Datasets:
Fawazzx
/
10K

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
2
id
int64
394
1.89B
cases
stringlengths
15
383k
labels
stringlengths
38
1.08k
instruction
stringclasses
1 value
26,170,087
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the complainant/objector.Case diary perused.As per prosecution case that co-accuseed Milan used to harass the deceased when she went to school.When deceased complained to his mother (present applicant), then she and her sons threatened the deceased to implicate her in a false case and defame her.There is no material is available to show that at any point of time applicant provoked or instigate the deceased to commit suicide, therefore ingredients of abetment defined in Section 107 of I.P.C. are completely missing.Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take sufficient time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State as well as complainant submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2019.01.03 17:43:22 +05'30'
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
2,617,339
18/2008 lodged by the Anti Terrorist Squad of Government of Maharashtra at ATS Police Station, Mumbai in the wake of bomb blast taken place at Malegaon on 29.09.2008 deserves to be declared as unconstitutional and ultra vires and same deserves to be quashed.84 The introduction and the statement of objects and reasons to the Police Act, 1888 read thus:-Act 24 of 1859, Act 5 of 1861 and Bombay Act 7 of 1867, which were in force in British India, restricted the employment of police-officers to the presidency, province or place of the police- establishment of which they were members.Even the temporary employment, on an emergency, of police-In the case of a railway system passing through territories under the administration of different Local Governments, they necessitate the employment of a different police-force under the control of a different authority for each portion of the line which is within the limits of the territories of a different Local Government.On the North Western Railway, for example, there are at present no less than seven different forces of police under the control of various authorities.Each of the centrally administered area had a separate police force of its own.Owing to the small areas and cadres, the police officers were perforce to continue in the same station or area for a long time and this position was not very satisfactory.To remedy this it became necessary to provide that police officers ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:38 ::: *63* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw of centrally administered areas be transferred from one area to another according to the administrative exigencies by creating a common pool of officers and men.Both are thus mandatory.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:34 :::of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (Act 34 of 2008) (for short "NIA Act").2 Hence, RULE.The Respondents waive service.By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith.3 Since both Writ Petitions involve common questions, they are being decided by this common judgment.For properly appreciating the arguments of parties, the facts in Writ Petition No.4049/2012 are referred to.It is stated that the Petitioner has been arraigned as an accused No.1 in C.R. No.I-130/2008 lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon on 30.09.2008 for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, 153-A, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 of the Indian Explosive Substance Act, 1908 r/w Sections 3, 5, 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 r/w Sections 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with ten other accused in the wake of a bomb blast that took place on 29.09.2008 at Malegaon, District : Nashik.The said crime being C.R. No.I-130/2008 was re- registered with ATS Police Station, Kala Chowki, Mumbai as C.R. No.I- 18/2008 when the investigation of the same was entrusted to Anti Terrorist Squad, Maharashtra State.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:34 :::The Division Bench of this Court vide its common order dated 19.07.2010 was pleased to strike down the order of discharge dated 31.07.2009 passed by the Special (MCOCA) Court, Mumbai.Thereafter, the affected parties including the present Petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8132/2010 of 2010 before the Honourable Supreme Court of India in ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 ::: *5* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw which the notices have been issued to the Respondents before admission and which is yet to be disposed of.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::The NIA Act has twenty five sections embedded in five chapters, followed by a Schedule which gives a list of eight different categories of offences that can be investigated by the NIA by invoking Sections 6 to 10 of the NIA10 It is stated that after the arrest of one Aseemanand on or about 19.11.2010 from Haridwar, Uttarakhand and more particularly after his alleged statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 recorded before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula, Haryana on 15.01.2011, that statement came to be retracted by him vide his application dated 08.04.2011 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ajmer, Rajasthan, in which he not only retracted the same, but has revealed the manner in which he was asked to depose so by pressure tactics resorted by the investigation agencies.On the basis of his such statement, Swami Aseemanand has been arraigned as an accused in Samjhauta Train bombings of February, 2007, Ajmer blasts and also Hyderabad blasts as well and all these crimes are being re-investigated by the Respondent No.4/NIA.11 It is stated that the Respondent No.4 has taken over the investigation of C.R. No.I-130/2008 lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 ::: *6* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw in the wake of bomb blast dated 29.09.2008 at Malegaon, which itself was transferred to I-18/2008 lodged at ATS Police Station, Kala Chowki, Mumbai after the Respondent No.1 handed over the investigation of the said crime to the Respondent No.2/ATS, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::Both the Preamble and the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the NIA Act disclose the NIA Act as an Act for constitution of an Investigating Agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting a host of subjects, expressly or impliedly contained in List-I i.e. Union List.However, crucially the NIA Act is essentially enacted for the purpose of creating a police agency at the national level with powers to investigate ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 ::: *7* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw and prosecute offences disclosed in the Preamble, wherever such offences occur.While legislation to investigate and prosecute offences pertaining to subjects disclosed in the preamble to the Act are within the legislative competence of the Union of India, the legislative power to create a police agency by virtue of List-II of the VIIth Schedule of the Constitution of India vests exclusively with the State Governments.Inasmuch as the NIA Act creates a police force at the central level which can investigate offences committed in the States, the NIA Act is manifestly unconstitutional, as it does an encroachment on the legislative powers of the State Governments.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::21 In answer to this Writ Petition, an affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.4/NIA through the Superintendent of Police, NIA, New Delhi in which some preliminary objections have been raised.The said Act which implements the Resolutions of the Security Council and makes special provisions for the ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 ::: *18* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw prevention of, and for coping with terrorist activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto, relates to matters having national/ international implications, which have an effect on the sovereignty, integrity and security of India.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::(vii) The Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005 prohibits unlawful activities in relation to weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems and has been enacted to safeguard national security as also to furtherance of India's obligations as a State Party to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::The Writ Petition, therefore, be allowed.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:35 :::(6) (2012) 2 CTC 369 (DB) : (2012) 1 MWN (cri) 238 (DB) Sengol and others v/s State and others.(7) (1991) 1 SCC 705 Narcotics Control Bureau v/s Kishan Lal and others.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:36 :::As a matter of fact in the present case, permission was taken for conducting further investigation.Therefore, this issue does not call for adjudication in the present proceedings.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 :::ALSPPL Subrahmanyan Chettiar v/s Muttuswami Goundan.Union of India v/s Shri Harbhajan Singh Dhillon.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 :::will have to be made to some basic facts.The Petitioners in these Writ Petitions are the accused.In fact the local police had filed a final report before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Dhanbad.When the Respondents have also canvassed detailed submissions supporting the constitutional validity of the NIA Act, then, in facts peculiar to this case we are of the view that the issues raised for our consideration need to be examined by us.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 :::firstly, as to whether the Parliament was competent to enact the NIATo enable us to decide it, we would have to refer to the NIA Act. It is an Act to constitute an investigating agency at the national level to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its agencies and other international organizations and for matters connected therewith and incidental thereto.The statement of objects and reasons leading to the enactment reads as under:-The Statement of objects and reasons:-"Over the past several years, India has been the victim of large scale terrorism sponsored from across the borders.There have been innumerable incidents of terrorist attacks, not only in the militancy and insurgency affected areas and areas affected by Left Wing Extremism, but also in the form of terrorist attacks and bomb blasts, etc. in various parts of the hinterland and major cities, etc. A large number of of such incidents are found to have complex inter-State and international linkages, and possible connection with other activities like the smuggling of arms and drugs, pushing in and circulation of fake Indian currency, infiltration from across the borders, etc.. Keeping all these in view, it has for long been felt that there is need for setting up an Agency at the Central level for investigation of offences related to terrorism and certain other Acts, which have national ramifications.Several experts and Committees, ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 ::: *55* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw including the Administrative Reforms Commission in its Report, have also made recommendations for establishing such an Agency.These incidents were found to have complex inter-State and international linkages.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:37 :::However, the Police Act, 1861 is an Act for the regulation of police.The Police Act, 1888 was an Act to amend the law relating to the regulation of police and it extended to whole of India.officers of one province in any part of another province was not permitted which caused great inconvenience.In order to provide for the employment, under the control of one police- authority, of one police force within the limits which were not conterminous with the limits of a Local Administration, the Police Bill was introduced in the Legislature.Statement of Objects and Reasons:-Again these provisions prevent even the temporary employment, on an emergency, of police-officers of one province in any part of another province.With the object of removing these inconveniences this Bill has been prepared.In order to provide for the employment, under the control of one police authority, of one police force within limits which are not conterminous with the limits of a Local Administration, the Bill empowers the Governor-General in Council to create general police districts embracing parts of two or more provinces and to enroll for service therein a special police force under special police authorities, and it further authorizes the temporary employment of police officers in places beyond the presidency or general police district to which they belong."::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:38 :::85 This Police Act, 1888 was further amended by the Police Act, 1949 and the statement of objects and reasons of that Act also reads as under:-"Introduction :-To achieve this objective the Police Bill was introduced in the Legislature.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:38 :::The second is receipt of a report under sub-section (1) and thereafter, forwarding that report to the Central Government as expeditiously as possible.In the meanwhile, in another FIR filed in relation to a similar occurrence, further investigation was being conducted and was bound to have a bearing even on the pending cases.It may also be stated that after 1956 in a number of further notifications the list of the offences specified under Section 3 has increased manifold.We consider it unnecessary to refer to them in detail.As a general rule, it would require clear and express language to effectively exclude as a matter of law the power of investigation of all the offences mentioned in this notification from the jurisdiction and competence of the regular Police authorities conferred on them by Criminal Procedure Code and other laws and to vest this power exclusively in the D. S. P. E. The D. S. P. E. Act seems to be only permissive or empowering, intended merely to enable the D. S. P. E. also to investigate into the offences specified as contemplated by Section 3 without impairing any other law empowering the regular Police authorities to investigate offences."::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:40 :::He has invited our attention to several judgments.In that case, Irshad Ali, Respondent No.1 in the Appeal before the Supreme Court was working as an Informer of the Special Cell of Delhi Police in the year 2000 and he was also working in similar capacity for the Intelligence Bureau (IB).He was earning his livelihood by working as a rickshaw puller.He had heated conversations with the I.B. Officers for whom he was working.The allegation was that the IB demanded that he should join a militant camp in Jammu & Kashmir in order to give information with respect to their activities to the I.B.. However, he refused to do the job and claims that he has been falsely implicated in the present criminal case.A report was lodged about disappearance of the Respondent No.2 by his family members at Police Station Bhajanpura, Delhi.Not only that the brother of Respondent No.2 also sent a telegram to the Honourable Prime Minister, Home Minister and the Police Commissioner.On that very evening it is stated that both Respondents were implicated as accused in First Information Report No.10/2006 and they ::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:40 ::: *122* wp.4049.1325.12.con.sxw were described as terrorists.The fact that they were working as informers was not stated in the First Information Report.After referring to the First Information Report allegations, what the Honourable Supreme Court refers is to the proceedings in the Delhi High Court seeking transfer of investigation, but the High Court did not grant any interim stay, therefore, the charge sheet was filed.The High Court order passed on this Writ Petition is reproduced in paragraph 5 of the judgment.Thereafter, the CBI's report filed in the High Court is referred to.After a detailed investigation, the CBI filed a closure report stating that the accused were working as informers.After filing of the report by the CBI, the Respondent No.2/ accused filed an application before the Trial Court in terms of Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying that in view of the closure report he should be discharged.That application was opposed by the Special Police, Delhi and the CBI stood by its report and stated that it has no objection for the accused being discharged.::: Downloaded on - 27/11/2013 20:25:40 :::
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,176,638
Certified copy as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE VD Digitally signed by VARSHA DUBEY Date: 2018.07.07 11:54:14 +05'30'Heard on admission.Record of the Courts below be called for.Als o heard on I.A.No.10742/2018, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of applicant Suraj Kuchbandiya.The appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 354-A(1) (ii)/ 354-(2) of IPC sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- , under sections 11(iv)/12 of POCSO and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/- and under section 341 of IPC with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the facts that the appellant has been convicted for maximum sentence of one year, he remained on bail during the trial and has not misused the liberty granted to him, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, I find it to be a fit case for suspending the sentence and enlarging appellant on bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed 2 CRA-4798-2018 that the execution of jail sentence of appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12.11.2018 and thereafter on such other dates as may be directed by the office.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,180,104
Heard on admission.Perused the impugned judgment.Also, heard on I.A.No. 2942/2016 filed by the appellant/accused under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of his jail sentence awarded by the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Joura, District Morena in S.T. No.197/2009 vide judgment dated 18.03.2016 convicting the appellant/accused and sentencing him as below:- Name of In lieu of fine appellant/ Under Sections Sentence Fine amount accused Omprakash Two 419 of IPC - -Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that the appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty granted to him.The appellant has already deposited the fine amount as imposed by the learned trial Court.Learned counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of early disposal of this appeal.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant has prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned PL opposing the submissions made on behalf of the appellant- accused has prayed for rejection of the application.In case, appellant is found absent on any date fixed by the CJM, Morena, then the said CJM shall be free to issue and execute warrant of arrest without referring the matter to this Court, provided the Registry of this Court is kept informed.2942/2016 stands disposed of.After receipt of the record, the appeal be listed for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,182,416
The brief facts leading to the prosecution of the appellants may be summarized as follows:(i) On 15th June, 1999 at about 5:50 AM PW-8 Ct.Budh Ram who was on duty on PCR man Eagle 32 received information that one woman was lying in burnt condition near Holey Chowk at STD Booth.The PCR immediately reached the spot, picked up the burnt woman and got her admitted in Safdurjung Hospital.The information was also sent to the local police station, PS Sangam Vihar vide DD No.20/A. PW-14 ASI C.D. Upadhay along with Ct.Dharam Vir Singh reached the spot where he came to know that the injured had already been removed to the hospital by PCR van.ASI C.D.Upadhyay reached the place of occurrence i.e. K-11/1159, Sangam Vihar where the house was lying open with traces of burning present there but the occupants of the house were missing.ASI C.D.Upadhyay borrowed a CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 2 of 21 lock from the neighbouring house and locked the room to keep the crime scene intact and left Ct.Dharam Vir Singh to guard the spot.(ii) On reaching the hospital ASI PW-14 obtained the MLC of the injured Manisha and sought the opinion of the doctor about the condition of the injured as to whether she was fit to make statement.The doctor opined the patient to be fit to give statement.The SDM was informed telephonically to reach the Safdurjung Hospital who reached by 10:30 AM.The statement of the injured Manisha was recorded in question-answer form on the basis of which Ex.PW12/A was registered.The family of the injured was informed through wireless transmission (WT) message at their native place in Etah, U.P. PW-14 ASI C.D.Upadhyay - investigating officer was transferred and thereafter the further investigation was conducted by PW-9 SI Lehna Singh.The injured Manisha expired on 21st June, 1999 and the body was sent for post-mortem.The FIR No.306/1999 which was registered under Section 307 IPC, was converted into Section 302 IPC.Kamlesh, PW-2 Smt.28. DW-1 Smt.Chandrawati - neighbour of the appellant has stated that on 14th June at 3.00 pm she had visited the house of the appellants CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 14 of 21 to invite for the birthday celebration of her son Pinku aged 5 years.The deceased was present and did not respond to the invitation.She knew the family of the appellants for twelve years prior thereto and the deceased was a bit crack from mind.She also stated that deceased was in love with some boy who used to visit Jai Prakash's house (husband of the deceased) and whenever he came, there was a quarrel in the house.She had a weak mind.She wanted a government job for her husband and a separate house for her which was the cause of quarrel.He also stated that she several times poured kerosene oil on her to threaten the accused persons.About the incident dated 15th June, 1999, he stated that on the night of 14th June he alongwith Jai Prakash and Mangla Devi was sleeping on the roof top and woke up when he heard noise in the morning.When he came down, he saw that the outside gate was open and Munni Devi (deceased) went out.The neighbours informed that she had set herself on fire.He went to the police station and there he came to know that she had been taken to the hospital.In hospital they continued searching but could not find her.The appellants are hereby directed to surrender before the Jail Superintendent on 19th August, 2017 by 5.00 pm to undergo the remaining sentence.LCR (reconstructed) be sent back along with copy of this order.A copy of this order be sent to the Jail Superintendent for information and compliance.The appellants Manpal Singh and Mangla Devi are the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased Manisha who are aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th July, 2001 and the order on sentence dated 18th July 2001 in Sessions Case No.177/1999 whereby they have been convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.In Sessions Case No.177/1999 (FIR No.306/1999, u/s 498- A/302/304-B IPC), along with the appellants herein namely Manpal CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 1 of 21 Singh and Mangla Devi, Jai Prakash-husband of the deceased Manisha also faced trial.Vide the impugned judgment, Jai Prakash had been found guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.Jai Prakash - husband of the deceased Manisha has already been released from jail after undergoing the sentence awarded to him.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 1 of 21Jai Prakash - husband of the deceased has not challenged his conviction and sentence by filing any appeal, nor the State has filed any appeal challenging his acquittal in respect of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC.After recording the statement of the father and brother of the deceased to the effect that that there was a demand of `1 lakh as dowry by the husband and in-laws, they were arrested in this case.After the completion of investigation, all the three accused were chargesheeted for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A/302/34 IPC.(iii) On the basis of the material placed on record by the prosecution, all the accused persons were charged for committing the offence punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC.Appellants Manpal Singh and Mangla Devi were also charged for committing the offence CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 3 of 21 punishable under Section 302 IPC and in the alternative, under Section 304-B IPC.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 3 of 21(iv) During trial 14 witnesses were examined and statement of all the accused persons was also recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The appellants have examined three witnesses namely DW-1 Smt. Chandrawati - neighbour, DW-2 Sh.Ram Prasad - relative and DW-3 Sh.Pramod Kumar - relative in their defence.(v) Learned Trial Court convicted the husband for committing offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC as in the dying declaration Ex.PW10/B deceased Manisha has stated that sometimes her husband used to beat her for money.The father-in-law and the mother-in-law who have been convicted under Section 304-B IPC by the learned Trial Court for the following reasons:(i) Dying declaration of Manisha was recorded by the SDM PW-10 Sh.She has specifically stated that the father-in-law poured the kerosene oil and the mother-in-law lit the match box.(ii) The testimony given by SDM PW-10 is worth believing and credit worthy as he had no enmity with the accused persons and that at the time of recording of the statement none from the family of Manisha was present in the hospital.(iii) All the ingredients necessary to attract the provisions of Section 304-B IPC stand satisfied.(iv) The defence witnesses examined to take the plea of alibi by father-in-law Manpal Singh are found to be untrustworthy.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 4 of 21On behalf of the appellants Mr.Laxman Singh, Advocate has submitted that the appellants are innocent and falsely implicated in this case by the deceased who was not having cordial relations with her in-laws.Her dying declaration could not have been made the basis for conviction due to the long time gap between when she was declared fit for making statement and when her statement was actually recorded.By the time her dying declaration was recorded she was under the influence of sedatives.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the deceased Manisha was admitted in the hospital with about 70-75% burns all over the body and in that condition it was just not possible to make a detailed statement/dying declaration.While in the MLC the alleged history has been recorded as under:'Alleged h/o kerosene oil being poured over her and being set fire by her husband and both in-laws while she was sleeping at about 4.00 am at their residence in Sangam Vihar.'In the dying declaration Ex.PW10/B recorded by the SDM, the deceased has excluded her husband and implicated only father-in-law and mother-in-law to be the persons who set her on fire.Learned counsel for the appellants has also pointed out another discrepancy as to who recorded the dying declaration i.e. PW-14 ASI CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 5 of 21 C.D.Upadhyay - the investigating officer or PW-10 Sh.A.Nedunchezhiyan - SDM.The SDM is a South-Indian and could not have written the dying declaration in Hindi in question-answer form which suggests that it was the IO who prepared the dying declaration and obtained the signature of the SDM on the same without any such statement being made by the deceased.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 5 of 21Learned counsel for the appellants has also questioned the observation of the learned Trial Court that DW-2 and 3 are false witnesses.Further the opinion expressed that no marriage invitation could be there without printing the cards, is based on assumptions.The appellants belong to rural area and invitations are being extended by them orally or by personal visits.On the day of incident Manpal Singh was not at home as he had gone to extend the invitation of marriage of his niece to his relative at Badar Pur, Delhi but this plea of alibi has been rejected by the learned Trial Court without giving any valid reason.Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the parties i.e. parents and in-laws of the deceased belong to lower strata of the society.In those days there was not even electricity connection in the house of the appellants and there was no question of making a dowry demand of Rs.1,0,000/- when they were aware of the financial capacity of the parents of the deceased Manisha.It has also been CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 6 of 21 contended that the deceased left for her parents home on her own and was brought back to her in-laws' house by her father about 4-5 months prior to the occurrence.Soon before her death, there was no cruelty caused to her as without making any complaint to police she stayed for 4-5 months at the matrimonial house after returning from the parents' house.No incident of cruelty being committed on her by either of the appellants was mentioned by her in the dying declaration and in these circumstances the appellants could not have been convicted for causing dowry death of Manisha.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 6 of 21Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that both the appellants are old and the mother-in-law even cannot stand because of her ailment.She needs constant support even to stand properly.They have already remained in custody for a period of about five years.They have been awarded sentence of ten years and in case this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the appellants on merits, at least on quantum of sentence a lenient view may be taken and their sentence may be reduced.In emphatic refutation, the learned APP for the State submitted that admittedly the unfortunate incident wherein deceased Manisha suffered burn injuries to the extent of 70-75% had occurred within seven years of her marriage at her matrimonial home in suspicious circumstances.The factum of she being harassed on account of dowry demand of `1 lakh stands proved from the fact and circumstances that none from the family of her in-laws had even accompanied her to the hospital.The investigating officer PW-14 ASI C.D.Upadhyay found the house abandoned.Her dying declaration is sufficient to prove the CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 7 of 21 guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubts.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 7 of 21After outlining the rival contentions and with a view to appreciate them, it is necessary to take a stock of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and to ascertain whether findings arrived at by the learned Trial Court that it is a case of dowry death is valid in law.It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Manisha was married to Jai Prakash, son of the appellants.PW-1 Smt.Laxmi Gupta are the public witnesses/neighbours who have seen the deceased Manisha rushing out of her house on 15th June, 1999 at about 5:30 AM.The public witnesses have also stated that somebody informed the PCR and she was removed to hospital.But none of the family members from her in-laws came out to save her or accompany her to the hospital.PW-3 Kali Charan & PW-4 Ram Khilari are father and brother respectively of the deceased.They reached Delhi on the next day on receiving message from the police.Both of them have stated about the dowry demand of `1 lakh made by the appellants as well their inability to fulfill the demand.They have also stated that the deceased was made to live at her parents' house to pressurize them to fulfill the demand and about five months before the occurrence the father of the deceased (PW-3) left her at the matrimonial home and paid `10,000 (rupees ten thousand only) to the appellants to partly meet their demand of `1 lakh and assured to pay the balance in installments.PW-13 Dr.Deepak Nanda, Safdurjung Hospital prepared the MLC and at that time Manisha was conscious and oriented.At that time she gave the alleged history of kerosene oil CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 8 of 21 being poured over her and being set on fire by her husband and both in-laws while she was sleeping at about 4.00 am at their residence in Sangam Vihar.PW-13 Dr.Deepak Nanda has recorded on the MLC Ex.PW13/A as under:-CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 8 of 21".........The injuries were burns over face, neck bother upper limbs totally and interior portion of lower thins and legs and buttocks and posterior aspect of this and legs amounting to approximately 70% of total body surface area.The alleged history of Kerosene being poured over he and being set fire by her husband and both inlaws while she was sleeping at about 5 a.m. of 15- 6-99 at their residence in Sangam Vihar."In his cross examination, he has stated that no relation was present when he examined her, which reads as under:".........The patient was conscious when I examined her because it was she who gave history of burning as recorded by me.Her orientation of mind was alright.No relation was present when I examined her. ..........."PW-14 ASI C.B.Upadhay, PS Sri Niwas Puri who reached the spot on getting the information from the hospital has categorically stated that the house of the appellant was lying open with none of the occupants present there and with a view to guard the scene of crime he left the constable and also borrowed a lock from the neighbour house.He filed an application Ex.PW-14/A to seek opinion of the doctor whether the injured was fit to make statement and obtained the fitness at 8:10 AM from the doctor which is Ex.PW-10/A.It has also come on record that SDM arrived at the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased in question-answer form which CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 9 of 21 is Ex.PW-10/B. Since dying declaration given by the deceased has been challenged on various grounds including the state of mind of the deceased at the time of making the dying declaration as well its authenticity pointing out discrepancy as to who recorded the statement surfacing in the statement of PW-10 Sh.A.Nedunchezhiyan - SDM when examined as PW-10 has stated as under:-CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 9 of 21PW10/A. After obtaining fitness certificate I recorded the statement of Manisha in question answer form.I put question to Manish and the question and answers were recorded by Mr.Updhayay IO in my presence.The statement recorded in question answer form was signed by me and the injured put thumb impression in my presence at point-A. My sig.are appearing on the statement is Ex.PW10/B at point-B.'The question put to the IO was 'who recorded the statement' and he correctly answered that it was PW-10 SDM.The question put to him was not 'in whose hand writing the dying declaration is recorded' otherwise he would have answered accordingly.No doubt PW-10 Sh.A. Nedunchezhiya - SDM was not from the Hindi belt but there is nothing on record to infer that he could not converse in Hindi.Had it been so, when he was cross-examined on behalf of the appellants, he could have been asked as to whether he understood the questions and answers put during cross-examination in Hindi.It is also not the case of the appellants that during his examination-in-chief or cross-examination the questions were put to CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 10 of 21 him in English and answered by him in English or that he was not conversant with spoken Hindi.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 10 of 21The dying declaration Ex.PW-10/B is in simple language in question-answer form.Before inquiring from her about how the occurrence had taken place, she was asked about her name, husband's name, name of her father-in-law, mother-in-law, their addresses, name of her father and his address.It is relevant to note here that she was removed to hospital by PCR.At the time of her admission in the hospital or when the SDM (PW-10) recorded her statement, no family member, either from her parental side or from in-laws side was around to disclose either her name or the name of the other members of the family or their addresses.At the time of preparation of MLC as well at the time of recording dying declaration, the injured Manisha herself was answering all the questions put to her and was conscious and oriented as well fit to make statement.A bare look at the answers given by her is sufficient to satisfy the conscious of this Court about her fit state of mind.The questions put to the deceased and the answers given by her are as under:(i) The first question put to her is about her name.(iii) Third question is how the occurrence has taken place.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 11 of 21(iv) The fourth question is name of her father-in-law and mother-in- law.(vi) Sixth is the question about any complaint from her husband.(vii) Seventh question is address of her matrimonial home.(viii) Eights question is about the address of her parental home and she mentioned the name of her father and thereafter gives the address of her village.The above answers confirm that she was in fit state of mind.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 12 of 21She was conscious of the fact that in villages as there is no house number, her father's name was required to be given for the complete address.There is nothing on record to suggest that immediately after 10:30 AM when her dying declaration was recorded she became unfit for statement.Rather she survived for six days after suffering the burn injuries.Even at the cost of repetition it can be mentioned that the injured was removed to the hospital by PCR and the details appearing in the MLC or in the dying declaration could not have been known either to the police or to the doctor or to the SDM.The details were given by the injured being accurate, further confirm that she was in fit state of mind when brought to the hospital as well as when her dying declaration Ex.PW-10/A was recorded.It has been proved by the prosecution that when deceased Manisha was removed to hospital by PCR, when she was hospitalized or when the history of burns was recorded by PW-13 Dr.Deepak Nanda or her statement in question-answer form (Ex.PW10/B) was recorded by the SDM PW-10 Sh.A.Nedunchezhiyan, none of the family member was present around her.So it is not a case of she being tutored by anyone before she made the statement before the SDM which is now being treated as CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 13 of 21 dying declaration.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 13 of 21The primary contention raised on behalf of the appellants that the dying declaration is the sole piece of evidence against them which could not have been relied upon by the learned Trial Court to base their conviction has to be rejected.It has been proved by the prosecution that dying declaration has been recorded by PW-10 SDM after the patient was declared fit for statement.During cross- examination of PW-10 - the SDM and PW-14 - the first Investigating Officer in whose handwriting the dying declaration appears, no legal infirmity could be pointed out which could render it inadmissible.The appellant Manpal Singh has taken the plea of alibi whereas the appellant Mangla Devi has stated in her statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that the parents of the deceased Manisha wanted her to marry somewhere else (dusri jagah baithana chahte the) to which she opposed, hence falsely implicated.Conflicting versions have been given by the appellants during their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the reason why the deceased had to stay at her parental home before she was brought back by her father about five months before this occurrence.As per the mother-in-law, the deceased used to quarrel as she wanted to live separately.During her cross examination, she admitted that she was not even invited for the wedding of Jai Prakash with the deceased and was not aware of the name of the village of her native place.DW-1 Smt.Chandrawati has deposed about the love affair of the deceased which was not even the case of the appellant or the husband of the deceased to be the root cause for the quarrel.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 14 of 21DW-2 Sh.Ram Prasad, brother-in-law of the appellant Manpal Singh has appeared to depose that one day prior to burning of Manisha, Manpal Singh came to his house at about 7:00 PM and left the house next day morning at about 8:00 AM.DW-2 Sh.Ram Prasad has given his address of 20, Budh Vihar near Badarpur and the appellants are residents of Sangam Vihar which is not far away from there.During his cross-examination DW-2 has stated that the marriage for which he was invited was attended by him as well convict Manpal Singh.Surprisingly Manpal Singh nowhere stated that he had attended the marriage nor any photograph of the marriage has been placed on record to prove that DW-2 and the appellant attended that marriage.The appellants surrendered on 1st July, 1999 which indicate that they were evading arrest till that date.It is highly improbable that when the deceased Manisha, their daughter-in-law was admitted in the hospital with 70-75% burns, her husband was in jail, the appellant Manpal would be attending the marriage despite the fact that he had been named by the deceased to be the person responsible for setting her on fire.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 15 of 21DW-3 Sh.Pramod Kumar has been examined to prove that on the night of 14th June, 1999 when he visited the house of the appellants, deceased was in an angry mood.He also stated that Mukesh - brother of Jai Prakash (husband of the deceased) was sent to the village Etah in U.P. to inform her family but he was beaten and confined.With the intervention of the local Deputy Superintendent of Police, he could be released by sending force.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 16 of 21So far as version of DW-3 Sh.Pramod Kumar is concerned, there is not even an iota of evidence that another son of the appellant had ever visited Etah - native place of the deceased to inform about the occurrence.Neither any police record from Etah, U.P. has been requisitioned to prove this fact nor Mukesh has been examined as defence witness.It is a matter of record that even DW-3 though claimed to be present on the fateful night at the house of the deceased, and saw the deceased running out of the house (she was burning at that time) he did not accompany her to the hospital.Hence his presence at the spot is doubtful.The statement of this defence witness has been rightly disbelieved by learned Trial Court.The appellant Manpal Singh has taken the plea of alibi.Ram Prasad in this regard to be false for the reason that defence failed to prove that any such marriage was fixed for which he had gone to extend the invitation on a day prior to this occurrence or it was in fact solmenized.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant Manpal stated as under:"I was not at home at the time of incident.I had gone to invite guests for marriage of my niece which was fixed for 25th June, 1999."Neither he has given the name of the relatives, the place visited by him, name of the niece or her father and the place where the marriage was to be solemnized.In the decision Munna Kumar Upadhyay vs. State of Andhra CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 17 of 21 Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 174, it was held as under:CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 17 of 21"it is a settled law that the statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the Accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him...."I concur with the finding of the learned Trial Court in this regard.Another plea taken on behalf of the defence during trial was that they did not abandon the house but visited the hospital and were looking for the injured with her nick name 'Muniya'.Mere query from the Reception in Emergency or even from the duty constable about the patient being brought by PCR from Sangam Vihar with burn injuries would have been enough for them to locate the patient in the hospital or contact the IO who reached the Burn Ward.They preferred to abscond after the incident leaving their house unattended and they did not have enough time to even lock their house.The neighbours PW-1 Smt.Kamlesh & PW-2 Smt.Laxmi Gupta, public witnesses had no enmity with the appellants.They had deposed as to what they had seen i.e. a lady on fire running out of the house who turned out to be daughter-in-law in that house and she being removed to the hospital by the PCR.The fact that a crowd gathered outside the house but the family members preferred to stay in-door and then to abscond, in itself is a strong incriminating circumstance against them.The entire defence is nothing but an after- thought and has rightly been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court.The evidence led in this case proved beyond reasonable doubts CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 18 of 21 all the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC i.e.:CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 18 of 21(ii) The unnatural death had taken place within seven years of her marriage.(iii) Soon before her death she was subjected to harassment by her husband and in-laws for non-fulfillment of their demand of `1 lakh.(iv) To put pressure on her parents, she was made to stay for about ten months at her parental home in UP.Her father who is a poor person, could arrange only rupees ten thousand which he paid when he came to leave her daughter at her matrimonial home with assurance to fulfill the remaining demand gradually.(v) In her dying declaration she was consistent about demand of 1 lac and that she was harassed by her in-laws and also sometimes beaten by her husband on account of non-fulfillment of demand of rupees one lakh.(vi) She rushed out of her house with her body on fire and somebody from the public informed the police and she was removed to the hospital by PCR.(vii) There was no family member around her at that time when her MLC was prepared or her dying declaration was recorded by the SDM by dictating to the IO in the question & answer form recorded in Hindi.(viii) The nature of the questions put and the answers given by her fully establish that she was in fit state of mind at that time and answered all the questions completely giving the details wherever CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 19 of 21 necessary.CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 19 of 21A cumulative consideration of the overall evidence is sufficient to prove the charge under Section 304-B IPC qua the appellants.The prosecution has proved that the unnatural death of Manisha in the matrimonial home within three years of her marriage was a dowry death as she was set on fire by the appellants for non-fulfillment of their demand of rupees one lakh.Since the prosecution succeeded in proving all the crucial ingredients that deceased Manisha was set on fire by the appellants when she was at her matrimonial home on non-fulfillment of the demand of rupees one lakh made by them which could not be fully satisfied by her father, the finding of guilt returned by the learned Trial Court calls for no interference by this Court.Thus, the appeal challenging their conviction under Section 304-B IPC is dismissed.Learned counsel for the appellants has prayed for taking a lenient view on the quantum of sentence awarded to the appellants highlighting their poor economic condition, their old age as well medical condition of the appellant Mangla Devi.The compliance of the above directions given to the appellants shall be communicated by the Jail Superintendent to this Court.PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) AUGUST 18, 2017 'hkaur' CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 21 of 21CRL.A. No.725/2001 Page 21 of 21
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
2,619,525
He further 4 W.P. No. 5103/2018 submits that in most of the cases which are registered against the petitioner he has been acquitted by the respondents.In the said report, the Superintendent of Police has stated that as many as 13 cases have been registered against the petitioner since 2000 to 2016, therefore, the Superintendent of Police has forwarded the case of the petitioner to the District Magistrate for initiation of externment proceedings under Section 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam.The reply was filed by the petitioner of the said show cause notice but the same was unsatisfactory and the Collector, therefore, passed an order dated 18.10.2017 thereby externing the petitioner from Betul and other adjoining cities.The respondents have further stated that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and as many as 5 prosecution witnesses were examined.The petitioner was also given opportunity to adduce his evidence.The petitioner got examined as many as three witnesses who were further cross-examined by the prosecution.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.In the present case, the Superintendent of Police, Betul vide letter dated 29.11.2016 addressed to the District Magistrate Betul regarding the conduct of the petitioner that the petitioner is involved in antisocial activities.It has further been informed that because of presence of the petitioner in Betul law and order problem is adversely affected and the public peace and tranquility is 9 W.P. No. 5103/2018 likely to get disturbed.Since, 2000 to 2016, thirteen criminal cases were registered against him.(26.07.2018) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 18.10.2017 passed by respondent No. 3 as well as the order dated 22.02.2018 passed by respondent No. 2 in appeal.Brief facts of the case are that the Superintendent of Police, Betul submitted its report on 29.11.2016 before respondent No. 3 stating that 13 2 W.P. No. 5103/2018 criminal cases are registered against the petitioner and also referring Ishtgasa under Section 107 and 116 (3) of the Cr.P.C. It has further been stated that in the said report, the petitioner is involved in commission of the offences and preventive action has been taken against the petitioner and the same has been ineffective.For the said purpose, he made a recommendation to the Collector for taking action against the petitioner under Section 5(b) of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam').On the basis of the said report, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.07.2017 whereby the petitioner has been directed to file reply of the notice.The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.08.2017 and stated that he has not committed any crime and no case has been registered against the petitioner since 2009 but the police of Police Station Amla, District Betul has falsely implicated the petitioner in false cases.Further it is stated that in most of the cases registered against the petitioner, he has been acquitted by the trial Court.The 3 W.P. No. 5103/2018 learned Collector after hearing both the parties has passed an order dated 18.10.2017 under Section 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam for externment of the petitioner from District Betul and other adjacent district.The Commissioner vide order dated 22.02.2018 has dismissed the said appeal.Being aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner has filed the present petition.2 W.P. No. 5103/20183 W.P. No. 5103/2018He further submits that the petitioner has also made a complaint against respondent No. 5 that he is making a false complaint against the petitioner but no action has been taken by the authorities.He, therefore, filed W.P. No. 4177/2015 which was disposed of vide order dated 25.03.2015 with a direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the complaint of the petitioner by speaking order.He further submits that the findings given by the Collector that the petitioner is a habitual offender and several criminal cases registered against him is also incorrect.He further submits that the offences registered against him they are not of a serious nature and respondent No. 5 has deliberately filed Istagasa under Section 107, 110, 116 of the Cr.P.C against him to prepare false cases against him.However, all these facts have not been considered by the 5 W.P. No. 5103/2018 respondents while passing the impugned order.4 W.P. No. 5103/20185 W.P. No. 5103/2018The District Magistrate after considering the totality of the circumstances has passed the impugned order.The respondents have further stated that since 2000 as many as 13 offences have been registered against the petitioner under various sections of Indian Penal Code, Arms Act, Excise Act and Gambling Act and as many as eight preventive proceedings have been initiated against 7 W.P. No. 5103/2018 the petitioner.The petitioner has been acquitted in most of the cases on the basis of compromise.The petitioner has also not filed any document in order to demonstrate that he has been acquitted in some of the cases on merits.6 W.P. No. 5103/20187 W.P. No. 5103/2018So far as, assertion of the petitioner that on two occasions, the proceedings of externment were dropped by the District Magistrate in its order dated 07.05.2013 and order dated 07.06.2016, the respondents have stated that the District Magistrate was of the opinion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner after the year 2009 and thus, in the year 2013 to 2016, the proceedings of externment were dropped.In the year 2010, two offences were registered against the petitioner under the Excise Act and in the year 2012, offence under Sections 341, 204, 506 and 34 of the IPC was registered against the petitioner.In the year 2013 and 2014, the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against the 8 W.P. No. 5103/2018 petitioner and in the year 2016, two offences were registered against the petitioner under Section 4(a) of the Gambling Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act. Thus, it is clear that even after the year 2009, the petitioner was continuously involved in heinous crime and, therefore, his presence at District Betul is likely to disturb and affect the peace in the city.The respondents have further submitted that both the orders are based on material which has been brought on record and does not call for any interference by this Court.8 W.P. No. 5103/2018In such circumstances, the Superintendent of Police requested the District Magistrate for initiation of externment proceedings under Sections 5(a) & (b) of the Adhiniyam.On the basis of the report of the Superintendent of Police, a show cause notice was issued on 03.07.2017 to the petitioner.The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show cause notice.Against the said orders, the present petition has been filed.9 W.P. No. 5103/2018From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was given full opportunity of hearing and as many as five witnesses were examined by the prosecution and the petitioner was also given opportunity to adduce his evidence.The petitioner has produced three witnesses and 10 W.P. No. 5103/2018 they were further examined by the prosecution.In the present case, 13 criminal cases were registered against the petitioner from year 2000 to 2016 and as many as eight preventive orders were passed.10 W.P. No. 5103/2018Now, therefore, 3rd time on the basis of the said allegations or criminal offences, the order of externment could not have been passed cannot be accepted.The record shows that in order dated 07.05.2013, District Magistrate was of the opinion that no offence has been committed by the petitioner after 2009 and, therefore, in the year 2013 to 2016, the proceedings of externment were stopped.However, after 2009, in the year 2010 two offences under Excise Act were registered 11 W.P. No. 5103/2018 against the petitioner and in the year 2012 offence under Sections 341, 204, 506 and 34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner.In the year 2013 and 2014, the offence under Section 25 of the Arms Act and in the year 2016, two offences were registered against the petitioner under Section 4(a) of the Gambling Act and under Section 25 of the Arms Act.11 W.P. No. 5103/2018Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any document before the Court showing that he has been acquitted in the criminal cases which has been registered against him.Thus, on the basis of overall record of the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere into the said writ petition.12 W.P. No. 5103/2018
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,200,665
(a) The applicant/accused no.1 is the son of Sou.The marriage of applicantno.1 was solemnized with Jyoti @ Pooja (hereinafter referred toas 'the deceased'), the daughter of Sou.Lalita, the frstinformant, on 24th December, 2014, at Kupwad, District Sangli.After marriage, the deceased joined accused no.1 at hermatrimonial home at Ambarnath, District Thane.The accusedallegedly subjected the deceased to cruelty in order to coerce herto meet the unlawful demand of articles like gold ring and bedand also for failure to treat the bride-groom's relatives withhonour, in the marriage ceremony.The deceased used to narrateher woes to the frst informant.Accused no.1 allegedly subjectedthe deceased to physical harassment as well for her failure tomeet the demands.On 18 th April, 2015, the deceasedleft the home on the pretext of bringing ice-cream.Thedeceased, however, did not return.At about 8.45 pm.the deadbody of the deceased was found on the railway tracks.On 6 thMay, 2015, a chit was allegedly found in the bag of the deceased.It revealed that the deceased had decided to commit suicide on 2/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 ::: CRIREVN332-17.DOCaccount of the harassment at the hands of the accused over herfailure to meet the demands of gold ring and bed.With the consent of the learned Counsels for the parties,heard fnally at the admission stage.This revision is directed against an order dated 10th April,2017, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sangli, in SessionsCase No.148 of 2015, whereby an additional charge for theoffence punishable under Sections 304-B read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("the Penal Code", for short), wasdirected to be framed against the applicants - accused.1/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::CRIREVN332-17.DOCShorn of superfuities the background facts leading to thisapplication can be stated as under:::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::(b) Thereupon, frst informant lodged report.A crimewas registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498Aand 306 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code.After fndingthe complicity of the accused, charge-sheet came to belodged against them for the offences punishable under Sections498A, 306 read with 34 of the Penal Code.(c) Trial commenced.Four witnesses were examined bythe prosecution including Sou.Lalita (PW-1), the frst informant.Thereafter, on 26th August, 2016, the learned Public Prosecutorfled application (Exhibit 32) seeking the addition of the chargefor the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the PenalCode.The accused opposed the said prayer.(d) By the impugned order, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge was persuaded to allow the application holding,inter alia, that the material on record, especially the suicidenote indicated that there was a prima facie case to show thatsoon before her death, the deceased was subjected to cruelty or 3/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 ::: CRIREVN332-17.DOCharassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry,namely, gold ring and bed.As the deceased had met anunnatural death and the death had occurred under fourmonths of the marriage, the ingredients of offence of dowrydeath were, ex facie, made out and, therefore, it was necessaryto add the charge for the offence punishable under Section304B of the Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::Being aggrieved by and dissatisfed with the impugnedorder the accused have preferred this revision.I have heard Mr. Samlewale, the learned Counsel for theapplicants and Mr. Patil, the learned APP for the State/Respondent, at some length.Mr. Samlewale submitted that the impugned order suffersfrom grave error as the charge under Section 304-B of the PenalCode has been directed to be added without there being anymaterial to support the same.A concerted effort was made by 4/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 ::: CRIREVN332-17.DOCMr.Samlewale to draw home the point that in the backdrop ofthe material on record, especially the deposition of Sou.Lastly, it was submitted thatthe circumstances in which the suicide note was allegedlyrecovered also dent the veracity of the prosecution case.In thisbackdrop, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not havedirected the addition of the charge under Section 304-B,especially after four witnesses were examined and nothing couldbe brought on record in proof of the complicity of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::Per contra, Mr. Patil, the learned APP stoutly submittedthat all the ingredients for the offence punishable under Section304-B were made out.Firstly, the deceased died in thecircumstances, which were not normal.Secondly, the deceased 5/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 ::: CRIREVN332-17.DOCdied under four months of marriage.Thirdly, there is adequatematerial on record to demonstrate that the deceased wassubjected to harassment in order to coerce her to meet thedemand of gold ring and bed.Fourthly, the short span of timeestablishes the element of harassment soon before the death ofthe deceased.Thus, according to the learned APP, presumptioncontained in Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872, isattracted with full force.The learned Sessions Judge was thusjustifed in adding the charge under Section 304-B, and thisCourt in exercise of the limited revisional jurisdiction ought notinterfere with the exercise of the discretion by the learnedSessions judge, urged the learned APP.::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::6/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::Having dealt with the principle challenge of the applicants,re-adverting to the consideration of the rest of the submissions,it is pertinent to note that the alleged suicide note, refers to thedemand of gold ring and bed at multiple occasions.15/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::CRIREVN332-17.DOCThus, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is nomaterial to demonstrate that the accused had allegedlyharassed the deceased for or in connection with the demand ofgold ring and bed.The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.Hence, the following order.The revision application stands dismissed.[N. J. JAMADAR, J.] 16/16 ::: Uploaded on - 26/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 24/04/2020 13:30:14 :::
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
262,034
N. Santosh Hegde, A.D.N. Rao and A, Subha Rao for theAppellants.G. Prabhakar for the Respondent.The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 877 V.RAMASWAMI, J. The appellants along 11 others weretried for causing the murder of on Appikatla Tataiah, andfor causing injuries on Jarugu Rama Koteshwararao (PW2) on24th June, 1981 near `Manchineeti Cheruyu'(fresh water tank)at or about 8.00 P.M. in Machavaram Village.The learned Sessions Judge, Krishna DivisionMachilipatnam by his Judgment dated 16.7.1982 acquitted A-3,A-4, A-6 to A-10, A-12 and A-15 of all the charges.Heconvicted Kurakula Nagamelleswarao (A-1), Jarugu Kotaiah (A-According to the respondent he and the appellant contractedthat the appellant would participate on their behalf in apublic auction to purchase the evacuee property.hecontributed his share.The appellant agreed to convey halfthe property purchased at the auction.From the Judgement and Order dated 16.8.1984 of theAndhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.2), Appikatla Krishnamurthy (A-5) and Appikatla Nagulu (A-11) under section 148, Indian Penal Code and sentenced eachof them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment.A-1 wasfurther convicted under section 302, IPC and sentenced toimprisonment for life.A-2 was convicted under section 302read with section 34, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment forlife.A-5 and A-11 were convicted under section 302 readwith section 149, IPC and each of them were sentenced toundergo imprisonment of life.Regarding the attack on PW-2jarugu Rama Koteshwararao the learned Sessions Judgeconvicted A-1 and A-2 under section 326, IPC read withsection 149 and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorousimprisonment for four years.The learned Judge furtherconvicted A-5 and A-11 under section 324, IPC for causingsimple hurt to PW-2 and sentenced each one of them toundergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.A-1 and A-2were also convicted under section 324 read with section 149,IPC and each of them were sentenced to two years rigorousimprisonment.The sentences awarded against each accusedunder various ground were ordered to run concurrently.The High Court confirmed the conviction andsentence of A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-11 under section 148, IPC.However, it alterted the conviction of A-1 and A-2 undersection 302, IPC and Section 302 read with section 34respectively into one under section 148 and section 302 readwith section 149 and the sentence awarded thereunder werealso confirmed.The High Court also confirmed the convictionand sentences on the accused under sections 326 and 324 readwith section 149 and sections 324 read with 878section 149, IPC.The sentences were directed to runconcurrently.the lerned Judges of the High Court dismissedthe appeal preferred by the State in respect of acquittal ofthe other accused.In this appeal Sh.Santosh Hedge, Senior Advocateappearing for the accused appellants did not canvass theconviction of the four appellants, namely, A-1, A-2, A-5 andA-11 under section 324 and 326, IPC and section 324 readwith section 149, IPC and section 326 read with section 149,IPC in relation to the attack on PW-2 but without prejudiceto his contention that on the facts section 149, IPC couldnot have been invoked in relation to the offence undersection 302,IPC.This stand was taken on the basis that theappellants had already served or had almost finished servingthe four year terms which was awarded for those offences.The conviction and sentence under section 148 was also notcanvassed for the same reason without prejudice the abovesaid contention.He confined his arguments against theconvictions and sentences of A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-11 undersection 302 read with section 149, IPC.So far this part of the case is concerned in thepresent case the High Court observed:"The lower court has convicted A-1 under section 302 of the Indian Panal Code for attacking the deceased. A-2, was convicted under sections 149, 302 r.w. section 34, 324 r.w. section 149 and 326 I.P.C. for attacking the deceased.A-5 and A-11 were convicted under sections 148, 302 r.w. section 149, 324 and 326 r.w. section 149 IPC.As already observed only such of accused whose presence and participation is established can safely be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly.The consistent version regarding the presence and participation by A-1,A- 2, A-5 and A-11 can safely be accepted and they can be held to be the members of the unlawful assembly along with some others unidentified persons.The common object of the unlawful assembly along with some others unidentified persons.The common object of the unlawful assembly was to commit murder of the deceased.In this context it must also be remembered that PW 2 who received the serious injuries, would be the last person to leave out the real assailants and implicate the innocent persons.".So far as injuries inflicted onPW 2 is concerned as already stated the conviction andsentence in regard to the same are not canvassed in thisappeal.So far as the attack on the deceased is concerned P1 the statement of PW 1 given to the village Munsif on24.6.1981 immediately after the occurence stated that:"...surrounded my husband and my elder brother armed with axes, curved knives, and spears.Then Kurakula Nagamalleswararao hacked my elder brother with curved knife (Yerukala Kathi) on the left shoulder.Jargugu Kotiah hacked my elder brother with an axe on the left shoulder.Appikatla Nagulu beat my elder brother on the head with stick portion of the spear.I raised hue and cry loudly that they are killing my husband and my elder brother.On hearing my cries Ummadisetti Pooraniah and my sister-in law Srikrishna came there.the above fifteen persons caused injuries to my husband by beating and hacking with axes, spears and curved knives (Yerukala Kathi)which were in their hand.My husband succumbed to the knife injuries."It may be seen from this report that there is a baldstatement that fifteen persons caused injuries to herhusband (deceased) by beating and hacking with axes, spearsand curved knives (Yerukala Kathi) which were in their handsand her husband succumbed to the knife injuries.It did notattribute any overt act to A-1, A-2, A-5 and A-11, who arethe appellants in this case.The PW2 gave the statement Ex.P 2 dated 25.6.1981 recorded by the Munsiff Magistrate,Avamigadda as a dying declaration which was later taken as astatement under section 157 Code of Criminal Procedure.Inthis so far as the injuries inflicted on the deceased areconcerned he had merely stated:"The aforesaid four persons and the other eleven persons, beat and hacked my younger sisters' husband Appikatla Tataiah and felled him down." The charges framed against the accused appellants also stated:"That you, accused Np.1 to 15, on the night of 24th day of June, 1981, at about 8.P.M. near the Manchineeti Cheruvu' in Machavaram Village, Divi taluk, were members of an unlawful assembly and did, in prosecution of the common object of which viz. in killing Appikatla Tataiah, S/o Chittonna alias Chinna Ammanna an d Jarugu Rama Koteswara Rao, S/o Mangaiah of Machavaram village...."Thus the specific prosecution case was that accused 1 to 15attacked the deceased and no specific overt act wasattributed to any of the accused.It is true that PW 1 inher evidence stated that A-1 hacked the deceased on the leftside of neck with Yerukala Kathi and the evidence of doctorPW 8 showed that this is injury No. 2 which proves fatal byitself.But in the light of the first information report P-1and the dying declaration Ex. P-2 dated 25.6.1981 of P.W. 2recorded by the Munsiff Magistrate which was later ontreated as statement under section 57 of the CriminalProcedure Code which did not attribute any specific overtact to any of the appellant accused in this case, this casewas not accepted by the High Court.It is because of thisreason the High Court did not accept the conviction of theappellants 1 and 2, namely, accused 1 and 2 under section302 and section 302 and section 302 read with section 34,accused 1 and 2 under section 302 and section 302 read withsection 34, IPC and altered the conviction into one undersection 302 read with the section 149, IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant also contendedthat the evidence of PW 1 apart from the fact it was notaccepted by the High 881Court in so far as it related to the specific overt acts ofA-1, 2, 5 and 11 are concerned are also not acceptable asthey are full of infirmities and improbabilities and also byreason of the possibility of improving the case.He hadpointed out that though PW 2 and deceased were said to havegone to the Manchineeti Cheruyu (fresh water tank) to verifywhether the paddy bags kept by them for soaking were intact, paddy bags were not found the investigating officer oranybody and they were not recovered.the learned counselalso pointed out, the story that PWs 1 and 3 and had gonethat side for calls of nature are also not believable as theplace were ladies ease was on the opposite direction andnot in the direction of the fresh water.The houses of thedeceased and PW 2 and that of Pw 4 were about 150 yards awayfrom the scene of occurence and the occurrence is stated tohave taken place at 8.00 P.M. These ladies ran to the sceneof occurrence on hearing the cries of the deceased and PW 2.It was also pointed out that though they stated that whenthey (ladies) went to answer the calls of nature they hadtaken along with them chambus or lotas with water, and thosechambus or lotas were not recovered.In her evidence PW 1stated that when she found her husband lying dead withnumber of injuries and blood everywhere she fell over herhusband and wept but none of her blood stained clothes wererecovered.Though they had stated that when she found herhusband PW 2 injured she carried him but her blood stainedclothes were also not recovered.Though they had statedbefore going to the village Munsiff for giving the complaintand after taking PW2 to the house they have changed theclothing their evidence clearly throw a doubt as to thepresence at the time of occurrence.And thus theyare all closely related and the possibility of anexaggeration or of improving in their evidence cannot beruled out.It may also be pointed out that these witnessesstated that there was electric lamp post and there was noquestion of any electric light being on.There is ampleevidence of rivalry between the parties also.In thesecircumstances their presence at the time of occurrence isdoubtful and it is also not possible to believe the evidenceof PWs 1,2,3 and 4 in respect overt acts attributed to thefour appellants herein.In fact, as already stated the HighCourt was not willing to accept their evidence in thisregard and that is why the conviction was made under section302 read with section 149, IPC.However, the learned Judges over-looked that since theaccused who are are convicted were only four in number andthe prosecution has not proved the involvement of otherpersons and the courts below have acquitted all the otheraccused of all the offences, section 149 cannot be invokedfor convicting the four appellants herein.The learnedJudges were not correct in stating that A1, A2, A5 and A11"can be held to be the members of the unlawful assemblyalong with some others unidentified persons' on the factsand circumstances of this case.The charge was not thataccused 1, 2, 5 and 11 "and others' or "and otherunidentified persons" formed into an unlawful assembly butit is that "you accused 1 to 15" who formed into anunlawful assembly.It is not the prosecution case that apartfrom the said 15 persons there were other persons who wereinvolved in the crime.When the 11 other accused wereacquitted it means that their involvement in the offence hadnot been proved.It would not also be permisible to assumeor conclude that others named or unnamed acted conjointlywith the charged accused in the case unless the chargeitself specifically said so and there was evidence toconclude that some others also were involved in thecommission of the offence conjointly with the chargedaccused in furtherance of a common object.In Maina Singh's case (supra) the appellant in thatcase and four others were charged with offences undersections 302/149, IPC, the appellant with having shot at thedeceased and the other accused with giving blows to thedeceased with a sharp-edged weapon.The High Courtdismissed the appeal for the State against the acquittal asalso the appellants appeal against the conviction.The trial in fact went on the basis throughout.There was also no direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the offence was committed by the appellant along with any other unnamed person.We, however,confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellants underthe other charges.Indian Contract Act, 1872: Section 23 - Contractopposed to public policy-What is-Agreement to purchaseproperty in public auction and thereafter convey half theproperty-Specific performance of -Whether enforceable.The respondent field a suit for specific performance ofan agreement of sale of land or refund of the money paid tohim contending that he and the appellant had contracted thatthe appellant would participate, on their behalf in publicaution to purchase the evacuee property and the appellantwould convey half the property purchased thereat and infurtherance of that he had contributed his share, but theappellant who became the highest bidder and got a salecertificate issued by the custodian of the evacuee propertyhad not performed his part of the contract.The appellant resisted the suit, and denied theexecution of the agreement.He also pleaded that thecontract was illegal and void, being opposed to publicpolicy, and that the relief of specific performance beingdiscretionary could not be granted in favour of therespondent.The trial court decreed the suit.On appeal by theappellant, both the first appellate court and the High Courtconfirmed the decree.Hence the appeal, by special leave.Dismissing the appeal, this Court.Mostcases of illegality are of this sort; the illegality lie inthe purpose which one or both parties have in mind.The Trial Court decreed the suit; onappeal and on further second appeal the District Court andthe High Court confirmed the same.Thereby they purchased theproperty for lesser price than the real value.The executionwas set aside.On appeal, the High Court did not agree withthe finding that the appellant and the Jainilabdin and thePapanand Zamindar did combine to dissuade the persons frombidding but fount that the appellant played fraud on thecourt by suppressing the contract as being a decree holderobtained leave of the count and bid in the auction.Therefore, the sale was void on that ground.On furtherappeal the judicial committee found that the ground on whichthe High Court set aside the sale was not pleaded, nor anopportunity given to the appellant.
