id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
102,749,299 |
Her chest, face and hands were cut by means of some sharp cutting weapon.The informant asked about the matter to the appellant but he told that the deceased was found sleeping on a cot and she herself fell down on the ground from the cot.judgment dtd.12.12.2003 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mayurbhanj, Baripada in S.T Case No.20 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.The case of the prosecution is that on 15.6.2001 the informant- Mitu Patra along with one Dukhia Marandi-P.W.2 appeared before the Thakurmunda Police Station and reported that P.W.2 told him regarding murder of Mani Soren, wife of the appellant in the last night by some unknown persons causing cut injury on her person as a result of which she died at the spot.The informant by hearing this came to the house of the appellant and found the wife of the appellant aged about 50 years was lying inside the house in a pool of blood.The appellant instead of informing his neighbourers went to his son, who was staying at the adjacent locality.The blood stained shirt and cloth of the appellant were lying at the spot.On the basis of the aforesaid information the Officer-in-Charge of Thakurmunda P.S treating the same as an F.I.R registered Thakurmunda P.S Case No.33 of 2001 and investigation was taken up.After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of offence under Sections 302 of I.P.C. against the appellant.The weapon of offence was marked as M.O.I. Out of the witnesses examined by the prosecution P.W.1 was the informant and P.W.2 was the post occurrence witness before whom the appellant made extrajudicial confession.P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were the seizure witnesses.P.W.5 is the son of the deceased and P.W.7 is the brother-in-law of the appellant.P.W.8 is the 3 mother-in-law of the appellant and P.W.9 was the Investigating Officer.P.W.10 was the Doctor, who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body.The plea of the appellant was complete denial of the prosecution case.The appellant has specifically stated in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C that though he was staying in the same house with the deceased, the cause of death was not known to him and a false case has been lodged against him.The trial court relying on the evidence of the witnesses and the evidence of P.W.10, the Doctor who conducted the post mortem examination found the appellant guilty under Section 302 of I.P.C and convicted him thereunder.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that in absence of any direct evidence against the appellant for his alleged involvement in the crime, the court below should not have accepted the circumstantial evidence on record particularly when the circumstances are not firmly established.He further submits that if the circumstances are taken together it did not form a complete chain, therefore, benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the appellant, and as such the impugned judgment is not sustainable in law and liable to be set aside.The theory of last seen together is not of universal application and may not always be sufficient to sustain a conviction unless supported by other links in the chain of circumstances.6. Learned Addl.Considering the rival submissions of the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it appears that P.W.1 stated in F.I.R that he has lodged the same before Thakurmunda P.S along with P.W.2 but P.W.2 in his deposition has stated that they have lodged the F.I.R at the spot which creates contradiction between the two witnesses.P.W.1 has further stated in his deposition 5 that there was dispute between the appellant and deceased but in cross- examination he has stated that he has not known anything about appellant and deceased prior to the occurrence.P.W.2 first time disclosed before the Court that appellant has told him that he killed his wife and not asked to P.W.1 or not mentioned in the F.I.R as he was the scriber of F.I.R. So it is a after thought story and belated disclosure regarding the occurrence, which creates suspicion about the truthfulness of his version.P.Ws.3, 4, 6, who were seizure witnesses have stated in their deposition that they have signed the seizure list at the instance of police.Though the appellant and deceased were staying together in one house but on the date of occurrence no witness has seen that on the night of occurrence they are staying together.7.2 Similar view was also been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mandangi Samburu v. State of Odisha reported in 1985 (1) OLR 271 wherein the appellant, who belonged to Scheduled Tribe Community was 6 convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. was converted to one under Section 302, Part-II of I.P.C.7.3 In another unreported Jail Criminal Appeal No.52 of 1997 disposed of on 11.10.2007, this Court also took a similar view as the accused was a resident of Nabarangpur, an interior part of the State and inhabitants of that area are tribal.It was held that such people are of different mindset and they committed offences on the spur of moment.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,510,688 |
As per prosecution, the petitioner was caught red handed while he was taking away three years daughter of complainant-Laddu Parihar.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case- diary.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,851,108 |
This is second application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 22/12/2016 in connection with Crime No.254/2016, registered at Police Station Lateri, District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 327/34, 506-B, 294, 323, 302/34 of IPC.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
6,851,418 |
Let the revisionist, Wahid (Juvenile) through his natural guardian/ father Rafeek be released on bail in Case Crime No. Case Crime No.304 of 2017, under Section 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Islamnagar, District Budaun upon his father furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun subject to the following conditions:Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.03..2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, (POCSO Court), Budaun dismissing Juvenile Criminal Appeal No.6 of 2018 (Wahid Vs State of UP), arising out of case crime no.304 of 2017, under Section 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Islamnagar, District Budaun and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Budaun dated 23.1.2018 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.304 of 2017, under Section 376D IPC and 5/6 POCSO Act, P.S. Islamnagar, District Budaun.Heard Sri Rabindra Tiwari, learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that the informant/ victim namely Ekta has lodged the FIR with the allegations that she was going to attend coaching at 2.00 P.M. and when she was returning to her house at village Purdal Pur Surahi, at that time three boys namely Wahid, Akil and Laturi were standing and Wahid pushed her due to which she fell down, thereafter wahid and Akil closed her mouth by a cloth and took her away near the field of sugarcane and committeed rape with her one by one and she became unconscouses.Thereafter she returned back to her house and told about the incident with her mother Kalpana Devi, thereupon she has loddged the F.I.R on 9.10.2017 regarding committing rape with her on 3.10.2017 in case crime No.304/17, under Sections 363 and 376D IPC, P.S. Islamnagar, District Budaun.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that in the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 CrPC, she has not dislcosed the name of the revisionist.The revisionist has been falsely implicated on account of old animity between the families.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 14 years, 3 months and 28 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 16 years of age.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:(iv) That the impugned judgment and orders passed by the learned courts below are apparently illegal, contrary to law and based on erroneous assumption of facts and law.(v) That there was absolutely no material on record to hold that the release of the Juvenile would likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice, yet the courts below have illegally, arbitrary and on surmises refused the bail of juvenile.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs.State of U.P. (supra), this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,518,082 |
Sl. No.103 Ct-42 BM Rejected CRM 3866 of 2019 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 04.04.2019 in connection with Raiganj Women Police Station Case No.104 of 2018 dated 09.10.2018 under Sections 341/325/326/307/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Rustom Ali @ Rustam Ali ... Petitioner Mr. Kaushik Choudhury Mr. Sabyasachi Hazra ... for the petitioner Ms. Amita Gaur ... for the State Heard both sides.( Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. ) ( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,519,869 |
In short, the prosecution case is that in the past there had been some negotiation about the marriage of appellant Kailash's younger brother Halke with Radhabai, daughter of Chhotelal @ Kamta, but family members of Chhotelal were not inclined to marry Radhabai to Halke.It is said that on 9.9.1992, when Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1), Khemchand (deceased) and other members of the family were sitting in the courtyard of Chhotelal, at about 8.00 a.m., appellants reached there and pressurized Chhotelal to get Radhabai married to Halke.When Chhotelal and other members of the family expressed their unwillingness for the same, appellants intimidated them saying that they would take away Radhabai on the point of pistol.When Khemchand retorted that they cannot do it, appellant Kailash took out pistol and fired on the head of Khemchand, as a result of which he fell down and died.It is further said that appellant Nitin, who was armed with Baka and other appellants, who were armed with Lathis, assaulted with their respective weapons to Khemchand as well as Ramesh Kumar Sharma.Kalabai and Munnibai sprawled over the injured persons and saved them.Ramesh Kumar Sharma and other persons taking the dead body of deceased in a bullock cart went to Police Station, Bareli.Ramesh Kumar Sharma lodged first information report (Ex.P/1).After conducting the inquest proceedings and recording memorandum (Ex.P/3), dead body of Khemchand was sent for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Bareli, where Assistant Surgeon, Dr. J.P. Chaudhary (PW-12) conducted postmortem examination of the body.Vide his 3 postmortem examination report Ex.P/11, he found one gun shot injury on left side of the head of deceased.He also examined the injuries of injured Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) and submitted his report (Ex.P/12).Appellants were arrested.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 25.7.2002, passed by III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Raisen, in Sessions 2 Trial No.45/93, convicting them under Section 302/149, 324/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5000/-, rigorous imprisonment for one and half years and rigorous imprisonment for one year, on each count respectively.On their information, Katta, Baka and Lathis were seized.After completing investigation, police filed charge sheet in the Court of Magistrate.Case was then committed for trial.During trial appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication because of dispute in a Panchayat.They also examined Dr.Prosecution examined Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1), Munnibai (PW-4), Raja Bhaiya (PW-5), Mahendra Singh (PW-6) and Kalabai (PW-7) as eyewitnesses of the incident.Relying on their evidence and the medical evidence of Dr. J.P. Chaudhary (PW-12), learned trial judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned earlier.The said judgment of conviction has been challenged by the appellants in this appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.It has not been disputed that deceased Khemchand died of homicidal injury.All the aforesaid eyewitnesses categorically stated that appellant Kailash fired a pistol on the head of deceased, as a result of which he suffered injury.Investigating officer conducted inquest proceedings and prepared memorandum (Ex.P/3) of the dead body of deceased in presence of Ram Gulam (PW-3) and Gopal Singh (PW-9), who deposed that police had prepared Lash Panchnama of Khemchand before them in hospital.J.P.Chaudhary (PW-12), who conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of deceased on 9.9.1992, deposed that he found an injury on the left side of skull of deceased, which was on temporal region extending to mandibular region, size 4" x 2"x bone brain deep.Blackening, scorching and tattooing were 4 present, hair were singed in the above area, bleeding was present, clotted blood was also present around the wound, edges of the wound were inverted .In his opinion, injury had been caused by a firearm fired from a distance within three feet from the deceased.On internal examination, he found small pellets in brain matter from temporal lobe to occipital lobe about 30 in number, approximately 2-3 mm in diameter.Pellets were seized and handed over to police constable.He further opined that the cause of death was due to firearm injury on skull leading to laceration of brain matter and massive haemorrhage leading to cardio respiratory failure.The injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.Postmortem examination report (Ex.P/11) written and signed by Dr.J.P.Chaudhary (PW-12) is also placed on record.It was thus clearly evident that deceased Khemchand died of homicidal and gun shot injury.Their evidence was discrepant and contradictory.Appellant Brijmohan had also suffered injuries in the same incident, which indicated that a true genesis was suppressed by the prosecution witnesses and appellants were falsely implicated.Learned counsel further submitted that firing pistol at deceased was the individual act of appellant Kailash; other appellants could not be held liable for his act with the aid of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, as it could not be said that the common object of all the appellants was to commit murder of deceased.He further submitted that the incident had occurred suddenly.Therefore, the conviction of appellant Kailash under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified.At the most, he could have been held liable only under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the 5 appellants contending that the evidence of eyewitnesses was cogent, consistent and reliable.We have gone through the entire evidence on record.Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1), brother of deceased, deposed that at about 8.00 am, when he was present in the courtyard of the house of his cousin Chhotelal and talking to Raja Bhaiya, Mahendra Singh and Keshri Singh, appellants came there.Appellant Kailash had a pistol, Nitin had a Baka and all others had Lathis.They asked that Radhabai, daughter of Chhotelal, should be married to their brother Halke, else they would take away Radhabai on the point of pistol.Chhotelal refused to accede to their demand.When they intimidated that they will take Radhabai, deceased protested them saying that they cannot take Radhabai, thereupon, appellant Kailash fired pistol at him.Bullet hit deceased on his left side of head.When deceased fell down and he tried to save him, Nitin @ Bada Munna dealt a blow with Baka on his forehead.Brijmohan assaulted him with Lathi.When his brothers' wives Munnibai and Kalabai came there to save him, appellants ran away.Within 5-10 minutes deceased died.With the help of village people, when he and Kalabai were taking deceased in a bullock cart to Bareli, appellants surrounded them on the way and enquired whether injured persons were alive.He reached Police Station, Bareli and lodged report (Ex.P/1).In cross examination, this witness denied that appellants had come to apologize for some incident in the past in which Nitin had assaulted son of Chhotelal.He denied that there had been any Panchayat on that day and after that prosecution witnesses attacked the appellants.He though admitted that one Raghav Singh dealt a blow of Lathi to Kailash, but he explained that he was assaulted when appellants were running away after committing offence and that too outside the boundary of the house.The evidence of Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) finds corroboration from 6 the evidence of Munnibai (PW-4), Raja Bhaiya (PW-5), Mahendra Singh (PW-6) and Kalabai (PW-7).All the aforesaid witnesses though deposed that appellants surrounded their bullock cart when deceased and Ramesh were being taken to police station, but this fact does not find place in their police statements.In our opinion, even if this fact was omitted by the witnesses, it did not affect their credibility about their witnessing the occurrence.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) stated that Nitin assaulted him by Baka and Brijmohan assaulted him with Lathi, but it was an improvement, as this fact was not mentioned by him in the first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him.He further pointed out that in cross-examination this witness stated that the edged part of Baka did not hit him and it was only its wooden part, which hit hin, Therefore, it could not be held that appellant Nitin assaulted him by Baka.On perusal of the record, it is revealed that the chief examination of all the eyewitnesses was recorded in the year 1993, whereas cross-examination of the witnesses was done in the year 1999 i.e. about 5-6 years after the chief examination.It appears from the record that since most of the accused persons were not represented by the counsel, the witnesses were recalled by order of the High Court passed in revision.In these circumstances, it is quite possible that some discrepancies and contradictions crept in the evidence of witnesses.However, it has been clearly mentioned in the first information report (Ex.P/1) that it was only appellant Nitin, who was armed with Baka, a sharp edged weapon.It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in the first information report Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) disclosed that appellants Ram Gulam and Preetam Singh assaulted him, whereas other appellants assaulted Khemchand.Since from the evidence of Dr.J.P.Chaudhary 7 (PW-12), who examined the injuries of Ramesh Kumar and his injury report Ex.P/12, it is revealed that Ramesh Kumar suffered two injuries, one of which was caused by sharp edged weapon, in our opinion, the evidence of Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) that Nitin dealt a blow with Baka on his head cannot be doubted.Dr. J.P.Chaudhary (PW-12) found following injuries on the body of Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1):"1. Lacerated wound on forehead 2" x " x skin deep.Incised wound near first injury on the forehead 1"x cm x skin deep."According to Dr. Choudhary, injury no.1 was caused by hard and blunt object and the injury no.2 was caused by hard and sharp object.Munnibai (PW-4), Raja Bhaiya (PW-5), Mahendra Singh (PW-6) and Kalabai (PW-7) reiterated the same story.However, they added that all the appellants exhorted appellant Kailash to fire pistol at Khemchand, which he did, but this fact is clearly an improvement in their respective police statements.As such, the evidence of aforesaid witnesses that all the appellants exhorted Kailash to fire pistol cannot be accepted.Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to the cross- examination of Kalabai (PW-7) wherein she admitted that number of people of village were present at the place of incident.Since women did not use to interfere in the affairs of male members of the family, she remained inside the house, and it was only after quarrel when she came out, she came to know that Khemchand had received a gun shot.She came to know it later that Ramesh had been assaulted and Kailash had fired gun at Khemchand.This admission indicates the possibility that Kalabai (PW-7) might not have witnessed the occurrence, since she was inside the house, but it can be inferred that at once, after the incident, she went at the place of occurrence 8 and heard other witnesses saying that Kailash fired gun shot at deceased, as such her evidence would be relevant under Section 6 of the Evidence Act as res-gestae.Learned counsel for appellants argued that though an empty cartridge was seized from the spot and the weapons alleged to have been used in the incident were seized from the possession of appellants and sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, but the investigating officer, who seized the aforesaid articles, was not examined in the court and almost all the witnesses of seizure did not support the fact of seizure.Therefore, no corroborative evidence was available before the Court.The evidence of complainant Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1) stood corroborated by the first information report lodged by him at about 2.00 p.m. and the fact that he suffered injuries in the same incident in which deceased suffered gun shot injury.His evidence found further support from the evidence of Munnibai (PW-4), Raja Bhaiya (PW-5), Mahendra Singh (PW-6) and Kalabai (PW-7).It is thus amply established that appellants formed an unlawful assembly and went at the house of Chhotelal @ Kamta with a view to pressurize him to marry his daughter to their brother Halke.When Chhotelal and deceased did not yield to their demand, appellant Kailash fired pistol at deceased, and Nitin and other appellants assaulted Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1).As far as the defence of the appellants that they were falsely implicated because of enmity over a dispute in Panchayat, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that there was any dispute of Panchayat.Appellants examined Dr.H.P.Singh (DW-1) to prove injuries of appellant Brijmohan.No doubt Dr.H.P. Singh (DW-1) on 12.9.1992 found four lacerated injuries on the 9 body of appellant Brijmohan, which, in his opinion, were simple in nature and were caused between the duration of 3-4 days, but it was admitted by Dr.No police requisition on the basis of which his Medico Legal Examination was to be done was proved in the case.Apart from it, absolutely no evidence was adduced by the defence to indicate that the injuries to Brijmohan were caused in the same occurrence in which Khemchand received gun shot injury.In our opinion, appellants get no benefit by the evidence of Dr. H.P. Singh (DW-1).Learned counsel for the appellants strenuously urged that from the evidence on record it could not be held that the common object of unlawful assembly, allegedly formed by the appellants, was to commit murder of deceased as firing of pistol at deceased appeared to be an individual act of appellant Kailash.We have already discussed that the evidence of eyewitnesses to the effect that appellants Nitin, Brijmohan, Shri Kishan,Ram Gulam and Preetam exhorted appellant Kailash to fire at deceased, is an improvement.Though Ramesh Kumar Sharma (PW-1), before the court, stated that appellant Kailash wielding a pistol, Nitin with Baka and others with Lathis came to their house and when deceased challenged that they cannot take away Radhabai, Kailash fired a pistol at him, but, in the first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him, he only mentioned that when deceased protested, Kailash took out pistol and fired at him.This, in our opinion, leads to a probablise that other appellants might have no knowledge that appellant Kailash was keeping a pistol, which he would fire.As far as evidence of Munnibai (PW-4) is concerned, in para-13 of her statement, she admitted that she did not see firing of pistol.All the people were saying that Kailash had fired a pistol.The fact that other appellants exhorted Kailash for 10 firing the pistol was found omission in her police statement (Ex.D/3).In para 9 and 10 of her statement, she admitted that she disclosed to police that initially a Maar-Peet was started with Ramesh, but when deceased tried to intervene, Kailash fired at him.Raja Bhaiya (PW-5) though stated that when appellants came to his house Kailash had a pistol in his hand and Nitin had Baka, but these facts were not mentioned by him in his police statement (Ex.D/1).Similar is the situation with Mahendra Singh (PW-6), who made an improvement in saying that appellant Kailash was wielding pistol when he came to his house.As far as Kalabai (PW-7) is concerned, she admitted that she was inside the house and she came to the place of incident after the occurrence was over.In these circumstances, there appears substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellants that the possibility that other appellants, except appellant Kailash, did not know that Kailash had a pistol, which he may fire at deceased, cannot be ruled out.Therefore, in our opinion, the finding recorded by the trial judge that the common object of the assembly was to commit murder of deceased was not justified.After a close appraisal of the evidence on record, we find that the appellants had formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of intimidating the deceased and his family members to compel them to marry Radhabai to their brother Halke and on their not yielding to their demand, to assault and cause simple hurts to them.The act of appellant Kailash Sharma in taking out a pistol and firing at the head of deceased was his individual act.Other appellants could not be held liable for the said act of Kailash Sharma.The act of appellant Kailash in firing the pistol on the head of deceased clearly indicated his intention to commit murder of deceased.In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the conviction of appellant Kailash under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is justified.Though he was charged under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, yet from the contents of charge, it is apparent that he was informed that it was he who fired pistol on the deceased and committed his murder.No prejudice is caused to him on his being convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In the result:(1) The conviction and sentence of appellant No.1 Kailash Sharma under Section 302, 324/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code is affirmed.This appeal in respect of him is dismissed.(2) Conviction and sentence of appellant No.2 Nitin Kumar, No.3 Brijmohan Tiwari, No.4 Shrikishan, No.5 Ram Gulam and appellant No.6 Preetam Singh under Section 302/149 is set aside.They are acquitted of this charge.However, their conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 324/149 and 148 of the Indian penal Code is affirmed.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
685,246 |
These three appeals arise out of a common order dated March 14, 1980, 1980, of the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, reversing the order of discharge passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, 6th Court, Nagpur.Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants were running a partnership concern known as Lolya Brothers at Kamptee, Nagpur.This registered partnership firm was carrying on business in the manufacture of "bidis" in the relevant assessment years., The learned Magistrate, after perusing the averments in the complaint and the supporting documents, came to the conclusion that the date of cessation of business mentioned as December 31,1969, was merely a bona fide mistake and no mens rea could be culled out and, accordingly, directed discharge of the accused persons.Against the said order passed in the three complaints, three revision petitions were carried to the High Court.The High Court, by an elaborate judgment, came to the conclusion that, without recording evidence, it was not open to the learned Magistrate to discharge the accused on the plea that the mistake was a bona fide one.It also took the view that all of them could be dealt with with the aid of Section 34, Indian Penal Code.In this view that the High Court took, it allowed the revision applications, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and remitted the complaints to the learned Magistrate to be dealt with in accordance with law.It is against the said order passed by the High Court that the present three appeals have been preferred on a certificate granted by the High Court.This court admitted the appeals and granted an interim stay of further proceedings in the trial court.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,527,750 |
Original accused nos. 2,4 and 8 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.The accused/appellants are convicted for offences punishable under Section:-The appellants are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act.The facts of the case as alleged by the prosecution are that:-(a) On 3.6.2007 at about 7.30 p.m. Parmanand Mishra (since deceased) lodged a report at Wadgaon Road Police Station, Yavatmal alleging therein that on 3.6.2007 at about 5.30 p.m., he and Sachin Harankhede were the pillion riders on the motorcycle being driven by Prasant @ Guddu.They were proceeding towards the Vidarbha Housing Society.(b) At about 5.45 p.m. when they reached near Vidarbha Housing Society, he saw Pravin Divte, Mohd. Tariq, Vikky Kanake, Raghu Nakshane, Deepak ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 6 Meshram, Ammu @ Amir, Vikas Zanjal and two muslim boys from Amravati suddenly came from the opposite direction on their respective motorcycles.They halted and proceeded towards Prashant.Sachin Harankhede and the complainant alighted from the motorcycle.Deepak Meshram and Vikas (acquitted accused) assaulted Prashant with the swords.Prashant fell on the ground.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::Pravin fired at Prashant with the gun and the rest of the accused assaulted Prashant with the swords with which they were armed.Therefore, Sachin, Sunil and the complainant made good their escape.They straightway went to the house of Prashant and informed his elder brother Manish about the incident.Manish and Chandrashekhar who are the brothers of deceased Prashant came to the spot and took Prashant to Civil Hospital.(a) According to PW16, on 3.6.2007 at about 6 to 6.15 p.m., Parmanand Mishra, Sunil Tiwari and Sachin Harankhede came to his house and informed him that his brother Gattya was assaulted.PW16 then called upon his elder brother Chandrashekhar and went towards Water Tank in Vidarbha Housing Society and saw that Prashant was lying on the road in an injured condition.They took Prashant to the hospital in an auto-rickshaw.The doctor had declared him dead.Sunil Tiwari, Parmanand Mishra and Sachin Harankhede met him in the hospital and told him that accused nos.1,2,3,5,6,7 and 8 and two muslim boys residents of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 23 Amravati had assaulted Prashant on the road in front of Vidarbha Housing Society.(b) PW16 has deposed before the Court that he had accompanied Parmanand Mishra to the Police Station.He admits that at the first instance when Parmanand Mishra, Sachin and Sunil came to his house, he had not asked them about the identity of the assailants.According to him, the clothes of his elder brother as well as his own clothes were stained with blood when they lifted Prashant to take him to the hospital.However, the Police had not seized the clothes of PW15 or his elder brother Chandrashekhar.He also admits that he had not told the names of the assailants to any Policeman out of 100 policemen at the hospital.That Sachin Harankhede and Sunil Tiwari have not accompanied him to the Police Station.sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years.(c) 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 5 to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer further R.I. for 1 year.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The original accused no.6 i.e. Pravin Dattuji Divte is convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- in default to suffer further R.I.for 1 year.Prashant succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.(c) On the basis of the said information, Crime No.180/2007 was registered at Wadgaon Police Station against eight persons for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of I.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The prosecution examined 19 witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused.The accused examined defence witness Sk.Razzak from whose field the weapons and motorcycle were recovered.Deceased Prashant @ Gattya Dube and accused no.6 Pravin Divte were elected as members of the Municipal Council, Yavatmal.Prashant was elected as President of the Planning Committee of the said Municipal Council.Accused no.6 could not digest the election of Prashant as the President of the Planning Committee.Accused no.6 was annoyed with deceased Prashant as he was was giving tap connections in the ward from which accused no.6 was elected and thereby gaining popularity in the ward.According to prosecution, accused no.6 was, therefore, nurturing the idea of eliminating Prashant.In this background, the charge was framed against original accused nos. 1 to 8 as follows:-Fourthly, on 31.5.2007 absconded accused Mahesh Thakur reached at Saiba Hotel at ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 8 Yavatmal you accused nos. 1 to 8 along with absconding accused Sheikh Juned Shahanoor @ Shanu also reached at Saiba hotel, Yavatmal and agreed with absconding accused no.10 Mahesh Thakur to do an illegal act to wit to commit murder of Prashant Dube, and you accused did the same act to wit commit murder beside the agreement in pursuance of said agreement to commit offence of murder of Prashant Dube punishable with death sentence and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 120-B of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::In this background, we would examine the prosecution witnesses relied upon by the prosecution to prove the charge under Section 120-B of I.P.C.To substantiate the charge under Section 120-B of I.P.C., the prosecution has examined PW3 Wasudeo Lakhani who has been declared hostile.Discussion as regards testimony of PW5 is as follows:-(a) The prosecution has examined PW5 Ashish Dobade.According to PW5, he is working as a Painter.On 31.5.2007, he had been to Hotel Sahiba along with his friend Kiran Thakur in the afternoon.On the adjacent table, 4-5 persons were consuming ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 9 alcohol.At that time, accused nos. 5,6 and 8, Shanur and three to four other persons came and joined them.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::At that time, he heard accused no.6 Pravin Divte telling one man that Prashant @ Gattya has progressed in politics due to which their income has suffered and Prashant is becoming a prominent personality.He had also heart Pravin Divte saying that with the help of Mahesh, he intends to eliminate Prashant.PW5 has stated that thereafter ig he consumed cold-drinks and went away.He has identified accused no.8 in the Court.(b) In the cross-examination, he has stated that almost all the tables in the hotel were occupied by the customers.That all the customers were having conversation.They were in the hotel for about 20 minutes.(c) It is elicited in the cross-examination of this witness that till his statement was recorded by the Police, he had not disclosed about this conversation to anybody that he went to Police Station on the say of Parmanand Mishra.He has also admitted that he had not even disclosed to Parmanand Mishra about the conversation which he had heard.There is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 10 one more admission that on 31.5.2007, he was in the Police Station upto 5.30::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(d) PW5 has admitted his criminal antecedents.He was the co-accused of Parmanand Mishra.He has further admitted that if Parmanand Mishra had not told him, he would not have given the statement to the Police.An inference can be drawn that he was coaxed by Parmanand Mishra to state accordingly.ig The truthfullness of the said statement is doubtful and hence does not inspire confidence.In any case, it is only accused no.6 who is convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B of I.P.C. and the other accused named by PW5 i.e. original accused nos. 5 and 8 are acquitted of the said charge.The prosecution has examined PW14 Rajesh Dube, PW15 Sunil Dube and PW16 Manish Dube to prove the charge under Section 120-B of I.P.C. Prosecution witness Nos. 14, 15 and 16 are the brothers of deceased Prashant @ Gattya.9. Discussion as regards testimony of PW14 is as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 11 follows:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(a) According to PW14, 4-5 days prior to the incident when he was in Sharda Square, Pravin Divte approached him and told him that his brother Prashant was progressing in politics by giving tap connections in his ward.Accused no.6 Pravin asked PW14 to convince his brother Prashant @ Gattya or else he would be eliminated.According to him, he was threatened of dire consequences in the eventuality of lodging report.(b) In the cross-examination, it is stated by PW14 that accused no.6 had contested the election from the Congress Party whereas deceased Prashant was elected as representative of Bhartiya Janta Party.Discussion as regards testimony of PW15 is as follows:-(a) PW15 Sunil Dube has deposed before the Court that in the past there had been an altercation between the accused no.6 and deceased and both of them were arrested by the Police.(b) According to PW15, on 3.6.2007 at about 1 to 1.30 p.m. he was passing from Anglo Hindi School.He had seen accused no.6 and his friend and, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 12 therefore, he had inquired the whereabouts of his brother Prashant and Prashant had come home.On the same day at about 4.30 p.m., Prashant had called PW15 in Jaibharat Square and at that time PW15 had given Rs.3,000/- to him and asked him to come home.At about 6.30 p.m., Manish informed him that Gattya had been stabbed and was taken to the hospital.PW15, therefore, went to the hospital and learnt about the death of Gattya.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(c) PW15 has been confronted with his previous statement, in which he had stated that he along with his brothers Manish and Chandrashekhar went near Vidarbha Housing Society and has seen Prashant lying in a pool of blood and then they had taken him to Civil Hospital.The contradiction is marked as portion mark A.(d) The omissions is elicited to the extent that he has seen accused no.7 Vikky and others coming from opposite direction and motorcycle of his ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 13 brother was lying on the spot near Anglo Hindi High School.The omissions are material omissions as far as they relate to PW15 seeing the accused persons near about the scene of offence just prior to the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The presence of accused no.6 near his own house cannot be an incriminating circumstance.The other accused were his friends and these allegations are not sufficient to prove the charge of conspiracy.The deceased also had criminal antecedents.According to PW14, accused no.6 had given a warning to him just 4-5 days before the incident.He had asked PW14 to convince the deceased.It could be a threat but it cannot be said to be conspiracy.Criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 120-B of I.P.C. postulates an agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 14 illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The prosecution in order to prove the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 read with 149 of I.P.C., has examined PW1 Sunil Tiwari and PW2 Rajesh Atram as eyewitnesses and PW16 Manish Dube to prove that PW1 and PW2 had disclosed to PW16 immediately the names of assailants and the incident as seen by them.Discussion as regards testimony of PW1 is as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 15 follows:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(a) PW1 Sunil Tiwari has deposed before the Court that on the day of incident at about 5 to 6 p.m., he was going on his Pulsar motorcycle from Tiwari Square to Vidarbha Housing Society.Prashant, Parmanand and Sachin were on Pulsar motorcycle.When they reached near Vidarbha Housing Society, accused no.7, accused no.3, absconding accused Shanu, accused no.5 accompanied by 4-5 other persons came from the opposite direction.One of the accused had kicked the motorcycle of Prashant Dube.All the three persons fell down and thereafter accused no.7, accused no.1, accused no.5 and 3-4 others assaulted Prashant with knife and sword.He escaped along with Parmanand Mishra and saw the incident from a distance of 20 ft.Then they went to the elder brother of Prashant and narrated the incident to him.Then they went to Civil Hospital and there he had disclosed the names of assailants to Manish Dube who is the brother of Gattya.(b) He had admitted in the cross-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::Original accused no.4 is acquitted.PW1 was confronted with his previous statement and he has stated that the portion mark A,B,C and D are incorrect.The portion mark A is in respect of the names of accused nos. 6 andPortion mark B is in respect of name of accused no.Portion mark C is in respect of the word ig Musalman .(c) The relevance of these contradictions are to show that he has seen these persons named in the contradictory portion as the persons whom he had seen coming from opposite direction at the time of incident.The portion mark D is that he had seen accused no.6 firing at Prashant from his country made Pistol.These are material contradictions as they would lead to the identity of the accused persons.(d) PW1 has admitted that he had not stated the name of accused no.8 Mohd. Tariq to the Police as he did not know him.It is further elicited in the cross-examination that when they reached Civil Hospital, there was a large mob of people.There were about 70 to 80 Police officials in the hospital.PW1 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 17 had learnt that Prashant had expired.Sachin Harankhede and Rajesh Atram were present in the hospital.PW1 has admitted that he had not disclosed about the incident to the Police Officials although he was present even at the time of inquest panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::According to him, PW16 had asked him to leave the hospital.According to him, except Manish Dube, he had not disclosed about the incident to anybody till his statement was recorded.ig One of the accused kicking the motorcycle is by way of omission.The most glaring admission by PW1 is that he was not knowing the assailants prior to the incident.We have verified the vernacular version and it reads thus:-(e) In view of this admission, it cannot be believed that he had disclosed the names of the assailants to Manish Dube.The investigating officer has not conducted test identification parade and, therefore, the identity of the assailants as far as this witness is concerned, would be doubtful.PW1 was confronted with his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The identity of the assailants is an omission in the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. PW1 has admitted that the contents were read over to him and he has signed the same to verify its correctness.He has admitted the omissions in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He has admitted that he has not stated in his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that Prashant, Parmanand and Sachin fell from the motorcycle and were then assaulted by accused no.7, accused no.1 and accused no.5 and 3-4 others.In Exh.171, there is an omission to the extent that he along with Parmanand Mishra and Sachin had run away for some distance and then waited for 2 to 4 minutes after crossing distance of 20 feet.Another material omission in Exh.171 is as follows:-Discussion as regards testimony of PW2 is as follows:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::5 to 6 persons came from his back side and went towards Prashant Dube and assaulted him by sharp edged weapon.Accused Nos. 1,3,5 and 7 were amongst the assailants.He had witnessed the incident but since he was frightened, he left the spot.The tenor of the evidence of this witness shows that he was a chance witness.(b) PW2 was confronted with his previous statement.The witness has stated that the said version is incorrect.It is marked as portion mark A.The direction in which the witness was proceeding is also a contradiction.Portion mark F is that he was proceeding from Datta Chowk, via Mainde Chowk to Anglo Hindi High School and near Anglo Hindi High School.(c) PW2 has admitted his criminal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 20 antecedents and has admitted that he is a co-accused with Devanand Mishra and Parmanand Mishra for commission of murder of Amol Ghugre and attempted to commit murder of Prakash Langote.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(d) The material omissions elicited in the cross-examination are as follows:-At the time of recording statement, I had stated to the police that 5-6 persons had come from my back side and went towards Prashant @ Gatya Dubey and he was assaulted by sharp edged weapon but this fact is not mentioned in my statement recorded by police.At the time of recording my statement, I had not stated to the police that I had witnessed the incident for 3-4 minutes.He has admitted that the statement was read over to him and he has signed the said statement after verifying the contents.According to him, the Police were standing outside the Court hall when his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.In spite of it, he has not mentioned the names of the assailants.It is an omission in Exh.172 that he has seen 5-6 persons came from behind and went ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 21 towards Prashant and that he had witnessed the incident for 3 to 4 minutes.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::In view of the admissions of PW1 that he did not know the assailants piror to the incident, it cannot be believed that he had disclosed the names of the assailants to the Police.PW2 is a chance witness.He is an accused in several serious cases.He belonged to the group of the deceased and Parmanand Mishra and appears to be a got up witness.The admissions in respect of omissions and contradictions as noted in the statements of PW1 and PW2 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are duly proved.The statement of a witness recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence but it can be used to corroborate the witness or to contradict him under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the present case, the witnesses i.e. PW1 and 2 are ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 22 confronted with their previous statement and they have admitted the omissions and contradictions.Even if it is held that PW1 and PW2 had seen the incident, the question of the identity of the accused/assailants needs to be proved by the prosecuting agency beyond reasonable doubt.In respect of PW2, room for concoction at his behest cannot be ruled out.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::PW16 Manish Dube is the brother of deceased Prashant.Discussion as regards testimony of PW16 is as follows:-Accused nos. 2 and 8 are acquitted.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::Sachin Harankhede is a witness to inquest panchanama.However, the prosecution has withheld this witness.The prosecution has made a frail attempt ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 24 to rely upon the recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused persons.However, on perusal of the record, we find that the recovery of weapons has been done without following the procedure contemplated under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::(d) Moreover, the accused have examined defence witness Sk.Razzak from whose field the weapons were recovered.The defence witness Sk.Razzak is resident of village Hivra Sangam.ig On 5.6.2007, he had seen one motorcycle and some arms in his field and accordingly informed about the same to the Police Patil.The Police Patil had transmitted the information to Mahagaon Police Station immediately.On 5.6.2007 itself, the Police had come to his field and had taken away the motorcycle and the arms.Even according to the prosecution, the weapons were recovered at the instance of the accused from a field at village Hivra Sangam.PW17 Ishratulla Pathan, who was working as PSI at Mahagaon Police Station has admitted that on 5.6.2007 he had seized an abandoned motorcycle and a sheath from the field of Sk.The memorandum leading to recovery was recorded three days prior to the actual recovery under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The memorandum was recorded on 3.6.2007 whereas the actual recovery was made on 9.6.2007 from accused nos. 2,3 and::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The prosecution has cross-examined the defence witness but nothing material ig is elicited to hold that the recovery of the weapons to be an incriminating circumstance against the accused.The prosecution has examined PW13 Dr. Dhurve who had examined accused no.1 on 4.6.2007 at 7 a.m..The injury certificate is proved by PW13 Dr. Nilima Dhurve.There are three abrasions noticed on the person of accused no.1 and they are(i) abrasion on posterior aspect on right elbow 1 x 1c.m.These injuries would not in any way indicate that they ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 26 were sustained by the accused in the same transaction in which Prashant had died a homicidal death.The investigating officer has proved the omissions and contradictions of the witnesses.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The counsel appearing for original accused no.6 i.e. Pravin Divte has relied upon the judgment delivered by the Apex Court in the case of:a) State of Orissa .vs.b) Kaliram Ram .vs.c) Hari Nath and another .vs.State of U.P.d) Baldev Singh .vs.We have considered the citations.We have ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 27 already observed that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 120-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::B of I.P.C. The learned counsel appearing for the State has relied upon the case of State of A.P. .vs.The learned APP has relied upon the said judgment to substantiate his contention that the testimony of an independent witness cannot be implied thereby that their evidence is suspicious and their presence at the scene doubtful.We have considered this submission to appreciate the evidence of PW2 Rajesh Atram.The said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case since the witness has categorically stated that he had gone to the Police Station to get his statement recorded at the behest of Parmanand Mishra.PW2 is a co-accused with Parmanand Mishra.Even when the statement of PW2 was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C, Sunil Tiwari and Parmananad Mishra were present.We have considered the omissions and contradictions in the statements of PW2 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.The said contradiction would be an estoppal for the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 28 witness to depose otherwise before the Court at the time of trial.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::In this background, he could not have disclosed the identity of the assailants to PW16 Manish Dube, since he has stated before the Court that except Manish Dube, he had not disclosed the incident to anybody.Indeed, the courts have hardly any other yardstick or material to adjudge the guilt of the person arraigned as accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::The very fact ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 ::: apeal249.11.odt 31 that there was political rivalry between both the groups, the tendency to implicate the political rivals cannot be ruled out.Moreover, the prosecution witnesses and the deceased had criminal antecedents and, therefore, the Court has to be at guard while scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove its case.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::In the present case, in view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the accused/appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and hence the appeals preferred by the accused/appellants succeed.Criminal Appeal Nos. 249/2011, 285/2011 and 312/2011 are allowed.Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.) ( A.H. Joshi, J.)-0-0-0-0-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:34:56 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,529,207 |
This criminal original petition is preferred by the petitioner/accused to quash the proceedings pending against him in C.C.No.13092 of 2009 on the file of the learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.The prosecution case is that the petitioner /accused have been charged for the offence under section 336, 427 of IPC on the strength of complaint given by one Gaurav Dugar residing at Chennai.The defecto complainant is the resident in the said building and an Airtel signal tower was erected and remained there.On 27.7.2008 at about 3.15 PM the said tower fell on a Toyota Innova car bearing registration No TN 07 AS 1577 and as a result of the same, car has been completely damaged.The defacto complainant preferred a complaint to the respondent police and filed a case in Cr.No.839 of 2008 for the offences under section 336,427 of IPC.The respondent police after conducting investigation filed final report on 12.9.2009, and the same has been taken file as C.C.No.13092 of 2009 by the learned 23rd Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.Aggrieved over the same,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 the petitioner/accused filed this quash petition.3.Heard the arguments on either side and perused the entire materials available on record.4.The petitioner is only an employee under a contractor who used to maintain the said tower.In the said circumstances whether the petitioner being paid employee of the said contractor can he is held liable for the fall of the said tower.However without any proper investigation the respondent police hurriedly and hastily filed charge sheet against the petitioner.5.The petitioner charged for offences u/s 337 and 427 of IPC.8.It is made clear that if there is any loss to the property the defacto complainant has to proceed only under civil law for recovery and the defacto complainant cannot circumvent the civil proceedings one into criminal proceedings.The trial is pending for more than two years without any progress and not able to go for any other better job.9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent supported the findings of the trial court and sought for dismissal of the criminal original petition, on the ground that after proper investigation only, the charge sheet has been filed.The penal provision charge against this petitioner/accused is proper one.http://www.judis.nic.in 510.In the case on hand, admittedly on reading the entire case papers no ill-motive can be attributed to the petitioners/accused.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.29.06.2017 vs Note:Issue order copy on 20.03.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No To The XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
68,530,105 |
This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 16.02.1983 passed by learned VII Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1981, under Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of IPC, Police Station Phulpur, District Allahabad, whereby accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad has been convicted under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act ( hereinafter refered as PC Act) and Section 161 of IPC.He was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/ under section 5(2) r.w. Section 5(1)(d) of P. C. Act and similar sentence was awarded under Section 161 of IPC-.In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo one month additional imprisonment under both head.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.During pendency of appeal, the sole appellant Ansar Ahmad has passed away, however, on application of legal heirs of deceased-appellant, they were substituted as appellant nos. 1/1 to 1/4 in place of deceased-appellant to pursue this appeal.Prosecution version in brief is that father and grandfather of complainant Magan Singh have expired and thus, complainant wanted to get his name as well as name of his brother mutated in revenue record regarding agriculture land, in order to obtain compensation for the land, which was acquired by the Government for a canal.In May 1980, accused Ansar Ahmad was posted as Lekhpal of village Manethu, Tehsil Phulpur, District Allahabad and after death of father and grandfather of complainant, he did not record name of complainant Magan Singh and his brothers by way of succession.It is alleged that on 14.05.1980 when complainant Magan Singh approached the accused for mutation of names, accused demanded a sum of Rs. 50/- from him and it was agreed that complainant would pay the same on 17.05.1980 at 03:00 PM in Babuganj Bazar.Meanwhile, on 15.05.1980 complainant made a complaint Ex. Ka-1 to S.P. Vigilance, Sri Krishna Chand and on his direction, a raiding party was constituted.Inspector Jagatdhari recorded statement of complainant Magan Singh and he has made his initials on currency notes, one note of Rs 20/ and three notes of Rs 10/ each (Ex. 1 to 5), which was to be used for trapping the accused.Phenolphthalein powder was applied over said currency note and when the hands of Magan Singh and one constable were got washed in solution of carbonate, solution turned rosy.Currency notes were returned to the complainant Magan Singh and he was asked to give the said amount to accused.On 17.05.1980, the raiding party along with complainant and two public witnesses reached at Babuganj Bazar.There at 04:00 PM, deceased accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad accepted said Rs. 50/- from Magan Singh at shop of one Hafiz Nai and after counting, he put them into his spectacle case and put it into his pocket.At the same time, the raiding party trapped him and recovered those currency notes from accused.When hands of Inspector Jai Shanker Singh, accused Ansar Ahmad and complainant Magan Singh were got washed in the solution, that solution became of rosy colour.It was sealed in three phials and similarly, currency notes recovered from deceased accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad were also sealed.I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh has stated that he was posted in Vigilance Department at Allahabad.Complainant Magan Singh has submitted a complaint, on which SP Vigilance has directed Inspector Jagatdhari to trap the accused.Inspector Jagatdhari has asked complainant to arrange money for trapping the accused and accordingly, complainant has arranged Rs 50/- (Ex. 1 to 4), which were signed by Inspector Jagatdhari and memo Ex. ka-2 was prepared.On 17.05.1980 he (PW 1 ) along with Inspector Jagatdhari and some police constables participated in the raiding party.At about 02.00 PM, they reached at Babuganj Bazar.Complainant Magan Singh and two witness namely Ajai Singh and Puran Mal met there.At about 04.00 PM, lekhpal Ansar Ahmad came in the market.Magan Singh was sent to meet complainant.Lekhpal Ansar Ahmad took Magan Singh to shop of Hafiz Nai and they both sat on a bench.The members of raiding party also reached around that place and constable Indermani sat on the same bench.Accused Ansar Ahmad demanded Rs. 50/- from Magan Singh for incorporating his name in record.Magan Singh handed over said amount of Rs 50/ to accused Ansar Ahmad.Accused Ansar Ahmad counted the notes and put the same in his glass case and put it into his pocket.All the said conversation was heard and seen by the members of raiding party.PW-1 Inspector Jaishankar Singh further stated that they introduced themselves to accused and stated that he has obtained bribe of Rs 50/ in their presence.Solution of sodium carbonate was got prepared and when PW 1 Inspector Jaishankar Singh washed his hands with same, its couour was not changed.In search of accused, said amout of Rs 50/ ( one note of Rs 20/ and three notes of Rs 10/ Ex. 1 to 4) were recorded from accused and after checking it was found that these same, which were given by the complainant to accused.The hands of accused Ansar Ahmad, his glass case as well hands of complainant Magan Singh were got washed in solution of sodium carbonate and its colour turned rosy.These solution was sealed in three phials and similarly, currency notes recovered from deceased accused-appellant were also sealed.The recovered case property and deceased accused-appellant were taken to police station and a case was registered.13. PW-2 Magan Singh, who is complainant of the case, stated that his grandfather Ayodhya Prasad has expired about 7 years of the incident and his father Jagannath has expired five years back.Some of his land was being acquired for a canal and he was told that if his name was entered in revenue record regarding said land, he would get compensation.On 14.05.1980, complainant met lekhpal Ansar Ahmad and asked to mutate his name as well as of his brother by way of succession.Accused Ansar Ahmad demanded Rs 50/ from him for the same.At that time, complainant was not having any amount.Accused Ansar Ahmad asked him to hand over the said amount at Babuganj market.Meanwhile, on 15.05.1980, complainant made a complaint Ex.ka-1 to Vigilance Department and consequently, SP Vigilance directed Inspector Jagatdhari to take necessary action.Inspector Jagatdhari recorded his (PW-2) statement and asked him to arrange trap amount.Complainant handed over one note of Rs. 20/ and three notes of Rs 10/ each, which were signed by Inspector Jagatdhari and memo Ex. Ka-2 was prepared.Said currency notes were stained with powder and thereafter, same were given to constable.After that hands of said constable and of complainant were got washed and this solution turned rosy.The said solution was sealed in three phials.The currency notes were returned to him (complainant Magan Singh) and he was asked to give the said amount to accused when demanded by him.Complainant was directed to meet them on 17.05.1980 at 02.00 PM at Babuganj market.On 17.05.1980, he met the police party at Babuganj market and two public witnesses namely Ajai Singh and Puran Mal were also joined.At about 04:30 PM, accused Ansar Ahmad was seen in Babuganj market and he has pointed him to the Inspector.PW-1 Magan Singh went to accused Ansar Ahmad and thereafter, they both sat on a bench outside shop of Hanif Nai.The police team also reached around that place.Ansar Ahmad asked him whether he has brought the amount agreed between them and he asked to deliver the same to him.PW-1 Magan Singh handed over that amount of Rs 50/ to accused Ansar Ahmad, who put the same in his spectacle case and said that now the mutation would be done.At the same time, the Inspector along with police party introduced themselves to accused Ansar Ahmad and recovered those currency notes (Ex-1 to 4) from spectacle case lying in pocket of accused Ansar Ahmad.The hands of accused Ansar Ahmad and his glass case were got washed and the solution became of rosy colour.The hands of PW-1 Magan Singh were also got washed and this solution has also turned rosy.Police team has also reached around that place.Ansar Ahmad demanded money from Magan Singh.Magan Singh gave Rs 50/ to accused Ansar Ahmad, who after counting, put the same in his pocket by saying that his work would be done.During investigation, sanction for prosecution of accused Ansar Ahmad was obtained and statement of witnesses were recorded.After completion of investigation, accused was chargesheeted.In order to bring home guilt of the accused person, prosecution has examined nine witnesses.Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he has denied the prosecution version and claimed false implication.However, no evidence was led in defence.After hearing and analysing evidence on record, accused Ansar Ahmad was convicted under Sections 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) P.C. Act and Section 161 of IPC by trial court vide impugned judgment and order dated 16.02.1983 and sentenced as stated in para no. 1 of this judgement.Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad (since died) has preferred this Criminal Appeal.Heard Sri Manish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Amit Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mutation of land in respect of father and grandfather of complainant has already been taken place and thus, there was no occasion on the part of complainant Magan Singh to seek any mutation and, therefore, there was no motive on the part of accused.As per prosecution witness, alleged transaction of bribe, took place outside the shop of one Hanif Nai, but neither the said Hanif Nai nor any other independent witness has been examined.It was argued by learned counsel that there are some material contradictions in the statements of witnesses.In this connection, it was pointed that in his cross-examination, at one place PW-2 Magan Singh stated that spectacle case containing trap amount was recovered from upper side pocket of accused Ansar Ahmad while at another place he stated that it was recovered from side pocket.It was further stated that PW-3 Magan Singh has stated that he and accused Ansar Ahmad have sat on bench out side shop of Hanif Nai towards north of road but it is not consistent with site plan of spot.Learned counsel further submitted that presence of PW-3 Puran Mal is not natural at spot and thus, his testimony cannot be relied upon.It was also stated that in his cross-examination, PW-3 Puran Mal has stated that Magan Singh and accused Ansar Ahmad have sat on bench outside shop of a Nai but he has not heard their conversation and this fact contradicts testimony of PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh.Per-contra, it has been submitted by learned State Counsel that the statements PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh, PW-2 Magan Singh and PW-3 Puran Mal coupled with other evidence on record clearly established prosecution case that accused has demanded illegal gratification in the form of demand of Rs 50/- from complainant for making entries in revenue and that he was caught red handed while accepting the bribe of Rs. 50/. All these witnesses have been subjected to cross-examination but no adverse fact could come out.It was submitted that conviction of deceased accused-appellant is based on evidence and that the trial court has appreciated evidence properly and convicted deceased accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad.The recovered currency notes, glass case and shirt of accused Ansar Ahmad were also sealed and taken into possession and recovery memo Ex. ka-7 was prepared.PW-3 Puran Mal has stated that he works as agent in a finance company.On day of incident, he has met Vigilance Inspector at about 02.00 PM, at Babuganj market.Inspector has told that they have to caught one Ansar Ahmad while accepting bribe.About 04.00 PM, Ansar Ahmad was seen and Magan Singh was sent to meet him.Magan Singh met him and they both sat at bench outside shop of Hafiz Nai.PW 3 Puran Mal again stated that the amount was put by accused in glass case.After that accused Ansar Ahmad was aprehended by Inspector, saying that he has taken bribe and that said amount of Rs 50/ was recovered from accused Ansar Ahmad.The hands of accused Ansar Ahmad as well of Magan Singh were got washed and the solution became of rosy colour.Similarly, when glass case of accused Ansar Ahmad was washed, its solution also turned rosy.These solutions put in separate phials and were sealed.PW-5 Tehsildar Prabhu Dayal has inter-alia stated about the entries in khasra numbers pertaining to land of father and grandfather of complainant Magan Singh also stated that it was duty of accused lekhpal to make entry in Khasra of alleged land.PW-7 Inspector Ram Ratan Ram is second Investigating Officer and he has proved charge sheet and certificate of Tehsildar (Ex. Ka-13)PW-8 Inspector Ram Narayan Singh, has investigated this case.In this case, it is not disputed that the deceased accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad was working as Lekhpal and thus, he was a public servant.It is also not disputed that at the relevant time, he was posted as Lekhpal of village Manethu, Tehsil Phulpur, District Allahabad.PW-2 Magan Singh has made a clear and cogent statement that his father Jagannath and grandfather have expired but his name was not mutated in revenue record.His land was being acquired by Irrigation Department for a canal and for this purpose, he was in need of Khasra-Khatauni of his agricultural land.He has further stated that on 14.05.1980, he contacted deceased accused-appellant Ansar Ahmad and asked to incorporate his name as well as name of his brother Vijay Bahadur by way of succession but accused-appellant demanded Rs. 50/- for doing the same.PW-2 Magan Singh has promised to pay Rs. 50/- on 17.05.1980 at Babuganj Market and meanwhile, he made a complaint to Vigilance Department and accordingly, on 17.05.1980 on demand of deceased accused-appellant Anasar Ahmad, PW-2 Magan Singh has given Rs 50/ to him, which were accepted him and he promised to do the work of PW-2 Magan Singh.Deceased accused-appellant Anasar Ahmad was apprehended red handed while accepting bribe of Rs 50/, which was recovered from his possession.PW-2 has made detail statement regarding entire incident, which has been amply corroborated by Jai Shankar as well as by independent witness PW-3 Puran Mal.One of argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that the mutation of land in respect of father and grandfather of complainant has already been taken place and thus, there was no occasion on the part of complainant Magan Singh to seek any mutation.In this regard, it may be observed that from statement of PW-5 Tahsildar Prabhu Dayal as well as from the khatauni recovered from accused Ansar Ahmad, it is quite apparent that names of legal heirs of father of complainant were incorporated in khatauni but in khasra, their names were still not recorded.PW-5 Tahsildar Prabhu Dayal has clearly stated that accused Ansar Ahmad has failed in his duty to make entries in khasra in accordance with khatauni.As the khasra was incomplete and thus, it could not be said that there was no occasion on the part of complainant to demand bribe for entries in khasra.In view of these facts, it cannot be said that there was no motive at all on the part of deceased accused-appellant to demand money from complainant.It was argued by learned counsel that there are some material contradictions in statements of witnesses.In this connection it was stated that in his cross-examination, at one place PW-2 Magan Singh stated that spectacle case containing trap amount (Ex 1 to 4) was recovered from upper side pocket of accused Ansar Ahmad while at another place he stated that it was recovered from side pocket.It was further stated that PW 3 Magan Singh has stated that he and accused Ansar Ahmad have sat on bench out side shop of Hanif Nai towards north side of road but it is not consistent with site plan of spot.However, on examination of statement of PW-2 Magan Singh in its entirety, it appears that his statement is consistent with site plan.Even otherwise it is a minor contradiction and does not affect the credibility of PW-2 Magan Singh.PW-2 has consistently stated that he as well as accused have sat on a bench outside shop of one Hanif Nai and this fact is fully consistent with site plan of spot.Regarding PW-3 Puran Mal it was stated that his presence at spot is not natural and thus, his testimony can not be relied.It was also stated that in his cross-examination, he has stated that Magan Singh and accused Ansar Ahmad have sat on bench outside shop of a Nai but he has not heard their conversation and this fact contradicts testimony of PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh.So far as presence of PW-3 Puran Mal at spot is concerned, it is consistent case of prosecution that after complainant and trap party reached at Babuganj market, two public persons namely Ajai Singh and Puran Mal met there and they have joined them as witness.PW-3 Puran Mal has stated that he works in a finance company and on that day, he has come there (Babuganj market) for canvassing in favor of 'Lokdal' party in coming election.PW-3 Puran Mal has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination but no such fact could emerge so as doubt his presence at spot.Further, he has signed several documents, which also goes to support that he was witness in the incident of trapping of accused Ansar Ahmad.No doubt PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh has stated that after complainant and accused sat on a bench outside shop of Hanif Nai, they also reached around that place and heard conversation of accused and complainant but he has not stated that PW-3 Puran Mal has also heard their conversation.However, even if PW 3 Puran Mal has not heard conversation of complainant and accused, it would not render the testimony of PW-3 Puran Mal nullity.The statement of PW-3 on material points like that before trapping the accused Ansar Ahmad, he has joined the said police team as witness and after reaching at Babuganj Bazar, complainant has pointed out accused Ansar Ahmad and that complainant was sent to meet him and after that they both sat on a bench.It was further argued that as per prosecution witness alleged transaction of bribe took place out side the shop of one Hanif Nai but neither the said Hanif Nai nor any other independent witness has been examined.In this connection, it may be observed that it is not a mandatory legal requirement that all the witnesses of incident have to be necessarily examined.Testimony of PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh has been amply corroborated by PW-2 Magan Singh and PW-3 Pooran Mal.Sanction for prosecution of accused Ansar Ahmad has been duly proved and no argument was raised in this regard.It is correct that one of the important witness Inspector Jagatdhari could not be examined as he has passed away but all the relevant documents have been duly proved by PW-1 Inspector Jai Shankar Singh, who has participated in entire sequence of events pertaining to this case.Thus, Conviction of deceased accused-appellant u/s 5(2) r.w.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
685,341 |
SANTOSH HEGDE, J.The appellant herein was accused No.1 in Sessions TrialNo.39/93 before the III Additional Sessions Judge of SessionsCourt, Bilaspur (M.P.).He along with 11 other persons werecharged under Sections 148, 302 and 307 read with Section 149IPC for having committed the murder of Sahdev Tiwari and hisson Ashok Tiwari and for having attempted to cause the deathof Vijay Kumar Tiwari.The learned Sessions Judge convictedthe appellant and 8 others under Sections 302 and 307 read withSection 149 IPC for the death of Ashok and Sahdev Tiwari andconvicted them under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPCfor causing the death of Sahdev Tiwari and sentenced them toundergo RI for life.He, however, did not convict the appellantfor the offence under Section 307 while he did so in regard tosome others.On appeal, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh atJabalpur while confirming the sentence of the appellant hereinunder Section 302 IPC for the murder of Sahdev Tiwari andsentencing him to life imprisonment also convicted theappellant along with one Bhajan for the offence punishableunder Section 307 IPC for having caused the death of Ashokand on this count sentenced them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for 10 years under Section 304, Part I, IPC.It isagainst this order of conviction and sentence, said Latel haspreferred this appeal.We are informed at the Bar that the otherconvicted person on this count that is Bhajan has not preferredany appeal.The facts necessary for disposal of this appeal brieflystated are that an agricultural land bearing Survey No.435/1measuring about 1.71 acres was the subject-matter of disputebetween the appellant herein and deceased Sahdev Tiwari.There were many litigations going on between the parties inregard to the said property.On 5.7.1987, it is the prosecutioncase that the deceased Sahdev Tiwari, his sons Ashok and VijayTiwari along with Jeetram, Manharan, Rajaram and somelabourers had gone with a plough to this land for sowing.It isstated that no sooner than they commenced ploughing theirland, the accused persons including the appellant appeared onthe scene armed with deadly weapons and surrounded Sahdevand others and launched a blistering attack.It is further statedthat the appellant along with the acquitted accused conjointlyassaulted the complainant party in which the acquitted accusedChandrabhan and Bhajan who stands now convicted for offenceunder Section 304, Part I assaulted Vijay Kumar son of Sahdevwho survived the attack and who is examined as PW-10 withTabbal and Latel and Bhajan attacked Ashok with tabbal asa result of which Ashok and Vijay both fell down on the groundand became unconscious.Vijay on regaining consciousness sawthe appellant, Bhajan, Chandrabhan and Bundaru assaultingAshok with tabbal and lathi.His pleading with the accusednot to cause further injuries to Ashok proved to be of no avail.Seeing this, it is stated that Vijay and his father Sahdev startedfleeing from the said field.It is the further case of theprosecution that that accused persons chased the duo (Vijay andhis father) and one of the accused persons threw a tabbal atthem which, according to the prosecution, hit the deceasedSahdev.This was also noticed by PW-2 Lalakram and otherpersons in the neighbouring fields, who pleaded with theaccused persons not to beat Sahdev and Vijay any more.In themelee, it is stated that Vijay escaped from the said place andran towards his house.As per the said complaint,Vijay is supposed to have told that he does not know whetherhis father is dead or alive.Accordingly, the Police registered acase being Crime No.138/87 under Sections 147, 148, 307 IPCand the investigating officer immediately rushed to the villageand learnt from Kotwarin Ram Bai that Ashok and Sahdev hadbeen done to death and accordingly a village unnatural deathinformation Ex. P-35 was recorded.It is the further case of theprosecution that the appellant herein also lodged a report at thePolice Station Mungeli on the very same day stating that he wasin possession of an agricultural field since long and had sownhis crop about 8 days prior to the incident but the deceasedSahdev and Ashok along with Vijay and servants had come tothe field and had belaboured them.This report was recorded inthe general diary at serial No.170 which is marked as Ex. P-36.Since there is no appeal against the acquittal for thepurpose of disposal of this appeal, suffice it to say that the HighCourt on consideration of the material on record came to thespecific conclusion that from the record available before it it isclear that at no point of time Sahdev was put in possession ofthe property pursuant to his purchase of the same.It also heldthat having come to the conclusion that Sahdev was not inpossession of the property, the one and the only corollary wasthat the appellant Latel was in possession of the land.On thisbasis, it came to the conclusion that so far as the first part of theincident which took place in Survey No.435/1 is concerned, it isan admitted fact on sides that the incident in question did takeplace.The High Court came to the conclusion that the appellantand his party had the right of private defence available to themin defending their possession of the property but so far as theappellant and Bhajan are concerned, they exceeded their rightof private defence to the extent of causing injuries which led tothe death of Ashok.Hence, they are liable for the consequencesof their acts and are liable to be punished under section 304,Part I, IPC, to serve a sentence of 10 years RI.Ms. Santosh Singh, learned amicus curiae appearing forthe appellant, contended before us that so far as the finding ofthe High Court in regard to the second part of the incident isconcerned wherein the appellant has been held guilty for havingcaused the death of Sahdev, there is absolutely no material anda perusal of the evidence of the witnesses on whom the HighCourt has relied upon to come to this conclusion itself, wouldshow that none of these persons stated that they saw the presentappellant beat Sahdev.Per contra, Ms. Geetanjali Mohan,learned counsel representing the respondents, contended thatthough there is no specific reference to the overt act of theappellant in regard to the attack on Sahdev, it is clear from themotive alleged in regard to the attack and sequence of eventsthat took place that the death of Sahdev was caused either dueto attack by the appellant or at the instance of the appellant.Therefore, the High Court was justified in coming to theconclusion that the appellant was guilty of having caused thedeath of Sahdev.We will first consider the case of the prosecution inregard to the second incident which led to the death of Sahdevconsequent to which the appellant is before us, having beensentenced to life imprisonment.The High Court relied on theevidence of evidence of Lalakram, PW-2 for basing itsconviction on the appellant.A perusal of this evidence of PW-2which is made available to us in the paper-book, shows that thiswitness has stated that he saw the accused persons including theappellant coming to his field chasing Sahdev Maharaj(deceased), Vijay Maharaj (PW-11) and the appellant and otheraccused persons asked him to go and do his work.Therefore, hewent away from there due to fear and the accused persons ranafter Sahdev Maharaj.We have perused the entire evidence ofPW-2 and we are unable to find in statement of this witnessanything about seeking the attack on Sahdev or that Latel wasresponsible for the death of Sahdev.Therefore, the evidence ofPW-2, according to us, is of no avail to the prosecution.Wenow consider the evidence of Ramcharan, PW-3, who is aservant of deceased Sahdev.He in his examination-in-chief hasstated that he accompanied Sahdev and his sons to the field andwhen the incident in question took place in the disputed field,due to fear he took to his heels in the direction of the rising sunin which direction the village is located.He further says that inthe village he told a wise man named Bhagat that Ashok Tiwariis being beaten at Bindraban Khar.He also specifically statedthat he did not tell this Bhagat the names of the persons beatinghim.In his evidence there is no reference to the second part ofthe incident at all, therefore, the question of relying on theevidence for the purpose of unearthing the names of theassailants of Sahdev does not arise.The next witness reliedupon by the High Court is Prem Singh, PW-4, who alsoaccompanied Sahdev to the field on the fateful day.In regard tothe second incident he stated in his examination-in-chief : Inthe meanwhile the younger Vijay Kumar Tiwari of AshokKumar Tiwari got up and ran away from the place ofoccurrence and his father Sahdev Tiwari also ran.They peopleran in the southern direction from the place of occurrence andafter them all the four accused persons and two lady accusedran and there were other people round about there but I am notable to identify them.After covering some distance, AshokTiwaris father and brother were caused blows by throwing thetabbal at them but I am not able to pin point as to whatparticular persons threw away the tabbal because I was at somedistance.I went on seeing till the distance beyond 100 yards.After that the bushes of besharm came and beyond that I couldnot see.The next witnessrelied upon by the High Court is Vijay Kumar, PW-10, whoapart from being an injured witness is also the son of deceasedSahdev.In regard to the second incident, this witness states thatafter the first incident and after he regained consciousness hestood up and suggested his father Let us flee from here.Thenboth of them started running.While so running, he saw Govindthrow a tabbal at him and which struck on the elbow of hisright hand.He continued to run towards Bhattgaon and hisfather too moved towards Bhattgaon.While still on the run, hehas stated that the people who were chasing them, startedhurling Farsa at them but no Farsa struck him.Then he statesthat perhaps it struck on the head of his father on the back sidebecause he had seen blood oozing from the back side of hisfathers head.He further states that while running they passedfrom Kutus field where Kutu was working and he and hisfather pleaded with him to save them and continued running tillthey reached the field of Lalka where the family members ofLalka were sitting and they were having water.He and hisfather drank one glass of water each.He further states thatthereafter both of them started running from there.Then Lalkaasked him whey they were running as he was present there thenLalka called Latel and asked him not to do anything aswhatever happened should be left.The appellant is thensupposed to have told Lalka to keep quiet because today theywill cut them.Then the accused persons went towardsBhattgaon following his father and the witness turned towardshis village Khera.He further says that after this while runninghe thought he would go to the rescue of his father and turnedthen he saw the accused Gorasy throwing a Danda at hisfather and the appellant was saying Today I shall cut him intopieces.therefore, I under fear fled away towards my village.His evidence given thereafter is of no consequence in regard towhat happened to his father thereafter.Having carefullyperused the evidence of these witnesses on whom the HighCourt relied for the purpose of passing a conviction underSection 302 on the appellant, we find that there is absolutely nomaterial which could establish beyond doubt that the appellantcould be held guilty for his individual act of having committedthe murder of Sahdev, therefore, in our opinion, the High Courtwas not justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302consequently the sentence of life imprisonment is also notjustified.We will now take up the incident that took place in thedisputed field.The High Court in regard to this incident, havingcome to the conclusion that the possession of the disputed fieldwas with the appellant, held that the appellant had a right toprivate defence to the extent of protecting the property of whichhe was in possession but after examining the evidence availableon record it came to the conclusion that so far as the appellantand Bhajan son of Latel are concerned, they have exceeded thisright and are liable to be punished under Section 304, Part I,IPC, for having committed the murder of Ashok Tiwari.At the same time, theHigh Court in our opinion was justified in coming to theconclusion that the act of these two persons, namely, theappellant and Bhajan came under Exception II to Section 300and amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murderbecause the same was done in exercise of the right of privatedefence of their property and taking into consideration nature ofattack it held that their act does not come under Section 302IPC but only under Section 304, Part I, IPC.We agree with thisconclusion both in regard to the act of the appellant and Bhajanas also the nature of offence as held by the High Court.It is tobe noted that Bhajan though convicted under Section 304, PartI, IPC for 10 years RI has not preferred any appeal and theappellant has chosen to prefer this appeal from jail, and havingconsidered the material on record and the evidence, we agreewith the High Court in regard to its findings with reference tothe death of Ashok Tiwari and find the appellant guilty ofhaving been a party to the death of Ashok Tiwari.He is liableto be punished under Section 304, Part I, IPC, and we feel thatthe sentence of 10 years RI imposed on him is justified.For the reasons stated above, while allowing this appealin part, we hereby set aside the conviction and sentenceimposed on the appellant i.e. RI for life under Section 302 forhaving caused the death of Sahdev Tiwari.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed to theextent indicated above.(U C Banerjee) .J.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,690,405 |
Material prosecution witnesses/eye witnesses have been examined, therefore chance of tampering with witnesses/evidence is remote.Confinement amounts to pre-trial detention.Appellant undertakes to co-operate in trial and would make himself available as and when required by the trial Court and shall not be a source of 2 CRA-3815-2020 harassment and embarrassment to the complainant party and shall not move in the vicinity of the complainant party.Present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 19-12-2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Shivpuri whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.Appellant is in custody since 30-09-2018 in connection with Crime No.228/2018 registered at Police Station Bamorkala District Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Section 307, 323, 324, 341, 147, 148, 149 of IPC, and Sections 3 (2) (R) 3 ((1) S, 3 (2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, further added Sec. 302 of the IPC.I t is submitted by learned counsel that appellant is suffering confinement since 30-09-2018 on false pretext, around two years and two months and looking to the period of custody and the fact that due to covid- 19 early conclusion of trial is a bleak possibility, his case be considered on bail.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Thus, prayed for grant of bail.O n the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and prayed for the dismissal of appeal.Appellant shall mark his presence once on first week of every month before the concerned Police Station between 10 am to 2 pm till conclusion of trial and any deviation would disentitled the appelant from benefit of bail.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible, for the office of this Court.(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE ar ABDUR RAHMAN 2020.11.19 14:54:22 +05'30'
|
['Section 149 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', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,692,635 |
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-para-margin:0in;mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} </style> <![endif]--> <!--<object type="application/pdf" data="../../MPHCJB/2014/SA/125/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object>--> <object type="application/pdf" id="ggg_object" style="display: none"></object> <!--<iframe src="../../MPHCJB/SA_125_2014_Order_03-Jul-2014.pdf" id='ggg_object' width="800px" height="600px" >--> </div> </font>
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,769,657 |
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Amit B. Borkar, J.)1. Heard.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::It is the case of the applicant that the applicant had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 81 of 2008 for and on behalf of Shri Bhimrao Sable against the non-applicant No.2 seeking relief of declaration and permanent injunction wherein an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for grant of temporary injunction was filed.On the said application the trial Court granted exparte temporary injunction which was confirmed after hearing both the sides.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::Since the said suit was dismissed on technical ground, the plaintiff being aggrieved by the said judgment, filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2012 before District Judge, Washim through the applicant as an Advocate.In the said appeal, the plaintiff in the said suit filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, wherein the learned District Judge was pleased to direct both the parties to maintain status-quo as regards possession of the suit property.Since there was breach of the said order of status-quo, the applicant as an Advocate of the plaintiff in the said suit filed application before the District Judge, Washim for grant of police aid for implementation of the order of status-quo which was allowed on 8th July 2013 and the order of grant of police aid was passed subject to payment of necessary charges which were deposited by the client of the applicant.The said F.I.R. was against the plaintiff in the said suit i.e. client of the present applicant.The applicant has challenged said F.I.R. by filing the present application.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::This Court on 22nd August 2014 admitted the present application and granted interim relief permitting investigation to proceed, but charge-sheet shall not be filed until further orders of this Court.Shri V.B.Gawali, learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that filing of the F.I.R. is nothing but abuse of process of law.It is submitted that only because there were adverse orders passed in the civil suit and there was order of status-quo granted by the District Court which was sought to be enforced by the police aid, F.I.R. came to be registered against the applicant who is practicing advocate and was appearing for his client who was plaintiff in the said suit.It is therefore, submitted that the F.I.R. deserves to be quashed as the same is filed to unleash the personal vendetta against the applicant.Shri A.B.Mirza, learned Advocate for the non-applicant No.2 submitted that the offence in the F.I.R. makes and fulfills ingredients of second offences alleged against the applicant.It is submitted that from the statements which are recorded by the prosecution, prima-facie case is made out to proceed against the applicant and other accused against whom the::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 ::: Judgment 5 apl253.14.odt F.I.R. has been filed.Therefore, it is prayed that the application deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::Shri S.S.Doifode, learned A.P.P. for the non-applicant No.1 submitted that the investigation is carried out and charge-sheet is filed.From the material which is there on record, prima-facie case against the applicant herein has been made out and therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.We have heard the learned Advocates for both the sides and scrutinized the F.I.R. and all other material placed on record by the applicant along with charge-sheet.The applicant was appearing in the suit which was filed by the client of the applicant against the non-applicant No.2, as an Advocate.It appears that on 8 th September 2013 the learned District Judge, Washim had passed an order of granting police-aid in favour of Bhimrao Sable who is client of the applicant.Since the applicant was acting in his capacity as an Advocate, from the contents of the F.I.R., it appears that the name of the applicant has been inserted in the F.I.R. only to harass the applicant as he was appearing as an Advocate for his client Bhimrao Sable.It appears on reading of all the statements that the statements insofar as it makes allegation against the present applicant are concerned, the allegations are exactly similar.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, insofar as the present applicant is concerned, we are satisfied that continuation of the prosecution against the present applicant amounts to abuse of process of law and therefore, the F.I.R. along with charge-sheet No.81 of 2014 deserve to be quashed.We, therefore, pass the following order:i) Criminal Application No. 253 of 2014 is allowed.ii) First Information Report No.208 of 2013, registered on the basis of the report submitted by non-applicant No.2 with the non-applicant No.1-Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 323, 354, 354(A)(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the Charge-sheet bearing No. 81 of 2014, dated 12 th July 2014 only as against the present applicant-Sabhakarrao S/o.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::not influence the trial of other accused and the same shall be decided on its own merits.Rule is made absolute in the above terms.::: Uploaded on - 03/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 04/11/2020 01:32:19 :::
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,696,941 |
