead body was sent for postmortem examination on the same day, and vide the testimony of autopsy surgeon, Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava (PW-8) the following ante-mortem injuries were noticed :IW 5 cm below right ear pinna, size 7 cms x bone deep.IW situated at the angle on right jaw, 12 x 7 cm x bone deep.IW 3 cm below left ear pinna, 5 cm x 3 cm, bone deep.IW, 17 cm x 3 cm muscle deep below naval pinna.IW 5 cm x 4 cm below left hip.Abrasion 5 cm above the penis in the size of 6 cm x 2 cm.In the opinion of Doctor, the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage as a result of ante-mortem injuries.It further appears that initially, the case was investigated by Station Officer S. K. Verma (PW-10), who also collected some vital incriminating materials connected with the offence, and recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Finally, the charge sheet a challan was laid by S.O. Siddha Nath Katiyar (PW- 9).During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.They are namely: Uma Shanka Shukla (PW-1) (who is the complainant and also the brother of deceased); Nangoo (PW-2); Jogendra (PW-3); Constable Harmurti Chaube (PW-4) (who brought the dead body for postmortem examination); Constable Moharrir Sugreev Singh( PW-5), who prepared the Chik F.I.R; Constable Santosh Kumar Shukla (PW-6) (who delivered the incriminating materials for forensic examination); S.I. M.L. Chaudhari (PW-7); (who arrested accused Ram Avadh, and Janwari); Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava (PW-8) (who conducted the post-mortem examination of dead body and prepared the post-mortem report); S.O. Siddha Nath Katiyar (PW-9) (who presented the challan), and S.O. S.K. Verma (PW-10) who had initially investigated the case).However, the defence did not produce any witness in support of its case.In their statements under Section 313 Cr. P. C, the accused persons denied the charges and pleaded false implication.We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.Learned counsel also submitted that when the knives were recovered from the possession of two accused persons, then there should have been more stab wounds instead of incised wounds.Learned counsel also submitted that in the inquest report the Investigating Officer has noticed thirteen injuries whereas in the postmortem report the injuries as noted are only six.Learned counsel further submitted that the marks of abrasion found on the dead body of the deceased could be possible on fall.Besides, the incriminating articles recovered at the instance of accused persons were not sent to FSL for examination.That apart, according to learned counsel, the incident took place at 5.00 PM whereas the first information report was lodged at 8.15 PM at police station which is just 6 Kilometers away from the place of incident.Moreover, there is no explanation as to how PW-1 had reached the police station.It is also a submission of learned counsel that if six persons mercilessly caused injuries with various weapons, the number of injuries as noticed to be 12 in the inquest report could not have been as less as six in the postmortem examination.Uma Shankar (PW-1),who is the brother of deceased and also the complainant, has stated that all the accused persons are the residents of his village.In his evidence, there is a mention that since his deceased brother Brij Mohan Shukla used to help the villagers, the accused persons were feeling jealous.In his cross-examinations, he has clarified that including the deceased, they are five brothers.He has also mentioned that there was an incident of murder of one Mithlesh Shukla wherein one of his brothers namely Tribhuwan had also been made an accused.The witness also clarified that the money for purchase of vegetables had been paid by the deceased, whereas the fare for hiring jeep for coming to their village being Rs. 6/- was paid by him.He has also given the details of the clothes and shoes worn by the deceased at the time of occurrence.He has given a precise description about the place, the deceased had stopped for passing urine and the accused were hiding and had disturbed the standing mustard crop etc. He has also clarified that the deceased was assaulted when he was passing urine.The deceased suffered Banka injuries on his neck, which caused profuse bleeding.The eye witness has also stated that the accused persons who had caused the assaults were 2-4 in number.The deceased had run towards the North to save from the assaults.However, he could barely run for about 20-25 paces towards North-East for 2 minutes having come down for about 1 ½ ft.below the road.Though he did not fall on the ground with the second blow but when he was surrounded from all sides then he collapsed.He could not tell as to how the accused persons who were wielding knives had attacked the deceased.The accused who was armed with Lathi also caused injury.He did not remember about the total number of assaults with Lathi.However, none of the accused had run towards the witness for causing assault.He had stood only on the road while crying to save the deceased by shouting Bachao-bachao (save-save).He has also pointed out the place from where he had witnessed the incident.The duration of incident at the place where the deceased was surrounded and assaulted was only for a few minutes.The place from where he had witnessed the incident was at a distance of 20 paces from the wheat field and the deceased had fallen on the side of wheat crop field.The crop was about 2 ½ ft. high.He could not reach the spot where his brother was assaulted as the incident lasted only for a few minutes and thus could hardly react to save his brother.By the time he could reach the scene of occurrence, his brother was dead.He had reached there after 2-4 minutes and by that time the accused persons had already fled away.He had only seen the injuries caused on the front side of the dead body and he had not turned or disturbed the position of dead body.In his report, he has only mentioned about the injuries that he had seen being caused on the front side of the person of deceased.He had gone to police station all alone in a bicycle at sunset and stayed for half an hour.He had met the police sub-inspector at police station itself and given a written report.However, he had prepared the written report at home.When the police sub-inspector reached the scene of occurrence there was a gathering of a large number of people but he could not recollect their names.In the night, only the police personnels had stayed near the dead body.The dead body had been sealed on the spot itself.Deceased Brij Mohan was a social worker and, thus, used to help the people around,but he was not involved in any crime etc. He denied knowledge about any pending litigation under Section 107 and 116 Cr.P.C. with the accused persons.He was not aware as to whether accused Chhote Lal who was aged about 40-45 years had been prosecuted under Section 302 I.P.C. He has also denied a defence suggestion that the deceased was not a man of good character.He has also denied the defence suggestions that the deceased was killed by unknown persons and his brother Daya Shankar was charged sheeted in the murder case of one Ram Samujha, and therefore, he wanted to build up pressure on the accused by falsely implicating them in this case ; that the incident did not take place in the manner it was reported to the police and that he had not seen the incident.PW-2 Nangoo, a co-villager of the deceased, categorically denied the prosecution case and mentioned that he had not seen the incident.He also stated that he had not given any statement to the police Sub Inspector.He did not know the reason as to why his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.He also denied the knowledge about the murder of his uncle wherein accused Chhotelal was also involved as an accused.He denied the suggestion that since he did not give statement in that case, therefore, the case of murder of his uncle ended in acquittal.He also denied the suggestion that because of fear of accused he had not given the correct statement.He only came to know about this case when he received a summon.PW-3 Jogendra, also a co-villager of the deceased, denied that he has knowledge as to who committed the murder of deceased Brij Mohan Shukla.He had not seen any of the accused persons causing assault to the deceased.He stated that he had no information as to when the offence took place but it happened in the west side of the village which belonged to one Raja Sanjai Bali.He was not aware as to who committed the murder.Investigating Officer had not inquired anything from him.He also denied his 161 Cr.P.C. statement recorded by the police Sub Inspector.He claimed to be a daily wage labourer going from place to place in the course of engagement.However, he has stated that the dead body of the deceased was wrapped in a sheet and then sealed and taken to the police station.It was a foggy weather.The field where the incident took place belonged to one Sanjai Bali which was situated in a deserted place.It came to notice later that deceased Brij Mohan was lying dead at that place.He was also not aware that there was any dispute with the brothers of Brij Mohan about the property.According to the witness, he and his colleague did not give any opportunity to others to touch the dead body.He clarified that in the G.D. Entry for 28.01.2004 there was no other entry.He also produced the G.D. entry of 27.01.2004 and again stated that there was no other entry of any other case at the police station except the entry about this incident.This case was lodged and registered in the presence of Station Officer.He has denied the defence suggestion that at the time of his departure, the FIR had not been registered.He also denied the defence suggestion that the dead body had been brought to the police station in the night and from there itself it was carried for the postmortem examination.He also denied the defence suggestion that he had not visited the spot of incident.PW-5 Sugreev Singh was posted as literate Constable called Moharrir on 27.01.2004 at police station Dariyabad.As per practice the complainant had signed on the second page of the Chik.No case had been registered before and after the registration of this case.This witness has also corroborated the departure of Constable Harmurti Chaubey and Constable Ram Narain Yadav as mentioned in their statements at 6.15 hours on 28.01.2004 under the direction of SO for the scene of occurrence.However, they were overpowered and arrested at 13.20 by the police force.They disclosed their names and identity.The police informed them that they were named in the FIR.On being interrogated they confessed that they committed the murder of the deceased towards vengeance and as a reprisal .He was also involved in the murder of one Ram Anuj uncle of accused Janwary.Accused Janwary also disclosed the names of other 3 co accused persons namely accused Ram Newaj, Ganga Prasad and Sangam Lal .At a disclosure statement given by him , he also got the weapon of offence recovered from a pond.The rest three above named co - accused persons were arrested on 4.2.2004 on tip off given by informer to the SO.On their disclosures also, weapons of offence namely banka and knife used by them were recovered from the bamboo bushes and heap of arrow grass.They were also found to be stained with human blood.PW7 has supported the recovery memos and withstood the rigors of a lengthy cross examination.He has explained that in the GD entry as per procedure only the SO is supposed to sign.He conducted post mortem on the dead body of deceased Brij Mohan Shukla.He proved the number, nature and seat of injuries as given above.In his opinion , there was a possibility of occurrence of death on 27.1.2004 at 5 O'clock in the evening.Injuries no 1 to 5 were possible from some sharp edged weapons like banka or knife.He also proved all such exhibits which are related to postmortem examination of the dead body.He also opined that the death resulted from the impact of anti mortem injuries as noticed on the dead body.With the permission of the court, he had recorded the statement of accused Chhotelal inside the jail.On 8.3.2004 and 9.3.2004, he recorded the statements of police personnels who were shown to be the witnesses of memos prepared during the investigation.He put up the charge sheet (Ext. Ka-6) under sections 147,148,and 302 r/w 149 IPC against accused persons 1 to 6 .Statement of complainant Uma Shankar Shukla was taken in lantern light at his residence.On 28.1.2004, he inspected the scene of occurrence and at the instance of complainant prepared the spot map, and then carried out the inquest proceedings in the presence of witnesses.After following the necessary procedure , the dead body was sent with constables Harmurti Chaubey, and Ram Nayak for postmortem examination.He also prepared memos connected with recoveries of incriminating materials, and arrested accused Ram awadh and Janwary on 1.2.2004 at 13.20 hrs.on being tipped off by some informer, and recorded the statement of accused Janwary in the nature of extra-judicial confession regarding the factum and manner of commission of offence committed by him along with other accused persons.Accused Janwary also produced the weapon of offence from a pond towards his statement given to SO, which was duly seized vide the connected recovery memos.On 4.2.2004, again having been tipped off by an informant, he arrested accused Ganga prasad, Sangam Lal and Ram Newaj at 13.10 hrs.All the three accused persons also made extra-judicial confessions before the SO and pursuant there to, there were discoveries and recoveries of Banka on being produced by Ganga Prasad and knife by Sangam Lal.The SO also recorded the statements of witnesses connected with recovery and other memos prepared between 5.2.2004 and 20.2.2004 during the course of investigation.He sent the incriminating materials to FSL with constable Santosh Kumar Shukla for examination.He also proved all exhibits connected with investigation.He has clarified that after the registration of case, he started investigation at 20.50 hrs.and went to the scene of occurrence where there was a large gathering of people.After a brief stay for about 15 minutes, he went to the house of the complainant.He also got the dead body photographed which only broadly showed the seats of injuries.In the inquest report also, the SO mentioned about the injuries noticed on the back of dead body.While describing the nature of injuries and position of dead body, he frankly admitted some defects in the investigation carried out by him.Thus, he has supported the prosecution case in material particulars.In their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused appellants have pleaded false implication due to enmity.On the other hand, learned counsel for the state supported the impugned judgment.On due consideration of rival submissions, and a careful reading of the impugned judgment,we do not find any perversity or serious infirmity in the impugned judgment which may require our interference in appeal .There is an eye witness accounts of the incident as given by complainant Uma Shanker (PW1), brother of the deceased.The incident took place at 5 O'clock in the evening on 27.1.2004 and the FIR was lodged at 8.15 after a gap of 3.15 hrs., having covered a distance of 6 kms.and as per the statement of Investigating officer (PW10) , he started the investigation at 8.50 in the evening itself.Quantity of evidence was never considered to be a test for deciding a criminal trial and the emphasis of courts is always on quality of evidence.Number of witnesses.- No particular number of witness shall in any case be required for the proof of any fact."x x x x x x x x x x xFrom the aforesaid discussion, it is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witness.He had also met some other villagers in the market.At the time of incident, the accused persons had emerged from a mustard crop field when the deceased had stopped for passing urine.He had held two packets of vegetables, one belonging to deceased and the other to him, purchased by the deceased himself.According to him, the first injury was caused with Banka on the neck of deceased which started causing profuse bleeding.The second blow was also caused with Banka but the deceased collapsed only on being surrounded by the accused persons.Thereafter, a Lathi blow was also caused.This witness has clarified that the incident of causing blows had happened in quick successions and lasted only for a few minutes, before he could reach the exact spot of incident.By that time, the accused persons had managed to flee away, however, none of them had rushed towards him to cause assault.Under the circumstances, the witness could not get any opportunity to save his brother and when he reached near his injured brother, he was dead.He did not disturb the position of dead body and, thus, could only notice the injuries visible on the front side.He went to police station on bicycle and gave a written report having stayed for about ½ to 1 hour over there.In his evidence, the witness has stated that accused Ganga Prasad & Ram Newaj were carrying Banka, accused Janwary & Sangam were armed with lathi and knife whereas accused Chhote Lal & Ram Awadh were only wielding lathis.They had chased the deceased and then caused him blows after felling him on the ground in the field of one Sanjay Bali.He has also mentioned that when he raised hue and cry, co-villagers like Jogendra Lala (PW-3) and Nangoo (PW-2) alongwith a number of other villagers rushed to the scene of occurrence.Then the accused persons had run away from spot towards the South-West direction.In the testimony of this solitary eye witness there is nothing to doubt the credibility.His presence on the scene of occurrence appears to be quite probable and his conduct absolutely natural under the obtaining circumstances when the offence lasted only for a few minutes.This witness has owned the contents of F.I.R. which, in turn, corroborates his testimony.Two other witnesses namely Nangoo (PW-2) and Jogendra (PW-3) though have turned hostile, however, from the testimony of Jogendra who has denied the knowledge about the occurrence, it is evident that he had seen the dead body and that is why he has stated that it was wrapped in a sheet and was also sealed and then taken to Police Station.He has also mentioned that it was a foggy weather and the incident took place in the western side of the village in a field which belonged to one Raja Sanjai Bali.Thus, this witness has turned hostile for some extraneous consideration or under threat or influence of the accused persons and has only given a limited support to the prosecution case.Thus, the testimony of this witness insofar as it relates to the scene of occurrence and the position of dead body is concerned, it lends support to the prosecution case.The testimony of official witnesses namely Harmurti Chaubey (PW-4), who took the dead body for postmortem and received postmortem reports and incriminating articles from the Autopsy Surgeon; of Sugreev Singh (PW-5), who was posted as Constable Moharrir (Literate Constable) regarding preparation of Chik report, registration of FIR and making GD entries of 27.01.2004 and 28.01.2004; of Constable Santosh Kumar (PW-6) to the effect that he delivered the incriminating articles in the Forensic Science Laboratory; of SI Ram Lal Chaudhary (PW-7) who accompanied the SO Suresh Kumar Verma for arresting the accused persons and in discovery and recovery of incriminating articles; of Dr. Anil Kumar Srivastava (PW-8) who conducted the postmortem on the dead body; of Siddhanath Katiyar (PW-9) the SO who put up the charge sheet against the accused persons under Sections 147, 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC, and of Suresh Kumar Verma (PW-10) who conducted the major part of investigation right from inquest proceedings up to the arrest of accused persons and discovery and recovery of incriminating articles, do not suffer from any infirmity.The same have already been referred to and discussed hereinabove.Now, coming to the submission of learned counsel for appellants regarding the discrepancy between the number of injuries as recorded in the inquest proceedings and the postmortem report, in a judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court passed in the case of Munshi Prasad and others vs. State of Bihar, (AIR 2001 SC 3031), it has been held that the inquest report and postmortem report cannot be treated as a basic and substantive evidence.Any discrepancy occurring therein can neither be termed to be fatal nor even a suspicious circumstance which would warrant a benefit to the accused persons and the resultant dismissal of the prosecution case.Moreover, the inquest report in the instant case does not suffer from any serious defect except in respect of recording of number of injuries in the excess of the injuries noticed in the postmortem report.Besides, in the cross-examination of Autopsy Surgeon (PW-8) and the Investigating Officer (PW-10) there is no such specific defence suggestion and, therefore, there is also no specific explanation thereto.Insofar as a recovery of knife from two accused persons is concerned, it would not necessarily mean that both the accused persons could have got equal opportunity to cause sufficient number of injuries, when the entire incident, according to complainant PW-1, lasted only for a few minutes.It was a winter month with chilly weather when the complainant went by bicycle to the police station after covering a distance of six kilometers and thereafter reduced the report in writing and submitted it at police station, therefore, it cannot be said that the FIR was lodged with delay or was ante-timed.On due considerations of rival submissions and after re-appreciation of evidence on record as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in this Bunch of Criminal Appeals.Hence Criminal Appeal No.1644 of 2008 (Chhotey Lal Vs.State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No. 1869 of 2008 (Ram Awadh alias Nanhu and another Vs.State of U.P.), Criminal Appeal No.1905 of 2008 (Ganga Prasad Vs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
7,365,964 |
This is 1st bail application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner for grant of bail.The petitioner has been arrested on 05.04.2017 by Police Station Deepar District Datia in connection with Crime No.50/2014 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 120B, 201, 194, 195 of IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act.The petitioner is alleged with double murder.Accordingly, the present bail application stands rejected for the time being with the above said liberty.(Sheel Nagu) Judge neetu Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK Date: 2018.04.10 17:20:53 +05'30'
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
73,665,796 |
(i) The impugned Order dated 02.09.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur, District - Solapur in Special Case No. 06 of 2020 is quashed & set aside and the Appellant be enlarged on bail, on executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;(ii) The Appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;4 of 5::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 01:24:52 :::Appeal (St) 2594-2020.doc(iii) The Appellant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number immediately after being released and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the Court seized of the matter and to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station;All concerned to act on copy of this order, digitally signed by Personal Assistant / Private Secretary of this Court.(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 5 of 5::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 01:24:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2020 01:24:52 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,228,715 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the application.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any Ballu @ Gajendra vs State of M.P.2 M.Cr.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 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.
|
74,229,665 |
The learned Advocate for the State submits that the victim was ravished on four occasions and the same was photographed.Accordingly, the application for bail of the petitioner is rejected.CRM 2078 of 2019 is thus disposed of.Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, upon compliance of all formalities.(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.) (Md. Mumtaz Khan, J.) 3 4
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,231,974 |
Heard on I.A. No.6890/2020, an application for ignoring the default.The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by conviction and sentence passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Balaghat vide judgment dated 12.02.2020 passed in Special Session Case No.131/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted the offence punishable under Section 354-D of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year 6 months along with fine of Rs.4,000/- and Section 509 of IPC read with Section 12 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year 6 months along with fine of Rs.4,000/-, with default stipulation.Considering the aforesaid directions, this appeal seems filed in limitation period.Signature Not Accordingly, I.A. No.6890/2020 is allowed and default has been SAN Verified Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 2020.07.28 16:14:34 IST 2 CRA-3327-2020 ignored.Also heard on admission.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements witnesses.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,234,095 |
/7/9 of the Immoral Traffic Act.And In the matter of:- Rakesh Kr.Ram @ Rakesh Ram Petitioner Ms. Sreyashee Biswas For the petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Ld.The petitioner is in custody for 455 days.However, the petitioner's prayer for bail was twice rejected on merit by two different co-ordinate bench of this court.We have been informed after the last rejected two dates were fixed for consideration of question of framing charge, those are on 12th April 2016 and 7th May 2016 and on both the dates there has been no progress in the matter as the adjournment has been sought for from the side of the defence.Having regard to above and when no case is made out which may justify us to reconsider the petitioner's prayer for bail once again on merit, the application for bail stands rejected at this stage.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 2 (Asha Arora, J.)
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,239,187 |
Two of the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order on sentence dated 22.9.2003 the appellants have been sentenced as under:-"All the convicts are ordered to be sentenced u/s 302/34 IPC to undergo RI for life each and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for ten months.All the convicts are further sentenced u/s 393/34 IPC to undergo RI for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.All the convicts are further sentenced u/s 398/34 IPC to undergo RI for seven years each and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 5 months.Convict Mukesh is further sentenced u/s 27 of Arms Act to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.Convict Surender is further sentenced u/s 25 of the Arms Act to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.Convict Manjeet is further sentenced u/s 25/27 of Arms Act to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months.All the Crl.In returning the finding of guilt, the learned Trial Judge has held that the testimony of Anil Sharma PW-6 establishes that when he i.e. Anil Sharma and the deceased were travelling on a scooter after withdrawing Rs.4,00,000/- from State Bank of Indore, Narela three persons on a motorcycle attempted to snatch the bag containing the money from the hands of the deceased and when the deceased resisted the attempt to rob him, one out of the said three boys fired a shot at his chest and the three boys on the motorcycle fled.That the testimony of Sanjay Sharma PW-10 establish that he was an eye witness to the murder which was preceded by an attempt to commit robbery and that appellant Mukesh fired the shot at the deceased and that the other two appellants were also armed with a country made pistol, and that the pistol in the hand of appellant Manjeet @ Kuldeep fell down at the spot.The learned Trial Judge has further held that pursuant to his arrest, appellant Surender made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-22/F and pursuant thereto got recovered a pistol Ex.P-1 and a fire cartridge Ex.P-2 as recorded in the memo Ex.PW-9/H. That the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was opined, vide CFSL Report Ex.PW-25/A to be Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 3 of 15 fired from the pistol Ex.Lastly, the learned Trial Judge has held that the fact that the appellants, after they were arrested, pointed out the spot where the crime was committed was evidence of their conduct showing their knowledge of the place where the crime was committed.1. SI Praveen Vats PW-22 accompanied by Const.Ram Prakash PW-8 reached the spot where the shooting had taken place and found a scooter bearing registration No.DL 8SJ 0780 on the road and a country made pistol lying nearby.He was told that the injured was removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital in a rickshaw.Leaving Const.Ram Prakash at the spot, SI Praveen Vats reached the hospital and learnt that the injured named Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 4 of 15 Sanjeev was declared brought dead.He obtained the MLC of the deceased and met Anil Sharma PW-6 at the hospital.He returned to the spot with Anil Sharma, by which time the Addl.SHO of the police station Shri S.K.Meena PW-24 had also reached the spot in the company of Const.At the spot SI Praveen Vats recorded the statement Ex.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 4 of 15Investigation at the spot was conducted by Addl.SHO S.K.Meena who lifted the blood sample of the deceased from the road as also a country made pistol Ex.P-4 and a live cartridge Ex.P-5 within the chamber of the pistol.He recorded said seizures in the memo Ex.PW-6/A. The sketch of the pistol and the live cartridge being Ex.PW-6/C recovered from the spot was drawn.The dead body of the deceased was taken possession of by S.K.Meena, and through Const.Ram Prakash PW-8, was sent to the mortuary of Babu Jagjivan Ram Hospital.SI Praveen PW-22 prepared the inquest papers Ex.PW-22/B. At the hospital Dr.B.N.Acharya PW-11 conducted the post-mortem the same day i.e. on 8.2.2001 and prepared the post-mortem Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 5 of 15 report Ex.PW-11/A recording therein a solitary ante mortem firearm injury on the chest of the deceased and death being caused as a result of haemorrhagic shock.A bullet Ex.PW-25/1 was recovered from the chest of the deceased by the doctor who handed over the same to Const.Ram Prakash along with the blood sample of the deceased.The same were seized by SI Praveen Vats as per memo Ex.PW-8/A prepared by him.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 5 of 15On 9.2.2001 Sanjay Sharma PW-10 went to the police station and informed the investigating officer that he had witnessed the crime.He stated that three boys waylaid two persons on a scooter.They attempted to snatch a bag which was clutched on to by the pillion rider on the scooter.The scooter fell down.The two boys on the pillion seat on the motorcycle were armed with pistols and the pistol in the hand of one of the boy on the pillion seat fell down.The other boy on the pillion seat shot the pillion rider on the scooter and thereafter the three boys on the motorcycle fled.He stated that he left for his house in the village Pooth Khurd and the next day i.e.9.2.2001, he dutifully reported to the police station.Appellant Mukesh was apprehended, as per secret information claimed by the prosecution, on 23.2.2001 at 8:30 PM as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-9/A. When he was Crl.PW-9/B admitting his involvement in the crime and disclosed that the two other boys with him were appellant Manjeet @Kuldeep and appellant Surender.He disclosed that Surender was driving the motorcycle and that he and Manjeet were armed with a pistol each.That the pistol of Manjeet fell down at the spot.He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-22/F and informed that he could get recovered the country made pistol with which the deceased was shot from a place at Village Chandpur where he had hid the same.He led the investigating officer to a forest in Village Chandpur and lying concealed in bushes got recovered a pistol Ex.P-1 and two live cartridges Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3 which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-9/H. Sketch of the pistol and the cartridges was drawn as per Ex.PW-9/G.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 7 of 15We may note that as per the prosecution as recorded in the pointing out memos Ex.PW-9/F, Ex.PW-7/C and Ex.PW-9/C, the appellants pointed out the place where the crime was committed i.e. X-Ray Wali Gali on the very day they were arrested.The three accused were sent for TIP proceedings which were fixed on 1.3.2001 and as recorded in the proceedings Ex.PW-21/2, Ex.PW-21/3 and Ex.PW-21/4 all the three accused refused to participate in the test identification proceedings on the ground that they were shown to the witness.The country made pistol recovered from the spot and pursuant to the disclosure statement of Surender as also Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 8 of 15 the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased were sent for ballistic examination and as per report Ex.PW-25/A, the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased was opined to be fired from the country made pistol recovered at the instance of Surender.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 8 of 15At the trial, PW-6 Anil Sharma did not identify the appellants as the three boys who were on the motorcycle and had committed the crime.He simply deposed that three boys on a motorcycle waylaid him and the deceased and attempted to snatch the bag containing Rs.4 lakhs from the deceased and when they failed to do so, one of them shot the deceased and the pistol in the hand of the other fell down.The three boys fled on their motorcycle.Sanjay Sharma PW-10 deposed that he was residing at village Pooth Kurd and on 8.2.2001 had gone to Narela to purchase household goods and at around 12:45 PM, when passing through X-Ray Wali Gali, he saw three boys on a motorcycle overtaking two boys on a scooter.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 15 of 15Vide judgment and order dated 19.9.2003, the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/393/398/34 IPC.Since appellant Mukesh was pointed out as the person who had fired the fatal shot, though the recovery of the weapon of offence was at the instance of appellant Surender, Mukesh has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Since the pistol which was recovered from the spot was stated to have been attempted to be used by appellant Manjeet @ Kuldeep, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 25 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 3 of 15Information pertaining to a person being shot at X- Ray Wali Gali, Narela was received at PS Narela Industrial Area as recorded vide DD No.12-A, Ex.PW-1/A by ASI Jagir Singh PW-PW-1/B of Anil Sharma and made an endorsement Ex.PW-22/A thereunder and dispatched the statement containing his endorsement through Const.Vijender PW-16 for FIR to be registered.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 6 of 15 arrested, as per the prosecution a country made pistol was recovered from the dub of his pant pertaining whereto, for unexplainable reason FIR No.70/2001 under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered.We are using the expression surprisingly for the reason the arrest memo of Mukesh shows his apprehension in FIR No.48/2001 for offences punishable under Section 393/398/302/34 IPC i.e. the FIR pertaining to the instant case.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 6 of 15Mukesh made a disclosure statement Ex.He i.e. Mukesh fired the shot on the deceased and handed over the pistol to Surender, after they fled.Manjeet @Kuldeep was arrested on 26.2.2001 at 7:00 PM as recorded in the arrest memo Ex.PW-9/D. He made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-7/B in which he confessed to the crime and disclosed same facts as were told by Mukesh.Surender was apprehended on 28.2.2001 at 5:15 PM as recorded in the arrest memo at page 479 of the Trial Crl.Two boys sitting on the back of the motorcycle disembarked from the motorcycle and tried to snatch a bag from the pillion rider of the scooter who resisted and in the process the scooter fell down.One boy fired on the pillion rider of the scooter and hit him on the chest.A pistol in the hand of the other boy fell Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 9 of 15 down.The three boys fled on the motorcycle.That appellant Mukesh fired the shot.Appellant Surender was riding the motorcycle and Manjeet was the third person from whose hand the pistol fell on the ground.That he returned home as he had some urgent work.Next day he went to the police station to inform of the incident.He went to the police station on 25.2.2001 after reading in the newspaper that one boy who had committed the crime was arrested and saw Manjeet in the police station.On being cross-examined PW-10 stated that he stayed at the spot for 10/15 minutes.He stated that a crowd gathered.He admitted that the deceased was also a resident of Village Pooth Khurd.He admitted that he did not tell any villager that he saw the incident.He further stated that he returned to his house at 2:00 PM and left for Sohna in Haryana and returned at about 11:00 PM in the night.We note that Mukesh has been acquitted in FIR No.70/2001 pertaining to the recovery of the firearm from his Crl.The judgment has been proved at the trial as Ex.It probablizes Mukesh being apprehended, not as claimed by the prosecution, but in a manner unknown to us and FIR No.70/2001 was registered by the police not knowing of Mukeshs involvement in the instant case and an ante dated arrest memo showing his apprehension in the instant case has been drawn up.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 11 of 15A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 11 of 15Their confessional statements have to be excluded while considering the evidence as the same are inadmissible in evidence.No incriminating object or article has been recovered pursuant to their disclosure statements.He admits during cross-examination that the deceased was a resident of Village Pooth Khurd and so was he.He claims to have rushed back home due to some urgent work, but failed to disclose the nature of the urgent work and what it was.That, PW-10 himself went to the police station the next day, ostensibly shows that he was a public spirited person.If this is the theory to explain his visit at the police station the next day, it belies his conduct on the previous day for such a public spirited person would be expected to inform the police of his being an eye-witness on the same day, more Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 12 of 15 so when he claims to have remained at the spot for 10 to 15 minutes.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 12 of 15The pointing out by the appellants of the place where the crime was committed is worthless evidence for the reason the place of crime was known to the police on 8.2.2001, much before the appellants were apprehended.We have noted herein above good reasons for Mukesh not to participate in the TIP proceedings.Thus, there is no incriminating evidence against Mukesh.The only incriminating evidence against Manjeet would be his refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings.It is settled law that the sole incriminating evidence of refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings is insufficient to draw a conclusion of guilt.Against Surender, the incriminating evidence of recovery of the weapon of offence proved through his disclosure statement, the recovery effected pursuant thereto and the report of the ballistic expert connecting the bullet Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 13 of 15 recovered from the body of the deceased to the firearm in question is good evidence to establish the authorship of the weapon of offence with Surender.Needless to state, the striation marks on a bullet are the result of distinctive characteristics of the bore of a firearm being imprinted as a negative image on the projectile i.e. the bullet when a cartridge is fired.These distinctive marks connect a bullet to a one and only firearm in the world.For this reason, recoveries of firearms connected with a crime have always been treated as highly incriminating evidence sufficient to prove the commission of the crime by the person from whom or at whose instance the firearm is recovered, unless the person concerned can render a satisfactory explanation.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 13 of 15Appellant Surender has failed to render any satisfactory explanation.Thus, the appeal filed by appellant Surender has to be dismissed.Appeal No.773/2003 and Crl.Appeal No.392/2004 filed by appellants Mukesh and Manjeet are allowed.They are acquitted of the charges framed against them.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 14 of 15A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 14 of 15Copy of this judgment be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for necessary action qua appellants Mukesh and Manjeet who would be entitled to be set free unless required in some other case.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE September 02, 2009 mm / dk Crl.A.Nos.773/2003, 16/2004 & 392/2004 Page 15 of 15
|
['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.
|
74,242,914 |
JUDGMENT2004(2) SCR 938Arijit Pasayat, J.There are some unusual cases when the complainant himself is treated asan accused and made to suffer a trial.The present appeal is a case of thatnature.But the persons against whom he made accusations subsequently facedtrial, and are the accused so far as the present appeal is concerned.Theappellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC')and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/-with default stipulation.The conviction made and the sentence imposed bythe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bhatinda were confirmed by theimpugned judgment by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:The present three appellants along with Jagrup Singh and Nachhattar Singhfaced trial for alleged commission of murder of one Sukhmander Singh(hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased').The five accused personsincluding two who had been acquitted i.e. Jagrup singh Nachhattar Singhwere charge sheeted for allegedly hatching a conspiracy for committing themurder of deceased Sukhmander Singh, thereby committing the offencepunishable under Section 120B IPC, and in furtherance of their commonintention caused the death of deceased with fire arms and therebycommitting offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.The first information report was lodged on 21.10.1995 by Sukhdev Singh(PW-2) stating that while he and his nephew Bikramjit Singh @Butta Singh(PW-3) and the deceased had gone to plough the land, suddenly the accusedpersons armed with fire arms reached the spot of occurrence and raised'lalkara' that they would teach a lesson to the complainant party forcommitting the murder of their relations.All the three appellants chasedthe deceased and fired three shots.The complainant (PW-2) and BikramjitSingh (PW-3) ran away towards village.After committing the murder theaccused persons went towards the village with their weapons.After theydeparted, PWs 2 and 3 went to the spot of the occurrence to ascertain thefate of the deceased and found that he had already died.Leaving PW-3 toguard the dead body.PW-2 reported the matter to his brother Ranjit Singh,the Sarpanch.While he and Ranjit Singh were proceeding to the policestation, on the way they found police party headed by Mukhtiar Singh (PW-6)and reported the matter to him.The occurrence took place around 11.00 a.m.and the first information report was recorded at 4.30 p.m. and was sent tothe Area magistrate at a distance of about 20 KMs from the police stationand was received by him at 8.40 p.m. It was indicated that the motive ofthe crime was certain killings where the deceased and family members of PWs2 and 3 were involved and with a view to take revenue the murder tookplace.Investigation started in the line as reflected in the FIR, butstrangely the police took a view and proceeded as if PWs 2 and 3 were themurderers and had falsely implicated the accused persons.Accordingly theychallaned them for trial, but they were acquitted.In the meantime, acomplaint was filed by Sukhdev Singh (PW-2) in the Court of Chief JudicialMagistrate, Bhatinda alleging that investigating officer had yielded topolitical pressure and had made out a case as if the complainant was themurderer.The trial Court considering the evidence on record, found theaccused persons guilty.The High Court by the impugned judgment upheld theconviction and found several disturbing features as to how IO had made outa new case to save the accused persons and implicate the complainant party.Many persons who could have thrown light on the incidenthave not been examined.No footprints were found.The pellets, wads andcartridges were not recovered from the spot.Merely because the FIR waslodged very promptly, the trial Court and the High Court should not havetermed a highly exaggerated and manipulated version to be truthful.Theballistic examination should have been done to find out whether the gunsallegedly produced were in fact used.Failure of PW-6 to even smell theguns to find out whether they were recently used provides the foundationfor doubt.As the blood stained earth was not sent for chemicalexamination, the situs of assaults has not been established.The guns werealso not sent for ballistic examination.Such examination would haveprovided authenticity of the fire arms purported to have been used.Theevidence of PW2 and 3 being that of highly interested and inimical personsshould have been discarded.As rightly noted by the High Court,the investigation seems to be slip shod.The highly improbable stand thatthe complainant and his relatives killed the deceased who was their closerelative can hardly be accepted with even a pinch of salt.Though thedeceased and the complainant had criminal track records that per se willnot affect the evidence of witnesses if it is otherwise credible andcogent.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
74,243,887 |
(Pronounced on this 4th day of September, 2015) Per P.K. Jaiswal, J.Appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya and appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana have been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for committing murder of deceased Devi Singh by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua vide judgment dated 31st March, 2004 in Sessions Trial No.144/1994 and each of them has been sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/-; in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional four months rigorous imprisonment.They have also been convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 397 of the Indian Penal 2 CRA No.432/2004 Code, 1860 and each of them has been sentenced to undergo seven-seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.400/-; in default of payment fine, they have been further directed to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.According to the prosecution, on 13.03.1994 at about 06.00 in the evening, when Devi Singh, after selling gram (puk) to Maran Seth for a consideration of Rs.600/- and when he was returning to his house, at village Balwasa, near the house of Ramji Bhuriya Bhil, appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya Bhil, appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya Bhil, appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana Bhil and appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana armed with stick, arrow & bow and stone were waiting for him and when Devi Singh reached in front of them, appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya Bhil, who was armed with arrow & bow, inflicted arrow injury on vital part of his body and also snatched Rs.600/- from him.When complainant Jamu s/o Chatara Damor Bhil (PW-2) and Dungar Singh came there, all the four accused run away.Complainant Jamu s/o Chatara Damor Bhil (brother of deceased) leaving Devi Singh (deceased) there along with Dungar Singh, rushed to his house and narrated the incident to his brother Aduriya, Sama s/o Man Singh, Magan s/o Arjun, Puniya s/o Vesta and Babu s/o Chatara.They all rushed to the place of occurrence and along with injured Devi Singh reached to the police station; Dungar Singh removed arrow from the body of Devi Singh; report of the incident was lodged under Sections 307, 394 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 vide Crime No.29/1994 Ex.P/12 by Jamu s/o Chatara Damor Bhil (PW-2).During investigation, crime details form, spot map, 3 CRA No.432/2004 blood stained earth & plain earth from the place of occurrence was collected and accused persons were arrested.On the basis of memorandums of the accused persons, looted cash amounting to Rs.600/- was recovered from them.As per the dying declaration, when appellant No.1 Jamu had caused arrow injury, all other three co-accused persons were present.It has also been stated by the deceased that Makana caused stone injury, but as per postmortem report, no stone injury has been found.3. Learned counsel for the appellants did not challenge the fact of homicidal death of the deceased as also the fact that appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya gave one arrow blow to the deceased on his stomach while the other appellants Nahariya s/o Makana, Babu s/o Makana and Gor Singh s/o Badiya were present along with appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya.She, however, contended that there was no common intention on the part of appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor 4 CRA No.432/2004 Singh s/o Badiya to cause death of the deceased.According to her, accused / appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya could be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while other appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya could be held guilty only under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, because at the time of robbery, they were not having any deadly weapon nor they used any deadly weapons in committing the crime.After his death, offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was also added.The Investing Officer, after investigating the matter filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thandla, District Jhabua, who committed the matter to the Sessions Judge and from Sessions Judge, the matter has been transferred to 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jhabua.During treatment, dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on 14.03.1994 vide Ex.As per dying declaration, injury of arrow has been caused by appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya.At the time of occurrence, Makana s/o Sisco was also present.It is also submitted that appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya has completed more than eleven years' of jail sentence, whereas appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya have completed two years' jail sentence, out of total jail sentence awarded by the learned trial Court.It is further pointed out that except one stomach injury, no other injuries were found on the person of the deceased.Her further contention is that appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya have completed two years jail sentence and in view of the Division Bench decision of this 5 CRA No.432/2004 Court in the case of Gaurishankar s/o Takhta Singh & 7 others v. State of Madhya Pradesh dated 6th November, 2008 passed in Criminal Appeal No.1162/2002, conviction of appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya be altered from section 397 to Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the jail sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment be reduced to two years rigorous imprisonment.With the aforesaid, she prays that criminal appeal in question be allowed in part.Per contra, learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn our attention to dying declaration Ex.P/25, statement of PW-3 Pujiya & PW-4 Akil Mehta and submitted that as per the statement of eye witness PW-2 Jamu s/o Chatara, brother of the deceased, appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya was armed with bow and arrow and caused fatal injury to the deceased along with appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya with the common intention to commit robbery and learned trial Court has rightly convicted appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya and appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.As per the dying declaration Ex.P/25, appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya was armed with bow and arrow and inflicted arrow injury to the deceased.At the time of occurrence appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant 6 CRA No.432/2004 No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya were present along with appellant No.1 Jamu, but no overt act has been attributed to them nor there is any material that they with the common intention to commit robbery having any deadly weapon with them nor snatched money from pocket of the deceased Devi Singh nor inflicted any injury to him.As per the dying declaration, stone injury was caused by Makana s/o Sisco, but he was not implicated by the Police nor any challan has been filed against him.As per the certificate of the doctor at the time of dying declaration, the deceased Devi Singh was in fit state of mind.Out of total eleven prosecution witnesses only PW-2 Jamu (sole eye witness of the case) supported the case of the prosecution ; PW-3 Pujiya is a hearsay witness; PW-4 Alik Mehta, is the Investigating Officer; PW-5 Khurshid is a formal witness; PW- 8 Galla, PW-9 Magan and PW-11 Jagdish are the hostile witnesses and they did not support the case of the prosecution; PW-6 Balwant Singh Bariya is the Patwari, who prepared spot map Ex.P/17; PW-7 Sushilchandra Pathak has prepared inquest; whereas PW-10 Dr. K.K. Chaturvedi is the autopsy surgeon, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased.As per the postmortem report Ex.P/21, the deceased sustained the following injury: -"Stab wound present on left side of chest at 9-10 Rib space.Lung tissue of lower lobe of left lung.Stab wound of size 3 cm x 2 cm x 4 cm deep.Filled with clotted blood.Spleen was having stab wound of size 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm with clotted blood.Left colonic flexure was stabbed of size 2 cm x 1 cm with prolapse omentum from the wound."PW-10 Dr. K.K. Chaturvedi in his court statement 7 CRA No.432/2004 has very categorically admitted that dying declaration Ex.P/15 has been recorded and before dying declaration, the deceased was examined by him and at that relevant point of time, he was in a fit state of mind (paragraphs No.14 and 15).In the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death is injury to vital organs lungs, spleen and colon.The impugned conviction is based mainly on the first information report Ex.P/12 lodged by PW-2 Jamu, brother of the deceased and dying declaration of the deceased Ex.In the instant case, we find ourselves in full agreement with the learned trial Court that the report lodged by PW-2 Jamu, brother of the deceased, inspires confidence and there is nothing absolutely on record to entertain any kind of doubt as to its genuineness and dying declaration of the deceased.From the aforesaid, it is seen that out of four appellants, only appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya, armed with bow and arrow and it is he, who committed robbery by snatching Rs.600/- from the pocket of the deceased; other co- accused persons (appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya) were present along with him, but they were not armed with any deadly weapon and participated in the crime nor any overt act is attributed to them.Appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya gave one arrow injury on the stomach of the 8 CRA No.432/2004 deceased.Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant No.2 Nahariya s/o Makana, appellant No.3 Babu s/o Makana and appellant No.4 Gor Singh s/o Badiya, who were, of course, along with appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya, had any common intention to cause death of the deceased.Appellant No.1 Jamu alone can further be attributed with the knowledge that the injury, which he had intended, was likely to cause death.To this extent, the impugned conviction deserves to be modified.As regards jail sentence, it is seen that appellant No.1 Jamu s/o Badiya has already suffered imprisonment for more than eleven years, while other appellants have already suffered imprisonment for more than two years.All this appears sufficient to meet the ends of justice.Copy of this judgment be sent to the trial Judge.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,414,664 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 31.01.2016 relating to Crime No.39/2016 registered at Police Station Madhoganj, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 370-A, 370-B and 506/34 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It was alleged by the prosecutrix that she was called from Calcutta by her friend Priya and thereafter, the prosecutrix was introduced to Chhotu @ Vijay Choudhary who proposed to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- per day if she visits with the customers.Thereafter, Chhotu @ Vijay Choudhary set her in an auto-rickshaw in which the applicant was also sitting.The applicant with his companion told their names to the prosecutrix and thereafter, the prosecutrix had lodged the FIR.There is no allegation that the applicant has committed any rape or sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.Actually, the applicant is a travel agent and he was taking the prosecutrix alone in the auto-rickshaw.The prosecutrix appears to be a consenting party.Her dispute took place with the co-M.Cr.C. No.1921/2016 accused on the price fixed.The applicant is in custody since 31.01.2016 and the presence of the applicant is no more required during the investigation.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposes the bail application.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.It is directed that the applicant namely Avinash Tomar be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with a surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of CJM, Gwalior to appear before the Committal Court and the trial Court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE SS
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,574,164 |