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
262,043
Ramdhani, Bhola and Chhangur accused-appellants were sons of Ram Khilawan, residents of village Silauri.Bimla Singh informant (PW 1) and Sarjoo deceased were real brothers being the sons of Ram Lochan.Satya Narain and Daya accused-appellants were sons of Ramdhani accused-appellant.Sidh Nath and Vishwanath accused-appellants were two brothers inter se.Ram Naresh and Ram Samujh accused-appellants were sons of Sidh Nath.They also were residents of village Silauri.Lachhmi Narain, Ram Brichha accused-appellants were real brothers inter se.They belonged to another village Dariyapur.Goverdhan accused-appellant also lived in village Dariyapur.Ram Murat Singh accused-appellant was resident in village Rahiya.Villages Silauri, Dariyapur and Rahiya were situated close to each other.Ramdhani accused-appellant has died during the pendency of this appeal.Hence, the appeal abated to his extent.Smt. Parwati was originally Bhumidhar of Chak No. 83 of Village Silauri, area measuring 5 bigha, 8 biswa, 18 dhur.A sale-deed purporting to be executed by heron 7-8-1970 in respect of the aforesaid chak in favour of Chhangur, Ram Naresh, Ram Samujh accused-appellants and in favour of three sons of Vishwanath accused-appellant and one Badri Singh and Smt. Shall Kumari was presented before the Sub-Registrar and was acknowledged and got registered by Devendra Nath purporting to act as her Mukhtaram.Now the prosecution case was that the sale deed dated 7-8-1970 was a bogus transaction which conferred no right in the land in dispute upon the vendees and that the vendees also did not get possession over the same; that Smt. Parwati Devi remained in possession over the land in dispute in her life lime and after her death her daughter's son Jakhan was coming down in possession of it; that in November 1975 the paddy crop cultivated by Jokhan was standing in the land in dispute and was ready for harvesting and that a part of the said crop had already been harvested by Jokhan a few days before the date of occurrence; that on the date of occurrence Jokhan had come to Mirzapur to attend the civil case pending in the Court of Munsif Mirzapur for hearing on the application for temporary injunction; that taking advantage of his absence the accused-applicants came to the field, out of whom Ramdhani and Ram Naresh accused-appellants were armed with guns, Satya Narain, Daya, Bhola, Chhangur, Vishwanath, Rambrichha, Lachhmi Narain and Ram Murti accused-appellants were armed with spears and Ram Samujh and Gobardhan accused-appellants were armed with Lathis; that with the aid of 30 to 40 women labourers they started harvesting and removing the paddy crop standing in the disputed land; that Smt. Rama Devi, wife of Kokhan, on coming to know of it approached Sarju, Shivanand and Bimla Singh and sought their assistance to stop the accused-appellants from harvesting the crop till arrival of Jokhan; that on her request Sarju deceased, Shivanand deceased and Bimla Singh came to the field and found the accused persons armed as aforesaid and also a large number of women labourers harvesting and removing the crops, Jwala and Mod Lal witnesses also arrived at the spot at that time; that Sarju and Shivanand deceased entreated the accused not to harvest the crop forcibly and instead let Jokhan come back to the village; that this annoyed Chhangur accused-appellant, who retorted "Sale Turn Kaun Hote Ho Rokne Wale", that thereupon Sarju told him not to hurl abuses on him as he had come to forbid on the asking of wife of Jokhan; that Shivanand deceased told them not to take law in their hands and abide by the out-come of the litigation pending in the Courts; that on this Chhangur accused-appellant exhorted "Maro In Salon Ko Inhi Ki "Badaulat Jokhan Lad ¼yM+½ Raha Hai"; that Chhangur himself struck spear blow at the chest of Sarju, Ramdhani accused-appellants with his double barrel gun fired two-shots in quick succession at Shivanand, appellate of which accidentally hit Jwala Singh P. W. 4 also and Salya Narain accused-appellant gave a spear blow to Moti Lal PW 3 which injured him; that on receiving the injuries Sarju and Shivanand deceased fell down on the ground and after this occurrence the accused-appellants ran away towards the village Rahia, that lot of blood had fallen to the ground and both the deceased (Sarju and Shivanand) became unconscious.The persons who had collected at the spot laid Sarju and Shivanand deceased on cots and started for the police station.Sarju and Shivanand died in the way and so leaving the dead bodies in the field of Ramasaran, Bimla Singh informant (PW 1), who was the brother of Sarju deceased, went to the police station and lodged a written report (Ex. Ka-1) the same day at 12.30 p.m. The distance of the police station was about six miles from the scene of the occurrence.On the basis of the said written F. I. R. chik report was prepared by the clerk constable and an entry was made in the General Diary about the registration of the case.S. I. Gorakhnath Singh left the police station for the spot and information was sent to S. O. Vijai Bahadur Singh, who was away in connection with an enquiry.The inquest proceedings were taken and thereafter the investigation followed.Swelling at base of left thumb.Swelling over upper lip in middleJUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J.This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 4-10-1979 passed by Sri S. D. N. Singh, the then Sessions Judge, Mirzapur in Sessions Trial No. 32 of 1976, whereby he convicted Ramdhani accused-appellant for committing the murder of Shivanand deceased under Section 302, I.P. C. and for inflicting injuries on the body of Jwala injured under Section 307, I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and three years R. I. for the same respectively and further convicted him for the offence under Section 148, I. P. C. and sentenced him for the same to one year's R. I., convicted Chhangur accused-appellant for committing the murder of Sarju deceased under Section 302, I. P. C. and sentenced him for the same to imprisonment for life and further convicted him under Section 148, I. P. C. and sentenced him for the same to one year's R. I., convicted Satya Narain accused-appellant for inflicting injuries on the body of Moti Lal injured under Section 307, I.P.C. and sentenced him for the same to five years' R. I. and further convicted him for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced him for the same to one year's R. I., convicted Ram Samujh and Gobardhan accused-appellants each for the offence under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to nine months' R. I. and convicted Daya, Bhola, Ram Naresh, Vishwanath, Rambrichha, Lachhmi Narain and Ram Murti accused appellants each for the offence under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to one year's R. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.In pursuance of the said sale-deed, the aforesaid vendees applied for mutation of their names and their mutation application was allowed on 31-12-1970 by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Chunar (Ex. Ka-30).Smt. Parwati filed Suit No. 62 of 1971 before the Court of District Judge, Mirzapur for declaration that the sale-deed aforesaid was void and not binding on her on the ground that Sri Devendra Nath obtained her thumb-impressions on blank stamp papers and used it into a general power of attorney without her consent and also obtained her thumb marks on blanks stamps on false pretext and used the same as a sale-deed by her.On her death Jokhan claiming himself to be her daughter's son and her legal representative applied for the substitution of his name in the suit.The vendees too filed Suit No. 550 of 1974 before the Munsif, Mirzapur for a permanent injunction against Jokhan and two others to restrain them from interfering with their possession over the land in dispute.The dead bodies of the deceased were sent for postmortem and injured were sent for medical examination to Chunar Hospital.After completion of the investigation, chatge sheet was submitted against all the accused-appellantsThe postmortem on the dead body of Sarju deceased was performed by Dr. C. S Tripathi (PW 12) on 26-11-1975 at 4 p. m He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of Sarju :Punctured wound O. 7 c.m.x 0,7 c.m. x chest cavity deep over front of the chest in between the two nipples and just to the right of the mid line of sternum almost circular in shape directed backwards and to the left.Margins of the wound were lacerated and turned inwards.Incised wound 2.2 c.m.x 0.5 c.m.x muscle deep on the back of right arm lower l/3rd.Injuries No. 4 and 5 mentioned in the police report were found to be post mortem abrasions.The internal examination revealed that the sternum was punctured underneath injury No. I with clotted blood around that pleural cavity contained about 500 grams of clotted blood; that pericardium was punctured underneath injury No. 1 with a lot of clotted blood present around the wound; that right ventricle was punctured underneath injury No. 1 with clotted blood present in the right ventricular cavity; that left ventricle and auricles were empty; that stomach was empty; that small intestines contained digested food material and large intestines contained faecal matter.Dr. Haricharan (PW 9) conducted the post mortem on the body of Shivanand deceased in the District Hospital, Mirzapur on 27-11-1975 at 9.15 a.m. He found the following ante mortem injury on the dead body of Shivanand deceased :Multiple gun shot wounds of entry about 35 in number each 0.4 cm.x 0.4 c.m. x varying tissue depth and direction on the right side neck and right side chest.Multiple gun shot wounds of entrance 0.4 c.m.x 0.6 c.m. x varying depth and directions over whole of the right arm and fore-arm.Gun shot wound of entry 0.6 c.m.x 0.6 c.m. x chest cavity deep, 5 c.m. above right nipple directed backwards and to the left.Gun shot wound of entry of size 0.4 c.m.x 0.4 c.m.back of left forearm and wrist.Abrasion 2 c.m. x 1/2 c.m.in middle left leg on the front.The internal examination revealed that external jugular vein was punctured and lacerated with clotted blood around it; and one pellet was recovered from the tissues, that 4th rib on the right side was punctured through and through; that right thoracr wall was punctured at several places underneath injury Nos. 1 and 5; that five pellets were recovered from there; that pleura was punctured at several places both on the right and left sides; that upper and middle labes of right lung were punctured and two pellets were found lodged there; that left lobe was punctured at anterior surface and one pellet was recovered; that pericardium was punctured; that right ventricle was punctured and lacerated posteriorly at two places; that two pellets were recovered from the right ventricle; that blood was clotted, that left ventricle was empty; that abdominal cavity contained about 300 grams of clotted blood; that stomach had brownish fluid and had digested food about 50 grams in weight; that small intestines had also digested material and large ones had faecal matter in them; that liver was punctured at two places and in the left lobe of it three pellets were found lodged; and that gall bladder was half full.In the opinion of the doctor the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the ante mortem injuries.The accused-appellants pleaded not guilty before the Sessions Judge.They claimed that chak No. 83 of village Silauri was in their possession and that in the days of the alleged occurrence they had cultivated paddy crop in the same.Satya Narain and Daya Ram accused appellants admitted their presence at the spot.Satya Narain accused-appellant claimed in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that the paddy crop was got cut by their side, that Jwala, Moti, Sarjoo (deceased) and Shivanand (deceased) were cutting and removing the paddy crop from there and carrying it into the Khalihan of Jwala and Moti PWs; that Dayaram went to forbid them and he also went to the spot, that thereupon these persons beat both of them and that in his self-defence they (complainant party) received injuries.Dayaram accused-appellant similarly claimed that at that time Jwala, Moti, Sarjoo (deceased) and Shivanand (deceased) were cutting and looting the crop and that when he went to forbid them, they started assaulting him with Lathi with a view to take his life and when Satya Narain accused-appellant went there to save them he was also beaten and in the Beech-Bachay, the complainant party also received injuries.Satya Narain accused-appellant was examined by Dr. Tara Prasad Singh of Men's Hospital, Mughal Sarai at 11 p.m. on 25th November, 1975 and was found having the following injuries:Swelling about egg shaped in 1" diameter situate over the scalp.2. Contusion with swelling 2" x 1/4" over right scapula on back.Abraded contusion 1'' x 1/4" over back and right shoulder joint:Swelling at base of left toe.Complaint of pain in the right shoulder joint movement present.Swelling over back of right palm.All the injuries were simple caused with some blunt and hard object and about 12 hours old at the time of the examination.Accused Dayaram Singh's injuries were examined by Dr. Tara Prasad Singh at 11.20 p.m. on 25th November, 1975 and he was found having following injuries.Swelling with tenderness, 1" in diameter oval shape situate over middle of scalp.Abraded contusion 1/2" x 1/4" over left shoulder joint.Abrasion small in size over right patella on right knee joint.Complaint of body ache.Complaint of back ache.Contusion 1" x 1/4" on right scapula on back.9. Complaint of giddiness.All the injuries were found simple caused with blunt and hard object and of about 12 hours duration.Out of the prosecution witnesses, Jokhan P.W. 8 gave evidence about his possession over the land in dispute and the cultivation of paddy crop over it by him in the days of occurrence.There is no controversy that at the time of occurence he was not present at the scene of occurrence, Bimla Singh informant (PW 1), Smt. Ramadevi (P.W. 5, wife of Jokhan Singh) gave eye-witness account of the occurrence.Their preserice at the scene of occurrence is not in dispute.Moti Lal (PW 3) and Jwala (PW 4) also gave eyewitness account of the occurrence.They belonged to another village Khadhwa, situate at a distance of about 3/4 Kms.from the place of occurrence.But they claimed that they (Motilal and his brother Jwala) had gone to village Kadhwa for purchasing a cow and were returning from there and saw the occurrence when they reached near the spot.In this sense they were chance witnesses.But both of them were injured and their injuries establish their presence at the spot.Dayaram (PW 7) also gave eye-witness account of the occurrence* He belongs to another village Gaura and he claimed that his chak was adjacent to chak No. 83 and he had come to see his chak and saw the occurrence.His presence at the spot is also believable.Bimla Singh informant (PW 1) was brother of Sarju deceased.Dayaram (PW 7) was the son of brother of Smt. Parwati, Ramdhani accused-appellant filed a criminal complaint dated 15-1-1973 against Jwala (PW 4), Jokhan (PW 8), Bimla informant (PW 1), Sarju deceased, Shivanand deceased and a number of other persons under Sections 379/342/395/397/427, I.P.C. Ex. Kha-44 is its copy.Bimla informant pleaded ignorance about it which must be false.He later admitted that he got himself bailed out in two criminal cases.Bimla informant, Shivanand, Sarju deceased, Jwala and Mod P.Ws.Copy of its plaint is on record.But Bimla P. W. 1 denied the filing of this suit.Bimla P.W. 1 admitted that he had long standing dispute of pattidari with the family of Chhangur accused-appellant.Daya Ram P.W. 7 admitted that proceedings under Section 117, C.P.C. had taken place against him.He pleaded forgetfulness when suggested that Jokhan, Bimla, Sarju, Jwala, Shivanand were co-parties with him therein.He also pleaded ignorance when suggested that he was co-party with Jokhan in a case under Section 145, Cr.P.C. He however, admitted having filed affidavit on behalf of Jokhan in a proceeding under Section 145, Cr.P.C. between Chhangur and Jokhan.In the various reports which Chhangur had lodged at the police station from time to time during several years i.e. 1972-74 some or the other out of the prosecution witnesses were arrayed as accused alongwith Jokhan.It followed that all the prosecution witnesses of fact were relatives and associates of Jokhan and the two deceased and they were inimical with some or other of the accused-appellants.So their evidence was interested and partisan and had to be weighed with great caution.All the prosecution witnesses have stated that all the twelve accused-appellants were present at the spot and that alt of them were armed with weapons, Ramdhani and Ram Naresh with gun, Channgur, Satya Narain, Dayaram, Vishwanath, Ram Brichha, Lachhmi Narain and Ram Murat with spears, Bhola with Barchha and Ram Samujh and Gobardhan with Lathis.But in the transaction actual participation by way of assaults has been alleged to be only by Ramdhani, Chhangur and Satya Narain accused-appellants, Ramdhani is said to have fired with gun causing death to Shivanand deceased and simple injury to Jwala (P.W. 4), Chhangur accused-appellant is alleged to have given a spear blow to Sarjoo deceased causing his death and Satya Narain accused-appellant is alleged to have caused spear injury to Moti Lal (P.W. 3).Satya Narain accused-appellant admits his presence.Daya accused-appellant (not to be confused with Daya Ram P.W. 7) too admits his presence at the spot.But on the prosecution case he did not inflict any injury on the body of any one on the prosecution side.The other-accused-appellants Ram Samujh, Bhola, Ram Naresh, Vishwanath, Gobardhan, Ram Brichha, Lachhmi Narain and Ram Murat are not alleged to have inflicted any injury on the body of any one on the prosecution side and in the state of evidence on record, it is only proper to hold that their presence at the spot was doubtful.It is any body's guess that had all these persons been also present at the spot alongwith their weapons as assigned to them in the prosecution story many other persons of the prosecution side would also have received injuries and serious ones, particularly when the prosecution witnesses do not claim that they (the P.Ws.) were carrying any weapons, Bimla P.W. 1 categorically stated that they (the complainant side) had not carried any Lathi-dandas with them'.Even though, Ramdhani and Chhangur accused-appellants have denied their presence at the scene of the occurrence but prosecution evidence about their presence and their inflicting injuries on the persons of the respective victims ought to be accepted.It was broad-day light occurrence and there could be no question of mistake in the identity of the persons who specifically inflicted injuries on the victims and there would also be no question of sparing the real assailants and instead nominating another person as the actual assailant who caused the death/ injuries to the victims.It is, however, apparent that innocent persons have also been implicated by prosecution witnesses due to enmity and party-bandi.The next question that arises for determination in this case is that of right of private defence of property.The private defence of person has also been claimed.But the principal question is the right of private defence of property.There is no controversy that the disputed land is Chak No. 83 of village Silauri whose area was 5 bigha, 8 biswa 18 biswansi and that Smt. Parwati was originally Bhumidhar of the said chak.A sale deed purported to have been executed on 7-10-1970 by Smt. Parwati in favour of Chhangur, Ram Naresh and Ram Samujh accused and Manni Ram, Suresh, Awadhesh Kumar three sons of Vishwanath accused and two more persons Badri Singh and Smt. Shall Kumari Devi.A certified copy of the said sale-deed is on the record as Ex. Kha 46, which shows that the sale-deed was executed not by Devendra Nath as has been taken by the trial Court but by Smt. Parwati herself stating that she had received the entire consideration amount of Rs. 27,348.15 p. before hand and that this deed was presented for registration before the Sub-Registrar by Mukhtaram Devendar Nath on the next day i.e. 8-10-1970, who admitted before the Sub -Registrar the execution and receipt of the consideration amount on behalf of Smt. Parwati.The deed was registered the same day.In pursuance of the said sale-deed mutation order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chunar in mutation case No. 142 on 31 -12-1970 (Ext. Kha-30).This was decided as an uncontested case.There is no mention in the said order about the appearance of Srnt.Similar entry was found in the name of transferees in the Khasra of 1382 F (Ex.Kha-10) and Khasra of 1383 F (Ex. Kha-11).There are also filed Khasras of subsequent years 1385 F and 1389 F', with similar contents but since these relate to a period subsequent to the date of occurrence, these are immaterial.Smt. Parwati preferred a revision before the Addl.Commissioner against the order of mutation, namely Revision No. 96/18 of 70-71/ Mirzapur.This revision was rejected by the Addl.Commissioner by his: order dated 4-5-1972 (Ex. Kha-31).The rejection was made on the ground that Smt. Parwati had not filed any objection at the time of the mutation proceeding and that so she had no right to claim that the sale-deed was fictitious and inoperative.She then preferred her remedy by way of revision before the Board of Revenue, which was numbered as Revision No. 204 LR-71 -72/Mirzapur.It was pending at the time of the present occurrence.Smt. Parwati preferred Original Suit No. 62 of 1971 before the District Judge, Mirzapur for the declaration that the sale-deed aforesaid was void and not binding on her.She claimed in the plaint that Devendra Nath had obtained her thumb impression on blank stamp papers without her consent and knowledge and used it into a general power of attorney and also obtained her thumb-marks on blank stamp papers on false pretext and used the same as a sale-deed by her without consent and knowledge and without any payment of consideration amount.It was also claimed that she was a Pardanashin lady.The said suit remained pending in her life time and also on the date of present occurrence.The defence has filed certified copy an application purporting to be given on 15-7-1972 by Smt. Parwati before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Chunar as Ex. Kha-34, in which she purported to affirm the sale-deed aforesaid in favour of Ram Naresh and others and also claiming that she had no son or daughter or daughter's son and that one Jokhan, who is son of Banshu, had made an illicit group and is harassing her and that he had also obtained her signatures by force and she prayed for attachment of the disputed plot and certain other plots.Jokhan sought substitution of his name in the suit claiming to be her daughter's son and as such her legal heir, Ex. Kha-3 is notice by Irrigation Ziledar to Chhangur accused-appellant and Smt. Parwati in pursuance to an order dated, 19-6-1972 of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, intimating that irrigation measurement has been recorded in favour of Chhangur etc. about plot No. 83 and another plot and that since litigation is going on there shall not be made any change in possession till the result of the litigation.Ex. Kha-20 is the copy of the order dated 20-8-73 by Pargana Magistrate.Chunar in case No. 30 of 1973 under Section 145, Cr.P.C. (Smt. Parwati and Jokhan v. Ram Naresh (transferees in the sale deed), whereby a sum of Rs. 57.75 P, (deposited in Court by the order dated 19-6-73 of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Chunar), was ordered to be refunded to the 2nd party in these proceedings - Ram Naresh Singh, Manni Ram, Awadhesh Kumar, Suresh Kumar, Chhangur Singh, Badri Singh and Smt. Shail Kumari (the transferees under the sale-deed).This also is a document in favour of the defence.The proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. related to the disputed land.Ex. Kha-22 is the copy of the report under Sections 107/117, Cr.P.C. made by Station Officer, Police Station Chunar, on 13-11 -73 against Jokhan (P.W. 8), Jwala (P.W. 4), Dayaram (P.W. 7) and others.This related to the disputed plot No. 83 and one more plot.This report was to the effect that Jokhan (P.W. 8) has made a group of persons, from which there is apprehension to Chhangur and others in respect of their lives and property and there is also apprehension of breach of peace.The report indicated that the transferees Chhangur and others were persons in possession of the land comprised in the sale deed.Ex. Kha-24 is the certified copy of the complaint in Case No. 637 of 1974 brought by Chhangur accused-appellant against Lallan Singh, Ram Saran Executive Engineer, Mannu Ram.Amin, Irrigation Deptl.and Jokhan under Sections 166, 167 and 506, I.P.C. In this complaint Chhangur affirmed taking of the sale-deed, that they were Bhumidhars in possession over plot No. 83 aforesaid, that accused Nos. I and 3 (of the Irrigation Department) in collusion with accused No. 4 (Jokhan) wrongly prepared irrigation papers in favour of Jokhan aforesaid.Therein it was mentioned that in compliance with the order dated 21 -2-72 of the Executive Engineer measurement of irrigation was to be made in favour of Chhangur and others and that despite this order these persons (accused in the complaint) have made irrigation slips on 3-12-73 in favour of Jokhan, which is an offence under Sections 166, 167 and 506, I.P.C. This showed that the accused-appellants were asserting their possession.Then defence filed Ex.In this application it was stated that Jokhan was in possession of plot No. 83 aforesaid and of certain other plots, that he had cultivated paddy crop in the said plot, that litigation was going on about the said land; that Badri, Suresh Kumar, Awadhesh Kumar, Ram Samujh, Vishwanath and others acted in concert threatened to cut the crop and threatened him that if they go near the crop, they (Chhangur and others) would break, their hands and feet.In this application a prayer was made for taking action against Chhangur and others (present accused-appellants) and passing orders fur protection of the crop.In this application Jokhan was asserting his possession over the disputed land, but the defence has also filed Ex. Kha-26-copy of the report of the Station Officer, Chunar dated 10-9-75 in respect of this application, in which the police has reported that the application of Jokhan was wrong and Bandishi (i.e. by way of Peshbandi), that actually crop in the land had been raised by Chhangur accused-appellant and others and that he (i.e. the police) had forbidden Bimla Singh (P.W. 1) and others from interfering in the possession of Ghhangur accused-appellant and others.The application of Jokhan (P.W. 8) was rejected by the S.D.M. with the above observations.Suit No. 62 of 1971 was pending on the date of occurrence.It is not in controversy that the said status quo order was in force till 25-11 -75, the date of the occurrence, on which date the interim injunction application was rejected by the learned Munsif in default and the interim injunction order was vacated.Ex. Kha 39 is the N.C.R. dated 12-11-73 lodged by Chhangur Singh accused-appellant against Ram Chandra Pandey, Lallan Singh, Mannu Ram and Shivanand for the offence under Section 506, I.P.C. in respect of plot No. 83 A and B of village Silauri in respect of an occurrence that look place on 11 -11 -73 containing the averments that he was looking after the ripe paddy crop of his plot No, 83 A and 13 and that the accused-named therein have threatened to cut the crop and cause harm to life and property.Out of the accused named in the said N.C.R. Shivanand is one of the deceased in the present occurrence.There is allegation in it that the proceedings under Section 107/117, Cr.P.C. were pending in the Court in respect of plot No. 83-A and B and taking that litigation the accused named in the N.C.R. threatened him that if he went near the said field they would beat him and break his hands and feet.Out of these accused Jokhan is P.W. 8, Dayaram is P.W. 7 and Jwala is P. W. 4 in the present occurrence.Ex. Kha-38 is yet another N.C.R. dated 3-10-74 lodged by Chhangur Singh accused-appellant for the offence under Section 506, I.P.C. in respect of plot Nos. 83 A and B of village Silauri relating to an occurrence that took place on 3-10-1974 containing the allegation that litigation was going on in respect thereof and in the proceedings under Section 107/117, Cr.P.C. he had given evidence and that due to this enmity they threatened to loot away the crop.A presumption attaches to the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar in respect of the certificate of acknowledgement of due execution of the document.If the person holding a registered power of attorney from the owner made the acknowledgement before the Sub-Registrar, the endorsement of the Sub-Registrar about it is to be presumed to be correct.The recital of receipt of consideration and delivery of possession made in the sale-deed is of great value.It binds the transferor unless he-she could get it (the sale deed) adjudged void.The vendor might have challenged the transfer at a subsequent stage and Jokhan (P.W. 8) might have claimed his substitution as her heir as her daughter's son and litigation might be continuing but the totality of documents on record leads to the inference that the transferees had entered into possession and were cultivating the transferred land but Jokhan had been trying to interfere with the possession of the transferees, The fact that the F.I.R. Ex. Kha-1 was lodged prior to the present occurrence by Chhangur accused-appellant alleging taking away of the harvested paddy crop of 7 biswa area of land by Jokhan and two other does not mean that Jokhan was in possession of the disputed land, rather it appeared to be a case of theft.The learned Munsif might not have issued to the transferrees an interim injunction order specifically injuncting the defendants of the suit (Suit No. 62 of 1971) from interfering with the possession of the transferees over the disputed land, yet the fact remains that at ex parte stage he found a prima facie case, of the plaintiffs that is why he passed a status quo order.If there was no prima facie case of the transferees there would not have been any occasion for the learned Munsif to have issued any status quo order at that stage and he would have issued bare notices of the interim injunction application.Against the background of the document on record discussed above, it is difficult to place implicit reliance on the claim of the prosecution witnesses that Jokhan was in possession over the disputed land viz. plot No. 83 and that the crop standing on the disputed land was raised by Jokhan.The defence has examined Ballad (D.W. 1) and Moniram (D.W. 3) on the point of possession and there is no reason to discard their evidence on the point of possession which have been supported from the documents filed by the side of the defence.These documents cannot be ignored on the ground that these related to a period after the dispute had arisen between the two sides as has been done by the learned Sessions Judge.It was also not necessary for the defence to have examined the adjoining field holders as eyewitnesses of the occurrence.It may be that on the date of occurrence Jokhan (P.W. 8) had gone to Mirzapur on the date fixed in the suit aforesaid but if there was a date fixed in the suit, it was for both the parties.In our view the accused party was entitled to the land and also was in possession of the land even though the complainant party offered threats to cut away the crop from time to time from the land and taken away the crop from the land on 21 -11 -75 from 5 biswa area of the disputed land in respect of which theft.Chhangur had sent the F.I.R. to the Senior Superintendent of Police under whose direction chik-report Ex. Kha-1 was prepared and a case was registered against Ram Murat, Jokhan and Jokhan's wife.Such acts of the complainant party do not give rise to the conclusion that Jokhan was in possession of the disputed land and had raised the disputed crop.An accused pleading the right of self-defence need not prove it beyond reasonable doubt.It is enough if he established facts which on the test of preponderance of probabilities made his defence acceptable [See Mohan Singh 1975 SCC (Cri) 512 : (AIR 1975 SC 2161)].But irons the documentary material on record it is clear that none of them was an unconcerned neutral person and that they formed one group with Jokhan and (hey must have played his role in his absence and reached the spot in concert and not in the manner as claimed by them as they were at the beck and call of Jokhan.Daya Ram (P.W. 7) was nephew of Smt. Parwati and Jokhan (P.W. 8) claimed himself to be daughter's son of Smt. Parwati.Bimla informant had a long Pattidari dispute with the family of Chhangur accused-appellant.Jwala (P.W. 4).Bimla informant (P.W. 1), Sarju deceased and Shivanand deceased were impleaded as co-accused in a criminal complaint dated 15-1-73 filed by Ramdhani accused-appellant under Sections 379, 342, 395, 397 and 427, I.P.C. (Ex. Kha-44).In the N.C.R. dated 12-11 -73 (Ex. Kha-39) lodged by Chhangur accused-appellant in respect of the disputed plot, Shivanand deceased was also made an accused.In the F.I.R. lodged by Chhangur Singh against Jokhan (P.W. 8) under Section 324, I.P.C. on 22-2-73 (Ex. Kha-45) Bimla (P.W. I) and Shivanand present deceased were named as co-accused.In the Chalani report and dated 13-1 1-73 (Ex. Kha-22) under Section 107/117, Cr.P.C. on record, Jwala (P.W. 4) and Daya Ram (P.W. 7) were arrayed as co-accused with Jokhan and Chhangur accused and others were arrayed as witnesses.This report was given in respect of the dispute of plot No. 83 A and B. In the N.C.R. dated 23-4-74 (Ex. Kha-40) lodged by Chhangur accused-appellant, Daya Ram (P.W. 7) and Jwala (P.W. 4) were named as accused alongwith Jokhan (P.W. 8).In N.C.R. dated 3-10-74 (Ex. Kha-38) lodged by Chhangur Singh accused-appellant against Jokhan (P.W. 8), Daya Ram (present P.W. 7) is also named as co-accused.In the application (Ex. Kha-25) moved by Jokhan on 2-9-75 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 145, Cr.P.C. in respect of the disputed land and certain other plots, Bimla (present informant), Kamla (brother of Bimla informant), Sarju (present deceased) and Shivanand (present deceased) were shown as witnesses from his side.On either version, the ripe paddy crop in the disputed land was cut and removed in the occurrence.If on the other hand the accused-appellants came to the spot and started cutting and removing the ripe paddy crop from the disputed plot they had a legal right to do so and the prosecution side had no legal right to stop them from harvesting the crop till the corning back of Jokhan.Furthermore, it cannot be believed in the circumstances that they (the complainant party) would simply make a verbal request for the same and stop at it, keeping in mind their interlink with each other since before.So, in any case the right of private defence of property arose to those accused-appellants who were actually present at the spot and even if we may take that five or more of the accused-appellant appellants were present at the spot it cannot be said that they formed an unlawful assembly.The defence has claimed the right of private defence of person also.There were two injured in this ease on the side of defence, namely Satya Narain accused and Daya Ram accused (not to be confused with Daya Ram P.W. 7).It may be that these injuries were not serious but there is no sound basis for concluding that these injuries were self-inflicted or self-sustained.Their duration tallies with the time of occurrence.Their medical examination was no doubt delayed and it is also true that it.was got done at Mughai Sarai Dispensary instead of Chunar Dispensary where they would have gone in the ordinary course.It is also true that no cross F.I.R. was lodged at the police station.It has to be kept in mind that in the occurrence two persons on the prosecution side had received fatal injuries and had died while being taken to the police station.Moreover, the right of private defence of person also accrued to those accused-appellants who were present at the spot.In regard to Ram Dhani accused-appellant, the appeal abates to this extent.The compliance report shall be sent to this Court by the Sessions Judge concerned within one month from today.
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,969,340
(State of U.P. Vs.Above sentences were directed to run concurrently and the period already passed in jail to be adjusted.Heard Sri Manish Kumar Singh and Jitendra Singh, learned counsels for the appellants and Sri Shailendra Singh, Advocate, brief holder for the State of U.P.The prosecution case against the appellants is that on 15.01.2003 at 11:30 AM the brother of the informant Mahesh son of Darshan Singh while he was returning from the shop after taking some items in front of the shop of Radhey Shyam, the accused Nanh Singh, Virendra, Raju and Tirkha met Mahesh and said, you are big goon and started beating him with butt of country made pistol (hereinafter referred to as pistol) after the alarm was raised by Mahesh, to save him (Mahesh), the informant Rajesh, Umesh and Dharmendra ran towards Mahesh and then the accused opened fire with 'pistol' in which Umesh got injured and received pellet injury and died later on in Hospital.Mahesh also received injuries as he was beaten by butt of pistol.The injured informant took Umesh and Mahesh to Police Station Auras.This incident was also seen by other residents of Village namely Tikku, Om Parkash Pandit and Deepu.Accused lastly abused and threatened to kill.The written report of the occurrence is Ex. Ka-1 dated 15.01.2003 consequently the chik FIR was registered as case crime No. 32/2003 under Sections 324, 323, 506 and 504 of Indian Penal Code against the four accused persons.Investigating Officer took up the investigation.The autopsy surgeon opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of following ante-mortem injuries:-"Ante-mortem injuries: Multiple fired arm wound of entry present on front chest and abdomen size bearing 0.5 cm in diameter into skin deep to chest and abdominal cavity deep.Collar of abrezen ring present around the wound on opening.On opening echymosa present underneath mentioned above.Both side lungs lacerated at four places.Loops of small and large intestine are lacerated at four places.Flued blood present in thoracic and abdominal cavity.Total twenty metalic pellet recovered from the body and sent to SSP, Lucknow in a double sealed envelop through CP concerned."On 31st December, 2000 at about 9 p.m. he had gone to Hotel Apsara at Cart Road, Shimla to inquire from Budhi Singh (PW.8), Manager of the Hotel Apsara regarding the booking of his taxi by some passenger staying in the Hotel.(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.)These appeals are connected appeals arising out of same judgment and order dated 30.05.2007, hence are being decided by a common judgment.These appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 30.05.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao in Sessions Trial No. 424 of 2003 in case crime No. 32 of 2003 under Section 302/34, 323/34, 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) registered in Police Station Auras, District Unnao.Inquest proceedings were conducted and after completing the necessary formalities, the dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on 16.01.2003 at Rani Luxmi Bai Hospital, Rajaji Puram, Lucknow by Autopsy Surgeon Dr. V. K. Mishra (PW-5).The following injuries were found on the person of Mahesh:-QVk gqvk ?kko 4 ls0eh0 X 5 ls0eh0 X 5 ls0eh0 X 2 ls0eh0 ds {ks= esa FkkA ;g pksV lj ds ckabZ rjQ FkhA ;g ukd ds tksM+ ls 9-5 ls0eh0 Åij FkkA lwtu ;qDr uhyxw fu'kku 5 ls0eh0 X 4 ls0eh0 ds {ks= esa FkkA ;g pksV ck;s gkFk dh gFksyh ds ihNs dh rjQ Fkh] ;g lHkh pksVs rkth FkhA PW-3 opined that these injuries could have been caused on 15.01.2003 at 11:30 AM with the butt of pistol.After completing the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants.The committal order was passed since the case was triable by Sessions Court it was sent there and consequently charges were framed vide order dated 04.12.2003 against the accused persons under Sections 302, read with Section 34, under Section 323 read with Section 34, under Section 504 and 506 of Indian Penal Code.The charge was read out to the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The case of defence was that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.The witnesses have given false evidences.To prove its case the prosecution had examined nine witnesses.PW-1 Vimlesh Singh is the brother of the deceased and eye witness and supported the case of prosecution.PW-2 is the real brother of PW-1 and deceased, and also an injured witness, has supported the case of prosecution.PW-3 Dr. Tejvir Singh has examined the injuries received by PW-2, PW-4 Chandrabhan Singh, the investigating officer supported the case of prosecution.PW-8 Dharmendra Singh is also an eye witness and a chance witness has supported the case of prosecution.PW-9 Constable Ram Avtar Verma has identified the writing and signatures of Sushil Kumar, Sub Inspector, PS-Auras.The defence has relied on Ex. Kha-2 an FIR relating to case crime No. 205 of 2000, under Section 307 of IPC and Kha-3 also an FIR relating to case crime No. 93/1996, under Sections 394, 302 of IPC to show the enmity with the informant and the false implication in this case.Accused were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Learned Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted the appellants vide judgment and order dated 30.05.2007 which is under challenge in this appeal.At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants submit that they are restricting their prayer that benefit of Section 304 Part-II of Indian Penal Code is liable to be granted to the appellants in view of the following facts:-A. The appellants have spent more than 11 years in jail.B. As per the admitted case of the prosecution, the offence alleged by the prosecution will not travel beyond Section 304 Part II of Indian Penal Code.On the other hand, learned brief holder for the State submits that the offence committed by the appellants would fall within the purview of Section 302 of IPC in view of eye witness account of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8, read with the postmortem report and dying declaration therefore the appellants have rightly been convicted.Though the learned counsel for the appellants have not challenged the conclusion of learned trial court that the prosecution has not proved his case beyond the reasonable doubt but in spite of that we have gone through the entire prosecution evidence and have found that there is direct eye witness account of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8, who have proved the incident.PW-2 is an injured eye witness who has named the appellants and assigned the role of firing.The evidence of all the witnesses of fact stand fully corroborated by the medical evidence.Before adverting to the applicability of Section 304 of Indian Penal Code in this case we will like to notice the evidence in this case.PW-1 is the real brother of the deceased and has deposed that his brother Mahesh went to the shop of Radhey Shyam at 11:30 AM while he was returning and reached at the Kharnja, then, Tirkha, Raju, Virendra and Nanh met him and after telling him that you try to become goon and started abusing as well as beating Mahesh.Upon raising alarm by Mahesh, PW-1 Umesh, Rajesh Singh, Dharmendra ran to rescue Mahesh then the accused appellants started beating Mahesh by butt of their pistols and fired from their pistol on Umesh, who suffered pellet injuries.Mahesh was injured from the butt of pistol and after firing when others arrived along with these persons at the spot of occurrence, the accused ran away.In the cross-examination he stated that after hearing the alarm of Mahesh, he reached at the spot of occurrence.He further stated that all the four accused fired at Umesh at once, he then stated that after receiving fire arm injury, Umesh fell down and after that accused did not hit Umesh neither with butt of pistols nor fired again.PW-2 is an injured eye witness, he also stated that after abusing the accused persons started hitting him with the butt of pistols, he raised alarm and after hearing of his alarm, his brothers Umesh, Rajesh, Vimlesh and Deepu came then accused fired due to which Umesh got injured.In the cross examination he stated that Umesh did not come close to him and suffered only one shot.He further states that all the four accused fired upon Umesh and cannot tell that from whose shot Umesh got injured.PW-8 Dharmendra Singh who was chance witness and at that time was studying in class-7th also supported the prosecution case and reiterated the same story narrated by PW-1 and 2 and stated that all the four accused first hit Mahesh with the butt of pistol, and upon his alarm when Umesh came to rescue he was shot.In the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the defence is of denial and false implication.19. PW-5 Autopsy surgeon in his deposition has proved the homicidal death as a result of fire arm injury and recovered twenty pellets from the body of the deceased, has opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of anti-mortem injuries and has proved the Ex. K-5 the postmortem report.Likewise, PW-3 Dr. Tejvir Singh who examined the PW-2 has proved two injuries on the person of Mahesh (PW-2) and prepared his injury report which is Ex. Ka-2 and has proved it.PW-3 opined that two injuries which could have been caused by butt of the pistol on 15.01.2003 at 11:30 AM.In defence the accused Raju Mourya in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has stated that on the date of incident a date was fixed in the Court and he has signed at 11 AM.The said order does not prove that accused Raju Mourya was present in the Court at 11:AM because the person who has written it or the presiding officer has not been examined.Ex. Kha-2 is an FIR relating to case crime No. 205 of 2000, under Section 307 of IPC lodged by Shyam Lal son of Kewal Mourya against Chandrapal Singh, Prithvipal Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh and Nanh.Ex. Kha-3 also an FIR relating to case crime No. 134 of 1996, under Sections 394, 302 and 201of IPC lodged by Ram Kishor.Ex. Kha-4 is a chargesheet in case crime No. 134 of 1996 under Section 396, 412, 201 of IPC against accused Tirkha in which Chandrapal Singh is prosecution witness.Ex. Kha-5 is order dated 15.01.2003 which shows the signatures of accused Shiv Mangal and Bhagwan Deen but not of Rajesh Mourya.Ex. Kha-6 is the history sheet of Chandrapal Singh addressed to the District Magistrate, Unnao with the recommendation of local Station House Officer in favour of Chandrapal Singh.Ex. Kha-7 is a charge-sheet against the accused Nanh Singh and Tirkha in case crime No. 173 of 2001, under Section 307 of IPC in which Chandrapal Singh is not even the witness of prosecution.The FIRs/charge-sheets in which Chandra Pal Singh is involved are not related in any manner with this case.He has not been examined by the defence to prove his story.Therefore, the plea of false implication sought to be relied on by the accused persons is baseless, and we affirm the finding given by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge in this regard.The offence in this case can be categorized in two stages.First stage is that when the four accused were beating Mahesh with the butt of their 'pistols' by that time PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were not present on the spot and they came after the alarm was raised by Mahesh while getting beaten.Second stage is that after raising the alarm by Mahesh, deceased Umesh along with Vimlesh, Rajesh, Sanju and Dharmendra ran to rescue the Mahesh and in this process Umesh received fire arm injury.It is admitted case of the prosecution that accused persons were beating Mahesh by the butt of pistols.All of a sudden in the second stage upon his alarm when others came to rescue, Umesh received fire arm injury.The fact that the appellants shot fire arm on Umesh is not sufficient to infer the intention to kill, because of the genesis of occurrence and the single assault by the appellants coupled with duration episode for few minutes.The deposition of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 unambiguously show that the initial intention of the accused appears more to have been to teach a lesson by venting of ire.All the three eye witnesses have deposed that accused persons were hitting Mahesh with the butt of pistols.Mahesh raised alarm, the others came running to his rescue at this moment the accused persons opened fire at Umesh who was 10 steps away.PW-2 has stated in his deposition that Umesh received one shot, PW-1 has deposed that after receiving fire arm injury the accused persons did not hit Umesh neither by butt nor fired again.PW-2 has also not stated that accused persons after causing one fire arm injury had fired second shot.PW-8 has also supported the version of PW-1 that the accused persons did not fire again and also not hit Umesh with the butt of pistol.Even in the dying declaration dated 15.01.2003 made by the deceased to the I.O., it has been stated that four accused persons were beating Mahesh and after hearing the alarm he along with Rajesh, Vimlesh and Dharmendra ran there to rescue his brother, then gun shots were fired as a result of which he got injured.Therefore, from the evidence on record, it can be safely concluded that the occurrence qua Umesh (deceased) took place in the heat of the moment and the assault was made without premeditation.There is no evidence to show that there was prior intention or prior planning of the appellants to kill the deceased Umesh.There was no time to cool down passion neither was any prior enmity.Budhi Singh (PW.8) asked Jai Pal (PW.5) to come after some time.Both of them then went together to Hotel Basant for celebrating New Year.They took wine and dinner together and remained in the said Hotel till 12 o'clock.Thereafter, Budhi Singh(PW.8) returned to Hotel Apsara while Jai Pal (PW.5) came towards Cart Road where he met Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Pawan Kumar (PW.7), Deep Chand and Rajnish alias Rintu who inquired about the booking of a room in the Hotel as earlier agreed upon.Jai Pal (PW.5) went to the Hotel Apsara where he did not find Budhi Singh (PW.8), Therefore, he went upstairs in the Hall of the Hotel where he found accused Manjeet Singh along with Balraj and Surender Kumar were taking liquor.Jai Pal (PW.5) inquired from the appellant-accused, Manjeet Singh about the Manager of the Hotel to which the accused was alleged to have retorted that he was not the Chowkidar of the Hotel so as to know and tell about the Manager.Accused- Manjeet Singh was further alleged to have started abusing Jai Pal (PW.5) by proclaiming that he was serving in Punjab Police.The accused was further alleged to have started beating Jai Pal (PW.5) by giving him a fist blow on his mouth.Jai Pal (PW.5) ran outside.He met the above-named Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Deep Chand, Pawan Kumar (PW.7) and Rajnish.He narrated the incident to them.Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Rajnish alias Rintu and Pawan Kumar (PW.7) went inside the Hall while Jai Pal (PW.5) and one Roshan remained standing at the entrance of the Hotel.Rajnish alias Rintu inquired from the accused-Manjeet Singh as to the cause of his having given beatings to Jai Pal (PW.5).The accused was alleged to have told his companions, Balraj and Surender Kumar to tell Rajnish and his friends about the cause of the beatings to Jai Pal (PW.5).Balraj and Surender Kumar were then alleged to have abetted and instigated the accused by saying "Carbine Ka Kamal Dekhao".Whereupon accused was alleged to have fired shots from his Carbine which hit Rajnish alias Rintu, Romi Kapoor (PW.6), Jai Pal (PW.5) and Pawan Kumar (PW.7).Rajnish alias Rintu sustained two shots on his chest and he fell down on the ground.The accused and Balraj were alleged to have run away after the gun shots.Jai Pal (PW.5) lifted Rajnish alias Rintu and carried him to I.G.M.C. Hospital, Shimla, where he was declared dead.On the telephonic message of one Pradeep Kumar, Jagdish Ram (PW.25), Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar reached the spot.Surender Kumar, a companion of the accused, was apprehended from the toilet of the Hotel.On the basis of these facts, following was held-The evidence produced against the accused does not show that the accused had any motive to cause death of the deceased or have intended to cause such bodily injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased.Evidence on record also does not establish that the injuries caused on the body of the deceased must in all probability cause his death or likely to cause his death.On the spur of the moment, during the heat of exchange of words accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased which caused his death.Therefore, the ingredients of the murder as defined in Section 300, Indian Penal Code, have not been established against the accused.But the nature of weapon used assault made in the chest and abdomen in which that the death was likely to ensue will have to be attributed to the appellants.Accordingly, this appeal deserves to be partly allowed and is hereby partly allowed.(Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) (Govind Mathur,C.J.)
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,971,215
CC as per rules.(VED PRAKASH SHARMA)This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C by petitioners-Rajendra Singh and Prahlad, who have been arrested by Police on 05/10/2016 in Crime No. 575/2016, Police Station Khachrod District- Ujjain, in connection with offence under Sections 354, 354-A,341,506 and 323 of the IPC.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case-diary.Allegedly, petitioners outraged the modesty of the prosecutrix, a married lady aged about 25 years, by putting her down on the ground, caughting hold of her hand and also pressing her breasts.Though, prayer for grant of bail is opposed by the learned Govt. Advocate, however, considering the allegation made against petitioners in the instant case, without further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed and it is directed that on furnishing personal bond by petitioners in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only)each, with one separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate First Class, they shall be released on bail, subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available to the Police, as and when required during the investigation and will also remain present before the trial Court as and when directed in that behalf.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,971,423
Item No. 51And In the matter of: Khujita Murmu & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Arunabha Jana For the Petitioners Mr. Rudradipta Nandy For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Puncha Police Station Case No. 27 of 2013 dated 15.05.2013 under sections 498A/302/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
26,983,547
JUDGMENT A.M. Ahmadi, J.Four persons, namely, Nanta Singh (accused No. 1), Banta Singh (accused No. 2), Charta Singh (accused No. 3) and Lakha Singh (accused No. 4) were tried for the murder of Santa Singh and for causing injuries to PW 4 - Nanak Singh by the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.The learned Sessions Judge acquitted Charta Singh and Lakha Singh, accused Nos. 3 and 4, respectively.This Court by its order dated 17th December, 1979 refused to grant special leave to Nanta Singh.Special leave to appeal was, however, granted to the present appellant Banta Singh.He was also directed to be released on bail.In addition to the above four, one Jagjit Singh was also a companion of the convicted accused.He was absconding at the relevant point of time and, therefore, he could not be put up for trial along with aforesaid four persons.He was later tried and convicted for his role in the killing of Santa Singh.His conviction and sentence have become final.In other words, the conviction and sentence of Nanta Singh, original accused No. 1, and Jagir Singh have become final.We are, therefore, concerned with the question of involvement of the appellant Banta Singh only.The prosecution case depends on the testimony of two eye-witnesses, namely, PW 3 - Kartar Singh and PW 4 - Nanak Singh who was injured in the incident.They are father and son.The incident in question occurred on 10th July, 1976 in their field at around midnight.Santa Singh, his son PW 3 - Kartar Singh and his grandson PW 4 - Nanak Singh were in the field at the cattle shed to look after the cattle when the appellant and his companions went there armed with spears and launched an assault on Santa Singh as they suspected him to be a police informant.When PW 4 - Nanak Singh intervened, he too was belaboured.PW 5 - Niranjan Singh who was in the neighbouring field arrived at the scene of occurrence on hearing the alarm.He was also informed by PWs 3 and 4 about the incident.The allegation is that the assault was opened by Jagir Singh on the deceased Santa Singh with a blow on the right side of his chest near the nipple.As a consequence of this blow, Santa Singh fell on his face.Immediately thereafter Banta Singh, the appellant, gave a blow on the back of the fallen Santa Singh.PW 4 - Nanak Singh who was by the side of his grandfather tried to intervene.Thereupon the appellant gave a blow with his barchhi on his left wrist.Nanta Singh, original accused No. 1, also gave a blow below the right nipple of Nanak Singh.PW 3 - Kartar Singh was at a distance at the time when this assault was launched.By the time he came near the injured, assailants had fled away.Before lodging this complaint.PW4 was admitted for treatment to the hospital in Sultanpur at a short distance from the Police Station.The statement of PW 4, who was then aged 15 or 16 years, was recorded around 3.00 p.m. Prior to that the statement of PW 5 - Niranjan Singh was recorded at about 11.00 a.m. after the police visited the scene of occurrence.It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution case mainly hinges on the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 and the evidence of PW 5 whose evidence is used to lend corroboration to the evidence of the said two witnesses.Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court had doubted the presence of PW 3 - Kartar Singh in the field on that date.He also pointed out that according to the Trial Court PW 3 - Kartar Singh was not an eye-witness to the occurrence.We have perused the evidence of PWs 3, 4 and 5 carefully.Counsel for the appellant stated that the story of the appellant having given a blow on the back of the deceased was an improvement, as no such version was to be found in the First Information Report.We will assume this for the sake of argument.We will also assume for the sake of argument that the presence of PW 3 at the place of occurrence on that night is doubtful.Even so, if the evidence of PW 4 - Nanak Singh as corroborated by the evidence of PW 5 - Niranjan Singh in regard to the presence of the appellant and his participation in the commission of the crime is accepted as reliable and trustworthy, the conviction of the appellant cannot be assailed.Shorn of improvement and embellishment, the evidence of PW 4 establishes that the appellant, Jagir Singh and Nanta Singh had gone to the field armed with birches (spears) and Jagir Singh had opened the assault by giving a blow on the chest of Santa Singh.The fact that the incident occurred in the field of the deceased cannot be disputed.The presence of the deceased and PW 4 - Nanak Singh equally cannot be disputed.PW 4 - Nanak Singh received the blow on his wrist which is established from medical evidence.Therefore PW 4 - Nanak Singh's statement that he was injured by a barchhi blow given by the appellant is unassailable.That barchhi blow was given in the course of the incident in question.The appellant and his companions had come armed with deadly weapons to assault Santa Singh as he was suspected to be a police informer.Therefore, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that PW 3 was not present and that the story regarding the appellant having given the blow on the back of Santa Singh is a subsequent improvement not found in the F.I. R., the involvement of the appellant in the incident and his giving of a barchhi blow to PW4 -Nanak Singh when the latter tried to go to the rescue of his grandfather is sufficient to convict him with the aid of Section 34, I.P.C.In the result, we see no merit in this appeal.We uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.The appellant will surrender to his bail and serve out the remaining sentence.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
26,985,681
Co-accused persons Ajam and Aslam have been released on bail by order dated 27.06.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.Likewise, co-accused Sheikh Khalid has been released on anticipatory bail by order dated 02.08.2017 passed by this Court in M.Cr.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application mainly on the ground that the petitioner has as many as six criminal cases apart from the present one registered against him.By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of those six cases, five are under the provisions of Public Gambling Act and the sixth is for minor offences under the Indian Penal Code.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the facts, as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner as also the fact that the cases previously registered against the petitioner are rather trivial in nature, in the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of petitioner Sheikh Abid, is allowed.It is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified Copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE b
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
27,004,903
Heard on I.A. No.19355/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant Shubham Jatav .The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 120-B/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. for causing disappearance of the evidence and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.The allegation against the appellant is that he has been convicted with two other co-accused persons namely Vishwajeet Parihar (A/1) and Shailendra Patel (A/2) and was initially charged for the offence punishable U/s.120-B/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C.Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 02.06.2016, Rajesh Kumar Patel, father of the deceased Krishna Patel lodged a report with the Police that on 02.06.2016 that on the date of incident i.e. 01.06.2016, his son Krishna Patel dropped him at his office at his Discovery Motorcyle bearing registration No.MP- 2 49/MB-0769 and is stated to have gone to the market place along with his friends Shailendra Patel, Vishwajeet Parihar and Shubham Jatav (appellants herein).At around 1.30 p.m., the complainant called his son on phone for a lunch.He also informed his son-in-law Narendra Patel to buy some new clothes for the deceased.In the evening on the same day at around 4.00 p.m., the deceased came to the office of the complainant and handed over the keys of the motorcycle and told him that he was going with his friends Subham Jatav, Shailendra Patel and Vishwajeet Parihar for a party.In the evening, when the complainant returned his home at around 6.00 p.m. and tried calling Krishna on phone, his mobile was switched off.Thereafter, he searched for him, but did not find him.The next morning at around 04.00 a.m., the complainant received a phone call which informed him that his son had been kidnapped and a ransom of Rs.10 Lacs was demanded, else, his son Krishna would be killed.The learned trial Court in paragraphs 55 and 59 of its judgment has referred to the victim telling his father for the rist time that he was going for a party along with the appellant herein and the other co-accused persons.Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that at the most, the involvement of the appellant would be after the incident of murder in having disposed of the clothes of the accused persons and the deceased.Learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the call detail record between the main perpetrators of the offence to show that during the period when the murder is said to have taken place, there was no communication between the appellant herein and the main accused persons.The call detail records show the appellant having contact with the other co-accused after the alleged murder was carried out.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
27,007,674
2. Prosecution story in nutshell as unfolded in the chik F.I.R. is as follows :Written report (Ext. Ka.-1) dated 22.8.2007 was moved by the informant Dhan Prakash scribed by Ashwani Tyagi to the Police Station concerned mentioning therein that on 22.8.2007 his son Satish Tyagi was standing outside his house after taking meal.At about 8.30 P.M. Arvind @ Munnu Tyagi, accused came there and asked him to give Rs. 50 to take wine.Informant's son refused the request.Feeling annoyed accused Arvind @ Munnu took out knife from pocket and told that how dared you to refuse and immediately inflicted knife injury in the abdomen of Satish Tyagi.The informant's son made hue and cry then Ali Hasan, Hemant, Rajat and other villagers came on the spot.Thereafter accused threatening to kill, ran away from the spot.Injured was taken to the hospital with the help of the villagers by the informant.Doctor referred the injured to the Meerut Medical College HoHoHospital."Incised wound 5 cm x 2 cm x dept not probed present on middle just below sternum 13 cm above from umbilical at 12 O'clock position on epegastrium."In the opinion of the Doctor injury was caused by some sharp edged weapon and was fresh in duration.Injury was kept under observation.Supplementary report (Ext. Ka-5) was prepared in respect of the injuries.Counsel for Appellant :- J. S. Sengar,Ajit Kumar Singh Solanki,Amit Daga Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate,Sushil Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,JPresent Criminal Appeal is directed by the appellant Arvind @ Munnu against the judgment and order dated 16.12.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 10, Muzaffar Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 1847 of 2007 (State Vs.Arvind alias Munnu) pertaining to crime no. 1434 of 2007, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, district Muzaffar Nagar whereby the court below has convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307, 384 and 506 IPC, for the offence under Section 307 IPC to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo one year additional imprisonment, for the offence under Section 384 IPC to undergo 2 years imprisonment and for the offence under Section 506 IPC to undergo 2 years imprisonment.Informant came to the police station to lodge the F.I.R. after sending the injured with the help of the villagers to the Meerut Medical CollegeOn the basis of this written report (Ext. Ka.-1) chik F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 324, 384, 506 IPC on the same day at 22.30 hrs.G.D. entry (Ext. Ka.-3) was also made.Initially on 22.8.2007 the injured was medically examined at District Hospital, Muzaffar Nagar and injury report was prepared.Following injuries were found on his body :Bed Head Ticket and operation notes (Ext. Ka-6 and Ka-7) were also prepared.It is also made clear that during investigation the case was converted into the offence under Section 307 IPC on the basis of the medical report.Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses and prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka.-8 ).After fulfilling the formalities submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka.-9) for the offence under Section 384, 307, 506 IPC.against the accused appellantConcerned Magistrate took the cognizance in the matter and fulfilling the formalities, as required, under the Code of Criminal Procedure case was committed to the court of sessions for trial.Accused appellant appeared and charge against him for the offence under Section 384, 307, 506 IPC were framed to which he denied and pleaded himself innocent and claimed his trial.In order to prove its case the prosecution examined eight witnesses.P.W.-1 informant Dhan Prakash; P.W.-2 Satish Kumar; P.W.-3 Raj Kumar Sharma, the chik writer; P.W.-4 Dr. Pawan Kumar Jain; P.W.-5 Ali Hasan, who has claimed himself to be an eye witness; P.W.-6 Dr. Neeraj Goyal; P.W.-7 S.I. Yash Pal Rana and P.W.-8 S.I. Tej Pal Singh.After closer of the prosecution evidence statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he claimed himself to be innocent and stated the prosecution evidence to be false.He further pleaded that he was falsely implicated in this matter.No any oral or documentary evidence was adduced in his defence by the appellant except the cross examination made to the prosecution witnesses at initial stage.Trial court after hearing the parties vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the accused appellant, as above, hence this appeal.I have heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sushil Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A.Looking to the fact and circumstances under which the offence has been committed and the nature of the injuries lenient view could not be adopted in the matter.I have considered the rival submissions at length and have also gone through entire record.Though the learned counsel for the appellant has waived all other grounds taken in the memo of appeal except the quantum of punishment but to ascertain the legality and illegality of the findings, I have carefully gone through the entire evidence available on record.In the present matter pure and simple question of the prosecution is that accused appellant came at the house of the injured and asked from him to give Rs. 50/- to take wine.The injured refused to give.The fine part imposed for the offence under Section 307 IPC and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 384 and 506 IPC would remain unchanged and in default of payment of fine the accused appellant would serve the additional imprisonment as ordered by the trial court.Thus for the foregoing discussions made herein above the appeal having some merit is partly allowed.Conviction of the accused appellant Arvind alias Munnu for the offence under Section 307, 384, 506 IPC is upheld but the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the accused appellant for the offence under Section 307 IPC is modified and reduced to seven years instead of ten years.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
27,007,771
2 The petitioner is objecting to the appointment of Respondent No.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule, made in pursuance to the notification issued by the Government on 05.07.2016 and praying to quash the said notification.The petitioner is also seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule in accordance with recommendations made by the Interview Committee and the High Power Committee.Though the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions for making his appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, the said relief has not been pressed seriously and as such, there is no reason to consider the prayer made by the petitioner in that regard.The issue raised in the instant petition primarily relates to the appointment of respondent no.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule.3 The State Government had issued an advertisement on 03.02.2015 inviting applications for selection of District ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {3} wp900016.odt Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor as well as Assistant Government Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor in District & Sessions Court at Dhule.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::4 In pursuance to the advertisement issued on behalf of the Government, twelve applications were received for the post of District Government Pleader & Public Prosecutor, whereas, fourteen applications were received for the post of Assistant Government Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutor.The petitioner was also one of the applicants for the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Dhule district.The Committee was constituted for conducting interviews in accordance with amended rule 13(2)(a) of the Maharashtra Law Officers (Appointment, Conditions of Service And Remuneration) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Law Officers Rules, 1984").The Committee consists of Advocate General or his nominee and the District Magistrate.The District Magistrate is expected to consult the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhule and as such, remarks of Principal District Judge were invited in respect of performance of the candidates who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement.However, the present system does not provide for orally interviewing the candidates prior to their appointment as Law Officers.Oral interview is one of the suitable methods for judging merits of a candidate.The Court expected, as such, to hold the interviews prior to making appointments as Law Officers by the persons who are having expertise in law so as to ensure that at least lawyers with basic ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {8} wp900016.odt understanding of law and knowledge of at least basic principles of law would be appointed.11 In observance of the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court, Rule 13 of Law Officers Rules of 1984 was amended and amended sub rule (4) of Rule 13 provides thus:applications from advocates in such manner as he thinks fit, for inclusion of the names of suitable candidates from amongst them.With the approval of the Government, in the panel for appointment of District Government Pleader or Additional or Assistant Government Pleader or Honorary Assistant to the District Government Pleader, or as the case may be, subordinate Government Pleader and the government shall select a candidate from the panel so prepared for any such appointment.The information shall be submitted in proforma "A" and "A-1" appended to the circular.This proves that he tried to conceal the facts and vital information about the police cases registered against him."15 Coming to the larger submission of counsel for the petitioner, we do recognise its importance in our era of infiltration of politicking even in forbidden areas.A Government Pleader is more than an advocate for a litigant.He holds a public office.1 Heard.The name of the petitioner and one Mr.Wagh were recommended.It is also contended by the petitioner that there are certain criminal cases ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {4} wp900016.odt pending against respondent no.3, however, respondent no.3 did not disclose in respect of pendency of criminal cases against him or his involvement in the criminal cases.Apart from the fact that name of respondent no.3 was not recommended by the Committee constituted under the rules, respondent no.3 is not worthy to be entrusted with the responsibility of ovated office of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for District Dhule.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dhule, did not recommend name of respondent no.3 and also intimated in respect of involvement of respondent no.3 in number of crimes.It is the contention of petitioner that though respondent no.3 has been acquitted in S.T.C. No.7940/2001 (Crime No.150/2001), the order of acquittal has been challenged in Criminal Revision Application No.295/2005 presented to the High Court and the Revision Application is admitted and pending for final disposal.Respondent No.3, according to the petitioner, is accused of committing crime involving moral turpitude and as such, ought not to have been considered for appointment.According to the petitioner, appointment of respondent no.3 is made as a result of political interference overlooking his past criminal record and doubtful integrity.The petitioner, as such, prays to quash the notification appointing respondent no.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::6 In reply to the contentions raised by the petitioner, respondent no.3 contends that his name has been included in the panel prepared by the Committee conducting interview.The Committee conducting interview consists of a person nominated by the Advocate General and Collector of the concerned district and ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {5} wp900016.odt the relevant rule mandates making appointment of a candidate from the panel so prepared for such appointment.Respondent No.3, thus, contends that requirement of law, that the name of the candidate shall appear in the panel prepared by the Interview Committee, has been fulfilled and as such, there is no scope for interference in the matter.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::7 So far as the contention raised by petitioner in respect of pendency of Criminal Case is concerned, it is contended by respondent no.3 that at present there are no criminal cases pending against him.In Criminal Case bearing No.Though the order of acquittal is impeached by presenting Criminal Revision Application No.295/2005 before the High Court and though said proceedings are pending, it does not have any adverse effect on the eligibility of respondent no.3 for being considered for the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.There was another criminal case bearing S.T.C.C. No.5265 of 2004 (Crime No.82/2004), wherein respondent no.3 was involved along with 60 other accused.8 It is stated that although respondent no.3 was active party worker of Shivsena party, however, since 2010 onwards, he ceases to be a member of any political party.According to ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {6} wp900016.odt Respondent No.3, his appointment is made in conformity with procedure prescribed under the rules as well as in accordance with Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Respondent No.3 contends that scope of judicial review of the action of appointment of respondent no.3 as a District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is limited and it would be impermissible for the High Court to cause interference in the action of the State Government of appointing respondent no.3 as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::9 Respondent No.3 further contends that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & another Vs.Johri Mal, reported in AIR 2004 SC 3800, appointment of respondent no.3 is in the nature of professional engagement and the State Government has a discretion to engage the advocate of its choice to represent the State in the Court of law.It would be inappropriate, according to respondent no.3, to direct termination of professional engagement of respondent no.3 made by the State Government.Respondent No.3, as such, prays for dismissal of the writ petition.10 The Law Officers Rules, 1984, prescribe eligibility and ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {7} wp900016.odt modalities in respect of appointment of the Government Pleader or Additional Government Pleader or Public Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor in the High Court as well as in the District Court.The rules define "Government Pleader" as an advocate appointed to that post under the rules by the Government in the Law and Judiciary Department in relation to any Court at the district headquarters in the mofussil, to be called a District Government Pleader, to conduct civil suits, appeals, applications and other proceedings, for and on behalf of the State or its officers and includes an Additional or Assistant Government Pleader and Honorary Assistant to a District Government Pleader.Initially Rule 13, which relate to procedure of appointment, did not provide for constitution of a Committee for conducting oral interview of the candidates to examine the suitability and to judge merit of the candidates.The Division Bench of this Court at Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.161/2001, decided on September 11, 2014, made certain observations in the order which necessitated amendment in Rule 13 The Division Bench has observed in the said order that the procedure prescribed at present mandates routing of appointments through a Committee consisting of learned Advocate General and Principal Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department.A direction was issued to the State Government to reframe Rules for making appointments of Law Officers.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::{9} wp900016.odt 12 The Law & Judiciary Department issued a circular on 16.03.2015 under the signature of Legal Advisor-cum-Joint Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department concerning appointments to the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutors as well as Assistant Government Pleader/Additional Public Prosecutors in all the districts.In paragraph no.3 of the Circular, it is recorded that, in view of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 13 of Law Officers Rules, 1984, panel of advocates is required to be prepared and same shall be forwarded to the State Government for approval.The detailed procedure in respect of inviting applications, etc. has been prescribed in the circular.It transpires that in pursuance to the advertisement, twelve applications were received for the post of Government Pleader.13 So far as respondent no.3 is concerned, the opinion expressed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge in respect of Respondent no.3 is:::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::{10} wp900016.odt "Not recommended.Gets annoyed very often and of complaining nature.Aggressive advocate.Average performance.The recommendation of the Interview Committee, concerning respondent no.3, is:"Recommended on the basis of his performance during the interview.However, it will not be appropriate to appoint him as District Government Pleader, because he has a lineage towards a particular political party.Some police cases were registered against him but he has vehemently avoided to furnish the details.This proves that he tried to conceal the facts and vital information about the police cases registered against him.Therefore, his integrity cannot be certified."14 That, so far as petitioner and one Mr.Adhar Santu Wagh are concerned, their candidature has been recommended by the Principal & District Sessions Judge as well as by the Interview Committee.The Interview Committee has strongly recommended candidature of petitioner and has recorded thus:"Strongly recommended.Sufficient experience in conducting Civil and Criminal matters.Very good manners and dressing sense at interview.Very good expressing ability and legal acumen."So far as Mr.Adhar Santu Wagh is concerned, his candidature has been recommended by the Interview Committee and it is recorded that he was working as Assistant Government ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {11} wp900016.odt Pleader since 1991 at Dhule.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::15 The District Magistrate has communicated necessary information to the State Government in proformas "A" and "A-1".The opinion expressed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge and remarks about suitability for appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor have been communicated in proforma "A", as recorded above.Proforma "A-1" is to be filled in and signed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhule.So far as respondent no.3 is concerned, the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dhule, has recorded his remark against the column "General reputation" as "Aggressive Advocate".So far as performance is concerned, the remark offered is "Average".So far as conduct of respondent no.3 is concerned, it is recorded, "Gets annoyed very often and of complaining nature".Against the column, "Result", the Principal District & Sessions Judge has offered a remark "Not recommended".16 On perusal of the remarks of the Interview Committee as well as opinion of Principal District & Sessions Judge, it is evident that candidature of respondent no.3 has not been recommended by the Interview Committee for his appointment as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.17 The State Government has constituted a High Power Committee for scrutinising the applications for appointment to the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for making recommendations to the State Government.The Advocate General, State of Maharashtra, is the Chairman of the High Power ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {12} wp900016.odt Committee, whereas, Principal Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, is one of the members.Accordingly, the High Power Committee has scrutinised the applications and tendered recommendations to the State Government.The proceedings of the High Power Committee are placed on record at Exhibit-C. Though the High Power Committee has included name of respondent no.3 in the panel, the Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, has opposed the notings and tendered descending note.The Principal Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, has invited attention to amended rule 13(4) of the Rules of 1984 as well as Section 24 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is recorded in the note that the High Court, in its judgment in the matter of Vilas Jagannath Dhorde Patil Vs.Technically speaking, though the Government may appoint a candidate who is not recommended by the High Power Committee, provided his name is included in the list prepared by the District Magistrate.Sub rule (4) of Rule 13 of Rules of 1984, however, requires that the Committee at the District Level, shall recommend the names of the candidates which in its opinion are most suitable and meritorious, for such appointment.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::Some police cases were registered against him but he has vehemently avoided to furnish the details.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::{16} wp900016.odt But, as the rules stand, he has a number of other duties to discharge.The three criteria are, source of the office, the tenure and the duties.23 In the matter of State of U.P. Vs.U.P. State Law Officers' Association, reported in AIR 1994 SC 1654, the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {17} wp900016.odt Supreme Court has observed that the Law Officers are not appointed as a part of the spoils system.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::24 The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 44 of the judgment in the matter of State of U.P. Vs.Johri Mal (supra), has observed thus:::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::The State Government has also prescribed proforma "A-1" which provides for recording opinion of the Principal District and Sessions Judge.The State Government has been following the procedure for inviting opinion of the Principal District & Sessions Judge while preparing the panel for making appointment to the post of District Government Pleader and the Public Prosecutor.At the cost of repetition, it must be noted here that candidature of respondent no.3 has not been recommended by the Principal District & Sessions Judge and the Principal District and Sessions Judge has adversely commented upon suitability of respondent no.3 for the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor.28 Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has invited our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Jayant s/o Shivajirao Jagdale Vs.The petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 ::: {19} wp900016.odt before the High Court, who was an advocate practising in the District & Sessions Court, Osmanabad, requested the High Court to quash the order dated 09.06.2009, issued by the Law & Judiciary Department, appointing one Mr.Shashikant Nimbalkar as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Osmanabad district and for setting aside the order passed by the Law and Judiciary Department dated 22.05.2009 staying the effect and operation of the order appointing the petitioner as District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor for Osmanabad district.The Division Bench, in the matter of Vilas Dhorde Patil has referred to the statement of objects and reasons, which reads thus:::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::The appointment of respondent no.3, as has been stated above, is not as per the criteria prescribed for appointment to the post of District Government Pleader and Public Prosecutor and is in clear violation of rules prescribed by the State Government, apart from the fact that well established practice of abiding by the opinion of the Principal District & Sessions Judge has been deviated in the ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 ::: {27} wp900016.odt instant matter.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::34 It has not been denied by respondent no.3 that he was prosecuted in S.T.C.C. No.7940 of 2009 for commission of offences punishable under Sections 449, 504, 506 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code.The informant Sangita Jadhav, in the First Information Report, lodged at City Police Station Dhule on 20.07.2001, has stated that while she was at her residence and breast feeding her child, accused along with one Praksh forced entry in her house.The accused was staring at the bare breast of the complainant and while she tried to cover it, he told her as to why she was covering her breast, he would disrobe her in open court.Though respondent no.3, who was accused in the said case, came to be acquitted, it must be taken note of that Criminal Revision Application is filed challenging acquittal of respondent no.3 and same has been admitted and pending for final disposal.The District Government Pleader is expected to be a guardian and protector of civil rights of the citizens and is expected to safeguard rights of general public as against criminals and anti social elements.It is a matter of concern as to how the State Government thought it fit to appoint such a person whose integrity is doubted, who was, at some point of time, involved in the crime involving moral turpitude.36 The appointment of respondent no.3 has also been proved to be disastrous considering his post-appointment.The Superintendent of Police, Dhule has lodged a complaint against respondent no.3, to the Additional Secretary, Law & Judiciary Department, which is placed on record by the petitioner, complaining of undue interference in police investigation.The District Government Pleader i.e. respondent no.3 is alleged to have ::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 ::: {29} wp900016.odt questioned the police and raised an issue as to why the investigating machinery is trying to please muslim community.The allegations against respondent no.3 are in respect of harbouring communal bias, which itself is not befitting to the status of District Government Pleader.Though the complaint made by the Superintendent of Police is at the stage of preliminary investigation, the contents thereof itself speak of communal bias of the District Government Pleader.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::It is recorded by the Principal District Judge, that: "Not recommended.Gets annoyed very often and of complaining nature." The Interview Committee has recorded that, "Recommended on the basis of his performance during the interview.However, it will not be appropriate to appoint him as District Government Pleader, because he has a lineage towards a particular political party.Some police cases were registered against him but he has vehemently avoided to furnish the details.This proves that he tried to conceal the facts and vital information about the police cases registered against him.Therefore, his integrity cannot be certified."::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::43 For the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to consider the request made by respondent no.3 for staying operation of the judgment and order.::: Uploaded on - 08/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2017 00:41:14 :::
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,900,621
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 1/2/12, at about 9 a.m., Indrapal Patel along with Sarpanch Papulal Kol lodged a report at Police Station Budhar that at 7 a.m. when he was returning from the field after answering the call of nature, in front of the barn of Thakur Singh at Puniyatola, seeing that someone was lying on the way, he along with Dhansaay Baiga went closer and found that it was the dead body of Rama Singh Gond, son-in-law of Lal Gond, having multiple injuries on head and face.He informed this fact to the people of vicinity as well as to Shantibai, wife of Samaylal.In his report, he mentioned that some unknown person had caused the death of Rama Singh Gond by inflicting injuries with a Tangiya like weapon.Upon the said report, Crime No.67/12 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.As per Forensic Science Lab report, the group of the blood on the clothes of respondent could not be ascertained and in absence of information as to blood group of deceased, it could not be said that the same was of the deceased.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,912,491
Heard counsel for the parties.Indeed, the applicant has not been named as accused in the FIR as originally registered.The offence has been registered as back as on 22.11.2013 and the applicant was repeatedly called upon 2 M.Cr.Although, the counsel for the applicant was at pains to persuade us that the applicant was more than willing to surrender before the Court or report before the Investigating Officer and cooperate in the investigation, we have no manner of doubt that the applicant has so far successfully avoided to report to the Investigating Officer in his office for the purpose of investigation of the case and recording of his statement.The fact that when the applicant was allegedly present before the trial court on 27.6.2014 and 28.6.2014 no attempt to arrest him was made does not militate against the Investigating Officer.The matter before the trial court was only for the production of case diary.Be that as it may, the question of arrest of the applicant will arise only after the Investigating Officer is prima facie satisfied that 3 M.Cr.