(Passed on this 01st day of September, 2015) By the present petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21/7/2015 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Biaora District Rajgard in Criminal Appeal No. 136/2015 whereby 2 the petitioners have been convicted and sentenced to undergo one year R.I. each with fine of 1,000/- each for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC; in case of default, the petitioners ere to undergo an additional sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment.Brief facts of the prosecution story are that on 16.7.2012 in the morning at 11.00 a.m. complainant Lokendrasingh along with his brother Gopal and uncle (kaka) Bhagwansingh were irrigating the field of tomatoes; when at that time some cattle came into the field and when Bhagwansingh tried to drive out the cattle, Kalyansingh, Mardan, VP Singh and Kishan came from village Banskho and started quarrelling regarding their old agricultural land and assaulted Bhagwansingh with wooden stick (lakdi), as a result of which he has received injuries in his legs, hands, near the elbow, forehead, near backside of skullcap.It is further submitted that when the complainant 3 intervened to pacify the matter, accused Mardansingh and Kishan assaulted him by wooden stick (lakdi), as a result of which he has received injuries in his legs and elbow.Thereafter the accused hurled abuses and threatened to kill him, if the matter was not settled.Mangilal and Jasrath were the eye-witnesses of the incident.The matter was reported by complainant Lokendrasingh at police station Suthaliya and crime No.175/12 was registered for offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 325/34 506-B of the IPC against the accused persons.Investigation was launched.The spot map was prepared and the statements of p.w.1 complainant Lokendrasingh as well as witnesses p.w.2 Gopalsingh, Mangilal, Dashrath and p.w.3 Padamsingh were recorded.After completion of the investigation, the accused were arrested and duly charged and committed to their trial.Accused/petitioners abjured their guilt and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the 4 matter.However, on the basis of documentary evidence, the trial Court had acquitted the petitioners from the offence under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506-B of the IPC, but convicted and sentenced the petitioners for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC.Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed this revision petition.They were carrying only sticks and there was no intention to cause any serious injury.In fact also the complainant has sustained a fracture on his right tibia fibula bone and not on any vital part of the body.Hence, looking to the nature of injury and the fact that the accused are 5 facing a protracted trial, Counsel prayed that the custodial sentence of the accused may be reduced to the period already undergone.Counsel for the respondent/State, on the other hand, has fully supported the judgement of the Courts below and submitted that the Courts below have passed the judgement on proper marshalling of evidence.He submitted that the injuries received to the complainant were grievous in nature and there was a fracture on the tibia fibula as well as right ulna & left radius ulna of the injured.Hence, Counsel submitted that the petitioners did not deserve any sympathy and prayed for dismissal of the petition.Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having perused the record of the case and the impugned judgement, I find that the conviction of the accused is based on proper marshalling of evidence and there is valid and cogent reason and the same need not be gone into since it is obviously 6 admitted that the complainant sustained fracture, resultantly offence under Section 325 is definitely made out.Hence, I have no hesitation in upholding the conviction of the petitioners for offence under Section 325 of the IPC.However, the important fact that cannot be marginalized is that along with the matter pertains to dispute regarding agricultural land between the complainant and the petitioners and looking to the nature of the injuries sustained to the complainant and the fact that there was no intent to cause any grievous injury, I find that the custodial sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone.Accordingly, this revision petition is partly allowed.The custodial sentence of the accused petitioners is reduced to the period already undergone and the fine amount is raised further by 7 Rs.3,000/-(Rupees Three thousand only) each which would meet the ends of justice and shall be paid to the injured under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. within two months from the date of receipt of this order.(Mrs. S.R. Waghmare) Judge moni
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
977,009 |
The first ground is that the TSR in question was falsely implicated by the claimants after over four months of the MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 4 of 31 accident in collusion with the respondents No. 4 to 6 viz., the driver and owners of the TSR.R3W1 Lalit Kumar, Record Keeper, RTO Office, West Zone, Jankapuri, Delhi, in the context of the licence issued to Ashok Kumar, testified that as per the record brought by him, the said Ashok Kumar was issued licence by their office for the first time on 24.07.2001 for the category of LMV (Taxi) and LTV (TSR).He categorically stated that before 24.07.2001, Sh.Sanjay Gupta, the present owner of the offending vehicle in the course of his testimony admitted that he had not obtained any copy of the driving licence of Sh.He stated that Ashok Kumar was holding a licence but he had not seen the licence before employing him.There is no manner of doubt that the respondent No.4 was transporting three passengers, who had arrived at the New Delhi Railway Station from Bhatinda (Punjab) on his TSR, and in all probability alongwith all their belongings.: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.The present appeal has been filed by M/s New India Assurance Company Limited against the judgment and award of the Claims Tribunal, Delhi dated 02.11.2006 whereby the learned Claims Tribunal passed an award in the MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 1 of 31 sum of Rs.10,25,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization in favour of the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the same within 30 days of the passing of the award.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 1 of 31The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition as set out in the claim petition are that on 29.03.2001, the respondent No.1/claimant alongwith his wife, Smt. Jasmeet Kaur and son, Charanjit Singh on his arrival at the New Delhi Railway Station from Punjab, boarded an auto-rickshaw bearing No. DL-1RE-1603 from New Delhi Railway Station to his house at Tilak Nagar.At about 5.45 a.m. when it reached Patel Nagar, the auto-rickshaw, which was being driven rashly and negligently and at a high speed, turned turtle resulting in all the aforesaid persons sustaining grievous injuries.Smt. Jasmeet Kaur succumbed to the said injuries almost immediately thereafter.Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are the legal representatives of the deceased, Smt. Jasmeet Kaur.The respondent No.4, Sh.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 2 of 31 Ashok Kumar is the auto-rickshaw driver, who is the principal tort feasor in the instant incident.The respondent No.5, Ashok Jain is the previous owner and the respondent No.6, Sh.The respondents No.4, 5 and 6 as well as the appellant were duly served with the notice of the filing of the claim petition and contested the case before the Claims Tribunal.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 2 of 31A joint written statement was filed by the respondents No.4 to 6 in which it was stated that the accident had taken place on account of a cow having come in front of the scooter and the sudden application of brakes by the driver to avoid a major accident.The appellant - Insurance Company filed a written statement, which it subsequently amended to take the defence that the respondent No.4 - driver was not holding a valid or effective driving licence and, as such, though the offending vehicle was insured with it vide policy No.311401/31/00/07155 valid from 27.03.2001 to 26.03.2002, it was not liable to pay any compensation to the MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 3 of 31 respondents No.1 to 3/claimants as per the terms and conditions of the policy.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 3 of 31The learned Claims Tribunal held the respondent No.4 guilty of rash and negligent driving and concluded that the respondent No.4 being the driver, the respondent No.5 being the owner and the respondent No.6 being the present owner of the offending vehicle were jointly and severally liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants.As the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company was directed to make payment of compensation.Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction of the Tribunal to make payment of compensation to the respondents No.1 to 3, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal for setting aside the award of the Claims Tribunal.Mr. L.K. Tyagi, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company has assailed the order of the Tribunal mainly on two grounds.It is submitted that the FIR lodged by the son of the deceased (the respondent No.2 herein) did not disclose the number of the vehicle.On the other hand, after four months were over, on 18.07.2001, the respondent No.1, Sh.Manjit Singh went to the police station alongwith the driver and owner of the TSR in question and disclosed the number of TSR.It is further submitted that the claimants have not satisfactorily explained as to how and in what circumstances they got the number of the TSR after four months, when it was not available with them at the time of the accident.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 4 of 31In order to substantiate his aforesaid plea that the respondents /driver and owner had colluded with the claimants and that the alleged vehicle was not involved in the accident, reference was made by Mr. Tyagi to the evidence of R3W2, Sub-Inspector Ashok Kumar, the Investigating Officer of case FIR No.187/2001, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar in respect of the accident which MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 5 of 31 resulted in the death of the deceased.R3W2, SI Ashok Kumar testified that on 18.07.2001, Sh.Manjit Singh had come alongwith Sh.Ashok Kumar and stated that Sh.The vehicle bearing registration No. DL-1RE- 1603 was also brought by them to the police station.Thereafter a notice u/s 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act was given to the owner of the vehicle to appear before him.He further stated that he had not carried out any other independent investigation in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 5 of 31Mr. B.K. Bharti, the learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3/claimants sought to rebut the aforesaid allegation of collusion by contending that PW1 Manjit Singh in the course of his cross-examination stated that the police had first recorded his statement and thereafter statement of his son, Charanjeet Singh, on the basis of which case FIR No.187/2001 was registered by the police.He further stated that he had noted down the number of the offending TSR, MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 6 of 31 which he had seen at the spot, but the initial number which was given to the police at the time of making his statement was not complete as one digit was missing therefrom.The police had given him time to trace out the number of the vehicle and finally he verified the same from the record of the Transport Authority and, thereafter he identified the TSR driver and, thus, there was a delay of three or four months in giving the correct number of the vehicle to the police.He further stated that the respondent No.4, Sh.Ashok Kumar had admitted before police that he was the driver of TSR involved in the accident.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 6 of 31Apart from the aforesaid, Mr. B.K. Bharti contended, on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3, that the very fact that the driver of the offending TSR viz., the respondent No.4, Sh.Ashok Kumar was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC is sufficient to bear out his contention that there was no collusion between the claimants on the one hand and the driver and owner of the TSR on the other.I am inclined to agree with the aforesaid MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 7 of 31 submission of Mr. Bharti for the reason that the record shows that the respondent No.4 was not only convicted for offences punishable under Sections 279/337/338/304A IPC but also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 304-A IPC.Had there been any collusion between the aforesaid Ashok Kumar and the claimants, the case would not have resulted in the conviction of Sh.I, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the TSR in question had been falsely implicated by the claimants after over 4 months of the accident in collusion with the driver and owner of the said offending vehicle.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 7 of 31The learned single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High Court did not put unto themselves a correct question of MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 12 of 31 law.The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties.To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.(iv) The Insurance Companies are, however, with a view to avoid MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 15 of 31 their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 15 of 31(viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learners licence, the Insurance Companies would be liable to satisfy the decree."The accident occurred on 29.03.2001 and, thus, the accident occurred while Sh.Ashok Kumar was holding a learners licence.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 17 of 3116.At this juncture, it deserves to be mentioned that on the respondent No.1 filing the aforesaid affidavit, an opportunity was afforded by this court to the Insurance Company to verify the RTI Information Report and the licence placed on record by the respondent No.4/driver.A verification report dated 02.08.2010 was placed on record by the Insurance Company given by its Investigators, M/s. Mack Insurance Auxiliary Services Pvt. Ltd. wherein it is stated as under:- MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 18 of 31MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 18 of 31"As per your instruction our investigator visited the Licensing Authority, Janakpuri, New Delhi for the purpose of status of Learning Licence.The Official of RTO has informed that they did not keep the record of the Learning Licence for more than six months.However, he has refused to give the same in writing."17.Let us have a look, now, at the evidence on record on the aforesaid aspect of the matter.Ashok Kumar was not holding any licence as per their record.The report Exhibit R3W1/1 in this regard was signed by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sh.Raj Kumar, whose signatures he identified.In the course of his cross-examination, the witness conceded that Ashok Kumar might have held a learners licence issued from their MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 19 of 31 department valid for six months but stated that the records of the learners licence were not available.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 19 of 31In the course of his cross-examination, he admitted that the notice MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 20 of 31 under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act Exhibit R3W2/P1 was given to him by the Investigating Officer.MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 20 of 3120.R4W4, Sh.It has been established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused was not having the licence to drive the vehicle on the date of incident and he thus violated section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He has thus committed the offence punishable under section 181 of the said Act.This may be so, but the use of the words "permanent driving licence" in the insurance policy was to emphasis that a temporary or a learners licence holder would not be covered by the insurance policy.The intention and meaning of the policy clearly is that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident must be one who holds a driving licence within the meaning of Section 2(5A) of the Act. This being so, we are unable to agree with the conclusions of the High Court that the appellant was liable to pay the amount which had been awarded in favour of respondent No.1."MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 29 of 31MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 30 of 3129.The appeal is allowed in the above terms.30.Records of the Claims Tribunal which were requisitioned for the purpose of deciding the appeal be sent back.REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) May 18, 2011 sk MACA No. 1052/2006 Page 31 of 31
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,770,191 |
DATE : 02nd JANUARY 2020"1. Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 468 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.3. Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and he is Sneha Chavan 2/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, she shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 468 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, she shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.9. Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Sneha Chavan 3/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, she shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, she shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 420 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.These three appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Special Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai as Sneha Chavan 1/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc under:-::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, she shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.3 Ms. Kirshnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and she is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty Sneha Chavan 4/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 468 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 471 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120 of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 120B of the Indian Penal Code and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav is found guilty and convicted u/s. 235(2) of Cr.P.C., for the commission of an offence punishable u/s. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Corruption Act, 1988 and he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Sneha Chavan 5/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc Thousand only).In the event of defaulting to pay the fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::Accused No.2 Mohan Lakshman Dixit, Accused No.3 Ms. Krishnakumari Bishwanath Patnaik, Accused No.4 Phoolchand Jagerdev Yadav are found guilty also of the offence punishable under Section 418 of Indian Penal Code.However, as they are also held guilty of the offence punishable u/section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, which being aggravated form of Sec.418 of Indian Penal Code, no independent/separate punishment is awarded for the offence punishable u/sec.418 of Indian Penal Code.All the above substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently."2. Heard the learned Counsel Mr. Vijay Desai for the Applicants.He submits that the Applicants have paid the fine amount.3. Heard Mr. Venegaonkar, Special Counsel for CBI, who has no objection for suspending the sentences.4. Perused the impugned Judgment.Pending the hearing of Appeals, the execution of the substantive sentences Appeal against are suspended subject to following conditions:-Each of the Applicants shall be released on executing a PR Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, City Sneha Chavan 6/7::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 ::: 13 IA 1-19.doc Civil Court, Mumbai.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::The Applicants shall attend the Court as and when directed to do so.Applications stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 03/01/2020 23:53:37 :::
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,704,724 |
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Present : The Hon'ble Justice Indrajit Chatterjee C.R.R. No. 809 of 2015 Arijit SarkarMonosree Sarkar & Ors.Indrajit Chatterjee, J.:- This is an application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 where this petitioner has assailed the order dated 18-12-2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24-Pargnas in Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2013 and thereby affirmed the order dated 27-08-2013 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, North 24-Parganas in C. Case No. 1553 of 2013 by virtue of which the application under Section 195(1)(b)(i) read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (hereinafter called as the said Code) was rejected.The fact relevant to adjudicate the matter can be stated, in brief, thus : That Barasat P.S. Case No. 1946 dated 10-10-2011 was started at the behest of the brother of the present petitioner under Sections 341/323/330/379 etc. of the Indian Penal Code in which the opposite party nos. 1 to 6 were made accused.The said application was disposed of by the said learned Chief Judicial Magistrate as per order dated 27-08-2012 (running page no. 31, annexure P-2).It may be mentioned here that W.P. No. 8051(W) of 2012 has already been disposed of by this Court.One appeal was preferred before the learned Sessions Judge, Barasat, which was registered as Criminal Appeal No. 23 of 2013 and that was disposed of by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat, North 24- Parganas, on 17-12-2014 and that is the impugned order before this Court.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
977,204 |
(a) All the three accused are brothers and residents of Thagattur Govindankottai.P.W.1 Shanthi who is the complainant, is the sister of the deceased Madhavan @ Veeraiyan.P.W.2 Subramanian who is the injured, is the brother of the deceased.P.W.6 Dhanam is the wife of the deceased Veeraiyan.P.Ws.3 to 5, namely Muruganandam, Palaniappal and Petha Perumal, who are the residents of the same village, are said to have witnessed the occurrence and during the course of trial, they turned hostile.(b) All the accused, who are brothers, are the sons of one Chellaiah, residing in the same village.(c) On 2.7.2001 at about 4.00 p.m., A-3 Rajendran disconnected the electricity connection leading to the house of P.W.2 Subramanian.On the next day, i.e. on 3.7.2001 morning, P.W.2 Subramanian enquired with P.W.1 Shanthi about the disconnection of electricity.For this, P.W.1 Shanthi informed that A-3 Rajendran had disconnected the electricity connection.At that time, A-1 Shanmugam, A-2 Mathiyazhagan, arming with M.Os.1 and 2 aruvals and A-3 Rajendran, arming with M.O.3 spade handle, came to the house of P.W.2 Subramanian and quarrelled and justified their action of disconnection.(d) Following that, at about 9.30 a.m., deceased Veeraiyan came to the house of P.W.2 Subramanian and himself and P.W.2 proceeded for their work and on the way, A-1 and A-2 attacked with aruvals, indiscriminately on the head and hand of the deceased Veeraiyan and P.W.2 Subramanian.A-3 attacked P.W.1 Shanthi and one Ranganayagi and one Dhakshinamurthy, who came to rescue the deceased.P.W.6 Dhanam came out from the house and witnessed the entire occurrence and the deceased Veeraiyan died on the spot and then, all the accused ran away from the occurrence place.(e) Thereafter, P.W.2 Subramanian was taken to Thiruthuraipoondi Government Hospital, where P.W.9 Dr.Adhiyaman gave treatment and referred for further treatment to Thanjavur Government Hospital and also issued wound certificate marked as Ex.P.W.13 Dr.Rathinasabapathy gave treatment at Thanjavur Government Hospital and also found fracture on the middle finger of P.W.2 Subramanian.(f) In the meanwhile, P.W.1 Shanthi proceeded to Voimedu Police Station and gave a complaint, marked as Ex.P-1 to P.W.17 Chidambaram, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who in turn registered the case in Crime No. 288 of 2001 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC and also prepared the printed F.I.R. marked as Ex.P-17 and despatched the same to the concerned Court and other Police officials through P.W.15 Grade-I Constable.(g) On receipt of Ex.P-17 F.I.R. and Ex.P-1 complaint, P.W.18 Chinnasamy, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and proceeded to the occurrence place and prepared Ex.P-3 observation mahazar and drew Ex.P-18 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7 Radhakrishnan, Village Administrative Officer and another.(h) P.W.18 Inspector of Police also conducted inquest on the body of the deceased Veeraiyan in the presence of Panchayatdars and witnesses, between 3.30 p.m. and 5.15 p.m. and prepared Ex.P-19 report.He also recovered M.O.8 blood stained earth and M.O.9 ordinary earth from the occurrence place under Ex.P-4 mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also recovered M.O.2 aruval and M.O.3 spade handle under Ex.P-5 mahazar in the presence of witnesses.Thereafter, P.W.18 Inspector of Police sent the body for conducting post-mortem.(i) On 3.7.2001 at about 8.40 p.m., P.W.10 Dr.Pandian gave treatment to P.W.1 Shanthi, who came with a Police memo and issued Ex.P-9 accident register copy.Further, as per the requisition of P.W.18 Inspector of Police, P.W.11 Dr.Chandrasekaran conducted post-mortem on 4.7.2001 at about 7.30 a.m. and found about ten external injuries on the body of the deceased and gave an opinion in Ex.P-10 post-mortem certificate that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and particularly, head injury.(j) In the meanwhile, P.W.18 Inspector of Police arrested all the three accused at about 6.00 a.m. on 4.7.2001 in the presence of P.W.8 Thamizhkumaran and another and recorded the confession statement given by A-1 marked as Ex.P-7 being the admissible portion of the confession statement and based on the same, he recovered M.O.1 aruval used by A-1 under Ex.P-6 mahazar.Further, on 5.7.2001, he recovered M.Os.4 and 5 blood stained clothes from P.W.1 Shanthi under Ex.P-2 mahazar and M.Os.6,7,10 and 11 blood stained clothes of the deceased.(k) After post-mortem, through Ex.JUDGMENT AR.Ramalingam, J.P-11 requisition to the Judicial Magistrate, P.W.18 Inspector of Police sent the material objects for chemical analysis.(l) After completion of the investigation, P.W.18 Inspector of Police filed the chargesheet against the accused persons.After having examined 18 prosecution witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and 11 material objects, the Sessions Court has found that the charge under Section 302 IPC against A-1, charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC against A-2 and charge under Section 323 IPC against A-3 have been proved and convicted and sentenced them as indicated above.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused has made the following submissions:(a) There was inordinate delay in giving the complaint and bringing the same to the concerned Court;(b) P.W.1 Shanthi, P.W.2 Subramanian and P.W.6 Dhanam who are figuring as eye-witnesses, are interested persons and so, their evidence cannot be safely relied on;(c) In fact, A-2 did not cause any injury on the deceased, but he is said to have caused injury only on P.W.2 Subramanian, whereas, P.Ws.1,2 and 6, the eye-witnesses, have stated that the injuries were caused by A-2 on the deceased, which is a material contradiction.Learned counsel pointed out that the conviction and sentence against the appellants/A-1 to A-3 are to be set aside and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted of the charges.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor upon the said submissions.We have given our consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.After having gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence available in this case and in the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A-1 to A-3 as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as far as the first contention, namely the delay in giving Ex.P-1 complaint and sending the same to the concerned Court, it is to be pointed out that the occurrence village is 4 Kms.away from the Voimedu Police Station and there is no dispute over the same and thereby, inasmuch as P.W.1 Shanthi has deposed that she went to the Police Station by walk and she happened to give Ex.P-1 complaint on 3.7.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. to P.W.17 Chidambaram, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who received it and registered the case.P.W.1 Shanthi being a girl of remote village cannot be expected to give the complaint about the occurrence without such gap of time between the time of occurrence and the time of giving Ex.P-1 complaint.In other words, there is a time gap of four hours between 9.30 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. This time gap, in our view, cannot be construed as abnormal delay on the part of P.W.1 Shanthi in giving the complaint, inasmuch as she had to necessarily go to the Police Station only by walk after preparation of the complaint through some third person.Likewise, it is also to be pointed out that P.W.17 Special Sub-Inspector of Police has explained in the cross-examination that on that day, there was some agitation over the arrest of the former Chief Minister and there was no transport facility and it is quite but natural that P.W.1 Shanthi happened to arrive at the Police Station by walk and Ex.P-1 F.I.R. also happened to be received by the Court concerned at about 8.15 p.m. on 3.7.2001 and further, similar explanation has been given by P.W.18 investigating officer (Inspector of Police).Therefore, on account of the lack of transport facility on that particular day, namely on 3.7.2001, such a delay is unavoidable and the delay cannot be construed as abnormal and inordinate in a way to make the very complaint marked as Ex.P-1 itself as a false or fabricated one altogether.Consequently, the first submission about the delay, has to be rejected.Coming to the question of interestedness of P.Ws.1,2 and 6, it is to be pointed out that the other three independent witnesses examined by the Page 1181 investigating officer and by the Sessions Court, namely P.Ws.3,4 and 5, have turned hostile and so, the other available eye-witnesses, namely P.Ws.1,2 and 6 have come forward to give evidence about the occurrence in detail in all material particulars.Simply because P.W.1 Shanthi is the sister of the deceased, P.W.2 Subramanian is the brother of the deceased and P.W.6 Dhanam is the wife of the deceased, their evidence as such cannot be viewed otherwise to suspect their version.It is more so when in a remote village, that too when the parties are related to each other, and the occurrence is at about 9.30 a.m. in the residential locality, it cannot be stated that P.Ws.1,2 and 6 have chosen to give false averments against the accused totally.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1,2 and 6 carefully, we are able to see that their version in respect of the attack made by A-1 and A-2 upon the deceased Veeraiyan as well as P.W.2 Subramanian does not appear to be artificial or unbelievable and that, on the other hand, they being rustic and village people, their version is natural and believable in practical way of approach and ordinary prudence.Therefore, the submission made by the appellants' counsel in this respect also has to be rejected.Coming to the third submission, it has to be pointed out that as per Ex.P-1 complaint, it has been mentioned that A-1 Shanmugam attacked the deceased Veeraiyan with M.O.1 aruval and A-2 Mathiazhagan attacked P.W.2 Subramanain with M.O.2 aruval and caused many injuries and the occurrence was witnessed by P.W.6 Dhanam, P.W.3 Muruganandaham, P.W.4 Palaniappan and P.W.5 Petha Perumal and that however, P.W.1 Shanthi in her evidence, has stated that both A-1 and A-2 attacked P.W.2 Subramanian each with aruvals first and then attacked the deceased Veeraiyan each with aruvals and caused many injuries on P.W.2 Subramanian and the deceased Veeraiyan.Therefore, in our view, there is no material contradiction between the allegations made in Ex.P-1 complaint and the evidence of P.W.1 Shanthi to such an extent of disbelieving their evidence totally.The fact remains that both A-1 and A-2 attacked P.W.2 Subramanian and the deceased and it is immaterial to say that P.W.2 Subramanian was attacked first and the deceased was attacked subsequently.P.W.11 Dr.Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.9 and 13 Doctors, coupled with the nature of injuries upon the body of the deceased and P.W.2 Subramanian, would go to show that the first and second appellants/A-1 and A-2 have brutally attacked the deceased Veeraiyan and P.W.2 Subramanian with the deadly weapons, namely M.Os.1 and 2 aruvals with the intention to murder them.In this context, it is also to be noted that simply because P.W.2 Subramanian has survived and Veeraiyan alone died, it cannot be stated that A-2 has not committed the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC as found by the Sessions Court.It is to be observed that whenever there is a charge under Section 34 IPC, it is not necessary that each accused should do some specific overt acts for the purpose of attracting the offence under Section 34 IPC and on the other hand, it is enough that there is common intention of more than one accused to do a particular act of causing injuries with ulterior motive of murdering a particular person.In this case, there is sufficient evidence to show that due to the attack made by A-1 and A-2, one person, namely Veeraiayan (deceased) has died and another person, namely P.W.2 Subramanian has sustained simple and grievous injuries during the course of one and the same transaction.P.W.10 Dr.Pandian has stated that he gave treatment to P.W.1 Shanthi on her representation that she was feeling pain on her right shoulder, head and back and he was able to find abrasion upon her right shoulder.However, in the cross-examination, P.W.10 Dr.Pandian has stated that the said abrasion cannot be caused by the aruval and if she was attacked with spade handle like M.O.3, there would be contusion and he did not find any such contusion on P.W.1 Shanthi and that particularly, even the said P.W.1 Shanthi would have pretended to feel pain and the said abrasion was inside her jacket and the said jacket was also not torn off.Therefore, it is highly improbable and unnatural on the part of P.W.1 Shanthi to say as if she was attacked by A-3 Rajendran and thereby, sustained abrasion upon her right shoulder.Consequently, the finding in this respect by the Sessions Court and the conviction and sentence of A-3 Rajendran are liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the third appellant/A-3 Rajendran deserves to get acquittal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,721,404 |
Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.The applicant has challenged the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sironj, District Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 156/2014, whereby the charges for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294, 458, 326/149 and 506 (part II) of IPC were framed against the applicant.The facts lying in a narrow compass are that on 15.03.2014 one Radharaman Sharma had lodged an FIR at police station Sironj, District Vidisha against Mujahid Khan, Yunus @ Ajeem and Badshah Khan that on 14.03.2014 at about 10:45 pm they entered his house alongwith 3-4 unidentified companions and brutally assaulted him with sharp cutting weapons.In the incident, Radharaman Sharma sustained a fracture of right humorous bone and right ankle.On the basis of this report, police registered the case at crime No. 27/2014 for commission of offence under Sections 147, 148, 294, 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant and other accused persons.The trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for the offence committed under Sections 147, 148, 294, 458, 326/149 and 506 (part II) of IPC.Hence, the present applicant also prays that the aforesaid charges framed against him be quashed.The applicant is arrested on the basis of memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act given by the co- accused Yunus @ Ajeem and Mujahid Khan in which each of them has stated about the weapon which was kept by them at a particular place after the incident.In these memorandums, they have stated that the applicant participated in the crime, however, the provision of Section 27 of the Evidence Act is an exception to provision of Section 24 of the Evidence Act, hence, a single line of those memorandums was admissible that the accused kept a particular weapon at a particular place.3 Cr.R. No.1078/2015The portion of the order dated 06.10.2015 which relates to the applicant-Abid Khan is set aside and applicant is discharged from the aforesaid charges.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court to drop the proceedings against the applicant-Abid Khan in the aforesaid case.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,726,976 |
According to the petitioners and respondent No.2, the parties have entered into the compromise.Section 498-A was added with a view to punishing a husband and his relatives who harass or torture the wife to coerce her or her relatives to satisfy unlawful demands of dowry.The hyper-technical view would be counter productive and would act against interest of women and against the object for which this provision was added.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,773 |
All the accused persons were tried for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned Trial Court in para 27 of its judgment has recorded a definite finding that the appellants have not demanded any dowry and the death, as such, has not resulted because of any demand of dowry.Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellants for offence punishable under Section 498A and also under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.Subsequently, the appellants started demanding dowry from the parents of the deceased Mamta Bai and accordingly a demand for motor-cycle and Rs. 10,000 was submitted.JUDGMENT R.K. Gupta, J.The appellants have filed this appeal against the order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in Sessions Trial No. 21/ 2004 dated 22.7.2004 convicting the appellants under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to 10 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000 in default 2 months' additional imprisonment and further convicting them under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to 3 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500 each; in default 1 month's additional imprisonment; both sentences to run concurrently.For non-payment of the aforesaid, the accused persons started torturing the deceased and because of torturingthe deceased committed suicide on 17.11.2003 by consumingthe sulphas.On the basis of the information, the offence was registered against the appellants and they were also arrested.All the accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore, after framing of charge, they were tried.In the present case main prosecution witnesses are PW-2 Guntabai and PW-3 Sitaram.These two witnesses are the parents of the deceased Mamta Bai.PW-7 Bhura is another witness who is the neighbour of PW-3 Sitaram.The learned Sessions Judge recorded a finding that though the accused persons did not place any demand for dowry, therefore, accordingly no charge for demand of dowry is proved but the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the matter under Section 498A read with 306 of the Indian Penal Code as the death of Smt. Mamtabai was found to be way of committing suicide being an unnatural death.The learned Sessions Judge further proceeded that because of the torturing by the appellants, Smt. Mamtabai was persuaded to commit suicide, therefore, the appellants were held to be guilty of an offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.On the perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Court below it is to be seen whether there had been any evidence to prove the torturing soon before the incident of suicide i.e. 17.11.2003 by the accused persons.In this regard the statement of PW-2 Guntabai who is mother of deceased, is relevant.She has stated in her statement that after the marriage accused Rajkumar used to beat her daughter Mamta Bai who is wife of Rajkumar.She further stated that when delivery was due to Mamta Bai then Mamta Bai was sent to her parents house, where Mamta Bai delivered a son.The aforesaid witness further states that Rajkumar used to visit her house i.e. the house of in-laws.She also admitted that Rajkumar and Mamta Bai used to meet and Rajkumar used to make a request that he may be permitted to take Mamta Bai to his house.She has also stated that Rajkumar visited thrice but deceased Mamta Bai was not sent to her in-laws' house along with Rajkumar.She further stated that the sister of Rajkumar, Rekha, has taken out all the jewellery.She also stated that when deceased Mamta was not sent with Rajkumar, then Rajkumar threatened for the dire consequences.In her statement, she further stated that Mamta informed her that she is not given food properly and after giving her food by the appellants a lock was put on the door so that deceased Mamta may not be able to go out of the house.The cross-examination of this witness is to be seen.During the cross-examination, this witness in para 19 of her statement has stated that while giving the statement to the police under Section 161 she has not informed that no proper food was given to deceased Mamta and she has also not stated to the police that food used to be given from outside and thereafter the lock on the door from the outside was put so that Mamta may not be able to go out of the house.This part of her statement shows that story of torturing is improved in the Court.Prosecution has examined Sitaram as PW-3 who is father of deceased Smt. Mamta Bai.He has also virtually narrated the same set of story in the same manner as narrated by PW2 Smt. Guntabai.In para 2 of his statement, he has stated that no proper food was given to Mamta and the lock was also put from outside the door.He has not stated in the statement given by him to the police that Rekha has taken out the jewellery from the deceased Mamta.7. PW-7 Bhura is another witness.This witness is the neighbourer of Sitaram.He states that when Mamta used to visit the village i.e. at the house of her parents then she used to weep, and say that she has not been married at a proper place.He states that Rajkumar has taken out the jewellery from Mamta.He also confirms the story that Rajkumar has threatened that in case Mamta comes to his house, then she will not come alive to her parents house.In this reference, it would be necessary to see certain documents which were relied upon by the prosecution.These documents are three letters written by accused/appellant No. 2 Hari to PW-3 Sitaram.These letters are Exhs.On the basis of these letters it is clear that every time a request by accused/appellant No. 2 was made to PW-3, the father of the deceased that Mamta may be sent to her in-laws house.These letters also demonstrate that because of the non-company of Mamta, the mental position of accused No. 1 Rajkumar is deteriorating and further appellant No. 1 has also started behaving abnormally.Therefore, every time the letters were sent to Sitaram P.W.3 by accused/appellant No. 2 making requests to send Mamta in the company of Rajkumar.9. Learned Counsel for the State submitted that since it was the unnatural death of the deceased Mamta Bai within 7 years of her marriage, therefore, an offence against the appellants is made under Section 498A read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code due to torturing by the accused persons.As the deceased has committed suicide, therefore, a presumption has to be drawn against the appellants in relation to the cruelty by them and the conduct as such amounts to abetting the deceased to commit suicide.It is submitted that the ingredients of the offence for the purposes of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code are if the husband or his relatives subject a woman to cruelty within 7 years of the marriage, then there shall be a presumption against the appellant.So far as the ingredients for an offence punishable under Section 306, Indian Penal Code is concerned, according to this section, if any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punishable.It may be seen in the evidence of PW-2 Guntabai.The evidence of this witness has already been discussed in detail in the earlier paragraph of this judgment and particularly para of her statement where she has herself admitted that she has not informed to the police that there was some torturing in relation to the supply of food to deceased Mamta Bai.She has also stated that she did not inform to the police that the deceased was given food and after giving her food the door used to be locked.The reference to FIR Exh. P-11 shall also be relevant.It is also submitted that Rekha sister of accused No. 1 and the daughter of accused Nos. 2 and 3 has taken out all the jewellery from the deceased.Nothing further had been stated with regard to torturing.Nothing further has been stated by this witness i.e. PW-2 Guntabai that at any point of time accused/appellant Nos. 2 and 3 came to her house and demanded for dowry.In this reference the statement of PW-3 Sitaram, father of the deceased and husband of Guntabai is also relevant.In para 19 of his statement he has admitted that whenever he used to meet accused Nos. 2 and 3 every time they had a talk in a very cordial atmosphere and they were having good relations among themselves.More so, these incidents have occurred in the house of in-laws of appellant No. 1 i.e. in the parental house of deceased Mamta Bai.So far as the letters written by the accused No. 2 as contained in Exh. P-5-C, P-5-D and P-6 are concerned there had also been the intention of accused No. 2 to send Mamta in the company of Rajkumar as Rajkumar started behaving abnormally due to the non-company of his wife.Nothing has been stated by PW-2 and PW-3 as to who used to put the lock on the door so that the deceased Mamta may not be able to go out of the house and further nothing has been stated as to who used to give her food from outside.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,736,561 |
Prayer is allowed.Be listed in the next week.As reported by the learned counsel for the petitioners, petitioners -Pannalal and Murlidhar are present today before this Court.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20052/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to call FSL report.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24859/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18715/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Her presence is marked.She be sent back to the concerned jail under proper police custody.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 978/2013x Indore dated :18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant-Prahlad Singh for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.572/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed alongwith M.Cr.C. No.25405/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted time to call medical report of the petitioner's wife.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify the factum of appellant's sister's marriage.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.181/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for fixed date to keep present complainant before this Court.Prayer granted.Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner No.3 is suffering from cancer.Be listed thereafter.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.21952/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to collect documents with regard to complicity of petitioner-Neeraj in the alleged offence.Be listed in the next week.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.On due consideration I.A. No. 23965/2017 is allowed and petitioners are permitted to carry out necessary amendments in the petition within 10 days from today.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after three weeks.Accordingly, I.A. No. 5685/2017 and IA No. 22266/2017 are allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the applicants- Arun and Manju in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 30/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24185/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24414/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned counsel for the complainant/objector prays for and is granted time to file document and written objection in the matter.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24698/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition .Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28383/2017x (Hindu & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statement of the complainant before the learned trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28370/2017x (Gopal Dangi Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the learned trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28282/2017 Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to file some documents in support of this petition.Prayer is allowed.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28254/2017 (Ansar Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Shri M.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition .Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28153/2017 Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for time to produce the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.Be listed in the next week.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28150/2017 Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for time to file the copy of the charge-sheet.Prayer is allowed.Be listed in the next week.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.28146/2017 (Sachin Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to renew the prayer after recording the statement of the prosecutrix before the learned trial Court.Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27267/2017 (Jitendra Singh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Wadhwani, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Prayer is allowed.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27032/2017 Indore dated : 02/01/2018 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to produce the case-diary by next date of hearing positively.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 4133/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.24291/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant No.2-Bhagwan Singh for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 120-B of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs.200 for each offence with usual default stipulation.Learned counsel for the applicants has invited the attention of the Court to the testimony of Vinod Tirkey (P.W.1), who at the relevant time, was posted as Sub-Registrar and further attention has been invited to para No. 22 of the impugned judgment.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that disputed signatures were not sent for examination by the hand-writing expert.The contention is that learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and that conviction has been recorded on the basis of surmises and conjectures.It is also submitted that the applicant No.2 was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.Lastly, it is submitted that there is no apprehension of the applicant running away from the course of justice, if released on bail.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant No.2-Bhagwan Singh.Accordingly, I.A. No.24291/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the applicant No.2-Bhagwan Singh in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant No.2- Bhagwan Singh after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 19/02/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 471/2017x Indore dated :20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against petitioner-Gajanand for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1608/2016x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted a week's time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.814/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.617/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5860/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Ms. A. Maheshwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24417/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 471 days in preferring this appeal .It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is facing trial for offences under Sections 302, 451, 294/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and he is in jail for last 22 months.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to comply with Section 15(A)(3) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 so also to produce case-diary.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7047/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9064/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks' time to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26380/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.917/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Petitioner-Mohit Jain is present in person.None for the respondent.This is a revision petition under Section 19(4) of Family Court Act read with Section 397 of Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 12/07/2016 passed by 2nd Additional Principal Judge, Indore in H.M.A. No. 987/2014, whereby interim maintenance @ Rs.1,000/- per month has been granted in favour of the respondent under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act.It is submitted by the petitioner that vide order dated 04/09/2015 (Annx. P/3) already interim maintenance @ Rs.2,500/- has been granted in favour of respondent-Sonali Jain, therefore, learned Family Court has committed serious error in again awarding interim maintenance in favour of the respondent.He prays for staying the operation of the aforesaid order.Considering the fact that respondent is already getting interim maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 04/09/2015 (Annex.P/3), the operation of order dated 12/07/2016 is directed to be stayed till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 1453/2016x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 25762/2017, an application for condoning absence of petitionersThey are directed to mark their presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.List the revision for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20151/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27432/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21841/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20163/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22176/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20591/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.21122/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.21360/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 None for the petitioner.C. No.21640/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21749/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21952/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to complete case-diary.C. No.22233/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22424/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22695/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list ensuing winter vacation on any Wednesday.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23321/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.23514/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24120/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19963/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Shri Anshul Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Jalaj Pawar, learned counsel for the objector/complainant.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19191/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18257/2017x Indore dated : 20/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.19744/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted time to submits the report with regard to factum of illness of the petitioner and seriousness thereof.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20198/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file affidavit as to whether Kalu Singh-father of the petitioner is alive or not?(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20847/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.22112/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23149/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25043/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to ascertain whether prosecution witness-Salim has been examined or not ?(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2874/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Shri Balendu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Navneet Kishore Verma, learned counsel for the respondent.Office is directed to list the matter immediately after ensuing winter vacation alongwith the record of Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.4696/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3879/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.No. 27231/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already cured the defects pointed out by the Office.Office is directed to examine and proceed further.Case-diary will kept in attendance on next date of hearing.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.454/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1067/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already cured the defects pointed out by the Office.Office is directed to examine and proceed further.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.882/2015x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Shri Anil Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this IA No. 24727/2017 .Accordingly, IA No. 24727/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.22360/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 None for the petitioner.By way of indulgence two weeks' time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1111/2011x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Shri V.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Accordingly, IA No. 25584/2017 is allowed and the absence of appellant No.3- Dilip Singh @ Manohar Singh on 24/10/2017 is hereby condoned.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellants, appellant No.3-Dilip Singh @ Manohar Singh is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.858/2016x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Pursuant to bailable warrant issued by this Court, petitioner-Sampat Bai has been produced before this Court under proper police custody from District-Jail, Mandsaur.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25614/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to examine and list the matter before appropriate Bench and if an order of assignment is there the same be placed on record.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.25914/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.C. No.26107/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verify the call details filed by the petitioner alongwith bail petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3758/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.291/2012x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1232/2016x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to examine the matter and proceed accordingly.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1234/2014x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1096/2014x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1095/2014x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.997/2016x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. No.1269/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.3625/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 3775/2017x Indore dated : 19/12/2017 Shri Gaurav Laad, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.Also heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.24761/2017, first application under Section 397(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner-Lokesh for suspension of custodial sentence.The petitioner has been found guilty for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that compromise was arrived at between the parties and application for compromise was filed before the learned trial Court, however, vide order dated 27/12/2016 the learned trial Court dismissed the application for composition on the ground that offence is not compoundable.Certified copy of order dated 27/12/2016 has also been filed to substantiate this plea.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the fact that compromise was arrived at between the parties, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the petitioner.Accordingly, I.A. No.24761/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this revision.The petitioner after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 19/02/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the revision for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23736/2017xx Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') praying for quashment of charge-sheet filed in connection with Crime No. 106/2016 registered at Police-Station- Dharmpuri, District- Dhar.The plea raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent appears to be in accordance with law as well as reasonable.Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise all objections raised herein before the learned trial Court at the time of framing of charge.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.935/2015x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Ms. Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for the petitioner.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.790/2015x (Manoharlal Vs.Keeping in view the aforesaid, this revision stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.788/2014x (Anand Vs.Anshul) Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.786/2014x (Anand Vs.Anshul) Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.784/2014x (Anand Vs.Anshul) Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri S.K. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already undergone the entire jail sentence imposed against him, therefore, he seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.710/2014x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.List alongwith Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 626/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri Arvind Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 4108/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 1113 days in preferring this revision .For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No.4108/2017 is allowed and delay of 1113 days in preferring this revision is hereby condoned.Also heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the Courts' below be requisitioned.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.4107/2017, first application under Section 397(1)) Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner-Kailash for suspension of custodial sentence.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in jail for last 9 months.It is also submitted that custodial sentence of co-accused Jagdish and Shambhulal has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 17/07/2014 passed in Cr.The submission is that the petitioner is having parity with co-accused Jagdish and Shambhulal.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the petitioner.Accordingly, I.A. No.4107/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the petitioner in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this revision.The petitioner after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 19/02/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the revision for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1595/2013x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Service report with regard to bailable warrant issued against appellant No.2-Sugnabai is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks' alongwith service report.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1474/2013x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for fixed date to keep present appellant-Dharmendra before this Court.Prayer granted.Be listed on 11/01/2018..(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.326/2013x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 230/2004x Indore dated :18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant-Ransiya for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.26594/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.26537/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9096/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1240/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.6957/2016x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioners.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2402/2015x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26128/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri S.C. Bagadia, learned Senior counsel with Shri R.S. Chhabra, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Koustubh Pathak, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted time to file para-wise reply of the original petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.Till next date of hearing no final order shall be passed in the matter.Certified copy today.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23821/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State further prays for and is granted time to file report in compliance of Court's order dated 24/11/2017 .Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23623/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21556/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State further prays for and is granted two weeks' time to comply with order dated 14/11/2017 passed by this Court.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 460/2012x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.As reported by the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner-Sunil is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.List the revision for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1282/2014x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.Accordingly, IA No. 21720/2017 is allowed and the absence of respondent No.1-Vinod on 08/11/2017 is hereby condoned.As reported by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1,respondent No.1 -Vinod is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24445/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24422/2017x (Naresh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24565/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24636/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24678/2017x (Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Ms. Anamika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25471/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.25549/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.81/2017x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to examine and list the matter before appropriate Bench on 21/12/2017 .(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.755/2015x Indore dated : 18/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to examine and list the matter before appropriate Bench on 20/12/2017 .(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5755/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.24131/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Ashwini Kumar for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 324 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 6 months R.I. and to pay fine with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take considerable time in its final hearing and if the short sentence is not suspended then appeal shall be rendered infructuous.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No.24131/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing of fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 06/02/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24382/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23965/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to examine and list the matter before appropriate Bench in the next week .(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3764/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks (Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5678/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed the matter immediately after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5686/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Shri Sunil Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.23980/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Banesingh for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 354 and 354(A) of the IPC and has respecitvely been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and 1 years R.I. and to pay fine with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5941/2017x Indore dated : 1512/2017 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.24680/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Rahis Khan for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and has been sentenced to undergo 1 years R.I. and to pay compensation amount of RS.11746/-.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicant was on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by him.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5950/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.24699/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants-Brijesh, Ravi, Golu, Laki and Anil for suspension of custodial sentence.Each of the applicants has been found guilty for offence under Sections 354/34 & 323/34 (on 2 counts) of the IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I., 3 months R.I. & 3 years R.I. and to pay fine with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them.Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take considerable time in its final hearing and if the short sentence is not suspended then appeal shall be rendered infructuous.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicants.Accordingly, I.A. No.24699/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the applicants in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 13/02/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1236/2014x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.23/2016x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1444/2015x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1078/2015x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1028/2015x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1817/2015x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 None for the appellant.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1138/2016x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1391/2016x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1083/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1072/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1109/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Temporary suspension has been sought on the ground of appellant's sister marriage.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1387/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 4483/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Shri Sanjay Saini, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Abhisehk Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri J. Pawar, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 22786/2017, application for composition which is required to be verified.Parties are directed to remain present on 19/12/2017 at 11:30 a.m. before the Principal Registrar for verification.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3726/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted time to file para-wise reply of the original petition.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2703/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3708/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.3931/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4212/2017 Indore dated : 15/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4274/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4471/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list immediately after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4572/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4655/2017x (Rohit Singh Vs.Smt. Pooja) Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Shri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with a liberty to pursue appropriate remedy at appropriate time before appropriate forum.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4935/2017x Indore dated : 15/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6105/2006x Indore dated : 14/12/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.236/2008x Indore dated : 14/12/2017 Shri Samarjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri S.L. Ahiwasi, learned counsel for the respondent.Exhibit D/1 annexed in the record of the trial Court is a photocopy and not the original one.Learned counsel for the parties seeks time to ascertain about the original one.List after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.951/2014x Indore dated : 14/12/2017 Shri Piyush Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S. Sisodia, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted two weeks' time to argue the matter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23754/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed after a week.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.25653/2017 Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to file reply of the original petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.10703/2016x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.2758/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already paid the process-fee.Office is directed to examine and proceed further.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 21880/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that copy of annexed documents has not been supplied to him.Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply the copy of annexed documents to learned counsel for the respondent No.4 during the course of the day.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5253/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Shri Sunil Gehlot, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23951/2017 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal against conviction.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No.23951/2017 is allowed and delay of 5 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.Further heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.List the appeal for consideration of IA No. 22736/2017, after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5500/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file affidavit in support of IA NO. 23565/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 49 days in preferring this appeal.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5668/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Ms. Pooja Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 24429/2017 an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 24 days in preferring this appeal against conviction.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No.24429/2017 is allowed and delay of 24 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time a week's to comply with Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 so also to produce case-diary .Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26575/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State prays for and is granted two weeks time to file affidavit in support of IA No. 24604/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 79 days in preferring this petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26583/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State prays for and is granted two weeks time to file affidavit in support of IA No. 24612/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 23 days in preferring this petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.26601/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the petitioner/State prays for and is granted two weeks time to file affidavit in support of IA No. 24615/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 117 days in preferring this petition.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.483/2011x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for fixed date to keep present appellant-Asharam before this Court.Prayer granted.Be listed on 16/01/2018..(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 548/2014x Indore dated :13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant-Ramkuresh for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.1524/2015x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for fixed date to keep present petitioner-Ashok Kumar before this Court.Prayer granted.Be listed on 11/01/2018..(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.1593/2016x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks with regard to execution of bailable warrant issued against respondents.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.86/2017x (Rajju @ Raees Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Shri N.A. Sheikh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition by submitting that it has been rendered infructuous.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .Be listed on 18/01/2018..(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.818/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.908/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Suspension of petitioner No.-3 is sought on the ground of his illness.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R.No.3412/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.4067/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.17931/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted two weeks time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.26151/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Learned counsel for the complainant/objector is directed to verify as to whether the confidential information said to have been discreetly stolen and transfered to some other person(s) by the petitioner is already on internet or not ?(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.3890/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.3890/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 None for the petitioners.List after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.4139/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Shri Vikas Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri M.R. Sheikh, learned counsel for the complainant/objector alongwith the prosecutrix.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.7136/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.8656/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted a week's time to file reply of the original petition.Be listed immediately thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.9971/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 None for the petitioner.List after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.9196/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.9757/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.10086/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to issue notice to Fariyad, with regard to cancellation of bail.Notice be made returnable within 2 weeks.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.10744/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks'.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.17819/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.18281/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to collect information whether the petitioner has been acquitted in Criminal Case Nos. 3177/2011 and 3178/2011 pending before Special Railway Magistrate, Raipur District-Chhatisgarh.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.18859/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.20063/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.20163/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21233/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file order-sheets of the learned trial Court with regard to latest status of the trial of the case.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21584/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.21584/2017 Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.22034/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.22590/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.22903/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23335/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.C. No.23418/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23424/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.22912/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23429/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.C.No.23718/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for and is granted a week's time to file copy of the charge-sheet.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.23864/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24014/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.22871/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24081/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C.No.24176/2017x Indore dated : 13/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24376/2017 Indore dated : 13/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10389/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted time to produce case-diary.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.4259/2016x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.466/2017x (Daulat Singh & Ors Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent.Shri M.S. Chandel, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1001/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1101/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1443/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2428/2017x (Sohanlal Mehta Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri A.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 551/2006x Indore dated :11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant-Malkhan for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 602/2011x Indore dated :11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let fresh bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.25,000/- be issued against appellant-Bhanwerlal for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 144/2011x Indore dated :11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Radheshyam for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 164/2013x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Ms. V. Sumanlata, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 574/2014x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri Vikas Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant -Rameshchandra Rai is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1304/2008x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri Ramesh Gagare, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant -Veeroo is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf. .List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1261/2008x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri Balendu Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.For the reasons assigned in the application which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the absence of the appellants.Accordingly, IA No. 20507/2017 is allowed and the absence of appellants- Kamal Singh and Bhanwar Singh on 12/10/2017 is hereby condoned.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellants, appellants -Kamal Singh and Bhanwar Singh are present today before this Court.They are directed to mark their presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf. .List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2662/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10511/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.The petitioner is seeking permission to go to America on the ground that he is employed in T.C.S. Company.He is directed to file affidavit alongwith copy of employment letter with regard to his posting at Mishigan, America as well to disclose for how much period he is required to be in America.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23203/2017x (Rahees Khan Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .Record of the trial Court if received in the High Court be transmitted back to the concerned trial Court at the earliest.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23324/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23585/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23577/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24000/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 None for the petitioners.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24430/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24195/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22112/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21926/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21770/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let report be called from the learned trial Court as to whether the petitioner was declared absconding for all these years.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21590/2017x (Mangilal Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this repeat (second) petition with a further request that the learned trial Court may be requested to expedite the trial.Considering the fact that the petitioner is in jail since 30/07/2014, prayer seems to be quite reasonable.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a request to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.CC as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20888/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20853/2017x Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20825/2017x (Vijay Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 11/12/2017 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 812/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Ms. Rekha Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23965/2017, an application seeking extension of time to incorporate necessary amendments in the cause-title of of the petition in pursuance of order dated 21/07/2017 passed by this Court.R. No.3632/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Be listed the matter immediately after receiving of the record.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25461/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25469/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25471/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25542/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25555/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25549/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25635/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25641/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25644/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25645/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25649/2017x (Vishnu Kumar Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition with a further request that the learned trial Court may be requested to expedite the trial.Prayer seems to be quite reasonable.Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with a request to the learned trial Court to expedite the trial.CC as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22450/2017x (Rayyan Sheikh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Shri Vijay Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22533/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23569/2017x (Tejubai & Ors.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Shri V.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioners.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24175/2017x Indore, Dated :08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor further prays for and is granted a weeks time to collect criminal antecedents of the petitioner, if any.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24246/2017 (Ramesh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Shri Gaurav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.This is repeat (second) application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioner-Ramesh, who has been arrested by Police on 17/05/2017 in Crime No.79/2017, Police Station-Soyat, District-Agar, concerning offence under Section 376 of the IPC .First application came to be dismissed, vide order dated 10/08/2017 rendered in M.Cr.Accordingly, this petition is hereby dismissed, however, petitioner is granted liberty to move an application before the learned Sessions Court for transfer of this case to another Court which is functional.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24660/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 5550/2017x Indore dated : 08/12/2017 Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.23573/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicants-Vishnu, Ratan, Vinod, Suresh, Bharat, Radheshyam, Vikram and Hariram for suspension of custodial sentence.Each of the applicants has been found guilty for offence under Sections 147 and 323/149 (5 count) of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 2 years R.I. and 1 years R.I. and to pay fine with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them.Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take considerable time in its final hearing and if the short sentence is not suspended then appeal shall be rendered infructuous.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No.23573/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the applicants in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 31/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24620/2017 Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24746/2017 Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25080/2017x Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to produce case-diary.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25083/2017x Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to produce case-diary.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24096/2017x Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22506/2017x Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.25084/2017x Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Temporary bail is sought on the ground of petitioner's illness.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted time to call report with regard to medical condition of the petitioner.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21347/2017x (Meharban Singh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Prayer is granted.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1460/2009 Indore dated : 07/12/2017 Shri Nitendra Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.List after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3438/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Shri Manish Manana, appearing on behalf of the respondents prays for and is granted time to file Vakalatnama and reply of the petition.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH R.P. 240/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to list the matter after two weeks alongwith service report of notice on respondent No.2- Ramesh.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.9261/2011x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the respondent, list after two weeks.I.R. to continue, till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 703/2012x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let fresh non-bailable warrant of arrest be issued against appellant-Yogi Tejnath for securing his presence before this Court.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.870/2014x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioners informs that petitioner No.2-Ghisalal is no more, therefore, he prays for and is granted time to take necessary amendment in the cause-title of the petition.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 225/2015x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 2929/2015, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 223 days in preferring this appeal against conviction.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1302/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Report of bailable warrant issued against petitioner- Kailashchandra is still awaited.Office is directed to list the matter after three weeks alongwith report of bailable warrant.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1378/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7158/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 82 days in preferring this appeal.For the reasons assigned in the application, which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the delay.Accordingly, IA No.7158/2017 is allowed and delay of 82 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.Also heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Record of the Court below be requisitioned.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.7157/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Rajesh @ Benaam for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 435 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicant is in jail for last more than one year.Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take considerable time in its final hearing and if the short sentence is not suspended then appeal shall be rendered infructuous.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No.7157/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by applicant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 30/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1758/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3073/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10266/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary and to ascertain latest status of the trial.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. No. 10538/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 None for the petitioner.By way of indulgence one week's time is granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 23332/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 23960/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to cure the defect pointed out by the Office.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 560/2006x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Shri Ravi Arora, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.For the reasons assigned in the application which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the absence of the appellant.Accordingly, IA No. 24385/2017 is allowed and the absence of appellant-Narayan on 10/08/2017 is hereby condoned.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant -Narayan is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf. .Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.23243/2017, application for recalling of non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Narayan.Considering the fact that absence of appellant-Narayan has already been condoned by this Court, therefore, it would be appropriate to recall the non-bailable warrant issued against appellant.Accordingly, IA No. 23243/2017 is hereby allowed and non-bailable warrant issued against appellant-Narayan vide order dated 07/11/2017 is hereby recalled.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.719/2013x Indore dated:06/12/2017 Shri Harshwardhan Ptahak, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 19980/2017, repeat (third) application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant- Suresh @ Surjya for suspension of custodial sentence.It is revealed from the record that custodial sentence imposed against the petitioner for offence under Section 394 of IPC was earlier suspended by this Court vide order dated 01/09/2015, however, the petitioner has failed to mark his presence on 11/11/2016 before the Registry of this Court because he was detained in Jail in some other case.Later on he was produced before this Court on 02/03/2017 pursuant to production warrant issued against him.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that on account of being detained in jail in some other case applicant could not mark his presence before this Court on 11/11/2016 before this Registry and that in future he would abide by all the terms and conditions of the bail.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to once again suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No.19980/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by applicant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.2725/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5606/2017x Indore dated:06/12/2017 Shri K.S. Solanki, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23713/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant- Kanhaiyalal for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 456, 354 and 506(II) of the IPC and has respectively been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., 2 years R.I. and 1 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23832/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant- Hemant for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 323 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989 and has been sentenced to undergo 1 months R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.999/2011x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1200/2007x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.302/2014x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.363/2014x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.947/2015x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 None for the appellant.