Respondent No.l is a Director of M/s. ContinentalTransport and Construction Corporation Limited.Some of theother directors of the company are one Ramesh Gandhi and oneMahesh Gandhi.The first respondent and the said twodirectors are brothers.In or about February, 1993 a raidwas conducted by the Income Tax Department, Dhanbad on theoffice, residence and the factory Premises of M/s.Continental Transport and Construction Corporation Limitedand the first respondent as well as the other directors ofthe said company.Certain documents were seized during theraids.The documents so seized were stored by the thenAssistant Director (Investigation), Department of IncomeTax, Dhanbad in one of the steel almirahs kept in hischamber.In fact the local police hadfiled a final report before the Chief Judicial MagistrateDhanbad.The report, however, was pending and had not beenaccepted when the Central Government with the consent of theState Government issued the impugned notification.As aresult.J U D G M E N T Mrs.Sujata V. Manohar.leave granted.During the night of 8th/9th March, 1993 thedocuments seized were burnt after breaking open the office'ssteel almirah in which documents were kept.In respect ofthis incident local police registered an FIR bearingNo.159 dated 9.3.1993 in Police Station, Dhanbad, Dhansarunder Sections 457, 436, 427, 201 and 120-B of the IndianPenal Code and under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damageto the Public Properties Act, 1984 against, inter alia, thefirst respondent and other persons.The investigation wascarried on by the local police.Thereafter, at the request and with the consent of theState of Bihar as per notification dated 2 6.7994, theCentral Government by its notification/order dated26.10.1994 issued under Section 6 of the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment Act, 1946 authorised the firstappellant, Central Bureau of Investigation, to investigatethe said offences.Thepresent appeal arises from an order of a learned SingleJudge of the Patna High Court quashing the saidnotifications.This is, however not the first such proceeding.Earlierrespondent No.1 herein and other accused persons filed awrit petition on or about 7.2.1995 in the High Court ofCalcutta in respect of the same criminal proceedings.TheCalcutta High Court by its order dated 9.2.1995 disposed ofthe writ petition by directing that the venue of theinvestigation be shifted from Dhanbad to Ranchi and theinvestigating officers be changed.The first respondent than filed a writ petition beforethe Patna High Court for identical reliefs of quashing thesaid notifications.The Patna High Court allowed the writpetition holding that the impugned notifications mustdisclose reasons as to why the investigation was beingentrusted to the Delhi Special Police Establishment.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,418,005 |
Supporters of the Trinamool Congress (hereinafter referred to as 'T.M.C') party who were working in the adjacent fields came running to his rescue.The miscreants attacked those persons with sharp weapons.They dragged Sk Safique and those who came to his aid to Suchpur Club, while continuously beating and assaulting them.These persons were dragged out, one at a time, from the club room and killed mercilessly by assaulting them with fire-arms, bombs, muskets, sticks and tangis.The dead bodies were strewn in the fields beside the Suchpur Baitara Gravel Road.Ten persons were killed on the spot.One of the persons who were brutally assaulted died on the way to hospital.PW 1, who is the first informant, is the brother of one of the victims, Sk Safique.He has stated that he was riding a bicycle and following his brother Safique who was driving a tractor, which was hired out by him for cultivation, towards village Binera.The PW 1 was going to the Kuchutipara bazar.According to him, while proceeding along the morum road running through the lands of Bachhu Miya and Babu Miya, he found supporters of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [hereinafter referred to as 'C.P.I.(M)'] party and the party flags fluttering in that place.Members of T.M.C. party who were cultivating the lands in the nearby fields reached the spot.The assailants decided that Safique and other villagers from the T.M.C. party should be taken to Suchpur village.PW 1 has stated that Safique and other persons were then confined in a club room in Suchpur village.Thereafter one Nitya Narayan Chatterjee - Appellant no. 23, Mohon Sk. - Appellant no. 32, Narayan Ghosh - Appellant no. 33 held a meeting near the club.Nitya Narayan Chatterjee who had a knife in his hand proclaimed that those who were brought to the club should be murdered.Acting on his instigation 10 persons, including Safique, were murdered on the spot.One Harai Sk. died on the way to the hospital.PW 1 has identified the accused persons in the dock.PW 4 observed that some persons of Dannyapara were being taken towards Suchpur village.He went to the club which was situated near the Suchpur village and found that some persons, including those from his village, had been brought there.He could not name all of them but four persons from his village were Sabur Sk., Rasul Box, Salamat Sk and Nizam.He is a cousin of Sk.Safique who died on the fateful day.He has stated that he saw a stationary tractor between Suchpur and Nabasta villages when he was proceeding to Nabasta.He found 40 to 50 persons were making a noise near the tractor.He saw Safique was being assaulted with lathis.He has spoken about 10 or 11 persons being detained in a room and that some of the local leaders of the C.P.I. (M) were discussing something.These leaders included Nitya Narayan Chatterjee, Golam Sarwar, Mohan Sk., Narayan Ghosh, Badiutjamal, Manirul Haque, Benukar Mondal, Gopal Majhi.According to him, after the discussion these persons questioned why the persons detained were still alive.He has then described the manner in which Nitya Narayan Chatterjee brought Safique out of the room, clutching his hair and then stabbed him on his cheek.I saw the dead body lying on his back with head towards the east and legs towards the west on the land of Mohan's Country brick kiln.Complexion dark."I, Sub-Inspector Niranjan Biswas Nanoor P.S. along with constable Benu Kar Roy going to the Shat Molla Pukur Suchpur Nabasta granel Road, and as per the order of O.C. Nanoor P.S. started to prepare Surathal report of the aforesaid deceased whose age would be 32 approximately.The deceased was seen lying on his back in the side of paddy field beside the brick kiln of Mohan Sheikh, by the side of Suchpur Nabasta granel road.The deceased was wearing white full shirt, terry cotton check lungi mark of injury by sharp weapon on the head.Complexion dark, light built, marks of injury on various places of the body.Head towards south and legs towards north.Dead bodies lying scattered on various places.Fingers of hands closed, two eyes closed, mouth open, photograph of dead body taken."The inquest reports are found to speak of critical penetrating/incisive injuries with a sharp weapon and such observation is noticeably absent in the post mortem reports.One of the accused was arrested later and he was tried along with the other seventy six accused.They have also been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years and a fine of `1000/-(Rupees one thousand only) for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. The other accused have been acquitted.Ghastly and vicious crimes have been committed in this case where 11 persons have been murdered.Before proceeding with the matter, it is necessary to mention here that investigation conducted in this case was abysmal reflecting an alarming state of affairs where the police did their utmost to ensure that the perpetrators of the crime went scot free.Statements of all the witnesses have not been recorded by the police.There is no seizure of the weapons used in the assault, nor of any other relevant articles.This is the sorry situation although there were three Investigation Officers who handled this case consecutively.The careless, perfunctory and lackadaisical investigation reflects a sad story and is a telling comment on the role of the police in this case.In spite of all these shortcomings this Court has attempted to sift the grain from the chaff in order to ascertain the truth of the prosecution case.The story of the prosecution in brief is that on 27th July, 2000 at about 6 or 6.30 a.m. one Sk.Safique was driving a tractor from his village Purandarpur to Suchpur.When he was proceeding alongside the land of one Bacchu Miya and Babu Miya in his tractor, a large number of people armed with weapons like tangis, spears, muskets, bombs and rifles suddenly attacked him.The inquest was conducted between 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. on the same day.The corpses were then sent for the post mortem examination.The FIR was lodged at 2.45 p.m. against 53 persons.The charge was framed against 81 persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 326, 307, 302, 120B of the I.P.C. and Section 9B(2) of the Indian Explosives Act. The case was filed against 4 persons on 24th January, 2002 as they were absconding.The case was committed to the Sessions Court on 16th September, 2002 against seventy six persons besides one person who was arrested later.Seventy seven accused were tried by the Sessions Court.Thirty two witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case.Out of these witnesses, PWs 1, 4, 6, 9, 10 and 14 claim to be eye- witnesses.The relatives of the deceased were also examined as witnesses.Four doctors were examined to prove the post mortem reports.Three witnesses examined by the prosecution have been declared hostile.The accused have examined three witnesses to rebut this evidence.The broad contours of the arguments of the counsel for the appellants are:(v) No independent witness was examined before the Court.All the witnesses were relatives of the deceased and, therefore, were interested witnesses.Witnesses who had been named in the FIR were not examined.(vi) The medical evidence does not tally with the ocular evidence.The injuries mentioned in the post mortem report do not match with the testimony of the witnesses or the inquest report.(vii) The evidence led by the prosecution is untrustworthy.(viii) Although the accused have been charged for committing an offence under Section 149, the common object of the accused has not been proved.The reasons for the delay could be varied.It may have occurred because of the number of victims in the case, the atmosphere prevailing at the scene of offence, the palpable fear in the mind of the complainant, etc.He fortified his argument by submitting that there is ample evidence on record to show that the inquest was conducted before the FIR was lodged, and that the first information was received between 8.05 a.m. and 9.40 a.m. by PW 31, the Investigating Officer.Mr. Moitra has submitted that there is a deliberate suppression of material by the prosecution as the first information received by the police has not been brought on record.He further submitted that if one accepts the FIR as it is, there is a substantial delay in filing the same.He pointed out that there is no explanation at all as to why there was a delay.The general diary entry was recorded at the Nanoor Police Station at 7.55 a.m. indicating unnatural deaths had occurred.The police left for Suchpur village where the incident had occurred, approximately 10 kms.away from the police station.The written complaint was received by the Investigating Officer at the place of the offence at 1.45 p.m. and was forwarded to Nanoor Police Station.This complaint was treated as an FIR.Therefore, it was not produced in the Court.PW 31, the Investigating Officer, has disclosed that five pages of the case diary in this case were missing.PW 1, the eye- witness in this case and brother of the deceased Safique, is the first informant.He has stated that he lodged written complaint at Nanoor P.S. through the police who came on the spot after hearing about the occurrence of the deaths.He has stated that he handed over a written complaint to the police on that day.He has further corroborated the statement of the PW 1 that the written complaint, transcribed by him, was handed over to the police between 1.30 p.m. and 1.45 p.m. at the scene of offence.The FIR contains the names of 53 persons who were arraigned for trial.Not only the names of the persons but even their fathers' names and the villages these persons held from have been mentioned in the FIR.It appears from the evidence on record that the police were alerted about the occurrence of the incident between 8 a.m. and 9.40 a.m. The inquest reports indicate that those inquests were conducted between 10.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. The police thus rushed to scene of offence after being intimated about the unnatural deaths on the basis of an entry in the General Diary which, in our opinion, cannot be considered as the FIR.In the first case the FIR was lodged the day after the incident by a woman who was allegedly raped.In the second case, the FIR was lodged eight hours after the incident had occurred.The incident occurred between 6 a.m. and 6.30 a.m. The palpable apprehension in the minds of the witnesses at that time when the incident occurred can be gathered from their testimonies.It took PW 1 sometime to gather his wits about him, find a scribe and dictate his complaint.Moreover PW 1 thus had time enough to mention the names of only those persons who were allegedly responsible for the crime from the mob which had gathered at the scene of offence.PW 1 has mentioned that one Khaleque Sk., Akbar Ali - PW16, Golam Hossain - PW 6, Samser Alam - PW 9 and Golam Mustafa - PW 4 have witnessed the incident.He has further testified that he handed over the written complaint to the police who had arrived at the spot after hearing of the incident.The complaint was transcribed by Abdul Karim - PW 2 because he was not in a fit mental condition to write the same.PW 1 was a witness to the seizure list which records the recovery of a pipe gun and blood stained earth.In his cross-examination PW 1 has admitted that he and the other members of his family were supporters of the T.M.C. and that Safique was an active worker of the party.He has also admitted that the other witnesses who he has mentioned in his examination-in-chief were active supporters of the T.M.C. He testified that there were about 100 to 150 villagers in Suchpur village, most of whom were supporters of the CPI(M).He has spoken of the enmity between his brother Safique and the villagers of Suchpur due to political reasons.He denied that he had any knowledge about a case being filed against Safique and others over the same incident.The further cross-examination of this witness has brought out certain contradictions and omissions in his evidence, when contrasted with the FIR that he had lodged.He has categorically stated that nobody carried a revolver when the accused were taking away his brother and others.He did not see those persons assaulting the deceased by lathis, ballams or tangis when they were taking him towards Suchpur village.He has then stated that he was standing at a distance of about 100 cubits away from the place where the victims were first assaulted and then chased towards Suchpur village.According to him, about 50 to 80 persons had assembled at the place when the incident occurred.They surrounded his brother.However, he has admitted that he did not inform the police at that stage nor did he go home to inform his other brothers about the attack on Safique.He has conceded that it was for the first time that he had stated before the Court that a meeting was held by Nitya Narayan Chatterjee (Appellant no.23), Mohan Sk (Appellant no. 32) and Narayan Ghosh (Appellant no.33) near the club.He then agreed that he has disclosed for the first time before the Court that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee was armed with a knife.He has further deposed that he could not remember whether he has made any statement before the police during the investigation.He has admitted that he could not remember whether he had mentioned in his written complaint that Nitya Narayan had instigated the others to murder the victims.He has also disclosed that while his brother and others were chased by some persons who were known to him and others were strangers, none of them chased him.The learned Counsel for the appellants have all submitted that there are too many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW 1 for him to be considered as a credible witness.They have submitted that PW 1, being the brother of the deceased Safique is an interested witness and his testimony contains embellishments and additions and, therefore, it ought to be discarded.They have also pointed out that the witness was unable to explain why the mob did not attack him and they have criticised the witness for his lack of courage in defending his brother.It is true that there are certain omissions in the FIR.Some statements have been made before the Court by PW 1 for the first time.However, these statements which have been included in the testimony of PW 1 cannot be considered to be embellishments because he is related to one of the victims.The judgments cited at the bar reflect that an FIR need not be a graphic description of what exactly happened during the incident.It must contain the outline of the manner in which the incident occurred, the time and place of the occurrence in order to give the police a fair idea of what had happened and to set in motion the criminal justice system.However the statement about Nitya Narayan inflicting a stab wound appears to be an afterthought and therefore has not been believed by the Sessions Court.However, the rest of the testimony of PW 1 is not unbelievable.The conduct of PW 1 to refrain from trying to rescue his brother is not unnatural as it is obvious that he was overwhelmed with the circumstances and apprehensive of being targeted by the mob.He has stated that there were several other persons who were detained in the club.He has named the other victims.According to him, a mob of around 200 to 300 persons had assembled there when he reached the place.He has stated that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee, Golam Sarowar, Mohan Sk., Abdul Samad, Narayan Ghosh held a meeting.He has further stated that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee dragged Safique out of the club room by clutching his hair and assaulted him with a knife near his ear.According to PW 4, Nitya Narayan Chatterjee then ordered others who were attending the meeting to kill those persons who were detained in the club room.He has stated that all the assembled persons killed the victims using lathis, stones, spears, ballams, etc. and left their bodies on the morum road.This witness claimed that after the incident, where 10 persons were killed on the spot and one succumbed to his injuries while on the way to hospital, he returned to his field and resumed cultivating his land.He has stated that these accused who he had seen in the dock were present at the place of occurrence.In the lengthy cross-examination of this witness he has admitted that it was for the first time that he had disclosed before the Court that when he reached near the club house, he found about 200 to 300 persons had assembled there, and that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee, Golam Sarowar, Mohan Sk., Abdul Samad and Narayan Ghosh held a meeting.He has reiterated the manner in which Safique was dragged out of the club room by Nitya Narayan Chatterjee and assaulted near his ear with a knife.This witness has said that no identification parade was held in his presence and that he had identified the accused for the first time in the Court.He has then stated that he did not call out to other persons who were cultivating lands near his own land when he found that persons from his village were being taken away by the mob.He has expressed the fear that he experienced due to which he did not raise an alarm.He has truthfully said that Safique was his relative and was a member of the T.M.C. He has affirmed that the corpses were strewn all over the place but they were not visible from his land, though the club house was visible.They submitted that it was impossible to believe that after a ghastly incident, as claimed by the prosecution, had occurred PW 4 would have been in a frame of mind to return to his task of tilling his fields.Mr. Singh for the prosecution has cited judgments in support of his contention that the reaction of a witness to an incident will depend upon his frame of mind.In the case of Palwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 2013 SC (Criminal) 1774 the Supreme Court has cautioned against the rejection of the testimony of an eye-witness merely because he did not make any attempt to rescue the deceased when there were four persons who were assaulting the deceased with dangerous weapons.The Court observed that in the present day and age one cannot expect an unarmed person to get entangled and suffer unnecessary harm by falling as "cheap prey" in the hands of criminals who were assaulting a person with a dagger and other weapons.The testimony of PW 4 is credible.He has been able to identify only some of the appellants.He has also mentioned the political rivalry between the victims and their assailants.Apart from this, he has corroborated the testimony of PW 1 with respect to the assault on Sk.He has also identified the persons who held a meeting prior to the death of the victims.He has identified some of the accused in the Court.He has claimed that he has been interrogated by the Investigating Officer at Nanoor Police Station.He has denied that there was any dispute with respect to the land owned by Bacchu Miya and Babu Miya.He has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not been called for any test identification parade and that he had identified the accused for the first time in the Court.The next eye-witness examined is PW 9, the uncle of the deceased Safique.He has stated that when he reached Suchpur village he heard a hue and cry.He reached the club of Suchpur village where he found a crowd of 100 to 200 people and heard that some persons had been detained in the club room.He claims to have seen Nitya Narayan Chatterjee bringing out Sk.Safique from the club room and stabbing him with a knife on his cheek.He has corroborated the evidence of the other eye witnesses that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee exhorted the others present to kill those who had been detained.He claims to have identified the victims.In his examination in chief he has stated that he was interrogated by the Investigating Officer earlier and that he had identified the accused for the first time in the Court room.In his cross- examination he has conceded that he did not go to the police station to inform them about the incident at Suchpur village, but that the police came to his house the next day.He has also denied having seen Safique being assaulted by 40 or 50 persons who were bringing him from the field.The suggestions put to him in the cross-examination that he had made certain statements to the police have been denied by him.He has agreed that all the accused were respectable persons of the village.He has repeated the incident of Nitya Narayan Chatterjee having stabbed Safique with a knife and exhorting others to kill those who were detained in the club room.This witness in his cross-examination admitted that he never went to Suchpur village prior to 27th July, 2000, the date of the incident.He has admitted that he did not inform the police of the incident because he feared the consequences.He has denied that he had made any allegations against the accused to the police and admitted that he had named them for the first time in the Court.PW 14 has stated in his evidence that he heard that somebody was confined in the club room.He was a member of the Revolutionary Socialist Party (R.S.P.) till the year 2000 and later joined T.M.C. He has admitted that he is related to the deceased Safique through marriage.He has also admitted that he was an accused in the Nanoor P.S. case no. 69 of 2000 and was released on bail.He has claimed that he informed the police in his statement that Nitya Narayan Chatterjee had stabbed Safique on the cheek.He has also claimed that he was not aware whether he is arraigned as an accused in several criminal cases which were suggested to him during the course of cross-examination.There are several discrepancies, omissions and additions in his deposition which have been revealed in the testimony of PW 31, the Investigating Officer who recorded his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He is not a dependable witness and his evidence is not creditworthy.44. PWs 15, 16, 17 and 18 are relatives of the deceased.They are not eye-witnesses to the incident.Therefore, their testimony is not of much use to the prosecution.PWs 3, 5 and 12 who are villagers have turned hostile.Their depositions do not aid the prosecution in any way.However, they have all stated that they have not been interrogated by the police with respect to the death of the 11 persons in Suchpur village.Considering the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it is apparent that they have corroborated each other.In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove that Safique was assaulted initially with lathis after being dragged off his tractor.He was then marched off to a room which the prosecution claims was the Suchpur club house.Ten other persons were detained with him in the club house.The act attributed to Nitya Narayan Chatterjee, i.e., appellant no. 23 who allegedly dragged Safique out of club room, clutching his hair and stabbed him on his cheek cannot be believed.This vital information was not disclosed in the FIR.He then exhorted the people to kill all the others who were detained.All the eye-witnesses have identified the accused in the Court for the first time.In our opinion, the testimony of PWs 1, 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 is credible.Despite the fact that most of them are related to the deceased Safique, it is not necessary to discard their testimony because they are either interested witnesses or related to the deceased.Their testimonies have been recorded five years after the incident.There can be no doubt that these witnesses have deposed truthfully with regard to the main incident.However, the evidence of PW 14 is a little dubious.This witness was implicated in criminal offences in respect of an incident which occurred a few hours prior to the present one by the present appellants and was facing a criminal trial.PWs 27, 28, 29 and 30 are the doctors who conducted the autopsy on the victims.The post mortem reports and the evidence of the doctors, reveal that most of the injuries sustained by the victims were apparently in the nature of lacerated wounds and multiple bruises over various parts of bodies of the victims.Many of the victims had sustained fractures of various parts of their limbs and faces, besides some had suffered intracranial haemorrhages.The doctors have opined that the injuries sustained by each of the victims were sufficient to cause death in the normal course.It has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the inquest reports mentioned certain injuries like incised wounds and stab wounds whereas the post mortem reports do not record details of such injuries.It is further submitted that when there is a variance in the medical reports and ocular testimony, it is the medical report which will prevail.They have pointed out that although the eye-witnesses have claimed that each of the accused were armed with weapons like tangis, spears, muskets, bombs and rifles, lacerated wounds cannot be inflicted by such weapons.Therefore, the evidence of the eye-witnesses cannot be believed.As noted earlier, ocular evidence has primacy over the medical evidence unless the account of the eye-witnesses is totally inconsistent with the other evidence on record, according to various pronouncements of the Supreme Court.Surprisingly, none of these weapons have been recovered by the police; one more instance of the haphazard investigation.However, when the doctors have opined that the nature of injuries inflicted on the victims was such as would cause death of a normal human being, there is no reason to doubt the post mortem reports.Furthermore, the eye- witnesses have stated that they saw the dead bodies of the victims who were detained in the club house being scattered all over the morum road.The evidence of the defence witnesses does not assist the appellants.They have deposed that the miscreants exploded bombs due to which Anowar Sk was injured on his left leg.Nanoor P. S. case no. 69 of 2000 was lodged in respect of this incident according to defence witnesses.This case was then tried as Sessions Case no. 130 of 2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Suri, Birbhum.PW 14 was accused no. 18 in that case.Each of them has been questioned regarding the inculpatory and incriminating material against them and their explanation has been sought.Not only has the incriminating material in the deposition of the eye-witnesses and other witnesses, but the medical testimony also has been put to the accused.He was not able to deny whether the original FIR was suppressed and another FIR was filed.It was only after this witness was recalled for cross-examination that he disclosed that such statements had been recorded.The next issue to be addressed is whether there was any meeting of minds for commission of the offence under Section 149 IPC.Considering the principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Subal Ghorai (supra) regarding an unlawful assembly and the scope of Section 149 of the IPC, there can be no doubt that there was an unlawful assembly at the place of incident.The common object which can be deciphered from the material on record was to kill those who had been detained in the Suchpur club.Although the meeting was held only by appellant nos. 23, 1, 32, 33, 12, 13, 24 and 34, it was appellant no. 23, i.e., Nitya Narayan Chatterjee who exhorted others to kill the persons detained.From the evidence on record it is obvious that the common object of the unlawful assembly was formulated on the spur of the moment to kill those who had been detained, although the exhortation or instigation came from Nitya Narayan Chatterjee and others.The witnesses have proved that the others present in the mob shared the common object though they may not have committed the overt act.The conviction against them is, therefore, set aside.All the other appellants have been identified by more than one witness in the Court and they have spoken of their presence at the scene of offence.They were all part of an unlawful assembly which had the common object to kill the victims.Any Investigating Officer, in fairness to the prosecutrix as well as the accused would have recorded the statements of the two witnesses and would have drawn up a proper seizure-memo in regard to the 'chaddi'.Safique was abducted.The photographs taken at the inquest were not marked as exhibits.However, on recall on the 24th September, 2007 PW32 deposes as follows:-"PW1 Sk.Hair black but colour seen.Marks of deep injuries seen on the head, left ear lobe, right legs, both hands.Blood seen on the face.Eyes half closed, mouth open, teeth (illegible) out, fist closed medium built, wearing red full shirt and light blue lungi I properly (emphasis supplied) examined the dead body by turning it upside down.No other marks of injury is evident.From preliminary investigation it is revealed that on 27.7.2000 the deceased with few of his men was going to his land.At that time there was an alteration between C.P.M. and T.M.C. In the said incident the deceased received injury by a sharp weapon and along with his other companions he too died on the spot.Even then in order to find out the actual cause of death, the body is sent for P.M. to Bolpur S.D. Hospital under the guard of constable 848 Uttam Kr.The inquest report of another dead body prepared by PW24 reads as follows:-
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,419,203 |
" I had come to the Court on 21.08.2010 at about 10.15 hrs.I was standing in the corridor waiting for my lawyer when Shr.Being alone, I was severely beaten up and then was taken to the PS Wazirganj, Lucknow where I was asked to sit in a corner.After about one and half hour a compromise was directed to be signed by me by force before the police and about 30-40 lawyers.I had no option but to sign.Since there was completely dark, none of the contents of the alleged compromise could be seen by me nor could I know what was written therein.My cell phone was even taken away and the same was handed back to me later on ghy the SO, PS Wazirganj, Lucknow.Then I informed my brother and told him that I was at PS Wazirganj, Lucknow.Thereafter at about 8.00 O'Clock in the evening when my brother came, with him I came back home.There was heavy down pour and there was no electricity in the area."Devender Singh Rawat) Vs.Avas Vikas Parishad and Smt. Vidhya Vati Tripathi (mother of accused Siddharth Tripathi) etc. listed in Court No. 37 in the Civil Court at Lucknow.Rawat was standing outside the Court, when Sh.Siddharth Tripathi who is also an advocate in the above case, threatened and challenged him that though he had obtained order from the High Court for constituting 'Commission' in the matter but he can't go alive from the Court.Siddharth Tripathi tried to assault the complainant but he tolerated the same and kept mum.Bansi Lal Arya priest of his neighboring temple were coming out from the court campus, Sh.Siddharth Tripathi along with Vijay Prakash Tiwari, advocate and 30-40 other lawyers beat Sh.Rawat badly on the road in front of the Court Gate, as a result of which he suffered several injuries, Sh.Tripathi also snatched Rs.2500/- from Sh.Devender Singh Rawat, complainant.However, during the investigation, the factum of snatching Rs.2500/- by he accused Siddharth Tripathi and abusing by accused persons to complainant could not be substantiated through reliable evidence.That Sh.Siddharth Tripathi, Sh.Vijay Prakash Tiwari and other advocates forcibly took the complainant Sh.Devender Singh Rawat to the Police Station Wazirganj, Lucknow and tried to get registered a false FIR against him but the SHO Wazirganj resisted and did not register any FIR and directed Sh.Kunwar Pal Singh, Head Moharrir, P.S. Wazirganj to intervene and get the dispute settled.That the accused Siddharth Tripathi, Vijay Prakash Tiwari and his associates also forced complainant Devender Singh Rawat to sign some documents purported to be a 'compromise letter' in the campus of the PS Wazirganj, Lucknow.Under the aforesaid pressure, he signed that letter but he was not allowed to read the same before signing.Moreover, that compromise letter could not be recovered during investigation by CBI.Thereafter the matter came to the notice of this Court by means of a Writ Petition No. 9925 (MB) of 2010 (Prashant Singh Gaur Vs.He was reportedly forced to compromise the case under duress"6.The complaint made by Sri Devendra Singh Rawat against the applicant and others was as under:--"In compliance to the order dated 28.10.2010 of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in a Writ Petition No. 9925 (MB) of 2010, this case RC DST 2010/S/0007 was registered on dt. 04.11.2010 U/S. 143, 147, 323, 341, 342 & 506 IPC against Siddharth Tripathi Advocate, Civil Courts, Lucknow along with 30-40 lawyers.During investigation several witnesses were examined and documents collected.The investigation has disclosed that Sh.Devender Singh Rawat, complainant, was present in the Court campus on 21.08.2010 for doing pairvi of civil case titled Shyam Singh Rawat (father of the complainant Sh.After attending the court when Sh.Devender Singh Rawat along with Sh.Thereafter, Sh.Ravinder Singh Rawat (the brother of Sh.Devender Singh Rawat), after receiving information about the said incident, arrived in the campus of PS Wazirganj, Lucknow and rescued his brother Devender Singh Rawat from the clutches of accused Siddharth Tripathi, Vijay Prakash Tiwari and other persons.During the investigation, the complainant Devender Singh Rawat expressed his inability to identify the other accused persons.That after complainant Sh.Devender Singh Rawat went to Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow and got his injuries examined.The Medico Legal examination dated 22.08.2010 conducted at Balrampur Hospital, Lucknow also confirmed the infliction of several injuries on his body due to aforesaid incident of beating by the accused persons and their associates.That Sh.Devender Singh Rawat, complainant also sent a complaint to DIG/SSP, Lucknow on 23.08.2010 and to District Judge, Lucknow on 25.08.2010 mentioning about the said occurrence.During the investigation the complainant had pointed the place of occurrence and sketch map of the scene of crime was prepared by Sh.S. K. Rao, Junior Engineer, CPWD, Lucknow at the instance of informant Sh.Devender Singh Rawat.Then, when the investigation was under progress, the accused Siddharth Tripathi again tried to obtain a compromise letter, affidavit etc. from the complainant so that the FIR of this case could be closed against him and he managed to send the same by post to various authorities of CBI etc. But those moves were just for the sake of saving himself from culpability.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
157,433,525 |
a hy This application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to ad applicants Goldi alias Nirajnan, Madhav, Aman Singh, Raju M Shilavat and Narbada alias Bablu in connection with Crime No.139/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 435, of 436 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station rt Gairatganj, District Raisen.ou The arrests of the applicants herein are required in the aforementioned case.The allegations against them is that they set fire C to a tent from which alcohol was being sold by the complainant who is h stated to be a liquor contractor.All the other sections but for section ig 436 IPC relating to arson are all bailable in nature.Under the circumstances, prima facie, the application of section 436 IPC appears to be misplaced.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the instant application for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of the applicants.Certified copy as per rules.Pr a (ATUL SREEDHARAN) hy JUDGE ad M Digitally signed by of ps PRASHANT rt SHRIVASTAVA ou Date: 2017.11.30 C 13:43:08 +05'30' h ig H
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,744,091 |
2-This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, 26.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 1,2 and 3 (Annexure No.7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively).Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the petitioner on the post of Principal of the Janta Inter College Sohsa, Mathiya, Kushinagar under the impugned orders dated 24.12.2019, 26.12.2019 and 26.12.2019 passed by respondent no. 1,2 and 3 (Annexure No.7, 8 and 9 to the writ petition respectively) and to give all service benefits including salary for the post of Principal."3- On 26.2.2020, this Court passed the following order:"Second Supplementary Affidavit filed today, is taken on record.Learned standing counsel representing the respondent nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel for respondent nos.5 and 6 pray for and are granted a week's time to file counter affidavit.In the counter affidavit, the State respondents shall also disclose the authority of law under which the impugned order has been passed.They shall also file a copy of the inquiry report, if any.Put up in the Additional Cause List on 5.3.2020."4-Despite afore-quoted order dated 26.2.2020, the respondents have not filed any counter affidavit.5-Standing Counsel on instructions states that in the matter of the F.I.R. No.0722 of 2019 dated 18.12.2019, under Sections 419, 420, 406 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Kasya, lodged by the committee of management against the petitioner, the police has submitted final report dated 6.2.2020 before the concerned court, which has not yet been accepted.6-By the impugned order dated 24.12.2019, the Joint director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur, has directed the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, to take action against the petitioner working as Officiating Principal on the basis of a complaint received against him.The impugned order dated 26.12.2019 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar in consequence to the order of the Joint Director of Eduction, Gorakhpur, whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar, has directed the committee of management to take action against the petitioner.On the same day, the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 was passed by the manager of the respondent no.3 institution, whereby he initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and reverted him.7- Despite being asked and also despite the afore-quoted order dated 26.12.2020, none of the respondents have shown authority of law to pass the impugned orders.By the impugned order dated 26.12.2019, the petitioner has not been suspended instead he has been reverted.The committee of management has power to initiate the disciplinary proceeding and to suspend the petitioner under Section 16G (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,373,275 |
The accused A1 to in S.C.No.286 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore, are the appellants herein.They stood charged as under:-Rank of the AccusedCharged under SectionsA1376, 366, 368 r/w.109, 417 IPC, 3(1)(xv) SC/ST Act 1989 & 3(2)(v) SC/ST Prevention of corruption Act 1989 r/w.376, 366, 368 r/w.109, 417 IPC A2376 r/w.109, 366, 368 r/w.109, 417 r/w.109 IPC.A3376 r/w.109, 366 r/w.109, 417 r/w.109, 368 IPC and 3(1)(xv) SC/ST Act 1989 & 3(2)(v) SC/ST Prevention of corruption Act 1989 r/w. 376 r/w.109, 366 r/w.109, 417 r/w.109, 368 IPCA4417 r/w.109 IPC The trial Court, by judgment dated 23.01.2006, convicted the accused as detailed under :Rank of the AccusedConviction under SectionsSentenceFineA13767 years R.I.Rs.2000/-,indefault, to undergo 3 months R.I.one year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.368 r/w.109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.417 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.3(1)(xv) SC/ST Act 1989one year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.A2366 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.368 r/w.109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.417 r/w.109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.A3366 r/w.109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.P.W.4, by name, Chinnaponnu, is the victim in this case and she belongs to a schedule caste community.When she was studying in 10th standard in the Government High School, Pelanthurai, A1 who also belongs to the same village, and belonging to a backward class community, developed a love affair with P.W.4 and he promised her that he will marry her and forced her to love him.In the first week of September, 2003, while P.W.4 was coming from the school A1 and A2 kidnapped her and took her to A3's house, where A1 promised P.W.4 that he will marry her.Then, A1 and P.W.4 stayed in A3's house for nearly one month.During that period, against the wish of P.W.4, A1 forcibly had intercourse with her.Then, A4 took her to RDO, Virudhachalam, and asked her to give a complaint stating that the parents of P.W.4 compelled her to get married, but she wants to continue her studies and willing to get married.In the meantime, on 29.09.2013, P.W.3, father of P.W.4 gave a complaint before the respondent police.Thereafter, the police informed P.W.3 that his daughter was kept in a Government home.As P.W.3 is not willing to take her from the home, P.W.4 was kept in the home.Subsequently, P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police, in the respondent police, on receipt of the complaint filed by P.W.3, registered a case in Crime No.241 of 2003 for the offences under Sections 366, 376 IPC and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act 1989 and sent the First Information Report, Ex.P.11, to the jurisdiction magistrate and also the copy to the higher officials.On 03.11.2003, near Virudhachalam bus stand, he arrested A1 and remanded him to judicial custody.According to her, on 26.09.2003, A4 brought by P.W.4 to home and P.W.4 told her that her parents compelling her to marry, but she was willing to continue her studies, hence she came out of her house.P.W.4 also told her that, she is having affair with A1 and she was under impression that he will marry her.9. P.W.4 is the victim girl.According to her, she was studying in 10th standard in the Government High School, Pelandurai and A1 promised to marry her, and raped her.Then, in the first week of September 2003, A1 and A2 kidnapped her and kept her in the house of A3 and there, A1 again promised her that he will marry her and they stayed there for nearly one month.368 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.417 r/w. 109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.A4417 r/w.109 IPCone year R.IRs.500/-,in default, to undergo 2 months R.I.and acquitted them in respect of other charges levelled against them.Now, pending appeals, the third appellant/A4 in Crl.A.No.104 of 2006 died on 17.05.2013 and a memo has also been filed to that effect by the learned Government Advocate and hence, the appeal against A4, dismissed as abated.Then, he sent the victim girl for medical examination to the Government Hospital, Viruudhachalam.On 20.11.2003, near Karuvepilankurichi bus stop, he arrested A2 and remanded him to judicial custody.P.W.17 after obtaining community certificate and school certificate of P.W.4, recorded the statement of the doctors, who examined P.W.4 and A1 and on completion of investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed the charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment against the accused, and the accused denied the same.P.W.2 is the helper in the home at Manchakuppam, Cuddalore, and she turned hostile.According to him, her daughter, P.W.4 was studying 10th standard, and A1 had harassed P.W.4, hence he informed A1's father to warn him.Subsequently, on 05.09.2003, P.W.4 was found missing, thereafter, on receipt of an information from P.W.1, he visited the home, then, he has given a complaint before the respondent police.Against her will, A1 had intercourse with her.Then, A4 took her to P.W.1 and on the instruction of A4, she has given statement before P.W.1 and A4 left her in the Government home.According to her, A1 had sexually harassing her daughter and she made complaint against A1, but no action was taken.P.W.7, Special Tahsildar, had given Community Certificates Ex.P.2, and Ex.P.3 to A3, and A4, that they belong to a backward community.P.W.8, Deputy Tahsildar, has given community certificate, Ex.P.4 to A1 stating that he belongs to a backward community.P.W.9, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, examined P.W.4 and has given a report that that P.W.4 is aged about 16 years and she was subjected to sexual intercourse.P.W.10, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore has given certificate Ex.P.8 based on the radiology report, that the age of the victim is about 20 years.P.W.11, Doctor, working in the Government Hospital, Cuddalore, examined A1 and he has given a report Ex.P.9 that there is nothing to suggest that he is impotent.P.W.13, Head master, working in the Government High School, Pelandurai, has given a transfer certificate, Ex.P.W.14 Head Constable, took P.W.4 for medical examination and also produced her before the Judicial Magistrate Court.P.W.17 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, conducted investigation, examined the witnesses, arrested the accused and laid the charge sheet.12.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.However, they did not chose to examine any witness on their side.The family card of A3 is marked as Ex.D.1 showing that he is residing somewhere else not int he place as mentioned by the prosecution.Having considered all the above materials, the trial Court convicted the appellants/accused as stated in the first paragraph of this judgment.Pending appeals, third appellant/A4 in Crl.A.104 of 2006 died and hence, the appeal against A4 was dismissed as abated and only the appellants/A1, 2, & 3 are prosecuting the appeals.I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) appearing for the respondent.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, it could be seen that there was a love affair between A1 and P.W.4 and from the evidence of P.W.4, it could be seen that there is no kidnapping, and she has voluntarily gone with A1 and residing in the house of A3 for more than one month.Hence, the charge against the accused for kidnapping is not made out.Apart from that when P.W.4 has been voluntarily living with A1 and she is a consenting party for the sexual intercourse, hence, the offence under Section 376 IPC also not been made out.Even though P.W.4 belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the prosecution failed to prove the charges under Section 3(1)(v) of SC/ST Act. Hence, sought for acquittal.The learned counsel appearing for A2 submits that A2 already undergone the sentence of one year.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record carefully.18. P.W.4 is the victim girl in this case.From her evidence, it could be seen that she was a minor and she was studying 10th standard at the time of occurrence.The transfer certificate , Ex.P.10, given by the Head Master shows that she was born on 05.12.1987 and the occurrence took place in the year 2003 and hence, she was a minor on the date of occurrence.Even though as per the radiology report, age of P.W.4 was stated about 20 years, in view of the school certificate produced by the prosecution, which is a public document, age of the victim girl at the time of occurrence was only 16 years and hence, she was a minor on the date of occurrence.From the evidence of P.W.4, it could be seen that A1 on the promise of marrying her had sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter, A1 took her to the house of A3, and they stayed there for more than one month and at that time, A1 had intercourse with her against her consent.Thereafter, A4 came to the house of A3 and took her to P.W.1 and left her in the home.The further evidence of P.W.4 is that only on the compulsion of A4 she has given a statement before the RDO and other officials that her parents compelled her to marry and hence, she came out of the house, and only on the compulsion, she has not spoken anything about the kidnapping.P.Ws.3 and 5, parents of P.W.4, have also spoken about the sexual harassment given by A1 and they have also informed the same to the father of A1 and despite the same, he did not stop.P.W.6 has also spoken about the same.P.W.9, Doctor, who examined P.W.4 has clearly stated that she has symptoms of having intercourse several times and she has also given a report Ex.P.7 to that effect.P.W.9, Doctor, has also given a opinion that the age of P.W.4 was about 16 years.From their evidence, it could be seen that A1, on deception, kidnapped P.W.4 and had sexual intercourse against her will and committed the offence.It is the categorical evidence of P.W.4 that A2 along with A1 has kidnapped her and took her to A3's house and they stayed there.There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.4, which was also corroborated by the medical evidence.In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has proved the charge against A1 and A2 beyond any reasonable doubt.So far as the charge against A3 is concerned, he has been convicted under Section 366 r/w.109, 368 and 417 r/w.109 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences.But, absolutely, there is no evidence available on record to show that A3 has abeted A1 in this case.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that A1 and A2 took her to A3's house and they stayed there for nearly one month and there is no evidence that A3 has forcibly confined her in his house.Hence, A3 is entitled for acquittal.Regarding the quantum of sentence is concerned, the trial Court awarded punishment of 7 years for the offence under Section 376 IPC.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that now P.W.4 got married and she is living separately and A1 also got married and he is living with his family separately.The accused have a family to maintain, and sought for reducing the sentence, also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in 2006(2) SCC (Cri) 308 ( Ram Kumar /vs/ State of Haryana), wherein it has been held as follows:" We have carefully analysed the evidence tendered by the prosecution.In our opinion, sufficient evidence was tendered by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.In our opinion, ends of justice would be amply met if we reduce the sentence to three years.We do so accordingly. "Considering all the above aggravating and mitigating circumstances and considering the fact that the occurrence took place in the year 2003 and P.W.4 got married and living with her family and A1 has also got married and living with his family, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence is modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years.In the result,(ii) Since the third appellant/A4 in Crl.A.104 of 2006 has died, the appeal against third appellant/A4 shall stand abated.The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,373,588 |
This revision has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 28.04.2015 passed by I A.S.J. to ASJ, Shujalpur, District-Shajapur in criminal revision No.173/2014, whereby learned Judge rejected the applicant's criminal revision and maintained the order dated 26/09/14 of JMFC Shujalpur wherin learned Judge had rejected the applicant's private complaint under section 203 of Cr.P.C.Brief facts of the case are that applicant filed a private complaint against non-applicant No.1 for the offence u/S.406 of IPC averring that on 29.12.2013 at 1:00 pm present applicant, Santosh and Anil were sitting in the applicant's office at Shujalpur.At that time non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad came and sat in the office.Applicant told Santosh that he is going to give money to Jagdish on which non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad told him that he would give money to Jagdish since he was already going to Aasreta.Therefore, applicant gave Rs.1,00,000/- to non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad and also informed Jagdish on mobile phone that he had given Rs.1,00,000/- to Jamnaprasad for giving it to him.On the same day, Jagdish informed applicant that non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad did not give money to him so he called non-applicant No.1 but he did not receive the call.Then he went to the house of non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad but he was not there.But Jamnaprasad neither returned the money to the applicant nor gave it to Jagdish.Therefore, cognizance for the offence u/S.406 of IPC was taken against the non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad.On that complaint, learned trial Court recorded the statements of applicant and witnesses Santosh and Anil Patidar u/S.202 of Cr.P.C. After that learned trial Court vide order dated 06.05.2014 rejected the applicant's complaint observing that applicant had not filed any written document showing that he gave Rs.1,00,000/- to Jamnaprasad for giving to Jagdish.Being aggrieved from that order applicant filed this petition.On the other hand, such grounds may indicate the need for proceeding further in order to discover the truth after a full and proper investigation.While in the instant case applicant in his statement clearly deposed that on 29.12.2013 at 1:00 pm present applicant, Santhosh and Anil were sitting in the applicant's office at Shujalpur.At that time non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad came and sat there.On the same day, Jagdish informed to applicant that non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad did not give money to him Then he went to the house of non-applicant No.1 Jamnaprasad but he was not there.But Jamnaprasad neither returned the money to the applicant nor gave it to Jagdish.Learned trial court rejected the complaint only on the ground that applicant had not filed any written document while it is not necessary that a person always take a receipt of the sum he is handing over to someone for giving it to some other person.Whether the allegation levelled by the applicant is true or false would be decided after trial and if it is found that applicant had filed false complaint against non applicant no1 to harass him , Non applicant can take appropriate action against him .The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,386,289 |
In this revisional application challenge has been made to the proceeding being Bankura Women Police Station Case No. 25/18 dated 05.06.2018 under Sections 354A/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code being G.R.Case No. 413/2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura, inter alia, on the ground that false allegation has been made against the petitioners out of grudge.It is submitted that the female staffs including nurse have also written a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police whereby and whereunder they have clearly stated that the petitioner no. 2 is a gentle and religious minded person and petitioner no. 1 never made any misbehavior or illegality which fact is supported by the written representation made by the staff members of such nursing home as reflected from Annexure B to this application.Mrs. Subhra Chatterjee, wife of the owner of the nursing home, has also written to the Superintendent of Police, Bankura on 12.06.2018 concerning the Bankura Women Police Station Case No. 25/18 dated 05.06.2018 under 2 Sections 354A/376/511/120B of the Indian Penal Code being G.R.Case No. 413/2018 pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bankura stating the facts that the Opposite Party No. 2 the applicant of the joint application for compromise namely Riya Chakraborty, an employee of the nursing home owned by her husband and demanded an advance payment of Rs. 20000/- to which her husband had refused and she had agreed to give loan of Rs. 3000/- or Rs. 4000/- but without availing the said loan she went away and filed a complaint against her husband.At this stage of investigation the defacto complainant, the prosecutrix herself has jointly filed a compromise petition for quashing of the proceeding under reference.The allegation so made in her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be considered prima facie as an offence allegedly committed by the accused but admittedly there is no antecedence in the nursing home as pointed out in her statement before the learned Magistrate.More so, when the staff members of the nursing home including the female staff and the nurses have joined together to make representation to the Superintendent of Police of the concerned District that such incident has not taken place, I feel that continuation of this proceeding will not be purposive in view of the fact that the prosecutrix herself has on her own volition filed this joint compromise petition for quashing of the proceeding.(Shivakant Prasad, J.)