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 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.
195,914,277
(RAM KALESH RATHORE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 Jabalpur, Dated : 11-02-2020 Shri Ram Sharan Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ganga Ram Saket, learned counsel for the Objector.Shri R.P. Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the first application on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.As per the prosecution case, the applicant is alleged to have molested and passed bad comments on the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the case.The applicant is in custody since 18.12.2019 and the conclusion of the trial will take considerable time.There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence.On the aforesaid grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.Per contra, learned Government Advocate for the State has opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.The trial Court will be at liberty to forfeit the personal and surety bond to recover the amount of personal bond as well as surety bond from the applicant and surety.Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 12/02/2020 10:25:26 3 MCRC-1099-2020 I n the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the complainant/victim/State will be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail granted today.Certified copy as per rules.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 12/02/2020
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,917,814
A.599/2000 Page 1 of 15Brief facts of the case are that on 15.12.1995, Investigating Officer SI Jai Kishore (PW10), posted at Police Station Mangol Puri, on receipt of DD No.22A alongwith Constable Sita Ram (PW8) went to the place of incident, i.e., M-316, Mangol Puri.There it was revealed that Neelam, who sustained burn injuries, had been removed to DDU Hospital by PCR Van.On reaching the first floor of the house, he noticed kerosene oil and water on the floor of the room, therefore, leaving behind PW8 at the spot, PW10 went to DDU Hospital and obtained MLC Ex.PW9/A of Neelam.On coming to know that Neelam was referred to RML Hospital, he went to the said Hospital, where he learnt that Neelam had died.In the meantime, SHO Rajinder Prasad reached there.Parents of deceased Neelam were called.Statement Ex.PW3/A of Smt. Savitri (PW3), mother of deceased Neelam, was recorded by SI Jai Kishore, on which he made his endorsement Ex.PW10/A and sent the rukka to Police Station for registration of the case through Constable Karan Singh.The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, returned back at the spot, i.e., Mangolpuri, got photographed the place, seized kerosene oil P-1, match box P-2 and the burnt clothes after sealing and prepared the site plan Ex. PW10/B. Accused persons were arrested individually.After completion of investigation, challan was sent for trial alleging that deceased Neelam d/o Jawahar Sahai was married to appellant Suresh S/o Mahender Sahai and after the marriage, the appellant and other co-accused were taunting the deceased for less dowry and demanding Rs.50,000/- and a plot in dowry.To this effect, a complaint was made in Crime Against Woman Cell, however, the matter was compromised and deceased was sent to her matrimonial house.After sometime, the deceased had been again subjected to harassment by the Crl.A.599/2000 Page 2 of 15 appellant-husband and her parents-in-law.Savitri Devi (PW3) is mother of the deceased on whose complaint FIR in question Ex. PW3/A was lodged.She deposed that her daughter Neelam was married to appellant about 9 years back.Whenever her daughter used to come to her house, she always complained about her mother-in-law and husband, i.e., appellant that they used to taunt her for bringing less dowry and demand Rs.50,000/- and a plot of 50 yards.Since they were unable to fulfill their demands, a complaint was made in Crime Against Women Cell, where the appellant and other co-accused promised not to harass her daughter.On their assurance, she was sent back to her in- laws' house.Thereafter, the deceased lived peacefully for about one month but the appellant and his parents again started torturing and beating her.PW3 also stated that two days prior to the death of her daughter, she was given beatings by the appellant and other co-accused and left her in their house at midnight.Though, they decided not to send back their daughter, however, appellant and his parents again came and took their daughter stating that they will keep her at Mangolpuri alongwith appellant.She also stated that appellant Suresh had illicit relation with a lady named Shanta and he kept her in his house as Keep.Parents-in-law of the deceased used to Crl.A.599/2000 Page 3 of 15 visit the house of appellant after every 2/3 days and all of them used to beat her daughter.A.599/2000 Page 3 of 15The witness PW3 further stated that on 15.12.1995, she received an information that her daughter got admitted in RML Hospital after burn.She went to the hospital and found her dead-body.She stated that her daughter was burnt by the accused persons.She proved her statement as Ex.PW3/A. The witness stated that in the year 1991, her husband had gone to take her daughter from her in-laws' house, where accused persons demanded money and other articles from him.Three months prior to her death her husband was informed that her daughter was unwell.Her husband went their but he was pushed from staircase and was not allowed to meet deceased Neelam, thus, he came back.She also stated that during the period from her marriage till her death, her daughter usually remained with her because accused persons used to beat her and torture her.In the cross-examination, PW-3 deposed that even at the time of engagement an amount of Rs.10,000/- was demanded from the boy side, which was not objected to.By way of the present appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Cr.P.C.'), appellant seeks directions to set aside the order dated 11.09.2000, whereby the learned Trial Court held him guilty under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter to be referred as 'IPC') and the order on sentence dated 12.09.2000, whereby the appellant was sentenced for the period already undergone in the judicial custody, i.e., 22 months and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.Accordingly, the appellant alongwith other co-accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 498-A/34 IPC and under Section 306/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A.599/2000 Page 2 of 15In support of its case, the prosecution had examined ten witnesses.She admitted that no complaint was lodged anywhere in any Police Station or to Pradhan with regard to demand made within a span of one year of the marriage.The witness categorically stated that when second time her daughter went to Mangolpuri, in-laws' of her daughter, started living in Loha Mandi.Her daughter came third time to live with her and lived for two years and thereafter her daughter went her own to her husband's house in Mangolpuri and lived there for about one month and again she came back to her house and stayed there continuously.Before death, the deceased went to her husband's house about 11 days prior Crl.A.599/2000 Page 4 of 15 and admitted that most of the time, the deceased remained with her.She denied the suggestion that her daughter was not liking her husband/appellant and so she committed suicide.Her husband was working as a Gardener.She has three daughters and a son and belonged to poor family.She denied the suggestion that no demand was ever made by the accused persons.She denied the suggestion that no plot or Rs.50,000/- was ever demanded.A.599/2000 Page 4 of 15He stated that he knew PW5 for the last 30 years as both were working together.PW4 corroborates the version of the parents of the deceased and submitted that after her marriage, deceased Neelam used to visit their house also and used to tell his wife that her husband and her parents-in-law were not happy and were in habit of beating her for want of dowry and her husband had also having illicit relation with some lady.Appellant Suresh used to torture her for the said reason and used to demand Rs.50,000/- and also one plot.The witness claimed that he went number of times with PW5 to the house of the appellant to pursue them not to torture Neelam.He also stated that a report was made to the Crime Against Women Cell, Nanakpura.Matter was compromised as the appellant and other co-accused assured that they would not repeat the activity of torturing the deceased.The learned Trial Court on the basis of the material brought on record acquitted the appellant and other co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC holding that the prosecution had not been able to establish its case against them.Also acquitted co-accused Mahender Sahai Crl.A.599/2000 Page 5 of 15 and Chander Kalan for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case against them, however, held that prosecution has established and proved the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant.Accordingly, the learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2000 held the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC and vide order on sentence dated 12.09.2000 sentenced him for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he was sentenced to undergo SI for six months.A.599/2000 Page 5 of 15Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the instant appeal.A.599/2000 Page 6 of 15 married to the appellant about 9 years back, yet there was no issue out of the said wedlock.The deceased had pre-mature delivery twice during the said wedlock, which could have also been the reason for disturbance of the mental health of the deceased.A.599/2000 Page 6 of 15Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that when no ingredient of any kind with regard to offence punishable under Section 306 IPC could be made out, how the ingredient for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC would be established against appellant.A. No.223/2003, titled Crl.A.599/2000 Page 7 of 15 as 'Bhateri Devi & Anr.Undoubtedly, Savitri Devi (PW3) mother of the deceased categorically stated that a complaint was made against the appellant in the Crime Against Women Cell as the deceased was being ill-A.599/2000 Page 13 of 15treated, however, on the assurance of the appellant and his parents, deceased was sent back to her in-laws house.Though thereafter, the deceased remained peacefully but only for one month as appellant again started torturing and given beatings to deceased Neelam.PW3 specifically deposed that three months prior to death of her daughter, her husband was informed that her daughter was unwell.Though her husband went there but he was pushed from staircase and was not allowed to meet Neelam, thus, he came back.PW3 was also categorical in narrating that two days prior to the death of her daughter, she was beaten up and left in their house at midnight.However, on the assurance of the appellant and his parents that they will keep the deceased at Mangolpuri alongwith appellant, she was again sent back.She also stated that appellant Suresh had illicit relation with a lady named Shanta and he kept her in his house as Keep.Though it is admitted by PW3 that during the period from her marriage till her death, her daughter usually remained with her, but they used to send her back on the assurances of the appellant and his parents that they will keep her happily.Moreover, while relying upon the testimonies of PW3, 4 and 5, the learned Trial Court also held that the prosecution had been able to establish that appellant Suresh was keeping one lady Shanta as his Keep and this willful conduct of the appellant forced the deceased to commit suicide.Additionally, during the subsistence of the marriage, the appellant started living with the other woman that itself was a cruelty towards the deceased and mental torture was of such magnitude, which derived her to commit suicide.Thus, the deceased had been subjected to cruelty Crl.A.599/2000 Page 14 of 15 continuously by the appellant, which is evident from the facts discussed above.A.599/2000 Page 14 of 15Accordingly, keeping in view the law discussed above and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the appellant subjected the deceased to physical and mental torture and agony; thus the offence under Section 498A IPC has rightly been found proved against the appellant by the learned Trial Court.Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 11.09.2000 and order on sentence dated 12.09.2000 passed by the learned Trial Court.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.TCR be sent back.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 29, 2016 sb Crl.A.599/2000 Page 15 of 15A.599/2000 Page 15 of 15
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,959,233
It was part of his duties to disburse thewages to the workmen employed in the works, and theprocedure usually followed was that be drew the amountrequired from the treasury, and paid the same to the emplo-yees against their signatures or thumb-impressions in themonthly acquittance roll.In the roll for April 1951, oneParma was mentioned as a khalasi (menial servant), and a sumof Rs. 51 shown as paid to him for his wages, the paymentbeing vouched by thumbimpression.The case of theprosecution was that there was, in fact, no person of thename of Parma, that the thumb-impression found in theacquittance roll was that of the appellant himself, that hehad included a fictitious name in the acquittance roll, withintent to himself draw the amount, and that by thisexpedient he had received Rs. 51 and misappropriated thesame.The First-Class Magistrate of Patiala, before whom theappellant was put up for trial, framed charges against himunder section 465 of the Indian Penal Code for forging thethumb-impression of Parma, and under section 409 of theIndian Penal Code for criminal misappropriation of Rs. 51,and after a full trial,1671304acquitted him.This appeal by special leaveis directed against this judgment.Then it was his duty to pay thatamount to the khalasi Parma, and take his signature orthumb-impression in acknowledgment thereof.The accuseddoes claim to have paid the amount to Parma, and theacquittance roll records the payment, and there is inacknowledgment thereof a thumb-impression as against hisname.Appeal allowed.
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
19,592,565
The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.02.2005 at about 4.00 p.m., the appellant, the deceased Madhav Uttamrao Awachar, one Prabhakar Rangoba Awachar, Ashok Sahebrao Awachar and Bhagwat Uttamrao Poul were gambling by playing a game called "Nakkhi Dua" near the compound wall of Telephone Office in front of the Regional Transport Office on the left side of Parbhani to Vasmat road, running West to East, at Parbhani.The informant namely, Subhash Dattarao Awachar, who is the cousin of the deceased Madhav, one Manohar Sahebrao Awachar and Vishnu Sahebrao Awacher were watching that game.The deceased Madhav placed a bet of Rs.10/- and won the game.Therefore, he asked the appellant to pay him ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 3 cri.appeal.172-06Rs.20/-.However, the appellant refused to pay that amount to the deceased Madhav.On that count, altercation and scuffle took place between them.The informant and other persons, who were watching the game, separated the appellant and the deceased Madhav.At that time, the appellant took out a knife from the watch-pocket of his pant and pierced it in the chest of the deceased Madhav causing him a bleeding injury.The deceased Madhav collapsed on the ground.The informant and Vishnu Sahebrao Awachar took the deceased Madhav to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani in an auto-rickshaw.The Medical Officer examined him and declared that he was dead.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::The informant went to the Police out-post situate in the premises of Civil Hospital and intimated about murder of Madhav.He then went to his village in the auto-rickshaw and came back to the hospital along with his parents.At that time, P.S.I. Shejal, Mondha Police Station, Parbhani, recorded statement of the informant, which is treated as ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 4 cri.appeal.172-06F.I.R. On the basis of that F.I.R., Crime No.37 of 2005 came to be registered against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of the I.P.C. The investigation followed.Inquest of the dead body of Madhav was prepared.His body was referred to Civil Hospital for post-mortem.Kankute conducted post-mortem on 11.02.2005 between 10.10 p.m. and 11.10 p.m. He noticed a perforating stab injury in the chest of the deceased Madhav.He opined that that Madhav died of 'Cardio-respiratory failure due to hemorrhagic shock due to puncturing stab injury to heart'.The spot panchnama was prepared.Statements of witnesses were recorded.Blood stained knife and full-pant and full-shirt of the appellant came to be discovered pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him.They were sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis and report.On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submits that though the incident took place on a trivial reason, the appellant gave a calculated blow of knife on the vital part of the body i.e. chest of Madhav, causing him serious injury to which, he succumbed immediately after the incident.He submits that the evidence of the informant is corroborated by other witnesses.The appellant was friend of the deceased Madhav.Ashok (PW 2) and himself separated them.Thereafter, the appellant took out a knife from the watch-pocket of his pant and pierced it in the chest of the deceased Madhav.The deceased Madhav collapsed on the ground.The appellant ran away therefrom.in 8 cm.On internal examination, he found perforating injury on pleura on left side.He found perforating wound on pericardium.Heart was containing bleeding clots with stab injury with left artery having size 1½ x 1 cm.He opined that Madhav died of cardio-respiratory failure due to hemorrhagic shock due to perforating stab injury to heart.They further state that the appellant took them to his farm-house.However, while showing leniency to the appellant, agonies of the widow and children of the deceased Madhav cannot be ignored.They will have to be given some solace by increasing the amount of fine, which would be paid to them by way of compensation, if recovered.village Kargaon, Tq.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.01.2006 passed in Sessions Case No.52 of ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 2 cri.appeal.172-062005 by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Parbhani, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C.", for short) and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, the present appeal has been preferred.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::The said articles were found stained with blood of 'AB' group, which was that of the deceased Madhav.After completion of the investigation, the appellant came ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 5 cri.appeal.172-06to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::The case being triable by the Court of Session, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed it to the Sessions Court for trial.It came to be assigned to the 1st Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Parbhani.The learned trial Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. vide Exh.4 and explained the contents thereof to him in vernacular.The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.His defence is that of total denial and false implication on account of previous rivalry.After scrutinizing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge held the appellant guilty of the above-mentioned offence.He, therefore, convicted and sentenced the appellant for the said offence, as stated above.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::6 cri.appeal.172-06The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the informant is the cousin of the deceased Madhav.The informant had demanded Rs.2,000/- from the appellant about eight days prior to the date of the incident for purchasing a she-buffalo.The appellant had refused to pay that amount to the informant, therefore, their relations had become strained.The informant had threatened the appellant to complain against him for taking money from the needy persons by falsely assuring them to get their works done.Therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the informant lodged a false F.I.R. against the appellant.He submits that there has been delay of three hours in lodging the F.I.R. Moreover, there is delay of one day in sending copy of the F.I.R. to the Magistrate.This delay has not been explained by the prosecution.He submits that the prosecution has examined only those witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased Madhav.Some of the witnesses did not support the prosecution.The ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 7 cri.appeal.172-06evidence of the informant and other witnesses, who tried to implicate the appellant for the offence of murder, is not reliable.He, therefore, submits that the appellant may be acquitted of the above-mentioned offences.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::In the alternative, the learned Counsel submits that the incident had taken place on the spur of moment without any pre- determination.The appellant had no intention to kill the deceased Madhav.In fact, both of them were good friends.Their respective fathers also were good friends.During the course of scuffle, under the heat of anger, the appellant seems to have stabbed the deceased Madhav.In the circumstances, relying on the judgment in the case of Jagtar Singh Vs.State of Punjab, 1983 CJ (SC) 139 and Abani K. Debnath Vs.State of Tripura, 2005 CJ (SC) 11, he submits that at the most, offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. can be said to have been established against the appellant.He submits that the appellant is a ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 8 cri.appeal.172-06young person, who was aged about 22 years at the time of the incident.He is a married person having responsibility of his family.He has no criminal antecedents.There was no enmity between the informant and the appellant on any count.There was no reason for the informant to lodge false F.I.R. and ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 9 cri.appeal.172-06depose false against the appellant.He submits that the evidence of the prosecution is quite sufficient, cogent and clinching to establish guilt of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased Madhav.The medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution.According to him, the learned trial Judge has rightly considered the evidence on record and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.He, therefore, prays that the appeal may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::It has come in the evidence of the informant that at the time of the incident, the appellant, one Prabhakar Awachar, Ashok (PW 2)(Exh.14) and Bhagwat (PW 5)(Exh.18) were gambling by playing a game called "Nakkhi Dua".Vishnu (PW 3)(Exh.15), Manohar (PW 4)(Exh.16) and himself were watching that game.After sometime, the deceased Madhav also came there and placed a bet of Rs.10/-.After winning in that game, he asked the appellant to pay him Rs.20/-.The appellant refused to pay that amount.Therefore, ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 10 cri.appeal.172-06altercation and scuffle took place between them.Blood started oozing from the chest injury of the deceased Madhav.He was taken to the Civil Hospital in an auto-rickshaw.The Doctor examined him and declared that he was dead.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::It has come in the evidence of P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9)(Exh.39) that after receiving a message from the P.S.O. on his cell phone, that a person, who was admitted in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani, was murdered, he took entry in the station diary (Exh.48) and went to the Civil Hospital, Parbhani.He states that the informant narrated before him the manner in which the incident took place.He reduced that information into writing, as mentioned in the F.I.R. (Exh.13) and went back to the Police Station. ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::11 cri.appeal.172-06Thereafter, he registered the crime on the basis of that F.I.R. (Exh.13).As seen from the endorsement made on the F.I.R. (Exh.13) as well as in the station diary (Exh.48), the offence was actually registered at 7.00 p.m. on the day of the incident itself.As a matter of fact, the F.I.R. (Exh.13) was recorded by P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9) in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani much prior to the registration of the crime in the Police Station.The F.I.R. is running into two handwritten pages.P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9) certainly must have required some time for recording F.I.R. (Exh.13) in the Civil Hospital, approaching Mondha Police Station and then registering the crime.In the circumstances, some delay in registering the crime in the Police Station would be of no consequence.There is nothing on record to show that the informant narrated the incident as mentioned in the F.I.R. (Exh.13), on the say of anybody else, who wanted to falsely implicate the appellant in the incident in question.The ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 12 cri.appeal.172-06informant has flatly denied that he ever had demanded Rs.2,000/- from the appellant, the appellant refused to pay that amount to him and therefore, he had a grudge against the appellant.This reason suggested on behalf of the appellant is not at all probable and natural.It has come in the cross-examination of the informant that the appellant and the deceased Madhav were friends.Their respective fathers also were friends.If that be so, there was no reason for the informant to lodge a false report against the appellant.There is no objectionable delay in lodging the F.I.R. (Exh.13).The informant cannot be said to have lodged false F.I.R. (Exh.13) against the appellant.The evidence of the informant has been corroborated by the contents of F.I.R. (Exh.13).::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::As stated above, the crime was registered on 11.02.2005 at about 7.00 p.m. The copy of F.I.R. was sent to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 13 cri.appeal.172-06the next working day.As such, there cannot be said to be any delay in sending the copy of F.I.R. to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::Ashok (PW 2) supports the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief, but in the cross-examination, he took a somersault and resiled from his previous statement.Vishnu (PW 3) and Manohar (PW4) did not support the prosecution.Both of them resiled from their previous statements.They have been cross-examined by the learned A.P.P. The evidence of P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9) proved the statements made by them before him while recording their statements under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which have been denied by them ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 14 cri.appeal.172-06before the Court.It is clear that they were won-over by the appellant and therefore, did not support the prosecution by changing their versions.Therefore, their evidence would not create any doubt about the case of the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::Kankute (PW 6)(Exh.28), who conducted post-mortem of the body of the deceased Madhav on 11.02.2005 between 10.10 p.m. and 11.10 p.m. in the Civil Hospital, Parbhani, deposes that he noticed only one stab injury on the chest of the deceased Madhav perforating left artery having size 2 cm.x 2½ cm.x 1½ cm.Accordingly, he prepared memorandum (Exh.29) of the post-mortem.He further opined that the above- ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::15 cri.appeal.172-06mentioned injuries were possible by knife (Art.7) shown to him.In his cross-examination, he denied that the above-mentioned injuries were possible if a person falls on pointed glass during scuffle.The evidence of Dr.It has come in the evidence of Narayan (PW7)(Exh.32) and Shejal (PW 9) that they prepared panchnama (Exh.33) in respect of spot of the incident and seized the samples of blood stained earth, blood stained pebbles, paper and plain earth from the spot of the incident under the same panchnama.It has come in the evidence of Suresh (PW 8) (Exh.35) and P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9) that on 03.03.2005 at about 4.00 p.m., when the appellant was in the police custody, he gave a disclosure statement and offered to produce his clothes and knife concealed ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 16 cri.appeal.172-06under the roof of his farm-house.Accordingly, the memorandum (Exh.36) of that statement was recorded.He entered into his farm-house and took out a knife (Art.7), full-shirt (Art.8) and full-pant (Art.9), which were stained with blood, from under the tin-roof of the farm-house.They seized the said articles under panchnama (Exh.37).Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of these witnesses to doubt their evidence in respect of discovery of above-mentioned articles pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::The informant as well as Bhagwat (PW 5) identified the knife (Art.7) as the same that was used by the appellant at the time of the incident for causing hurt to the deceased Madhav.The blood stained clothes of the deceased Madhav were also seized.His blood sample was collected.A.S.I. Kashibai (PW 10)(Exh.52) states ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 17 cri.appeal.172-06that as per the directions of P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9), she carried the seized articles of Crime No.37 of 2005 to the Chemical Analyst with letter (Exh.40).P.S.I. Shejal (PW 9) states that the report (Exh.41) is in respect of the seized articles, while C.A. report (Exh.42) is in respect of the blood sample of the deceased Madhav.The blood group of the deceased Madhav was 'AB'.The knife (Art.7) and pant (Art.8) of the appellant, which were seized at his instance, vide panchnama (Exh.37), were found to have stained with blood of 'AB' group.This is an an additional circumstance to connect the appellant with the incident in question.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::As stated above, there is direct as well as circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the incident in question.The said evidence is quite natural and reliable.The learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the said evidence and rightly held that the appellant pierced knife in the chest of the deceased Madhav causing him serious injury, to ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 18 cri.appeal.172-06which he succumbed.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::Now, the question is whether, the offence of murder made punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. has been established against the appellant.From the ocular evidence, it is clear that the altercation and scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased Madhav on a trivial ground that the appellant refused to pay Rs.20/- to the deceased Madhav against his bet of Rs.10/-, which he had won in the game.It seems that during the course of the scuffle on that count, the appellant, in the heat of passion, stabbed the knife in the chest of the deceased Madhav.It was a single blow of knife.Considering this fact, it was held that the accused ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 19 cri.appeal.172-06was liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and not under Section 302 of the I.P.C. In the case of Abani K. Debnath (supra) cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. It was noticed that the death had been preceded by mutual fight over a trifle matter of grazing of cows.During the course of scuffle, the accused namely Abani Debnath rushed to the spot and gave 'Dao' blow on occipital region of the deceased, who died after five days of the incident.The Doctor opined that the cause of death was head injury and spinal injury in cervical region.It was held that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. can be said to have been disclosed and consequently, the accused had been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::20 cri.appeal.172-06In the present case also, there was no per-meditation or malice on the part of the appellant prompting him to think of causing death of the deceased Madhav.As a matter of fact, the deceased Madhav and the appellant were friends.The incident took place on a very trivial ground followed by a scuffle.During the course of this scuffle, under the heat of passion, the appellant inflicted a single blow of knife in the chest of the deceased Madhav causing him serious injury, to which he succumbed.We, therefore, hold that the appellant cannot be said to have committed offence of murder made ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 21 cri.appeal.172-06punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder and can be said to have inflicted blow of knife on the chest of the deceased Madhav with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death, but without intention to cause death, or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.Thus, the present case would fall under the four-corners of Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. The prosecution has established guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt for offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. Considering the serious consequences of the act of the appellant, we are not inclined to extend him the benefit of Probation of Offenders::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::The appellant was aged of 22 years of age at the time of the incident.He is a married person and has responsibility of his family.The incident took place under the heat of passion during the course of the scuffle without any intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of Madhav.The appellant ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 22 cri.appeal.172-06does not have any criminal antecedents.In the circumstances, we think fit to show some leniency in the matter of inflicting punishment.In our view, it would be just and proper to sentence the appellant with rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to increase the amount of fine from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.40,000/-.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::In the result, we pass the following order :-conviction and sentence passed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 23 cri.appeal.172-06 quashed and set aside.Instead, he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.Forty Thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::(iii) The appellant shall surrender to his bail bonds before the trial Court, within a period of two weeks from today, for undergoing the sentence passed against him by this order.(iv) If the appellant fails to appear before the trial Court within two weeks from today, then the trial Court shall issue coercive process to secure his presence.(v) The appellant be given set off in respect of the period of imprisonment suffered by him ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 ::: 24 cri.appeal.172-06 in connection with the present case vide Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::(vi) The amount of fine, if recovered, be paid to the widow of the deceased Madhav, namely Mirabai wd/o. of Madhav Awachar, r/o.and Dist.(vii) The appeal is accordingly disposed of.[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] kbp ::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2017 01:53:07 :::
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,959,280
He further submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sandeep used to leave for his school at around 11.30 a.m. for the second shift which was between 12.30 p.m. and CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 5 of 17 06.30 p.m. and used to return home about around 07.30 p.m. According to the learned counsel, although the time of death has been given as around 12.30 p.m. on 20.01.1995, this is only an approximation and the death could have occurred 3 or 4 hours later which would mean that the time gap between Sandeep being last seen alive at about 11.30 a.m. and the time of his death, say around 3 or 4 hours, at around 3.30 p.m. or 04.00 p.m. would be sufficient enough to enable other intervening circumstances, thereby indicating that it is not at all necessary that it was Salim Khan who definitely caused the death of Sandeep.According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even the recovery of the dead body is to be doubted inasmuch as no independent public witness from the locality from where the body was discovered has been associated.Apart from the police witnesses, the other witnesses are PW-2 (Sita Ram), who is the father of the deceased Sandeep and PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), who is the uncle (mama) of the deceased Sandeep and PW-3 (Ram Avtar), who is a neighbour.He submitted that the ganda nalah from where the dead body was recovered is surrounded by houses, but no public person from that area was joined for the recovery proceedings.Insofar as the appellant Salim Khan is concerned, he stated that there is the "last seen evidence" of PW-3 (Ram Avtar) coupled with the recovery of the dead body of Sandeep at the instance of the Salim.Insofar as the appellant Anil is concerned, Mr Lao submitted that the recovery of the watch, tiffin box and school bag belonging to the deceased Sandeep, which had been identified by the PW-2 Sita Ram (Sandeep's father), is clinching evidence of the fact that Anil was also involved in the crime.He further submitted that the recovery of these articles was not merely from the jhuggi of Anil, but after the same had been dug out by Anil from the ground beneath the jhuggi.The prosecution case was that Sandeep, who is the son of PW-2 (Sita Ram), used to go to school (Ramjas School, Darya Ganj) to attend the CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 8 of 17 second shift.He used to leave the house at around 11.30 a.m. and his shift was from 12.30 p.m. to 06.30 p.m. As usual, on 20.01.1995, Sandeep left the house at that time.He, however, did not return home at 7.30 p.m. (which was his usual time of return).Since he did not return till 08.30 p.m., PW-2 (Sita Ram) informed his brother-in-law PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), about the fact that Sandeep had not returned from school.Both of them, that is, PW-2 (Sita Ram) and PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) searched for Sandeep at their own level.It is then the case of the prosecution that at about 12.10 p.m. on 21.01.1995, when PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) had gone to the shop of PW-2 (Sita Ram), i.e., Shop No. 7, Kartar Singh Market, Sherpur Chowk, Kabul Nagar Road, Delhi, he received a phone call.The caller made an enquiry as to whether PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) knew about the whereabouts of Sandeep.On his answering that he did not know where Sandeep was, the caller is alleged to have stated that Sandeep was with them and that they would call again after an hour.It is then the case of the prosecution that PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) informed the police about the said call after suspecting that Sandeep had been kidnapped.The police arrived at the said shop and the statement (Exhibit CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 9 of 17 PW-13/A) of PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) was recorded.Thereafter, at about 3 p.m., another call was received by PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), whereupon a demand for ransom of ` 30,000/- was made.Directions were given to PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) to bring the cash amount of ` 30,000/- at 4.30 p.m. at the bus stand near Loni Fly Over and to place the said cash in the bus which was to go towards Baghpat.The said amount was to be placed where the luggage was normally kept inside the bus.It was stated that it is from there that the said amount would be collected by the persons who made the ransom call and that Sandeep would be returned on the next day.PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) was also warned not to inform the police, otherwise Sandeep would be killed.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 17 of 17AND + CRL.A. 153/1998 ANIL ...- versus -STATE ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Sumeet Verma, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/State : Mr Sanjay Lao CORAM:HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE VEENA BIRBALWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? Yes CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 1 of 17 BADAR DURREZ AHMED (ORAL)CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 1 of 17These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 04.08.1997 and the order on sentence dated 05.08.1997 delivered / passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 82/1996 arising out of FIR No.36/1995 registered at Police Station Gokal Puri under Sections 302/363/364-A/34 IPC.Hence, the two appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.By virtue of the impugned judgment dated 04.08.1997, the appellants Salim Khan and Anil have been held guilty for the offences punishable under Section 363/34 IPC, 364-A/34IPC and 302/34 IPC.By virtue of the impugned order on sentence dated 05.08.1997, both the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ` 4000/- each in respect of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC.In default of payment of fine, they were to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each.Insofar as the offence under Section 363/34 IPC is concerned, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of ` 1000/- each and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 2 of 17 imprisonment for one month each.With regard to the offence punishable under Section 364-A/34 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of ` 5000/- by way of fine each and, in default thereof, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 2 of 17Mr Sumeet Verma, the learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of both the appellants, submitted that the prosecution case suffered from various infirmities.First of all, he submitted that this was, in any event, a case of circumstantial evidence in which the prosecution has to establish each of the circumstances beyond reasonable doubt and the circumstances so established must form a complete chain so as to lead only to the conclusion that it is the accused who have committed the crime and none other.He also submitted that during this period, the jhuggi belonging to Anil had already been searched by the police on 22.01.1995 itself and, therefore, the question of the alleged recovery having been made on 04.02.1995 at the instance of the appellant Anil is not free from doubt.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 3 of 17With regard to the appellant Anil, the learned amicus curiae further submitted that the other piece of evidence which is sought to be used against Anil was the testimony of PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) who stated that he recognized the voice of the caller making the two telephone calls on 21.01.1995 to be that of the appellant Anil.However, the learned counsel submitted that the fact that PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) had recognized the voice of Anil, had not been disclosed to the police on 04.02.1995 or on any date prior to his deposition before court on 10.10.1996, which was recorded more than a year and nine months after the incident.Apart CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 4 of 17 from the recovery and the alleged voice recognition at the instance of PW- 13 (Rajesh Goel), there is nothing to connect the appellant Anil with the alleged offence.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 4 of 17Thus, it was suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant that the story of the telephone calls and, in particular, the ransom call cannot be believed because by that time, as per the medical evidence on record, Sandeep had already been killed.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 5 of 17CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 6 of 17CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 6 of 17For these reasons, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the appellants were entitled to be set at liberty.Mr Lao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgment and order on sentence and stated that the case of the prosecution was fool-proof against both the appellants.He, therefore, contended that the fact that the police had already search the jhuggi would have no meaning in as much as CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 7 of 17 it would not have been known to the police that the said articles had been hidden by keeping them under the soil of the jhuggi.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 7 of 17Mr Lao also submitted that the testimony of PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) also clinches the case against Anil inasmuch as PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) has clearly identified the voice of the person who made the telephone calls on 21.01.1995 as that of the appellant Anil.On the basis of the said statement, the ruqqa was sent and FIR No. 36/1995 (Exhibit PW-10/A) was registered under Section 363 IPC at police station Gokal Puri.He was also told that there would be no further talk and the phone was disconnected.After this phone call was allegedly received by PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), his supplementary statement was recorded whereupon the offence under Section 364-A IPC was added in the FIR.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 10 of 17CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 10 of 17In the course of investigation, in the same day, suspicion had arisen with regard to the appellant Salim Khan who was a teacher of Martial Arts at the said Ramjas School and Sandeep was also one of the students.The suspicion had arisen because PW-3 (Ram Avtar) had, later in the evening on 20.01.1995, informed that he had seen Sandeep going away in a rickshaw with a tall boy at about 11.30 p.m. He also stated that when Sandeep passed by him in the rickshaw, he told PW-3 (Ram Avtar) that he was going to school with Masterji.From this statement, suspicion arose with regard to the appellant Salim Khan.Thereupon, since Salim Khan was known to PW-2 (Sita Ram), as he had visited their home and shop on prior occasions, the police party, along with PW-2 (Sita Ram), PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) and PW-3 Ram Avtar, went to the house of Salim Khan where he was found inside and on seeing the police, according to the prosecution, he was startled.On interrogation, he disclosed that he could get the dead body of Sandeep recovered from the ganda nalah at Mustafabad (near Bhagirath Water Pump).Thereafter, the police party, along with the said witnesses and the appellant Salim Khan, went to the ganda nalah, the place where the dead body of Sandeep was said to be lying, which was pointed out by Salim Khan, from where the dead body of CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 11 of 17 Sandeep was recovered and the same was identified by his father PW-2 (Sita Ram).CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 11 of 17Nothing was, of course, found at that time.Anil was also not available.As pointed out above, Anil surrendered in court on 04.02.1995, that is, 14 days after the said incident and immediately thereafter he allegedly made a disclosure statement pursuant to which, according to the prosecution, a watch, tiffin box and school bag belonging to Sandeep were recovered from his jhuggi after the soil underneath the same was dug up and a plastic bag was taken out.Upon examining the evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we find that insofar as the appellant Anil is concerned, it is only the alleged recovery of the watch, tiffin box and school bag and the alleged recognition of his voice by PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), which has transpired in evidence against him.Insofar as the recovery of the watch, tiffin box and school bag is CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 12 of 17 concerned, we find that the same is not free from doubt.This is so because, first of all, the recovery was made after 14 days and, that too, after the appellant Anil himself surrendered before court.It is unlikely that the person who is about to surrender himself to the judicial process and who knows that he has been involved in a particular crime, would not wipe out all the evidence connecting him to the said crime.It is unlikely, therefore, that the appellant Anil would have kept the watch, tiffin box and the school bag within his own jhuggi.Apart from this, we are also not certain that the watch, tiffin box and the school bag actually belonged to Sandeep because these items were of a generic nature.Although PW-2 (Sita Ram) had identified the same as belonging to Sandeep, there still remains a doubt in our minds as to whether these were actually articles belonging to Sandeep.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 12 of 17With regard to the voice being recognized by PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), apart from the question of admissibility and the fact that the information was elicited on an alleged leading question, we find that the testimony of PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) on this aspect is not credible.This is so because had he recognized Anil's voice when Anil was allegedly making his disclosure CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 13 of 17 statement on 04.02.1995, he would have told the police then and there.He never disclosed this fact either to the police or to PW-2 (Sita Ram) or PW- 3 (Ram Avtar) or to nobody else.He made this statement for the first time on 10.10.1996, that is, more than one year and nine months later.Apart from this, the voice of a person being heard over the telephone and the voice heard when he is present in the same room tend to be different.Recognising the voice in such a manner after such a brief conversation would be difficult.There is also doubt with regard to the receipt of the second call, i.e., the call in which the demand for ransom was made.According to PW-2 (Sita Ram), there was only one call which was made.According to PW-13 (Rajesh Goel), when the second call was received, none of the police persons were present, whereas, according to PW-18 (S.I. Ishwar Singh), he CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 14 of 17 was present in the shop when PW-13 (Rajesh Goel) received the second call.There is, therefore, considerable amount of doubt with regard to the receipt of the second call in which the actual demand for ransom was made.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 14 of 17Coming to the case of the appellant Salim Khan, we find that it would be difficult for him to get out from the evidence that is pointing in his direction.The first and most important piece of evidence is the testimony of PW-3 (Ram Avtar), who had last seen Sandeep alive in the company of Salim Khan when they both were leaving the bus stand area in a rickshaw and when Sandeep had told PW-3 (Ram Avtar) that he was going to his school with Masterji.The other important piece of evidence, which has come against the appellant Salim Khan, is the recovery of the dead body of Sandeep at his instance.Neither the testimony of PW-3 (Ram Avtar) has been shaken with regard to his "last seen evidence" nor CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 15 of 17 with regard to the recovery of the dead body at the instance the appellant Salim Khan.The other witnesses to the recovery of the dead body are PW-2 (Sita Ram) and PW-13 (Rajesh Goel).They have both stood firm in their testimonies with regard to the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant Salim Khan.Therefore, it must be taken as established that the dead body of Sandeep was recovered at the instance of the appellant Salim Khan.When this fact is coupled with the testimony of PW-3 (Ram Avtar), who last saw Sandeep alive in the company of Salim Khan, there could be no manner of doubt that it was Salim Khan who was responsible for the death of Sandeep.There is also no explanation provided by the appellant Salim Khan in the course of his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the appellant Salim Khan has been rightly convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC as well as under Section 363 IPC.However, his conviction under Section 364-A IPC is set aside.So also his sentence with regard to that offence.Consequently, the appeal filed by Anil is allowed.His conviction and sentence are set aside and his bail bond is cancelled and his surety stands discharged.Insofar as the appeal filed by Salim Khan is concerned, CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 16 of 17 the same is partly allowed inasmuch as his conviction under Section 364- A/34 IPC is set aside.However, his conviction under Sections 302 and 363 IPC are upheld and his sentences in respect thereof are also upheld.The appellant Salim Khan be taken into custody to serve out the remainder of his sentence.A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court to take up proceedings in accordance with law inasmuch as the appellant Salim Khan has been absconding after he was released on bail.The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 16 of 17BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J VEENA BIRBAL, J JULY 19, 2011 Kb/dutt CRL.A. Nos. 362/97 & 153/98 Page 17 of 17
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
195,933,054
The incident took place in the evening time in front of thehouse of accused No.1 Vijay.Mr. S. J. Salgare, Addl.Public Prosecutor, for applicant/State.WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 369 OF 2016 The State of Maharashtra Through : PI, Police Station Sillod (R) Tq.Public Prosecutor, for appellant/ State.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 :::The first proceeding is filed by the State for grant of leave tofile appeal against original accused No.5 to 7 from Sessions Case No.22 of 2009 which was pending in the Court of learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Aurangabad.The trial Court has acquitted them ofthe offences punishable under Section 143, 147, 323, 302, 504, 506read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.The second proceeding, Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2016 is filedfor giving conviction original accused No.3 Sudhakar who isconvicted by the learned trial Court in aforesaid case for offencepunishable under Section 323 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code,when charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence punishableunder Section 302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.In ordinarycourse it ought to have filed proceeding for grant of leave and so thisCourt is considering the present proceeding as filed for grant ofleave to file appeal.Heard learned Addl.On that day in some incident thattaken in the field when sheep and goats of the family of Vijay weredriven out.The deceased Devidas and other witnesses were ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 ::: 3 Cri.Apln 3115-2016returned from the field and they were intercepted in front of thehouse of Vijay.During quarrel it is alleged that, Vijay virtually liftedthe Devidas and threw him on the ground.Evidence is given that,both Vijay and Kiran, accused No.1 and 2 who are convicted for theoffence of murder, assaulted Devidas by fists blows and kicks andeven virtually sitting on the chest of Devidas.Dying declaration ofDevidas was recorded in hospital in which he gave account of theaforesaid incident and he gave disclosure mainly against Vijay andKiran.There is evidence of other witness like P.W.5 Punaji Folanealso the widow of deceased.The evidence of these witnesses andeven dying declaration show that, accused No.5 to 7 arrived on theseen of offence subsequently when assaulted on Devidas wasvirtually over.The evidence of the widow of the deceased show that,accused No.3 and 4 were initially only keeping the other personsaway from the incident when the incident of assault is going by Vijayand Kiran, and then they also participated in the incident and theyassaulted other persons like Punaji.No injury certificate in respectof Punaji wasproduced and that is why the conviction is given toaccused No.3 for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with34 of Indian Penal Code.Accused No.4 died during the pendency ofthe proceeding who had also assaulted Punaji with fists blows andkicks.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 :::This Court has seen the post mortem report which shows that ::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 ::: 4 Cri.Apln 3115-2016injuries were mainly abrasions and contusions.One abrasion injurywas found on forehead.The visible injuries were not that seriousbut the head injury had caused contusion under the scalp.Therewas injury to cervical Spinal Cord, vertebrae C-5 and C-6, and thecause of death is given as injury to the spinal cord.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 :::Nothing can be achieved by grant of leave to fileappeal against those accused.In the result application No. 3115 of2016 also stands dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 29/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 30/12/2018 10:37:22 :::
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
29,032,485
Heard on I.A. No.20984/2018, an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants Ramkumar Kewat and Ramvishal @ Ramvilas Verma.The appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 489 (c) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/-, with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellants have filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the statement of material witnesses.One of the seizure witnesses has been turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution.Prosecution failed to establish how the Police Officer gathered the information that they are having fake currency.State of Chattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC 642] acquitted the accused from the same charges.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 submits that fake currency seized at the instance of appellants of which seizure has been proved beyond doubt.The expert opined that seized currency is fake currency; therefore, prays for dismissal of this application.Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the statements of witnesses.How the Investigating Officer and Police Officer gathered the knowledge that appellants are having fake currency, is not of much THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Cr.A. No.8752/2018 (Ramkumar Kewat & anr.The State of M.P.) 2 important.List this matter for final hearing in due course.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.04.08 17:27:33 +05'30'
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
290,345
(3) It is alleged that during March, 1971 to March, 1972 the respondents entered into a criminal conspiracy to do illegal acts and so floated a firm under the name and style of M/s. International Book Traders for carrying on business of selling and purchasing books.Respondents 1 and 2 being Government servants were not entitled to carry on business as they were public servants.JUDGMENT V.D. Misra, J.(1) This appeal is directed against the order of Mr. Mohd. Shamim, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, acquitting the respondents of the charges under section 120B read with section 168, section 168 and section 109 read with section 168, Indian Penal Code, on the ground of limitation.(2) For the purpose of this appeal the facts mentioned in the impugned order are not disputed.Respondent Anil Puri is an Assistant Executive Engineer in the C.P.W.D. Respondent Daryao Singh is a Librarian working with the C.P.W.D. Respondent Lahori Mal is the father of Anil Puri.However, they joined respondent No. 3 in running the firm and did various acts to sell books.(4) On November 30, 1972 case No. R. C. 66 of 1972 was registered with Delhi branch of Central Bureau of Investigation.Indian Penal Code, against the respondents.On December 15, 1975 the Magistrate took cognizance.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
290,459
(2) At the root of the incident is a dispute about land in village Libaspur Pratap Singh owned land in the said village out of which he sold some portion to one Mahinder Yadav for consideration.Mahinder Yadav in turn appears to have carved out smaller plots in the portion of land purchased by him from Pratap Singh and sold the same to third parties.Legal action may be taken."--- *** ---Tenderness and swelling present in the left hip joint.Patient was advised X-ray of left hip joint.Tenderness and swelling left upper arm and left fore-arm.He was advised X-ray left upper arm, A.P. and lateral views.Tenderness and swelling in the left thigh.According to Dr.PW-3 is Dr.L.T. Ramani who conducted the post mortem on Virender Singh deceased on 30th June, 1982 itself at about 3.00 P.M. The body of Virender Singh was brought to this doctor by Constables Attar Singh and Inderjit Singh at the instance of Gurdial Chand, Sho, Police Station Alipur.The body was identified by Harjit Singh, uncle of deceased.According to Dr.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar, J.(1) These appeals are directed against the judgment dated 24th March, 1992 of an Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the four appellants were convicted for offences under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code, 341/34 Indian Penal Code and 307/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment along with fines etc. under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code besides imprisonment for offences under section 307/34 and 341/34 Indian Penal Code These sentences were to run concurrently.As a matter of fact in all six accused were tried together in a joint trial.Out of the six accused, two, namely, Ram Adhar and Shivraj Singh were acquitted while the remaining four, i.e., Ambika Prasad, Kishanpal Singh, Ram Chander and Rajinder Singh were convicted.These three appeals are by the said four convicts.Since the appeals arise from a common judgment, they can be disposed of by this judgment.Dispute arose between the vendor and the vendees over this transaction of sale of land.This gave rise to civil litigation in which the vendor party is stated to have obtained stay order from the court against threatened dispossession at the hands of the vendees or the subsequent purchasers.The family of Pratap Singh is the complainant party.Vikram Singh Public Witness -4, Karan Singh Public Witness -5, Anurudh Singh Public Witness -7 belonging to the complainant parly are sons of Pratap Singh.Kishan Dei, Public Witness -10 is the wife of Pratap Singh.Deceased Virender Singh was the son of elder brother of Pratap Singh.Fir No-200/82 Ex.This statement of Vikram Singh is Ex.PW-4/A and was recorded thus on 30th June, 1982, soon after the incident "I with my family reside at the above given address and do the work of cultivation.We own 24 bighas and same biswas of land towards east of G.T. Road, by the side of village Libaspur.We had entered into a transaction inspect of the said entire land with Saroop Nagar Housing Society through Mahinder Yadav of Samai Pur and it was decided that we will receive the entire consideration amount of the aforesaid land at the lime of the registration (of sale-deed) but the said amount has not been paid to us so far and hence, we remained in possession of the said land.About six months back, the Saroop Nagar Society, started constructing houses on our land.thereon we obtained stay order against them from the Court.The said stay order is still in operation.Litigation is also pending in respect of the aforesaid land.Today at about 10 a.m. when my brothers Karan Singh and Anurudh, cousin (father's elder brother's son) Virander Singh and myself were returning by our tractor No. Dhg 9233 after finishing our work passing through the plot of Dhillon at that very moment Ambika Prasad along with his companion Rajinder Diarywala, Ram Adhar Phelwan and his so called adopted brother whose both cars were broken whom I known from before came there from the side of the house of Ambika alongwith other 4/5 persons whom I can also identify on confrontation, and all of them intercepted us.Rajinder was holding a Ballam (a kind of short spear) Ambika was having a lathi, Ram Adhar was equipped with a jaili (rake) and his so called adopted brother was armed with gun whereas other persons were holding lathis.Ram Adhar in a loud voice asked to lay us dead so that the matter may come to an end for ever actual words being "In Ki Lashen Bicha Do - Jis Se Roz Roz Ka Tanta Khatam Ho Jai".Thereupon all them in collusion with one another collectively with common intention attacked us.I in order to revere the tractor drove back towards the plot of Dhillon and as a result whereof in frustration the tractor had entrapped in a ditto (?) on the back side.When we all the brother descended the tractor, the so called adopted brother of Pahelwan fired a shot on the chest of Virender and as a result whereof Virender fell down there and then on the spot and died.rajinder gave a forceful blow of ballam on the face of Karan Singh, resultantly he started bleeding and while he was running away from there, Ram Adhar and Ambika Prasad rushing towards, him, succeeded in making him to fall down by hilling him with there respective jaily and lathi.Their other accomplices made Anuradh to fall down by hilling him with lathies.I rushed and hid myself behind the tractor.Meanwhile the brother of Pahalwan fired a shot on me also but I escaped and run away defensively and raised alarm for help.On hearing the alarm, Prem Singh and Rattan who belong to our village along with other persons arrived at the spot.I with the help of Prem, Rattan and other persons over powered Ambika and his one accomplice whose name now has .been known as Krishan Pal, along with their lathies.They have sustained injuries during the scuffle.Meanwhile you alongwith your staff arrived at the spo.and all the injured persons were removed to the hospital.I have heard the statement and the same is correct.(3) The occurrence is of 30th June, 1982 at about 10.00 A.M. Police appears to have reached the spot soon after the occurrence because two accused were apprehended then and there while they were trying to run away after allegedly committing the crime and were handed over to the police.Virender Singh had died on the spot.Out of the remaining four injured persons, two belong to the complainant party while two belong to the accused party.These two were apprehended at the spot.All the four injured were taken to the Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi by S.I. Prithpal Singh of Police Control Room.the time of arrival of the injured persons in the hospital is given as between 12.05 P.M. and 12.10 P.M. The Mlc of Karan Singh and Anurudh Singh arc exhibits PW-1/A and Public Witness -1/C respectively.Dr. Mittal slated that on 30th June, 1982 at about 12.05 P.M. Karan Singh aged 32 years was brought with the alleged history of light.He had no history of unconsciousness or bleeding.Clean lacerated wound 1-1/2" long on the upper lip on the right side.C.L.W. 2-1/2" on the upper lip extending to the lower lip on the right side.Active bleeding seen.Black eye on the left side.Left upper incisor was dislocated.An abrasion on the occipital 1" long.He was advised for X-ray AP& lateral view.Tenderness and swelling right hand.He was advised for X-ray and Ap & lateral view.His report is EX.PW-I/C which is written and signed by the Doctor.Dr. P.K. Saknodia of Hindu Rao Hospital was examined as Public Witness -2 regarding the injuries on accused Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal Singh.Clw 3 c.m.size left cheek over left zygomatic.Clw 4 c.m.in size on parietal region over.Multiple bruises with selling in the right leg.Multiple abrasions right fore arm and hand.Multiple bruise with swelling left leg and ankle joint.Multiple bruise with swelling on left foram.C.L.W. lateral side of left wrist joint.Multiple bruise with swelling on back.Clw 4 c.m. size left side forehead.Clw left palm between thumb and index finger.Clw right palm and little ring Finger.Bruise with swelling on right ear and right occipital region behind the car.Swelling with abrasion right forearm.Abrasion with swelling right leg over shin in the middle of right leg.The MLCs regarding both these accused are Ex.PW-2/E and Public Witness -2/A respectively.Saknodia, they were both written in his hand and were signed by him.An oval wound 4 c.m. x 3 c.m.in size with punched out margins just below the neck over supernatural notch pieces of wats and card board were seen lying very superficial on the wound (removed and seen).There were multiple (26 in number small punctured wounds scattered all around injury no.1 Scattered over an area of 6 c.m. x 5 c.m.(approximately 2 c.m.all the around of margin of injury no.1) These small punctured wound were rounded to oval varying in size from 0.5 to 0.8 c.m. with collar of abrasions around them.An abrasion 2 c.m. x 1 c.m.on the back of right form arm.Perplex bruising on the upper part of back interscapular area.Further according to the said doctor, a total number of forty three pellets were recovered from the body of Virender Singh.Injuries No. 1and 2 were entry wounds and at injury No. 4 pellets were found lodged.These injuries were opined to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.He further stated that death was due to haemorrhage shock resulting from injuries.In cross-examination, Dr. Ramani stated that the Firing in this case was from a short distance.The distance may be approximately four to Five feet between the object and from where shot was Fired.The direction of the shot was straight from the front.From the above narration of the facts of the case it is apparent that there was a group clash in which four persons were injured, two from the side of the accused and two from the side of the complainants.Fifth person belonging to the complainant party died in the said clash.At the route of the clash was the dispute about land.This fact is admitted even by the accused party as evidenced by the statement of Ambika Prasad, appellant, under section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .In reply to question No. 66, Ambika Prasad accepted as correct that Bhagwan Dass had purchased land from Pratap Singh in village Libaspur and he had carved out plots from the said land and sold the plots to different persons.Ambika Prasad also admitted having purchased one of these plots in the name of his brother.The complainant party are the vendors of the land while in thc accused party some of them are purchasers of plots carved out from the land in question.There can be no dispute about the occurrence because two accused, namely, Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal Singh were arrested then and there while trying to flee from the spot after the occurrence.They had suffered injuries in the clash.The only question is who was the aggressor? Six accused were tried for the offences.Some of the accused raised the plea of alibi, the trial court acquitted two accused, namely, Ram Adhar and Shivraj Singh while the remaining four, i.e., Ambika Prasad, Kishanpal Singh, Rajinder Singh and Ram Chander were convicted.The police had arrived at the scene of occurrence soon after the incident because the two accused who were caught at the spot while fleeing were handed over to the police then and there.The lime of the incident as per the Fir is 10.00 A.M. while the four injured persons were admitted in Bara Hindu Rao Hospital between 12.05 P.M. and 12.10 P.M. by S.I. Prithpal Singh.Thus the police had taken the injured to the hospital.The Fir was recorded at 12.40 P.M. on the basis of statement of Vikram Singh.All these witnesses are real brothers.Two out of them, i.e., Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7 suffered injuries in the clash.Deceased Virender Singh was First cousin of these three eye witnesses inasmuch as he was a son of elder brother of the father of these three witnesses.The statement of Vikram Singh, Public Witness -4 which was recorded in court makes an interesting reading.At places he has gone back on his initial statement under section 154 Criminal Procedure Code .(the Rukka) and in that sense has turned hostile.However, reading his statement as a whole shows that he has full knowledge of the entire incident as he is at limes admitting certain important facts showing his complete knowledge of the incident while at other places there arc denials on his part which show that he is trying to hold back facts.The reason for denials could be either having been won over or out of fear.The trial court fell that this could be for the reason of having been won over.We are reluctant to subscribe to this view because we feel that being the real brother of two other injured eye witnesses and a First cousin of the deceased, the possibility of being son over is lesser as compared to the other possibility of being under fear.He admitted in cross-examination that he was under fear from the accused.When we discuss PW-7 it will become more apparent that fear prevailed in the minds of the complainant party which could be for the reason that the accused party were stronger in terms of money power and muscle power.We had obtained slay from the concerned court with regard to .the same".After this statement, the next sentence he uttered was that he did not know anything about the occurrence.Then Additional Public Prosecutor sought permission of the 'court to cross examine this witness and in cross-examination he stated :- "ON30.6.82 as well I had gone to the same Filed along with tractor No.D.H.G-9233 along with Karan Singh & Anuruth Singh, and Virender Singh for plaughing the said Field.It is also correct that at about 10.00 on 30.6.82 I was returning from the said Field along with the above mentioned persons, after plaughing the Field.It is correct that there is a farm of one Shri Dhillon, and when bur tractor was near that farm of Shri Dhillon, and when our tractor was near that farm there was some commotion as usual I know Rajinder Diarywala and Ambika Pd.and Ram Adhar accused present in the court today from before.Ram Adhar and Ambika Pd.and Rajinder Diarywala were also amongst the persons who were creating that commotion.It is correct that when we came near the farm of Shri Dhillon, the above said three accused and other persons slopped our traclor.I had seen ballam in the hand of Rajinder Accused, lathi in the hand of accused Ambika Pd.a jaili in the hand of Ram Adhar and a gun in the hand of another person who was called as a spoken brother by Ram Adhar again said the dynamo of the tractor had fallen in a ditch and I had leaned towards that to lift it up, I did not properly sec as to what was being carried by which of the said persons.I did not hear if accused Ram Adhar uttered at that lime that the bodies of all of us should be laid down on the ground so that the mailer may Finished once for all.As I was underneath the tractor, I did not see the above named accused having assaulted any one of us.I also did not see if the companion of Ambika Pd.accused, who was having a gun, Fired a shot which hit Varinder in his chest, upon which Varinder fell on the ground.I however had seen Varinder with a gun shot and bleeding from his chest and lying on the ground in dead condition.I also did not see accused Rajinder hilling Karan Singh with his ballam on his face as a result of which he bled his face; and thereafter he fled away.I did not see Ambika Pd.accused and accused Ram Adhar hitting him with their respective weapon i.e. jaili and lathi.I also did not see the other companions of the accused hitting Aixurudh Singh with lathi.I do not know if the spoken brother of Pehlwan (Ram Adhar) had also Fired at me, but I save myself.However, I had fled away from there and had shouted for help.It is also correct that Prem Singh, Rattan Singh & some other persons of our village also arrived there.It is also correct that accused Ambika Pd.and his other companions ran away from the spot when other persons came there.It is also correct that accused Ambika Pd. & Kishanpal along with their lathis were apprehended by us at the spot.The police had also arrived at the spot.In the incident, Varinder Singh had died while Karan Singh & Anurudh Singh had sustained injuries.The police had sent them to the hospital.The police had recorded my statement which I had signed at point 'X'.The statement is Ex.PW-4/A. Some part of my statement had been told to the police, and some part they wrote themselves of their own.When I signed the same, it was read over to me before I signed the same.I had given the correct statement to the police."(9) From the box a bell containing 16 live cartridges was also recovered.A licence for the gun was also recovered which was marked as Ex.It may also be noted here that as per the Cfsl report this gun was not used for Firing the fatal shot on Virender Singh, deceased.This could only mean that the gun which was actually used for Firing the fatal shot remained untraced.It could also mean that Ram Chander in order to mislead the police parly got another gun for which he held a licence, recovered.This could be for purposes of supporting his case that he was not present at the time of occurrence at the spot.of the material witnesses particularly Public Witness -5 and Public Witness -7 renders their testimony unreliable and, therefore, the same ought to be rejected.Failure of the investigating officer to appear as prosecution witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case because the accursed have lost opportunity to cross-examine him and elicit material information from him, including the reasons for delay in recording the statements under section 161 Criminal Procedure Code .Delay in sending copy of the special report to the Area Magistrate.Failure to record substance of the Fir in the Daily Diary.Public Witness s-4, 5 and 7 are close relations of the deceased and their testimony should be carefully scrutinished.Accused Ram Chander was not named in the Fir nor he was put up for Test Identification Parade.The gun allegedly recovered at his instance was not used as a weapon of offence as per the Cfsl report and, therefore, Ram Chander ought to be acquitted.On behalf of accused Rajinder Singh, it has been argued that he had not purchased any plot and, therefore, he had no motive for the crime.Secondly, it is argued on his behalf that he was alleged to have a ballam with him.There is no injury on Public Witness -5 or 7 which could be ascribed to sharp or pointed edge of the ballam.Thus if at all the ballam was used it must have been used as a lathi which would show that there was no intention to kill.If ' he intended to kill his victims he would have used the sharp or pointed edge of the ballam.The plea of alibi has been raised on behalf of both Ram Chander and Rajinder Singh.Injuries on the two accused, namely, Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal Singh remained unexplained.These three witnesses arc real brothers.So far as Vikram Singh Public Witness -4 is concerned, his statement formed the basis of the FIR.It was recorded almost instantaneously, i.e., immediately after the occurrence.was recorded about a week after the incident while that of Vikram Singh was recorded subsequent thereto.The delay in recording the statements of these witnesses by the investigating agency stands explained in the testimonies of these witnesses recorded in court.The evidence of Karan Singh read along with his Mlc shows that as a result of the injuries received by him in the incident, his mouth was swollen.But a closer scrutiny of facts leaves no scope for this argument.In medical terms the witness was not unconscious and, therefore, could be said to be Fit for statement.However, when his mouth was swollen with injuries all around he could hardly speak.The evidence on record shows that the investigating officer was visiting the hospital almost daily.It was obviously for purposes of recording statement of this witness.But on account of his incapacity because of swollen mouth, the statement could not be recorded.Anurudh Singh Public Witness -7 has explained that he was under a tremendous fear from the accused party.He said that he was not even going to his house and was staying with his in-laws and was moving about stealthily.One of his brothers Karan Singh had received serious injuries.He Himself received injuries.His cousin had died in the incident.Fear was natural.Point No 2 It is true that the investigating officer failed to appear as a witness for the prosecution in this case.The record shows that various opportunities were granted to the prosecution to produce the investigating officer, however, he did not appear.The reason for his non-appearance is not far to seek.Obviously he was trying to help the accused.The investigating officer cannot be permitted to hold theprosecution to ransom by his deliberate acts.to make good this point the learned counsel for the appellants relied on the fact that the investigating officer alone could give explanation for delay in recording the statements of the eye witnesses.The aspect of delay in recording the statement of eye witnesses has already been discussed above.Names of all the accused along with their respective roles find mention in the said statement of Vikram Singh.vide Ex.PW-3/B. This appears to have been received at the hospital at 2.15 P.M. 429 on 30.6.82 as per endorsement contained on that document.This document was accompanied with 13 papers which included an inquest report as well as a copy of the statement of Vikram Singh which is the rukka or the basis of the Fir in this case.This again leaves no scope for any padding of the case by the police, therefore, this cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the accused persons on account of delay in sending the special report to the concerned Magistrate.The rules require that the substance of the Fir should be noted in the Daily Diary maintained at the police station.In the present case the complainant party at the time of occurrence consisted of four persons.Out of these four persons one died in the incident while two received injuries and the fourth escaped injuries by hiding himself by the side of the tractor on which all the four were at the start of the incident.It is beyond dispute that both the groups had dispute about certain lands.On the date of the incident the complainant party consisting of three real brothers and a cousin were resuming on their tractor after ploughing the Fields.Though according to him the other side was the aggressor.Their MLCs arc on record as exhibits Public Witness -2/A and Public Witness -2/B showing that these persons were brought to the hospital by a police officer.Likewise in the face of the MLCs of Karan Singh Public Witness -5 and Anurudh Singh Public Witness -7, their presence at the spot is also established beyond doubt.Vikram Singh Public Witness -4 is the person who gave the initial statement which formed basis of the FIR.Thus he was also undoubtedly present at the spot.All these three witnesses are thus natural witnesses, of the crime.They were present on the spot, they were involved in the incident, they suffered injuries in the incident and thus arc the best persons to give an eye witness account of the incident.The land dispute between the parties was the motive for the incident.Admittedly Ambika Prasad Accused was the secretary of the society which was claiming to be the purchaser of the disputed land.Then he goes on to give the role of each of the accused in the incident.We have already quoted this portion of the statement of Karan Singh PW-5 and, therefore, it need not be repeated.As already observed his statement read as a whole gives a correct version of the incident and leaves no manner of doubt that he was reluctant in making the statement because of the fear from the accused persons and that is why initially he denied knowledge about the incident.We have already observed that we Find the statements of these eye witnesses truthful and reliable.We have no reason to think that inspite of having received such serious injuries, Karan Singh Public Witness -5 would leave out the real culprits and implicate innocent persons in thecrime.Thus we Find no merit in the argument on behalf of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the testimony of these three eye witnesses should be disbelieved.All of them have mentioned his presence at the scene of occurrence with a gun in his hand.All of them have stated that accused Ram Chander fired a shot from his gun which hit Virender Singh in his chest.I put it to you that you did not know Ram Chander and Ram Adhar before the occurrence.I had seen them before the occurrence but did not know their names." Further Public Witness -7 was questioned as to why he did not tell the name of Ram Chander at the time of his statement to the police.His reply was that till the time he did not know the name of this person but he otherwise knew him and could identify him.Thus, holding a Test Identification Parade was not essential in this case.Learned counsel for the accused Ram Chander further argued that no evidence was led by the prosecution to show that Ram Chander had the special features, i.e., broken ears or that of Mooh Bola Bhai of accused Ram Adhar.What is important in this connection is that all the witnesses have stated that they knew Ram Chander from before and could identify him.The special features, if any, only come later.Suppose in a given case the accused does not have any special features at all, would the witness who said that he could identify the accused as he knew him before, be disbelieved only for this reason? Thus we find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel appearing for accused Ram Chander.Next it was argued for accused Ram Chander that the gun allegedly recovered at his instance was not used as the weapon of offence as per the Cfsl report, therefore, it cannot be said that he fired the shot which resulted in the death of Virender.This could at best mean that the weapon of offence remained untraced.There can be no dispute that Virender Singh died as a result of gun shot injury.This is established by the medical evidence on record to which we have already referred.By getting a different gun recovered, accused Ram Chander may be trying to mislead the prosecution.Failure to recover the weapon of offence need not necessarily result in acquittal of an accused when there is other overwhelm- 432 ing evidence on record establishing his guilt.The offence in this case was committed in broad day light, i.e., about 10.30 A.M. on 30th June, 1982 when summer is at its peak.Accused Rajinder was a member of the accused party.He is said to be wielding a ballam in his hands.The pica of alibi has been raised on his behalf.The burden of proof for such a pica lies on the person who raises il.All of them have slated that he had a ballam in his hand and he gave ballam blows.Out of the victim party consisting of four persons, one had died in the incident; the other three appeared in the witness box and had unequivocally spoken about the presence of Rajinder with ballam in his hand at the lime of incident and he has used ballam in the attack on the victims.If he had any such intention he would have used the ballam from its sharp-edged end.If he used the ballam as a lathi that would show absence of intention to commit murder.We arc unable to accept this argument.When we discuss the question of common intention under section 34 Indian Penal Code we will have occasion to comment upon this.At this stage, we would only like to say that it was a common cause for all the accused who are before us in these appeals and the liability of all of them for the death of Virender Singh stands.The injuries on the other victims only come next.Further it need not necessarily be that the accused party wanted to commit murder of all the four brothers.The pica of alibi raised on behalf of accused Ram Chander and Rajinder Singh docs not inspire any credibility.About accused Rajinder Singh we have already made reference about this.Ka Tanta Khalam Ho Jai" (Kill all of them so that the daily dispute is over).Accused Ram Adhar has been acquitted.His presence at the spot had been disbelieved by the trial court.First, Vikram Singh, Public Witness -4 stated that he and his brothers were coming after ploughing the Filed at about 10.00 A.M. on 30th June 1982 on a tractor.When the tractor was near the farm of one Dhillon they were stopped.He saw ballam in the hand of Rajinder Singh, lathi in the hand of Ambika Prasad, jally in the hand of Ram Adhar and gun in the hand of Ram Chander whose description was given by the witness and not the name.They were the one who stopped the tractor and started attacking the four person of he victim party.The person having the gun fired the gun shot which hit Virender in his chest and he fell down as a result thereof.He further states that the accused persons, i.e. Ambika Prasad and his companions ran away from the spot.Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal alongwith their lathis were apprehended while fleeing from the spot.Then we have the statement of Karan Singh, Public Witness -5 who staled "all the accused present in Court today came from the side of house of Ambika Prasad, accused.The accused surrounded us.Accused Ram Chander was having a gun in his hand xxxx" From this statement it is clear that all the accused persons came together armed with weapons.They surrounded the victim party meaning thereby that they did not leave any scope for any of the victims to escape, he has gone on to say that after being surrounded they started giving beating to them.Respective roles by the accused persons have been detailed.He has further stated in cross-examination that after the occurrence the accused persons had run away towards the east which shows that the accused persons ran away together.These facts have to be seen in the background of the evidence that there was a land dispute, the members of the accused party were purchasers of the disputed land while the victims' party were the sellers.The victim party had injunction in their favour from the competent court restraining any construction on the disputed land.Still some construction had been raised.In this context the accused party had tried to suggest to the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination that the victim party were trying to 434 demolish this construction with the help of their tractor.However, they did not lead any evidence in support of this.The further fact cannot be overlooked that the victim party did not have any weapons nor any weapons were recovered from the site.This clearly establishes that the accused party wee the aggressors.They came together and started the attack on the victim party.One of them was armed with a gun which he Fired and the shot killed one of the members of the" victim party.They fled from the scene together.The common intention is clearly spelled out.It has to be inferred from the actions of the accused party and the facts and events which took place.We are satisfied about the existence of common intention on the part of the appellants and we find no difficulty in upholding the convictions with the aid of the section 34 IPC.It has been found that there were injuries on accused Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal.In fact, this is the plea taken by the aforesaid two accused in their statements under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code .It is in the deposition of Karan Singh Public Witness -5 that after the occurrence accused ran away from the scene of occurrence but with the help of other person Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal were apprehended and overpowered.It is further in the deposition of Anurudh Singh Public Witness -7 that on hearing the noise villagers including Prem and Rattan Singh reached the place of occurrence; that after the occurrence accused persons had taken to their heels but Ambika Prasad and Kishanpal accused were caught by the villagers.We have upheld the invocation of section 34 Indian Penal Code in this case.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