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.694/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Temporary suspension has been sought on the ground of appellant mother's illness.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to verity the factum of appellant's mother's illness.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.521/2017x (Rajesh Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Shri Pramod Choubey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.728/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1036/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1272/2016x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Shri N.J. Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.20816/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Jitendra for suspension of custodial sentence.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No. 20816/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.526/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 None for the appellant.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1083/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1094/2017x Indore dated:06/12/2017 Shri A.K. Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 5685/2017 and IA No. 22266/2017, first applications under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. respectively on behalf of applicants- Arun and Manju for suspension of custodial sentence.Each of the applicants has been found guilty for offence under Section 306/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- with usual default stipulation.As per prosecution, one Prakash Chouhan committed suicide by hanging.The allegation against applicants is that the deceased was entertaining suspicion with regard to fidelity and character of his wife-applicant Manju.The suspicion was that Manju was having love affair with applicant-Arun.Listed for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1132/2017x Indore dated : 06/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellants, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2420/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2532/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2542/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2695/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2736/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate prays for and is granted time to file the reply of the original petition.List after ensuing winter vacation.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2781/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.2824/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10224/2017x (Irshad Khan Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Shri M.I. Answari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhishek Soni, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10479/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Serious allegations have been made in this petition with regard to modus-operandi of the Police Officials allegedly in providing adequate security to petitioner-Anwar Khan as directed by this Court vide order dated 05/10/2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 8411/2015, therefore, respondent/State is directed to file detailed para-wise reply supported with affidavit of concerned Police Officials.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10720/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State prays for and is granted time to file the reply of the original petition.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt M.Cr.C. No.10383/2014 01/08/2017 Shri Manish Vijaywargiya, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramesh Kumar Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the respondent.This is a petition under Section 378(4) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'The Code') praying for grant of leave to appeal against judgment and order dated 14/08/2013 rendered by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur in Criminal Appeal No. 237/2012, whereby conviction recorded against respondent by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur, vide judgment dated 28/04/2012 in Criminal Case No. 81/2010 with regard to offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has been reversed and respondent has been acquitted.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the learned appellate Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has reversed the order of conviction passed by the learned trial Court.Per contra learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted.Office to register the matter as a criminal appeal and list in due course.Respondent-Vijay Kumar is directed to mark his presence in the Office on 03/10/2017 and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17235/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.17362/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23740/2017x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.1165/2016x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after four weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.945/2011x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time on the ground that arguing counsel Shri Manoj Soni is not available today.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1198/2014x Indore dated:05/12/2017 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23697/2017, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant No.4- Jeevanlal @ Jiwan for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 325/34 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-.Initially vide order dated 25/08/2014, custodial sentence imposed against applicant No.4-Jeevanlal @ Jiwan was suspended by this Court, however, subsequently, he failed to mark his presence before this Court, therefore, warrant of arrest was issued against him for securing his presence before this Court and eventually, he was arrested some times in October, 2016 and sent to jail.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that in future the applicant shall regularly mark his presence before the registry of this Court on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 23697/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by applicant No.4-Jeevanlal @ Jiwan in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 19/04/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.806/2015x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 None for the applicant.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1272/2015x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.364/2016x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.947/2016x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Shri Anil OJha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20518/2017, repeat (second) application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant- Ramsingh for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-.Learned counsel for the applicant has invited the attention of this Court to para Nos. 37, 38, 39 and 41 of the impugned judgment.It is submitted that the complainant and accused persons have entered into compromise and that they have peacefully and amicably settled their dispute, therefore, custodial sentence imposed against applicant may be suspended.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the fact that the complainant and accused persons have already settled their dispute, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 20518/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the applicant in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 29/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1193/2016x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the applicant, list after ensuing winter vacation.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1210/2016x Indore dated : 05/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted time on the ground that arguing counsel Shri Manoj Soni is not available today.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1702/2016x Indore dated:05/12/2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20371/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant No.1- Nansingh for suspension of custodial sentence.The applicant has been found guilty for offence under Sections 8(c)/ 20 (b) (II) of Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and has been sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/-.learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1-Nansingh is in jail for last 1 year and 4 months.It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.As regards the applicant, the allegation is that 9 Kg.of Ganja has been recovered from his possession.Lastly, it is submitted that there is no apprehension of the applicant from running away from the course of justice, if released on bail.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, considering the aforesaid broad features of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicant.Accordingly, I.A. No. 20371/2017 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by applicant No.1-Nansingh in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 29/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.78/2017x Indore dated:05/12/2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicants Sajid Shah and Amit Kanjar.Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants Modsingh and Suresh.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 8677/2017 and IA No. 19703/2017, repeat (third) applications under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. respectively on behalf of applicants- Sajid Shah/Amit Kanjar and Modsingh/Suresh for suspension of custodial sentence.Each of the applicants has been found guilty for offence under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. for each offence and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- with usual default stipulation.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the parties that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction without considering serious anomalies, contradictions and omissions present in the testimony of various witnesses.It is also submitted that the applicants were on bail during trial and the liberty so granted was not misused by them.Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal is likely to take time in its final hearing and if the short sentence is not suspended then appeal shall be rendered infructuous.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the applicants.Accordingly, I.A. No. 8677/2017 and IA No. 19703/2017 are allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by each of the applicants- Sajid Shah, Amit Kanjar, Modsingh and Suresh in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for their appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicants after being enlarged on bail, shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 29/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.Listed for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1484/2017x Indore dated : 28/11/2017 Shri Rohit Tomar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 7661/2017, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 676 days in preferring this appeal.Accordingly, IA No.7661/2017 is allowed and delay of 676 days in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned.Also heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Further heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.7659/2017, first application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. on behalf of applicant-Jitendra for suspension of custodial sentence.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this application.Accordingly, IA No. 7659/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn.List the appeal for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.897/2016x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.454/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.624/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.753/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.1306/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the appellants.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after three weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 1353/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the appellant.By way of indulgence one week's time is granted to the learned counsel for the appellant to cure the defects pointed out by the Office.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 2794/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Shri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner.On payment of process-fee within a week, let notice be issued to respondent Nos. 1 on IA No. 21131/2017, an application for condonation of delay and I.A. No.19484/2017, an application for stay.Notice be made returnable within 4 weeks.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.10945/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 552/2016x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the appellant/State.Shri A.H. Qureshi, learned counsel for the respondent.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 20604/2017, an application under Section 390 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of respondent- Pankaj @ Tinku for grant of bail.On due consideration I.A. No. 20604/2017 is allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond and surety bond by the respondent each in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand Only) to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his regular appearance before this Court, till the pendency of this appeal, he shall be released on bail.The respondent after being enlarged on bail, shall mark his presence before the registry of this Court on 24/01/2018 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 209/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Ms. Vinita Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.As reported by the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant -Kapil Jhava is present today before this Court.He is directed to mark his presence in the Office today and on all such subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Office in this behalf.Be listed for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No. 708/2016x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Rajesh Mali, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.For the reasons assigned in the application which is supported with the affidavit, sufficient ground is made out to condone the absence of the appellant.Be listed for final hearing in due course.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.6417/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned Public Prosecutor, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.5022/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22491/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to file documents in support of the petition.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21640/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21744/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted four weeks' time to argue the matter.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.21965/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22395/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22427/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.22633/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22743/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Interim order has been passed by the co-ordinate Bench.Office is directed to examine and list the matter on 06/12/2017 before appropriate Bench.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 22937/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 05/12/2017 alongwith M.Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23248/2017x Indore, Dated :04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a weeks time to collect criminal antecedents of the petitioner, if any.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23371/2017x (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Shri Dinesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23493/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23502/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23536/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the petitioner.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23554/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23922/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the petitioner.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is granted time to argue the matter.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24382/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after a week.R. No.3538/2017x Indore dated : 04/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1033/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1030/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1025/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.I.R. to continue till next date of hearing.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.1022/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.748/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.745/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.742/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.739/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5486/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted time to comply with Section 15(A)(III) of SC/ST(PA) Act, 1989 so also to produce case-diary on next date of hearing.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.720/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No.3530/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5037/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5483/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Shri B.S. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Heard learned counsel for the parties on IA No. 23383/2017, an application for dispensing with procedure of Chapter X Rule 53 of M.P. High Court Rules and Order.On due consideration IA No. 23383/2017 is hereby allowed .(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5466/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.5397/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Let record of the Court below be requisitioned.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.R. No. 572/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.List alongwith M.Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 2402/2015x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 9779/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24658/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24664/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24765/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.7731/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 None for the petitioner.C. No. 9838/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17066/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 17819/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.List after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 18449/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Be listed in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 20347/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list in the next week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20843/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.He is not present today.He is again directed to remain present before this Court on 08/12/2017 and to file affidavit stating therein reasons for not producing the witnesses before the Court.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.20853/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Office is directed to list the matter after a week alongwith status report.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.23129/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 05/12/2017 alongwith M.Cr.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24468/2017x (Sikandar @ Shikku Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Shri S.R. Golwalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24489/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 24501/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 None for the petitioner.The matter is adjourned by way of indulgence.Be listed after a week.(Ved Prakash Sharma) skt Judge THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 24565/2017x Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.As prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, list after two weeks.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24585/2017x (Rahul Vs.State of M.P.) Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Shri Ajay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri K.K. Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State.After arguing at length on the merits of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave of this Court to withdraw this petition .Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn .(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24607/2017 Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.Be listed thereafter.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.24414/2017 Indore dated : 01/12/2017 Parties through their counsel.Learned Public Prosecutor prays for and is granted a week's time to produce case-diary.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge skt
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
97,738,838 |
2.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:(i) The defacto complainant [PW2] namely Ganesan is a resident of Sobanapuram village, Thuraiyur Taluk, Trichy District.The wife of the complainant and onehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 Rukmani wife of one Selvaraj [PW3] were selected under the Indira Awaas Yojna Scheme Group Houses Scheme and the estimation of the house was Rs.32,000/-.The materials were provided to them from the Union Office and they started constructing the house.However, the second installment of Rs.9,045/- was not sanctioned to them for more than three months.Therefore, the complainant along with Selvaraj met Ramachandran [A1]/ project commissioner and enquired about the sanction of the next installment.Though PW2 and PW3 pleaded to pass the bill without payment of money, they refused to do so.Again on 17.03.1999 complainant along with PW3 went to the office of the accused officers and enquired about their bill.However, the accused officers stated that if they pay the demaned money, on that day itself, they will pass the bill.PW2 and PW3 also agreed for the same and returned.However, they were not willing to pay bribe.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014(ii)Again on 23.03.1999, both PW2 and PW3 went to the Union Office and met the accused officers, they asked whether PW2 and PW3 had brought the money, for which, PW2 and PW3 replied that they could not mobilise the money and requested them to pass the bill and they will give the money after getting the cheque amount.The accused officers also agreed for the same and asked them to pay the money soon after the receipt of the cheque amount.Accordingly, sanction order was given to them and they produced the order to the Village President on 24.03.1999 and he issued cheque to PW2 and PW3 and they, encashed the same.He collected the information secretly about the accused and obtained permission from his higher official for a trap.(v) Based on the request of the TLO, one Jagadeesan Inspector from the office of the Assistant Director of Statistics, Trichy and Parasuram, Superintendent from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Trichy were deputed by the respective departments and they were present at 11.45am on 25.03.1999 in the Vigilance and Anticorruption Office at Trichy.(vi) The TLO introduced PW2 and PW3, to the official witnesses, handed over a copy of the FIR and complaint to the official witnesses to read and understand the contents of the complaint.Thereafter, the TLO obtained Rs.1200/- [Rs.100 X 7 and Rs.50 X 10] [MO1 series] intended to be given to the accused and the TLO conducted a demonstration about the trap.The serial number of the currencies were noted down in the entrustment mahazar [ExP4].The Police party coated the currencies with phenolphthalein powder and gave them tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 complainant [PW2].The TLO instructed PW2 to meet the accused officers and if the accused officers demand the money, then only he should give the money to the accused officers.Selvaraj [PW3] was also directed to accompany PW2 and the TLO instructed them to show signal, after the accused received the money.(vii)Accordingly, on 25.03.1999 around 4.00 pm, PW2 along with PW3 and PW4 went to the office of the accused officers.The TLO along with shadow witness Parasuram followed them secretly.They first met A1 and informed him that they had received the cheque amount yesterday and PW2 had brought Rs.600/-as demanded by A1 and first he handed over Rs.300/- to A1 and A1 received the money with his right hand, counted the same and kept it in his shirt pocket and thereafter, he gave another Rs.300/- as share of PW3 and A1 also received the same, counted and kept it in his shirt pocket.(viii)Then they proceeded towards A2 Gunasekaran and as he was not available in his seat, they enquired A3, who said that he went to Trichy.As already A2 informed them, to give the money to A3, if he is not available, they gavehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 Rs.600/- to A3 and asked him to give A2's share to A2, when he comes.Accordingly, A3 received the money counted and kept it in his shirt pocket.Thereafter, PW2 and PW3 came out and showed the pre-arranged signal to the TLO and informed him that the accused officers received the bribe money.On enquiry, A1 took out Rs.600/- [Rs.100 x 6] and the numbers of the currency tallied with the entries made in the entrustment mahazar and A1's shirt pocket was also subjected to sodium carbonate test and it turned into pink in colour and the said solution was sealed as P1 and on the collected solutions, the TLO and the official witnesses have attested.(ix) Then A3's left and right hand fingers werehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 immersed in two separate sodium carbonate solutions and both solutions turned into pink in colour and they were sealed as R2 and L2 and on enquiry, A2 took out Rs.600/- [Rs.100 X 1 & Rs.50 X 10] from his shirt pocket.The number of the currencies were tallied with the entries made in the entrustment mahazar.The shirt pocket of A3 was also subjected to sodium carbonate test and it also turned into pink in colour and the solution was sealed as P2 and attested by TLO, shadow witness and by the accused officer.Further, the TLO recovered several documents and files from the office of the accused.On 25.03.1999 at about 8.20pm, the accused were arrested.(ix) PW9 is the then Supervisor at Uppiliyapuram Panchayat Union and he speaks about the procedure for constructing the house under the scheme.(x) PW10 is the then Assistant Scientist and he speaks about the issuance of ExP20 and the presence of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 10/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 phenolphthalein in the MOs.(xii) PW12 is the then Clerk in Panchayat Office at Sobanapuram.(xiii)PW13 is the then Junior Assistant at Uppiliyapuram Panchayat Union and he deposed that he came to know the arrest of the appellant.By order dated 17.09.2014, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.The appellant was also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and the above said sentences are ordered to run concurrently.Thereafter, an observation mahazar [ExP.7], rough Sketch [ExP35] were prepared.With prior intimation the houses of the accused officers were searched and the reports are marked as Ex.Thereafter, the accused were remanded to judicial custody.(x) PW16 another Inspector of Police, took the case for investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses.3.During trial On the side of the prosecution Seventeen witnesses were examined, Thirty Eight documents were marked and Nine material objects were produced.4.The available prosecution evidence are as follows:(i) PW1 is the then District Collector, Tiruchirappalli and he has accorded sanction [ExP1] for prosecuting the accused officers.(ii) PW2 is the defacto complainant and he speaks about the demand made by the accused officers and lodging of complaint [ExP2] before the Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Tiruchirappalli, acceptance of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 bribe money by the accused.However, he was treated as a hostile witness.(iv)PW4 is the then Statistical Inspector at Trichy and he is also a shadow witness.He is a witness to the Entrustment mahazar [ExP4].He speaks about the acceptance of bribe by the accused officers.(vi)PW6 is the wife of PW3 and she has been treated as a hostile witness.(vii) PW7 is a beneficiary under the Scheme and she has been treated as a hostile witness.(viii) PW8 is the then Divisional Engineer and he has been treated as hostile witness.(xiv) PW14 was a Project Manager at Uppiliyapuram Panchayat Union and he speaks about the said scheme.(xv)PW15 [TLO] is the then Inspector of Police in Vigilance and Anticorruption Division at Trichy.He speaks about the registration of the case in Crime No.7 of 1999 [ExP21], collecting the secret information, preparation of entrustment mahazar, laying of the trap, conducting phenolphthalein test and arrest of the appellant and recovery of tainted money from the appellant.(xv) PW16 is the then Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation in this case initially.(xvi) PW17 is the Inspector of Police, who has conducted further investigation in this case and filed a final report as against the accused including thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 11/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 appellant.5.After completion of the prosecution side evidence, the incriminating circumstances were put before the appellant and the same was denied as false.On the side of the appellant/accused one witness was examined and seven documents were marked.6.The trial Court, after completion of the trial, found the appellant/ first accused guilty, convicted and sentenced as stated supra and acquitted the second and third accused from the charges levelled against them.As against the conviction and sentence imposed on the first accused, the appellant/ the first accused has preferred the present appeal.7.Heard Mr.V.Kathirvelu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.K.Prabhu learned Counsel on record for the appellant and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.8.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has raised the following grounds:http://www.judis.nic.in 12/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 i.The prosecution has not established the demand on the date of complaint and on the date of alleged occurrence.The appellant being the Additional Block Development Officer, sanctioned and cleared the first installment of the loan amount without demanding any money from the complainant.Therefore, the allegation that the appellant demanded money for sanctioning second installment is impossible.The prosecution has failed to examine the real beneficiaries under the scheme and non examination of wife of PW2 creates suspicion and it is fatal to the case of the prosecution.Before lodging the complaint and the alleged occurrence, the complainants have received the cheque and the amount in their favour.Therefore, there is no possibility for the appellant to demand.http://www.judis.nic.in 13/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 vi.The amount cannot be presumed to have been handed over on the demand of the accused.The statement of the accused has not been recorded in this is case, which is violative as per Rule 47 of the Vigilance Manual.Mere recovery of the tainted money would not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Senior Counsel also relied on the following judgments.P.Sathyanarayana Murthy Vs the District Inspector of Police, reported in [2015] 10 SCC 152;Abdul Kathar Vs State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption, Nagercoil, reported in [2019] 1 MLJ (Crl) 122;S.D.Amalraj Vs State through Inspector of Police, reported in 2008 (1) TNLR 224 (Mad) (MB);Parkas Vs State of Punjab, reported[ CRA-S.No.1576 -SB of 2002, dated 21.08.2015 of Punjab-Haryana High Court]http://www.judis.nic.in 14/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 20149.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submitted that the prosecution has proved the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance and recovery of the tainted money from the appellant in this case.10.As regards the sanction, the investigation officer recorded the statement of the appellant and filed a final report before the Court along with the statement.The sanctioning authority in his evidence clearly deposed that he perused the materials and only after getting satisfied, he accorded sanction for prosecuting the appellant.Moreover, the Vigilance Manual is only directory in nature and it is not mandatory.Therefore, the ground that sanction is defective cannot be sustained.11.The defacto complainant [PW2] and PW3 in the complaint clearly stated that the appellant/first accused demanded Rs.300/- each from them.http://www.judis.nic.in 15/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014It is contended that the appellant had sanctioned the first installment without any demand, PW2 and PW3 obtained the cheque before lodging the complaint and therefore, there is no possibility for the appellant/first accused to demand money from them after completion of work.19.With regard to the demand, the defacto complainant PW2 and PW3 in the complaint [ExP2] have clearly stated that on many occasions they requested the appellant to sanction the second installment amount,http://www.judis.nic.in 18/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 however, the appellant told them that only if they pay the bribe amount, he could pass the bill.Therefore, the demand by the appellant is proved in this case through the evidence of PW2, PW3 and complaint[ExP1] and FIR [ExP3].20.As far as the acceptance of money is concerned, the defacto complainant [PW2], PW3 and the official witness [PW4] have clearly stated in their evidence that the appellant had received the tainted money from PW2, counted with right hand and kept the same in his right pocket.The phenolphthalein test conducted on the hands of the appellant also proved positive.The Assistant Director, Forensic Science Lab, Chennai also deposed about the presence of the phenolphthalein in the solution, which were used for testing the hands of the appellant.The chemical analysis report also reveals the presence of the phenolphthalein in the MOs.Therefore, the prosecution has proved the acceptance of the tainted money by the appellant.21.Insofar as the recovery of the tainted money is concerned, PW4 in his evidence deposed that on the enquiryhttp://www.judis.nic.in 19/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 made by the TLO [PW15], the appellant took the money from his shirt pocket and handed over and PW4 along with another official witness compared the serial number of the currencies with the entrustment mahazar [ExP4] and the same were tallied.Further, TLO [PW15] had also deposed that during the trap on enquiry, the appellant took out the tainted money from his pocket and gave it to him.22.A defence was raised that before lodging of the complaint and the trap, PW2 complainant and PW3 had received the cheque.Therefore, there is no possibility for the appellant to demand the bribe.Since the prosecution has proved the acceptance of money from PW2 and PW3 by the appellant, as stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor the amount was received by the appellant as a reward for having done the work.Even accepting the reward is also an offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act.http://www.judis.nic.in 20/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014A payment of a sum to a public servant, whether paid before or after the doing the official act, would constitute bribe within Section 161, IPC.24.The corruption has ruined the system.Despite implementation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, corruption has not been eradicated and it has become a common affair.Nobody is having the sense of fear to the prevailing Act. The higher officials must act as an example to their subordinates in discharge of their duties.If the higher officials themselves commit mistakes, then they loose their morale to question their subordinates.Ultimately, the system fails.26.At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is now aged about 73 years and he is suffering from acute deviation of angle of mouth, slurred speech and memory loss and therefore, prayed that the sentence be modified for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In support of his claim, he also produced a copy of the medical files related to the appellant.http://www.judis.nic.in 22/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 201427.In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction imposed by the Special Court, for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Madurai in Spl.C.No.26 of 2011, dated 17.09.2014 is hereby confirmed.However, considering the request made on behalf of the appellant and his health condition, this court modifies the sentence from two years rigorous imprisonment to one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the rest of the judgment of the trial Court shall remain unaltered.The bail bonds if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant and confine them to prison, to undergo the remaining period of sentence.20.12.2019 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes /No dskhttp://www.judis.nic.in 23/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 20141.The Special Court for Trial of Cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Trichy2.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption Wing, Trichy,3.The Additional Pubic Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper (2 Copies), Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 24/25 CrlA(MD)No.286 of 2014 B.PUGALENDHI.J., dsk Pre delivery judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.286 of 2014 20.12.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 25/25
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,743,305 |
(26/02/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No.471/2017 registered at Police Station Mungawali, District Ashoknagar for offence under Sections 294, 306, 34 of IPC.The necessary facts for the disposal of present application in short are that on 13/10/2017 at about 5:40 PM the deceased 2 M.Cr.C. No.235/2018 [Suresh Gupta Vs.State of M.P. and another] Shivcharan resident of Malhargarh died during treatment, as he had consumed sulphas pills.According to the prosecution case, at 5:00 PM Ramsakhibai W/o Babulal Rai, aged about 75 years, came to the police outpost and informed that Shivcharan was being harassed by Rampravesh, Sunita, Raghvendra and Suresh Gupta (applicant) because of some money dispute and they were trying to grab his house and the shop and today also he was harassed by them, therefore, a short-while ago he has consumed sulphas pills, which were kept in the shop and he is also coming to the police outpost.The said information was written in the Rojnamchasanha and it was also mentioned in the Rojnamchasanha that the deceased Shivcharan was also seen coming to the police outpost.The deceased Shivcharan also reached to the police outpost and an another Rojnamchasanha was written at 17:05 PM to the effect that the deceased Shivcharan came to the police outpost and informed that as he was under oppression and, therefore, he has consumed sulphas pills.As his physical health was deteriorating, therefore, for immediate treatment and recording of dying declaration, the victim was sent to the CHC Hospital alongwith police constables.At the request of the police authorities, the doctor recorded the dying declaration of the deceased, which is as under:-2 M.Cr.State of M.P. and another] vkdj eSus vkt vius ?kj esa j[kh gqbZ lYQkl dh rhu xksyh;k ,d lkFk [kk yhA esjs firk dk uke ckcqjk; gS eS eYgkjxM+ dk fuoklh gwW** Thus, it is clear from the dying declaration that the applicant and the accused persons were trying to grab the property of the deceased and there was some monetary dispute between the parties.However, the deceased died in the hospital at 6 PM during treatment.3 M.Cr.x x x x x x xx x x x x x xMerely because there was a civil transaction between the parties would not by itself alter the status of the allegations constituting the criminal offence.13 M.Cr.x x x x x x17 M.Cr.Accordingly, the FIR in Crime No.471/2017 registered at Police Station Mungawali, District Ashoknagar for offence under Sections 294, 306, 34 of IPC cannot be quashed.The application fails and is hereby dismissed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 26/02/2018 Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.02.26 16:22:34 +05'30' 18 M.Cr.C. No.235/2018 [Suresh Gupta Vs.State of M.P. and another] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No.235/2018 .........Applicant: Suresh Gupta Versus .........Respondents: State of M.P. and another ORDER post for 26/02/2018 (G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 23/02/201818 M.Cr.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,752,091 |
1 24.7.2018 38 Bail Allowed md.CRM No. 5078 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 19.7.2018 in connection with Kaliyaganj Police Station Case No. 276 of 2017 dated 9/11/2017, under sections 406/409/420/120B of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to G.R. No. 1610 of 2017 ;And In Re:-
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,765,010 |
The applicant has filed this second application u/S. 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 03.05.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Civil Lines, District Morena in connection with Crime No.58/2019 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 307, 323, 294 and 505/34 of IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that on account of some dispute regarding water, applicant and other co-accused persons abused the complainant and when the he tried to stop them, then co-accused Manua @ Pushpendra Sikarwar fired gunshot, which hit on the hand of the complainant and he received injuries.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the applicant has falsely been implicated in the case.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-19607-2019 (BABU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) He further submitted that co-accused Vijay Pal Singh and Anr have since been enlarged on bail vide order dated 03.05.2019 in M.Cr.C No. 17838/2019 in cross case passed by coordinate Bench of this Court.Hence, this application is dismissed with liberty to the applicant to revive the application after recording of evidence of some prosecution witnesses.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance as well as copy of this order be given to the learned Public Prosecutor/Panel Lawyer with a direction to keep the same in THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-19607-2019 (BABU SINGH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) the concerned case diary.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava) V. JUDGE LJ* LOKENDRA JAIN 2019.05.20 14:29:22 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,770,421 |
by reason of his poverty.The deceased, who had been tortured, was ultimately constrained to take her life.The learned Sessions Court found that the fact that the victim had died an unnatural death within seven years of marriage was established.It was established that she had committed suicide.The Sessions Court however, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges under Sections 498A/304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt.We find that there was a clear demand for cash of Rs.10,000/- and a specific allegation that torture ensued after failure to bring cash of Rs.10,000/-.The appellant has an arguable, if not good case in appeal.In our view, the appellant being the father of the deceased and defacto complainant, is a meaning of Section 2 (wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and has a right of appeal under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The appeal shall be heard.The requisite number of paper books be prepared by the Department within eight weeks thereafter.( Indira Banerjee, J. ) ( Sahidullah Munshi, J. ) 3
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
97,773,389 |
lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that he resides in a chawl in room No. 1, which belongs to Shankar Feku Yadav(hereinafter referred to as Shankar Seth).That there are 13 rooms.Shankar Seth had purchased the land from a Parsi trust.The accused No. 1 Nijamuddin and his brother-in-law Abdul Kadar were Talwalkar 4/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 5 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw claiming the said piece of land and hence, there were civil suits pending between the parties.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::(ii) According to the Complainant, on 25/12/1990 Nijamuddin, Zuber, Sagir and Kader had obtained signatures of the complainant on two blank papers under coercion and had taken possession of the residential room.A report was lodged at the Oshiwara Police Station.(iii) On 8/2/1991 at about 7.45 p.m. the complainant and Shankar Seth were sitting in front of Yadav Lime Depot and chitchatting with Ramkaran Yadav and Shekhar Tiwari.At about 8 p.m. one police constable namely Dhadas who was acquainted with the complainant was going towards Behraum Baug.He was stopped by the complainant.Suddenly 8 to 10 persons came at the spot.They were armed with weapons such as sword, stick.One amongst them had assaulted Dhadas on his head by a stick in his hand from rear side.According to the complainant, Nijamuddin i.e. accused No. 1 had assaulted Shankar Seth with sword at the same time.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::Nijamuddin Munshi assaulting Shankar Seth on his chest with sword, Sagir and Zuber had assaulted on his hand and on his rib with sword.Nijamuddin assaulted Shankar Seth on his back by sword.(v) When the assault was going on, the persons accompanying Shankar Seth were initially requesting miscreants not to assault and thereafter, they had run inside the gate to search for some weapons to use in defence.(vi) The complainant and Harilal Yadav took Shankar Seth to Cooper Hospital.On the way, he had become unconscious.(vii) That PSI Anpat who was posted at Oshiwara police station had also reached the hospital.The complainant has given description of unidentified persons in the first information report.4 P.W. 1 Mohammed Ashfaq Khan Mohammad Mumtaz Khan is an eye witness to the incident.He has deposed before the Court that he resides in Shankar Seth's Chawl and Shankar Seth happens to be the owner of the said building.Shankar Seth had purchased a piece of land admeasuring about 1200 sq. yards from the Parsi Trust.There was a dispute between the original Accused Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and Shankar Seth over the said piece of land.5 According to P.W. 1, when he had been to his native place, he left the keys of his house with the neighbour.After he returned from his native place, he learnt about it from the Talwalkar 7/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 8 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw neighbour.People had started running helter skelter out of fear.Two persons accompanying Shankar Yadav had rushed inside the gate.P.W. 1 had also rushed inside the gate to find some wooden stick in order to assault the accused.Shankar Yadav had fallen unconscious.He was taken to the hospital by Harilal Yadav.consciousness in the taxi and had requested him to take him to the hospital as he was not feeling well.P.W. 1 was also treated as he was injured.He met PSI Anpat at the hospital.P.W. 1 claims to have disclosed the names of the other accused persons to PSI Anpat as well as names of the persons who had mounted assault on Shankar Yadav.9 P.W.1 has further stated that he had also sustained injuries on his right shoulder and therefore, he had requested Hari to take Shankar to the hospital.That according to P.W. 1, Hari was also present at the time of incident.P.W. 1 has admitted that apart from havaldar Dhadas he did not know anybody from Oshiwara Police Station.He has also deposed in the cross-examination that Yadav Lime Depot was at the distance of 8 to 10 feet from the place where Shankar was chitchatting with P.W. 1 and other witnesses.That the assailants had come from the rear side of Dhadas.That according to P.W. 2, he was also acquainted with P.W. 1 who happens to be the tenant of Shankar Yadav.They had also forcibly taken possession of the piece of land and two chawls from Shankar Yadav.P.W. 2 had pointed towards accused No. 4 as the same person who had assaulted the constable by stick on the back of his head.P.W. 2 also claims to have run towards lime depot for getting a stick to retaliate.P.W. 2 claims to have followed the taxi in which Shankar was carried to Cooper Hospital.He also claims to have gone to Oshiwara Police Station at about 11 p.m. where his statement was recorded.That he had identified 3 persons at the identification parade which was held at the police station and that accused No. 4 was one of those 3 persons whom he had identified.15 It is elicited in the cross-examination that Yadav Lime Depot is run by him.P.W. 2 has also given topography of the scene of offence.He claims to know the accused Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5 since 5 to 6 years prior to the incident as they are residing in their neighbourhood.There were inimical terms between the accused Nos. 3 and 5 and deceased Shankar.That P.W. 1 and 2 and the deceased used to meet regularly and sit together.According to P.W.2, on the date of incident, they were all chitchatting.That the accused mounted assault upon Shankar.He has specifically admitted in the cross-examination that accused No. 1 Nijamuddin was leading the other accused persons.The bone of contention was the plot of land which he had purchased from the Parsi Trust.Manilal informed him that Shankar was lying in a pool of blood at Behram Baug.20 According to P.W. 4, he had rushed to the hospital and met his father-in-law in ICU.The Patient was conscious at the time of admission and there is entry to that effect.He did not regain consciousness.The history of assault was given by the constable accompanying the patient that day in the evening.The injury on the 12th rib was the fatal injury.He had also noted in the notes as - "History of assault Unconsciousness since then." 30 P.W. 13 Babasaheb Chougule was attached to Oshiwara Police Station.In the night intervening between 8.2.1991 and 9.2.1991, he was informed about the case.He went to Oshiwara Police Station and saw that Crime No. 72 of 1991 was registered under various sections.Investigation was then transferred to PI Mr. Bhamre.The cause of death as shown in post mortem notes is shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.In the substantive evidence, P.W. 14 has categorically stated that the injuries at Sr. 10, 11 and 17 are fatal injuries as they are on the vital part of the body.The substantive evidence of P.W. 14 is in consonance with the substantive evidence of the eye witnesses who have attributed specific overt act to the accused person.33 P.W. 15 Rupsingh Tadvi was attached to Oshiwara Police Station.He had taken charge of accused No. 5 when he was arrested.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::Police Station and he had assisted PSI Anpat in the investigation.It is elicited in the cross-examination that the investigating officer was not present in the parade room when the accused No. 4 was subjected to test identification.He had taken up the investigation from PI Chougule.According to him, out of them, two persons are absconding.He admits before the court that he had called the Special Executive Magistrate P.W. 6 Dhirendra Tripathi for conducting identification parade and had recorded the statement of the witnesses after the test identification parade was over.He has admitted that he has not prepared the list of documents before taking over the investigation and the index of the said documents was prepared at Talwalkar 28/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 29 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw the time of filing of the charge-sheet.According to him, he had arrested the accused No. 4 at Jogeshwari.He had made available his own office and also adjoining store room for conducting test identification parade.36 P.W. 18 Arjun Sawant was also attached to Oshiwara Police station.He had been to the scene of offence alongwith PSI Anpat.According to him, the complaint was recorded by PSI Anpat.37 P.W.19 Suhas Anpat was attached to Oshiwara Police Station.According to him, on 8/2/1991 at about 8.30 p.m. he had received a message in respect of another case and therefore, he had visited Cooper Hospital and there at about 9 p.m. P.W. 7 contacted him and told him that Shankar Yadav was seriously assaulted by 5 to Talwalkar 29/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 30 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw 6 persons with dangerous weapon and was admitted in ICU in Cooper Hospital.He had kept a constable as guard near the ICU.Shankar Yadav was unconscious.Harilal Yadav and Ramkaran were present in the hospital.He had registered Crime No. 72 of 1991 under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.He had transferred the investigation to PI Chougule.38 It is candidly admitted in the cross-examination that the other case about which he received the message was not pertaining to the jurisdiction of Oshiwara Police station.No officers of Goregaon Police Station were present in Cooper Hospital.According to P.W. 19, Shankar Yadav was taken to ICU before 9.15 p.m. When he was in the O.P.D., P.W. 19 could not record his statement.He had not visited the injured in the ICU.The deceased was unconscious in ICU.further stated that he was present in the ICU for 10 minutes i.e. from 9.15 p.m. to 9.40 p.m. He had posted his constable inside the ICU.Only to ascertain when the injured would regain consciousness, as he could not record his statement earlier.He had not received information from the constable that the patient had regained consciousness.He admits to have seen the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 at the police station on 9/2/1991 in the morning.39 According to P.W.19, the incident occurred at the gate of Lime Depot.The scene of offence is 10 ft. away from the gate towards road.A suggestion was given that the FIR recorded at the first point of time was destroyed.Mr. Avinash Gupta, Sr.Advocate i/b.Dewani & Associates.Mrs. P.P. Shinde, APP for State.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::JUDGMENT :(PER SMT.The non-bailable warrant issued against the original accused was awaiting execution and the police has sought time to execute the same as the earlier attempts had failed.The Judgment was therefore not pronounced.In the meanwhile, the original accused No.1 filed Criminal Application No.1536 of 2017 on 9th November,2017 expressing a desire to surrender and be represented by Senior Counsel Shri Avinash Gupta.Hence, with a view to afford a fair opportunity, this Court allowed the said application, whereby the accused accused No.1 was taken into Talwalkar 3/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 4 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw custody on 15.11.2017 and fixed the hearing of the Appeal No.41 of 1995 on 30.11.2017 to hear the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel Shri Avinash Gupta.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::Hence, this Appeal.(viii) On the basis of the said FIR, Crime No. 72/1991 was registered initially for offences punishable under section 307, 324, 143, 144, 147, 148, 149 of the Indian Penal Code.(ix) After Shankar Yadav succumbed to the injury Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::The prosecution examined 20 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.According to P.W. 1, the accused No. 1 had asked him to sign certain blank papers under coercion.He had lodged complaint about the said incident after 8 days with Oshiwara Police Station.According to prosecution, this part of evidence would substantiate the motive of the accused in commission of the offence.6 As far as the incident in question is concerned, P.W. 1 has deposed that on 8/2/1991 in the evening he was sitting with Shankar Seth, Ramkaran and Tiwari opposite Yadav Lime Depot at Behram Baug.He was sitting on the bench with Shankar.They had seen constable Dhadas passing by the road.Constable Dhadas was in civil dress.P.W. 1 was acquainted with him.He had called constable Dhadas and exchanged salutation with him and further requested him to have a cup of tea.P.W. 1 was chatting with Dhadas just near the bench.Suddenly accused No. 4 had appeared on the scene behind Talwalkar 8/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 9 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw constable Dhadas and assaulted him on his head with a wooden stick.Then Accused No. 1 Nijamuddin had assaulted P.W. 1 on his right shoulder with sword and at the same time, 4 to 5 persons were assaulting Shankar Seth.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::7 It is further stated that while Shankar Yadav was avoiding the blow he had sustained injury on his right side elbow of his hand.The Accused No. 5 had assaulted Shankar Yadav on his right side ribs below armpit with sword.Nijamuddin had assaulted Shankar on his back with sword.As a result, Shankar had fallen on the ground.Even thereafter, the accused No. 1 continued assaulting Shankar with sword above left side waist.Harilal Yadav happens to be the cousin of Shankar Yadav.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::That when they were in taxi and Shankar was told that they would go to police station, he had told them that he should be first taken to the hospital.He had also informed PSI Anpat that the above mentioned accused were accompanied by three more unknown persons, whose Talwalkar 10/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 11 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw description he had given to PSI Anpat.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::10 P.W. 1 has referred to the first FIR filed by him at Oshiwara Police Station when he was forcibly evicted from his room by Accused Nijamuddin and others.He had guided the police while conducting the scene of offence panchanama.11 It is pertinent to note that P.W.1 has categorically stated that on 18/5/1991 he was called at the police station by the police officer and was informed that the accused are arrested and that the Special Executive Magistrate is to visit the police station.That the test identification parade was held at the police station.He has identified his clothes seized in the course of investigation.12 It is elicited in the cross-examination that there are two Yadav Chawls and he is residing in one of the them.One Ali Mohd is residing in room No. 2 next to him.One Niyazbhai and Mangal Kumar owned garage in the said vicinity.He has expressed his Talwalkar 11/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 12 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw inability to give the date when the incident had occurred.That the distance between Yadav Chawl and residence of accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 is about 100 meters.They were also residing in the same chawl.P.W. 1 used to accompany Shankar to the court but could not recollect the date when the injunction order was passed.According to him, the original accused No. 1 had forced him to sign the stamp papers.The accused No. 1 had locked the room of P.W. 1 when he was out of station and therefore, he was constrained to lodge the report against the accused No. 1 at the police station.Deceased Shankar had accompanied him to the police station at the relevant time.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::13 It is elicited in the cross-examination that it was PSI Anpat who had taken P.W. 1 from Cooper Hospital to Police station Talwalkar 12/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 13 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw to enable him to lodge the report in respect of the said incident.In the meanwhile, the accused assailants were fleeing from the spot of incident.That Ramkaran Hari Tiwari and P.W. 1 were requesting the assailants not to assault.He has specifically stated that he was assaulted by sword and another blow was given by stick.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::14 P.W. 2 Ramkaran Yadav also claims to be an eye witness to the incident in which Shankar had sustained fatal injuries.He was Talwalkar 13/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 14 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw acquainted with Shankar for more than 20 to 25 years.He has narrated the incident by stating that Shekhar Tiwari, P.W. 1 and 2 were chitchatting.One police constable had come across and greeted them.Ashfaq got up from his seat, walked 5 to 6 steps towards that constable and at that time, 5 to 6 persons had come from behind and mounted assault on them.The first assault was on the constable.In the meanwhile Shankar had fallen on the ground in an injured condition with bleeding injuries.Hari and P.W. 1 had taken Shankar to Cooper Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::That the accused No. 1 had assaulted Talwalkar 15/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 16 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw Shankar by sword.Out of seven, two were armed with stick.He had called for help but nobody came on the spot.His servants were inside the depot at the time of the incident and therefore, he had rushed towards the lime depot to search for a stick.He had reported the incident to PSI Anpat which was reduced into writing.16 P.W.3 Kisan Dhadas was attached to Oshiwara Police Station as a police constable.He has deposed before the court that on the day of the incident when he was passing from the front of Yadav Lime Depot, Mohd. Ashfaq called him.At that time, Mohd. Ashfaq was in the company of 2 to 3 persons.Mohd. Ashfaq was proceeding towards him to extend greeting while Shankar Yadav was sitting on a bench with other person.Suddenly he was given a blow by hard and blunt object on the back of his head.He saw that at the same time, somebody was assaulting Ashfaq.P.W. 2 had rushed into Lime Depot to search for some stick.He had sustained bleeding injuries.When he returned to the spot, he learnt about the fact that Shankar Yadav was assaulted by sword.They all went to Cooper Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::Ashfaq was also treated as he had also sustained injury.While Shankar Yadav was admitted in the ICU, Sub-Inspector Anpat who is attached to Oshiwara Police Station had come to the hospital.17 It is apparent that neither the persons accompanying Shankar Yadav nor the assailants were known to P.W. 3, who had feigned ignorance about the area where the offence had taken.According to him, the distance between the scene of offence and Oshiwara Police Station can be travelled within less than 15 to 20 minutes by auto.It is admitted that Oshiwara Police Station is on the way to Cooper Hospital.It is also admitted that Yadav Lime Depot is surrounded by shops.He had no knowledge as to whether there is telephone connection in the Lime Depot.It is admitted that his supplementary statement dated 19/2/1991 was recorded by PSI Anpat.It is also admitted that he had not seen any person who was accompanying Shankar Yadav in the Lime Depot. P.W.3 has further admitted that he was not knowing Shankar Yadav.It is therefore clear that P.W. 3 is not an eye-witness to the assault upon Shankar Talwalkar 17/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 18 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw Yadav.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are falsified to the extent that they were in Lime Depot searching for sticks to retaliate.18 P.W.4 Ramjit Sahdev Yadav is the son-in-law of deceased Shankar Yadav.According to him, in the year 1983, Shankar Yadav had purchased a plot of land from a Parsi Trust and also a chawl which he had given on rent.P.W. 1 was one of the tenants in the chawl.He was knowing the accused Nos. 1 to 3 by name.That his father-in-law was on inimical terms with Accused Nos, 1 to 3 and Zuber.The accused claimed ownership over the said land which the deceased had purchased in a dispute.His father-in-law had filed a civil suit against the accused and P.W. 1 was assisting him.The witness had identified the accused in the court.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::Upon enquiry his father-in-law informed him that accused No. 1 and his associates had assaulted him and that they need to be punished.He had also further instructed P.W. 4 that they should take revenge.On 9/2/1991 P.W. 4 had been to Oshiwara police station and at that time 3 accused persons were present in the police station and one of them was Nijamuddin Sataruddin Munshi.His father-in-law also knew Nijamuddin Munshi.21 It is elicited in the cross examination that he alone had been in the ICU to meet his father-in-law, whereas his mother-in-law Talwalkar 19/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 20 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw and other family members had not gone inside the ICU nor his father- in-law had enquired with him about other members of the family.It is also elicited that the disclosure statement made by his father-in-law was not conveyed to anybody by him.P.W. 4 has deposed in the cross-examination that Gulab Restaurant is situated at a distance of 1 or 1 ½ k.m.from the scene of offence, from where Manilal had come.22 P.W.5 Narendra Dhemre is a draughtsman who had drawn the map of the scene of offence.Since the scene of offence is admitted, it would not be necessary to discuss the evidence of the said witness.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::23 P.W. 6 Dhirendra Tripathi was Special Executive Magistrate at that time.He has selected the panchas at the police station.It is admitted position that the test identification parade was conducted at the police station.He has narrated the steps taken by him in Talwalkar 20/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 21 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw conducting test identification parade.It is elicited in the cross- examination that he had seen all the 20 dummies in the room of PI Khalkamkar.He had selected the dummies who were about 20 to 35 years old.It is admitted that P.W. 6 had not obtained signatures of all the panchas on all the pages of memorandum of test identification parade.He himself has signed all pages except last page.He was posted at Cooper Hospital and was incharge of emergency police register.According to him, on 8/2/1991 when he was on duty, injured was brought to the emergency ward of Cooper Hospital by his brother Harilal Yadav.They were also accompanied by 2 to 3 more persons.The information was given to him by Harilal Yadav.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::25 P.W. 8 Ashok Jadhav was officiating as police constable at Oshiwara police station and was a member of crime detection squad.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::He has deposed before the court that on 8/2/1991 at about 8.30 p.m. he had accompanied PSI Anpat to Cooper Hospital for investigation.He has then stated that in fact, he had gone for investigation in another case.They had learnt that Shankar Yadav was admitted in ICU and upon further enquiry, they found that he was in an unconscious condition.He has identified the clothes of the injured.It is elicited in the cross-examination that nobody was accompanying the deceased in the ICU.There was no seizure panchanama as far as the clothes of the injured was concerned.26 P.W. 9 Girish Jariwala had acted as panch for the seizure of blood stained clothes of the deceased.27 P.W. 10 Nafiz Shaikh has also acted as panch for the scene of offence.He has admitted in the cross-examination that Ashfaq did not show his shop to the panchas but had shown the place where he was assaulted.It is Talwalkar 22/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 ::: 23 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw further admitted that the trail of blood was seen from the bench to the gate of Yadav Lime Depot.It is pertinent to note that wooden planks were found on the bench where the deceased was sitting and chatting with his friends and the trail of blood was found near the bench till the Lime Depot.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::It is admitted in the cross-examination that except injury No. 17, no other injuries were fatal.Injury No. 17 was a cut through and through.Injury No. 17 is incise wound 4.5 x 0.5 x Cavity on 12th rib near vertebral column.The cause of death was shock due to multiple injuries.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:16 :::According to him, on that day, Shankar was admitted at about 9.15 p.m. and he expired at about 10.15 p.m. He was admitted in ICU.It is admitted that initially, Crime No. 72 of 1991 was registered under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and on the next date it was altered to 302 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::31 P.W. 14 Dr. Rohit Shah was also attached to Cooper Hospital.According to him, the patient was brought at about 8.35 p.m. He had examined the patient.He has given the description of the injuries sustained by the patient as observed by him.The injured Mohd. Ashfaq, Kisan Dhadas were given preliminary treatment and discharged.The witness was cross-examined at length in respect of the injuries sustained by the deceased which are as follows :1 C.L.W. Left side of chest 2 inches above and medium to nipple 2 inches x 1 inch x quarry deep.2 C.L.W Left arm 1 ½ inches x 1/6 inches x quarry deep.3 C.L.W. Left below chest 1 ½ inches x 1/5th inches x quarry deep.4 2 C.L.W. Over back 1 ½ inches x ½ inches x quarry deep.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::cause of death was shock due to multiple injuries and more particularly the incised wounds which are mentioned in the column No. 17 and which are corresponding injuries in column No. 19 andThe said injuries are as follows :(1) IW (two) 1.5 x 5D x 0.5 & 1 x 5D x 0.5 on parietal region.x 0.3 x SD on right middle finger near nail.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::It is admitted that the staff had made dummies available for the purpose of test identification parade and that the place for conducting test identification parade was selected by the Special Executive Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::He claims to have assisted Investigating Officer Chougule in the investigation of the present case.The witness also claims to have made enquiry with Ashfaq Khan and Harilal Yadav.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::Chemical Analyser at Government Forensic Science Laboratory, Bombay.In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there are 40% persons having 'O' group, 30% with 'B' group, 25% 'A' group and 5% 'AB' group.41 The accused has examined the defence witness advocate Premchand Choube.He has deposed before the court that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 used to visit his office.He was acquainted with Shankar Feku Yadav.The advocate used to park his vehicle near Khalid Timber Mart opposite Beer Bar on Link road.The distance between the Beer Bar and Lime Depot is approximately 80 to 90 feet.There was a telephone connection in Khalid Timber Mart.And that the advocate used to use the said telephone for communication as he did not have a telephone connection in his office.The advocate was present in his office when the incident had occurred.He was sitting Talwalkar 32/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 33 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw near Khalid Timber Mart alongwith the original accused Nos. 1,3 and 5 as he was discussing the case registered against the original accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 at Oshiwara Police station.He was in the company of the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 till 9 p.m. There was no electric supply in his office at the relevant time and therefore, he was sitting near the Timber Mart.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::42 The defence witness has further asserted that he was facing Yadav Lime Depot at the time of the incident.He had not seen the incident as alleged by the prosecution.He had no occasion to help Shankar Yadav at the relevant time.He had not disclosed this fact to anybody till his statement was recorded before the court.He had not caused his appearance for the accused in the present mater at any stage and it was only four months prior to recording of his statement, he had learnt that accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 have been wrongly framed in the present case.He had not taken any action as a lawyer although he had learnt four months back that the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 have been wrongly framed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 none of the accused Nos. 1, 3 and 5 had referred to him.P.W.1 who was in the company of the deceased at the time of the incident has stated that the original accused No. 4 i.e. Rais Khan was the one who had taken first step by assaulting constable Dhadas on his head with a wooden log.At that time, the original accused No.1 had assaulted P.W. 1 with sword and at the relevant time, Shankar Yadav was attacked by 4 to 5 persons.According to P.W. 1, accused No. 5 had also assaulted Shankar Yadav on his ribs below arm pit with his sword and thereafter, it was the original accused No. 1 who had continued Talwalkar 34/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 35 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw assaulting Shankar Yadav with sword.It is pertinent to note that no specific act is attributed to original accused Nos. 2 and 3 except an omnibus statement that 4 to 5 persons had mounted assault upon Shankar Yadav.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::It is further pertinent to note that the accused Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested from their residential houses.46 P.W. 2 Ramkaran Yadav has also claimed to be an eye witness.He was in the company of the deceased at the time of the incident.According to him, Ashfaq had got up to greet constable Dhadas and at that time, 5 to 6 persons mounted assault on them.P.W. 2 has identified the original accused No. 4 as the person who Talwalkar 35/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 36 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw had assaulted constable Dhadas by stick on the rear back side of his head.There is consistency as far as the role of accused No. 4 is concerned.He had also identified the accused No. 4 as the assailants.In fact, it was P.W. 2 who is running Yadav Lime Depot.47 As far as the role of the overt act of the accused are concerned, according to P.W. 2, the accused No. 1 had assaulted Shankar with sword.In all there were 7 persons.Two were armed with stick and therefore, he had also rushed towards Lime Depot to search for a stick.He has specifically admitted that accused No. 1 was leading other accused persons.Hence, he is consistent as far as the role of accused Nos. 1 and 4 is concerned.P.W. 3 is the injured witness constable Dhadas.He had met Ashfaq at the relevant time.He fell down with a blow on his head.P.W. 2 had rushed into Lime Depot to search for a stick and when he returned, found that Shankar Yadav was assaulted with sword.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::fatal injuries as stated in the post mortem notes.Post mortem notes at Exh. 41 would clearly indicate that deceased Shankar Yadav had sustained as many as 18 injuries.There were two incised wounds on the parietal region, incise wound on supra mammary region, incise wound at left arm lateral incise wound at infra mammary region.It is in these circumstances that the evidence of the witness i.e. P.W.4 stating that his father-in-law had informed him that he was assaulted by accused No. 1 and his associates in the ICU would not inspire confidence of the court.Since the witnesses have not specifically named the rest of the accused, it would be relevant to consider the test identification parade.49 In this case, the test identification parade was held in the police station.The practice of conducting test identification parade in Talwalkar 37/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 38 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw the police station is deprecated by this court on several occasions.The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramcharan Bhudiram Gupta vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1995 Cri.L.J. 4048 has specifically observed as follows :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::The sooner it is abandoned the better it is because, the probability of the suspects being shown to the witnesses prior to the test identification is always there at the police station.At any rate, on account of such a practice, there is always a lurking suspicion in the mind of the court that the witnesses might have seen the suspects prior to the test identification.This practice would not only enable the police to wash the stigma of showing suspects prior to their identification; a stigma which more than often is unfounded, but has manifold other advantages.Jails have a large population these Talwalkar 38/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 39 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw days.It would be easy there to find persons similar to the suspects sought to be put for identification.Such similar persons have to be mixed with the suspects at the time of identification.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::The identification in jail would not only actually be free from any taint or suspicion but equally importantly it would also appear to be so.It would instil a sense of confidence both in the minds of the suspects sought to be put for identification as well as the court.Moreover, there are serious lacunas in the test identification parade and hence, the same would not inspire the confidence of this court.50 In the present case, the accused are being convicted with the aid of section 149 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as there were about more than 5 person.According to the learned APP, although P.W. 1, 2 and 3 have not referred to any overt act by the original accused Nos. 2 and 3, presence of the accused as a part of unlawful assembly is sufficient for conviction.Even if no overt act is Talwalkar 39/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 40 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw attributed to them, according to the learned APP, the common object is writ large on the face of the record.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::51 The learned Counsel Mr. Kalyankar appearing for the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 and learned Counsel Mr. Phanse, appointed as amicus for original accused Nos. 4 and 5 had vehemently urged before the Court that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.According to the Counsel, non-examination of Harilal Yadav is fatal to the prosecution as according to the learned Counsel, it was Harilal who had taken Shankar to the hospital.52 It is vehemently urged that PSI Anpat had no reason to be in Cooper Hospital soonafter Shankar Yadav was admitted in the hospital.That PSI Anpat has failed to give sufficient reason why he had visited Cooper Hospital, rather how he had learnt about the incident.He had vaguely referred to another case in respect of which he had received message.However, it does not appear that he had Talwalkar 40/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 41 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw taken any steps in the case for which he had come.It was P.W. 19 Anpat who had met Harilal Yadav and Ramkaran at the hospital and had recorded their statement which was treated as FIR.He has further admitted that the other case which he was referring was of Goregaon Police Station and not of Oshiwara Police Station.It is also admitted by him that the deceased was unconscious in the ICU.This is another reason why the oral dying declaration would not inspire the confidence of the Court.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::53 The most important aspect is that P.W. 19 has specifically admitted that he had seen the accused on 9/2/1991 at the police station in the morning.This further makes it clear that the accused had visited police station on the very next day.54 It is further pertinent to note that Harilal Yadav was summoned for the test identification parade.P.W. 7 Vasantrao Shevale who was posted at Cooper Hospital has stated that the injured was brought by Harilal Yadav.He had mentioned the name of Talwalkar 41/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 42 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw Harilal Yadav in the register and had also obtained his thumb impression.The facts of the incident were narrated by Harilal Yadav.P.W. 7 has proved the entry No. 503 in the EPR.The learned Counsel Mr. Phanse has vehemently urged that the only role i.e. attributed to the original accused No. 4 is that he had assaulted the constable and not the deceased.This by itself would indicate that the original accused No. 4 had assaulted constable Dhadas and not the deceased.However, such presumption cannot be drawn in the absence of the evidence.The cause of death is also shock and haemorrahge due to multiple injuries.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::"So far as the question of inconsistency between medical evidence and ocular evidence is concerned, the law is well settled that, unless the oral evidence available is totally irreconcilable with the medical evidence, the oral evidence would have primacy.In the event of contradictions between medical and ocular evidence, the ocular testimony of a witness will have greater evidentiary value vis-à-vis medical evidence and when medical evidence makes the oral testimony improbable, the same becomes a relevant factor in the process of evaluation of such evidence.It is only when the contradiction between the two is so extreme that the medical evidence completely rules out all possibilities of the ocular evidence being true at all, that the ocular evidence is liable to be disbelieved."57 P.W. 1 has made an omnibus statement that accused No. 3 had also assaulted Shankar Yadav with sword.However, in the cross-examination, it is admitted that he was surrounded by 3 persons.He had rushed towards the gate to search for weapon.He Talwalkar 43/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 44 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw had not seen the real assailants of Shankar Yadav but after Shankar Yadav had fallen Nijamuddin original accused No.1 continued to assault him brutally.It is admitted by him that the assault lasted for about a minute or minute and half and that according to him, besides Shankar Yadav, Harilal Yadav, Ramkaran and himself, they were not accompanied by any other person.The evidence that Shankar Yadav was able to speak with P.W. 1 in the taxi is also unbelievable since he had fallen unconscious on the spot.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::58 P.W. 2 has also reiterated that there were 7 persons.Accused No. 1 assaulted the deceased by sword.Out of 7 assailants, two were armed with stick.He could identify the persons who had assaulted by stick but the test identification parade does not inspire confidence.The accused Nos. 2 and 3 would be entitled to benefit of doubt.As far as the accused No.4 is concerned, there is no material evidence on record to clearly indicate that he was a part of the unlawful assembly.As far as accused No. 5 is concerned, a fatal injury is attributed to him.Both the eye witnesses were consistent on Talwalkar 44/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 45 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw the point that the accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were assaulting the deceased.Accused No. 4 deserves to be convicted for an offence punishable under section 324 read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.Since the fact that he had assaulted constable Dhadas on his head with stick would clearly indicate that he was also armed with a stick.There is evidence on record that the accused Nos. 1 and 5 are relatives.The case was filed against the original accused Nos. 1 and 5 by the deceased.The learned Counsel for the appellant-original accused No. 3 Abdul Kadar Abdul Razak submits that the original accused No. 3 is related to original accused Nos. 1 and 5 and therefore, he has been implicated in the present case.P.W. 1 has categorically stated that original accused Nos. 1 and 5 used to visit Shankar Seth Chawl to show chawl and garage to other people.However, he was not sure as to whether to sell the premises or give it on rent.P.W. 1 has also Talwalkar 45/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 46 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw stated that the deceased had obtained stay order against accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4, which would show that the accused Nos. 3 had no connection with the civil suit.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::60 All the accused are on bail.The appellant Nizamuddin in Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995 was absconding and at present he is jail.The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 1995 who are original accused Nos. 2 and 3 are present before the Court.Original accused Nos. 4 and 5 were not represented.It is seen from time to time that the original accused No. 1 is in fact absconding.On 6/9/2017, P.I. of Tilak Nagar Talwalkar 46/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 47 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw Police Station had filed a report that it was learnt from reliable source that the original accused No. 1 is residing at Flat No. 104, Shelter Park, Kopara Village, Sector 10, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai.However, the said house was locked.Upon realising that the police has kept strict vigilance.It appears that he is absconding.The police has also kept a track on the cell phone mentioned in the report.The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 had placed on record certain medical records to show that the appellant/accused No.1 is ill.However, subsequently, the learned Counsel for the appellant/accused No. 1 had submitted that he was in contact with the appellant and has been informed that the appellant is not in a Talwalkar 47/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 48 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw position to attend before the court as he is hospitalised.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::63 On 7/7/2017 learned Counsel Mr. Kamran Shaikh had mentioned before the Court that the appellant is at his residence and had given the address which is mentioned in the cause title of Criminal Misc.Therefore, this Court had directed the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone-6 to enquire into the whereabouts of the appellant based on the pan card, which was produced for his identification at the time of affirmation.There was a further direction to the police to carry out an enquiry including recording the statement of advocate Mr. Kamran Shaikh and submit report to this Court within one week.Time to time, the police has submitted the report.On 6/9/2017 also the learned APP had submitted on the basis of the report of Tilak Nagar Police Station that efforts are being made to trace the accused.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::The police had sought time to execute non-bailable warrant and therefore, the Judgment was not pronounced.67 The learned Senior Counsel Shri Gupta has drawn attention of this court to the specific evidence adduced by the prosecution as far as the original accused No. 1 is concerned.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the eye-witnesses are not Talwalkar 50/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 51 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw reliable witnesses and their evidence does not inspire confidence.According to the learned Senior Counsel, P.W. 1 has deposed before the court that after the assault had ensued upon Shankar Seth, they had rushed inside the Lime Depot to search for some weapon in order to retaliate and when he returned to the scene of offence, he noticed that accused Nos. 1 to 5 and 2 others were fleeing from the scene of offence.According to the learned Senior Counsel, this by itself would indicate that P.W. 1 has not seen the actual assault on Shankar Seth and therefore, his evidence deserves to be discarded.It is also submitted that P.W. 1 had not raised any cry for help although the incident had occurred on the road.The learned Senior Counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court to the cross- examination of P.W. 2 wherein he had stated that Nijam Accused No. 1 was leading those who came from East.All of them assaulted the deceased.He has also drawn the attention of this Court on the part of the cross-examination of P.W. 2, wherein he has deposed as follows :::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::"All the accused persons came together at the same point of time.They together assaulted us.It is not correct to say that I did not see the accused No. 1 leading that group.I know the Talwalkar 51/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 52 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw persons leading who came from north.... I know the persons who was leading the group who came from east.... Nizam Accused No. 1 was leading those who came from east."::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::The learned Senior Counsel submits that on the basis of this evidence, it needs to be appreciated that there were two groups who came to the scene of offence.One had come from east direction and the other had come from north direction.Nijam was leading the group who came from east and therefore, according to the learned Counsel the witness in all probabilities could not have seen the incident as narrated by him.It is also submitted that P.W. 1 has specifically stated that when he went in search of stick in Lime Depot, Shankar Seth had fallen on the ground.In fact, this by itself would indicate that P.W. 1 is an eye-witness and had left the spot only after Shankar had fallen down.68 The next contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that P.W. 1 has specifically stated that Shankar was only breathing when he was taken to hospital and was not in a position to speak.This according to the learned Senior Counsel, should be appreciated in Talwalkar 52/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 53 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw view of the fact that according to the prosecution there is an oral dying declaration in the hospital in which the name of the accused Nijam is disclosed.It is submitted that P.W. 2 Ramkaran Yadav has stated that at the time of the incident, 3 persons had come from northern side and 4 persons had come from the eastern side.One of them had assaulted Hawaldar(Dhadas) on his rear side.It is submitted that there is no specific evidence as to whether the persons who came from east side or north side had mounted assault on Shankar.It is submitted that P.W. 2 has made an omnibus statement that accused No. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and 2 others started assaulting the deceased Shankar by swords in their respective hands.It is reiterated that P.W. 2 had also gone in search of a stick in order to retaliate and therefore, he had not seen the actual assault.69 As far as P.W. 3 is concerned, it is submitted that in fact, P.W. 3 Kisan Dhadas was the first person who was assaulted.He was a constable and yet he had not taken any effective steps to avoid assault on Shankar Seth.The attention of this Court is drawn to the Talwalkar 53/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 54 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw portion of cross-examination where P.W. 3 has stated that he was present at the scene of offence till he saw all the injured being removed to Cooper Hospital in a motor taxi.Thereafter, he had seen P.W. 1 in the hospital.It is also submitted that P.W. 3 had also not raised shout and that it was only P.W. 1 who had shouted for him.70 The learned Senior Counsel has criticised the evidence in the nature of dying declaration which had specifically implicated the appellant.In any case, this Court had discarded the evidence in the nature of dying declaration as there is ample evidence on record which would show that the injured was unconscious at the time of admission in the hospital.There is nothing on record to indicate that he had regained consciousness just before he had disclosed about the incident to P.W. 4 and hence, the same does not deserve any discussion.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::In the present case, the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 are reliable and there cannot be any doubt that they are eye witnesses to the incident and they have actually seen the assault on Shankar Seth.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::In fact we have scrutinized the evidence of the eye-witnesses and arrived at a conclusion that the sterling testimony of two eye- witnesses as far as the incident in question is concerned cannot be Talwalkar 56/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 57 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw discarded on immaterial omission and contradiction.The witness has stood the test of scrutiny.Hence, the Criminal Appeal No. 41 of 1995 deserves to be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::73 The learned Counsel Mr. Phanse has demonstrated before the court that the accused are being falsely implicated only because there was a motive.74 In fact, there is ocular evidence to that effect.As far as the original accused No. 1 is concerned, there is cogent and convincing evidence that even after Shankar Yadav had fallen to the ground, the original accused No. 1 continued to assault him.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::There is no cogent and convincing evidence to hold that the original accused No.4 had in fact, assaulted the deceased.The evidence to the extent that he had assaulted constable Dhadas, at that relevant time, he was armed with stick is established.It is in these circumstances that the original accused Nos. 2 and 3 deserve benefit of doubt, whereas the original accused No. 4 deserves to be convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone.76 After taking into consideration the submissions made by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Gupta, on behalf of accused No. 1, learned advocate Mr. Phanse on behalf of accused No. 5, this Court is Talwalkar 58/61 ::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 ::: 59 apeal66.31.41.95.sxw of the opinion that the conviction against them deserves to be confirmed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::The learned advocate would be paid professional fees in accordance with law.passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 634 of 1991 against the Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. accused Nos.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::charges levelled against them.Their bail bonds stand cancelled.Fine amount, if paid, be refunded.(iii) The Judgment and Order of conviction dated 12/1/1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 634 of 1991 against the appellant No. 3 i.e. accused No. 5 is hereby confirmed.The substantive sentence and sentence of fine are maintained.(iv) The Judgment and Order of conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code dated 12/1/1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 634 of 1991 against the appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 31 of 1995 i.e. accused No. 4 is quashed and set aside.Instead, the appellant/accused No. 4 is convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the period already undergone.(v) The Criminal Appeal No. 31 of 1995 is partly allowed.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::Judgment and Order of conviction dated 12/1/1995 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 634 of 1991 against the appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 41 of 1995 i.e. accused No. 1 is confirmed.The substantive sentence and sentence of fine are maintained.79 All the appeals are disposed of accordingly.In view of the disposal of the Appeal No.41 of 1995, nothing survives in Criminal Application Nos.959 of 2016 and 949 of 2016 and the same stand disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2017 01:57:17 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 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.