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,386,847 |
It is alleged that she was harassed and beaten up for dowry by her husband and in-laws.It is also alleged that appellant suspected that deceased was having illicit relationship with her brother-in-law and therefore, he committed the murder of Vandana and Dolly by strangulating them and of Arun by hitting him on head with stone and thereafter to make it look like a suicide, he set them and the house on fire.As per prosecution, the appellant lodged a report on 12.03.2008 at around 02.30 A.M. at Police Station, Rehli that his wife and two children got burnt to death when the fire suddenly broke out in the 3 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 house.According to him, his wife came running in a burnt condition and fell upon him, he tried to douse the fire and in the process, got his hands burnt.It is stated that he also tried to save the children, but they got burnt to death.3 Cr.A. No.1099/2010On the basis of the information, merg was recorded and after spot inspection, body of deceased persons were sent for postmortem.On the basis of statement of witnesses, the FIR under Section 302, 304-B, 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act was registered against the appellant as well as three other co-accused persons, namely, Raman and Devideen (parents of the appellant) and Sabbo @ Savita (sister of the appellant).The postmortem of the deceased persons were conducted by a team of doctors.As per the postmortem report of deceased Vandana and deceased Dolly, the death was caused due to cardio- respiratory arrest, due to asphyxia caused due to strangulation.The burns were found postmortem in nature.As per the postmortem report of deceased Arun, the death was result of cardio-respiratory arrest 4 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 as a result of severe blood loss from head injury.According to the doctor, the burn injuries were postmortem in nature.4 Cr.A. No.1099/2010As per Nandita Dubey, J.:This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.03.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rehli, district Sagar in S.T. No.339/2008, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 (3 counts) and 201 (3 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- (3 counts) 2 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 under Section 302 of the I.P.C. with a stipulation for 300 days rigorous imprisonment in case of default, 5 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- (3 counts) under Section 201 of the I.P.C. with a stipulation for 300 days rigorous imprisonment in case of default.The sentences shall run separately.After completion of the investigation, the accused persons were put to trial.The prosecution examined 23 witnesses.The accused persons refuted the allegations, stating that they had been falsely implicated.In support of their plea, they examined Santosh Kurmi (D.W.-1), to establish that the deceased alongwith her two children committed suicide by putting herself and her children on fire, after pouring kerosene.The trial Court relying on the statements of Deepchand (P.W.-5), Sanju (P.W.-9), Sadarani (P.W.12), Guddibai (P.W.-14), Dr. Rajendra Singh Dagi (P.W.-16), Dr. J.K. Saraf (P.W.-17)and Bhure (P.W.-21) and the medical evidence on record has come to the conclusion that the appellant treated deceased Vandana with cruelty and the death of Vandana, Dolly and Arun was homicidal in nature and recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.5 Cr.A. No.1099/2010separately from appellant's family and the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Vandana was harassed for dowry by them.Shri Manish Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that it is a case of circumstantial evidence as there was no eye witness to the incident.The deceased was inside the room and committed suicide with her two children by pouring kerosene and set themselves on fire.Appellant himself got burnt when he tried to save her.Moreover, the witnesses have not said about deceased Vandana being ill-treated by the appellant.On the other hand, Shri Vikalp Soni, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent/State has supported the impugned judgment.It was contended that finding and conclusion arrived at by the Court below was based on cogent evidence and the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution were sufficient to convict the appellant.We have heard the learned counsel for the 6 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 parties at length and carefully and meticulously perused the record of the trial Court and the evidence adduced by the prosecution.6 Cr.A. No.1099/2010P.W.-9 Sanju brother of deceased Vandana has stated that she rang him up at 8.00 P.M. on the date of incident and asked him to take her away as appellant was beating her and she feared for her life.It is stated that next morning he came to know that his sister and her two children got burnt to death.Similar is the statement of P.W.-12 Sadarani and P.W.-21 Bhure, parents of the deceased.P.W.-14 Guddibai, sister-in-law of deceased Vanadana has also stated that deceased used to tell her about the cruel treatment meted out to her by the appellant.She has stated that two days prior to the incident, Vandana called on the phone of Deepchand (P.W.-5) and asked him to inform her brother and sister-in-law to call her.Her statement is also corroborated by Deepchand (P.W.-5).She has further stated that on the date of incident, at around 8 P.M., Vandana again called and requested them to take her away as appellant had beaten her.P.W.-1 Dwarka Prasad and P.W.-2 Hariram, 7 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 both neighbors of the appellant have stated that they came rushing to the spot after hearing the shouts and found the appellant and other co-accused persons standing outside the house.Despite asking where the children are, the accused persons did not say anything.It is only after searching in the torch light that the dead bodies of Vandana and her two children were found burnt inside the house.7 Cr.A. No.1099/2010Dr. Rajendra Singh Dagi (P.W.-16) and Dr. J.K. Saraf (P.W.-17), who conducted the postmortem have found that the death of Vandana and Dolly was due to asphyxia, caused due to strangulation.According to the doctors, the burn injuries were postmortem in nature, as no soot was found in the trachea or lungs.Whereas the death of Arun was due to cardio-respiratory arrest, as a result of excessive bleeding due to head injury.In this case also, the burns were postmortem, as no soot particles were found in trachea of deceased Arun.Having gone through the testimony of Sanju (P.W.-9), Guddibai (P.W.-14), Dr. Rajendra Singh Dagi (P.W.-16) and Dr. J.K. Saraf (P.W.-17) and the postmortem reports, it is clear that deceased Vandana 8 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 was treated with cruelty by her husband and the death of Vandana, Dolly and Arun was homicidal and not accidental or suicide, as projected by the appellant.8 Cr.A. No.1099/2010In the present case, presence of appellant in the house/place of occurrence is not disputed as he himself went to lodge the merg intimation.The bodies of deceased Vandana, Dolly and Arun were found in the room, which was in exclusive occupation of the appellant and his family.It is also clear from the statement of P.W.-1 Dwarka Prasad and P.W.-2 Hariram that when they reached the place of occurrence, the appellant and other co-accused persons were standing outside the burning house and despite asking, did not tell them who all were inside the house.The postmortem report shows the deceased persons did not died because of the burns as no soot particles were found in the lungs or trachea of deceased Vandana, Dolly and Arun.Since they all died unnaturally in the house of appellant, therefore, it was expected of the appellant to furnish some explanation 9 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. as to the cause of their death.Once the plea of suicide or accidental burn is ruled out, then it would be for the appellant to show as to who else was responsible for killing the deceased persons.It is well settled that in a case of circumstantial evidence, when the accused offers an explanation and the explanation is found to be untrue, then the same offers an additional link to chain of circumstances to complete the chain.9 Cr.A. No.1099/2010In (2007) 12 SCC 288 Swamy Shdaddananda alias Murali Manohar Mishra Vs.10 Cr.A. No.1099/2010The autopsy report shows that 'a blackening and charring' existed so far as Injury No. (i) is concerned.The blackening and charring keeping in view the nature of the firearm, which is said to have been used clearly go to show that a shot was fired from a short distance.Blackening or charring is possible when a shot is fired from a distance of about 2 feet to 3 feet.It, therefore, cannot be a case where the death might have been caused by somebody by firing a shot at the deceased from a distance of more than 6 feet.The lacerated wound was found over grabella (middle of forehead).Once the prosecution has been able to show that at the relevant time, the room and terrace were in exclusive occupation of the couple, the burden of proof lay upon the respondent to show under what circumstances death was caused to his wife.The onus was on him.He failed to discharge the same.This legal position would appear from a decision of this court in Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh [AIR 1972 SC 2077] wherein it was held:"It is in the evidence of Girju PW that only the accused and Churi deceased resided in the house of the accused.To similar effect are the statements of Mani Ram (PW 8), who is the 11 Cr.A. No.1099/2010 uncle of the accused, and Bhagat Ram school teacher (PW 16).According to Bhagat Ram, he saw the accused and the deceased together at their house on the day of occurrence.Mani Ram (PW 8) saw the accused at his house at 3 p.m., while Poshu Ram, (PW 7) saw the accused and the deceased at their house on the evening of the day of occurrence.The accused also does not deny that he was with the deceased at his house on the day of occurrence.The house of the accused, according to plan PM, consists of one residential room one other small room and a varandah.The correctness of that plan is proved by A. R. Verma overseer (PW 5).The fact that the accused alone was with Churi deceased in the house when she was murdered there with the Khokhri and the fact that the relations of the accused with the deceased, as would be shown hereafter, were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt."11 Cr.A. No.1099/2010In the instant case, the explanation given by the appellant regarding the death of his wife and two children is contrary to the medical evidence on record.The appeal filed by the appellant being meritless is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,388,195 |
[2] Brief facts of this case are that on 14.07.2014 Ramkanyabai by pouring kerosene and after alighting, she got 100% burnt.She was treated at Mahidpur; District Hospital, Ujjain; and M. Y. Hospital, Indore.On 15.07.2014 during treatment she was died at Indore.Merg was registered.Dr Deepak Gawli conducted postmortem and opined that Ramkanyabai died due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications.During Merg enquiry it disclosed that applicant, who is the brother- in-law (DEVAR) of deceased was running a grocery shop inThe husband of the deceased stated in police statement that the applicant used to ask his wife for closing of their shop as his business was adversely affected.It is also stated that the applicant used to threat to deceased that if she does not close her shop, then the applicant will kill her family.( Passed on this 12th day of August, 2015 ) ASJ, Mahidpur, District Ujjain in S.T.No.59/2015 on 20.04.2015 framed the charge against the applicant under Section 306 of IPC, against that order this revision is filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure [for short "the Code"].the Village Isankhedi and subsequently husband of deceased- Jeevan has also opened a grocery shop, therefore, the applicant was jealous with them.The applicant used to ask his Bhabhi - deceased Ramkanyabai to close her grocery shop.On one day before the incident i.e. 13.07.2014 applicant has used abusive language to father-in-law of deceased Ramkanyabai.Therefore, father-in-law of deceased Ramkanyabai has made a complaint to Police Station Mahidpur Road.On the basis of Merg enquiry, a Crime No.95/2014 for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC was registered against the applicant and final report was filed.Considering the material on record, learned ASJ, Mahidpur has framed the charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicant.Being aggrieved with this order, the applicant has filed this revision.[3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that from the final report it reveals that the applicant used to ask her Bhabhi to close her grocery shop because it is adversely affecting the business of the applicant.On this basis it cannot be inferred that he has in any manner harass the deceased or instigated to commit suicide.Thus, there is no evidence to frame the charge under Section 306 of IPC against the applicant.order passed by the learned ASJ is bad-in-law.Thus, the applicant be discharged from the charge under Section 306 of IPC.[4] On the other hand, learned Deputy Govt. Advocate argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that just one day before the incident, father-in-law of the deceased had made a complaint at Police Station Mahidpur Road which shows that the applicant used to harass the deceased as she has opened a grocery shop which affects applicant's business.[5] I have considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parities and perused the record.[6] The prosecution case depends on the complaint made by the father-in-law of deceased just one day before the incident i.e. on 13.07.2014 and statements of husband of deceased - Jeevan; father-in-law - Anarji; mother-in-law - Radhabai; and parents of the deceased - Kachru and Pepabai.For appreciating the arguments, I would like to reproduce the complaint dated 13.07.2014 which was made by father- in-law of deceased - Anarji which reads as under :-^^1 lwpuk nsus dk fnukad rFkk le; & fnukad 13&7&2014 ds 21 =00 cts 2 vfHk;ksxh ;k lwpuk nsus okys dk uke] irk o fuokl LFkku& vukj th firk Fkkoj th tkfr ckxjh mez 50 o"kZ fu- xzke- bZ'ku [ksMh 3 vfHk;qDr dk uke] irk o fuokl LFkku& n'kjFk firk x.kir tkfr ckxjh fu- bZ'ku [ksMh 4 ?kVuk dk fnukad] LFkku rFkk le; & fn- 13&7&14 ds 'kke ds 6=00 cts lwpuk dk laf{kIr fooj.k Qj;knh us cgejkg vius yMds thou o iRuh jk/kkckbZ dsFkkuk vkdj tqckuh fjiksVZ fd;k dh esjs cMs HkkbZ x.kir ckxjh dk yMdk n'kjFk ckxjh cksyk fd esus chMh cUMy dh nqdku [kksyh gS rqeus D;ks nqdku [kksy yh esjh nqdku ugha pyrh rw rsjh nqdku can djok blh ckr ij xkyh &xqIrk fd;k euk djus ij ugh ekurk o xkyh xqIrk djrk jgk xokg lq[kjke ckxjh o fd'ku ckxjh ls fjiksVZ djrk gwWA fjiksVZ esjs dgs vuqlkj fy[kh ckn fjiksVZ djokdj lquh lgh gksus ij gLrk{kj fd;sA**"[7] During investigation police has recorded statements of husband of deceased; father-in-law; mother-in- law; and her parents.In substance the statements of all the witnesses are same.The statement of husband of deceased - Jeevan reads as under :-"ppsjk HkkbZ gksus ls esjh ifRu jkedU;k fj'rs esa HkkHkh yxrh gS A n'kjFk dk fj'rk nsoj dk gS A n'kjFk nqdku dks cUn djus dh ckr ij ekFkk iPph dgk lquh djrk Fkk A esjh ifRu jkedU;k us crk;k fd rEgkjk NksVk HkkbZ ges'kk cksyrk gS A HkkHkh rqEgkjh nqdku cUn dj nks] esjh nqdku ugha pyrhA ;g ckr esjh ifRu jkedU;k us esjs firk dks Hkh crkbZ mldh fjiksVZ Fkkus ij dh gSA nqdku cUn djus dh ckr ij n'kjFk cksyrk Fkk] nqdku cUn ugha dh rks HkkHkh rsjs ifjokj dks tku ls [kre dj nwxka A esjh ifRu jkedU;k us ppsjs HkkbZ n'kjFk ds }kjk ekufld :i ls ijs'kku o izrkfMr fd;k blh ckr esa ijs'kku gksdj Lo;a vkx yxkdj esjh ifRu us vkRegR;k dh gS A"[8] From the complaint and the statements, it is clear that the applicant is a cousin brother of Jeevan.Thus, deceased Ramkanyabai was Bhabhi of the applicant.The applicant was running a grocery shop in the Village Isankhedi and subsequently husband of the deceased has also opened a grocery shop due to which applicant's business was adversely affected and being aggrieved he used to ask deceased to close her grocery shop.the applicant has in any manner misbehaved with the deceased.The deceased was residing with her husband and in-laws and the deceased alone was not conducting the grocery shop.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,389,114 |
The case of the prosecution is that the accused beat P.W.3, Poongavanam with crowbar as he strayed his goats in the land of the accused at about 4 p.m on 02.12.2005 in V.Panchalam village.On hearing the same, his mother, P.W.1, Pachaiammal went to the scene of crime and pleaded the accused to leave the goat he took with him.The appellant / accused being caste Hindu abused her who belongs to Scheduled Tribe community by degrading her caste and beat her by pulling her saree and blouse.He also hit the goat on the floor, resulting to its death.P.W.1 along with his son and husband proceeded to the police station with the dead goat.She went to the police station and lodged the complaint.Then she along with her son went to the hospital and took treatment.The case was registered and the Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated the case and laid charge sheet.The Sessions Court framed charges and questioned the accused.Since he denied the charges, he was put on trial.After examination of witnesses, incriminating evidence was put to the appellant / accused under Section 313 (1) (b) Cr.P.C and he denied the same.The trial Court after analysing the evidence acquitted the accused for offence under 323 IPC but convicted for the offence under Sections 324, 354 IPC and 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, resulting to undergo 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- in toto.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly argued that the trial Court without noticing the prior enmity between the parties, unexplained delay of 24 hours in lodging the complaint and suppression of the complaint given to the police, found the appellant / accused guilty and therefore, the appellant / accused is entitled to acquittal by giving benefit of doubt.The learned Government Advocate argued that the trial Court after analysing the evidence has rightly found the appellant / accused guilty for the offences and the delay in FIR has been properly explained and therefore appeal is to be dismissed.7. P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the injured witnesses.Their evidence cannot be brushed aside lightly unless there are sufficient strong reasons.Excepting the injured witnesses, one another eye witness has been examined as P.W.4 and she is admittedly close relative of the above injured witnesses.The following reasons tilt the veracity and genuineness of the evidence of the above said eye witnesses :(i) The complainant P.W.1 herself admits in her evidence that already there was enmity between her family and the accused in straying her goats into the land of the accused.She admits that they used to remove the fence and stray their goats into the land of the accused.Due to that enmity, her two sons were stopped from working in the land of the accused for coolie.Thus due to straying goats in the land of the accused, there was enmity between P.W.1 family members and the accused leading even to stop P.W.3 and his brother from coolie work in the accused land.(ii) P.W.1 admits in her evidence that immediately after the occurrence she went to the police station and lodged the complaint and the police only sent her and her son to the hospital.She has categorically said that prior to giving the present complaint she gave a complaint to the police.The complaint was given at 5.45 p.m on 03.12.2005 based on which the FIR was registered.Therefore there is delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint.Though the Doctor examined the injured at 8 p.m on the alleged date of occurrence there is delay of 24 hours in lodging the FIR and no explanation has been given for such a delay.As already pointed out, the complaint given to the police at the earliest point of time has also been suppressed.(iii) In the compliant, it has been stated that when P.W.1 proceeded to the police station with dead goat, the same was snatched away from her in the bus stop by the accused along with two persons.When the dead goat was snatched away from P.W.1 in the bus stop, the prosecution has not established the above fact through any independent witness.(iv) It is also pertinent to note that the blouse and saree which are alleged to have been torn away by the accused have not been seized and produced in the case.Considering all the above aspects, this Court is of the view that it is not safe to base conviction on the guise of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 though they are injured.The appellant / accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.Giving benefit of doubts, this Court acquit the appellant / accused.P.KALAIYARASAN, Jtsvn In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and accordingly, the order of conviction and sentences imposed on the appellant, dated 14.09.2009 made in S.C.No.175 of 2007 on the file of the Special Court (Principal Sessions Court), Villupuram is set aside.The fine amount, if any paid by the appellant / accused shall be refunded to the appellant.The bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/accused, shall stand cancelled.06.02.2018Index : Yes / NotsvnToThe Special Court (Principal Sessions Court), Villupuram.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Periyathachoor Police Station Villupuram District.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.Crl.A.No.585 of 2009
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,389,317 |
22.02.2021 Court No.28 Item No. 187 Krishnendu Not Pressed CRM 871 of 2021 (Via video Conference) In Re:- An application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No. 05 of 2016 dated 03.01.2016 under sections 147/ 148/ 149/ 323/ 325/ 326/ 332/ 333/ 353/ 186/ 379/ 427/ 435 / 436 / 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 / 4 PDPP and Sections 25/27/35 of the Arms Act;Item No. 187And In Re: Moktarul Sk @ Kalu ...Petitioner Mr. Arup Kumar Bhowmick ...For the Petitioner Mr. Bitasok Banerjee ...For the State On the prayer of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, the application for bail, being CRM 871 of 2021, is dismissed as 'not pressed'.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,399,310 |
Heard Sri Pratik Chandra, learned counsel for applicant, Sri Yatish Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Sanjay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-respondent.This application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Special Session Trial No 828 of 2019, (State Vs.Naman Tripathi and another) arising out of Case Crime No. 834 of 2018, under sections 354, 354Ka, 323 IPC and section 7/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Police Station Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar as well as to quash the charge sheet dated 26.01.2019 as well as cognizance taking order dated 28.06.2019 pending before VIII Additional Sessions Judge Special Judge, POCSO Act, Kanpur Nagar pursuant to the compromise entered into between the parties.A copy compromise deed dated 22.2.2019 has been filed as annexure-5 to the affidavit accompanying this 482 Cr.P.C. application duly signed by the parties.Vide earlier order of this Court dated 8.8.2019 concerned concerned Court below was directed to the verify the compromise arrived at between the parties.A report of learned Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar dated 4.10.2019 whereby the compromise arrived at between the parties has been certified in the presence of the parties.The dispute if any was personal, which has now been amicably settled.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
83,406 |
ShriRamakrishna Hegde contested to the Legislative Assembly fromKanakapura Constituency.The first respondent set-up hiscandidate against Shri Hegde.In the course of the electioncampaign, the first respondent held a press conference onApril 28, 1983 at his residence at Bangalore.(Translation from Kannada)The complainant submitted that the said imputation isfalse to the knowledge of the first respondent and was madewith intention to defame and harm the reputation of thecomplainant.The allegation of smuggling of rice leveledagainst the complainant is absolutely false and that thesaid false news item has lowered the prestige and reputationof the complainant and his family in the eyes of the public.B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.:1. Leave granted.Heard counsel for both the parties.The appeal arises from the judgment and order of alearned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court quashingthe charge framed by the learned Magistrate.While framing the charge, thelearned Magistrate has recorded his reasons therefor.Inthis order, he referred to the objections raised by theaccused and his reasons for rejecting the same.The learnedMagistrate observed: "(O)n going through the evidenceadduced before court by the complainant at this stage, I amof the considered opinion that there exist grounds to framecharge against A. 1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/S. 500I.P.C." The first respondent preferred a Revision (CriminalRevision Petition No.104 of 1989) before the FirstAdditional Sessions Judge, Hubli against the order of thelearned Magistrate.The learned Sessions Judge dismissedthe Revision observing that inasmuch as the learnedMagistrate has framed the charge on a consideration of theevidence adduced by the complainant, oral and documentary,and on being satisfied that there was a prima facie casemade out against the accused, his order is not liable to beinterfered with in Revision.There-upon the first respondent approached the High Court underSection 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code praying for thequashing of the charge.The learned Single Judge allowedthe petition on the Following basis:"From the discussion made above, it has to be said that the approach of the Courts below in ordering to frame charge against the petitioner and the other two accused for an offence punishable under Section 500 IPC is the resultant of non- application of mind to the material available on record and also resultant of incorrect exercise of jurisdiction conferred.The Courts below should have borne in mind that a person can be charged only when the allegations alleged against him are established prima facie and not otherwise, because in criminal cases the Courts must be very cautious and careful before proceeding to frame charge as unnecessary framing of charge on the one hand may result in affecting the persons liberty and on the other hand cause continuous and 128 unnecessary harassment, as it has happened in the instant case.From the allegations made in the complaint and the intention to prosecute the accused by pursuing the complaint the material placed on record and the information gathered at the trial it is clear that it is a matter of mere prestige for both the parties who according to their own version belong to different political faiths.It is not a genuine case of one making any inputation against the other or the other being defamed or his reputation low- ered in the estimation of the public.Respondents 2and 3 who are the Editor and Chief Reporter respectively ofthe newspaper "Samyukta Karnataka", a daily, also attendedthe press conference.The first respondent made scandalousand false imputations against the complainant during thesaid press conference and requested the correspondents topublish the same in their newspapers.The news item aspublished in "Samyukta Karnataka" daily (in its Hubliedition) reads thus:I am of the considered opinion that there exist grounds to frame charge against A.1 to 3 for the offence punishable U/S. 500 I.P.C. In coming to conclusion that charge should be framed against A- 1 to 3, I should not be understood that I have expressed any opinion if made by me during the course of discussions will not come in the way of either parties at the final disposal of the case on merits.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,583,903 |
M.C.No.2507/2014 Page 2 Crl.% (ORAL) In the above captioned three petitions, quashing of FIR No.151/2013, under Sections 342/384/34/120-B of the IPC, registered at police station Connaught Place, New Delhi is sought on the basis of mediated Settlement-Agreement of 13th May, 2014 reached between the parties through Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre and affidavit of respondent No.2 in support of these petitions.Mr. Parveen Bhati, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent- State accepts notice [in Crl.M.C.No.2507/2014 & Crl.M.C.No.266/2015] and Ms. Nishi Jain, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State Crl.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,840,314 |
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 27.1.2016, passed in No.25/BCDFGISSV/2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Ilavarasan, son of Malleeswaran and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Esplanade Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has already involved in the following adverse cases:(1) T.6 Avadi Police Station Crime No.590 of 2015, registered under Sections 457 and 380 of Indian Penal Code (2) T.6 Avadi Police Station Crime No.624 of 2015, registered under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code (3) T.6 Avadi Police Station Crime No.727 of 2015 registered under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (4) B.2 Esplanade Police Station Crime No.896 of 2015, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 13.1.2016, one Rajapandian, son of Rajendran, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint in Esplanade Police Station against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No.34 of 2016 under sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.In fine this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detention order dated 27.1.2016, passed in No.25/BCDFGISSV/2016, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Ilavarasan, son of Malleeswaran, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,852,197 |
In the General Election for the Tenth Lok Sabha held in1991 the Congress (I) part, emerged as the single largestparty and it formed the Government with P.V. Narsimha Rao[hereinafter referred to as `A-1] as the Prime Minister.Inthe Monsoon Session of Lok Sabha July 1993 a `No ConfidenceMotion' was moved against the Government by Shri AjayMukhopadhyaya, a CPI(M) M.P. At that time the effectivestrength of the House (Lok Sabha) was 528 and Congress (I)party had 251 members.It was short by 14 members for simplemajority.The motion was thereafter putto vote.Roshan Lal, Anadi Chran Dass, Abhey Partap Singh, Haji Ghulam Mohd. Khan and late G.C. Munda to defeat the no confidence motion moved against the then Congress (I) Government headed by accused Shri P.V.Narasimha Rao on 26.793 by illegal means viz. To obtain or agree to obtain gratification other than legal remunerations from your above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs as a motive or reward for defeating the no confidence motion and in pursuance thereof above named accused persons other than JMM and Janta Dal (A) passed on several lacs of rupees to you or your other co-accused namely JMM and Janta Dal (A) MPs which amounts were persons and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w Sections 7,12,13(2) r/w section 134(i)(d) of the P.C. Act and within my cognizance.Secondly, that you being a public servant while functioning in your capacity of Member of Parliament (10th Lok Sabha) during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy demanded and accepted from your co-accused other than JMM & JD(A) MPs mentioned above a sum of Rs.280 lacs for yourself and other JMM MPs named above other than your legal remuneration as a motive or reward for defeating above referred no confidence motion moved against the then Govt. of Congress (I) headed by your co-accused Shri P.V. Narasimha Rao and thereby you have committed an offence punishable u/S 7 the P.C. Act and within my cognizance.Thirdly, you during the aforesaid period and at the aforesaid places being a public servant while functioning in your aforesaid capacity of Member of Parliament by corrupt or illegal means and by abusing your position as a said public servant obtained for yourself or your other co- accused i.e. JMM MPs named above the pecuniary advantage to the extent of Rs.280 lacs and thereby committed an offence punishable u/S 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of P.C. Act and within my cognizance.Fourthly, that you during the pendency of investigation of present case while writ petition No.789/96 was pending disposal in Hon'ble High Court between February to April, 1996 at Delhi, Ranchi and other places intentionally caused to bring false evidence into existence by fabricating or causing to fabricate the documents or records i. e. books of accounts, proceeding books, etc. of JMM Central Office.JUDGMENTDELIVERED BY:S.C.AGRAWAL,J.The motion was defeated with 251 members voting infavour of the motion, while 265 voting against it.OnFebruary 28, 1996, on Shri Ravindra Kumar of Rashtriya MuktiMorcha filed a complaint dated February 1, 1996 with theCentral Bureau of Investigation [for short `CBI'] wherein itwas alleged that in July 1993 a criminal conspiracy washatched by A-1, Satish Sharma [hereinafter referred to as`A-2], Ajit Singh [hereinafter referred to as `A-13], BhajanLal [hereinafter referred to as `A-14], V.C. Shukla, R.K.Dhawan and Lalit Suri to prove a majority of the Governmenton the floor of the House on July 28, 1993 by bribingMembers of Parliament of different political parties,individuals and groups of an amount of over Rs.3 crores andthat in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy a sum ofRs.On the basis of the said complain the CBIregistered four cases under Section 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act against A-3, Shibu Soren[hereinafter referred to as `A-4], Simon Marandi[hereinafter referred to as `A-5'] and Shallendra Mahto[hereinafter referred to as `A-6'], Members of Parliamentbelonging to the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha party [for short`JMM'].Subsequently in pursuance of the order dated May 24,1996 passed by the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ PetitionNo.V.C.Shukla, R.K. Dhawan, Lalit Suri and others under Section120-B-IPC and Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act. After completing theinvestigation, the CBI submitted three charge sheets datedOctober 30, 1996, December 9, 1996 and January 22, 1977 inthe court of Special Judge, New Delhi.In the first chargesheet dated October 30, 1996 it was stated thatinvestigation had revealed that A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, Buta Singh [hereinafter referred to as `A-7'], and otherunknown persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to defeatthe `No Confidence Motion' by resorting to giving andaccepting of gratification as a motive or reward and inpursuance thereof four Members of Parliament belonging toJMM) A-3, A-4, A-5 and A-6) accepted illegal gratificationto vote against the Motion and because of their votes andsome other votes the Government led by A-1 survived.It wasalso stated in the charge sheet that investigation has alsorevealed that the four Members of Parliament belonging toJMM had been bribed in crores of rupees for voting againsthe `No Confidence Motion'.The said charge sheet was filedagainst A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6 and A-7 and otherunknown persons in respect of offences under Section 120-BIPC and Sections 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offencesthereunder.The second charge sheet dated December 9, 1996was in the nature of a supplementary charge sheet wherein itwas stated that investigation has further revealed that V.Rajeshwar Rao [hereinafter referred to as `A-8'], N.M.Revanna [hereinafter referred to as `A-9], Ramalinga Reddy[hereinafter referred to as `A-12] and M. Thimmegowda[hereinafter referred to as `A-13] were also parties to thecriminal conspiracy which is the subject matter of the firstcharge sheet filed on October 30, 1996 and in pursuance tothe said criminal conspiracy they had arranged funds andbribed the four JMM MPs as the motive or award to securetheir support to defeat the `No Confidence Motion' andthereby committed the offences punishable under Section 120-B IPC and Section 7, 12, 13(2) read with Section13(1)(d)(iii) of the 1988 Act and substantive offencesthereunder along with the original seven accused.In thethird charge sheet dated January 22, 1997, which wasdescribed as `Supplementary Charge Sheet No. 2', it wasstated that further investigation has been carried on underSection 173(8) of Cr.P.C. and as a result identity ofremaining accused persons has been established and that theyare A-14, A-15, Ram Lakhan Singh Yadav [hereinafter referredto as `A-16'], Ram Sharan Yadav [hereinafter referred to as`A-`7'], Roshan Lal [hereinafter referred to as `A-18'],Abhay Pratap Singh [hereinafter referred to as `A-19'],Anadi Charan Das [hereinafter referred to as `A-20'], HajiGulam Mohd. Khan [hereinafter referred to as `A-21] and lateG.C. Munda [hereinafter referred to as `A-22'].An application was submitted by A-6 (Shailendra Mahto)under Section 306 Cr. P.C. for grant of pardon for beingtreated as an approver.The said application was referred tothe Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164Cr.P.C. and after considering the said statement theSpecial Judge, by order dated April 5, 1997, allowed theapplication of A-6 and tendered pardon to him on thecondition of his making a full and true disclosure of allthe circumstances within his knowledge relating to theoffences of every other person concerned, whether as aprincipal or abettor in the commission of the offences underthe charge sheets.Ranchi for the purpose of being used in any stage of judicial proceedings and thereby committed an offence u/S 193 IPC and within my cognizance.Similar charges were framed against the other alleged bribetakers of the J.M.M Similar charges were also framed againstthe alleged bribe takers of the J.D., A.S., except thatthere was no charge against them under Section 193 of theIndian Penal Code.The Presidential Reference was made inthe following circumstances: The Legislative Assembly of theState of Uttar Pradesh committed one Keshav Singh, not oneof its members, to prison for contempt.The warrant itissued was a general warrant, in that it did not set out thefacts which had been found to be contumacious.Keshav Singhmoved a petition under Article 226 challenging his committaland he prayed for bail.The judges and the advocate filed writpetitions before the High Court at Allahabad.The appellantmoved the High Court to quash the proceedings.The HighCourt dismissed the application but granted certificate offitness to appeal.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
458,588 |
ORDER K.C. Chunder, J.This Rule was issued at the instance of a landlord against whom the Chief Presidency Magistrate decided to make a complaint Under Section 188, Penal Code, for disobeying an order under Section 144, Criminal P. C. The defence of the petitioner before him in the proceeding under Section 144, Criminal P. C. was that the petitioner himself did not violate any order of the Magistrate.The Chief Presidency Magistrate passed a very curious order.He said that the question whether the petitioner's plea that he did nothing whatever to disobey the order might be decided in the trial of the complaint which he had decided to make.
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,863,633 |
Mrs. Soma Chowdhury (Bandhu).Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. : This first appeal is directed against the judgement and decree dismissing the husband's suit for divorce being Mat Suit No. 348 of 1997 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Hooghly on 23rd December, 2005 at the instance of the husband/appellant.Initially the husband/appellant filed an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for restitution of conjugal right.In the said suit, the husband/appellant filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amending his pleading in the plaint.As a matter of fact, immediately upon receipt of the summons of the said proceeding under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the wife/respondent lodged a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband/appellant and his other family members.This was the cause which prompted the husband/appellant to file the said application for amendment of his pleading in the plaint.In the said application, the husband sought for permission to bring those facts relating to lodging of such a complaint under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code by the wife against the husband and his family members.According to the husband/appellant, filing of such a complaint by the wife against the husband and his other family members amounts to mental cruelty.Accordingly, he wanted to convert his application for restitution of conjugal right into a suit for divorce by bringing those facts on record by way of amendment of his pleading.The husband's said application for amendment of plaint was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.150/- by the husband/appellant to the wife.By the said order, the husband/appellant was permitted to convert the husband's application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act into a suit for divorce with a rider that the husband will not be entitled to seek the relief for restitution of conjugal right in the alternative.While allowing the husband's said application for amendment, no direction was given by the court for carrying out such amendment by the husband/appellant within a particular period in terms of the provision contained in Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Since no time was fixed for carrying out such amendment by the husband, the husband/appellant was required to carry out such amendment in terms of Order 6 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure within 14 days from the date of the order.This has also not been complied with by the husband/appellant.However, the husband/appellant paid the cost amount as per the direction of the learned Trial Judge to the wife/respondent and such cost of allowing such amendment was also accepted by the wife/respondent.We find from the Trial Court's records that the department carried out those amendment in the plaint as per the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 8th June, 2000 vide Order No. 22, but the plaint was not reverified by the husband/plaintiff/appellant.As such, the amended pleading cannot be considered.We also find from the order passed by the learned Trial Judge on 8th June, 2000 vide Order No. 22 that the learned Trial Judge while allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment, did not even pass any direction upon the husband/plaintiff/appellant for service of copy of the amended plaint upon the respondent/wife.Even no opportunity was given to the wife/respondent to file additional written statement in the suit for controverting the amended pleadings of the plaintiff/appellant.With these loopholes in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge while allowing the plaintiff's application for amendment of pleading, the trial commenced.As a result, neither the amendment was carried out by the plaintiff nor any amended plaint was filed by the plaintiff in the suit nor copy of the amended plaint was served upon the wife/respondent nor the wife/respondent filed any additional written statement.Ultimately the learned Trial Judge after recording the evidence of the parties in the said suit, dismissed the said suit by holding, inter alia, that the allegation of cruelty which was the foundation of the plaintiff's claim for divorce could not be proved by him.Accordingly, the suit was dismissed.The present appeal is directed against the said judgement and decree passed by the learned Trial Judge.In connection with this appeal, the husband/appellant has taken out an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking leave to adduce further evidence in this appeal.It is stated therein that after disposal of the suit on 23rd December, 2005, the criminal proceeding being Case No. G.R. 923 of 1997/T.R. 252 of 2002 arising out of a complaint lodged by the wife under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the husband and the other members of his family was disposed of by holding, inter alia, that all the accused persons are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.The husband and the other family members are all acquitted under Section 248(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.The husband/appellant has sought for permission to bring the certified copy of the order passed in the said criminal proceeding on record by way of additional evidence.According to the husband/appellant, the said judgement and/or order is the most vital piece of evidence in this matrimonial proceeding in the light of the observation of the learned Trial Judge who primarily dismissed the said suit by holding, inter alia, that having regard to the fact that the criminal proceeding was yet to be disposed of, no conclusive inference could be drawn regarding the alleged cruelty.Though such an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure was taken out by the husband/appellant in this appeal, but the husband/appellant has not taken any further step for amending the plaint for bringing those facts on record.Even the order which was passed by the learned Trial Judge while allowing the application for amendment of the plaint was erroneous.We thus hold that the trial, in effect, was vitiated.Under such circumstances, we feel that the judgement and decree which was passed by the learned Trial Judge in the said suit cannot be retained on record.The judgement and decree which is impugned in this appeal is thus set aside.In case, such an application is filed by the husband/plaintiff/appellant in the court below, the learned Trial Judge will consider the same in his own wisdom after giving an opportunity of filing objection to the said application for amendment by the wife/respondent.Needless to mention here that after the suit matures for hearing, the learned Trial Judge will give opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence in the said suit and thereafter conclude the hearing of the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months from the date when the suit will mature for hearing.Such cost should be deposited within a week from date.No formal decree need be drawn up.It is further clarified that immediately on receipt of the lower court records by the court below, the court below will intimate the facts regarding receipt of the lower court records to the learned advocates-on-record of the respective parties within three days from the date of receipt of such lower court records from this Court.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,586,420 |
(25/06/2019)The appellants have preferred this appeal against judgment and order dated 20.01.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.191 of 2008 by Special Judge SC/ST Act, Ratlam whereby the learned Trial Court has held both the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC and awarded 5-5 years R.I. respectively and fine of Rs.1,500/- Rs.1,500/- to each of them with default stipulations.The prosecution case is that on 15.08.2018, the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.281 of 2017 Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P.appellants, who are neighbours of the complainant, along with other co-accused persons--Kamla Bai and Parwati Bai, who have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court, were spreading 'Murram' on the backside of the house of the complainant and when they objected for the same, they assaulted them.Badarilal caused injuries to Ram Narayan and his son Bharatlal by axe.Ram Narayan lodged Dehati Nalshi.On medical examination, certain injuries were found, which in the opinion of the Doctor, were dangerous to the life.The police registered FIR No.195 of 2008 and after usual investigation filed the charge-sheet.The appellants are charged under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of IPC, they absurd their guilt and claimed for trial.After the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted Kamla Bai and Parwati Bai and convicted the present appellants, as stated in para 1 above.Both the appellants have preferred this appeal on several grounds but during arguments learned Counsel representing them submitted that he does not want to press the appeal on merits.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has fairly admitted the facts pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellants,I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and have gone through the evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.Considering the nature of dispute, injury caused by the appellants, allegation made against them, period of 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.281 of 2017 Shankarlal @ Bhawanishankar and another Versus State of M.P.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
45,865,815 |
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in Memo No.350/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 17.06.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Mohan Kumar, aged 57 years, S/o.Seshmal, residing at No.18, Hunters Road, Choolai, Chennai-112 and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:i) Central Crime Branch, Crime No.446 of 2009, registered under Sections 420, 506(ii) r/w.34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of TNPCE Interest Act, 2003; andUnder such circumstances, a case has been registered in CCB Crime No.164 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420, 506(i) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority, after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as Goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu as petitioner.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,015,191 |
The prosecution case emanates from the fact that Inspector Gulshan Satija (PW2) got recorded his statement Ex.PW2/A to the Investigating Officer SI Rajendra Dabas stating that on 05.09.2012, he along with constable Anil Kumar and constable Agat Singh was on patrolling at Old Delhi Railway Station.At about 4.30 pm when they were alighting from the stairs of Foot Over Bridge (FOB) towards platform no.14, one person who Crl.A. No.1500/2013 Page 1 of 14 was climbing the stairs took a turn after seeing them.On suspicion, he was apprehended after chasing about 20-25 paces.On his cursory search, one red colour old purse was recovered from his pant containing Rs.6000/- (500x12), voters card in the name of Suresh, son of Ramyash, along with some visiting cards, one light pink colour tablet was recovered from the pocket of his shirt and Rs.6400 (100x61, 50x6) which was wrapped in a lungi was recovered from his bag which he was carrying.On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Ajay Tiwari.One mobile phone Nokia E-63 was also recovered from the pocket of his pant.On enquiry, he disclosed that he had stolen the said items from one person after administering stupefying substance in tea and thereafter, he led the police party at platform no.14 and pointed out the person to whom he had administered the stupefying substance.It was alleged that one person was found in semi-unconscious condition and he disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar.On being asked, he identified his mobile phone, purse and bag and also identified the accused.Thereafter, accused was brought to the police station Old Delhi Railway Station and was handed over to the Investigating Officer.Injured Suresh was sent to Aruna Asaf Ali hospital for medical examination.After medical examination, doctor handed over one bottle gastric lavage and one bottle of blood sample with the seal of CMO AAA Govt. Hospital NCT of Delhi and one sample seal which were seized.Thereafter, on the statement of Inspector Gulshan Satija, an FIR was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 328/379/411 IPC.It has come in the statement of Victim - Suresh Kumar that on 05.09.2012, he was going to Sultanpur and as such he went to Gurgaon Railway Station.From there, he came to Old Delhi Railway Station.He was going to his village as his son was ill.He reached Old Delhi Railway Station at 12.30 pm and inquiry revealed that the train would go from Crl.A. No.1500/2013 Page 5 of 14 platform no.9 at about 8 pm.He went to platform no.1 where the accused met him at about 2 pm and told him that he had to go to Banaras.Thereafter, accused took him to platform no.14 by stating that his train will come on that platform.Both of them sat on platform no.14 where he and the accused took water from his water bottle and had tea and chips brought by accused.After about 30 minutes, he started feeling giddy.Although he noticed accused removing cash amount of Rs.6400/- from his bag wrapped in a lungi, red colour purse from the rear pocket of his pant containing Rs.6,000/- cash, Nokia phone E-63 from his shirt pocket but due to giddiness, he was unable to react.Thereafter, accused went away.After about half an hour, three police officials came to him along with the accused and he identified the accused as well as his belongings.A. No.1500/2013 Page 5 of 14His testimony regarding apprehension of accused and recovery of articles from his possession find corroboration from PW2 Inspector Gulshan Satija who deposed that he along with constable Anil Kumar was present at Old Delhi Railway Station.At about 3.30 pm constable Agat Singh met them near RPF Police Station.All of them started patrolling at the railway station.The police officials met one person who disclosed his name as Suresh Kumar who was in semi- unconscious state.The recovered articles were shown to him and he identified the same as belonging to him.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.During investigation, it was revealed that accused Ajay Tiwari had already been convicted in four other matters namely CC No.1/12 under Section 3 RP (UP) Act, FIR No.956/2000 under Section 411 IPC Police Station NDRS, FIR No.283/2006 under Section 328/379 IPC Police Station NDRS and FIR No.282/2010 under Section 328/379/411 Police Station NDRS.After completion of investigation, Crl.A. No.1500/2013 Page 2 of 14 charge-sheet was submitted for offence under Section 328/392/394/411/75 of IPC.The charge, however, was framed for offence under Section 328/394 of IPC to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. No.1500/2013 Page 1 of 14A. No.1500/2013 Page 2 of 14On culmination of prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC) was recorded wherein he denied all the incriminating evidence put forth by the prosecution and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case.He took the plea that while he was coming back from Panipat and was going to Dadri from platform no.1, one police informer met him who knew him previously and told that police had to interrogate him.Accordingly, that person took him to Police Station where he was falsely implicated in this case.After considering the evidence led by the parties, learned Trial Court arrived at the conclusion that prosecution has failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish that the injured was administered any poisonous, intoxicating, stupefying substance or any wholesome drug or that he felt giddiness due to consumption of tea and chips.As such, he was acquitted of the charge under Section 328 of IPC.Even as regards offence under Section 394 IPC, it was observed that prosecution failed to establish that accused had either caused hurt or fear of instant hurt to the victim while committing theft of his belongings as such he cannot be held guilty either for the offence punishable under Section 392 IPC or Section 394 IPC.However, since the stolen articles pertaining to the victim were recovered from the possession of the accused immediately after theft, as such presumption Crl. A. No.1500/2013 Page 3 of 14 arises that he had committed theft.Accordingly, the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 379 IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.A. No.1500/2013 Page 3 of 14Feeling aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.Assailing the findings of learned Additional Sessions Judge, it was submitted by Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant that the incident is alleged to have taken place at a railway platform.It was admitted by PW2 that CCTV were installed at the platform of Old Delhi Railway Station, however, CCTV footage was not seized by the Investigating Officer of the case.Moreover, as per the case of prosecution, the appellant provided tea and chips to the victim containing intoxicating substance.However, no cup containing tea and chips etc were recovered in order to prove that the appellant intoxicated the victim.Moreover, the blood sample of the victim did not reveal any poisonous substance.Despite the fact that such an incident took place at railway platform and there was no dearth of independent witnesses, but none was joined in the proceeding.The entire case rests on the testimony of the victim which does not inspire confidence inasmuch as according to him, when he was made to eat and drink tea and chips, his belongings were taken by the accused/appellant at that time and if that was so, why did he not raise any alarm.Also, the appellant could not have been convicted on the sole testimony of the victim.Moreover, the appellant was a police informer.Due to some confrontation with the police officials, he was falsely implicated in this case.Alternatively, it was submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for a period of one year and eleven months; he is an HIV patient, as such keeping in view his medical condition, he be released on the period already undergone by him in custody.A. No.1500/2013 Page 4 of 14Countering the submissions, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that present is a case where the FIR was registered on the statement of the police Inspector and not by the victim inasmuch as, as per the prosecution case when the police officials were on patrolling duty at the railway station, on seeing the police party, the appellant/accused tried to run away.Hence, on the basis of suspicion, he was apprehended and on his search, various articles were recovered.Thereafter on the disclosure statement of the accused he was taken to the victim who narrated the entire incident.The victim was not known to the accused from earlier and had absolutely no axe to grind to falsely implicate him in this case.It was further submitted that for non-collection of CCTV footage, there is no ground to disbelieve the testimony of the victim.The conviction can be based on solitary testimony of the witness and in the instant case, the victim has stood the test of cross examination and there is no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellant.The defence taken by the accused is an afterthought.No suggestion was given to any of the prosecution witnesses that he was a police informer or was falsely implicated due to that reason.The appeal is, therefore, devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.At about 4.14 pm, when they reached West Side FOB (Foot Over Bridge) and were alighting the stairs towards platform no.14, they saw one person who was coming towards them.On seeing the police party, he took a u-turn and started running away.Police officials chased him for 20-25 paces and apprehended him.On inquiry, he failed to give any satisfactory reply.On checking, one red colour purse containing Rs.6,000/- in the denomination of Rs.500/- each, one voter identity card in the name of Suresh, some visiting cards and a Nokia Mobile phone with cover were recovered.One light pink colour tablet was found in the pocket of his shirt.On inquiry, he disclosed that the said articles belonged to one person to Crl.Thereafter, he led the police party to the said person.Thereafter, the victim and the accused were brought to GRPF Police Station.SI Rajender Dabas took the victim to hospital and thereafter his statement Ex.PW2/A was recorded which culminated in registration of FIR.After the victim was declared fit for making statement, his statement was recorded.PW2 along with his team reached there alongwith the accused at 4.30 pm.Then he was taken to Police Station and from there the victim was taken to hospital.Thereafter, he (accused) was taken to Police Station where he was falsely implicated in this case.As regards, the quantum of sentence, it was not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been previously convicted in case FIR No.956/2000 under Section 411 IPC; FIR No.283/2006 under Section 328/379 IPC; and FIR No.282/2010 under Section 328/379/411 of IPC.All these FIRs were registered at Police Station NDRS which proves the modus operandi of the appellant whereby he used to steal the belongings of innocent passengers at railway station.Under the circumstances, antecedents of the appellant are not clean.However, it is urged that the family of the appellant consists of old aged ailing father and one younger brother who is still studying and there is none in the family who can earn and arrange for the livelihood.Moreover, appellant himself is suffering from HIV Positive.Hence liberal view be taken.Report from Medical Officer, Incharge, Central Jail, Tihar has also been received regarding medical status of the appellant and it is reported that the "patient is HIV Crl.A. No.1500/2013 Page 13 of 14 positive with history of extra pulmonary tuberculosis".A. No.1500/2013 Page 13 of 14Considering all the aspects while upholding the conviction of appellant u/s 379 IPC and while maintaining the sentence of imprisonment for three years, the fine is reduced to Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo SI for three months.Fine, if realised, be paid as compensation to the victim.The appeal is disposed of in above terms.Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.Copy of judgment along with the Trial Court record be sent back.Copy of the judgment be also sent to Superintendent Jail for information.(SUNITA GUPTA) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 04, 2014 rd Crl.A. No.1500/2013 Page 14 of 14A. No.1500/2013 Page 14 of 14
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,301,976 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.638 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 323, 506(i) of IPC, as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No. 4731 of 2020Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the first respondent / police has to file the final report only.He further submitted that there is a counter complaint by the petitioner / accused registered in Crime No.677 of 2019 as against the second respondent herein.Heard Mr.9. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel and examined the material on record, we are of the considered view that the High Court ought nothttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No. 4731 of 2020 to have set aside the order passed by the Trial Court issuing summons to the Respondents.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.638 of 2019 and file a final report within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Needless to state that the G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.4731 of 2020 kv first respondent shall follow the mandatory procedures, as contemplated under Section 588A of the Police Standing Orders.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.02.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order kv ToThe Sub Inspector of Police Dusi Police Station Thiruvannamalai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No. 4731 of 2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,026,599 |
1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.34052/2019 (Jageshwar Pasi Vs The State of M.P.) Gwalior, Dated :21.08.2019 Shri Suresh Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Lahar, District Bhind in connection with Crime No.257/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.379 of IPC and Section 53-A of Mines Act.As per prosecution story, Assistant Sub-Inspector Shri Ravindra Singh Sengar received an information that two JCV vehicles were taking sand from near Sindh river.Thereafter, police party reached on the spot and found two JCV vehicles and tried to arrest the driver but both were absconded from the spot but two JCV vehicles were seized from the spot.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has been falsely implicated in the case.The charge sheet has been filed.There is no criminal antecedent against the applicant.The applicant is the permanent resident of Village Simra, Police Station Bilgram, District Hardoi 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC No.34052/2019 (Jageshwar Pasi Vs The State of M.P.) (U.P.).There is no possibility of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.Under these circumstances, counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the application.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.Considering the nature of allegation leveled against the applicant, the fact and circumstance of the case and without commenting on merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of bail to the applicant.Hence, the application is rejected.ANAND KUMAR 2019.08.21 17:44:50 +05'30'
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,028,380 |