29,046,570
The appellants No. 2 and 3 have been convicted and sentenced as under:-Learned counsel for the appellants No. 2 and 3 submit that the appellants were on bail during the trial.They did not misuse the liberty granted to them.It was alleged against the co-accused Siyaram that he assaulted the victim Vasudev Pathak (PW-4) by blow causing grievous injury.Thereafter, Vasudev has stated that other appellants have also assaulted him.However, Dr. Avtar Singh (PW-1) examined the victim Vasudev and gave a report Ex. P-2 and he found only two injuries on the head of the victim Vasudev.If the appellants would have assaulted the victim then no such injury was found on his person.Prima facie no offence under Section 326 of IPC is made out against the appellants either directly or with help of Section 34 of IPC.Similarly, the witnesses Vasudev Pathak (PW-4) and Asharam Pathak (PW-3) did not mention as to who caused grave injury to victim Asharam.Omnibus allegations are made, however, the appellants remained in the custody for 2 Cr.A. No. 53/2017 approximately more than four months and sentence of offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of IPC may be reduced to the period for which they remained in the custody.Under these circumstances, the appellants No. 2 and 3 pray for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.2 Cr.A. No. 53/2017Consequently, applications I.A. Nos. 3381/2017 and 1090/2017 are hereby allowed.Subject to deposit fine amount, if the appellants furnishes a bail bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand only) each along with one surety bond of the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court that they shall appear before office of this Court on 19.06.2017 and on subsequent dates given by the office for appearance of the appellants then the appellants shall be released on bail and execution of jail sentence is suspended till the disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge Abhi
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
29,051,165
In brief the facts of the case are that the appellants were tried under Sections 302, 302/34, 323/34 of the IPC on an allegation that on 19.07.2002, at around 8:00 am in the morning, at gram Bangela, the appellants committed murder of deceased Pappu and caused simple injuries to Sahebsingh and Gulab Bai in connection with their common intention.The facts of the case are that at village Bangela, complainant Saheb Singh's field is adjacent to the filed of his brother / accused Durag Singh and on 19.07.2002 at around 07:30 a.m., accused Rambabu went to the house of Saheb Singh and asked him to remove fence.At that time, Saheb Singh expressed his willingness to do so and thereafter accused Rambabu left for his fields.Saheb Singh also went after him and saw that accused Rambabu was removing the fences and when Saheb Singh tried to stop him, at that time, altercation took place and Rambabu's father Duragsingh, his brother Rakesh also came on the spot.Saheb Singh's wife Gulab Bai also went to the spot along with deceased Pappu.At that time Rambabu and Durag Singh caught hold of Pappu.Rakesh gave an axe blow on the neck of Pappu.Pappu fell down on the ground.Durag Singh and Rambabu caused injuries with the aid of Iron rods to Saheb Singh and his wife CRA No. 1508/2003 3 Gulab Bai.Pappu was taken to the hospital in injured state.(Delivered on the 17th day of April, 2018)This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 10.09.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Khurai, Distt.Sagar in S.T.No.318/2002 whereby the learned Judge finding appellant No.2 Rakesh guilty under Section 304 (2) of the IPC has sentenced him to 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,00/-; in default of payment of fine, he has been further sentenced to 6 months' R.I. whereas appellant No. 1 Durag Singh and appellant No.3 Rambabu have been found guilty under Section 304- Part II read with CRA No. 1508/2003 2 Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,00/-.A report was also lodged vide Ex.P/31 and case was registered under Section 307, 323/34 of the IPC.At the time of his treatment, Pappu was declared dead and subsequently, Section 302 was also added in that case.During the course of the investigation, spot map was prepared.Post-mortem examination was also conducted of the deceased Pappu vide Ex. P/20 and the statements of the witnesses were also recorded.An axe was recovered at the instance of appellant Rakesh vide Ex.P/7 and Ex.At the instance of accused Rambabu, Jerai was recovered vide Ex.Spot map was also prepared by the Patwari and other recoveries were also made.After recording of the evidence, the trial Court convicted the appellants as aforesaid.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that the appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.On the other hand, learned Govt. Advocate for the State has opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned trial Court has not erred in convicting the appellants.6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.So far as the death of deceased Pappu is concerned, the same has been supported by the prosecution through the testimony of Dr.K.K. Sohit (P.W.17).According to him, while CRA No. 1508/2003 4 conducting post-mortem examination, he found that the deceased had received an incised wound of size 3x1x3 inches on the left side of his neck below ear in which the muscles, arteries and veins were also cut due to the said injury.His death was due to excessive bleeding and shock due to hemorrhage.He has also opined vide Ex. P/21 that the death can be caused by an axe.So far as the eye-witnesses are concerned, Halle (P.W.1) has stated that he knows the accused persons as well as the complainant Saheb Singh, his wife Gulab Bai and their son deceased Pappu.According to this witness when he reached the spot,he saw that Pappu was lying on the ground.He had injuries on his neck and a towel was placed on the wound.However, this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.He has denied that he was informed by Saheb Singh and Gulab Bai that appellant Rakesh had given an axe blow on the neck of deceased Pappu.Saheb Singh (P.W.3) is the complainant.He is also the father of deceased Pappu.He has already been declared hostile by the prosecution.According to him, around 4 months ago, when he heard commotion, he went to the spot and saw his son lying on the ground and blood was oozing out of his neck.He was not in a condition to speak and since he saw his son in a pool of blood, the villagers put him in a tractor and took CRA No. 1508/2003 5 him to the police station.He was in a state of shock and the police got his signatures on couple of papers.He came into consciousness after 5 hours of the incident.Apparently, this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution.He has clearly refused that at the time of the incident, his son was caught hold by Rambabu and Durag Singh whereas Rakesh gave him an axe blow on his neck.He is the witness of seizure.He has been turned hostile by the prosecution.Radheshaym, who is witness of Laash Panchayatnama and P.W.7 Nanhelal @ Nanhe, who is witness of seizure memo has not supported the case of the prosecution.According to her on the date of the incident, accused Rambabu had come to her husband Pappu and thereafter, Pappu went to the field where his father-in-law Saheb Singh and mother-in-law were already present and this witness Kalpana had also reached on the spot.She saw that accused Rambabu and Durag Singh had caught hold of Pappu and accused Rakesh gave him an axe blow on his neck.After witnessing this, this witness also became unconscious and came into consciousness only in the night and by that time, Pappu had already died, however, in her cross-examination, CRA No. 1508/2003 6 she has denied that in her 161 statement of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1) she had stated that she had seen the assault being made on her husband and as such there is material omission on her part, which has been tried to be improved by her in her Court statement.She has also been cross-examined on the point that other accused persons caught hold of the deceased from behind but since all these things were not stated by her in her police statement, her testimony cannot be said to be believable.P.W.11 Rajesh happens to be brother of deceased Pappu and is not an eye-witness but had reached the spot immediately and at that time, he saw that Pappu was lying on the ground, his father was also present who informed him that Rambabu and Durag Singh had assaulted Pappu.She is the mother of the deceased.She has also supported the case of the prosecution and has clearly stated that when she went to Khalihan, she saw that appellant Rambabu had caught hold of the hands of deceased Pappu whereas appellant Durag Singh had hold him from behind and at that time, accused Rakesh gave him an axe blow which hit him on his neck and when she went to intervene, she was hit by Rambabu and thereafter, Saheb Singh also came on the spot.He was also assaulted by Rambabu with the aid of Jerai.She has also stated that at the time of the incident, she fell down on Pappu and her clothes CRA No. 1508/2003 7 were also drenched in blood.P.W.15 Shivpal Singh is the constable.He had seized the clothes of deceased Pappu vide Ex.He is the investigating officer of the case.In para 12 of his cross- examination, he has clearly stated that he had not seen blood stains on the clothes of Gulab Bai and Kalpana.He has further stated that had he seen blood stains on the clothes of Gulab Bai and Kalpana, he would have seized them as well.In their accused statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants have not come up with any specific plea.They have examined Balmukund Yadav as D.W.1 in their defence, who has stated that on the date of the incident when he was coming from his fields, he saw Pappu lying injured near his Khalihan and there was nobody near Pappu and subsequently, Saheb Singh and Gulab Bai as well as the accused persons came on the spot.The appellants have also examined D.W.2 Bhopal Singh, He has also made similar statement as that of D.W.1 Balmukund Yadav.Thus, the defence of the appellants is that they also reached the spot subsequently.The prosecution witnesses have put a question that the accused persons have not committed the crime and that the assault was made by some unknown persons.From the CRA No. 1508/2003 8 perusal of record, the homicidal nature of death of Pappu cannot be denied, but so far as the involvement of the present appellants in the offence is concerned, the same has to be seen by closely examining the statements made by the witnesses.In the present case, Saheb Singh (P.W.3), father of the deceased, who claims to be an eye-witness has turned hostile, Kalpana, who is wife of the deceased, has also made certain improvements in her statement before the Court.In the Court she has stated that she saw accused Rakesh giving axe blows to her husband Pappu, while the other two accused persons caught hold of Pappu, however, this part of her statement is missing from her statement made under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/1).Lastly, the testimony of Gulab Bai (P.W.12), who is the mother of the deceased, is highly doubtful for the reason that on one hand, she has stated that she was also present on the spot when the incident took place and that she had also received injury and when she fell down on the deceased who was lying on the ground, at that time, her Sari got drenched in blood but according to the investigating officer, Shri R.K.S. Chauhan (P.W.16), he did not find any blood stains on the clothes of Gulab Bai and Kalpana.Thus, there was no occasion for him to seize the aforesaid clothes, which is also admitted by him.Under these circumstances, the presence of Gulab Bai on the spot when the incident took place renders her CRA No. 1508/2003 9 evidence highly doubtful.The seizure witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution.The record also reveals that F.S.L. report was also not received in the present case.In view of the above, the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the appellants and the lower Court has erred in not extending the same to the accused persons.As a result, the appellants deserve acquittal and are hereby acquitted.The impugned order dated 10.09.2003 is hereby set aside.Since appellant No.2 Rakesh has already undergone the sentence imposed upon him, no further direction can be made in this behalf.So far as appellants No. 1 and 3 are concerned, they were earlier granted bail by this Court on 05.11.2003, hence appellant No. 1 Durag Singh and appellant No. 3 Rambabu are hereby acquitted.C.C. As per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) JUDGE Vikram Digitally signed by VIKRAM SINGH Date: 2018.04.19 17:34:06 +05'30'
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
2,905,561
The facts of the present case, as noted by the Trial Court, are reproduced hereinbelow:-On 10.05.18 at about 11.40 AM information was received that a dead body has reached at Haiderpur Water Treatment Plant.On this information DD no.21 A was recorded at PS KNK Marg.The body was found in white colour plastic bag.It was of 20-25 years male.They both told him that they had let off Kuldeep in the evening after giving beatings to him.During investigation Rajesh Paswan working as Watchman at Bharat Mata School, Narela was apprehended, who confessed about the commission of crime and also told that dead body was dumped in the kachi nahar in vehicle no.DL1LX 3945 with the help of Ranjay Tiwari and Vijay Paswan.MANMOHAN, J:-Present appeal has been filed by the appellant (father of the deceased), challenging the judgment dated 5thFebruary 2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pilot Court, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 623/2018 arising out of FIR No. 158/2018 registered with Police Station KNK Marg, whereby all the three accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 IPC, but respondent no.2 was convicted under Sections 323 and 342 IPC.A. No.630/2019 Page 1 of 16The body was later on identified as of Kuldeep.On 21.05.18 Jai Narayan, father of deceased told that on 06.05.18 his son left home at about 4 PM to search for work.In the night his son did not return.On 07.05.18 at about 7 PM a person made a call on his mobile phone number 8813098565 from his mobile number 9213778189 and informed that his son (Kuldeep) had stolen sariya worth Rs.1 lac from Bharat Mata School, Narela and asked him to bring Rs.1 lac.That boy also made him to talk with his son.On 09.05.18 he reached Bharat Mata School, Narela.The person who had made call to him met him there, who disclosed his name as Paswan.Kapil also met him there.They were also arrested.Vehicle was also recovered.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet against the accused persons was filed.MM after complying with the provisions of Section 208 Cr.PC committed the case to the Sessions Court as the offence punishable under Sec.302 IPC is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court."The onus was CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 2 of 16 upon the prosecution that deceased was lastly seen in the company of accused and thereafter no one had seen him alive but PW-5 stated that deceased left the school alone when he was alive, therefore in my opinion the circumstance of last seen is not established.The onus which was on the prosecution has not been discharged.A. No.630/2019 Page 2 of 16xxx xxx xxxAfter hearing the arguments and going through the record, I found that the call detail records establish that the call was made from the mobile phone no.921378189 which is in the name of Rajesh Paswan on the mobile phone no.8813098565 which is in the name of Santra, the mother of deceased at 19:07:06 hours.After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that there are two witnesses examined by the prosecution to prove the factum of recovery of the photocopy of Aadhar card Ex.MO7 from a heap of garbage lying outside school.The two witnesses examined are PW-32 and PW-33 they stated that efforts were made to join public witnesses but no public witness could be joined.So far as their testimonies are concerned both are consistent.But it is important to note that none of the witness that is PW-2, PW-25 and PW-26 stated that deceased was carrying the photocopy of his Aadhar Card.So far as presence of Kuldeep in school concerned i.e. established by PW-5 examined and also by the call detail record.After hearing the arguments and going through the record I found that the prosecution alleges the recovery of the clothes of the accused persons which they were wearing at the time of commission of offence.No public witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery, despite availability on all the 3 occasions.This fact itself creates doubt regarding the trustworthiness of the alleged recovery.Further, it was for the prosecution to show and link the accused persons with the commission of offence with the alleged recovery.The clothes were sent to FSL for analysis, report has been proved as Ex.According to the report no blood was detected on the clothes of any of the accused.As mentioned above the onus was upon the prosecution to prove this fact which the prosecution has failed.Keeping in view all these facts in my opinion the prosecution has not been able to prove and establish the circumstance it also does not link the accused persons with the commission of offence or point towards their guilt.xxx xxx xxxAfter hearing the arguments and going through the record I found in this case there is recovery of vehicle No.DL 1L X 3945 as per the prosecution case.Prosecution examined Mithilesh Singh as PW-30 to establish that this vehicle was used for throwing the dead body and destroying the evidence.PW-30 has not supported the prosecution case.He was cross-examined by Ld. APP, despite that he has not supported the case.From the vehicle no such evidence has been lifted which can link the accused persons with the commission of offence.No blood or any biological material could be recovered.There is also no other evidence to prove and establish that this vehicle was used by any of the accused for throwing Kuldeep in canal.xxx xxx xxx CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 4 of 16A. No.630/2019 Page 4 of 16Onus is not discharged therefore accused Rajesh Paswan is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC.However, in view of testimony of PW-5 who is a reliable independent witness, it is clear that accused Rajesh Paswan had tied that boy and has also been beaten him.Therefore, accused Rajesh Paswan is held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 342 IPC and 323 IPC.So far as accused Ranjay Tiwari & Vijay Paswan are concerned their statements u/s 313 Cr.PC were dispensed with for want of incriminating evidence.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANTMr. Pritish Sabharwal, learned counsel for the appellant emphasized that the Post Mortem Report and the deposition of Dr. Mahesh Chand Meena (PW14) had confirmed the presence of sub-scalpel extravasation of blood in the right occipital region of the skull along with a contusion over the anterior lateral aspect on the deceased's left leg.He pointed out that the accused-respondents had admitted to physically beating the deceased Kuldeep.Learned counsel for the appellant stated that the Trial Court had erroneously rejected the circumstance of last seen on the basis of the testimony of Kapil Bharadwaj (PW5).He pointed out that Kapil Bharadwaj (PW5), who had been declared hostile by the prosecution, in his deposition, had stated that the deceased had walked upto the school gate; whereas the trial court had wrongly understood the statement to mean that the deceased had left the school premises.He contended that the version of Kapil Bharadwaj's (PW5) that the deceased Kuldeep appeared to be under the CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 5 of 16 influence of some drug, was incorrect as the Post Mortem Report did not indicate the presence of any psychotropic or narcotic substance in the blood sample or viscera of the deceased Kuldeep.He contended that in the statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused-respondents had failed to discharge their liability of stating as to how the deceased Kuldeep was found dead in the canal and therefore they should be held guilty of the offence of murder.A. No.630/2019 Page 5 of 16Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the conduct of accused-respondent no.2 was evasive inasmuch as a ransom call for a sum of Rs.1 lac was made by accused-respondent no.2 to the appellant.He stated that the Call Detail Record (CDR) of accused-respondent no.2 corroborated the testimony of appellant-Jai Narayan (PW25) that on 07th May, 2018 at 7.07 p.m. a call was made by accused-respondent no.2 to the appellant that lasted for 69 seconds.He pointed out that after the initial call was disconnected, upon calling back, the appellant was informed by accused-respondent no.2 that the number was that of a STD Booth in CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 6 of 16 Azadpur.He also stated that the CDR of the accused-respondents not only confirmed the two calls made by accused-respondent no.2 to Ravinder Goyal (PW-24) on 07th May, 2018, first at 6.52 p.m. and then at 9.31 p.m., but also reflected that numerous calls were exchanged between the accused- respondents inter se.The CDR also reflected the location of the accused- respondents at the time of the crime in the same vicinity.A. No.630/2019 Page 6 of 16He pointed out that the vehicle was registered in the name of Hare Ram (PW29) but purchased by Mithlesh (PW30) who had deposed that accused- respondent no.3 used to drive the said vehicle about one year ago.Learned counsel for the appellant stated that since Mithlesh (PW30) was unaware that his vehicle had been impounded prior to being informed by the police, he may also have been unaware that the vehicle was used by the accused- respondents to dispose of the body of the deceased Kuldeep.ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED-RESPONDENTSMr. Ravin Rao learned counsel for accused-respondents pointed out that while Kapil Bharadwaj (PW-5) had deposed that he had seen the deceased Kuldeep walk upto the gate of the school, Ravinder Kumar Goyal (PW-24) had deposed that around 9:15/ 9:30 p.m. he had received a call from accused-respondent no.2's mobile number informing him that he had CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 7 of 16 driven the alleged thief out of the school premises.He stated that the accused- respondents had known each other for a long time and had been in constant touch over the mobile as well as in person even prior to the date of the alleged incident as they were engaged in the business of selling scrap.He contended that one had to cross the canal in order to go to Bawana from Bharat Mata School and on the date of the incident accused-respondent no. 2 had crossed the canal in the morning, afternoon and in the evening.He emphasized that the location where the body was thrown into the canal had not been proved by the prosecution.Learned counsel for the accused-respondents stated that there was no evidence that the deceased Kuldeep was carrying a copy of his Aadhar card.He stated that the finding of the same may be due to the presence of the deceased Kuldeep at the spot or it might have fallen there during the alleged beating incident.He emphasized that Mithlesh (PW30), the owner of the vehicle with registration No. DL 1LX 3945 (Tata Ace) in his testimony had stated that on the date of the incident he had neither given the said vehicle to anybody nor CRL.A. No.630/2019 Page 8 of 16 was it missing.He further stated that the prosecution had been unable to prove that the said vehicle was used by the accused-respondents to dispose of the body.A. No.630/2019 Page 8 of 16With regard to the conduct of accused-respondent no.2, learned counsel for the accused-respondents, stated that accused-respondent no. 2 was always present at Bharat Mata School and that on no occasion had he run away from there and had instead informed the investigating authority about his presence at the school on the date of occurrence.COURT'S REASONING DECEASED KULDEEP HAD DIED DUE TO ASPHYXIA CONSEQUENT TO ANTE MORTEM DROWNING AND NOT DUE TO PHYSICAL BEATING ADMINISTERED BY THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the present case the deceased Kuldeep had died due to asphyxia consequent to ante mortem drowning and not due to physical beating administered by the accused-respondents.THE FACTUM OF EXCHANGE OF TELEPHONE CALLS MENTIONED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT DOES NOT PROVE THE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED-RESPONDENTS AS NONE OF THE WITNESSES HAD DEPOSED THAT THEY HAD LASTLY SEEN THE DECEASED KULDEEP IN THE COMPANY OF THE ACCUSED-A. No.630/2019 Page 11 of 16
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
29,056,023
U/s. 302 of IPC.R.I. for life 5,000/- Six months R.I.As per prosecution story, on 20.12.2008, the complainant RamSingh (PW-1) complained the Police Station Bhaunrasa, District Dewas alleging that on 20.12.2008 at about 8.00 a.m., his son Gulab i.e. deceased was fencing the med on the western side of the field and he was on the other side (i.e. eastern side) of the field.At that time present appellant Parvat Singh S/O Siddu Singh came armed with an axe and said to Gulab that why he is not allowing him to lay the pipe from his field then said I 2 would see you and all of a sudden he inflicted a blow by Axe on the backside of the head of Gulab, as a result of which Gulab fell on the ground thereafter he inflicted one more blow, then Ram Singh (PW-1) and one other person Shriram ran towards the spot and Parvat Singh swinging the Axe ran towards the village.Thereafter Shriram tried to make Gulab drink some water, however, he died on the spot itself and RamSingh went to lodge FIR.It was further narrated that Parbat sing appellant wanted to lay the pipe through the field of Shriram and as he was not allowing, hence, he has killed Gulab by inflicting axe blows.Based on above information a Merg was registered as No. 21/08 u/s 147 of Cr.P.C. (Exhibit-P/3) and FIR was also registered at Crime No.254/08 against the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C (Exhibit- D/3).After lodging the FIR, the investigation was conducted by Vinod Singh Kushwaha ASI (PW-9).He recorded the crime investigation details in Naksha Panchayatnama at 8.00 am on 20/12/2008 vide (Exhibit-P/2).Photographs of the Gulab were also taken as (Exhibit-P/16 to Exhibit-P/20).He recovered the dead body and sent to post-mortem.He also collected the soil, bunch of hair & blood etc from the spot.The police prepared the spot map on 20.12.2008 (Exhibit-D/2) That vide letter dated 20.12.2008 dead body of Gulab was sent for post-mortem (Exhibit-P/10).Post-mortem of Gulab was done on was done by Dr Atul Pawnikar (PW-11) but no such post-mortem report is available in the Final Report.Vide letter dated 30.12.2008 a query report was sought from the doctor as to whether injuries on the head were homicidal? and whether these injuries were possible by the Axe?.The Appellant was arrested on 24/12/2008 (Exhibit-P/11).Dr Atul Pawnikar (PW-11) has opined that (i) injury to a dead person was grievous & danger to life and (ii) injury caused by a sharp object in my opinion (Exhibit-P/21).The appellant was arrested on 24.12.2008 and his memorandum under section 27 of Evidence Act was recorded on the same day in which he said to have admitted the commission of a crime on Saturday (Exhibit-P/3).On his disclosure axe was recovered from the open place outside of the village and seized vide Seizure Memo dated 24.12.2008 (Exhibit-P/4).The size of the Axe is 9x7 cm and dry blood was found on it.He along with Shriram (PW/6), who was also on the field, rushed towards Gulab Singh, the accused/appellant ran towards the village by whirling the axe.He tried to give water to his son but he had already succumbed to his head injuries.According to him, the accused Parvat Singh wanted to lay a pipeline through his agricultural field and since he refused, therefore, he has killed his son Gulab using the axe.After registration of FIR against ParvatSingh near about 10.40 A.M at Crime No.254/2008, Police reached the spot and prepared a Naksha Pachayatnama (Ex.P/2) and thereafter sent the dead body for postmortem.Trial Judge and findings are not contrary to the evidence came on record.The appellant has not disputed the said findings during arguments hence need not be considered this issue again in this appeal accordingly these findings are hereby affirmed.The Police arrested the accused/appellant Parvat Singh and recorded his memorandum statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act. In his confessional statement, he admitted that he killed Gulab Singh using the axe and threw it near a Nallah.(Delivered on 15.05.2020) Per Vivek Rusia, J. :The aforesaid appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 24.9.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonkatchh, District Dewas in S.T. No.46/2009, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :Section & Act. Imprisonment Fine Amount Imprisonment in lieu of default of payment of the fine.As per report dated 24.1.2009 (Exhibit-P/15), bloodstains were found but all were disintegrated.After completion of the investigation police filed the Final Report on 30.12.2008 and trial was committed to Session court.That vide order dated 5.3.2009 charge under section 302 of the Penal Code was framed against the appellant by additional Session Judge, Sonkachh District Dewas.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded for the trial.The prosecution in support of its case examined 11 witnesses including informant and sole eye witness Ram Singh (PW-1) (father of the deceased Gulab).In defence, the appellant examined one witness.After appreciating the evidence came on record the learned additional Session Judge has convicted the appellant under section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo the life imprisonment, hence this appeal before this High Court.Ms Mini Ravinderan learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the police examined 11 witnesses out of 4 whom, the seizure witnesses (PW-4 and PW-5) have turned hostile, PW-6 Shriram who was named as an eye witness in the FIR also turned hostile, PW-9 also turned hostile.The prosecution also got exhibited documentary evidence as (Exhibit-P/1 to P/23).The appellant exhibited 4 documents and examined one witness (DW-1 Vikram Singh) who has wrongly been disbelieved.She has further contended that learned trial court has convicted the appellant only on the sole testimony of the Ram Singh (PW-1) i.e. father of the deceased Gulab and it is settled position of law that when the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of the sole witness then the court should proceed with caution and the court is duty-bound to see whether the sole witness is wholly reliable or not and the evidence of such witness should inspire full confidence in support of this contention.She has placed reliance over the following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court enumerating the principles of law regarding dealing with the evidence of solitary or sole witness:-a) Birappa and other V/s State of Karnataka (2010) 12 SCC 182 (para 9)b) Jagdish and others V/s State of Haryana (2019) 7 SCC 711 (para 8 & 10)c) Hasan Murtaja V/s State of Haryana (2002) 3 SCC 1 (para 8 & 10)d) State of Uttar Pradesh V/S Satveer and others (2015) 9 SCC 44 ( parae) Lallu Manjhi and another V/S State of Jharkhand (2003) 2 SCC 401 ( para 13)By placing reliance on above judgments learned counsel tried to explain that the evidence of RamSingh PW.-1 is wholly unreliable, who was not even present at the spot because in the FIR (Ex. D-3) he has categorically stated that the appellant Parvat Singh had inflicted two Axe blows to Gulab (deceased) and thereafter went running towards the village.Meaning thereby this FIR could only have been lodged after seeing Parvat Singh 5 inflicting fatal blows to Gulab and also after seeing the injuries on Gulab.Whereas in the dock evidence in para 8 P.W.-1 RamSingh says that on the date of incident he went to the field to give tea to his son, he was not able to give tea as on the western med he was eating Tobacco and at that time on hearing altercation, he ran towards his son but as the appellant came running towards him pointing the Axe, therefore he ran in the opposite direction towards the village and after informing the watchmen and one Baje Singh he went to the police station.This shows that he was not at the spot or see the deceased or the incident.IO (PW-8) in his evidence has admitted that he did not find any utensils used for tea.In para 10 he says that he only reached the spot along with police after lodging the FIR.In paragraph no. 15 he says that after hearing his son he had only covered the half of the way towards his son when the appellant came running towards him, fearing for his life Ram Singh ran towards the village at that time he was not able to see his son, he further said that he only went to the spot along with police then only he had seen his son and also saw the injury for the very first time.Learned counsel further contended that the FIR was lodged only after the police reached the spot at 11.20 AM and the FIR so purported / shown to be lodged at 10:40 AM is concocted because as per the own evidence of PW-1 Ram Singh he did not see the injuries and even did not see that the appellant inflicting axe blows on deceased Furthermore it is to be seen that the incident as alleged is at 8 AM and Ram Singh P.W.-1 says he straight away ran to the police station which is 14 Km away and thereafter he says that he was made to sit for 1 hour and then report was lodged at 10:40 AM.This delay is unsuccessfully tried to be explained by the statement but the inference which can be drawn is that the delay in lodging F.I.R. shows that it was only lodged after the police and Ram Singh went to the spot at 11:20 AM this also explains the contents of the F.I.R. wherein 6 RamSingh explicitly mentions the injuries which could only have been done once he saw the injuries as per evidence it is proved beyond any iota of doubt that Ram Singh only see the injury after reaching the spot along with police at 11:20 AM.This leads to being only inference that PW-1 did not see the incident and this factum has also been admitted by him before the trial court and even the trial court has also found the same.Learned counsel further contended that the evidence of PW-1 suffers from major contradictions, omissions, alteration and improvement making it wholly unreliable.In the FIR, he has said that he along with his son at 8.00 AM was working in the field on different med esM he was on the western med esM and his son on the eastern medesM. Further in the FIR and in the 161 statement, he has said that Shriram was there on the spot and he offered water to his son, however, he died succumbing to his injuries.Whereas in the dock evidence PW-1 has said that the incident occurred at about 7-8 AM.In paragraph no. 6 he states that Shriram was not present and he was only present.In paragraph no. 8 he has said that he had gone to his son for giving tea and in paragraph no. 13 he has denied that on the date of the incident his son was fencing the med and he did not disclose this in the FIR.In paragraph no. 12 he has said that his son at the time of the incident was grazing the Goat.In paragraph no. 18 he has said that the appellant did not come after him while he was running towards the village and he did not look back and see the appellant coming after him wielding an axe.In the FIR and statement of 161 Cr.P.C. he has categorically stated that he saw Parvat Singh inflicting Axe blows on Gulab however in his evidence in paragraph no. 8 he categorically said that on hearing his son, he ran towards his son on the opposite side of the field and before he could reach his son Parvat Singh came running towards him with Kulhadi, so frightened he ran towards the village, however, he did not see Parvat Singh coming behind.Learned counsel further emphasised that the PW-1 is wholly unreliable and clearly shows that he is not deposing the truth as in paragraph no. 6 he says that Shriram (PW-6) did not call him to the spot, but Shriram was not present.Whereas in the FIR it is said that Shriram was the eyewitness and was present at the time of the incident.In the statement under 161 Cr.P.C., he has further said that Shriram was present, but in his deposition in the court in paragraph no. 6 where he says Shriram was not present in the spot, clearly shows that PW-1 is not telling the truth but is hiding the truth as Shriram (PW-6) in his statement has categorically said that when he went to the field he saw Gulab lying dead with blood dripping and in paragraph no. 5 Shriram says that Ram Singh was not on the spot but he went to the house of Ranaji where Ram Singh was chatting and there he informed that Gulab was dead.Learned submits that it is nothing but unnatural conduct of sole eye witness Ram Singh (PW-1).Learned counsel further contended that PW-1 has completely disowned the FIR thereby demolishing the entire case of the prosecution he has categorically said that various things which have been written in the FIR were not narrated by him in the FIR (Ex. D-3).His statement of PW-1 shows that he was not present on the spot at the time of the incident as is clear from the evidence of PW-6 Shriram and also his evidence.Wherein PW-1 in paragraph no. 8 and 11 says that he was eating Tobacco on one 8 side of the med and the other side he heard altercation from the other side of the field and thereafter he ran towards his son.In paragraph no. 5 he says that in between the western and the eastern med the field admeasuring 1 Bigha and 6 Biswa is situated and further goes on to say that to reach on either side of the field, one has to walk from 250 to 300 Ft.From the map (Ex. D-2), it is quite clear that Ram Singh was standing on one side and Gulab was lying dead on the other side of the field near the Mango trees.The map clearly shows that there is a huge distance and the morning timing (8'O clock) also establishes and points to the possibility that Ram Singh could not have heard the altercation from such a distance.That, the evidence of PW-1 Ram Singh is wholly unreliable and his presence is doubtful because in paragraph no. 8 he has said that he had gone to the field to give tea to his son and on hearing the altercation, whereas the investigation officer (PW-8) in paragraph no. 24 has categorically said that he did not find any utensil which is used for tea.Learned counsel has further emphasised that the learned trial court in paragraph no. 31, 32, 33 despite having found that the PW-1 Ram Singh was the opposite side of the med at a distance of 200 Ft. and further was not able to see the appellant inflicting as axe blow but only based on his evidence regarding hearing the cries of his son the trial court held that he saw the incident from a distance, such a finding is perverse as this factum is not even disclosed by the PW-1 Ram Singh, in his Evidence hence the trial court has arrived at this finding on surmises and conjectures not born out of the record.Therefore being perverse deserves to be set aside.FSL report about so far it relates to the fact about Bloodstains found disintegrated is concerned learned submitted that the law on this issue is quite settled that the evidence about the blood group is the only conclusive evidence to connect and 9 bring whom the guilt of the accused.However, no test was done to ascertain that it was human blood.This seizure is not supported by the seizure witness (PW-4) and PW-5), who have categorically stated that no seizure was affected in their presence.The aforesaid Article was sent on 27.12.2008 (Ex.P/12) to the FSL Laboratory in Gwalior and column no. 5 states as under:- "Qy dh vf/kdre yEckbZ 9 ls-eh-] pkSMkbZ 7 ls-eh-] Qy ij [kwu tSlk yxk gSA " and this article was marked as Ex.-E & Ex-A was the blood-stained soil.A bare perusal of this FSL report goes to show that in column no. 1 it is stated that on Ex. A, C, D-1, D-2, D-3, D-4 and E blood was found and the test for determining the type of blood and the group of blood was conducted.In point no. 2 the result was shown and it was stated that C, D-1, D-2, D-3 and D-4 contained 'human blood', whereas the spots in Ex.-A and E were disintegrated and in Ex.-B human blood was not found.It is worth mentioning here that Ex.-A and B is the soil taken from the place of crime.Ex.-A is the soil taken from the spot where the deceased was found lying dead whereas Ex.-E is the Axe alleged to be used in the offence.As per the FSL report in both Ex.-A and E the spots were disintegrated and no test could be done, meaning thereby the soil from the spot and the Axe so alleged to be used in the offence 10 could not test for the presence of any blood much less, human blood of the group of the deceased.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that all the seizure witnesses have turned hostile The prosecution has produced two witnesses PW-4 Kripal and Kaluram (PW-5) as seizure witness.Both these witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.Further, these witnesses cannot be said to be independent as the incident is of Gram Jalodiya whereas PW-4 is of Gram Londiya PS Sonkattch and PW-5 is of Gram Bhanwrasa where the police station is situated.The inability of the prosecution to undertake seizure of the weapon in front of the independent witness of Gram Jalodiya from where the seizure was affected leads to the only inference that the recovery is a false recovery and no credibility can be attached to such a recovery.The said seizure proceedings of the prosecution are further demolished by the evidence of PW- 5 Kaluram and on this point learned counsel has placed reliance over following judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Mousam Singh Roy and others Vs State of W.B. (2003) 12 SCC 377 ( para 26), Mustkeem Alias Sirajudeen VS.State of Rajasthan (2011) 11 SCC 724 (para 20) and Varun Chaudhary Vs.State of Rajasthan (2011) 12 SCC 545 ( para 11)Learned counsel has emphasised that the witnesses are pocket witness and were not present on the spot at the time of seizure.Thus making the entire seizure process susceptible and in the process breaking the chain hence in such circumstances the judgment of conviction suffers from perversity.Furthermore, the said recovery if at all believed then in the absence of there being any bloodstain found on the axe can only be said to be very weak evidence to connect the appellant with the crime as it is settled position that the prosecution is to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.Ms Ravindran learned counsel appearing for the 11 appellant further argued that the trial court in para no. 51 has said that it can be said that the appellant was last seen with the deceased.The trial court has applied this theory based on evidence of P.W.1 Ramsing however RamSingh himself has said that he only saw the voice of his son from a distance and thereafter saw the appellant Parvat Singh running towards him wielding an axe.In support of above submissions, she has placed reliance over the judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India in case of State of Uttar Pradesh V/S Satveer and others (2015) 9 SCC 44 (para 11)Ms Ravindran has also addressed us on the issue of the motive so alleged is that as the deceased was not allowing the appellant to lay the pipe through this field and due to this only the appellant was holding a grudge the prosecution has produced two document Ex.P/22-C and Ex.P/22-D and has tried to establish that there was a dispute amongst the parties as these two complaints were lodged before the police However a bare perusal of these documents goes to show that it is not even an inquest report bLrxklk because the same has been written on a form about missing report.Furthermore, the other complaint is on a paper which is upside down.This goes to show that these documents were written hastily with purposes of building evidence against the appellant whereas P.W.-1 Ram Singh himself in para no. 2 has admitted that there was partition matter pending amongst the appellant and Ram Singh.Furthermore, it is a settled position of law that the prosecution cannot rest its case and bring home guilt based on surmises and conjectures but has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.Here, in this case, the trial court has convicted the appellant only based on surmises and conjectures without there being any cogent and reliable evidence to support such findings.The prosecution has badly failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and the chain is not complete to convict the appellant.Hence in such circumstances, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all charges.Minor omission and contradictions in the evidence are liable to be ignored.Appellant has been convicted after due appreciation of evidence of Ram Singh (PW-1) which needs no corroboration.He was an eye witness and there was the motive for the appellant to 13 kill Gulab, hence appeal be dismissed.The Police seized the blood-stained soil and clothes of the deceased and kept in a sealed cover.So far the issue as to whether the death of Gulab was culpable homicidal, the learned trial has duly considered in para 7 to 22 of the impugned judgement and held that the death of Gulab was amounting to murder.As per post-mortem report and evidence of Dr Atul Pavnikar (PW-11) the deceased sustained two 14 deep incised wounds on the left side of the head (occipital region) which is a vital part of the body, were sufficient to cause death.This evidence has properly been appreciated by the ld.On his disclosure, the axe was recovered containing bloodstains.The Investigating Officer sent all the three seized articles to the F.S.L Gwalior vide letter dated 24.01.2009 for chemical analysis.Meanwhile, the Police recorded the statement of RamSingh, Shriram, Prahlad, DeviSingh and prepared the spot map.To set up the charge of section 302 of I.P.C. Against the appellant, the prosecution examined father of deceased i.e. Ram Singh (PW/1).In his statement before the Court, he stated that four months back he was working in his agricultural field along with his son Gulab Singh who was doing the fencing work near the Med and he was on the other side of the field.The accused/appellant came with an axe and threatened Gulab Singh with dire consequences as he was not permitting him to lay the pipeline through his field.Thereafter after a verbal altercation, he gave two axe blows on the backside of his head due to which Gulab Singh died due to head injuries on the spot.When Ram Singh (PW/1) along with Shriram (PW/6), who was also present on the spot, rushed to his son Gulab, he had already died.So far 15 this part of the deposition of RamSingh (PW/1) is concerned, there is no omission and contradiction in respect of his earlier version recorded in the FIR as well as in the statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. However, Shriram who examined as PW/6 denied his presence in the agricultural field at the time of the alleged occurrence.He has only stated that near about 8 A.M when he went to the field he saw that Gulab Singh was lying in the field and was bleeding from his head and he went to his house and gave information to Ram Singh (PW/1).Thereafter he along with Ram Singh reached to the spot along with other villagers.He has supported the prosecution case to the extent that Police reached the spot, found the dead body and collected the blood- stained soil.Thereafter he was declared hostile by the prosecution.RamSingh (PW/1) further deposed that he went to the house of Mohan (Chowkidar) (PW/2), thereafter both went to the Police Station Bhorasa for lodging the report.The Police came to the spot and prepared the Panchnama.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the cross-examination part of Ram Singh (PW/1) in which he admitted that the distance between the two Meds was 250-300 ft. and crop up to the height of 3-4 ft. was in the field.He has further admitted that upon hearing the cry of his son when he rushed towards his son and when he reached half the way the accused ran towards him with the axe and on seeking him without turning back he fled towards the village.Learned counsel submitted that RamSingh (PW/1) gave an exaggerated version of the incident.He was not present on the spot.He had neither seen the incident nor the appellant causing the injury and for the first 16 time, along with the Police, he saw his son Gulab lying in injured condition in the agricultural field.We are unable to agree with the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for the simple reason that the conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the ocular witness if he inspires the confidence of the court and no corroboration is required from other witnesses.The (PW-1) is not only the father of the deceased but a rustic villager and at the time of the incident, he was aged about 60 years.His presence in the agriculture field with his son was natural and cannot be debatable.The appellant is the owner of adjoining agriculture field and he was willing to lay pipe from the land of Ram Singh for which he was not agreeing at that point of time.The prosecution has established that such a dispute was going on between them since last few months and report in the police station was also lodged (Exhibit-P/23) .A civil dispute was also going on between them.There was no reason for the Ram Singh to falsely implicate the appellant because he was not going to gain anything from the appellant.The appellant was interested to lay pipe-line from his filed for which he was threatening Ram sing and deceased.There was no title or boundary dispute between them.The alleged incident took place in the remote area during the early morning hours hence Ram Singh had heard the sound of quarrel and saw the appellant on the spot with Axe.The dead body was also found in the same place as described by him in his police statement and examination -in-chief.Hence we are of 17 the firm opinion that Ram Singh is a wholly reliable witness.He was cross-examined after 4-5 months from the date of his examination-in-chief.Even though the witnesses were cross-examined at depth, not much evidence was elicited to discredit the testimony of Sangappa (PW8) and Chandrasekhar (PW 9).It is apparent in the evidence of Bhimappa (PW 10) and Ranganagouda (PW 11) that they came to the land of one Rangappa Gouli for ploughing at about 7 or 7.30 a.m. then they heard the screaming and rushed to the spot wherein they noticed the presence of Laxmavva (PW 7) who proceeded to the village side to inform the same to the complainant Giriyavva (PW 1).In cross- examination, he admitted that the Police recorded the statement of accused in respect of the recovery of the axe before him.On a query put by the Court he has also admitted that the accused has disclosed that he did hide the axe near the Nallah, therefore, 21 Kripal (PW/ ) has also supported the disclosure of the axe by the accused/appellant and thereafter its seizure.Another seizure witness Kaluram (PW/5) has only admitted his signature in (Exhibit-P/1) .and admitted that the Police have recovered the axe from the accused in his presence.Thereafter he was declared hostile, therefore, (PW/5) is also supporting the prosecution regarding recovery of the axe from the accused.Kailash (PW/9), who is one of the relatives of the deceased as well as the complainant, has not supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, which has no significance in the matter because after laps of so much time from the date of the incident instead of supporting (PW-1) he has chosen to support the accused who is also his close relative.His conduct of becoming hostile witness is quite natural and would not help the appellant.Indisputably, accused/appellant, the complainant, deceased, Shriram (PW/6), and Kailash (PW/7) are closely related to each other.The agriculture fields of Ram Singh and accused/appellant are neighbouring to each other.As per Ram Singh, the appellant wanted to lay a pipeline through his agricultural field, however, he permitted the accused to do so after cutting the standing crop.Devi Singh (PW/3), who is a relative, has admitted that eight days before the alleged incident, Gulab intercepted Parvat Singh and asked him as to why he is not permitting him to lay a pipeline through the agricultural field.The prosecution also examined Devi Singh (PW/3) who has supported the case of prosecution regarding the previous enmity/dispute between the appellant and complainant.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
29,059,553
BRIJESH SETHI, J (oral) Quashing of FIR No. 1001/2015, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi is sought on the ground that the matrimonial dispute between the parties stands amicably resolved in terms of mediated settlement of 2nd June, 2018 reached through Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.Learned Standing Counsel for respondent/State submits that petitioners as well as respondent No.2/ complainant of this FIR, are present in the Court and they have been duly identified by the W.P.(CRL) 2497/2019 1 Investigating Officer on the basis of identity proof furnished by them.W.P.(CRL) 2497/2019 1Since the subject matter of the FIR in question is essentially matrimonial, which stands mutually and amicably resolved between the parties and decree of divorce has been already granted by the Family Court, no useful purpose would be served in continuation of proceedings arising out of FIR in question.In view of the above, FIR No. 1001/2015, under Sections 498- A/406/34 IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at police station New Usmanpur, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed qua petitioners.This petition and applications stand disposed of.
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,351,822
Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI with Mr. Uday Prakash, Adv.HON'BLE MS.By this petition the Petitioner challenges the order dated 27th June, 2008 directing framing of charge and the order dated 15 th July, 2008 framing charge against the Petitioner for offence under Section 120-B read with Section 420/471 IPC and the substantive offences punishable under Section 420/471 IPC in case titled "CBI Vs.J.R. Gupta & Ors." pending before the Learned ACMM, Karkardooma Courts.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that no charge under Section 420 IPC can be framed against the Petitioner as the same requires a dishonest intention at the inception i.e. at the time of applying for loan and sanctioning of the same.There is no evidence on record to show that the Petitioner had any role to play at the time of either applying for loan or the Crl.The Petitioner did not sign any document while processing the request for loan.For the other corporate loan of Rs. 20 crores requested from IFCI (Industrial Financial Corporation of India) a request was made by co-accused S.K. Mittal vide letter dated 21st January, 1996 on behalf of the company.The Petitioner was not involved at any point of time either in making a request for loan or for grant of sanction of the same.There is no allegation against the Petitioner that any amount has been diverted to his personal account or for his personal use.The entire amount was received in the company's account and has been disbursed by the company.The Petitioner has not issued any cheque under his signatures.Further there were two loans of Rs. 50 crores.The first loan was sanctioned on 15th November, 1995 for the modernization scheme envisaging acquisition of new testing equipments.The necessary documents like hypothecation and guarantee deeds were executed and the requisite machinery was purchased and installed even as Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 2 of 8 per the CBI.The second loan of Rs. 50 crores was disbursed on 10th March, 1998 by IFCI for "general corporate purposes".Accordingly new deeds of guarantee/ hypothecation were executed by company Usha India Ltd. (UIL) in favour of IFCI.The second loan of Rs. 50 crores is not part of the present charge-sheet.P. 604/2008 Page 1 of 8P. 604/2008 Page 2 of 83. Learned counsel for the CBI contends that the Petitioner was the Vice- chairman of M/S. UIL and in-charge of the functioning of the factory on day-to-day basis.The brother of the Petitioner was the Chairman-cum- Managing Director of the company.The company is a family concern and initially incorporated by the father of the Petitioner.The accused persons Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 3 of 8 hatched conspiracy with the object to defraud M/S. IFCI Ltd. in the matter of sanction and disbursement of financial assistance to M/S UIL.In pursuance to the said conspiracy Suresh Gupta and Sohan Lal Garg mentioned in column No.2 issued fake bills to M/S. UIL without supply of material and the funds received by them against the said materials purported to have been supplied were passed on to Vinay Rai and others.The funds generated in pursuance to the said conspiracy were siphoned off for the personal use, i.e. for purchase of shares of M/S. UIL group companies in benami names.On 15th November, 1995 the Petitioner and co-accused Vinay Rao approached IFCI for financial assistance of Rs. 70 crores for the expansion and modernization of semi-conductor division of UIL.S.K. Mittal, the co- accused vide letter dated 7th December, 1995 agreed as per the terms of letter of intent and requested for immediate disbursement of the facility.A certificate was issued by the auditor stating that UIL incurred Rs. 1954.53 lakhs for modernization scheme.The Petitioner and the co-accused submitted a guarantee deed and shortfall undertaking.PW-3 A.K. Dutta the AGM of IFCI inspected the factory premises and its office on 25th May, 1996 with respect to the utilization of the above facility and submitted its report.According to the learned counsel as per the allegations the Petitioner is one of the main beneficiaries of the siphoned off money.Misrepresentations were made on the basis of project report concerning the factory.Further, in furtherance of the common intention the Petitioner executed a personal bank guarantee along with his brother Anil Rai.Briefly the case of the prosecution is that Vinay Rai, the Chairman and Managing Director of UIL vide letter dated 15th November, 1995 requested IFCI to sanction a term loan of Rs. 70 crores to be repaid in five years with a moratorium of two years.The said request was made projecting a requirement for making semi- conductor chips, new test equipment, automatic handling machine and marking machine as well as complete range of diffusion equipment.The total investment in the plant and machinery was projected to be around Rs. 60 crores.The said request was processed by IFCI and approved on 23 rd November, 1995 by the Executive Committee.In pursuance to the approval of the said loan, a letter of intent dated 7th December, 1995 was issued to the company.On 7th December, 1995 S.K. Mittal, Director Project Finance UIL & co-accused conveyed acceptance of terms and conditions as set out in the letter of intent and also requested for immediate disbursement of the facility.M/S. Bansal and company, Chartered Accountants also issued certificates with regard expenditure incurred.As per the allegations set out in the charge-sheet it is stated that for availing this facility, Security documents i.e. subscription agreement, deed of hypothecation and management undertaking on behalf of the company were executed by the co-accused S.K. Mittal and J.R. Gupta.Further the Petitioner and his brother executed the deed of guarantee and shortfall undertaking.The Petitioner and his brother co- accused Vinay Rai were aware of the sanction and disbursement of this facility and from time to time over dues in the account were adjusted on the Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 5 of 8 basis of utilization certificates issued by the auditors.It is further alleged that the disbursement of funds against the sanctioned loan was accepted without compliance of terms of sanction.It was revealed that companies from which these equipments were purchased from Faridabad and Rohtak did not exist at the given addresses during the relevant time.The supporting bills worth Rs. 7 crores from certain companies were found to be non-existent at the addresses mentioned against them.Further vouchers were made available by the company, pertaining to purchase of software by Hexadecimal Computers Pvt. Ltd. through Shri Anurag Chandra Gupta who revealed during investigation that in the year 1995-96 he carried out the billing of the company on the strength of the software bills of M/S. Information Technology India Pvt. Ltd., a group company of UIL and was paid 3% as commission.The cheques were presented by the representatives of the company and he had issued bills of Rs. 5 crores in favour of UIL without effecting any supply of the software.Most of the machineries installed by the company were second-hand machineries purchased from M/S. HBB Lesag, Berlin, Germany and M/S. Hindustan Conductors Ltd., Nadiad, an APAR group company.The UIL group of companies issued vouchers, maintained books of accounts of large number of companies, which were in-house companies at their head office and accounts of all these in-house companies were opened and operated by Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 6 of 8 the employees of the group company with different banks for the purpose and at the instance and behest of the accused persons including the Petitioner.P. 604/2008 Page 5 of 8P. 604/2008 Page 6 of 8P. 604/2008 Page 1 of 8 sanctioning of the same.No vicarious liability can be fastened against the Petitioner under the Indian Penal Code.State of Gujarat 2008 (5) SCC 668 and Ashok Sikka Vs.If two views are possible then at this stage this Court will discharge the Petitioner and permit the trial to proceed only if one view is possible.No witness has alleged any commission of offence against the Petitioner except occasional reference to him, which do not fulfill the necessary ingredients of an offence.The crux of the contention of the Petitioner is that even as per the prosecution case the Petitioner was not looking after the financial work of the UIL group companies and the same was being looked after by his brother Vinay Rai, thus merely because the Petitioner signed a deed of guarantee and a shortfall undertaking will not make him liable as no conspiracy can be alleged.Hence the impugned orders be set aside and the Petitioner be discharged of the offences.The Petitioner is not a stranger to the transaction but an in-house responsible member of the group of companies and looked after the day-to-day functioning of the factory whereupon the project for modernization plan was Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 4 of 8 submitted to the bank.Hence no case for quashing of the charge is made out.P. 604/2008 Page 3 of 8P. 604/2008 Page 4 of 8I have heard learned counsels for the parties.In all eight disbursements were made by IFCI.It is alleged that besides the fact that the company failed to maintain register regarding utilization of IFCI funds, they did not furnish the NCDs for which extension of time was sought, Rs. 50 crores were disbursed by appropriating the over dues in the account.All these shortfalls were overlooked by the co-accused C.D. Ghosh, G.M. of IFCI.Thus in short there is prima facie evidence against the Petitioner and the co-accused that there was fraudulent and dishonest misrepresentation, forged bills of in-house sister companies and non-existent companies were used and the money was diverted to sister concerns and then siphoned off as cash.P. 604/2008 Page 7 of 8 he was a directory of the company, whereas in the present chargesheet the entire modus operandi has been set up which shows the connivance of the Petitioner as well.In view of the role assigned to the Petitioner at this stage there is strong suspicion that the Petitioner along with his brother got prepared the modernization plan and after receiving the term loan siphoned of the same.At this stage, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned orders directing and framing charge against the Petitioner.P. 604/2008 Page 7 of 8Trial Court Record be sent back.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JULY 9, 2012 'ga' Crl.P. 604/2008 Page 8 of 8P. 604/2008 Page 8 of 8
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,359,800
She requested to let her off., the husband of the de facto complainant was not in his house and he went at Digha.On that night de facto complainant was sleeping at her room along with her 5 years old son.At about 12.30/1 a.m. on that night she heard a sound of knocking at her door and somebody was calling her from outside with the tone of her husband.At that time de facto complainant thought her husband has returned from Digha.As soon as she opened the door Jakir Hossain Molla @ Bhadu son of Samser of same village entered into the room and caught hold her with an intention to outrage her modesty.The de facto complainant identified him as Jakir Hossain Molla by electric light.Thereafter she made several requests to leave her.But Jakir Hossain did not pay any heed to her request and finally he committed rape upon her.Out of fear the de facto complainant could not be able to speak further.At that moment her husband came back to his house and knocked at the door.Then Jakir opened the door, pushed her husband and fled away by running.Her husband started shouting and on hearing his shouting father-in-law, mother-in-law, uncle-in-law, Debar (brother- in-law) and other persons came out from their rooms and found Jakir fleeing away.The villagers on information attempted to settle the dispute but in vain.The de facto complainant was not physically fit and mentally alert just immediate after the occurrence.So, there was delay in lodging the written complaint.She was not educated upto the standard and could be able to sign her name only.After hearing of both sides, charge under section 376 of IPC was framed against the accused person.The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him when the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To contest this case the prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses while none was examined on the side of the defence.However, the accused person was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence case as it appeared from the trend of cross-examination and reply given by the accused person at the time of examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. was denial of offence with a plea of innocence.On trial the learned Trial Court convicted the present appellant by the impugned judgment.It has to been seen if the impugned judgment suffers from any infirmity and calls for any interference or not.Section 376 of IPC read as follows :Punishment for rape.- (1) Whoever, except in the cases provided for by sub-section (2), commits rape shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may be for life or for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine unless the women raped is his own wife and is not under twelve years of age, in which cases, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both. ................................................................................................................."Amongst others the learned Counsel for the appellant argued mainly on the following points :a) There was a delay for about 18 days for lodging the FIR;b) Debar, brother-in-law, mother-in-law and father-in-law stayed in the same premises but why the complainant did not shout is a mystery;c) FIR is silent about the mentioning of shouting;d) Mother-in-law though came from next room was not examined by the I/O;e) One salishnama was prepared but nothing has been proved;f) There was previous enmity between the parties;g) Vaginal swab was not sent for chemical examination;h) In the 164 statement the complainant did not disclose about holding of any salish andi) The Panchayat Member Liaquat Molla has not been examined in this case.Learned Counsel for the State on the other hand maintained that the findings of the Court below may be sustained.To appreciate the case from a better angle, some relevant pieces of evidence are required to be mentioned here.So, there was delay of about 17 days.The complainant stated that she was not mentally alert and there was an attempt of salish.So, there was delay.The ground of delay does not appear to be convincing for reasons recorded later.Therefrom it transpired that at the relevant time the accused mimicked her husband and as soon as the complainant opened the door, he entered and embraced her tightly and thereafter he raped.But what prompted her not to shout when it transpires that in the next rooms her other relations namely father-in-law, mother-in-law and Debar stayed is not clear.In case of forcible rape it is expected that she should have raised her voice.It is not her case in FIR that she was threatened or her mouth was gagged.Why the lady instantly did not react by sending information to the P.S. has to be thought seriously, as the explanation appears not satisfactory.She is a married lady.So, there was old rapture of hymen.P.W.- 1 is the de facto complainant herself.Keeping a link with the FIR she deposed that when Jakir started to molest her, she was about to shout but he threatened her and stated that he would kill her and also her 5 years old son.This fact is not a trifling one.It has not been stated in the FIR.So her statement is a bit an 'improvement' pointing to suspicion about the genuineness of the incident.She stated that she caught hold of the legs of the accused and requested to spare her but the accused did not.It is unbelievable because her other members of in-laws place were staying adjacent to her home.She has stated that the accused kissed and molested her breasts.Still then she would remain quiet? It is hardly believable.She stated in the cross-examination that there was a salish but no document was proved nor any person attending such salish came to depose in respect of the same.She stated in cross-examination that while her husband knocked at the door at that night, Jakir as well as herself were dressed up in the meantime.Further she stated "Intercourse was completed including the last phase of discharge of Semen on her private part".This factum points to other aspects.Either she is a consenting party enjoying the incident satisfactorily and secretly or there was no incident at all.When she heard the sound of knocking at the door; she and Jakir got dressed up.This is possible if she is a consenting party.Otherwise if at all she was raped forcibly by accused; she would have cried by stating that Jakir remained inside after committing rape.This action on her part could have felicitated the catching of accused red- handed.The story of threatening to kill her son is no less than a myth.Therein she gave a different story.She stated that in the voice of her husband a call was made from outside and she opened the door at that time, the accused pressed her throat.At that time the accused kicked her on the floor.He heard of his wife that she was raped by Jakir.He stated that Panchayat Member was informed but no panchayat person came to support their case.Hearing the hue and cry, he woke up and noticed Bhadu Molla running away.His room is adjacent to the house of victim.P.W.- 5 claimed that when he went to the spot, the victim fell on his feet and told that 'I am undone' and disclosed the incident.He took up the charge of the investigation.In cross- examination he stated that on 17.2.2001 he sent vaginal swab of V.G. for FSL examination at Kolkata but no report was collected by him.P.W.- 9 is another I/O who examined some witnesses.He stated in cross-examination that Hafijul Mondal did not state to him that Firoja told him to save her by holding his leg or Jakir threatened Firoja to kill her son.This piece of evidence actually goes to suggest that there was an attempt to patch up the matter because the defence has contended that members of the in-laws place wanted to give 'Talaq' to the victim unless he lodged a false complaint and as such a salish was attempted to be called at the village.Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,361,380
Reliance was placed on Sunita Kumari Kashyap Vs.State of Bihar and Anr., 2011 AIR (SC) 1674 and Kushal Kumar Gupta and Anr.It was further submitted that, even otherwise, if according to the petitioner no cause of action has arisen at Sonepat, since the FIR has been registered at Sonepat, therefore, the appropriate remedy was to file the petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and not in this Court.It was alleged that marriage of the complainant was performed with the petitioner-Pankaj on 9th March, 2008 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.After few days of her marriage, her husband told her that he has got Government service in Delhi High Court.After some time, behaviour of her husband Pankaj and that of her mother-in-law Bimla changed towards her suddenly and they used to torture her often for dowry and car used to be demanded.Her father had given sufficient articles in the marriage as per his capacity but the petitioner and his parents Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 4 of 18 were not satisfied with the same.Whenever her two sister-in-laws, namely, Seema and Annu used to come from Village Chulkana to Alipur, they used to pick up quarrel.They used to abuse and taunt her as to what she had brought in dowry.Her husband and in- laws used to start beating her.She used to bear all this because she had a child in her womb, which was born in the shape of a girl.After this, they crossed all limits and pushed her after holding her hair as to why she gave birth to a girl.On 23rd October, 2010, during night, Pankaj, his mother Bimla Devi and father-in-law after closing her in a separate room started beating her and told her to demand money for car otherwise she would be finished and nobody will suspect about it.Pankaj told her that he will re-marry and nothing will happen to him because he had been appointed in High Court and has relations with judges.She saved her life after keeping quite.On 24 th October, 2010, after informing her father on phone, she requested him to reach in the house of her father-in-law.Her father arrived at Alipur.Members of the house of her father-in-law abused him, fought with him and attempted to kill him.She, somehow, reached Sonepat along with her father and went to Police Station.Police called the members Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 5 of 18 of her father-in-law in the police station at Sonepat.A meeting of Panchayat was held.Pankaj assured her before the Panchayat that in future he will not beat her and do any objectionable behaviour.As such, she went back to Alipur with him.After keeping her well for few days, again the members of the family started beating her and this time, mainly her sister-in-law Annu of Chulkana and brother-in-law Rajkumar became instrumental in destroying her family.They used to provoke her husband and his parents against her.She continued to bear keeping in view her little daughter.One day, husband of Pankaj's sister, namely, Rajkumar and Pankaj's sister Annu came at Alipur during night time.Her mother-in-law started abusing her that after giving birth to a girl she had enhanced household expenditure.She told her that she also had three daughters.Thereupon, Rajkumar kicked her with his leg, Pankaj slapped her and her sister-in-law caught hold of her hair.She fell down.They brought her in the inner room.Her father-in-law also came.Pankaj threatened her that he will make her father to leave the government job in case she makes complaint against him.On 2nd September, 2011, she was sent to a rented house at 5/123, Nirankari Colony, Delhi.They stopped her Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 6 of 18 visits to Alipur.Pankaj used to go to his parents' house and used to come to the tenanted room late night and used to harass her mentally, pull her hair and used to kick at her head with his fist.She started suffering from headache.In this rented accommodation, husband of his sister, namely, Raj Kumar started visiting and he also kicked her twice.On 5th November, 2011, she was compelled to sign some papers in Hindi and English.Thereafter, she called police on 100 number and also called her father from Sonepat to whom she narrated all the facts and came back to Sonepat where she lodged the complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 4 of 18A. No.1455/2012 Page 5 of 18There is further averment that due to ill-treatment, on 24th October, 2010, she went along with her father to Sonepat and went to police station, Sonepat where family members of the petitioner were called.A Panchayat took place.The petitioner assured before the Panchayat that in future he will not beat her and do any objectionable behaviour.Thereupon she returned back with him to Alipur.However, again the things did not move smoothly, with the result she again had to return back to her father's house at Sonepat.As such, part of cause of action arose at Sonepat.Moreover, in view of Section 178 and 179 of the Code, the offence in this case was continuing one having been committed in more local area and one of the local area being Sonepat, the FIR was registered there.Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 11 of 18In spite of the same, immediately after the marriage, she was blamed for bringing less dowry by her in-laws and they started harassing and torturing her.Her husband also used to support his family members to torture her.When she was pregnant, she was forcibly taken out of her matrimonial home at Ranchi and brought to her parental home at Gaya.After giving birth to a girl child the circumstances became even worse and everyone started blaming her that she had brought an additional burden on them.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.By virtue of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner seeks quashing of FIR No.43 dated 29 th November, 2011 registered under Section 498A/406/326/506/34 IPC at PS Mahila Thana, Sonepat primarily on the ground that the alleged crime was committed outside the jurisdiction of Sonepat police and Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 1 of 18 the Sonepat police, at the most, should have transferred it to the concerned Police Station in Delhi for necessary action.Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 1 of 18In the reply by way of affidavit filed by respondents No. 1 & 2, an objection was taken as to the maintainability of the writ petition in this Court on the ground that the FIR was registered at Sonepat.In matrimonial cases, the jurisdiction of registering the cases falls where the bride resides.Moreover, the dowry articles are also liable to be returned, therefore, since the complainant was forced to live at Sonepat where her parents are residing, as such, the case was rightly registered at Sonepat.Furthermore, if the petitioner has any grievance regarding registration of FIR, in that eventuality, he has a remedy to file a petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh.After completing investigation, charge sheet has already been submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate, Sonepat and now the case is fixed for framing of charge.As such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.A. No.1455/2012 Page 2 of 18A. No.1455/2012 Page 2 of 18It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that even if the averments made by the complainant in the complaint are taken on their face value, even then the entire cause of action has arisen at Delhi, that being so, the police station at Sonepat had no jurisdiction to register the case.Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 3 of 18Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 3 of 18Rebutting the submission of learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Naveen Chandra Mazithia Vs.State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2000) 7 SCC 640 and Om Prakash Srivastava vs. Union of India and another, (2006) 6 SCC 207 for contending that writ petition for quashing of the FIR registered at Sonepat is maintainable even in this Court by virtue of Sub-clause 2 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Before going to the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it will be in the fitness of things to have a glance on the complaint made by the complainant which led to registration of FIR 43/2011 at PS Mahila Thana, Sonepat.After some time, her husband came out with a new demand that unless her father gives his house at Gaya to him she will not be taken back to her matrimonial home at Ranchi.Having continuous torture and unbearable nature of treatment by her husband and in-laws for years and years, having no other option, the Appellant lodged a First Crl. A. No.1455/2012 Page 12 of 18 Information Report, being No. 66 of 2007 under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Magadh Medical College Police Station, Gaya.A. No.1455/2012 Page 12 of 18The Chief Judicial Magistrate, after perusal of the charge sheet, found a prima facie case against the accused persons, accordingly, took cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 406 read with Section 34 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the D.P. Act against all of them and transferred the case to the Court of sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gaya for trial.Though an objection was raised stating that the Court at Gaya has no jurisdiction, the learned Magistrate, after considering all the relevant materials including the allegations in the complaint, rejected the said objection.Aggrieved by the said order, the accused persons preferred Criminal Miscellaneous No. 42478 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna.By order dated 19.03.2010, the High Court found that the proceedings at Gaya are not maintainable for lack of jurisdiction and quashed the entire proceedings in Magadh Medical College Police Station Case No. 66 of 2007 with liberty to the Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 13 of 18 Appellant to file the same in appropriate Court and quashed the criminal proceedings lodged against the husband.In the said decision, wife was the Appellant and the Respondents were the husband, parents-in-law and two sisters-in-law of the Appellant Sujata Mukherjee.That Crl.SUNITA GUPTA, J JULY 23, 2013 rs Crl.A. No.1455/2012 Page 18 of 18
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,378,331
All the aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently.A. 391/2016 Page 1 of 11Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2014 at about 11:00 pm, near red light Welcome towards Seelam Pur, Delhi the appellant committed the robbery of a mobile phone belonging to Mohd. Firoz (the complainant) and during this incident, the appellant used a weapon - a paper cutter.Thereafter, certain public persons apprehended the appellant and gave him beatings.Consequently, FIR No. 853/2014 under Sections 397/392 of the IPC was registered with PS Seelam Pur, thus setting criminal law into motion.The charge sheet was filed against the appellant and by an order dated 03.02.2015, he was charged with the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 of the IPC.The appellant pleaded not guilty and the case was set down for trial.During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and the defence did not lead any evidence.He stated that he worked in computer designing at Netaji Subhash Place, Delhi.On 13.12.2014, at night time, he was going home from office.At about 11:00-11:15 pm, he was going to the Welcome side on foot to take an auto after deboarding at the Seelampur Metro Station.Suddenly, one person came from behind him, caught hold of his collar and put a paper cutter on his neck and told him to hand over all his belongings to him.PW1 stated that he did not have any valuable items.The assailant then put his hand into PW1's pocket and took out his mobile phone (Redmi Crl. A. 391/2016 Page 2 of 11 Note make).He also tried to take money (about 30-40), however, he did not take the same.Thereafter, the assailant told PW1 to go away from the spot.PW1 then ran away from the spot and after about fifteen paces, he found 3-4 persons of the locality who PW1 informed about the incident.The said 3-4 persons then apprehended the assailant and gave beatings to him.PW1's mobile phone and the paper cutter were recovered from the assailant.Thereafter, he made a call at 100 number following which, a PCR and the local police came to the spot.A. 391/2016 Page 2 of 11In his cross-examination, PW1 affirmed that the accused came from his back side.Thereafter, PW1 stated that the accused put his hand on the pocket of his pant and felt the mobile phone; he asked PW1 what the article was and thereafter, PW1 took his phone out and handed the same over to the accused due to fear.PW1 denied informing the police that the accused had put his hand into PW1's pocket and took out the mobile phone.PW1 stated that the accused did not take any other articles from the person of PW1 and did not check his bag either.PW1 stated that the incident occurred at a public spot and at the material time, there was traffic on the road.However, he did not try to stop any vehicle to ask for help.PW1 affirmed that he handed over his mobile phone and the paper cutter, which he had recovered from the accused, to the police when the police reached the spot.He stated that on 13.12.2014 at about 11:24 pm, a call was received from the PCR control room that a mobile phone was robbed from the informant near Shyam Medical store double storey Welcome and the assailant was caught hold Crl.A. 391/2016 Page 3 of 11 of by the informant.The PCR reached there at about 11:30 pm.PW2 stated that public persons were present at the spot.The informant (Firoz) met them there and produced the accused Gulfam before the police officials and stated that the accused had been apprehended with the help of public persons.The informant handed over the mobile phone and the paper cutter (weapon of the offence) to ASI Gopal Das.In his cross-examination, PW2 affirmed that the IO did not ask any public persons to join the investigation in his presence.A. 391/2016 Page 3 of 11He deposed that when he, along with Ct Subhash, reached the spot the PCR was already present there.The complainant produced the accused before PW3 and made allegations that the accused had robbed his mobile phone by putting a knife on his neck.The complainant produced one mobile phone and one paper cutter and alleged that the said mobile phone was robbed and the paper cutter was used by the accused in the incident.The accused was in an injured condition and thus, PW3 sent him to GTB Hospital for medical examination.PW3 affirmed his signatures on the rukka (Ex. PW-3/A) at point A. PW3 correctly identified the paper cutter allegedly used by the accused.In his cross- examination, PW3 stated that the custody of the accused was handed over to the police officials by the complainant and the accused was intoxicated.He denied asking public persons to join the investigations.He proved the FIR on the basis of the rukka and the DD entry for the registration of the FIR (Ex. PW-2/A).A. 391/2016 Page 4 of 11PW5 deposed that on 13.12.2014, he was posted at PS Seelampur.He along with ASI Gopal Das reached at the spot where the complainant met them and produced the accused.Many public persons were present at the spot.VIBHU BAKHRU, JThe appellant has filed the present appeal impugning a judgment dated 16.12.2015, whereby he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 392/397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The appellant also impugns an order on sentence dated 23.12.2015, whereby he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence punishable under Section 397 of the IPC; rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC; and a fine of 500/- was imposed on him, in default of which, the appellant would have to undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment.Thereafter, PW5 stated that he was sent to PS Seelampur along with rukka for the registration of an FIR.He proved the sketch of the paper cutter (Ex. PW-3/B).Thereafter, he stated that the IO sealed the paper cutter in a cloth pullanda bearing the seal of RK.IO also seized the mobile phone of Red Me make and affixed the seal of RK on the same.In his cross-examination, he stated that the colour of the paper cutter was deep blue (firozi).Further, he deposed that one mobile phone of Samsung make was recovered from the accused from his search and nothing else was recovered.He could not recollect whether the IO had asked any public persons to join the investigations.He denied the suggestion that efforts were not made to join any public persons.He stated that in the intervening night of 13/14.12.2014 at about 01:20 am, he was present at the PS and Ct Subhash came to him and handed him a copy of the FIR of this case and the original rukka for further investigation.He reached the spot with Ct Subhash where he met ASI Gopal Das who produced one mobile phone of Red Me make and one paper cutter as produced by the complainant to him and was allegedly recovered from the accused Mohd. Gulfam.On checking the phone, it contained two SIM cards.He also checked the IMEI number of the said mobile phone.PW6 stated that he interrogated the accused and thereafter, arrested him.In his cross-examination, he affirmed that he had requested some persons to join the proceedings, however, none agreed.