|
97,774,651 |
common in both the Revisional Cases, may be briefly summarised, as follows:-Dr Abhijit Sen and his wife Ms Shipra Sen, Petitioners in both the cases, are the Directors of 'Alliance Management and Fiscal Services Limited,' a company, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the Petitioners No. 3 to 5 in C. R. R. 461/2014 are the employees of the aforesaid company.Mr Sibendu Basu, the Opposite Party No. 2 in both the cases is an Advocate as well as an investment consultant and he worked with the Petitioners at one point of time.In that case parties entered into agreements to settle all their pending disputes and cases, amicably and on the basis of such agreements of the parties an order was passed by the High Court on 30th March, 2004, in case No. C. S. No. 105/2003 with C. C. No. 163 of 2003 (G. A. No. 22 of 2004, G. A. No. 3931 of 2003 and G. A. No. 1209 of 2003), directing the Petitioners to make payments to the Opposite Party No. 2 herein, according to the payment schedule fixed in the order.It was also recorded in the order that the parties agreed to withdraw all their pending cases/proceedings in any Court in India against each other.Thereafter an Execution Case being E. C. No. 49/2009 filed by the present Petitioner Dr Abhijit Sen, was also decided by the order dated 20th January, 2012 by this High Court.It has been alleged by the Petitioners that in spite of such settlement recorded in the orders of the High Court, the Opposite Party No. 2 Mr Basu did not withdraw two cases initiated by him against the Petitioners herein, one being Case No C/16155/2008 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate 13th Court, Calcutta, and the other being Case No. C/2545/2000 pending in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 5th Court, Calcutta.The Petitioners in the present Revisional Cases have prayed for quashing of the proceeding in both the aforesaid two cases on the aforesaid grounds.In re.- C. R. R. 461/20014:-P. No. 2 herein filed a complaint in the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta on 17th May, 2005 against the Petitioners herein and alleged thereby forgery and fraud upon him by the Petitioners herein in connection with some cheques allegedly issued in his favour by the Petitioners and prayed for Police investigation of the offences, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P. C. The said complaint was referred to Hare Street Police Station for investigation and a specific case being Hare Street P. S. Case No. 313, dated 20.01.2005 was registered against the present Petitioners under Section 120 B/420/467/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code.After investigation Police submitted final report under Section 173 Cr. P. C. and thereby closed the investigation on the ground that the dispute between the parties was a civil dispute in nature and already settled by the parties in the High Court.The Opposite Party No. 2 raised objection against such closure report of the Investigating Agency.But after hearing the Public Prosecutor and the learned Advocate for the present O. P. No. 2, the Court by the order dated 28th May, 2008 turned down the objection raised by the present O. P. No. 2 and accepted, the final report thus submitted by the Investigating Officer.The Petitioners herein challenged the maintainability of the case by petition dated 5th July, 2013 in the aforesaid Court on the ground, that the dispute between the parties had been earlier settled in this High Court in C. S. No. 105/2003 and according to the terms of that settlement the present O. P. No. 2 was legally bound to withdraw/not to proceed with the case.But as the O. P. No. 2 did not do so, he was not legally entitled to file the protest petition praying for treating it as a complaint under Section 200 Cr. P. C.The next contention of Mr Goswami was that the protest petition treated as a regular complaint was, in fact, a second complaint on the same sets of facts which is not permissible in law.He has cited two decisions on the point, one reported in 1962 AIR 876 (Pramatha Nath Taluqdar - versus - Saroj Ranjan Sarkar) and the other reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181 ( T. T. Antony - versus - State of Kerala and Others).P. C. So, the aforesaid complaint was filed after the orders passed by the High Court mentioned earlier.So, the facts alleged in the said complaint could not be the issues for consideration while the orders recording the settlement between the parties were passed by the High Court.As mentioned above the complaint case in question was not in contemplation when the order dated 28th June, 2004 or 25th February, 2005 was passed by the High Court.It cannot be, therefore, said that the O. P. No. 2 was legally bound to withdraw the complaint or not to proceed with the complaint in question, in view of the orders passed by the High Court.For the implementation of the orders dated 30th March, 2004, 28th June, 2004 and 25th February, 2005, E. C. No. 49/2009 and C. A No. 1725/2009 were filed by the present Petitioners.In T. T. Antony's case (supra) two different F. I. Rs. were filed on different dates on same facts, on the basis of which separate cases were registered by the Police.In the present case, the O. P. No. 2 submitted a complaint in the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate against the Petitioners herein alleging commission of offences under Section 120 B/420/ 467/ 468/ 471 I. P. C. and prayed for investigation of the case by the Police under Section 156 (3) Cr.P. C. Such prayer was allowed and a specific case was registered at Hare Street Police Station being Case No. 313, dated 20th January, 2005 and numbered as G. R. Case No. 1655/2005 in the Court.After investigation Police submitted a final report praying for the closure of investigation on the ground that the dispute was a civil dispute in nature which was amicably settled between the parties earlier in the High Court.As narrated in the beginning of the order, at the relevant point of time there were several cases pending between the parties filed against each other.Subsequently in a Suit in this High Court being C. S. No. 105/2003 with C. C. No. 163/2003 (G. A. No. 22/2004, C. A. No. 3931/2003, G. A. No. 1209/2003), the parties entered into a settlement.The terms and conditions of the said settlement were recorded in the order dated 30th March, 2004 by the High Court.In that settlement, both the parties agreed to withdraw all the pending cases filed by them against each other.As per the terms of the settlement some payments were made by the Petitioners to the present O. P. No. 2 and most of the pending cases in different Courts were withdrawn by the parties.Learned Advocate Mr Goswami appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that in the order dated 30th March, 2004 passed by the High Court, liberty was given to the present O. P. No. 2 for Execution of the order as a decree of the Court and it was the further direction of the High Court that the parties would withdraw the respective cases filed by them against each other.Mr Goswami has further submitted that although the order dated 30th March, 2004 was subsequently modified to some extents but the direction to withdraw the cases has remained unchanged and by the order dated 7th July, 2005 in C. S. No. 79/2005 the High Court once again directed the present O. P. No. 2 to withdraw his case within a stipulated period which was not complied also.So, according to Mr Goswami the continuation of the proceeding in Case No. C/2545/2006 amounts to violation of the High Court's order and hence the Trial Court as well as the first Revisional Court committed error in law by not discharging the Petitioners herein as prayed for.In reply, learned Advocate Mr Bhattacharjee submitted that the High Court never directed the Trial Court to drop the proceeding.Admittedly there were several cases pending between the parties filed against each other.The other portion of the order remained unchanged and both the parties agreed to withdraw cases filed by them.The order was again modified on 25th February, 2005 to rectify some mistakes.From the aforesaid orders it is further found that the parties continued the negotiation and the Petitioners herein made payments to satisfy the claims of the present O. P. No. 2 even during the pendency of the present Revisional Petitions.Needless to mention that there was never any prayer before the Trial Court for compounding the offence.Since negotiation for settlement of the claims of the present O. P.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
626,953 |
ORDER Shivappa, J.The case of the prosecution is that one Advocate by name Vijayan was attacked by the accused persons inflicting grievous injuries on him, when he was leaving his house on 21.7.1994 to attend a case in the Supreme Court on 22.7.1994 against 69% reservation policy of the Tamil Nadu State Government.On 18.8.1994, on an interlocutory application the Supreme Court ordered the CBI to take up the investigation and directed the Tamil Nadu State Police to hand over the case to CBI for further investigation.Challan has been filed by the CBI for offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 449, 324, 326, 307 and 120B read with 149, I.P.C. on the file of the X Metropolitan Magistrate, and has taken cognizance of the offences against the accused persons.According to the respondent, six witnesses have given statement confirming the involvement of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy.On the basis of confirmatory materials, the petitioner was arrested on 11.6.1996 and the case against him is that he who sponsored the organized murderous attack on Advocate Vijayan by entering into criminal conspiracy with other accused.In the scheme of conspiracy, according to the prosecution, it was the petitioner who played the major role in organising the attach through accused Nos. l and 2 by engaging processional assassins for committing the alleged murderous attack on the said Vijayan, which resulted in Vijayan sustaining grievous injuries with a permanent disability of his limb.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was a Member of Parliament, Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Council and also a Minister in the State Cabinet and has no bad antecedents.He further contended that the investigation had already been over and having regard to his age and that there is no likelihood of tampering he sought for enlargement on bail.The Petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Madras for bail.By his order dated 14.6.96 the learned Sessions Judge after considering the Prima facie case, background of the petitioner and the consequences on the prosecution witnesses in the event of release, recorded a finding that the release on bail is not conducive for fair trial and further held that the life of the witnesses will be in danger and dismissed the petition.The petitioner has raised more or less the same grounds in this petition.The petitioner is at liberty to move the Sessions Court, if so advised, after completion of the prosecution evidence, for similar relief.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,704,485 |
A.278/1999 Page 1 of 21On 10.7.1991, deceased Sukhna Devi wife of the appellant Jagdish Prasad and daughter in law of the appellant Rukmini Devi was brought by the appellant Jagdish Prasad to Safdarjung Hospital in burnt condition.As per the history given to the doctor on duty, the deceased doused herself with kerosene oil as she was tortured by her husband and mother in law.The husband used to ask her for the house which her uncle had given to her and used to beat her.The doctor who recorded the history on the MLC of the deceased, namely, Dr. Ajay Jain, came in the witness box as PW-9 and stated that the patient herself gave alleged history of suicidal burns and doused herself with kerosene and set herself on fire as she was tortured by her husband and mother-in-law.Her husband used to ask her for the house which her uncle had given to her and used to beat Crl.In cross-examination, he stated that he cannot give details of the year when deceased Sukhna complained about harassment at the hands of the accused.5. PW-3 Ram Lal is another brother of the deceased Sukhna.He has stated that his father had told him that his sister had complained about harassment caused to her by accused persons though he did not elaborate the reasons for harassment.He further stated that his father took it casually normal wear and tear of the life in the matrimonial home.The deceased was taken by her parents to her house about one and a half years before her death.This is an appeal against the Judgment dated 26 th April, 1999 and Order on Sentence dated 28th April, 1999 whereby both the appellants were convicted under sections Crl.A.278/1999 Page 1 of 21 306 and 498-A of IPC and were sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each or to undergo RI for 2 months each in default under Section 306 of IPC.They were also sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each or to undergo RI for one month each in default under Section 498A of IPC.A.278/1999 Page 2 of 21 her.He further stated that the patient was having 100% deep burns on entire body and was critical though conscious and oriented.A.278/1999 Page 2 of 214. PW-7 Mohan Lal is the brother of the deceased.He has stated that when the deceased visited their house, she used to tell their father that accused Jagdish and Rukmani Devi harassed her and demanded money for a plot of land.He further stated that he and his father had tried to pacify accused Jagdish and Rukmani Devi, but they did not accede to their request.He was cross-examined by the learned APP, but he denied having told the police that the accused persons used to tell her sister that her father should arrange for a separate house.He also denied the suggestion that the Crl.A.278/1999 Page 3 of 21 accused persons used to harass his sister for that reason.He, however, admitted that once, he and his father had gone to the house of the accused persons to ask them not to mal-treat and harass his sister, but they continued to harass her.A.278/1999 Page 3 of 21In their statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., both the appellants denied the allegations of harassing the deceased and demanding money.Kamla also happens to be the sister-in-law of appellant Jagdish and daughter-in-law appellant Rukmani Devi.Kamla has stated that deceased Sukhna died by pouring kerosene oil on herself.Accused Jagdish telephoned at the residence of her parents about the incident and they then took Sukhna to hospital.She further stated that in hospital, Sukhna could not speak due to extensive burns.She has also stated that she has no uncle and Sukhna had never told her about harassment by the accused persons.It is an admitted case that the marriage of deceased Sukhna took place more than 7 years before her death.The FIR itself shows that she was married about 10-12 Crl.At that time, she stated that she and Sukhna both were married on the same day about 21 years ago.As deceased Sukhna died on 10 th July, 1991, the marriage, as per the statement of Kamla, took place about 13 years before her death.The concept of cruelty varies from place to place and individuals to individuals and also according to social and economic status of the person involved.Cruelty postulates such a treatment as would cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the wife that her living with the husband will be harmful and injurious to her life.Therefore, to decide the question of cruelty, the relevant factors are the matrimonial relationship between the husband and the wife, their cultural and temperamental status in life, state of their health and their interaction in daily life which dominates the aspect of cruelty.PW-3 Ram Lal and PW-7 Mohan Lal who are the brothers of the deceased did not say a word to the effect that their uncle had given any house to the deceased or that the deceased owned any house.DW-1, who is the sister of the deceased, has specifically stated that she had no uncle.If the deceased did not have any uncle, there could be no question of any house being given to her by an uncle.Therefore, this part of the dying declaration appears to be incorrect and, cannot be relied upon for the conviction of the appellants.The only statement of the deceased which can be considered against the appellants is to the effect that she was tortured by them and she used to be beaten by her husband.The statement does not give any particulars of Crl.A.278/1999 Page 8 of 21 the alleged torture by the appellant Rukmini Devi though as far as the appellant Jagdish is concerned, it says that he used to beat the deceased.Thus, the allegation against the appellant Rukmini Devi are absolutely vague and of a general nature, without any specific instance and without even indicating in what manner the deceased was tortured by her mother-in-law and when was she tortured by her.Neither PW-3 Ram Lal nor PW-7 Mohan Lal has told the court as to in what manner deceased Sukhna Devi used to be harassed by the appellants.This is absolutely contradictory to the statement alleged to have been made by the deceased to PW-9 Dr. Ajay Jain, who according to the prosecution was told that the appellant Jagdish Prasad used to ask for the house which her uncle had given to her.Demanding money for purchasing a plot of land is altogether different from asking for a house stated to have been gifted by the uncle of the deceased to her.In their over enthusiasm and anxiety to seek conviction for maximum people, the parents of the Crl.A.278/1999 Page 11 of 21 deceased have been found to be making efforts for involving other relations which ultimately weaken the case of the prosecution even against the real accused as appears to have happened in the instant case."A.278/1999 Page 11 of 21The only credible evidence which has come against the appellant Jagdish Prasad husband of the deceased is that dying declaration of the deceased made to PW-9 Dr. Ajay Jain to the effect that he used to torture her and used to beat her.The allegation of torture made in the dying declaration coupled with the allegation that Jagdish Prasad used to beat her shows that the appellant Jagdish Prasad used to torture the deceased by beating her, though there is no credible evidence on record to prove the reason for the appellant Jagdish Prasad beating the deceased.However, the dying declaration made by the deceased, as far as the appellant Jagdish Prasad is concerned, cannot be discarded merely because the reason or motive for the appellant Jagdish Prasad to give beating to his wife could not be established by the prosecution.In the present case, according to PW-9 Dr. Ajay Jain that though the deceased had hundred per cent burns on her body she was conscious and oriented.PW-9 being an independent person had no reason to record a false statement.His deposition to the effect that the deceased was conscious and oriented by itself is a certificate that she was fit to make a statement at the time when she met the witness in the hospital.A.278/1999 Page 13 of 21In that case the dying declaration was recorded by a doctor who was not on duty in the burn ward where the deceased was brought.There was no certificate that the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the declaration and rather there was evidence that she was unconscious and was not in a fit state of mind.A.278/1999 Page 17 of 21 deceased was last beaten by the appellant Jagdish Prasad.There is no evidence that she was beaten by her husband soon before her death.It is also not known how frequently beatings used to be given to the deceased and what was the nature of the violence committed by the appellant Jagdish Prasad with her.A patch up was thereafter made, and the deceased went back to her matrimonial home, about 10-15 days before the date she committed suicide.It cannot be said on the basis of the evidence to the effect that the appellant Jagdish Prasad used to give beatings to the deceased Sukhna Devi, that he intended that she should die or that he instigated her to commit suicide.The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,720,992 |
Nantu Sk. & Anr.. . . . .Re: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 03-09-2014 in connection with Raghunathganj Police Station Case No.782/13, dated 31-10-2013 under Sections 147/148/149/186/333/337/353/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code.Mr. Abir Ranjan Neogi. ...For the petitioners.Mr. Sunirmal Nag.. . . ..For the State.ected We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the State.Accordingly, the prayer of the petitioners is refused and the application for anticipatory bail is rejected.( INDIRA BANERJEE,J.) (SAHIDULLAH MUNSHI,J)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,736,726 |
The petitioners who were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 23.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 respectively for the offences punishable under Sections302, 120(B) of IPC in Crime No.51 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is the 4th accused, the father of the 2nd accused was assaulted by the deceased some time earlier.In order wreck vengeance, the petitioners have called the deceased through A6 to a secluded place where they have assaulted the deceased indiscriminately with Aruval and knife, resulting in the death of the deceased.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent persons and they have been falsely implicated in this case.He further submitted that the deceased is a notorious person who used to quarrel with many persons in the village and has got some many enemies.Only on suspicion, the respondent police have implicated the petitioners in this case and there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and also there is no previous casehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 CRL.O.P.No.7959 of 2020 against them.He further submitted that the petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody from 23.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 respectively and that the major part of investigation is completed.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and considering the period of incarceration by the petitioners from 23.01.2020 and 24.01.2020 respectively, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioners subject to the following conditions;Accordingly, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their executing a separate bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties, each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learnedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 CRL.O.P.No.7959 of 2020 Judicial Magistrate-II, Tiruppur, and on further conditions that:-[a] the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity.[b] the petitioners in Crl.O.P.Nos.5955 and 5957 of 2020 shall stay at Sangagiri and report before the Inspector of Police, Town Police daily, Sangagiri, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. until further orders.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppur South Police Station, Thiruppur, Thiruppur District.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Sangagiri.The Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Avinasi.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.The Officer Incharge Sub Jail, Thiruppur Prison.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.O.P.No.5955 0f 2020) Crl.O.P.Nos.5955, 5957 and 6626 of 2020 20.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6Hence, he seeks for grant of bail to the petitioners.4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that due to previous enmity, the petitioners have taken the deceased to a secluded place where they have indiscriminately attacked the deceased with knife and Aruval and committed the murder.Hence, he opposed for the grant bail to the petitioners.the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6626 of 2020 shall stay at Avinasi and report before the Inspector of Police, Town Police, Avinasi, daily at 10.30 a.m. and 5.30 p.m. until further orders.[c] the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial.[d] the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial.[e] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].[f] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.20.03.2020 ksa-2 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order ToThe learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 CRL.O.P.No.7959 of 2020The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruppur.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
62,737,033 |
05.8.13 Item No. 29 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 29And In the matter of: Saidul Khan & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Abdur Rakib For the Petitioners Mrs. Debjani Shaw For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Thanarpara Police Station Case No. 136 of 2013 dated 01.07.2013 under Sections 447/323/354/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the Parties.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,110,244 |
23.9.2019 Per : J.K.MAHESHWARI, J Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 23.11.1994 passed in Sessions Trial No.80/93 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Narsinghpur acquitting the respondents/accused persons from the charge under Section 376 & 506B of of the Indian Penal Code, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/State under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter shall be referred to as "Cr.P.C").As per the prosecution story, in the intervening night of 11.3.1993, the prosecutrix aged about 36 years was sleeping in the courtyard alongwith her son Narvar and two daughters, namely Gyanabai (PW.6) and Ramwatibai (PW.9) and his husband was not at home.At about 12 in the night, the absconded accused Ramji pushed the clothes in the mouth of the prosecutrix and co-accused Manda @ Roshan, Laxmi and Paramlal caught hold her hands and legs and brought in a place where the cattle are kept and committed rape upon her.The son of prosecutrix Narvar and her daughters Gyanabai (PW.6) and Ramwatibai (PW.9) have witnessed the incident.It is said that absconded accused Ramji was bearing with Farsa and after committing 2 rape, he threatened the complainant party that if any action is taken, they would face the dire consequences.On the basis of the information, the police investigation commenced and they rushed towards the spot.Statements of the witnesses were recorded.Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared.After completion of the investigation, the Challan was filed to the Court of Judicial Magistrate but as the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, it was committed to the Court of Sessions wherefrom it was received to the Additional Sessions Judge , Narsinghpur for trial.The prosecution examined as many as twelve witnesses and in support of the defence, the accused persons examined Ram Prasad (DW.1), Sarju Prasad (DW.2) & Suresh Kumar (DW.3).The accused persons have abjured their guilt and taken a defence of false implication on the pretext that Ramwatibai was having illicit relation with absconded accused Ramji, which was seen by the present respondents and they were forcibly detained inside the room closing the door and for the said reason, they have been falsely implicated in this case.The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and also considering the defence as put forth was of the opinion that the case of prosecution appears to be doubtful looking to the defence and the keeping in view the fact that the incident took place in the night of 11.3.1993 to which the F.I.R was lodged on 12.3.1993 at 4:00 pm but the medical of a married woman was conducted on the next day i.e.13.3.1993, however, the possibility of cohabitation with the husband cannot be ruled out particularly when 3 the F.S.L report does corroborate with the medical evidence hence acquitted the accused persons from the charges as mentioned hereinabove.The Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the respondents from the charges as mentioned hereinabove.On the other hand, learned Amicus Curiae representing the respondents has strenuously urged that it is a case in which the Trial Court has appreciated the evidence in detail.The Trial Court was having an occasion to consider the endeavour of the witnesses and relying upon the testimony of those prosecution witnesses accepting the defence, the finding of acquittal was recorded by the Trial Court.After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties and on perusal of the facts of this case, it is apparent that soon after the incident, the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded by the police in which she has stated regarding commission of the rape.It is very surprising that when 3-4 persons rushed to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed rape upon her and their daughters aged 15-16 years saw the incident for more than two hours but did not inform about the incident to anyone makes the prosecution story doubtful.In this regard, Paragraph Nos.10,11,12 of the cross examination of Ramwatibai (PW.9) is relevant and similarly Paragraph 3 of the testimony of Gyanabai (PW.6) and Paragraph No.6 of the testimony of Kalabai (PW.7) are relevant because none of them have stated about the incident to anyone until the police reached to the spot.The Trial Court has believed the defence that Ramwatibai (PW.9) was having illicit relation with accused Ramji, who was found on spot and the respondents have closed the doors by bolting the same from outside and they have been falsely implicated by the mother of Ramwatibai lodging of the F.I.R against them.In our considered opinion, The Trial Court has rightly observed that when the incident took place in the intervening night of 11.3.1993 then there was no reason to lodge the F.I.R on the next day i.e. 12.3.1993 at 4:00 pm.It is very surprising that the intimation of the said incident has not been given to the husband and the prosecutrix and 5 family members were waiting for his return from the field although the said incident was known to everyone.Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,111,301 |
Heard on I.A. No.9729/2014 which is an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.20,000/- under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and 376(1) of I.P.C. jointly.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,711,531 |
P.K.BHASIN, J:These petitions have been filed against the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge whereby one out of the ten charge-sheeted accused, who is the mother of the prosecutrix, was charged for the commission of the offence punishable under Section 506(II) IPC and four other were charged under Section CRL.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 2 of 9 376 read with Section 109 IPC while five were discharged.P. Nos.332/2011 & 378/2010 respectively, challenging the discharge of five accused persons who are the respondents in these two petitions.Since all the four petitions were heard together and common submissions were made from both sides the same are being disposed of together by this common order.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 2 of 9The relevant facts leading to the filing of these four petitions are that the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint with the police on 21st July, 2006 that she had been raped by her own father(who could not be arrested during investigation and was declared proclaimed offender) on 5th December,2005 and then again after some days and one day in Janyary,2006 she was raped by all the five discharged accused.Other accused, including her mother, had abetted the commission of rape upon her and had also extended threats to her.The prosecutrix had also claimed in her statement under Section 164 Cr.PC.that her parents were in fact running a sex racket and her brother was very much aware of that racket in which couples used to come from outside Delhi and they used to indulge in spouse swapping and in that racket Ashwani(discharged accused) and his wife Mamta(who has been CRL.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 3 of 9 charged) were also involved and her parents wanted her(the prosecutrix) also to join them in that business.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 3 of 9The prosecutrix is an educated girl of 20 years and is a student of B.Com.(IInd year).In her detailed complaint dated 21.07.2006 she has stated about being raped by her father in December, 2005 and then again in the first week of January, 2006 and about her mother accused Praveen Monga threatening her to keep the rape a secret otherwise she would be killed.As regards the subsequent event which took place in January, 2006 itself she has categorically stated that her mother sent her to give kadi to C-11/1, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi-18 which belongs to Ashwani Aggarwal and that as she knocked the door, Mona D/o Dharampal came to open the door.The prosecutrix told her that her mother had sent the kadi for her.Mona told her to go upstairs and give it.She went upstairs then at that very moment Mona locked the door from inside.She reached upstairs when Kiran Aggarwal w/o Ashok Aggarwal from Batala and Puja w/o Rajiv Gupta from Qadian pulled her inside holding her from her arms.Mamta Aggarwal w/o Ashwani Aggarwal and Mona took off her clothes.After which an unknown person came there and took her to another room when CRL.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 4 of 9 she was in a naked position, Kiran Aggarwal threatened her that she would be killed she raised her voice.Puja covered her face with a towel after which she got raped.Mona and Kiran Aggarwal were making video film and taking pictures.The prosecutrix in her detailed complaint dated 21.7.2006 which was lodged after six months of her being allegedly raped has stated about her father raping her twice however she has not mentioned a word about the accused persons Ashwani Aggarwal, Rajeev Gupta, Shiv Kumar, Lakhvinder Singh and Satender Kumar @ Sona raping her along with the three unidentified persons.Where she was allegedly gang raped by five known persons it cannot be imagined that she would have forgotten to write about being raped by them in her complaint.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 9 of 9P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 9 of 9The accused who have been ordered to be tried under Section 376 read with 109 IPC have sought their discharge by filing two revision petitions(being Crl.Rev. P. Nos.402/2010 & 660/2010) while the State as well as the victim of rape filed separate revision petitions, being Crl.At that time there were two other unidentified persons who were also present and were not known to her.She came home and narrated the incident to her parents who told her that she should not tell about the incident to anybody otherwise, she would be killed.P .Nos.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 4 of 9This is especially so where she has written in detailed about what allegedly happened on the day her mother sent her to give kadi at C-11/1, Ganesh Nagar, New Delhi.It is only in her statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC on 6.9.2006 eight months after the incident that she for the first time has come up with the involvement of the five above named accused persons.The fact that despite being allegedly criminally intimidated by her mother Praveen Monga, she has stated about being raped twice by her father in her complaint only goes to prove that the prosecutrix was under no pressure and there was no reason for her not to have stated about the alleged role of the said persons.Her subsequently naming them and stating that she was raped by them CRL.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 5 of 9Taking one from the above cited judgments and for the reasons cited above I do not find any reasonable ground to proceed against the accused persons namely Ashwani Aggarwal, Rajeev Gupta, Shiv Kumar, Lakhvinder Singh, @ Sona Satender and they are accordingly discharged.However, the allegations against the five male accused persons who had allegedly gang raped her have CRL.378/2010, 402/2010, 660/2010 & 332/2011 Page 8 of 9 the body of the FIR, though their names were stated there as the accused persons, could to be gone into at the time of trial only and should not have been answered by the trial Court at the stage of charge.The subsequent statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix claiming the discharged accused also to be the rapists were sufficient to accept the allegations against them at the stage of charge.For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petitions filed against the order of the trial Court discharging five accused persons are allowed and they are ordered to charged and tried under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and the two revision petitions filed by the accused who were ordered to be charged under Sections 376 read with 109 IPC are dismissed.The discharged accused who have now been ordered to be charged and tried shall now appear before the trial Court on 4th December, 2012 at 2 p.m. for receiving further instructions in the matter.P.K. BHASIN, J NOVEMBER 5, 2012 CRL.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,712,715 |
On 1st March, 1997 ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan (PW-7) posted with the Police Station Parsad Nagar were returning from the patrolling duty.When they reached near Tikona Park on the Ravi Dass Marg at about 04:55 a.m., they saw a cycle cart being pulled by the appellant, going from the Khalsa College.As a dog was barking behind the cart, ASI Ranbir Singh became suspicious and he called upon the appellant to stop.ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2) checked the cycle cart and found that the load which was being carried on the cycle cart was a dead body covered with gunny bag pieces.A polythene was found tied on the face and abdomen of the body.Several articles including the gunny bag as well as the cart had blood stains on them.The appellant alongwith the dead body and the cart were removed to the Police Station Parsad Nagar.He was produced before SI Attar Singh (PW-9) who was present on emergency duty.The appellant disclosed the identity of the dead body as that of one Parkash Yadav.Shiraj, the brother of the appellant, and Jeenat could not be traced and were declared proclaimed offenders.After committal of the case to the court of sessions for trial, charges under Section 302/34 read with Section 201 of the IPC were framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 19 witnesses in support of its case.In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant denied all allegations stating that the police had recovered an unclaimed dead body and planted it on him on account of his enmity with the brother of the deceased.He also stated that thereafter while he was cooking food in his room, Ajay Yadav (PW-6), brother of the deceased reached there accompanied by police and at his instance, the police had falsely implicated him.15) who is also a tenant in a room in the property no. 16/244, Gali No. 3, Bapa Nagar, New Delhi.The appellant was also a tenant in another room on the same floor of the house located about 25 hands a way.Ajay Kumar (PW-15) has established that he is the witness who last saw the deceased Parkash Yadav alive on the fateful night.He has established that on 28th February, 1997 he was also living as a tenant on the first floor of the same property as the appellant, in a room separated by a distance of about 25 hands from each other.The witness has stated that though he was on talking terms with the appellant but was not intimate with him.Ajay Kumar (PW-15) stated that he knew Parkash Yadav from three months prior to the occurrence.This witness has further stated that on his return from duty at about 9 p.m. on 28th February, 1997, he saw the deceased Parkash Yadav; the appellant as well as his brother and one Jeenat Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 7 of 28 together in the room of the appellant.He went to sleep after taking his food.The next morning at about 05.30 a.m., he saw the brother of the appellant and Jeenat washing the appellant's room.We shall advert to the testimony of Ajay Kumar (PW-15) with regard to his participation in the investigation later in this judgment.After registration, copy of the FIR (Exh.PW-1/A) was delivered by Ct.Yashvir Singh (PW-12) to senior officers including the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.The dead body was identified by Manoj Kumar (PW-5) and Bilas Yadav (PW-13) as that of Parkash Yadav at the Police Station Prasad Nagar.A scaled site plan of the place of occurrence (Exh.PW-4/A) was prepared by SI Mukesh (PW-4).After registration of the FIR, (Exh.1/A), the same was handed over to Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-18) for investigation.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 8 of 28 It is in his evidence that the injuries on the body were covered with polythene which was thereafter tied with jute string.He had summoned the photographer Ajeet Kumar (PW-17) who had taken photographs at the police station.Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-18) was assisted in the investigation by SI Babbar Khan (PW-8).Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 8 of 28The coir rope by which the body was tied was seized by memo Exh.PW-8/A; the polythene sheet tied over the dead body was seized vide memo Exh.PW-8/B; the cycle rickshaw was seized by memo Exh.PW-8/C; gunny bag used for covering the dead boy was seized by memo Exh.PW-8/D; and the bloodstained wrist watch worn by the appellant was also seized and sealed vide memo Exh.PW-8/P. The accused was arrested vide memo Exh.PW-8/E.SI Attar Singh (PW-9) as well as Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-18) both referred to a disclosure statement (Exh.PW-8/F) made by the appellant.Pursuant whereto, he led the police party to his aforesaid tenanted premises.In the tenanted premises, the appellant took out one shirt which was seized vide memo Exh.PW- 8/G and pieces of gunny bags which were seized vide memo (Exh.PW-8/H) from the taand both having bloodstains.Injury no. 7 was possible by a single edged sharp weapon.The doctor had opined that the injury nos. 9, 10 and 11 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.It would appear that as per the doctor, three weapons were utilized for commission of the offence.The viscera of the deceased was preserved for chemical analysis.The doctor also preserved a blood sample of the deceased on a gauze piece.SI Attar Singh (PW-9) handed over the seized articles to the SHO vide memo Exh.PW-9/B as well as the post mortem report vide memo Exh.PW-9/C. Ct.Purshotam (PW-14) had brought the sample of the viscera and clothes of the Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 14 of 28 deceased from the mortuary and handed them over to SI Attar Singh (PW-9) who had seized the same vide memo no. Exh.PW- 9/C. So far as the case property/exhibits are concerned, they were deposited with HC Balbir Singh (PW-16).Seven photographs (Exh.The deceased was residing with his brother Ajay Yadav.It has come in the testimony of Ajay Yadav (PW 6), who was the brother of the deceased, that on the fateful night of 28th February, 1997, the deceased had told his brother that he had been called by the appellant and he was going to meet him in his rickshaw.According to PW-6, the deceased had told his brother that he would return in one hour but he did not return.We may at this stage advert to the evidence of the time of death of the deceased.The dead body of the deceased was Crl.Ajay Yadav (PW-6) has testified that the appellant and the deceased were from the same village and that there was prior enmity between the appellant and his brother for the reason that the deceased had eaten the goat of the appellant in their village.The learned trial judge has held that the prosecution had affirmatively established that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant through the testimony of Ajay Kumar (PW 15) who was not only a neighbor of the appellant but was a colleague of the deceased Prakash Yadav as they worked in the same factory and used to accompany him to and fro to the factory.It is in the testimony of Ajay Kumar (PW 15) that on 28th February, 1997 when he had returned from his duty at about 9 p.m. he had seen deceased Prakash Yadav, Jeenat, the appellant and his brother, all talking to each other in the room which was occupied by the appellant.On the next morning at about 5.30 a.m., he had seen the Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 18 of 28 appellant, his brother and Jeenat washing the same room.This witness, then, has deposed about the arrival of the police alongwith the appellant at about 8 a.m. and the steps taken by the police.The witness has also proved the recovery of the bloodstained shirt at the instance of the appellant which had been concealed in a (taand) ladder as well as the seizure of the other articles including the blood from the walls, floor etc noted by us heretofore.Ajay (PW-6) also establishes that on 28th February, 1997, Parkash Yadav left the tenanted premises in his rickshaw stating that he had been called by the appellant and so he was going to meet him in his rickshaw and that he would return within an hour.However, Parkash Yadav did not return during the entire night.Gita Mittal, JThe appellant has assailed the judgment dated 10th July, 2000 whereby the learned Trial Judge has found him guilty for commission of offences under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") in Sessions Case No. 39/97 arising out of FIR No. 71/97 which had been registered by the Police Station Parsad Nagar.The appellant has also assailed the order of sentence dated 10th July, 2000 whereby, for his conviction Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 1 of 28 for the offence punishable under Section 302, he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of `1,000/-, in default to undergo RI for three months.The appellant has been further sentenced, for the commission of the offence under Section 201, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of `1,000/-, in default RI for three months.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 1 of 28Instead of stopping when called upon to do so, the appellant increased the speed at which he was moving.It was the case of the prosecution that ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan (PW-7) thereupon chased the cycle cart and apprehended it near the T point at the Sohan Lal Marg.On enquiry, the appellant disclosed that the goods loaded in the cycle cart belonged to him.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 2 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 2 of 28The appellant had also disclosed the complicity of two other persons, his brother Shiraj and one Jeenat in the commission of the offence as well as cleaning up of the room where the offence was committed and disposal of the weapon and clothes.On the statement of ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2), necessary endorsement was made by SI Attar Singh (PW-9) and FIR No. 71/97 (Exhibit PW-1/A) was registered under Section 302/201/34 of the IPC.He was assisted by SI Babbar Khan (PW 8).Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 3 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 3 of 28After consideration of the matter in entirety, by the impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2000, the learned trial judge Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 4 of 28 has found the appellant guilty for commission of the offences with which he was charged and an order dated 10th July, 2000 sentenced him as above.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 4 of 28For the purposes of the present appeal, learned counsel for the parties have drawn our attention to the testimony of ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan Singh (PW-7) who had apprehended the appellant with the body of the deceased.In addition, reference has been made to the testimony of PW-3 Dhani Ram who was the owner of the building where the appellant resided; Ajay Yadav (PW-6), brother of the deceased and Ajay Kumar (PW-15) who was living in the same building as the appellant.In addition, reference has been made to the testimony of SI Babbar Khan (PW-8), SI Attar Singh (PW-9) and Inspector Ishwar Singh (PW-18), the investigating officer of the case.The consideration would be incomplete without the examination of the testimony of Dr. S.K. Khanna (PW-11) who had conducted the post mortem on the deceased.The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence which included the circumstances of motive, the deceased having Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 5 of 28 been last seen alive in the company of the appellant shortly before he was murdered; recovery of the dead body from the appellant; recoveries of the bloodstained shirt and gunny bag from the taand (ladder) in the room of the appellant on his pointing out and blood from different places in and around his room.The prosecution has relied on the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratories with regard to the blood group of the appellant and the detention of human blood on some of the recovered articles.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 5 of 28PW-3 Dhani Ram has established that the appellant was a tenant in one room on the first floor of the property no.I-16/344, Bapa Nagar, Gali No.3, New Delhi.This witnesses attempted to assist the appellant in the witness box stating that two of his brothers also lived in the tenanted premises.However, the testimony of the other witnesses clarified the position.At this stage, we may examine the testimony of Ajay (PW-6), a brother of the deceased who established that in 1997, he was living with the deceased in Anand Parbat.The witness brought out enmity between the appellant and deceased Parkash Yadav for the reason that the deceased had eaten a goat belonging to the appellant.In Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 6 of 28 his testimony, reference was made to a quarrel between the two as well.He establishes the appellant and he hailed from the same village within the jurisdiction of police station Ghogri, Jamalpur.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 6 of 28The prosecution has also examined one Ajay Kumar (PW-No other person has seen Parkash Yadav alive.Thereafter, his body was recovered by ASI Ranbir Singh (PW-2) and Constable Madan (PW-7) at about 4.55 a.m. from the rickshaw in which it was being carried by the appellant.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 7 of 28PW-8/E. Other than the rickshaw, the other seized articles were sealed in a separate pullanda; seal of ISD affixed, which after use, was handed over to PW-9 SI Attar Singh.During the investigation, Bilas Yadav (PW-13) and Manoj Kumar (PW-5) and Ajay (PW-6) reached the police station and identified the dead body.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 9 of 28When the appellant had led the police party to the house, the investigating officers stated in their testimony that Ajay Kumar (PW-15) had joined investigation.He has also corroborated the recoveries and seizures effected by the police from the residence of the appellant on his pointing out.SI Attar Singh, PW-9 had also explained that many neighbours of the appellant were asked to join the investigation but only Ajay Kumar (PW-15) had agreed to join.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 10 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 10 of 28While in the residence of the appellant, the investigating officers had noticed bloodstains on the wall of the staircase in the gali and the entrance to his room (dahleej).These places, having bloodstains, were duly photographed.The police had lifted and seized blood from the gali vide memo (Exh.PW-8/J) from a cemented portion vide Exhibit-8/K; control earth was also seized vide Exh.PW-8/L which was smeared with blood was seized.SI Attar Singh (PW-9) has deposed that when the inspection of the room of the appellant was conducted, it had appeared that the room had been recently washed with water.SI Attar Singh (PW-9) had also participated in the investigation and inspections.He was responsible for recording the statement of ASI Ranbir Singh and making the endorsement Exh.PW-9/A upon which the FIR was registered.Ajay (PW-6), brother of the deceased, has also identified the cycle cart which was being driven by the appellant wherefrom the dead body of Prakash Yadav was recovered.The cycle cart/rickshaw which was owned by Prakash Yadav was marked Exh.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 11 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 11 of 28As per the post mortem report (Exhibit PW-11/A), the deceased was having the following injuries :-Incised wound 6x3.5x0.5 c.m.on the right upper eye lid.A part of the skin of the eye lid had been cut off.Incised wound 8x1x0.5 cm.m on the left upper eye lid.Incised wound 3.5x2.5x1 c.m.on the tip of nose.Some part of the soft tissue of the nose had been cut off.Incised wound 13x10x1 c.m. around the mouth.It was involving the lips and the skin near both the angles of the mouth and the chin.Some part of the skin of the chin near the left angle of the mouth had been avulsed.Incised wound 5x1.9x2 cms.lower part of the neck in the mid line just above the supra-sternal notch.After cutting the skin and subcutaneous tissues, it had cut the tracheal wall making a wound of size 1.8x0.2 c.m.Incised wound 3.4x1.9x1 c.m.lower part of front of neck 0.5 c.m.Stab wound 1.6x0.8x2 c.m.upper part of left side of front of chest 2 c.m. away from mid line and 4 c.m. below the clavical.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 12 of 28Incised wound 2.2x0.8x1.5 c.m.right side of upper part of chest 5 c.m. away from the mid line at the level of right nipple.Stab wound 4x1.4x15 c.m. left side of chest 5 c.m. from the mid line and 10 c.m. below the clavical.It had entered the chest cavity through the second inter-costal space, causing a wound of size 4x1.3 c.m. in the chest wall.Thereafter it had gone through upper lobe of left lung and then caused a wound in the posterolateral aspect of chest wall in the sixth inter-costal space of size 1.5x0.8 c.m.There was no exit wound on the skin.Direction of this wound was down wards, outwards and backwards.It had entered the chest space and had then caused a wound in the upper lob of left lung.Stab wound 2.7x0.8x5 cm lower part of front of chest in the midline.It had caused a cut in the lower part of body of sternum and then entered the chest cavity where it had caused the cut in the interior wall of right vertical of heart.The wound had not entered the cavity of the vertical.Incised wound 2.7x0.8x1 c.m.upper part of abdomen in the mid line 5 c.m.below injury no. 11Incised wound 3x1x2 c.m. upper part of abdomen in the mid line 4 c.m.below injury no.Stab wound 1.8x0.7x5 c.m.left side of lower part of abdomen 7 c.m. from mid line and 3 c.m.below the level of umbilicus.It had entered the paritonial cavity."Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 13 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 13 of 28The doctor had opined that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and shock consequent upon multiple injuries which were ante-mortem and recent.The injury nos. 1 to 4 were opined as possible to be caused by any sharp edged weapon while injury nos. 5, 6, 8 to 14 could be caused by a double edged sharp weapon.PW-17/1 to 7) were taken by the photographer Ajeet Kumar (PW-17) while Durga Dutt (PW-19) had taken photographs of the place of occurrence Exh.PW-19/1 to Exh.However, both the photographers were unable to produce the negatives.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 14 of 28HC Ashok Kumar (PW-10) had taken all the exhibits to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Kolkata in 15 pullandas.The CFSL reports dated 5th September, 1997 have been proved on record as Exhibit PW-18/F, 18/G and 18/H.As per that CFSL report dated 5th September, 1997 (Exh.PW-18/H), the rope, polythene, gunny bag, wrist watch; shirt, pieces of cotton, piece of floor, pieces of wall; pant were tested positive for blood.The gauze piece and the dark brown fluid (being sample blood) were also tested positive for blood.However, the floor chips and wall pieces were found negative for blood test.Though, the blood group could not be tracked.So far Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 15 of 28 as the sample blood is concerned, blood group-B was identified which was also detected on one of the gunny bags.On the other exhibits, the blood had disintegrated and consequently the group test was inconclusive.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 15 of 28Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that on an examination of the viscera of the deceased, the Central Forensic Science Laboratory has given a report dated 28th August, 1997 (Exh.PW-18/G) that ethyl alcohol was detected in the stomach and small intestine, liver, spleen and kidney of the deceased which would show that he had imbibed a heavy quantity of alcohol at the time of his death.He also suggested that no common poisons such as insecticidal, alkaloidal and metallic were detected in the samples.In our view, nothing would turn on the drunken status of the deceased so far as his cause of his death is concerned in as much as it stands conclusively established on the record of the trial court that the deceased was subjected to homicidal violence and his death resulted as a consequence thereof.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 16 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 16 of 28Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 17 of 28 discovered in the custody of the appellant thereafter at 04:55 a.m. which was later identified by his brother Ajay Yadav(PW-6).Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 17 of 28We also find that the prosecution has led evidence of motive against the appellant.He had not seen the residence of the accused.Next day, information of his brother's murder was given to him by the police.Mr. M.L. Yadav has vehemently contended that the prosecution must be disbelieved for the reason that the entire investigation was conducted without there being any senior officer from the police station having been joined in the investigation.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 19 of 28 This by itself cannot dislodge the prosecution evidence.The defence was unable to shake the prosecution witnesses.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 19 of 28We find that the prosecution has conclusively established that the appellant and the deceased nurtured the animosity; that on the fateful night, the deceased had told his brother Ajay (PW-6) that he had been called by the appellant and that he was going to meet him in his rickshaw which is a relevant and admissible statement.The appellant was seen talking to the deceased Parkash Yadav at about 9 p.m. on 28th February, 1997 alongwith his brother Mohd. Shiraj and Jeenat in his room, when they were seen by Ajay Kumar (PW-15).PW-15 Ajay had seen the appellant, his brother Mohd. Shiraj and Jeenat talking to the deceased Parkash Yadav in his room.At about 5.30 a.m. the next morning, PW-15 has established that Mohd. Shiraj and Jeenat were washing the said room.The appellant tried to flee when ASI Ranbir Singh PW-2 and Constable Madan PW-7 saw him in the morning at about 04:45 a.m. near Tikona Park and had to be chased by them leading to the recovery of a dead body of Parkash Yadav which was tied in a Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 20 of 28 polythene in the rickshaw cart.The appellant had claimed to PW-2 and 7 that the "goods in the rickshaw belonged to him".Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 20 of 28The appellant made a disclosure statement and led the police to recovery of his bloodstained shirt and pieces of gunny bag from the taand of his room, one bloodstained wrist watch which he was wearing when he was apprehended; bloodstained earth; cement etc.The police also seized bloodstained earth from the room as well as blood from the gali.The defence set up in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC was not put to any of the witnesses.Furthermore, the defence tried to urge that the rickshaw Exh.P-4 was one which was commonly available in the market and that, though the prosecution was contending that the cycle rickshaw was in working condition on the night of 28th February, 1997 however, the one produced in court was not so.Nothing material turns on either of these contentions.The cross examination of SI Attar Singh (PW-9) was Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 21 of 28 taking place only on 30th November, 1999 and the fate of a cycle rickshaw in police custody for over 2 years needs no graphic explanation.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 26 of 28(Underlining by us) The evidence on record must bear scrutiny from this perspective.On a consideration of the abovenoticed circumstances, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has concluded that the prosecution has established the circumstances of motive; the deceased having been last seen alive in the company of the appellant shortly before his death; the appellant's apprehension alongwith the dead body; the recovery of the several bloodstained articles from the house of the appellant as well as his clothes; attempt and destruction of the evidence of the commission of the offence beyond any reasonable doubt resulting in the conviction of the appellant for commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 201 of the IPC by the judgment dated 10th July, 2000 which has been impugned before us.The appreciation of the evidence on record manifests that the prosecution had conclusively established an unbroken chain of the circumstances which point only to the guilt of the appellant.On a consideration of the entirety of Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 27 of 28 the matter, we are satisfied that nothing has been pointed out which would enable us to have a view contrary to the view taken by the learned trial judge.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 27 of 28The appellant shall surrender to the Superintendent, Tihar Jail within one month of the receipt of this judgment.In case the appellant does not surrender on or before 20 th October, 2016, the Superintendent, Tihar Jail shall inform the trial court who shall issue due process in accordance with law for securing his presence to undergo the remaining sentence which has been awarded.GITA MITTAL, J R.K.GAUBA, J AUGUST 12, 2016/kr Crl.Appeal No. 526/2000 Page 28 of 28
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,471,336 |
A. K. Sen, P.K. Chatterjee, M.M. Kshatriya and G.S.Chatterjee, for the appellants.B. Sen and P.K. Chakravarti, for the respondent.On July 2, 1951, Das Group Ltd. of whichalso Almohan Das was the principal Director took over themanaging agency.The Registrar of Companies, West Bengal filed acomplaint in the Court of the Chief Presidency Magistratealleging that sometime between March 1, 1945 and December31, 1947 a sum of .Rs.7,23,031-9-6 was advanced by the.The complainant requested that a throughinvestigation .be made in the matter.The Chief PresidencyMagistrate, Calcutta, referred the case to the police forinvestigation.Arevision application was filed in the High Court ofCalcutta against that order, but the application wasrejected.Proceedings were then resumed by the Magistrate onDecember 5, 1961, and a large number of witnesses wereexamined before him and several documents were tendered inevidence.On December 3, 1965, the Presidency Magistratecommitted the accused to stand trial for offences under ss.120B read with 409 & 477A I.P. Code before the Court ofSession.He observed:"....having regard to the entire evidence on record and facts and circumstances of the case, I am convinced prima facie that good grounds exist for framing charge under s. 409 I.P.C. against accused Almohan Das with charge under s. 120B read with s. 409 I.P. Code aaginst (1) Almohan Das, (2) Sisir K. Das, (3) Nara Singha Pal, (4) Mohendra Lal Kundu and (5) Provat Kumar Sarkar, another charge under s. 467 read with s. 34 I.P. Code against (1) Almohan Das, (2) Nara Singha Pal, and (3) Mohendra L. Kundu for forging Ext. 5, and last under s. 477A against (1) Aimoban Das, (2) Nara Singha Pal, (3) Mohendra Lal Kundu,(4) Provat Kumar Sarkar and (5) Sisir Kumar Das in respect of falsification of shareholders minute book (Ext. 18) purporting to ratify the action of Almohan Das regarding the funds of the G.I.S.N. & Co. Ltd."Against this order, a revision application was filed in theHigh Court of Calcutta which was'rejected in limine.Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal hasbeen filed with special leave.Therefore, there was some evidence on which the524charge for fabrication of the Director's Minutes Book may besustained.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
14,713,786 |
Heard on I.A. No.116/2019, an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Prakash Ahirwar.The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (Jha) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and Section 450 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that neither the prosecutrix nor her mother supported the case of prosecution.There was a quarrel between the parties and once appellant has slapped the prosecutrix.None of the prosecution witnesses have stated regarding the incidence.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally; therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application and prays for dismissal of this application.Perused the statement of Doctor where she has not supported the prosecution case.She prepared a slide from the vaginal smears of the prosecutrix.On examination of FSL report, it emerged out that spermatozoa was found.Whether the spermatozoa was of the appellant, this fact can be examined by DNA test only, not conducted during the investigation.On perusal of the record, it seems that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was minor girl aged about 13 years.But, looking to the statement of prosecutrix and her mother, they have nowhere stated that appellant has committed forcibly rape upon the prosecutrix.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.81/2019 (Prakash Ahirwar Vs.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.04.24 17:17:42 +05'30'
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,139,144 |
This petition has been filed under Section 397 read with section 401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order passed by 14 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior on 22.09.2016 in Sessions Trial No.149/2016 whereby the charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC has been framed against the petitioner.Brief facts of the case are that the complainant has lodged the report that he along with his maternal uncle Jamuna Prasad were going to Maharajpura on their motorcycle.He was ahead to Jamuna Prasad.As soon as they reached near B.S.F. Colony at Bhind Gwalior road the driver of bus bearing registration No.MP-07-P-0614 driving the bus at a high speed dashed his maternal uncle, who fell down and driver has not stopped the bus and dragged his maternal uncle upto 100 meters.When the complainant and others shouted then driver stopped the bus and flew away.The maternal uncle of the complainant was dead.His dead body was taken to the hospital and thereafter the report was lodged.Being aggrieved this petition has been filed.As per the statement of eyewitnesses at the time of incident Jamuna Prasad was crossing the road on motorcycle and he suddenly crossed the road which resulted in an accident and for this the petitioner cannot be held responsible for any negligence.It is further submitted that from the material it is also not proved that at the time of alleged incident the petitioner was driving the bus.Alternatively, it is prayed that at the most offence under section 304-A of IPC has been committed.Hence prayed that impugned order be set aside.Learned Panel Lawyer supported the impugned order and submitted that from the material collected during the investigation, learned trial Court has rightly framed the charge under Section 304 Part- II of IPC.I have considered the submission of the learned counsel and perused the challan papers.FIR reveals that when the deceased reached near BSF Colony at Bhind Gwalior road, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. MP-07-P-0614 driving the bus at a high speed dashed the deceased.Rajendra Fhadnis in his case diary statement has stated that he is looking after the vehicle bearing registration No. MP-07-P-0614 on behalf of Sharad Shrivastava.On 26.12.2015 the aforesaid vehicle was driven by Chandan.Thus the submission of learned counsel that the petitioner was not driving the vehicle as devoid of any merit.As per postmortem report, lacerated wound have been found over frontal bone, right knee, chest and abrasion over left knee.Death was due to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of multiple injuries.In the panchnama of the dead body which has been prepared in the presence of the complainant Sanat Kumar and other witnesses, it is mentioned that deceased died as a result of accident.Sanat Kumar Sharma, Raghunath, Sanjeev, Vikas and Arvind who are eyewitnesses have stated that when the deceased 3 was crossing the road, the driver of the bus bearing registration No. MP-07-P-0614 dashed the deceased and inspite of the passengers asking the driver to stop the bus he has not stopped the bus and stopped the bus dragging the deceased about 100 meters causing the death of deceased.It is pertinent to mention that in the FIR which has been lodged by the nephew of the deceased, nowhere it is mentioned that the passengers of the bus and other witnesses asked the driver to stop the bus but he did not stop.The site map reveals that the deceased was crossing the road and from the spot of incident the bus has been stopped at a some distance.Not a single witness has stated that the petitioner was knowing the deceased and he was having any motive or intention.The standard of test, proof and judgment which is to be applied finally before finding the accused guilty or otherwise, is not exactly to be applied at the stage of Section 227 or 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure.The Court at the stage of framing of charge is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom taken at their face value disclose the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence charge can be framed.Thus, even if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for 4 presuming that the accused has committed an offence, a charge can be framed.Taking into consideration that the petitioner was not having any motive or intention, in the FIR itself it was categorically mentioned that the driver of the bus was driving the bus at a high speed and when the deceased came to the Bhind Gwalior road the bus dashed against him, hence prima facie, the offence under section 304 Part - II of IPC is not made out.At the most, offence under Section 304-A of IPC is made out.In the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court has erred in framing the charge under section 304 Part-II of IPC.This revision petition deserves to be allowed.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
147,141,004 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the repeat bail application of the applicant, whereas his previous bail application was dismissed on 11.12.2013 being withdrawn.The applicant is in custody since 26.6.2013 relating to crime No.314/2013 registered at Police Station Rampur Baghelan, District Satna for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 294, 506-B, 302 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Initially it was alleged against the applicant that he killed the deceased Sukhendra.However, at present, eye witnesses Jitendra (P.W.1), Ramprasad (P.W.2), Shivprasad (P.W.3), Gunnulal (P.W.5), Subedar Soni (P.W.7), Kuldeep Dwivedi (P.W.8) and Sunder (P.W.4) are examined before the trial Court.Out of them, except the witness Sunder, each eye witness has turned hostile.Witness Sunder initially has stated that he saw the incident but, in cross-examination he denied that he saw the incident.Hence, there is M.Cr.C.No.19/2015 no ocular evidence against the applicant.Remaining circumstantial evidence is not complete against the applicant.The applicant is in custody since 26.6.2013, without any substantial reason.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.