The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Balasundari.PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 arethe brother, father and mother respectively of the deceased.PW-1 to PW-3 arethe residence of Kamarajapuram.During the year 1998, the accused was working ontemporary basis as a Security in BHEL.During that time, he got introduced tothe deceased and ultimately, they had fallen in love with each other.Thereafter, the accused married the deceased in the year 1998 itself.After oneyear of the said marriage, the accused was recruited as a Police Constable.Outof the wedlock, they have got a female child.For about two years after themarriage, they were living together happily.But, as the time progressed, theaccused started ill-treating the deceased demanding dowry, which resulted infrequent quarrel between them.On so many occasions, the deceased had come toher parents' home.On all such occasions, the parents of the deceased persuadedher and sent her back to her matrimonial home.After 2+ years of the marriage,the deceased consumed sleeping tablets in an attempt to commit suicide.The saidattempt was due to the intolerable torture at the hands of the accused.After the said incident, the deceased staying with herparents.One Mr.Senbagaraman, I.P.S., was the Superior Police of the accused.Hecalled the accused and the deceased with their respective family members,persuaded them, compromise the matrimonial dispute and made them to livetogether.From that onwards, the accused and the deceased along with her childwas living at D-2 Police Quarters.PW-5 to PW-8 are his neighbours.PW-1 and PW-3 used to visit frequently the house of the accused.On 04.05.2002, PW-1 and PW-3, as usual, visited the house of the deceased.In the evening, PW-3 left forher house.PW-1 alone stayed back at the house of the accused.At about 09.30PM, the accused returned from duty.The deceased and the accused went to bed inthe room of the house around 10.00 PM.PW-1 and the daughter of the deceasedwere in the hall of the house, studying.At about 10.30 PM, PW-1 heard the hueand cry of the deceased.PW-1 attempted to open the door of the room, where thedeceased and the accused were sleeping.But, the door was bolted from inside.PW-1 opened the door by force.At that time, he found the accused cutting theneck of the deceased by holding her mouth with left hand.On seeing PW-1, theaccused pushed him apart and ran away.The deceased died instantaneously.4. PW-19, the then Sub - Inspector of Police, attached to the K.K.NagarPolice Station, received the complaint from PW-1 at 11.30 PM and registered acase in Crime No.130 of 2002, under Sections 498(A) and 302 of the Indian PenalCode.EX-P21 is the First Information Report.Then, he forwarded the FirstInformation Report and the complaint to Court, which were received by thelearned Judicial Magistrate at 06.30 PM, on 05.05.2002, at his residence.Then,he handed over the case diary to PW-22 for investigation.Taking up the case for investigation, PW-22 proceeded to the place ofoccurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar - EX-P7 in the presence of PW-9and another witness.He recoveredbloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under EX-P8.Then, he examined PW-1 to PW-8 and recorded their statements.On 05.05.2002, at04.00 PM, he arrested the accused near Saranathan Engineering College on theMadurai Road in the presence of PW-10 and another witness.On such arrest, hegave a voluntary confession statement, in which he had disclosed that he wouldidentify the place, where he had hidden the knife.In pursuance of the saiddisclosure statement, he took PW-22 and the witnesses to Tiruchi ViralimalaiRoad Junction and produced the knife in the presence of the very same witnessunder a mahazar.PW-22 also made arrangements for photographing the place ofoccurrence and the dead body.He has furtherstated that on 27.04.2002, he had gone to Kumbakonam.On 03.05.2002, he returnedto his house.He has furtherstated that he went to the Police Station, where he found the accused and thechild.In this regard, according to him, he submitted a report to his Superior.*************S.NAGAMUTHU, J.The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.147 of 2003, on the file ofthe learned Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy.By Judgment dated 07.10.2010,the learned Sessions Judge has sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for lifeand to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment forsix months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant isbefore this Court with this Criminal Appeal.Afterthe treatment, the deceased preferred a complaint against the accused atK.K.Nagar Police Station.On 06.05.2002, PW-22 collected the photographswith negatives.He forwarded all the Material Objects to the Court.He alsoforwarded the accused for judicial remand.On a request made by PW-22, PW-11 conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased.He found the following injuries:-An oblique incised wound, 3 cm X 1 cm X skin deep on the center of submental region.A transverse incised wound 4 cm X 1 cm muscle deep, on the right sideof sub mental region.A transverse incised wound 9 cm X 3 cm X 1 cm of wind pipe deep, onthe front of neck, below the level of thyroid cartilage.O/E.the underlyingstructures are clean out.A transverse incised wound, 3 cm X 1.5 cm X muscle deep, on the frontof midline of neck, 1.5 cm below the wound No.3A transverse incised wound 1 cm X 0.5 cm X skin deep, on the front ofthe lower part of midline on of neck.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm cavity deep, on the side aspect ofright side of chest, in the 2nd intercostal space along the mid axillary line.O/E the upper inner end is curved and lower outer end is sharp.The edges areclean out.Three incised wounds ranging from 1.5 cm - 2 cm X 0.5 cm - 1 cm Xmuscle deep on the front of right shoulder are vertically oblique in directionplaced at varying distances on an area of 8 cm X 5 cm.An oblique incised wound 5 cm X 3 cm X muscle deep on the back ofmiddle third of right arm.A transverse incised wound 2.5 cm X 1.5 cm X muscle deep on the frontof lower third of right forearm.A transverse incised wound 3 cm X 1.5 cm X bone deep on the front ofright wrist.A vertical incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the thenareminence of right hand.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X bone deep, on the front ofterminal phalanx of right thumb.An oblique incised wound 1.5 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on the front ofmiddle phalanx of right middle finger.A oblique incised wound 5 cm X 2 cm X bone deep, on the back of upperthird of right forearm.An oblique incised wound 3 cm X 2 cm X muscle deep, on the back ofmiddle third of right forearm.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1.5 cm X bone deep on the back oflower third of right forearm.An oblique incised wound 4 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on the back of righthand.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on the back of outeraspect of right wrist.Two oblique incised wounds one each on the front of terminal andmiddle phalanx of left middle finger, each measuring 3 cm X 1 cm X bone deep.A transverse incised wound 2 cm X 0.5 cm X bone deep front of middlephalanx of left thumb.A vertical incised wound 3.5 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the front ofleft elbow.Two parallel incised wounds 7 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the inneraspect of left shoulder.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the inner aspectof left shoulder.An oblique incised wound 11 cm X 0.5 cm X skin deep on the front ofleft shoulder.An oblique incised wound 2 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the back oflower third of left arm.A vertical incised wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep on the leftbuttoch.Four stab wounds each measuring 3 cm X 1.5 cm entering into thethoracic cavity on the various quadrant of left breast, at varying distances anddirections.O/E: the edges of all the wounds are clean cut.One end of all thewounds is acute and the other end of the wound is obtuse.The intercostalmuscles, blood vessels nerves and third rib are clean cut.A transverse incised wound 1.5 cm X 1 cm X bone deep on the front ofcenter of chest, at 4th rib attachment with sternum.A vertical stab wound 3 cm X 1 cm X entering into the cavity on thefront of left side of chest, on the left first intercostals space, 4 cm awayfrom the midline.O/E: the edges are clean cut, the lower end of the wound isobtuse and the upper end of the wound is acute.The 1st rib, intercostalsmuscles, blood vessels and nerves are clean cut.A transverse incised wound 2.5 cm X 1 cm X muscle deep, on the upperpart of left side of neck.Eight stab wounds, all measuring 3 cm X 1 cm entering into thecavities on the back of left side of trunk at varying distances, and on varyingdirections.O/E: the edges are clean cut, one end of the wound is obtuse and theother end of the wound is acute.The muscles, blood vessels and nerves andmembranes are clean cut.35.Three stab wounds, measuring from 2.5 cm - c cm X 1 -2 cm entering intothe cavities on the back of right side of trunk.O/E all the wound are placed atvarying distances and on varying directions.The edges are clean cut one end ofthe wound is curved and the other end is acute.Heart- A stab wound, 2 cm X 1 cm X deep to cavity on the left ventricle.Chambers empty, pericardial fear present.Pericardial cavity contains fluidblood.Lungs: Right upper lobe, three stab wounds, ranging from 1X2.5 cm X 0.5 cm- 1 cm X 0.5 cm lower lobe collapsed.C.S Pale.Left Lung: Upper Lobe: 2 stab wounds each measuring 2.5 cm X 1 cm X 1.5cm.Lower Lobe : 5 stab wounds, each measuring 1.5 cm - 2 cm X 1 cm - 1.5 cmX 1 cm.Collapsed C/S Pale.Thoracic cavity contains fluid blood/Hyoid intact.Pericardial cavitycontains fluid blood.Hyoid : intact.Stomach: Full sized cooked rice particles, No specific smell, Mucosa -pale.Uterus: Normal in size C/S empty.No foreign body.Brain: Surface vessels, empty C/S.Petachiae present, CSF - clear;spinalcolumn and cord intact.In all the above mentioned wounds, the blood is diffused into the wound [N.C].They are all antemortem in nature.No other external, internal on bony woundpresent."Finally, he gave opinion that the deceased died of hypoxia and haemorrhage dueto multiple wounds.Continuing the investigation, PW-22 collected the clothe materialsfound on the body of the deceased and forwarded the same to the Court.He alsocollected the Post-mortem Certificate and examined the doctor.He examined the Police Officials and theDoctor and recorded their statements.He gave a request to the learned JudicialMagistrate [EX-P17] for recording the statements of the witnesses of Sundaram -PW-1, Mahadevan - PW-2 and Sumathi PW-3 under Section 164 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure.PW-17 recorded their statements, accordingly.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed as many as twocharges against the accused.Thesecond charge is under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.When the accusedwas questioned in respect of the above said charges, he pleaded innocence, andtherefore, he was put on trial.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, asmany as 23 witnesses were examined and 32 documents were exhibited.Out of thesaid witnesses, PW-1 is an eye - witness to the occurrence.He has vividlyspoken to about the injuries caused on the deceased by the accused.PW-2 and PW-3, the parents of the deceased, have spoken to about the motive.PW-4 to PW-8are the neighbours.PW-5 to PW-7 have turned hostile.They found the policebroke opening the door of the house of the accused by force and entering intothe same.Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was found inside.PW-10 hasspoken to about the arrest, disclosure statement made by the accused and therecovery of knife from the possession of the accused.PW-11 has spoken to aboutthe autopsy conducted by him.PW-16 - Mr.Senbagaraman, I.P.S., has spoken toabout the compromise effected by him between the deceased and the accused.PW-17has spoken to about the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 164of the Code of Criminal Procedure.PW-18 was the Revenue Divisional Officer,Tiruchirappalli.He has spoken to about the inquest held by him.The others are the Police Officials.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure in respect of incriminating evidences available against him,he denied the same as false.He has submitted a written statement to the TrialCourt, in which he has stated that PW-1 to PW-3 were giving ill-advise to thedeceased.As a result, there was a misunderstanding between them.On that day, PW-3 alone came and she returned.At about 09.30 PM,on the same day, he returned to his house, after making a short visit outside.At that time, he found the child standing outside the house.The child cried forbanana and biscuits.Therefore, he took the child to the bazaar, got the childbanana and biscuits and he returned to his house with child.At that time, hefound his wife in a pool of blood with injuries on her neck.She was dead.Onseeing her, he was very much shocked.Immediately, he locked the house fromoutside and taking the child went to the K.K.Nagar Police Station.Thereafter,the police got the address of PW-1 to PW-3 from him and informed them overphone.Subsequently, they rushed to the Police Station, where a false complaintwas preferred by PW-1, upon which the present case has been registered.He hasalso denied the discovery of Aruval at his instance.In essence, his defence isthat he was not the assailant and the assailant was not known.DW-1 - Johnson, hasstated that around 10.20 PM, on 04.05.2002, he found the accused in the bazaar.When he enquired him, he told him that since his child cried for banana andbiscuits, he took the child to the bazaar and got the child banana and biscuits.He had come to know that the deceased was done to death by unknown person and hehad also come to know that the accused was kept in the Police Station.DW-2 - Mr.Poonkunju was working then as Tamil Nadu Special BattalionForce.He has stated that on 04.05.2002, at 11.00 PM, he heard that the deceasedhad been done to death and the accused was in the Police Station.DW-3 - Mr.Senthilkumar was working as a Camp Officer to Commissionerof Police, Tiruchirappalli.He has stated that on 04.05.2002, at 11.00 PM, heheard that the accused had gone to K.K. Nagar Police Station, where he found theaccused with his child in the Police Station.Having considered all the above materials, the Trial Court found theaccused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and punished him,accordingly.We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have alsoperused the records carefully.PW-4 is a Police Constablein the Tamil Nadu Special Police Battalion Force, where the accused was alsoworking.According to him, on the day of occurrence, when he was returning fromMarket, he found the K.K.Nagar Police in front of the house of the accused.Hefurther found K.K.Nagar Police to break open the lock of the house of theaccused, which was locked from inside.When the door was opened, it was foundthat the deceased was found lying in pool of blood with injuries.PW-6 is alsoworking in the same Battalion.He has also stated that on 04.05.2002, at 10.30PM, he heard that there was a murder at the house of the accused.Immediately,he rushed to the house of the accused.At that time, he found that the house ofthe accused was locked from outside.The K.K.Nagar Police inspected the house ofthe accused, broke open the door of the house and entered into the house of theaccused.PW-7 is an Auto Driver.His wife was a Police Constable during therelevant time.Thus, he was the neighbour of the accused.He has also statedthat on the crucial date, K.K.Nagar Police broke open the lock of the house ofthe accused and then, entered into the house.She hasalso turned hostile and she has not stated anything.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submitthat had it been true that PW-1 was present at the time of occurrence, therewould have been no occasion for the police to break open the lock, because,absolutely, there is no evidence as to who locked the house of the accused.Theaccused has stated in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure that it is he, who locked the house.Therefore, according to thelearned Senior Counsel, PW-1 would not have been present at the time ofoccurrence at all.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that theevidence of PW-1 is very cogent, which requires acceptance at the hands of thisCourt.He would further submit that PW-4 to PW-8 are the neighbours of theaccused and they were also in the very same department working as PoliceConstables, except PW-7, and so, they have supported the accused.The learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor would, therefore, submit that their evidences needto be rejected.However, the fact remains that except PW-5 to PW-7, the otherwitnesses, i.e., PW-4 to PW-8 have not been treated as hostile.We have considered the above submissions.There is no controversy, inthis case, that PW-1 is the only eye - witness to the occurrence.The questionis as to whether based on the said eye - witness, the conviction of the accusedcan be sustained or not.A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 would go a long wayto show that his evidence is cogent and convincing.Even the learned SeniorCounsel has not pointed out anything in the evidence of PW-1 rendering hisevidence unbelievable.Of course, these witnesses have statedthat the house of the accused was found locked.If the evidences of thesewitnesses are accepted, then, it becomes a bounden duty of the prosecution toexplain as to who locked the house.Admittedly, the house was not locked by PW-Realizing this defect, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would referto the statement made by the accused under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, wherein he has stated that it is he, who locked the house fromoutside.In our considered view and as per the settled law, a portion of thestatement made by an accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedurecannot be made use of against the accused either it should be accepted in totoor it should be rejected in toto.Therefore, it is not open for the prosecutionto rely on a portion of the statement of the accused made under Section 313 ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure so as to try to explain that the house was lockedby the accused.Thereafter, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor would submit that PW-4 to PW-8, since they are neighbours, workingwith the accused, have stated that the house was found locked only with a viewto help the accused.But, unfortunately, these witnesses have not been treatedas hostile.Though PW-5 to PW-7 have been treated as hostile and their evidencesare of no use either for the prosecution or for the accused, in our consideredopinion, in view of the hostility shown by PW-5 to PW-7, their evidences thatthe house was found locked at the crucial time cannot be accepted.It is not suggested to theInspector of Police by the accused that the house was found locked and the samewas broke open by him.PW-9, the witness for Observation Mahazar has spoken toabout the preparation of Observation Mahazar.The defence has not elicitedanything from him that the house was found locked.It was not suggested to himthat the house was found locked and the same was opened only by the Inspector ofPolice.Therefore, in our considered view, the theory that the house was foundlocked, as has been spoken to by PW-4 is only a theory found for the purpose ofhelping the accused.In the light of the evidences of PW-9 and PW-22, theevidence of PW-4 and the other witnesses, who have spoken to the fact that thehouse was found locked, deserves only to be rejected.In pursuance of the same, the knife MO-2has been seized.During chemical examination, it has been found out that therewas human blood on MO-2 - knife.The accused has not explained the possessionof the bloodstained knife.In respect ofthe motive, the evidences of PW-1 to PW-3 and that of PW-16 speak volumes.PW-16was the then Commandant of the Special Police Battalion at Tiruchirappalli.Hehas spoken to about the compromise effected by him between the deceased and theaccused, thereby settling the matrimonial dispute between them.The learned Senior Counsel, by referring to the evidence of PW-16,would submit that the accused surrendered before the K.K.Nager Police Station,on 04.05.2002, i.e., on the day of occurrence itself.From the evidence of thiswitness, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the theory that theaccused was arrested later on cannot be believed.But, a perusal of the cross-examination of this witness would go to show that he heard that the accused hadsurrendered before the K.K.Nagar Police Station on the same day.However, he hasfurther stated that he did not verify the correctness of the same by going tothe Police Station.Thus, this part of the evidence, spoken to by him duringcross-examination that he heard that the accused surrendered before theK.K.Nagar Police Station, is hit by hearsay rule, and therefore, the argument ofthe learned Senior Counsel deserves only to be rejected.The learned Senior Counsel, nextly, refer to the evidence of PW-18,wherein, PW-18 has stated that in his report, he had recorded that PW-2 told himthat on information from the police, he came to the place of occurrence.Relyingon this part of the evidence of PW-18, the learned Senior Counsel would submitthat had it been true that PW-1 was the eye - witness to the occurrence, quitenaturally, he would have informed the police about the occurrence.But, in thiscase, the information was passed on to the parents of the deceased only by thepolice.From this, according to the learned Senior Counsel, it would emerge thatPW-1 would not have been an eye - witness to the occurrence.In our considered opinion, since PW-1 happened to be the eye - witnessto the occurrence, he would have been under a severe shock, and therefore, hewould not have informed the same to the police immediately.According to hisevidence, he rushed to the Police Station with child to prefer complaint.TheFirst Information Report had reached the Court at 06.30 AM, and thus, there isno delay.Therefore, the police would have informed PW-2 about the occurrence.From this, one cannot say that PW-1 was not an eye - witness to the occurrence.So, this argument of the learned Senior Counsel deserves to be rejected.Lastly, we would like to state about the conduct of the accused.According to hisexplanation, when he returned to his house with his child, he found his wifedead with injuries lying in a pool of blood.Theappeal has to fail.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.1.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.2.The Sessions Judge (Mahila Court), Trichy.3.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Trichirappalli District.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,303,966 |
Heard on admission.Also heard on I.A. No.743/2018, an application for suspension of the sentence of appellant Sarman @ Pintoo.Pr a hy The appellant has preferred this application against the judgment ad dated 12/9/2017 passed by Special Judge (M.P. Dacoity & Vyapharan M Prabhavit Kshetra Adhiniyam, 1981), Distt.Panna(MP) in Special Case no.5/2015, whereby learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of for the offence punishable under Sections 307 of the IPC and 394/397 rt of IPC r/w 11/13 of the M.P. Dacoity & Vyapharan Prabhavit Kshetra ou Adhiniyam, and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 year and 14 years C respectively with default stipulation.h ig Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court H without properly appreciating the evidence wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence.The name of the appellant is not mentioned in the FIR.The test identification parade was also carried out in the year 2011, which is also doubtful.Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt from the prosecution evidence, therefore, the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in finding the appellant guilty for the aforesaid offence.Hence, prayed for dismissal of the application for suspension of sentence.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the sh facts and circumstances of the case and as to the fact that name of the e appellant is not mentioned in the FIR and test identification parade ad was carried out after four years of the incident , the I.A. is allowed and Pr it is directed that the execution of the jail sentence passed against the a appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail upon his hy furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty ad thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the M satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 27/6/2018 and on such further dates as may be fixed in of this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.rt ou C.C. as per rules.C List for final hearing in due course.h ig (RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) H JUDGE m/-Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2018.02.20 16:02:33 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,043,013 |
RC.Nos.1508 and 1509 of of 2018 The Superintendent of Police Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Bank Securities and Frauds Cell Bangalore 560 032 Petitioner in both Crl.1. Devaki Muthiah, W/o.A.C.Muthiah Chennai-85 Respondent/Accused-CrRC.1508/182. Dr.A.C.Muthiah, Ex-Chairman, M/s.First Leasing Company of India Limited Anna Salai, Chennai Respondent/A1-Cr.RC.1509/2018 Prayer:- These Criminal Revision Petition are filed, under Sections 397 read with 401 of Cr.PC to call for the records, relating to the case in RC.No.6(E)/2015, pending before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore and to set aside the order dated, 01.10.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.MP.Nos.843 and 844 of 2018, thereby defreezing the bank accounts of the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.01.10.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,http://www.judis.nic.in Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.MP.Nos.843 and 844 of 2018, defreezing the bank 4 accounts of the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.The case of the Petitioner, as set out in the affidavits filed in support of these Criminal Revision Petitions, are follows:-a) Based on a written complaint, in Ref.No.766/NMG/South-I/FLCIL, dated 08.09.2015, preferred by Veligeti Srinivasa Rao, Deputy General Manager, IDBI Bank, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai, regarding the fraud to the tune of Rs.273.999 crores, perpetrated by M/s.First Leasing Company of India Limited (FLCIL) and the erstwhile Chairman, Managing Director, Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Statutory Auditors, Internal Auditors and unknown persons, at IDBI Bank, Specialized Corporate Finance Branch, No.115, Anna Salai, Saidapet, Chennai, the Petitioner has registered a case in Ref.RC6(E)/2015-CBI/BS&FC/ BLR, on 21.09.2015, against A.C.Muthiah/ A1, Ex.Chairman of FLCIL, Farouk Irani/A2, Ex- Managing Director of FLCIL, L.Sivaramakrishnan/A4, Ex.Chief Financial Officer of FLCIL, M/s.FLCIL/A5, M/s.Sarathy and Balu, Chartered Accountants/A6, Statutory Auditors of FLCIL, M/s.Dandekar and Co. Chartered Accounts /A7, Internal Auditors of FLCIL and unknown others under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 and 471 and 477A of IPC.Ranford Investments Limited/A15, represented by Ashwin C.Muthiah, M/s.Sicagen India Limited/A16, represented by Ashwin C.Muthiah, M/s.ACM Educational Foundation/A17, represented by Ashwin C.Muthiah, M/s.ACM Medical Foundation/A18, represented by Ashwin C.Muthiah, M/s.South India House Estates Properties Limited/A19, represented by Mariappa Nadar Rajamani, Director of M/s.South India Travels Private Limited/A20, represented by Kuppuswamy Gopalakrishnan, Sherna F.Irani/A21, Farah Bakshay/A22, Lia Gagrat/A23 and M/s.A2 was responsible for fraudulently diverting a large sum of loan funds that were sanctioned and released by the Consortium Bank to FLCIL to different bank accounts maintained in his name and in the names of his family members and M/s.Irani Family-Maintenance Trust.RC.No.1508 of 2018 became infructuous.Considering the said submissions, in the order dated 15.04.2019 made in Crl.RC.Nos.1508 and 1509 of of 2018, wherever it is typed as “Crl.OP”, it should be replaced and read as “Crl.RC.” Further, in paragraph 18 of the order, dated, 15.04.2019, “two weeks time” granted to the Respondents/ accused to deposit the amounts as stated and directed in the order dated, 15.04.2019, is modified into one “within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order”.In all other aspects, the order dated, 15.04.2019 shall remain unaltered.30.04.2019 Srcmhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.d) During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer had issued seizure orders, dated 17.10.2015, under Section 102 of Cr.PC to the State Bank of India, Kotturpuram Branch and the Canara Bank, Kotturpuram Branch, Chennai, based on which, the said Banks had frozen the respective bank accounts of the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.After the petitions filed by both the Respondent/A1 inhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, for defreezing of their bank accounts were dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, they had filed Crl.OP.Nos.5286 and 5294 of 2016, before this Court, which were disposed of by this Court, by order, dated, 22.12.2017, with a direction, “In case the Investigating Officer has enough material to proceed against any of the accounts for forfeiture or seizure, such proceedings shall be initiated within 15 days, failing which, the concerned account holder can file a petition before the Trial Court and get their accounts defreezed on furnishing bond equal to the amount in the credit of their account as on the date of freezing.”e) While so, both the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, have filed Crl.The Petitioner herein has filed their counter affidavits, dated 22.06.2018, before the Trial Court, opposing the petitions filed by both the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, intimating the proposal sent from CBI to the Ministry through proper channel.However, the Trial Court, erroneously interpreting the orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 dated, 22.12.2017, by the impugned order, has erroneously allowed Crl.In the counters filed by both the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, shall furnish bonds equal to the amount in the credit of their accounts as on the date of freezing.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.These Criminal Revision Petitions filed, as such, without any valid reason or ground are to be dismissed.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.A1 and A2, by approving and signinghttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 bogus documents, wrongfully gained by way of dividends against the false profits.The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Petitioner would further submit that the authorisation for moving an application for attachment under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944 is vested with the Government of India and that the Petitioner, by sending a proposal to the Competent Authority at CBI Head Office, New Delhi, has complied with the directions of this Court, dated 22.12.2017 and that the Trial Court failed to note that the amount sought to be attached is the proceeds of crime and once defreezed, it would not be available for attachment and that the Trial Court, misconstruing the directions of this Court, dated 22.12.2017, erred in passing the impugned orders and that since the proceedings has been initiated, the relief sought for by the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.He would further submit that pursuant to the order passed by the Trial Court, both the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, have withdrawn the entire amount, which were standing in their accounts and have also closed the accounts and in such circumstances, he would pray for setting aside the impugned order.The learned counsel for the Respondents has contended that after having waited for more than a month for the Petitioner to take action as per the orders of this Court, dated 22.12.2017, both the Respondents herein have filed Crl.MP.Nos.843 and 844 of 2018, for defreezing their accounts.He would further submit that both the Respondents have executed necessary bonds to protect the interest of the Department and he would further submit that Mrs.Devaki Muthiah, has not been arrayed as an accused.The learned counsel for the Respondents has ultimately supported the impugned orders on the grounds of (a) non compliance of Section 102 of Cr.PC in respect of intimation by CBI to the Respondents herein about freezing of the accounts, (b) non compliance of the order of this Court, dated 22.12.2017, which stipulates 15 days time to the Petitioner to take a decision whether the accounts to be frozen or not, (c) delay in the Trial Court in not filing the report and (d) no cogent reasons for freezing of the accounts and that these Criminal Revision Petitions filed, without any valid reason orhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 ground, as such, are to be dismissed.The learned counsel for the Respondents would further submit that the Respondents have closed the accounts, being dissatisfied with the services of the Bank and not with an intention to defeat the interest of the Petitioner, however, he would submit that to show their bona fides, without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents , they are prepared to deposit the amounts equal to the amounts, which were lying in their accounts, as on the date of defreezing by way of fixed deposits and undertake to produce the fixed deposit receipts before the Trial Court, so that accumulative interest will accrue to the fixed deposits and further he would submit that since they are prepared to produce the original fixed deposit receipts, before the Trial Court, a direction may be issued to the Trial Court to permit them to renew the fixed deposits on maturity and would seek three weeks time to complete such process.10.I have given my careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence available on record and also perused the impugned order, defreezing the accounts of both the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.11.Since there was an earlier order, dated 22.12.2007 made in Cr.OP.Nos.5286 and 5294 of 2018, filed by the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent/ accused in Crl.The said Criminal Original Petitions were filed by the Respondent/A1 in Crl.13.In the mean time, the Investigating Officer has submitted a memo, intimating initiation of the proceedings under the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, which was returned by this Court, with a direction to submit a detailed reply, regarding the steps taken by the Petitioner, but it was done so.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, on condition that they shall furnish bonds equal to the amounts in the credit of their bank accounts as on the date of freezing.According to the Respondent/A1 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, pursuant to the directions of the Trial Court, dated 01.10.2018, they have executed necessary bonds equal to the amounts in the credit of their accounts as on the date of freezing to protect the interest of the Department.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, both the Respondents are directed to deposit the amounts equal to the amounts, which were lying in their accounts as on the date of freezing, in any one of the nationalied Banks, i.e Rs.1,37,50,952/- by the Respondent/A1 in Crl.The abovehttp://www.judis.nic.in 16 amounts shall be deposited, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the fixed deposit receipts shall be submitted before the Trial Court, within one week thereafter.The Trial Court shall permit both the Respondents to renew the fixed deposits on maturity, on appropriate application being filed by them and on renewal, the Respondents shall resubmit the renewed fixed deposit receipts, before the Trial Court, immediately after renewal.However, the Petitioner/CBI is at liberty to take appropriate/necessary steps under the provisions of the Criminal Law Amendment Ordinance, 1944, to deal with the assets of the Respondent/A1 in Crl.RC.No.1509 of 2018 and his wife, Devaki Muthiah, the Respondent in Crl.RC.No.1508 of 2018, in accordance with law.A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, EgmoreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madrashttp://www.judis.nic.in 17 Crl.RC.Nos.1508 and 1509 of of 2018http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
93,044,006 |
It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.08.2009 in the morning Kesharlal Pralhad Patil and Mukesh had been to Shirpur for admission of Mukesh in Engineering College.Pankaj was on duty at Jalgaon from 3.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. After work of admission at Shirpur was over, Kesharlal and Mukesh came to Amalner by bus.From Amalner they boarded Surat-Bhusawal Passenger train to come to Bhusawal.Pankaj joined them in the same train at Jalgaon at around 1.15 a.m. Trio reached Bhusawal Railway Station at around 2.10 a.m.On getting down at Railway Station, Bhusawal, Pankaj started on foot ahead and Kesharlal and Mukesh were behind on bicycle.In reply, Pankaj stated it was a Surat Passenger.Those persons asked Pankaj where is he going.Pankaj told them that he is going to home.By that time, Kesharlal and Mukesh, who were behind on bicycle reached there.They got down from bicycle and then trio started walking so as to go to their home.It is alleged that those 5-6 persons were in drunken condition and they hurled abuses to Kesharlal and his sons.But ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 5 ignoring abuses, Kesharlal, Pankaj and Mukesh walked ahead.Those persons followed them till Amardeep square.At Amardeep Square one of them gave slap to Pankaj on his head from back and others too started beating Pankaj.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Kesharlal and Mukesh tried to intervene and save Pankaj.That time a person in yellow shirt caught hold neck of Pankaj while another gave a blow with knife at the abdomen of Kesharlal.Kesharlal fell down.When Mukesh tried to hold his father, he was assaulted with knife by that person on his left shoulder.Pankaj raised alarm.As people started assembling, accused persons fled away.According to prosecution witnesses, they must be in the age group between 20-30 years.Appeal+.odt 6 lying in a pool of blood.He was taken to the Hospital of Dr.Santosh Chaudhari by Deepak and his father on motorcycle.Pankaj and Mukesh followed them on bicycle.From the Hospital of Dr.Santosh Chaudhari, Kesharlal was taken to Municipal Dispensary Bhusawal where he was declared as dead.Stab wound was present over the right neck side over the carotid triangle.Size of the stab wound was 6 cm x 3 cm.Its depth was upto 15 cm.These were cut sharp injuries.Edges were sharp.Injuries were grievous in nature.Pankaj Kesharlal Patil (PW1) in his evidence stated that, his brother had passed 12th standard.He was selected at Engineering College Shirpur.On that day, he was on duty from 3.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. After attending duty, he came to Jalgaon ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 15 Railway Station.His father and brother were coming by Amalner-Bhusawal passenger.When he was going by Amardeep Talkies through Jam Mohalla, he noticed that near Shalimar Talkies 5-6 persons were sitting on the Ota / Platform.One of the accused Shaikh Shakil asked him to stop.He did not stop.Said Shakil abused him.He stopped him between 2.15 to 2.30 hours.A tall boy with Yellow Shirt asked him 'dkSulh xkMh vk;h] dgkWa tk jgk gS' (about the name of train arrived and where are you going), he stated that he came by Surat passenger and he is going to his home.His father and brother then arrived there.He further stated that those 5-6 persons were under the influence of liquor.Appeal+.odt 19 clearly emerges that, the prosecution did not bring on record the evidence showing that as a matter of fact other accused knew that, Nadim was possessing knife and he is likely to use the said knife in the commission of offence.It appears that, Nadim inflicted knife blow in the stomach of Kesharlal and also when the brother of Pankaj (PW1) i.e. another witness Mukesh (PW2) intervened to save his father, Nadim had given a knife blow on the hand of Mukesh (PW2).Mukesh (PW2) sustained injuries on his shoulder due to said assault by the Nadim.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Mukesh (PW2) in his deposition stated that, on 10.08.2009 he himself and his father had been to Shirpur for his admission.His father had kept bicycle at R.P.F. office.His brother Pankaj (PW1) told them that, both i.e. Mukesh and Kesharlal can come by bicycle, and Pankaj (PW1) started proceeding to their home.His father took bicycle from R.P.F.office.His brother was walking ahead.He started riding bicycle.His father was sitting behind.They reached near Shalimar Hotel.They saw that, 5-6 persons had stopped his brother Pankaj near Shalimar Hotel.They went close to his brother.5-6 persons were abusing his brother.He asked his brother what happened?Accused Sk.Shakil a fair and tall boy caught neck of his brother Pankaj (PW1).That time Sk.Shakil was wearing yellow shirt.They tried to rescue his brother but they could not rescue him, that time Nadim assaulted his father on stomach by knife.Then he himself and his brother shouted.People assembled there.Then they fled away from the said place.Reserved on : 04.01.2017 Pronounced on : 10.01.2017 JUDGMENT: (Per S.S.Shinde, J.):All these three Criminal Appeals are arising out of the judgment and order dated 30th March, 2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.187 of 2009, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Therefore, these Appeals are heard together and being disposed of by the common judgment and order.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:They were proceeding towards their house.At around 2.30 a.m., Pankaj was passing through ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 4 the road in front of Shalimar Hotel near Amardeep Talkies in Jam Mohalla at Bhusawal.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::That time 5-6 persons sitting on Ota of Shalimar Hotel called Pankaj.He did not respond.It is contended that one of them abused Pankaj and asked him to stop.Then Pankaj stopped.Those persons called Pankaj so he went to them.One of those persons was tall, fair and wearing yellow shirt.He enquired from Pankaj which train has arrived.Pankaj then called his cousin Deepak Pundlik Patil on mobile.Within few minutes, Deepak Patil along with his father Pundlik Nath Patil arrived on the spot.Kesharlal was ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::On 11.08.2009 at 3.15 a.m. Pankaj lodged report with Bazarpeth Police Station Bhusawal.Crime No.136/2009 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code.After registration of FIR by Pankaj, the investigation was set in motion, and thereafter after investigation was complete, charge-sheet came to be filed.The appellants were tried and stands convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 324 r/w.34 of the I.P. Code.Hence these Appeals.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::The learned Advocate Mr.It is submitted that, in the said identification parade before the Tahsildar, the appellant namely Kadir Yakub Gawali was not identified by PW2-Mukesh Kesharlal Patil.He submits that, there is no any other independent evidence which lends support to the version ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 8 of Pankaj Kesharlal Patil (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2).It is submitted that the prosecution has not brought on record the evidence which would indicate that the accused had any motive/reason to commit the alleged offences in question.It is submitted that, since the accused were not known to the prosecution witnesses the identification parade assumes importance and in the facts of the present case the identification parade which was carried out before the Tahsildar was disbelieved by the trial Court.It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Pankaj and PW-2 Mukesh suffers from inherent contradictions, omissions and improvements.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::The learned Advocate Mr. N.S.Ghanekar appearing for the appellant namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil in Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2013 in addition to the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate Mr. V.D.Sapkal submits that, once the identification parade before the Tahsildar was disbelieved by the trial Court on the ground that the said identification parade was not in accordance with the procedure/rules and also the photographs of the accused were already published in the news paper, the identification parade before the Tahsildar or an identification of the accused before the court by the Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2), cannot be believed.He submits that, since there was no any motive/intention to commit the alleged 1 2012 AIR SCW 425 ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 10 offences, the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::The learned Advocate Mr.Jagtap [Appointed], appearing for the appellant namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan in Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2013 submits that, the Medical Officer has not firmly stated that the death of Kesharlal was homicidal.In fact, the injuries sustained by the deceased Kesharlal was due to accidental cause.He submits that, in absence of identification parade of the accused and weapons used, the benefit of doubt should have been given to the appellant.He submits that, the prosecution has utterly failed to bring on record any motive for commission of offences by the appellant.Therefore, he submits that, the Appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.Without prejudice to the arguments ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 11 already advanced, the learned counsel by way of alternate submission argued that, there was no motive for commission of offences.At the most it can be said that, appellant in the heat of anger in sudden provocation appears to have committed the alleged offences, and therefore, the sentence for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the appellant be modified and may be brought down under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::It appears that, the prosecution did examine as many as 12 witnesses.However, the evidence of Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) assumes importance inasmuch as they are eye witnesses to the incident.It clearly emerges from the evidence available on record that, the alleged incident had taken place on 11th August, 2009 at about 2.30 a.m. Immediately thereafter Pankaj lodged report with Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal and the ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 12 FIR came to be registered.It further appears that the injured Mukesh was treated at Bhusawal Municipal Dispensary immediately after the incident and the Medical Officer noticed contused lacerated wound on left upper arm and on left scapular region on back of Mukesh.Therefore, the presence of Mukesh at the time of incident is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.Pankaj was also assaulted by the accused.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::It appears that even the spot panchanama was immediately drawn between 3.35 a.m. to 4.20 a.m. in the presence of panchas namely Pradeep Madhukar Sutar and Ravindra Jagannath Dhage.Immediately on 11.08.2009 at about 6.20 a.m. the accused no.1 Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan and accused no.2 Kadir Yakub Gawali were arrested.Therefore, there is no manner of doubt that there was prompt lodging of FIR, carrying out the spot panchanama referring the Pankaj to the ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 13 medical examination.Kesharlal Pralhad Patil (deceased) was immediately taken to the Hospital after the incident, but he was declared as dead and his post mortem was conducted between 7.10 a.m. to 8.10 a.m.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Medical Officer Dr.Ajay Bajirao Sonowane (PW8) stated in his deposition before the Court that, on external examination he found that stab wound of size 9 cm x 5 cm over the epigastric region on anterior abdominal wall just 10 cm from umbilical site.Depth of wound was up to 5 cm extended up to peritoneal region.Both the stab wounds were ante-mortem.After external examination, he started post mortem.During internal examination, he found first stab ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 14 wound up to peritoneum region.No internal abdominal bleeding was found.The depth of second wound shows rupture of carotid artery and jugular vein showing internal haemorrhage.He opined that, probable cause of death is due to haemorrhage and shock due to stab injuries.Both the injuries stated by him are possible with a sharp knife.Death is possible due to these injuries.Upon careful perusal of his cross examination, his version in examination in chief remained unshattered.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Kesharlal was homicidal.They met him at Jalgaon Railway Station on 11.08.2009 at 1.10 hours.After getting down at Bhusawal Railway Station, he was proceeding to his home.Followed by his father and brother on bicycle behind him.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::He himself, ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 16 his father and brother reached at Amardeep Talkies square.The accused persons were abusing them from behind.They ignored it.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Then Kadir Gawali slapped on back of his head.While he was beating him, other accused also came there and they started beating him.His father-Kesharlal came to save him.Shaikh Shakil caught hold his neck.When his father was coming to save him, Nadim inflicted knife blow on the stomach of his father.He could rescue himself.When his brother intervened to save his father, Nadim had given a knife blow on his brother's left shoulder.They raised cries then accused started running.He called his cousin Deepak Pundlik Patil on mobile and Deepak came there by two-wheeler.His father was taken to the Hospital of Dr.Santoch Chaudhari on the said two-wheeler.However, his father was declared as dead by the said Doctor and then his father was taken to the Municipal Hospital.He also stated ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 17 details about the registration of FIR and seizure of clothes of deceased.He further stated that on 18.08.2009, he was called for identification parade at tahsil office, Bhusawal.He stated details about the manner in which the identification parade was carried out.It appears from his evidence that, he identified the present appellants as assailants in identification parade before the Tahsildar and also before the Court.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::During his cross examination, he stated that, police caught some suspects, they were shown to him in between 4.00 to 5.00 a.m., but they were not accused persons.When suggestion was given to him, whether he had seen accused on BCL Channel or the photographs of the accused on news paper, he denied the said suggestion.Be that as it may, the said identification parade before the Tahsildar was not believed by the trial Court for the reasons which are assigned in ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 18 the impugned judgment.It appears from the evidence of Pankaj (PW1) that, there was no any specific reason or motive for commission of offence by the accused persons.It appears from his evidence that, the accused were of the age group between 25 to 30 years.The entire beginning or starting point of episode as appearing in his evidence is that, near Shalimar Talkies 5-6 persons were sitting on the Ota/Platform.Out of 5-6 accused persons, one of the accused namely Shaikh Shakil told him ':[k' (Stop).He did not stop and then accused started abusing him and accused stopped him in between 2.15 to 2.30 hours.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::It further appears that a tall boy out of 5-6 accused persons asked him about the name of train and where PW-1 is going.It is further stated by Pankaj (PW1) that his father and brother arrived there.Upon reading the evidence of Pankaj (PW1), it ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.On that day, his brother i.e. Pankaj (PW1) was on duty at Jalgaon from 3.00 p.m. to 12.00 p.m. Their train reached to Jalgaon at 1.00 a.m. to 1.25 a.m., that time they met his brother Pankaj (PW1) in the train.Then ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 20 they three started for Bhusawal.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::They got down at the station.Pankaj (PW1) replied that, these persons are abusing him.However, they ignored abuses and went ahead.When they were going ahead, his brother Pankaj (PW1) informed them that, those 5-6 persons were sitting near Shalimar ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.He stated that, a tall and fair person asked him come here (b/kj vko).However, Pankaj ignored their call and then accused started abusing him.Then Pankaj stopped.Then 5-6 persons asked Pankaj by which train he has arrived and where he is going.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::Mukesh (PW2) further stated in his deposition that, he was slowly riding bicycle.His father was pillion rider.His brother was on foot.They reached near Amardeep Talkies.That time Kadir Gawali slapped on the back of head of Pankaj.Then he along with his father got down from bicycle.Put bicycle on stand and went to rescue his brother.He tried to rescue his father.That ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 22 time, Nadim gave knife blows on his left hand and back.With the same knife, he gave blow on the neck of his father.He himself and his father sustained injuries and there was oozing of blood.He made his father lie on the floor.He called his cousin and his uncle.They arrived at the place of incident.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:48 :::If the evidence of Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) is considered in its entirety, the genesis or starting point of the incident is one of the accused namely Shaikh Shakil asked Pankaj (PW1) to stop.Pankaj (PW1) did not stop, then accused started abusing him.As already observed, it has not come on record that, they had any particular motive or object for commission of offence.It clearly emerges that, the father of Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) got down from the ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 23 bicycle and went to rescue Pankaj (PW1).When he went to rescue Pankaj (PW1), that time Nadim assaulted Kesharlal on the stomach with a knife blow and when Mukesh (PW2) tried to rescue Kesharlal, Nadim gave knife blows to Mukesh (PW2) and again knife blow on neck of Kesharlal.Therefore, it can safely be concluded that, Nadim gave knife blow not only to Kesharlal but also to Mukesh, had intention to kill Kesharlal.The fact that he had given more than one knife blows on the neck and stomach of Kesharlal is sufficient to hold that the accused / appellant Nadim is rightly held guilty of offence punishable under Section 302, 324 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court for the murder of Kesharlal and also for inflicting knife injuries on Mukesh (PW2).::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::It is true that, the identification parade, which was conducted before the Tahsildar, has been disbelieved by the trial ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.Pankaj (PW1) and Mukesh (PW2) had ample opportunity to clearly notice the appearances and physical features of the accused as there was sufficient light.Since the incident had taken place on public road for considerable period, we are not prepared to accept the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that, such identification parade before the Court should not be believed.In the present case, ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::However, the fact remains that, one of the aforesaid accused gave slap to Pankaj and another accused caught hold his neck.As already observed, though accused namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil and Kadir Yakub Gawali cannot be held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302, 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code nevertheless since one of the accused gave slap and another accused caught hold his neck, they are liable to be convicted for the lesser offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::In the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, in our considered view the prosecution has not brought on record sufficient evidence / circumstances which would unequivocally and beyond reasonable doubt would establish that, the accused appellant namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil in Criminal Appeal No.169/2013 and appellant namely Kadir Yakub Gawali in Criminal Appeal No.263/2013 were sharing common intention with Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan to kill Kesharlal or to assault/inflict stab injuries to Mukesh (PW2).In that view of the matter, so far conviction of the appellant namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil in Criminal Appeal No.169/2013 and appellant namely Kadir Yakub Gawali in Criminal Appeal No.263/2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 29 Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) each, in default each to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year and for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w.34 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year each, cannot sustain and the benefit of doubt deserves to be given to them, and accordingly, their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside and they stands acquitted from the said offences.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::However, conviction of appellant namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan in Criminal Appeal No.430/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and a fine of ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 30 Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one year and his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two year, stands confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::Set off under Section 428 of the Criminal Procedure Code be given to him as already ordered by the trial Court.In the light of discussion in the foregoing paragraphs, appellant - accused no.2 namely Kadir Yakub Gawali and appellant accused no.3 namely Shaikh Shakil Shaikh Khalil are held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each.They were in jail during trial and also subsequently they are not released on bail, already they have ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 ::: 169.2013Cri.Appeal+.odt 31 undergone more than 1 year sentence, therefore they be released forthwith if not required in any other case.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::In the result, Criminal Appeal No.430 of 2013 filed by Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan is dismissed and Criminal Appeal No.169 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No.263 of 2013 are partly allowed in above terms.Since Mr.V.B.Jagtap, the learned counsel is appointed to prosecute the cause of the appellant namely Mohammad Nadeem Abdul Rashid Bagwan, we quantify his fees Rs.7500/-.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 11/01/2017 01:28:49 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,304,447 |
02.2011 C.R.M. 18299 of 2010 Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24th December, 2010 in connection with Basirhat P.S. Case No. 311/10 dated 06.08.10 under Section 376/493/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Mahinur Gazi @ Mahin..... Petitioner (in Jail).Mr. Kallol Mondal, Mr. Md. Safiur Rahaman.....For the Petitioner.Mr. Prabir Chatterjee.....For the State.The petitioner is seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under Section376/493/323/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code.It is further submitted that the victim girl is a major one and aged about more than 18 years.In course of his argument, learned counsel of the petitioner draws our attention to Annexure "P-2" to this bail application and further submitted that the story is absolutely false because the victim is a married lady.So far as Annexure "P-2" is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the State has not disputed the authenticity of the said document.Now having gone through the case diary and more particularly the statement of the victim girl recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also considering the injury report and the petitioner's period of detention in custody, we allow the petitioner's prayer for bail.Let the petitioner be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 5000/- with one surety of like amount.The accused/petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution case and shall not commit any offence while on bail.The application for bail accordingly stands disposed of.(ASHIM KUMAR ROY, J.) (MRINAL KANTI SINHA, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
|
93,045,465 |
Heard Sri Ram Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Imran with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 249 of 2019, under Sections - 363, 366, 376 I.P.C. & 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station - Kundarki, District - Moradabad, during pendency of trial.From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:(iii) the applicant claims to have cooperated in the investigation.Bail Application No. 11973 of 2020 (Vijay Pratap Verma Vs.State of U.P.) has, while enlarging the applicant (in that case) on bail vide order dated 09.04.2020, imposed certain conditions.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.Order Date :- 12.6.2020 Abhilash
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
96,927,965 |
It is further directed that applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 437 (3) of Cr. P. C.I n view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease (COVID-19)' the concerned Jail Authority is directed to follow the directions/ guidelines issued by the Government with regard to COVID-19 before releasing the applicant.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.02.23 17:30:45Case diary is available.This is first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.185/2019, registered at P. S. Shyampur District Sehore for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 376)2)(n) 376(1) of IPC & Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act.Allegation of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix who was blow 16 years of the age has left her house because of cruel behaviour of her parents and persuaded the applicant to take somewhere else where they will solemnize their marriage.It is also alleged that later-on they fled on 20.8.2019 from their village, reached Banglore, solemnized marriage and later-on prosecutrix has become pregnant and may be mother of child in coming few months.On the other hand parents of the prosecutrix has lodged the missing person report, on which aforesaid crime under Section 363 of IPC has been registered.The statements of the prosecutrix have been recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr. P. C. On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicant and 366-A,376)2)(n) 376(1) of IPC & Section 5(1)/6 of POCSO Act have also been added in already registered crime.I t is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is innocent.He has not committed any offence.He has been falsely implicated in the case.It is further submitted that the prosecutrix has specifically stated in her statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Signature Not Verified SAN Cr. C. P. that she herself has called the applicant, gone on her own will with Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 2021.02.23 17:30:45 IST 2 MCRC-49279-2020 the applicant because of cruel behaviour of her parents, thereafter, she solemnized marriage with the applicant and entered into physical relationship with the applicant, because of which she became pregnant.It is further submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of the address mentioned in the application.There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.The trial will take time to conclude.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant.Although prosecutrix was minor on the date of the incident but looking to the circumstances of the case that prosecutrix herself has left her house, persuaded the applicant for the same and also solemnized marriage with him and become pregnant, in my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.Hence, without commenting on merits, this application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing his personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the court on the dates given by the concerned Court.This M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.C. C. as per rules.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,014,380 |