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,379,673
3.The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that the petitioner filed this petition with a motive to harassing the second respondent.He would further submit that though another case is pending before the same judge, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking to transfer and this case only for the purpose of harassing the petitioner.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Additional Mahila Court,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 Tiruchirappalli shall send the entire case records within a period of two(02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruchirappalli.6.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is disposed of with the above directions.
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,382,331
Case diary is available.This is repeat bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 429/2015, registered at Police Station- Bhaunti, District Shivpuri (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 377of IPC.The first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed vide order dated 07.01.2015 passed in M.Cr.C. No.12569/2015 as withdrawn with liberty to file the bail application again after recording the statement of the victim before the trial Court.The said statement is still not recorded before the trial Court.No change of circumstances has been found to consider the repeat bail application filed by the applicant/accused.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
7,638,404
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 775 of 2014, under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Hasanpur, District J.P. Nagar pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate J.P. Nagar.The contention is that the applicant no.1 to 4 are nephews of one Gaffar, who was the informant in Case Crime no. 321 of 2013, under Section 302 and 120 I.P.C. Police Station Hasanpur, Amroha relating to the murder of his niece in which Irshad, Hayat, Yamin Alijan, Khalid and Khalil were arraigned as accused.Further the bail of said accused persons is rejected and trial is under way.Opposite parties may file counter affidavits within four weeks.Rejoinder, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,384,274
The prosecution story in short was that one Suresh while driving the liquor loaded truck had turned turtle resulting in death of Suresh.Thereafter, there was a Chakka Jam (Blockade) by villagers demanding action against liquor contractor.When the police arrived at the scene, crowd became unruly and started throwing stones on the police resulting in injuries to police personnels' including fracture on one head constable namely; Noor Singh and the police vehicle was also damaged.Learned counsel for the applicant has pointed out the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.28224 OF 2020 (Pawan vs State of Madhya Pradesh) order dated 13.07.2020 passed by this Court in MCRC No.19201 of 2020 in which the applicant had been given liberty to press for fresh bail application after framing of charge.He further points out that the charges have since been filed in the matter and has filed the order-sheet dated 30.07.2020 which shows that the charges have not been framed against the present applicant.With these submissions, bail has been sought.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.28224 of 2020 is allowed and stands disposed of.Let a copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per Rules.
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,385,907
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MD.121 A of 10 years' imprisonment with fine of Rs.It was alleged that PW 1 along with other officers and constables of the Lalgarh Police Station and the forces of the CRPF left for working out an information regarding terrorist activities.After crossing Dalilpur village, when they came to a place, after passing a baniyan tree at about 13.35 hours on 26.09.2009, suddenly an explosion occurred on the left side of 'morum' road at the base of a date tree.Luckily no one was injured.During the search for the remnants of the IED, an electric wire was found stretching up to a nearby bush in the field.The raiding party followed the wire up to the bush and found four persons including the accused Sambhu Soren, Ranjit Murmu and Sagun Murmu hiding behind the bush.While they could nab the three men, the fourth one escaped.At about 14.25 hours they reached Birkar village and noticed about six or seven persons engaged in a conversation in a very low voice under the cover of hedges.The raiding party immediately chased them and could apprehend Chhatradhar Mahato with printed gazettes styled as Guerilla Barta, 4th edition, August 2007 and Biplabi Jug Potrika, May 2007 edition.But, the others fled away by opening fire from their firearms.They could identify Sido Soren, Santosh Patra, Sasadhar Mahato, Lalmohan Tudu while Chhatradhar Mahato stated that the others were Kishnaji and Bikash.The said Chhatradhar Mahato confessed that he and Kishanji had procured explosives and mines and supplied the same to Sagun Murmu, Shambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu directing them to plant them on the roadside at Dalilpur village to prevent police from moving into the areas as they had a meeting scheduled nearby.Chhatradhar Mahato and others were the activists of CPI (Maoist), which was an organization banned by the Central Government, but was continuing with its terrorist activities in different areas of Paschim Medinipur district and the adjacent districts.They were having an organizational network with their counterparts in Jharkhand.This terrorist group indulged in various criminal activities including committing murder of police personnel and political persons, looting firearms from police and extorting money from different businessmen and thereby creating a reign of terror covering vast areas.It was alleged that the accused had entered into a conspiracy for abetting waging of war against the Central Government as well as the State Government to overawe them by show of criminal force.The CPI (Maoist) and the PSBJC had brought and attempted to bring hatred, contempt and excite disaffection towards the Governments established by law.The accused were also members of an association declared unlawful by the Government of India.Subsequently, further searches and seizures were effected.After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted.He fully supported the first information report lodged by him.He first apprehended three out of the four accused namely, Sagun Murmu, Sambhu Soren, Ranjit Murmu.Some articles were also seized.Then he went with Sagun Murmu to a place near Birkar village.There, the accused Chhatradhar Mahato was also nabbed, but the rest fled away.Two maoist gazettes/magazines of 2007 were seized from Chhatradhar Mahato.In his cross-examination, PW 1 admitted that there was no label affixed on the electric wire and there was no wire attached to the flash-gun allegedly seized from Sagun Murmu.He was a seizure list witness for the magazines seized from Chhatradhar Mahato.In the cross, he stated that IRBn was actually a State force.According to him, the blast took place about thirty/thirty five feet away.He admitted that there was no signature on the labels of the articles appended by him.The seizure list did not state that the flash-gun was fixed to a wire.He did not send any message for more force.PW 3, a police constable, was a raiding party member.However, he also stated at one place that nothing was recovered from Sagun Murmu.In the cross- examination, he stated that there were about 150 members in the raiding party.He admitted his signature on three papers.However, he deposed that he did not know what articles were seized.In his cross, he stated that the seizure lists were already written and he signed on them later on.He did not even know about the contents of the document.He could not identify the explosives, etc. However, he was not declared hostile.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he did not know about the contents of the document.PW 14 was a local witness who identified Chhatradhar Mahato.He was a witness to the seizure of documents from Chhatradhar Mahato at his residence.However, he said that he was not taken to the house of Chhatradhar Mahato.In his cross, he admitted that his signature was taken at the police station.PW 15 was another hostile witness.PW 16 was a Scientific Officer in respect of the pictures and the video recordings contained in the compact discs.Relevant documents and his report were seized from him.According to him, the extracts of materials were examined and the tests were found positive for explosives.PWs 18, 19 and 20 were the other hostile witnesses.PW 21 was an Officer in the Forest Service.In 2008, some members of PSBJC came to collect subscriptions.He paid a sum upon being given threats.In the cross-examination, he admitted that no document was available in respect of such arson.PW 22 was the Police Officer who filled up the First Information Report.PW 23 was an Inspector of Police.He sent a message to the Forest Beat Office to produce the ones apprehended.Suksanti Baskey and Chhatradhar Mahato declined to give their specimen signatures.In the cross, he admitted that he did not send any notice personally to them.PW 24 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police.He went to arrest the accused Suksanti Baskey as per direction.Some money, gelatin sticks and detonators were seized from him.In his cross-examination, he admitted that the Investigation Officer did not examine him.He could not even identify the accused Suksanti Baskey.The place of seizure was not mentioned and labels were not prepared and affixed over the seized articles.He further admitted that it was true that gelatin sticks were often seized and kept at the police station.The police personnel effecting such seizure were not searched before the seizure and no local person was made a witness.PW 25 was a Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID.He arrested the accused Raja Sarkhel.Some articles were seized.In the cross-examination, he admitted that there was no mention of a GD entry in the arrest memo and no labels were affixed on the seized articles.PW 26 was an Inspector-in-Charge and the first Investigating Officer.He deposed that there were sixteen other cases against the said Chhatradhar Mahato and his associates.After a secret information was received, the same was diarized.Two seizure lists were received after the raid.PW 27 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CID who was asked to arrest the accused Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee.Some articles like mobile phone and leaflets were seized from Prasun Chatterjee.PW 28 was another Investigation Officer of the case.He recovered some documents from under the bed of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato.He deposed that the PSBJC used to forcibly collect money from people.On 14.06.2009 eight villagers were abducted and they could not be traced out ever again.He was a seizure list witness for the bullets, etc. on 06.10.2009 (Exbt-30).In his cross, he admitted that no label was affixed on the articles in his presence.PW 30 was a local witness.He identified Chhatradhar Mahato, but he could not identify the other accused.Eight to ten others were also abducted.PW 31 was a local witness and a cousin brother of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato.He could not identify the other accused.He admitted his signature on a seizure list of 30.09.2009 (Ext- 17/3).But, he stated that he did not know why he signed it.However, he did admit that some documents were seized.In his cross, he stated that the police collected his signature at the police line.PW 32 was the last of the investigating officers.Atmosphere of terror:It has come out from the evidence adduced by several witnesses that there was an atmosphere of terror created by members and/or supporters of the PSBJC.They were allegedly indulging in destruction of properties, extortion, looting and abducting people and the like.The receipt for the forced subscription could not be produced as the same was destroyed in an arson committed by the members of Committee.There was also a reference to an earlier case of abduction of eight villagers from the locality by some miscreants of the Committee.Although the present accused/appellants could not be specifically connected with such prior acts, nonetheless, there was no doubt that an atmosphere of terror prevailed in the area where the PSBJC or its members or supporters exerted their influence.Some accused were nearly caught in the act or soon thereafter:Immediately after the bomblast, the raiding party apprehended three of the four accused who were trying to flee from the place of occurrence.They were the accused Sagun Murmu, Sambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu.As shown by Sagun Murmu, the raiding party went to Birkar village soon thereafter and were able to nab the other accused Chhatradhar Mahato, who had allegedly given them a slip earlier.Seizure of arms, ammunitions and other documents:The seizure of a flash gun, an iron pipe, electric wire, etc. from the place of explosion on 26.09.2009 was supported by three witnesses.Although the seizure was from the possession of the accused Sagun Murmu, the other accused Sambhu Soren and Ranjit Murmu apprehended along with him also signed on the seizure list (Ext. 2).The witnesses PWs 2 and 3 as seizure list witnesses and PW 1 who effected the seizure, supported the same.When the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato was apprehended, some gazettes, magazines were seized from him.Ext. 1 was similarly prepared by PW 1 and the seizure was witnessed by three persons out of whom PWs 2 and 3 came to depose.It also contained the signature of the accused.On 05.10.2009 some leaflets and papers were also seized from his house.Not putting of labels on some articles are not necessarily fatal to the prosecution case, especially when trustworthy witnesses support such seizure.After the flash-gun and wire were seized and tested, the wire might not have remained attached to the gun.Although the revolver seized from the accused Sagun Murmu could not be cocked at the first instance and could be fired only after apply some effort, if does not at all prove that the weapon was not in working condition.But, these were not the only things that were seized.MUMTAZ KHAN AND HON'BLE JUSTICE JAY SENGUPTA CRA 426 of 2015 With CRAN 1152 of 2018 Sri Chhatradhar Mahato & Others Versus The State of West Bengal & CRA 425 of 2015 Raja Sarkhel & Anr.By the said judgment, while accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu, Suksanti Baskey, Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee alias Bhutan were acquitted from the charge under Section 307 read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren, Sagun Murmu and Suksanti Baskey were exonerated of the charges under Sections 16(1)(b) and 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (the UAPA, for short), the accused Sambhu Soren alias Lalu and Sagun Murmu were acquitted from the charge under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act and the accused Suksanti Baskey and Chhatradhar Mahato were exonerated from the charge under Section 4(b) of the said Act, the following accused/appellants were convicted and sentenced as herein below :After search, a flash-gun was recovered from the accused Sagun Murmu.The apprehended accused disclosed their identities and confessed that they exploded the IED as per order of Chhatradhar Mahato and Kishanji who were the leaders of Police Santras Birodhi Janasadharaner Committee (the PSBJC, for short) and CPI (Maoist), respectively and who had supplied the bomb to them.Chhatradhar Mahato, Kishanji, Bikash and others had been staying for a meeting at Birkar village.Then the raiding party proceeded for Birkar following the way as was shown by the accused Sagun Murmu.In 2012 charges were framed against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu, Suksanti Baskey, Raja Sarkhel and Prasun Chatterjee alias Bhutan under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, 123, 124-A and 307 of the Penal Code, under Sections 18, 38(2), 39(2) and 40(2) of the UAPA, against the accused Suksanti Baskey under Sections 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, against the accused Sambhu Soren alias Lalu and Sagun Murmu under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, Sambhu Soren alias Lalu, Sagun Murmu and Suksanti Baskey under Sections 16(1)(b), 17 and 20 of the UAPA and against the accused Chhatradhar Mahato under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act. Prior to the framing of charge, the accused Ranjit Murmu passed away.During trial the prosecution examined thirty two witnesses to establish its case.The said flash-gun was kept with the CRPF personnel before seizure.All the witnesses to the seizure were police personnel.He further admitted that there was no warrant of arrest pending against Chhatradhar Mahato at that point.PW 2 was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who accompanied PW 1 in the raid.He heard a mine blast from a nearby date tree.Three accused were initially arrested.Sagun Murmu led to the capture of Chhatradhar Mahato while five or six other accused fled away.A portion of the seizure list was written in the police station.He admitted that after going to the police station, he put his signature at three or four places.He was not examined by the Investigating Officer.PW 4, a Block Development Officer, was a seizure list witness for the seizure of certain documents on 06.10.2009 in respect of the complaints of workers about extortions and threats given by the extremists in the area and their prayer for mass transfer.In this regard a group of twenty five to thirty people of the PSBJC met him at his office.Subsequently, the members of the PSBJC, the official staff of the BDO, Binpur-I and the SDO, Jhargram held a meeting in which the accused Chhatradhar Mahato was present.In his cross, he admitted that he could not produce any document in connection with the tripartite meeting.PWs 5, 6 and 7 were local witnesses who turned hostile.PW 8 was a seizure list witness for the articles seized from the accused Suksanti Baskey.He was not examined by the Investigating Agency.PWs 9 and 10 were two other local witnesses who turned hostile.PW 11 was a Sub Inspector of Police.PW 12 was a ballistic expert.There was no label affixed on the arms and ammunitions.PW 13 was the Collector for the area.He was a seizure list witness for the mass petitions for transfer vis-a-vis' the demand of Rupees Three Lakhs by the PSBJC.In his cross- examination, PW 16 admitted that the contents might be fifteen to twenty days old.He could not say whether such data was tampered with or not.He could not identify the accused Sombhu Soren, Sagun Murmu or Suksanti Baskey.In his cross-examination, PW 28 stated that some leaflets and other documents were recovered.But he admitted that no effort was made to get a handwriting expert compare and identify the writings in the diary.PW 29 was an Upa Pradhan of Dharampur Gram Panchayat.Thereafter, the names of the other accused transpired.The statement of Suksanti Baskey led to the recovery of magazines and photographs.He collected the report of the BDO regarding the prayer for mass transfer.On 06.10.2009, pursuant to the statement of the accused Chhatradhar Mahato, he recovered arms, ammunitions and gelatin sticks from a nearby bush.He sent them for examination and received a report.Relevant sanctions to prosecute were received from the District Magistrate and the Home Secretary.Compact discs containing conversations were seized.The material exhibit No. VI did not tally with the articles as mentioned in the FSL report.He did not prepare any sketch map for the spot where the blast took place.A hole in the fire arm was not noted in the case diary.No villagers were examined either at Dalilpur village or Birkar village.There was no note in the case diary about whether the statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code were also sent for obtaining sanctions for prosecution.Therefore, the entire prosecution was completely bad in law.The gravity and the enormity as would constitute a waging of war were sadly lacking in the present case.No independent witness could be examined from the villages Dalilpur and Birkar so as to support the prosecution case.Even the ballistic expert was tentative in his approach.The PSBJC was inferred to be a part of CPI (Maoist).But there was no basis for coming to such conclusion.No idea was given as to when the PSBJC was formed.No list of members of PSBJC was seized.There was hardly anything to connect PSBJC with the banned CPI (Maoist-Leninist).The accused Suksanti Baskey alleged that he was coerced to sign.Although the accused Chhatradhar Mahato refused to give his specimen signature, yet a conclusion was arrived at that some relevant documents were signed by the said Chhatradhar Mahato.PW 28, the Investigating Officer, admitted that he did not pray for examination of handwriting.The details of articles seized, as contained in the seizure list, did not match with the articles as sent back from the FSL.Legally admissible evidence was lacking in respect of the offences alleged under Sections 121 and 124A of the Penal Code.The defence cross- examined the witness on this, but never challenged the existence or validity of sanction as referred to herein.The State Government's subsequent sanction granted on 24.05.2009 seems to have been more in the nature of an additional safeguard.On 30.09.2009 some leaflets, etc. including leaflets of CPI (Maoist) were seized from the house of the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato.The appellant refused to sign on this seizure list (Ext. 17).The two local witnesses to the seizure PWs 14 and 31 (cousin of the said appellant) did not support the seizure and turned hostile although they admitted their signatures.On 30.09.2009, pursuant to a statement of the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato, an improvised firearm, ammunitions, two detonators and eleven compact discs were recovered that had been kept concealed under the soil near a thick bush at Narcha jungle.The seizure list (Ext 30) contained the appellant's signature in it.Out of two seizure list witnesses, one was not examined.The other one being PW 29 supported the seizure.First, the allusion to an overwriting for the row "Name and residence of person whose house is searched from whom seized" is quite meaningless.Besides, a little below at item no. 5, capital letters were again used to denote "ONE" although the rest were written in small letters.In any event, all these fade into insignificance as PWs 29 and 32 clearly supported the seizure.On 01.10.2009, vide two seizure lists (Exts. 8/1 and 9/1), some objectionable leaflets, receipts for forced subscriptions and thereafter, three gelatin sticks and two detonators were seized by PW 24 from the appellant Suksanti Baskey His signature was obtained.Although the seizure list witness PW 8 admitted his signature, he did not support the seizure of anything except a few papers.But, he was not declared hostile.However, the challenge was not complete as PW 24, who seized the articles, was not cross-examined on this.As regards the evidence regarding call records, whether they are found admissible in evidence or not, they do not appear to be clinching enough as against the appellants.However, the apprehension of some accused at or from near the place of occurrence, the recovery of arms and ammunitions from some of the accused and the seizure of similar objectionable literature from most of them give a clear indication of a sinister design to commit terrorist acts and indulge in seditious activities.The appellant Sagun Murmu was apprehended immediately after the bomblast from near the place of occurrence and a flash gun, an iron pipe, electric wire, etc. were seized from him.Subsequently some other offending literature were also seized from him.The accused Sambhu Soren and another were apprehended from near the place of occurrence along with the co-accused Sagun Murmu immediately after the occurrence.The appellant Chhatradhar Mahato purportedly fled away from near the place of occurrence and after the way was shown by the co-accused Sagun Murmu, the raiding party tracked him to Birkar village and apprehended him from there.Some offending literature were found from him there as also from his residence afterwards.More significantly, arms and ammunitions including two detonators were recovered from a jungle as produced by the appellant Chhatradhar Mahato.He had no explanation for possessing the compact discs containing some extremely objectionable clips.Some arms and ammunitions as also some offending literature and receipts for forced subscriptions were recovered from the appellant Suksanti Baskey.Some mobile phones, cash money and leaflets could be recovered from the appellants Raja Sorkhel and Prasun Chatterjee.Their images were purportedly present in the seized compact discs, but not in any of the extremely offensive clips as referred to earlier.Defective investigation:The Investigating Agency ought to have pre- empted that in cases involving such serious offences, some witnesses, especially the local ones were bound to turn hostile.Moreover, the Investigating Agency failed to come to terms with the changes brought about in law owing to scientific advancements.Had the investigation been more sincere and adept, the true expanse and the gravity of the crimes could have been unearthed.It is true that a flea-bite sentence should not be awarded for a serious offence.At the same time, one has to take into consideration diverse factors in awarding a sentence.Not only is the gravity of the crime to be considered, the other factors like the range of sentence imposable and the minimum sentence fixed, if any, are also to be taken into account.The aggravating as well as the mitigating circumstances are to be carefully weighed.For instance, in the present case, the aggravating factors are the seriousness of the crimes and the recovery of relatively sophisticated items like gelatin sticks and detonators.On the other hand, the mitigating factors are the acquittal of the accused under Section 307 of the Penal Code and the non-seizure of any huge cache' of arms or more sophisticated and lethal weapons like rocket launchers or RDX.Keeping all these factors in mind, an adequate sentence is to be imposed in this case.As had been mentioned earlier, the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges under Sections 20, 38(2), 39(2) and 40(2) of the UAPA against any of the accused and as such, they are exonerated of such charges.The same fails to bring them within the ambit of conspiracy in the facts of the present case.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 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.
76,386,455
This is the second bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail on behalf of the applicant herein.The first one having been dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 05.10.2016 passed in M.Cr.C.No.15568/2016 with the liberty to file afresh after the statement of the material witnesses is recorded before the trial Court.The applicant has been arrested in connection with Crime No.83/2016 for offences punishable under sections 302 and 34 of IPC registered at Police Station- Pathrota, District- Hoshangabad.However, learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court to the effect that the trial Court has been vacant and the witnesses have not yet been examined and in this regard learned counsel for the applicant has filed Annexure- A/3 from page-20 onwards which reflects from 1.09.2016 3.2.2017 onwards, the Court has been lying vacant.On merits, learned counsel for the applicant has stated that the incident relates to 1.5.2016, when the body of the deceased was recovered and the FIR was registered against unknown persons.Thereafter, on 18.05.2016, the applicant was allegedly arrested for an offence under seciton 392 of IPC and while investigating into that the offence and while in police custody, the applicant is alleged to have confess he has committed murder of the deceased.Thereafter, on 25.12.2016, is the statement of three witnesses have been recorded as alleged eye witnesses who knew the applicant and the deceased and was stated to have seen the applicant beating the deceased.However, there is no plausible reason given by the said witnesses for the delay in informing the police about the incident.Be that as it may, looking into the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 18.05.2016 and the nature of evidence against him prima-facie , the application is allowed and direct that the applicant- Sourabh Joshi herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE rk
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
7,638,651
He is ready to furnish adequate security.This first bail application under section 439 of CrPC is in connection with crime number 93/2018 U/s 195(A), 341, 506 r/w S.34 of IPC and Section 25 & 27 of Arms Act registered at Police Station -Julwaniya, District- Barwani.The Prosecution has opposed the bail application.Trial is likely to take time.Considering the nature of the dispute, allegation made against the complainant, relation of the parties, proposal made by the complainant and other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to release the accused on bail.
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,389,675
JUDGMENT [ PER SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ] :1. Rule.Respondents waive service.By consent rule made returnable forthwith.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::By this Notification, Rule 4 of the Furlough and Parole Rules was amended and after sub-rule (10), sub-rule 11 to 19 were added.The said case arises out of C.R. No. 217 of 2010 of Lonikand Police Station, Pune.In our opinion, the only relevant fact is that the conviction and sentence has been interalia recorded for the offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC i.e kidnapping.The petitioner has stated that he did not apply for furlough leave because in view of the Notification dated 23.2.2012 whereby sub-rule 13 was added, his application jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::1. cri wp 4034-14.doc for furlough would be rejected by the Competent Authority.Rule 4 set out the cases when prisoners shall not be granted furlough.Though the entire Notification is challenged, we are concerned here only with sub-rule 13 of Rule 4 which reads as under:-The following categories of prisoners shall not be considered for release on furlough:-(13) Prisoners convicted for offences such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling including those convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and foreigner prisoners;Mr. Yashpal Thakur, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 364 of Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the reasons namely, the nature of the offence, its gravity and it being under section 364 of Indian Penal Code cannot be said jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::1. cri wp 4034-14.doc to be a valid ground for rejection of furlough leave.Thus, a challenge is raised to the provisions by which the authorities are empowered to refuse furlough leave in case of convicts/ prisoners undergoing sentence for the offence of kidnapping.It is not disputed that the petitioner has been convicted for the offence under Section 364 of IPC.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when a person is convicted for kidnapping, then, he would not be released on furlough is the present rule and which would mean that for his entire tenure, as a prisoner/ convict, the petitioner will never be released on furlough.The petitioner would, therefore, be permanently deprived of the right to be released on furlough.It is argued that the selection of Section 364 for being included in the list of offences in respect of which furlough leave shall not be granted is arbitrary and that it is not based on any rational principle.If prisoners convicted for more jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::(2) Prisoners convicted of offences under Sections 392 to 402 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code;(3) Prisoners convicted of offences under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949;::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::Greater Bombay by the Commissioner of Police and elsewhere, by the District Magistrate on the ground of public peace and tranquility;(10) Prisoners who have at any time escaped or attempted to escape from lawful custody or have defaulted in any way in surrendering themselves at the appropriate time after release on parole or furlough.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::The amendment as brought about by the Notification dated 23.2.2012 to the extent of Rule 4, referred to as the principle Rule reads thus:-In rule 4 of the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 after sub-rule (1), the following sub-rules shall be inserted, namely :-(11) Prisoners whose presence is considered dangerous or otherwise prejudicial to public peace and order by the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police;(12) Prisoners who are considered dangerous or have been involved in serious prison violence alike assault, outbreak, riot, mutiny or escape or who have been found to be instigating the serious violation of prison discipline;(13) Prisoners convicted for offences such as dacoity, terrorist crimes, kidnapping, smuggling including those convicted under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985) and foreigner prisoners;(14) Prisoners convicted for failure to give surety for maintaining peace or good behaviour;(15) Prisoners suffering from mental illness, if not certified by the medical officer to have recovered;(16) Prisoners whose work and conduct have not been good during the preceding period of twelve months;(17) Prisoners convicted of offences against any law relating to jfoanz vkacsjdj 8 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::These rules enable the prisoner to obtain his release and to return to the outside world for a short prescribed period.These objects are:(i) to enable the inmate to maintain continuity with his family life and deal with family matters;In the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Bombay (Prisons Amendment) Act No. 27 of 1953, the Jail Reforms Committee had recommended and the Govt.accepted the recommendation that;"there should be the system of release of prisoners on furlough under which well behaved prisoners of certain categories should, as a matter of right have a spell of freedom occasionally after they undergo a specified period of imprisonment, so that they may maintain contact with their near relatives and friends and may not feel uprooted from society.Government accepted these recommendations and also decided that the furlough period should count towards the prisoner's sentence."::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::" Section 59(5) reads as follows :-"S. 59 : Power to make rules : The State Govt. may make rules consistent with this Act .......................1. cri wp 4034-14.doc remission.The petitioner before us has understood this position and, therefore, has raised a challenge to the validity of sub-For example, a jfoanz vkacsjdj 26 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::1. cri wp 4034-14.doc prisoner who has once escaped or attempted to escape or who is likely to escape, may be denied parole because the competent authority has discretion ("may") to grant or not to grant parole even when cause is shown.The provisions regarding the entitlement of benefit has to be read along 6 2005(3) Mh.L.J. 933 jfoanz vkacsjdj 27 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::Evidently, the rules make elaborate provisions regarding entitlement as well as disentitlement of furlough leave to the prisoner.Merely because under certain circumstances the rule provides that a prisoner would not be entitled to furlough leave, that does not amount to a penal provision so as to contend that the implementation of such provision would amount to double jeopardy in the case of a prisoner who is punished under Section 48A of the Prisons Act. The provisions relating to entitlement or disentitlement of furlough leave do not relate to penal action on the part of the authorities.Besides, punishment for jail offence by the Jail Superintendent would not even bar the prosecution and punishment in a Court for the same offence because the powers of the jail superintendent are in the nature of administrative authority for maintenance of discipline and to inflict summary jfoanz vkacsjdj 28 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::In sub-rule 13, furlough is denied on the basis of gravity of offence.However, a notification giving the benefit of remission made certain prisoners and convicts ineligible for the same.The classification was that the convicts who have been convicted for rape, dowry death, abduction and murder of children below 14 years, offences of robbery, prisoners sentenced under NDPS Act, TADA and Foreigners Act and those detained under detention laws and found guilty of violation of Jail Manual shall not be given such remission.That provision came to be challenged before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.The High Court held that it is not open 7 AIR 1978 SC 1675 8 AIR 2003 SC 1696 jfoanz vkacsjdj 30 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::1. cri wp 4034-14.doc to the State Government while granting general remission to carve out special exception to cases which according to it, could be terms as heinous offences and deny benefit of remission to such class of convicts.Having come to the conclusion that the gravity of the offence can be the basis for a valid classification, we will now consider whether the offences excluded from the impugned notification can be said to be such offences which have been wrongly excluded from the benefit of furlough.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::We notice that the convicts who have been excluded from the benefit of said notification, are those convicts who have been sentenced for offences of kidnapping, dacoity, terrorist activities etc. The said offences can be categorized as grave offences, therefore, they can be aptly classified as grave offences, which classification will be a valid classification for the purpose of deciding whether the persons who have committed such offences should be granted furlough or not.On this basis, we are of the opinion that the State Government having decided not to grant furlough to these offenders is justified in doing so.Similarly, the offences under the NDPS Act, apart from carrying heavy penal sentences are offences which could be termed as offences having serious adverse effect on the society, cognizance of which is required to be taken by the State while granting furlough.Therefore, they can also be classified as offences which should be kept out of the purview of furlough and in our opinion, can be classified for jfoanz vkacsjdj 32 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::At this stage, Notification dated 1.12.2015 was brought to our notice.By this Notification, Rule 4 was further amended to include offence of rape.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::It would amount to snatching their right to at least consider their cases for grant of furlough.Mr. Thakur stated that jfoanz vkacsjdj 34 of 36 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/04/2016 00:02:00 :::1. cri wp 4034-14.doc India.
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,394,019
A. 1526/2013 Page 1 of 27The case of the prosecution is that on 3.5.2012 an information was received at Police Station Samaypur Badli from Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, Rohini that a girl 'P' aged about 13 years, unmarried in a pregnant condition was got admitted in the hospital by her father.The said information was reduced into writing vide DD No.21A which was handed over to ASI Raj Devi who reached the hospital and collected the MLC of the victim and recorded her statement.In her statement to the police, the victim 'P' informed that her father was working as a Cook in a hotel and her mother was working as maid servant in kothies.According to the victim, about four-five months ago her Mausa (uncle) Tara Chand started residing in their house and started working with her father as Cook.She further informed the police that they were residing in a tenanted room and she used to sleep along with her parents in the said room only and after her parents went off to sleep, her Mausa Tara Chand used to wake her up and took her outside the room near the door where he used to commit rape upon her.She further alleged that TaraChand used to threaten her not to disclose about the incidents to anybody or else he would kill her father.According to the prosecutrix 'P' out of fear she did not raise any alarm nor she informed her parents about the same but on 2.5.2012 she experienced pain in his stomach on which her father took her to Dr. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital where she was treated.(3) On the basis of the said statement of the prosecutrix 'P' the present case was got registered and investigations were commenced.There was a natural abortion suffered by the prosecutrix and hence the foetus could not be preserved but on account of the complications she was brought to the hospital where dilation and evacuation was completed samples of which product were taken, preserved and handed over to the Investigating Officer which were thereafter sent to FSL for examination.On 4.5.2012 the accused Tara Chand was arrested at the instance of the father of the prosecutrix who on interrogation admitted his involvement in the present case.During investigations the statement of the prosecutrix 'P' was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Ld.MM wherein she stood by her ground.PW8 testified that about four to five months prior to the incident, the appellant had come to Delhi and started living at their house at the instance of her Mausi.The appellant was unemployed and her Mausi pleaded with her father to get him employed somewhere.The father of PW8 got the appellant employed in the same hotel where he was working as a cook and the appellant started staying at their house.It was further deposed by PW8 that they were residing on rent in a room where they all used to sleep together.PW8 explained that there were two rooms in the house, out of which they were residing in one of the rooms, however, nobody was residing in the other room and was kept vacant.PW8 explained that when her parents went off to sleep, the appellant used to wake her up and ask her to come outside and there he used to commit rape upon her.It was put to PW8 as to whether she had informed this fact to anybody.The prosecutrix responded that she did not tell anybody as the appellant used to threaten her not to disclose the incident to anybody or else he would stab her father who used to come late at CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 6 of 27 night with the appellant.PW8 further deposed that one day she felt severe pain in her abdomen to which her father took her to the hospital where she was examined by the doctor and the incident of rape came to light.It was further deposed by PW8 that initially she did not tell anything to the doctor in the hospital but when the Doctor questioned her, she told everything to the Doctor about what the appellant used to do with her.The police was called by the Doctor.The statement of PW8 was recorded by the Police which was proved by her as Ex.A. 1526/2013 Page 6 of 27In her cross-examination PW8 admitted that she alongwith her parents, brother and the appellant used to sleep in one room.PW8 stated that the appellant used to do galat kaam with her in the room which is on the front side.It was voluntarily explained by PW8 that the said room remained vacant and nobody used to reside in the same.It was observed by the Trial Court that PW8 had explained that she and her family were residing as tenants in one room whereas the other room was vacant and nobody was residing there.PW8 further stated that when the appellant used to wake her up in the night, nobody from her family had ever come to know about the same.It was voluntarily explained by PW8 that her mother used to take sleeping pills during CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 7 of 27 the night for the treatment of her depression and therefore her mother did not ever come to know about what was happening.PW8 also stated that her father did not ever realise what was going on during those nights and had voluntarily explained that her father and the appellant used to take alcohol together before sleeping and therefore her father never came to know about what had happened during those nights.PW8 further stated that she did not raise any alarm when the appellant used to take her out and had voluntarily explained that PW8 was extremely scared because whenever she tried to object, the appellant used to show her a knife.PW8 did not tell any of her friends in the school or her class teacher or any other teacher, as to what the appellant was doing with her.It was voluntarily explained by PW8 that at that time she was new in the school and did not know anybody there.It was also stated by PW8 that on one occasion she had tried to tell her mother about the incident but her mother refused to believe and stated that the appellant used to love her and take good care of her because the appellant used to give her chocolates and chowmin to eat.The appellant used to drop her to the school in the morning.In the evening, PW8 used to go for tuition classes.It was voluntarily explained by PW8 that she used to go for her tuitions alone.PW8 had denied that she had made physical relations with some other person and when her parents came to know about the same, in order to save their honour, they had falsely implicated the appellant.She further denied that she has deposed falsely to implicate the appellant at the instance of her parents.A. 1526/2013 Page 7 of 27PW6 Joginder (father of the prosecutrix) testified in his examination-in-chief that he was a Cook by profession and his wife namely Anju CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 8 of 27 Arya @ Hansi Devi (PW7) used to work as a Maid in the Kothies.On 01.05.2012 at about 1:00 AM in the night, his daughter 'P' complained pain in her stomach and took his daughter to Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital, Delhi.His daughter was bleeding from her private parts and was examined by the doctors.The doctor informed PW6 that his daughter was pregnant and it was a case of rape.His daughter was admitted in the hospital for about nine to ten days and was medically treated.After one day of admission of his daughter in the hospital, police came in the hospital and recorded his statement whereby it was alleged by her that the appellant had committed rape upon her.The site plan was prepared at the instance of his daughter.The statement of his daughter was recorded before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Rohini Court.The appellant was arrested on 04.05.2012 and was interrogated by the Police officials.Before 01.05.2012, the appellant was residing with them for the last seven-eight months.The appellant was duly identified by PW6 in the Trial Court.A. 1526/2013 Page 8 of 27In his cross-examination, PW6 stated that he was residing as a tenant and there were only two rooms on the second floor.PW6 stated that he along with his family members i.e. his wife, daughter 'P' and son Kuldev and the appellant used to sleep in the same room.It was further stated by PW6 that he came to know about the pregnancy and the rape of his daughter from the doctors and later his daughter had disclosed the same to him.PW6 admitted that prior to the incident his daughter never informed him about any kind of misbehaviour by the CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 9 of 27 appellant nor he noticed any abnormality in her conduct.It was also admitted by PW6 that he had no suspicion on his daughter or on the appellant or anybody before the incident came to light.PW6 denied that he had enmity with the appellant and due to which he falsely implicated him in the instant case.A. 1526/2013 Page 9 of 27PW7 Anju Arya @ Hansi Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) testified in her examination-in-chief that she used to work in the Kothies as a Maid and her husband used to work in the Hotel as a Cook.She further testified that the appellant used to reside with them for about four to five months prior to the date when her daughter made complaint to them regarding the pain in her stomach.On the first day of May of the year 2012, her daughter complained pain in her stomach.At about 10-11 PM, her husband (PW6) alongwith the appellant returned to home when she informed her husband about the condition of the prosecutrix.Thereafter, her daughter complained severe pain in her stomach and was taken to a Government Hospital i.e. Baba Sahib Ambedkar Hospital in Rohini where her daughter was admitted and was medically examined by the doctors.Her daughter remained in the hospital for about nine days.The doctor informed them that her daughter was pregnant and had been raped.The hospital authorities further informed the police officials after her daughter informed nurses that the appellant committed rape upon her.PW7 further deposed that her daughter did not tell her anything and she only came to know from the nurses that her daughter was being raped by the appellant.PW7 further stated that her daughter was around 13 years of age.PW7 denied that she was deposing wrong age of her daughter by five to six years or that her daughter is more than 18 years of age.PW7 further stated that she was doing the work in Kothies as a maid and her daughter did not accompany her.She had two children i.e. one daughter and one son.PW7 used to leave her house at about 7.00-8.00 AM and returned by 5.00-6.00 PM.It was further stated by PW7 that the prosecutrix used to leave the house by 8:00 AM and used to return at about 2:00 PM and thereafter left for tuitions at 3:00 PM.PW7 admitted that she was not at home when 'P' used to return from the school and also when she used to return from tuitions and has voluntarily explained that she used to return at about CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 11 of 27 4:30 PM.The daughter of PW7 used to go for tuitions along with one Madam and used to return with her husband.However, she could not tell the name of the Madam.PW7 denied that the prosecutrix used to go for tuitions alone along with her other friends.PW7 admitted that she could not tell with whom the prosecutrix used to go in her absence and had voluntarily explained that she only knew that she went for tuitions.PW7 stated that prior to the time when they took her daughter to the hospital, the prosecutrix neither told her anything nor did she notice any abnormality in her behaviour and conduct.It was voluntarily explained by PW7 that she was totally normal.Medical Evidence:PW4 Hemlata had proved the MLC of the prosecutrix as Ex.PW4/A, which was prepared by Dr. Roshini Aggarwal.As per the MLC, the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital by her father Joginder (PW6) on 02.05.2012, at about 1:30 AM as she was complaining pain in her abdomen and bleeding per-vagina from five days and history of passage of some fleshy mass per vagina at home.During her medical examination, the UPT of the prosecutrix was found positive but her parents did not give any history pertaining to the sexual or physical assault.On local examination, there was slight bleeding per vagina, CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 12 of 27 her hymen was torn, cervical OS was closed and uterus was found ante-verted.The prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital for further dilation and evacuation and the evacuated material was preserved and handed over to the Investigating Officer.As per the MLC the prosecutrix was found fit for the statement on 02.05.2012 at about 1:34 AM.A. 1526/2013 Page 12 of 27Forensic Evidence:PW13 A.K. Shrivastava, Deputy Director (Biology), DNA Fingerprinting Unit, FSL, Delhi testified that on 18.12.2012 two parcels were received by him for the examination.The parcel No.1 was containing blood sample and blood in gauze of the appellant which was marked as Ex.1a and Ex.1b respectively.The parcel No.2 was containing the POC kit and three pads in normal saline of the prosecutrix which was marked as Ex.2a and Ex.2b respectively.On DNA profiling, one set of alleles of the source of Ex.1a and Ex.1b are accounted in the alleles of the source of Ex.2a and Ex.2b.As per the report, one set of alleles from the source of Ex.2a and EX.2b are similar with one set of alleles of the source of Ex.1a and Ex.1b.The detailed report of PW13 was proved by him as Ex.PW13/A and the Genotype Data Table was proved as Ex.PW13/B.As to the age of the prosecutrix, the prosecution has relied upon the opinion rendered by the Medical Board (Ex.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively.PW5/A, Ex.PW5/B and Ex.PW5/C respectively.PW5 had also proved a certificate with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix as Ex.This is an appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') against the judgment dated 10.01.2013 by which the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').Challenge is also made to the order on sentence dated 24.01.2013 by which the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under Section 376 of IPC, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of one month and for the offence under Section 506 of IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years.Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The brief facts of the case as noticed by the Trial Court reads as under:After completion of CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 2 of 27 investigations charge sheet was filed against the accused Tara Chand in the Court"A. 1526/2013 Page 2 of 27To bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all.The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. whereby he stated that he had been arrested on the basis of wrong allegations and denied all the incriminating material against him.The appellant pleaded innocence and claimed to be falsely implicated in the present case.No evidence was led by the appellant in his defence.Mr. Biswajit Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the judgment of the Trial Court is based on surmises and conjectures and not based on cogent, clear or impeachable evidence.Counsel contends that the Trial Court had erred in not taking into consideration that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The order is contrary to the law and has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice.It is contended that the testimony of the victim is full of discrepancies and contradictions and cannot form the basis of conviction of the appellant.Counsel further contends that the testimonies of PW6 and PW7, being the father and mother of the prosecutrix respectively are hearsay evidence and thus cannot form the basis of conviction.Learned counsel has strenuously urged that both PW6 and PW7 have testified that the victim along with her parents, brother and the appellant were all residing in one room and thus it is highly improbable that the appellant was able to lure the prosecutrix in the middle of the night to leave the room without her consent.It is contended that the victim has testified that her mother was suffering CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 3 of 27 from depression and used to take sleeping pills, while her father used to consume alcohol with the appellant and would then fall into deep sleep.In these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the testimony of the brother of the victim would have been of utmost importance.However, the prosecution has chosen not to produce the brother of the prosecutrix in the witness-box.A. 1526/2013 Page 3 of 27Counsel further contends that, according to the prosecutrix, she was raped daily for a period of 2-4 months.The Trial Court has carefully analyzed the testimonies of various CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 4 of 27 witnesses and reached the conclusion of the guilt.PW8/A. After some days, she was produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate and her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded which was proved as Ex.PW8/B. On a specific Court Question regarding how many occasions did the appellant made physical relations with her, to which she responded that the appellant made physical relations with her daily for a period of two to four months.The appellant was correctly identified by the prosecutrix in the Trial Court as her Mausa.On 03.05.2012, Police came to the hospital and made inquiries from her daughter.The statement of her daughter was recorded by the Police whereby she alleged that the appellant CRL.A. 1526/2013 Page 10 of 27 committed rape upon her.PW7 further deposed that her daughter was discharged from the hospital after a period of nine days.The appellant was duly identified by PW7 in the Court as the husband of her younger sister.A. 1526/2013 Page 10 of 27In her cross examination, PW7 stated that her age at the time of her deposition in Court was around 35 years and she was married around 16 years before her deposition.The prosecutrix was her eldest child and was born at home after three years of her marriage in Delhi.No information was given to Anganwari or to the Municipal Corporation and thus there was no authentic date of birth certificate of her daughter.PW7 further stated that her daughter was seven to eight years of age when she got admitted in the school.The husband of PW7 had given the information with regard to the date of birth of her daughter.PW7 failed to state the date of birth of her daughter which was recorded in the school records nor did she recollect in which year the prosecutrix was born.PW7 admitted that she never had any suspicion on the appellant nor on her daughter till she was taken to the hospital for treatment where they came to know that her daughter was pregnant.PW7 denied that the appellant had been falsely implicated by her and her husband or that the prosecutrix had named the appellant on their tutoring because they were inimical to the appellant.A. 1526/2013 Page 11 of 27PW11/A) and the testimony of PW5 Renu Bhatnagar, Principal of MC Primary School, Sector-18 Rohini who had brought the relevant documents pertaining to the prosecutrix.A. 1526/2013 Page 13 of 27PW11 Dr. Vineet Popli testified that on 29.06.2012, the prosecutrix was produced before the Medical Board for her age determination/ ossification test.The Medical Board comprised of Dr. Rajeev Ranjan (Radiologist), Dr. Jitender Singh (Ortho Surgeon), Dr. Vijay Dhankar (HOD, Deptt.of Forensic Medicine) and Dr. Kunwar Sanjay Kumar (Dental Surgeon).The detailed report of the Medical Board was proved as Ex.PW11/A as per which the approximate bone age of the prosecutrix was more than 14 years but less than 16 years.The copy of the admission register, the copy of the admission form which was filed by Joginder (PW6) in respect of the admission of the prosecutrix and the copy of the affidavit filed by Joginder with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix was proved by PW5 as Ex.PW5 also proved a certificate with regard to the date of birth of the prosecutrix as Ex.A. 1526/2013 Page 15 of 27(Emphasis Supplied)The relevant para 13 reads as under:Ultimately a stage was reached when she could not keep it a secret since her mother discovered that she was pregnant.In these circumstances, she was compelled to disclose the true facts.
['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.
763,947
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedDecember 10, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in.R. L. Kohli, for the appellant.V. C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byKhanna, J. Ishar Das appellant was convicted by the judicialmagistrate 1st class Patiala for an offence under section7(1) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (ActNo.37 of 1954) read with section 16(1) (a) (i) of that Actand was ordered to furnish bond under section 4 of theProbation of Offenders Act. Bedi, J. of the Punjab andHaryana High Court during the course of the inspection ofthe Court of trial magistrate, took the view that animproper order had been made in the above case by themagistrate.The High Court thereupon of its own motiondirected that a notice be issued to the appellant.The casewas thereafter posted before Bedi, J. The learned judgereferred to the fact that a minimum sentence of imprisonmentfor a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 1,000 had beenprescribed by section 16 of the Prevention of FoodAdulteration Act. It was also observed that offenses underthe Prevention of Food Adulteration Act were against thepublic and called for deterrent punishment.In default of payment of fine.the appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment fora further period of one and a half month.The appellantthereafter filed this appeal by special leave to this Court.At the time the leave was granted.it was ordered that theappeal would be limited to the question of sentence only.The prosecution case is that on August 1, 1966 the FoodInspector Patiala took- a sample of two cups of ice creamfrom the appellant from Phul Cinema canteen on payment ofthree rupees.Part of the ice cream was sent for analysisto Public Analyst Chandigarh.The Analyst reported that theice cream was adulterated, being deficient in milk fatcontents to the extent of 77 per cent and total solidcontents to the, extent of 7 per cent.The appellant wasthereafter prosecuted on the allegation that he hadcommitted an offence under section 7(1) of the Prevention ofFood Adulteration Act read with section 16 (1 ) (a) (i) ofthat314Act.Charge was framed on that count against the appellantand he pleaded guilty to the same.The trial magistratetook the view that the appellant, who was aged about 20years, was in a repentant mood.