|
184,507,471 |
1 70 24.09.2013 rpan Ct.No.17 CRM No.11919 of 2013 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 29th August, 2013 in connection with Hasnabad P.S. Case No.131 dated 22.03.2013 under Sections 147/148/149/302/353/186/333 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Pradip Mishra -Petitioner Mr. Prasanta Bishal ... for the Petitioner Mr. S. Gopal Mukherjee ... for the State The learned Advocate for the Petitioner does not wish to press this application.Hence the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed as 'not pressed'.not pressed (Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Kanchan Chakrabory, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,525,788 |
It was stated by Sh.Srinivas that his daughter, Anita was married with Aziz Ahmed @ Ajit (appellant herein) on 18.2.2002 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.The appellant has disclosed himself to be a Hindu.Articles of dowry were given at the time of marriage, as per the choice of the appellant and his daughter (deceased).Doli of his daughter had gone to Tigri, however, he was not aware of the address.On 1.3.2002 appellant CRL.A.62-2005 Page 1 of 21 and complainants daughter, Anita had come to the house of the complainant in the evening and the appellant, Ajit had demanded Rs.40,000/- for business purposes, but the complainant had refused to oblige.Both Anita and the appellant left the house; and the appellant was furious.On the next day i.e. 2.3.2002 at about 9:00 or 9:30 a.m. Anita had telephoned and requested that some clothes be sent as her four sisters- in-law and four brothers-in-law were coming to her house, on being invited for food.Anita also demanded a cylinder and burner, which the mother of the deceased refused, but agreed to send a stove.Pradeep came back by noon but he did not know as to whether there was oil in the stove or not.She had again asked her brother to send clothes as well.When Pradeep had come to give the stove, only Anita and appellant were present in their house.In the evening again Pradeep went to the house of Anita along with two pairs of ladies clothes and two pairs of clothes for gents.Anita returned the ladies clothes and kept the clothes meant for gents.At that time she was alone in the house.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 1 of 21On 3.3.2002 Sh.Srinivas received a call from S.I. Kalu Ram at about 7:00 a.m. that Anita had expired due to burn injuries.He enquired from the neighbours and came to know that they had seen flames of fire, but did not hear any noise.They had seen the appellant leaving the house with the children of his previous marriage.PCR van was called and the appellant was handed over to the police.According to Sh.According to the evidence of PW-1, on 1.3.2002 his daughter and the appellant had visited his house and the appellant demanded Rs.40,000/-.It is further submitted that the evidence of PW-2 also establishes demand of dowry and this witness has deposed that Rs.30,000/- was demanded for purchase of a scooter.After the murder of my daughter I came to know that the accused is not Hindu and he is Muslim and he cheated us.The marriage of my daughter was solemnised at C-612 Sangam Vihar.The accused present in the court Ajit reached at my house along with my daughter and they also stayed at my house.The accused Ajit asked for Rs.40,000/- but I did not pay the same as I was not in a position to pay.He left my house angrily.On 3.3.02 I received a telephone call of SI Kalu Ram regarding burn of my daughter.My statement was recorded before the SDM my statement is Ex.PW1/A.I reached at Police station where I came to know that the dead body of my daughter was lying in the hospital.I identified the dead body of my daughter vide Ex.PW/B. The marriage card is Ex.Deceased Anita was my daughter.After marriage my daughter started living with accused at his house.On the 10 th day of her marriage accused Aziz Ahmad and my daughter Anita came to my house.PW2/A where it is not so recorded.I had stated to the police and to the SDM that my daughter telephoned me at my house that her sister in law and her husband had arrived at her house and to arrange clothes for them.Statement with Ex.PW2/A and Ex.PW2/DA where these facts are not recorded.Disallowed.).My statement was recorded by SDM at about 11 AM in the office of SDM at Mehrauli.I myself had gone to the office of SDM and no police official accompanied me.The police officials met me in the police station.I had gone to police station before going to the court of SDM at Mehrauli.At that time my statement was not recorded by police.My husband Srinivas accompanied me to police station.It is wrong to suggest that I do not have any marriage invitation card of my daughter Anita.It is also incorrect to suggest that I falsely implicated the accused just on account of shock received by me as my daughter had expired.It is further incorrect to suggest that people residing in the neighbourhood of the accused disclosed that it was an accident in which my daughter received burn injuries and the accused had no role in the said incident.It is also incorrect to suggest that he marriage of accused with my daughter Anita was a love marriage or that it was not arranged marriage or that hundred persons had not come in the marriage.It is incorrect to suggest that I had not sent my son to hand over the clothes to my daughter Anita.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.He merely states that he had taken some clothes to the deceaseds house on 2.3.2002 on the request of his sister (deceased) as her sisters-in-law and their husbands were scheduled to pay a visit to her house.Apart from the clothes, she (deceased) had asked him to bring one stove.PW-4 also clearly stated that the clothes were given as per their prevailing customs and that they would have never given these clothes had the demand not been made by his sister.The appellant in this case has been convicted under Section 304B and 498-A of the IPC.The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.11.2004 and the order on sentence dated 29.11.2004 by which the appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 304-B and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2500/- and in default thereof to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under section 498-A IPC.On the statement of the father of the deceased, Sh.Srinivas (complainant) his daughter was killed by her four brothers-in-law, sisters- in-law, mother-in-law and the appellant was also involved.Srinivas was unable to disclose the names of the brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law and the mother-in-law.Post-mortem of the deceased was got conducted and CRL.A.62-2005 Page 2 of 21 the case was registered under Sections 498A/420/304B IPC; site plan was prepared; and the appellant was arrested.After completion of investigation, a challan was filed.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 2 of 21In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses.The defence evidence was also led in this case.It is contended that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 do not inspire any confidence; there are material improvements in the evidence of the mother, father and brother of the deceased, which go to the root of the case.It is contended that even a bare reading of the statement of the father of the deceased would show that there was no demand of dowry, much less any cruelty inflicted upon the deceased in relation to any demand of dowry.It is submitted that as per the statement of PW-1, the appellant had demanded Rs.40,000/- for business purposes.The statement does not show that the deceased was tortured or any demand of dowry was made or that she was harassed by the appellant at any point of time for non- fulfilment of the alleged demand.Counsel further submits that according to PW-1, the father of the deceased, Rs.40,000/- was demanded on 1.3.2002 by the appellant, but this amount is not mentioned in the statement of PW-2, the mother of the deceased, who on the contrary has testified that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was demanded for purchase of a scooter.There is no such mention of dowry in the statement of the father.Counsel further submits that the statement made before the SDM would show that neither was the deceased unhappy, nor did she inform her parents of any demand of dowry; she merely requested for clothes and that too on her own.She also requested for a gas cylinder to enable her to CRL.A.62-2005 Page 3 of 21 cook for her in-laws, who were invited for dinner.It is submitted that in case any cruelty had been committed or any demand for dowry had been raised, she would have mentioned this to her mother during their conversation and since no such mention was made and there is no whisper in the statement with regard to any demand being made from the daughter.It is submitted that on the intervening night of 2/3 March, 2002 the deceased was in constant touch with her family members, which is evident from the statement of the mother, father and brother.The deceased had made the first phone call at 9:30 in the morning, her brother visited her at 12:00 noon, when appellant was also present; the brother again visited at 6:00 p.m. when she was alone at home but there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased had made any complaint to her mother or her brother that she was being harassed, tortured or that any demand was being made by any member of the family for dowry.It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that even the statement of PW-2, Ganga Devi (mother) is unreliable, as she had stated before the SDM that she gave Rs.30,000/- for scooter on demand of Ajit, but no such statement was made in court either by PW-1 (father) or by PW-4 (brother).CRL.A.62-2005 Page 3 of 21It is also pointed out that PW-2 had not deposed about demand of Rs.30,000/- in her statement before the SDM or the police; nor has any such demand been mentioned in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-4; only PW-2 has testified that on the 10th day of her marriage, when appellant and her daughter came to the house, the appellant demanded Rs.30,000/- for purchase of a vehicle which allegation does not find mention in the two prior statements made by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and before the SDM respectively.It is also submitted that neither did the learned trial court consider the testimony of public witnesses and the defence CRL.A.62-2005 Page 4 of 21 witnesses nor were the same discussed in the judgment of the trial court.It is also submitted that public witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution at all.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 4 of 21Counsel further submits that during cross examination it is stated that about 100 persons had attended the marriage.Counsel contends that in case 100 persons had attended the marriage from the side of the appellant, it is impossible that the father and the mother of the deceased would not come to know that the appellant was a Muslim.It is submitted that the appellant and the deceased had a love marriage against the wishes of the parents of the deceased and thus the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter by the family of the deceased.It is also submitted that being a love marriage and against the consent of the parents of the deceased, no dowry was given.He has not deposed that any demand of dowry was made or that the appellant or any member of family had harassed, humiliated or committed any cruelty upon the deceased in connection with dowry demand, soon before her death or at any point of time at all.Similar argument is raised with regard to the demand of Rs.30,000/- by the appellant.Counsel further submits that PW-5, landlord of the house where the deceased and appellant were living, has testified that the relationship between the appellant and his wife were normal and that on the fateful day, when PW-5 reached the spot, he saw the appellant trying to extinguish the fire with the help of a Razai.During the cross- examination, PW-5 admitted that when the police arrived at the spot, the appellant was present there itself.It is further submitted that all the CRL.A.62-2005 Page 5 of 21 allegations made with regard to the giving of dowry at the time of marriage are vague.No specific article has been mentioned which was given or demanded and only vague and casual reference has been made.It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the ingredients of Sections 304-B/ 498A IPC.It is also submitted that the evidence of DW-1 establishes on record that even the appellant had sustained burn injuries while trying to save his wife and in fact remained under treatment for more than two years in jail by the jail doctor.Necessary documents have been produced by DW-1 during his evidence in Court.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 5 of 21Per contra learned counsel for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any element of doubt.It is, thus, contended that there was a demand of dowry soon before the death.It is also contended that the daughter of the petitioner died under unnatural circumstances within seven years of her marriage.Thus, taking the presumption of Section 113B of the Evidence Act read with Section 304B of the IPC, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, carefully examined the evidence placed on record and also duly considered the rival submissions of the counsel for parties.Since the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 are material evidence, it is deemed appropriate to reproduce the same."PW-1 Mr. Siri Niwas S/o Murli Singh aged 65 years R/o C-612, Sangam Vihar-A. New Delhi occupation Masion on SA:-CRL.A.62-2005 Page 6 of 21May daughter Anita was married with the accused present in the court on 18.2.02 as per Hindu Rites and ceremony.PW1/C.xxxx by the defence counsel for the accused.Deferred to 26.9.02.""PW-2 Ganga Devi W/o Sriniwas Age 55 years, Housewife, R/o C-612A, Sangam Vihar New Delhi.It was the day of Wednesday when they came and they stayed there for the night.In the morning time I went for my work leaving accused and my daughter at my house.At about 4 p.m. when I came back to my house accused Aziz Ahmad demanded Rs.30,000/- as he had to purchase a vehicle.I told the accused that I am unable to give Rs.30,000/-.At about 5 p.m. I handed over clothes to accused for his mother, father and accused left my house alongwith my daughter in angry mood.Thereafter on the day of CRL.A.62-2005 Page 7 of 21 Saturday on the second day of the next month, my daughter telephoned me at my house that her sister-in-laws and their husbands had arrived at her house and to arrange clothes for them.I sent my younger son to house of the accused alongwith new clothes.After giving the clothes my son returned to my house in the evening time.Thereafter, I do not know what was done by the accused person with my daughter.On account of the money, accused harassed my daughter.When my daughter was murdered, accused telephoned me at about 7.30 a.m. that my daughter had been burned.I went there.I saw my daughter at AIIMS in bad condition.I gave my statement to the SDM dame is Ex.PW2/A bears my sig.at point A.L.K. Upadhyay, Adv.for accused.I had stated to the police that at 5 p.m. accused left my house alongwith my daughter in angry mood conf.With Ex.PW2/DA where it is not so recorded.I had stated this fact in my statement given to the SDM conf.With Ex.With Ex.PW2/A and Ex.I had told the SDM and the investigating authority that the accused has killed my daughter as I did not given him money.(ld. Counsel wishes to confront the vol.Recalled for further cross-examination.xxxxx By Sh.Hanif Mohd. Adv.for accused.On the next day I went to police station and one police CRL.A.62-2005 Page 8 of 21 official Bhardwaj recorded my statement.Several persons accompanied me to police station.I returned back to my house from police station at about 5PM.I came back to my house from the office of SDM, after my statement was recorded.SDM recorded my statement as well as statement of my husband.No other statement was recorded by SDM nor any enquiry was made by SDM from any other person.I received telephonic call about the incident and I went to police station.My husband and my son were present in the house when telephone was received regarding incident.The telephone was picked by my husband.There is no telephone connection at my house.I had not gone to the house of my daughter Anita before the incident at any time.I had stated to SDM that accused had demanded a sum of Rs.30,000/- for Scooter.Confronted with statement Ex.PW2/A where it is not so mentioned.There were about 100 persons in the marriage who came from the side of accused.I handed over Marriage Invitation Card to the IO.I have marriage invitation card of my daughter Anita.The marriage of my daughter Anita was solemnised in an open plot near my house.I had not handed over any photograph of the marriage of my daughter Anita as I was not having any photograph.The police officials never came to my house after the incident.I alongwith the police officials went to the matrimonial house of my daughter Anita after her death and saw the articles of my daughter.The police officials made enquiry from the neighbourers.I had gone to the house of my daughter alongwith police officials on second or third day of the incident.I had gone to police station and from police station I went to the house of my daughter.It is wrong to suggest that I gave a wrong statement and the same is after thought.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 8 of 21XXXXX by SH.S.K. Upadhyaya Adv.for accused.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 9 of 21I stated to SDM and police in my statement at about 4 PM when I came back to my house accused demand Rs.30,000/- as he was to purchase a vehicle.Conf with the statement Ex.PW2/A which was made to SDM and statement Ex.PW2/Da which was made to the police where it is not so recorded.I stated to SDM that I was unable to pay the said amount of Rs.30,000/- demanded by accused and I told the same to the accused.with the statement Ex.I did not state to the police and SDM that accused telephoned me regarding burn injuries received by my daughter at about 7.30 AM or that she had been burnt by the accused.""PW-4 Pardeep S/o Sriniwas Age 18 years, Private Work R/o C- 612A, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.Anita was my sister.He presented himself as Hindu and the marriage was also performed according to the rites of Hindu religion.On 2.3.2002 I visited house of Anita (deceased).I had come after adjusting her household articles.Anita asked me to bring one stove which I had given to her.At this stage Ld. Addl.P.P. wants to cross examine this witness as he is resiling from his earlier statement given to the police.xxxxx by Addl.P.P. for the State.Police recorded my statement in this case.It is correct that on 2.3.2002 my sister had told me that 4 sister in law and their husbands would be coming and that her mother should be asked to send clothes for them, and I delivered the same that very evening.The ladies suits were returned back while the suit for the men were restrained.L.K. Upadhaya, Adv.for accused.I had stated to the police in my statement that my deceased sister had asked me to bring a stove confronted with statement Ex.I was informed that the accused had four sisters but had no personal verification of the CRL.A.62-2005 Page 10 of 21 same.I had taken four sets of unstitched salwar suit (ladies) and four sets for men of unstitched pant and shirts.We had given the clothes as per our prevailing customs, however, we would not have given these if the demands have not been made by my sisters.It is incorrect to suggest that I had not taken any stove to the house of my sister.It is incorrect to suggest that there was a gas stove and a cylinder already at the house of my sister.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely."CRL.A.62-2005 Page 10 of 21The evidence of PW-1 would further show that although no date has been mentioned as to when the appellant and his wife visited his house, however, it has been stated that the appellant had asked for Rs.40,000/- and when this amount was not paid, he left the house angrily.Subsequently on 3.3.2002 PW-1 had received a telephone call from SI Kalu Ram, who informed him that his daughter has been burnt.It may be noticed that whereas in the statement recorded before the SDM it has been mentioned that the appellant and his daughter had visited his house on 1.3.2002 and the appellant had demanded Rs.40,000/- for business (KAM DHANDE KE LIE) when, he was confronted with the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein no such demand of Rs.40,000/- has been mentioned, he reiterated the statement made by him before the SDM i.e. that demand of Rs.40,000/- was made from him by the appellant.Contrary to this, in his statement before the SDM, he has stated that a demand of Rs.40,000/- was made by the appellant for business purposes.In his CRL.A.62-2005 Page 11 of 21 deposition before the Court, PW-1, only mentioned that a demand of Rs.40,000/- was made by appellant.It may further be noticed that the factum of demand of Rs.40,000/- does not find mention either in the statement of PW-2 (mother of deceased) or PW-4 (brother of deceased) and hence remains uncorroborated.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 11 of 21Coming to the evidence of PW-2, she has deposed that Rs.30,000/- were demanded from her by the appellant.15. PW-4 (brother of deceased) nowhere states that either Rs.40,000/- or Rs.30,000/- were demanded by the appellant.He has, thereafter, stated that the appellant used to work in a xerox cum type institute in Nampally and in the sixth month after marriage, the deceased came to their house and told them that the appellant asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from them as he was intending to purchase a computer and set up his own business.Similarly, PW4 has stated in her evidence that five months after the marriage, the appellant sent her away to their house and when she questioned her, she told that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/- and that the demand for money is to purchase a computer to start his own business.Assuming that a sum of Rs.40,000/- was demanded as per the statement made by PW-1 before the SDM, the same was for business (KAM DHANDE KE LIE).In my view the trial court has failed to appreciate, firstly, that there was no demand of dowry and, secondly, if at all this is to be treated as a demand, the same was for starting a business and the same was not in connection with the marriage and, thus, the same cannot be termed as a dowry demand within the meaning of Section 2 of Dowry Prohibition Act as per the view expressed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Vipin Jaiswal (supra).There are material contradictions in the testimonies of the mother, father and the brother of the deceased.The prosecution has also failed to establish that there was any evidence to show that soon before her death she was subject to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.In fact the evidence would show that on 3.3.2002 the deceased had made a telephone call to her mother between 9.00-9.30 p.m. and requested for clothes for her in-laws.She also requested her mother to send a gas cylinder and stove so that she could cook for them.These facts would show that the deceased was neither unhappy with her husband or in-laws, nor was there any complaint made by her either to her father, mother or the brother that she is cooking for her in-laws or is demanding clothes for them under any fear, threat of cruelty or that she was being subjected to any cruelty or forced by her husband to make such a demand.CRL.A.62-2005 Page 20 of 21In his testimony PW-5, landlord, has deposed that the appellant was his tenant on the first floor.On the fateful night he was sleeping with his family members when he heard noises and saw that the people of the gali had gathered and wife of the appellant was lying burnt in dead condition.He deposed that the appellant and his wife were living normally.He further deposed that he saw the appellant trying to extinguish the fire with a quilt (Rajai), which was lying on his wife and when the Police arrived at the spot the appellant was present.The evidence of PW-5 clearly establishes that the appellant made all efforts to save his wife.The evidence of DW-1 shows that the appellant himself had to undergo medical treatment in jail for a period of two years, which corroborates the evidence of PW-5 that the appellant was trying to save his wife by extinguish the fire.For the reasons stated above, the present appeal is allowed.The bail bonds of the appellant be cancelled and surety be discharged.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,529,775 |
"(2) The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2010 at 3:34 PM vide DD No. 25A an information regarding a quarrel at Hudson Lane Complex, DDA Market was received in the Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.Both the said DDs were entrusted to SI Inderpal who along with Ct.Parmod reached near the place of incident i.e. Hudson Lane, DDA Market where they came to know that the PCR Van had taken the injured to BJRM Hospital and there was no eye witness at the spot.Thereafter SI Inderpal along with Ct.Parmod reached BJRM Hospital where they found the injured Manoj @ Vicky admitted and the doctor declared him fit for statement.SI Inderpal then recorded the statement of Manoj @ Vicky wherein he informed the police that on 10.12.2010 at about 3:00 PM he along with his friends Kapil Dagar and Anis Raj were standing on the road of Hudson Lane Complex Market when Bhagwan Sahai @ Chintu and Sanjay @ Nakli came there and assaulted him with dandas on his forearms and legs after which the PCR shifted him to the BJRM Hospital.PW4 Devraj in his examination-in-chief deposed that on the fateful day of 10.12.2010, at about 3.00 PM, he alongwith his friend Rajeev Saini (PW19) was taking tea at Sainik Snacks, Hudson Lane, DDA Market where he saw that just in front of the Sainik Snacks shop, some hot talks were going on between some boys and thereafter he Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 9 of 24 saw that two boys started beating one boy with dandas and that boy was trying to save himself from the danda blows with his hands.PW4 further deposed that two other boys tried to rescue the said boy and the owner of Sainik Snacks and one more shopkeeper also tried to intervene.Meanwhile, one more associate of the assailants came there and joined the assailants and started giving beatings to the said boy.The witness has further deposed that the persons, who tried to intervene to rescue the said boy, were threatened by the said three assailants and dandas were shown to them as a result of which none came forward for the rescue of the boy and they all gave beatings to the said boy mercilessly.He has also deposed that the third boy, who had joined his associates later on, lifted a cemented flower pot (Gamla) having a plant in it and hit the same on the head of the said boy, who after receiving number of danda injuries was lying on the Road.According to him, someone informed the police and the said three boys (assailants) put the injured boy in a rickshaw and took him away, saying that he was trying to snatch their gold chain.The three assailants continued to give beatings to the injured boy even after putting him in the rickshaw.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 9 of 24PW19 Rajiv Saini, another eye witness to the occurrence deposed on similar lines as deposed by PW4 Dev Raj.PW19 deposed that on the fateful day of 10.12.2010 at about 3:00 PM he along with his friend Dev Raj (PW4) were present at the Sainik Snacks at Hudson Lane, DDA Market for taking tea etc. and when they were taking tea in front of the Sainik Snacks they heard noise of quarrel and there were two Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 10 of 24 boys who were abusing another boy (since deceased) and also gave beatings to him by the fist and leg blows.It was further deposed by PW19 that after some time one more person reached to the spot and gave beatings to the deceased and brought him to the thia of washer-man where one assailant (appellant herein) took out a danda from the roof of hut of the washer-man and gave danda blows to the deceased and another assailant (appellant herein) also took one danda from the same place and gave danda blows to the deceased.PW19 further deposed that the deceased was requesting assailants (the appellants herein) not to give danda blows to him but all the three appellants continued to give danda blows to the deceased.It was also deposed by PW19 that one appellant took a cemented pot (Gamla) from the outside of the nearby house and hit the same on the head of the deceased and the cemented pot (Gamla) had broken into pieces after which one of the friend of the deceased made a call to the Police.Thereafter, the aforesaid three appellants put the deceased in a rickshaw and took away the deceased on the pretext that the deceased had snatched their golden chain and they were taking him to the Police Station.It was further deposed by PW19 that after ten minutes a PCR van came there and police made inquiries from them and they told the aforesaid facts to them.PW19 also deposed that three friends of the deceased were also present there and he came to know their names as Kapil (PW6), Anis (PW5) and Chandan (PW21) and he also came to know the name of appellants as Nakli, Chintu and Bunty.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 10 of 24A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 11 of 24In this case, it is the case of the prosecution that at the time of scuffle, the deceased was accompanied by his friends namely PW5 Anis Raj, PW6 Kapil Dagar and PW21 Chandan Kumar.The testimonies of all the aforesaid witnesses remained consistent as to the presence of the appellants at the spot who corroborated the case of the prosecution on all material aspects.There are no discrepancies in their statements about the presence of the appellants on the fateful day.They all spoke in one voice that it was the appellants who were present at the spot and there were heated arguments which resulted in a scuffle and led to the unfortunate incident.All the witnesses deposed that on 10.12.2010 at about 3.00 PM, they alongwith the deceased Manoj reached DDA Market, Hudson Lane for tea.In the meantime, PW21 Chandan Kumar received a call on his mobile phone and he went towards the gate to attend the call in privacy and left PW5 Anis Raj, PW6 Kapil Dagar along with the deceased Manoj.As per the testimony of all the witnesses, the appellants Sanjay Dhankad and Bhagwan Sahai who were known to them came there and started an argument with the deceased and said "Aaj tujhe nahi chhorenge, tu bahut dino se bach raha tha".It was also deposed by all the witnesses that the appellant Bhagwan Sahai brought a danda from a nearby kiosk (thia) of a washer-man and gave danda blows to the deceased.The witnesses testified that the deceased tried to save his head by his hands and sustained injuries.The witnesses further deposed that in the meanwhile, the appellant Sanjay @ Nakli also brought a danda from the same place and gave danda blows to the deceased and threatened people who were around by saying "Jo beech me aaya, uska bhi yahi Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 12 of 24 haal karenge".Thereafter, the appellant Mohan Singh @ Bunti came there and also joined other appellants and gave beatings to the deceased and said "Aaj nahi chorenge ise".They have further deposed that thereafter, the appellant Mohan Singh picked up a cemented flower pot (Gamla) which was kept there and hit the same on the head of the deceased who was lying on the road.It was deposed by PW21 Chandan Kumar that he made a call to 100 number.PCR reached to the spot and interrogated the people found at the spot.It is noteworthy that the deceased was already removed to the BJRM hospital by the appellants before arrival of PCR officials at the spot.PW2/B. PW8 SI Prem Singh has proved PCR Forms, copy of which are Ex.PW8/A, Ex.PW8/B, Ex.PW8/C and Ex.PW8/D. PW26 SI Inderpal Singh was the initial Investigating Officer who recorded the statement of the deceased, which is Ex. PW22/A. The statement of the deceased was proved by PW22 Ct.Pramod Kumar and his endorsement on the statement is Ex. PW22/B. PW24 Ins.Rajesh Dahiya was the subsequent Investigating Officer of the present case who has proved the arrest memo of the appellant Mohan Singh which is Ex.PW24/D. PW12 SI Ranbir Singh proved the arrest memos of the appellants Bhagwan Sahai and Sanjay Dhankad, copies of which are Ex.PW12/A and Ex.PW12/C respectively.All the three appeals have been heard together.Arguments have been addressed by the learned counsel for the parties in all the three appeals and the same are being disposed of by a common judgment.All the three appeals, being Crl.A. Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 and 762/2014 have been filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and are directed against the judgment dated 07.05.2014 and order on sentence dated 20.05.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.51/2013, arising out of FIR No.440/2010 registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.By virtue of the order of conviction, all the appellants were convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, and in default of the payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.The case of the prosecution as noticed by the learned Trial Court are as under:At 3:55PM DD No. 26A another information was received from PCR Call that a snatcher had been beaten by the police and he Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 2 of 24 was bleeding.On the basis of the above statement of Manoj @ Vicky initially the FIR was registered under Section 325/34 IPC."A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 2 of 24After completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC was filed.The prosecution examined 27 witnesses in all, besides the exhibits produced during the trial.The statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure whereby all the appellants entered the plea of not guilty and claimed trial.No evidence was led by the appellants in their defence.He contends that the order Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 3 of 24 of conviction is based on surmises and conjectures, prosecution has miserably failed to prove the chain of events and circumstances again each appellants.The Trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction and has gone beyond the evidence placed on record.It is contended that the police had received information regarding a snatcher being beaten up by the public vide DD no.26-A which matter was not investigated by the police and the appellants have been falsely convicted under Section 302/34 IPC when no cogent evidence and only on the basis of shoddy inadmissible evidence.Counsel submit that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the statement of the deceased Manoj @ Vicky was recorded by the police on the alleged date of the incident itself, i.e., 10.12.2010 at the hospital where he was declared fit in the statement Ex.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 4 of 24 by the deceased in his statement recorded on the fateful day.Counsel contend that if there had been any covert act by the appellants, the same would have been reflected in the statement of the deceased himself and there was no occasion for him to conceal the name of the appellant Mohan Singh when he was in his senses and declared fit for making the statement.Counsel contend that the Investigating Officer had sought for an opinion of the Doctor with regard to the nature of injuries only on 13.12.2010, i.e., after three days of the incident and after two days, Section 308 IPC was added on 15.12.2010 which would show that the injuries suffered by the deceased on 10.12.2010 were simple in nature and apparently the Investigating Officer did not consider it necessary to seek the opinion of the Doctor.Counsel also contend that even as per the initial MLC, there was no injury on the head of the deceased and in the absence thereof, the appellants cannot be convicted under Section 302 IPC for the reason that he did not succumb to the injuries inflicted by the appellants.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 3 of 24A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 4 of 24Mr. Tufail contends that the previous animosity between the parties is a double-edged weapon; it may be a motive for commission of crime; it may also be a motive for false implication.In the instant case, the complainant party had a clear motive to falsely implicate the appellants herein, which aspect was not weighed meticulously and judicially by the learned Trial Court.Learned counsel contends that the Trial Court has failed to take into account the testimony of PW-18 Ajay Kumar that the deceased was a member of the Ajay S/o Bali Ram group and had animosity with the appellants and an FIR Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 5 of 24 No.186/2008, P.S. Model Town was registered against the deceased and others by the appellant.Learned counsel also contends that the Trial Court has ignored the fact that there are series of FIRs and complaints against the parties and thus, there was a strong motive to implicate the appellants in a false case.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 5 of 24Additionally, Mr. Tufail contends that the first information given to the PCR also reveals a quarrel on the road.He was conscious and declared fit for making a statement.Learned counsel for the appellants have placed strong reliance on the testimony of PW-1 Dr. Neeraj Mishra, Senior Orthopaedics, BJRM Hospital.In his statement, he has deposed that he examined the patient who had a swelling on both forearm, both hands and left leg.X-ray was conducted which showed a fracture of bilateral ulna (both forearms) and fracture on middle phalanx right little finger from Orthopaedics and the nature of injury was grievous from Ortho side.Counsel contends that the testimony of PW1 would show that when the deceased was admitted to the hospital, he did not suffer from any head injury and thus, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302 IPC.The MLC does not show any head injury or any bleeding from the head, neither the prosecution has been able to show that the deceased was at all treated for head injury or was given Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 6 of 24 any medicine for the same.Counsel further contends that the Trial Court has failed to take into account that in the present case, there is no weapon of offence, neither any alleged weapon of offence is recovered at the instance of the appellants.Neither the alleged dandas nor the cemented flower pot (Gamla) had been recovered.It is highly unusual considering the fact that the appellants had removed the deceased in a rickshaw to the police station.Counsel contend that another witnesses being PW7 B.S. Mehta, PW20 Raju Mathur and PW27 Rajender Singh, who were working at the alleged place of occurrence, had not supported the case of the prosecution and also failed to identify the appellants before Court.It is also the case of the appellants that PW4 Devraj and PW19 Rajiv Saini, who as per the version of the police voluntarily came forward to give the statement for the first time on 05.01.2011, which delay has been left unexplained by the prosecution.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 6 of 24In the alternate, the learned counsel also contends that the Trial Court has failed to take into account that the prosecution has failed to establish any prior motive, meeting of minds, conspiracy or intent between the appellants to murder the deceased.Thus, the theory of the prosecution with regard to the alleged murder would fail on this ground alone.PW17/A) of the same day and from the same hospital where the deceased was removed.PW2/B wherein the deceased had made a statement to the effect that Bhagwan Sahai @ Chintu and Sanjay Dhankad @ Nakli had beat him without any reason.Even at that time, the deceased himself did not allege that the intention of the appellants was to kill him.At this stage, Mr. Tufail and Mr. Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants state, on instructions, that the appellants do not wish to contest the matter on merits, but submit that no case under Section 302 IPC is made out and at best the appellants could have been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and the appellants should be released on the period already undergone, which is more than six years each.Per contra, Mr. Goswami, learned APP for the State submits that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.He submits that the deceased in his statement has named the Crl.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 12 of 24Besides the above public witnesses, PW3 W/HC Ranjana proved copies of DD No. 25A and 26A which are Ex.PW3/A and Ex. PW3/B respectively.PW2 HC Arvind Kumar proved the computer generated copy of FIR which is Ex.PW2/A and his endorsement on rukka which is Ex.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 13 of 24In the present case, the prosecution has produced convincing evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants.It is on record that the incident took place at about 3:00 PM and PCR calls were made at 3:28 PM after which the injured were shifted to BJRM Hospital and the information was given to the local police and after treatment the statement of the deceased Manoj was recorded by SI Inderpal (PW26), the Rukka (Ex.PW22/A) was prepared at 7:45 PM and the FIR (Ex.PW2/A) was promptly registered at 8:05 PM as is evident from the copy of FIR (Ex.PW2/A) wherein the appellants have been specifically named particularly Sanjay Dhankad and Bhagwan Sahai.It is evident from the MLC (Ex.PW1/A) that on 10.12.2010 at 6:30 PM the deceased Manoj was declared fit for statement and thereafter the statement of the deceased was recorded by PW26 SI Inderpal Singh (initial Investigating Officer) which is Ex.PW22/A, which formed the basis of rukka (Ex.PW22/A) and FIR (Ex.PW2/A).Before deciding the appeals in hand, we deem it appropriate to anlayse the medical evidence in detail.In this regard testimonies of PW1 Dr. Neeraj Mishra and PW16 Dr. V. K. Jha assume importance.PW1 opined that the nature of injury was grievous from Ortho side and the deceased was referred to SR Surgery for giving the final opinion.PW1 also proved his opinion dated 16.12.2010 on the MLC Ex.PW1/A. It is noteworthy to mention that a specific court question which was put to PW1 in his cross-examination with respect to the head injuries reads as under:A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 14 of 24"Court Question: It is put to you that when you examined whole body of the patient, did you find any injury on the head of the patient, if yes, did you mention in the MLC? Answer: After going through the MLC, the witness replies that as per record, abrasions and bruises were present on the forehead, for which I referred the patient to Surgery SR to rule out head injury."On the nature and type of injury suffered by the deceased, we have already referred to the statement of Dr. Neeraj Mishra (PW1).However, to complete the medical evidence, we would like to refer to the post mortem report (Ex.PW16/A) which was proved by Dr. V. K. Jha (PW16), who had conducted the post mortem on the deceased on 19.12.2010 and had found the following injuries on the body of the deceased:General examination:Multiple healed abrasions on front of left leg, right leg, right medial malleolus, left arm and face, right face and right arm.Fracture deformity upper end left forearm.A.Nos.755/2014, 1480/2014 & 762/2014 Page 15 of 24Fracture deformity proximal phalanges of ring finger right hand.4. Healed bruise on upper lip.On internal examination:There was subscalp hemotoma on frontal region, fracture left frontal bone and fracture anterior cranial fossae and in stomach there was yellowish fluid was present.After post-mortem examination, PW16 Dr. V. K. Jha opined the cause of death as shock and craniocerebral damage as a result of multiple fracture sustained and head injury subsequent to blunt force diverted upon head by other party and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature .
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,845,330 |
PN P (4) The witnesses in this case beginning with Public Witness 1 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination.(5) The case set up by the defense was that on the same date i.e. 15th March, 1967, Bimla Bai Jain, who has appeared as a defense witness (D.W. 10) went to the District Courts and contacted two lawyers one after the other.JUDGMENT Pritam Singh Safeer, J.(1) This petition is directed against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, dated the 12th December, 1969, whereby he confirmed the conviction of the petitioner under sections 379/511, 353 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the trial court in terms of its judgment dated the 8th of July, , The trial court had sentenced the petitioner to one year's rigorous imprisonment in respect of the offence (2) Mr. R. L. Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner, with his incisive ability has taken me through all parts of the case, i.e. the evidence recorded as well as the documents referred to therein.At my request the learned counsel has read the statement of Public Witness 1 twice over.She got the original of Exhibit D.W. 6/A drafted.The application is then stated to have been presented before the Deputy Commissioner.The evidence given by D.W. 6, who proved the document, is to the effect that the Deputy Commissioner marked the original application to Additional District Magistrate (South), who was Mr. S. C. Vaish.The said officer in turn marked the application to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nizam Uddin.who happened to be Mr. N. K. Garg, who had not been examined either by the prosecution or the defense, but whose report Exhibit D.W. 6/C stands proved on the record.No order is pleaded by the defense to have been passed by the District Magistrate or the Additional District Magistrate (South) requiring any particular action to be performed by Mr. N. K. Garg.(6) It is, however, stated that at about 5 p.m. when Mr. Garg was approached he admitted to have received the application but expressed that he was going on four days' leave and would not be able to take any action.The present petitioner allegedly joined his wife when she was with D.Ws. 2 and 9, the two lawyers whom she had allegedly engaged.It passes comprehension as to what was the state of affairs under which Mr. O.P. Soni, an Advocate, could order Mr. Garg on the telephone or persuade him against his first conceived reaction not to proceed to Kalkaji, and take him in his car to the police station.Why was such a party organized to go to Police Station Kalkaji ? That remains unexplained.D.W.s 1, 2 and 9, who are practicing lawyers, had made their statements on oath."NOTE of Shri N. K. Garg, dated 15th March, 1967, on the application of Smt. Bimla Bai Jain.I went to P. S. Kalkaji in the company of Shri O. P. Soni, Advocate and reached there at about 7.45 p.m. The S.H.O. was not present, A man was sent to call him.He was with the D.S.P. at Lajpat Nagar.He came at about 9 p.m. He stated that the keys of the dicey of the car were with Asi Ballu Ram.I waited for Asi Ballu Ram till about 9.30 p.m. but he did not turn up.He was said to be in the Ilaqa for patrolling.I advised Shri Anand, Sho Kalka Ji, to verify the dicey and let me have a report.sd/- N. K. Garg, Dt. 15-3-1967."The report proved as Exhibit D.W.6/C, reproduced above, reveals that Mr. N. K. Garg and D.W. 1 left the police station at 9.30 p.m. The occurrence with which this case is concerned took place at about 10.40 p.m. Mr. Garg and D.W. 1 were not the witnesses to the occurrence.It is a strange case which the defense version then proceeds to reveal.A very lengthy statement has been made by the petitioner when examined under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.That statement has a great significance.They also, according to the petitioner, gave him a beating.A careful scrutiny of their cross-examination discloses that it was never put to Public Witness s. 2 and 3 that at any time the lights of the police station were switched off and that any persons in that darkness approached the car Pnl 11, opened up its dicky and took out the wine bottles.That witness was examined to depose that there was an abrasion found by him on 17th March, 1967, on the person of the petitioner and there was also a contusion mark.Apart from these two injuries a scar on the left leg was also noticed.They knew that.No charge of robbery was framed against the present petitioner.According to the prosecution evidence the petitioner asserted that he had come to take away the car and then tried to take it away.The counsel for the State is unable to defend the conviction under section 379 read with section 511 of the Code.(17) The petitioner's conviction under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and the one under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code are both maintained.The petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offences.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,533,855 |
Since all these applications are arising out of same crime number, hence, all the applications are decided by a common order.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The applicants were in custody since 11.11.2014 in connection with Crime No.333/14 registered at Police Station Kailaras District Morena (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 506-B, 324, 326, 307 of IPC.It is alleged that on 29.08.2014 at about 7.15 AM Raghunath Singh, Nihal Singh, Dharmveer Tole @ Rakesh (applicant), Dharam Singh, Sukveer Singh (applicant) and Kaju @ Sandeep (applicant) ploughed the path of the complainant by tractor.On this there was an altercation between the parties.Accused persons after sometime came armed with lathi, luhangi and with the common object abused the complainant and started beating him.On his shout his brother Vishambar and Raghuraj ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 came to his rescue.They were also beaten by luhangi, fists and kicks.Vishamber and Raghunath fell on the ground.Raghunath became unconscious.Accused Tole caused injury by luhangi on the back of his head.Accused Dharam Singh used lathi.Accused Raghunath used lathi and injured the complainant Rakesh on his wrist.Due to injuries sustained by the complainant party, later offence has been enhanced to Section 324, 326 and 307 IPC.It is also argued that cross case has been registered against the complainant party on the same day.Crime No.332/14 under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506-B, 34 of IPC has been registered on the report of applicant Tole @ Dharmveer.In that case, the accused persons of this case who have received injuries have been examined.Dharm Singh, Sandeep, Raghunath and Tole @ Dharmveer has been examined and MLC report has been attached.Charge-sheet has been filed.Therefore, the applicant be given the benefit of bail.The application for bail has been opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer.Considered all the aspects.The accused persons have also received injuries.At this juncture it is difficult to hold ( Kaju @ Sandeep Vs.State of M.P. ) 3 M.Cr.C.No.11090/2014 (Tole @ Rakesh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11370/2014 (Sukhveer Singh Vs.State of M.P.) M.Cr.C.11204/2014 who is the aggressor.Keeping in view that the trial would take time and there has been cross allegations, we deem it proper to extent the benefit of bail to the applicants.Accordingly, the application is allowed.and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on thier furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs 35,000/- (Rs. Thirty Five Thousand only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing their presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,534,958 |
A 1139/2012 Page 1 of 23Dr. Anil Aggrawal, Professor of Forensic Medicines, Maulana Azad Medical College (PW-14), who had conducted the post mortem on Dalip Kumar Shajwani, the deceased, on 14th December, 2003 proved that it was a homicidal death.The Post Mortem Report and the opinion report were proved by him as Ex. PW14/A and PW14/B. As per the Post Mortem Report, the deceased had the following injuries:-Firearm entry wound 0.9X0.9 cms with an abrasion collar around in an area of 1.6X1 cms with the bigger lip upwards - present on left side front of chest, 10 cms below and slightly inner to left nipple, 11.8 cms to the left of mid line and 20.5cms above and to the left of navel.Bruising around the wound preset in an area of 4.5X4 cms.There were no signs of blackening or tattooing.Firearm entry wound 0.6X0.6 cms with an abrasion collar around in an area of 1.4X0.7cms with the bigger lip upwards - present on left side of chest along with the mid axillary line, 13.5 cms outer to injury no.1, and 31 cms above to the left of navel.No signs of blackening and tattooing were present.Multiple scratch abrasions without scab 5.3cms over left mid clavicular region(which is middle of the collar bone).Superficial incised wound(cut) 0.2X0.1 cms over right palm along the tip of mid palmar crease."Injuries were ante-mortem.On internal examination, he opined:-"On internal examination, I found that the abdominal cavity contained about 1.5 ltrs of clotted and unclotted blood.Mesentery which is a membrane holding the intestines was torn at places.The stomach was full of semi digested fluid materials.The walls were normal.This is discernible in the site plan (Ex. PW34/B) and proved from statement of Constable Ashok (PW-19), HC Jaswinder Singh (PW-Charan Singh (PW-21), reached the spot i.e. Press Road, Kamla Market and found one Zen car there, with broken front glass.The injured had already been removed to the hospital.PW-35 had deposed that PW-3 was present at the spot and identified the Maruti Zen Car as the same vehicle in which some persons had abducted the deceased from Subzi Mandi, Pahar Ganj.SI Satyaveer Singh (PW-22) has stated that at 4.10 PM on 13th December, 2003, he had received a call from wireless that one person was lying injured on Press Road and, on reaching, he saw one white colour Maruti Zen with broken glasses parked there.One Crl."I reside at the above mentioned address along with my family members.Today at about 3.30 O'Clock after having my lunch at my home while I was standing at my shop in front of Mahavir Mandir that in the meantime uproar rose from the Subzi Market and a bullet was fired.When I ran to the Subzi Market and saw I have found that two persons were beating a man and they forcibly made him sit in a car and they too hopped in the car.The driver of that white-coloured Maruti Zen drove his car towards Krishna Market.There was a truck loaded with vegetables parked ahead on the road.While seeing the truck blocking the road, the driver immediately started turning back his car then and there.On seeking the driver fleeing towards Nehru Bazar, I threw a two-wheeler scooter parked there on the road and asked the vendors selling vegetables and fruits on carts to stop the car.While turning back, the driver bumped his car many times in the back and as soon as the driver of the Maruti Zen car came towards Nehru Bazar Road driving very fast, the crowd standing there threw stones and iron weights (Battas) on the car.I too hit the front glass of the car with a stone where there was a blue and red coloured sticker in the left side.But the driver of the Maruti Zen, without bothering about anyone, drove his car towards Panchkuian Road from Nehru Bazar Road.I clearly saw the man sitting on the rear seat of the fleeing car, who was about 32-33 years old, heavy built and was of swarthy complexion and round and full face.I can identify him on confrontation.I could not see clearly the remaining two persons.In the meantime you arrived along with your staff.And on receiving some information on the Wireless, you brought me in front of Government Press near Deen Dayal Upadhyay Marg where I told you that Maruti Zen parked there was the same one in which three people had forcibly made a person sit and had kidnapped him and in order to stop the car I had hit a stone in the left side of the front glass and other people had thrown stones and iron weights.The glasses of the car had got broken."It is discernible from the photographs of the car (Ex. PW 10/A1 to PW10/A35) that weighing weights were found in the car.Similar statements were also made by Jasvinder Singh (PW20), Ramesh Chander Gaur (PW34) and Retd.ACP Mangal Sen (PW35).They have stated that a brick piece (P-24) and weighing weights (P-A 1139/2012 Page 9 of 2323 Colly.) were found in the car.This was only possible in case one or more windows of the car were open.However, the said disclosure statement gave clues to the police and they started investigation regarding possible involvement of the appellant.PW-3 has deposed that on 17th August, 2004, he had read a news item published in the newspaper that the assailant in the present case had been arrested by the police.On 17th August, 2004, he went to the office of Special Cell of Police, Lodhi Road and was informed that the assailant had been sent to the court and, on the said date, photographs of two persons were shown to him.He identified photograph of one of the assailants i.e. appellant herein as a person who was involved and was seen by him.Thereafter on 27th September, 2004, he went to the Police Station, Pahar Ganj, in connection with some work and outside the room of SHO, he identified the present appellant who was standing there.He informed the constable who was present there that the said person was one of the assailants.He came to know the name of the said person was Rajiv Diwan.The exact statement made by PW3 in his examination-in-chief is as under:-".....On 17.8.04 I went to Lodhi Road, Special Cell of the Police for enquiring about the assailants and the police had told me that the assailants had been sent to Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 10 of 23 the Jail and the police had shown me the photographs of two persons and I had identified one the assailants through photograph and the photograph which I had identified is of the same person to whom I had identified today in the Court.On 27.9.04, I went to P.S. Paharganj with some work where one person was standing in the room of the SHO beside his seat and I had identified that person as the same who was one of the assailants.The said letter is on record but has not been given exhibit number and states that the specimen finger print and the palm bring impressions had been procured from the Special Cell, Delhi.The photograph of the chance print Q1 is marked Ex. PW36/B. Thus, it is apparent that there were two finger print reports and the finger print report Ex. PW36/D was signed by PW36 on 25th October, 2004 i.e. after the arrest of the appellant on Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 18 of 23 25th September, 2004, whereas finger print report Ex. PW36/A is dated 25th August, 2004 i.e. before the appellant was arrested in the present case.It was suggested to the said witness that the specimen prints and questioned prints were mismatched to create evidence.Chance finger prints from the car were lifted by the crime team.Thus, it is implausible that there was tampering with the chance finger prints i.e. finger print Q1 Ex. PW36/B.Similarly the contention of the appellant that the specimen finger prints of the appellant were never taken, though ostensibly an attractive argument has to fail as the appellant did not question or deny the fact that his specimen finger prints were taken but had claimed and stated that these were manipulated.The distinction between the two is apparent and important.As noticed above, there is no question of tampering of the questioned finger print.With regard to the specimen finger prints, the contention of tampering is implausible when we see the photograph Ex. PW36/C. The photograph is clear and does not show any sign of manipulation or tempering.A 1139/2012 Page 20 of 23SI Sanjay Gupta (PW30) has deposed that he was posted in Anti Kidnapping Section Crime Branch, Delhi.One Jabbar Singh @ Chintu was arrested on 13th January, 2004 in FIR No. 15/04, Police Station, Mandir Marg, Delhi.The Investigating Officer of the present FIR interrorated Jabbar Singh who disclosed that the files/documents recovered from Zen car belonged to him and he had handed over the said documents to the appellant and Vijay Pal.Jabbar Singh identified the said documents shown to him by the Investigating Officer Mangal Singh (should be Mangal Sen).He had also deposed that he had sent a request to the Finger Print Expert for matching of finger prints of Jabbar Singh, Vijay Pal and the appellant Rajiv Diwanji, from the chance prints lifted in the present case.ACP Mangal Sen (Retd.) (PW35) in his cross-examination had stated that he had questioned Jabbar Singh @ Chintu at the Special Investigation Unit, Patel Nagar, pursuant to receiving DD27A, but did not record his statement.He did not obtain crime dossier from SI Sanjay Gupta, P.S. Mandir Marg.Counsel for the appellant had cross-examined PW35 on 26th March, 2011, but did not ask any clarification with regard to the aforesaid statement.Ramesh Chander Gaur (PW34) was also cross-examined on the question of a specimen finger print of the appellant.He averred that he was not aware whether Investigating Officer had obtained permission from the court for obtaining specimen finger prints.In reply to the next question PW34 stated that he had no knowledge whether the permission of the court was attached by the Special Cell along with Crl.Rajiv @ Diwanji, in this appeal, challenges his conviction under Section 302 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).The impugned judgment dated 25th August, 2012, holds that the appellant had committed murder of Dalip Kumar Sajwani on 13th December, 2003, after abducting him.By order of sentence dated 27th August, 2012, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of which he has to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.For the offence under Section 364 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which, he has to undergo SI for 15 days.At the outset, we record that the appellant does not question the homicidal death of Dalip Kumar Sajwani on 13 th December, Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 1 of 23 2003, but disputes the appellant's involvement and the manner and mode in which the crime was committed.In the hip bone, the right iliac bone showed a circular fracture 2.5 cm in diameter.I made a labeled diagram of this fracture in the postmortem report.There was a Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 2 of 23 fracture of left 7th rib at its lower border 1.2X1 cms in size, 11.3 cms to the left of mid line.I have made a labeled diagram of this fracture in the postmortem report.8th intercostals space which is the space between 8th and 9th rib on the left side showed a defect 0.6X0.6 cms, 25 cms to the left of mid line."A 1139/2012 Page 2 of 23PW-14 further opined that injuries No. 1 and 2 were caused by ammunition fired at close range from a firearm.Injuries No. 3 and 4 were caused by a sharp object or weapon.Dr. A. Rehman (PW-15) proved MLC (Ex. PW15/A) of Dalip Kumar Sajwani, which was in the handwriting of Dr. Naveen who had since left the hospital.The MLC (Ex. PW15/A) has been signed by Dr. A. Rehman and records that the patient was brought dead.The prosecution case is based upon testimony of Puran Chand Baghel (PW-3) the claimed eye-witness who had seen the abduction of Dalip Kumar Sajwani and had identified the appellant in court.The prosecution relies upon statements of several police officers who, it is claimed, corroborate the statement of Puran Chand Bhagel (PW-3).Additionally, the prosecution case further rests on the Finger Print Report dated 25th August, 2004 (Ex. PW36/A), prepared by SI Avdesh Kumar (PW-36), the Finger Print Expert.The appellant contends that identification by PW-3 is vitiated for the reason that no Test Identification Parade (TIP, for short) was conducted, the appellant was shown to the said witness and there are major discrepancies in PW-3's statement which have been overlooked.It is alleged that PW-3 is a stock witness of the police.Regarding finger print report, the submission is that the chance prints and the specimen prints were manipulated.It is pointed out that the appellant was arrested on 10th September, 2004 in another Crl.Thus, the report is nearly one month prior to the date of arrest of the appellant in the present case.Further, the prosecution has not been able to establish that the specimen finger prints were that of the appellant.Another contention raised is regarding delay in recording of the FIR.A 1139/2012 Page 3 of 23Puran Chand Waghel (PW-3), in his deposition has firmly stated that, at about 3.00 - 3.30 P.M. on 13th December, 2003, he had come out of his shop to leave for his house when he heard a bullet shot being fired in the market.He went inside the Subzi Mandi, Nehru Bazar, Pahar Ganj and saw two persons were beating another person, who was then pushed into a Maruti Zen Car.The car moved towards Subzi Mandi but was obstructed by a truck loaded with vegetables which had blocked the street.The car then turned the opposite side and persons tried to flee away.PW-3 had opportunity to see one of the two assailants and could identify him.He pointed out to the appellant who was present in the court and identified him as the said assailant.He could not see the faces of other assailants.The public which had gathered threw stones and brick-bats at the car which had a red and blue sticker on the front window/glass, similar to the stickers of the police.The scooter of the person who was abducted was lying on the spot.The police came there and conducted investigation.Later, he was informed that a Maruti Zen car had been located on the Press Road.PW-3 went there and identified the car as the one which he had seen the assailants flee.His statement (Ex. PW3/A) was recorded by the police.He categorically stated that the appellant had abducted the deceased in the said car.A 1139/2012 Page 4 of 23In the cross-examination PW-3 has stated that he was in the business of selling kerosene oil in the free sale market.Several questions were put to him about the nature of his business, but these, according to us, have no bearing on the present case.20) and Insp.Ramesh Chander Gaur (PW-34), who had visited the crime spot after DD No. 22A (Ex. PW-D) was recoded at 3.45 P.M. in P.S. Pahar Ganj.Therefore, three police witnesses in seriatim have affirmed and corroborated the presences of PW-3 at the said spot.Thereafter, at 4.10 P.M., there is DD entry 11/A (marked Ex. PW17/A) recorded at P.S. Kamla Market that C-54 operator had informed regarding one injured person lying in front of Press Road.DD entry (Ex. PW17/A) was marked to ACP Mangal Sen (PW-35).PW-35, along with Const.A 1139/2012 Page 5 of 23 injured person, who was lying on the rear seat of the car, was shifted to JPN Hospital, where he was declared as brought dead.On examination of mobile phone and other belongings, the identity of the deceased was established.Similar statement has been made by HC Raj Kumar (PW-12) who stated that the injured person appeared to be dead.The crime team had also reached the spot.A 1139/2012 Page 5 of 23The call pursuant to which DD entry No. 19/A Ex. PW4/D dated 13th December, 2003 at 3.46 PM, P.S. Pahar Ganj, was recorded, was made by Raju Kohli, who had appeared as PW-He has deposed that he was running a vegetable shop at Ratan Market but could not remember whether he had informed the PCR at 100 about any quarrel.When cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he had deposed that he had heard some altercation and a Maruti Zen car was there at about 3.30 P.M., but he had neither seen the Maruti car nor the altercation.PW-26 is illiterate and could not recollect whether his statement was recorded by the police.Merely because the DD entry was made by third person and not by PW-3, it cannot be a ground to disbelieve his testimony.The contention of the appellant that the shop-keepers and passers-by were not cited and did not appear as witnesses has to be rejected.Unfortunately, it is a reality that members of public do not want to depose and appear as witnesses in criminal matters, specially a matter of this nature wherein the deceased was kidnapped and was abducted in the manner as indicated.Inspite of protests and attempt of the public to protect/save the victim the assailants had succeeded.A 1139/2012 Page 6 of 23Statement of HC Satish Kumar PW13, in the cross-examination, is to the said effect.Similar anguish that the shop-keepers and passers-by had refused to make statement and appear as witnesses, has been made by Jasvinder Singh (PW20).It is wrong to state that PW-3 has taken inconsistent stand.PW3, in his cross-examination, has stated in clear terms that he had gone to Press Road, near Kamla Market at about 4.30/4.45 PM and had identified the car.He has averred that his statement (Ex. PW3/A) was recorded and thereafter he returned home.It is not possible to accept the contention that the statement of PW-3 was recorded at about 4.30/4.45 PM.No such suggestion was given to the said witness.It was submitted that PW-3, in his cross-examination, has stated that he did not know Insp.Ramesh Gaur (PW-34) before 27th September, 2004, when PW-34 came and took him to the Police Station.The said statement in the cross-examination is being projected out of context.PW-3 has clearly identified his statement i.e. rukka (Ex. PW3/A) which was signed by him.The said statement was recorded by Insp.Ramesh Chander Gaur (PW-34) who has also signed tehrir.It reflects that the said witness did not have any personal equation or relationship with the said witness.The date 27th September, 2004 as reflected was mentioned in the question.The PW-3 in his statement (Ex. PW3/A) had elaborately mentioned the entire occurrence and that he saw one man in the rear seat of the fleeing car and had identified him to be about 30-33 years old, heavily built and of shallow complexion with full round face.He Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 7 of 23 had stated that he could identify the assailant, if he was produced before him.He truthfully averred that he had not seen the remaining two abductors.In the court PW-3 identified the appellant as the person who was sitting in car.He did not identify two other accused who have been acquitted (We are not commenting on their acquittal as we are concerned only with the conviction of the appellant).PW-3, in his examination in chief, has narrated the entire occurrence and how he saw two persons beating another person.He has stated that the person abducted was made to sit in the car and that he saw the said person in the back seat.There could be various reasons why he did not see the two persons on the front seat of the car but had a clear view of the person on the back seat.A 1139/2012 Page 7 of 23A perusal of the initial statement made by PW3, Ex.PW3/A itself, indicates and a clear pointer, that the said witness had given a graphic account of the entire incident and had a good look at one of the assailants.The statement is vivid and substantially detailed.A 1139/2012 Page 8 of 23The reason is the statement made by PW-3, the manner in which the appellant got arrested and the police investigation leading to his arrest.One Rajiv Dahiya, a co- accused who has been acquitted, was arrested on 16 th December, 2003, in FIR No. 390/2003 and country made fire arms and katta was recovered from him.He made a disclosure statement (Ex. 33/A) relating to his involvement in the present case along with Vijay Pal and the appellant herein.I told this fact to one Ct. of the Police and that person is the same accused present in the Court to whom I had identified in the Court today."A 1139/2012 Page 10 of 23In the cross-examination, no questions to challenge the aforesaid statement of PW-3 regarding identification made by him on the basis of photograph on 17th August, 2004, were put forth.To this extent, deposition of PW-3 went unchallenged.In fact, in the cross-examination PW-3 had deposed that on 17th August, 2004, there was news or flash on the TV that some accused in Pahar Ganj murder case have been arrested by P.S. Lodhi Road and after one or two days, he went to P.S. Lodhi Road, and identified the photograph of the appellant but he did not meet the appellant in the Special Cell.On identification of the appellant in the Police Station, Pahar Ganj on 27th September, 2004, PW3- was cross-examined.PW-3 has averred that on the said date no supplementary statement was recorded but he remained there for about 25-30 minutes and identification was made orally.The appellant was present and was sitting in the room of Addl.S.H.O. Insp.Anil Sharma.He was taken to the room of SHO and he identified the appellant.It may be relevant here to reproduce the statement of the appellant, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., on the Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 11 of 23 question of identification of PW-3 in the court.The appellant in response to Question No. 66, had stated as under:-A 1139/2012 Page 11 of 23"A. I have been falsely implicated in the present case by police officials as they wanted to fulfill the requirements of their own investigation by making a scape goat out of me.That in order to trace out an untraced case and due to the pressure of senior police officials I was implicated in the above noted case as one of the accused but in fact I have nothing to do with the present case.I was illegally detained by the officials of the Special Cell at the Lodhi Colony office and shown to the stock witness so that he can falsely identify me in the court."Surprisingly, the appellant had moved an application dated 8 th October, 2004, stating that TIP should be conducted by parading the appellant in front of the witnesses.This application was opposed by the prosecution on the ground that the complainant had identified the appellant from the dossier of the photographs prior to his arrest in this case.It appears that no final order was passed in the application.The offence in question had taken place in broad day light in a crowded market.PW-3 was present at the place in question and Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 16 of 23The facts elucidated and stated in Ex. PW3/A reflect Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 17 of 23 statement of a person who had seen the incident occur in front of him.The elaborate virtual description of the occurrence was otherwise impossible.A 1139/2012 Page 17 of 23The statement of PW-3, identifying the appellant and his involvement in the crime is corroborated by the FSL report on the finger prints marked Ex. PW36/D. Chance finger prints from the car were lifted by the crime team.Avdesh Kumar, Finger Print Expert, appeared as PW36 and had deposed that he had developed chance prints Q1, Q5 and Q6 and found that chance print Q1 was identical to the thumb mark S4 of the appellant Rajiv Kumar @ Diwanji.However, chance prints Q5 and Q6 were not identical with the finger/thumb print of the appellant.His report dated 25th August, 2004, is marked Ex. PW36/A. This report refers to letter dated 19th August, 2004 from SHO, Pahar Ganj, received vide Finger Print Bureau diary No. 419/CW/FPB.Appropriate to note that in the Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant had stated as under:-A 1139/2012 Page 18 of 23HC Jasvinder Singh (PW-20) had deposed that from the Maruti Car, 37 articles including cartridges were recovered.This included one file of Tata Finance.However, in the cross- examination, he stated that he was not in a position to tell from which portion of the car the 11 chance prints were lifted.He has stated that he had lifted 11 chance prints from the car and these were taken from the outer body vide report Ex. PW11/A. SI Ashok Kumar (PW-11), who was also a member of the crime team which had taken chance prints, has deposed on the similar lines and Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 19 of 23 testified that, after lifting chance print, he had returned to the Police Station.Vinod Kumar (PW10) has also deposed in affirmative about lifting of 11 chance prints from the car.A 1139/2012 Page 19 of 23The specimen finger prints of Vijay Pal and the chance prints were examined by SI Chet Ram (PW-18), Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi.On 15th December, 2003, the chance finger prints and specimen finger prints of Vijay Pal and Rajiv Dahiya (who have been acquitted) were sent for examination.The chance prints were developed and photographs (Ex. PW18/D) were taken.The report of PW-18 (Ex. PW18/A) is not relevant for the present appeal.What is, however, relevant is that 35 negative of chance prints, marked as Ex. PW18/D were retained.In these circumstances, we do not think that there is any merit in the contention that chance prints were tempered with and, as a result of the said tampering, one chance print Q1 matched with the thumb impression of the appellant.A 1139/2012 Page 21 of 23 specimen signature of the accused Rajiv Diwanjee i.e. the appellant.Thus, it is clear that the specimen signatures of the appellant were taken from the dossier maintained by the Special Cell.Specimen signatures of the appellant along with the chance prints were sent for examination by the finger print expert as the police suspected involvement of the appellant.A 1139/2012 Page 21 of 23The statements made by Jabbar Singh or by the co-accused Rajiv Dahiya who was arrested earlier, are not admissible in evidence but the prosecution is entitled to rely upon the statement made by the police officers under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, as to /on the leads given to them when they interrogated the said two persons.Leads proved correct as one chance finger prints on the car matched with the specimen finger print of the appellant.Lastly, we do not find any unjustified delay in recording the FIR.As noticed above, first information about the crime was received at 3.46 P.M. The police officers thereupon reached the spot and at about 4.10 P.M., they had received information that an injured person was lying at Press Road, near Kamla Market.Thereafter police officers, including Inspector R.C Gaur (PW-34), left for the said place.PW-34 has deposed that he went to the LNJP hospital, made enquiries and learnt that the deceased had expired.PW-34 then came back to the spot, after collecting the MLC, clothes etc. of the deceased, from the LNJP Hospital.The statement of PW-3 (Ex. PW3/A) was recorded at Press Road where he had reached and Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 22 of 23 identified the car.It is but natural that all this would have taken time.A 1139/2012 Page 22 of 23In light of the above, present appeal is dismissed.Conviction and sentence are upheld and maintained.(SANJIV KHANNA)(SIDDHARTH MRIDUL) JUDGE FEBRUARY 18th, 2013 kkb Crl.A 1139/2012 Page 23 of 23A 1139/2012 Page 23 of 23
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,301,438 |
Heard arguments.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.65/2017 registered at Police Station Survaya, district Shivpuri against him and the other co-accused persons for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 03.10.2017 the complainant lodged the FIR alleging that in the night of 02.10.2017 he parked his tractor in front of his house at village Bhadota.In the course of investigation, the police found that the applicant and two other co- accused persons namely Gabbar and Panjab Singh committed the crime.C. No.21059/2017 (Dharmendra Vs.State of M.P.) triable by the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class and that the trial of the case will take long time to conclude.He submits that applicant is a permanent resident of village Bhadota, district Shivpuri.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.(Rajendra Mahajan) Judge Ashish*
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,843,077 |
ORDER Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J.This revisional application has been made for quashing the proceeding, being No. 1565C/92 (T.R. No. 215/92, T.R. No. 86/92) pending in the 3rd Court of, Judicial Magistrate, Howrah.The said proceeding was started by a complaint filed by the complainant opposite party herein on 19th September, 1992 against 3 accused persons.In the said criminal proceeding cognizance was taken and process was issued against the accused persons in respect of offences under Sections 403/405/406, IPC.The accused Nos. 1 and 3 are his son and wife respectively.The petitioner is a resident of Howrah.The accused No. 1 took his wife, the complainant to Bombay sometime in August, 1987 and they stayed together there and subsequently the complainant returned from Bombay allegedly due to the misbehaviour of the accused and since then she has been staying in her father's house at Howrah.It is her case that at the marriage she received gifts of articles and ornaments, etc. from her parents as well as from the accused persons and she entrusted those articles and ornaments, etc. to the accused persons and subsequently she was allowed to take away her ornaments which she received from her parents but the ornaments which she received from the accused persons and which also constitute her stridhan property as well as the other articles she received as gift at her marriage remained with the accused persons.The other articles mentioned above include furniture, etc. All those articles remained in a room in the Howrah house of the accused persons when the complainant and her husband went to Bombay.As I have already mentioned the complainant filed the petition of complaint for offences Under Sections 403, 405 and 406, IPC.in respect of the articles and the ornaments which remained with the accused persons.The accused persons however were agreeable to return those articles and in fact there is correspondence on record regarding the matter.But of course, it is the contention of the accused persons that whatever ornaments belonged to her or were given to her had been taken away by the complainant and that the further items of ornaments which the complainant claims to have been given to her by the accused persons at the time of or in connection with the marriage were not gifted to the complainant by the accused persons as alleged nor do those items of ornaments belong to the complainant.It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner accused that the complainant is laying false claim over the ornaments which belong to the accused persons and the members of their family.It is also the case of the accused persons that some items of jewellery of the complainant's husband are rather lying with the complainant.It may be mentioned here that in this criminal proceeding a search warrant was issued at the instance of the complainant and the articles belonging to her have been seized and taken away in execution of the search warrant.Virtually the dispute is mainly confined now to certain items of ornaments which according to the complainant's case were gifted and given to her by the accused persons, but the accused persons deny that those items were gifted to her by them.It is however the contention of the complainant that the said decree was obtained fradulently by the accused No. 1 behind the back of the complainant.The complainant also however filed a matrimonial suit at Howrah in December, 1989 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of desertion and cruelty, but that suit has been dismissed on the ground that the marriage between the parties has already been dissolved by the decree of the Bombay Court.An appeal however at the instance of the complainant wife is pending in this Court against the order of dismissal of the Howrah suit.In the said Howrah suit the wife also filed an application under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act for return of her Stridhan articles, ornaments and jewellery including those stated to have been presented by the accused persons.The complainant in May, 1988 also filed an application under Section 125, Cr.P.C. for maintenance against her husband the accused No. 1 and on that application she has obtained an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month.The petitioner accused No. 2 has challenged the criminal proceeding under Sections 403, 405 and 406, IPC.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,313,387 |
The petitioner has come forward with the present petition seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.10593/2010 pending on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and to examine the same and to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.10593/2010 as against the petitioner herein.The first accused is the Manager of the de facto complainant's transport company and the second accused is the brother of A.1 and the third accused is the petitioner herein.Merely because the petitioner is the friend of A.1, a false case has been foisted as if he abetted the commission of offence.In the charge sheet, there is no prima facie evidence to show that the petitioner has abetted for the commission of offence and hence, the petitioner has come forward with this petition for the above stated relief.At the time of admission, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that after conducting proper investigation only, charge sheet has been levied.It is further submitted that the questions as to whether there is sufficient material to show that the petitioner has abetted the commission of offence and whether the ingredients of the offences have been made out or not have to be decided only at the time of trial.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submitted that the case is pending for the past six years and hence, he prays for dismissal of the petition.This Court has considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records.On a perusal of typed set of papers, it is seen that on the basis of the complaint given by one Mrs.Jayalakshmi/de facto complainant, a case in Crime No.417 of 2009 has been registered for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC.After investigation, charge sheet has been levied for the offences punishable under Sections 408, 408 r/w. 109, 467, 468, 471 r/w.465 and 109 of IPC.During the investigation, the de facto complainant has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.6905 of 2013, on 22.09.2011, before the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for further investigation and the learned Magistrate, after hearing both sides, ordered for further investigation and it was not challenged by the accused.Hence, I do not find any reason to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10593/2010 pending on the file of the Learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, and hence, this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.The learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, is directed to dispose of the case in C.C.No.10593/2010, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after following the procedure and after giving fair opportunity to both sides.The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.JrlCRL.O.P.No.6090 of 201618.03.2016
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,314,791 |
LP No. 299/2010 Page 2 of 11The case as was put up by the prosecution is that an FIR No. 192/2008 was registered against accused Bhola Bhagat for committing an offence under Section 363 of IPC on the basis of complaint made by Smt. Runia Urao, alleging that her ten year old daughter named Aneema was kidnapped by him.On the basis of the investigation and the disclosure statement, made by the accused Bhola Bhagat, respondent/accused Dinesh was also interrogated, who was in Rohini Jail at that time, in another case.In the circumstances, on the basis of testimony of even PW-10, the accused cannot be inculpated.This is also not disputed that pursuant to the disclosure statement, the Crl.LP No. 299/2010 Page 8 of 11 kidnapped girl had not been recovered though he had led the police to different places at Delhi.* Crl.M.A. No. 13852/2010 This is an application by the petitioner/applicant seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal on the ground that the certified copy of the impugned judgment dated 30th October, 2009 was applied and was received by the petitioner on 3rd December, 2009 and thereafter the matter was considered by different Crl.LP No. 299/2010 Page 1 of 11 officials and it took some time because of which the petitioner for leave to appeal could not be filed within time.LP No. 299/2010 Page 1 of 11The applicant has given the details as to who had considered the file to decide whether a petition for leave to appeal was to be filed or not.Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752 and on Collector Land Acquisition Vs.Katiji 1987 (2) SCC 107 is support of their plea for condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal.The petitioner/applicant, in the circumstances, has contended that there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay of 193 days in filing the petition for leave to appeal in law and in the facts and circumstances.Considering the averments made in the application and the precedent relied on by the petitioner, it is apparent that the petitioner has been able to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal.Consequently, the application under Section-5 of the Limitation Act, read with section-482 of the Crl.Procedure Code seeking condonation of delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal is allowed and delay is condoned.LP No. 299/2010 Page 2 of 11 Crl.LP No. 299/2010 The petitioner has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 30th October, 2009 passed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 88/2008 titled as State Vs.Bhola Bhagat and Dinesh arising out of FIR 192/2008 under Section 363/367/370/34 of IPC, however, acquitting the accused Bhola Bhagat and other accused of the offence punishable under Section 367/370/34 of the IPC on the ground that there is no evidence on record that the child Anima was disposed of or that she was subjected to slavery and the accused had kidnapped her or had purchased her for the purpose of slavery, however, convicted accused Bhola Bhagat under section 363 of Indian Penal Code.After investigation both the persons were charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 367/370/34 of IPC on 10th December, Crl.Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.During the trial, prosecution examined 13 witnesses.The accused were also examined under Section 313 of the Crl.Procedure Code.LP No. 299/2010 Page 3 of 11From the evidence on record, the Trial court inferred that the daughter of the complainant Smt. Runia Urao, namely, Aneema was taken by the accused Bhola Bhagat without her and her husband's consent and had brought her to Delhi from the village.The whereabouts of the daughter of the complainant could not be ascertained and she has not been recovered so far.The accused Bhola Bhagat had stated that he had handed over the girl to accused Dinesh.Though, he had stated that he had sold the girl for Rs.20,000/- to Dinesh Kumar, owner of Virsa Bhagwan Placement Agency.However, no evidence has been led to establish that Dinesh had purchased the girl for Rs.20,000/- from Bhola Bhagat.Rather the accused Dinesh had led the police to different places at Delhi but the girl Aneema could not be traced.Though, on search of the house of Dinesh, photocopy of acceptance form of the girl Aneema which was Ex. P-7/A was recovered.However, the Trial Court has inferred that on the basis of the photocopy of the acceptance form, it cannot be held that the accused Dinesh had purchased the girl and had put her to slavery in view of the statement of other witnesses who had Crl.LP No. 299/2010 Page 4 of 11 deposed that the girl worked as maid for a few days and later on she had left the service.LP No. 299/2010 Page 4 of 11In the circumstances, the Trial Court has convicted Bhola Bhagat for the offence punishable under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code.The Trial Court has also noticed that though the kidnapped child has not been recovered but that will not entitle the accused Bhola Bhagat of any benefit and it cannot be held that he had not kidnapped the said girl.According to the prosecution/petitioner Bhola Bhagat has not challenged his conviction under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code as no appeal has been filed on his behalf.While acquitting respondent/accused Dinesh, it has been noted that even the case of the complainant is not that accused Dinesh has anything to do with the kidnapping of her daughter from her village.Rather it has been established that the girl was sent as maid to the residence of Sh.Money Vij (PW-3) and Pawan Arora (PW-4) and she worked there for some time and later on she left the work.LP No. 299/2010 Page 5 of 11LP No. 299/2010 Page 5 of 11The Trial Court on account of not finding any evidence against the accused/ Dinesh that he subjected her to slavery or that he had purchased the girl from Bhola Bhagat or disposed her as a slave had held that the evidence produced by the prosecution does not prove that Dinesh had disposed of the girl as a slave or had purchased her for consideration and thus acquitted the accused of the commission of offence punishable under Section 367/370/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioner has challenged the acquittal of accused Dinesh and has not even challenged the acquittal of accused Bhola Bhagat u/s 367/370/34 of Indian Penal Code, though the accused Bhola Bhagat has been convicted u/s 363 of Indian Penal Code.This cannot be disputed that the High Court has the power to reconsider the whole issue, reappraise the evidence and come to its own conclusion and findings in place of the findings recorded by the trial Court, if the findings are against the evidence or record or unsustainable or perverse.However, before reversing the finding of acquittal the High Court must consider each ground on which the order of acquittal is based and should record its own reasons for not accepting those grounds and not subscribing to the view of the trial Court that the accused is entitled to acquittal.LP No. 299/2010 Page 6 of 11LP No. 299/2010 Page 6 of 11This is also settled law even if on fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and perusal of the material on record, if the High Court is of the opinion that another view is possible or which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favors the accused should be adopted and the view taken by the trial Court which had an advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses and observing their conduct in the Court is not to be substituted by another view which may be reasonably possible in the opinion of the High Court.The Courts have held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.LP No. 299/2010 Page 7 of 11LP No. 299/2010 Page 7 of 11The learned counsel for the petitioner has candidly admitted that in the statements of any of the witnesses, it has not even been deposed that Bhola Bhagat had sold the girl to Dinesh or Dinesh had purchased the girl from Bhola or had used her as a slave.On perusal of the Trial Court record and the evidence of mother of the girl Smt. Runia as PW-9, it is apparent that there is no allegation against the accused Dinesh that he had purchased the girl or that Bhola had abducted her daughter with the intention to sell her off to the accused Dinesh.Though she had stated in her cross-examination that accused is also from her village and his father is known to her as Mala, however, she did not depose that Dinesh had taken the girl from Bhola Bhagat as a slave or for consideration or that he had sold her off further.Though, Head Constable Arun Kumar, PW-10 in his statement and cross-examination had deposed that the accused Dinesh did not deliberately got the girl recovered as otherwise he would have got involved in the case, however, the said witness admitted that he did not mention the number of houses in his statement.If the accused Dinesh had told him that he is not getting the girl recovered as otherwise he will get involved in the case, the Head Constable should have disclosed this to his superior officer or should have got it recorded somewhere, which was not done by him.Dinesh, in his statement under Section 313, alleged that he was not running any placement agency and he was only a servant in the placement agency, namely, Shobha Placement, Ekta Enclave, Peera Garhi Chowk.Even the owner of the house bearing No. C-85 and D-87, Ekta Enclave, Peera Garhi, Delhi, though deposed that the accused had taken the premises as a tenant in July, 2005, however, as he could not produce any ID proof, therefore, he got the house vacated from him after 20-25 days.LP No. 299/2010 Page 8 of 11The owner of the house Sh.Islamuddin Kesari only made an oral statement about accused taking the premises on rent but did not produce any document to show that the premises was in fact let out by him even for a short period in July, 2005 to the accused Dinesh/respondent.No reason for not producing any documents to show letting out the premises had also been disclosed.On perusal of the testimonies of the other witnesses also, this Court is unable to find any cogent evidence against the accused on the basis of which it can be inferred that the girl Aneema, which was kidnapped by Bhola Bhagat was sold off to the accused Dinesh or that she was treated as a slave.On the basis of the statements of the mother and other witnesses, it also cannot be inferred that the accused Dinesh had kidnapped the girl along with Bhola Bhagat from the Crl.LP No. 299/2010 Page 9 of 11 village.There is no evidence on record to infer that the girl was kidnapped by the accused Dinesh in conspiracy with Bhola Bhagat.LP No. 299/2010 Page 9 of 11The learned counsel for the State is also unable to point out any cogent evidence on the basis of which it can be inferred that Dinesh along with Bhola Bhagat with common intention had kidnapped Kumari Aneema with the object that she may be subjected to slavery and was disposed of.In the circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case of kidnapping and selling and subjecting the kidnapped child to the slavery or disposing of the kidnapped child against the accused/Dinesh.The accused/Bhola Bhagat has already been convicted for kidnapping the child Ameena under section 363 of Indian Penal Code.LP No. 299/2010 Page 10 of 11LP No. 299/2010 Page 10 of 11The petition for leave to appeal, in the facts and circumstances, is without any merit and therefore, the prayer of the petitioner to grant leave to appeal is declined and the petition is dismissed.LP No. 299/2010 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,319,742 |
1 Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy C.R.R. No. 4260 of 2009 Sanatan Kundu versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.In connection with a trial of a warrant case relating to the offences punishable under Sections 420/341/201/120B of the Indian Penal Code before a Magistrate instituted on a police report the Trial Court expunged the entire evidence of defacto-complainant, who was examined as P.W. 1 on his failure to appear for further cross-examination, the said order is under challenge in the instant criminal revision.2. Heard the Learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.Perused the impugned order as well as other materials on record.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,339,311 |
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.24.10.2016gmsIndex:Yes/NoTo1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Villupuram.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to transfer the case in S.C. No.76 of 2016 on the file of the Fast Track Court [Special Judge for SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989], Villupuram to Mahila Court, Villupuram.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Hence returned."Challenging the aforesaid order, the accused are before this Court.C.Munusamy, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that Mahila Court has been constituted for trial of offences against women and therefore, it will be in the fitness of things, if the case is transferred to the said Court.In the considered opinion of this Court, this argument is not legally sustainable.Mahila Court is not a special Court, but a Sessions Court constituted for expeditious trial of cases relating to women.Except for offence under POCSO Act, the Mahila Court does not have the original jurisdiction.The cases that are committed to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, will be made over to the Mahila Court, if it is found that the victim is a woman, whereas, a Court constituted under the SC/ST Act, is a Special Court u/s 14 of the said Act. Hence, the case cannot be transferred or made over to the Mahila Court, ignoring the mandates of Section 14 of the SC/ST Act.In the result, the petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.2 The Inspector of Police All Women Police Station Kallakurichi, Villupuram District3 The Fast Track Judge [Special Judge for SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989] Villupuram 4 The Mahila Judge,Villupuram5 The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104P.N.PRAKASH, J.23446 of 201624.10.2016http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,344,053 |