A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 4 of 75A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 5 of 75The factual matrix emerging from the record is that on 19.12.1997 at about 8.25 p.m., an information was received in the police station Gandhi Nagar vide DD No.26A regarding stabbing of a person at Mandir Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar.On receipt of such information, SI Amrit Raj along with Ct.Mange Ram reached the spot i.e. House No.1357, Mandir Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi but no eye witness of the incident was found.It was revealed that the injured namely Keshav Sharma and Dharmendra had been removed to the hospital.At about 8.45 p.m., an information was received from the GTB hospital (DD No.27A) that injured Keshav Ram was declared brought dead while injured Dharmendra was under treatment.The case FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC.SI Amrit Raj left for the hospital leaving Ct.Mange Ram at the spot.In GTB Hospital, SI Sanjay Sinha handed over MLCs of Keshav Ram, Dharmendra and Raj Kumar to SI Amrit Raj.Injured Dharmendra handed over his blood stained clothes to the police.A pullanda containing clothes of the deceased was seized.SI Amrit Raj recorded statement of injured Dharmendra under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which he stated that on 19.12.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. he was present at his home.He and his father were watching TV after having dinner.There was a knock on the door, but no one was found when his father went to see.Again, there was a knock on the door upon which his father went to the roof and saw that accused Raja was running away after hitting the door with his leg.When there was another knock on the door for the third time, Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 6 of 75 Dharmender went to the roof and found five boys namely Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj, Amit and Anil.In the meanwhile, accused Raja inflicted injury on his left buttock with a knife.When Dharmender raised an alarm, he was pounced by the accused persons and was given injuries on his nose and left shoulder.He tried to free himself and on hearing his cries, his father came on the roof.Accused Raja gave a knife blow on the abdomen of his father.Accused Anil, Sunil, Rohit, Manoj, Raj Kumar Nai and Babloo started beating his father.Accused Manoj, Amit and Rohit escaped by climbing down the wall.Accused Ashok, Kamal and Deepak had pounced upon his father, whereas accused Sunil and Anil were giving him beatings.Accused Deepak, Ashok and Pankaj-who were having knives, were inflicting injuries to his father from left side.Accused Raj Kumar and Kamal were beating his father with iron rods.Due to the injuries sustained, his father fell on the roof and the accused persons fled from the adjacent roof.He also stated that Kaushalya, Kamlesh, Saroj and Jile Singh were standing at the door of this house and were creating ruckus.Nobody came to their rescue.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 6 of 75Dharmender rushed to the house of his sister Sunita at Geeta Colony, and brought her on his motorcycle.Dharmender and his sisters took their father to GTB Hospital in a TSR, where his father was declared dead.He also stated that the accused persons had quarreled with them for the reason that a complaint case filed by his father was fixed before the court in the morning on the same day, wherein accused persons had appeared.In the court, his father met Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 7 of 75 Darshan Singh Bahl, Dr. Kaushal, Ashok, Ashu and Saroj and had a talk for a compromise.There was bickering between his father and Saroj, Ashu and Ashok, and; his father was chased by Ashu and Ashok while returning.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 7 of 75The IO prepared the site plan and collected exhibits from the spot."The time since death was about 2/3 of a day.The cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to antemortem stab injuries involving the axillary blood vessels.PW1/B, no opinion regarding the use of any weapon has been given, with which the injuries were allegedly caused to the deceased.The MLC Ex.PW7/A of the injured Dharmender was prepared by Dr.DX2 were made by the wife of the appellant Kamal against her in-laws i.e. deceased Keshav Ram (father-in-law), Smt.Saroj (mother-in-law) and Dharmender and Manoj (brothers-in- law) with regard to beating and harassment.It is further submitted that two complaints Ex.PW1/X and Ex.PW1/Y were made by the deceased against some of the appellants, but the name of the appellant-Kamal Crl.It is further submitted that it has not been explained by the prosecution, as to how, the appellant reached the roof when the height of the balcony was about 15 feet.Counsel points out that as per DD No. 25A, Ex. PW6/DA, information was received by Police through accused Raj Kumar @Raja regarding the incident.Thereafter, vide DD No. 26A (Ex. PW21/A).He submits that the Crl.But in his cross-examination, PW-1 has admitted that accused Rohit was unarmed.Counsel submits that even in the version of PW-3, that she heard some accused plotting against the deceased and his family, appellant Rohit was not named therein.To prove his plea of alibi, the appellant examined DW9- Jitender Kumar Varshney, who deposed that appellant Rohit Gupta is his brother-in-law.On 03.12.1997, first baby boy was born to the wife of DW9 in Malti Bai Hospital, Chitnish at Thane West, Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 40 of 75 Maharashtra.On 14.12.1997, Rohit Gupta came to his house and brought gift.On 17.12.1997, Namkaran ceremony of son of DW9 was celebrated.On 18.12.1997, Rohit Gupta suffered pain in his stomach.DW9 took Rohit Gupta to civil hospital, Ulhar Nagar, Thane, Maharashtra where he was treated and was advised to come regularly for two days.PW6/DA was recorded on 19.12.1997 at 8:20 PM on the information of the accused Raj Kumar @Raja; and his MLC though not exhibited, is on record which shows that he had received injuries on his head.But another information regarding the incident was reported at 8.25 PM vide DD No.26A (Ex.PW21/A) to the effect that a person had been stabbed and it was assigned to PW-27 Amrit Raj.The injured Dharmender PW-1 was medically examined vide MLC Ex.PW7/A at 8.30 PM, and the deceased was examined vide MLC (Ex.PW9/A).They were brought to the hospital by Sunita.Counsel points that both the MLCs are consecutively numbered (88 and 89).A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 41 of 75PW27/A was prepared at 9.30 p.m. by SI Amrit Raj on the basis of which FIR was registered at 10.30 p.m. vide DD No.29A (Ex.PW21/C).He submits that the statements of Dharmender PW-1, Saroj PW-2 and Sunita PW- 3 were recorded on 19.12.1997 and Ex.PW24/DX2 is the signed statement of PW1 dated 19.12.1997 which was recorded at about 10.30 p.m. He submits that this injured eye witness has specifically named the 12 accused and detailed their roles in his first statement itself.The statement recorded by SI Amrit Raj dated 19.12.1997 under section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex. PW-1/D1 (also Ex. PW-1/DA1) is also on similar lines.It is submitted that the rukka was sent at 9.30 p.m. on 19.12.1997 and by that time the statement of injured Dharmender was not recorded.The statement was recorded later on at about 10.30 PM, but the FIR was already registered on the MLC of the deceased that he had been declared dead.On 21.12.1997, no investigation was done as it was a Sunday and then the investigation was transferred to Insp.Manmohan Sharma PW-20 who arrested the accused Kamal, Deepak, Raj Kumar @ Raja who were searched vide Ex. PW-10/A, Ex. PW10/B and Ex. PW-10/C respectively; and recovery of a dagger was affected at the instance of accused Raja vide Ex. PW-6/E.Counsel submits that on 31.08.2000, order on charge was passed against 10 accused.Thereafter accused Pankaj was arrested on 2.09.2002 and charge sheet against him dated 27.09.2002 was filed and received on 17.12.2002 by ASJ and order on charge was Crl.Thereafter, on the complaint of the complainant dated 10.01.1998 vide Ex. PW-1/Z, the investigation of the case was transferred to Crime Cell on 19.01.1998, East Delhi and Insp.Satyaveer PW-24 recorded the statement of Dharmender under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 23.01.1998 vide Ex.We now proceed to take note of the statements of the material witnesses in the case.PW1-Dharmender Sharma had deposed that on 19.12.1997, he along with his father Keshav Ram Sharma was present at his house at about 7.30 p.m. They were watching TV after taking meals.He also told PW1 that Saroj, Ashok and Ashu had a verbal altercation with him outside the court on that day.Ashok, Ashu, Smt.Saroj etc. threatened his father and asked him to tender apology in writing as well as to withdraw the complaint case.Those persons asked the father of PW1 to vacate the house and to shift somewhere else.His father came back to house along with Sunita, sister of PW1 at about 6.20 p.m. When his sister was leaving the house, she told them that in front of the shop of Kamal- Raja, Pankaj, Ashok, Deepak and Jile Singh were standing and they were saying that they would kill Keshav Ram, his wife and children that Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 49 of 75 day.The shop of Kamal was got closed by those persons who were standing in front of the shop.After about 20 minutes, PW1 heard the knocking "khat khat" at the door of his house.His father went to see who was there but there was no response.After sometime, again, sound of "khat khat" at the door was heard.His father went to the roof to see who was knocking at the door.His father saw the accused Raja was running away after hitting the door.His father wanted to call the police but realized that the telephone line was out of order.After one and a half minute, again sound of "khat khat" at the door was heard and it was like being hit with solid object.PW1 went to the roof where he found five persons namely Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj, Anil and Amit.Accused Raja inflicted injury at his left side buttock with some sharp edged weapon.Accused Anil closed the mouth of PW1 with one of his hands; accused Pankaj inflicted knife injury above his ankle; accused Rohit, Manoj and Amit caught held of him with hands and hair, and caused injuries on his forehead, nose, ears and right shoulders.On hearing the cries of PW1, his father came at the roof to save him.Accused Raja inflicted knife injury below the abdomen of his father; accused Anil, Sunil, Raj Kumar Nai, Sudhir, Rohit and Manoj Nai pounced towards the father and started beating him; accused Ashok, Deepak and Kamal caught held of his father; accused Sunil and Sudhir started inflicting injuries with knives on his father; accused Deepak and Ashok inflicted injuries on the left shoulder of his father; accused Pankaj inflicted knife injury on the hip of his father; accused Kamal and Raj Kumar Nai caused injury on the head of his father with iron rods.Due to the injuries Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 50 of 75 sustained, his father fell down.Accused persons ran away by jumping from adjacent roof.His mother Saroj Sharma also came at the roof.PW1 cried for help but nobody came as Kaushalya, Smt. Saroj, Jile Singh, Kamlesh and Sri Kishan Gupta were present at the door of his house.Kaushalya was the mother of the accused Raja and Pankaj.Saroj was the mother of the accused Sudhir.PW1 left his mother at the spot and went to the house of his sister and came along with her.PW1 and Sunita removed their father Keshav Ram to GTB Hospital, where his father was declared dead.PW1 was medically examined in the hospital.The motive for killing his father and causing injuries to PW1 was to grab their house.Police met him in the hospital and his statement was recorded.Police seized his T-Shirt, one Pajami and one half pant alongwith clothes of his father.He identified his Pajami as Ex. P1, his half Pant as Ex. P2 and T-Shirt as Ex.P3 in the Court.He also identified Shirt Ex. P4, Pyjama Ex. P5 and Underwear Ex. P6 as that of his father.He also stated that he identified the dead body of his father in the mortuary on 20.12.1997 vide Ex.PW2 Smt. Saroj Sharma has deposed that on 19.12.1997 at about 07:30 PM she was preparing food in the kitchen.There was a sound of knocking on the main gate and when again the knocking sound came, her husband went upstairs and saw the accused Raja give a leg blow on the door and ran away.For the third time again, there was a sound of knocking on the door, her son went upstairs and on the roof, he was caught held by accused Manoj Nai, Rohit, Amit, Anil, Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 51 of 75 Pankaj and Raja.They started beating Dharmender.Her husband went upstairs and PW2 also followed him to the roof where she saw accused Manoj Nai, Amit, and Rohit beating Dharmender.Accused Raja, Pankaj, Anil, Sunil, Ashok, Deepak and Sudhir were giving knife blows to her husband.Accused Raj Kumar Nai and Kamal were beating her husband with iron rods.She became nervous and shouted for help.Accused persons went down from the side of the nearby roof of her house.In the street, Kamlesh, Kaushalya, Saroj, Jile Singh and Sri Krishan were shouting and making noise.Thereafter, Dharmender went to call his sister on motor-cycle.Her husband became unconscious.Dharmender brought a three wheeler scooter alongwith Sunita and took their father to the hospital.His daughter came back and told that her father had been declared dead in the hospital.PW3-Sunita had deposed that on 19.12.1997, she came at the residence of her parents along with her father at about 6.20 p.m. When she was going to her residence at about 8 p.m., she saw some persons talking with one Kamal at the right corner of the main gate.Accused Raja, Pankaj, Deepak, Ashok and Zile Singh were telling Kamal Singh that on that day they would kill Keshav Ram and his children.On hearing the same, PW3 went inside the house and told the same to her father and brother.After sometime, the shop of Kamal was closed.PW3 went to her residence Geeta Colony at about 7 p.m. She reached at her residence at 7.45 p.m. At that time, her Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 52 of 75 brother Dharmender came to her house and told that he and his father had been stabbed with knife.PW3 was called to come downstairs.Dharmender came on his bike and was bleeding from his left foot.PW3 sat on the bike and immediately reached at the residence of her father.She saw her father in injured condition and removed her father and brother in TSR to GTB Hospital.On the way, her brother Dharmender told her that accused persons had stabbed his father with a knife.Her father was declared dead in the hospital.PW3 further deposed that her father was always apprehending danger to his life and that is why he had got private security guard.The deceased was declared dead by Dr.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 53 of 75 nature.The depth of the wound was 14 cms.The postmortem report was proved as Ex.PW8/A.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 53 of 75As per the MLC Ex.PW2, wife of the deceased corroborated the testimony of PW1 while deposing that her son Dharmender (PW1) was caught hold by accused Manoj Nai, Rohit, Amit, Anil, Pankaj and Raja on the roof and they gave beatings to him.Her husband went upstairs and PW2 also followed him to the roof where she saw accused Raja, Pankaj, Anil, Sunil, Ashok, Deepak and Sudhir giving knife blows to her husband.PW27/DA1 to Ex. PW27/DA4, the complainant and his family members sought to falsely implicate the accused as an afterthought.The appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja to prove his plea of alibi, had examined DW3-Pramod Sharma who deposed that on Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 58 of 75 19.12.1997 at about 08.15 p.m., he came out of his house and met accused Raja in the street.In the meantime, police came there and asked them to come to police station.On the next day morning, DW3 and other persons were allowed to leave the police station, but accused Raja was detained.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 59 of 75Manoj used to do the work of electrician and was residing in the same gali.85. DW12-Gopal Pandit, Junior Clerk, Regional Mental Hospital, Thane brought OPD register and medicine distribution register.He proved the OPD card of Rohit as Ex.DW12/A. It is worthwhile to mention that the address of Rohit is not mentioned in Ex.DW12/A. Even the name of the patient had been mentioned as Rohit Kr S Gupta.Accused Anil, to prove his plea of alibi, had examined DW4-Luv Kush Aggarwal and DW7-Virender Singh.DW4 had deposed that on 19.12.1997, he and Anil were watching a cricket match in his house and Anil went to his house at about 7-7.15 p.m. to give milk to someone and he came back within 2-3 minutes.Father of Anil asked DW4 to take care of Anil as he was going to purchase a buffalo along with accused Sunil.Anil came and gave milk and then went back.DW7 was also told that accused Sunil had gone to purchase a Buffalo.Accused Sunil had taken the plea of alibi that on the day of incident, he was at Village Khatoli, District Gurgaon to purchase a buffalo.After going through the evidence of DW4 and DW7, we are not convinced with the plea of alibi taken by the accused Anil and Sunil, for the reasons that there is no sufficient or cogent evidence to believe the same.This defence was not taken by these accused till the recording of the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and not put to the material prosecution witness.Saroj Sharma.Since all these appeals have been preferred against a common judgment of conviction dated 24.12.2014 and common order on sentence dated 07.01.2015, therefore, all these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.The present appeals have been filed by the above named appellants, namely, Pankaj Sharma (Crl.A. 255/2015), Manoj Kumar & Rohit Kumar (Crl.A. 270/2015), Ashok Kumar Sharma, Deepak Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 4 of 75 Sharma & Raj Kumar Nai (Crl.A. 302/2015), Sunil Kumar and Anil Kumar (Crl.A. 312/2015), Raj Kumar @ Raja (Crl.A. 329/2015) and Kamal Raj Sharma (Crl.A. 418/2015) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 24.12.2014 vide which they have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 148/452/324/302 read with Section 149 IPC.Appellants Raj Kumar @ Raja and Pankaj have also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Vide order on sentence dated 07.01.2015, all the appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1 lakh each and in default of fine, the same has been ordered to be recovered under Section 421 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 302 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC; appellants Raj Kumar @ Raja and Pankaj Sharma have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for eight months for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.Body of the deceased was sent for post mortem on 20.12.1997 at 11.15 AM.As per post mortem report Ex. PW-8/A, there were 15 injuries on the person of the deceased including 5 incise wounds/stab wounds.The injuries found on the body of the deceased by the examining doctor were the following:"1.Incised wound 4cm x 0.2 x 1 cm present over right side of scalp placed 7cms over right ear and 15cms above right eyebrow.2.Red linear abrasion 6cm x 0.1cm over left side of forehead placed 7cms to left of midline starting from outer angle of left eye.3.Red abrasion 1.5cm x 1cm over right side of chin placed 1.5cms to the right of midline and 2cms below lower lip.4.Incised wound 6.5cm x 0.1cm x 0.1cms present over outer border of right forearm 7cms below elbow joint.5.Red linear abrasion 7cm x 0.1cms over outer aspect of right forearm starting from elbow joint.6.Red abrasion 7cm x 1.5cm present over inner aspect of right arm starting from elbow joint.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 8 of 75Incised stab wound 4cm x 0.2cm present over outer and posterior aspect of left arm.14cms below top of shoulder.It is spindle shaped with clean cut margins and one angle of the wound being more acute than the other.On dissection the track of the wound is going anterior, medially and upward entering the axillary region and cutting the axillary blood vessels.Depth of wound is 14cms.Hemorrhages and extravasations of blood present along track of the wound.8.Red abrasion 0.8cms x 0.8cms over dorsal surface of left thumb on the Inter phalangeal joint.9.Red abrasion 2cm x 1cm over inner aspect of left forearm placed 6cms above the wrist joint.10.Incised stab wound 5.5cm x 0.5cms over outer aspect of left thigh placed 16cms below hip bone.It is spindle shaped with clear cut margins, and one angle of the wound being more acute than the other.It has inverted edges.On dissection the track of the wound is going medially, anteriorly and upwards and made exit wound of 1.3cms x 0.5cms over front of left thigh, 2cm below inguinal crease and 13cms to left of sacrotal sac.It has with clean cut everted edges.Depth of wound is 12cms and no major blood vessels have been cut.11.Red abrasion 1.5cms x 1.5cms over front of left leg placed 12cms below the left knee.Red abrasion 1.5cms x 0.7cms over outer aspect of left leg placed 13cms above ankle joint.13.Red abrasion 5cm x 4 cm over back of right side of abdomen placed 6cms to the right of midline and just above the hip bone.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 9 of 75Lacerated stab wound 1.5cm x 1cm with irregular margins present over right inguinal area 4cms to the right of penis.On dissection, the track of the wound is going upwards, medially and posterior for a depth of 6cms.It was the soft tissues throughout and no major blood vessels were cut.Incised stab wound 4.5cms x 0,3cms present over right buttock placed 5cms to the right of gluteal cleft and 20cms below top of hip bone.On dissection, the track of the wound is going downwards laterally and anteriorly for a depth of 10.5cms.No major blood vessels have been cut."The opinion regarding the cause of death of the deceased is recorded as follows:Injury No.7 was sufficient to independently cause death in the ordinary course of nature."Further investigation of the case was conducted by Insp.At the instance of accused Raja, one dagger was recovered from Thokar No.18, Yamuna Pushta.Initially the police filed the charge sheet against accused Kamal Raj, Deepak Sharma and Raj Kumar @ Raja on 10.03.1998, but further investigation was conducted in the case by Insp.Satyaveer Singh, DIU.Thereafter, supplementary charge sheet was filed against 7 Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 10 of 75 more accused, namely, Sushil, Anil, Raj Kumar Nai, Ashok Sharma, Rohit Gupta, Manoj and Amit.Thereafter, accused Pankaj was arrested and supplementary charge sheet was filed against him.Charges under Section 147/148/149/324/452/307/302 IPC and 27/54/59 Arms Act were framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 10 of 75To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 30 witnesses, Dharmender Sharma (PW1), Smt.Saroj Sharma (PW2), Sunita (PW3) being star witnesses of the case.After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded in which they claimed innocence and denied the entire case of the prosecution.Accused persons examined defence witnesses in their defence.On appreciation of evidence and material brought on record, the trial court convicted the appellants for the offences charged against them passed the order on sentence.Feeling aggrieved of the same, the appellants have preferred the instant appeals.Submissions on behalf of the accused Sunil & AnilLearned counsel for the appellants Sunil and Anil have argued that the dispute was between deceased Keshav Ram and his son Kamal who is also a co-convict in the present case.PW1 admitted in his cross-examination that a civil dispute was going on Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 11 of 75 between his family and family of accused Kamal regarding the house in which he along with his deceased father were staying, and that there was no motive for appellants to murder the deceased.PW1- Dharmender is the alleged eye witness who is also the son of the deceased.PW5-Manoj Kumar is another son of the deceased.It was submitted that as per DD No.26A (Ex.PW21/A), the first information was given to the police at 8.25 p.m. regarding stabbing of a person, whereas as per DD No.25A (Ex.PW6/DA) information was given to the police at 8.20 p.m. by the convict Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja to the effect that he had a quarrel with deceased Keshav Ram, Dharmender and Manoj due to which he received a head injury.However, this information was not auctioned by the police.In this regard, he refers to the testimony of PW27-Insp.Amrit Raj, who stated during his cross-examination that deceased Keshav Ram was not arrested by him under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. and he did not take opinion from the doctor about the injuries received by accused Raj Kumar @ Raja.He also did not take the opinion of doctor whether such injuries were self inflicted or caused by someone.He could not say whether any cognizable offence was made out from the MLC of accused Raj Kumar @ Raja.He could not say whether Raja had received 8-9 stitches on his head.He stated that he did not register the case, as he had no statement of accused Raj Kumar @ Raja.counsel submits that statement of the injured eye witness Dharmender (PW1) was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide PW-1/D1 (PW- 1/DA-1) which was reproduced in the charge sheet and on comparison of thee two accounts, some improvement can be noticed.Counsel Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 12 of 75 submits that in his testimony PW1 deposed that deceased had dinner at about 7.30 p.m. and he died at about 8 p.m. is falsified by the fact that postmortem revealed that only digested food was found in the stomach of the deceased.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 11 of 75A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 12 of 75Counsel submits that PW1 stated that he had received two knife blows, but his MLC shows that he received only one knife injury.It was further submitted that PW1 had not given the route he had taken to go to his sister's house, and he has not explained why he had gone to pick up his sister rather than rushing to the hospital with the deceased.PW1 further stated that in his statement to the police dated 23.01.1998, that while they were going to the hospital by scooter, SHO Manmohan Sharma came there and he asked that his father be taken to GTB Hospital.It is further argued that PW1 has not explained as to why he had not taken his father to a nearby nursing home, and instead gone to GTB Hospital, which was at a far off place.In his cross examination on behalf of accused Sunil and Anil, PW1 stated that his first statement was recorded in the police station, while the second one was recorded in his house, whereas PW27-Insp.Amrit Raj stated that the statement of PW1-Dharmender was recorded in the hospital.Thus, the recording of the initial statement at the claimed time and place is itself doubtful.It was submitted that as per site plan Ex.PW15/A,(also marked Z-1) accused Sunil was standing with an iron rod, but PW1 had stated that he did not tell the police that accused Sunil was having an iron rod while he was standing at the place "I" as shown in the site plan.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 13 of 75PW1 later alleged Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 14 of 75 that Anil possessed a punch in his hand, whereas no injury on deceased is attributable to a punch.It is further argued that in the statement of Saroj Ex.PW24/DX1, there is no mention of the names of the appellants Sunil and Anil as the assailants.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 14 of 75It is further submitted that the appellant Sunil had taken the plea of alibi that on the day of the incident, he along with his father had gone to Village Khatola, District Gurgaon, Haryana to purchase a buffalo.They reached there at about 5 p.m. and stayed in the said village for the whole night.It is further argued that DW4-Luv Kush Aggarwal was examined as defence witness to establish the alibi of accused Anil that on the day of incident, appellant Anil was present with DW4 from 6.00-6.30 p.m. at his house as they were watching a cricket match uptill 10.30-11.00 p.m. DW4 further deposed that on that day father of Anil asked DW4 to take care of Anil as he was going along with Sunil to purchase a buffalo.In between, Anil had gone to his home to sell milk at about 7-7.15 p.m. and came back after about 2-3 minutes.Similarly, DW7-Virender Singh was examined to establish that he purchased the milk from appellant Anil and he stated that on 19.12.1997 at about 7.00-7.15 p.m. He had gone to the house of Anil to purchase milk.At that time, Anil was not present at his house.His mother told him that he was sitting in the house of Babli in the adjacent house.He went to the house of Babli and called Anil.Anil came with him to his house, gave him milk and thereafter, he went back to the house of Babli to watch cricket match.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 15 of 75It is further submitted that as per the Scaled site plan i.e., Ex.PW15/A, the only role assigned to appellant Sunil is that he was standing with iron rod.counsel submits that appellant Anil and Sunil were arrested after about one year without any explanation by prosecution.It is submitted that appellants Anil and Sunil were not even arrayed as accused persons in the First Chargesheet dated 10-3- 1998 which was filed against only three accused persons i.e. Raj Kumar @ Raja, Kamal and Deepak.It is submitted that none of the three investigating officers believed the statements of PW1 Dharmender, wherein he named as many as 12 assailants and, therefore, the First Chargesheet dated 10-3-1998 was filed against only three accused persons, even though the statement of PW1 Dharmender mentioned all the accused- including the appellants." It is not the intention of legislature in enacting Section 149 to render every member of unlawful assembly liable to punishment for every offence committed by one or more of its members.In order to attract Section 149, it must be shown that the incriminating act was done to accomplish the common object of unlawful assembly and it must be within the knowledge of other members as one likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object" (emphasis supplied)Amrit Raj- who had recorded the statement of PW1, PW2 & PW3, had stated that during the course of investigation, it did not come to his knowledge that there was any dispute between the brothers over the house in question.It is submitted that the mother of the deceased, namely, Kasturi Devi had given complaints (Mark X) dated 16.12.1996, and Ex.DX dated 09.01.1997 to various authorities against deceased Keshav Ram and his sons regarding causing trouble in the lives of the applicant, her husband and others.Similarly, complaints Ex.DX1 dated 18.03.1997 and Ex.The appellant had invoked the legal remedy to get his property vacated, and there was no reason to eliminate his own father due to the civil dispute.It is further argued that there are serious contradictions/ improvements in the testimony of PW2-Saroj Sharma inasmuch, as, in her statement made before the Court she stated that she saw that the accused Raj Kumar Nai and Kamal were giving beatings to her husband with iron rod, but when she was confronted with her statement Ex.PW2/DB recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., it was found that nothing as such was mentioned therein.Rather, it was mentioned that she had not seen anyone on the roof.Even PW24 Inspector Satyabir Singh during his cross examination stated that PW2 stated that she could not see any of the assailants.Similarly, serious Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 19 of 75 contradictions in the statement of PW3-Smt.Sunita have been pointed out.It is submitted that she had stated that she had heard the accused persons telling accused Kamal that on that day they would kill Keshav Ram (deceased) and his children, but the said fact did not find mention in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.She neither informed PW-1, or the deceased, or the police about the same as soon as she learnt of the so called plan, to avert it being put into action.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 19 of 75In similar fashion, it is submitted that the testimony of PW1-Dharmender is not true when his testimony is contrasted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ex.PW1/D1 and his testimony is full of improvements.The statement of PW1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. allegedly on 19.12.1997- Ex.PW1/D-1 is absolutely silent about the alleged story of gathering of appellant with other person before the incident.However, another statement (without any date) (Ex. PW1/DX1) records everything which was missing in previous statement.Since this statement is undated, it is difficult to presume as to when it would have been recorded.However, a reasonable inference may be drawn that the said statements were recorded with an ulterior motive to falsely implicate the present appellant.Ld. counsel submits that in his testimony PW1 stated that when his sister Sunita was leaving his house, she told 'us' that in front of the shop of Kamal, Raja, Pankaj, Ashok, Deepak, Jile Singh were standing and they were talking to each other and she also Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 20 of 75 told that they were saying that today they would run after killing Keshav Ram, his wife and children and they further asked Kamal to look thereafter.This statement of PW-1 is unbelievable as there is nothing to show that he, or his other family members i.e., the deceased and his mother reacted to the said information by taking any preventive measures, or informing the police.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 20 of 75Counsel points out that PW-1 in his testimony stated that on the roof he found five persons namely, Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj, Amit and Anil.In the meantime, accused Raja inflicted at his left side buttock with some sharp edged weapon and Anil closed his mouth with one of his hands.Thereafter, accused Pankaj inflicted knife injury above his ankle.Accused Rohit, Manoj and Amit caught hold him (daboch liya).These accused persons caught his hands and hair; and thereafter caused injuries on his forehead, nose, ears, and on right shoulder.He tried his best to get himself released from the clutches of the accused persons.On his crying, his father came at the roof to rescue him.When his father was coming on the roof, (again said) his father had already come on the roof, then, accused Raja inflicted knife injury below the abdomen of his father.Then, accused namely, Anil, Sunil, Raj Kumar, Sudhir, Rohit, Manoj pounced towards his father and they started beating his father.Then, accused Ashok, Deepak and Kamal caught held of his father (daboch liya) and accused Anil, Sunil and Sudhir started inflicting injuries with knives/ khanjars on his father.Accused Deepak and Ashok were inflicting injuries on the left side shoulder of his father.Then, he also noticed that accused Pankaj Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 21 of 75 also inflicted knife injuries on the hip of his father.Kamal and Raj Kumar also started causing injuries on the head of his father with iron rods.Counsel submits that these allegations were not stated by him in Ex.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 21 of 75It is further submitted that PW1 has taken contradictory stands with respect to his statements recorded by the police.It is pointed out that in his cross on behalf of accused Ashok and Deepak dated 02.11.2000, PW-1 stated that his first statement was recorded on 19.12.1997 in GTB hospital by the IO.This statement was recorded at about 10.15 PM.SI Amrit Raj recorded his statement at his instance.He also stated that he had signed his statement which was in writing.But, no such document was found on record.However, Ex. PW24/DX2 was brought on record, which was PW-1's signed statement dated 19.12.1997 recorded by PW-27, SI Amrit Raj.Counsel points to the cross examination of PW-1 on behalf of accused Sunil and Anil dated 05.07.2001, wherein he stated that his first statement was recorded by the police in the police station and the second was recorded in his house on the same date.Probably the statement was got written through someone else by Amrit Raj.The court made an observation that in the original statement dated 19.12.1997, after using eraser, signatures have been put thereupon.It is further argued that PW1 had not disclosed in his testimony, as to what was the object of the accused in causing injury to him and his father, and if his testimony is to be believed, he could not explain as to why he was left alive when his father was fatally injured.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 23 of 75It is further argued that PW1 had the motive to falsely implicate the appellant Kamal in the present case, as he was aware that the GPA/Will of the house in question was in favour of accused Kamal, and in a quarrel, PW1 and Kamal were sent to lock up in the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C. In the cross examination on behalf of the accused Amit and Manoj dated 4.05.2001, PW1 had admitted the pendency of civil dispute with regard to house in question between his father and accused Kamal.The injured witness has not explained the injuries on the body of the accused Raj Kumar @Raja.The injuries on the body of the deceased are a result of a fight.He points towards the examination in chief of PW-1 wherein he had stated that accused Ashok, Deepak and Kamal caught hold of his father (daboch liya) and accused Anil, Sunil and Sudhir started inflicting injuries with knives/ khanjars on his father.Accused Deepak and Ashok were inflicting injuries on the left side shoulder of his father.Then, he also noticed that accused Pankaj also inflicted knife injuries on the hip of his father.Kamal and Raj Kumar Nai also started causing injuries on the head of his father with iron rods.Counsel points to the cross examination of PW-1 on behalf of Ashok and Deepak dated 12.02.2001, wherein he stated that he told the police that accused Deepak and Ashok were inflicting injuries on the left side of the shoulder of his father in the statement dated 19.12.1997 which was written by the IO.This witness was confronted with his statement, where it was written "Ashok, Kamal, Deepak ne pitaji ko daboch rakha tha Sunil Anil maar rahe the Deepak, Ashok bahi taraf peeche se Pankaj pitaji par waar kar rahe the".Thereafter again on 07.03.2001, PW1 states that the statement made by him before the district crime cell was correct which he had read 'surserelee'.He did tell the district crime cell in his statement that his father was given injuries on his left side/shoulder by accused Ashok and Deepak, but the writer of the statement told that he had already told these facts in his earlier statement; and on 03.05.2001, he stated that he saw his father when he was already attacked with the knife.His father did not Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 28 of 75 fall down the roof as he was grabbed by Deepak Kamal and Ashok from behind.His father had already sustained injuries before he was caught held of by the three accused persons.All the three accused had caught held of his father from behind.On the left side Ashok was there, in the middle Kamal was catching hold of his father.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 27 of 75A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 28 of 75Counsel submits that the injury attributed to the appellant Pankaj Sharma is on the ankle of PW1, but the same has not been found in his MLC (Ex. PW-7/A).It is further argued that as per Ex. PW-8/B, which is the opinion of PW-8, Dr. Anil Kohli regarding the weapon of offence, though injury no.15 is attributed to the appellant, but no weapon has been recovered from him.The said injury could be possible by the knife allegedly used and got recovered by the accused Raj Kumar @Raja.It is submitted that there was an injury on the hip of the deceased, but the same could not have been inflicted as the deceased was allegedly held by accused Deepak, Kamal and Ashok from the back.the Police was informed at 8:25 PM that one man had Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 29 of 75 been attacked by a knife.Thereafter, vide Ex. PW 21/B. DD No. 27A, another information was received at 08:45 PM by the police from GTB Hospital regarding the injured being brought to the hospital.Counsel points towards the cross- examination of PW-21, who authored the said exhibits, wherein he has stated that DD No. 25A and DD No. 29A are in different handwritings.It is true that DD No. 5A(DD No. 25A) and DD No. 29A are not signed by me and name of the duty officer is not mentioned in those DDs.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 29 of 75To substantiate his plea of alibi, the appellant Pankaj had examined DW5 Rajesh Umare, who had deposed that as per record, on 19.12.1997 one Pankaj Kumar Sharma sold his motorcycle bearing no.DL 4SD 8310 to one Mr.Larry Eastwood.DW6-Ram Niwas stated that in the month of March-April, 1997, Pankaj Sharma went to Mumbai to work in the film industry.DW10 gave a written undertaking to Pankaj Sharma to hand over his bike to Mr.Thus, the appellant claims that he was present at Mumbai at the relevant time.In support of the above contentions raised, judgments in the case of Jayanti Bhai Bhenkaarbhal v. State of Gujarat (2002) 8 Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 30 of 75 SCC 165 and Kamlesh Prabhudas Tanna and another v. State of Gujarat (2013) 15 SCC 263 have been relied upon, in which it was observed that once the prosecution succeeds in discharging its burden, then it is incumbent on the accused-who takes the plea of alibi, to prove it with certainty so as to exclude the possibility of his presence at the place and time of occurrence.If the evidence adduced by the accused is of such a quality, and of such a standard that the Court may entertain some reasonable doubt regarding his presence at the place and time of occurrence, the Court would evaluate the prosecution evidence to see if the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution leaves any slot available to fit therein the defense of alibi.It was also observed that it is the sacrosanct duty of the appellate court to be satisfied that the guilt of the accused has been established beyond all reasonable doubt after proper reassessment, re-appreciation and re- scrutiny of the material on record.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 30 of 75Submissions on behalf of the accused Raj Kumar @ RajaOn behalf of the appellant Raj Kumar Sharma @ Raja, it is argued that there was a dispute between accused Kamal Sharma and his deceased father regarding the house in question which is of 180 yards and whose owner was Sh.N.K. Sharma, father of the deceased.N.K. Sharma had prepared a will dated 15.04.1997 (Mark Y) in favour of accused Kamal Sharma vide which the house in question was given to Kamal.One GPA (Mark X) was also prepared by Sh.N.K. Sharma in favour of Kamal and the mother of the deceased made several complaints (Ex.DX, Ex. DX3, Mark 'D') against her Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 31 of 75 deceased son with regard to harassment meted out to them.The appellant Raja had no interest in the property in question and it was only accused Kamal Sharma who was interested in the property, so there was no motive in causing alleged injury to the deceased.The appellant Raja is living in the neighborhood and was just watching the fight between the deceased and accused Kamal Raj Sharma and there was nothing unusual about it.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 31 of 75It is further argued that the recovery of the knife vide Ex. PW-6/E at the behest of the appellant on 23.12.1997 is doubtful.There are contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, more particularly PW20-Insp.Manmohan Sharma who stated that accused Raj Kumar @Raja was arrested on 22.12.1997 based on the disclosure statement of accused Deepak and Kamal.Counsel submits that this fact was not stated in the disclosure statement of Deepak and Kamal.Accused Raj Kumar @Raja was arrested prior to recording of Ex. PW-6/B.It is further argued that one DD No.25A (Ex. PW-6/DA) was lodged by accused Raja at 8.20 p.m. on 19.12.1997 to the effect that he had a quarrel with the deceased and his family members, thereafter the appellant was medically examined on 20.12.1997 as admitted by PW-20 Insp.Manmohan Sharma.It is apparent that Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 32 of 75 appellant was not arrested in the manner alleged by the prosecution and no recovery was effected from him.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 32 of 75Counsel submits that DD No.26A was lodged at 8.25 p.m. regarding stabbing of a person.DD No.27A was lodged at 8:45 PM with regard to the information that the deceased was brought dead to the hospital.Counsel submits that the time of occurance is mentioned in DD No. 27A, and there is no explanation as to how the IO found out about the time of occurance.No name of any of the accused was mentioned in the brief facts prepared by the IO.Even the MLC of the deceased (Ex. PW-9/A) shows that he was brought with the history of stabbing by 'some persons'.It is submitted that the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased were not known initially, and it was only after the receipt of his postmortem report that an anti- dated statement of PW1-Dharmender was recorded in which the specific injuries were attributed to the accused persons.It is submitted that the statement of PW1 under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded subsequently, as is evident from the fact that the statements have been tampered with.Eraser/white fluid had been applied over the name of the police officer who recorded the statement and SI Amrit Raj signed over the fluid/eraser.Counsel submits that the fatal knife injury is not attributed to the appellant.However, the said injury was primarily in the left arm (shoulder/upper arm) of the deceased and not directed/aimed at any vital part of the body.The intention of the attacker could not have been to cause the death of the deceased Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 33 of 75 because, had it been so, the attacker would have given a direct knife blow on a vital part of the body.Even the Ld.Trial Court has observed that a preplanned intention to murder deceased Kesho Ram was absent.Further, the Ld. Trial Court has observed that it is ready to assume that the accused persons may not be having the intention to kill Kesho Ram.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 33 of 75Submissions on behalf of the accused Raj Kumar NaiOn behalf of the appellant Raj Kumar Nai, Ld.Counsel submits that initially police did not find anything against appellant Raj Kumar Nai, and he was not charge sheeted by the police in the main charge sheet.However, he was arrayed as an accused only in the supplementary charge sheet later on.It is argued that there was no allegation against the accused that he was involved in any dispute with the family of the deceased.Counsel submits that on a perusal of Ex. PW-1/D2, Ex. PW-1/X and Ex. PW-1/Y, which are documents on record produced to highlight the dispute between the deceased and his neighbors; in none of them, the appellant is cited as a rival party.He is not a stake holder in the property occupied by the deceased, regarding which he was having a dispute with his son Kamal Sharma.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 34 of 75There was no motive with the appellant in causing any injury to either the deceased, or the injured.It is alleged against him that he was carrying an iron rod and gave a blow on the head of the deceased, but the post mortem report does not show any head injury, nor any such iron rod was recovered from the appellant.He submits that it was never the case of the prosecution that the appellant was carrying any knife.It is argued that the appellant was not a member of any unlawful assembly on the day of incident, and nothing has come on record to show what the object of the unlawful assembly was.As per the postmortem report (Ex. PW-8/A) of the deceased, there was only one fatal injury, thus, it cannot be said that the common object of the assembly was to cause the death of the deceased.Submissions on behalf of the accused DeepakOn behalf of the appellant Deepak, it is argued that the injury attributed to the appellant is on the hip of the deceased, whereas the fatal injury was injury no.7 as per the postmortem report (Ex. PW- 8/A).It is further argued that as per the impugned judgment, the cause of death of the deceased was excessive bleeding.It is submitted that as per the death report (Ex. PW-1/B), postmortem report (Ex. PW- 8/A) and testimony of PW-8 Dr. Anil Kohli, the dead body was naked.However, it is not explained where the clothes went.Even, no explanation came on record as to why the dead body of the deceased was brought to the hospital in naked condition.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 35 of 75There is contradiction in the testimony of PW5 as he stated that the deceased died in the morning, but as per the prosecution case, the deceased died in the evening at about 7.30 p.m. Two pyjamas were seized by the police and sent to FSL, which show that one pyjama had no reaction for blood, and the other pyjama was having reaction of human blood of 'A' group.It is submitted that the appellant Deepak is the nephew of the deceased, and there was no complaint by the deceased against Deepak that he had threatened him.Counsel submits that as per the MLC of PW-1, (Ex. PW-7/A) dated 19.12.1997 at 08:30 PM, and testimony of PW-7, there was no injury on the face and ankle of PW-1 and the nature of injuries was simple.Counsel submits that the version of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 with respect to the incident is contradictory, inasmuch, as, PW-1 Dharmender Sharma deposed that on 19.12.1997, he along with his father Sh.Keshav Ram Sharma were present at their house at about 07:30 PM.He stated that they were watching TV after taking their meals.Counsel submits that the conduct of PW-2 is unnatural inasmuch, as, Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 36 of 75 she stated that the SHO of Gandhi Nagar was known to her at the time of the incident.Counsel questions as to why then did she not state the names of accused to the SHO, who was known to her.Counsel submits that PW-1 had already sustained injuries prior to the incident as is evident from the testimony of PW-2 Saroj Sharma and PW-5 Manoj Sharma.Counsel submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the involvement of PW1 in the incident cannot be ruled out.Counsel submits that PW-1 was already in an injured condition prior to the incident in question.She refers to cross examination of PW-2 on behalf of Amit and Manoj dated 1.03.2002, wherein she stated that Dharmender did not go to his work on the day of incident because he was having injuries on his person because of dispute earlier to the incident.PW-5 Manoj too states similarly.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 36 of 75To substantiate his plea of alibi, appellant Deepak examined DW11-Dr.V.K. Chaudhary, S.M.O. under CMO Saharanpur, U.P. who had produced Ex. DW-11/A- the medical certificate of Deepak Sharma.DW11 deposed that as per indoor treatment of Deepak, he came to the hospital on 17.12.1997 at 1.00 p.m. with the complaint of diarrhea, vomiting and dehydration with back pain.He proved the treatment slip of Deepak as Ex.DW11/B.Submissions on behalf of the accused AshokThe appellant Ashok, disputes the place of occurrence.It is submitted that the photographs taken of the spot do not depict the Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 37 of 75 correct picture.PW-27 Amrit Raj had stated that photographs were taken by the private photographer- PW-4, who failed to give the house no. of the place of occurrence and the crime team did not reach the spot.It is submitted that the blood stained earth was lifted from the spot vide 'Mark Z', but the same has not been relied upon by the prosecution.It is further submitted that the story put forth by the prosecution is highly improbable, for the reason that no footprints were found in the blood found on the terrace, or on the staircase, when it is the case of the prosecution itself that the deceased was brought from the roof through stairs after the alleged incident.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 37 of 75Submissions on behalf of the accused ManojOn behalf of the appellant Manoj, it is argued that the DD No.26A (Ex. PW 21/A)regarding stabbing of a person was got lodged and then DD No.27A was got lodged regarding bringing of the deceased in the hospital who was declared dead.Counsel submits that the site plan (Ex. PW-1/DB) is wholly inadequate, as no dimensions have been shown therein.The TSR driver- of the vehicle in which the deceased was taken to the hospital, has not been examined by the prosecution.Even the TSR or the motorcycle of PW-1 Dharmender were not examined to draw blood samples from the same.The FSL report shows that only blood on the pyjama of PW1-Dharmender matched, but the blood of the deceased did not match.It is further argued that undigested food was found in the postmortem report (Ex. P-8/A) of the deceased, which belied the time of death attributed by the prosecution.It is further submitted that PW1 did not disclose the name of any person/ accused in his MLC (Ex. P-7/A), which creates doubt about the involvement of the accused.It is further argued that in the complaint filed by PW1-Dharmender dated 10.01.1998 (Ex. PW-1/Z), name of the appellant Manoj Kumar is not mentioned.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 38 of 75It is further submitted that if the version of PW3-Sunita is to be believed-that she had heard the accused persons planning to eliminate the family of the deceased, then her first reaction would be to come back to the house of her father and to inform them, but she had not done so, which creates doubt about the story.It is submitted that the conduct of PW1 is unnatural, as he had not taken his father to the nearby hospital.Rather took him to GTB Hospital which was at a far off place.Counsel submits that the presence of PW-2 Saroj Sharma at the place of the occurrence is doubtful.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 39 of 75 police did not find any witness at the home of the deceased as per the DD, and no blood stained clothes of PW-2 have been seized by the police.For his alibi, accused Manoj produced Ex. DW-1/A- copy of letter from Deepak Gupta and examined DW-2 Hari Om Gupta to prove that he was working in Noida from 15.12.1997 to 26.12.1997 and his working hours were from 10:00 AM to 08:30 PM.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 39 of 75Submissions on behalf of the accused RohitAppellant produced Ex. DW-12/A, medical records to this effect by DW12-Gopal Pandit Puranik, Junior Clerk at Regional Mental Hospital Thane, Mumbai, Maharashtra.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 40 of 75On 19.03.1998 charge sheet was filed against accused Raj Kumar @ Raja, Kamal and Deepak.On 7.12.1998 seven more accused- Rajkumar Nai, Rohit, Manoj, Anil, Sunil, Ashok, Pankaj were arrested.One Sudhir was declared a proclaimed offender.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 42 of 75APP submits that different statements of PW-1 were recorded at different times, but PW-1 has consistently stated with regard to the incident, and minor contradictions/ exaggerations do not go to the root of the matter.APP thereafter points towards the testimony of PW- 27 Insp.Amrit Raj on the issue of the first statement of PW-1, wherein he has stated that he recorded the statement of PW-1 u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and also of Ct.Devender and SI Sanjay Sinha.He further stated that he recorded the supplementary statement of PW-1 Dharmender and also the statements of PW-2 Saroj, PW-3 Sunita, PW-11 Ct.Charan Singh and PW-13 HC.Mange Ram.In his cross for accused Deepak and Kamal dated 18.03.2010, PW-27 stated that Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 43 of 75 he reached the hospital at 9.45-10 PM.He recorded the statement of Dharmendra at about 10.15 PM.In the cross for accued Raja, Pankaj, Sunil, Anil, Amit and Manoj dated 1.11.2010, he denied the suggestion that the statement of PW-1 was not recorded by him in the hospital.Counsel submits that PW-21 was questioned on the same date of cross examination with respect to the eraser fluid, wherein he stated that he had not applied the same, nor was it done in his presence.He then voluntarily stated that someone else had signed by mistake on point 'A' where he had to sign, and after the fluid was applied, he signed at point 'A'.He further stated that he had asked somebody to apply fluid at point 'A', but he could not remember the name of the person.No note was given for applying the fluid in the statements.He further stated that the signatures have been put by him with pen in original, and not as carbon copy.Likewise, PW-27 gave evasive answers for other questions regarding the application of eraser fluid.In his cross on 3.02.2011, he stated that Dharmendra PW-1 had given one signed statement in writing to him in the hospital which was not written by this witness.He further stated that he had applied eraser fluid on the statement of PW-2 Saroj and PW-3 Sunita in the house at the time of recording their statement at about 11.30 PM which were written on his dictation by SI Ram Sewak.Further, again he stated that the statement of PW-2 and PW-3 were not recorded by him but the same were produced before him by Insp.In his cross on 18.04.2011, he stated that the statement of PW-1 was handed over to him by SI Sanjay and he had handed over all relevant papers Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 44 of 75 on the next day to Insp.Manmohan Sharma, but he did not know specifically whether statement of PW-1 was also included in those papers.He further stated that he had not kept the said statement with him.PW-1 had also signed on the same.SI Sanjay had completed the statement of PW-1 between 10.15 to 10.30 PM.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 43 of 75A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 44 of 75It is submitted that the investigation conducted was fair- as suggested by the accused during the cross-examination of PW3- Sunita dated 31.03.2004, wherein a suggestion was put to her, and she denied the suggestion that she or her brother lodged false complaints even against the fair investigation being conducted by the investigating agency when the same was not going in their favour.Similar was the stand taken by PW1-Dharmender, who got the investigation transferred.Counsel submits that the conduct of the subsequent IO is suspect, since PW2-Saroj Sharma claimed herself to be the eye witness of the incident, but in her testimony she did not claim to be eye witness to the stabbing.Ld Counsel submits that PW- 2 is a natural eye witness at the said place, and nothing has come in Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 45 of 75 the cross examination to doubt the testimony this witness with respect to the incident in question.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 45 of 75APP submits that the accused had motive to commit the offence as the deceased had already made complaints against some of the accused, who used to trespass into their house and threaten the family to vacate the property.One such complaint was dated 13.06.1997 Ex.APP submits that Nand Kishore Sharma (father of deceased) executed a will (Mark Y) dated 15.04.1997 in which he stated that the said property in dispute was his self acquired property, to be devolved upon accused Kamal Sharma.PW-1 in his testimony has, however, stated that he was not aware of the will in favour of Kamal till 6.06.1998, when a case was filed by Kamal.APP submits that the report of the Local Commissioner Ex. PW-1/D2 (Mark Z) in the case filed by accused Kamal against PW1-Dharmender, shows that Dharmender had stated that the property was the deceased's self acquired property.APP submits that PW-1 in his cross examination has stated that his family had altercations with the family of accused Raj Kumar @ Nai since they used to throw empty bottles and objectionable items in the deceased's house.He points out that most accused also stated in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. that Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 46 of 75 the main dispute was between the deceased and accused Kamal regarding the property in question.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 46 of 75APP further submits that PW-1 during his testimony had stated that deceased was having a property dispute with the accused persons, and he had given several complaints against them in the Court and on the day of the incident, he met some of the accused in the court complex also, where a quarrel between them had taken place.It is submitted that the conduct of accused Kamal is not natural as, being son of the deceased Keshav Ram, he had not gone to hospital to see his father after his death.APP further submits that the place of incident has been proved by the testimony of PW-21 HC Khushi Ram, in whose handwriting DD No. 25A, DD No. 26A, DD No. 27A and DD No. 29A were noted; and PW-27 Insp.Amrit Raj, to whom the case was initially assigned; both of whom stated the place of incident to be in Mandir Wali Gali.PW-11 Ct. Charan Singh and PW-13 HC Mange Ram also deposed on similar lines.Mr. Katyal further submits that PW1, PW2 and PW3 are reliable witnesses and their testimony along with postmortem report of the deceased is sufficient to convict the appellants.In support of this contention, reliance has been placed on Tahsildar Singh and Another v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 1012, Appabhai and Another v. State of Gujarat 1988 (Supp) SCC 241, Babasaheb Apparao Patil v. State of Maharashtra (2008) 17 SCC 425 and Bharwada Crl.Therefore, by virtue of Section 6, 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act, her statement is relevant regarding the statement of PW3, to the effect that she heard the accused saying that they would finish the deceased that day, Mr. Katyal submits that the said statement of PW3 has not been relied upon by the prosecution or by the Trial Court.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 47 of 75So far the plea of alibi taken by accused Raja is concerned, it is argued that there was no DD entry by 8.15 p.m. Even there was no question of picking up of DW3, or accused Raja by the police, at 8.15 p.m. DW3 had not stated anything about sustaining injury by accused Raja.Thus, the plea taken is totally false.It is further submitted that the plea of alibi taken by the other accused persons were false and the same have duly been rejected by the trial court.His father was telling him about the complaint case filed by his father against Kaushalya Devi, Raj Kumar @ Raja, Pankaj, Jile Singh, Anil and Sunil S/o Jile Singh which was pending in the Court.On that day, the said case was fixed for hearing.Raj Kumar @ Raja, Ashok, Sunil, Anil, Jile Singh and Kaushalya Devi were present in the Court on that day.His father also told PW1 that MLA Darshan Kumar Behl and Dr.Kaushal had a talk with him for compromise on behalf of the accused persons.PW1/A and identified Death Report Ex.PW1/B.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 49 of 75A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 50 of 75PW2 called her younger son from the shop who left for hospital.Police recorded her statement twice.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 51 of 75On 19.12.1997, there was a hearing in the Court regarding the complaint lodged by her father.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 52 of 75B.D. Singh (PW9) who medically examined the deceased on 19.12.1997 at about 8.30 p.m. The alleged history given was stabbing by someone and on examination, PW9 found four injuries on the person of the deceased and he was declared dead vide MLC Ex.PW9/A. The postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was conducted by PW8 Dr.Anil Kohli.15 ante mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the cause of the death was hemorrhagic shock due to antemortem stab injuries involving the axillary blood vessels.PW8 gave the opinion that injury no.7 i.e. incised stab wound measuring4 cm X 0.2 cm over outer and posterior aspect of left arm, 14 cm below the top of shoulder was sufficient independently to cause death in ordinary course of Crl.PW9/A and the postmortem report Ex.PW8/A, it stands duly established that the death of the deceased was due to stab wound and it was a homicidal death.Accused Raj Kumar Nai and Kamal were beating her husband with iron rods.In the street, Kamlesh, Kaushalya, Saroj, Zile Singh and Sri Krishan were shouting and making noise thereafter, Dharmender went to call his sister on motor-cycle.Her husband became unconscious.Dharmender brought a three wheeler scooter and alongwith Sunita took their father to the hospital.A perusal of DD No.26A Ex.PW21/A shows that the information regarding stabbing of a person in Mandir Wali Gali, Gandhi Nagar was given to the police which was marked to PW27-SI Amrit Raj.PW27 deposed that on receipt of said DD, he along with Ct.Mange Ram (PW-13) reached the spot and in the meanwhile DD No.27A was received with the information that the deceased was declared dead in the hospital and injured Dharmender was admitted to Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 54 of 75 the hospital.PW27 reached GTB hospital and then came back to the spot where the photographs of the spot were taken and exhibits were lifted.