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
76,396,242
"That he had shifted 6 months ago from the jhuggies of Vikas Puri, there he alongwith his cousin brother Malkhi was selling toffees, cigarettes etc. on a wooden plank in front of three jhuggy, and they were making living out of that.G. P. MITTAL, J.This Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 12.07.2011 and the order on sentence dated 18.07.2011 whereby the Appellants were convicted for an offence punishable under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).Appellant Ashok was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 6 years whereas Appellants Gopi and Rinku were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years each.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses.PW-2 Vijay Pal and PW-8 Balbir were projected as the witnesses of the actual incident.The learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) declined to believe that PW-2 Vijay Pal was a witness of the actual occurrence.However, regarding PW-8 Balbir, the learned ASJ opined that the three Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 1 of 9 Appellants had committed an offence punishable under Section 304-II/34 of the IPC for causing death of Malkhi.A. 45/2012 Page 1 of 9The following contentions are raised on behalf of the Appellants:-(i) PW-2 is purported to be the author of the FIR.If testimony of PW-2 is excluded, the whole case of the prosecution falls to the ground.(ii) As per PW-8 Balbir only two blows were given to the deceased Malkhi whereas doctor found four injuries on his person.This contradiction belies the prosecution version.(iii) As per the prosecution version the injury by knee on the deceased's testicles was caused by Rinku.Appellants Ashok had simply caught hold of deceased Malkhi while Appellant Gopi gave a fist blow on his left eye.Thus, Appellants Ashok and Gopi could not have been convicted under Section 304-II IPC with the aid of Section 34 of IPC as none of the three Appellants were armed with any weapon and no common intention can be said to be shared by Appellants Ashok and Gopi in causing injuries on the testicles.The prosecution story as recorded by the police on the statement of PW-2 Vijay Pal in the impugned judgment is extracted hereunder:-Today on 13.10.2006, at around 7:00 a.m., he along with his brother were present at their said shop, and one of the neighbour Balbir was also standing there.At that time, three persons, namely, Gopi, Rinku and Ashok, who were residing in their locality came to their shop and started lifting the goods of their own, to which Malkhi objected and told them that he would himself Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 2 of 9 give the goods they wanted, which infuriated them and they started abusing him and also started beating him.A. 45/2012 Page 2 of 9At that time, Ashok caught hold of Malkhi, whereas Rinku hit him with his knee on his private parts, at that same time, Gopi gave him fist blow on his left eye.Due to the said injuries he fell down on the floor, when they raised the alarm, all the said persons ran away from the spot.Police was informed.PCR came to the spot, which removed his brother to the M.B. Hospital, where he declared brought dead".The learned ASJ primarily disbelieved PW-2 Vijay Pal on three grounds, first, that he did not come forward to save his cousin Malkhi; second, that his name is not recorded in the MLC; and, third, that his presence at the spot was not admitted by PW-8 Balbir.In my view, the learned ASJ did not appreciate the testimony of PW-2 in right perspective.PW-2 Vijay Pal when questioned as to why he did not intervene to save his cousin Malkhi, had explained that he had got recently married and could not dare to intervene.In the circumstances, simply on account of non intervention of PW-2, in the quarrel his presence at the spot cannot be doubted.As far as removal of the deceased to the hospital along with PCR officials is concerned, I may say that no suggestion was given by the defence to PW-2 that he did not accompany the deceased to the hospital with the police (PCR).No explanation was sought from PW-2 as to why his name was not recorded in the MLC.If any such question had been asked he would Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 3 of 9 have given the explanation.Thus, the learned ASJ also erred in disbelieving the presence of PW-2 on the ground that his name is not mentioned in the column of "brought by".Admittedly, the deceased was removed to the hospital by PCR officials.The doctor was not wrong in recording that the deceased was brought to the hospital by the police officials because he was in fact taken to the hospital by the police officials.But the entry in the MLC that the deceased was brought by the police would not mean that PW-2 did not accompany the deceased to the hospital.It may further be noticed that his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on the basis of which the instant FIR was recorded was taken down by the IO in the hospital.No question was put to PW-11 the IO that PW-2 was not present in the hospital when he reached there.In this view of matter, it is difficult to sustain the view taken by the learned ASJ that PW-2 was not present at the spot at the time of the incident.A. 45/2012 Page 3 of 9Of course, PW-8 stated in his cross-examination that PW-2 was not present at the spot at the time of the incident.In this regard it would be appropriate to refer to PW-2's testimony who stated in his examination- in-chief as under:-"Upon this all the three accused persons started abusing Malki and said "TOO BAHOOT BAN KAR DIKATA HAI".They thereafter started giving beatings to Malki.In the meantime, I had already come out of the jhuggi.Accused Gopi gave a fist blow at near the right eye of Malki and as a result blood started oozing out.Accused Ashok thereafter caught hold of Malki and accused Rinkoo gave a knee blow at the private parts of Malki.They all gave beating to Malki by fist blows etc. also.Malki as a result fell down on the ground.All the three accused thereafter ran away towards Nahar...."Thus, it may be seen that the shop (the stall) was being run by the deceased and Vijay Pal by putting a wooden plank in front of the jhuggi.A. 45/2012 Page 4 of 9It seems that when the incident started PW-2 was inside and when the words "TOO BAHOOT BAN KAR DIKATA HAI" were exclaimed PW-2 had come out of his jhuggi.It is evident that he was not actually present at the stall and was at some distance whereas PW-8 was present close to the stall.In any case, these contradictions were not enough to exclude PW-2's presence at the spot.Even if, testimony of PW-2 is excluded as was held by the learned ASJ PW-8's testimony who had no enmity with the accused persons cannot be disbelieved.In fact, there was no motive even for PW-2 to have falsely deposed against the Appellants.In this view of matter, the incident, that is, holding of the deceased by Appellant Ashok and infliction of knee blow on Malkhi's testicles and a fist blow at the deceased's eye by Appellant Gopi cannot be doubted.It is true that as per the prosecution case only two blows were given by the Appellants.The other injuries which were in the shape of bruises etc. which can be possible in the course of falling/scuffle.Thus, prosecution version with respect to the Appellants Rinku and Gopi cannot be doubted.The vital question for consideration is whether Appellant Ashok and Gopi could be convicted under Section 304-II IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.In other words, whether there was pre-concert or prearranged plan to cause injuries by the three accused persons.It is well settled that there need not be prearranged plan to cause injuries which are likely to cause death and that the common intention may well develop at the spot.In the instant case, there is no evidence that there was any pre-concert.In fact there was no previous enmity between the Appellants on the one hand and the deceased or any of his relation on the Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 5 of 9 other.On an objection being raised by the deceased the Appellants got enraged and exclaimed "TOO BAHOOT BAN KAR DIKATA HAI".Thus, the quarrel started on the spur of moment.The Appellant Ashok caught hold of the deceased and Appellant Rinku gave a knee blow on the deceased's testicles which proved fatal.Admittedly, the Appellants were not armed with any weapon when they reached the deceased's shop.They were simply picking up the articles at the shop.As stated earlier the common intention can well develop at the spot, but what is more important to see is whether common intention was to cause Malkhi's death.A. 45/2012 Page 5 of 9In Preetam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 12 SCC 594, the Supreme Court held that although the common intention can well develop at the spot but it should be the result of prior concert and prior concert can be inferred from the conduct of the accused revealing unity of purpose and the part played by them at the time of the occurrence, the injuries inflicted and other relevant factors.In Harjit Singh & Ors.v. State of Punjab, AIR 2002 SC 3040 there were two parties of the assailants who caused injuries.A-2 was member of the first party of the accused who had come on the tractor.He or the persons accompanying him were not armed with any weapon to cause death.As per the prosecution version because Harjeet Singh (A-1) joined first party at a later point of time and he was armed with revolver.The members of the first and the second party raised lalkara to the deceased to come out of the house, which was found to be a material improvement.A-2 who Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 6 of 9 was member of the first party and since the first party was not armed with any weapon to cause death, the Supreme Court held that the common intention to inflict injuries with the intention of causing death cannot be shared by A-1 who was member of the first party.A. 45/2012 Page 6 of 9In Abani K. Debnath & Anr.v. State of Tripura, (2005) 13 SCC 422 , on facts, the Supreme Court held that although the common intention can also be formed on the spot but in the instant case it was difficult to say that there was common intention shared by A-1 with A-5. A-5 was accordingly acquitted of the charge of murder.The facts can be extracted from Para 2 of the report as under:-"2.....The prosecution story as unfolded was that the quarrel between the accused Amar Debnath and Anil Das, PW 1 ensued over grazing cows.The cow of the accused is said to have entered into the field of PW1 by breaking the fence.On seeing PW-1 being beaten, the unfortunate deceased Ranjit Das who was standing nearby intervened to save Anil Das, PW-1 from the beating.In the quarrel that ensued, it appears that there was a mutual fight between the accused and the prosecution party and both parties suffered simple injuries on their bodies.In the meantime, A-1 Abani Kumar Debnath rushed to the spot and stated to have dealt a dao-blow on the occipital region of the deceased which ultimately resulted in death........"Turning to the facts of the instant case, keeping in view the fact that all the three assailants were not armed with any weapon, the quarrel started all of a sudden simply because the Appellant Ashok held the deceased or that the Appellant Gopi gave a fist blow on the deceased's eye, it cannot be said that they shared the common intention to cause an injury by the knee on the deceased's testicles.That was an individual act of the Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 7 of 9 Appellant Rinku.Appellant Rinku did have knowledge that injury on the vital part of the body (i.e. testicles) would be sufficient to cause death of the deceased.Thus, conviction of Appellant Rinku for the offence punishable under Section 304-II/34 of IPC is however altered to Section 304-II IPC.A. 45/2012 Page 7 of 9Appellant Ashok was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 6 years whereas Appellants Gopi and Rinku were sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years each.Reason for awarding harsher punishment to Appellant Ashok is that he had threatened the witnesses during the trial for which another case under Section 506 IPC was registered against him.In the circumstances, they are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year which they have already undergone and are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.Appellant Rinku has served sentence of four years, two months and three days.He has also earned remission of six months and 18 days and the period of unexpired portion of his sentence is about three months and 9 days.In the circumstances of the case, he is also sentenced to undergo Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 8 of 9 imprisonment for the period which he has already undergone and is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.A. 45/2012 Page 8 of 9The Appeals are allowed in above terms.Pending Applications also stand disposed of.A copy of the judgment be transmitted to the Superintendent jail immediately.(G.P. MITTAL) JUDGE APRIL 08, 2013 vk Crl.A. 45/2012 Page 9 of 9A. 45/2012 Page 9 of 9
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
763,996
(A) The prosecution case reveals that on 11.2.1998 at 9.00 A.M., Murugan @ Settu (A.1) with an intention to marry the minor girl Shankari (PW.4), aged 14 years studying in 8th standard, kidnapped her from S.S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram, by stating that her mother, Parimala (PW.15) was seriously ill and had been admitted to hospital.Shankari (PW.4) took permission to leave the school from her teacher, Rajeshwari (PW.5) and also informed about the said fact to her classmate P. Megala (PW.6).(B) Shankari (PW.4) was taken by A.1 in an auto bearing No. TN 21 B 6582 to Kamatchi Amman Temple, where Shiva (A.2) also came and both of them took Shankari (PW.4) to Orikai road stating that they were going to the hospital.(C) On being questioned by Shankari (PW.4), she was threatened by A.1 and A.2 that if she made noise they would spoil her life.She was taken to the house of Smt. Logammal (PW.7), the grand-mother of A.2 at Kaliampoondi, at about 1.00 P.M. They stayed there at night.On 12.2.1998, M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father of Shankari (PW.4) lodged an FIR in Crime No. 209 of 1998 that his daughter had gone to attend the school on 11.2.1998 and did not return.Thus, she was missing.(D) On the same day, i.e. 12.2.1998, Ramalingam @ Ramu (A.3) came from Kancheepuram.All the accused compelled Shankari (PW.4) to get married with A.1 and, accordingly, A.1 tied `Thali' in Shankari's neck.A.1 and A.3 took Shankari (PW.4) to Bangalore leaving A.2 at Vellore.During this period, A.1 raped the prosecutrix 3 Shankari (PW.4) many times.They reached Chennai and stayed in the house of Vijayalakshmi (PW.12).(E) As there had been an FIR in respect to the fact that Shankari (PW.4) had been missing, Pugazhendhi (PW.19), Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station after receiving the information that A.1 and prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) would appear before the court at Kancheepuram reached there, and made a written application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram for sending A.1 and Shankari (PW.4) for medical examination.The application was accepted.(F) Dr. Parasakthi (PW.18) examined Shankari (PW.4) and issued a medical certificate, Ex.P-10 to the effect that she had been sexually assaulted.Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) examined A.1 on 26.3.1998 and issued certificate Exs.P-14 and P-15 to the effect that he was not impotent.He also examined Shankari (PW.4) and issued certificates including Ex.P-16 giving his opinion that she was about 18 years of age.Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.All the three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 981 and 986 of 2002, by which the High Court had disposed of the said appeals preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of the trial court dated 24.6.2002, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000, by which appellant Murugan @ Settu (A.1) had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those counts respectively.(G) After completing the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.Subsequently, the trial court framed the charges against A.1 under Sections 366 and 376 IPC and so far as A.2 and A.3 were 4 concerned, they were charged under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and Sections 376 r/w 109 IPC.As all the three appellants denied the charges and claimed trial, they were proceeded with trial.(H) In support of its case, the prosecution examined 21 witnesses and 12 documents were exhibited and marked.Five properties were also marked.Three documents i.e. D1 to D3 were also exhibited and marked.After concluding the trial, the Sessions Court convicted all the appellants and imposed punishment as aforesaid.(I) Being aggrieved, all the three appellants preferred Criminal Appeals before the High Court which have been disposed of by the common judgment and order impugned herein with certain modifications in the conviction and sentence so far as A.2 and A.3 are concerned.It set aside their conviction under Sections 366 r/w 109 IPC and convicted them under Sections 363 r/w 109 IPC and imposed punishment of two years.Hence, these appeals.Shri G. Sivabalamurugan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has challenged the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below mainly on the grounds that the courts failed to 5 appreciate that Shankari (PW.4) had gone voluntarily with A.1 as she was in love with him and wanted to marry him and not under compulsion of any one else.All independent witnesses i.e. Smt. Logammal (PW.7); Rajeshwari (PW.9) and Vijayalakshmi (PW.12) turned hostile.Shankari (PW.4) was major as opined by Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) who issued certificate to the effect that she was about 18 years of age.The courts erred in placing reliance upon the birth certificate of Shankari (PW.4) either given by the Municipality or by the School on the basis of the School Register.In the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the name of the prosecutrix was not mentioned.Neither M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father nor Parimala (PW.15), mother of the prosecutrix, was able to state the correct age and they were not sure about the date of birth and age of Shankari (PW.4).In such a fact-situation, conviction of the appellants is liable to be set aside.On the other hand, Shri S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the appeals contending that there are concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, particularly on the most material issue i.e. regarding 6 the age of the prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4), to the effect that she was minor.The school register and birth certificate issued by the Municipality are admissible pieces of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and have rightly been relied upon.In case the finding on the issue of age of the prosecutrix is not disturbed, the question of entertaining any other issue does not arise.The appeals are devoid of any merit and are liable to be dismissed.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.I. Relevant part of the FIR lodged by M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1) father of the prosecutrix reads as under:"My daughter's name is Shankari, aged about 14 years and studying in 8th Std.at S.S.K.V. School.She went on 11.2.1998 at 9 A.M. and did not return home.I came to know that she is missing.Relevant part of the certificate of birth issued by the Department of Public Health, under Section 17 of the Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969, issued by the Commissioner, Kancheepuram Municipality reads as under:Registration No. - 140S.S.K.V. Higher Secondary School, Kancheepuram reads as under:"Certified that E. Shankari D/o M.P.Ekambaram was a student of this school in Eighth Std.during 1997-98 and her date of birth as per our school record (Admn.No.13714 (n.c.) is 30.3.1984 (Thirtieth March Nineteen Eighty Four)."Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) examined prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) and on the basis of Radiological Test Report (Ex.P.16) opined that she was aged about 18 years.Evidence of the witnesses in respect of age :I. M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1) in his examination-in-chief does not say anything about the age of the prosecutrix.Thus, the defence did not cross-examine him on this issue.However, no suggestion had 8 been put to him by the defence that she was major and had developed a liking/love affair with A.1 and had voluntarily gone with him.At the relevant time, prosecutirix was studying in 8th standard and was 14 years of age.Suggestion put to her that she was deposing about the age of her younger daughter and not of Shankari (PW.4) was denied.She also denied that she was deposing falsely.The defence has placed reliance on Ex. D-1, a letter written by the prosecutrix to the police officer which reads:"I am in love with Murugan for the past 1 = years.My school age is 15 years.My hospital age is 17 years.My father and mother would go by caste.I talked with him without knowledge of my father and mother.When my parents came to know about our affair they tortured me for 4 months.My lover told me that he was going to die by consuming `poison'.I insisted that if I live, I can live with him otherwise I will die.He did not take me out.I only took him out.I am requesting the police and my relatives to put us together, otherwise if they try to separate us, my parents and police would be responsible.Sd/- Shankari"It is evident from the aforesaid documents that prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) had developed a love affair with A.1, but there is nothing on record on the basis of which she had written that her hospital age was 17 years.In Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1625, this Court had an occasion to examine a similar issue and held as under:There were two certified copies from school registers which showed that on June 20, 1960 she was under 17 years of age.There was also the affidavit of the father stating the date of her birth and the statement of Kaniz Fatima to the police with regard to her own age.These amounted to evidence 10 under the Indian Evidence Act and the entries in the school registers were made ante litem motam.In the instant case, in the birth certificate issued by the Municipality, the birth was shown to be as on 30.3.1984;registration was made on 5.4.1984; registration number has also been shown; and names of the parents and their address have correctly been mentioned.She had been cross examined at length but nothing could be elicited to doubt her testimony.(P. SATHASIVAM) ..................................
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,734,071
This is the rst bail application led by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant is in custody since 14.02.2015 in connection with Crime No.296/2014 registered at P.S. Morwa, District Singrauli for the oence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354, 376(1) and 506-B of the I.P.C. and section 6/8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Oences Act.As per prosecution, it is alleged against this applicant that he abducted the prosecutrix and committed rape on her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that prosecutrix is more than 17 years of age.She went with this applicant to Banaras and remained with him for one day, thereafter she went to Bombay, she did not disclose anything in regard to rape.Thereafter a false and concocted report has been lodged against this applicant.Nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of this applicant.The trial would take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Certied copy as per rules.(G.S. SOLANKI)
['Section 366 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.
189,749
There is a dramatic club by the name "Naresh Dramatic Club" in Harijan colony, Tilak Nagar.Public Witness 4 Jagdish Kumar was the director of the said club.The club used to play Ram Lila every year during the Dussehra.The appellants during the staging of Ram Lila in the year 1979 had created trouble.(4) On 25th September 1980 at about 7.30 p.m. Public Witness 4 Jagdish Kumar, Public Witness 6 Inder Jit, Public Witness 9 Surinder Kumar, Public Witness 14 Satish Kumar and the deceased Rajesh Kumar were going from house to house to collect funds for the celebrations of Ram Lila.As they reached near the house of the appellants.Ramesh caught Rajesh Kumar and felled him on the ground.Jagdish Kumar intervened to save Rajesh Kumar but Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar took out chhuries and they assaulted Jagdish Kumar.Jagdish Kumar somehow managed to escape unhurt.Surinder Kumar also intervened to save Rajesh Kumar but he was hit by Krishan Kumar with the chhuri on his right arm.Thereafter, it is alleged, Raj Kumar gave knife blows to Rajesh Kumar and Satish Kumar.JUDGMENT R.N. Aggarwal, J.(1) Krishan Kumar alias Kuddi, Raj Kumar alias Puppi and Ramesh Kumar were tried in the court of Shri T.S. Oberoi, Addl.Sessions Judge on the charges under sections 302 and 324 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned trial Judge found all the accused guilty of the offences charged with and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life on the first charge.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.(2) Against their convictions and sentences the accused have come in appeal.(3) The case for the prosecution is this.Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar came there and they said that they would not allow Ram Lila to be staged by Jagdish Kumar and others nor would they allow them to collect funds for the same.There were exchange of abuses between Krishan Kumar, Raj Kumar and the deceased Rajesh Kumar.Ramesh Kumar appellant also came there in a three wheeler scooter.Rajesh Kumar received the knife blow on the left side of the chest.Satish Kumar got injuries on his right thigh and left arm.Inderjit also received injuries on the right thigh.Thereafter, it is alleged, that Krishan Kumar and Ramesh Kumar succeeded in escaping but Raj Kumar was overpowered by the prosecution witnesses at the spot, and in the process of being captured by the prosecution witnesses Raj Kumar is said to have sustained injuries on his head.(5) One Shri Giriraj Singh informed the police control room on telephone that a quarrel is going on at Gandhi Ashram, Harijan colony, Tilak Nagar, Ex. Public Witness 17/A is a copy of the report recorded at the police control room and the time given in the report is 8.17 p.m. Sub-Inspector 0m Parkash was deputed to go to the spot of occurrence.Sub-Inspector 0m Parkash recorded the statement Ex. Public Witness 4/A of Jagdish Kumar and sent the same at 9.40 p.m. to the police station for formal registration of the case.The formal report Ex. Public Witness 13/C was recorded at 9.50 p.m. at police station Tilak Nagar.Rajesh Kumar was removed to the Willingdon hospital where he was declared dead.(6) Dr. Bharat Singh performed autopsy on the dead body of Rajesh Kumar and he found the following injuries on the body of Rajesh Kumar:- "1.One incised stab wound on the left side chest in mid axillary line 8" below the armpit size l"x 1/2" X ? The wound was placed obliquely and was spindle shaped.Margins were regular and clean cut.Blood was oozing out from the wounds.Abrasion on the back of the left shoulder size 1" x 3/4" brown in colour."On internal examination the doctor found that injury No. I had entered the left side chest cavity after cutting the lower border of 9th rib and part of 9th space muscle.After this the tract is continuous on the diaphragm.After cutting the diaphragm the wound was continuous on the greater curvature of stomach on the lateral side.Size of the cut on the stomach was 1" X 1/4" X len lumen deep.Total depth of the injury was found to be 3"".The doctor opined that injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The doctor in cross-examination by the accused deposed that injury No. 2 was not caused by a sharp edged a weapon.It was an abrasion and a simple injury.As regards injury No. 1 the doctor opined that it was possible by a sharp object.(7) Satish Kumar Public Witness , Inderjit Public Witness and the accused Raj Kumar were also examined in the hospital on 25th September 1980, and exhibits Pw 16/C, Public Witness 16/B and Public Witness 16/A aie respectively the medico legal reports in respect of them.One confused lacerated wound was found on the scalp of Raj Kumar and one confused lacerated wound on the eye brow.There were two more small injuries on the body of Raj Kumar.On the body of Satish Kumar Public Witness , one sharp cut wound on the right thigh and one sharp cut wound on the fore-arm were found.The nature of the injuries was stated to be simple and were caused by a sharp object.On the body of Inderjit two sharp cut wounds on the right thigh were found.The injuries were stated to be simple and were caused by sharp object.(8) Krishan Kumar accused was examined by Dr. Mukhtiar Singh of the police hospital on 1st October 1980 and he found four scabbed wounds on the various parts of the body of Krishan Kumar, the first was on the left side chest, the second on the back of the right shoulder, the third on the left side of the iliac crest and the fourth on the anterior part of the scalp left side.Exhibit Public Witness 15/A is the report of the doctor in respect of Krishan Kumar.Dr. Mukhtiar Singh in cross examination stated that all the injuries found on the body of Krishan Kumar could not be self inflicted.The doctor slated that all the injuries could be by the same weapon as the breath of all the injuries is almost the same.(9) Raj Kumar accused in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the prosecution case.As regards the injuries on his person he stated that on 25th September 1980at about 7.30 p.m. he had gone to the municipal water tap for bringing water, that he was only in a kachha and baniyan that a quarrel had taken place somewhere else between Surinder, Satish, Inder and some other persons, that Surinder raised alarm and came to the water tap and he gave a lathi blow on his head and Satish and Inder were armed with knives and one person was having a sword and they all started beating him, that after receiving the head injury he tried to go to his house but he became unconscious and fell there, that he regained consciousness in the hospital.The accused further stated as under : "Jagaish Kumar the Fir maker is the brother of Satish, Surinder, the injuried, and also real brother of Sunder Lal who is a witness in this case.Smt. Chandu is the mother of Inderjit.All the above persons except Inderjit are sons of Ram Parsad who is a very influential man in Harijan Basti and he remained as Pradhan in Harijan Basti for several years.In one of the Presidential Election in which Ram Parsad was the candidate, I along with my brothers and other family members supported the other candidate and later on Sunder Dass who is one of the sons of Ram Parsad had illegally occupied 28 plots in the Harijan Basti and sold each for his own economic gains for Rs. 500.00 each, to the non-allottees, and in the same way, Surinder Public Witness has also illegally occupied eight such plots in the Harijan Basti and sold the same for the consideration of Rs. 500.00 each, to the nonallottees, even inspite of great agitation by the other poor allottees.My brother Ramesh, myself, along-with my father and Kishan Kumar brother raised a voice against this illegal act of Sunder Lal and Surinder, both sons of Ram Parsad in the colony and we have also put this thing in the meeting of the colony and due to this reason Ram Parsad and his sons became inimical towards myself and my family members.They have also grudge that my brother Ramesh had managed one more allotment which is adjacent to my father's house and that they all were considering us as a 'roara' in their way.While there was a quarrel somewhere else I was encircled near the water tap on 25 9.80 and there I was attacked.I sustained injuries and became unconscious When I was in the hospital, I was made accused in this case and was falsely implicated at the instance of above said persons.I am innocent."Krishan Kumar accused in his statement at the trial stated that he had sustained injuries at the hands of Surinder, Satish, Inder and their colleagues.Ramesh Kumar denied the prosecution case and stated that the case against him is false.He further made a statement similar to the statement made by his brother Raj Kumar.The accused in support of their defense examined a few witnesses.(10) We have heard Mr. Khan on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Lao on behalf of the State and have also perused the record.The prosecution case admits of no doubt that on 25th September 1980 at about 7.45 p m. an occurrence took place near the house of the accused in which Rajesh Kumar, Satish Kumar and Inderjit in the complainant party, and Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar from the accused party had received injuries.Rajesh Kumar had died.We are not satisfied with the truthfulness of the prosecution case regarding the origin of the fight.It seems to us that both the parties happened to meet near the municipal tap and a quarrel developed in which both the parties abused each other and some out of them were injured.The fight was sudden and without any premeditation.The evidence does not show that the appellants had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.(11) P. Ws. 4, 5 and 6 have attributed the stab injury to the deceased to Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar.The prosecution case is that both Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar were armed with chhuries.Only one stab wound was found on the body of the deceased.Therefore, the statement of Public Witnesses 4, 5 and 6 that Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar had given knife blows to Rajesh is not true.Public Witnesses 9 and 14 have attributed the stab injury to the deceased to Raj Kumar alias Puppi.Assuming that it was Raj Kumar alias Puppi who had caused the knife injury to the deceased and which proved fatal we are of the view that the offence committed by Raj Kumar would fall under Section 304 part Ii of the Indian Penal Code, and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The injuries to Satish Kumar and Inderjit were found to be simple and caused with a sharp weapon.The injuries to Satish Kumar and Inderjit are also attributed to Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar.We may straight away say that on the evidence produced on the record it cannot be held that there was any common intention between the accused in causing the injury to the deceased.As regards the injuries caused to Satish and Inderjit, Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar would be guilty only of the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, No injury is attributed to Ramesh Kumar.The prosecution case is that while the deceased Rajesh and Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar were exchanging abuses Ramesh Kumar had come in a scooter rickshaw.In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not think it would be safe to hold that there was any common intention between the accused in inflicting the injuries to the complainant party.(12) For the reasons stated, we would set aside the conviction of the appellants on the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.We convict Raj Kumar of the offence under Section 304 part Ii of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for five years.We maintain the conviction and sentence of the appellants Raj Kumar and Krishan Kumar on the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.The sentences imposed on Raj Kumar on both the charges shall run concurrently.We allow the appeal by Ramesh Kumar and acquit him of all the charges.(13) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,755,241
Case diary perused.This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.107/2018, registered at Police Station- Balakwada, District- Khargone for commission of the offence punishable under Section 363, 366, 376 (2) (I) N, 343 of the IPC and under Section 5/6 of the Protection of Children's from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and section 3/181, 146/196 of Motor Vehicle Act.As per prosecution case, on 16.04.2018 complainant namely Shakir lodged a complaint at P.S. Balakwada, District- Khargone to the effect that on 16.04.2018 at night his daugther was missing from his house.Search was also made for her whereabouts but all efforts were in vain.In regard to F.I.R. An investigation was set in motion and on 20.04.2018 proseuctrix was recovered and applicant was arrested.She has not made any allegations against the applicant regarding abduction and commission of rape.In these circumstances at the most offence under Section 363 of I.P.C. will be made out against the applicant, which is bailable in nature.Investigation is over and charge sheet has been filed and the trial is likely to take a long time in its conclusion.Therefore, counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.(S. K. Awasthi)) Judge praveen Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR NAYAK Date: 2018.08.02 12:40:36 +05'30'
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,757,468
Heard Mr.B.Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner.For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as the complainant and the accused.The accused is the petitioner before this Court, challenging the order dated 25.03.2015 passed in C.M.P.No.1129 of 2015 in C.C.No.96 of 2008 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Polur.The complainant lodged a private complaint against the accused for offence under Section 409 IPC.Challenging the prosecution in C.C.No.96 of 2008, the accused approached this Court in Crl.Thus, the trial did not progress.Ultimately, this Court dismissed Crl.O.P.No.10324 of 2008 on 30.10.2014, by a detailed order holding that the complainant had made out a prima facie case for trial for an offence under Section 409 IPC against the accused.In the meantime, A.Krishna Reddiar, the then Secretary of the complainant Association died on 11.08.2013 and therefore, the complainant filed a Substitution Petition praying that one P.Subramani, who has been authorised by the Executive Committee, be permitted to proceed with the case.The resolution passed by the Executive Committee was also filed along with the petition.The accused filed a detailed objection objecting to substitution.The trial Court by a well considered order dated 25.03.2015 allowed the Substitution Petition C.M.P.No.1129 of 2015 in C.C.No.96 of 2008 and permitted the complainant to be prosecuted by Subramani, aggrieved by which the accused is once again before this Court to quash the said order.O.P.No.8329 of 201516.04.2015
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,757,985
The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 30-04-2003 in Sessions Case No.15 of 1998, by which the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [for short, "I.P.C"] and is directed to suffer imprisonment for life.The appellant is further convicted for the offence ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 ::: 2 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt punishable under Section 448 of the I.P.C and on that count he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::2] When this matter was called for final hearing, the counsel for the appellant chose not to remain present before the Court.The matter being old one and Thursday is specifically allotted for final hearing of old matters, we proceeded with the matter.We have heard Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and with his assistance we have gone through the record and proceedings.A charge was framed against the appellant and his brothers Arvind and Vinod by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.According to the charge, on 01-11-1997 at 12.00 o'clock in the noon, the appellant poured kerosene on Amina Khatoon and set her ablaze. ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::3 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt The learned Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 307, 452 of the I.P.C. At the same time the learned Judge also framed charge under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C against the appellant and his two brothers.A further charge of abetment was also framed against the brothers of the appellant to commit the murder of deceased.4] By impugned judgment the learned Judge of the trial Court acquitted the brothers of the appellant.He also acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 506 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. However, convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 448 of the I.P.C.(PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif was PSI in the said Police Station.On 01-11-1997, when both these officers were present in the Police Station, Vilas Gawande (PW-4) came to the Police Station along with one Sunil and informed that one woman is burnt in Bhangaram Ward.They disclosed the name of the said woman as Amina Khatoon.The said information was taken in the station diary (Article-E).::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::Kapildeo Shukla went to the spot.On the spot they noticed that Amina Khatoon was lying in a injured condition.She was taken to the hospital.According to (PW-7) Kapildeo Shukla he gave requisition (Exhibit-48) to the doctor to examine the patient, doctor examined her and issued the Injury Certificate.7] Thereafter (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif sought opinion of the doctor about the condition of the patient as to whether she could give her statement.According to the prosecution, doctor examined Amina Khatoon and gave a certificate that she is in a condition to give her statement.On getting such certificate from the doctor (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif proceeded to record the statement of Amina Khatoon in presence of two panchas.After recording Amina Khatoon's statement her thumb impression was obtained on the same.The dying declaration is available on record at Exhibit-41. 8] After recording her statement said PSI sent a letter to Tahsildar to record her dying declaration.However, her statement could not be recorded as she was referred to Civil Hospital, Chandrapur.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::return to the Police Station and registered the offence vide Crime No. 177 of 1997 against the appellant and other accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 452, 506 read with 34 of the I.P.C. In the evening, he received information that injured expired in the hospital.He handed over the further investigation to (PW-7) PSO Kapildeo Shukla.He also recorded statement of witnesses.After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of law.11] In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, in all seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution and also relied upon various documents primarily the dying declaration of Amina Khatoon recorded by (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif.12] Post mortem report Exhibit-56 shows that deceased suffered 90% burn injuries.The cause of death as mentioned in the post mortem report is "shock due to 90% burning"From the post mortem report it is clear that Amina Khatoon met with her unnatural death due to burning.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::6 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt Burn injuries can be caused either accidental or in attempt to commit suicide or forcibly a person setting to ablaze.From the line of the cross examination at the hands of the appellant and other accused persons during trial or from their statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, it is not their case that Amina Khatoon got burn injuries either accidentally or she committed suicide.14] The question that is posed before this Court is whether the appellant could be held responsible for causing burn injuries to Amina Khatoon and is responsible for her death.15] Admittedly, in the present prosecution case, nobody has seen appellant poured kerosene on Amina Khatoon and setting her ablaze.Thus, there is no ocular evidence in respect of the incident of burning at the hands of the appellant as claimed by the prosecution.16] It is also not the prosecution case that before Amina Khatoon met with her death she made any oral dying declaration to any of the prosecution witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::7 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt In view of the aforesaid, the entire prosecution case hinges on the written dying declaration (Exhibit-41) recorded by (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif.17] A conviction can be secured on the dying declaration alone, if the Court finds the dying declaration to be wholly reliable.Further the dying declaration should be absolutely free from any suspicious circumstance.These are the statements of law enunciated by the catena of decisions of Hon'ble apex Court as well of this Court.18] Keeping in view of the aforesaid settled legal position, this Court is called upon to scrutinize written dying declaration of Amina Khatoon (Exhibit-41) to give an answer as to whether the said could be the basis for securing and confirmation of the conviction as recorded by the learned Judge of the Court below while re-appreciating the prosecution case in the appeal.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::prosecution insofar as spot panchanama (Exhibit-31) is concerned.However, he did not support prosecution that in his presence any articles were seized from the spot.(PW-3) Sulochana Bansod and (PW-4) Vilas Gawande are the panch witnesses to dying declaration (Exhibit-41).According to scribe (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif, the dying declaration of Amina Khatoon was recorded in presence of these witnesses.These two witnesses flatly refused to support the prosecution and therefore they were declared hostile.(PW-4) Vilas Gawande also did not support the prosecution that he informed the factum of burning of a lady to the Police.(PW-5) Ameena bi Sheikh Bapu Miya a neighbour is also of no use for the prosecution as she did not support the prosecution at all.20] (PW-1) Sayyad Ahmad is the husband of deceased Amina Khatoon.Admittedly on the day and the time of incident he was not present in Bhadrawati and he was at Hinganghat.After returning from Hinganghat at about 5.00 p.m. at Bus Station he got the knowledge about the fact that his wife is admitted to the hospital and thereafter he went to Police Station and after getting information from the Police that his wife is shifted to Chandrapur he reached to Chandrapur.There it was informed that his wife is expired.His ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 ::: 9 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt evidence shows that burial of his wife was performed at Rajura and thereafter Police came to his house and spot panchanama was prepared.Seizure memo Exhibit-43 though was not proved by panch (PW-2) Shahadatkhan, it is proved by (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif.Seizure memo shows that from the spot a kerosene bottle and a tin containing 500 ml.kerosene is seized.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::Evidence of (PW-1) Sayyad Ahmad shows that there used to be quarrel in his family and the family of the accused persons because he has purchased the house from his landlord.His evidence shows that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were initiated against him for having quarrel with the family of the accused.Though he claimed in his evidence that deceased was beaten by the family members of the accused persons he chose not to file any complaint against them.He being the Government servant.From his evidence it is crystal clear that the family of the accused was in cross terms with (PW-1) Sayyad Ahmad.21] (PW-3) Sulochana Bansod and (PW-4) Vilas Gawande were neither the relatives of the deceased or they were not concerned with the deceased whatsoever in manner.(PW-4) Vilas Gawande plies auto rickshaw.Though he denied the fact that he did not inform the ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 ::: 10 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt Police about the incident of burning, the contemporary record in the nature of station diary entry shows that, it is this witness who has informed that Amina Khatoon is lying in burnt condition.22] (PW-3) Sulochana Bansod was in Police Station Bhadrawati on 01-11-1997 for her personal work.Her evidence shows that there (PW-7) PSO Shukla asked her to sign some papers, therefore, she signed the papers without reading the same.However, while deposing during trial she has denied her statement.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::23] (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif is the scribe of dying declaration (Exhibit-41).He has proved his memo given to doctor to examine Amina Khatoon and give certificate about her fitness so as to record her statement.According to the evidence of this scribe, doctor gave certificate that Amina Khatoon is in a condition to give her statement and therefore he proceeded to record her statement.As per the statement, on the day of incident Amina Khatoon was alone in the house and her husband was out of station.At 10.00 o' clock, in the morning, there was a quarrel between her and the female members from the house of Arvind over the issue of rubbish.That time Arvind exhorted ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 ::: 11 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt "lkyhyk ?kjkr tkowu uaxh d:u ekjk" Thereafter she was at house.That time Ajay and Vinod also threatened to kill her.At 10.00 o' clock, in the noon, Ajay (appellant) came to her house, took the kerosene kept in her house, poured it on her person and set her ablaze by igniting match stick.She raised shout and came to the front room and fell down.Salim the one old lady extinguished the fire.Quarrel had taken place with the members of the house of Mirabai and Sangita.After recording the aforesaid statement, as per the evidence of (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif, the said was read over to her and thereafter he obtained her thumb impression.According to evidence of (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif the statement was recorded in the presence of (PW-3) Sulochana Bansod and (PW-4) Vilas Gawande.They also signed the statement.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::24] What is important to note is that the doctor who gave fitness certificate is not examined by the prosecution.The learned Judge has observed in the impugned judgment that though the summonses were issued those were not served on him.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::26] (Exhibit-41) has no noting or nothing can be gathered from the said document that before recording statement of Amina Khatoon scribe (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif was satisfied himself about the mental condition or her fitness to give statement.Even from the witness box he was completely silent that he himself was satisfied about the fitness of deceased that she was in a condition to give her statement.He states that after giving memo Exhibit-40 to doctor, the doctor examined the deceased and gave certificate about her fitness and therefore he proceeded to record her statement.Thus, it is clear that, insofar as the fitness of deceased he fall back only on the opinion given by the doctor.In that view of the matter, it was imperative on the prosecution to procure the presence of doctor and prove the fitness certificate.According to us, the learned Judge of the Court below has wrongly applied the law laid down by the Hon'ble apex Court in Laxman's case cited supra, by holding that when police officer has stated that Medical Officer had given opinion that deceased was in a fit ::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 ::: 13 30032017 judg.apeal 291.03.odt condition to give statement therefore merely because doctor is not examined it is not fatal to the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::27] (PW-3) Sulochana Bansod was in Police Station for her personal work.There was no occasion for her to accompany the Police either to the spot of incident or to the hospital.Further (PW-6) Mohd. Muktar Abdul Latif the scribe is completely silent that he took her to the hospital, therefore her presence in the hospital became doubtful.In that view of the matter her evidence that her signatures were obtained in Police Station is required to be accepted.28] (Exhibit-43) the seizure memo shows that from the spot one kerosene bottle and a tin containing 500 ml.The evidence of (PW-1) Sayyad Ahmad and evidence of (PW-7) Kapildeo Shukla shows that on 04-11-1997 there was a lock to the house and it was opened.Evidence of (PW-1), in our view, completely destroys the case in respect of seizure of kerosene from the spot.In his examination-in-chief itself he has stated as under : -"Sometimes when cylinder was not available we used to cook food on stove.But at the time of incident there was no kerosene in our house.Articles shown to me are not the articles seized from my house.i.e. bottle containing kerosene and tin container".::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::14 30032017 judg.Looking to the percentage of burns of the upper arm, it is clear that, both the hands of the deceased were completely charred.However, perusal of Exhibit-41 which is having thumb impression of Amina Khatoon shows that the thumb impression available on dying declaration (Exhibit-41) is having clear curves and ridges.In our view, the said is one of the suspicious circumstances.Further the thumb impression is also not below Exhibit-41 but it is in the side margin.30] In our view, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that at the time of recording statement in statement Exhibit-41 that Amina Khatoon was in a condition to give her statement.Consequently, we pass the following order :-::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2017 00:29:16 :::
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,762,112
1/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::Shubham Jud-Cri.WP-1543-2018JUDGMENT - (Per : Prakash D. Naik, J.) :-The Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order ofdetention dated 06.11.2017 issued by the Respondent No. 1 under theprovisions of Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords,Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, SandSmugglers and Persons engaged in Black-Marketing of EssentialCommodities Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as M.P.D.A. Act for short).The Petitioner was served the grounds of detention dated06.11.2017 formulated by the detaining authority on the basis of which theorder of detention was issued against the Petitioner.The grounds ofdetention refer to the list of offences and preventive action taken againstthe Petitioner.It is also stated that the detaining authority has consideredthe offences mentioned at Sr. No. 5 of the chart incorporated in paragraph3 of the grounds of detention.The grounds also referred to the statementsof 3 witnesses viz witness A, B and C whose statements were recorded in- 2/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::The said witnesses have referred to the incidents dated18.05.2017, 1.06.2017 and 4.06.2017 respectively.Mr. Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner urged thatthe order of detention and the grounds of detention suffers from non-application of mind of the detaining authority.It is submitted that thedetaining authority has referred to and relied upon the Criminal caseregistered vide C.R. No. 124 of 2017, wherein the Petitioner preferred hisapplication for Bail on 10.08.2017 and the said bail application wasrejected by the Session's Court, Pune on 12.09.2017 and thereafter, thePetitioner has not preferred any bail application before the Court.There 3/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.Thus, the impugned order of detention is illegal,bad in law, and liable to be set aside.The said ground is raised as ground5(e) in the Petition which is as follows;::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::The order of detention is illegal and bad in law, liable to be 4/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.WP-1543-2018 quashed and set aside."The Petitioner applied for bail before1 AIR 1990 SC 1196 5/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.WP-1543-2018the Court at Pune on 10.08.2017 and the said application was rejected bythe Court at Pune.The Petitioner is in magisterial custody at Yerwada Jail,Pune.Mr. Yagnik further pointed out the contents of paragraph 8 of thegrounds of detention and submitted that the detaining authority was awarethat the Petitioner was in custody at the time when the order of detentionwas issued and the said awareness is reflected in the said paragraph.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::We have thoughtfully considered the submissions advanced byboth the sides.The admitted facts emanating from the documents onrecord are that the Petitioner was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 124of 2017 registered with Sahakarnagar Police Station for offences underSection 307, 336, 323, 504, 506(2), 34 of IPC read with 4/25 of the Arms1 (2006) 5 SCC 676 7/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.The submissions of the learned Counsel for thePetitioner is that there was no cogent material before the detainingauthority to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner will be released onbail in near future particularly, taking note of observation by Session'sCourt, Pune while rejecting bail applications of the Petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::The M.P.D.A. Act has been enacted to provide for preventivedetention of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Dangerous Persons,Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons engaged in Black-Marketing ofEssential Commodities for preventing them from indulging in a dangerousactivity prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The preventive 8/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.WP-1543-2018detention order can be made in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 3 ofM.P.D.A. Act of satisfaction with respect to any person from acting in anymanner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.In this case theactivities of the Petitioner-detenu are said to be violent in character and itis alleged that he has created a reign of terror and have become a perpetualdanger to the lives and properties of people.He is habitually committingoffences under chapter XVI and XVII of Indian Penal Code.Several casesregistered against him which are pending in Court.It is also stated that thePetitioner is a dangerous person as defined under the M.P.D.A. Act. Inview of that nobody dares to complain against him openly, due to fear ofretaliation.The statement of residents were recorded in-camera with anassurance that their names would not be disclosed and they would not besummoned to give evidence against the detenu in any Court or before anyopen forum.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::On reading the satisfaction recorded in paragraph 8 of thegrounds of detention it is clear that the detaining authority is aware thatthe detenu is presently in jail and his bail application has been rejected bythe Court.WP-1543-2018the charge sheet has been filed in the Court.The detainingauthority states that there is possibility of detenu getting bail in case heprefers such application and in the event he avails the bail facility, he willrevert to the similar activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofpublic order.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::We have perused the copy of the application for bail preferredby the Petitioner and the order dated 12.09.2017 passed by the AdditionalSession's Judge, Pune rejecting the said application.The said documentswere placed for consideration by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.It ispertinent to note that the said documents forms the part of the list of 10/16 ::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 ::: Shubham Jud-Cri.WP-1543-2018documents which were placed before the detaining authority.The Petitioner hadagitated several grounds on merits of the case and had prayed for bail.While, passing the order rejecting the application for bail the Session'sCourt has observed that the application was opposed by the state on theground that the offence is of serious nature and if the accused is releasedon bail, he may pressurize the witnesses and tamper with the evidence.There are 8 body offences against the Applicant (Petitioner).Hence,the application was rejected.WP-1543-2018likelihood of he being released on bail as the offence is not compulsorilypunishable with death and the charge sheet has been filed before theCourt.The aforesaid application for bail was rejected after the chargesheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::The satisfaction andapprehension is absurd, illogical and untenable in law.In the absence ofcompelling necessity to detain the satisfaction is mere ipse dixit and cannotbe relied upon and the bald statement of the detaining authority would notsuffice.The detenue did not prefer any application for bailafter his application was rejected by the Session's Court until the order ofdetention was issued.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::We have not allowed Mr. Tripathi to raise the other grounds ofchallenge.The Petition stands disposed off.::: Uploaded on - 16/05/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/05/2018 23:56:49 :::
['Section 506 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 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,766,601
"xxxxxxxx I had spent about Rs. Five lacs in the marriage and given sufficient dowry except car at the time of her marriage.xxxxxxx After marriage my daughter used to complain to my w ife that her husband used to beat her every now and then.xxxxxxxx In the month of May 2010, I along with my wife and nephew went to matrimonial home of Geeta.At that time, father in law of my daughter namely Suresh Kumar accused present in court was present there and he informed us that my daughter was pregnant and that if a male child is born to her, I would have to give a car at that time.xxxxxx On 25.06.2010 at about 4:30 p.m., my wife received a telephone call from the accused Mahadev that deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.xxxxxx The deceased was killed by the accused persons.Again said she was killed for dowry."During his cross examination, PW2 Ramesh Chand deposed :"xxxxxxxx I had not given the details as to how I spent Rs. 5 Lacs on the marriage of my daughter.This appeal has been preferred by the State of Delhi against the judgment dated 26.04.2014 of Shri Rajneesh Kumar Gupta, Additional Sessions Judge-01 (West), Delhi in SC No. 104/2010 acquitting the respondents of the charges under Section 498-A/304-A/34 Indian Penal Code and in alternative 302-A/34 Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution in nutshell is that Smt. Geeta got married to accused Mahadev on 16.02.2010; that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment being unable to meet the demands of dowry made by the respondents; that on 25.06.2010, she was reportedly brought dead at Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital vide Crl.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 1 of 14 DD No. 24-A; that the statements of the parents of the deceased were recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Patel Nagar; that a case under Section under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code was registered, investigation was completed, charge sheet filed; that the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried on framing of charges under Section 498-A/304-B/34 Indian Penal Code and alternatively under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 1 of 14The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in all.Two defence witnesses were also examined in their support.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 5 of 14Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 6 of 14A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses or for purchasing manure cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood.The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not, therefore, show that any demand for "dowry" as defined in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made by the appellants as what was allegedly asked for was some money for meeting domestic expenses and for purchasing manure.Since an essential ingredient of Section Crl.I had three and half lac rupees of my savings and I took loan from my friend for Rs.1.5 Lacs xxxxxxxx."I did not make any complaint regarding the beating and harassment caused to my daughter due to fear of my honour and insult.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 9 of 14xxxxxxxx I also did not make any complaint to police regarding harassment caused to my daughter by her Jeth and Jethani Meena.Smt. Ram Bateri (mother of the deceased) appeared in the witness box as PW3 and deposed :"I had three children including deceased Geeta who was my eldest daughter.She was married to Mahadev (since deceased) on 16.02.2010 according to Hindu rite ceremonies.xxxxxxx After marriage Geeta came to our house and told us that she was being tortured by her in laws and that behaviour of her in laws towards her was not good and that accused Meena used to tell her that she would not let her live properly at her matrimonial home "(GHAR NAHI BASNE DUNGI".My daughter also told me that all the accused persons were demanding a car from her and that when she refused to fulfil the demand of car, accused persons started beating her and also used to taunt her for not bringing car.xxxxxxxx After 2/3 days of return to her matrimonial home, we had visited the matrimonial home of Geeta.My husband and my nephew and Bhabhi had also accompanied me at that time.At that time, my daughter was pregnant and her father in law in the presence of my daughter told us that if a boy child was born to her, we would have to give a car at that time.We expressed our inability to fulfil the demand of car.My daughter was not treated properly by the accused persons.My daughter also used to telephone me and used to tell me that she was being beaten by Crl.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 10 of 14 all the accused persons and that her mother in law was not allowing her to take food and that she was also harassing her.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 10 of 14On 25.06.10, I received telephone call at about 12 noon that her in laws was not allowing her to attend the marriage of son of my sister and thereafter she disconnected the phone.On the same day at about 4:30 p.m. I received a telephone call from Mahadev (her husband) that Geeta had died and that if he wanted to see her face for the last time, we should visit DDU Hospital."It is pertinent to note that PW2 stated that he never lodged any complaint against the respondents at any point of time for demand of dowry.In fact, on the fateful day, the deceased gave a telephone call to PW2 around 12:00 p.m. that her in-laws were not permitting her to attend the marriage of her cousin brother and Crl.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 11 of 14 later in the day about 4:30 p.m. he was informed about the death of deceased by respondent No. 1, husband of the deceased.If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 12 of 14Dr. Santosh Kumar appeared in witness box as PW15 and deposed:"xxxxxxxxxxxThe detailed internal examination of neck is mentioned in the PM report i.e. no any extra vacation of blood clots seen underneath the ligature mark and hyoid bone was found intact.As per opinion of Dr. Guru Prakash bruise mentioned in injury No. 1 to 3 of external injury are possible in scuffle and cause of death was found to be antemortem ligature hanging and the final opinion was reserved for opinion after receipt of FSL report of blood and viscera."It is in this background, it is to be assessed whether any cruelty had been meted out to the deceased and she was induced to end her life.On close reading of the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, nothing has emerged on record to suggest that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with the demand of dowry 'soon before death'.The testimonies of PW2 Ramesh Chand and PW3 Ram Bateri are in general and not specific.No specific incident has been ascribed by the witnesses to suggest the cruelty and harassment extended by the respondents.There is inconsistency in their statement and they are interested witnesses.None of the material witnesses stated that the deceased was harassed "soon before her death" for or in connection with demand of dowry though the death occurred within five months of her marriage.In the present case, the prosecution has failed to establish that soon before her death, Geeta was subjected to cruelty or harassment by respondents for or in connection with any, demand of dowry.Leave Petition No. 464/2014 Page 13 of 14From the careful scrutiny of all these testimonies, we find that allegation referred to demand of car had no connection with the marriage of deceased with Mahadev.Therefore, such alleged demand cannot be treated as demand for dowry.In that situation, there cannot be any question to invoke presumption under Section 113-B of Evidence Act or to raise presumption of guilt under Section 304-B Indian Penal Code against the respondents as the allegation in itself do not satisfy the required ingredients of Section 304-B Indian Penal Code.
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,766,764
CRM 2329 of 2016 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure affirmed on 21.3.2016 in connection with Asansol South Police Station Case No.2 of 2015 dated 01.01.2015 corresponding to G.R. No. 7 of 2015 under Sections 302/102B of the Indian Penal Code and 25 and 27 Arms Act.In the matter of:-
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
189,776,125
At about 12 in the noon, she went to keep theAt that time, the appellant came to that place where she was collecting the vegetables and on finding her alone, he held her hand and threw her on the Earth and thereafter, he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix went to her house at village Kheri and informed her father-in-law Mitthu (P.W.2).Her husband Halle was not at the house.He had gone to his relatives and therefore, she informed about the incident to her husband when he came back.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination.No external or internal injury was found on her person but, 2 slides of her vaginal swab were prepared and handed over to the concerned police constable after sealing them.The appellant was also arrested and sent for his medical examination.Dr. Amit examined the appellant and gave his report, Ex.No abnormality was found to the appellant.Two semen slides were prepared and handed over to the police constable after sealing them.(Delivered on the 13th day of September, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 25.7.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Damoh in S.T.No.372/2011, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and sentenced for 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-.In default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for 45 days was also directed.Prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 21.6.2011, the prosecutrix (P.W.3) was picking some vegetables from the field of the appellant near the village Jabera.That field was taken on lease by Halle (P.W.4), the husband of the prosecutrix.All the sealed substances were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.The Forensic Science Laboratory in its report, Ex.P/9, has found that the slides of the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix as well as the slides-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 received from the appellant contained semen and sperms.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Damoh, who committed the case to the Sessions Court.The appellant abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea but, he has stated that there was a dispute between the appellant and husband of the prosecutrix relating to the accounts of agricultural income and therefore, the appellant was falsely implicated in the matter.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under sections 376 and 450 of IPC but, convicted him for offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix has turned hostile.She did not mention that when and where she was assaulted.No medical evidence was adduced to corroborate her version but, the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC without any basis.No charge for an offence punishable under section 323 of IPC was framed.However, the learned Sessions Judge took the offence to be a grave offence and therefore, jail sentence was directed against the appellant.It was not considered as to why he could not be released on probation or only fine could not be imposed.Under such circumstances, it is prayed in the alternate that looking at the age of the appellant, he be released on probation.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court appears to be correct.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is to be considered as to whether the appellant could be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC? And if yes then, whether the sentence awarded to the appellant can be reduced?The prosecutrix (P.W.3) has turned hostile.She did not support her original allegation made upon the-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 appellant.According to the FIR, Ex.P/2, the prosecutrix had alleged that the appellant committed rape upon her but, in the Court, she turned hostile.She did not state about the rape but, she has stated in a casual manner that she was assaulted by the appellant, due to a dispute regarding the accounts of agricultural produce.Similarly, Halle (P.W.4) has stated that his wife told him about the assault, whereas, Mitthu (P.W.2), father-in-law of the prosecutrix has mentioned that the prosecutrix informed him about the rape.He did not state about the incident of assault.There is no description given in the FIR related to the assault.Under such circumstances, it appears that when Mitthu was examined, no compromise had taken place between the parties and therefore, Mitthu confirmed the initial story told by the prosecutrix.Thereafter, it appears that a compromise took place between the parties and therefore, the prosecutrix (P.W.3) and her husband Halle (P.W.4) turned hostile.In such circumstances, learned Public Prosecutor did not examine Dr. Shraddha Gangele to prove the medical report of the prosecutrix.Since the statement of the witness Mitthu was not relied upon because the substantial evidence of the prosecutrix was changed and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable-:- 6 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 under section 376 of IPC.The testimony of the prosecutrix relating to the assault was not at all corroborated by her father-in-law Mitthu (P.W.2), who did not turn hostile.The testimony of the prosecutrix was no where corroborated by the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix herself and therefore, the story of assault was prepared in an 'after thought' manner, which was given as an explanation, as to why the FIR was lodged by the prosecutrix.Though Dr. Shraddha Gangele was not examined but, MLC report of the prosecutrix is a prosecution's document, which could be read in the favour of the appellant.Though it was not proved but, by that report dated 25.6.2011, it is apparent that no external or internal injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, the story of assault is not at all corroborated by the medical evidence.Under such circumstances, the story was cooked by the prosecutrix in an 'after thought' manner, which could not be relied upon.It was not proved that the appellant assaulted the prosecutrix in any manner and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, whereas no charge for-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 that offence was framed.If the learned Sessions Judge was of the opinion that offence punishable under section 323 of IPC was made out then, it was for him to frame a fresh charge in the case and the opportunity of cross-examination was to be given to the appellant upon the prosecutrix and her husband.The learned counsel for the appellant did not cross-examine the witness Halle and his wife on this count because there was no charge of that offence.There is no instance mentioned in the judgments/orders passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court or any Hon'ble High Court of the country which discuss that the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is an inferior offence of the same nature, as of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and therefore, the appellant could not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC without any charge.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be acceptable.The learned Sessions Judge quoted illustration (i) of section 220, in which it is illustrated that for a particular incident, charges of offence punishable under section 352 and 323 of IPC can be framed but, in that illustration, it is no where mentioned that any conviction can be drawn without framing of the charge.-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 the accused can be convicted for the inferior offence of the same nature.If charge of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC is framed then, accused can be convicted for the offence punishable under sections 376 read with section 511, 354 or 352 of IPC.If a person commits rape with a woman then, it cannot be said that he intended to cause hurt voluntarily to the prosecutrix and therefore, the ambit of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and that of the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC are different.For the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC, it is no where established that the accused intended to cause hurt to the prosecutrix voluntarily.Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is an inferior offence of the same nature to the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC and therefore, the provisions of section 222 of IPC were not applicable in the present case.The appellant could not be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC under the charge of offence punishable under section 376 of IPC without framing the charge.Moreover, the charges for the offence punishable under section 376 of IPC were framed for the incident which took place on 21.6.2011 at about 12 O'Clock, whereas the prosecutrix has not stated that the alleged incident of-:- 9 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 assault took place on the same day and same time.She has stated about the assault in a vague manner and therefore, it is not at all clear that the incident of assault took place on the same day and the same time and therefore, it was for the trial Court to ascertain the date and time of the assault to frame a separate charge of that offence, which was a separate offence.Under such circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC without framing of the charge for that offence.Since the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, therefore, it is not necessary to discuss about the sentence directed by the trial Court.However, approach taken by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be incorrect and therefore, it would be proper to discuss about the sentence imposed by the trial Court.According to the story given by the prosecutrix, if the statement of the prosecutrix is accepted as such then, it was apparent that the appellant did not use any weapon to assault the prosecutrix.No external injury was found to the prosecutrix in her medico legal examination and therefore, it was possible that the appellant could have given some slaps to the prosecutrix.The appellant was admittedly 26 to 27 years of age at the time of the incident,-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 who was the first offender and then, looking at his overt-act, he could be released on probation.The learned Sessions Judge did not discuss as to why the appellant was not released on probation.Similarly, looking at the overt-act of the appellant, a small fine could be imposed upon the appellant but, no reason was mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge as to why a severe sentence like 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and maximum fine of Rs.1,000/- was imposed for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.It is awful to see that the learned Sessions Judge quoted 4 judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court as well as of Hon'ble High Courts in support of the sentence drawn against the appellant but, he quoted all the judgments relating to section 354 of IPC.Not a single judgment was quoted which was related to the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.It appears that the learned Sessions Judge was bent upon sending the appellant behind bars, though the prosecutrix has turned hostile in the case.If some accused is convicted in a wrongful manner then, such accused has to file an appeal against that judgment and if sentence directed by the trial Court is suspended then, the appellant is required to appear before the Registry of the High Court or before the trial Court or before the CJM of the concerned Sessions Division, till the-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.1648 of 2012 disposal of the appeal and it is a hardship for a person to face the trial and appeal unnecessarily for so many years without his fault and therefore, the imposition of such type of baseless convictions and harsh sentences without any basis should be strictly discouraged.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that no offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is made out against the appellant and therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable and consequently, it is hereby accepted.Conviction as well as sentence directed by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.He would be entitled to get the fine amount back from the trial Court.Comments given by the learned Presiding Officer shall be considered separately on the administrative side.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,897,781
C.Uma For Petitioners in Crl.O.Ps.20051 & 20052/09: Mr.S.R.Sundaram For respondent/police : Mr.N.R.Elango, Additional Public Prosecutor.- - - - -COMMON JUDGMENT The petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.18411 of 2009 is the son of one Kaliyamoorthy, who was murdered on 07.11.1990 and the accused-trio faced trial before the Sessions Court, East Thanjavur (Nagapattinam) in S.C. No.110 of 1991 and ultimately, A1 was found guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment while A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 and 3 years respectively.On Appeal before this Court in C.A. No.735 of 1992, though the sentence imposed by the trial court was suspended by ordering the miscellaneous petitions, by Judgment dated 27.03.2001, the appeal was dismissed, whereupon, A-3 surrendered and served the sentence while A-1 and A-2 did not surrender and they remain to be at large in spite of the Non-Bailable Warrants issued; therefore, the petitioner seeks to direct the respondents to secure A-1 and A-2 for serving the remaining period of sentence.In Crl.Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.For petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.18411/09 : Mr.T.P.Senthilkumar For petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.16414/09 : Mr.L.Pandian For Petitioner in Crl.O.P. No.13992/09 : Ms.O.P. Nos.13992, 16414, 20051 and 20052 of 2009, the petitioners/complainants in C.C. No.381 of 2006 on the file of JM-V, Salem, C.C. No.36 of 2007 on the file of JM, Tiruttani and C.C. Nos.652 and 130 of 2006 on the file of JM-I, Tiruppur, seek to execute the Non-Bailable Warrants issued against the accused concerned.
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,977,996
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the proceeding of complaint case no. 787 of 2013 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun under section 452, 323, I.P.C Police Station Sirsa Kalar District Jalaun pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Jaluan.The contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that the applicant no. 3 Krishana Raje was a student of B.Sc.Ist year in 2013 from Bundelkhand University who was playing cricket with the opp.party no. 2 Vinod Kumar.Some dispute has taken place in between the applicant nos. 2 and 3 and the opp.The matter was settled at police station.Thereafter, the opp.party no. 2 has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the applicants.In fact no offence is made out against the applicants.The summoning order dated 15.10.2016 is not in accordance with law.The present prosecution has been instituted only for the purpose of harassment.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. argued that the applicants have been summoned to face trial on the basis of statements of complainant and witnesses recorded under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence available on record and finding a prima facie case has summoned the applicants to face trial under sections 452 and 323 I.P.C. There is no illegality or irregularity in the summoning order dated 15.10.2016 and there is no ground to quash the proceeding of the aforementioned case.A perusal of record shows that the opp.party no. 2 has filed a complaint alleging therein that on 12.6.2013 at 10.00 p.m. the appliants hurled abuses and committed marpit with the opp.The Magistrate dealing with the complaint at this stage has to see only prima facie case and it cannot be said that no prima facie case is made out against the applicants.The disputed defence of the accused cannot be considered at this stage.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I don't find any ground to quash the proceedings of the aforementioned case, therefore, the prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.However, in case, the applicants do not appear before the Court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed of.Order Date :- 10.8.2017/Gss
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,836,427
The learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer for bail and submits that lastly on 16th September 2016 a co-ordinate bench of this court rejected the petitioner's prayer for bail on merit and thereafter on 30th of November 2016, the prayer for bail of other co-accused was also rejected by that co-ordinate bench.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
14,836,494
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants are in custody since 29/3/2015 in connection with Crime No.55/2015 registered at Police Station Devendra Nagar, Panna for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are reputed citizen of the locality, who have no criminal past alleged against them.The applicants No.1 and 3 are youths of 20 and 21 years of age respectively.It was alleged against the applicants that they transported some timber in the truck as driver and cleaner in that vehicle.They did not know that the pass given by the owner of the timber was fake.Hence, prima facie no offence under Section 420, 467, 468 or 471 of IPC is made out against the applicants.The owner of the timber has already been made as an accused, who gave a statement before the confiscating officer which is submitted at Annexure P-4, in which it would be apparent that he was supplied fake transit pass by the concerned clerk of the Forest.At the most offence under the Forest Act may be made out against the applicants, but no offence of forgery is made out against them.The applicants are in custody since 29.3.2015 without any substantial reason.Under these circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.He submits that if the applicants are enlarged on bail, then they may escape.It is further directed that before releasing the applicant, the CJM shall obtained the photo identity and address proof of the applicants issued by the competent authority.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 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.