A.1 also had illicit relationship with many other women in the village.In fact, the deceased had made a complaint to the Police also and there were also enquiries about the same.(b) It is alleged that on 28.12.2011, A.1 had gone to the house of A.2, stayed with the wife of A.2 and returned home in the midnight.The deceased questioned the same.This resulted in a quarrel.On 29.12.2011, around 8.30 a.m, there arose further quarrel between A.1 and the deceased.It is alleged that A.1 and A.2, at the end of the quarrel, dragged the deceased to the house of A.1 and confined her inside.It is further alleged that A.1 poured kerosene and set fire to the deceased.A.2, who was present there, caught hold the deceased to enable A.1 to set fire.After the deceased was in flames, A.1 and A.2 fled away from the scene of occurrence.) On hearing the alarm, raised by the deceased, the neighbours rushed to the house of the deceased.They extinguished the fire.They also informed the parents and other family members of the deceased.They all came.Thereafter, they arranged for 108 Ambulance and took the deceased to the Government Hospital at Nagapattinam.P.2 is the statement of the deceased and Ex.P.3 is the First Information Report.(e) P.W.8 the learned Judicial Magistrate also rushed to the hospital on receipt of the intimation and recorded the dying declaration of the deceased on 29.12.2011 at 12.45 p.m.(f) The case was taken up for investigation by P.W.20-the then Inspector of Police.He went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch and recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.On 30.12.2011 at 9.00 a.m, he arrested A.1 at Puthur Bus Stop.While in custody, A.1 made voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had thrown a white plastic kerosene can.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the M.O.1 Plastic can.P.W.20 recovered the same under mahazar.The he forwarded the accused to judicial custody and handed over the material objects to the Court.(g) When the investigation was in progress, on 03.01.2012 at 4.15 a.m, the deceased succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.P.W.20 went to the hospital, conducted inquest at 8.00 a.m and after altering the case into one under Sec.302 IPC, he forwarded the body for post-mortem.(h) P.W.15 Dr.Robert conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 03.01.2012 at 12.45 p.m. He found extensive burn injuries on the body of the deceased.He opined that the death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to extensive burn injuries on the body of the deceased.[Judgment of the court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.] The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.93/2013 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam A.2 was one Chellathurai.The trial court framed as many as four charges against the accused as detailed below:Accused RankOffence1A.1 and A.2342 IPC2A.2449 IPC3A.1302 IPC4A.2302 r/w 34 IPCBy Judgment dated 14.10.2016, the trial Court acquitted A.2 from all the charges, however, convicted A.1 for the offence under Sec.302 IPC alone and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.The trial Court acquitted A.1/appellant from the charge under Sec.342 IPC.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 has come up with this appeal.The case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows:-(a) The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Vasanthi.(d) On receipt of intimation from the hospital, P.W.1, the Special Sub Inspector of Police rushed to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased.P.W.1, on returning to the police station at 7.00 a.m, on 29.12.2011 registered a case in Cr.No.741 of 2011 under Secs.342 and 307 IPC against A.1 alone.P.11 is the Post Mortem Certificate.(i) P.W.20, the then Inspector of Police, during the course of investigation, arrested A.2 on 09.04.2012 at 5.00 a.m and forwarded him to the Court for judicial remand.He made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate for forwarding the material objects for chemical analysis.On completing the investigation, P.W.20 laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 342 and 302 IPC.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 20 witnesses were examined and 18 documents and 2 material objects were also marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the Special Sub Inspector of Police has spoken about the statement of the deceased, recorded by him at the hospital.P.Ws.2 to 7, neighbours, turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.P.W.8 the learned Judicial Magistrate has spoken about the judicial dying declaration recorded by him.P.W.9 the father of the deceased has stated that on receiving the intimation about the occurrence, he rushed to the house of the deceased and accompanied the deceased in 108 Ambulance.When the deceased was taken in the Ambulance, he enquired the deceased as to how she sustained burn injuries.According to him, the deceased told him that A.1 and A.2 attacked her and then A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 set fire to her.P.W.10 the mother of the deceased has stated that when she accompanied the deceased, she enquired the deceased and at that time, the deceased told her that A.2 caught hold of her and A.1 poured kerosene and set fire.P.W.11 is the elder sister of the deceased.She has stated that the deceased told her that A.2 caught hold of her and A.1 poured kerosene and set fire.P.W.12 is a neighbour.He has stated that he heard about the occurrence.P.W.13, the brother of the deceased has spoken about the recovery of material objects during the course of investigation.P.W.14, Special Sub Inspector of Police has stated that he passed on the hospital intimation to the police station concerned.P.W.15 has spoken about the post mortem conducted and her final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.17 yet another Constable has spoken about the handing over the dead body to the doctor for post mortem.P.W.18 Constable attached to the respondent police has spoken about the handing over of the material objects to the Forensic Lab, Thanjavur, as directed by the Court.P.W.19 Scientific Assistant has spoken about the chemical analysis conducted on the internal organs of the deceased.He stated that neither poison nor alcohol found in the internal organs.P.W.20 has spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.His defence was a total denial.On his side, three witnesses were examined.He has spoken about the frequent quarrel between A.1 and the deceased on account of the matrimonial dispute.He has also spoken about the Panchayat held and settled between A.1 and the deceased.He has further stated that on the day of occurrence, when the deceased was taken to the hospital, the parents of the deceased were giving some instructions to her about the statement to be made to the police.D.W.2 M.R. Ravichandran, yet another neighbour, has also spoken about the same facts.D.W.3 is the Head Constable.He has stated about the service of summons in connection with the enquiry.In essence, the defence of the accused is a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted A.1 under Sec.302 IPC alone and acquitted from the charge of 342 IPC.The trial Court acquitted A.2 from all the charges.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 is before this Court.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, as already pointed out, the prosecution mainly relies on the multiple dying declarations made by the deceased to more than one person.The earliest dying declaration is the one made to P.W.9, the father of the deceased.P.W.9 has stated that when the deceased was taken to the hospital in 108 Ambulance, the deceased told him that A.1and A.2 attacked her, A.1 poured kerosene and A.2 alone set fire to her.P.W.10 the mother of the deceased has stated that while she was with the deceased, the deceased told her that both the deceased attacked her, A.2 caught her hold and A.1 poured kerosene and set fire.The next dying declaration was made before the learned Judicial Magistrate, in which, she has stated that A.1 attacked her and A.2 induced her and further stated that A.1 pushed her inside the house, locked the door, poured kerosene and set fire.A.2 did not enter into the house at all.After the deceased was in flames, A.1 and A.2 ran away from the scene of occurrence.It is the essence of the judicial dying declaration made.In the statement made, she has stated that both the accused attacked her; A.1 pushed her inside the house and both of them poured kerosene and both set fire to her.Thus, in these dying declarations, there is no consistency.It is the law that in a case, where there are multiple dying declarations, the dying declaration, which inspires confidence of the Court, could be acted upon and others could be rejected.But in the instant case, all these dying declarations are self contradictory and also contradicting each other.Above all, the trial Court has acquitted A.2, rejecting all the dying declarations.That apart, the earliest statement of the deceased should have been entered in the Accident Register, maintained in the hospital.That Accident Register has been suppressed by the prosecution.In the result,
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,607,601 |
Sessions Judge-03, North West, Rohini, Delhi being SC No. 5171/01/16 (earlier no. 11/14).Learned counsels for the parties submit that petitioner nos. 1 and 2 are the son-in-law and daughter of respondent nos.2 and 3 respectively.It Crl.Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 1 of 7 is submitted that marriage between petitioner nos.1 and 2 was solemnized on 31.08.2010 against the wishes of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 on account of being an inter-caste marriage.Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 1 of 7The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of CC No. 739/2011 titled as Mehmood & Anr.Kapil & Ors.On account of the aforesaid marriage between the petitioner nos.1 & 2, disputes arose between the parties.Prior to the aforesaid marriage, the respondent no. 2/complainant had lodged a missing report vide FIR No.439/2010 registered under Section 363 IPC at P.S. Bhajanpura against petitioner no.1 alleging abduction of his daughter.Subsequently, a cancellation report was filed which was accepted by the concerned court.The petitioner nos. 1 & 2 filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(Crl.) 1324/2010 seeking protection.The respondent no.2 appeared and undertook before the Court for himself and other family members to not bother the petitioners.Thereafter, the responded no.2/complainant filed an application bearing no. 7239/2011 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court of CJM, Bagpat, U.P. with respect to an incident dated 20.08.2011 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 452/323/328/307/504/506/342/34 IPC by the petitioners.It was alleged that an attempt was made to poison respondent no.2 and firing of a gunshot by the petitioners.A police report was called which stated that after investigation the allegations of the complainant were found to be false.The police report is reproduced below:-"It is submitted that there is a dispute between Party No. II namely Kapil and others with the first party Crl.Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 2 of 7 namely Mehmood etc. on the issue of girl Shrimati Nagma @ Priya because Mahmood's daughter Shrimati Nagma @ Priya got married to Kapil after adopting Hindu religion and she is residing with Kapil under the order of the High Court.Due to this reason there is great tension between the two and Mahmood had lodged a false NCR at the police station on 20.08.2011 which was investigated by this SI and the same was found to be false.On consideration of the police report, CJM Bagpat refused to direct registration of FIR and rather directed that the application filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be treated as an application under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The complainant led pre-summoning evidence.The complainant challenged the aforesaid order before the Sessions Court, Bagpat, which remanded back the matter to the court of CJM for fresh consideration.Thereafter, on 28.04.2012, CJM Bagpat passed a fresh summoning order whereby all the petitioners were summoned under Sections 328/323/504/506 IPC.The typed copy of the order dated 28.04.2012 passed by CJM Bagpat (placed on record) , which was passed on reconsideration, is reproduced below:"...As far as statement of injured PW1 Manisha statement under Section 202 Cr.P.C. who stated in Crl.Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 3 of 7 her statement that these people made her captive in her house and her brother-in-law and fired upon them by his revolver does not appear to be believable because any person is knocked down after taking him into clutches then in his condition there is no possibility of making fire upon them.On behalf of complainant in respect of fire neither evidence is made available in the documents nor there has been any mark of injury of firing.If firing is done in a room there may be possible injury with the piece of shot to the person present there but no such incident has been stated.The evidence available on the record does not confirm the firing by the revolver."Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 3 of 7Thus, both the police report and the summoning order show that the complainant's allegations of firing by the petitioners, was disbelieved.The petitioners filed a transfer petition bearing Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 277/2012 before the Supreme Court and vide order dated 12.08.2013, the present case was transferred from the court of CJM Bagpat to the court of CMM, North West, Rohini, Delhi.The Sessions Court, Delhi vide impugned order dated 29.10.2014, not only framed charges under Sections 323/328/504/506 IPC but also added Sections 307/452/342/34 IPC.The impugned order on charge reads as under :-"I have carefully gone through the statements recorded during the investigation of the case, documents and the materials placed on record.Rev. P. 65/2016 Page 4 of 7PW Mehmood and IO be summoned for the next date."The petitioners had initially assailed the aforesaid order on charge by filing a petition bearing Crl.M.C. No. 08/2014 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which, later on, vide order dated 05.01.2015 was directed to be converted into a revision petition i.e., Crl.Rev. P. 65/2016, i.e. the present petition.The proceedings before the trial court were stayed.I have learned counsels for the parties and have also gone through the case records.A perusal of the impugned order on charge shows that the same was passed without having any additional material before the court other than what was before the court of CJM, Bagpat at the time of issuance of process against the petitioners.The initial summoning order as well as the subsequent summoning order were passed by the court of CJM Bagpat on the basis of not only the police report but also after considering the pre-summoning evidence led by the complainant.The trial court, while passing the impugned order has neither given any reason nor justification for framing additional charge under Sections 452/307/342 IPC.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,609,690 |
The appellant Puran Lal @ Bhaskar son of Sh.The status report was submitted on behalf of the State in view of a notice execution report dated 14.11.2019 to the effect that the prosecutrix could not be traced out in as much as she has left the rented accommodation at Delhi in 2017 and the prosecutrix was also not available at the stated permanent address where enquiries revealed that she and her family do not reside there and on local enquiries also the whereabouts of the prosecutrix and her family could not be traced despite best efforts.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 3 of 26Bhaskar who is neighbor.He tried to forcefully catched the girl's hand and put her against the wall, after which he kissed her on lips and forcefully touched and grasped her breasts.There he forcefully pull the girl's pajama and undergarment upto knee and tried to put his male organ into girl extranal genital. 'C' is not sure of any deep penetration of male organ.Whole episode lasted for 10-15 minutes after which he left the house threatening her that he will repeat the activity again if she informs any of his family about the act.", whereby SI Prabha along with the victim 'C', her mother 'AS' and Constable Sushma reached the police station where the victim 'C' gave her statement to the effect that she along with her mother, one CRL.A.862/2019 Page 4 of 26 sister and one brother resides on rent at H.No.16/636E, Tank Road, Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and that she studied in Baba Ramdev School in Standard VII and her sister studied in the Khalsa School and that they all went to school at 7.00 AM and that her mother went to work in the factory at 10:30 AM and that on 17.04.2017, as usual she, her sister and her brother went to their respective schools and as in her school the XII Standard Board Examinations were going on, her school closed earlier and she returned home at 10:30 AM and after she returned home, her mother went for her work at the Tank Road and she, the victim 'C' was alone at home and she, the victim 'C' further stated through her statement which forms the basis of the FIR that at about 11:00 AM, Bhaskar i.e. her neighbour who lived on rent, entered her room on seeing her alone and she asked him as to what he wanted then he said that he searched his pant and thereafter, shut the door from inside and caught hold of both her hands tightly and put her against the wall and started kissing her on her lips and face and started pressing her chest and thereafter, the accused i.e. the appellant Bhaskar bhaiya pulled down her salwar till her knees and touched her private parts with his private parts and she scolded him and pushed him and then he told her that she should not tell anyone about the same or else he would do such an act and he went away from the room.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 4 of 26As per the FIR, the victim 'C' stated that she was very frightened at that time and very upset and it was only on that night that she picked up courage and told her mother about the accused and his act and thus, her mother 'AS' at that time itself telephoned the police CRL.A.862/2019 Page 5 of 26 and called the police, as a consequence of which the police had reached the spot and had taken her i.e. the victim 'C' and her mother 'AS' to the police station where the FIR was registered.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 5 of 26The charge sheet states that the victim 'C' declined to get herself internally examined.A local inquiry was conducted by SI Prabha and at the pointing out of the victim 'C', she prepared the site plan and thereafter arrested the accused i.e. the appellant herein and got him medically examined at the MAMC in the forensic department for a potency test and produced the accused i.e. the appellant herein before the Court whereafter he was remanded to the judicial custody.The Investigating Officer is indicated to have collected the proof of age of the victim 'C' and produced her for the recording of the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, wherein the prosecutrix through her statement dated 24.04.2017 stated that on 17.04.2017, she had come home early from the school i.e. by 10:30 AM and was cleaning her house when the accused i.e. the appellant herein, her neighbour was sitting outside and told her that he was not able to find his pant and was searching for the same and in order to search his pant, he also entered into the house of the victim 'C' and she was cleaning the floor when the accused i.e. the appellant herein shut the gate and she asked him as to what he was doing so he came soon and caught hold of her hand and made her touch the wall and thereafter, he did the wrong act with her and kissed her on her face CRL.A.862/2019 Page 6 of 26 and that she started shouting and he told her that if she shouted, then he would repeat the act and would beat her and thereafter, he made an attempt to put his main thing with which he urinates into the place from where she urinated but that he was not able to do so as his private parts did not enter her private parts and then the accused i.e. the appellant herein caught hold of her breasts, which pained her a lot and bit her beneath her left cheek and then she pushed him and her stomach started aching and she was also bleeding a little from the place where she urinated and the accused i.e. the appellant herein told her that if she told anyone about the same, he would repeat his act with her and went away and he also told her that if she told her mother then her mother would beat her and if the landlord came to know of the same, the landlord would turn them out of the house and then she, the victim child 'C' got frightened.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 6 of 26The prosecution examined eight witnesses, named as under:-"PW-1 Head of School of the Prosecutrix at Prasad Nagar, Delhi.PW-2 ASI Suresh Kumar, Duty Officer.PW-3 Smt. "AS" (Mother of the Prosecutrix).CRL.A.862/2019 Page 7 of 26PW-4 Dr. Nidhi, Senior Resident, Lady Harding Medical College, to prove theMLC of theProsecutrix.PW-5 Prosecutrix "C".PW-6 Dr. Rohit Goel, to prove the MLC of the accused.PW-7 Ct. Vinod, part of investigation.PW-8 W SI Prabha, IO of the case."The accused i.e. the appellant herein pleaded not guilty both through the charges put to him and through his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 and denied all the incriminating evidence and pleaded that he was innocent and that he used to take care of the family of the prosecutrix 'C' and gave a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' and when he asked her to return the money, she fought with him and when he had come back from the office, he learnt about the complaint.He has also stated that when he came from office, he got to know about the complaint and before that he was not aware about the same and has further stated that he went to the PS along with the prosecutrix 'C', her mother 'AS' and another person known to the family of the prosecutrix and while they were going to the PS, the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' fought with him and got a false case registered against him.The accused i.e. the appellant produced two witnesses i.e. DW- 1 namely Umesh Singh and DW-2 Rahul Kumar in his defence.17. DW-1 namely Sh.Umed Singh was put forth by the appellant in his defence as being a neighbor residing on the second floor of the same building where the appellant lived i.e. E16/636, Tank Road, CRL.A.862/2019 Page 8 of 26 Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and he stated that the appellant and the family of the prosecutrix 'C' used to have meals together and also used to fight with each other on the issue of money and that Ms. 'AS' i.e. the mother of the prosecutrix had also threatened the accused i.e. the appellant herein that she would get him implicated and that he had made them understand and asked them to settle their matter but did not know what happened thereafter.This witness however, could produce no documentary proof to show that he resided in the said building and denied that the mother of the prosecutrix Ms. 'AS' had never extended any threat to the accused i.e. the appellant herein to get him implicated in any case.He however stated that he never went to the police to inform the police that there was a quarrel that took place between the parties nor of any threats meted out by the mother of the prosecutrix Ms. 'AS'.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 8 of 2618. DW-2 Sh."Fir Bhaskar bhaiya ne meri kiss li aur mere gaalon par bhi kata tha aur meri chhati dabaayi thiaur meri jo school ki pajami thi usko neeche kar diyaaur fir jahan se peshab karti hain usko mere peshab mein dala tha aur mere dard bhi hua tha fir vo mujhe dhakka dene lage the aur mera muh bhi band kar diya tha aur mujhe keh rahe the ki ye baat kisi ko mat batana.Fir mein bahot ghabra gayi thi aur vo fir kaam par chale gaye.Meri peshab wali jagah se blood bh inikla tha."The MLC of the prosecutrix 'C' Ex.PW4/A also shows that the hymen was not intact and there were no fresh lacerations nor any discharge seen locally and that the sampling had not been done as the act had occurred on 17.04.2017 and had been reported on 22.04.2017, the examining doctor had very clearly written in the history the incident as informed by the victim 'C' where she stated that the prosecutrix 'C' had informed her that the accused i.e. the appellant herein had tried to forcibly catch her hand and put her against the wall and thereafter kissed the prosecutrix 'C' on her lips and forcefully touched her breasts and then forcibly pulled down the girl's pajami and undergarment upto the knee and tried to put his male organ into the external genitalia and that the child i.e. the prosecutrix 'C' was CRL.A.862/2019 Page 14 of 26 not sure of any deep penetration of the male organ and that the whole incident lasted 10-15 minutes.The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the clothes of the prosecutrix 'C' and the appellant had not been seized by the Investigating Agency, it is essential to observe that the date of the incident being 17.04.2017 and the date of registration of the FIR and the apprehension of the appellant being 22.04.2017 and thus, apparently, no useful purpose would have been served by seizure of the clothes of the prosecutrix 'C' and the accused i.e. the appellant herein which would have been washed and had been washed at least as regards the undergarments of the prosecutrix 'C' as brought forth through her testimony.As regards the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the appellant had been falsely implicated in the instant case because he used to take care of the family of the prosecutrix and had given Rs.50,000/- to her mother and that the mother of the prosecutrix 'C' had fought with the appellant when he asked her to return the money and had also threatened that she would implicate him as testified by DW-1 & DW-2, it is essential to observe that even through his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 dated 04.10.2018, though the appellant seeks to state that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case, he has nowhere stated that the mother of the prosecutrix 'C' had ever threatened him that she would falsely CRL.A.862/2019 Page 23 of 26 implicate him if he ever demanded the money back and has only testified that the mother of the victim 'AS' had fought with him when he asked her to return Rs.50,000/- which he had given to her.The concerned Superintendent at the Tihar Jail, New Delhi where the appellant shall be incarcerated for the remainder of the term of imprisonment as hereinabove directed shall consider an appropriate programme for the appellant ensuring, if feasible:appropriate correctional courses through meditational therapy;educational opportunity, vocational training and skill development programme to enable a livelihood option and an occupational status;shaping of post release rehabilitation programme for the appellant well in advance before the date of his release to make him self-dependent, ensuring in terms of Chapter 22 clause 22.22 (II) Model Prison Manual 2016, protection of the appellant from getting associated with anti - social groups, agencies of moral hazards (like gambling dens, drinking places and brothels) and with demoralised and deprived persons;CRL.A.862/2019 Page 25 of 26In terms of the practice directions of this Court dated 24.09.2019 in Rule No.67/Rules/DHC, the Investigation Officer was directed to communicate to the complainant/ informant or any person authorized by her that her presence was obligatory for the next date of hearing and further, Court notice was also directed to be issued to the prosecutrix by the Registry.It was also considered appropriate vide order dated 30.09.2019 to hear the appeal on merits.Production warrants were thus, issued to the Superintendent Jail, Delhi for production of the appellant.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 2 of 26The Trial Court Record was requisitioned, which has been received and perused.Arguments were allowed to be addressed on the appeal on behalf of either side, which have been heard.As per the prosecution version set forth through the impugned judgment and brought forth also through the Trial Court Record information was received at PS Prasad Nagar on 24.02.2017 that at about 12:10 a.m. at night, the operators C-62 vide a wireless set informed that near the water tank at the Tank Road, a boy had committed a wrong act with his son and given his phone number as being 9599432728, as a consequence of which SI Baljinder Singh was CRL.A.862/2019 Page 3 of 26 informed about the information which was recorded in the rojnamcha.The copy of the said DD Entry No.2A dated 22.04.2017, PS Prasad Nagar is on the Trial Court Record as Ex.PW8/A. As per the ruqqa Ex.PW8/B on the record, W/SIPrabha under the instructions of the SHO, PS Prasad Nagar along with Constable Sushma No.2260 reached the spot at H.No.16/636E, Bapa Nagar, New Delhi where SI Baljinder Singh along with Constable Vinod No.1806C were present from before and they met the victim 'C' along with her mother and they informed about their neighbour having done a wrong act and thus, W/SI Prabha along with the mother of the victim 'AS', the victim 'C' and Constable Sushma went to the LHMC, Hospital where the victim child 'C' was examined as it was reported by the doctor vide MLC No.4216/17 inter alia to the effect:-Rahul Kumar, another neighbour of the accused i.e. the appellant herein also was produced by the accused i.e. the appellant herein in relation to threats meted out by Ms. 'AS' i.e. the mother of the victim to get the accused i.e. the appellant herein implicated if he demanded money from Ms. 'AS', though, he stated that he was not present in the building on the date 22.04.2017, the date when the police had arrested the accused i.e. the appellant herein.The contentions raised through the present appeal on behalf of the appellant were to the effect that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the complainant and the prosecutrix to get the FIR registered and that no cogent explanation had been given by the prosecuting agency to explain the said delay; that the PCR official on CRL.A.862/2019 Page 9 of 26 whose information DD Entry no.2A dated 22.04.2017 was recorded, had not been cited as a witness nor produced in the Court and that the Investigating Agency had not even placed on record the PCR form in the present case; that the police official who had been assigned DD entry No.2A for investigation had not been cited as a witness in the case and that he was the first person to reach the spot as per the version of the Investigating Agency; that despite the admission on behalf of the victim 'C' and her family that they were living in a densely populated area, no neighbor or any other independent witness had been cited or produced by the Investigating Agency; that the Investigating Agency had neither produced nor cited Constable Sushma who had gone to the spot along with the Investigation Officer W/SI Prabha and as per the MLC of the victim 'C', it was Constable Sushma whose name appeared as the official accompanying the victim 'C'; that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that as per the MLC of the prosecutrix 'C', she refused to get her internal medical examination done and no article or cloth which was blood stained of the victim 'C' nor of the accused i.e. the appellant herein had been taken into possession by the police nor produced before the Trial Court; that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate that there were a number of contradictions between the statements of the witnesses when they were cross-examined by the defence counsel; that no public witness had been cited by the Investigating Officer despite the statement of the Investigation Officer that enquiries were made from tenants and persons in the neighborhood; that even the landlord/ owner of the building had not been cited as a witness to depose that the CRL.A.862/2019 Page 10 of 26 parties were residing in the building on rent and as to who paid the rent of both the places i.e. the house of the prosecutrix 'C' and the house of the accused i.e. the appellant herein; that the appellant is not a previous convict and there is no case of any kind against him; that the Trial Court had committed a grave error in the appreciation of the evidence as the entire prosecution version was contradictory; that the site plan alleged to have been prepared by the Investigation Officer of the case, did not corroborate the description given by him in his statements nor that of the statement of the complainant/ victim 'C'; that even the elder sister of the prosecutrix 'C' to whom the prosecutrix 'C' had informed when she queried from the prosecutrix 'C' as to how there was blood on her clothes, she had falsely told her sister on being frightened that she was menstruated, had not been examined as a witness; that the MLC of the prosecutrix 'C' Ex.PW4/A did not show any tooth bite on her cheek and that the prosecutrix 'C' had also not got her internal examination done.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 9 of 26CRL.A.862/2019 Page 10 of 26On behalf of the State, the learned APP for the State has submitted that the charge of allegations of commission of penetrative sexual assault on the minor child 'C' aged 13 years had been established beyond a reasonable doubt through the consistent and corroborative testimony of the victim 'C', which was consistent in relation to all material particulars and that there was no denial whatsoever brought forth on behalf of the appellant by way of any cross-examination of the victim 'C' qua the incident specifically.It was contended on behalf of the State that the delay in lodging of the FIR stood explained through the testimony of Ms. 'AS' i.e. the CRL.A.862/2019 Page 11 of 26 mother of the prosecutrix who testified to the effect that she immediately called the police on learning of the incident on 22.04.2017, in as much as, she was then informed by the prosecutrix 'C' herself who had stated that she has told her mother about the incident on 22.04.2017 at 9:00 PM because she herself had got frightened and she stated that thereafter, her mother had made inquiries from her about everything and had then telephoned the police at number 100 and she also made inquiries from the appellant who stated that he did nothing wrong with her and then in the meantime, the police had come to their house and had taken them to the police station and had also apprehended the accused i.e. the appellant herein.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 11 of 26It was also contended on behalf of the State that despite the non citation or non examination of the persons mentioned on behalf of the appellant as witnesses in corroboration of the prosecution version, nevertheless, the testimony of the prosecutrix 'C', her mother 'AS', W/SI Prabha and Dr. Nidhi, Senior Resident, Lady Harding Medical College, Delhi who proved the MLC Ex.PW4/A and had also recorded the incident as informed to the doctor by the prosecutrix 'C', established the prosecution version in toto.It is essential to observe that the learned Trial Court has taken into account the minor discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses in relation to the factum that the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' had denied that the accused i.e. the appellant herein had food with them whereas the prosecutrix 'C' whereas the mother of the prosecutrix had stated that he sometimes had food with them and that whereas the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' denied that her CRL.A.862/2019 Page 12 of 26 husband had started living separately from February 2017 due to a big quarrel, the prosecutrix 'C' on the other hand had stated that her father had a quarrel with her mother on Diwali and since then has not been living with them and that though the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' had a weekly off on Monday, 17.04.2017, she had come back home as per the prosecution version on a Monday, which was not consistent with her testimony that on a holiday she remained at home qua which the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' had stated that if there was a requirement, sometimes even on Monday she used to be working and it has thus been rightly observed by the learned Trial Court that these discrepancies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses did not go to the root of the matter and were not material omissions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 12 of 26The learned Trial Court has taken into account that the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-2 indicated that they were not aware of the nature of the dispute between the mother of the prosecutrix and the appellant.It is essential to observe that these witnesses have also nowhere put forth that the appellant has been falsely implicated by the mother of the prosecutrix Ms. 'AS'.As regards the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the FIR did not make any mention of any penetrative assault and through the FIR Ex.PW3/A, the prosecutrix 'C' had merely stated that the accused i.e. the appellant herein had only touched his private parts with that of the prosecutrix 'C' and that thus, the conviction of the appellant for the commission of the penetrative assault on the minor child could not be upheld.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 13 of 26It is essential to observe that the minor child Ms. 'C' through her testimony on oath (in as much as the learned Trial Court administered her oath observing that she was 13 years of age, confident, comfortable and intelligent) has testified to the commission of penetrative assault on her by the accused i.e. the appellant herein when she stated that:-Though, the appellant produced two witnesses to contend that the appellant had been falsely implicated, none of the said two witnesses were witnesses to his having lent Rs.50,000/- to the mother of the prosecutrix 'AS' and thus, the defence plea raised by the appellant of false implication is not substantiated through the record.CRL.A.862/2019 Page 23 of 26Vide the impugned order on sentence dated 02.04.2019, the appellant has been sentenced to minimum imprisonment, then CRL.A.862/2019 Page 24 of 26 imposable at the time of the commission of the offence on 17.04.2017 for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of which, he was directed to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in as much as, the said sentence imposed of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years is the minimum sentence imposable at the time of the commission of the offence.The sentence imposing Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years and the payment of fine is thus, upheld with the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 being given to the appellant.Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent Jail, Delhi and be supplied to the appellant.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,621,864 |
Shri P.C.Patel, Advocate for the Objector.In the circumstances, it may not be a case of homicidal death.He also argued that from the memo also no seizure has been established from the applicant by the prosecution.On the other hand, Shri Paroha, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State has opposed the application.Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence collected in the case diary, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for grant of bail.In the circumstances, the application is allowed.On applicants' furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before that Court on all the dates of hearing to be fixed in this regard during trial, applicant be released on bail.The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.as per rules.(SHANTANU KEMKAR)
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,625,349 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay-J.) ( Sudip Ahluwalia-J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,628,345 |
Applicant shall be released on bail on his executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount.Applicant shall mark his presence with Trombay Police Station quarterly on the first day of each such month, pending appeal.(P. N. DESHMUKH, J.)Sonali Patil ::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 16:38:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/12/2019 16:38:57 :::
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,631,958 |
Perused the objection filed by the State.Heard on IA No.18713/15, this is repeat application (fourth) for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.The appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 329/34 (three counts) of IPC and awarded jail sentence RI for ten years with fine of Rs.500/-, under Section 327/34 (two counts) of IPC and awarded jail sentence RI for five years with fine of Rs.500/- and under Section 341 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/-.Earlier three applications have been dismissed.It is contended that the appellant has already undergone jail sentence for more than six years.The co-accused persons (appellants No.1 and 2) have been enlarged on bail by this Court vide orders dated 14.10.2015 and 17.11.2015 respectively.There is no likelihood that the appeal shall be heard in near future.Looking to the aforesaid facts of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the IA is allowed and subject to deposing the fine amount, jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.It is directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) along with one solvent surety of like amount to the satisfaction of CJM Hoshangabad, the appellant Ravi Raikwar be released on bail with a further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court on 26.04.2016 and on such other dates as notified by the office in this regard upto disposal of this appeal.C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE pb
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,637,483 |
2021/2014 recorded as follows:-"Gold articles/other misc.articles have since been returned to the complainant.Parties are present in person.They have arrived at a settlement.The third instalment of Rs.4 lacs WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 2 of 5 shall be paid when the present FIR i.e. FIR No.508/2014 will be quashed for which also a joint petition shall be filed by the parties for which also parties will take appropriate action within an outer limit of three weeks.The documentary evidence which has been collected by the prosecution/Investigating Officer shall be handed over to the complainant as also to the petitioner (accordingly what belongs to each party) at the time when this FIR stands quashed.The second FIR which is FIR No. 580/2015 registered under Section 498-A of the IPC will also be quashed within the same time line on the joint petition to be filed by the parties at which point of time a sum of Rs.4 lacs shall be paid by the petitioner to the complainant.The petitioner undertakes to honour his commitment.WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 2 of 5In the event of arrest, the petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer."The complainant-wife who is present in person in court today and has been identified by the IO in the subject, SI Abhijeet Singh, PS- Krishna Nagar, as well as her counsel Mr Arjun Sanjay, Advocate, states that pursuance to the order passed by this court on 23.09.2015 a sum of Rs.4 lac has already been received by her at the time of recording of the first motion between the parties under Section 13-B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short 'HMA').WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 3 of 5WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 3 of 5A sum of Rs.4 lac has been brought to court on behalf of the petitioner- husband in the shape of a demand draft bearing No.079619 dated 21.11.2015 drawn on Indian Overseas Bank, Krishna Nagar, Delhi and handed over to the complainant-wife in court today.The complainant-wife acknowledges receipt thereof subject to encashment.WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 5 of 5The present is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of FIR No.266/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Krishna Nagar, Delhi.The complaint filed on behalf of the complainant-wife contained grave allegations against her husband, the petitioner herein.Two FIRs came to be registered against the petitioner-husband as a consequence of the allegations levelled against him by his complainant-wife.WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 1 of 5This court by way of order dated 23.09.2015 in Bail Appln.It has been agreed that the parties will go for divorce by mutual consent and the petitioner will a sum of Rs.15 lacs to the complainant in full and final settlement of all her claims.It has been agreed that the present FIR i.e. FIR No. 508/2014 registered under Section 377/376/328/354-A of the IPC shall stand quashed and another FIR i.e. FIR No. 580/2015 registered on the complaint of the complainant under Section 498-A of the IPC shall also stand quashed.Needless to state that if these commitments are not honoured, either party will be at liberty to get the petition revived.Accordingly, the order dated 10.09.2014 is made absolute.The petitioner-husband, who appears in person states that the balance amount of Rs.7 lac shall be paid as follows:-(i) Rs.3 lac shall be paid at the time of the recording of the second motion between the parties under Section 13-B(2) of the HMA, which shall be filed on or before 15.04.2016, and;An affidavit to this effect shall be filed within a period of two days from today before this court.In view of the foregoing, the complainant-wife states that subject to the petitioner complying with the above undertaking she has no objection if the present FIR is set aside and quashed.In view of the statement made on behalf of the complainant-wife as well WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 4 of 5 as the facts and circumstances afore-stated, the present FIR No.266/2015 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Krishna Nagar, Delhi, is set aside and quashed qua the petitioner subject to his complying with the undertaking as recorded hereinabove and further subject to his depositing a sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Victims' Compensation Fund, Govt. of NCT of Delhi within a period of two weeks from today.The receipt of the deposit be provided to the IO in the subject FIR.WP(Crl.) 62/2016 Page 4 of 5With the above directions the writ petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly.A copy of this order be given dasti under signature of Court Master to counsel for the parties.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,825,594 |
C.C. as per rules.Heard and perused the case diary.State Counsel, however, has opposed the prayer for bail.The application is, accordingly, allowed and it is directed that applicant, viz. Smt. Kiran Yadav shall be released on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees M.Cr.C. No.22256/2015 Twenty Thousand), incorporating following conditions, with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer -(i) that she shall make herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;(ii) that she shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any Police Officer.The application stands allowed to the extent above.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,836,274 |
Heard on bail application.Case has been perused.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety to the satisfaction of concerning Investigating Officer then he be released on bail, subject to compliance of the conditions enumerated under section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.Accordingly, application is allowed.C.C. as per rules.(B.D. Rathi) Judge Anil
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 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.
|
1,828,381 |
(3) That on 21st of June 1989, Asi Ilam Singh, posted as Special Staff, Central District, was on patrol duty with Head Constable (HC) Nanak Chand, Asi Jai Narain, Constables Ishwar Dayal, Virender Kumar.Head Constable Dilawar Singh under the supervision of Inspector Harish Chand Joshi in government vehicle No.DED-3756 driven by Asi Pyara Singh were present at Ajmeri Gate Chowk at about 3.40 p.m. A secret information was received by Asi Ham Singh that a person residing in Government Press Quarters would come from Okhia via Ranjit Singh fly-over and would go inside Turkman Gate while carrying opium in a bag.Asi Ham Singh asked 3/4 passers-by to join the raiding party but only one Chaman Lal s/o Brij Lal agreed while the others left without disclosing their names and addresses.A trap was laid under the supervision of Inspector Harish Chand Joshi by Asi Ham Singh with the members of the raiding party which consisted of himself, the police staff with him and public witness Chaman Lal near light point Ranjit Singh fly-over.At about 3.55 p.m. on the pointing out of the informer, accused Mohd. Saleem was intercepted near Ranjit Singh fly-over light point - Meer-Dard-Road.Accused Mohd. Saleem at that time was carrying a bag in his right hand and he was told that there was secret information about his possessing opium in the bag and was to be searched.Option was also given to the accused that in case he wanted, some Gazetted Officer or Magistrate should be called during his search.Accused declined to avail of the option in writing.JUDGMENT J.K. Mehra, J.(1) This is an appeal arising out of an order of conviction passed against the appellant whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay fine of Rs.1 lac and in default of payment of the fine, the appellant is to undergo a rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 2 years under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ndps Act").Asi Ilam Singh offered his search to accused Mohd. Saleem which was also not availed by the accused and prepared a memo to this effect.Thereafter Asi Ham Singh took the bag from the right hand of accused Mohd. Saleem which was found to contain green polythene cover having opium therein.Opium was weighed and was found to be 2 Kg and 200 Grams, 100 Grams of opium was taken out as sample.The sample opium and the remaining opium with the polythene paper and the bag were put into two different parcels which were sealed with the seal of Vs.Seal after use was handed over to Asi Jai Narain and both the parcels were taken into possession vide recovery memo.Form Cfsl was also Filled in at the spot.Rukka was sent together with the case property to the Police Station for registration of the case on the basis of which Fir No. 289 was registered.Accused was arrested in this case.The case property and Form Cfsl were produced before Inspector Surinder Kumar, Sho who affixed his own seal Skg on the case property.Case property was deposited in the Malkhana of the Police Station.On 27.6.89 sample parcel with form Cfsl were sent to Cfsl by Mohrrar Malkhana Head Constable Rewti Prashad and was deposited with the CFSL.After completion of investigation accused was challenged.(4) The appellant in a statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .has denied recovery of any narcotic substance from him and has taken the plea that he had been illegally framed and the case against him is incorrect and false.He has further alleged in the said statement that in the night of 21st June, 1989 at about 2.00 a.m. S.I. Islam Singh took the appellant to the office of the special staff where he was detained as the S.I. wanted the appellant who according to S.I. was an addict to disclose the source wherefrom he was getting the supply of this drug and it was only when his people gathered in the morning at the office of S.I. Ham Singh that a false case was registered against him by planting narcotic substance so as to justify his detention.(6) Before dealing with the said legal question, it would be appropriate to refer to the prosecution evidence which leaves a lot to be desired.In view of various, contradictions and discrepancies hereinafter referred to, the evidence of the prosecution does not inspire confidence.Counsel for the appellant has referred to various statements of the witnesses wherefrom it appears that the Cfsl Form was not deposited in the Malkhana not was it sent to CFSL.He has further challenged the seal, as according to him, nothing could have been sealed in the presence of the independent witness as the appellant was never apprehended at the place alleged by the prosecution.
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,841,078 |
The appellant herein is the first accused before the trial Court.The period of imprisonment undergone was ordered to be set aside.The case of the prosecution:The defacto complainant Chakravarthi (PW.1) on 08.09.2008 gave a written complaint (Ex.P.1) against Palanisamy (Appellant) and 7 others alleging that named accused persons are residing next to his house.On 02.09.2008, they were released on bail in connection with the criminal case registered against them for assaulting him.He had land dispute with them.To settle the dispute through Court, he issued notice through his lawyer to the accused parties.On receipt of the lawyer notice, they got infuriated.At about 4.15 p.m., they all trespassed into his house.Cut his throat with knife.Cut his wife hand, who tried to protect him.When he tried to fled, they shouted not to leave him alive and attacked him at his knee.Took him to the water drum and immersed him in it.One Kuppusamy came and rescued him.He and his wife were taken to Government Hospital, Chidambaram by his relatives.This washttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 witnessed by Kuppusamy and Kuppammal.Based on the complaint FIR (Ex.P8) was registered against those 8 named persons and the case was investigated by PW.10-the Inspector of Police attached to Srimushnam Taluk Police Station.The appellant herein was tried along with 4 other accused for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 294 A, 324 (2 counts), 323 and 307 IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 2The Trial Court held the appellant guilty of offences under Section 307(ii part) IPC.Sentenced him to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment.On completion of investigation, final report filed against 5 persons.Before the trial Court, 10 witnesses were examined.11 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.Since it has caused hurt, punished him for the offence under Section 307 (ii part) with imprisonment for a term of 10 years.For want of evidence all other charges against A1 and all charges against the other accused were held to be not proved.The delay of 4 days in giving the complaint not explained by the prosecution.The embellishment of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 prosecution complaint could easily be inferred from the very fact that the complaint was against 8 persons for the alleged unlawful assembly and attempt to murder.Whereas after the investigation, charge sheet was filed only as against 5 persons.The nature of the injuries alleged to have sustained by the victims (PW.1) and PW.2 are simple in nature as per the doctors opinion.The Accident Register of the Government Hospital, Chidambaram, for these witnesses are marked as Ex.P.6 and Ex.It is recorded in the accident register that they informed the doctor that they were assaulted by 4 known persons.Admittedly, the doctor has intimated to the police about the incident on 04.09.2008 itself.However, the FIR is registered only on 08.09.2008 with bundle of falsehood.The new facts spoken for the first time in the Court by PW.1 to PW.4, which does not form part of their previous statements.The previous enmity between the accused and the prosecution witnesses PW.1 to PW.4; the unexplained delay in registering the FIR; contradictions among the prosecution evidence.The learned Government Advocate for the respondent police would submit that the injured witnesses PW.1 and PW.2 have deposed abouthttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 the overt act of the accused person who caused the injuries to them.The doctor certificates Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.7 list out the injuries noted by the doctor.The version of the injured witnesses tallies with the wound certificates.The complaint came to be registered after the defacto complainant gave his written complaint.The delay in registering FIR was due to delayed receipt of the intimation.The doctor has deposed PW.1 and PW.2 got admitted in the hospital for treatment to the cut injuries sustained by them.Though the AR says 4 known persons assaulted them, in the written complaint PW.1 has stated 8 persons came and trespassed his house.He has not stated any specific overt act to them in the complaint.In the investigation it was found only 5 persons were involved in the crime.The overt act of A1 causing cut injuries to PW.1 being proved, the Court below has applied grain and sheaf theory.It has removed the grains from the sheaf.After eliminating the doubtful portion of the evidence, held A1 caused the cut injury found in PW.1 neck is proved.7. Heard the counsels.Records perused.Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is unknown to Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.No doubt, the delay in FIR embellishments in previoushttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 statement and the deposition before the Court, the close relationship between PW.1 to PW.4 may be the reason to doubt their evidence, but the proven fact that PW.1 has sustained cut injury on his neck and treated for the injury at Government Hospital, chidambaram is not a doubtful fact.The injury sustained by PW.1 is a cut wound on the front side of the neck 5X2X2 on size and a cut wound in the right and left knee 5X2X2 on size.The injury sustained by PW.2 are abrasion on the right side of the neck and cut wound in the left forearm.The assault has happened after the lawyer notice received by the accused persons.The evidence proves it was A1-appellant caused the injuries noted in Ex.P.6 and Ex.M.O.1 knife is the corpus delicti used in the crime.Same has been recovered under Mahazar Ex.P.3 based on the confession of the accused.The witnesses to recovery PW.5 and to the admissible portion of the accused confession, have turned hostile.However, when the injured witnesses have spoken about the injuries, weapon used to cause the injuries and the person who caused the injuries which has inspired the confidence of the trial Court, which had the opportunity of noticing the demeanor of the witnesses, conviction cannot be faulted.http://www.judis.nic.in 7Though the doctor has opined it is simple in nature, the trial Court has taken into consideration the seat of attack and has imposed 10 years R.I while holding him guilty of offence under Section 307 IPC, the sentence part may appear to be excessive, if one consider the nature of injuries alone forgetting about the seat of injury.But if the seat of injury (front neck) taken into consideration the appellant has to be punished adequately.11.Taking into consideration, the circumstances under which the crime has taken place and the nature of injuries caused by the accused, it is suffice to sentence the accused/appellant to reduce R.I for a term of 4 years.The period of imprisonment already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Bail bond shall stand cancel.The accused shall surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction passed against the appellant by the trial Court vide judgment dated 08.02.2012 in S.C.No.23 of 2009, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Chidambaram is confirmed.The sentence imposed on the appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.rpl is modified 10 years R.I is reduced to 4 years R.I. Fine amount imposed, remains unaltered.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.01.03.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/ Non speaking order rpl To1.The Assistant Sessions Judge, Chidambaram.2.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.Pre Delivery Judgment made in Criminal Appeal No.119 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 01.03.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,842 |
In letter dated 22.1.1964 some of the terms and conditions of the employment were set out.One of the conditions was that the petitioner would be entitled to free unfurnished flat subject to the condition that the lease would be in the name of the company.In fact the premises were taken on leave and licence/lease basis.The first such agreement is dated 15th April, 1959 entered between Mr. B.N. Madon and Mrs. F.B. Madon and Mahindra and Mahindra Limited.On the acceptance of the petitioner's resignation the petitioner was given letter dated May 12, 1972 whereby the petitioner was informed that as and from July, 15, 1972 the petitioner would be paid retainership of Rs. 1,000/-.It was further set out that the petitioner will be permitted to stay in the office flat in Sputnik subject to the condition that the petitioner would surrender the flat to the company on securing alternative accommodation or leaving out of Bombay or on termination of the retainership whichever is earlier.The petitioner when he entered into the premises was an employee.JUDGMENT F.I. Rebello, J.Respondent No. 1, as the Administrative Officer of M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, filed a complaint against the petitioner herein before the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, 59th Court, Vile Parle, Bombay, being Case No. 4/S/95 (38/S/85).It was further set out that the arrangement was expected to continue until the petitioner reaches the age of superannuation of 60 years subject to the termination by either side by one month's notice.On 6th August, 1973 the petitioner and the company entered into an agreement whereby the petitioner was treated as an employee and allowed to reside in the premises.The licence fee for the premises was to be deducted from the emoluments.There were some other clauses which need not be adverted to.The company addressed a letter dated July 29, 1983, setting out therein that as per the records of the company he would be completing 60 years on October 2, 1983 as his date of birth as per the company's record was October 3, 1923 and his retainership would stand terminated on that date and to hand over the vacant possession of the premises.There was subsequent correspondence by the company.The petitioner chose not to vacate the premises.It was his contention that in fact he was the licensee/tenant of the premises and that the agreement between the company and the landlord was only entered into as it was required by the landlord.The petitioner has thereafter filed a Rent Declaratory Suit No. 2594 of 1988 in the Court of Small Causes at Bombay, which is pending wherein the petitioner has sought relief of declaration that he is the tenant of the landlord and in the alternative a declaration that he is a deemed tenant or protected licensee.An additional fact may also be noted that the company herein also filed a suit being T.E.C. No. 101/121/91 wherein they have sought the relief of eviction against the petitioner herein.There is a further direction that if the amount is paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- out of it be paid to the company as compensation.No sentence was imposed under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code.By judgment dated 18th September, 1998 the Appeal was partly allowed.The conviction and sentence under Section 406 was set aside.The conviction under Section 630 was however, upheld.The petitioner was not a party to the agreement.The proposal by the petitioner to retire as Senior Engineer and retain him as an Advisor on a part time basis and to allow to retain the company's flat was accepted under certain terms and conditions.Subsequent to this letter by the company, an agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the company for the purpose of retaining the flat.By the agreement the petitioner was deemed to be an employee and allowed to continue to reside in the premises as an employee with a condition that such occupation would cease on his employment being terminated or leaving such employment or on his transfer away from Bombay or on his death whichever is earlier.Therefore on the date the agreement was entered into the petitioner as an ex-employee on his request was allowed to continue in the premises on certain terms and conditions.the Apex Court was considering an appeal by the occupant on a complaint filed by the company.It was the case of the company there that they took on licence the said flat from the owner on the basis of a paying guest agreement and permitted the respondent No. 1 to stay therein.The employees refused to vacate the flat whereupon a complaint was filed and the respondent was convicted.The appeal filed before the Sessions Judge was allowed and the judgment of the Magistrate was reversed.The appeal before the High Court was dismissed.The Court observed that there were complicated questions of Civil law and the Magistrate's Court has no jurisdiction to decide the same.The High Court felt that the disputes raised were bonafide.In view of those findings recorded by the High Court the Apex Court rejected the appeal holding that these are questions which could not be decided by the Magistrate, but by the Civil Court.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
182,999,612 |
On the written complaint (Ex-Ka-1) of Vikal Singh (PW-1), FIR (Ex-Ka-4) of Case Crime No. 684 of 2009, under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 307, 506 IPC was registered on 21.09.2009 at 22:45 hours, at police station Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad, by Constable Jagpal Giri (PW-2) against Bijender, Veerpal, Bhoopendra, Anuj, Tejpal, Dharmveer and Neeraj.It has been stated in the FIR that Harendra, the brother of the informant came to his house from Maha Maya Temple on 21.09.2009 at 9:00 PM.As soon as the brother of the informant entered inside his house, opening the door, then behind him, Bijender, Veerpal sons of Hariram, Bhoopendra, Anuj sons of Bijender, Tejpal son of Khajan, Dharmveer son of Khachedu Singh and Neeraj son of Satpal, armed with lathi-danda, hockey sticks and handle of hand pump, entered his house.With common intention to kill him, the accused began to assault his brother from their respective weapons, which caused grievous injuries on the head and body of his brother and lacerated wound was caused on the head.Wife of his brother intervened in the incident and shouted "bachao bachao".While intervening, wife of his brother also received invisible injuries.His brother had become unconscious on the spot.Hearing the shouts, the informant, his brother Manoj, Sanjay son of Shoraj, Devendra son of Teekam, Anil son of Rajendra and large number of peoples came on the spot, who had seen the incident.Looking to the large number of peoples, the accused ran away from the spot giving threats to kill.Due to election rivalry, the aforementioned accused have caused this incident.He took his brother to Jeevan Hospital, Modi Nagar, from where he was referred to higher center, looking to his critical condition.He sent his brother to Meerut along with other family members and himself came to lodge FIR.He lodged the FIR and prayed for taking legal action against the accused.From Jeevan Hospital, Harendra was taken to Anand Hospital Meerut, where he was admitted on 21.09.2009 at 11:01 PM.Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-7) examined him and prepared his Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13).During treatment Harendra died on 22.09.2009 at 4:40 AM.From the hospital, a memo was sent to the police station Medical College, Meerut, for conducting Inquest of the deceased on 22.09.2009 at 6:25 AM, on which, SI Aman Singh (PW-3) conducted Inquest (Ex-Ka-6) of the dead body of Harendra on 22.09.2009 between 11:15 AM to 12:40 PM.In the internal examination, fracture of right parietal bone with haematoma was found.Membranes and brain were lacerated and blood clot was present.Ribs were pale.6th and 7th rib were fractured.Right lung lacerated with and haematoma and bloody fluid 1 litre present.Left lung and Pericardium were pale.Both chambers of heart were empty.semi digested food was present in the stomach.Bladder was empty.Gall bladder was pale and half full.Pancreas, spleen and kidneys were pale.Dr. K.C. Tiwari (PW-8) examined Smt. Sunita wife of Manoj on 24.09.2009 at 1:00 PM and prepared her Injury Report (Ex-Ka-14) in which following injuries were noted:-(i) Contusion 1cm x 1cm at right ankle joint, colour black.Injury simple in nature, caused by hard blunt object, duration 2-4 days.After registration of FIR, SI Om Kumar (PW-9), started investigation in the matter.On 22.09.2009, he recorded statements of Smt. Sunita, Manoj, Sanjay, Devendra, Anil and Smt. Krishna and inspected the spot on the pointing out of the informant and prepared site-plan (Ex-Ka-16).He obtained plain earth and blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-2).He recorded statements of Jagpal Singh.From 23.09.2009, the investigation was undertaken by Inspector Rajesh Kumar Singh (PW-10).He arrested the accused Bijendra on 03.10.2009 and recorded their statements.The accused confessed their guilt and became ready to recover the weapons.On the pointing, of Veerpal, one danda (Ex-Ka-17) was recovered on 30.09.2009 at 8:20 AM.On the pointing, of Bhoopendra, one handle of hand pump (Ex-Ka-18) was recovered on 30.09.2009 at 9:15 AM.On the pointing, of Neeraj, one hockey stick (Ex-Ka-19) was recovered on 30.09.2009 at 10:00 AM.On the pointing, of Tejpal, one danda (Ex-Ka-20) was recovered on 03.10.2009 at 7:40 AM.On the pointing, of Bijendra, one lathi (Ex-Ka-21) was recovered on 03.10.2009 at 8:30 AM.He recorded statements of SI Matadeen, SI Om Kumar, constable Yogendra Singh, Gyanendra Singh, Shyam Kumar, Devesh, Omveer Singh and Omendra Kumar.He prepared site-plans (Ex-Ka-22 to Ka-26) of the places of recovery.On 19.10.2009, he recovered blood stained clothes of the deceased and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-3).He recorded statements of Sanjeev Kumar, Vikram Singh, Omveer Singh and Nitesh Kumar.He recorded statements of SI Aman Singh, constable Sanjay Kumar, Vinod Kumar, Himanshu Singh, Dev Singh, Babloo Bashisth and Neeraj Kumar.On 20.10.2009, he copied Injury Reports in case diary.On 07.11.2009, he sent the blood stained clothes and blood stained and plain earth for chemical examination through letter (Ex-Ka-27).On 19.10.2009, he submitted charge sheet (Ex-Ka-28) against the accused.He recorded statement of Dr. Ajay Gupta on 06.01.2010, after taking permission of the Magistrate and submitted it.The Magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the cases to Session's Court.Vikal Singh (PW-1) has stated that Harendra was his younger brother.On 21.09.2009 at about 9:00 PM, Harendra was coming to his house from Maha Maya Temple.As soon as, his brother entered inside his house, opening the door, then behind him, Bijender, Veerpal, Dharmveer, Tejpal, Anuj, Bhoopendra and Neeraj, who are residents of his village and to whom, he was knowing well, entered his house.Bhoopendra was armed with handle of hand pump, Neeraj was armed with hockey stick and remaining persons were armed with lathi-danda.The accused began to assault Harendra from their respective weapons.Smt. Sarita, wife of his brother and Smt. Sunita, wife of Manoj tried to intervene in the incident, in which they also received injuries.In this incident, his brother received grievous injuries and was drenched with blood.On their shouts, he, his brother Manoj, Devendra, Sanjay, Anil and large number of peoples came on the spot.He and other persons saw the incident.Looking to them, the accused ran away from the spot, giving threats to kill.His brother had become unconscious.They took him to Jeevan Hospital, Modi Nagar.The doctor present on duty came outside and went up to the vehicle, on which Harendra was brought and after examining him, he referred for Meerut, looking to his critical condition.His family members and relations proceeded to Meerut taking Harendra.He along with Babloo Bashistha went to lodge FIR at the police station Modi Nagar.He got scribed the written complaint through Babloo Bashistha and after being read over, signed and gave it to the police station, on which FIR was registered.All the accused were present in the Court.In between the two houses, about 8-10 houses are situated.House of Sanjay is situated in front of his house.It is incorrect to say that his house is situated at a distance of 2 furlong.Harendra alone had gone to Maha Maya Temple.At the time of incident, he was present in front of the house of Harveer.When he came on hearing the hue and cry, the accused were assaulting his brother.They assaulted him for about half minutes after his reaching there.When he took Harendra to the hospital, at that time Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita were not taken to the hospital for their treatment.Harendra was not provided any first aid at Jeewan Hospital.Harendra was taken to Meerut by Omveer and other relations, who got him admitted in the hospital and not by Manoj.After sending Harendra to Meerut, he went to the police station for lodging FIR.From the police station, he came to his house at about 11:30 PM.Thereafter, he went to Meerut and reached there at 1:00 AM.Investigating Officer recorded his statement at his house after some time, who had also made spot inspection in the night.He went for medical examination of Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita on the next day but the doctor was not present there.It is incorrect to say that he sold soil of his field, due to which his field has become four feet deep and the water was collected in his field for which he had quarrel with Bijendra.He did not know that any quarrel had taken place between his brothers Manoj and Raj Kumar and Bijendra and Bijendra had lodged any FIR of the incident.He got the complaint scribed in front of Railway station, which took about 15-20 minutes.Babloo Bashistha went with him to Meerut.From Meerut, he came to his house for giving information of the death of Harendra.After information, he again returned for Meerut at about 6:00 to 6:30 AM and remained there till the dead body was handed over to them after postmortem.He showed his ignorance about lodging of FIR of Case Crime No. 22 of 2003, under Section 25 Arms Act, Case Crime No. 313 of 1994, under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC, Case Crime No. 75 of 2000, under Section 352, 504, 506 IPC at police station Modi Nagar, against Harendra.He got scribed the names of the injured as Sarita and Sunita in the FIR.He had fully recognized the accused in the light of generator.At the time of incident, Kharak Singh was Pradhan of the village.They had supported him in the election.Omveer informed him that Harendra was admitted to Anand Hospital.He and Babloo Bashistha went to Meerut on his Maruti Zen.He denied that on 24.09.2009, they procured fake Injury Reports of Sarita and Sunita, although they did not receive any injury.He denied that Harendra received injuries in road accident at Meerut, due to which he died.He showed his ignorance that Tejpal was living at village Nand Nagari, at a distance of about 5 kilometer from his village.He stated that from his village 50-60 persons had gone to Meerut hospital and someone among them got Harendra admitted in the hospital.Smt. Sarita (PW-4) stated that incident took place on 21.09.2009 at about 9:00 PM.She was present at her house and was waiting for her husband Harendra, who had gone to Maha Maya Temple.Her jethani Sunita was also sitting with her.During that time, her husband came to the house from Maha Maya Temple.As soon as, he entered inside the house, opening the door, then behind him, Bijender, Veerpal, Bhoopendra, Neeraj, Tejpal, Anuj and Dharmveer also entered the house.Her husband received grievous injuries and fell down on the spot, becoming unconscious.At the time of the incident, she and her jethani Smt. Sunita tried to save her husband and shouted "bachao bachao", then the accused assaulted them also.On their shouts, Manoj, Vikal, Devendra, Sanjay, Anil and large number of peoples came on the spot.If these persons would not have come, then, the accused might have kill them also.The accused run away from the spot, giving threats to kill.The accused assaulted her husband due to election rivalry.She knew all the accused.In cross-examination, she stated that during that period, her husband used to go to temple daily.When her husband went to the temple, her jethani Sunita was sitting at her house and talking with her.He returned to the house at about 9:00 PM.As soon as, he entered inside the house, the accused also entered the house and began to assault him.She had seen the injuries of her husband.She proceeded for three-four steps to save her husband, Bijendra and Veerpal assaulted her.Tejpal fell down her jethani Sunita and Veerpal told to hit in his head so that he could not survive.She had told Investigating Officer that Veerpal had told to hit in his head so that he could not survive and Tejpal had fallen down her jethani Sunita and Dharmveer assaulted her.If these were not recorded in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. then she could not give any reason.She and Sunita received invisible injuries and blood was not oozing.As soon as the accused ran away, her jeth Vikal and other villagers namely Omveer, Sanjay and Devendra took her husband to the hospital in a vehicle.Manoj remained at the house for their safety.He brought a doctor to the house for providing medicines to them.The police came to her house after 2 to 2-1/2 hours of the incident and recorded her statement.On the next day again the police came to her house and recorded statements of her jethani.She did not know that who had gone to Meerut along with her husband nor she could tell that who had informed that her husband was taken to Meerut.About one year prior to the incident, election had taken place.Since then the accused used to keep enmity with her family.The date of incident was third day of Navaratri.She and her husband were observing fast.She did not remember as to whether her husband had gone to temple from the house or from outside.In her family, election of Pradhan of the village was contested by Kharag Singh, who had won the election defeating Yogendra.She cannot state the names of other contestants.She denied that Harendra was having a shop of spare parts near Arya Samaj Temple, Modi Nagar and was living in a rented house there.Smt. Sunita (PW-5) stated that Harendra was her devar.The incident took place on 21.09.2009 at about 9:00 PM.She was sitting at her verandah of her house and talking with her devrani Sarita.The bulb were lightening through generator.Her devrani was waiting for her devar Harendra, who had gone to Maha Maya Temple.At about 9:00 PM, as soon as her devar entered inside the house, opening the door, then Bijendra, Veerpal, Bhoopendra, Neeraj, Tejpal, Anuj and Dharmveer also came, behind him.She knew them since before the incident.Bhoopendra and Tejpal were not present in the Court on that day.The accused with common intention began to assault her devar mercilessly with their respective weapons.Dharmveer commanded while shouting to kill Harendra.At the time of the incident, they shouted, then her husband Manoj, her jeth Vikal, Devendra, Sanjay, Anil and large number of peoples came on the spot.Harendra had become unconscious as large quantity of blood was oozing from his head.When her husband and other people reached there, then the accused ran away from the spot, giving threats to kill.The accused used to keep enmity with her devar due to election rivalry.For that reason, the accused killed Harendra.Harendra was taken to Jeevan Hospital, Modi Nagar in his Tata Sumo, which was driven by Omveer.Her jeth Vikal took another vehicle.She did not know as to apart from other persons, who went with them.In cross-examination, she stated that she was sitting in the portion of her devrani, while talking with her.She and her devarani had one house but separate verandah.Her devar went at about 5:00 to 5:30 PM, from the house, telling to go to the temple.Since then she was sitting there.Harendra used to go to the temple in evening, his time was not fixed.During this period, her husband was not at the house and was at the gher, which situated at a distance of 100 meter from her house.All the accused were assaulting Harendra, for about 3 minutes.Tejpal got her fallen through lathi and Dharmveer assaulted her.Veerpal was repeatedly telling to assault Harendra in his head.Her husband and jeth came within one and half minute of their shouting.Sanjay, Devendra and Anil also came along with her husband.As soon as her husband and jeth came, they took Harendra in the vehicle.Her husband Manoj did not went to the hospital.Her jeth Vikal came back to the house at about 11:30 PM.Manoj brought doctor to the house for their treatment.Her brother Manoj was not at the place of incident at that time.He came later on and went to the house of Vikal for safety of his children.She had informed about the injuries received by her.She denied that Harendra was having a shop of spare part at Arya Samaj Mandir, Modi Nagar and was living there.Her father's house was at village Panchali, which situated at Meerut-Baghpat road.Her husband did not go outside on 21.09.2009 as it was navaratri.She along with her husband went to the temple for worship at about 12:00 in noon, in her Sentro car.At about 4:30 PM, he went to gher.Harendra had Tata Sumo and Vikal had his separate car.He denied the suggestion that on 21.09.2009, Harendra and Monoj had gone to village Atauda to attend barasi of the brother of Sarita and while returning, they met in an accident, in which Harendra received injuries and he was admitted to Anand Hospital.So far as endorsement of "Alleged road traffic accident" mentioned in Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13) and Progress Sheet, are concerned, Vikal Singh (PW-1) has stated that they had first taken, Harendra to Jeevan Hospital, Modi Nagar.The doctor present on duty came outside and upto the vehicle, on which Harendra was brought and after examining him, he referred him for Meerut, looking to his critical condition.His family members and relations proceeded to Meerut taking Harendra and they got him admitted in Anand Hospital, Meerut.Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.[Delivered by Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, in Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2013, Sri R.K. Singh, in Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2013 and Sri Mohd. Afzal, in Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2013, for the accused-appellants and Sri Dilip Kumar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Muktesh Singh, for the informant and Sri Nafees Ahmad, A.G.A., for State of U.P.Veerpal and Dharmveer have filed Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 2013, Anuj has filed Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2013 and Bijender Singh, Tejpal and Neeraj have filed Criminal Appeal No. 154 of 2013, from their conviction and sentence passed by Additional Session's Judge, Court No. 10, Ghaziabad, dated 13.12.2012, in S.T. No. 361 of 2010, State of U.P. Vs.Bijendra Singh and others, [arising out of Case Crime No. 684 of 2009], under Section 147, 148, 452, 323/149, 307/149, 302/149, 506 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) P.S. Modi Nagar, district Ghaziabad, convicting and sentencing them for six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 147 IPC, one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 IPC, three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- each under Section 323/149 IPC, one year six months rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 3000/- each under Section 302/149 IPC, with default stipulation.He prepared Police Form-13, photo lash, challan lash and letters to the authorities (Ex-Ka-7 to Ka-11) for conducting postmortem of the dead body and handed over the dead body to constable Sanjay Kumar, for taking it up to mortuary.Dr. R.V. Singhal (PW-6) conducted autopsy of dead body of Harendra on 22.09.2009 at 2:30 PM and prepared Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-12) in which following ante-mortem injuries were noted:-(i) 9cm long curved stapled wound, 1.5cm above left ear with 19 staples.(ii) 5.5cm long stapled wound, 10 staples, 6cm above right ear.(iii) Abraded contusion 6cm x 3cm on top of left shoulder.(iv) Abraded contusion 12cm x 3cm on back of right side of right chest, below right scapula.(v) Abraded contusion 17cm x 2cm on back, below left scapula.Dr. K.C. Tiwari (PW-8) examined Smt. Sarita wife of Harendra on 24.09.2009 at 12:45 PM and prepared her Injury Report (Ex-Ka-15) in which following injuries were noted:-(i) Contusion 1/2cm x 1/2cm on the right forearm, 7cm above the right wrist.(ii) Contusion 6cm x 3cm at outer side of left arm, 4cm above left elbow.(iii) Contusion 3cm x 4cm over left forearm, 6cm below elbow joint.(iv) Complained of pain on left neck.(v) Complained of pain on both buttocks.On committal, the case was registered as S.T. No. 361 of 2010, State Vs.Bijendra Singh and others.The accused pleaded "not guilty" and claimed for trial.In order to prove the charges, apart from documentary evidence, the prosecution examined Vikal Singh (PW-1), the informant and brother of the deceased, constable Jagpal Giri (PW-2), to prove check FIR, SI Aman Singh (PW-3), to prove Inquest (Ex-Ka-6), Smt. Sarita (PW-4), an injured witness and wife of the deceased, Smt. Sunita (PW-5), an injured witness, Dr. R.V. Singhal (PW-6), to prove Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-12), Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-7) to prove Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13) of Harendra, Dr. K.C. Tiwari (PW-8), to prove Injury Reports (Ex-Ka-14 and Ka-15) of Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita, SI Om Kumar (PW-9) first Investigating Officer, Inspector R.K. Singh (PW-10), second Investigating Officer and Omveer Singh (PW-11), a witness of recovery memos.Manoj Kumar (CW-1) was elder brother of the deceased.It may be mentioned that Bhoopendra died during trial and trial was abated against him.After completion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminatory facts and materials were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC.They denied the facts and materials and claimed for false implication.They stated that Harendra received fatal injuries in road accident and they were falsely implicated.Tejpal took plea that he was employed in BSNL and was living along with his family at Nand Nagli, Modi Nagar for last 20 years.He was not present in the village on the date of incident rather was on duty at Head Quarter of BSNL, Delhi.They examined S.P. Singh (DW-1), a Finger Print and Handwriting Expert, to prove signature and thumb impression of Manoj Kumar at the hospital papers, Munesh Pandit (DW-2), Manager of Anand Hospital to prove Bed Head Ticket of the deceased.After hearing the parties, Additional Session's Judge, by impugned judgment held that from the allegations made in the FIR, site-plan as well as statements of the witnesses Vikal Singh, Smt. Sarita, Smt. Sunita and SI Om Kumar, it was proved that the place of occurrence was the house of the deceased.The occurrence was fully proved from the statement of Vikal Singh, Smt. Sarita, Smt. Sunita, who were eye witnesses of the incident.As the case was proved by the eye witnesses, as such the motive has no importance.In the hospital records and Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13), it was inadvertently written as "traffic accident", which could not create any doubt.Vikal Singh reached Anand Hospital on 22.09.2009 at 1:00 PM, then he had signed the various document.On these findings, he convicted the appellants and sentenced as mentioned above.Hence these appeals have been filed.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined three eye witnesses, namely Vikal Singh (PW-1), Smt. Sarita (PW-4) and Smt. Sunita (PW-5).He had fully recognized the accused in the light of the generator.On his pointing out, Investigating Officer made spot inspection and prepared site plan on that day.He also collected blood stained and plain earth from the place of occurrence and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-2).Harendra died in the hospital on 22.09.2009 due to the injuries.He gave blood stained clothes of Harendra to Investigating Officer of which recovery memo (Ex-Ka-3) was prepared.In cross-examination, he stated that his house is situated at a distance of about 100 paces from the house of Harendra in another lane.In last election, they had supported Bijendra, son of Jasdeo.Harendra was taken to hospital on Tata Sumo vehicle of Harendra.Sanjay Singh was son of Shyoraj Singh of his village.Paper No. 175-Kha/11 did not bear the signature of his brother Manoj but Paper No. 175-Kha/8 was signed by Manoj.Bhoopendra was armed with handle of hand pump, Neeraj was armed with hockey and remaining persons were armed with lathi-danda.She knew the accused since before the incident as they were her neighbourers.She saw and recognized the accused in the light of generator.Dharmveer challenged while shouting that today Harendra would not be spared, kill him.The accused with common intention assaulted her husband by their respective weapons.Today, Bijendra, Neeraj and Bhoopendra were not present in the Court and Anuj, Tejpal, Veerpal and Dharmveer were present.Her medical examination was held.Her statement was recorded by the police.During the election or till the incident, no altercation or any quarrel had taken place between her husband and the accused.In the morning, her jeth Vikal came to the house and began to talk with her mother-in-law, then she began to weep.Vikal came back to the house at about 11:30 PM and thereafter he went and then came back after sunrise.She denied that her husband received injuries in road accident.Her father's village was Arauda, which is situated at Meerut to Mawana road at a distance of about half kilometer from Mawana and about 8-10 kilometer from Meerut.She denied that on 21.09.2009, there was barasi of her brother Sushil at village Arauda; and her husband Harendra and Manoj had gone to attend barasi of Sushil and while returning back, they met with an accident on road, in which her husband received injuries.Bhoopendra was armed with handle of hand pump, Neeraj was armed with hockey stick and remaining persons were armed with lathi-danda.She and her devrani tried to save Harendra, but the accused did not allow them to go up to Harendra and assaulted them.Veerpal was exhorting to assault on the head of Harendra so that he could not be spared.She showed her ignorance that Tejpal was living at Nand Nagari colony.We have considered the arguments of counsel for the parties and examined the record.On the basis of endorsement of "Alleged road traffic accident" mentioned in Progress Sheet (Paper No. 175-Kha/3) and Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13) of Harendra and thumb impression of Manoj Kumar on Paper No. 175-Kh/15, the appellants argued that the deceased Harendra and Manoj had gone to village Atauda to attend barasi of the brother of Smt. Sarita (wife of the deceased) and while returning, they met with a road accident, in which Harendra received injuries and they were falsely implicated.S.P. Singh (DW-1) has stated that the alleged thumb impression of Manoj Kumar on Paper No. 175-Kh/15, could not be tallied with his specimen thumb impression.Thus, from the own evidence, this paper has been disproved.He along with Babloo Bashistha went to lodge FIR at police station Modi Nagar.Thereafter, he went to his house, where SI Om Kumar (PW-9) recorded his statements and made spot inspection.Then he proceeded to Meerut and reached Anand Hospital at 1:00 AM, then he signed various papers in the hospital.From his statements, it was proved that in a critical condition, his family members and the villagers got Harendra admitted in Anand Hospital.If any wrong endorsement was made in Progress Sheet at that time, then the entire prosecution evidence is not liable to be disbelieved.Paper No. 175-Kha-10 was signed by Babloo Bashistha and Amit, Paper No. 175-Kha-11 was signed by Sanjay Singh, who were villagers.The fact that hospital papers were signed by various villagers, itself proves that statements of Vikal Singh (PW-1) is more reliable.In case, Harendra had received injuries in road accident, then presence of the villagers in Anand Hospital, which was at a distance of about 50 kilometers from his village, was not provable in the night.It case of contradiction between endorsement of the hospital and ocular testimonies, the eyewitnesses have to be given precedence.Dr. Ajay Gupta (PW-7) who has prepared Injury Report (Ex-Ka-13) of the deceased has stated that the injuries of Harendra might have come from blunt object.The incident had taken place on 21.09.2009 at 9:00 PM and FIR has been lodged on 21.09.2009 at 22:45 hours by Vikal Singh.Constable Jagpal Giri (PW-2) stated that after lodging the FIR, he sent information to superior officer on R.T. Set on 21.09.2009 at 22:45 hours, immediately, which was endorsed in G.D. SI Om Kumar (PW-9) stated that after receiving copy of FIR and G.D. entry, he had reached the place of occurrence within 15-20 minutes.He recorded statements of the informant and made spot inspection in night, at 12:10 AM, in the light of generator.As such, it cannot be said that FIR was ante-timed.Vikal Singh (PW-1) remained on the spot at least up to 12:10 AM in night and thereafter he went to Meerut, by his Maruti Zen car.Vikal Singh, Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita (PWs-1, 4 and 5) have stated that incident had occurred inside the campus of the house of Harendra.In the site-plan (Ex-Ka-16), the place of occurrence was shown inside the campus of Harendra.SI Om Kumar (PW-9) collected blood stained flour and plain flour from the house of Harendra, where he was assaulted by the accused and prepared its recovery memo (Ex-Ka-2).In chemical examination report dated 14.10.2009, the blood was found in Ex-Ka-2 but its origin could not be determined as the blood had become disintegrated.If Harendra had received injury in road accident, then his vehicle Tata Sumo might have been also damaged.But there is nothing to show that vehicle of Harendra or his brother Manoj was damaged in the alleged road accident.From the aforesaid evidence, it is proved that the place of occurrence was inside the campus of Harendra.On the basis of the facts that the name of Smt. Sunita was not mentioned as an injured in FIR and the injuries of Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita were examined on 24.09.2009, the appellants argued that these were fabricated injury reports.So far as non-mentioning the name of Smt. Sunita as an injured in the FIR is concerned, FIR was hurriedly scribed and if something has been omitted in it then on its basis no suspicion can be raised as it has now been well settled that FIR was not an encyclopedia.Injury Report (Ex-Ka-15) of Smt. Sarita shows that she received two contusions of simple nature in her hands and complained of pain at three places.Injury Report (Ex-Ka-14) of Smt. Sunita shows that she received one contusion in her hand of simple nature.Husband of Smt. Sarita had died in this incident.In the circumstances, if they did not care for their medical examination, for two days, then nothing was unusual.Injury Reports (Ex-Ka-14 and Ka-15) were proved by Dr. K.C. Tiwari (PW-8).Nothing has come in his cross-examination to show that these injury reports were fake.So far as the arguments that disclosure statement was not separately recorded and signed by the accused as such recoveries of the weapons on the alleged pointing out of the accused (except Anuj, from whom, nothing was recovered) were illegal.The same was found to be necessary for the reason that, a witness will then be free to testify in court, unhampered by anything which the police may claim to have elicited from him.In the event that, a police officer, ignorant of the statutory requirement asks a witness to sign his statement, the same would not stand vitiated.At the most, the court will inform the witness, that he is not bound by the statement made before the police.However, the prohibition contained in Section 162(1) CrPC is not applicable to any statements made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter called "the Evidence Act"), as explained by the provision under Section 162(2) CrPC.The Court concluded that the resultant position is that the investigating officer is not obliged to obtain the signature of an accused in any statement attributed to him while preparing seizure memo for the recovery of any article covered by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. But if any signature has been obtained by an investigating officer, there is nothing wrong or illegal about it." Supreme Court again in Golakonda Venkateswara Rao v. State of A.P., (2003) 9 SCC 277, reconsidered the entire issue, and held that merely because the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on its own facts.In the event that the recoveries are made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, then, despite the fact that the statement has not been signed by him, there is certainly some truth in what he said, for the reason that, the recovery of the material objects was made on the basis of his statement.The charges against the appellants have been proved by the ocular testimonies of Vikal Singh (PW-1), Smt. Sarita (PW-4) and Smt. Sunita (PW-5), which were fully corroborated with medical papers and the police papers.Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita (PWs-4 and 5) are ladies, their presence at the house at 9:00 PM cannot be doubted as Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita (PWs-4 and 5) were residing in the same house, having separate verandah.They have stated that they were talking between them at the verandah of Smt. Sarita at the time of incident.At the time of incident, the bulbs were lightening from the generator.The accused were neighbourers and were fully known to them.Vikal Singh (PW-1) stated that at the time of incident, he was in front of the house of Harveer and after listening hue and cry, he came on the spot and had seen the incident.Smt. Sarita and Smt. Sunita (PWs-4 and 5) intervened in the dispute and they also received injuries.These witnesses have fully proved the charges.Except minor contradictions, their testimonies were consistence on main incident and manner of assault.There is nothing in their statements to raise any doubt in respect of their presence.So far as the alleged improvements are concerned, the police interrogated them in respect of the incident, which was replied by them.In statements in Court, something more were asked from the witnesses then it were also replied by them.Although there were seven accused but on the body of the deceased five injuries were found in Postmortem Report (Ex-Ka-12).According to the prosecution, they formed unlawful assembly and with common object to kill Harendra, all the accused entered his house and participated in the quarrel.The appellants were members of unlawful assembly, which has been proved from the ocular testimony of the witnesses.Order date: 20.8.2019 Jaideep/-[Umesh Kumar,J.] [ Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.]