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 54 of 75The testimony of PW1 has been challenged by the appellants on various counts- that the same is not trustworthy and his conduct was not natural.It is argued on behalf of the appellants that PW1 stated that he had received two knife blows, but his MLC shows that he received only one knife injury; PW1 had not given the route he had taken to go his sister's house; PW1 admitted that a civil dispute was going on between his family and family of accused Kamal; PW1 had not explained as to why he had not taken his father to a nearby nursing home instead of GTB Hospital which was at a far off place; PW1 stated that his first statement was recorded in the police station while the second one was recorded in his house, whereas PW27- Insp.Amrit Raj stated that the statement of PW1 was recorded in the hospital; PW1 had stated that he did not tell the police that accused Sunil was having iron rod; PW1-Dharmender is untrue when his testimony is confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; PW1 could not explain as to why he was left alive when the deceased was fatally injured; PW1 stated that his statement recorded by the police was unsigned, but this fact has been negated by statement Ex.PW24/DX1 which is his signed statement; PW1 had motive to falsely implicate appellant Kamal in the present case, as he was aware that GPA of the house in question was in favour of accused Kamal and that in a quarrel, PW1 and Kamal were sent to lock up in Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 55 of 75 the proceedings under Section 107/151 Cr.P.C.; only injury attributed to appellant Pankaj Sharma is on the ankle of PW1 but the same has not been found in his MLC; there was an injury on the hip of the deceased, but the same could not have been inflicted as the deceased was held by accused Deepak, Kamal and Ashok from the back; DD No.25A was got lodged by accused Raja at 8.20 p.m. on 19.12.1997 to the effect that he was having a quarrel with the deceased and his family members but the said fact has not been investigated by the IO and the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out; TSR driver was not examined nor the TSR was examined to draw blood samples from the same; motorcycle of PW1-Dharmender had also not been examined; in the initial statement PW1 did not disclose the name of any of the accused which creates doubt about the story of the prosecution and false implication of the appellants.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 55 of 75We have carefully scrutinized the testimony of PW1- Dharmender.PW1 has admitted that a complaint case was filed by his deceased father against some of the accused persons and the same was fixed before the Court in the morning of the date of the incident.It has also come in the evidence that accused Kamal Raj Sharma was having a Will and a GPA in his favour executed by his grandfather with regard to the house where the deceased and his family were residing.Apparently, there was a Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 56 of 75 dispute with regard to possession of the house in question which was in possession of the deceased, and Kamal Raj Sharma was seeking its possession.It is also apparent that PW1 deposed that he received two knife blows, but his MLC shows that he received only a single knife blow near his thigh portion.Though it is apparent from his testimony that a nursing home was situated near the house of the deceased but still he was taken to GTB Hospital by PW1 and his sister PW3, but the said fact cannot be said to be doubtful, as it is quite natural that in view of the gravity of the injuries that the deceased received, he was taken to a bigger and better hospital, rather than a nursing home.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 56 of 75So far as the contention of the accused Raj Kumar @ Raja with regard to lodging of DD No.25A recorded at 8.20 p.m. and failure to carry out investigation on the allegations of accused Raja is concerned, the IO had stated that though it came to his knowledge that accused Raja had sustained injuries, but since his statement was not available with him, he did not inquire into the facts of him sustaining injuries.However, this information given by Raj Kumar @ Raja leaves no room for doubt that he was very much present when the incident took place.The other contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that there is a doubt about the recording of statements of Dharmender, Sunita, Manoj and Saroj, Ex.PW27/DA1 to Ex.PW27/DA4, as it has come in the statement of the IO that eraser fluid at point 'A' was applied on all these statements.It is argued that the said statements are ante-dated and the same have been prepared at Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 57 of 75 a later stage at the instructions of the complainant to use the same against the appellants.The IO (PW27) had clarified that he had not applied the eraser fluid at point 'A' on the statements, nor it was applied in his presence.He further stated that somebody else had signed by mistake on point 'A' where PW27 had to sign, and after the eraser fluid was applied, PW27 signed at point 'A'.He had stated that he had somebody to apply the eraser fluid at point 'A' but he did not remember his name.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 57 of 75We have gone through the statements of Sunita, Saroj, Dharmender Kumar and Manoj Kumar Ex.PW27/DA1 to Ex.PW27/DA4 respectively, on which- as per the defence, at point 'A' fluid was applied and then PW27 had signed on it.The clarification regarding applying of fluid has been given by the IO himself- that it was earlier signed by somebody else by mistake, and then eraser fluid was applied and then PW27 signed on the same.He knew about the murder of Keshav Ram, resident of the same street.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 58 of 75The plea of defence taken by the accused Raj Kumar @ Raja is that on the day of incident he himself visited the police station and got lodged a DD No.25A at about 08.20 p.m. against the deceased and his sons (PW1 & PW5) and then he was taken to hospital for medical examination.The said plea taken by the accused Raja falsifies the testimony of DW3-Pramod Sharma.DW3 had stated that on the day of incident at about 8.15 p.m., when he and accused Raja were present in the street, they were asked by the police to come to the police station.They reached the police station and on the next morning DW3 was allowed to leave, but accused Raja was detained by the police.If the statement of DW3 is believed to be correct, then the plea taken by the accused Raja is contradicted that he himself went to the police station to lodge the DD No.25A at about 8.20 p.m. Thus, there is no truth in the plea of alibi taken by the accused Raj Kumar @ Raja.To prove his plea of alibi, accused Manoj had examined DW1-Deepak Kumar, and DW2-Hari Om Gupta.DW1 had deposed that he knew accused Manoj as he used to learn electric work under him.Manoj worked with DW1 from 15.12.1997 to 26.12.1997 and Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 59 of 75 the time of work was from 10 AM to 8.30 p.m. Two other boys were working for DW1, namely, Hari Om and Vijay.Similarly, DW2-Hari Om Gupta stated that he knew Manoj since the year 1995-He also knew Deepak Gupta, who used to be his contractor.Accused Manoj worked with him from 1996 to 2000 under Deepak Gupta.They used to work under Deepak Gupta at Noida from 10 a.m. to 8.30 p.m.The accused Manoj has taken the plea that on the day of the incident, he was not present at the spot.This plea of the accused Manoj has been falsified by the eye witnesses PW1 and PW2 to the effect, that accused Manoj was present at the roof and caused injuries to PW1 and the deceased.It is apparent from the record that the accused Manoj had not taken such a plea of alibi during the examination of prosecution witnesses and this plea was taken for the first time during the recording of his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Even otherwise, no record was produced by the alleged contractor DW1-Deepak to show that either accused Manoj, or DW2- Hari Om Gupta, ever worked under him or that the accused was present at his work place on the day of incident.Thus, the accused Manoj has failed to substantiate his plea of alibi in the absence of any convincing evidence.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 60 of 75To prove his plea of alibi, accused Rohit Gupta examined DW9-Jitender Varshney and DW12-Gopal Pandit.DW9 deposed that he was the brother-in-law (jija) of accused Rohit.Wife of DW9 delivered a baby boy on 03.12.1997 in Thane and Rohit came to his house on 14.12.1997 with gifts.On 18.12.1997, Rohit had a pain in his stomach and was taken to hospital.He was treated in OPD and he again visited hospital on 19.12.1997 and 20.12.1997 to take medicines.DW9 came to know about the arrest of accused Rohit after 4-5 days.The conduct of DW9 does not inspire confidence of this Court, for the reasons that had it been so- that accused Rohit had taken medical treatment from the hospital at Thane during the relevant period, it would be quite natural for DW9 to come to Delhi to inform the police and concerned authorities regarding the presence of accused Rohit during the relevant time at Thane.Secondly, the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW2 have specifically deposed that accused Anil and Sunil were present at their roof on the date and time of the incident and they caused injuries to PW1 and the deceased.The presence of accused Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 62 of 75 Anil and Sunil at the spot at the time of incident has duly been established and the plea of alibi taken by the accused persons does not inspire confidence of this Court.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 62 of 75The accused Pankaj Sharma had taken the plea of alibi that on the day of incident he was present at Mumbai regarding the sale of his motorcycle.To prove the same, he had examined DW5- Rajesh Umare who had produced the sale and purchase register of vehicles from RTO, Mumbai (West) as Ex.DW5/A. As per Ex.DW5/A, accused Pankaj Sharma sold his motorcycle to one Mr.Larry Eastwood.But DW5 demolished the defence of the accused by stating that a transferor may send his signature on a slip of transfer of vehicle, and presence of transferor was not mandatory.He could not say with certainty that accused Pankaj put his signature while being personally present in the office.It is also apparent from the record that the signature of Pankaj appeared on a slip.It is highly improbable that a person, present in person, would sign on a slip rather than in the register itself, which creates doubt about the presence of accused Pankaj Sharma at Mumbai on the day of the incident.DW10 had not proved on record any document to show that accused Pankaj was working in the Club of Centaur Hotel, Juhu, Mumbai on the day of the incident.The appellant had already availed of his legal remedy, and there was no reason for the appellant Kamal Raj to take the law in his own hands, much less to fatally attack his father or injure his brother.In support of these contentions reliance has been placed on Allauddin Mian and others v. State of Bihar (1989) 3 SCC 5, Rajendra Shantaram Todankar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2003) 2 SCC 257, Maiyadin and others v. State 1973 Cri.L.J. 1203, Najabhai Desurbhai Wagh v. Valerabhai Deganbhai Vagh and others (2017) 3 SCC 261 and Sarwan Singh and others v. State of Punjab (1978) 4 SCC 111 in which it was observed that in order to fasten vicarious responsibility on any member of an unlawful assembly, the prosecution must prove that the Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 64 of 75 act constituting an offence was done in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or the act done is such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 64 of 75We have gone through the prosecution evidence in the form of testimony of PW1-Dharmender Sharma (injured as well as son of the deceased), PW-2 Smt.Saroj Sharma (wife of the deceased), PW-3 Sunita (daughter of the deceased) and PW5-Manoj Sharma (another son of the deceased).The testimony of PW1 has duly been corroborated by PW2-Smt.PW3-Sunita also corroborated that on the day of incident, at about 7.45 p.m., her brother Dharmender came to her house and told that he and his father were stabbed with knife.PW3 sat on the bike of Dharmender and reached at the residence of her father.She saw her father in a critically injured condition and removed her father and brother to GTB Hospital in a TSR.On the way, Dharmender told PW3 that accused persons had stabbed her father with knife.From the testimony of above prosecution witnesses (PW1 & PW2) who are either the injured or the eye witnesses to the incident, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of incident, all the appellants were present on the roof of the house of the deceased.It is not in dispute that the house in which the incident had taken place was in possession of the deceased and his family members on the day of incident.It has come in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 that the door of their house was knocked three times on the day of Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 65 of 75 incident.On the second knocking of the door, deceased went upstairs and saw accused Raja hitting the same.When door was hit for the third time, PW1-Dharmender went to the roof where he was firstly caught hold by five accused persons Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj, Amit and Anil and then he was physically assaulted by accused Raja, Anil, Pankaj, Rohit, Manoj and Amit.When his father came on the roof, he was also assaulted by the all the accused persons/appellants.Similar statement has been made by PW2-Smt.Saroj Sharma that when her son (PW1) went upstairs, he was caught hold by the accused persons and was assaulted and when her deceased husband went upstairs, he was also assaulted by the accused persons.So, from the testimony of PW1 and PW2, it has duly been proved that on the day of the incident, all the appellants committed the offence of criminal trespass into the house of the deceased after preparation to assault the deceased and his son, PW1-Dharmender.The MLC Ex.PW7/A of the injured Dharmender (PW1) shows that he was assaulted by a sharp edged weapon on his gluteal region.It is further apparent from the MLC that the nature of injury was opined to be simple in nature.As it has already been observed that an unlawful assembly was formed by the appellants while Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 66 of 75 entering into the house of the deceased and causing injuries to him and PW1, it is imperative to hold every member of such an unlawful assembly guilty for causing hurt to PW1-Dharmender with dangerous weapon (as reflected in the MLC Ex.PW7/A that injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon) as it is punishable under Section 324 IPC.Therefore, in our considered opinion, the conviction of the appellants under Section 148, 452 and 324 with the aid of Section 149 IPC deserves to be upheld.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 66 of 75Next point of consideration is whether all the appellants are guilty of committing the death or murder of the deceased with the aid of Section 149 IPC, or any one of them- or some of them, are guilty for the said offence.It is argued on behalf of the appellants that though no case is made out against them, but if for the sake of arguments the case of the prosecution is accepted to be true, all the appellants-except accused Raja, were not armed with any deadly weapon so as to support the charge under Section 302 read with 149 IPC.It has come in the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 that a dispute between the deceased and accused persons was in existence and, on the day of the incident, in the morning a case was fixed before the Court where hot exchange of words between the accused side and deceased had taken place.PW1 has specifically stated that his deceased father had lodged a complaint case against Kaushalya Devi, Raj Kumar @ Raja, Pankaj, Jile Singh, Anil and Sunil which was fixed on 19.12.1997 in Karkardooma Courts where Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 67 of 75 some of the accused persons were present.His father told him that Saroj, Ashok and Ashu had heated arguments with him outside the Court on that day and they threatened his father to withdraw the complaint case.Those persons also asked his father to vacate the house and to shift somewhere else along with his family.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 67 of 75From the testimony of PW1 and PW3, it is apparent that some dispute was pending between the deceased and the accused side.It has also come on record that a Will (Ex.DX5 or Mark Y) and General Power of Attorney (Ex.DX4 or MARK X) was executed by late Sh.Nand Kishore in favour of accused Kamal Raj Sharma with regard to the property in question.As discussed above, we are of the view that the object of the unlawful assembly was to commit house trespass, and not to commit the murder of the deceased.It is apparent from the record that the accused persons- except accused Raja and Pankaj, are not claimed to have been armed with any deadly weapon.The eye witnesses have stated that accused Raja and Pankaj were armed with knives.The recovery of knife was effected at the instance of accused Raja vide pointing out-cum-seizure memo Ex.PW6/E. Accused Raja has claimed that no such knife was recovered at his instance, and that it was a planted one.To prove the recovery of knife Ex.P1, PW6-Insp.Ram Sewak deposed that on 22.12.1998, he joined the investigation with Insp.Manmohan Sharma.On that day, accused Raj Kumar @ Raja was arrested at about 7.30 p.m. Accused Raja made his disclosure statement Ex.PW6/A and in pursuance of the same, on Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 68 of 75 23.12.1998, he led the police party to Thokar no.18, Yamuna Pushta and from there he got recovered one dagger.Its sketch Ex.PW6/D was prepared and the same was seized vide memo Ex.The statement of PW6 has duly been corroborated by PW20-Insp.Manmohan Sharma.There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of PW6 and PW20 with regard to arrest of the accused Raja, recovery of knife at his instance, and the documents prepared in this regard.Though there are some minor defects in the investigation, but the same are not material and in no way affect the credibility of the witnesses and the case of the prosecution cannot be discarded only on the basis of such flaws.In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies are bound to occur in the depositions of witnesses due to normal errors of observation, namely, errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence.Where the Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 69 of 75 omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.The court has to form its opinion about the credibility of the witness and record a finding as to whether his deposition inspires confidence.PW1 specifically deposed that he was hit with a sharp edged weapon on his buttock by accused Raj Kumar @ Raja, whereas accused Pankaj inflicted knife injury above his ankle.He also deposed that when his father came on the roof, he was given a knife blow below his abdomen and accused Pankaj also inflicted knife injuries on the hip of his father.The postmortem report Ex.PW8/A further corroborates the testimony of PW1 that his father had received stab wound on his buttock region.Thus, the testimony of PW1 duly corroborated by Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 70 of 75 post mortem report Ex.PW8/A of the deceased clearly proves that both accused Raj Kumar @ Raja and Pankaj were armed with knives at the time of incident with which PW1 and deceased were assaulted.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 70 of 75Though, it is apparent that there was a series of litigation between the deceased and accused persons, but there is no evidence on record that on the day of the incident, the appellants trespassed into the house of the deceased with the object to commit his murder.The evidence brought on record by the prosecution clearly makes out a case against the appellants for unlawful assembly for trespassing into the house of the appellants with weapons and to assault the deceased and PW1, but there is no evidence to connect any of the appellants with the object of unlawful assembly to commit the murder of the deceased.So far as the injuries caused to the deceased is concerned, his post mortem report Ex.PW8/A shows that he had received as many as 15 injuries on his person.The injury no.7 was incised stab wound measuring 4 cm x 0.2 cm over left arm.As per the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was haemorrhagic shock due to antemortem stab injury involving the axillary blood vessels.Injury no.7 was opined to be sufficient to independently cause death in ordinary course of nature.Perusal of postmortem report of the deceased clearly shows that injury no.7 was the main injury which was opined by the doctor to be the cause of death of the deceased.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 71 of 75In similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Litta Singh and Anr.After analyzing the entire evidence, it is evidently clear that the occurrence took place suddenly and there was no premeditation on the part of the appellants.There is no evidence that the appellants made special preparation for assaulting the deceased with the intent to kill him.There is no dispute that the appellants assaulted deceased in such a manner that the deceased suffered grievous injuries which were sufficient to cause death, but we are convinced that the injury was not intended by the appellants to kill the deceased.In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered opinion, the instant case falls Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code as stated above.Although the appellants had no intention to cause death but it can safely be inferred that the appellants knew that such bodily injury was likely to cause death, hence the appellants are guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and are liable to be punished Under Section 304 Part II Indian Penal Code."Further in Vijay Pandurang Thakre and Ors.However, Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 72 of 75 this by itself cannot be the reason to conclude that there was any intention to commit his murder.If 30 persons had attacked the members of Deshmukh Group, there are no injuries on the vital parts of other persons who got injured in the said episode.Ashok also suffered only one injury on his head and no other injury is on vital part of his body.Had there been any common objective to cause murder of the members of Deshmukh Group, there would have been many injuries on deceased Ashok as well as other injured persons on the vital parts of their body.On the contrary, it has come on record that the injuries suffered by other persons are on their back or lower limbs i.e. legs etc.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 72 of 75We, thus, hold that there was no preconceived common object of eliminating the members of Deshmukh family and group and the assembly was not acquired with any deadly weapons either, as held by the High Court.Even the High Court has not pointed out any such evidence.These findings are hereby set aside.So, the appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja is convicted for the commission of offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC for commission of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as the prosecution has failed to show that he had any intention to cause death of the deceased.Thus, we are not in agreement with the trial Court that the appellants are liable to be convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, and they deserve acquittal for the said offence.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 73 of 75The appellants are acquitted for the offence under Section 302 IPC.However, the appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja is convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC.The sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 148 and 324 IPC are upheld.The sentence awarded to the appellants Raj Kumar @ Raja and Pankaj for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act is also upheld.The sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 452 IPC is modified to the extent of rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple Crl.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 74 of 75 imprisonment for one year.The appellant Raj Kumar @ Raja is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1 lakh for the offence under Section 304 Part-II IPC, and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one year.The appellants would be entitled for benefit under Section 428 Cr.P.C.A. 255, 270, 302, 312, 329, 418 of 2015 Page 74 of 75The instant appeals are disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,140,598 |
It is also counter signed by the petitioner himself.It is therefore clear that two pump sets of Fesco and Shriram brand were recovered from the petitioner.Judgement and order dated 28th February 2002 passed by the Learned Sessions Judge, Uttar Dinajpur at Raiganj affirming the judgement and order dated 19.7.2000 convicting the petitioner for commission of offence punishable under section 411 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months.The prosecution case, as alleged, is to the effect that one Dwijendra Nath Roy lodged a written complaint with the Kaliaganj Police Station alleging that on 4.3.1994 three pump sets owned by himself Pankaj Roy and Gopal Roy PW-2 & PW-3 were stolen from Basjhar field by miscreants.Upon receiving of written complaint Kaliyaganj P.S. Case No.146/94 dated 6.12.94 u/s 461/379 of I.P.C was registered for investigation against the petitioner and five other accused persons.Charges were framed against the co-accuseds Rabi Barman, Sunil Barman, Patit Paban Sarkar, Nirode Ch.Roy, Ujjal Sarkar and Pinu Roy under Section 461/34, 379/34 and under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner as the allegedly stolen motor pumps were recovered from his possession.In course of trial nine witness were examined.The defence of the petitioner and other accused persons were one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial by judgement and order dated 9.7.1994 the trial Court was pleased to convict the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment of two months.Other accused persons, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against them.In appeal, the said conviction and sentence was affirmed.He also submitted that there is discrepancy between the stolen articles and the articles alleged to be recovered from the petitioner.The seizure list was signed by an independent witness who 3 has supported the prosecution case.PW-1 and PW-2 also proved the cash memos by which the stolen pump sets were purchased.Accordingly, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner that the pump sets recovered from his possession were not stolen property.Conviction of the petitioner is held.Coming to the issue of sentence, I find that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and the instant case occurred almost two decades ago.Fine shall be paid within four weeks from date.Fine, if paid, shall be handed over to the PW-1 and PW-2 or their legal heirs in equal measure.Copy of the judgement be sent down to the trial Court at once for compliance.The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Trial Court within four weeks and pay the fine, as aforesaid, failing which it will be open to the learned Trial Court to realise the fine in accordance with law.(Joymalya Bagchi, J. )
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
972,106 |
JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.The appellant Sukhdev Singh was attached with Mangat Ram as a Personal Security Officer.Mangat Ram was a Municipal Councillor and was also working as Chairman, Works Committee.On 18th August, 1998 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and for two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, in default of payment of fine he was to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently.The facts of the prosecution case were that Devender Singh had parked his three wheeler scooter bearing no. DIB 1805 opposite the gate of Mangat Ram's office.He opened the lid of the engine.Appellant objected to it and asked Devinder Singh to go away from there.Deveinder Singh had ignored the objection of the appellant.There was an altercation.The appellant threatened to take the said three wheeler scooter to the police station.Thereupon the deceased retorted that he would see as to what the appellant could do.The appellant boarded the scooter and asked the deceased to take the scooter to the police station Adarsh Nagar.The driver of the three wheeler scooter did not follow the right way but tried to proceed in a wrong direction.The appellant asked him to stop and a scuffle took place.During the course of scuffle the appellant took out his pistol and fired at the driver.The bullet missed the target and hit the thigh of Vijay Kumar who was standing nearby.He did not know from where he had taken it out and fired at the driver.He missed the target and it hit the witness on his thigh.The appellant has been held guilty by the learned trial court vide the judgment and order of 17th August, 1999 for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and Section 307 of the said Code.The appellant fired again and this time it had hit the deceased Devender Singh, driver of the three wheeler scooter and Devender Singh collapsed.The appellant, Devender Singh and Vijay Kumar were taken to Hindu Rao Hospital.Devender Singh was declared to be dead while Vijay Kumar was admitted in the hospital.Though the report under Section 173 Indian Penal code with respect to the offence punishable under Section 304/308 Indian Penal code the charges were framed against the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 and 307 Indian Penal Code.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.The defense of the appellant in this regard was that besides the three wheeler driver, there was another person.He asked them to remove the three wheeler scooter for security reasons.The driver and his companion picked quarrel with the appellant.They dragged the appellant to a distance of about 20 feet.Thereafter three or four three wheeler scooter drivers joined the deceased and his companion.He was assaulted by them.The shirt of the appellant was torn and his pistol was snatched.He grappled with them to recover his pistol.In this process the pistol went off.He went on to state that he stated all these facts to Mangat Ram Municipal Councillor.The learned Trial Court closely examined the statements of the witnesses recorded and held that it was the appellant who had fired the pistol as a result of which injury was caused to Vijay Kumar and it also caused the death of Devender Singh.The learned trial court rejected the version that three wheeler scooter driver snatched the pistol of the appellant or that the deceased had been joined by three or four other three wheeler scooter driver.The learned trial court rejected the version that the present case would fall within the exceptions 1, 2 and 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.It was held that there could be no loss of self control on the part of the appellant in the facts, his action was out of proportion to the gravity or magnitude of the provocation.It was further held after holding that the report of the forensic expert also establishes the nexus between the pistol of the appellant and the empty seized from the spot.In these circumstances the appellant was held guilty of the above mentioned offences followed by the order of sentence.Hence the present appeal.The first and foremost question that comes up for consideration is as to wheeler to prosecution has successfully proved that it was the appellant who had fired from his pistol causing the injury on the person or Vijay Kumar and the death of Devender Singh.Mangat Ram, PW3 was the then Municipal Councillor and Chairman of Works Committee.He deposed that it was the appellant himself who stated to him and in the words of the witness the statement reads:-"On 14.6.89, at about 8.30 pm I was present in my office, at Azadpur, Sukkhdev Singh and Chand Kiran both were present outside my office.Sukhdev Singh was in civil dress and chand Kiran was in uniform.On hearing a noise, and Sukhdev Singh came to me.He met me outside the office.He was carrying a pistol which he used to keep with him.Sukhdev Singh told me that he had one scooterwala not to park his scooter at the place near my office at which an altercation took place and while he was taking the scooter-wala in the scooter to the PS, Scooter-driver did not follow the right way to the PS and tried to proceed in the other direction.He tried to stop the scooter-driver and then a scuffled took place and in that scuffle, the scooter-driver tried to snatch his pistol and he fired at the scooter-driver.He did not tell me, as to how many shots he fired."He denied the suggestion that appellant told him that bullet went off in the process of struggle and snatching.In this regard the evidence finds corroboration from the statement of Vijay Kumar who was injured and had received the first shot fired by the appellant.He deposed that he was going to fetch vegetables from the market.He say that a passenger was having an altercation with three wheeler driver a little away from Akash cinema.There was a scuffle between the appellant and the three wheeler driver.Thereupon appellant took out a revolver.The statement made by the appellant immediately to Mangat Ram, PW 3 the Municipal Councillor also indicates that he had told that three wheeler driver was not even ready to obey i.e. he had parked the scooter at the place near the office.He had tried to take away the scooter while he was told that it should be taken to the police station.This was the first version given immediately after the incident.A bruise over sterne clavicular joint.A bruice over the back of neck linear.As a consequence thereto, appellant is sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.200/-.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,324,392 |
Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 30th March, 2016 in connection with Moyna Police Station Case No. 01 of 2016 dated 02.01.2016 under Sections 148/149/447/323/324/325/307/354/379/506 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Sk.Anower @ Sek Anoyar & Ors.... Petitioners.Mr. Suman Dey.... For Petitioners.Mr. Sekhar Barman.... For State.The G.D. entry was filed by the petitioners.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis upon compliance of all formalities.(Patherya, J) (Debi Prosad Dey, J) 3
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,348,413 |
It is directed that in the event of arrest, present applicant Mahendra Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Authority.The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,411,882 |
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary through Video Conferencing.As per prosecution story, Rajendra Solanki, Junior Civil Supply Officer, Block Tirla, District Dhar conducted a surprise inspection in Annapurna Warehouse found Devram Patidar (present applicant) proprietor weighing wheat through the electronic weighing machine in the gunny bags printed in the name of M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation (MPSCSC) with 26 tags of Adim Jati Seva Sahkari Samiti Aahu (hereinafter referred to as "the society").After counting the sacs, he found that 127 bags of wheat are kept in one trolley; 70 bags in another trolley and 44 sacks of wheat are lying on the floor, in total he found 241 sacks of 50 Kg.each belonging to the society.Apart from this, empty 60 sacks of jute and 9 bags of P.P. were also found in the premises of the warehouse.-: 2 :-Aahu, therefore, the Manager and Sales In charge of the society were called, and their statements were recorded in which they denied their involvement and shown ignorance about the purchase of wheat by Annapurna Warehouse.According to them, they have never given sacs, weighing machines, sewing machines, and tags to the said warehouse.They engaged the tractor of the co-accused for transportation of material to Gram Chiklya and it appears that the applicant has unloaded the same in his warehouse illegally.After completing the preliminary investigation, for safety, wheat, weighing machines, sewing machines, etc. were seized and handed over to co-accused Kailash Gehlot, the Manager of the society.Later on all have been handed over to the MPSCSC.That Junior Civil Supply Officer - Rajendra Solanki submitted the report along with documents to Collector, Dhar.As per the statement of Manger and Incharge, they do not know as to where Devram Patidar/ the applicant has obtained empty bags of MPSCSC.The society has never provided him wheat.As per the statement of Devram Patidar, the wheat was belonging to his father - Nandu Patidar who was registered with the Aahu society.This is first application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Devram S/o.In all the bags, there was a seal of MPSCSC and in the 26 tags of the name of the society was printed with "Krishak No.".Prima facie, he found that the present applicant was using the Government bags and tags of the society for the procurement of wheat because he has failed to produce any order and sanction letter for purchase of these bags from the society.The procurement of the center of the Aahu society is Village THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21075/2020 Devram S/o.Nandu Ji Patidar V/s.The Collector after examining the matter directed for lodging the FIR against present applicant - Manager of Annapurna Warehouse, and the co-accused persons.Accordingly, Police Station Tirla has registered the FIR against the applicant and others for the offence punishable under section 420 and 120-B of the IPC.Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as all the grains belonging to his father Nandu who is registered farmer of Aahu society.The applicant has given his warehouse to M.P.W arehose on lease hence there is no violation of Clause 4.8 of "Rabi Procurement Policy 2020- 2021" (Rabi Uparjan Nity 2020) and no offence under IPC has been committed by the applicant.He further submits that as per the report of Junior Civil Supplies Officer, at the most it is a case of violation of Clause 4.8 of "Rabi Procurement Policy 2020-2021" and not an offence u/s. 420 and 120-b of the IPC.No one has made any complaint against the applicant; therefore, offence u/s. 420 of IPC is not made out.The offence is triable by Magistrate and if the applicant is arrested, he will THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21075/2020 Devram S/o.Nandu Ji Patidar V/s.State of M.P.-: 3 :-lose his reputation in the society.As per the report, the applicant is not having any criminal antecedents, therefore, he is entitled to protection from arrest and if he is granted the protection from arrest, he will cooperate with the investigation and will regularly attend the trial.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the application by submitting that the further custodial interrogation of the applicant is required.Vide Resolution dated 16.3.2020, Govind Patidar was made In-charge of the society for the procurement of wheat.The society has engaged the tractor of applicant for transportation of procured wheat and it appears that the driver of Devram Patidar has illegally delivered wheat at Annapurna Warehouse.Hence, he is not entitled to any protection from arrest and the application is liable to be dismissed.Considering the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the parties and material available in the case-diary and also in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the unexpressed opinion of this Court, the applicant is entitled for grant of anticipatory bail.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail upon their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each, with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer , to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer concerned, besides following conditions:(a) He shall make himself available for the purpose of interrogation, if so required and regularly attend the trial THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21075/2020 Devram S/o.Nandu Ji Patidar V/s.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
975,587 |
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.FIR No. 856/2004 U/s 498-A/304-B IPC P.S. Saraswati ViharThe petitioner is an accused of having committed offences under Section 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner is the husband of the deceased Neelam.The petitioner and the deceased Neelam were married on 20th April, 1998 and thereafter, they had two children.On 25.9.2004 Neelam died an unnatural death in the sense that she committed suicide and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging.The death occurred in the matrimonial home and on that very day, i.e. On 25.9.2004, the statements of the father, mother and brother of the deceased were recorded by the police officer.In these statements which are all of a similar nature, it was categorically stated that the deceased was living happily in her matrimonial home since her marriage till date and no dispute took place and there was no quarrel with regard to any issue.It was further stated that the deceased fell ill about two or three months back and was suffering from giddiness.It was categorically stated that nobody is being blamed for the death of the deceased.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that these statements contain certain allegations with regard to demand for dowry and harassment and beating at the hands of the in-laws.According to him, the entire period from the year 2000 to 2004 is a blank.He further submitted that immediately prior to the death of the deceased, the deceased is said to have made a call to her parents stating that she was being beaten for many days and had not been given anything to eat or drink.In this regard, when a pointed question was put to the counsel for the State as to the nature of external injuries found on the body of the deceased at the time of postmortem, it was submitted that apart from the ligature marks on the neck of the deceased which were connected with the handing of the deceased, there was no other external injuries found on the body of the deceased.Furthermore, on going through the statement of the deceased's father on 26.9.2004 there does not seem to be any demand for dowry soon before the death of the deceased.Accordingly, the petitioner would be entitled to bail.The petitioner is, therefore, directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/concerned Magistrate.It goes without saying that all observations made in this order are only for the purpose of grant of bail and are not to be considered at the time of trial of the case.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,630,217 |
Vakalatnama filed by Shri S.P. Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of applicants are taken on record.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with the prayer to quash entire proceeding of Complaint Case No. 532 of 2019 (Vidya Devi Vs.Jai Narayan and three others) as well as summoning order dated 26.06.2019 and N.B.W. order dated 08.07.2019 issued by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur, under Sections 323, 354-B, 392, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Gyanpur, District - Bhadohi pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi at Gyanpur.Further prayer has been made to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 as well as learned AGA appearing for the State.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that civil suits are pending between the parties.Number of criminal cases have also been started by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants.Son of the applicant no. 2 is motor mechanic.He used to repair the vehicles owned by district judiciary.It is further submitted that due to that reason, on the day of filing of complaint, statement of the complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was recorded.Referring to the order-sheet annexed with the application, it is also argued that in the present complaint extending undue favour to the complainants, short dates were fixed and summoning order was also passed hurriedly.Process of summon was directed to be served upon the applicants on the next day of the passing of the summoning order itself.All the witnesses examined in the matter are interested witnesses.Fair procedure for conducting the enquiry in the complaint have not been followed.One FIR was also lodged subsequently by the husband of the opposite party no. 2 against the applicants on the basis of false facts.Officials of District Court are also taking undue interest in favour of the opposite party no. 2 and due to that reason local police also reached at the house of the applicants on the next day of the passing of summoning order.Present complaint was filed in counter-blast with mala-fide intention to create pressure to handover the possession of disputed land in favour of opposite party no. 2, which is subject matter of civil suits.Thus, referring to the law laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 SCC (Cri) 426, prayer is made to allow the application and to set aside the summoning order.Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 argued that several cases have also been started on behalf of applicants against the opposite party no. 2 and her son and other family members.The impugned order does not suffers from illegality and infirmity.If official or officers of civil court were favouring the opposite party no. 2, how applicant no. 1 has got interim order in his favour.Thus, person accompanying the complainant will be best witness.Apart to this, submission raised on behalf of applicants could only be scrutinized after the evidence during trial.So far as initiation of several criminal and civil cases against the applicants by the opposite party no. 2 or her husband is concerned, number of civil and criminal cases have also been started by the applicants as is clear from the affidavit annexed with the application itself.Perusal of the record also shows that after recording of statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C., several dates were fixed for recording of statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and hearing the complainant.If officers or officials of District courts were extending undue favour to opposite party no. 2, same can be enquired by the District Judge on the complaint made by applicants.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,257,039 |
And In the matter of: Didar Laskar.....petitioner.Ms. Shreyashee Biswas Ms. Benajir Hasna ...for the petitioner.Mr. Aditishankar Chakraborty Mr. Saryati Dutta ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Basanti P.S. Case No.990 of 2017 dated 17/12/2017 under Sections 354A/354B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffenceThe State refers to the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code.Considering such statement and the other material against the petitioner, it does not appear that the petitioner's custodial interrogation may be necessary.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) 2
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,261,629 |
BDFGISSV/1685/2013 dated 22.11.2013, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Parthiban @ Pallu Parthiban, Son of Kannan, aged 23 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 22.11.2013, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:i)Adverse case:[Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1T-9 Pattabiram Police Station Cr.No.1032/2013147, 294(b), 384, 506(i) IPC2T-11 Thirunindravur Police Station Cr.No.1347/2013294(b), 397, 506(ii) IPC3T-11 Thirunindravur Police Station Cr.No.1351/2013147, 148, 302 IPC(ii) Ground Case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1T-11 Thirunindravur Police Station, Cr.No.1356/2013147, 148, 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii)3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the 2nd adverse case, 3rd adverse case and in the ground case, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials.In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS.STATE OF MANIPUR] .5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.7.Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz., paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:He has not moved any bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 so far.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Parthiban @ Pallu Parthiban is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.1347/2013, 1351/2013 and 1356/2013 before the appropriate court.Similarly, in a case registered at R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.301/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted in Crl.O.P.No.13843/2009 by the Hon'ble High Court, Madras.It is pertinent to note that in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Cr.No.464/2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 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.
|
192,263,490 |
The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report No. 200 of 2020, dated 03.06.2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, related to P.S. Bhadokhar, District Raebareli.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,263,803 |
The applicant shall appear before the Arresting Officer on the dates so fixed without showing any reasonable excuse.This order shall be valid for a period of thirty days from today.C. c. as per rules.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithwe Date: 2018.08.16 11:13:37 +05'30'
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,268,147 |
cadTo1 The Inspector of Police Kandamangalam Police Station Villupuram District2 The Assistant Sessions Judge-I Villupuram Villupuram District 3 The Special Judge for SC/ST Cases Court Villupuram Villupuram District 4 The Director Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy Greenways Road Chennai 600 0285 The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai 600 104Common order inCrl.O.P. Nos.22449 & 22462 of 201620.10.2016
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,277,940 |
This is third bail application.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 Case Crime No. 262 of 2015,under Sections- 302, 504 and 34 IPC, Police Station- Jawan, District- Aligarh, with the prayer to enlarge him on bail.(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court.Trial court will make all efforts to conclude the trial against the applicant within a period of one year.Order Date :- 28.2.2020 Rohit
|
['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.
|
192,280,357 |
Heard on I.A. No. 7294/15, which is an application filed under section 390 of Cr.P.C.They have been admonished under section 360 of Cr.P.C. and were directed to be released on furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) each to maintain good behaviour for a probation period of one year.The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment.Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2-Kallu @ Kishan prays that the respondent No. 2 had gone to Indore for earning his livelihood, therefore, he could not mark his presence.Respondent No. 2 has to look-after his wife and children.He is permanent resident of village Chhitri, Tehasil Narwar, District Shivpuri, on the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays for allowing the application.Execution of jail sentence of the respondent No. 2 Kallu @ Kishan shall remain suspended till pendency of the appeal and he is directed to be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five thousand only) with a surety bond in like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the registry of this court on 14th December 2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard by the office.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. Palo) Judge neetu
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,237 |
At the time of the marriage, the parents of the deceased had promised to give 40 sovereigns of gold jewels and a Hero Honda Motor Cycle to the 1st Appellant and the deceased Suba.But, at the time of marriage only 33 sovereigns of jewels were given.The Appellants harassed and tortured the deceased by demanding the remaining 7 sovereigns of jewels.Not being able to tolerate with the cruelty of the accused persons, the deceased consumed poison so as to commit suicide and she was saved with great difficulty and on 10.5.2000 at 8.00 a.m. the deceased poured kerosene on herself and set fire on herself and immediately, she was admitted to the Government Hospital, Virudhachalam.b. PW.9 Dr.Ilavarasan attached to the Virudhachalam Government Hospital gave treatment to the deceased on 10.5.2000 and also to the 1st Appellant for the burn injuries on his two hands and the deceased gave a statement to PW.9 and PW.9 has sent her to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry for better treatment, where she died due to burn injuries on 16.5.2000 at 6.00 a.m. c. PW.7 Dr.SM.J.E.Amrose attached to the Jipmer Hospital conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and opined in the post mortem certificate Ex.P4 that the deceased died of burn injuries.d. On receipt of intimation from the Virudhachalam Government Hospital, one Chakkaravarthi, Head Constable attached to the Ramanatham Police Station went to the said Hospital and recorded the statement of PW.1 and registered a case in Cr.330/2000 under Section 498A of IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and prepared the FIR Ex.PW.12 Inspector of Police attached to the said Police Station went to the place of occurrence examined the witnesses and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P3 and a rough plan Ex.P9 in the presence of the witnesses Sridhar and Manivannan and also seized Mos.1 to 4 viz. plastic kerosene tin, a match box and burnt hair and burnt cloth of the deceased under a mahazar Ex.P2 and examined the witnesses Thangasubramanian, the deceased Suba, Banumathi, Manikandan, Kalaiselvi, Amsayal, Selvaraj, Rajavel and Sarkarai, Rani and Perumal and recorded their statements and sent the Material objects under Form-95 to the court concerned and on 12.6.2000 at 13.00 hours arrested A2 at Virudhachalam Bus Stand and recorded his confession statement in the presence of the witnesses and sent him for judicial custody and on receipt of information that the deceased died on 16.5.2000 at 6.00 a.m., altered the case into one under Sections 489A and 304B of IPC and sent FIR Ex.P10 to the court concerned and sent the case file to PW.13 Kamini, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Virudhachalam.d. PW.13 took up the case for further investigation and went to the Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry and conducted inquest and examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and after completing investigation, on 19.6.2000 filed a final report against the accused under Sections 489A and 304B of IPC and on 23.5.2000 arrested the accused and sent them for judicial custody.The case was taken on file in SC.No.47/2001 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (FTC-III) Virudhachalam and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.11} and also relied on Exs.P1 to P10 and four material objects (Mos.1 to 4).On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused denied the same as totally false.The court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellants guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the material records placed.S.Saravanakumar, the learned counsel for the Appellants strenuously contended that there is absolutely no evidence to draw a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act for convicting the 1st Appellant under Section 304B of IPC and when the deceased herself has not stated that she was ill-treated or harassed by the Appellants, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants are not sustainable.He would submit that the evidence of the related witnesses Pws.1 to 5 lacks credibility, apart from the fact that there is no evidence that the deceased was subjected to harassment in connection with the dowry demand soon before her death.On the other hand, Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial Court placing reliance on the evidence of the Prosecution.9. PW.1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased.PW.3 is the brother of the deceased.PW.10 is also related to PW.1 and PW.11 is an independent witness, who is a neighbour of the accused.Both PW.10 and PW.11 have not stated anything about the harassment meted out to the deceased.The Trial Court relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 to come to the conclusion that she was treated for not meeting out the demands made by the accused persons.The essential requirements to be proved for raising a presumption under Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are that (i) whether the accused has committed dowry death of a woman, (ii) a woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives, (iii) such cruelty or harassment was for or in connection with any demand for dowry and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death.In the cases of Kamesh Panjiyar alias Kamlesh Panjiyar Vs.State of Bihar [2005-2-SCC-388], Ram Badan Sharma Vs.State of MP [2006-12-SCC-667], the Honourable Supreme Court reiterated and reasserted the settled principles laid down in the case of Hira Lal and others Vs.State (Government of NCT), Delhi [2003-8-SCC-80], wherein the essential ingredients to attract application under Section 304B are stated.In order to appreciate the above said contentions of the learned counsel for the Appellants, we have to make an independent scrutiny of the evidence on record to find out as to whether the order of the Trial Court of conviction of the Appellants can be sustained or not.Their evidence disclosed that 40 sovereigns of jewels were agreed to be given to the deceased at the time of the marriage and 33 sovereigns of jewels were actually given to her during the marriage.According to the witnesses PW.1 to 5, who are related to each other as stated above, all the accused demanded the balance of 7 sovereigns of jewels and subjected the deceased to harassment.Before the court, PW.1 has stated that the accused persons demanded fridge and washing machine and ill-treated his daughter.This statement is not before the investigating officer and when the same was confronted with the investigating officer, it is seen that PW.1 has made the said statement before the court for the first time.It is an improvement made by PW.1 before the court.It appears that the 1st accused/husband of the deceased was the only son to his parents.From PW.5's evidence, it is seen that before the marriage, setting up a separate establishment for the deceased and the 1st Appellant was discussed.PW.1 to 5 had stated that a Hero Honda Motor Cycle was given to the 1st accused, but the same was taken back from him within six months from the date of the marriage.It has been suggested to the said witnesses that since A1 did not agree to set up a separate family, the Motor Cycle was taken away from him.Though the witnesses denied the said suggestion, but no explanation was forthcoming from them for taking back the Motor Cycle, which was presented to the 1st accused at the time of the marriage.The evidence on record disclose that PW.1 the mother of the deceased had supplied provisions for separate cooking on the date of the incident.This is spoken to by PW.2 in her evidence, wherein she has admitted that she gave materials for cooking through a small girl and the same was given at the request made by her daughter.The deceased in the dying declaration given to the Doctor PW.9 has stated that due to the quarrel with her husband, since he told her to die, she immolated herself.The said dying declaration had been recorded by PW.9 on the same date at 9.55 p.m. when she was brought the the Hospital with burn injuries by her parents.The Doctor has stated that the deceased was conscious at the time of giving the statement and the same has not been challenged by the Prosecution.15. A1 in the statement given under Section 313 of Cr.PC has stated that the parents of the deceased insisted him to set up a separate family and as he refused, they have taken back the Motor Cycle from him.Further, on the date of the occurrence, the deceased cooked with the materials supplied by her mother, which was not liked by him and he refused to take the food and so the deceased has set fire to herself.Admittedly, she had been admitted only by her parents and there cannot be any influence on the deceased to give such a statement by the accused.It is seen that the 1st accused had tried to extinguish the fire and sustained burn injuries on both hands and he was also admitted in the same hospital.But, PWs.1 to 5 deliberately denied knowledge about the injuries sustained by the 1st accused and stated that they were not aware of it.The above said conduct of the said witnesses would clearly show that they do not want to give the true facts before the court, as they were aggrieved over the refusal of the accused to set up a separate family with the deceased.Another significant factor in this case is that the said witnesses have stated that even on the prior occasion, the deceased attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison and she was treated by Doctor one Govindasamy, but the said Doctor has not been examined by the investigating officer.The investigating officer has not made any attempt to investigate on this aspect as to whether any such attempt was made by the deceased on the earlier occasion.Significantly, the deceased has not stated that she was treated cruelly by the accused persons, though she survived for five days.The services of the learned Judicial Magistrate has not been requisitioned, though the evidence on record shows that she was conscious and was alive for five days.After the death of the deceased, who succumbed to the burn injuries on 6.5.2000, the Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.13 has not taken any steps to conduct inquest on the body of the deceased by the concerned Revenue Divisional Officer, in spite of the fact that the deceased had died within 7 years of her marriage.Strangely, Pw.13 has not examined Pws.1 to 5, after she took over investigation.The learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that the investigation was not done in a fair and proper manner and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has conducted further investigation, has prejudged the issue and never attempted to find out the truth by enquiring into all the above aspects.The learned counsel for the Appellants pointed out to the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, wherein they have stated that when the deceased was alive, PW.13 the Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken the statement from the deceased.Though the said fact was denied by PW.13, admittedly no steps have been taken to conduct any enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer concerned to find out the cause of the death independently.If such an enquiry had been made, there would have been a chance for the accused persons to state their version and the investigating officer could have conducted investigation on the said aspect also to find out as to whether the accused were telling the truth.It is to be noted that there was a dying declaration recorded by PW.9 Doctor, immediately after the occurrence.The truthfulness or authenticity of the dying declaration has not been questioned by the Prosecution and it is not the stand of the Prosecution to discard the dying declaration recorded by the Doctor.In fact, the Prosecution laid emphasis on the dying declaration by exhibiting the same as Ex.The deceased in the dying declaration has stated as below:-@vdf;Fk; vdJ fztUf;Fk; Vw;gl;l rz;ilapy; mth; eP ,we;J ngha;tpL vd;W Twpajhy; nfhgj;jpy; kz;bzz;iza; Cw;wp bfhSj;jp bfhz;nld;/ ,J ehd; Rapepidt[ld; ve;jtpj eph;ge;jKk; ,d;wp bfhLj;j kuz thf;FK:The above said dying declaration shows that the deceased had committed suicide due to the usual quarrel with her husband and in the said course of quarrel, he asked her to go and die and in a fit of anger, she committed suicide.It is pertinent to note that she has not whispered anything to implicate the accused to have subjected her to harassment in connection with any demand of dowry.Had she been treated cruelly constantly as deposed by PW.1 to 5, she would not have spared the accused persons, that too, when she had been brought to the Hospital by PW.1 and other family members.It is seen that her parents had insisted for a separate residence, for which A1 did not agree, as he is the only son to his parents.In such circumstances, there is every possibility for PWs.1 to 5 to implicate the accused persons to the suicide committed by the deceased, as they were aggrieved over the refusal of A1 to set up a separate home.The said view gains support.From the evidence of PWs.1 to 5 that the Motor Cycle presented to the 1st accused at the time of marriage has been taken back without any reason.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,237,284 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this 1st bail application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Hazira, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.706/2014 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 380 of IPC with further added Section 411 of IPC.