148,373,594
The case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the FIR lodged by Shri Krishan Murari, father of the prosecutrix, on 20.5.1992 was that about one month ago, he and his wife gone to his native place, leaving their children at home.The complainant alleged that he had come to know that the prosecutrix was taken by appellant Ramvir with him.The appellant was arrested on 27.11.1992 at a bus stand in Delhi and at that time, the prosecutrix was with him.A.460/1999 Page 2 accompanied him.The appellant took him to Loni Border where he kept her in a room which he had taken on rent and committed rape on her by threatening her.Thereafter, he took her to Badayun to the house of her sister.She accompanied the appellant due to threats.Therefore, the allegation that the appellant used to carry a knife with him cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of this case.The prosecutrix did not raise any alarm when she was at I.S.B.T. and the appellant insisted upon her accompanying him in a bus.There is no explanation for the prosecutrix not raising an alarm at a busy place like I.S.B.T. Had she raised an alarm, the appellant would have immediately been caught either by Police officers who are always present at such a place or by one of the thousands commuters who use this huge bus terminals every day.travelling in the bus.This is an appeal against the judgment dated 3.8.1999 and Order on Sentence dated 6.8.1999 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 363/366/376 of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- or to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in default under Section 376 IPC.He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or to undergo simple Crl.A.460/1999 Page 1 imprisonment for one month in default under Section 366 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- or for one month in default under Section 363 IPC.The prosecutrix came in the witness box as PW-3 and stated that on 13.5.1992, at about 7:30 a.m., the appellant who belonged to her village and was known to her, came there and informed her that her father had met with an accident and, therefore, she should accompany him to Kashmiri Gate.She accordingly accompanied the appellant to Kashmiri Gate.Thereafter, the appellant told him that her father had not sustained serious injuries and she should accompanied him to market for purchasing some articles.Noticing the contradiction in the statements made by the appellant, she asked him to tell what exactly the matter was.When the appellant said that he would tell truth later on, she refused to accompany him.Thereupon, the appellant threatened to kill her and her brother in case she did not accompany him and being afraid, she Crl.In Badayun, he again committed rape on her.She also kept there for two days.He took her to Ludhiana by force.There, also he took a room on rent and kept her.At Ludhiana also, he committed rape against her consent and by extending threats to her.She, however, stated that the appellant used to keep a knife with him.On her repeated insistence and also for the reasons that residents of that locality had become suspicious, the appellant brought her to Delhi, where he was arrested by the Police from a Police Station and she was rescued.The prosecutrix also identified her underwear Ex.P-1 which she was wearing at the time she was rescued by the Police.According to the prosecutrix, on 13.5.1992, she first came with the appellant to I.S.B.T. at Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, and noticing the contradiction in the statement made by him to her, she refused to accompany him whereupon he threatened to kill her and her brother in case she did not accompany him.In her statement, the prosecutrix did not allege any such threat on the part of the appellant.She simply stated that from the School, she came to I.S.B.T. and from there, they took a bus and she was taken by the appellant to the house of his sister in a Village Muradabad.Had the appellant really threatened the prosecutrix and her brother as stated by her during trial, she could not have missed this fact while giving statement before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Crl.A.460/1999 Page 3 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the deposition of the prosecutrix, as regards the threat alleged to have been given to her is an improvement on her previous statement and appears to be an afterthought.Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that at a busy and crowded place like Inter State Bus Terminal, the prosecutrix would get afraid of the appellant and would meekly accompany him without even knowing where he was taking to her.In her deposition in the Court, the prosecutrix stated that the appellant used to keep a knife with him.However, in her Statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure, she did not make any such allegation.Had the appellant been having a knife with him, the prosecutrix would definitely had stated so in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Admittedly, no knife was recovered from the appellant when he was arrested.On account of presence of a number of passengers in the bus, it would not have been possible for the appellant to cause any harm to the prosecutrix.Failure of the prosecutrix to raise any alarm while travelling in the bus is yet another indicator, there was no pressure on her to accompany the appellant.In her deposition in the Court, the prosecutrix stated that she was first taken to Loni Border where she had kept in a rented accommodation.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she did not say that she was taken to a rented accommodation in Loni Border.As per her statement before the Magistrate, she was taken from I.S.B.T. straight to the house of the sister of the appellant in a village of Muradabad.Had the prosecutrix not willingly accompanied the appellant, she had ample opportunity to raise alarm when she got down at bus stand at Loni Border which otherwise is a very crowded place or when she travelled from bus stand to the place where she was kept in a rented accommodation.Moreover, had she not been a willing companion of the appellant, she would have complained to the landlord or other occupants of the house at Loni Border that she was being kept by the appellant under threat and was not willingly living with him.A.460/1999 Page 5The prosecutrix has stated that from Loni Border, she was taken to the house of the sister of the appellant in District Badayun.The prosecutrix must have travelled either in a bus or in train from Loni Border to Badayun.Had she not been willing to accompany the appellant, she would have raised alarm at the bus stand or at the railway station, depending upon whether she travelled on train or in bus.She also had ample opportunity to raise alarm in the bus or in the train.The failure of the prosecutrix to raise any alarm even at that time is a strong indicator of her having willingly accompanied the appellant.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix stated that the husband, mother-in-law and children of the sister of the appellant were residing in the house in which she was kept.It is very difficult to believe that the appellant kept the prosecutrix in the house of his sister, against her consent, in the presence of not only his sister but her mother-in-law and children.In normal course of human conduct, no one will force a girl to live with them in the house of in-laws of her sister particularly when there are also children in the household.Only a girl who willingly accompanies the boy is likely to be taken to the house of relative and kept in a family.According to the prosecutrix, from the hosue of the sister of the appellant, she was taken to Ludhiana where she was kept in a rented accommodation.Again, she had ample opportunity to raise alarm while travelling from Badayun to Ludhiana at bus stands/railway stations from where the bus/train was taken by them for going to Ludhiana.No alarm was raised despite the prosecutrix having umpteen opportunities to do Crl.A.460/1999 Page 6 so.Though the prosecutrix was kept in a rented accommodation in Ludhiana, she did not make any complaint to the landlord that she had been brought forcibly to Ludhiana.In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she stated that the appellant had claimed before the landlord that she was his sister-in-law.This shows that she had met the landlord and thus had opportunity to share her plight with him.Even while returning from Ludhiana to Delhi, the prosecutrix did not raise any alarm.Had she done so, the appellant would have been caught either at the bus stand or in the bus/train in which they travelled.All these facts and circumstances lead to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecutrix voluntarily accompanied the appellant, who was residing as a tenant in the house of her father.The obvious inference is that she had become friendly to the appellant and that is why, she accompanied him to these places when her parents had gone to their native place.The deposition of the prosecutrix shows that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by the appellant firstly on 14.5.1992 and thereafter a number of times during the period she remained in his company.The prosecutrix has returned home after spending more than six months with the appellant.A.460/1999 Page 12 still in the age of discretion.She was found going on the bicycle of the appellant.The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that it was not unknown to her with whom she was going and therefore, it was expected of her then to jump down from the bicycle or put up the struggle and in any case raise an alarm to protect herself.The appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 366 of IPC.The appellant was convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of I.P.C. A learned Single Judge of this Court noticed that she had gone to Railway Station, had stood there with the appellant who also went to purchase tickets and then she had Crl.A.460/1999 Page 13 travelled with him in a compartment shared by other persons.She had then gone to a house in a tonga and yet she did not lodge any protest and made no attempt to flee despite having ample time and opportunity.The learned Single Judge noted that on the day of reckoning, she surely had crossed mark of sixteen years and since she was all along a willing party, the appellant was acquitted of both the charges against him.In Bala Saheb vs. State of Maharashtra, 1994 Criminal Law General 3044, it was found that the prosecutrix accompanied the appellant/accused from her village and stayed with him for two to three days.However, during trial, she deposed that she was forced by the accused/petitioner to go to the police station.She had also given statement before a Magistrate after lodging report with the police and in that statement she did not say that she was forced by the accused/petitioner to go to the Police Post and lodged the report.A learned Single Judge of this Court observed that she had ample opportunity to say before the Magistrate, before whom she was produced at the first instance, that she was forced by the accused to go to the Police Station and lodged report.The story set up by her during trial was considered to be an afterthought and was not believed.It was found that she was a consenting party in eloping from her house with the accused/petitioner.It was held that it could not also be called a case of kidnapping.In view of the reasons stated in the preceding paragraph, conviction of the appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. is maintained whereas he is acquitted of the charges under Section 363 and 366 of I.P.C. As regards sentence, though the minimum prescribed punishment is imprisonment for seven years coupled with fine, the Court may for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than seven years.More than seventeen years have passed since then.This appeal itself is pending for last more than ten years.The evidence that has come on record clearly shows that Crl.A.460/1999 Page 15 the prosecutrix had willingly accompanied the appellant to the places visited by them and spent more than six months in his Company.The prosecutrix was more than fifteen and a half years old when she eloped with the appellant.The appellant was a young man of about 23 years when this incident took place.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,374,673
(Passed on 06.03.2019) This order disposes of petition filed under section 482 and section 407 Cr.This petition has been filed against the order dated 01.12.2018 of the Sessions Judge, Dewas rejecting the transfer of criminal case No.359/2010 pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Dewas in which the petitioners are facing trial for committing offence under sections 148, 452, 294, 307/149, 353/149 IPC and also under section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 read with section 149 of IPC.Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 07/03/2019 10:34:14-2- MCRC NO.50827/18The petitioners had submitted before the Sessions Judge that the trial Court was acting in prejudicial manner and, therefore, petitioners had filed an application under section 408 Cr.P.C which was registered as MJC No.485/18 which was however rejected.In the petition filed under section 482 Cr.However, in the proceedings the Sessions Judge recorded that the arguments were heard and fixed the date of pronouncing the order.However, on 01.12.2018 the Sessions Judge passed order on merits of the case.This was contrary to his earlier stand that he lacks jurisdiction as per verbal exchange.Thus, the order was passed on merits without giving opportunity to the petitioners for making submissions on merit.Therefore, on 04.12.2018 petitioners filed an application in the transfer case seeking opportunity of placing arguments on merits.This application was, however, rejected by the Sessions Judge.Thus, the order pronounced by the Sessions Judge is allegedly illegal, improper and unreasonable as the same was passed without providing opportunity of leading arguments Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 07/03/2019 10:34:14-3- MCRC NO.50827/18 on merits and principles of natural justice have been violated.The petitioners prayed that impugned order dated 01.12.2018 and 04.12.2018 be quashed and that criminal case No.359/2010 be transferred from the Court of Special Judge, Dewas.4. Submissions on behalf of petitioners and State were heard.Second, whether the criminal case No.359/2010 pending in the Court of Special Court, Dewas deserves to be transferred to some other Court.The petitioners have filed copies of order sheets of the Sessions Judge while considering application under section 408 Cr.P.C. The petitioners have stated that on 20.11.2018 Sessions Judge, Dewas constrained from hearing the arguments on realizing that constitution of Special Court and appointment of Special Judge is done by the High Court, however, in the proceedings he recorded that arguments were heard.A perusal of the order sheets dated 20.11.2018 which is submitted by the petitioner, however, show that it has been recorded that arguments were heard and the case was fixed for orders.-4- MCRC NO.50827/18 Judge said one thing and did another i.e. it fairly stated that he did not have jurisdiction.There is no record on the basis of which it can be stated that Presiding Officer had clearly expressed reservations regarding his jurisdiction.It appears from the order sheets (Annexure P/2) that on 01.12.2018, after pronouncing of order, another application was filed 3 days later in which it has been stated that proper opportunity of hearing was not given and learned Sessions Judge has recorded that order having already passed and the Court has become functus officio and that no further order is required on unfounded application.There is nothing in this order dated 04.12.2018 which shows that the Presiding Officer had admitted that he had not heard the arguments earlier.The Sessions Judge has in fact turned the application dated 04.12.2018 to be unfounded application.Hence, the petitioners have not been able to satisfactorily show that the Sessions Judge had orally expressed that he did not have jurisdiction.It was quite clear that no charges under the provisions of SC/ST Act were framed against the accused in this case and all the charges were in respect of provisions of IPC and another Act (not under the SC/ST Act) and the Sessions Judge was well within his rights to transfer the case to another ASJ posted in Dewas district on satisfaction of the petitioners being prejudiced with and with Sessions Judge having jurisdiction or was correctly passed on merit.-5- MCRC NO.50827/18 there is no ground to quash the order dated 01.12.2018 and 04.12.2018 passed by Sessions Judge.P.C was moved on 17.07.2018 which was rejected.However, on the next date i.e. on 31.07.2018 again an application under section 311 & 91 Cr.P.C was filed which was again rejected.The case was again fixed for accused statement on the next date i.e. on 04.08.2018, when an application under section 310 (2) Cr.P.C was filed praying for spot inspection.This application was also rejected and again case was fixed for accused statement.On the next date i.e on 11.08.2018 accused statement was recorded and the case was fixed for providing list of defence witnesses.Since then the case is being posted for recording of defence witness.Some accused Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 07/03/2019 10:34:14
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,382,440
(Passed on this 8th day of February, 2016) Per: Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J.By this application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. applicant Smt. Ranjeet Kaur (Rani Tuteja is aggrieved by the order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mandsaur in Sessions Trial No.222/2014 framing separate charges under Section 120-B of the IPC.Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the prosecutrix Shreya lodged an FIR at the police station City Kotwali, Mandsaur alleging that at about 4.00 p.m. when she along with her mother was going to market accused Manjeet came and blocked their way and threatened them by saying that if the prosecutrix did not marry him or did not having a relationship with him then he shall kill her by throwing acid and get her father shot and shall kidnap her sisters.The trial incident had occurred in the year 2007 on behalf of the accused Manjeet brother of the present applicant.The prosecutrix was pursuing coaching for the admission of M.B.A. course and she residing at Geeta Bhawan, Indore.It is further alleged that the present applicant along with Manjeet came to her room and gave her some juice to drink and on consumption of the juice the prosecutrix had become unconscious.Upon regaining consciousness she found herself in an improper condition in the lawn and she assumed that she had been raped.This incident was however, not 3 narrated to anybody.It is, therefore, alleged by the accused Manjeet that he had married the prosecutrix and had physical relations with her.The photographs of the occasion are available with the accused.However,the accused threatened the dire consequences and hence she did not lodge the FIR in the year 2007, but she lodged the FIR only on 11.3.2014 when the present episode took place.The applicant has been duly charged and she filed an application for discharge under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. before the Additional Session Judge, Mandsaur.Upon hearing both the parties the learned Additional Sessions Judge had framed charges under Section 376 read with 34 of the IPC against the present applicant Ranjeet Kaur (Rani Tuteja) also.Thereafter the present applicant moved an application before the Trial Court for her discharge.The said application was opposed by the respondent on the ground that separate charges under Section 12o-B of the IPC be framed against the petitioner.Being aggrieved, the present applicant has filed the present petition.
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
148,392,093
ALLOWED md.CRM No. 5235 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.7.2018 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no. 315/2018 dated 03.05.2018 under Sections 307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code. ;And In Re:-Prakash Chhetri and others ... Petitioners Mr. Sudip Guha, Advocate ..for the Petitioners Mrs. Kakali Chatterjee, Advocate .. for the State The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case no. 315/2018 dated 03.05.2018 under Sections 307/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners say that an altercation between the two groups turned violent and there were injuries on either side.The State refers to the injury report from the case diary.Though the victim was referred to an Eye Specialist, the nature of the injury was reported to be simple.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 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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.
148,398,340
C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh misappropriated some amount of its members by forging some documents and all consequential proceedings of Special case no. 04/2010 pending against him before Special Judge (P.C. Act), Indore.Relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner was Director of Savita Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore (for short Savita Society).Savita Society purchased agricultural land bearing survey nos. 643/1, 643/1/11, 606/3,597,612,610 and 609 admeasuring 4.605 hectares situated at Gram Pipliyahana, Indore (for brevity hereinafter called as the disputed land) from Jagriti Grih Nirmaan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Indore (for short Jagriti Society).As per the complaint, following illegalities have been committed in this sale-purchase:(i) As per balance sheet of Savita Society of the years 2005-06 an amount to the tune of Rs.78,98,745/- has been shown to be paid to the Jagriti Society towards purchase of this land but at page no.3 of the same balance sheet an amount to the tune of Rs.30,63,000/- only has been shown paid towards this purchase.No explanation was submitted to the auditors regarding difference amount of Rs. 48,35,745/-.(ii) As per balance sheet of the Savita Society, after an earlier payment of Rs. 26,33,000/-, a payment of Rs. 4,30,000/- was made to the Jagriti Society on account of this purchase in the year 2003-04, while as per Balance Sheet of the Jagriti Society, it had received entireHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.Thus, the President of the Savita Society, Ranbir Singh Chhabda misappropriated this money by making fake entry in the balance sheet and as such caused loss to the society.(iii) The Board of Directors of the Savita Society had purchased this land even when most of the plots have already been sold or allotted by the Jagriti Society to its members.while office bearers of the Savita Society got the sale deed executed showing it as agricultural land and evaded stamp duty and as such caused loss to the public exchequer.Thus, this amount of Rs. 30,63,000/-, which had been collected from the members of the society, has been misappropriated and huge loss is caused to the Society.Therefore, there is no evasion of stamp duty in execution of both the sale deeds.(Passed on 18/06/2018) Per: Virender Singh, J.The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the charge-sheet filed in Crime Number 312/2010 under sections 406, 409, 420, 201, 467, 468, 471, 506 and 120-B IPC and 13(1)(C), 13 (1)(d), r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered at Police Station Annapurna against him and some other persons on the basis of written complaint dated 23/06/1994 filed by the Co-operative Inspector making allegations that the President and Directors of Savita Grih Nirman Sahkari Sanstha, Indore haveHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.Before this purchase, neither any search report was obtained from the Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies nor was any public notice published.(iv) This land was already diverted for residential purposes;Further, it is alleged that the office bearers of the Savita Society malafidely withheld the information regarding purchase of land bearing survey no. 13/04/02 admeasuring 0.809 hectare situated at village Tejpur from Kasht Nivarak Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit in the year 2002-03 in consideration of Rs.46,150/- and they also did not furnish this information to the auditors for next three consecutiveHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.When this forgery came into the light during inquiry of Kasht Nivarak Society in the year 2006-07, an entry regarding this purchase was made in the books of account showing this expenditure from the amount received from the petitioner, who was one of director at that time.Thus, the petitioner forged and fabricated the record by making false and fake entries.The petitioner has preferred the present petition on the grounds that no complaint has ever been made against the petitioner by the members of the Society because he has not done anything wrong with them.The disputed land has been legally purchased by the Savita Society form the Jagriti Society vide registered sale deeds dated 26/03/2006 and there is no evidence against him; which shows that he had fabricated, prepared or forged any document and used the same as genuine for causing loss to the members of the Society.So far as the allegations are concerned, the contention of the petitioner is that the total sum of Rs.78,98,745/- was paid for purchasing the disputed land, out of which Rs. 30,63,000/- were paid to the seller Jagriti Society and Rs. 48,35,745/- were paid towards stamp duty and this is clear from bare perusal of the auditor's report prepared by the complainant himself and also from the final report submitted by the non-applicant itself.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.It is also contended that a case No. 58B-05/2014 under Section 58-B(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 was registered by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Distt.Dhar against the President and Directors of the Savita Society on the basis of the special report of the same Co-operative Inspector, Mr. R.S. Thakur for the same allegation of misappropriation of Rs. 48,35,745/- spent in purchase of land from Jagriti Society.In this case, the Deputy Registrar has acquitted the petitioner form all the charges vide order dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A/4).The petitioner has not misappropriated Rs.4,30,000/-, which is clear from the Special Audit Report dated 30/10/2014(Annexure A/3).So far as the allegation in respect of Rs.46,150/- paid to the Kasht Nivarak Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit in the year 2002-03 is concerned, the aforesaid money was shown paid by the petitioner though due to inadvertent mistake of the accountant, entry to this effect could not be made in the books, but the mistake was rectified later on as per the provisions of Sec. 61 of M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which permit such rectification.This rectification was found proper as is clear from para 6 of the Special Audit Report dated 30/10/2014 (Annexure A/3).It is claimed by the petitioner that in the instant case, F.I.R has been lodged ignoring the provision of M.P. Co-HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.Further, byelaw no. 80 of the Society provides that the jurisdiction to resolve the disputes arising out of the course of business of the society or between the members and the governing body of the society lies with the Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Indore.Lastly, it is argued that even if all the allegations in the written complaint are taken as true, they did not constitute any criminal offence as defined u/S. 406, 409, 420, 201, 467, 468, 471, 506 & 120-B of I.P.C and 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. Thus, the allegations levelled against the petitioner regarding misappropriation of money or any other defalcation, are baseless and the final report filed against him cannot be sustained.In reply so also in written reply, the learned Public Prosecutor has simply supported the allegations made in the complaint and the action taken thereon by the police.Apart from that the learned Public Prosecutor has also raised few other issues/allegations.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.All transactions have been done in cash, which is against the law and indicates malafide of the petitioner.The office bearer of the Savita Society prepared a false list of member and invested their black money through such fake members.We have heard rival contentions of both the parties and have gone through the record.Before appreciating the facts, it would be trite to see the legal position with regard to exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court for quashing the First Information Report and other consequential proceedings.Thus, we do not find any substance in the allegation that this money was misappropriated by the petitioner or in the other allegations made in this regard.Further, no opportunity as provided by Section 61 of the Act, 1960 was granted to the petitioner to explain the expenditure.In that case he cannot be held responsible for cheating.There is no evidence, oral or documentary; is on record to show prima facie that any wrongful loss is caused to any one or the petitioner wrongfully gained something.Evidence regarding mens rea or cheating is also not produced by the prosecution.Admittedly, no member or office bearer of the Savita Society has come forward complaining any wrongful loss caused to him due to such wrong decision of the petitioner.It is mentioned in the sale deed No. 6537 dated 26/03/2006 of survey No. 597, 606/3, 609, 610, 612 area 3.141 hectare village Pipliyahana itself that the land being sold by the Jagriti Society in favour of the Savita Society is a diverted land.Though such fact is not clearly mentioned in the second sale deed No. 6538 executed on the same day i.e. 26/03/2006 of survey No. 643/1/1 & 643/1/11 admeasuring 1.464 hectare of the same village Pipliyahana, but during investigation itself, in reply to the query raised by the CityHIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.This letter further shows that for registration of the second sale deed also stamp duty is calculated and recovered at the rate determined for diverted land.The land situated in village Tejpur is purchased in the name of the Savita Society and it is still in the name of the Society.Though this expenditure of Rs.46,150/- is not disclosed in the account books of the Society in the concerned year 2002-03, but as soon as the mistake brought to the notice by the auditor, the same was rectified immediately as per the provisions of Sec. 61 of M.P. Co- operative Societies Act, 1960, which permit such rectification.This rectification was found proper as is clear from para 6 of the Special Audit Report dated 30/10/2014 (Annexure A/3).Thus, this allegation also cannot withstand on the evidence collected during investigation.The learned Public Prosecutor could not point out any document or list of members; which the prosecution claims to be forged or fabricated by the petitioner or that he has used any such document as genuine for causing loss to the members of the Society.In this situation, filing of charge- sheet under Section 467,468,471 of the IPC does not find support from the record.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.The prosecution has no reply to the averments of the petitioner mentioned in para 13 to 15 above.We are not reiterating the same here, but it would be trite to say that the allegations made by the prosecution are related to the matters or disputes which may arise between the members and the office bearer of the Society or they are related to the conduct of business of the Society.There was no occasion for the police to intervene in the matter or to invoke its authority under the criminal law.Issues raised by the learned Public Prosecutor during the arguments or in the written reply and mentioned in para 17 above as to whether the disputed land was undervalued by the parties, stamp duty was not paid properly, exemption on payment of stamp duty was not granted/obtained legally,HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.9146/2017 Amar Bajaj S/o Dwarka Das Bajaj Vs.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
41,727,287
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Kalam on 6th September, 2006 at about 9.30-10.00 p.m. He has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, which, upon realization, is to be equally distributed amongst the family members of the deceased.There is ample evidence to show that Kalam died a homicidal death pursuant to injuries suffered by a sharp edged weapon.Dr. Sapna (PW-3), who was working as a Junior Resident at Safdarjung Hospital, had examined Kalam and had prepared his MLC (Ex.PW3/A).The said MLC (Ex.PW3/A) Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 1 of 12 records that at 10.35 P.M. Kalam was brought to the hospital with alleged history of assault and two lacerated wounds.Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 1 of 12Kalam subsequently died and inquest papers were prepared.The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Yogesh (PW-8).The post mortem report (Ex.PW8/A) records the following two external injuries:-Stab wound vertically place 1 cm below left nipple 10 cm from middle eye of size 2.5 cm .6 cm between found and fifth ribs going into the chest cavity, backwards and medially up to 7.5 cm, perforating lower margin of upper lobe of left lung and reaching up to left ventricle of heart with a cut of 2.5 cm .5 cm.Cut injuries present over (a).Right palm proximal to little finger of size 3.2 cm .8cm(b) left middle finger middle phalanx back of size 2.21 cm.(c) first web space of left hand 1.21 cm."We shall subsequently refer to the opinion given by PW-8 when we deal with the question whether the appellant is the perpetrator, who had caused the said injuries.He has deposed that he was running a leather factory at Kapashera and the appellant Ram Lal and deceased Kalam used to work in his factory.On 6th September, 2006, he had came to the factory at about 6 p.m. and found that the appellant had consumed liquor.On being questioned, the appellant informed that he had given Rs.50/- to the deceased Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 2 of 12 Kalam and had sent him to bring more liquor.As deceased did not return, the appellant had taken umbrage.At about 9.30 p.m. both the deceased and the appellant returned and an altercation took place between them over Rs.50/-.PW-1 had even offered to pay the said amount to the appellant, but he was adamant that the deceased should pay.PW-1 thereafter went to the roof of the factory, but rushed downstairs when he heard noise/cries.There he found that the appellant had a pair of scissors in his hands.Appellant and deceased were grappling with each other.He intervened and separated them.He also sustained injuries on his left hand.The deceased had sustained injuries on his chest and was bleeding profusely.PW-1 took the deceased to the hospital and after half an hour Kalam died.The police reached the hospital and recorded his statement Ex.PW1/A. The appellant had absconded and was arrested on 10th September, 2006 from ISBT Kale Khan and his personal search (memo Ex.PW-1/G) was prepared.Munni Lal (PW-1) was a witness to the said memo.The appellant had made disclosure statement Ex.PW1/H and on the basis of the disclosure statement, one pair of scissors was recovered near the boundary wall of Delhi Jal Board.He has identified the sketch of the scissors marked Ex.PW1/J. The Investigating Officer also seized the pant and shirt worn by the appellant vide memo Ex.PW-1 in his cross-examination has stated that he had remained with the police throughout the night and sometimes they used to take him to the police station and hospital.He has also stated that there were four other employees in the police station including one Kamal, who was related to the appellant Ram Lal.Police used to call all of them daily to the police station.He has further deposed that he was freed from the police station after two days and was asked to trace the appellant.He reiterated in the cross-examination that the appellant was arrested from Saria Kale Khan on 10th September, 2006 at about 8.00-8.30 p.m.However, we are inclined to accept the statement made by PW-1 as truthful, credible and one which should be accepted.In fact, the statement made by PW-1, in the cross-examination, that he was repeatedly asked to come to the police station and was put under restrain, reveals that he is a truthful witness, who did not conceal or hide any fact from the court.We do not agree with the contention of the appellant that PW-1s conduct is doubtful and he can be the perpetrator who had caused injuries on Kalam.There are several reasons for the same.The deposition of PW-1 in the Court is somewhat at the variance to the first statement (Ex.PW1/A) made by him to the police.In the statement Ex.PW1/A it was stated that on 6th September, 2006 at about 9.30 p.m. he had gone to the terrace to have food when he heard abuses and came down.There he had found that the appellant and the deceased were fighting with each other and the appellant was demanding that the deceased should return Rs.50/- because he had not brought liquor.PW-1 tried to intervene and separate them.He had tried to pacify by even offering to immediately pay Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 8 of 12 Rs.50/- and would deduct the said amount from the salary payable to the deceased.This had happened in the passage in front of the factory.At that moment, the appellant who was behind him, suddenly took out 10 inches scissors commonly used for cutting at the factory, and hit the deceased on his chest.PW-1, in the court, has deposed to the effect that, at about 9.30 P.M., the deceased and the appellant had a quarrel but he intervened and pacified them.Through Mr. Sanjay Lao, APP for the State.PW1/L. The said pant and shirt was identified by PW-1 as Ex. P5 and P6, respectively.The pant (Ex.P3) belonging to PW-1, which was seized, was also identified by him.A. 1317/2012 Page 3 of 12Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 2 of 12Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 3 of 12PW-1 had himself taken the deceased to the hospital.On the basis of PW-1s statement (Ex.PW1/A), rukka was recorded and sent to the Crl.Copy of the said FIR (Ex.PW10/A) was received by the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate on 7th September, 2006 at about 10 a.m. In the "rukka" and the FIR, name of the appellant Ram Lal is clearly mentioned.He has been described as a perpetrator of the crime.Mani Lal (PW-1) himself was slightly injured and Dr. Sapna (PW-3) in her deposition has testified that Dr. Vipin Kumar had prepared the MLC of Mani Lal dated 7th September, 2006 marked (Ex.PW3/B).On the question of arrest on 10th September, 2006, he has stated that this was incorrect and Mani Lal (PW-1) and other police officials called him from Mathura and had falsely implicated him in the present case.He has further stated that nothing was recovered from him or at his instance and the police had obtained his signature on blank papers while he was in police custody.The appellant was arrested on 10th September, 2006 and, as per the prosecution case, he thereafter had made the disclosure statement Ex.The scissors (Ex.P4) was recovered.This fact is deposed by Mani Lal (PW- Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 5 of 12Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 5 of 121) as well as by SI Mahesh Soni (PW-7).The scissors was recovered near the boundary wall of Delhi Jal Board.PW-7 prepared sketch (Ex.PW1/J) of the scissors and had also seized the same vide memo Ex.PW1/K.9. PW-7 had also seized the pant and shirt of the appellant, which he was wearing at the time of occurrence, vide memo Ex.PW1/L. He was wearing the same clothes as per the police version at the time of arrest.Similar statement has been made by Constable Ram Mehar (PW-5).However, we are inclined to discard the evidence with regard to the seizure of the blood stained pant and shirt as it is highly improbable that the appellant would have worn the same clothes even after four days of the occurrence, when he returned to Delhi and was arrested.As noticed above, the appellant has not disputed his arrest on 10th September, 2006, though he has claimed that he was called from Mathura and thereafter arrested.The scissors was shown to Dr. Yogesh (PW-8) and he opined in his subsequent opinion dated 27th November, 2006 (Ex.PW8/B) that the injuries on the chest of the deceased was possible by the scissors examined by him.He had also prepared the sketch of the said scissors marked Ex.PW8/C. At this stage, we may note that the FSL report (Ex.PX- PY) records that blood was detected on the scissors, but the blood group could not be ascertained.The appellant had examined four witnesses in his defense.Kamal Singh (DW-1) has stated that on the date of occurrence at night police had knocked at his door and then he came to know about the death of Kalam.A. 1317/2012 Page 6 of 12 Thereafter, they took him, PW-1 and some others and confined them for three days.They all went to Mathura as police wanted to implicate someone.They picked the appellant from Mathura and handed over him to Delhi Police.In the cross-examination he has accepted that these facts were being disclosed for the first time before the Court and he had not made any complaint to the police officers or senior police officers.It is claimed that these facts were not disclosed because of fear.He has deposed as incorrect, the suggestion give by the Additional Public Prosecutor that PW-1 had committed murder of Kalam.As recorded, the appellant was named as the perpetrator of the crime/injury in the FIR itself.Thus, the question of police wanting to implicate and arrest anyone" does not arise.Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 6 of 12PW-1 had two factories in the same compound but they were separated by a wall.The appellant and DW-1A were working in the same factory, but the deceased Kalam was working in a different factory.DW-3 has deposed that he had never worked in the factory of PW-1 and has Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 7 of 12 stated that the deceased was working with Manik Chand in a different factory.(we hope and trust that DW1 and DW3 are different persons).Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 7 of 12The statement of the defense witnesses do not cast or create any predilection or doubt about the prosecution case and involvement of the appellant as the perpetrator, who had caused the injuries to Kalam.Statements of the defense witnesses that the appellant was not an employee of PW-1 are clearly false and dubious assertions.Thereafter, he went to the roof of the factory but rushed down when he heard noises.There he found the appellant was having scissors in his hand and the deceased had sustained injuries on the chest.Both of them had grappled and he had to intervene to separate them.Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 8 of 12The scissors in question is used by tailors and would have been easily available in the factory or with the appellant, since he was a tailor by occupation and worked in a factory where leather goods were manufactured.Both the appellant and deceased were inebriated and had consumed considerable amount of liquor.There were certainly heated arguments as the deceased had taken Rs.50/- from the appellant and had not brought liquor, which the appellant wanted to consume.It is apparent that the quarrel had taken place between 9.30 p.m.-10 pm on 6th September, 2006 and by about 10.35 P.M. Kalam had been taken to the hospital as per the MLC Ex.PW3/A. As the appellant had caused injuries resulting in death of Kalam, we have to take the statement of PW-1 on the appellants conduct in the quarrel with some reservation as there Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 9 of 12 could be some element of exaggeration or overemphasis as to the wrongful act and culpability of the appellant viz. Kalam.In the preceding paragraph, we have brought out the difference between the two versions, Ex.PW1/A, which formed the "rukka" and the statement of PW-1 recorded in the Court.In the court testimony PW-1 has stated that when he came down the scissors in the appellants hands was visible and that the deceased had inflicted injuries on the appellants chest.He did not actually see how and from where the appellant had got hold of the scissors and how the verbal quarrel had turned into a physical one.He was not privy to the whole altercation and was certainly not present when the arguments escalated and the injury was caused.We cannot say with full conviction who had first picked up the scissors or had tried to hit the other person physically.There was a quarrel on a trivial issue of Rs.50/- as Kalam had taken the money from the appellant, but had not brought the liquor, as the deceased expected.There is a doubt whether the appellant was the first to physically assault the deceased.The weapon i.e. the scissors was available in the factory as it is an implement and tool used by the workers and was not specially procured to commit the said crime.In all probability it was picked up from the spot itself.Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 9 of 12Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 10 of 12Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 10 of 12In these circumstances, we give benefit of doubt to the appellant and hold that he did not take undue advantage and/or had not acted in a cruel or gruesome manner in the absence of any direct or other evidence to show what actually transpired after the altercation took an ugly turn, while PW-1 had gone to the roof/terrace to have food.The fact that PW-1 had gone to the terrace to have food shows that he had no cause to fear that there could be such grave consequences of the fight or the fight would escalate.When the quarrel exacerbated PW-1 was upstairs and there is no account of what actually transpired, in that interim period.It is pertinent to mention that only one injury was caused, though it was inflicted on a vital part.PW-1 has averred that the deceased had initially walked into the hospital and was conscious, but subsequently he vomited and expired within half an hour.Looking at the totality of these circumstances, we convert the conviction of the appellant from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part I IPC.The next question relates to the quantum of sentence.Keeping in view the injuries caused, the trivial issue on which the quarrel had taken place and the initial attempt made by PW-1 to pacify, we feel that the appellant should be sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 12 years with fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of 4 months.We are not inclined to reduce or give lesser punishment to the appellant, in the present case, keeping in view that the injury was caused at the vital part of the body i.e. the chest with a pair of scissors.Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 11 of 12Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.Conviction of the appellant is converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304, Part I IPC.Fine, if collected, shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased Kalam.(SANJIV KHANNA)(V.P. VAISH) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2013 NA Crl.A. 1317/2012 Page 12 of 12
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
41,736,910
Item No. 95And In the matter of: Ashique Molla @ Asik Molla & Anr.- versus -Chanditala Police Station Case No.239 of 2013 dated 30.06.2013 under sections 498A/406/354/323/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.The Petitioner No.1 is the husband of the Complainant and the Petitioner No.2 is her brother-in-law.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
['Section 498A 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', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
41,748,785
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 14.12.2011, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl.M.C. No. 1262 of 2011, by way of which the High Court has dismissed the said application preferred by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings launched by respondent no. 1 under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act 1989’).2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that: A. The appellant claims to be the owner of agricultural land measuring 1 bigha and 4 biswas, situated in the revenue estate of village Nangli Poona, Delhi.Respondent no.1 allegedly made an attempt to take forcible possession of the said land, and also filed FIR No. 254 of 2005 on 6.4.2005 under Sections 427, 447 and 506, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).Though the appellant was arrested in pursuance of the said FIR, however, subsequently he was enlarged on bail.B. Aggrieved, the appellant filed a complaint against respondent no.1, as well as against the police officials involved and in view thereof, FIR No.569 of 2005 under Sections 447, 323, 429 and 34 IPC was registered.C. After investigating the allegations made in FIR No. 254 of 2005 against the appellant, the police submitted a final report dated 20.2.2006, under Sections 173 and 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’), in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Respondent no.1 approached the revenue authorities i.e. Tahsildar, Narela, seeking the inclusion of his name in the revenue record as a person in possession/occupation of the said land.D. It is at this time, Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 2657 of 2006 was filed in the name of the appellant by Pradeep Rana, respondent no.2 as counsel on 18.11.2006, on the basis of the averments made in the first writ petition i.e. Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1667 of 2005, and seeking the same relief sought therein.Respondent no.1 also filed an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar, rejecting his application made for the purpose of recording his name in the revenue records.Notice was then issued to Pradeep Rana, respondent no.2 by the High Court, who appeared and tendered an apology for filing the second petition, without disclosing such facts pertaining to the filing and dismissal of the first petition.I. After a period of six months thereof, respondent no.1 filed a criminal complaint under Section 3(1)(viii) of the Act 1989, for the filing of a false criminal writ petition by the appellant in the High Court of Delhi, and further and more particularly, the second writ petition, without disclosing the factum of filing and dismissal of the aforementioned first writ petition.J. Aggrieved, respondent no.1 filed Revision Petition No.23 of 2009 before the ASJ, Rohini Court, Delhi.As regards FIR No. 16 of 2007, the Special Judge (SC/ST) refused to proceed against the appellant and others, making serious comments regarding the conduct of respondent no.1, as well as that of the investigating officer.The revision petition filed by respondent no.1 against order dated 13.8.2009, was allowed by the revisional court vide order dated 25.10.2010, which was then challenged by the appellant, before the High Court by way of him filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as Crl.Hence, this appeal.The High Court, vide judgment and order dated 16.2.2009 disposed of the said contempt proceedings.The order reads as under:“Learned counsel for Ravinder Singh admits that Crl.Writ Petition No. 1667/2005 and Crl.We dispose of the petition as not pressed.” (Emphasis added)The aforesaid order hence, makes it crystal clear that the High Court was satisfied that the appellant had been guided by his counsel and that he himself was not well-versed with the English language and had also filed his supporting affidavit in Hindi and further that it had accepted the unqualified apology tendered by Pradeep Rana, respondent no.2, and that considering the fact that the advocate was of a young age, even though both petitions had been filed under the signature of the appellant, it had decided to drop the said proceedings, as respondent no.1 did not wish to pursue his remedy any further.Hence, the petition was disposed of, as the same was not pressed.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
41,756,763
Heard on this first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.561/2018 registered by Police Station Govindpura, District Bhopal for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC and Section 21 of POCSO Act.The case of the prosecution against the applicant is that minor prosecutrix was allured by accused Kamlu Bansal.He took the prosecutrix along with him at Bhopal and kept the prosecutrix in his house where he committed rape with the prosecutrix.When she alleged the said act of applicant to wife of the applicant, accused has beaten both of them.Thereafter, one person namely Dhaniram Patel took the prosecutrix to Sagar.He committed rape with her and left her at Vijayapura, where his mother and father were residing.Father of Dhaniram Patel committed rape with the prosecutrix repeatedly.When she made a complaint of this act to applicant herein then, she instructed the prosecutrix to share bed with her husband.On that basis, FIR has been registered against the applicant under aforementioned Sections.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has falsely been implicated in this crime.She has not committed any offence.The applicant is in judicial custody since 09.05.2019 and conclusion of the trial will take considerable time, therefore, it has been prayed that the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State, on the other hand, opposed the application and prayed for dismissal of this application for bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 23440/2019 (Kashi Bai Vs.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant Kashi Bai, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for her appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.07.25 15:31:23 +05'30'
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
41,768,450
2 For the sake of convenience, the deceased, viz., Andavan and the accused, viz., Nagalingam are referred to by their name.3 The facts of the case, minus the minute details, are given in a capsule as under:3.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 09.05.2008, around 6.00 p.m., Andavan was hit by the lorry bearing Regn.TN 21 5445, driven by Nagalingam, resulting in the death of the former.On the complaint (Ex.P.1) given by Krishnamoorthy (P.W.1), the police registered a case in Cr. No.379 of 2008 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and the investigation was taken over by Shankar, Inspector of Police (P.W.10).Andavan was rushed to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, where, he was declared 'brought dead'.3.2 On the request of the Investigating Officer, Dr.This Criminal Revision Case has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment dated 18.04.2011 passed in Crl.A.No.18 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Villupuram, modifying thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 judgment dated 01.02.2011 passed in C.C.No.107 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram.Pandian (P.W.5) performed autopsy and issued post-mortem certificate (Ex.P.3), wherein, he has opined that Andavan had died of head injury sustained by him.The offending lorry was examined by Swaminathan, Motor Vehicles Inspector (P.W.4).Nagalingam was arrested and after completing thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 investigation, Shankar, Inspector of Police (P.W.10) filed final report in C.C. No.107 of 2008 before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram.3.3 On the appearance of Nagalingam, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.When questioned, he pleaded 'not guilty'.3.4 To prove the case, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked seven exhibits.When Nagalingam was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.On the side of Nagalingam, neither any witness was examined nor any document marked.3.5 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the Trial Court, by judgment dated 01.02.2011, convicted Nagalingam under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC and slapped sentences on him as under:Provision under which Sentence convicted 304-A IPC One year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.3.6 Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, Nagalingam filed Crl.A.No.18 of 2011 in the Court of Session, which was heard by the Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram, who, by judgment dated 18.04.2011, confirmed the conviction, however, modified the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC to six months rigorous imprisonment, still aggrieved by which, Nagalingam is before this Court under Section 397 read with 401 Cr.P.C.4 Heard Mr. Om Sai Ram, learned counsel for Nagalingam and Mr.He built up his arguments further by contending that had there been a head on collision, as alleged by the prosecution, the front wheel would have mowed Andavan.Be it noted that the evidence of the Motor Vehicles Inspector is relevant under Section 45 of the Evidence Act and he was not examined to give evidence on the fact in issue as, obviously, he was not an eye-witness.The evidence of Krishnamoorthy (P.W.1) and Vijayan (P.W.2) address the fact in issue.12 Mr. Om Sai Ram contended that the third eye witness, viz., Janakarathan (P.W.3) did not support the prosecution case and stated that Andavan hit the rear side of the lorry and fell beneath the back wheel.
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,184,986
Heard on I.A. Nos.6518/2017 and 5843/2017 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to appellant no.1 and appellant nos. 2 & 3 respectively.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 4/7/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior in S.T. No.255/2009 whereby appellants have been convicted under section 307 read with 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer S.I. for 6 months.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record.Investigating Officer Amar Singh, who was a material witness and Jaidev, eye- witness have not been examined by the prosecution.Besides, independent witnesses Shaukat (PW2), Shyam Singh (PW3) and Ranjit Singh (PW7) have not supported the prosecution version.It is also submitted that looking to the nature of injuries, the offence under section 307 of the IPC is not made out.Further, appellant no.1 Omendra has been acquitted of the offence under section 25(1)(a) of the Arms Act from whom country made pistol is alleged to have been recovered.Fine amount has been deposited.Appellants are permanent residents of Gwalior, and if released on bail, there is no possibility of their absconsion.In response, learned public prosecutor has opposed the prayer.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,188,285
With consent heard finally.This is the first application preferred by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. wherein he is apprehending his arrest in a case registered at Crime No.774/2018 at Police Station Bahodapur district Gwalior for the offence under Sections 306-A and 34 of IPC.The present application is filed at the instance of a boy aged 19 years who is facing allegation of Sections 306-A, 34 of IPC for abetment.C. No.10357/2019 regular bail before the trial Court.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
971,890
ORDER Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.Both the offences are compoundable and the parties have entered into a compromise.No order has been passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the application for compounding of the offences.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,192,914
Shri Dataram Mahor, learned counsel for the objector/complainant.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as they apprehend their arrest in Crime No. 41/2017 registered at Police Station Veerpur of Sheopur district against them and seven other co-accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 294, 354, 354-A, 354-B, 342, 506, 147 and 149 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 20.12.2016 at about 11:12 am the applicants and co-accused persons namely Dinesh, Lakhan, Harvilas, Nekram, Mangi, Annu and Jatiyan Jatav came to residence of complainant Rajkumari situated at village Seetaram Chak, Veerpur and removed forty years old boundary wall of her house.Upon her objections, co-accused Dinesh uttered filthy abuses at her, caught hold of her hands and fell her down on the ground.Thereafter, he tore her clothes.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that this Court has granted anticipatory bail to co-accused Harvilas and Mangi vide order dated 04.07.2017 passed in M.Cr.He submits that in the aforesaid order this Court has 1 M.Cr.C No. 7449/2017 (Ram Singh and anr.State of M.P.) held that co-accused Dinesh is the main accused.He submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedents.He assures this Court on their behalf that the applicants would cooperate with the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case, if they are granted anticipatory bail.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer and learned counsel for the objector have opposed the prayer.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their counsel, no overt-act is attributed to the applicants in the FIR and the fact that the aforesaid co-accused persons had granted anticipatory bail and no requirement of custodial interrogation of the applicants in view of the allegations, but without commenting on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to applicants Ram Singh and Kailashi Jatav with certain conditions.Allowing this application, they are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on or before 21.08.2017 for interrogations and submission of documentary proofs of their permanent addresses and contact numbers, if any.The Investigating Officer is ordered that if he arrests the applicants in the case, in that event he will release them on bail immediately upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Only fifty thousand) with one solvent surety of the same amount each to his satisfaction.Further, they will abide by the conditions enumerated in Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. It is made clear that if any of the applicants fails to appear before the Investigating Officer within the stipulated time period, 1 M.Cr.C No. 7449/2017 (Ram Singh and anr.State of M.P.) then this bail order shall stand automatically cancelled in respect of him.Certified copy as per rules.( Rajendra Mahajan) Judge LJ*
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,193,269
The deceased has poured the kerosene oil and has committed suicide.It is submitted that even in the dying declaration it is also admitted that at the time of committing of suicide the deceased was alone.1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.34125/2020 (Meera Shakya Vs.The State of M.P.) Gwalior, Dated : 16.09.2020 Shri Ram Kishor Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Alok Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant has filed this first application u/S. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 20.07.2020 by Police Station Nayagaon District Bhind (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.74/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/S.306 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is mother-in-law of the deceased and she has been falsely implicated in this case.She has not committed any offence in any manner.The investigation is over in the matter and the charge sheet has been filed.There is no requirement of custodial interrogation of the present applicant.It is submitted that the offence 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.34125/2020 (Meera Shakya Vs.It is argued that the dying declaration of the deceased was got recorded wherein she has categorically stated that owing to a dispute with respect to the partition between the present applicant and the deceased.It is argued that she was brought to the Hospital by the husband of the deceased itself.It is submitted that omnibus allegations are being levelled against the present applicant.Looking to the fact that she is a lady aged about 50 years and coupled with the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed in the matter and also the present scenario of Covid-19 she prays for grant of bail.The applicant is ready to abide by all the terms and conditions which may be imposed by this court while considering the application for grant of bail.The applicant has further shown his willingness to contribute an amount of Rs.10000/- towards the PM Care Fund.There is no possibility of her absconding or tampering with the prosecution case.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the bail application stating that the applicant is a main assailant.There is a specific allegation against the present applicant of fighting with the 3 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.34125/2020 (Meera Shakya Vs.The State of M.P.) deceased immediately before her death.The statements of witnesses were recorded during investigation and the statement of Manoj has read over who happens to be brother of the deceased has categorically stated that his sister has made a phone call to him and has told him that the present applicant i.e. mother-in-law is beating her.Thereafter, he was informed by the husband that she has committed suicide.The similar statements were given by Rambeti i.e. mother of the deceased.One independent witness Baburam Dohare was also recorded wherein he has also stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the present applicant.It is submitted that merely filing of the charge sheet is not ground for grant of bail.In the dying declaration also, she has also categorically stated that the mother-in-law was having a fight with her, owing to which, she has committed suicide.He has prayed for dismissal of the application.Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that there is specific allegation against the present applicant of fighting with the deceased immediately before her death and looking to the custody period of the present applicant, this Court is not inclined to allow this application for grant of bail.Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of 4 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.34125/2020 (Meera Shakya Vs.The State of M.P.) this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,196,336
Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with ASI Hawa Singh, Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi Mr. Ajay Kumar Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2 CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Sh.Jai Prakash @Guddu for quashing of FIR No.447/2013, under Section 452/354A IPC registered at Police Station Nihal Vihar, Delhi on the basis of a compromise deed between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 namely, Smt. Jyoti.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the FIR in question.complainant/respondent no.2 has alleged that the petitioner in the present matter is residing as her neighbor and has been passing silly remarks and making indications to which the complainant and her husband have objected to but to no avail.On the preceding night of 31.12.2013 the petitioner tried to insult the complainant and on the next day while the complainant was in her house, the petitioner came there and held her from the back and pushed her from her chest and asked her to come along with him when the respondent no.2 created a noise and thereafter the petitioner fled the spot.The complainant after the above incident got registered the FIR in the present matter.All the disputes and differences have been resolved and now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.Statement of the respondent has been recorded in this regard in which she stated that she has entered into a settlement with the petitioner and has settled all the disputes with him.
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,205,421
M.C. 4238/2005 Page 1 of 12In the complaint, it was also alleged that after the execution of the documents for consideration & inasmuch as the respondent having received a sum of Rs. 10,50,000/- out of total sale consideration of Rs. 11,50,000/- accused no. 1 & 2 namely, Shri Lalita Prasad and P.G. Satish delivered the possession of the property to her.The balance amount was agreed to be paid after installation of electricity connection and on payment of house tax arrears by those accused persons.As per the agreement even though the possession was given to the respondents, overall control of the property comprising of a plot no. E 98A measuring 98 sq. yds.Copies of Receipts are enclosed herewith.That the deal was for plot bearing No. E-98A, measuring 975 sqp yds.(91x96.6) Part of khasra no. 98, khatoni 72/75, situated at Sainik Farm, in the area of village Saidlajab, Tehsil Mehrauli, New Delhi and the deal of said property was through Smt. Rashmi Wadhwa and Shri K.S. Gulati and Avtar Singh.That the complainants no. 1 paid the whole consideration amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupes ten lacs fifty thousand only) but got the agreement in her name as well as in the name of her daughter-in-law i.e. complainant.That as mentioned above, different amounts were paid on different dates as mentioned above.That here it is worthwhile to mention that complainants were to pay balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to the accused 1 and 2 after installation of permanent electricity connection by them and payment of house tax arrears upto date of Sale Deed.As such the total transaction for the sale of plot with its superstructure was agreed for Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lacs and fifty thousand only) out of which as mentioned Rs. 10,50,000/- was paid by the complainant No. 1 to the accused.However, the accused 1 and 2, however, executed an Agreement for Rs. 3,55,000/- (Rupees three lacs and fifty five thousands) for their convenience and assured that after doing legal formalities like requisite permission from appropriate authority.He will execute proper Agreement to Sell for Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lacs and fifty thousand only) in favour of complainants.That the accused 1 and 2 also took original General Power of Attorney, from the complainants, executed by the previous owner namely J.K. Goondli which was in their favour with the assurance the same will be returned within three months but did not return it despite of repeated visits and demands raised rather colluded with defendants 3 and 5 and executed wrong and contradictory affidavit just to cheat the plaintiffs badly.That for his own convenience, the accused Nos. 1 and 2, executed the Agreement to Sell for Rs. 3,35,000/- (Rupees three lacs thirty five thousand only) vide the consideration amount was paid for Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lacs and fifty thousand only) and promise the complainants that after getting appropriate permission, he will execute relevant agreement for Rs. 11,50,000/-.That here it is worthwhile to mention that amount of Rs. 10,50,000/- (Rupees ten lacs fifty thousands only), the complainants paid Rs. 3,35,000/- (Rupees three lacs fifty five thousand) by cheque and balance amount by cash.However, got stamped receipts from accused for every payment.The details of the payments paid by Crl.That on 21st February, 1996, complainants came to know that the accused 1 & 2 are playing some mischief as they were neither returning the original G.P.A. of Shri Goondli nor divulging the facts rather handed over the possession to accused no. 3, without knowledge, consent and permission of complainants rather they exceeded their authority and misused the said Power of Attorney executed by Shri J.K. Gonodli, in favour of accused 1 & 2 which was given to them in good faith.The complainants lodged report through Shri T.M. Gulati, who is the husband of complainant no. 2 and son of complainant no. 1 Copy of report lodged with the Police is enclosed herewith.The complainant and their Crl.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 4 of 12 attorney have been given threatening calls from the accused and their associates.In fact on 21st February, 1996, when associates of complainants came to know of unauthorized construction being raised by accused 3 and 4 and their associates, report was lodged and thereafter on the same day i.e. on 21st February, 1996, S.H.O., Police Station, Mehrauli, directed the Police Officer, Shri Hans Raj, to see that no unauthorized construction is raised by the accused 3 & 4 but it was an eye-wash by the Police authorities.The complainant got photographs of the same day of unauthorized construction raised by accused.The complainants also have go photographs of 8th April, 1994, where the husband of the complainant no. 1 is also there with the complainants and the date of photographs itself is there of 8th August, 1994 which shows that the complainants were in possession of the property in question.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 4 of 12That as the accused 1 and 2, executed relevant documents in favour of the complainants and have failed to deliver the possession in favour of the complainants rather gave possession without consent, knowledge and permission of the complainants to accused 3 and 4 being not only duped but defrauded them by their acts of concealment, calculated plans and forgery motives.The complainants have no other remedy except to approach to the Hon'ble Court for their grievances and redresses i.e. while filing suit for specific performance and possession.That after taking forceful possession, the following illegal constructions have been raised by accused 3 and 4 and their associates.They have extended front portion from the drawing room side and have also extended kitchen.Rather the accused no. 5, in connivance with accused 6 and 7, have demolished the existing structure and have raised all unauthorized constructions on the property of the complainants.That the accused 3 to 7, have also have also removed the name of the complainants from gate though Adarsh Farm written by the complainant is still there.CW-2/A. The receipt-cum-agreement is exb.The second agreement-cum receipt was executed on 19.5.92 which is exb.CW1/2 and the 3rd is exb.b. It is stated thereafter that on 14.6.92 the complainant got installed a jet pump vide receipt exb.The various documents executed by accused no. 1 and 2 are exb.The complainant has also placed on record letters for change of telephone and for change of address.The photographs taken by the complainant are also placed on record.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 6 of 12Part of khasra no. 98 Khatoni 72/75 situated at Sainik Farm in the area of Saidulajab, tehsil Mehrauli New Delhi was kept with that of accused no. 1 & 2 but a chowkidar was appointed whose salary used to be paid by the complainant.After the service of summons the petitioner moved an application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. for his discharge but the said application was not found favour by the Magistrate.Some averments made by the respondents in her complaint are reproduced for the sake of reference:M.C. 4238/2005 Page 2 of 12M.C. 4238/2005 Page 2 of 12That the accused 1 and 2 entered into an Agreement with the complainants dated 13th May, 1992, for a consideration of Rs. 11,50,000/- (Rupees eleven lacs and fifty thousand only).That by the said Receipt- cum-Agreement, the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in cash and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by cheque.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 3 of 12 complainant No. 1 has duly been mentioned in the receipts mentioned in the above paras.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 3 of 12That there was some litigation going on between the accused no.1 on the one hand and Shri Davinder Sharma, J.K. Goondli and Gurukul Fashion and Shri Yashpal and Mrs. Meera Jaiswal i.e. the present accused no.3 on the other hand.That the accused 1 and 2 also took the original Power of Attorney from the complainants of Mr. Goondli and they assured that they will be returning the same but the said power of attorney was also not parted with to the complainants and that also amount to criminal breach of trust nor they returned the balance amount as promised by them nor handed over the possession, nor got the electricity connection, which was one of the condition of the Agreement, nor paid the House Tax, as such the accused cheated misrepresented and committed criminal breach of trust.As such are liable for prosecution under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 5 of 12On the basis of the aforesaid averments it was pleaded by the complainant that there was a clear cut admission made on behalf of the accused no. 1 & 2 that the possession of the property had been given by them to the complainant yet they also gave possession of the property to Mrs. Meera Jaswal and Shri R N Jaswal (accused no. 3 & 4) who have raised illegal construction on the said property with the help of accused no. 5 who is the petitioner in this case.The Learned Metropolitan Magistrate passed the summoning order against the petitioner taking into consideration the averments made in the complaint and the evidence led by the respondents at the stage of pre-summoning and made the following observations:a. Smt. Shakuntala Rani and Sangeet Gulati has filed the complaint against Lalita Prasad and 9 others.The allegations in brief are that accused no. 1 & 2 entered into one agreement with the complainants on 13.5.1992 regarding property no. E-98A, measuring 975 Sq.yds, part of khasra no. 98A at Sainik Farm in the area of Village Saidullajab Mehrauli.It is alleged that the accused no. 1 & 2 did not disclose the factum of pendency of suit filed by accused no. 1 on 21.3.1992 against 5 persons alleging that accused no. 1 and 2 had purchased this land from Shri J.K. Gondly, copy of which is exb.CW- 1/1, the receipt is exb.CW1/1 bears the signatures of accused no. 2 and accused no. 10 Kartar Singh.c. It is further alleged that the possession of property was with the complaint which was being looked after by the complainant/s chowkidar who was living there and was being paid by the complainant but on the recommendation of accused no. 8,9and 10, the accused no. 1 and 2 were allowed to sit on the property.f. It is further stated that January 95, the accused no. 1 and 2 approached to the complainant and original GPA which was executed by J.K. Gondly was taken by them for the purposes of electricity and house tax.Further the accused no. 1 and 2 executed Indemnity Bond exb.Further in January 95 itself, the accused no. 1 had filed an application under 0.23 Rule 1 exb.CW2/11 for compromise.This application was in collusion or connivance with accused no.2 and the application was also supported by a false affidavit exb.g. It is deposed that the complainant came to know that accused no. 1 and 2 playing mischief and they did not return original GPA and nor gave true facts and rather entered the possession to accused no. 3 without knowledge and consent or the permission of the complainant and committed criminal breach of trust.h. On 21.2.96 this complaint was lodged by complainant and it came to their knowledge that unauthorized construction was being raised by accused no. 3 and 4 and accused no. 5 in connivance with the accused no. 6 and 7 have demolished and have raised unauthorized construction on the property of the complainant.i. The complainant Savita Gulati has appeared as CW1 and Ramesh Kumar, clerk from record room has appeared as CW2 and CW3 Prem Parkash Nagpal has also identified his signatures on several documents placed on record.j. After hearing the complaint and Ld.counsel for the complainant and on the conspectus of entire material on record.The petitioner submits that from the complaint filed by the respondents and the evidence led by them the only allegation made is that accused no. 1&2 i.e. Shri Lalita Prasad and P.G. Crl.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 8 of 12 Satish had given possession of the property in question to the complainant i.e. the first respondent but kept an overall control on the property by appointing one Chowkidar but whose salary was paid by the complainant and that the possession of the plot was also handed over by accused no. 2 to accused no. 3 & 4 and lastly that forcible possession has been taken by accused no. 3 & 4 along with their associates who has also raised illegal constructions and by extending front portion from the drawing room side and the kitchen.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 8 of 12(i) Possession must be actual possession of the complainant, which includes the right to eject or exclude any other person from the property in question.(ii) That accused must have actually entered into the property in possession of the Complainant.(iii) The accused must have entered into or upon property in the possession of another with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate insult or annoy any person in possession of such property.However, the averments made in her complaint are:Respondents Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave possession to the complainant but kept the overall control on the Crl.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 9 of 12 property and one chowkidar was also appointed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 but his salary was being paid by the Complainant.Lastly it has been alleged that after taking forceful possession, illegal construction have been raised by the accused 3 and 4 and their associates.They have extended front portion from the drawing room side and have also extended kitchen.The only allegation against the present petitioner is that Petitioner No.1, in connivance with the Accused No. 6 & 7, have demolished the existing structure and have raised all unauthorized constructions on the property of the Respondent.M.C. 4238/2005 Page 9 of 12It is also stated that the defence of the petitioner is writ large in view of the averments made in the complaint and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been discharged.The allegation against the petitioner to the extent that he along with accused no. 3 & 4 raised unauthorized and illegal construction would not constitute an offence of house trespass.With these averments the petitioner has asked for the following reliefs:(i) Call for the records of the Complaint Case No. 102/1 titled "Shakuntala Rani Vs.Lalita Prasad" and set aside the order dated 25.5.2005 passed by Shri Deepak Garg, Metropolitan Magistrate New Delhi.(ii) Allow the application of the Petitioner under Section 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code and discharge the Petitioner from the charge under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code.The respondents have contested the petition and have filed their written submissions.
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
97,206,503
C.R.R. 3627 of 2019 SB Ct. No. 33 In Re : Nilratan Halder Mr. Abhimanyu Banerjee Mr. Swarup Bhattacharya ... For the petitioner This is an application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner praying for quashing of the proceedings initiated on the basis of Garfa Police Station F.I.R. No. 384 of 2019 dated 26.08.2019 under sections 341/323/324/354A/354B/509/506/114 of the Indian Penal Code pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,757,068
of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Gumba Mondal @ Narotam Mondal ... ... petitioner Mr. Mrinal Kanti Mukherjee ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Gaighata P.S. Case No. 187 of 2018 dated 01.03.2018 under Sections 188/333/353/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The matter relates to perceived cattle smuggling.The State produces the case diary and says that even if any lenience were to be shown to the petitioner he should not be permitted to enter the Gaighata Police Station area.Subject to the petitioner not entering any place within the jurisdiction of Gaighata Police Station, the petitioner will be entitled to anticipatory bail.In addition, the petitioner is directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.This order is subject to further condition that the petitioner will not enter any place within the jurisdiction of Gaighata Police Station unless expressly called for by the investigation officer.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,759
The informant Suresh Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 6 and the two other eye witnesses Sushila Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 7 and Malini Vasant Kavathkar P.W. 8 and the deceased Chandrakant Vasant Kavathkar were residents of village Hadi situated within the limits of Malvan Police Station, District Malwan.The respondents are also said to be residents of the same village and are alleged to be residing at a distance of about one mile from the house of Suresh and others.It is alleged that relations between the deceased and others on the one side and the respondents on the other, were highly strained.The starting point was the year 1977, when the informant Suresh Kavathkar had purchased a piece of land for construction of a hotel.That land was adjacent to the land of respondent No. 1 Ghanashyam Dattatraya Bhisale.On 10-3-1981, the informant returned from Malvan at about 7.45 p.m. After returning from there, he went home where he saw his brother Chandrakant (deceased) his mother Sushila and sister Malini.Thereafter, he went to the house of Datta Patkar in order to inquire whether Vishnu Dandkar had returned from Bombay.This was presumably because the informant's father was in Bombay and was ailing there.The informant inquired from Vishnu Dandkar about his father's health but the latter told him that he could not meet him.Hence, he started returning for his house.At that time, he met his brother Chandrakant near the cattle-shed of Shedage.In the compound of one Mohan Tondavalkar, the informant saw the respondents standing with sticks in their hands.Chandrakant was about 10 feet behind him.Immediately thereafter, informant heard cries of his brother that he should run to his rescue as he was being assaulted.Thereupon, respondent No. 1 Ghanashyam and respondent No. 5 Rajaram rushed at the informant.Hence, he went away running from the spot.While running, he was shouting and calling his mother and sister.Hearing his cries, his mother Sushila and his sister Malini came to the spot, where Chandrakant was being assaulted.They also saw him being assaulted by the six respondents.After assaulting Chandrakant, the respondents are said to have run away.Thereafter, Sushila and Malini gave water to Chandrakant.Sushila asked him as to how it has happened and on that he told her that the six respondents had assaulted him.He informed him that the six respondents had assaulted Chandrakant.Thereafter, both of them went to post office at Ozar in order to inform the police.Jagannath Gaonkar telephonically informed the police about the assault on Chandrakant.At about 10.15 p..m.the informant returned to the place of the incident.At that time, his brother Chandrakant was alive.However on account of inability to get transport, he could not take Chandrakant for medical aid.Sometime before midnight, Chandrakant succumbed to his injuries.It is alleged that throughout the night, the dead body remained on the place of the incident.In the same, the six respondents are named.At about 10 a.m. on 11-3-1981, he left for the place of incident.He found that Chandrakant was dead.Vide Exhibit 12, he performed the inquest on the dead body.Thereafter, he prepared a panchanama of the scene of the incident.He recovered from the place of the incident, one stick, blood-stained earth and one stone.Thereafter, he recorded statements of Sushila, Malini and some other witnesses.JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.The State of Maharashtra aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 2-12-1981, passed by the Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 32/1981 acquitting the six respondents for offences punishable under sections 147, I.P.C. and 302 r/w. 149 I.P.C., has come up in appeal before us.At the very outset, we may mention that respondent No. 2 Mohan Dattatraya Bhisale died during the pendency of this appeal and vide order dated 17-1-1994, passed by Division Bench of this Court, comprising of A.C. Agarwal and I.G. Shah, JJ., appeal against him was ordered to stand abated.Briefly stated the prosecution case runs as under:---On 17-3-1981, at the instance of respondent No. 2, Mohan Dattatraya Bhisale, and respondent No. 3 Subhas Shantaram Bhisale, he recovered the weapon of assault namely two sticks.On 19-4-1981, he sent the recovered articles to the Chemical Analyst.Finally, after completing the investigation on 11-6-1981, he submitted the charge-sheet.Dr. Kolvankar found the following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased-Contusion 4 in No. transversely placed over sternum 4 " x 1/2 " each.2. Contused lacerated wound on chin 2 in No. 2 " x 1/2 x M.D. eachContused lacerated wound vertex(i) 3" x 1/2" x B.D.(ii) 11/2" x 1/2" x B.D.Contusion left shoulder superiorly 1" x 1/4".Contusion chest left side mid auxillary line, 4 in number about 4" x 1/2" each.Multiple contusion left infrascapular region upper two 4" x 1/2" two 31/2" x 1/2" (lower)Contused lacerated wound left mastoid region 2" x 1/2 x B.D.M.M.A. both kneesContusion thighs laterally.On internal examination, Dr. Kolvankar noticed the following internal damage:-"Head:---Contusion under scalp over vertex region.Skull:---Fracture of the skull over vertex.Brain:---Sub-dural haematoma was present.He also found fracture of 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs beneath the right side of chest.In the opinion of Dr. Kolvankar, the deceased died on account of multiple injuries.In his opinion, injury No. 4 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the deceased must have succumbed to his injuries within about half an hour after receiving them.In his cross-examination, Dr. Kolvankar stated that all the fractures on the skull and ribs were of a serious nature and the deceased must have lost his consciousness as soon as he received the blows.He further stated that a person who has received such serious injuries, is unlikely to regain consciousness without medical aid and that a man with fracture of mandible is not likely to speak coherently.Finally, in his cross-examination he stated that there must have been profuse bleeding on account of the injuries.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner, where charges under section 147 and 302/149 I.P.C. were framed against the respondents to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the trial Court, apart from tendering some documentary evidence, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses.Out of them three namely Suresh Vasant Kavathkar, Sushila Vasant Kavathkar and Malini Vasant Kavathkar, P.Ws. 6, 7 & 8 respectively were examined, as eye witnesses.In defence, no witness was examined.The learned trial Judge after a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, vide impugned judgment acquitted the respondents.Hence, this appeal.We have heard Mrs. Poornima Kantharia, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra at a considerable length.We are constrained to observe that inspite of the fact that this appeal pertains to the year 1982, learned Counsel for the respondents did not choose to remain present in the Court.Since the appeal is pending in this Court, over the last 14 years, and after perusing the material on record, we left that there was no substance in this appeal, we did not adjourn the same.She further urged that the testimony of the three eye-witnesses of the incident namely Suresh, Sushila and Malini inspires implicit confidence and the rejection of it, by the trial Court is palpably unreasonable and hence the impugned order of acquittal is not sustainable and warrants to be reversed.We have carefully considered the aforesaid submission of Mrs. Kantharia and have ourselves gone through the entire evidence.It is keeping in mind this angle of approach that we have to examine whether the impugned order of acquittal can be interfered with.Our answer as said earlier is no.In the instant case, the trial Judge has given very cogent reasons for passing the impugned order of acquittal.He has firstly mentioned that the evidence on record is that the respondents reside at a distance of about one mile from the place where the deceased resided and since, presence of the deceased on the place of the incident was accidental, there was no question of the respondents waiting in ambush in a planned manner to commit his murder.This reason recently appears to us to plausible.The trial Judge has also given cogent reasons for rejecting the ocular account and the oral dying declaration.He has not accepted the claim of Sushila that she recognised the respondents while they were assaulting the deceased in view of her statement recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein she stated that on account of darkness, she could not identify the assailants.Coming to the statement of Malini P.W. 8 we find that it suffers from a similar vice.Though in the trial Court, she stated that she saw all the respondents assaulting the deceased but, in her statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. she had mentioned that five to six persons were assaulting Chandrakant in darkness.In the aforesaid statement, she also stated that she saw Ghanashyam, Mohan and Subhas only and not the remaining respondents.When she was confronted with the aforesaid dichotomy, between her statement in the trial Court on one hand and her 161 statement on the other hand, she gave the stock answer that I have no so said.This certainly, we are not prepared to accept.This improvement destroys the meat of her credibility.Firstly, the trial Judge felt that since there was acute enmity between the respondents on one side and informant and the deceased on the other side, Suresh who was about 10 feet ahead of Chandrakant, having seen the respondents in ambush would have warned Chandrakant.In view of the aforesaid infirmities, the trial Judge has rejected the evidence of three eye witnesses.Rightly, the trial Judge had borne in his mind that all these witnesses were highly interested witnesses and hence, extreme caution was required in evaluating their testimony.The trial Court also rejected the evidence of the oral dying declaration for good reasons.The trial Judge felt that Suresh who had reached the place of incident at about 10.15 p.m. did not depose about the oral dying declaration and though his mother and sister, namely Sushila and Malini, did depose about it but their claim appears to be extremely suspect in view of the medical evidence.In the earlier part of our judgment, we have referred to the cross-examination of Dr. Kolvankar who performed the autopsy on the deceased.To recaptitulate, Dr. Kolvankar had stated that immediately after sustaining the injuries, the deceased must have lost his consciousness and was unlikely to regain the same without any medical aid.He had also stated that on account of fracture of mandible, he could not speak coherently.In the light of this medical evidence, the trial Judge concluded that it was extremely improbable for Chandrakant to have made the aforesaid oral dying declaration for admittedly, no medical aid had been given to him.In view of this medical evidence, the trial Judge was wholly justified in rejecting the oral dying declaration.At this stage, we would like to point out that the weightage to be attached to the evidence of a oral dying declaration is wholly corelated to the credibility of the witnesses who depose about it.If the credibility of the witnesses, who depose about the oral dying declaration stands eroded, as is the case here, it ipso facto follows that the evidence in respect of the oral dying declaration cannot and should not be accepted.If, on the converse, the evidence of witnesses who depose about it, is found to be credible, the oral dying declaration should be accepted.Another reason which weighed with the trial Judge for throwing out the prosecution case was the proved alibi of respondent Rajaram Gangaram Bhisale to whom Suresh P.W. 6, the informant, has given specific part of rushing towards him.The alibi of this respondent was that at the time of this incident, he was on way to Bombay.In support of his alibi, a large number of defence witnesses have been examined.The trial Judge has considered this plea of alibi in paragraph 28 of the judgment and rightly in our opinion has found it to be acceptable.Not only in our judgment was it a possible view, but it was a wholly correct view.A contrary view in our judgment would have been grossly unreasonable.Pursuant to the above discussion, we are squarely satisfied that the prosecution had failed to bring home the charges against the respondents and the trial Judge was every inch correct in acquitting them.This appeal is dismissed.