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,830,120 |
Rajandra Prasad Singh, M/s. K. G. Vakharia, P. H.Parekh and Ratan Karanjawala for the Appellants.T. U. Mehta, M. N. Shroff and Himantika Wahi for theRespondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PATHAK, J. This appeal, preferred under the SupremeCourt (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act,1970, is directed against the judgment and order of the HighCourt of Gujarat setting aside the judgment and order ofacquittal passed by the trial court and convicting andsentencing the appellants for offences under s. 302 readwith s. 34, Indian Penal Code, and under s. 326 read with s.34 of the Code.The appellants, Ajit Singh and Balwant Singh, arefather and son.Another son is Mohan Singh.All three werecharged with the murder of Manilal and with causing injuriesto Parmabhai, Bhulabhai and Natwarlal.The prosecution caseis that Manilal, Bhulabhai and Bhikabhai were three brothersresiding in a chawl belonging to the appellant Ajit Singh,that on 9th April, 1975 Manilal drew his salary from thefactory where he worked and at about 6.45 p.m. on returningto his room in the chawl he was met by the appellants andMohan Singh.They demanded payment of rent but Manilal saidhe would pay it only on the next day.His refusal to makeimmediate payment is alleged to have infuriated BalwantSingh who, it is said, inflicted two kirpan blows on him.Upon this Manilal started running away, pursued by the threeaccused, and headed towards the room of Parmabhai.Furtherkirpan blows were inflicted on him there by the appellants.Parmabhai, who had emerged from his room, was also attackedand given a kirpan blow.Manilal, meanwhile, turned andentered the house of Shanabhai.Ajit Singh is alleged tohave struck him further blows there in consequence of whichhe fell down.Bhulabhai, who arrived on the scene, was alsostruck a kirpan blow.Mohan Singh is alleged to have wieldeda bamboo stick and hit Natwarlal on the head with it.Allthree accused are said to have run away from the place then,leaving their bicycles behind.Manilal was removed to thehospital and declared dead.Parmabhai was admitted as anindoor patient.Shanabhai telephoned the police control room andinformed them of the incident, and the Gomtipur PoliceStation recorded a complaint made by Bhulabhai.On 26th April, 1976 the State filed an appeal in theHigh Court and prayed for condonation of the delay in filingit.The High Court condoned the delay, considered the appealon its merits and allowed it against Ajit Singh and BalwantSingh.They were convicted under s. 302 read with s. 34 ofthe Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.They werealso convicted under s. 326 read with s. 34 of the Code butno separate sentence was passed thereunder.The appealagainst the acquittal of Mohan Singh was dismissed.At the outset, it is urged by learned counsel for theappellants that the High Court erred in condoning the delayin filing the appeal, and the appeal should have beendismissed as barred by limitation.We have examined thefacts carefully.It appears that initially the StateGovernment took a decision not to file an appeal and itallowed the period of limitation to lapse.Subsequently, oncertain observations made by the High Court whileconsidering a revision petition by Bhulabhai that it was afit case where the State Government should file an appealand on notice being issued by the High Court to the StateGovernment in the matter, the appeal was filed.It was filedthree months after limitation had expired.A faint attemptwas made to show that when the initial decision was takennot to file an appeal all the papers had not been consideredby the department concerned, but we are not impressed bythat allegation.The truth appears to be that the appeal wasnot filed at first because the State Government saw no caseon the merits for an appeal, and it was filed only becausethe High Court had observed-and that was long afterlimitation had expired-that the case was fit for appeal bythe State Government.But quite besides this, there was also no merit in theappeal filed before the High Court.The Prosecuting Inspector also admitted in cross-examinationthat during the investigation all the eye-witnesses cameforward with "stereotype" statements.One other significantfact remains.According to the evidence the incident waswitnessed by several other people, but not a singleindependent witness has come forward to support theprosecution.The eye-witnesses produced are either relatedor members514of the same community; members of other communities alsolived in the chawl and admittedly were on cordial terms withthe complainant Bhulabhai and the other witnesses.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,014,704 |
Prosecution case is that on 26.02.2015 at about 11:15 of p.m. in the night, the respondent entered the residential rt premises of the prosecutrix and took her away and thereafter, ou ravished her.It is also the case of prosecution that C subsequently also the respondent ravished prosecutrix as a h result whereof, she conceived and after due gestation period, ig she delivered a baby.Till that point of time, the prosecutrix H never revealed the name of the respondent.It is only came to the public domain through local newspapers, after three days of delivery, the prosecutrix revealed the name of the respondent as author of the crime for the first time.There is delay in lodging of the First Information Report also.The defence of the respondent was that prosecutrix had illicit relationship with her brother-in-law as a result whereof, she conceived and delivered the child and in order to falsely implicate the respondent, his name was disclosed.In the DNA sample report, it is found that DNA of the baby does not match with the DNA profile of the respondent and he is not the biological father of the baby.Considering all these and discussing the evidence in proper prospective, trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent.It is based on proper appreciation of evidence.Pr a We find no merit and substance in the present petition.hy Accordingly, grant of leave to appeal is refused and ad M.Cr.C. stands dismissed.
|
['Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,016,596 |
And Re: Abhijit Sarkar & ors.The State produces the case diary and the statement of the victim.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.) 2
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,021,355 |
On November 14, 2006, the parties entered into a distributorship agreement wherein Asia Pacific would sell the products of International Combustion and would get commission @ forty five per cent as and by way of discount.The said agreement for distributorship also recorded other terms and conditions to be followed by the parties.On August 27, 2007 International found a sum of Rs. 2,89,237/- being due and payable by Asia Pacific on account of sale of their goods after giving available credit as also debit note for some defectives materials.Under the said agreement, the dispute, if any, between the parties was to be resolved through arbitration within the local limits of Mumbai and the Courts having jurisdiction over the Municipal Limits of City of Mumbai would be the appropriate forum for resolution of any such dispute.manufacture "IC-Bauser Products".The petitioners were the officers of Asia Pacific Brands India Ltd. They approached International Combustion 2 expressing there eagerness to have a distributorship of IC-Bauser Products belonged to the said company.No offence being committed at Calcutta, the learned Magistrate was not competent to entertain the complaint.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,847,196 |
Dipak Misra, J.The present appeal, by special leave, is directed against thejudgment and order dated August 23, 2012 passed by the High Court of Punjaband Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1620 of 2011whereby the High Court entertaining the Writ Petition had opined that theorder dated 26.07.2011 passed by the Government of Gujarat declining togrant the benefit of premature release to the first respondent herein isillegal and further directed the State Government to reconsider his caseand take a fresh decision in the light of the discussions made in theimpugned order and further to release him on parole for a period of threemonths on furnishing personal bond/security bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-to the satisfaction of the concerned Jail Superintendent.The Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur,Ahmedabad convicted the first respondent and some others for the offencespunishable under Section 3(3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities(Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, “the TADA Act”) and sentenced to sufferlife imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each and in default tosuffer RI for 6 months; under Section 120-B(1) IPC sentenced to suffer RIfor 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default to suffer RIfor 3 months; under Section 5 of the TADA Act sentenced to suffer lifeimprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default to suffer RIfor 6 months; under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act to pay a fineof Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 3 months; under Section25(1-A) of the Arms Act sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and to pay afine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default, to suffer RI for 3 months.Be itstated, he was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3(3)of the TADA Act read with Section 120-B IPC but no separate sentence wasawarded.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.The first respondent preferred Criminal Appeal No. 219 of 1997 andthe said appeal was heard along with the appeals preferred by otherconvicts.This Court in Lal Singh v. State of Gujarat and another[1]scrutinized the evidence in detail and ultimately dismissed the appealpreferred by the first respondent and confirmed the conviction and thesentence as imposed by the learned Judge, Designated Court.During the pendency of the criminal appeal before this Court, thefirst respondent sought transfer from the Central Prison, Ahmedabad to theCentral Prison, Jalandhar on the ground that his family is based in Punjab;his old parents were suffering from number of ailments; and further thefinancial condition of the family was precarious.Considering the reasonsascribed in the representation, the State Government vide order dated11.11.1998 consented to transfer the first respondent from Central Prison,Ahmedabad to the Central Prison, Jalandhar.A condition was stipulated bythe State of Gujarat that tight security and proper police escortarrangement was to be ensured.The first respondent on 19.01.2004 sought premature release underSection 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) on the groundthat he would complete 14 years of actual sentence in jail.His prayerfor premature release was considered by the competent authority of theState of Gujarat which vide order dated 26.10.2006 considering the over allaspects of the matter rejected the said application.The said order wasassailed in Criminal Writ Petition No. 505 of 2007 before the High Court ofPunjab and Haryana which vide order dated 25.08.2008 disposed of the WritPetition with the direction to the State of Gujarat to reconsider the caseof the first respondent for premature release considering the applicabilityof Section 433 CrPC, Section 3 of the Transfer of Prisoner Act and thedecision in State of Haryana v. Mahender Singh[2].Keeping in view the order passed by the High Court, the StateGovernment considered the prayer of the first respondent for prematurerelease on 06.03.2009 and considered all aspects that have to be taken noteof as per the direction of the High Court along with all other factors andthe decisions in U.T. Chandigarh v. Charanjit Kaur[3] and Laxman Naskar v.State of West Bengal[4] and eventually rejected the application.Thegrievance of rejection compelled the first respondent to prefer a Misc.Criminal Application No. 6515 of 2009 before the Punjab and Haryana HighCourt which was eventually withdrawn vide order dated 16.03.2009 wherein itwas observed that it was open to the said respondent to approach theconcerned authority.The order dated 06.03.2009 was again challenged inSpecial Criminal Application No. 1274 of 2009 under Article 226 of theConstitution of India which was dismissed by the High Court.Remaining indefatigable the first respondent preferred Writ PetitionNo.677 of 2010 praying for a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that hehad already suffered requisite period of sentence and hence, he wasentitled to be released as per Sections 432, 433 and 433-A CrPC and para431 of the New Punjab Jail Manual.A grievance was put forth that hisrepresentation had not been considered by the State Government.On20.04.2010, the High Court disposed of the matter directing the StateGovernment to pass a speaking order within a period of two months.Be itstated, when the High Court passed the said order, it had not issued noticeto the State of Gujarat.The said order was assailed before the High Court in WritPetition No. 158 of 2011 and the High Court vide judgment and order dated25.05.2011 directed the State to reconsider the premature release takingnote of the actual sentence of 14 years and three months and more than 21years including remission.The High Court had directed the firstrespondent to be released on parole subject to certain conditions.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the first respondent invokedthe jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia.It was contended on behalf of respondent No. 1 before the HighCourt that provisions of Punjab Jail Manual, 1996 are applicable to himsince he had been transferred to the State of Punjab as per the Transfer ofPrisoners Act, 1950 and as there had been a recommendation by the competentauthority under the Punjab Jail Manual that he was entitled to the benefitof the premature release but the same has been declined by the State ofGujarat and hence, the whole action was arbitrary and illegal.It was alsocontended that the first respondent having acceded to the earlier orders ofrejection by the High Court, was debarred from approaching the Court insubsequent petitions.The learned single Judge posed five questions for consideration.Theyread as under:-ii) Whether earlier dismissal of the petition for premature release by aHigh Court operates as bar and estoppels to the filing of subsequentpetitions?That apart, the issuewas not raised before the High Court.It has been clearly stated in the impugned order that theconvict was involved in disruptive activities, criminal conspiracy,smuggling of arms, ammunitions and explosives and further he had also beeninvolved in various other activities.It has also been mentioned that theprisoner under disguise of common name used to purchase vehicles fortransportation and his conduct showed that he had wide spread network tocause harm and create disturbance to National Security.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,938,541 |
"He is to give bail of Rs.50,000 with ten sureties of Rs. 5,000 each.Seen Police report.Time allowed till 19th November, 1952, for completing investigation."In the meantime, on January 27, 1953, Inspector Mitra had been authorized under s.23(3)(b) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act to file a complaint.The Additional District Magistrate thereon recorded the following order:"Seen the complaint filed to day against the accused Narayandas Bhagwandas Madhavdas under section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with section 23B thereof read with Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act and Notification No. F.E.R.A. 105/51 dated the 27th February, 1951, as amended, issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 8(2) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. Seen the letter of authority.To Sri M. N. Sinha, S. D.M. (Sadar), Magistrate 1st class (spl.empowered) for favour of disposal according to law.Accused to appear before him."J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 2305 of 2004)ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Challenge in this Appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench.The respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the 'Code') to quash the direction given to register F.I.R., charge sheet filed after investigation as well as the cognizance taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (in short CJM) Raebareli.By order dated 13.7.1998 learned CJM had directed the police to register and investigate the case.On 19.7.1998 on the basis of the order passed by learned CJM police registered FIR No. 830 of 1998 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC).Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows:Appellant received a notice dated 18.1.1996 from the Union Bank of India, Raebareli asking him to pay back the loan amount with interest amounting to Rs.1,25,421/-.Appellant was surprised to receive the notice as he had never stood as guarantor for any loan.The writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to seek appropriate remedy.On 13.7.1998 an application was filed before learned CJM alleging commission of offences by the named accused persons.Learned CJM directed the police to register and investigate the case.As noted above, on the basis of order of learned CJM the FIR was registered.By the impugned order the High Court quashed the charge sheet on the ground that the magistrate had no power to order registration of the case.The Additional District Magistrate passed on the complaint to Mr. Thomas to deal with it.Accordingly, on the same date Mr. Sinha then recorded the following order:-"Accused present.Petition filed for reduction of bail.Considering all facts, bail granted for Rs. 25,000 with 5 sureties.To 26.3.1952 and 27.3.1952 for evidence."It is clear from these orders that on 19.91952, the Additional District Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the offence because he had allowed the police time till November 19, 1952, for completing the investigation.On what date the complaint was filed and the order of the Additional District Magistrate clearly indicated that he took cognizance of the offence and sent the case for trial to Mr. Sinha.It would also appear from the order of Mr. Sinha that if the Additional District Magistrate did not take cognizance, he certainly did because he considered whether the bail should be reduced and fixed the 26th and 27th of March, for evidence.It was, however, argued that when Mitra applied for a search warrant on September, 16, 1952, the Additional District Magistrate had recorded an order thereon, "Permitted.Issue search warrant." It was on this date that the Additional District Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.He was merely requested to grant permission to the police officer to investigate a non-cognizable offence.The petition requesting the Additional District Magistrate to issue a warrant of arrest and his order directing the issue of such a warrant cannot also be regarded as orders which indicate that the Additional District Magistrate thereby took cognizance of the offence.The appellant had appeared before the Magistrate on February 2, 1953, and the question of issuing summons to him did not arise.The Additional District Magistrate, however, must be regarded as having taken cognizance on this date because he sent the case to Mr. Sinha for trial.
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,861,009 |
1481/2016 Page 1 of 26The case of the prosecution is that based on secret information received through an informer on 07.07.2005, main accused Sharafat Sheikh, BC of PS Nizamudin, suspected to trade in narcotics with his gang members in Delhi on a large scale, was to come to his residence with co accused Mohd. Salim having smack and illegal arms in his possession.Based on this specific information, a special team was constituted and a raid was conducted.Main accused, Sharafat Sheikh was found to be in possession of a pistol loaded with four live cartridges and a packet containing 500 grams of brown coloured powder alleged to be 'Heroin/smack'.A ruqqa was prepared and the subject FIR was registered in PS Nizamuddin.Investigation revealed that main accused Sharafat Sheikh was deeply involved in illegal trade of drugs and implicated in more than 75 criminal cases concerning offences under, inter alia, NDPS Act, Arms Act, IPC (theft, hurt, assault on government officials, criminal intimidation, kidnapping etc.).Since it was alleged that Sharafat is the chief of a crime syndicate and is amassing wealth through illegal trade of narcotics, provisions under MCOCA were invoked and approved.Sanction u/s 23(2) of MCOCA was granted by the Addl.The investigation disclosed that the main/co accused Sharafat Sheikh purchased a number of immoveable and moveable properties in his name and in the name of his wives - including the accused applicant Ms. Zohra Sheikh, from the funds allegedly generated out of illegal trade of narcotics.The applicant was holding many bank accounts, opened after her marriage in Delhi and Mumbai.The applicant, with her husband/co accused Sharafat and their family members were maintaining a very lavish and fancy lifestyle.She submits that the co-accused Abdul Wajid has clearly stated in his confession statement dated 13.04.06 that all cash deposited/transacted through the saving accounts of the applicant/accused Zohra Sheikh, Najma Sheikh, and from his own account, belonged to accused Sharafat Sheikh.2.5 years.She submits that the applicant, post her marriage to the main accused Sharafat Sheikh, was not having any known source of income nor was she doing any business.She had, in fact, in many documents declared herself as a housewife.She got married to Sharafat Sheikh in 1996 after divorcing her husband who used to work in a hotel along with her.She is having a son out of this wedlock.Zohra Sheikh belonged to a lower middle class family and is a qualified hair dresser.She married Sharfata Sheikh, who is an illiterate, in the year 1996 to enjoy his wealth and live lavishly knowing fully well that the wealth owned by Sharafat Sheikh is out of his illegal activities including trade of narcotics. "Ld APP points out the following previous criminal cases that have been registered against the applicant/accused, in which she has been convicted or is accused:BAIL APPLN."i. There is a FD for Rs. 18.5 Lacks in her name in Bombay Mercantile Bank, Mahim Branch Mumbai.She collected a Demand Draft for Rs. 9.7 Lacs from Mumbai in her name in the month of Oct-25 & deposited the same in her saving account in J& K Bank, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi.She withdrew Rs. 8.3 Lakhs from her saving account No. 9585 in J& K Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch Delhi, in Oct 2005 and destroyed the evidence, after the arrest of accused Sharafat Sheikh while she was avoiding her arrest knowingly.She holds a saving account number 40488 in Bank Of India, Janpath Branch Delhi.There is a transaction for more than Rs.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 20 of 26v. She holds a saving account number 2216 in Bank Of India, C.G.O Complex Branch.She also holds a saving account numbers 9585 in J& K Bank, Lajpat Nagar Branch Delhi.She holds a Duplex Flat in Swarnim Vihar, Sectop-82 NOIDA in her name and a two bad room flat number A-136/6 IInd floor Basti Nijamudin, New Delhi.She also holds two vehicles bearing registration number Dl-3C-Y-0532 TOYOTA QUALIS, and DL-2C-M-7384 SANTRO registered in her name.x. There is a FD for Rs 15 Lacs in the name of her children Hassan Sheikh & Zuhaib Sheikh in Bombay Mercantile bank Darya Ganj Branch, Delhi.There is another FD for Rs 50,000/- in her name in J&K Bank Lajpat Nagar Delhi.Apart from above accused Zohra Sheikh was also holding a LIC policy No. 113641743(Sum assured Rs 20,00,000/- i.e. twenty lacs) in her name, instalment for Rs 65,167/- half yearly."The aforesaid indicates that the applicant is in association with the prime accused since 1996 on account of being his second wife.She has knowingly handled the funds and properties generated/purchased from the BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 21 of 26 syndicate, and failed to prove that these properties are accounted for.She appears to be in possession of movable and immovable properties derived and obtained from commission of an organized crime syndicate, which she has not satisfactorily accounted for."From the investigation conducted so far there is sufficient evidence against the accused Zohra Sheikh for acquiring and possessing unaccounted wealth, moveable and immoveable properties, which she could not account for satisfactorily through genuine source, on behalf of crime syndicate of Sharafat Sheikh, whereby committed an offence u/s 4 of MCOCA.She in connivance with crime syndicate leader and accused Sharafat Sheikh transferred heavy cash from the BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 24 of 26 account of Sharafat Sheikh from Bombay Merchatile Bank, Mahim , Mumbai, collected heavy cash worth Rs. 6.2 lacs and Demand Draft worth Rs.9.5 lacs from a Mumbai based builder Syed Intikhab Hassan, deposited in her own account and removed the cash from there with the pu8rpose to tamper the vital evidence.1481/2016 Page 26 of 26VIPIN SANGHI, J.Commissioner of Police for prosecution of petitioner's co accused Sharafat Sheikh, Mohd. Saleem, BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 2 of 26 Sheikh Hannan, and Mrs. Najma Sheikh (first wife of Sharafat Sheikh).Subsequently, the first charge sheet dated 10.12.2005 was filed against the aforesaid co accused with certain discoveries against the applicant as well.During the course of further investigation, the prosecution sought sanction against the applicant herein (second wife of Sharafat Sheikh) for the alleged commission of offence under section 4 MCOCA and a supplementary charge sheet dated 08.09.06 was filed against her.He relies on the sanction order dated 07.09.2006 to submit that the same does not mention on the basis of which previous involvements, the accused applicant has been deemed to be a beneficiary of the proceeds of crime, as no other previous charge sheets have been produced on record.1481/2016 Page 7 of 26 3(2), 3(5) and 4 of MCOCA, has been granted regular bail vide order of the Ld.Trial court Judge dated 29.10.2005 and the present petition shall be allowed on the sole ground of parity itself.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Radhika Kolluru, submits that during the BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 9 of 26 trial, co-accused Hanna Sheikh @ Hannan Kali and Abdul Wajid @ Master Ji have pleaded guilty and were convicted by the trial court vide orders dated 04.10.10 and 24.01.11 respectively.He further disclosed that the accused Sharafat Sheikh, along with his associates, indulged in the illegal trade in narcotics and dealt in stolen properties and acquired huge wealth out of the same.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 9 of 26She submits that the applicant/accused and her family members have no legal source of income, except wealth/properties generated from illegal trade of narcotic drugs and from dealing in stolen properties.Even if she was working or doing business, she has failed to give any cogent evidence regarding the same.Her objective was to marry Sharafat to enjoy his wealth and facilitate him by holding BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 10 of 26 unaccounted wealth and properties in her name on behalf of the crime syndicate being run by the co-accused Sharafat.APP relies upon the following extract from the supplementary charge sheet in regard to this submission:BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 10 of 261481/2016 Page 11 of 26She further submits that the investigation has revealed that the applicant accused had procured two Voter ID cards - one Voter ID card No. J&K 23-006028 issued from Srinagar constituency of J & K - which was used by the applicant accused for meeting Sharafat Sheikh in Tihar Jail, and second being Voter ID card No. MTT 1796226 issued from Faridpur, Barriely.Both Voter Id cards have been found to be forged during verification.Ld APP submits that during investigation, the applicant disclosed that she used to command the gang whenever Sharafat Sheikh went to jail, with the help of her sister Fatima Ameen@ Rani.She stated that she used to remove heavy cash from her and her husband's accounts and would get signed blank cheques from Sharafat when he was in Jail to avoid seizure and hardship.She submits that while Sharafat was in Jail since 07.07.05, the applicant had transferred an amount of Rs. 6.5 lacs and 12 lacs on 21.09.05 and 11.10.05 respectively into her FDFCR account No. 5093 with the purpose to destroy evidence.This account, after investigation, was frozen.She relied on the statement recorded u/s 161 CrPC of the Chartered Accountant of Sharafat, wherein he stated that in July 2005 the applicant, along with co accused Najma Sheikh and Abdul Wajid had tried to pressurize him to incorporate the vehicles, properties and income thereof in their pending income tax returns, to which he did not oblige.N-36, IInd floor, near Khalilulah Masjid, Batla House, Okhla, Delhi at the time of her arrest.This is the same house that was taken on rent by co-BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 12 of 26accused Abdul Wazid from Syed Intikhab Hassan, and was encroached by the applicant when Abdul Wazid was on the run in this case.Further, co- accused Sharafat, Najma Sheikh and Abdul Wajid and applicant/accused Zohra used the common address Flat A-I/1303, Dheeraj Apartments, Western Express Highway, Kandiwali, Mumbai for correspondence/residential address.Furthermore, on 13th June 2006 accused Zohra had surrendered one pistol with its license and one Double Barrel gun 12 bore without arm License in the office of Anti Extortion Cell, Crime Branch.The aforesaid facts, as per the Ld.Collectively in her all three above mentioned saving accounts, there are transactions worth more than Rs. 63 lacs in a period of approx.2 years.She has disclosed and that she used to command the gang whenever Sharafat Sheikh went to jail with the help of her sister Fatima Ameen@ Rani and used to remove heavy cash from her, and her husband's, accounts and would get signed blank cheques from Sharafat when he was in Jail to avoid seizure and hardship.The investigation has revealed that she had procured two forged voter ID cards and was using one of them to meet Sharafat in jail.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 21 of 26Two weapons have also been recovered from her after her arrest, out of which one DBBL gun 12 bore is unlicensed.This indicates that the applicant appears to have been working hand in glove with the crime syndicate of Sharafat Sheikhs.Apart from the above, the material placed on record also includes the confessional statement of co accused Abdul Wajid, which is admissible u/s 18 of MCOCA.His statement evidences the fact that the wealth/properties in the name of Sharafat, Zohra and other co accused have been generated from illegal trade of narcotic drugs and from selling properties.He presently stands convicted vide order dated 21.01.2011 on the basis of his confessional statement pleading guilty.Prima facie, the acts of the applicant herein comes within the definition of "abet" as defined in Section 2(1)(a) of MCOCA and, prima facie, establishes her role as a conspirator in assisting and managing the crime syndicate.The applicant has, therefore, failed to produce any reasonable grounds for believing that she is BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 22 of 26 not guilty of the offences she has been charged under.On the contrary, the materials brought on record, point to her role in the abetment of the offences by the crime syndicate.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 22 of 26The applicant, as aforementioned, transferred funds from the account of Sharafat Shiekh to hers.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 23 of 26The applicant Zohra disclosed that she married Sharafat, who is of a bad character in PS Nizamuddin and has been arrested in 75 criminal cases involving NDPS, Arms Act, theft, kidnapping, criminal intimidation, hurt etc., to enjoy his wealth and live lavishly knowing that the wealth owned by Sharafat was out of his illegal activities.She holds movable and immovable properties in her name, which she has failed to account for.She has, admittedly, commanded the gang when her husband went to jail.She and her family maintain a very lavish and fancy lifestyle.The charge-sheet filed against her concludes as follows:The applicant has been roped in under very serious charges, and this Court is of the view that if she is let out on bail, she may tamper with the witnesses and the evidence, considering the stakes for the accused and her husband and she may even commit other offences.The grant of regular bail in a case concerning such serious nature and gravity of accusations in the face of the materials brought on record, may have an adverse impact not only in the progress of the case, but also on the trust that the society has reposed in the criminal justice system.BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 25 of 26For all the aforesaid reasons, the present bail application is dismissed.It is made clear that any observation made in this judgment shall not come in the way of the petitioner, and the trial court shall decide the case on its own merits.(VIPIN SANGHI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 20, 2017 BAIL APPLN.1481/2016 Page 26 of 26
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,387,226 |
M.A.No.8504/2013 (for stay) Quashing of FIR No.308/2005, under Sections 420/467/468/471 of the IPC, registered at police station Tilak Marg, New Delhi is sought in this petition on merits.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submits that investigation in this case is complete and charge sheet will be filed within four weeks.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,875,587 |
The applicants have filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.166 of 2013 registered at PS Rannaud, district Shivpuri for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 149, 452, 323, 506B and 308 of IPC.Heard the arguments at length of both the parties.At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants-accused seeks permission to withdraw this application with a liberty to file the bail application again after recording statements of witnesses Awadhesh Gupta and Neeraj Gupta who were present before the court on 17.2.2016 and 18.7.2016 for getting their statements recorded.The prayer is accepted.This application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as stated earlier.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,608,003 |
Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that applicants are innocent persons and falsely being implicated in the case.Persons from both side had suffered serious injuries and counter case is registered against complainant party also.Each of the person is responsible for the injury caused by him on other side as there was free fight between two parties.No custodial interrogation is required in the case.Shri Shailendra Verma, Advocate for the objector.Applicants Prem Chand Patel, Balli Patel, Ramkaran Patel and Krishna Pal Patel have filed first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. Nos. 36593/2020 and applicants Lochan Patel, Veer Singh Patel and Santosh Patel have also filed first bail application bearing M.Cr.C. 39732/2020 for grant of anticipatory bail to them, as they are under apprehension of their arrest, in connection with Crime No.172/2020 registered at Police Station Garhi Malehra, District Chhatarpur (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of Indian Penal Code.In these circumstances, it is prayed that applicants may be granted benefit of anticipatory bail.Counsel appearing for the State Government opposed the application for grant of anticipatory bail.It is submitted by him that offence committed by the applicants are serious in nature and applicants had taken law in their hands and assaulted the other side.Serious injuries were caused and case Signature SAN Not under Section 307 and other sections of Indian Penal Code is registered Verified Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2020.11.07 16:21:53 IST 2 MCRC-39732-2020 against them.Applicants are notorious persons and, therefore, application for anticipatory bail may be rejected.Heard the counsel for the applicants as well as non-applicant.Perused dehati-nalish registered against the applicants and also perused counter FIR filed by the applicants.Both the parties used weapons to assault each other.There was a dispute between the parties over payment of chanda.Babulal is said to be initially abused and assaulted by Santosh Patel and Lochan Patel with hands and fists.Later on, other co-accused persons arrived on spot armed with axe and sticks.Bhagirath and Lalu were carrying sticks.Bhuwanideen Patel, Krishna Pal, Ramkaran, Balli, Premchand and Veer Singh were also carrying sticks.There is allegation that Babulal was assaulted by Krishna Pal, Ramkaran and Balli by sticks.Bhagirath had assaulted Halki Bai and Narayan Das with an axe.Lalu had assaulted Asha Ram and Har Prasad Patel with an axe.There are general allegations against Premchand, Veer Singh, Santosh Patel and Lochan Patel to have assaulted Babulal with sticks.There is specific allegation against Krishna Pal Singh, Ramkaran and Balli to have assaulted Babulal with sticks on his hand.There is only general allegation against Premchand to have assaulted Babulal.Similarly, Babulal has stated in the dehati-nalish that Santosh Patel and Lochan Patel assaulted Babulal with hands and fists and were not armed with weapon.Later on, allegations are made against Lochan Patel and Santosh Patel that they were also armed with sticks and assaulted Babulal.There is general allegation of assault on Veer Singh.Considering the aforesaid allegations, which are made against the applicants, M.Cr.C. No.36593/2020, filed on behalf of applicant Premchand Patel, is allowed, however, application filed on behalf of applicants Krishna Pal Patel, Ramkaran Patel and Balli Patel is rejected.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,615,739 |
( /12/2017) Per Ashok Kumar Joshi, J. -Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 378 for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment passed on 10.03.2017 by the First Additional Sessions Judge Dabra, District Gwalior in ST No.201/2004 whereby present respondent No.3 -Smt.Guddi alias Gomati and respondent No.4 -Manisha have been acquitted by the trial Court from the charge of Section 304-B or 302 or 306 and 498-A of the IPC.It has been contended by the petitioner's counsel that the learned trial Court almost on the same prosecution evidence has acquitted above-mentioned respondent Smt. Guddi alias Gomati and Manisha, who were mother-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the 2 M.Cr.C.4624/2017 deceased, whereas it has convicted and sentenced the husband Ramautar alias Ramavtar and father-in-law-Ramdas Kushwaha for offence punishable under Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.It is clear from the perusal of the record that deceased (Arti) wife of Ramautar died within 5 months of her marriage in her matrimonial home and in the marg report lodged by present petitioner -Bahadur Singh on 21.09.2013 at Police Station Bhitarwar, it was clearly mentioned by him that her daughter (deceased) was harassed in her matrimonial home and it is clear from the evidence of father of the deceased Bahadur Singh (PW-1), mother -Chandra Kala (PW-2) and Atibal (PW-5) that the deceased was being harassed and treated with cruelty at her matrimonial home by her husband and his parents and sister of husband relating to dowry demand.In view of the testimony of the prosecution witnesses it appears that it is a fit case for granting of leave to appeal against judgment of the acquittal of Guddi alias Gomati and Manisha, hence, application filed under Section 378 (3) is allowed.A copy of this order be kept in the record of relating criminal appeal.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,630,255 |
Appellant, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari also arrived over there and demanded of him 20 feet land adjoining to the road.This was opposed by informant's son Ram Baran Singh.This infuriated Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.He took out country-made pistol when his son ran away from there in order to save himself and entered into the house of Babu Lal Halwai in the courtyard.He was pursued by Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.After entering in the house, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari shot dead informant's son in the courtyard of the house.Some emergency light was lit at the betel-nut shop of Vijay.This shop was located in the house of Babu Lal Halwai.The incident was witnessed by Raju Tiwari and Satya Dev Pandey, resident of Naraini and by the few other persons.It was stated that the dead body is lying on the spot.The investigation ensued soon after registration of the case against accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot, appointed inquest witnesses and prepared inquest report of deceased Ram Baran Singh.Its preparation commenced at 8:00 a.m. on 15.03.2000 and completed at 8:30 a.m. In the opinion of the inquest witnesses and the Investigating Officer, it was thought proper to send the body for postmortem examination for ascertaining real cause of death.In the process, relevant papers for sending dead body for autopsy were prepared which are photo nash, challan dead body, letter to R.I. and letter to CMO." A firearm wound of entry 4 cm x 2 cm on right side of face 6 cm away from right ear and just lateral to the outer angle of right eye.There was blackening and tattooing all around the wound.Margins irregular.On dissection, wound was found a tunnel leading to the brain, fracturing the underlying bones and lacerating the membranes and brain tissues.The brain tissues were blood mixed.Three pieces of metallic bullet of irregular size and shape recovered from brain tissue.Three pieces of metallic bullet of irregular size and shape sealed in an envelope and sent to the Superintendent of Police, Fatehpur through Chief Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Fatehpur.On internal examination, frontal bone and right temporal bones were found fractured.Both lungs were congested and heart was full with blood.250 gm.pasty food was found in the stomach.Large and small intestine were partially full with gases.Gall bladder was partially full.Other parts of the body were normal.Urinary bladder was full."In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was stated to be due to coma as a result of ante-mortem firearm injuries.Duration of post mortem examination report from approximate time of death was rated about one day.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.) By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the judgment and order of conviction dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2000 State of U.P. Vs.Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, arising out of Case Crime No.48 of 2000, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Fatehpur and Sessions Trial No.141 of 2000, State Vs.Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Fatehpur whereby the appellant Ramesh Chandra Tiwari has been sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 IPC, with default stipulation for two months' additional rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation for additional one month's rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Heard Sri Jai Shanker Audichya, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri A.N. Mulla assisted by Kumari Meena, Sri J.K. Upadhyay and Mrs. Manju Thakur, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record.It trickles out from record that on the basis of written report moved by informant Brij Bhan Singh son of Late Laxman Singh, resident of Village- Naraini, Police Station- Kishanpur District- Fatehpur, the first information report was lodged regarding murder of his son Ram Baran Singh committed by the appellant by firing on him on 14.3.2000 at 7:00 p.m., with specific allegations that informant's son Ram Baran Singh returned from Fatehpur to Naraini and was chewing betel at betel shop of Vijay along with Raju Tiwari, resident of Naraini.These papers have been exhibited as Exhibit Ka-3, Ka-4, Ka-5 and Ka-6, respectively.Therefore, the Investigating Officer took him to the place of recovery under the bridge of river 'Sasur Khaderi'.The Investigating Officer recovered one country-made gun along with one discharged cartridge entangled in its nozzle from the spot at 6:45 pm at the pointing out of the accused.Record reflects that post mortem examination on the cadaver of the deceased Ram Baran Singh son of Brij Bhan Singh was done by Dr. Subeer Kumar Sen PW-7, on 15.03.2000 at 2:30 p.m. wherein the following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:-The Investigating Officer also recorded statement of various persons.He also prepared site plan of the place of recovery as Exhibit Ka-11 and ensured process for forensic test of the recovered weapon and cartridge at 'Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala', Lucknow and prepared a docket of these materials on 17.5.2000 and also kept simple and bloodstained clay roll under sealed envelope and sent the same to Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala at Lucknow through CMO concerned.The papers relating to aforesaid activities have been proved as Exhibit Ka-12 and Ka-13, respectively.Record reflects that forensic examination report dated 24.01.2001 was obtained in regard to the country-made gun and the cartridge from Vidhi Vigyan Prayogshala, Lucknow.Similarly another forensic report pertaining to the presence of blood in the collected soil from the spot and clothes and other articles meant for forensic test is dated 20.9.2000 which have been marked Exhibits Ka-22 and Ka-24, respectively.Record further divulges that the aforesaid case pertaining to Arms Act was investigated into by S.I. Ramveer Singh.He has proved preparation of spot map as Exhibit Ka-18 and also obtained sanction for prosecuting the accused under Arms Act from the concerned District Magistrate.He has proved filing of Charge-sheet No.46 of 2000 pertaining to Case Crime No. 53 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act against accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.After filing of charge-sheet, committal proceeding took place and the trial court was entrusted with the task of hearing and disposal of the concerned Sessions Trial Nos. 140 of 2000 (pertaining to Case Crime No. 48/2000) under Section 302 IPC and 141 of 2000 (pertaining to Case Crime No. 53 of 2000) under Section 25 Arms Act.The learned trial Judge heard both the sides on point of charge and was prima-facie satisfied with case against the accused.Consequently, trial court framed charges under Section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act. Charges were read over and explained to the accused who abjured charges and opted for trial.In turn, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony whereupon the prosecution produced in all 7 witnesses.A brief sketch of witnesses is ut infra:-Raju Tiwari PW-1 is scribe of the written report and claims himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence.Babu Lal PW-2 is also an eye-witness of the occurrence.He has described the incident.Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku Singh PW-3 is the informant and father of the deceased.He has claimed to have dictated contents of written report to Raju Tiwari.S.I. Shambhu Dayal Shukla PW-4 is the Investigating Officer.He has described the various steps he took in completing the investigation.He is also informant in the matter of recovery of weapon- country-made gun and empty cartridge- from accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari on 26.4.2000 from bushes under bridge of river 'Sasur Khaderi' which report is lodged at Case Crime No. 53 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act. He has also filed charge-sheet against accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari after completing the investigation in Case Crime No. 48 of 2000 under Section 302 IPC.This witness has also proved check FIR pertaining to Case Crime No. 53 of 2000 entered at 7:35 pm.He has prepared site plan of the place of recovery and also obtained sanction for prosecuting the accused and filed charge-sheet as Exhibit Ka-20 against accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.Dr. Subeer Kumar Sen PW-7 has conducted autopsy on the cadaver of Ram Baran Singh at District Hospital, Fatehpur on 15.03.2000 at 2:30 pm.Except as above, no other evidence was produced by the prosecution.Consequently, the evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he claimed innocence and stated that his implication in this case is on account of village 'partybandi'.Ram Baran Singh, Raju Tiwari, Satyadev Pandey are all pocket witnesses of police and they have good relations with the Station House Officer of concerned police station.Ram Baran Singh was killed in the darkness of night by unknown persons and he has been falsely implicated in the case.Appellant filed four papers before the trial court which papers have been referred in the judgment of the trial court itself and the same need not be reiterated at this stage.However, reference of the same shall be made as and when the context so requires.No other evidence except documentary papers was adduced by the accused, therefore, evidence for the defence was closed.The case was heard on its merit by the learned Judge who after appraisal of facts and evaluation of the evidence and circumstances of the case, returned finding of conviction against appellant under Section 302 IPC and 25 Arms Act and sentenced to life imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.20,000/- under Section 302 IPC, with default stipulation for two months' additional rigorous imprisonment and further sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment coupled with fine Rs.2000/-, with default stipulation for additional one month's rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Consequently, this appeal.It has been vigorously urged on behalf of the appellant that prosecution witnesses have not witnessed the incident.The inquest report was prepared the very next morning of the incident on 15.03.2000, whereas, it had commenced at 8:00 p.m. After completion of inquest report, police in collusion with the informant Brij Bhan Singh, in absence of any specific information qua perpetrator of crime, thought it convenient to name the accused in the crime and his name was inserted in the first information report only after preparation of the inquest report.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that glaring contradictions appear in the testimony of various witnesses of fact.These contradictions are substantial and hit to the root of the prosecution case.The circumstances of the case overwhelmingly point out innocence of the applicant.Per contra, the learned AGA retorted to aforesaid arguments by submitting that the appellant has been named in the first information report.The first information report was lodged soon after the incident at 10:00 p.m. The distance from the place of occurrence to the police station was 10 kms.The presence of prosecution witnesses on the spot is natural.Their testimony on the whole is consistent and full of vivid description of the occurrence.Human blood was found on the articles/clothes that were sent for chemical examination which also confirm sanctity of the investigation done in this case and also innocuous testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact.To say that the first information report is ante-timed, is absolutely without any basis because there is neither supporting testimony nor any independent circumstance which may whisper about any such manoeuvring with testimony, on the part of the Investigating Officer and the informant to implicate the appellant falsely in the case.There was no reason for falsely naming the appellant in the commission of the offence and sparing the real culprit.Certain minor inconsistencies are bound to occur in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and they are not expected to give uniform pictorial description of the manner and style of occurrence.These contradictions when weighed properly will appear to be of little consequence and they don't hit at the root of the prosecution case.The testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact inspires confidence.The recovery of country-made gun was made at the pointing out of the accused himself on 26.4.2000 which recovery has been very much proved by the informant.The learned trial Judge has appreciated evidence in right perspective and has rightly convicted the appellant.We have considered the rival submissions and also taken into account the rival claims and in our considered opinion, moot point that arises for adjudication of this appeal relates to fact as to whether the incident was in fact witnessed by the prosecution witnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence and the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused?Prosecution has produced certain witnesses of fact as the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, namely Raju Tiwari PW-1 who claims to have been accompanying the deceased Ram Baran Singh at the betel shop of Vijay at Village Naraini on 14.03.2000 when the incident took place after arrival of accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.Apart from PW-1, another eye-witness of the occurrence is Babu Lal PW-2, in whose house the incident was allegedly caused by the accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.Apart from above two witnesses of fact, the third witness of the incident is the first informant Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku Singh, father of deceased Ram Baran Singh.He also claims to have arrived on the spot after hearing noise.Testimony of all the aforesaid three witnesses of fact has got relevance whereby the factum of occurrence is to be weighed and to be evaluated whether true or not.In so far as testimony of Brij Bhan Singh PW-3 is concerned, he has stated categorically in his examination in chief on page no. 41 of the paper book that he came to know about the murder only at the instance of Babu Lal and Raju Tiwari that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari has murdered Ram Baran Singh.Brij Bhan Singh PW-3 also stated that he arrived on the spot only after hearing the noise.Not only this, he has also testified in his cross-examination on page 42 of the paper book that he dictated the report, on the basis of description of contents which were narrated to him by Babu Lal and Raju Tiwari.It means that Brij Bhan Singh PW-3 never saw the actual occurrence.His testimony, in so far as it relates to the point of actual occurrence is neither trustworthy nor relevant.Therefore, on point of occurrence, his testimony is to be discarded by us.We may cumulatively look into wholesomeness of the testimony of the other two witnesses of fact Raju Tiwari and Babu Lal PW-1 and PW-2, respectively in order to assess the factum of occurrence as emanating from the testimony of these two eyewitnesses.His testimony in the very first paragraph appearing on page 25 of the paper book indicates that on 14.3.2000, it was around 7:00 p.m., he himself, Ram Baran Singh and Satya Dev Pandey were chewing betel at the betel shop of Vijay where Ramesh Chandra Tiwari came and demanded from Ram Baran Singh his land located at crossing adjacent "20 feet" land adjoining to the road at the crossing, which was refused by Ram Baran Singh.The accused whipped out country-made gun, then Ram Baran Singh started running away.He was chased by Ramesh Chandra Tiwari with gun in hand and they were followed by witnesses Satya Dev Pandey and Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku Singh.The deceased while in the process of fleeing away came to the shop of Babu Lal, where emergency light was lit.The deceased entered into shop and arrived in the courtyard ("aangan") of the house.This witness along with others also arrived over there.In the meanwhile, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari shot dead Ram Baran Singh at range point blank due to which Ram Baran Singh died.Ramesh Chandra Tiwari escaped through gallery.He further testified in his examination-in -chief that report was dictated by Brij Bhan Singh which was written by him.He has been cross-examined wherein certain questions have been asked to test veracity of the witness.One of such questions is regarding fact whether Ramesh Chandra Tiwari ever moved any complaint against his (PW-1) fair price shop and another whether licence of fair price shop was suspended.These questions have been denied by this witness.He has also stated that he is witness of the inquest report and witness of attachment/proceeding process under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C. (drawn against accused).He has been confronted with his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein a number of contradictions have surfaced when complared with his previously recorded statement under Section 161 and subsequently given before the trial court.In his examination in chief, this witness (PW-1) has deposed that when he arrived at betel shop of Vijay along with Ram Baran Singh and Satya Dev Pandey, then there came Ramesh Chandra Tiwari.But in his 161 statement, he has stated that when he reached at betel shop of Vijay, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and Ram Baran Singh were already present over there.The statement recorded by the Investigating Officer also does not contain any such description regarding presence of Satya Dev Pandey along with this witness at the betel shop.He has further stated in his cross-examination on page 28 of the paper book that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari was already present at the betel shop when he arrived there.He cannot assign any reason as to how such statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.Not only this, the statement given in the examination in chief also to the ambit that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari asked for "20 feet" land situated at the crossing, whereas, no such statement was ever recorded by Daroga Ji that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari demanded/asked for the land situated at the crossing adjoining to the road.Here, he cannot assign any reason as to how such statement was recorded.Contradiction again figures in his statement on point that Daroga Ji never recorded any statement that Ramesh Chandra Tiwari chased Ram Baran Singh with gun in hand.If such statement has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, then he is unable to ascribe any reason for the same.Similarly, omission in his statement surfaces on point that he had told Daroga Ji that Satya Dev Pandey and Brij Bhan Singh followed Ram Baran Singh and if such statement has not been recorded by the Investigating Officer, he cannot assign any reason for the same.He has been confronted on point whether he gave statement to the Investigating Officer that accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari also entered inside the shop located in the house of Babu Lal, when following deceased Ram Baran Singh.Reply shows that he never gave such statement to the Investigating Officer.If such statement doesn't appear under Section 161 Cr.P.C., he cannot assign any reason.Omission in his statement goes further to the extent that he never gave any such statement to the Investigating Officer that Ram Baran Singh died on the spot and Ramesh Chandra Tiwari made his escape good through the gallery.All these omissions and contradictions and particularly on point of the very genesis of the offence pertaining to demand of "20 feet" land adjoining to road near crossing is found to be an improvement on natural point.This statement made before the trial court smacks of embellishment and vital improvement in the testimony of this witness (PW-1).He goes on to add that Daroga Ji came on the spot, he called him and recorded his statement after 5-6 hours of the incident.He has stated that at the time of when his statement was recorded there was sufficient light as emergency light was illuminating.This way, it is obvious that around midnight of 14.03.2000, the Investigating Officer was present on the spot and there was sufficient light.Non-mentioning of presence of and name of Satya Dev Pandey on the spot appears a deliberate to increase number of witnesses of fact.The point is that sufficient light was available on the spot then how and why the Investigating Officer did not prepare the inquest report after his arrival on the spot although the Investigating Officer Shambhu Dayal Shukla PW-4 in his entire statement recorded by the trial court has not come out with any explanation or reference about non-preparation of inquest report in the night itself on the spot, though in his examination in chief, he has testified straightway that after obtaining copy of check FIR and Panchayatnama, he arrived on the spot.As per testimony of PW-1, his statement was recorded after 5-6 hours of the incident.Then pertinent question arises as to when the light was sufficiently available on the spot, then how and for what reason inquest was deferred till next morning.Here, on bare perusal of the inquest report Exhibit Ka-2, it transpires that the inquest report was also proved by the Investigating Officer himself.The entire prosecution case is abysmally silent about the reason and the circumstance as to why the inquest was deferred till next morning upto 08:00 a.m. after the occurrence when the Investigating Officer had arrived on the spot and there was sufficient light on the spot.In the absence of any reasonable and whothy explanation on the above point, we have been persuaded on behalf of the appellant that till the time of preparation of the inquest report, the name of actual culprit was not known and this was the reason that the police in collusion with the complainant on account of enmity with the accused falsely named him in the FIR.We cannot brush aside such a suggestion which stands on unexplained circumstance on vital aspect of the case which gives rise to possibility of deliberation on point of timing of lodging of FIR because deferring of inquest to the next morning at 8:00 a.m. without assigning any reason, either by the Investigating Officer or by the prosecution witnesses, strongly tilts in favour of accepting the suggestion as true, for obvious reason that possibility of deliberation and false implication cannot be ruled out.The very place of occurrence, has been stated to be the courtyard of house of Babu Lal where shop was located.Babu Lal admits that he runs a shop and he has two houses but he does not reside at the house where the incident took place, although he has stated about presence of light in the courtyard in somewhat varying style.On point of light in the house which is used by Babu Lal for residential purpose also comprises a courtyard.In this courtyard, no emergency light was lit on the day of occurrence.Then the natural query arises as to how and why a residential place (courtyard where incident took place) which had been deserted and was not being used for residential purposes by this witness, will be furnished with emergency light and for what purpose and this natural query has not been clarified.While scrutinizing deeply the point of availability of emergency light allegedly lit on the spot, we discover that no memo of any emergency light was ever prepared in written by the Investigating Officer.The Investigating Officer has made improvement on page 58 of the paper book in his cross-examination in order to evade the situation that he did not give custody of emergency light to Babu Lal and on page 59 of the paper book in the very first line, the Investigating Officer has clarified that he did not prepare any write up for emergency light.This serious omission when read conjointly with facts and attendant circumstances of this case assumes greater relevance and gives thrust to fact that the story of presence of emergency light on the spot is an improvement in order to give coherence to the prosecution version.We also notice that PW-1 and PW-2 have stated about presence of Satya Dev Pandey and father of Ram Baran Singh (Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku Singh) on the spot when the incident took place.But from perusal of testimony of father of deceased PW-3 Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku Singh, it transpires that he himself has testified in his examination in chief that he arrived on the spot only after hearing noise and whatever was told by Raju Tiwari was incorporated in the first information report.Thus, it is obvious that both Raju Tiwari and Babu Lal are deliberately improving their version on point of presence of Brij Bhan Singh on the spot at the time of occurrence.This goes on to reflect on the veracity of the testimony of these two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) and questions the investigation of the case.This report specifically mentions that the gun was not used as claimed by prosecution.Therefore, the recovery loses its legal significance and it cannot be said that Daroga Ji in fact recovered the country-made gun which was used in the commission of the offence.We also notice that PW-1 Raju Tiwari has testified to fact that Satya Dev Pandey and Brij Bhan Singh followed the accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari when accused Ramesh Chandra Tiwari was chasing the victim.But expression made herein-above virtually establishes fact that no statement regarding presence of Satya Dev Pandey on the spot was given by PW-1 Raju Tiwari to the Investigating Officer and Brij Bhan Singh @ Nanku PW-3 stated that he arrived on the spot only after hearing noise and he dictated the written report, whatever was told by Babu Lal and Raju Tiwari.Therefore, testimony of PW-1 Raju Tiwari appears to be improved one and modified on the point of presence of these persons.We have already discussed that availability of light on the spot at the time of occurrence has been deliberately improved, for various reasons counted herein above.Suggestion has come from the defence that in fact the deceased was killed in the darkness of night and the assailants were not seen by anyone, appears to be correct one, for various reasons discussed herein above.If the occurrence had taken place around 7:00 p.m. on 14.03.2000, then there was no worthy reason, when the light was sufficiently available on the spot, to defer holding of inquest of the deceased Ram Baran Singh.The Investigating Officer did not come out with any reasonable explanation on the point.In view of above, testimony of prosecution witnesses of fact when read conjointly with the testimony of the Investigating Officer does not inspire confidence.Raju Tiwari PW-1 also gave specific statement on the basis of which attachment proceedings were drawn against the accused.The statement was given to the Investigating Officer pertaining to fact that wife of Ramesh Chandra Tiwari was slowly removing property and cattle to another village Aurai, if attachment process is not issued promptly.Therefore, it is obvious that this witness (PW-1) has some oblique motive for devising on various grounds against accused which testimonial aspect upon careful scrutiny by us is found to be fraught with explicit and inherent contradictions in material particulars.The incident has its origin while the accused and the deceased were at betel shop of Vijay where some demand was raised by the accused for "20 feet" land adjoining to the road at the crossing which was opposed by the deceased.Thereafter, the accused whipped out a country-made gun and tried to assault the accused and he pursued him to the place of occurrence, where he shot him dead.There are varying descriptions on point of arrival of the accused on the spot whether he was present at betel shop before the deceased arrived at the betel shop or he arrived at betel shop subsequent to the arrival of the accused and this aspect of the case assumes greater relevance, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of prosecution to have produced Vijay-the betel shopkeeper who might have clarified these particular facts but the shopkeeper has not been produced by the prosecution before the trial court.We may also observe that on the point of availability of emergency light in the courtyard ("aangan"), statement of Babu Lal PW-2 on page 37 of the paper book has been given to the effect that emergency light was one which could be shifted by hand from place to place and Daroga Ji watched dead body and injuries on the dead body in the emergency light.However, Daroga Ji said that he did not prepare any memo of emergency light because it was fixed in the wall, whereas, testimony of other witnesses of fact does not show that emergency light was so fixed in the wall.Therefore, presence of the light on the spot becomes doubtful.It is obvious that all the witnesses of fact and particularly PW-1 and PW-2 have given their testimony in that regard, which is full of serious contradictions on material points.Their testimony on the whole is indicative of embellishments, improvements and modifications.Even the doctor witness who conducted postmortem examination on the cadaver of deceased has stated in the very first line of his cross-examination on page 69 of the paper book that he cannot say as to when he came to possess the police papers.This particular aspect also works in favour of the accused, which gives thrust to the suggestion that the first information report is ante-timed.The incident is not consistently proved and participation of the accused in the commission of the crime and the incident being witnessed by PW-1 and PW-2 is highly doubtful.Therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.The learned trial Judge while appreciating evidence, facts and circumstances of this case misread the same and erroneously recorded finding of conviction heavily based on conjectures and surmises, bereft of material on record.Consequently, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant carry force.Therefore, judgment and order of conviction dated 12.02.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Fatehpur, in Sessions Trial No. 140 of 2000 State of U.P. Vs.Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, arising out of Case Crime No.48 of 2000, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Fatehpur and Sessions Trial No.141 of 2000, State Vs.Ramesh Chandra Tiwari, arising out of Case Crime No.53 of 2000 under Section 25 Arms Act, Police Station- Kishanpur, District- Fatehpur, is set aside by us.The appellant is acquitted of all charges framed against him.Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed.Order Date :- 14.12.2016 Ishan Batabyal.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,633,657 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the second respondent passed vide proceedings in Memo No.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S6 Sankar Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1043/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 & 506(ii) IPC.Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime Nos.1038/2013 and 1043/2013 by filing bail applications before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.
|
['Section 392 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 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,613,655 |
rrc (Allowed) C.R.M. 5472 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Dubrajpur Police Station F.I.R. No. 132 of 2017 dated 28th April, 2017 under Sections 341/354B/325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail.In view thereof, the application for anticipatory bail at the instance of the petitioner nos. 2 stands dismissed as 'not pressed'.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary, more particularly the injury report.(Debi Prosad Dey, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,617,613 |
The 8/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The trial Court is directed to secure the petitioner and commit him to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence, if any.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Chatram Police Station Kanakammachatram, Tiruvallur District.This criminal revision has been filed seeking to set aside the judgment and order dated 28.05.2012 passed in C.C.No.130 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District, confirmed by the judgment and order dated 12.09.2013 passed in C.A.No.44 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur.It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner herein had driven his tipper lorry bearing Registration No.TN-63-Y-4878 in a rash and negligent manner at 9.30 a.m. on 25.03.2006 in Tiruvallur- Tiruttani Highway and hit Munuswamy, Ellappan, Venkatesan, Muniammal, who were shepherding three bullocks and also one Sarojammal, who was walking ahead, resulting in the death of two bullocks and Sarojammal and injuries to Ellappan.On the complaint (Ex-P1) lodged by Damodaran (PW1), son of Sarojammal, the police registered a case in Crime No.55 of 2006 and prosecuted the petitioner in C.C.No.130 of 2006 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 2/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.R.C.No.1367 of 2013 304-A IPC.To prove the case, the prosecution examined eleven witnesses and marked eleven exhibits.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.On behalf of the petitioner, no witness was examined nor any document marked.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 28.05.2012 in C.C.No.130 of 2006, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:Provision under which Sentence convicted Section 337 IPC Six months rigorous imprisonment.Section 279 IPC No separate sentence.The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The appeal in C.A.No.44 of 2012 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the I Additional Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, on 3/10http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the present revision invoking Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C.Heard Mr.A complete reading of his evidence shows that he was walking along with others from east to west and the lorry had come from behind and hit them.Had he (PW2) seen the lorry coming behind, his first instinct would have been to save himself.After mowing down humans and animals, the lorry dashed against a tamarind tree and came to a grinding halt.He (PW8) also conducted autopsy on the body of Sarojammal and has noted the injuries found on her body in the post- mortem certificate (Ex-P7).In the light of such overwhelming materials against the petitioner, it cannot be stated that the findings of the Courts below are perverse warranting interference.The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded for leniency in the sentence.The sentence of fine and the default sentence, if any, shall remain the same.Further, the conviction and sentence of the petitioner of the offences under Sections 337 and 279 IPC are confirmed.The Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur.