|
['Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,942,376 |
By this appeal, the Appellants have assailed their conviction Under Section 498A of the IPC in which each of them has been sentenced for one year R.I. with fine of Rs. 2,000 while in addition appellant No. 4 Vishnu also held guilty Under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced for five years R1 with line of Rs. 5,000/- by the Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdol, vide Judgment dated 17.6.2003 in ST.In short, the facts of the prosecution case are that: the deceased Asha was married with appellant No. 4 Vishnu in the year 1997 since then she was subjected to beating and cruelty by the appellants No. 1 to 4 as they are her father-in-law, sister-in-law, mother-in-law and husband respectively.The appellant No. 4 even after marriage was remained unemployed, on account of it at various occasion, he borrowed money from the parents of the deceased and ultimately the deceased and appellant No. 4 have come to village Gorella to reside with the parents of deceased.In the month of October 2000 Murli Tiwari the father of the deceased taken them to village Bijuri the place of his elder son-in-law Ram Prasad Pandey who was working as Munshi with Shri Kediya at village Bijuri .At the instance of said Ramprasad Pandey the appellant No. 4 got employment as Munshi of said Kediya.Thereafter by hiring a room in Kediya Chal, Bijuri they startred to reside there.On dated 20.11.2000 the deceased due to some altercation with the appellant No. 4 poured kerosene on herself and set fire.She was not restrained by appellant No. 4 to commit such act, but on burning appellant No. 4 tried to save her, in consequence, he also burnt and injured .Soon after the incident said Ram Prasad the brother-in-law of appellant No. 4 came to the place of the incident on calling, he brought them by jeep to village Gorela at the parental house of the deceased in the same night.Next day on 21.11.2000 injured were taken to sanatorium hospital Gorela for treatment.On their admission, the information was sent to the police from the hospital regarding necessary arrangement for taking her to district hospital Bilaspur for further treatment with a request to record the dying declaration On such information Police went to hospital and request for medical examination of the injured on which their MLC reports were prepared.According to it, Asha burnt on her neck, face, back side of thigh, abdomen, both the arms, some front part of thigh in all 46% in toto while both the forearms of the appellant No. 4 were found deeply burnt as per assessment 6% in toto.Dr. L.N. Patel (PW 5) has found fit the deceased for recording her dying declaration on dated 21.11.2000 at about 10.20 in the night.The concerning Police Official on returning to Police Station from the hospital of Gorela endorsed the said incident in Rojnamcha Sanha on dated 22,11,2000 and after registering the offence the case diary was sent to Police Station Bijuri as the incident took place within the territorial jurisdiction of such Police Station.It is a matter of record that the aforesaid offence was registered against all the appellants.During investigation on demise of said Asha Section 304B of the IPC was also invoked.As per allegations of the FIR, the deceased Asha was subjected to cruelty by all of the appellants on account of demand of dowry within 7 years from her said marriage.After holding investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted Under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC.The same were denied by them.In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses while no evidence was led on behalf of the appellants in their defence.On appreciation of the same, all the appellants were found guilty Under Section 498A. Appellant No. 4 was additionally found guilty Under Section 306 of the IPC and they have been sentenced as said above.Hence this appeal was preferred against their conviction.Shri D.N. Shukla, the learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no legal and reliable evidence against any of the appellant to hold them guilty for the alleged offences.Inspite it they have been convicted only on wrong appreciation of evidence .According to him, the appellants No. 1, 2 and 3 were not residing with the appellant No. 4 and the deceased, since they left the village Kat Kona for Gorela.Then the question causing any cruelty to deceased by them could not be arisen.He also said that the evidence led by the prosecution in respect of cruelty is not reliable in the lack of specific and clear particulars.Mere on the general allegations and omnibus depositions of witnesses the appellants could not have been held guilty under the aforesaid offences.In support of his contentions he has referred some part of the depositions of Murli Prasad Tiwari (PW1) and Smt Saraswati Bai (PW2) the father and mother of the deceased.He further submitted that on examining the evidence with proper approach, the ingredients regarding abetment to deceased for committing suicide are not made out against the appellant No. 4 as there is no evidence regarding instigation or inducement or his involvement in such .It was also submitted that the provisions of Section 306 read with Section 107 of the IPC alongwith Section 113A of the Evidence Act have not been properly considered.As per his submission in the absence of primafacie evidence of the prosecution regarding abetment to commit suicide the Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked for making the foundation for conviction of the appellant.So far dying declaration of the deceased is concerned, he has submitted that as per bare language of it, no inference could be drawn against the appellant No.4 about his involvement in such offence as she stated in it that such act was being done only to create fear over the appellant.It shows that she herself was not ready for such act, but accidentally the incident was happened .Therefore no liability of it could be fastened against him.In last it was submitted that in order to save the deceased the appellant's hands were also burnt, the same were found on examination by Doctor.The dying declaration of the deceased was wrongly interpreted by the trial Court and prayed for acquittal of the appellants by allowing the appeal.The same is not required any interference at this stage and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.Having heard the learned Counsels I have gone through the record of the trial Court.It is a matter of record that the deceased had died due to unnatural death by means of pouring kerosene on herself and set fire within seven years from her marriage.It is also apparent that on the date of the incident the deceased and appellant No. 4 were not residing alongwith the appellants No. 1 to 3 as they were residing at their native place the village Katkona while appellant No. 4 and deceased were residing at village Bijuri.Before shifting to Bijuri from village Katkona this conduct of parties shows that disputes relating to appellants No. 1 to 3 had come to an end if it was remained in existence.As the appellants No. 1 to 3 neither visited to said village Bijuri where the deceased was residing with appellant No. 4 or at village Gorela the parental homo of the deceased.Therefore, no inference could be drawn against them that they committed any cruelty with deceased or made any demand for dowry after leaving her the village Katkona.But on going through the depositions of Murli Prasad and Sarswati Bai the father and mother of the deceased.It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that when deceased was residing at village Katkona she was remained under the cruel treatment of the appellants.In this respect the documents Ex.P/2 has been proved by Arvind Singh (PW 7), it was a complaint given to him by Murli Prasad (PW 1) in which some allegations regarding cruelty has been mentioned against the appellants.As per deposition of this witness this complaint was received by him as Sarpanch of the village for which he endorsed the copy, placed on the record as Ex.P/2, the same was relied on by the trial Court mere on the testimony of this witness and said Murli Prasad.On perusing the same it appears that Ex.P/2 is not the original document as alleged the same was kept in Gram Panchayat Hence, for the sake of the arguments, if it is assumed that the same was given to said Arvind Singh then in the lack of taking any appropriate action even after receiving the same, the version of this witness could not be relied on.There is sufficient circumstance to draw an inference that without intervention of the office of the Gram Panchayat this letter has been prepared and produced in connivance of the parents of the deceased.The same was prepared just to create the evidence against the appellants.In the absence of Panchayat record about receiving the same in its office.This document could not be relied.Secondly, after shifting the appellant No. 4 and deceased from village Katkona to Bijuri as said above.Thus findings of the trial Court based on this document Ex.While other document the post card Ex.P/1 in the absence of the proof of its date about dispatch and receiving, it could not be relied by the trial Court.Under such circumstance, only the deposition of said Murli Prasad and Sarswati Bai and dying declaration of deceased Asha Ex.P/14 are remained on record for scrutiny and consideration.The Murli Prasad Tiwari (PW 1) has stated in para 17 of his deposition that alter getting job by appellant No. 4 at village Bijuri deceased and appellant No. 4 shifted to such village where his elder son-in-law Ramprasad and daughter Dropadi were already residing, on happening such incident they brought and left to deceased and appellant No. 4 in injured condition at the residence of this witness at village Gorela hence the Ram Prasad and Dropadi were material witnesses for the incident they could have shown the circumstance in which Asha got burnt as they were the neighbour of the deceased and appellant No. 4 in such village.They could have stated the actual facts but the prosecution neither cited them as witnesses nor examined to explain the circumstance.While as per dying declaration of appellant No. 4 Ex.D/3 recorded by Tahsildar, the alleged (sic) took place because of the altercation in between him and deceased on account of one of the relative of said Ram Prasad who was seen by appellant No. 4 in the room with the deceased the prosecution should have washed out this circumstance by examining Ram Prasad and Dropadi Bai but neither they have been examined nor any explanation was put forth in this regard.Thus, non-examination of this Ramprasad and Dropadi Bai is major and material circumstance to draw the inference against the prosecution that the appellant No. 4 had not induced to deceased by cruelty or in any other manner for committing the suicide.This circumstance also shows that Ram Prasad and concerning other person was the cause to induce the deceased for committing the suicide .16.The conduct of said Ram Prasad and Dropadi, soon after the incident creates the suspicion against them as on burning condition the deceased and appellant No. 4 were taken to village Gorella in injured condition by them.It appears unnatural that instead to shift them in hospital for treatment they were only dropped at the parental home.The parents of the deceased have also not taken care of deceased for treatment and kept them from mid night up to the next morning and not shifted to hospital while the said jeep was also available for taking them to hospital.Even after death her elder sister Dropdi and said brother-in-law Ram Prasad had not participated in her funeral as deposed by the parents of deceased.What was the reason to leave the appellant No. 4 and deceased at the parental home by said Ram Prasad and Dropdi Bai instead to shift them in hospital for treatment and more so why she was not shifted to whole of the night to hospital even after coming to parental house.Thus the prosecution had to established that what was that specific reason on account of which Ram Prasad and Dropdi had not taken any interest for their burnt relatives to admit them to hospital.Even after their demise they did not participate in her funeral these things create doubt against them.Although the defence has not put forth the material circumstances in this regard.However, it creates some doubt against said Ram Prasad and Dropadi Bai who kept themselves away from the scenario after leaving the deceased and appellant No. 4 at the resident of Murli Prasad (PW 1) the parents of deceased and said Dropadi.The aforesaid circumstance is somehow established by dying declaration of the deceased Ex.P/14, in which she stated in the answer of question No. 8 that she was creating the fear on appellant No. 4 on account of some altercation in between them in which he had spoken something against her character and asked to go her parental home.In other hand the dying declaration of the appellant No.4 Ex.D/3 was also recorded in which he stated that some altercation took place in between them.Appellant had seen to nephew of said Ram Prasad with the deceased in the room while they were talking to each other in laughing manner on seeing the same he went out side, on returning back the deceased was not found at his residence.As she had gone to the residence of said Ram Prasad then he called through one Rajesh.On her coming said altercation took place and incident was happened.In such circumstance no interference could be drawn against the appellant No. 4 that he has instigated or induced to deceased for committing the suicide.Aforesaid both dying declarations were recorded by Tahsildar cum Executed Magistrate in presence of Doctor who gave the fitness certificate regarding their mental and physical conditions for the same at the beginning of recording and also after recording is over.In aforesaid Ex.P/14 the deceased has said some facts against the appellants regarding the demand of dowry.P.W. 6 Ishwar Prasad stated in his deposition that the accused Kheekram during the course of the grappling ealt a blow over Nakul and Nakul also beat Kheekram.It is on the basis of this story that the learned trial court has held that the present appellant was responsible for causing the death of Nakul.They beat me and abused me.My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time.The dying declaration, per se, could not involve the appellants in offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, because it provides for abetment of suicide.Whoever abets the commission of suicide, and if any person commits suicide due to that reason, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.Abetment has been defined in Section 107 IPC to mean that a person abets the doing of a thing who firstly instigates any person to do a thing, or secondly, engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in, order to the doing of that thing, or thirdly, intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.The conviction of the appellants under Section 306 IPC merely on the allegation of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable.The appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge.It was, however, brought to our notice by learned Counsel for the State that since the occurrence took place on 14.3.1984, Section 498A, IPC had priorly on 15.12.1983 been brought on the statute book and that the appellant could well have been charged under the said provisions which may now be applied in substitution.Even otherwise, substantial justice has been done when the husband and his mother, appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 89 have undergone the sentence imposed on them.Their appeal would stand disposed of as infructuous.The allegations that the appellant did not like to keep the deceased with him because she was not good looking, or that he was addicted to liquor or that the deceased had reported these matters to her parents and others, or that the appellant intended to re-marry and had told his wife Jeeto about it, or that the deceased had once come to her father's house in an injured condition, or even the allegations regarding beatings, do not find place in the statements recorded by the police in the course of investigation.These allegations have been made at the trial for the first time.All that was alleged in the FIR or even at the stage of investigation was that there were frequent quarrels between the husband and wife, sometimes resulting in physical assault, on account of the husband being addicted to consumption of 'Bhang'.The other allegation that the appellant was aggrieved of the fact that his sister Naro was not being properly treated by Fateh Chand, PW 3, brother of the deceased, also appears to be untrue because there is nothing on record to show that there was any harmony in the marital life of his sister Naro.In fact, Fateh Chand, PW 3, her husband, himself stated on oath that he was living happily with his wife Naro, sister of the appellant On such slender evidence, therefore, we are not persuaded to invoke the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act to find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC.The trial Court found that there was material to support the charge under Section 498A, IPC but did not pass a sentence under Section 498A, IPC on a finding that the same will be overlapping, the appellant having been found guilty of the offence under Section 306, IPC Having regard to the facts of the case, we are satisfied that though the prosecution has failed to establish the offence under Section 306, IPC, the evidence on record justifies the conviction of the appellant under Section 498A IPC.We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant under Section 306, IPC and acquit him of that charge, but we find the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 498A, IPC and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on that count.This appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,238,803 |
A No.439/2019http://www.judis.nic.in 3 whose name does not find a place in the FIR, may also be granted the similar benefit.Public Prosecutor, appearing for respondents 1 & 2 submitted that the trial court, after detailed arguments by both sides, by a reasoned order, has rejected the application for bail and, therefore, no interference is called for with the said order and this petition is liable to be dismissed.On notice to the 3rd respondent/defacto complainant, learned counsel, who appeared for the 3rd respondent, stoutly opposed grant of bail to the appellant and submitted that the safety and security of the defacto complainant would be at peril, if the appellant is released on bail._____________ CRL.A No.439/2019http://www.judis.nic.in 5 appellant shall appear before the said Court at 10.30 a.m. on the 1 st working day of every English Calendar month until further orders.06.11.2019 GLN Note to Office :The III Addl.The appellant, along with other accused, were charged for the offences u/s 147, 148, 452, 294 (b), 342, 506 (ii) and 302 IPC and Section 4 of the Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act and Section 3 (2) (V) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Pending trial, the petitioner herein filed bail application, which, after hearing was dismissed by the trial court against which the present miscellaneous petition is filed.A. (MD) No.463/2019 and, therefore, this appellant, _____________ CRL.A No.439/2019http://www.judis.nic.in 4This Court gave its careful consideration to the submissions advanced on either side and also perused the materials available on record.Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai, by granting bail to the appellant.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is directed to be enlarged on bail on condition that the appellant executes a bond for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties, each for a likesum, to the satisfaction of the learned III Addl.Sessions Judge, (PCR), Madurai, and on further condition that the _____________ CRL.Issue order copy on 07.11.2019District & Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai.The Addl.Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai._____________ CRL.A No.439/2019http://www.judis.nic.in 6 V.PARTHIBAN, J.GLN CRL.A. (MD) NO.439 OF 2019 06.11.2019 _____________ CRL.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,942,392 |
JUDGMENT Debiprasad Sengupta, J.This revisional application is against a judgment and order dated 30.9.1992 passed by the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal, Midnapore in Misc Case No. 58/1990 thereby dismissing the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/wife and her minor daughter under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The present petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate claiming maintenance for herself and her minor daughter.In the said application it was stated that on 24th Baisakh 1386 the petitioner got married with the opposite party according to Hindu rites and customs.Some time after marriage she was subjected to torture and ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws both mentally and physically and finally she was driven out of her matrimonial home by the parents of the opposite party along with her minor daughter.She was compelled to take shelter in her father's house.It was also stated that the opposite party/husband having sufficient means to maintain his wife, refused and neglected to maintain the petitioner and her daughter.The opposite party/husband appeared and contested the said proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by filing written objection against the petitioner under Section 125, Cr.P.C. thereby denying all the allegations made against him.In her objection petition it was specifically stated that there was no valid marriage and as such the present petitioner is not entitled to get any maintenance.It was the case of the opposite party/husband that at the instance of the present petitioner a proposal for marriage was given to the opposite party, which was refused.Subsequently, at the instance of the petitioner there was exchange of garlands in the month of Ashar, 1392 B.S. and that was ultimately disclosed by the present petitioner to her relatives and on that basis the present petitioner used to come to the house of the opposite party/husband and she used to reside there for 5 to 7 days at a time and thereafter used to leave the house of the opposite party/husband.It was the case of the opposite party/husband that he never resided with the present petitioner as husband and wife.There are evidence of torture and ill-treatment by the opposite party/husband and other members of his family.I have carefully gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate and also the entire evidence on record.After going through the evidence on record I find that the present petitioner miserably failed to prove that she was legally married wife of the opposite party/husband.It is true that strict proof of marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act is not necessary in the proceeding under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but there must be some evidences to show that there is a valid marriage between the parties and they resided together as husband and wife.No doubt some of the witnesses have given some vague statements regarding torture and ill-treatment by the husband and in-laws but such allegations could not be substantiated by the petitioner.It appears that on the basis of a complaint lodged by the present petitioner against the opposite party/husband and other in-laws a case was registered with Ghatal Police Station under Sections 498A/120B, I.P.C. The said case ended in acquittal by an order dated 26.11.1999 passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ghatal.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,239,657 |
Along therewith Crl.A.No.49/2000, filed by Vijay has to be decided.The reason being that all of them have been convicted vide decision dated December 15, 1999 in FIR No.183/1985 PS Farsh Bazar.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 2 of 17A.No.27/2000, filed by Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar is also being decided along with Crl.A.No.18/2000 and Crl.A.No.49/2000 notwithstanding the appellants of Crl.The FIR in which these appellants were accused is FIR No.184/1985 CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 3 of 17 PS Farsh Bazar.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 3 of 17It is a case of two cross complaints resulting in registration of FIR No.183/1985 in which Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand, Subhash Chand, Ashok and Swaroop Chand were named as accused and FIR No.184/1985 in which Murari Lal, Anil Kumar S/o Murari Lal, Ramnik, Om Prakash, Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath and Raj Kumar were named as accused.The two cross FIRs were registered concerning an incident of rioting which admittedly took place on May 24, 1985 at 4:00 PM, and the place is a street in Bara Bazar, Shahdara on which the accused on either side had shops wherefrom they were carrying on business.The gladiators on the two sides were : (i) Murari Lal, his sons Ashok (who died due to injuries suffered at the incident) and Anil Kumar; his brothers Raj Kumar and Om Prakash, and the son of Om Prakash named Ramnik, and one Anil S/o Baij Nath who was married to the sister of Murari Lal; (ii) Swaroop Chand, his sons Munna Lal and Subhash Chand along with Subhash Chand's son Ashok and Prakash Chand, the brother of Swaroop Chand and his sons Vijay and Rajesh.We shall be referring hereinafter to the group of Murari Lal as Group-A and the other group of Swaroop Chand as Group-B. The site plan to scale Ex.PW-4/A in the criminal trial in which Group-B was the accused would depict the place where the incident took place and would be as under:-Bara Bazar Street Namkeen CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 4 of 17CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 4 of 17Being relevant for decision in the appeal, shop No.518 belongs to Murari Lal's Group and shop No.512 belongs to Swaroop Chand's Group.The Namkeen shop belongs to one unknown person where snacks used to be prepared by frying food stuff in a kadhai and to stir and sieve the fried food stuff a palta was used.The origin of the incident, consistently deposed to by witnesses on either side is that on May 24, 1985 the officials of the Food Department of Delhi Administration reached Bara Bazar Shahdara to lift samples of food.As the word spread in the market that the officials were lifting samples the shopkeepers pull down their shutters.There were allegations and counter allegations.Lala Swaroop Chand accused Lala Murari Lal of having organized the raid and Lala Murari Lal accused Lala Swaroop Chand of having organized the raid.Needless to state witnesses appearing at the trial against Murari Lal and others i.e. members of Swaroop Chand's Group deposed that Lala Murari Lal and his group were the aggressors and vice versa.Vinod Kumar who appeared as PW-3 in the criminal trial against Group-A and as PW-13 in the criminal trial against Group-B was handed over DD No.24-A which was recorded at PS Farsh Bazar at 4:05 hours and he proceeded to Bara Bazar Street because the information was that two groups were rioting in Bara Bazar Street.He learnt that one Ashok S/o Prakash Chand and a few other injured persons had been taken to the hospital.He recorded the statement Ex.PW-1/A of Vijay Kumar PW-1 in which Vijay Kumar named members of the Group-A as the ones who had formed an unlawful assembly and attacked shop No.512 of Vijay.He also recorded the statement Ex.The road segment is about 60 feet.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE OCTOBER 17, 2014 mamta CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 17 of 17CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 17 of 17A.No.18/2000 filed by Rajesh, Munna Lal, Prakash Chand, Subhash Chand and Ashok has to be decided only with respect to Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand, because Prakash Chand died on November 23, 2002 and Ashok died on May 04, 2009, and as recorded in the order dated August 21, 2013, the criminal appeal abates as regards Prakash Chand and Ashok.Whereas Vijay Kumar has been held guilty for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC as also the offences punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC, Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 147, Section 148 and Section 326 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.Vide order on sentence dated December 22, 1999, where Vijay has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of `1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Vijay, Rajesh, Munna Lal and Subhash Chand have been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine in sum of `1,000/- each and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC.For the offence punishable under Section 148 IPC they CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 2 of 17 have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.For the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Penal Code they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.A.No.27/2000 being convicted by a separate decision but of even date (December 15, 1999).All of them have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC, Section 148 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC and Section 427 read with Section 149 IPC, for which offences they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay fine in sum of `1,000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of `1,500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and pay fine in sum of `500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.The order on sentence is dated December 22, 1999 i.e. of the same date on which the order on sentence was passed in the other case.PW-1/A of Murari Lal in which he named the members of Group-B as the ones who formed an unlawful assembly and attacked shop CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 5 of 17 No.518 of Murari Lal and during the assault oil was thrown on his son Ashok causing scalding injuries.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 5 of 17Two FIRs as above noted were registered against members of Group-A and Group-B.Put in a tabular form the MLCs of Murari Lal's Group-A and Swaroop Chand Group-B would evince as under:-Group-A Murari Lal Ex.PW-5/A Clean lacerated/incised(unclear) wound (5:10PM) of 1 cm on left side of forehead.Loss of upper part of left middle finger.Deceased Ex.PW-5/B 30%-40% burns on the front of chest, Ashok (5:05PM) back of chest and front of abdomen.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 6 of 17Ashok son of Murari Lal died on June 09, 1985 and the cause of death is septicaemia due to the burn injuries caused by scalding oil.At the criminal trial of Murari Lal's group, Vijay Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Munna Lal and Swaroop appeared as PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 respectively and deposed in sync, albeit with minor variations on which nothing turns, deposing that the accused were armed with hockey sticks, dandas and bottles and attacked Swaroop Chand's group, save and except Munna Lal who said that Murari Lal was armed with a danda and Om Prakash with a hockey stick.Relevant would it be to note that the witnesses have spoken in the plural without stating as to who caused the lacerated wounds to Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal, Vijay and Rajesh.As per Murari Lal, Rajesh was carrying a palta (a cooking equipment having a round thin plate with holes attached to a handle, seen in sweetmeat shops for making boondi which is ultimately used to prepared ladoos).Prakash Chand was armed with a saria.Subhash Chand with a hockey stick.As per him, Rajesh CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 7 of 17 struck him with the palta on his head and as he tried to ward of the blow he suffered an injury on his hand.Prakash Chand gave a blow on his head with a saria, Subhash Chand hit him on his back and hips with a hockey stick and that Swaroop, Munna Lal and Ashok inflicted fist and kick blows on him.As per him when his son Ashok intervened to snatch the hockey stick from Subhash Chand, Swaroop Chand hit Ashok on the head and Vijay picked up a bucket and filled with boiling oil and poured it on Ashok.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 7 of 17Anil Kumar PW-2 deposed that all accused collected near his shop and started assaulting his father.As per him Munna Lal, Subhash and Swaroop Chand inflicted fist and kick blows on his father.Rajesh injured his father's fingers, Prakash Chand inflicted a blow on his father's head with a rod and Subhash Chand hit his father with the hockey stick.Vijay brought hot oil in a bucket and poured it on Ashok.Om Prakash PW-6, Raj Kumar PW-7, Anil Kumar PW-9 and Ramnik PW-10 also deposed likewise with minor variations, each one assigning role of pouring hot oil on Ashok to Vijay and Murari Lal's finger being cut by the blow by a palta by Rajesh.Witnesses on one side being accused on the other, it is apparent that the witnesses would speak half truths for the reason Murari Lal and his group had to account for the injuries suffered by four members of the Swaroop Chand's group and likewise Swaroop Chand and his group had to explain the injuries suffered by Murari Lal and the deceased Ashok.In testimony of neither witnesses injuries suffered by members of the opposite group have been explained.Whereas Swaroop Chand and his group accused Murari Lal and his group of attacking them at shop No.512, Murari Lal and his group accused Swaroop Chand and his group of attacking them at shop No.518; and thus inherent would be the argument that the injuries caused to the opposite group members were in exercise of right of private defence.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 8 of 17It thus becomes critical to determine whether at all there was an aggressor group and whether at all a group formed an unlawful assembly with the object of assaulting a member or all the members or the shop of the other group.This would subsume the place of the origin of the fight.Neutral witnesses testimony would thus be relevant and we find that at the forefront would be the testimony of Ct.Shyam Singh PW-20 (in the Sessions Trial against Swaroop Chand and others).He has admitted that the photographs Ex.PW-20/1, Ex.D-2, Ex.D-3, Ex.D-4 and Ex.D-5 were taken by him at the scene of the crime and we find from the photographs that neither shop No.512 nor shop No.518 has been damaged.The place where oil was detected is about 15 feet from the western corner of shop No.512 and hence about 45 feet away from where the eastern corner of shop No.518 exists.The trail of oil is from the Namkeen shop.Vinod Kumar PW-13 has categorically deposed that the photographs in question depict the scene of the crime.Anil Kumar S/o Baij Nath PW-9 has also admitted that said photographs depict the scene of the crime.There being no damage to either shop No.512 or shop No.518, it has to be held that there is no evidence that members of either group formed an unlawful assembly with the object of attacking the shop of the other group.Faced with inimical and interested witnesses in the two cross cases for the reason witnesses in one case were the accused in the other and vice versa, it is apparent that both group of witnesses would speak the half truth.But the photographs we have referred to above and the site plan to scale to which we have made a reference, keeping in view the consistent version of both groups CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 9 of 17 that the raid by officers of the Food Department had led to a mutual bickering between the two groups which festered from around 11:00 AM till 4:00 PM on May 24, 1985, probablizes that remonstrance between the two groups suddenly fled up and all of a sudden a mutual fight took place at which handy objects lying such as an iron rod, a hammer etc. were used.No hockey stick has been recovered either from the scene of the crime or pursuant to the disclosure statement made by any accused.The site plan to scale records spot 'H' on the street where an iron rod was lying and spot 'I' where a small hammer was lying.Spot 'J' is the place from where a palta was picked up.Therefore the claim of eye witnesses of Murari Lal group that members of Swaroop Chand's group came armed with a palta, saria and hockey stick etc. is not believable.The members of Swaroop Chand's group were 7 in number and if 7 people armed themselves and launch an assault on the other group, injuries would be found on members of the other group and not merely two.Further, the injuries on Murari Lal's group are : (i) Burning by scalding hot cooking oil on Ashok and (ii) use of a palta on Murari Lal.The injuries on Swaroop Chand's group have been suffered by four persons:(i) Swaroop Chand, (ii) Munna Lal, (iii) Vijay and (iv) Rajesh.The injuries are clean lacerated wounds, besides contusions and abrasions and tenderness.Whereas Swaroop Chand has two clean lacerated wounds on the head and the lip and an abrasion, Munna Lal has one clean lacerated wound on the head and contusions on the left index finger besides tenderness over the left loin.Vijay has suffered two clean lacerated wounds, one on the head and the other on the right middle finger.Rajesh has a lacerated wound on the head.The injuries tell their own story.The scene of the crime and the injuries suffered by the two groups would evince that as exchange of words between the two groups which started at 11:00 AM continued till 4:00 PM, the remonstrance led to a sudden quarrel in which the two sides jostled with each other and during the jostling few members of Murari Lal's group picked up handy objects lying nearby such as a small hammer and an iron rod.The balance of power shifted resulting in injuries suffered by Swaroop Chand's group and then realizing that to equal the balance or probably under the feeling of being overpowered, two members of Swaroop Chand seeing the palta and the hot scalding oil boiling in a kadhai in the Namkeen shop, rushing to the shop.One arming himself with a palta and the other lifting a container filled with hot scalding oil.Rajesh was the one who picked up the palta and hit Murari Lal with the palta causing the wound on the left side of forehead, which as per the MLC Ex.It has to be kept in mind that Murari Lal's group comprised 7 persons, one of whom Ashok died as a result of hot scalding oil being thrown on him during the sudden free fight.The injuries suffered by Swaroop Chand, Munna Lal, Vijay and Rajesh are lacerated wounds and thus have to be the result of a blunt object.It does happen that in a melee in which two groups having seven members each indulge in a free fight, it becomes impossible for the victims who are also participating in the fight to remember who injured whom.As regards the death of Ashok S/o Murari Lal, the consistent evidence is that during the free fight Vijay went to the Namkeen shop and filled up scalding cooking oil in a container and threw the same on Ashok.Thus, the offence committed by Vijay is not murder but culpable homicide not amounting to murder inasmuch as he has to be attributed knowledge that by his wanton act death of the victim may occur.Indeed, Ashok died after 15 days of the incident.The post-mortem report shows that he had suffered burn injuries covering 30% - 40% of the body area.The offence committed by Vijay is thus punishable under Section 304-II IPC.To bring the curtains down we dispose of the appeals acquitting the appellants in the two appeals of the offences and hence the conviction under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 427 IPC.We convict the appellants of Crl.A.No.27/2000 i.e. Murari Lal's group for having committed an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 16 of 17 noting that all of them have undergone simple imprisonment for periods ranging between 8 days to 12 days, noting further that the incident took place more than 29 years ago, we sentence them to undergo the imprisonment for the period already undergone and pay fine in sum of `5,000/- each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.CRL.A.Nos.18/2000 & conn.matters Page 16 of 17We dispose of Crl.A.No.18/2000 acquitting the appellants save and except Rajesh of the charge framed against them for the reason injuries caused to Murari Lal and Ashok have been identified as having been caused by Rajesh and Vijay alone.As regards appellant Rajesh we convict him for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC and for which we sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.We dispose of Crl.A.No.49/2000 filed by Vijay acquitting him of the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 326 read with 149 IPC.We alter his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC to having committed an offence punishable under Section 304-II IPC for which we sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay fine in sum of `1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.TCR be returned.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,240,275 |
Heard on IA No.3655/2020, an application for change of counsel.Considered and allowed.Mr. C.P. Purohit and Kirtee Agrawal, advocates are permitted to appear on behalf of the appellant.Heard on IA No.3653/2020, second application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence and grant of bail to appellant No.4 Abdul Hak s/o Abdul Hakim.Appellant Abdul Hak s/o Abdul Hakim has been convicted and sentenced with default stipulation by Special Judge (under SC / ST Act), Indore, District Indore (MP) vide judgment dated 23.02.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.87/2012, as under: -It is further submitted that the appellant has been acquitted for commission of offence punishable under Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 even then he has been convicted for the said offence.It is also submitted that the appellant is in custody since 06.10.2011; and due to Pandemic COVID-19, other co-accused persons have already been released on bail upon parole.Hence, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant and grant of bail to him.In reply, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has opposed the prayer and prays for rejection of the application.From perusal of the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court, it appears that the appellant is named in the FIR.The present appellant along with other co- accused persons constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance to their common object of the said assembly, the accused persons caused injuries to the deceased; and according to the postmortem report, the deceased sustained fifteen incised injuries on his body.It is alleged that the present appellant gave a sword blow to the deceased Shakir on his head, however, he tried to save him, then he sustained injury on his hand.This fact also finds support from the postmortem report.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,245,099 |
Heard on I.A. No. 6141/16, an application u/s 5 of limitation act to condone the delay only a single day in filing the application for leave to appeal.After due consideration, the application is allowed and delay is hereby condoned.This application has been filed under Section 378 (3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.03.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Kukshi, Dhar in S.T. No.428/2014, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused /respondent No.1 from the charge under Section 450, 376(1), 376(2)(dh) and 506 (Part II) IPC and respondent No.2 from the charge u/S.109 r/w S.376 (1) in alternate 376 (1) & 323 IPC.Brief facts of the case are that on 21.11.2014 prosecutrix lodged a report averting that on 05.08.2014 at 10:00 PM respondent No.1 Molana Noman entered into the house of the prosecutrix and forcefully pushed her on bed and raped her.At that time she was sleeping with her four children and her husband was on work.The accused respondent made a video of the whole incident and blackmailed her to not tell anyone about the incident otherwise he would defame her by showing the aforesaid video.Due to fear she did not tell to anyone regarding the incident and the accused/respondent No.1 took advantage raped her 8-10 times.On 14.08.2014 she told the whole incident to his husband.But her husband, who is respondent No.2 scolded and thrashed her violently and called the respondent No.1 and locked her with him inside the room and helped the respondent No.1 to rape her.The prosecutrix narrated the whole incident to her parents and her uncle and brother.Thereafter, FIR was lodged in Dahi Police Station and crime No. 147/2014 was registered under Sections 450, 376(1), 376 (2) (dh), 506(2) of IPC.Although there was some delay in lodging the FIR but prosecutrix also explained cause of delay.The learned trial Court on the basis of some minor contradictions wrongly held that the FIR is not explained and committed mistake in discarding the statement of the prosecutrix.On perusal of the record and the impugned judgment, it appears that prosecutrix in the FIR made allegation not only against the respondent No.1 but also against the respondent No.2, who is the husband of the prosecutrix.But in her Court statement, prosecutrix clearly denied the involvement of respondent No.2 in the said crime.Consequently, the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed as being without merit.
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,246,494 |
For better appreciation of the issue involved in the writ petition, it would be profitable to reproduce the complaint in its entirety.It reads:The abovementioned society runs a self funded school under the name and style 'Ramakrishna Missionary Institution' of which also I am the Secretary of the governing body.On 05.04.2016 around 10.00 A.M., I, and Sri Nabakumar Karmakar who is also a member of the governing body of the school, went to the school as per daily schedule and daily course of business; at around 11.30 on the same morning, around 20 to 25 anti-social men under the leadership of the local Councilor (Ward No. 4 of Madhyamgram Municipality) Mrs. Mamata Roy Sen came to the school and started showering kicks on the main entrance of the school.Ms. Ranjana Har Choudhury .......for the respondent no.8Over the years this Bench while hearing writ petitions alleging 'police inaction' has had the occasion to deal with diverse grievances of complainants arising out of non-registration of First Information Report (hereafter F.I.R.) by the officers- in-charge of police stations despite receipt of written complaint disclosing cognizable offence; non-receipt of intimation from the officers-in-charge of police stations that there is no reason to embark upon an investigation despite registration of F.I.R. for cognizable offence(s); non-receipt of intimation regarding the fate of investigation despite lapse of sufficient time since registration of an F.I.R.; tardy and inept investigation to somehow save the accused; registration of F.I.R. under soft sections to dilute the offence(s) alleged to have been committed, etc.This writ petition dated May 11, 2016 alleging police inaction is an addition to such series of litigation, containing bits and pieces of all types of grievances noted above that often give rise to writ petitions alleging 'police inaction'.The initial grievance was that no action has been taken on the several complaints lodged by the second petitioner.The said anti-social who I can recognize on seeing forced entered into the school premises and attempted to snatch the keys of the cash-box of the school, almirah and attendance registers.When I try to protest, the Councilor grabbed me by the collar of my shirt and the anti-socials namely Vinod Singh @ Rinku, Abdul Majid, Haru and others started bearing me mercilessly.The local councilor, in the meantime told Vinod Singh to shoot me, upon receiving such instruction, the said Vinod Singh pulled out a gun from his wrist-belt and held it against my belly cursing me in filthiest of languages and started hit by a gun over my right shoulder and threatened me to comply with the Councilor's instructions or he would kill me then and there.While the said Vinod Singh was abusing me, the Councilor, Mrs. Mamata Roy Sen shoved me onto a chair and started chocking me by pressing my neck, she then picked up a cushion from another chair and put it on my face almost chocked me to death.It is of utmost pertinence to mention here that ours being a self-funded school, the said Councilor Mrs. Mamata Roy Sen demanded Rs. 10 lacs from us for smooth running of the school which we refused; it was since then that the said Councilor took to threatening us by various means and even threatened to kill us.This act of threats reached its height today in the form of all the abovementioned atrocious and over-audacious acts committed by the Councilor and her men.They also threatened us not to go to the police or they will slap false cases against us with the help of police.Subsequent to the injuries caused upon my person by the Councilor and her men, I got myself treated at the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital.A medical certificate to that effect has been issued by medical officer on 05.04.2016 of the said hospital.While leaving, the Councilor and her men at gunpoint looted Rs. 70,500/- from the school's cash-box and a 17 gram gold chain from my neck and planted a few men to restrain us from entering the school.This being the situation faced by us; our life and property being in danger, I do please before you esteemed self to treat this letter as First Information and initiate proper legal procedure against the Councilor Mrs. Mamata Roy Sen and her men."Registration of an F.I.R. was not informed resulting in presentation of this writ petition on May 11, 2016 and consequently, it was prayed as follows:b) A writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to render necessary assistance to your petitioners for protection of life and property of your petitioner."As adverted to above, in course of hearing it transpired that Madhyamgram P.S. FIR No. 227 dated April 12, 2016 under sections 447/323/379/506/34 I.P.C. had duly been registered on the petitioners' complaint.transpired that Madhyamgram P.S. FIR No. 227It is also been ascertained that in course of investigation the investigating officer had formed an opinion that the accused should also be booked under section 307, I.P.C. and accordingly, a prayer was made before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barasat (hereafter the ACJM) on June 5, 2016 in that regard.The ACJM duly considered the prayer and allowed the same, as a result whereof the investigation is also proceeding, inter alia, to nail the accused under section 307, I.P.C.Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the petitioners, however, invited the attention of the Bench to the written complaint extracted supra and contended that the accused were not booked under section 386, I.P.C. as well as section 25 of the Arms Act. He further contended that none of the accused has been arrested.The written complaint does disclose ingredients of offence punishable under section 386, IPC.The so called reason for not registering the F.I.R. under such section has not impressed this Bench at all.Accordingly, the officer-in-charge is directed to register the F.I.R. (bearing no. 227) also under section 386, IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act immediately but not later than 48 hours from date of service of a copy of this order.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,250,907 |
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.09.10.2020 ds Index : Yes / No Speaking Order / Non-speaking Orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P.No.1680 of 2017 To:1.The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Chief Secretary to Government Chief Secretariat St.2.The Secretary to Government Home Department, Chief Secretariat St.4.The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office, Veppery Chennai.5.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Deputy Commissioner Office Mylapore Police Station Chennai.6.The Dean Rajiv Gandhi General Government Hospital Chennai.7.The Inspector of Police D-5, Marina Police Station Chennai.ds Crl.O.P.No.1680 of 2017 09.10.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the respondents 1 to 4 to take action and to initiate suitablehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.This petition is filed by one Perumal, who is the father of the first petitioner, on behalf of his son and other petitioners herein.It is his case that, under the guise of suspicion that the petitioners herein have involved in Jallikattu protest, the 7th respondent-police have arrested the petitioners in Crime No.92 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294-b, 323, 324, 353, 447, 435, 436, 506(II), 306 IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Damages and Losses Act, and that the petitioners were brutally assaulted, and according to him, no treatment was provided to them, inspite of the directions given by the learned XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Allikulam, Chennai, who refused to remand the petitioners to custody, owing to the injuries sustained by them.3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P.No.1680 of 2017In the opinion of this Court, disputed question of facts cannot be gone into, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and hence, the prayer sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted.That apart, the Government has appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.Rajeswaran, former Judge of this Court to enquire into the Jallikattu protest.With the above observation, this Criminal Original Petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedies in the manner known to law.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.O.P.No.1680 of 2017 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,804,256 |
A.706/2011 Page 1 of 9According to the Appellants, the cousin and the uncle of the deceased, the latter's parents died when he (the deceased) was very young.The Appellants grievance is that the case was not properly investigated by the SHO and other police officials.Therefore, several complaints (Annexure P-1 filed with the Appeal) were presented before the Lt. Governor of Delhi and other authorities.In the complaints it was represented that Respondents Hari Kishan Garg, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nandan @ Nandi were responsible for getting the deceased assaulted as they were unhappy with the love affair between the deceased and one Ruchi, daughter of the Respondent Manoj Kumar Garg.It is alleged that in spite of sufficient evidence, the said three Respondents were not prosecuted and kept in column No.2 in the chargesheet (under Section 173 Cr.P.C.) filed in the Court and it was only during the course of trial that they were summoned by the Additional Sessions Judge.The issue of taking cognizance against the three Respondents was taken up before the Metropolitan Magistrate, who by his order dated 06.10.2006 declined to issue summons against them.The newly added accused (i.e. the earlier said three Respondents) preferred to cross-examine PWs 7,8, 11 and 12 only.They were further examined and cross-examined.Before dwelling further on the merits of the grounds taken in the Appeal, it would be worthwhile to come to the facts which can be extracted from Paras 5 and 6 of the impugned judgment."5. ...... The charge sheet brings out that on 20.11.2005 at about 11 PM DD No.34 was lodged with PP Ahata Kidara, PS Sadar Bazar Ex.PW-17/A on information by ASI Balbir Singh Crl.A.706/2011 Page 2 of 9 (Retd.) PCR Van Sugar-55 through wireless that "one man has been stabbed in Gali Barna Pahari Dhiraj R/o 4051 who was being taken to hospital, and there was an apprehension of disturbance of public peace and tranquility and request was made for sending policy party".The investigation was marked to ASI Ajmer Singh (PW-17) who along with Constable Ajay Kumar (PW-A.706/2011 Page 2 of 918) reached the spot at Gali Barna where in the meantime Inspector V.S. Malik, Addl.Dhanpal; that some people were found present near Jai Durga Mandir and there was blood splattered at three places near the slope of Jai Durga Mandir; about 50-60 steps away near shop no.3796 of M/s. P.R.Steal and about 95-100 steps near Pathwari Mandir shown at point A, B,C and D in the site plan Ex.PW-31/B; that no one present was able to give any detail about the said incident and therefore staff was deputed at the spot to preserve the place of occurrence and Inspector V.S. Malik along with ASI Ajmer Singh, Ct.Ajay Kumar reached Bara Hindu Rao hospital; in the meanwhile DD no.36 had been lodged at 12:30 PM at PP Ahata Kidara within the jurisdiction of PS Sadar Bazar Ex.PW17/B to the effect "that the man who was earlier reported to have been stabbed and taken to Bara Hindu Rao had been declared brought dead by the doctor at Bara Hindu Rao Hospital".The MLC of deceased Lalit Kumar @ Jojo S/o Ramesh Chand was obtained which revealed that at about 11:05 PM on 20.11.2005 he had been declared dead and there were six injuries and the nature of injuries were incised inflicted with some sharp edge weapons.The blood stained shirt of the deceased sealed in a parcel sealed with the seal of HRH was taken into custody vide memo Ex.PW21/A; PW-31 Inspector V.S.Malik made inquiries from ASI Balbir Singh Incharge of PCR Van that brought the injured to the hospital but he informed that the deceased had not been able to give him any information regarding the incident.Anyhow the rukka Ex.PW-31/A was written and Ct.Ajay Kumar (PW-18) was sent to lodge the present FIR which was lodged at 1:10 AM (night) on 21.09.2005 Ex.PW-3/A.Respondent Yashoda Nandan too denied the prosecution allegations.He alleged that he was implicated in the case falsely.There were 6-7 civil and criminal cases between him and the family of Ved Prakash.He was innocent, and was falsely implicated in the case.The Respondents Vicky and Anil too denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false implication.Examination under Section 313 of the rest of the accused i.e. Vikas @ Kali, Krishna @ Raja, Karan Dayal, was dispensed with as there was no incriminating evidence which could be put to them in the witnesses' statements.He stated that the cause of incident was due to the snatching of his mobile phone by the deceased about 15-16 days prior to the incident.He stated in his statement Ex.A.706/2011 Issue notice.Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.There is a delay of 42 days in filing the appeal.He has no objection to the condonation of delay.The delay is accordingly condoned for the reasons as mentioned in the application.This Appeal is preferred by Vicky Kumar and his father Ved Prakash under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) by virtue of which the victim was given a right to file an Appeal against an order of acquittal or of a conviction for a lesser offence etc. The Appellants are aggrieved by the Crl.A.706/2011 Page 1 of 9 judgment of acquittal dated 03.02.2011 (in Sessions Case No.98/2009) whereby the Respondents Nos. 2 to 11 were acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under Section 302/324 Indian Penal Code (IPC).During the course of investigation, the Mobile Crime Team was called at the spot, photographs were taken, blood samples and earth control were taken into custody which were sealed with the seal of VSR and deposited in the Malkhana.The dead body was sent for postmortem and statement of witnesses u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded.The prosecution case is that during this time on 20.11.2005 at about 11:40 PM DD No.37 was also lodged at PP Ahata Kidara on an information from Lady Harding Hospital communicated by Duty Officer that one boy Anil S/o Hari Kishan R/o 2284/2 Bagichi Ragunath, Sadar Bazar had been admitted in an injured condition by his friend Vicky.On the said information Crl.A.706/2011 Page 3 of 9 relayed to PW-31 Inspector V.S. Malik, he along with SI Rakesh Kumar, Ct.Ravinder Kumar reached Lady Harding Hospital where MLC of injured Anil was obtained which communicated that he had been given incised injury on his left thigh with a sharp object.The statement of Krishan @ Vicky who was present thereat Ex.PW-27/B was recorded.The gist of which is as follows:A.706/2011 Page 3 of 9"about 15-16 days back near Diwali Lalit @ Jojo had taken his mobile phone and he had not returning the same despite repeated requests and demands; that Lalit @ Jojo was stronger than him and therefore it was difficult to manage overpower him and, therefore, he discussed the matter with his friends Anil Kumar, Raja and Karan who assured him that they would talk to Lalit @ Jojo to see that his mobile phone is returned; that on 20.11.2005 at about 10:30 pm he along with Anil, Raja and Karan met Lalit @ Joji in Gali Barna and Lalit @ Jojo was requested to return the mobile phone which infuriated Lalit @ Jojo and he started slapping him besides giving fist blows and on that Anil, Raja and Karan intervened in the melee and there was a free fight; that he was terrified and ran away towards Gali Barna, Nala road and after sometime he saw Anil in blood come out of Gali and screaming for help and he also saw Raja and Karan coming towards him; Anil told him that he had been stabbed by Lalit @ Jojo therefore he along with Raja and Karan brought Anil to Lady Harding Hospital".On the said statement FIR No.377/05 u/s. 302 IPC Ex.PW-3/A was lodged and the blood stained shirt, pant and banyan of accused Anil were also seized and later when accused Anil was interrogated, he revealed that at the time of the incident were present his friends Krishan, Raja and Karan, Pradeep @ Dhera, Vicky, Vicky @ Kana and in the quarrel Lalit @ Jojo was stabbed."In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 31 witnesses.Postmortem report Ex.PW-4/A brings out that the deceased Lalit sustained six stab injuries caused by a sharp edged weapon.PW-4 Dr. C.B. Dabas opined that the death was caused by hemorrhage and shock consequent to the injuries.PW-4/C Crl.A.706/2011 Page 4 of 9 was prepared by him at the time of rendering the opinion.PW-4 was not subjected to cross-examination.Thus, the death of Lalit being homicidal, is not in dispute.A.706/2011 Page 4 of 9Out of the 31 witnesses examined by the prosecution, PWs 7,8,11 and 12 are crucial for disposal of this appeal as they are alleged to have witnessed the incident or reached the spot immediately after the incident.On closure of the prosecution evidence Kishan @ Vicky (R-2), Anil (R-3), Hari Kishan Garg (R-9), Manoj Garg (R-10) and Yashoda Nandan (R-11) herein, were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Respondent Hari Kishan Garg denied the prosecution allegation and took the plea that he was a Mandal President of BJP and Ved Prakash, who was the relative of the prosecution witnesses wanted to contest for the post of area Counselor.Since Ved Prakash and his family members / relatives had criminal backgrounds, he did not support his candidature.They nursed a grudge against his nephew Manoj Garg and him.They were, therefore, falsely implicated in the case.By the impugned judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the Respondents Kishan @ Vicky, Anil, Hari Kishan Garg, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nanda holding that there were contradictions, discrepancies and improvements in the testimonies of the witnesses making them unreliable and unworthy of credence.They were, therefore, acquitted of the charges framed against them.The rest of the Respondents (except Pradeep @ Dheru (juvenile) and Vicky @ Kane (PO)) were also acquitted on the ground that there was no evidence against them.A.706/2011 Page 5 of 9It is true that there was no evidence, not even a whisper how Respondent Nos. 4, 6 to 8 (Vikas @ Kali, Krishna @ Raja, Karan Dayal and Vicky @ Kane) were involved in the commission of the offence.No evidence was pointed out which could implicate them in the commission of the offence either directly or indirectly.Thus, the acquittal of Respondent Nos. 4 to 8 cannot be faulted with.As far as case against the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (Kishan @ Vicky and Anil) and Respondent Nos. 8 to 11 (Vicky @ Kane, Hari Kishan Garg, Manoj Garg, Yashoda Nandan) goes as stated earlier, the prosecution examined PW-7 Ashok Kumar, PW-8 Sanjay, PW-11 Shyam Sunder and PW-12 Vicky Kumar.PW-7 Ashok Kumar deposed that on 20.11.2005 at about 10:30 PM he went out of the gali (street) to purchase biri and cigarette.One Shyam Sunder met and informed him that some people had gathered in gali Barna near Lassiwala shop and his Nephew Lalit was involved in a quarrel.He deposed to reaching the place of occurrence and finding his nephew Lalit, lying on the road in a pool of blood.Upon inquiry as to what had happened, Lalit told him that Yashoda Nandan @ Nandi, Hari Kishan Garg and Manoj Garg had stabbed him with a knife as he was involved with Manoj Garg's daughter Ruchi.But PCR van did not reach there and Sanjay himself went and brought the PCR van from Bara Tuti Chowk and removed Lalit to the hospital.After medical examination, Lalit was declared dead by the doctor.In cross-examination PW-7 deposed that he had told the police (in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) that the deceased had informed him that Hari Kishan Garg, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nandan had stabbed him.The witness was confronted with his previous statement where this fact was not so recorded.The witness was then confronted with the material omission, as in the previous statement, the witness deposed that Brahmchari (the witness volunteered that Yashoda Nanda @ Nandi was also known as Brahmchari) along with 2/3 boys had stabbed him.The witness admitted that there were several civil and criminal cases pending between Yashoda Nandan and the members of their family.He also admitted that there were some dispute between Hari Kishan Garg and the deceased but he was not aware about the details.It is important to note that there Crl.A.706/2011 Page 6 of 9 were material improvements / omissions in the statement made in the Court from his previous statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. If the assault was carried out by Hari Kishan Garg and Manoj Garg, their names would have been disclosed by this witness.So, this witness was not an eye witness of the incident.In cross-examination, he could not give the names of the person who informed him about the incident.He contradicted PW-7 as the latter had deposed that he had called Sanjay.Moreover, PW-8's statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded only on 10.12.2005 much after the occurrence.In any case, PWs 7 and 8's testimonies did not advance the prosecution case, firstly, they did not see the incident and, secondly, they were not reliable, mentioned earlier.PWs 11 and 12's testimonies were also found to be contradictory to each other and unreliable.The Trial Court held that PW-12 Vicky Kumar too was not reliable as he did not raise any alarm nor call his relatives for help though the deceased was his close relative.The Trial Court reasoned in Para 21 and 22 as under:-PW-11 Shyam Sunder was examined in chief on 03.07.2009 before summoning u/s. 319 Cr.P.C. and later on 04.05.2010 and "examination in chief" is ditto without any variation.The version of the incident as given by PW-11 is that he was in search of his cows and moved up to the corner of Gali Barna when he heard someone shouting BACHAO BACHAO (help) and he saw accused Hari Kishan had caught hold of both hands of Lalit and accused Manoj who was nephew of accused Crl.A.706/2011 Page 7 of 9 Hari Kishan gave a Lalkara MARO SALEY KO AAJ YAH BACHNA NAHI CHAHIYA (kill the rascal, dont spare him) and that Yashodananda took out a big knife and stabbed in the abdomen of Lalit.A.706/2011 Page 7 of 9There is nothing in evidence of PW-11 Shyam Sunder that accused Kishan @ Vicky A-1 and accused Anil A-2 played any role in the stabbing or inflicting injuries upon the deceased Lalit @ jojo.What also bears in my mind is that if the evidence of PW-11 and PW-12 is believed that incident of quarrel happened at one place near PR Steels at Gali Barna, and if that is so, it is not explained how come there was blood at four different places mark A,B,C and D in the site plan Ex.PW-31/B. There is apparent contradiction on this issue as between the evidence of PW-11 Shyam Sunder and PW-12 Vicky Kumar.The statement of A-1 Ex.Mere fact that A-2 was admitted in hospital with a sharp incised would on his beg too cannot by itself prove nothing."The Trial Court rightly disbelieved PWs 11 and 12 as no explanation was given by them how blood was found at four different places i.e. on mark A,B,C and D in the site plan Ex.PW-31/B when the incident took place near PR Steels at Gali Barna.It is important to note that Respondent No.3 Anil sustained a knife blow injury on his hip and was removed to Lady Harding Hospital and was medically examined.On the statement of Respondent No.2 Kishan @ Vicky, FIR No.377/2005 was recorded in the PS Bara Hindu Rao.PW-22/B that his mobile phone was not returned despite repeated requests and demands.Since the deceased was stronger than him, he requested his friends Anil, Raja and Karan, who assured him to take up the matter with the deceased for return of his mobile phone.He stated that on 20.11.2005 at 10:30 PM, he requested the deceased to return his mobile phone which infuriated him and he started giving him slaps and fist blows.Anil, Raja and Karan intervened resulting in a free fight.He was frightened and ran towards gali Barna near nala and after sometime noticed Anil coming out of the gali Crl.A.706/2011 Page 8 of 9 screaming for help and Anil told him that he had been stabbed by Lalit (the deceased).A.706/2011 Page 8 of 9A knife was allegedly got recovered by Pradeep (facing trial before the Juvenile Justice Board).In view of the contradictions and improvements pointed out above, as also noticed by the Trial Court, it would be difficult to say as to how the incident took place, who was armed and who caused injuries.The presence of the Respondents Hari Kishan Garg, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nandan at the spot during the incident was doubtful; even in the complaint lodged by Jagdish Chand with Lieutenant Governor of Delhi (father of PW-8 Sanjay) he mentioned that the attack on Lalit (the deceased) was engineered by Hari Kishan, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nandan through some hired killers.There is every possibility that the Appellants suspected the involvement of Hari Kishan, Manoj Garg and Yashoda Nandan @ Nandi because of Lalit's alleged affair with Manoj Garg's daughter Ruchi.There is no evidence on record to establish any criminal conspiracy between the Respondents or to show that there was any previous concert to kill the deceased.It is doubtful that the Respondents Kishan and Anil participated in the actual attack.They were entitled to be given the benefit of doubt.The Trial Court's reasoning acquitting the Respondents is sound and justified.We do not find any substantial or compelling reason to interfere in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.The Appeal is dismissed being without any merit.Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,807,687 |
(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE kafeel Digitally signed by Kafeel Ahmed Ansari Date: 01/12/2018 14:58:24Case diary perused.This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Sagar, District Sagar whereby the court below has dismissed the bail application no.1163/2018 filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.The appellant is apprehending his arrest for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 325, 336 and 506/34 of the I.P.C. read with section 3(1) (R) and 3 (1) (S) and 3(2)(5-A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act registered vide Crime No.136/2018 at Police Station Bhangadh, District Sagar.The allegation against the appellant is that he came on motorcycle and stopped the complainant, thereafter, abusing him and committed marpeet with him uttering his caste name.He is ready to co-operate in the investigation as well as trial of the case.In such circumstances, prayer is made to release the appellant on anticipatory bail.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,810,429 |
Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred by the victim Rameshwar Yadav, author of the FIR (Ex.P/1) and injured, under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment of acquittal passed by II Additional Sessions Judge, Mandla on 30/1/2012 in Sessions Trial No.61/2010, whereby respondent no.1 Pinki alias Devendra Kumar has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and 25(1)(1B)(b) read with Section 27 of the Arms Act.It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence and material on record and, therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and respondent no.1 should be punished.On the contrary, learned G.A., while making reference to the entire evidence on record, submitted that the judgment passed by the trial Court is well merited.We have perused the impugned judgment and also the record of trial Court.As per the prosecution case, at about 8.40 p.m., in the night of 17.6.2010 at Village Khatia, Mogli Road Tiraha, respondent no.1 caused an injury with a Sword to the appellant while he was going on a Motorcycle along with Satish Yadav (PW4).In the result, appellant fell down from the Motorcycle.On the medical examination of appellant grievous injury on the left hand, one incised wound on the anterior side of left wrist joint and one abrasion on the proximal phalanx of ring finger on palmer side on the right hand were found.The weapon sword having a size of 16" in length, 1" in width and handle of 4", was used for committing the offence.The prosecution had examined Santu alias Basant Patel (PW2) and Ramjan Khan (PW3) as eye-witnesses but they turned hostile.At that time respondent no.1 Pinki came there to intervene and at the same point of time, complainant Rameshwar reached there by Motorcycle and due to sudden application of brakes, he fell down with Motorcycle and due to this reason, abovementioned injuries were received.As per the statement of Dr.P.C.Masuraha (PW6), injuries of complainant might come in such an accident.The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,813,259 |
The Petitioners No.1 and 2 are the Managing Directors of Redington India Limited, based at Chennai.The Petitioner No.3 is the General Manager (Corporate) (who has been made Petitioner by post and not by name) and is based at Chennai.With specific reference, he has drawn my attention to those at senior nos. 4 and 5 who are merely mentioned as General Manager of the Corporate Office at Chennai and the General Manager at the Corporate Officer at New Delhi.She has most forcefully argued that the Respondent No. 2 was cheated by the Petitioners as they are the authorized company to deal with complaints relating to i-phones.She has further stated that the process by which the offence has taken place clearly goes to show the connivance of Redington and without its active participation the same was not possible.(15.11.2016) The instant is a petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal procedure filed by the Petitioners for quashing the proceedings arising from the registration of the First Information Report being Crime no.19/2013 for offences punishable under sections 420, 468 IPC and section 66-D of the Information Technology Act.The Petitioner No.4 is the Regional Manager of Redington India Ltd., at its branch office in Lucknow and Petitioner No.5 is again the General Manager (Corporate) (by post and not by name) at New Delhi.Vide order dated 8.7.2015, this petition was admitted for final hearing and it has been recorded that no one appears for Respondent No. 2 despite service of notice.The factual premises of the case which is sought to be quashed is as followsOn 24.10.2011 the Respondent No. 2 purchased an Apple i-phone bearing IMEI no. 012743002674647 from Gopal Stationery Book House at Bhopal.In February 2012 when the Respondent No. 2 was at Lucknow, the phone stopped working and so he approached M/s. Freedom World at Lucknow for repairs of the said i-phone.On 7.2.2012, the i-phone was returned to Respondent No. 2 after repairs by M/s. Freedom World.Thereafter in October 2012 when the Respondent No. 2 was in Gurgaon, some problem occurred once again in the said i-phone and the Respondent No. 2 visited the authorized show room of i- phone in Gurgaon being Tresor Systems.The said service centre/show room inspected the phone and thereafter informed the complainant/Respondent No. 2 that the phone has been replaced as many as 7 times.The Petitioners verified the records and found that the replacement of the complainants phone had been carried out by M/s Freedom World at Lucknow.Further, it also came to their notice that on four occasions the replacement had been availed by the reseller in its own name.Redington also came to know that one hundred and twenty similar replacements had been done in good faith to M/s Freedom World against dead phones.As the issue relating to the dead i-phone was not resolved the Respondent No. 2 registered the aforementioned FIR against the Petitioners and the same was taken into investigation by the Police.At the very outset, the Petitioners clarified that they are merely the employees of M/s Redington India Limited and it is the company M/s Redington India Limited that is the authorized service provider for Apple i-phones and also provides the warranty support system on behalf of M/s Apple India Private Limited.The service centre of Redington India Limited (hereinafter referred to as Redington) is allowed by Apple India Limited to perform screening/preliminary checks on the handsets to ascertain the nature of the problems.If the problem relating to the malfunctioning i-phone is on account of a software related issue, then the service centre of Redington carries out an upgradation of the software.However, if the problem is identified as one pertaining to the hardware the phone is packed and sent back to the company i.e. Apple India Limited.Investigation by the Police had revealed that the sim tray of the phone of the complainant was tampered with and changed with that of another i-phone which was no longer covered by warranty.It is alleged by the Petitioners that the complainant/Respondent No. 2 has embarked on a vengeful journey in order to falsely implicate the Petitioners herein only on account of them being associated at various levels and capacities with Redington.The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has drawn my attention to the FIR which is at page 4 of the additional documents which is filed along with I.A.No.11252/2013, which for the reasons stated therein, is allowed and the said documents are taken on record and considered.The learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners has stated that all those persons who are at the top level, involved with the management of the company have been named as accused persons.The only aspersion that the Respondent No.2 has levelled is that the principal accused could not have committed this offence sitting in Lucknow without the connivance and collaboration of the Petitioners herein sitting in Chennai, Lucknow and Delhi.The learned counsel for the Petitioners has also stated that the FIR could not have been registered against the Petitioners in Bhopal as no part of the offence is stated to have taken place in the State of Madhya Pradesh.He has further stated that the alleged offence relating to the change in sim tray has taken place in Lucknow.The Respondent No. 2 came to know about the said offence when he gave the same for repairs again in the month of October to Tresors Systems at Gurgaon where he was informed that the mobile has already been replaced 7 times.The learned counsel for the State on the other hand submits that the Petitioners are all named in the FIR and the contents of the FIR prima facie make out a case of the aforementioned offences.8. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners and the State and perused the documents along with the charge sheet.In the FIR, the complainant has reiterated as aforementioned that he had given his i-phone for repairs firstly to M/s. Freedom World at Lucknow, as he was in Lucknow during the material point of time when the i-phone went dead.It was returned to Respondent No. 2 on 07/02/12 in a working condition.Thereafter, in the month of October 2012, upon the same problem recurring, the Respondent No. 2 approached Tresor Systems at Gurgaon which informed the Respondent No. 2 that the mobile has been replaced at least seven times.He further states in the complaint that upon his return to Bhopal, he checked the status of his phone over the internet and was aghast to learn that the record also revealed that the IMIE number was replaced 7 times.The mobile was allegedly in a non-functional condition on the day he had registered the FIR against the Petitioners.The Petitioners, upon coming to know about the case filed against them, approached this Court in the year 2013 which vide order dated 13/05/13 stayed the further proceedings/investigation in the FIR registered against the Petitioners.The said order was made absolute vide order of this Court dated 08/07/15, by which this petition was admitted for final hearing.However, as the stay operated only against the Petitioners herein, the Police investigated the case as against other persons and in the course of the said investigation arrested several other co-accused persons and recorded their disclosure statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act.This accused person has stated to the cyber-crime cell of the Madhya Pradesh Police that he is acquainted with the technique of changing the IMEI number and serial number of i-phone and that he is willing to show the Police the technique and the equipment he uses to do the same.Like the previous accused person, he has also stated that he has technical expertise and equipment to change the IMEI number and serial numbers of Apple i-phones.The next accused, whose statement has been recorded by the cyber cell of the MP Police is accused Zishan Ali S/o Late Zabbar.This witness in his disclosure statement has elaborately explained the modus operandi of the crime.He informs the police that he knows how to log into Apple and Blackberry phones.He further states that he has the knowledge of how to unlock an Apple i-phone from its serial and IMEI number.He says that the IMEI number of an apple phone is not seen externally on the hand set and that the serial number and IMEI number are located in the sim plate of an Apple i-phone.He further says that whenever they get an Apple i-phone in a dysfunctional states which they want to change, they keep the hand set with them and wait till an Apple i-phone is received which is within warranty and upon receiving the said phone they remove the sim tray from the Apple i-phone, which is within warranty period and remove the sim tray of the dysfunctional i- phone which is beyond the warranty period and exchange them whereby, the sim tray of the Apple i-phone which is within the warranty is fixed inserted in the dysfunctional Apple i-phone which is past its warranty period and the same is logged for replacement.After changing the sim plate, this accused states that he used to send the phone to co-accused Rahul at Redington, Lucknow, which used to forward the said i-phone to Apple India Limited, which would detect the old phone as one under Redington warranty on account of IMEI number, which is present on the sim tray and replace the same, which would come back to the Redingtons Lucknow Office.However, when the mobile malfunctioned a second time in October 2012, the Respondent No. 2 went to Tresors Systems in Gurgaon for its rectification and it is at this point of time that he came to know about the cheating that was committed upon him.Learned counsel for the respondent State has submitted that the accused persons named herein before, used the sim tray bearing the original IMEI number and serial number of Respondent No. 2s phone and got 7 such replacements from the company i.e., Apple India Limited.She states that the Respondent No. 2 has been cheated by the co-accused persons and the Petitioners herein on account of which Respondent No. 2 after having spent so much money has been saddled with a non-functional i-phone, which till the date of registration of the FIR had not been repaired or replaced.B) in February 2012 the said mobile phone was given for repairs at M/s Freedom World Lucknow which after repairs and the alleged crime committed in relation to the said phone, was returned to Respondent No. 2 on 7.2.2012, C) in October 2012 when the problem reoccurred, the Respondent No. 2 visited the authorized show room/service centre M/s Tresor Systems at Gurgaon in Haryana and came to know that the mobile has been replaced as many as 7 times and D) in the year 2012 when he came back to Bhopal he checked over the internet and came to realize that what was informed to him by Tresor Systems at Gurgaon was correct as the official site of Apple India Limited itself showed that his phone has been replaced 7 times.Under the circumstances, the petition succeeds.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,819,936 |
This is the second application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant.The applicant is in custody since 08.07.2013 in connection with Crime No.113/2013 registered at Police Station Kachnar, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for the offence under Sections 323, 294, 506-B of IPC read with Section 302 of IPC.It is alleged that on 8.7.2013 at about 7 PM, the applicant Devraj came in intoxication condition and was abusing the daughter (Poonam) and daughter-in-law (Tarabai) of deceased Deva.When the deceased opposed the same, he inflicted injury by lathi on the head of the deceased twice.When Tarabai and Poonam tried to save him co- accused Ghasiram inflicted injuries to Tarabai and Poonam by lathi.Deva died due to the injuries sustained by him in the parietal bone.The statements of Bhuribai (PW-3), Poonam (PW-4), Tarabai (PW-5) and Ghasiram (PW-6) have been recorded in the Trial Court.None of them have corroborated the prosecution story.Therefore, he be granted regular bail.On behalf of the State, learned Panel Lawyer is opposed the 2 M.Cr.C.No.1249/2015 application.2 M.Cr.Certified copies of the statements of PW-1 Babulal, PW-2 Sagan Singh, PW-3 Bhuribai, PW-4 Poonam, PW-5 Tarabai and PW-6 Ghasiram have been filed.Earlier application was dismissed for want of prosecution.Keeping in view the same without commenting anything about the merits of the case, the application for regular bail is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-Applicant will not influence the prosecution witnesses.Applicant will help the progress of the Trial.Applicant will not indulge in any similar offence during the course of Trial.If at all the applicant is found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,820,185 |
Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.214/2017 registered by P.S. Kudila District Tikamgarh (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 376, 342, 506 of the IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 29/09/2017 at about 3.00 pm, in village Mataul (Kachhayat) which comes under the jurisdiction of Police Station Kudila District Tikamgarh, when the prosecutrix aged about 17 years was playing in the filed, applicant Jhallu Kushwaha, who is a close relative, reached there and taken her at his house on the pretext of watching Television.After taking her inside the house, locked the door of the room and committed forceful intercourse with her and threatened her not to disclosed the matter to anybody otherwise she will be killed.Thereafter, at about 10.00 pm, prosecutrix was suffering from stomach pain, then she narrated the matter to her father Laxman @ Ramdayal Kushwaha.On the next date of incidence, report has been lodged by the father of the prosecutrix.On that basis, the above said crime has been registered against the applicant.In the present case, charge-sheet has been filed and the statements of the prosecutrix (PW-1), her father Laxman @ Ramdayal Kushwaha (PW-2), her sister Mamta Kushwaha (PW-3), her brother-in-law Shibbu @ Ramsevak (PW-4) and her sister-in-law Lali Bai Kushwaha (PW-5) have been recorded before the trial Court.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE manju Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 09/01/2019 21:29:49
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,824,582 |
as C.R.M. 4783 of 2020 (Via video conference) In Re:- An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Kurseong P.S. Case No.69 of 2020 dated 21.05.2020 under Sections 498A/302B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Ramesh Basfore..... Petitioner....for the State.Accordingly, the application for bail is dismissed for default.(Suvra Ghosh,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi , J.)