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,619,397 |
sh Shri R.K.Shrivastava, learned counsel for the complainant.e ad Learned counsel for the parties are heard.This is the third bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for Pr grant of bail.The applicant was arrested on 13.10.2016 by Police a Station Bahodapur, District Gwalior in connection with Crime hy No.514/2016 registered in relation to the offence punishable under ad Sections 304B, 498A IPC and Sections 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.First bail application of the applicant was dismissed as M withdrawn on 27.02.2017 in M.Cr.C.No.2152/2017 from the court of of Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K.Gupta.His second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn on 05.09.2017 in M.Cr.C.No.8583/2017 from rt the court of Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Mahajan and now this third ou bail application has been filed on the ground that prosecution has C examined only five witnesses and 15 more witnesses are tobe examined.On merits, it is submitted that the deceased Chayna's marriage was performed with Sunil Tyagi by giving wrong information that she had passed 10th Class Examination, whereas mark sheet of her sister Mamta was shown and therefore when she was asked to fill 12th Class form, she had gone into depression because she was aware that 10th class mark sheet was not of her own.of (VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE rt ou C h SP ig Digitally signed by SANJEEV H KUMAR PHANSE Date: 2018.04.06 15:31:58 +05'30'
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
256,214 |
M.No.10202 of 2003 is closed.Index:YesInternet:Yesgr.The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed by the petitionerpraying to call for the records in C.C.No.60 of 2000, pending on the file ofthe learned X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and quash thecharge sheet against accused No.5 in C.C.No.60 of 20 00 on the file of the XAdditional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.In the affidavit filed in support of the Criminal OriginalPetition, the petitioner would submit that the respondent has filed a finalreport alleging offences punishable u/s 120B, r/w 420, 468 and 471 of I.P.C.and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in C.C.No.60of 2000 before the Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai only against AccusedNo.1 to 4 ; that he was not initially arrayed as an accused either in the FIRor in the charge sheet and the respondent had not alleged any specific overtor covert act constituting an offence against him; that the respondent CBIafter a full fledged and thorough investigation had submitted its final reportindicating specifically the role played by each accused but has not whisperedeven a word about the petitioner in the capacity of a director or otherwise;that subsequently the Trial Court after taking cognizance against all otherdirectors summoned him adding him as 5th accused in the case.The petitioner would further submit that he has filedCrl.After a thoroughinvestigation having been held by the respondent the charge sheet has beenlaid against 4 accused of whom the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar S/oA.R.Rajasekaran is not one and a careful perusal of the charge sheet in thewhole narration of the offences specifically committed by each and every oneof the accused named in the lengthy charge sheet ranging to 8 pages, onlythose accused named in the accused column as accused No. 1 to 4 have beencharged for the commission of the offence offering specific reasons to the actof each and every one of the accused named in the charge sheet.R.Krishnamoorthy (A1) has committed offences punishable U/s 13 (2) r/w13(1) (d) of PC Act, 1988.It is only the manner in which the name of the petitioner Dr.Pradeep Kumar which has been brought into the charge along with two others asthough the three directors committed offence punishable under Section 420 ofthe I.P.C. without having brought his name in the relevant accused column norspecifying as to what is the specific offences committed on the part of thepetitioner without which simply his name cannot be inserted into theconcluding paragraph just for the simple reason that he was also a director ofthe company.The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitionerwould wonder as to how and what procedure the trial Court has adopted toimplicate the petitioner as the 5th accused consequent to which it has issuedsummons to the petitioner to appear before him.In result,(ii) the order dated 2.8.2002 made in Crl.M.P.No.28 of 2002 by theCourt of X Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai is set aside;gr.V.KANAGARAJ,J(iii) the inclusion of the petitioner Dr.A.R.Pradeep Kumar as the 5 thaccused in C.C.No.60 of 2000 on the file of the Court of X Additional SpecialJudge for CBI Cases, Chennai is quashed.(iv) Consequently, Crl.Deputy Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation, BankingSecurity and Fraud Cell, Bangalore.The Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,622,196 |
It is alleged by the prosecutrix that two lakh rupees were gifted by her parents at the marriage alongwith one motorcycle and golden chain weighing 35 grams and two rings.After the prosecutrix started her marital life, she came to know that her husband is impotent.The prosecutrix alleges that she was asked by the relatives of the husband not to disclose this fact to anybody otherwise she would be subjected to physical beating.The prosecutrix further alleges that she used to be taunted by her (mother-in-law) Smt. Munni Devi, Pramod Singh (Jeth), Snt, Savita (Jethani), Smt. Sunita Singh Kushwah (Nand) and Raju @ Nagendra Singh Chauhan (Nandoi) that her parents have given less dowry and on this issue, she was physically assaulted.The prosecutrix did not disclose this fact to her parents or anyone else due to fear of disrepute.This prosecutrix also alleges that whenever Raju @ Nagendra Singh Chauhan (Nandoi) and Smt. Sunita Singh Kushwah (Nand) used to come down to Gwalior, they used to instigate the other relatives of the husband to subject the prosecutrix to cruelty.The 5 M.Cr.This order shall govern the disposal of M.Cr.C. No. 4325/2017 and so also M.Cr.In M.Cr.C. No. 4325/17, petitioners seek quashment of FIR and the consequential proceedings lodged against petitioner No.1/ Raju @ Nagendra Singh Chauhan and petitioner No.2- Smt. Sunita Singh Kushwah who are Nand and Nandoi of the prosecutrix while in M.Cr.C. No. 7317/17, petitioners seek quashment of FIR and the consequential 2 M.Cr.C. No. 4325/2017 & M.Cr.C. No. 7317/2017 proceedings lodged against petitioner No.1 Smt. Savita and petitioner No. 2 Pramod Singh who are Jeth and Jethani of the prosecutrix.3. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.Brief facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the prosecutrix got married to Subodh Rajawat on 30.04.2012 at Gwalior.All the allegations appear to be against the Rajesh.The complaint is quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C."After introduction of above said section 498-A of IPC in the statue books, the wives were protected against the matrimonial cruelty to a considerable extent.However, as time passed and the social fabric of the society advanced and changed from a conservative to more individualistic and commercial character, the instances of misuse of section 498-A of IPC emerged where the said provision also started to be used an arm twisting tactics against the husband and his relatives by the wife and her parents.The said change in the social set up brought to the fore cases of attempts by the disgruntled women to camouflage themselves as prosecutrix and use the provision 6 M.Cr.C. No. 4325/2017 & M.Cr.C. No. 7317/2017 of section 498-A IPC as a weapon to wreck vengeance against her husband and his relatives.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,626,343 |
It was also submitted before the court on the said date that charge-sheet in the case was expected to be filed within two weeks.M.C. 577/2015 Page 1 of 4The present petition was filed on 06.02.2015 with the grievance that the court was misled, the allegations against the second respondent are serious in nature, there being need for his custodial interrogation so as to gather all the necessary evidence and also to bring out the role of certain other persons complicit in the crime.It is also brought out that pursuant to the said directions, further investigation was carried out and a fresh report, this time around a charge-sheet was presented.The petitioner again filed a protest petition raising the argument that the matter had not been fully investigated, the role of three persons (namely Prithvi Raj Manaktala, Vineet Gupta and Jitender Gupta) having not been properly probed.The Metropolitan Magistrate, by order dated 11.07.2018, has rejected the said second report as well and has issued directions for further comprehensive investigation, keeping the matter alive on her board.M.C. 577/2015 Page 2 of 4The learned single Judge of this court while granting the Crl.M.C. 577/2015 Page 3 of 4 anticipatory bail, by order dated 16.01.2015, was conscious of the factual matrix and the nature of offences involved.The discretion which was used judicially cannot be called in question by a petition presented under Section 439(2) Cr. PC.M.C. 577/2015 Page 3 of 4The petition is dismissed.
|
['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.
|
256,326 |
(a) P.W.1 Sheeba Elizabeth, a resident of Krishnapuram, Ambattur, is running an orphanage.The deceased Rebecca, a child aged 9, was doing her 4th Standard at the time of occurrence.The deceased was the daughter of P.W.1, while P.W.4 is her minor son.She was carrying on the orphans' home in the ground floor while she was living with her children in the first floor. A-2 Shakeela sought help from P.W.1 stating that she was deserted, and she was given work in her house as a servant maid.A-1 informed her that he knew driving, and hence he was utilized for that purpose.P.W.1 came to know that A-1 and A-2 had developed illicit intimacy, and she found that it would not be conducive for the conduct of the orphanage.Then, she warned both.At that time, A-2 used to intimidate her telling that she did not know about A-1, and he would do the needful.When P.W.1 warned her, A-2 was about to start with all her goods.(b) On 28.3.2006 in the morning hours, when A-2 was about to start, P.W.1 informed that her parents have been informed, and she can go only with them.Then, A-2 was waiting.Accordingly, the parents of A-2 came there, and P.W.1 got a statement from the parents of A-2 that the custody of A-2 was entrusted with them.When she was about to start, A-2 informed P.W.1 "wait and see what A-1 was going to do".At about 12.15 P.M., Rebecca and P.W.4 Samuel were cycling outside.At that time, A-1 called both Rebecca and Samuel; but, P.W.4 Samuel refused to go.But Rebecca accompanied him and in a short distance, A-1 gave a lighted candle to her and also poured kerosene over her, and thus she was set ablaze.P.W.4 has witnessed the same.On hearing the noise "burning, burning", P.W.1 who was actually in the upstairs doing household work, came down to see her daughter Rebecca burning.Immediately, she took her in a Car.She also gave information to her brother.When the child was taken in the Car to Sundaram Foundation Hospital, the child was telling "I did nothing.Why elder brother Venkatesan burnt me." She was given initial treatment at Sundaram Foundation.Thereafter, she was taken to Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital in an ambulance.The brother of P.W.1 also arrived.It was P.W.1's brother who admitted the child at Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, and P.W.3, the Doctor, who was on duty, admitted the child, and he also recorded the statement given by the brother of P.W.1 since the child Rebecca was semi conscious.P5 is the accident register copy.Despite treatment, the child died in the hospital.P.W.9 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P6, and also a rough sketch, Ex.The photographs were taken from the place of occurrence.M.O.2 series are the photographs along with negatives.He recovered material objects under a cover of mahazar.Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.The same was recorded.A-1 was arrested at 18.00 hours the very day when he came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admissible part is marked as Ex.For Appellant : Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan Senior Counsel for Mr.krishnan For Respondent : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Public ProsecutorCOMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) C.A.No.399 of 2008 challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.III, Poonamallee, made in S.C.No.28 of 2008 whereby the appellant shown as A-1 was found guilty under Sec.302 of IPC while A-2 though charged under Sec.302 read with 109 of IPC, died pending trial.2.The trial Court has sought for confirmation of the death penalty awarded to the appellant.3.Both the referred trial and the appeal at the instance of A-1 in S.C.No.28 of 2008 are taken up for consideration together.4.Necessary facts for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:A-1 was working as a mason for sometime.P.W.1 was searching for a driver for a car.(c) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station where P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, was on duty, and gave Ex.P1, the report.In Crime No.571 of 2006 under Sec.302 of IPC, a case came to be registered.In the meanwhile, the finger print expert was called, and he took the finger prints from the place and also from the vessel.Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.2, the Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government Kilpauk Medical College, who has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of hypovolumic shock due to burns.(d) Pending the investigation, A-2 was arrested on 6.4.2006, and she gave a confessional statement.Then he produced, M.O.15, plastic can, M.O.16, diary, and M.O.17, letter, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.Both the accused were sent for judicial remand.Finger prints were also taken from them, and they were sent to the finger print expert for comparison.After comparison, the finger print expert, P.W.8, also gave a report, Ex.The material objects were subjected to chemical analysis which resulted in Ex.P18, the chemical analyst's report.P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the final report.5.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 18 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, A-1 was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.Hence the matter has been placed before this Court for the purpose of confirmation, while the appellant/A-1 has brought forth the appeal.Both were taken up for consideration by this Court.6.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan would submit that the case of the prosecution was that the occurrence has taken place at 12.15 P.M. on 28.3.2006; that the prosecution rested its case on the evidence of P.W.4 a child of 4 years old; that according to the prosecution, A-1 had illegal intimacy with A-2; that P.W.1 informed the parents of A-2 and when they came, she got a written undertaking and allowed A-2 to go out; that in the instant case, according to the prosecution, P.W.1 at the time of occurrence, was actually in the first floor doing her household work, and hence she could not have seen the occurrence at all; that it was not the evidence of P.W.1 that she saw A-1 moving from the place, and hence she cannot be said to be a competent witness to speak about the occurrence; that P.W.4 was a minor boy of 6 years old; that in view of the fact that the child was of tender age, the evidence of P.W.4 should have been outright rejected by the trial Court; that according to P.W.1, when she came down, P.W.4 informed her; but, at the same time, in the earliest document Ex.P1, the report, nowhere had she stated that she was informed by P.W.4; that according to her, in the orphanage there were eight children and also four adult members; that even she has added in her evidence that at the time when the occurrence has taken place, the children were playing; and that though number of persons were actually cited and their statements were also recorded by the Investigator at the time of investigation, they were not examined by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.7.Added further the learned Senior Counsel that in the instant case, according to P.W.1, immediately the child with burn injuries was taken to Sundaram Foundation Hospital for first-aid; that neither the Doctor who gave the treatment was examined, nor the accident register copy or any document in that regard which should have been the earliest document, was filed before the Court; that had it been produced before the Court, the earliest statement given to the said Medical Person would have come before the Court; that according to P.W.3, the Doctor, who gave treatment at Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital to the child Rebecca, the child sustained 100% burn injuries, and if to be so, the child could not speak; but P.W.1 would claim that when the child was taken to the hospital in the car, she was telling that it was A-1 who actually set fire on her, and P.W.1 had nowhere stated in the earliest report, Ex.11.The Court paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and looked into the materials available in entirety.12.It is not in controversy that a child of age 9 by name Rebecca, the daughter of P.W.1, following an incident that took place at 12.15 P.M. in front of the house of P.W.1 on 28.3.2006, in which she was set ablaze, was taken to the hospital, and despite treatment, the child died on the day.Following the case registered by P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, on the report of Ex.P1, and following the inquest made by him, the dead body was subjected to postmortem.P.W.2, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy has given a categorical opinion that the child died due to the burn injuries.The fact that the child died out of burn injuries was not a fact disputed by the appellant before the trial Court or in this appeal even, and hence it has got to be recorded factually without any impediment that the child died out of burn injuries sustained by it.From the evidence of P.W.1, it could be seen that A-1 and A-2 were actually employed under her during the relevant time; that they developed illicit intimacy; that when she took notice of the same, she warned both of them, and despite the warning, they continued to have the same.The evidence would further go to show that vexed over the situation, P.W.1 who is actually carrying on the orphanage, informed to the parents of A-2, and the parents of A-2 also arrived there, and she got an undertaking letter from them and handed over the custody of A-2 to her parents.It is further seen that when A-2 left the place, she has challenged "wait and see what A-1 was going to do", and within a short span of an hour, the occurrence has taken place.From the evidence of P.W.1, it would be quite clear that the children were cycling outside the house, and P.W.1 was actually doing her household work in the first floor where she was residing.Within a short span of time, she heard the noise "burning, burning".Then, she got down to see her child Rebecca actually burning with flames, and immediately the child was taken to Sundaram Foundation Hospital for first aid.At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when the child was taken in the car, the child was repeatedly telling "I did nothing, why the elder brother Venkatesan burnt me.The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant commented over this by stating that according to P.W.3, the Doctor, the child had 100% burn injuries, and hence, the child could not have spoken or uttered these words, and apart from that, this utterance claimed to have been made by the child to P.W.1 was not referred to in the earliest report.The occurrence has taken place at about 12.15 P.M. Immediately the child was taken to Sundaram Foundation Hospital for initial treatment, and then it was taken to Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital only at 1.30 P.M. It was examined by P.W.3 at about 1.30 P.M. Needless to say that in a given case like this when a person is set ablaze, immediately what one would expect from him is a shout as to by whom it is done.Naturally, when the child was taken in the car to Sundaram Foundation Hospital immediately after the occurrence with burn injuries, the child has spoken to the mother P.W.1 that it was A-1 who committed the crime.The Court has to give much weight to this part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution.The non-mention of those words uttered by the child to mother P.W.1, in the earliest report, Ex.Only thereafter, she went to the police station.According to P.W.4, he was playing with his sister the deceased Rebecca, and when A-1 came there, he called both of them; but, he did not go, and it was the sister who went with him, and then he was able to see A-1 giving a lighted candle to her and also pouring kerosene over her, and he has also thrown a burning clothe on him; but, he ran.His evidence was found to be natural.3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,633,771 |
According to the prosecution case, on 20.03.1999 in the noon at 12.30 P.M. Nishant (PW-1) reached at his house after giving examination of Ninth Class.Servant of Nishant informed him that there was a telephone call of brother of his friend Vishal who told him that if Nishant wanted question paper of English subject, he may reach in front of central school where he will meet with his friends.When Nishant reached in front of Central School he found accused Dilip Shrivastava sitting in Maruti 800 Car who asked Nishant to follow him and Nishant went on motor cycle.When they reached in front of a house situated in Azad Nagar locality, after parking car as well as motor cycle Dilip took Nishant inside the house and closed the door.In the evening at 6.00 P.M. Nishant was informed by Dilip that he was kidnapped for ransom and got a letter (Ex.P-1) written by him in the name of his father and mother.The letter was sent to Rajesh Kothari (PW-7), father of Nishant, thereafter in the night at 8.30 P.M. Dilip had a talk with father of Nishant and he demanded Rupees fifty lakhs to release Nishant.Nishant was detained in the house of one Mrs. Uma Sharma who was running a coaching class and for some time Nishant had also joined the same.In the house he was detained for some time, thereafter shifted to Dewas and from Dewas to Guna and Guna to Gwalior and from Gwalior to Bhind.From Bhind he was taken to Itawa and thereafter released him with a bus ticket to go to Indore with Rupees twenty.(Passed on this 23d day of July, 2014) Per: M.C. Garg, J.With consent of the parties, arguments have been heard on this appeal.Father of Nishant, Rajesh Kothari lodged the report of Gumshudgi on 20/03/1999 recorded in daily diary (Ex.P-29).On the basis of letter (Ex.P-20) police registered the crime number 113/1999 under Section 364 (A) of the IPC and Rajesh Singh Bisen (PW-9), Inspector started investigation.During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of several witnesses.On 27.03.1999 appellant was arrested through arrest memo (Ex.P.7) and on is disclosure statement, a key of Hero Honda Motor cycle was recovered lying underneath a 3 big stone in the area known as Loharpiplya, Indore.From the house of the appellant, ball pen, one register, pillow on which name of Nishant was written and other articles were seized.Accused persons denied the charges, therefore, put to trial.They have not examined any witness in defence whereas prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and four witnesses were examined as Court witnesses.Prosecution has also adduced several documents to prove its case.Learned trial Court, after hearing both the parties, while acquitting accused Satyaprakash and Smt. Uma Sharma, convicted co-accused Dilip for the substantive offence under Section 364 (A) of the IPC and present appellant under Section 120-B of the IPC.We have heard the submission made on behalf of the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader.Mh ij ,d fyQkQk j[kk gS tc mlus fyQkQk [kksydj ns[kk rks mlds yMds ls bl ckcn i= fy[kok;k x;k Fkk fd og ,d fxjksg ds paxqy eas Qal x;k gS A ;g yksx ftruk iSlk ekaxs ns nsuk ugha rks ;g mldh tku ys ysaxs A bl izdj.k eas ;g Li"V gS fd vfHk;qDr fnyhi JhokLro dk vig~r fua'kkr ds ifjokj ls dksbZ laca/k ugha Fkk vkSj ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd fnyhi JhokLro dh vfHk;qDr ds ifjokj ls dksbZ jaft'k Hkh ugha Fkh A blds vykok fnyhi JhokLro us ,slk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k Hkh ugha fn;k fd mlus vU; fdlh vk'k; ls vig`r fua'kkar dk vigj.k fd;k Fkk ;k mls vius lkFk vU; fdlh vk'k; ls fHk.M ys x;k Fkk A ,slh fLFkfr eas ih-1 ds i= dks ns[krs gq;s rFkk vlk 1 fu'kkar ,oa mlds firk vlk 7 jkts'k dksBkjh ds dFku dks ns[krs gq;s ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd fnukad 20-3-99 dks vfHk;qDr fnyhi 5 JhokLro us fu'kkar dk O;igj.k mlds firk ls eqfDr /ku izkIr djus ds fy;s vFkok fQjkSrh izkIr djus ds fy;s fd;k Fkk vkSj fnukad 26-3-99 fu'kkar dks voS/k :i ls fu:) djds j[kk rFkk fu'kkar dk O;igj.k djus ds ckn fu'kkar rFkk mlds firk dks /kedh nsdj fu'kkar dks ;k mlds firk dks fu'kkar dh ;k mlds firk dh migfr dkfjr djus dh ;k e`R;q dkfjr djus dh /kedh nsdj ;qfDr;qDr vk'kadk mRiUu dhThe statement of Nishant is corroborated by the other witnesses as well as a letter sent to the father of Nishant for the purpose of obtaining ransom.The discussion in paragraphs 18 and 19 is also relevant.Me dh- 25 cuk;k Fkk vkSj mlds crk;s vuqlkj vfHk;qDr ls jftLVj ckyisu vkSj ih-5 dk i= tIr djds iapukek ih-17 cuk;k x;k Fkk rFkk izsj.kk dksfpax dk jftLVj] yksMisu vkfn tIr djds tIrh iapukek ih-9 cuk;k Fkk A ?kVuk LFky ls pkd dk fMCck rfd;k vkfn tIr djds tIrh iapukek ih- 13 cuk;k Fkk rFkk fnukad 20-3-99 dks Jherh lqeu ls ih- 21 dk edku dk fdjk;s dh lgefr tIr djds iapukek ih- 12 cuk;k Fkk A fnukad 9-4-99 dks ctjax ykt NksVh XokyVksyh bankSj ds ekfyd lkfyxjke ls vfHk;qDr lR;izdk'k ds Bgjus dh bUVh jftLVj tIr djds tIrh iapukek ih-28 cuk;k Fkk A vfHk;qDr izoh.k 'kekZ dk edku [kksydj tks tks oLrq;sa tIr dh x;h gS vkSj izoh.k 'kekZ }kjk nh x;h tkudkjh ds v k/kkj ij tks eseks cuk;s x;s gS vkSj tks tks oLrq;s cjken dh x;h gS mudh iqf"V vlk 4 dey us Hkh dh gS A ;|fi vlk 4 dey] vlk 7 jkts'k dksBkjh dk Mk;oj gS ysfdu ek= bl vk/kkj ij gh mldh lk{; dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk tcfd izdj.k ds vfHkys[k ds vuqlkj ,slk Hkh dksbZ dkj.k ugha gS vlk 9 jkts'kflag fclsu dh lk{; ij tIrh dh dk;Zokgh ds laca/k eas vfo'okl fd;k tkos A vlk 8 Jherh lqeu lksukus us vlk 9 jkts'kflag fclsu ds dFku dk leFkZu djrs gq;s crk;k gS fd tks edku vt; ckx dkyksuh dk mlus izoh.k 'kekZ dks fdjk;s ij fn;k Fkk mlds laca/k eas bdjkj ih-21 fy[kk x;k Fkk tks iqfyl us mlls tIr djds tIrh iapukek ih-15 cuk;k Fkk vkSj ml edku eas 6 vfHk;qDr izoh.k 'kekZ o mek 'kekZ fdjk;s ij jgrs Fks A mDr edku ls tks oLrq;s cjken gqbZ gS vkSj vfHk;qD izoh.k ds }kjk nh x;h tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij eksVj lkbZfdy dh tks pkch cjken gqbZ gS mlls Hkh ;g ik;k tkrk gS fd vfHk;qDr izoh.k dh lgefr ls vkSj mldh tkudkjh eas vfHk;qDr fnyhi JhokLro us vig`r fu'kkar dk vigj.k djds ml edku eas j[kk Fkk A vig`r fu'kkar us bl rF; dh Hkh iqf"V dh gS fd izoh.k 'kekZ uke dk ,d O;fDr jkr eas mls ;g dgdj Mjkrk Fkk fd ;fn iSls ugha feys rks mls ekj nsaxs A ,slh fLFkfr eas ;g mi /kkfjr djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr vk/kkj gS fd vfHk;qDr izoh.k 'kekZ vfHk;qDr fnyhi JhokLro ds lkFk fu'kkar dks bl vk'k; ls vigj.k fd;s tkus ds fy;s lger Fkk fd vigj.k djus ds ckn fu'kkar ds firk ls eqfDr /ku vFkok fQjkSrh dh ekax dh tkosxh vkSj mlh ekax ds vuqdze eas vfHk;qDr fu'kkar dks migfr dkfjr djus ;k e`R;q dkfjr djus ds fy;s Hk; mRiUu fd;k tkosxk A 19& vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ ds laca/k eas vig`r fu'kkar us dsoy ;g crk;k gS fd tc edku eas mls vigj.k ds ckn j[kk x;k Fkk rks mek 'kekZ mls [kkuk nsus vkrh Fkh A mek 'kekZ ds laca/k eas vig`r fu'kkar us vkSj dqN ugha crk;k gS A foospuk vf/kdkjh ds dFku ds vuqlkj vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ ds }kjk nh x;h tkudkjh ds vk/kkj ij jftLVj vkSj ih-5 ds i= cjken djus dh tks iqf"V dh x;h gS mlds vk/kkj ij vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ ds fo:) dksbZ fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk blfy;s mfpr ugha gS fd vig`r fu'kkar us vfHk;qDr fnyhi JhokLro }kjk gh dfFkr i= fy[kok;s tkuk crk;k gS A blds vykok vU; tks lkexzh mek 'kekZ }kjk nh x;h tkudkjh ds fu"d"kZ fudkyk tkuk mfpr ugha gS fd dfFkr edku mek 'kekZ ds ifr izoh.k 'kekZ us fdjk;s ls fy;k Fkk vkSj vfHk;qDr izoh.k 'kekZ ds }kjk gh vig`r fu'kkar dks /kedh nsus okyh ckr crk;h x;h gS A tc vfHk;qDr izoh.k dk dfFkr vijk/k eas lfdz; :i ls ;ksxnku Fkk rks bl dk;Z eas viuh iRuh dh lgk;rk ysuk mlds fy;s LokHkkfod Fkk ysfdu ek= bl vk/kkj ij ;g ugha dgk tk ldrk fd vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ dfFkr vkijkf/kd "kM;a= eas lger i{kdkj Fkh A ;|fi vfHk;kstu dh vksj ls vlk 2 fo'kky dks is'k fd;k x;k gS ftlus crk;k gS fd ?kVuk fnukad dks ijh{kk nssus ds ckn dfFkr ek:fr dkj eas mlus ,d efgyk dks cSBs ns[kk Fkk ftlus mlls ;g iwNk Fkk fd fu'kkar isij nsdj fudy x;k A ysfdu bl izdj.k eas ;g Li"V gS fd vlk 2 fo'kky vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ dks iwoZ ls ugha tkurk Fkk vkSj fo'kky ls vuqla/kku ds nkSjku mek 'kekZ dks iwoZ ls ugha tkurk Fkk vkSj fo'kky ls vuqla/kku ds nkSjku mek 'kekZ dh dksbZ igpku Hkh ugha djk;h x;h ,slh fLFkfr eas U;k;ky; eas dFku ds nkSjku vlk 2 fo'kky ds ;g dg nsus ls fd gkftj vnkyr vkjksih efgyk ogh Fkh ftlus fu'kkar ds ckjs eas iwNk Fkk ;g izekf.kr djus ds fy;s Ik;kZIr ugha gS fd vfHk;qDr mek 'kekZ ?kVuk okys fnu vlk 2 fo'kky dks feyh Fkh vkSj fu'kkar ds ckjs eas iwNk Fkk A D;ksafd U;k;ky; eas dFku ds nkSjku vfHk;qDr dh dh x;h igpku dk dksbZ egRo ugha gS D;ksafd bl laca/k eas ;g lqLFkkfir fof/k gS fd Mkd vkbMs.VhfQds'ku ds vk/kkj ij fdlh O;fDr dks nks"kh ugha Bgjk;k tk ldrk tc rd fd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku mldh f'kuk[rxh ijsM }kjk igpku ugha djk;h x;h gks A bl laca/k eas vfHk;qDr dh vksj ls fo}ku vfHkHkk"kkd us U;k;n`"Vkar izgyknflag fo-e/; izns'k jkT; 19981 ts,yts 84 ij Hkh Hkjkslk fd;k gS A blds vykok U;k;n`"Vkar lqjs'k fo0 e/;izns'k jkT; ,e-ih-MCY;w-,u-199511'kkVZuksV 208 eas Hkh bl ckcn er izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd U;k;ky; eas dh x;h f'kuk[r dks nks"kflf} dk vk/kkj ugha cuk;k tk ldrk A
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,638,708 |
This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., filed before this Court for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 20.8.2014 in connection with Crime No. 301/14 registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia for offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 452, 336, 506-B, 308/34 of IPC and under Section 25/27 of Arms Act.As per allegations on 17.8.2014, complainant Irfan Khan lodged a report against Kuldeep, Mansingh and Sonu that they were taking alcohol in front of his door.When he objected, the accused persons assaulted him.Then he had gone to lodge a report, when he heard the gun shot fire, he returned, his father told him that the accused persons fired in the air, which hit the Chhajja and resultantly crushed the stones of Chhajja thereof caused injuries to the father of the complainant and brother Ummar Khan.12 bore gun seized from the 2 M.Cr.C No. 8491 /2014 possession of applicant Kuldeep and another 12 bore gun seized from Sonu alias Ghanshyam.2 M.Cr.C No. 8491 /2014This order will remain operative subject to 3 M.Cr.
|
['Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
256,419 |
(i) PW.4 is the mother of the deceased Krishnamoorthy.PW.6 is the fatherof the second accused.They had two children out of theirwedlock.They were living at Merpalaikkadu.On weeklyholidays, he used to go to the village.The first accused was a HomoeopathyDoctor by profession.The first accused and the second accused had illicitintimacy.PW.6 and others advised both of them not to behave so.But, thefirst accused and the second accused did not heed to the same.(ii) On 14.6.2004 at about 8.00 p.m., the deceased Krishnamoorthy, afterdoing the day's work, left for his native place but he had to come back to workin the hotel on 16.6.2004 but he did not come back.Even there was no whisperabout him.At that time, the first accused and Krishnamoorthy were there takingtea.The first accused asked the deceased Krishnamoorthy to go with him.ButKrishnamoorthy refused to go with him.However, on his insistence, the deceasedKrishnamoorthy went along with the first accused by TVS Moped, which belonged tothe first accused and they were not seen thereafter.(iv) On 16.6.2004, when PW.1, a native of Poovatrakkudi was going throughthe field, near his well situated in the filed, he found a naked dead body,which was half burnt.Immediately, he proceeded to Aranthangi Police Stationwhere the Sub Inspector of Police PW.18 was on duty.He gave a report, whichwas marked as Ex.On the strength of Ex.F.I.R. Ex.P.20 along withEx.P.1 report was sent to the Court and to the higher officials.(v) On receipt of copy of the F.I.R. Ex.P.20, PW.22 took up investigation,proceeded to the spot and prepared an Observation Mahazer Ex.P.3 in the presenceof witnesses and arranged for taking photos of the deceased Krishnamoorthy aswell as the place and they were marked as MO.38 (Series) and MO.39(Series).Herecovered MO.1 blood stained earth, half burnt pant pieces MO.2 (Series),stained earth MO.3 and sample earth MO.4 and other material objects as marked bythe prosecution were recovered from the spot.(vi) Thereafter, PW.22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceasedin the presence of panchayatdars and prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.23.Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post mortem by Doctor PW.15, attachedto the Government Hospital, Aranthangi.He has issued post mortem certificateEx.P.17 that it was the dead bodywas that of the said Krishnamoorthy.(vii) Pending investigation, on 29.3.2005 the first accused was arrestedand he gave a confessional statement in the presence of V.A.O. PW.11 and hisassistant and the same was recorded and the admissible part of that evidence wasmarked as Ex.Pursuant to the confession, MO.21 TVS Moped and othermaterials objects were recovered as put-forth by the prosecution.The secondaccused was also arrested.(Judgment of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the judgment of Principal Sessions Division,Pudukkottai dated 17.4.2007 made in S.C.No.57 of 2006 whereby theappellant/accused along with the second accused, stood charged, tried and foundguilty under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and also 302 r/w 201 IPC and awardedimprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- with a default sentenceof six months rigorous imprisonment for the first charge and three yearsrigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default sentence ofthree months rigorous imprisonment for the second charge.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal canbe stated as follows:P.1, PW.18 registered a case inCrime No.299/2004 under Sections 302 r/w 201 IPC.PW.15 has opined that the deceased died out of burn injuriessustained.Identity of the body was not known.Hyoid bone and other parts werepreserved for finding the identity.PW.22 caused necessary publications throughT.V., news papers and bit notices etc.,.On 30.11.2004, PW.22 received aninformation from PW.4 that the deceased Krishnamoorthy was not found and he wasmissing for 5 months.Hehas also received photograph from her.All the photographs which were marked asMO.38 (Series) and MO.39(Series) and photos which was marked as MO.11 (Series)received from PW.4 were sent along with skull and other parts of the body forthe purpose of super imposition.The super imposition test was done as a resultof which, PW.19 has given her opinion under Ex.Both the accused were sent for judicial remand.(viii) All these Materials Objects were subjected to chemical analysis,which resulted in Chemical Analysis Report.(ix) On completion of the investigation, the investigator filed a finalreport against the accused as per the charges.The case was committed to theCourt of Sessions.Necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 22 witnesses and relied on 25 Exhibits and 39 MaterialObjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which wasflatly denied on the part of the accused.No defence witness was examined.Aggrieved over the same, the first accused has brought forth this appeal beforethis Court.Advancing his arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.K.Balasundharam,learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit as follows:-(i) In the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.(ii) PW.10 has turned hostile.Accordingto PW.9, the deceased was last seen in the company of the first accused.She had also not given any complaint about missing his son.Hence, theevidence of PW.9 is improbable and unbelievable.After a period of 5 months, acase was registered under Section 302 IPC.All over the period, A.1 and A.2 wasvery well staying in the same place.(iv) In the instant case, motive for the crime was illicit intimacybetween A.1 and A.2 but there was no one to speak about that fact.(v) PW.22 has filed the final report in the case wherein he has statedthat there was an earlier report.He would state that only on suspicion, theaccused were arrested.All those material objects were found after a longperiod pursuant to the alleged confession.The recovery of material objects andthe alleged confession were all highly improbable and unbelievable.(vi) The trial court was completely mislead by the extraneouscircumstances in bringing home the guilt of the accused.Hence, the appellantis entitled for acquittal in the hands of the Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.The Court paid its utmost attention to the submissions and made athorough scrutiny on the entire materials available on record.The gist of the prosecution was that on 15.6.2004, one half burnt deadbody was found in the field of PW.1, who would give a complaint Ex.P.1 to thepolice and on the strength of which a case came to be registered for murder andinvestigation was taken up.The identity of the dead body could not be found.Hence, the investigator made wide publications in TVs, news papers etc.,Thereafter, he received an information that one Krishnamoorthy, the son of PW.4was found missing for 5 months.The investigator probed into the matter andverified the marriage photographs and other photos of the deceased from PW.4.He sent the skull and other parts of the body of the deceased along with photosfor super imposition test as a result of which, it was clearly identified thatit was the skull of the said Krishnamoorthy.The prosecution was successfulenough to prove the fact that, the half burnt dead body was that of the saiddeceased Krishnamoorthy.According to the prosecution, there was illicit intimacy between thesecond accused and the appellant.On 15.6.2004, when the deceasedKrishnamoorthy was in his house, he was given an injunction to brought him underunconscious and took him outside to the field of PW.1 and set him ablaze.Theprosecution had no direct evidence to offer.It rested on circumstantialevidence.Under these circumstances, in a given case like this, the prosecutionmust be able to prove the necessary circumstances.At that time, though the firstaccused called Krishnamoorthy to accompany him in the TVS Moped, the deceasedrefused to go with him but the accused compelled him and took with him.Thereafter, PW.9 did not see Krishnamoorthy.The evidence of PW.9 is highlyimprobable and unacceptable for more reasons than one.PW.9 has married thesister of Krishnamoorthy and thus, he is brother-in-law of the deceased.On thenight hours of 15.6.2004, had it been really true that A.1 had compelled thesaid Krishnamoorthy to accompany him and he went along with him, naturally, whenKrishnamoorthy was found missing from the next day morning, PW.9 would havedefinitely questioned the first accused about the same.PW.9 had never questioned thefirst accused nor informed to PW.4, the mother of the deceased or any one aboutthe last seen theory.Neither PW.9 nor PW.4 approached the police for a numberof months as to the missing of the said deceased Krishnamoorthy.The statement of PW.9 was recorded by the investigator on 4.1.2005 butthe same had reached the Court only after a period of 2 months.At thisjuncture, had it been really true the deceased Krishnamoorthy was found missingand PW.9 had really seen the deceased in the company of A.1, he would havedefinitely brought to the notice of the police or would have questioned A.1.But he had not even come over for a period of 5 months, which by itself wouldimprobablise that PW.9 could not have seen them together.In the instant case, if the evidence of PW.9 is not believed by theCourt, the prosecution had no more evidence to offer.Insofar as certainrecoveries made pursuant to the alleged confession made by the first accused,the Court is of the considered opinion that mere recoveries, which were allegedto have been recovered, would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of theaccused in a case like this since the evidence of PW.9 is highly improbable andunbelievable.On the face of it, the prosecution has no more evidence to offer toconnect the accused with the crime.Though the prosecution is successful enoughto point out the fact that it was the dead body of the said Krishnamoorthy, theprosecution was unable to prove the nexus of the crime with the appellant beforethe Court.But, the lower Court without proper appreciation of the materialsavailable on record, has taken an erroneous view and found the appellantguilty, which has got to be set right and that could be done only by upsettingthe judgment of the lower Court and it is, accordingly, set aside.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The appellant isacquitted of the charges.The appellant is directed to be released forth withunless his presence is required in connection with any other case.Fine amount,if any, was paid by the appellant, the same shall be refunded to him.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai.2.Inspector of Police, Aranthangi & Taluk, Pudukkottai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
25,642,693 |
mpa CRL.O.P.No.13855 of 2020 07.09.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 4/4This Petition has been filed for modification to modify the order dated 21.07.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.1998 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.2.It is seen that the petitioner is 3rd accused in Crime No.14 of 2020 alleging that the petitioner along with other accused persons have misappropriated to the tune of more than 40 Lakhs.While considering the petitioners Anticipatory Bail petition, the Court below imposed condition that the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the credit of Crime No.14 of 2020 on the file of the respondent registered for the offences under sections 120(b), 408, 477(A) and 420 IPC r/w.109 IPC.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not a direct employ of the defacto complainant and he is only technical assistant and he never misappropriated any amount as alleged by the prosecution.However, the petitioner is ready and willing to deposit the title deed to the said tune.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/4 3Considering the above submission, the condition imposed by Court below is modified to the effect in respect of condition No.(iv) alone, instead of depositing a sum of Rs.5 Lakhs to the credit of Crime No.14 of 2020 on the file of the respondent, he petitioner is directed to deposit the title deed not less than the value of Rs.20 lakhs stands in his name or his friends or his relative within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and execute the sureties as directed by the Court below.However, the other conditions remains unaltered.With the above direction, this Criminal Original Petition is modified.07.09.2020 Internet : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order mpa1.The Principal District & Sessions Court, Coimbatore.The Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, Coimbatore.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/4 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,687,199 |
This is second bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.192/2018 registered at Police Station Hata District Damoh (M.P.) who is in jail since 11.05.2018 for the offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the Indian Penal Code.First bail application was dismissed on merits vide order dated 09.07.2018 in M.Cr.C. No.22492/18 .Allegation against the applicant is that he along with other co-accused persons committed theft of more than Rs.5,00,000/- from the shop of the complainant.The box and cash were recovered from the possession of the applicant.Charge-sheet has been filed.Trial will take time.So far criminal antecedents of the applicant is concerned, most of the cases are related to offence under other section of the I.P.C. and after the year 2013, this is the first case against the applicant.There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence hence he may be enlarged on bail.Accordingly, application filed on behalf of the applicant is hereby rejected.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,687,463 |
% (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.213/2012 under Sections 363/366 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of respondent No.2 and that of prosecutrix.Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. does not incriminate petitioner and that prosecutrix had voluntarily gone with petitioner and had married him and out of this wedlock, a child has also born and now, they are living happily.Applying the dictum of afore-noted decisions to the facts of this case, I find that statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. does not incriminate petitioner-accused and that prosecutrix had willingly married petitioner and she is happily residing with petitioner-accused since September, 2012, and a child has been also born out of this wedlock and so, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question deserve to be put to an end.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.213/2012 under Sections 363/366 of IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Delhi and proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed qua petitioner.This petition and the applications are accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
266,966 |
It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in 26 adverse cases, which are as follows, and also one ground case in Crime No.405 of 2009 registered by Central Crime Branch, Chennai under Sections 406, 420, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 read with 328 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 40, 49B read with 51(1) Proviso of Wild Life Protection Act, 1972, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials available on record, made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law1E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.695/2009420E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.718/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.719/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.720/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.721/2009420 I.P.C.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.731/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.750/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.751/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.759/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.760/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.772/2009420 I.P.C.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.802/2009420E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.824/2009420E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.The very next paragraph reads as follows:-" Further, the entire investigation of cases registered against Thiru.P. Vijayakumar at E-1 Mylapore Police Station and Central Crime Branch, Chennai Police, were transferred on my orders in proceedings R.C. No.III(1)/138/21210/09 dated 04.08.2009 to Central Crime Branch and Thiru.(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This Habeas Corpus Petition challenges the order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No.310/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 17.09.2009, whereby the detenu is ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 after branding him as "Goonda".This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328E-1 Mylapore Police Station Cr.No.830/2009420 I.P.C. @ 420 I.P.C., 3,4,5 of Drug and Magic Remedies (Obj.Adv) Act, 1954 r/w 328 I.P.C., Sec.30 Arms Act, 1959 read with 307 IPC.As could be seen from the available materials, the order of detention, branding the detenu as "Goonda", came to be passed on the strength of the materials pointing to the involvement of the detenu in 27 adverse cases and also one ground case in Crime No.405 of 2009 registered by Central Crime Branch, Chennai under Sections 406, 420, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.As could be seen from the order of detention, the complaints were actually received on 12.8.2009, 17.8.2009 and also on 19.8.2009, which is found in the order as follows:-Date of complaintPolice Station & Crime No.Section of LawName and address of the complainant112/8/2009CCB 'X'Cr.17.8.2009CCB 'X'Cr.No.395/09420 IPCDinesh Karthik, s/o Rengaraj, No.19.8.2009CCB 'X'Cr.No.402/09420, 420 & 506(ii) IPCGnanasekaran, s/o Govindasamy, No.252, Thangam Veethi,Dr.Ambedkar Veethi,Arakkonam.From the very reading, it would be quite clear that these complaints in Crime Nos.386 of 2009, 395 of 2009 and 402 of 2009 were received on 12.8.2009, 17.8.2009 and 19.8.2009 respectively.B. Senthil Kumar, Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch to investigate the matter and to file charge sheet."Under such circumstances, a clarification was required, but no clarification was sought for, which would quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,700,812 |
With the consent of the parties, heard finally.This petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., directing the respondents to conduct the fair investigation.It is stated that petitioner has lodged FIR upon which Crime No.83/2015 under Section 323, 324, 294, 506/B of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been registered at Police Station Bijoli.It is further stated that petitioner has sustained injury and he was admitted in Trauma Center Gwalior.Fracture has been found over the left parietal bone.It is prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents be directed to conduct the fair investigation and submit the report.Petitioner has filed an application addressed to Superintendent of Police Gwalior praying that Section 307 of IPC be added.(Hotam Kori Vs.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,701,311 |
O.P.(MD)No.2470 of 2020The term 'harassment' by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the police officer.3/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2470 of 2020In order to circumvent such situations, the following guidelines are issued:a)While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the police officer shall summon such person through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a particular date and time for appearing before them for such an enquiry/investigation.b) The respondent police is directed to serve summons mentioning the CSR number, date of complaint and the name of the complainantO.P.(MD)No.2470 of 2020 ToThe Superintendent of Police Madurai District,MaduraiThe Deputy Superintendent of Police Madurai District, MaduraiThe Inspector of Police District Crime Branch (Superintendent Office) Madurai District5/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2470 of 2020 A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA.J,.aav Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2470 of 2020 12.02.2020This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking a direction to direct the second and third respondents not to harass the petitioner and their families.O.P.(MD)No.2470 of 20202.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was employed as agent in TATA AIG General Insurance Company Agent.The respondent police has registered a case against one Narmatha and two others in Crime No. 6 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 406,465,468,450,474 and 120(B) of IPC and the respondent police are harassing the petitioner.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that respondent police has registered a case against one Narmatha and two others in Crime No. 6 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 406,465,468,450,474 and 120(B) of IPC in respect of fabrication and forgery of documents to the tune of Rs. 1,17,15,978/-.Since the petitioner is related to the case the respondent police has issued summons to the petitioner for appearance and other than that they have not harassed the petitioner.4. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent police.It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent police has been harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 2/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Nevertheless, it would also not turn a blind eye to instances of harassment by the police under the guise of investigation is brought to its notice.In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the police based on a complaint and seek for this Court's intervention by way of a direction.c)The minutes of the enquiry shall be recorded in the general diary/station diary/daily diary of the police station.dThe police officer shall refrain himself or herself from harassing persons called upon for enquiry/investigation.e)The guidelines stipulated for preliminary enquiry or registration of FIR by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Vs.Government of Uttar Pradesh and others [2014 (2) SCC (1)] shall be strictly adhered to.With the above observations and direction, the Criminal Original Petition stands disposed of.12.02.2020 Internet:Yes/No Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order aav 4/6http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,710,787 |
The revision petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C.No.5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.5, Salem was convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month under Section 304(A) IPC.Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner/accused has preferred this criminal revision.The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.03.2006 at about 20.30 hrs on Salem-Sankagiri Main Road, Kondalampatti, while the deceased Subramani was standing, the petitioner/accused who drove the Hero Honda bearing Registration No.TN 27 D 3114 came in a high speed and dashed against the said Subramani and caused grievous injuries over his head.He was admitted in the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem immediately for treatment and the said Subramani died in the hospital and therefore, the petitioner/accused committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC.On the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined apart from marking Exs.On the side of the defence, no witness was examined and no exhibit was marked.On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court, found the accused guilty of the offences as aforesaid and punished him accordingly.The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court, against which the petitioner is before this Court.The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that though P.W.1 and P.W.2., alleged to be the eye witness to the occurrence, P.W.1 says that while the deceased was standing on the side of the mud road, the accident took place whereas P.W.2 says that while the deceased was crossing the road, the accident took place.So according to the learned counsel, P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not eye witnesses.Further, Ex.P6 Rough Sketch reveals that accident took place 6 feet in the thar road and not in the mud road, so charge u/s. 279 and 304 (A) IPC is not proved.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the main ingredient for offence u/s.279 and 304(A) IPC is rash and negligent driving, P.W.2 did not say about the negligence of the accused.Similarly, Pws.1 and 2, who were projected as eye witnesses, have not specifically stated that it is the petitioner who had driven the vehicle.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that there is an in ordinate delay in preferring the complaint.Under those circumstances, in the absence of any material evidence to show that it is the petitioner who had driven the offending vehicle at the time of accident, the orders of the Courts below cannot be legally sustained and he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.Further, as per the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, the accident had happened not due to any mechanical defect.Therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted the accused and no interference is warranted.I heard the counsel for both sides and perused the materials placed on record.P.W.1 and P.W.2 are close relatives and they are the grand son and grand daughter of the deceased.P..W.1 in his evidence has stated that while the deceased was standing on the side of the mud road, the accident took place whereas P.W.2 has stated that while the deceased was crossing the main road, the accident took place.P.W.3, in Ex.P.2, has stated that the accident had occurred in the main road.Therefore, it is very clear that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are contradictory.Even though P.W.1 and P.W.2 are stated to be the eye witness and close relatives of the deceased, none of them identified the driver of the vehicle.In the cross examination, a specific question was put to P.W.2 with regard to the driver of the vehicle and he has stated that he has not seen the driver of the vehicle.The non identification of the driver of the vehicle itself is fatal to this case.Thus, both Pws 1 and 3, who were projected as an eye witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, have not deposed about the identity of the deceased.There is also no evidence available to show as to how the petitioner was identified by the prosecution witnesses and, therefore, the evidence of Pws 1 to 3 cannot be relied on to base an order of conviction against the petitioner.Insofar as the delay in preferring FIR is concerned, admittedly, the occurrence took place on 19.5.2006 at about 8.30 p.m. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government hospital immediately.However, FIR has been registered only on 20.5.2015 at about 2.00 p.m, which is fatal to the case.As per the evidence of P.W.2, the deceased met the accident opposite to his shop and he took him immediately to the Government hospital.Normally, in the Government hospital, intimation will be sent to the police to register FIR.Therefore, there is a delay in FIR and the same was not explained by the prosecution, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution and, therefore, on the said sole ground, the Courts below ought to have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.In view of the above, it has to be concluded that the prosecution has not proved the guilt against the revision petitioner/accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore the revision petitioner/accused is entitled to benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below are set aside.The Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
26,721,546 |
Rina Chakraborty, an educated young house wife, aged 25 years succumbed to her burn injuries at M.R. Bangur Hospital at 11 PM on 31.12.99 leaving behind her daughter Romita @ Mumpi, aged about 2 years.It was a love marriage.The appellant husband began to pay visit there on the plea to see her ailing father.He used to entreat her to go back to her matrimonial home.On 31.12.1999 at about 10.30 AM there was a quarrel between the spouses followed by scuffling over family affairs.During such quarrel her husband poured Kerosene Oil on her and ignited a match stick which was thrown on her saree which caught fire immediately.She started screaming for help and her husband started shouting for help stating that she had set fire to 2 herself.Thereafter, neighbours came and tried to extinguish fire by pouring water.She was, thereafter, brought to M.R. Bangur Hospital by her husband and one Sinbani Ghosh (PW14).She was admitted in the said hospital for medical treatment.Her contention as above was recorded by Mr. S. Banerjee, S.I. of Police attached to Tollyguange P.S. (PW 22) on 31.12.99 at 6 PM from the hospital bed in the presence of her father Sujay Kr.Haldar, since deceased and Partha Sengupta, a man of the locality (PW1).Dr. Sanjib Kr.On her demise at 11 PM of the date of admission.Registration of Police CasesThe father of the victim informed the duty officer about his daughter's injuries and her admission to Bangur Hospital.The matter was diarized under Tollyguange P.S. G.D. Entry No. 326 dated 31.12.1999 at about 2.40 PM.Subsequently Tollyguange P.S. Case No. 405 of 1999 dated 31.12.1999 under section 307 IPC was started against the accused appellant.The duty officer Sidharatha Banerjee, S.I. of Police (PW 23) rushed to Bangur Hospital and requisitioned the service of Dr. Sanjib Kr.Saha, the R.M.O. on duty of Bangur Hospital for recording the 3 victim's statement.SDJM Alipore.He also examined the relatives of the victim and other local people over the incident.He further seized some documents furnished by the father of the victim.This was followed by throwing of a burning match stick on her saree which caught fire immediately.Such an act of cruelty was preceded by a quarrel followed by scuffling between the spouses over the family affairs.It is also stated by her in the statement that neighbours came and poured water to extinguish fire.It transpires from his testimony that the doctor interrogated the deceased and he recorded her statement as per request of the doctor.He has proved the statement (Ext.1).It also reveals from 40 his cross-examination that the victim stated to him in Bengali while he wrote the same in English.His assertion stands corroborated PW 16 in his testimony.He further testifies that the patient was conscious and fit to make a statement.The RTI of the victim was also obtained on the dying declaration in the presence of two witnesses viz. Sujay kr.Halder and Partha Sengupta.He also counter signed the death certificate of Rina Chakraborty on 31.12.1999 under his office seal.P.C. was filed against her husband.Saha, PW 16, R.M.O. on-duty at the material point of time assisted the police officer in recording the statement of the victim by making relevant queries to her.Her R.T.I. was also taken by the police officer on the said statement.Such statement was treated as an FIR.Subsequently, the FIR was converted to a dying declaration of the victim.On demise of the victim section 302 IPC was added to the said PS case.The PS case was formally endorsed to S.I. S. Banerjee for investigation.Since Tollyguange PS was bifurcated and Charu Market PS was set up as per relevant government order, the said Tollyguange case was transferred to the newly created Charu Market P.S. On transfer, the Tollyguange PS Case No. 405 of 1999 dated 31.12.1999 under section 307 IPC with an added section 302 IPC was renumbered as Charu Market PS Case No. 2 dated 6.1.2000 u/s 302 IPC.A formal FIR was accordingly drawn up.After collection of Alamates from the Tollyguange PS he sent the same for FSL examination.The supplementary case diary of Jadavpur PS UD Case No. 1/2000 dt. 01.01.2000 together with Inquest report PM and FSL report was collected.On completion of investigation he submitted charge - sheet under section 302 IPC against the appellant.Commitment & chargeOn perusal of relevant police papers and other connected materials on record the case was committed to the Court of ld.Sessions Judge, 24 Parganas (south) Alipur as per order dated 18.04.2000 passed in CGR 58/2000 by the ld. SDJM, Alipur.On transfer of the Sessions Case No SC 61(4) 2000 ld.He was asked to answer the following charge :-"That you on or about 31.12.1999 at about 10.30 hours at 92, Tollyguange road, Kolkata - 33, PS Charu Market did commit murder by intentionally causing death of Rina and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC and within the cognizance of the court of sessions." On his pleading not guilty to the charge, he was put on trial.During trial altogether 24 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution in order to substantiate the charge of murder against the appellant.On conclusion of recording of evidence, the accused was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He pleaded innocence and false implication.In order to substantiate the defence case that the victim sustained burn injuries because of sudden burst 5 of a stove.Samir Sarkar, a friend of the appellant was examined as DW-I. Save and except defence suggestion to some of the witnesses regarding accidental fire, no document was filed on behalf of the defence in support of such plea of accidental fire.Upon consideration of the dying declaration (Exhibit 1), FSL Report and ocular evidence adduced through 24 PWs as also solitary defence witness, the learned trial court came to a finding that the appellant set fire on her wife by pouring Kerosene Oil and also by throwing a burning match stick upon the wearing sari of the victim.He was of the opinion that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the charge under section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.The order of conviction and sentence was passed accordingly as indicated earlier.Hence the present appeal.The presence of outsiders namely the father of the victim and a neighbour at the time of recording of dying declaration is bound to evoke suspicion in the mind of the court.There is every possibility of the victim being tutored to implicate her husband falsely.Neither Dr. Jadabendra Sen, Emergency Doctor (PW1), nor Dr. A.B. Dutta, the senior surgeon under whom the patient was admitted was approached for recording the dying declaration.On the contrary, Dr. Sanjib Kr.Saha, who never treated the victim medically at any point of time was found present at the time of recording of the dying declaration by the police officer.There is nothing on record in the shape of any documentary evidence to indicate that the service of Dr. Saha (PW 16) was requisitioned by the police officer (PW 23) through the Superintendent of M.R. Bangur Hospital for recording dying declaration of the victim.Admittedly the declarant was a Bengali speaking girl while the mother tongue of the police officer and the doctor is also Bengali.In paragraph 33 it is held inter alia that, although the 7 doctors have certified that the victims were in a fit state of health to have their statement recorded only at the end of recording of their statement.No such certificate was issued by the doctors on the eve of recording their statement.Further, it was not in the question answer form.He has also severely criticized the prosecution for not citing Dr. A. B. Dutta, the senior surgeon who also rendered medical treatment to the victim as one of the witnesses in this case.He, therefore, urges this court to discard such a tainted dying declaration in toto.It is next argued by him that the seizure of stove in question was also shrouded with mystery since at least one seizure witness deposed that he was asked to sign the seizure list in the Police Station.There is also nothing on record to indicate that the seized stove was properly sealed and labeled prior to sending the same to the FSL.Her father's illness drew both of them closer and the appellant husband prevailed upon her to go back to her matrimonial home.On his persuasion on the first day of November 1999 she returned to her husband's place.She was then brought to M.R. Bangur Hospital by her husband and one Sibani Ghosh (PW14).Thereafter she was admitted in the ward for treatment.Turning to ocular evidence of PW 1,6,7, 11,16 & 23 it is found that the contents of dying declaration stand fully corroborated by their oral testimony.PW1, the close neighbour of Sujoy Halder, the victim's father clearly deposes that he came to learn from Sujay Halder since deceased that her daughter was 24 burnt to death by Jagat, the appellant who poured kerosene oil over the body of his daughter and set her on fire.Similarly PW6 Smt. Kalpana Halder, the mother of the victim also stated that Rina told her in the hospital that accused Jagat caused burn injuries by setting her on fire.On her arrival at the hospital she found that Rina had full senses though her body was burnt.Her further evidence is that she tried in different ways to settle the disputes which arose between her daughter and Jagat but to no effect.She further deposes that Rina filed a maintenance suit against Jagat and during pendency of the said suit Jagat brought Rina to his house on 01.11.1999 and she died on 31.12.1999 at her matrimonial house by burning.She had to face a grueling cross-examination but her testimony remain unshaken.She also denied the defence suggestion that her daughter committed suicide.There is also 25 nothing on record to indicate that she deposed falsely against her son-in-law out of grudge.Rekha Halder, aged 12 years the younger sister of the victim as PW7 corroborates her mother by deposing that her elder sister was assaulted and abused by the appellant in her matrimonial home.It is also available from her testimony that Rina was taken to the hospital by the appellant and Sibani (PW14).The materials on record do not suggest that she was tutored to depose falsely against the appellant.In fact, nothing has been elicited from her cross- examination to discredit the cogent and consistent testimony of this child witness.Her testimony is, therefore, creditworthy.PW11 Pradip Naskar, the seizure witness deposes that when he met Rina Chakraborty she was found in her senses and she had power to speak (objected to).She also told him in the hospital that the accused burnt her by pouring kerosene oil over her body and then set her on fire.He has also been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination.He has successfully stood the test of cross- 26 examination.During cross-examination she, however, failed to remember whether he stated to the police that Rina had full sense at the hospital.He asserts that he stated to the police that Rina had power to speak at the hospital.I.O. PW 23 has stated in the cross-examination that Pradip PW 11 did not tell him that he met Rina Chakraborty when she had senses and had power to speak.Such minor discrepancy cannot, however, be regarded as major contradiction and the same is not sufficient to diminish the evidentiary value of PW 11's testimony.It is quite natural for a witness deposing two years after the incident to say that it is not within his recollection as to whether he stated anything about the physical and mental condition of the victim at the material point of time.At any rate, the testimony of this witness inspires our confidence and as such reliance can be placed upon his testimony.Dr. Sanjib Kumar Saha, PW 16 who was posted as R. M.O on 31.12.1999 testifies that the statement of Rina Chakraborty was recorded in his presence by S. Banerjee, S.I. of police.As already indicated earlier on his interrogation to Rina 27 Chakraborty, S. I. recorded the statement.His further evidence in unequivocal terms is that the patient was conscious and fit to make statement.After appending such certificate he put his signature as well as office seal mentioning the date, time etc. RTI of the victim was also taken on the said statement in presence of two witnesses viz. Sujay Kr.Halder, since deceased and Partha Sengupta (PW1).Those two witnesses were present and also signed the said statement in his presence.He also countersigned the victim's death certificate on 31.12.1999 under his signature and such certificate (Ext. 3) was issued by Dr. Sarmistha Ghosh, the house surgeon.It is reiterated by him in cross - examination that the victim made statement in Bengali and the police officer recorded the same in English.It is emphatically asserted by the doctor that he received written direction from the Superintendent of the Hospital but the same was not lying with him at present.He has categorically denied the defence suggestion that he was not on duty as R. M. O. in the Bangur Hospital on 31.12.1999 and so he could not produce the document to that effect.In the absence of clinching evidence on the contrary it must be presumed that PW16was the RMO on duty of M.R. Bangur Hospital at the material point of time.It transpires from his cross- examination that at first he attended the victim for the purpose of examination at 5.30 PM.It further, reveals that on his interrogation the patient stated her education, qualification that she passed B. Sc.In response to his query regarding ill adjustment with her husband the victim stated to the deponent that she was mal-adjusted with her husband.It is also available from his cross-examination that when the statement of the patient was taken it was then evening.So the official letter head was not available.It is also asserted by him that on 29 31.12.1999 his duty hours start from 8 AM and it ends at 8 AM of the following day.His Attendance Register dated 31.12.1999 may be available in his office.It is also elicited from his cross-examination that the death certificate usually written by the house surgeon is sent to the RMO for his counter signature.Dr. Sarmistha Saha, being the house surgeon of the said hospital on that date wrote the death certificate.It does not suffer from any inherent improbabilities .It has simply been suggested to this doctor attached to a government hospital that he signed the statement of the patient at the instruction of the police.Curiously enough no suggestion was offered to PW 23 on that score.At any rate, the formal FIR (Ext. 16) evinces that there was an endorsement directing PW23 to investigate the case.He also tried frantically to get the statement of the victim recorded by the doctor.In such a compelling situation, immediately after recording of such statement it was quite natural for a duty bound police officer to rush to the P.O. to collect the evidence of crime from the scene of occurrence especially in a case of severe burn injuries allegedly caused to the victim by her husband.Such emergent steps are necessitated to prevent the offender from 36 causing disappearance of the evidence of crime.Needless to mention that even slightest negligence in this regard from the part of the police officer in such a serious crime would make the prosecution handicapped to prove the guilt of the offender beyond reasonable doubt during criminal trial.R.M.O. on duty Dr. Sanjib Kr.Saha, also 39 appended a certificate (Ext. 1/2) on the dying declaration under his office seal, signature with date and relevant time of recording as under:- "The above statement was recorded in my presence.was conscious and fit to make statement."Haldar, since deceased, the father of the victim, and Sri Partha Sengupta, PW1 the private tutor -cum-neighbour of the victim have also signed the dying declaration as witnesses.It reveals from cross-examination of Sidhartha Banerjee S. I. PW 23 that he reached the hospital at 02.45 PM to 3.00 PM and he met the Superintendent of Bangur Hospital after a good deal of efforts.He submitted the requisition for deputing a doctor to record the victim's statement.The R.M.O. namely Dr. S. Saha, was asked to record the statement.He further corroborates PW 23 by deposing to the effect that on his interrogation to Rina, S. I wrote the statement.It is elicited from his cross-examination that the victim made her statement in Bengali and the police Officer recorded the same in English.It is available from his cross- examination that he received a written a direction from the Superintendent of the Hospital but the same was not lying with him at present.It is extracted from his cross-examination that he first attended the victim for the purpose of 41 examination at 5.30 PM.PW 16 has thus corroborated the police officer (PW23) on the very crucial and material point that he attended the victim for the purpose of recording her statement on receipt of a written direction of the superintendent of the hospital.Pausing for a moment it may be pointed out here that both the police officer and the doctor have corroborated each other on the question of requisitioning the service of R.M.O for recording the statement of the victim.Moreso, whenever there is no suggestion to either of these witnesses from the side of the defence that the doctor and the police officer have colluded with each other for fabricating such a fictitious dying declaration out of grudge at the instance of PW1 and others to implicate the appellant falsely in this case.It is quite probable that the Residential Medical Officer (R.M.O.) would be a natural choice for being deputed for recording the statement of the victim in the evening hours of a winter days because of his availability in the hospital premises in his capacity as R. M. O. It is pertinent to mention that the Police Officer came to the hospital premises at about 3 PM and he succeeded in approaching the Superintendent of the hospital for requisitioning the service of medical officer 42 after a long wait and this statement was ultimately recorded at 6 PM.By no stretch of imagination the bona fides of the doctor can be suspected and it would sound very far-fetched that the doctor is a part of the conspiracy to foist a false case upon the appellant by fabricating a spurious document of dying declaration.Moreso, whenever no such suggestion has been offered to the doctor during his cross-examination.There is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased had any discussion with her father or neighbour prior to recording of her statement.No suggestion to the effect that she was tutored or prompted to give such statement was offered either to the police officer who recorded her statement or to the doctor who actively participated by putting some of the questions to the victim at the time of recording of her statement.Even no such suggestion was offered to the witness PW1 who was present at the time of recording and RTI of the victim also appears on the statement.The Recording Officer PW23 has also explained as to why instead of LTI RTI was taken.It is clear from his testimony that since Left Thumb of the victim was severely burnt impression of her Right Thumb was taken on the statement.In such 43 circumstances we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Basu that the dying declaration has become tainted because of presence of her father and the neighbour by the side of her death bed.In first two dying declarations recorded on the date of occurrence in presence of doctor the victim stated that she had sustained burn injuries accidentally while cooking food and no one was liable for same.However, in third dying declaration recorded after three days of the occurrence by the Executive Magistrate, deceased alleged that her monther - in -law had poured keresene oil on her and set her on fire.Many overwriting and some manipulations were also discernible in the said third dying declaration.These circumstances created doubt regarding veracity and correctness of the third dying declaration.Taking all these facts and circumstances into account, the third dying declaration was found not trustworthy to sustain conviction.Mr. Basu's contention that the dying declaration was not put to the appellant and as such the same has caused a serious prejudice to the defence is not factually correct.On perusal of appellant's examination sheet under section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears that the appellant had full knowledge about the existence of the dying declaration made by his wife since deceased.He pleaded his defence while answering to Question No. 17 put to him by the learned trial judge.The appellant's reply challenging the authenticity of the dying declaration is as under :-"The way my wife got burnt she became unable to speak.Police has submitted the statement of my wife but it was not stated by her.My wife is a highly educated lady.Therefore, her signature was taken on a white paper after her death.I was not informed about the death of my wife.Then I was in police custody.I am the legal guardian of Rina she was cremated without my consent."The afore-quoted answer is sufficient to indicate that the appellant was afforded adequate opportunities to explain his stand in respect of dying declaration (Ext. 1) which has been used 45 against him to establish his guilt.Therefore, we are of the opinion that the appellant was quite aware of such an incriminating piece of evidence to be relied upon by the prosecution against him during trial.The appellant's defence has also accordingly been considered by the learned trial court in its proper perspective.We are, therefore, unable to accept Mr. Basu's arguments that the defence of the accused was prejudiced since no specific question about the recording of dying declaration was put to the appellant, in course of his examination under section 313 Cr.Prosecution witness not supporting the prosecution caseMuch argument has been advanced from the side of the appellant on the binding effect of evidence extracted from a prosecution witness who has not been declared hostile, even though the prosecution case was not supported by him.In this context the appellant has sought to rely upon some portion of Sibani Ghosh's (PW14) statements transpiring in her cross-examination.During cross-examination she states that the victim had sense in the hospital in between 11.30 AM - 1 PM.He, however, cannot say when the victim lost her sense at the hospital.It is elicited from her further cross-examination that the victim had power to speak upto 1 PM and, thereafter, she could not speak.It is also available from her cross-examination that she interrogated Rina at the taxi and in reply she showed her forehead.She asked her why she had done this, then she put her hand over her forehead.The deponent says "it seems to me that she had committed 46 suicide (after objection)." She further proceeds to state that she has enquired in the village about the incident and came to learn that Jagat is not responsible for the incident.True, even though she has not supported the case of the prosecution, she has not been declared hostile.In such a situation it is not in dispute that the defence can rely upon the evidence of such witness and it would be binding on the prosecution.Now the question crops up as to Shibani's solitary testimony during her cross-examination indicating declarant's disability to give dying declaration shall have overriding effect on medical evidence confirming her fitness to give statements before the police officer, PW 23 in the presence of R. M. O. on duty PW 16 at 6 PM on the date of incident.To our mind Shibani's uncorroborative evidence that the victim could not speak upto 1 PM cannot be so sacrosanct that it would invalidate the medical evidence and other corroborative oral testimony and materials on record.These two documents were seized on production by Sujoy Halder the father of the deceased.The Medical Certificate vide PC 48 issued by M.R. Bangur Hospital in the name of Rina Chakraborty relates to the injuries sustained by the victim as a result of assault by her husband on 08.01.97 at 1.30 PM and also 09.01.97 in the morning.We, therefore, feel convinced to hold that evidence on record conclusively establishes the guilt of the appellant and that he has rightly been convicted under section 302 IPC.So we do not find any cogent ground to disturb the impugned order of conviction passed by the learned trial Judge.The order of conviction and sentence stands affirmed accordingly.In the result, the appeal is dismissed.Additional District and Session Judge, 4th Court, Alipore 24 Pgs.(South) is to take appropriate steps against the convict appellant in this regard.(Raghunath Ray, J.) I Agree, 55 (Ashim Kumar Banerjee, J.) 56
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.