|
['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.
|
194,826,961 |
This petition under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.110/2013 registered at Police Station Lahar, District Bhind for offence under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC as well as the charge sheet and further proceedings of Criminal Case No.1176/2013, pending in the Court of JMFC Lahar, District Bhind.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition in short are that a written complaint was made by the respondent No.2 against the applicants, making allegations of harassment and ill-treatment for the demand of dowry and on the basis of said allegations, the police registered a FIR under Sections 498-A, 506, 34 of IPC at Mahila Police Station Padav, District Gwalior and it was transferred to Police Station Lahar, District Bhind.The police after conducting the investigation, filed a charge sheet for offence under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC.The trial Court by order dated 06/11/2015 framed the charges under Sections 498-A, 506 Part II of IPC.The said criminal revision was dismissed by this Court on 22/06/2016 and the order framing charges was affirmed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,827,808 |
In nutshell, prosecution case is that on 22.02.2006, when prosecutrix (PW-4) went to graze her animals in forest then appellant came there, put off her underwear and his one pant and committed rape upon her by threatening that in case of alarming, he will kill her.After committing rape, he went away.Thereafter, she came to 2 her house and narrated the incident to her mother and on her report, case has been registered.During investigation, prosecutrix has been examined by Dr. Smt. Kamlesh Raj W/o Dr. Ajay Raj (PW-12).(03.11.2017) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.07.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Dindori in S.T. No.49/2006, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code") and has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, RI for 2 months.Appellant was also examined by Dr. K. Chouhan (PW-8).After completing investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate against the appellant.Case was committed to the Sessions Court and thereafter, made over to the trial Court.Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 and 506-B of the Code.Contents of the charges were read over and explained to the appellant, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.Thereafter, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses.I have gone through the statements of the witnesses as well as evidence available on record.Prosecutrix (PW-4) is prime witness and she has categorically stated that appellant met her in the forest, he took her near a tree and committed rape upon her.She has stated that during course, blood was oozing from her vagina.She has further stated that she has narrated the incident to her father and other persons and thereafter, she went to lodge the report to P.S. Samnapur, District Dindori and lodged the report Ex-P-4, which was signed by her.She has further stated that she has been medically examined and Doctor took her underwear, skirt and bangle.In her cross-examination, 3 nothing has come, which may falsify her statement.The case of prosecution has been supported by Smt. Chandrakali Bai (PW-3), who is the mother of prosecutrix and also by other witnesses.Dr. Ajay Raj (PW-12) has also supported the statement of prosecutrix, stating that she was examined by his wife, namely, Smt. Kamlesh Raj and as per medical report, at the time of examination, clotted blood around vagina was present and she was complaining pain in vagina.Accordingly, statement of the prosecutrix has also been supported by the medical report.Dr. K. Chouhan (PW-8) has also stated that he had examined the appellant and found that at the time of his examination, he was competent to perform intercourse and this fact also supports the case of prosecution.Keeping in view the prosecution evidence led on record, I find that findings recorded by learned trial Court are just findings on the basis of correct appreciation of the evidence on record as discussed above.I do not find any illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, which may warrant interference in the present appeal.Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,483,190 |
According to case, a criminal case in Crime No. 474/2018 has been registered by the police for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 34 of IPC.petitioner has been produced being as a juvenile before the Juvenile board, Hoshangabad.Petitioner has been released on bail.During trial, police has submitted an application contending that while arresting of the petitioner, mark sheet was produced before the police and 2 Cr.R. No. 1006/2019 according to it, age of petitioner was found 17 years and 4 months but during investigation from perusal of admission register of primary school Muhari, it is found that on the dateof incident, age of petitioner was 18 years and 12 days.Police has requested before the Board that the petitioner is major person and his bail should be rejected.After considering the contentions of application filed by the police so also from perusal of evidence regarding date of birth of petitioner.The Juvenile Board came to this conclusion, petitioner is major, consequently his bail bond was cancelled and police has directed to proceed further.In appeal, the learned Appellate Court has also affirmed the order passed by Juvenile Board.State of Rajasthan in Criminal Revision No. 67/2018 passed by High Court of Rajasthan.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,837,663 |
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.On the complaint lodged by the petitioner, the respondent police have registered a case in Cr.No.79 of 2016 on 16.04.2016 for offence u/s 323 IPC against three persons.Now the petitioner has come up with this petition for a direction to the respondent police to include offences u/s 307, 341, 447, 448 and 506 IPC.P.N.PRAKASH, J.OP No.16581 of 2016
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,839,512 |
::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 15:28:46 :::2019 is fled for the relief of quashing the FIR No. 1 of 2019registered with Jawahar Nagar Police Station, Aurangabad for theoffence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 324, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC.The second proceeding i.e. Criminal Application no. 2616 of 2019 isfled for the relief of quashing FIR No. 391 of 2018 registered withthe same police station for the offence punishable under Sections452, 323, 324, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC .3] During the arguments, the learned counsel for theapplicants of both proceeding submitted that the parties havesettled the matter and they have no intention to give evidenceagainst each other.To that effect, afdavits are fled on record.The afdavits are signed by the injured in both the cases.4] Considering the above, this court holds that the reliefcan be granted to both sides, however, they will have to pay costsas the time of the investigation agency as well as this court wasconsumed.So in each proceeding, the applicants shall deposit anamount of Rs. 10,000/- for getting the relief.::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 15:28:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 15:28:46 :::to deposit of cost of Rs. 10,000/- in each proceeding towards costsby the applicants, within a period of one month, with the High CourtLegal Services Authority Sub-Committee, Aurangabad.Relief isgranted in terms of prayer clause (B) in both proceedings.Paymentof costs shall be condition precedent for allowing the proceedings.If costs are not deposited, it shall be presumed that both theproceedings are dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 15:28:46 :::
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,948,398 |
A report was given to the Police and investigation was taken up and the victim was removed to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.The dead body was sent to the hospital for post-mortem.The doctor who conducted the postmortem found only seven external injuries.JUDGMENT K. Jayachandra Reddy, J.The sole appellant was tried along with four others for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The case rested mainly on the sole testimony of P.W. 2 who figured as the star eye-witness.The prosecution no doubt examined some witnesses to show that the accused were seen while running away from the scene of the occurrence.The learned Sessions Judge having considered the evidence of P.W. 2 observed that he was an interested witness belonging to the opposite faction and there are certain material discrepancies in his evidence.It is also pointed out that the medical evidence does not corroborate his evidence.There are certain other reasons given by the Sessions Judge for acquitting all the accused.The State preferred an appeal.The High Court, however, took the view that P.W. 2 is an independent witness and the discrepancies pointed out are not material and P.W. 2 the sole eye-witness at least has stated clearly that the appellant dealt a blow with dharia and the medical evidence shows that there is incised injury and, therefore, to that extent his evidence is corroborated and in that view of the matter the High Court set aside the acquittal of the appellant and convicted him under Section 302, I.P.C. simpliciter and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.His further submission is that the view taken by the Sessions Court is a reasonable one and the High Court ought not to have interfered in the appeal against acquittal.The prosecution case is as follows:The deceased who was an agriculturist and a resident of Village Vajanagar where there were factions.The accused belong to one faction and the deceased belonged to the other.On 15-8-77 when the deceased was going to his house from his field at about 8-30 a.m. it is alleged that the appellant before us armed with a dharia and the other four accused with sticks surrounded the deceased and dealt blows on him.The deceased fell down in the field of late Sadhu Jivandas Kandas.P.W. 5 who had come to his field to answer the call of nature saw the accused and deceased.On hearing the cries P.Ws. 3, 4, 5 and 6 came there and saw that the accused were running.Out of them the first injury is an incised wound on the head of the deceased.Injuries 5 and 7 are also incised wounds on the arms and legs.Injuries 2, 3, 4 and 6 are contusions on the arms and legs.The other injuries on the legs caused fracture of tibia and fibula.We find from the judgment of the Sessions Court that P.W. 2 admitted that there are two rival factions and he filed an application against the accused in the year J 976 for binding over them and consequently proceedings were launched against the accused and that there were certain other instances which would show that P.W. 2 was inimical towards the accused.Therefore, it cannot be said that he is an independent witness.Further, there is some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 appears to be a chance witness.He deposed that he went to this particular field which is away from his house to answer the call of nature.On his being a chance witness it is necessary to have a closer scrutiny of his evidence.Coming to the medical evidence we find only four contusions yet the evidence of P.W. 2 is to the effect that all the other four accused dealt blows with sticks.It is pointed out in number of cases by this Court when the case rests on the sole testimony of the single witness, the same should be wholly reliable.We find in the instant case that P.W. 2 is not only an interested witness but the version given by him is highly doubtful apart from the fact he being a chance witness.In appeal against acquittal the High Court cannot reverse the same on the ground that another view is possible.The appeal is allowed accordingly.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,948,438 |
As per prosecution on 18.12.1990 Railway Gangman Sahu (PW1) presented a report of P.W.I., Central Railway, Junnardeo to the Police out post Dungaria, Police Station Navegaon, that dead body of an unknown lady was lying on the Railway Track at Km.On this information Marg No. 59/91 was registered and investigated.Panchnama witnesses were called vide Ex.P/1 and Panchnama of dead body Ex.P/2 was prepared.Dead body was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Junnardeo.On 19.12.1991, Dr. Indrajeet Singh (PW8) performed the autopsy on the dead body and prepared postmortem report Ex.After investigation, crime was registered vide Ex.P/14 under Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC.A piece of iron was seized from his possession vide seizure memo Ex.Co-accused Munnal @ Malku was also arrested and one aluminum box was seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.Clothes of accused Hivraj were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.As per G.S. Solanki,J.:Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge Chhindwara has passed the impugned judgment dated 17.2.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 125/92, by which appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure.All the seized articles were sent for chemical examination.A report of missing person No. 1/92 was also registered at Police Station Bordehi, Betul.During investigation, dead body of woman was identified through her clothes and ornaments in the test identification by Rangilal (PW7) as body of Sugantabai.On the basis of further investigation, it was alleged that Sugantabai was widow and she used to work at the house of Hivraj.Co-accused Munnalal Gond was servant of Hivraj.Both of them had illicit relations with Sugantabai, as a result of which she became pregnant.It is also alleged that appellant and co-accused took her from Bordehi Railway Station to Junnardeo by train and they administered the pesticides (Poison) in the pretext of medicine for abortion.When she died, her dead body was 3 thrown on the Railway Track.In this way heinous offence was committed by the accused persons.After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted along with co-accused Munnalal.Learned Third Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges against the accused persons.They abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.After appraisal of the evidence on record, learned trial Court acquitted the co-accused Munnalal and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned herein above.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence in its right perspective.Prosecution failed to prove the fact that unknown dead body, found on railway track was of Sugantabai.He also contended that there is no eye witness and trial Court committed error in relying the evidence regarding the fact that deceased was last seen together with appellant.On these grounds he prays for setting aside the conviction and sentence of accused/appellant.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State justified and supported the impugned judgment and finding of the trial Court.We have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence recorded before the trial Court.Prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses.Crucial point before us is whether dead body found on railway track was of Sugantabai ? In this regard, prosecution claims that dead body was identified by her 4 family members through clothes and ornaments of deceased.Tehsildar S.N. Singh (PW5), who conducted the identification parade of articles stated that clothes and ornaments were identified by the relatives of deceased Sugantabai in presence of Bisan (PW3) and Rawilson (PW12).He prepared identification memo Ex.Bisanlal (PW3), Panch witness, stated that clothes and ornaments of deceased were identified by Rangilal (PW7), brother-in-law of deceased and her father-in-law Bali (not examined before the Court).In these circumstances, Rangilal (PW7), brother- in-law of deceased was the only witness who identified the articles seized from the body of the deceased, but he did not say anything in the statement before the Court regarding identification of the articles claimed to be worn by deceased Sugantabai.Further Panchnama witness Rawilson (PW12) also did not say anything before the Court regarding the identification of articles.In this situation, where clothes and ornaments were not identified in the Court, the testimony of Bisanlal (PW3) and S.N. Singh (PW5) regarding identification parade of articles, became meaningless because substantive evidence of identification was not on record.Panchnama Ex.P/3 is only a corroborative piece of evidence.Gangman Sahu (PW1), who reported the matter to police and Jagannath (PW2), who was the witness of inquest and map panchnama Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2, admitted that face of the dead body was crushed in such a way that one could not identify.Jagannath (PW2) also admitted that if deceased would have been his neighbour, still he could not have identified the body due to her crushed face.Moreover, Dr. Inderjeet Singh (PW8), who performed the autopsy of the dead body, admitted that police wrote the age of the deceased as 40 years in application for postmortem, but he drew the inference from the dead body that her age was about 35 years.Further Mangal Singh (PW10), father of the deceased Sugantabai, admitted that her daughter's age was about 25 years.In these circumstances, age of the deceased Sugantabai was also disputed.Dr. Inderjeet Singh (PW8) also admitted that all the injuries found on the body of deceased could be caused due to crush under the railway track.Clothes and ornaments were not produced in the Court.In these circumstances, in our opinion, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death of deceased was homicidal and to rule out the possibility of accidental death.Considering the above mentioned nature of evidence on record, in our considered opinion, trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in its right perspective and erred in holding that body found on railway track was of Sugantabai and her death was homicidal.Further important circumstance, on which prosecution rests its case is that deceased was last seen together with appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that witness Rangilal (PW7) is not a reliable witness because he has been declared hostile in regard to co-accused Munnalal; he has motive to falsely implicate the appellant.His police statement was recorded after inordinate delay and delay was not satisfactory explained by prosecution.Primarily case of prosecution was that appellant and co-accused administered poison to Sugantabai and threw the body on the railway track.Rajendra Kumar (PW11) 6 stated that appellant purchased a tin box of 100 gm. 'Rogo' Pesticides from his shop but he admitted that Hivraj usually purchased the pesticides for the use of his crops in summer.He further admitted that appellant told him that he is purchasing pesticides for Brinjal.It is well settled law in the case of murder by administration of poison, the Court must carefully scan the evidence and determine the four important circumstances which alone can justify a conviction:(1) there is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased, (2) that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered, (3) that the accused had the poison in his possession, and (4) that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased.In the instant case Dr. Inderjeet Singh (PW8) did not find any poisonous material in the Viscera of Sugantabai, therefore theory of administration of poison is belied by medical evidence.Now we have to examine the statement of Rangilal (PW7) in the light of arguments advanced by defence counsel.It is true that Rangilal (PW7) turned hostile in regard to the co-accused Munnalal.He was confronted with his previous statement Ex.P/10 recorded under Section 161 of Code of Criminal Procedure but it is settled principle of law that a hostile witness can be believed if he is found otherwise reliable.Rangilal (PW7) claims that when he was at Railway Station Bordehi to receive daughter-in-law of Sarpanch Kshamadhar (PW4), he noticed that Hivraj and Sugantabai were in the train, which was going towards Prasia.He admitted in his cross-examination that daughter- in-law of Sarpanch, got down from bogie which was just after the engine of the train and Sugantabai and appellant Hivraj sat in the bogie which was near the bogie of guard.Train was of 15-20 bogies.He further admitted that he remained standing near the place where engine of the train was stopped and claims that when train was passing in front of him he noticed that Sugantabai and Hivraj were sitting in the bogie.According to him, train was running in speed, therefore he was unable to identify the persons who were sitting in the bogie.He categorically admitted that this fact was disclosed to police after 25-26 days.He further admitted that after coming to the village this fact was not disclosed by him to anybody except his father Bali.He further admitted in his cross-examination in para-9 that once upon a time, when he took sugarcane from the field of Hivraj, he was beaten by him, since then he was not in talking terms with Hivraj.Kshamadhar (PW4) claims that he was informed by Rangilal that appellant and Sugantabai were seen together in train but this version of Kshamadhar is no value, because Rangilal (PW7) himself has not stated before the Court that he narrated the fact of last seen to Kshamadhar.In these circumstances, statement of Kshamadhar cannot be taken as substantive piece of evidence.Rangilal (PW7) fairly admitted that he disclosed the fact of last seen together to the police after 25-26 days.Police recorded his statement on 9.1.92 and the dead body was found on 18.2.92, after 21 days of the incident.In this circumstance, solitary witness Rangilal (PW7) cannot be held to be reliable witness on the fact of last seen together, because he admitted that he noticed Sugantabai and Hivraj were sitting in the bogie which was full of passengers and train was passing in speed before him.In this circumstance, it might be a case of mistaken identification.In our view, conviction can not be based on the evidence of such a solitary evidence.
|
['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.
|
194,852,512 |
The conviction and sentence dated 13.08.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.62 of 2007 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur are being challenged in the present Criminal Appeal.The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant viz., Thanaraj and the accused by name Kandasamy are brothers.On 22.02.2004, the accused has made tussle with his wife by saying that she is having illicit intimacy with defacto complainant and due to that, the wife of the accused has gone to her parental home and on 23.02.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., the accused has stated to his mother to the effect that only due to her, his wife has left marital home and he also tried to attack her.At that time, the defacto complainant has intervened and all of a sudden, the accused with intention to murder the defacto complainant has attacked him by using an aruval and thereby, caused injuries.The Judicial Magistrate, Ariyalur, after considering the facts that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused are triable by Sessions Court has committed the case to the court of sessions, Perambalur and taken on file in Sessions Case No.62 of 2007 and subsequently made over to the trial court.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records has framed a charge against the accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called as IPC) and the same has been read over and explained to him and the accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.On the side of the Prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 have been examined, Exhibits 1 to 9 and Material Objects 1 and 2 have been marked.When the accused has been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials available in evidence against him, he denied his complicity in the crime.No oral and documentary evidence have been adduced on the side of the accused.The trial court, after hearing arguments of both sides and upon perusing the relevant records, has found the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5000/- with usual default clause.Against the convictions and sentences passed by the trial court, the present criminal appeal has been preferred at the instance of the accused as appellant.The consistent case put forth on the side of the prosecution is that both the defacto complainant and accused are brothers and their mother name is Mookayee.On 22.02.2004, the accused has made a tussle with his wife by saying that she is having illicit intimacy with defacto complainant and due to that she left the marital home and on 23.02.2004, at about 5 p.m., the accused has stated to his mother to the effect that she is the sole cause for such a tussle between him and his wife and at that time, the defacto complainant has intervened and all of a sudden, attacked the defacto complainant by using an aruval and thereby caused injuries.In Ex.P.1, it has been clearly stated about the motive for occurrence and also details of attack alleged to have been made by the accused on the person of the defacto complainant.The trial court, after considering the materials found in Ex.P.1 and also evidence given by P.Ws.1 to 4, has found the accused guilty under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as mentioned in the judgment.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused has raised the following points to set aside the convictions and sentences passed by the trial court against the appellant/accused :-(i) In the instant case, motive for occurrence has not been established on the side of the prosecution;(iii) The mahazar witness viz., P.W.5 has stated in his evidence that the Police have simply obtained his signatures and he does not know where from the Police have seized the weapon and(iv) The occurrence has taken place on 23.02.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., whereas Ex.P.1 has been given on 24.02.2004 and the prosecution has not given proper explanation.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that in the instant case, the injured witness, defacto complainant has been examined as P.W.1, the mother of P.W.1 and accused has been examined as P.W.2 and both of them have clearly stated about the overtacts alleged to have been made by the accused.Apart from their evidence, P.Ws.3 and 4 have given clear evidence to the effect that the accused has attacked P.W.1 and the trial court, after considering the evidence given by them, has rightly invited the conviction and sentence and therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court are not liable to be set aside.It is an admitted fact that the defacto complainant has sustained 3 injuries and the same have been mentioned in Ex.P.8, Accident Register and out of 3 injuries, 1 injury is grievous in nature.As mentioned supra, the injured witness has been examined as P.W.1 and in fact, he specifically stated about the overtacts committed by the accused on his person.The mother of the accused and defacto complainant has been examined as P.W.2 and her specific evidence is that the accused has attacked P.W.1 by using an aruval.From the evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2, the court can easily come to a conclusion that the occurrence has taken place as spoken on the side of the prosecution and in the place of occurrence, the accused has attacked P.W.1 by using an aruval.Apart from their evidence, P.Ws.3 and 4 have given clear evidence to the effect that they found accused in the place of occurrence.Since the evidence given by P.Ws.3 and 4 have clearly corroborated the evidence given by P.Ws.1 and 2, the court can very well come to a conclusion that the accused has attacked P.W.1 by using an aruval.The first and foremost contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused is that in the instant case, motive has not been established.In Ex.P.1, it has been clearly mentioned that the accused has had suspected to the effect that P.W.1 is having illicit intimacy with his wife.It is true that P.W.2 has stated some other reason, whereas, P.W.1 has spoken about the alleged intimacy.Even assuming without conceding, on the side of the prosecution, motive has not been established, since P.W.1 is an injured eyewitness and since P.W.2 is also equally an eyewitness, motive has become insignificant in the present case.Therefore, the first contention put forth on the side of the appellant/accused goes out without merit.In fine, this Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.21.01.2016nvsri ToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,858,187 |
As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a 16 years 8 months old minor girl.Petitioner Betu is her sister's brother- in-law.On 18.03.2017, the petitioner kidnapped the prosecutrix from the lawful guardianship of her parents and took her to Delhi, where they stayed with a friend of the petitioner for a period of about 20 days.During aforesaid period, the petitioner raped the prosecutrix.Thereafter, he brought her back to Satna.After that, the prosecutrix was restored to her parents.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prosecutrix was technically a minor, she had attained the age of knowledge and understanding.It is clear that the petitioner and the prosecutrix traveled in a train.As such, it is obvious that the prosecutrix had gone with the petitioner of her own free will and accord and as such, element of coercion is missing in the case.The petitioner has been in custody since 14.04.2017 and charge sheet in the matter has been filed.Therefore, it has been prayed that the petitioner be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Betu Saket @ Rajbahadur Saket, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,948,591 |
It is also stated that there is a proposal to construct a school building library and office building under "Anna Marumalarchi Thittam" and other schemes.But the villagers are facing severe problems because of such encroachment on public land.In paragraph 7 of the affidavit, it is stated that respondents 6 to 9 have encroached the Government Poramboke land with the intention of giving trouble to the public and the said respondents have occupied the public place without any allotment in their favour by the concerned Department.An emergent situation has therefore arisen.It is claimed that the writ petition has been filed in public interest by the petitioner, who claims to be the President of Erayankadu Village Panchayat, Vellore District, for a direction upon respondents 1 to 5 to remove the encroachment by evicting respondents 6 to 9 from the aforesaid Government Poramboke land.The question, which crops up before this Court, is whether a writ petition with such prayers can be filed by way of public interest litigation when there exists specific statutory provision for removal of any unlawful obstruction/encroachment from public land.Saving of operations of other laws in force.-Js/pvTo:The District Collector, Vellore, Vellore District.The Assistant Director, Panchayat, Collectorate Buildings, Sathuachari, Vellore.The District Revenue Officer, Vellore District, Vellore.The Tahsildar, Vellore Taluk, Vellore District.The Block Development Officer, Anaicut Union, Vellore Taluk, Vellore DistrictIn view of such consistent view of the Supreme Court, the exercise of writ jurisdiction for removal of encroachment or obstruction on public land, especially when a specific efficacious remedy for the same has been provided under Sections 133 to 143 of the Code, in our judgment, would be both inappropriate and improper.For the reasons aforesaid, we dismiss this writ petition.However, we do not wish to make any observation on the merits of the petitioners claim.No costs.
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,718,258 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-20399-2018 (KADEES @ SUDEEP @ RAJDEEP KOURAV Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) Jabalpur, Dated : 04-06-2018 Mr. S.B. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.M Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant Kadees @ Sudeep of @ Rajdeep Kourav be released from custody subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand rt only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial ou Court for his appearance before the concerned Court on all the dates of C hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during the trial.Cr.C. stands disposed of.h ig C.C. as per rules.H (VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) V. JUDGE Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2018.06.04 22:14:53 -07'00' s@if
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,724,106 |
The respondents were directed to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.3,000/- each to the injured/complainant and, in default of payment of compensation all the convicts were to undergo simple imprisonment for 10 days each under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC); while they were acquitted from charges under Crl.A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 1 of 6 Section 307 IPC.The respondents were ordered to be released on probation of good conduct for a period of one year, subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount and an undertaking to appear and receive sentence as and when called by the court and in the meantime they shall keep peace and be of good behaviour.Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Priyanka W/o Hemant.According to the complainant on 27-10-11, she was present at her house alongwith her family.She received a call from her sister-in-law (Nanad) who informed that her husband Hari Chand was beating her.Hearing this, complainant, her husband Hemant, Kanta (her mausi), Tara (mother), Pawan (Devar) and one Dayal Chand Sahani (friend of her devar Pawan) reached at the house of Mamta at about 8:30 p.m to resolve the quarrel.According to the complainant on reaching at the house of Mamta, her husband Hemant asked Mamta about the reason of quarrel.Mamta started weeping and while weeping she started disclosing facts to Hemant.On this Hemant got angry and heated arguments started between Hemant on one side and Mamta's husband Harichand, her devar Manoj and her sister-in-law (Sali) Rukmani on the other side.According to the complainant, Hari Chand said to her husband Hemant that his sister always harass him and that you all had made his life hell and exhorted that "Aaj Me Sara Kissa Khatam Kar Deta Hu, Aaj Me Tumhe Jinda Nahi Chhodunga and asked his brother Manoj to bring a knife.In the meantime quarrel started between Hemant, Harichand and Rukmani.According to the complainant, Rukmani caught hold the hand of Hemant from the left side and in the meantime Manoj brought a Crl.A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 2 of 6 knife from the house and handed over the same to Hari Chand and then Manoj caught hold the hand of Hemant from right side and then Hari Chand gave a knife blow in the stomach of Hemant.According to the complainant her husband Hemant started crying with pain and the incident occurred so fast that they could not get a chance to save Hemant.The present appeals have been filed by the State against the judgment dated 24.11.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case no.39/12, FIR No.332/12 PS Aman Vihar and the order on sentence dated 11.12.2014, by which the respondents were convicted under Sections 323/34 IPC.Crl. A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 1 of 62. Crl.A. 806/2015 has been filed by the State seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondents under Section 323 IPC, whereas Crl.A. 343/2016 has been filed by the State, by which the respondents were acquitted under Section 307 IPC.Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.According to the complainant she made a call to the police and they removed Hemant to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital in a private vehicle.Crl. A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 2 of 6F.I.R. bearing No. 332/12, was registered at P.S. Aman Vihar and investigation went underway.During the course of investigation accused persons were arrested.After completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial.On 14-08-2012, a charge U/s 307/34 IPC was framed against the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses."The learned counsel for the appellant/State has submitted that taking into consideration the evidence on record, more particularly, the testimony of Dr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-13), who has opined that the injury was grievous, a case under Section 307 IPC would be made out and even otherwise punishment awarded by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 323/34 IPC is not commensurate to the offence committed.The Trial Court convicted the respondents herein based on the testimonies of the public witnesses Priyanka (PW-1), Hemant (PW-2), Tara (PW-4), Pawan (PW-5) and Dayal Chand (PW-6).We may note that this is an unfortunate matter where the brother-in-law (sisters husband) had stabbed his brother-in-law (wifes real brother).The mediation was a non-starter.The matter was then taken up in Chamber by this Court.Parties were Crl.A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 3 of 6 called and thereafter, the parties have entered into an amicable settlement by which the respondents agreed to compensate the victim in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, which amount has been paid today towards the medical expenses.The complainant undertakes to the Court that he would withdraw the suit filed by him which is pending in the Rohini Court.Crl. A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 3 of 6The respondents have also expressed deep remorse on the incident and both the parties have agreed to bury the past and move further in life.We understand that between the last date of hearing and today, the parties have also been interacting with each other and pray that the Court should also take a lenient view on the matter.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the merits of the matter as well.Dr. Manoj Dhingra who has been examined as PW 13 has opined the injury as "grievous".The injured was also admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital.The perusal of the MLC Ex. PW 13/A would show that the injured had one penetrating wound, left lower margin of the chest was 2 c.m., depth could not be ascertained.Since no depth of the wound has been given in the MLC the inference is that the wound was superficial and not deep which indicates that the blow to the injured was not given with much force.Had the blow been given with substantial force the wound would not have been superficial and it must have been a deep wound.In the present case the weapon of offence has not been produced so it is not known what precisely was the weapon used and what was its shape and size.So it is difficult to say that the accused caused the injuries to the injured with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if by their act injured Hemant would have died they all would have been guilty Crl.A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 4 of 6 of murder.Therefore the accused persons are liable to be held guilty and convicted U/s 323 IPC.Reliance can be placed upon Rajbir Singh Vs.State CRL.A. 752/2010 decided on 03-04-2014 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi."Crl. A. 806/2015 & 343/2016 Page 4 of 6(Emphasis Supplied)In the absence of the requisite knowledge or intention, the offence under Section 307 IPC cannot be made out and hence, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the respondents under Section 323 IPC.Accordingly, Crl.A. 343/2016 deserves to be dismissed.As noticed hereinabove, during the pendency of these appeals the complainant/victim and the respondents, who are close family members have entered into an amicable settlement.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,736,483 |
He further submits that the charge-sheet has been filed and there is no likelihood of commencement of trail as physical hearing is not being conducted in the Court.Per contra, the learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State has opposed the application and submits that as per the allegation made against the present appellant, he is not entitled to be released on bail.Learned counsel for the objector submits that in the statement of 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutrix has stated that she realized that if the appellant had not been arrested, he would have sold her.However, liberty is granted to the appellant to move a fresh appeal for bail after recording of the statement of the prosecutrix in the trial Court.Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-Digitally signed by ANIL CHOUDHARY Date: 2020.08.17 16:54:32 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,737,563 |
Mr. P.S. Gaharwar, learned counsel for the objector.Heard on this second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.297/2018 registered at Police Station Baikunthpur, District Rewa for offences punishable under Sections 304-B, 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.His earlier first application for bail was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 01.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that deceased got marriage with son of the applicant and dispute arose between the deceased and her son-Rajesh.Deceased got marriage on 17.03.2013 with the applicant.She died in burnt condition within seven years of her marriage.She stated in her dying declaration that applicant and her husband directed Rajesh to set her ablaze, then he poured kerosene on the deceased and lit the fire.On that basis, FIR has been registered against the applicant under aforementioned Sections.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a woman and she has been in judicial custody since 26.12.2018; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.On perusal of the case diary, it emerges out that after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed.The material witnesses have been examined before the trial Court.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 29179/2019 (Asha Saket Vs.The State of M.P.) 2 in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to enlarge the applicant on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Asha Saket, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.08.28 17:33:18 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
102,746,578 |
On the same day, at about 7.00 p.m., the deceased Manisha went to the house of the informant and asked him to pay Rs.50,000/-.She told him that in case the amount is not paid, she would be killed by the members of her matrimonial home.The informant anyhow convinced her and sent her back to her matrimonial home.He submits that there is specific allegation made by the informant that the applicants also had demanded money from him through the deceased Manisha.The applicants have prayed for bail in connection with Crime No.93 of 2018, registered in Police Station, Kannad (Rural), District Aurangabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC", for short).::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::2 ba1078-2018The deceased Manisha was the daughter of the informant namely Sanjay Mangu Pawar, resident of Gudma, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad.Rahul started demanding money from the maternal home of the deceased Manisha through her.Since the informant could not fulfill that demand, the husband and other inlaws of the deceased Manisha, including present applicants, started illtreating her.The deceased Manisha had reported that fact to the informant and his wife.On 18th July, 2018 at about 11.00 a.m., applicant No.1 went to the house of the informant and told him that there had been a quarrel between the deceased Manisha and Rahul on account of their visit to Shirdi for Darshan.He asked the informant to convince the deceased Manisha.Accordingly, the informant went there and convinced her.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::3 ba1078-2018On 19th July, 2018 at 8.30 a.m., applicant No.1 went to the house of the informant and told him that Manisha was missing.Thereafter, search was taken but she could not be traced out.Her dead-body was found floating in the water of the well situate in the agricultural land of one Shankar Mansing Rathod on 21st July, 2018 at about 8.00 a.m.. The informant, therefore, lodged F.I.R. against the husband and inlaws of the deceased Manisha, on the basis of which the above numbered crime came to be registered.The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.They never demanded money from the maternal home of the deceased Manisha and never illtreated her on any count.He submits that as seen from the contents of the F.I.R., it was the husband of the deceased Manisha who is alleged to have demanded money and quarrelled with her.In fact, on 19th July, 2018, at about 8.30 a.m., applicant No.1 himself went to the house of the informant to inform that the deceased Manisha was missing.No external injury was noticed on the body of the deceased Manisha by the Autopsy Surgeon.This fact itself makes it clear that she was not beaten or ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 ::: 4 ba1078-2018illtreated prior to her jumping into the well.He submits that the applicants being innocent persons, may be granted the relief of bail.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::The learned A.P.P., assisted by the learned counsel Mr. G.K. Kshirsagar appearing for the informant, strongly opposed the application.The deceased Manisha had complained against them of having illtreated her.There are statements of witnesses, who are stating that the applicants also used to hurl abuses and beat the deceased Manisha.The deceased Manisha committed suicide hardly within two months of her marriage.According to the learned A.P.P., there is strong prima facie case made out against the applicants.They are not entitled to get the relief of bail.He, therefore, prays that the application may be rejected.As seen from the contents of the F.I.R., the allegations are mainly against Rahul, the husband of the deceased Manisha.He is alleged to have demanded the money from the informant through the deceased Manisha.Though it is alleged that she was beaten by her husband ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 ::: 5 ba1078-2018and inlaws and that she had narrated that fact by visiting the house of the informant, there is nothing on record to show that any steps were taken by the informant or the deceased Manisha against her husband and inlaws for the alleged illtreatment.As seen from the further contents of the F.I.R., there had been quarrel between the deceased Manisha and her husband Rahul on 18th July, 2018 at about 11.00 a.m. on account of their proposed visit to Shirdi for Darshan.Applicant No.1 had been to the house of the informant to request him to convince the deceased Manisha and accordingly, the informant had visited the house of the applicants and convinced the deceased Manisha.There is no mention in the F.I.R. that at that time, he had seen that the deceased Manisha was beaten on any count, much less on the count of demand of money.The informant himself has stated that applicant No.1 visited his house on 19th July, 2018 at about 8.30 a.m. and informed that the deceased Manisha was missing.This act on the part of applicant No.1 also prima facie is not compatible with the alleged guilt of illtreating the deceased Manisha.The applicants are behind the bars since 22 nd July, 2018 and 25th July, 2018 respectively.The investigation is complete and the chargesheet has been filed.In the ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 ::: 6 ba1078-2018above facts and circumstances, I think fit to extend the relief of bail to the applicants with certain conditions.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::The observations made in this order, being prima facie in nature, would have limited effect for deciding the present application only and would not influence any other proceeding arising out of the present crime.In the result, I pass the following order :-(i) The application is allowed.(ii) The applicants shall be released on their executing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount, on the following conditions:-(a) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.(b) The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity.::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::the revenue limits of village Gudma, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, till the trial is over.(iii) The bail bonds shall be furnished before the Committal/Trial Court.(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL] JUDGEnpj/ba1078-2018 ::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2018 02:58:40 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.