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,760,606
Briefly stated, the prosecution case as reflected in the charge- sheet was that on the night intervening 19/20.04.1994 one Dinesh Dubey arrested in case FIR No.201/94 of Police Station Janakpuri made a disclosure statement informing that he and his friends had a land dispute with Chander Pradhan and wanted him to be implicated in a false case.Accordingly, they all hatched a conspiracy to involve Chander Pradhan in a rape case.On 10.04.1994, the victim 'P' (changed name) was abducted by the appellants and was raped by Dinesh Dubey.The victim 'P' had appeared as PW-4 before the Trial Court.In her examination-in-chief, she deposed that earlier she was married to one Trilok Nath and at the time of incident, she was living separately in Janakpuri.In April, 1994, she was having full time pregnancy.Dinesh Dubey came to her house; took her somewhere and told that an old man namely Chander Pradhan was to be implicated in a false rape case.She declined to implicate him.Dinesh Dubey told her that he would have sex with her and the complaint would be lodged against Chander Pradhan.She was threatened that in case of denial, he would kill her and the child in her womb.She was shown a revolver by him.On that, she went to Police Post Matiala and lodged the report as tutored by Dinesh Dubey.Dinesh Dubey committed rape upon her and she was kept confined by him for fifteen days at different places.One day, finding an opportunity, she escaped from a hotel in Paharganj and came back to her house.Next day, she was taken to the police station by the police where she narrated the entire incident vide statement (Ex.PW-4/A).Public Prosecutor cross- examined him as he did not support the prosecution case.In the cross- examination, he denied if any 'girl' was recovered by the police in his presence.PW-3 (Satnam) deposed that on 09.04.1994, 'P' had come to her as she was not feeling well.She stayed in the house at night.On 10.04.1994, Manjeet Kaur (the appellant) took her to the doctor as she herself was busy.When 'P' did not return till evening she went to Manjeet Kaur's house to enquire about her and she told that 'P' had gone to her house.After 4 or 5 days, she came to know that Manjeet Kaur had got a false case registered against a Pradhan through her.Apparently, statement of this witness is inconsistent to the P's version.PW-3 (Satnam) did not claim that the victim was living with her in the said house for any specific period and was related to her.PW-4 'P' - the victim claimed that she was her 'Bhabhi' and she was staying with her for about two or three months prior to the occurrence.PW-3 did not lodge any 'missing' complaint when 'P' did not reach her house.She did not take any steps to find her whereabouts though she was having full time pregnancy.The appellant - Manjeet Kaur was apparently known and acquainted with PW-3 (Satnam).However, she did not inform the police about her disappearance.The victim claimed that she had remained in captivity for fifteen days and accused Dinesh Dubey even sexually assaulted her. 'P' did not lodge any such report for rape committed upon her by Dinesh Dubey.Both the above appeals are disposed of together as they arise out of a common judgment.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 1 of 7The appellants - Manjeet Kaur and Veermati impugn a judgment dated 24.04.2004 of learned Addl.Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 94/97 arising out of FIR No.202/94 PS Janakpuri by which the appellant - Manjeet Kaur was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 366, 109 IPC read with Section 376 IPC, 342 and 120B IPC read with Section 211 IPC and the appellant - Veermati was held guilty for committing offence punishable under Section 120B IPC read with Section 211 IPC.By an order dated 15.05.2004, they were awarded various prison terms with fine.She was compelled to lodge false complaint under Section 376 IPC against Chander Pradhan.Subsequently, the victim was recovered from Bindapur Extension where she was in the captivity of the appellant - Manjeet Kaur.She recorded her statement; she was medically examined.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.The prosecution arrested Dinesh Dubey (since expired), Abdul Aziz Mirza, Shanta Bhandari, Surjeet Singh, Vijender Singh and Bharat Bhushan besides the appellants.Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded.Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against all of them in the Court.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 2 of 7In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses.In 313 Cr.P.C. statements, the accused persons denied their involvement in the crime and pleaded false implication.Since Dinesh Dubey had expired during trial, the proceedings against him stood 'abated'.After considering the rival contentions of the parties and on appreciation of the evidence, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, acquitted Abdul Aziz Mirza, Surjeet Singh, Vijender Singh and Bharat Bhushan of all the charges.It is relevant to note that State did not challenge their acquittal.Shanta Bhandari and Veermati (the appellant) were convicted under Section 120B IPC read with Section 211 IPC only.It is unclear if the said conviction has been challenged by Shanta Bhandari.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the appellants have filed the instant appeals.Vide letter No.27267-Crl.dated 09.09.2011, the Trial Court was directed to reconstruct the record.Vide letter dated 17.01.2012, the learned Addl.Sessions Judge sent the reconstructed file to the extent it was possible.On perusal of the reconstructed Trial Court record, it reveals that photocopies of statements of PW-1 (Jayanti Thakur), PW-2 (Chandrika Thakur), PW-5 (Const.Hari Ram), PW-8 (Dr.Shami Bhasin), PW-9 (Insp.Nand Kumar), PW-10 (Ram Sagar Yadav), PW-12 (O.P.Yadav) and PW-15 Inspector Rajinder Singh Adhikari are on record.Some pages of the charge-sheet have also been reconstructed.Apparently, in the absence of complete Trial Court record, this court is handicap to scrutinize the impugned judgment.No useful purpose will be served to seek de-novo trial.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 3 of 7Main allegations were against accused Dinesh Dubey who as observed above has since expired and the proceedings against him have been dropped as 'abated'.She also recorded her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.Since the victim had deviated from her statements recorded before the police and the Magistrate, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, after seeking Court's permission, cross-examined her.In the cross-examination, she accepted the suggestions put to her by the learned Addl.In the cross-examination, she did not identify accused Bharat Bhushan and Surjeet Singh.About Shanta Bhandari, Manjeet Kaur and Crl.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 4 of 7 Veermati (the appellants), she deposed that none of them was known to her before the incident.She further disclosed that a divorce petition was pending and she was residing with her Bhabhi Satnam about 2 or 3 months before the incident.She also did not identify accused Vijender Singh.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 4 of 7Victim's statement does not inspire confidence as at the first instance, she did not implicate all the accused persons charge-sheeted for their role in the episode.She only levelled allegations against Dinesh Dubey who has since expired.Subsequently, when she was cross-examined by learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, she merely accepted the suggestions put to her by him.Even in the cross-examination, she did not identify some of the accused persons.The Trial Court did not consider her version sufficient to base conviction upon accused Abdul Aziz Mirza, Surjeet Singh, Vijender Singh and Bharat Bhushan and it resulted in their acquittal.8. PW-1 (Jayanti Thakur) and PW-2 (Chandrika Thakur) are social workers and are husband and wife.PW-1 (Jayanti Thakur) informed that in 1994 accused Shanta Bhandari and Manjeet Kaur (the appellant) came to her along with a lady namely Veermati (the appellant).Shanta and Manjeet told her that another lady accompanying them was pregnant due to rape committed on her and requested her to take her to a senior leader.She took them to Mr.Om Prakash Kohli, State President BJP Delhi and introduced them to him.She did not know what further conversation took place between them.She did not recollect the name of the 'girl' who was pregnant.In the cross-examination, she disclosed that Shanta Bhandari was also a social worker.PW-1's statement does not implicate the appellants.The victim did not disclose to her if she was in appellants' captivity or was forced to implicate any individual in a false rape case.Similarly, statement Crl.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 5 of 7A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 6 of 7Other witnesses examined by the prosecution are formal witness.It has not been explained as to why the appellants would conspire with Dinesh Dubey to falsely implicate Chander Pradhan in a rape case.Nothing has surfaced on record if the appellants had any nexus with Dinesh Dubey or had obtained any monetary benefit to conspire.On the same set of evidence, other accused persons were acquitted by the Trial Court.It is unclear as to when the victim's delivery took place.Chander Pradhan did not lodge any complaint against any individual for his false implication.It is not clear as to what type of land dispute was with Chander Pradhan.No particulars of any such dispute have come on record.In view of above evidence whatever is on record and whatever could be called out from the impugned judgment I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against both the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.They deserve benefit of doubt.Consequently, their appeals are allowed.Trial Court record be sent back forthwith with the copy of the order.A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for information.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE APRIL 26, 2016 / tr Crl.A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 7 of 7A.491 /2004 & connected appeal.Page 7 of 7
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,762,465
Record has already been received.Heard on I.A. No. 15173/16, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of the custodial sentence passed against appellant Santosh Singh.This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 23.07.2015 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Anuppur in Special Case No. 09/2014, whereby learned Special Judge found appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 354-A(1) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and RI for one year with fine of Rs.2000/- with default stipulations respectively.The trial Court without appreciating the evidence properly wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences.There are several omissions and contradictions in the evidence adduced by the prosecution.Hence, prayed for suspension of the jail sentence and release of the appellant on bail since the hearing of this appeal is likely to take long time.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted that the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application I.A. No. 15173/16, is allowed and it is directed that subject to deposit of fine amount, the execution of the jail sentence alone passed against the appellant shall remain suspended during the pendency of this appeal and the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court 02.04.2018 and on such further dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry during the pendency of this appeal.Matter be listed for admission after four weeks.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE dixit/-Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR DIXIT Date: 2018.03.09 14:10:00 +05'30'
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
407,664
Brief facts are :-(a) The scene of occurrence, viz., Kuyavarpalayam, Bodi is situate within the jurisdictional limits of Bodi Town Police Station.The accused was originally residing in a house at Kuvayarpalayam of Bodi along with his wife by name Lakshmi.He had been eking out his livelihood by doing cooli work.One pappathi is the daughter of the accused.The house in which the accused had been living along with his wife and daughter Pappathi belongs to P.W. 1, whose wife is P.W. 4, P.W. 1 was stated to have othied the house in favour of the accused for a sum of Rs. 400/- for three years.(b) Some time prior to the occurrence, which event happened on 27-11-1986 the accused, along with his wife went to Kerala and he had been doing cooli work in an Estate known as Thalaikulam.While he was so doing cook work, he celebrated the marriage of his daughter Pappathi with one Chellaiah (since deceased).The said chellaiah had been eking out his livelihood at Bodi as a loadman.The marriage in fact between pappathi and chellaiah was stated to have taken place some 10 days prior to the occurrence.After her marriage, they were allowed to reside in the house of P.W. 1 taken on 'Othi' by the accused.While the newly weds were so residing in the said house, the accused, along with his wife Lakshmi, returned to Kuvayarpalayam some two days prior to the occurrence.The accused demanded his son-in-law Chellaiah and his daughter pappathi to vacate the house and reside elsewhere.But his wife Lakshmi was stated to have requested her husband-the accused to allow the newly weds to live in the house for some more time till they were able to find a new accommodation.But to such a course, the accused was not at all agreeable.Consequently, there are wordy skirmishes and altercations that came to prevail between the accused and his wife Lakshmi.(c) On the day of occurrence at about 7.00 p.m. the accused, his wife Lakshmi, his daughter pappathi, son-in-law Challaiah, the house owner P.W. 1 and his wife P.W. 4 and their daughter Baggiyam and certain others were stated to be sitting in a lane situate on the cast of the house underneath a lamp post and conversing with each other.The bulb in the lamp post was then stated to be burning.When they were conversing, it appears that the accused again demanded his son-in-law and daughter to find alternative accommodation and vacate the house.His wife Lakshmi requested her husband again to allow them sometime to search for a new accommodation.Soori knife from his waist and inflicted two stabs on her left hand and chest.It was exactly at the juncture his son-in-law Chellaiah intervened by saying that it was not proper for him to stab his own aunt who is none else than the wife of the accused.In the Process of such interference, the accused was stated to have inflicted a stab on him with M.O. 1 and the stab so inflicted was stated to have landed on the chest of the said Chellaiah his son-in-law.On receipt of the said stab, the said Chellaiah fell down dead.Thereafter, the accused was stated to have run away from the scene, along with M.O. 1 soori knife.(d) Thereafter, P.W. 1 took the injured Lakshmi wife of the accused to Bodi Police Station, obviously for the purpose of launching an information as respects the occurrence.They, in fact, reached the Police Station at 7.15 p.m. At that time, P.W. 8, the Sub-Inspector was in charge of the station.The injured Lakshmi gave an information, which was reduced into writing by P.W. 8 as per her narration.After completing the statement, he read over the same to her and got her thumb impression.Exhibit P. 16 is the Statement.On the strength of Exhibit P. 16 he registered a case in crime No. 391/86 for alleged offences under sections 324 and 302, IPC.He prepared express reports and sent the same to the concerned officials.Exhibit P. 17 is the express report.He sent that injured Lakshmi along with a medical memo Exhibit P. 1 to the Government Hospital, Bodi for her treatment.(e) P.W. 2 was the then civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Bodi, At 7.40 p.m. she examined the said Lakshmi for certain injuries said to have been caused at 7.15 p.m. on 27-11-1986 due to assault with knife in front of her residence.She treated her for the injuries.Exhibit P. 2 is the wound certificate she issued.She would opine that the injuries described in Exhibit P. 2 could have been caused by a weapon like M.O. 1 at the time and in the manner alleged and those injuries are simple in nature.P.W. 2 referred the injured-victim Lakshmi for the purpose of further treatment to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.(f) P.W. 9 was the then Inspector of Police, Thani in charge of the Inspector of Police, Bodi circle.At 9.00 P.M. on receipt of the information relating to the case in crime No. 391/86 of Bodi Town Police Station, he rushed and reached the said police Station at 9.30 P.M. He got a copy of the express F.I.R. and took up further investigation of the case.Exhibit P. 4 is the copy of the accident register.She would opine that the injury is possible due to a fall on the ground.(i) At 10.30 p.m. P.W. 9 went to the scene of occurrence and after inspection, he prepared Exhibit P. 7 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W. 5, the Village Administrative Officer, West Chockanathapuram.Between 11.30 p.m. and 2.00 a.m. on the next day, i.e. on 28-11-1986, he held the inquest over the body of the deceased, Exhibit P. 19 is the inquest report.During inquest, he examined P.W. 4 and others.He sent the accused to court for purpose of remand.After the inquest was over, he sent the body of the deceased for purpose of autopsy through constable P.W. 6 along with Exhibit P. 5 requisition.(j) P.W. 3 was the then civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Bodi.Exhibit P. 6 is the post mortem certificate he issued.He would further opine that injury with corresponding internal injuries is necessarily fatal and that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to heart 12 to 15 hours prior to autopsy.(1) The further investigation of the case was taken up by P.W. 10 Inspector of Police, Bodi.On 28-11-1986 he examined P.Ws. 1, 3, 6 and others.On 3-12-1986, he seized from the injured Lakshmi, who was then admitted as an in-patient at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai M.O. 12 Sari, and M.O. 13 jacket under Exhibit P. 20 mahazar.He also seized M.O. 14 saree from papathi.On 4-12-1986 he sent Exhibit P. 9 requisition to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Uthamapalayam for the purpose of sending the seized 8 incriminating material objects to the chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination.JUDGMENT Janarthanam, J.The appellant was accused in S.C. No. 111 of 1987 on the file of Court of Session, Madurai Division, Madurai.On trial, he was found guilty under section 302, IPC, convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life.He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 324, IPC, as relatable to the causation of injuries to one Lakshmi, as a consequence of non-examination of the said victim of assault.Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the present action had been resorted to.(g) At 9.45 p.m. while he was in the said Police Station, the accused before him, along with M.O. 1, soori knife.Since the accused was having certain injuries on his person, he sent him to the Government Hospital Bodi along with Exhibit P. 3 memo for his treatment.(h) P.W. 3 examined the accused at 10.30 P.M., for certain injuries said to have been caused due to fall on the ground near bus stand at Bodi at 7.00 p.m. on the said day.She found on him an abrasion of 1 x 1 cm., oon the left side of cheek just below the left eye.(m) P.W. 7 was the then Head Clerk attached to the Judicial II Class Magistrate's Court, Uthamapalayam.On receipt of Exhibit P. 9 requisition from the Inspector of Police P.W. 10, he separately packed, sealed and sent the incriminating material objects to the chemical Examiner for the purpose of examination pursuant to the directions of learned Magistrate under the Original of Exhibits P. 10 and P. 11 office copies of the letters.Exhibits P. 12 and P. 13 are the reports of the chemical Examiner, while Exhibits P. 14 and P. 15 are the reports of the serologists, respectively.After completing the formalities of the investigation, he laid the final report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Uthamapalayam on 16-2-1987 against the accused for alleged offences under Sections 324 and 302 IPC.On committal, learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for offences under sections 324 and 302, IPC as well.When the accused was questioned as respects the charges so framed, he denied the same and claimed to be tried.The Prosecution in proof of the charges so framed, examined P.Ws. 1 to 10, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 20 and marked M.Os.The accused when questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as respects the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime.He did not, however, choose to examined any witness on his behalf.Mr. K. Raghupathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would fairly concede and state that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the act of the accused, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant-accused, could, if at all, fall only under Section 304, Part II, IPC and will not definitely fall under anyone of the clauses of Section 300, IPC, thereby punishable under section 302, IPC.From the nature of the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, which is not seriously disputed by learned Additional Public Prosecutor as stated above, we cannot take it for granted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, as relatable to the overt act of the appellant-accused is not at challenged and there as no need at all for us to enter into a discussion on such aspect of the matter.In proof of the overt act of the appellant-accused, the prosecution, apart from relying upon the testimony of P.W. 1 and his wife, P.W. 4 also relied upon the testimony of his wife, Lakshmi and his daughter, pappathi.The prosecution, somehow or other did not opt to examine the said Lakshmi and Pappathi.It is on account of the non-examination of the said Lakshmi, the overt act of the appellant-accused, as relatable to causation of certain injuries by means of MO 1 Soori knife on her, the Court below acquitted the appellant-accused in relation to the charge under section 324, IPC, as stated above.The fact that the prosecution, for whatever be the reason, had been handicapped in not examining the said Lakshmi and Pappathi is not by itself sufficient to throw out the case of the prosecution back, stock and barrel, when especially the testimony emerging from independent quarters, in the shape of the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 had been placed on record by the prosecution.The question, in such a situation that will arise for consideration is whether the testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is acceptable, as relatable to the overt act of the accused, in causation of the injury to the victim-deceased Chelliah, who was none-else than the son-in-law of the accused, so that their evidence can be safely relied upon.(a) P.W. 1 is the owner of the house, in which the accused originally had been residing, along with his wife Lakshmi, before ever his daughter Pappathi was married to the deceased Chelliah.It is not as if P.Ws. 1 and 4 lived far away from the scene of occurrence.They admittedly live in the vicinity of the scene of occurrence.It is their evidence that at or about 7 PM on the date of the occurrence, the accused his wife Lakshmi, his daughter Pappathi, his son-in-law deceased Chelliah, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4 were sitting in front of the house underneath a lamp post and were conversing with each other.It is only at that juncture, it appears that the accused wanted his son-in-law, the deceased and his daughter Pappathi to vacate the house and live in a separate accommodation of their own.His wife, Lakshmi, obviously taking pity on her recently married daughter Pappathi, appeared to have remonstrated the conduct of her husband-the accused and told him to give sufficient time for them to find suitable accommodation for their residence.The Accused appearing to be pettyfog minded persisted in his demand for eviction of the his daughter pappathi and his son-in-law the deceased from the house.(b) His wife Lakshmi, at that juncture, appeared to have hurled certain vile abuses towards the accused and he, in turn, enraged at the conduct of his wife, Lakshmi, whipped out MO 1 Soori knife, which he was stated to have kept in his waist and inflicted two stabs-one on the chest and the other on the left hand of his wife-Lakshmi and in such process the newly found son-in-law, namely Chelliah was stated to have gone to the rescue of his mother-in-law, proclaiming that the act of his father-in-law, namely, the accused, in stabbing his mother-in-law was not proper and at that juncture, the accused was stated to have inflicted a stab on the person of the deceased his son-in-law, which unfortunately landed on his chest, culminating in his death on the spot.On this aspect of the matter, there is the consistent testimony of P.W. 1, ably supported by P.W. 4, his wife.As already adverted to, both P.Ws. 1 and 4 emerged from independent quarters and both of them have nothing to choose or prefer between the accused and the deceased Chelliah.Further, nothing had been elicited during the course of their cross-examination to make it appear that the accused was having any sort of animosity or embittered relationship with the accused.Nor anything was shown that they were actually interested in the cause and welfare of the deceased.Above all, no material, worth the name, has been elicited in the form of a contradiction-vital enough-to make it appear that what P.Ws. 1 and 4 stated as relatable to the occurrence is not above reproach and beyond suspicion.Such being the case, we do not think that we are far wrong in placing safe reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 4 as relatable to the overtact of the accused, in the sense of himself inflicting a stab on the person of the deceased by means of MO 1 Soori knife, which unfortunately, landed on the chest of the deceased, culminating in his death on the spot.The ocular testimony of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is getting the necessary and requisite corroborative support from the medical testimony available on record, in the shape of the testimony of the doctor, P.W. 3, coupled with Exhibit P. 6 Postmortem certificate to the effect that the injury, namely, incised wound is the fourth intercostal space with a cut in the fifth costochondral joint 3 x 2.5 cms.These things part, there is one more signal circumstance of some importance serving as a lending assurance factor as respects the presence and participation of the appellant-accused in the case.It is the testimony of P.W. 5, Village Administrative Officer of West Chokkanthapuram and P.W. 9, Inspector of Police, Thoni, in charge of Bodi Police Station that at about 9.45 p.m. on the day of the occurrence, the accused appeared before the Bodi Police Station, along with MO 1 Soori knife and at that time, clothes worn by the accused, namely, MO 2 dhoti, No. 3 shirt and MO 4 banian were stained with blood and consequently, these clothes and the soori knife (MO 1) were seized under Form No. 95, and the seized clothes, namely, MOs.From what has been stated above, it is crystal clear that it was the hand of the accused that was responsible for infliction of the stab by means of MO 1 soori knife, which in fact landed on the chest of the deceased culminating into his death on the spot.The moot question that arises for consideration, in such a situation, is as to what was the offence that had been committed by the accused.This sort of a question takes in its fold the submission of learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused - also ably supported by learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the respondents.No doubt true it is that the radical testimony available on record, in the shape of the testimony of the doctor, P.W. 3, who conducted autopsy and issued Exhibit P. 6 Postmortem certificate reveals that the injury described in Exhibit P. 6 with the corresponding internal injury is necessarily fatal.It is, after all a wordy altercation that initially took place among the members of the family.To recapitulate here, there was initially a quarrel between the accused and his wife, Lakshmi relatable to the eviction of her beloved daughter Pappathi along with her husband Chelliah-the deceased from the house.His wife, Lakshmi however, taking pity on her daughter Pappathi was adamant in requesting her husband to give some sort of breathing time for his daughter and his son-in-law to find alternative accommodation and till such time, they must be allotted to reside in the said house.The accused, however, was not in a mood to accede to the request emanating from his wife, Lakshmi.It is only in such a context, his wife, Lakshmi appeared to have hurled some sort of vile abuses directed towards her husband-the accused.He was rest content in inflicting such a solo and lone stab.On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it also cannot at all be stated that he intended to inflict an injury on the chest of the deceased, which was really inflicted on the spur of the moment.As already stated, he inflicted a stab, which unfortunately landed on the chest of the deceased, which culminated in his death on the spot.Appeal dismissed.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,766,693
The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,769,023
This is second repeat application for grant of anticipatory bail filed by the applicant.He is being implicated in crime no.100/2016, registered at polcie station Mahidpur Road, Dist.Ujjain for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 409, 467, 468, 471 and 34, IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn my attention to the enquiry report and submits that main allegation is against Kawal Singh Panwar and after rejection of the application of the present applicant, his application of co-accused (Kawal Singh) for grant of anticipatory bail has been allowed by order dated 6.2.2018, passed in M.Cr.The present applicant is having complete parity with him and prays for grant of anticipatory bail.(P.K. JAISWAL ) JUDGE ss/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 2018.08.03 14:30:56 +05'30'
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,771,018
Heard on the bail application.Perused the case diary This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.5/2014 registered at Police Station, Station Road, District Morena, for the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-d and 342/34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, complainant Vikram Singh has lodged report of missing of his wife aged 24 years.During enquiry wife of the complainant was recovered.She has stated that Anita asked her to accompany her for visiting Mela and then husband of Anita came on a vehicle in which complainant's wife also proceeded for Mela but when they reached near Ghunaya Gaon where they left the complainant's wife in white car.Thereafter, Sanjay and Anita told the complainant that she will get marry with Jitu Pandit.When she raised alarm they caught hold her and took her to Ghunaya village where they kept her in Ramkesh house in night.Father of Ramkesh has committed sexual intercourse with her.Thereafter, Jitu Pandit has also committed sexual intercourse with her.Complainant's wife left the house on 02.01.2014 and came to Gwalior.It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant has falsely been implicated.He has not committed any offence.complainant is 24 years married lady.She accompanied the applicant on her own will.Co- accused has been granted bail.Therefore, the applicant be released on bail.C.No.4358/2014 Jitendra Sharma Vs.The application is opposed by learned counsel for the State.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,776,377
Brief facts of the case are that, on 26.1.2006, at around 6 p.m., when complainant Champalal was standing at grocery shop of Mukesh, at the same time Babu s/o Rhumal came towards Chainsingpura Mohalla in hurry and informed him that accused Onkar Bhilala, Kalu Bhilala and Laxman Bhilala are beating his brother-in-law Rhumal by stick.On hearing this, he along with his brother Sikdar, Naharsingh, Pratap and other villagers rushed to the field of Babu where they saw that his brother-in-law was lying on the ground.Upon asking, he stated that on festival of Makarsankranti, there was a quarrel took place between Onkar and Madiya Bhilala at village Kadudiya in which he intervened and said to the Onkar that do not beat Madiya on the festival.Due to which, today Onkar called him and said that he wants to talk with him.When he was coming from village kadudhiya, Onkar, Laxman and Kalu Bhilala met him on the mid way and they gave lathi blows on him and dragged him to the field of Babu, where also they caused injuries to him.During this fight, Onkar caught hold of his hand; therefore, he could not escape.Then, Champalal took him to the house of Sikdar by a bullock-cart where after drinking water he succumbed.Thereafter complainant lodged dehati- nalishi.Cr.A. No.694/2007 Laxman and Kalue vs. State of M.P.was prepared on the instructions of complainant Champalal.Since the present appeals are connected matter and arise out of common judgment dated 24.4.2007 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No.77/2006, they are being decided by the present common judgment.The appellants have preferred the present appeals against the judgment dated 24.4.2007 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas in Sessions Trial No.77/2006, whereby they have been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 11 Cr.On the basis of the dehati-nalishi, the Police registered Crime No.15/06 for offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the IPC against the accused / appellants.During the investigation,Sub Inspectorof police station Uday Nagar Mr. N.K. Suryavanshi prepared lash panchnama (Ex.P/2).The dead body was sent for postmortem examination.Spot map (Ex.P/9) THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 11 Cr.The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused persons were arrested.Memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the accused Kalu and Laxman were recorded and on their information, sticks of teakwood were seized.All the seized articles were sent for Forensic Science Examination.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions Dewas and ultimately it was transferred to IV Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas.The accused abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they are innocent and have falsely been implicated in the matter.In defense, Bhagwan Singh (D.W.1) was examined.The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned hereinabove.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.First of all it is to be considered as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, evidence provided by Dr. Manisha Mishra (P.W. 6) is important, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased Rhumal and she found the following injuries on his body :-(i) 8 to 10 contusions of 10" x 2" size cut on left uppe back covering almost whole of the back.(ii) 10 to 12 contusions of 10" x 2" incise wound, covering almost whole of the back and lateral side of thigh.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 11 Cr.A.No.585/2007 Onkar vs. State of M.P.Cr.A. No.694/2007 Laxman and Kalue vs. State of M.P.On internal examination of the dead body, she found that middle lobe of the lungs had a big rupture and there were air bubbles in it.Left lateral side of the heart had two big holes of 2" x 1" size rupture.From the postmortem of deceased, It is apparent that such injuries cannot be caused by the deceased himself nor they could be sustained by him in any accident and, in these circumstances, there is no reason to discard the evidence given by Dr. Manisha Mishra, and therefore, it is properly observed by the trial Court that the death of the deceased Rhumal was homicidal in nature and caused by hard and blunt object.In the present case, eye witness Babulal (P.W.7) was examined.According to him, 6-7 months ago, at around 5.30 p.m., when he was at his house situated at Chainsingpura, village Paras, at that time, the accused persons were beating Rhumal by Teakwook sticks, they dragged him in front of his house when he said them that you take him from here then they threatened him that they would deal with you as well, then he came to the village and informed the incident to Champalal Prajapat, Naharsingh and Nahar singh who were sitting in the grocery shop .Thereafter they came with him and took injured Rhumal on a bullock-cart to the house of Sikdar.Champalal (P.W.1), Govind (P.W.5) and Naharsingh (P.W.8) deposed that 6-7 months ago, at round 5-6 p.m.,when they were standing at the shop of Mukesh, at the same time, Babu came there and informed that Onkar, Kalu and Laxman were beating Rhumal in front of his house situated in his field, then they rushed to the spot where Rhumal was lying on the ground.On asking, he told that Onkar caught hold of him,then Kalu and Laxman inflicted injuries to him by THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE 11 Cr.A.No.585/2007 Onkar vs. State of M.P.Cr.A. No.694/2007 Laxman and Kalue vs. State of M.P.After that, they took him to the house of Sikdar, where after drinking water he succumbed.Sikdar (P.W.2) and Jamsingh (P.W.3) also supported the statements of the above witnesses.Champalal (P.W.1) deposed that he informed the incident to the police and lodged the dehati nalishi (Ex.P/1).From the statement of Champalal (P.W.1), Sikdar (P.W.2), Jamsingh (P.W.3), Govind (P.W.5) and Naharsingh (P.W. 8), it is evident that they were not present at the time of the incident; therefore, they have not seen the accused persons to cause any injury to the deceased.They reached the place of occurrence after hearing about the incident from Babulal.However, they claimed that the deceased told them that the accused persons had beaten him, due to which he received injuries.Babulal (P.W.7) is the sole eye-witness of the incident and he narrated the incident in his examination-in-Chief that as to how the incident has happened.Various suggestions were given to this witness, but there are no contradictions in material particulars in the statement of the witness.Nothing has come on his cross-examination to controvert his testimony.Therefore, his unchallenged testimony cannot be disbelieved, which appears to be truthful.The First Information Report (Ex.P/16) is promptly lodged by Champalal (P.W.1), in which, he narrated the entire incident, which also finds placed in the examination-in-chief of the eye-witness Babulal (P.W.8) and corroborated by the statement of Dr.Now adverting to the question that what were the surrounding circumstances leading to the infliction of nature of injuries.In this context, in the statement of Champalal (P.W.1), Sikdar (P.W.2), Jamsingh (P.W.3), Govind (P.W.5) and Naharsingh (P.W. 8) there is a specific mention of incident, which had taken place between Onkar and Madiya Bhilala at village Kadudiya, in which the deceased intervened and asked Onkar that why he is beating Madiya on the festival of Makarsankranti, which led the appellants to be retaliated by inflicting the injuries to the deceased after ten days of the aforesaid incident.In this regard, he submitted that there is no previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased.The incident took place all of a sudden and without premeditation.The appellants were not equipped with any deadly weapon and they have not inflicted any injuries on the vital part of body of the deceased.The assaults were made at random.This fortifies our belief that the assault on the deceased was made during a sudden quarrel without any premeditation.punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of IPC and accordingly, sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of more than 12 years.Certified copy, as per rules.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
407,779
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A as well asperused the documents available on record.This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has beenfiled by the petitioner for quashing the impugned FIR dated 28.05.2010,registered in case crime No.526 of 2010, under Section 2/3 U.P. GangsterAct and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act at Police Station Jayas,District Rai bareily and also for direction to the opposite parties not to arrestthe petitioner in pursuance to the said impugned FIR.The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the policehas slapped Gangster Act against the petitioner only on the basis of onecriminal case i.e. Crime No. 461 of 2010, under Sections 307, 279, 429/41,411/41 I.P.C. and 3/5/8 U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act and Section3/11 Animal Cruelty Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that asregards the offence under the I.P.C., admittedly the petitioner was neitherarrested on the spot nor he escaped away, therefore, no offence under theI.P.C. is made out against him.As regards the offence under Section 3/5/8U.P. Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, this offence is not covered under theGangster Act. Therefore, petitioner needs interim protection duringinvestigation.Learned A.G.A. opposed the petition.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
40,786,048
01.12.2020 14 b.das CRM 8719 of 2020 (Via Video Conference) In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No.119 of 2020 dated 04.02.2020 under Sections457/379 of the Indian Penal Code adding section 395/412 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27/35 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of: Ranjit Kumar Yadav @ Ranjit Yadav & Ors.....Petitioners Mr. Kallol Mondal ...for the Petitioner.Learned lawyer for the State submits that Abhijit Kundu was initially suspected as a conspirator but subsequently he was cited as a witness.He was present at the time of dacoity.Petitioner has been identified in the course of T.I. parade.We have considered the materials on record.The parties shall act in terms of the copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,077,485
This petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned Charge-Sheet arising out of case crime no. 631 of 2017 under sections 498A,323,506 IPC and section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Ghazipur, District Lucknow and entire proceedings of Case No. 59064 of 2018 pending in the court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Custom, Lucknow.Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the First Information Report has been lodged against the petitioners on the basis of false story.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,080,687
The version of the prosecution had been unfolded in the testimony of the eye-witness Kamal Khan (PW-6).This statement (Ex.PW-6/A) Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 1 of 17 revealed that on 17.10.1995 at about 7:00 p.m. at House No.D-255, J.J. Colony, Khyala accused (Rahmatullah) had come to the house of the deceased (Islam) and asked him to come down stairs; on his reaching down accused started abusing him and threatened to kill him; in the course of quarrel he stabbed him on his right hand and his abdomen.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 1 of 17It was this statement of PW-6 which had formed the basis of the rukka which had been sent at 9:15 p.m. by H.C. Subh Ram (PW-10) pursuant to which the present FIR under Section 307 IPC had been registered.The statement of PW-6 was corroborated by the statement of Mohd.Muslim (PW-5), the brother of the victim who had also witnessed this incident.In fact, PW-6, PW-5 and the deceased were all living in the same rented house on the first floor of D-255, J.J.Colony, Khayala.DD No.12 had reported the quarrel in the local police station at Police Station Tilak Nagar which had been marked to PW-10; he had reached the spot where he learnt that the injured had already been removed to the hospital; constable Suresh was left at the spot.6. PW-10 reached the hospital where the MLC of the injured (Ex.PW-14/A) was obtained.The patient was conscious and oriented; Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 2 of 17 his higher senses were noted to be normal.The following injures were noted upon the victim:He thereafter started abusing him and threatened to kill him.This has come in the evidence of eye-witness.It was only when these abuses had escalated that the threat given by the appellant got converted into an actual act and the appellant stabbed the victim on his abdomen and on his right hand.This was in a heat of passion and a sudden arousal of emotions.The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 19.01.2000 and 24.01.2000 vide which he had been convicted under Section 302 IPC and had been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 2 of 17Stab 2 cm long over Rt Arm Anterior.... upper 3rd Stab 2 cm long on Rt side chest at ... of 10th Rib Stab 2 cm long on Rt side Abdomen below umbilicus about 2 cm below Abrasion over Lt elbow.Patient was, however, unfit for statement.After the registration of the FIR the investigation was handed over to SI Dinesh Kumar (PW-16).Accused was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.The statement of the deceased Ex.PW-16/A was also recorded by PW-16 after obtaining a fitness certificate from the concerned doctor.It was in the form of a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C.; it was not signed by the deceased; there was also no endorsement in this document evidencing that there is a fitness from the doctor.There is no ocular evidence also to this effect.This statement (Ex.PW-16/A) relied upon by the prosecution as a dying declaration was rightly discarded by the trial judge.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 3 of 17Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 3 of 17The post mortem upon the victim was conducted by Dr. K. Goyal.His report is Ex. PW-15/A. The external injuries noted in the post-mortem read as under:1 There is laprotomy wound print over midline abdomen extending from epigastrium to umbilical region with tension sutures.2 Healed wound (sutured) about 1" length over right arm front and upper right corresponding with the injury No. 1 of the MLC report.3 There is almost completely healed wound of about 1 " over .............. side of right chest corresponding with injury No. 2 of MLC report.4 There is about oval shaped wound about 2cms X1.5 cm size with sub-healed margins and pus deposit all around present about 6 cms.Right to the midline and just below umbilical region corresponding with injury No. 4 of the MLC.5 Oval shaped wound of size 2 cms 1 cm x ? with incised margins having pus deposits all over and print at right iliac torso region (probably draining tube wound).6 Incised oval wound about 1.75 cm X 1cm with pus all around the wound at lever side of left lumber region about 8 cms left to the midline (probably draining tube wound) 7 Colostomy wound print over right hypochondrium.8 Stitched wounds 1 " each print at ankle medial side and right side of neck (vevere section wound)Injuries were noted to be ante-mortem and infected and Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 4 of 17 corresponded with injuries mentioned in the MLC report (by sharp object).Cause of death was peritonitis with septicaemia consequent to sepsis of wounds.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 4 of 17This is the gist of the case of the prosecution.In the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 he has pleaded innocence; his submission being that he has been falsely implicated in the present case.No evidence was led in defence.On behalf of the appellant, arguments have been heard at length.Learned counsel for the appellant in the first instance has assailed his conviction.His submission is that PW-6 on whose statement the FIR had been registered was a hostile witness; he has not supported the version of the prosecution; the trial judge had rightly discarded his version.The only evidence with the prosecution was the testimony of PW-5 who is the brother of the victim and being an interested witness he has deposed falsely.Even otherwise the version of PW-6 and PW-5 are in conflict.Attention has been drawn to the statement Ex.PW-6/A; submission being that in this statement it has clearly come on record that PW-5 had entered the scene of crime only after the incident was over.A. No.260/2000 Page 5 of 17 He does not qualify as an eye-witness.PW-5 on this score had given a different version; he has stated that he was present at the scene of the crime right from the inception.These two versions are irreconcilable and benefit of doubt, in this scenario, must accrue in favour of the appellant.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 5 of 17Statement of PW-6 was admittedly the basis of the rukka.Incident had occurred at 7:00 p.m. The rukka was dispatched on the statement of PW-6 at 9:15 p.m. i.e. within a span of just about two hours and fifteen minutes; there was no possibility of manipulation and fabrication.This statement Ex.PW-6/A had specifically mentioned the name of the appellant.A reading of this statement in its entirety does not advance the argument that the testimony of PW-6 evidenced that PW-5 had entered the scene after the incident.In fact, Ex. PW-6/A clearly recites that after the accused had stabbed the victim and had started running PW-5 witnessed the scene.Testimony of a witness has to be appreciated as a whole.Trite it is to say that no one sentence can be picked up from entire narration to give it a meaning which otherwise is not made out from the reading of the Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 6 of 17 entire narration.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 6 of 17Testimony of PW-5 is also firm, cogent and coherent.He has stuck to his stand; he has explained the incident in its entirety.Version of PW-5 establishes that because of a previous enmity which the accused was nursing against the deceased, the accused had stabbed his brother.This had been disclosed to PW-5 on the way when he was taking his injured brother to the hospital.He has not been cross- examined on this aspect i.e. about the grudge which the accused was nursing against the victim.On no count can the eye-witness account be discarded.Submission on this count is five fold.The first submission being that there was only one fatal injury which is evident from the injuries recorded in the MLC.This injury was on the abdomen and was only 2 c.m.in length; the injury on the right hand was a mere abrasion.Submission being that a valuable life has been lost and there has to be a balance between the rights of the accused and the victim; if a sympathetic approach is adopted in favour of the accused the same sympathy should weigh in the mind of the court for victim's family.It is pointed out that the accused had a pre-design to kill the victim and that is why he was armed with a knife and had come to the house of the victim; he was the offender; on no count does he deserve any sympathy.We have appreciated the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 9 of 17The conviction of the appellant as noted supra is well founded.This conviction has also not been challenged.It is accordingly maintained.This Court has to examine the submissions and the counter submissions of the parties to return a finding as to whether the offender deserves a leniency and his case falls under Section 304 of the IPC as has been pleaded.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 10 of 17The evidence on record which is the version of PW-5 reveals that the accused Rahmatullah was known to PW-5 and his brother.He had come their house in the evening of 17.10.1995 about 7:00 p.m. He called the deceased who was up stairs.On the deceased reaching down the accused started abusing him.The ocular version of PW-5 had, however, described two injuries.These injuries have been detailed supra.The stab wound 2 c.m.in length on the right side of the abdomen was just below the umbilical region was the injury which had subsequently Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 11 of 17 become the cause of death of the victim.The other two injuries had healed.MLC further shows that the victim, on the same day, had been directed to be admitted for surgery.Surgery had been performed upon him.There is no record of the post operative care which had been meted out to the deceased.Whether the surgery was successful or not or whether there was any lacking in the care to the patient post operation is also not on record.However, the post mortem report evidences that the fourth external injury corresponded with this injury in the MLC.This injury was in the abdominal area.The cause of death was peritonitis with septicaemia consequent to sepsis of wounds.The patient had thus died as a result of infection which had permeated into his body in his month long stay in the hospital.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 11 of 17The injury which had subsequently become fatal was 2 c.m. in length; this would be the less than about one inch.The injury was noted to be sharp; it was caused by a sharp edged weapon.The recovery of Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 12 of 17 this weapon has been disbelieved but since the nature of the injury was sharp it was obviously caused by a sharp weapon.Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 12 of 17Keeping in view the length of the injury as also the fact that there was only one fatal injury the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the victim is prima facie borne out.This is substantiated by the fact that when the victim was admitted in the hospital he was conscious and well oriented; his parameters were also within normal limits.He had died after one month.The possibility of there being a medical negligence and lack of proper post operative care cannot be ruled out.This also appears to be a case where quarrel had erupted suddenly.The appellant had come to the house of the victim; he called him down stairs.We accordingly set aside the conviction under Section 302 IPC and convict the appellant under Section 304 Part -II of the IPC and impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of six years.The nominal roll of the appellant shows that the appellant had, in fact, already under gone six years four months and 18 days and had also earned remission of about 9 months and 25 days when he had been granted bail.The appellant has thus undergone the sentence imposed Crl.A. No.260/2000 Page 16 of 17 upon him.The bail bond and surety bond of the appellant are discharged.
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,081,433
Heard both sides.2.The petitioner, who apprehends arrest for the offences punishableunder Sections 294-B and 506(ii) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(s)(r) and 3(2)(va)of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Amendment Ordinance Act, 2014 in Crime No.322 of 2014, on the file of therespondent police, moves this petition seeking direction to the learned IIAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, to accept her surrenderand to consider the bail application filed by the petitioner on the same dayof her surrender.3. Perused the records.Accordingly, this petition is ordered.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
15,108,181
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed, seeking a direction tothe respondent to file charge sheet in Crime No.1 of 2015 under Sections120(B), 420, 465, 466 r/w 471 and 409 IPC and under Section 13(2) r/w13(1)(c) and (d) of the P.C.Act, 1988 on the file of the respondent.Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has produced the details ofinvestigation done by the respondent, from which it is evident that there isa necessity to compare the disputed signature and thumb impression with thatof the actual persons named in the NMR books and Work Identification Cardsthrough Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department.It is represented by thelearned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that it may take a minimum period ofsix months to complete the investigation in all aspects and if sufficienttime is given, the prosecution will file a final report.In view of the above submission, this Criminal Original Petition isclosed with a direction to the respondent to complete the investigation andfile a final report in this case within a period of six months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance and Anticorruption Wing, Pudukkottai DistrictThe Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madura.. 
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,082,124
The Petitioner was handling Consumer Finance which later got rechristened to SME Lending Business, being successfully created so by the Petitioner.The performance evaluation of Petitioner was always limited to SME business throughout his employment at RFL.Further, even after becoming the MD and CEO of the company, the Petitioner was looking after only the SME side of business without any control on the functioning ICD/CLB and Loan Against Shares making the Petitioner merely a figurative MD of RFL.SME lending business/ loans in the present case means secured or unsecured long term loans given to small and medium scale entities.On the other hand in the present case Inter- Corporate Deposits (hereinafter referred to as "ICD") / Corporate Loan Book (hereinafter referred to as "CLB") were short term unsecured loans given to bigger entities and companies.While RFL management team was managing SME lending business, REL team used to manage ICD/CLB and LAS business.Capital Market Lending was run as a separate business for which another NBFC Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 4 of 28 license was obtained from RBI under the name of Religare Finance Ltd. An announcement was also made to this effect to the entire senior management of Religare Group in February 2010 by Shachindra Nath, then Group Chief Operating Officer (COO) REL and further reiterated in the group announcement made in April 2010 by Shachindra Nath, who was by then elevated to the position of Group Chief Executive Officer (CEO) REL under his guidance and supervision the SME business loan book grew from Rs. 264 Cr.The total Revenue on the other hand grew from Rs.11 Cr.in 2009 to Rs.2,062 Cr.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 6 of 28Further submitted that the case against petitioner is that he was part of various Committees which approved loan to the defaulting entities.What logically follows from the above allegation is that if petitioner is roped in then all committee members have to be attributed similar roles and arrayed as accused.Instead, in the present case, out of all the RMC and RPT Members only the petitioner and two others have been named as accused and the rest are not.Details of other RMC and RPT Members is given below:A. RMC Committee Members S.No.Name Post Loans Whether Approved MadeManinder Group CEO and Boss of 13 No Singh Kavi AroraAvinash Independent Director of 6 No Chander REL Mahajan (Also Member of RPT Committee of REL) Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 7 of 28Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 7 of 28Anil Saxena Group CFO and 6 Accused no.5 (Already Director of REL Granted bail)Sunil Kumar Group Treasury Head 6 No Garg and Director, RFLPankaj President and Chief 6 No Sharma Risk Officer, RFLSunil MD and Chairman of 6 Accused Godhwani REL (Also Member of No.3 RPT Committee of REL) B. RPT Committee Members S.No.Name Post Loans Whether Approved MadeAvinash Independent Director, REL 11 No Chander (Also approved 6 loans in Mahajan RMC meetings)Rashi DhirIndependent Director of 6 No RELMonish K. International Finance 9 No Dutt Corporation (IFC) Nominee Director, RELSunil MD and Chairman of REL 6 Accused Godhwani (Also approved 6 loans in No.5 RMC meetings)Harpal Director, REL 5 No SinghOne such RMC Approval meeting dated 31.01.2017 clearly shows that approvals were granted unanimously by entire committee with note that "entity known to promoter group".Not the case that Petitioner acted against Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 8 of 28 the Committee or Voted to pass loan despite the committee not agreeing to it or insisted on approval of loan, despite a bad credit note.Further, all the RMC approvals were put to the Board of Directors of RFL in the subsequent Minutes of Meetings and the same were duly noted and accepted by the board without any opposition which is evident from the minutes of the board meeting dated 30.08.2017, relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:-Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 8 of 28"The Board was apprised that is terms of Secretarial Standards 1, minutes of meetings of any Board Committee shall be noted at the Board Meeting held immediately following the date of entry of such Committee Minutes in the Minutes Book.Accordingly, the minutes of the following Board Committees were circulated to the Board with the agenda and thereafter noted by the Board in the meeting:Further, a summary of the above minutes was circulated to the Board with the agenda for its easy reference.The same was duly noted by the Board."It is further submitted that the case of complainant as per the Internal Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 9 of 28 Inquiry is that loans were issued to the entities known to the Promoters since atleast 2005-06, as per available record.Yet, none of the persons responsible for issuing those loans have been arrayed as accused.This may not find purchase with the approval committee of RFL and REL."Thus, round tripping, if any, was suggested by Pankaj Sharma, who is not arrayed as an accused.In addition, he passed 3 loans as RMC member.Infact, as per RFL website, at present he is the President & Head of Corporate Planning and Strategy.The siphoning of pubic money has been discovered by SEBI and the RBI since the Religare Enterprises Limited (REL) - parent company of the Complainant Company is a public listed entity with 42,650 shareholders and the present matter affects them directly.Further, the complainant company is a registered NBFC with the RBI and has taken loans from banks.The proposal to fund working capital of such entities was only a camouflage for the siphoning.It is important to note that no request for borrowing the funds was ever received by RFL from the borrower companies but funds amounting to thousands of crores were extended based on one-page MOUs.The case of Artifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. evidences the true intention behind extending these loans.Artifice Properties Pvt. Ltd. had no business income, but still the funds were extended by RFL to it ostensibly as working capital facility.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 12 of 28By virtue of his position as the CEO and Managing Director he was the overall incharge of the business of the Complainant Company.During his tenure as the CEO and Managing Director a large part of the siphoning took place.He was the ultimate approving authority on the various committees which sanctioned the loans and was directly responsible for such sanctions.Out of 19 loans in Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 13 of 28 default which have been mentioned in the chargesheet, the Petitioner had approved 16 loans amounting to approximately Rs. 1900 crores.The other 3 loans out of 19 were initially granted under the Loan Against Property portfolio.Therefore, the Petitioner was approving all loans under the Corporate Loan Book.The Petitioner being the CEO and Managing Director was a key managerial personnel of the Complainant Company and responsible for disbursement of loans to the shell entities.Investigation has found that the Petitioner / Kavi Arora was a crucial link in the chain of approvals relating to the circuitous transactions.Whenever financing was required by the Promoters, (a) Hemant Dhingra (an employee of RHC Holding-an entity owned and controlled by the Promoters); (b) Sunil Godhwani; or (c) Anil Saxena (Group CFO of the Religare Group) would orally instruct the Petitioner / Kavi Arora to extend loans to entities related to the Promoters.While instructions would be issued by persons in other companies, the Petitioner / Kavi Arora executed the conspiracy at RFL's level by ensuring disbursements of unsecured loans worth hundreds of crores and creation of paperwork.Loans were extended and disbursements made, after which documentation was prepared by the petitioner's team at his instance.Since disbursements were made from RFL, official(s) of RFL Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 14 of 28 had to be part of the conspiracy and execute the same at RFL level.The Petitioner was one such top official and investigation against the rest is pending.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 13 of 28Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 14 of 28Further submitted that the following facts show that the Petitioner played an active role in the conspiracy and the siphoning funds:out the ever greening or round tripping of funds in a letter addressed specifically to the Petitioner.Despite the said letter the Petitioner being CEO and Managing Director and part of various committees continued to give loans under the Corporate Loan Book to shell entities which rotated these funds.08.03.2016 RBI again raised concerns in a letter addressed to the Petitioner regarding the CLB Loans and pointed that the CLB Loans policy was deficient.Therefore, the Petitioner (being the CEO and MD of RFL) along with Sunil Godhwani (being CEO and MD of REL) undertook not to increase the CLB Loan exposure or roll over the CLB loans, but continued giving loans under the CLB.01.09.2016 Despite the aforesaid undertakings to the RBI, the Petitioner approved loans worth Rs. 492 crores to the following entities:Zolton Properties Pvt. Ltd.- Rs.165 cr Artifice Properties Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 165 Cr Modland Wears Pvt. Ltd.- Rs. 162 Cr Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 15 of 28 It is pertinent to mention that these loans were opposed by the independent director - Mr. Mohnish Dutt vide his email dated 31.8.2016 but were still approved by the Petitioner.21.09.2016 The Petitioner was a party to an internal email which acknowledges that the CLB Loans must be evergreened to avoid being categorized as NPAs.The email was sent in the context of credit rating agency - ICRA seeking explanation regarding the CLB Loans from the Petitioner.27.01.2017 Since the CLB Loans continued unabated, the RBI once again in a letter addressed to the Petitioner raised issues with the CLB Loans and specifically stated that the loans were routed from one entity to another.131 and Pg. 75 and emails of July 5, 2017 and July 11, 2017 (Compilation Pg. 133).Therefore, the minutes of the RMC meeting of 28 June, 2017 are fabricated since they record that the loan proposals have been received and reviewed (Compilation Pg. 85).The Petitioner ratified the forged minutes of the RMC meeting of 28 June, 2017 in the RMC meeting held on 16 August, 2017 (Compilation Pg. 272).It is important to note that 30 June, 2017 was the last day of the quarter (1 April, 2017 to 30 June, 2017).Therefore, a sizeable disbursement was made, without documentation to avoid reporting the same to RBI and to evergreen loans which were becoming due on the same day to avoid categorization as NPAs.31.08.2017 The petitioner signed the director's report where despite the internal email of 21 September, 2016 (relevant or the financial year 2016-17), the Petitioner (being the CEO and Managing Director) specifically stated to the general public that the CLB Loans were not NPAs.It is submitted, in conclusion, the petitioner's role (as the Managing Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 17 of 28 Director and CEO) in the conspiracy is evident from the following:In addition, there is a higher apprehension of the accused persons including petitioner herein absconding as they are aware that they are likely to be convicted.Further, the conduct of the Accused with respect to internal investigation being carried out by AZB & Partners is also relevant as the Accused refused to participate in the investigation.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 21 of 28In addition, there are various complaints and FIR which have been filed by the Complainant Company and are pending investigation.The Accused has also been made a suspect in another case emanating from FIR No. 189/2019 dated September 23, 2019 which is pending at the stage of cognizance.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 1 of 28Puneet Bali, learned senior counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that petitioner was not named as an accused in the said F.I.R. and the ensuing chargesheet, which was filed as far back as on 06.01.2020, thereby marking conclusion of investigation by the Respondent against the Petitioner, fails to bring forth any material to implicate the Petitioner in the criminal proceedings emanating out of the said F.I.R., much less be able to justify the detention of the Petitioner in custody for more than 8 months, that too even after conclusion of investigation in the said proceedings.From a bare perusal of the chargesheet, it becomes crystal clear that Anil Saxena and the petitioner have been attributed similar roles by the investigating agency.In addition to this, as per the Investigation Report dated 27.09.2018 prepared by AZB & Partners (Advocates and Solicitors) (hereinafter referred to as "AZB Report"), Anil Saxena was issuing direct instructions for disbursement of loans.In fact, the case of the petitioner is on a far better footing, since Anil Saxena was part of the parent company Religare Enterprises Limited (hereinafter referred to as "REL") management team, while the petitioner was part of the subsidiary Religare Finvest Limited (hereinafter referred to as "RFL") team.Further, whereas there are no allegations whatsoever, against petitioner that he received even a single penny out of the loan amount siphoned off by the promoters, on the other hand there are allegations against Anil Saxena that he was also granted a loan of Rs.1,40,00,000/- (one crore and forty lacs) by one of entities owned and controlled by the promoters.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 2 of 28Bali submitted that the mandate given to the petitioner on his joining RFL was to set up a retail Small and Medium Enterprise (hereinafter referred to as "SME") lending business which does not have dependence on Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 3 of 28 performance of Capital Markets.The Apex Court held that utmost importance has to be given to the valuable right of personal liberty and innocence of the Accused until proven guilty.If the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused, then all earlier approving members should also be arrayed as accused in the matter.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 9 of 28Bali submitted that in view of the role assigned to the petitioner Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 11 of 28 and settled law and on parity with co-accused Anil Saxena, the petitioner deserves bail.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 11 of 28On the other hand, Mr.Amit Chadha, learned APP for State and Mr.Mohit Mathur, learned senior advocate appeared on behalf of the complainant Religare Finvest Limited (RFL) submitted that the present offence relates to siphoning of Rs. 2000 crores of public money through a labyrinth of layered transactions pursuant to a deep-rooted conspiracy in which the Petitioner - Kavi Arora played an active role.The siphoning affects the complainant company's ability to repay the banks, to which it owes money(s) worth Rs.5,000 crores.The modus operandi adopted for the siphoning was evergreening of unsecured loans which were rotated via circuitous transactions through shell entities which only existed on paper but had no business.The loan proposals prepared by RFL itself (for such loans to be extended) evidence that the entities to which loans worth hundreds of Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 12 of 28 crores were extended as funding for 'working capital' had no business (and therefore did not need working capital).Ad Advertising Fern Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.Torus Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.Reference may be made to Petition Pg.42 @ Pgs.73 to 79 It is pertinent to note that while the loans were disbursed on 30 June, 2017 the loan proposals were prepared only on 5 July, 2017 (and thus ante dated).The same is evident from Ms.Rajni Barnwal's statement of (Compilation Pg.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 18 of 28Additionally, the complaint was filed at that time when the complainant was not aware of specific role of each co- conspirator and these details emerged only during the investigation.As argued on behalf of the petitioner that the Petitioner, as the "leader" of the team took responsibility for the SCCPL transaction and was willing to resign for the same.Firstly, the SCCPL transaction was a separate transaction which is not part of the chargesheet herein.Secondly, the loans given under this transaction were secured, unlike the loans given under CLB.The Petitioner never took responsibility for the CLB Loans which were ultimately siphoned off and thus cannot claim any moral high ground on the basis of an unrelated transaction.However, that is not the case for the Petitioner herein.The Petitioner was CEO and Managing Director of the Complainant Company for 6 years, the entity by which the loans under CLB were given.By virtue of that position, he was involved in the day-to- day functioning of the Complainant Company, as was also admitted by him while taking responsibility for the SCCPL transaction.Further, the RBI also addressed all its communications with respect to the Complainant Company to the Petitioner and the Petitioner was further involved in misrepresentations to the RBI in order to hide the siphoning.Moreover, Anil Saxena only approved 6 loans, 3 of which were secured.Without prejudice to the Complainant's contentions against this, the Petitioner herein approved loans to 16 out of the 19 entities in question.Therefore, the Petitioner's role was greater than that of Anil Saxena and the two cannot be placed equally.Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 19 of 28I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material Bail Appln.1413/2020 Page 20 of 28 available on record.The order be uploaded on the website forthwith.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,510,869
ORDER Kundan Singh, J.This revision is directed against the Order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in criminal revision no. 47 of 1994 allowing the application of the investigating Officer for giving the applicants in police custody for one day and setting aside the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr, dated 13-1-1994 whereby he had refused to grant police remand.The learned counsel for the applicants filed an affidavit in support of this revision staying therein that the applicants surrendered in court on 4-1 -94 and they were taken into custody in connection with case crime no. 174 of 1993 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 and 201 I.P.C. relating to police station Narsena, district Bulandshahr.The Investigating Officer moved an application before the Magistrate on 8-1-1994 praying that the applicants may be given in police custody for getting recovery of certain articles made at their pointing out.The learned counsel for the applicants contented that the provisions of Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code contemplate that the police custody of an accused can be granted by the Magistrate on being satisfied on adequate grounds for a period not exceeding fifteen days.After fifteen days remand the accused person can only be detained in judicial custody and he cannot be given in the police custody after first fifteen days' remand.The learned Sessions Judge has granted 20 days' time on 21-1-94 for filing revision before the High Court and obtain stay.Accordingly the revision is allowed and the order dated 21-1-94 passed by the In-charge Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr is set aside.An affidavit has been filed by one Virendra Singh on behalf of the applicants stating that the impugned order dated 21-1-94 was passed by Sri Munendra Kumar Saxena, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, in the capacity of In-charge Sessions Judge.Let a copy of this order be placed on the personal file of the Officer.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,087,282
This is the second application under section 439 of the Cr.P.C in crime no.377/2019 under section 4120, 406, 409, 120-B, 467, 469 of the IPC registered at police station Raoji Bazar District Indore.His first application for temporary bail was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.06.2020 passed in M.Cr.The substance of the allegation made against the petitioner is that photocopies of some documents of some co-operative society were recovered from possession of one of his relative, therefore, he is implicated for the aforementioned charges.It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that there is nothing on record to co-relate the petitioner with the documents in any manner, therefore, he be granted bail.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I deem it proper to allow the bail.
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,510,963
Shri Rajesh Somaal, Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar, in his affidavit dt. 7th February, 1986 has stated that the petitioners are being treated as convicts under the rules and they are being provided with all the facilities which are provided under the rules to convicts.He has further stated that the cells where the petitioners are lodged were constructed at the time when the jail came into existence.He has further averred that the search lights have been put by way of extra precaution in order to avoid any mishap.It is stated that the lights are not focused at the petitioners and in no way disturb or cause inconvenience during their sleep.The Jail Superintendent has further stated that the turban has been discontinued to avoid any mishaps and 'patka' has been provided instead.He has further stated that the petitioners are brought out of their cells both in the morning and evening and they are allowed to have a walk in accordance with the rules and that during the period they are out they mix with each other.He has further stated that interviews permitted in accordance with the rules and that during the interview some distance is maintained with a view to minimise any mischief and this has been done keeping in mind the security of the petitioners.It is further stated that the petitioners are allowed to have newspapers and they also have been provided law books inside their cells and some stationery has also been provided for their use.I see force in this contention.Chapter XVII deals with classification and separation of prisoners.The instructions contained in Chap.The admitted fact is that the petitioners are being treated as class 'C' prisoners.The further admitted fact is that the petitioners before their conviction were treated as class B under-trials.It is not understandable on what reasoning after conviction the petitioners ceased to be class 'B' prisoners and become class 'C' prisoners.JUDGMENT Aggarwal, J.The petition was admitted on the limited question of facilities to which the petitioners are entitled in Jail.The two petitioners along with Satwant Singh were found guilty of the charge under S. 120-B read with S. 302, Penal Code, and were sentenced to death.The contention of the petitioners is that after the aforesaid conviction and sentence was passed upon them they have been lodged in separate cells and which are heavily guarded.They have alleged that three search-lights are focused on their cells in the result they are unable to have sleep.They have further alleged that they are not allowed to wear turbans and shoes.They have further complained that they are not allowed to go out of their cells to have a walk and further they are not allowed to communicate with each other and other inmates of the jail.Their further grievance is that they are not allowed bedding, books, newspapers and writing material.The contention of the petitioners is that a reference under S. 366, Cr.P.C. for confirmation of the death sentence is a continuation of the trial and until the death sentence is confirmed they are to be treated as under-trials and they are entitled to class 'B' facilities which they were earlier enjoying.The prayer made in the petition is that they should be treated humanely in accordance with jail manual and they be treated as 'B' class under-trials and they should not be confined in solitary/condemned cells and they should not be segregated from the rest of the world.The respondents in their reply have refuted the above allegations of the petitioners.On 22nd January, 1986 the Additional Sessions Judge who tried the case pronounced the judgment.XVII have been framed to give effect to the provisions contained in Chap.V of the Prisons Act, 1894, which provides for the separation of various kinds of prisoners.Prisoners have been classified in the two classes civil prisoners and criminal prisoners.The criminal prisoners are further classified in two categories - convicted criminal prisoners and unconvicted criminal prisoners.The petitioners would fall in the category of 'convicted' criminal prisoners.Para 576-A of the Jail Manual provides that the convicted prisoners shall be divided into three classes, namely, A, B and C classes.The claim of the petitioner is not for A class.Class B and Class C prisoners have been defined as follows :"(2) Class 'B' will consist of prisoners who by social status, education or habit of the life have been accustomed to a superior mode of living.The petitioners during the period of trial admittedly were treated as 'B' class prisoners.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
151,099,497
The brief facts of the case are as follows:-The defacto complainant / P.W.1 had lodged a complaint against the respondents herein / accused 1 to 5 stating that all the accused unlawfully assembled and attacked him and his father and as a result, his father was murdered.After investigation, the charge sheet has been filed.27 witnesses had been listed and 35 documents were marked and 12 material objects were produced.All the accused had pleaded not guilty after receiving charge sheet and hence, the Sessions case has been proceeded with before the trial Court.P.W.1-Kumanan had adduced evidence that he is residing at Perugavazhdan Lenin Street.He deposed that the deceased Durai Vaidhiyalingam who was his father, his mother Nagammal, brother Selvakumar Nanudaiyan and sister Shanthi were residing in the same village.P.W.1 further stated that he knew several of the accused who were involved in the murder case, viz., A-1-Nagaraj, A-2-Durairaj, A-3-Ashok Kumar, A-4-Vijayan, A-5-Chandran and late Nagendiran and the accused Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings.He deposed that on 29.07.2002, at around 09.30 a.m., when his brother Selvakumar was proceeding on a bicycle on the Madukkoor Road, the accused Nagendiran and one Shankar were standing on the middle of the road.When his brother Selvakumar questioned them as to why they were standing in the middle of the road, the accused Nagendran used abusive language and Shankar effected a compromise and sent him.Thereafter, the accused 1 and 2 came to his residence and shouted in front of his house.The very next day, i.e., 30.07.2002, at about 07.30 a.m., all the six accused came to his residence with aruval and shouted against them.At that time, the residents of the same street had requested the accused to avoid quarrelling and thereafter they left from his place.On the same day, his father made a complaint before the Perugavazhdan Police Station.After receipt of the said complaint by the Station Officer, the police personnel went to the place of the accused and asked them to appear before the police station for an enquiry on the said complaint, which they did not comply.3. P.W.1 further stated that on 31.07.2002 at around 8 a.m., all the 7 accused assembled in front of the second accused 's residence and used abusive language against P.W.1 and his family members, hence, his family members went to the police station and lodged a complaint.He took his father from the police station and dropped him at his residence.PW1 further stated that while he was proceeding to his land through the house of the accused at about 9 a.m., , the first accused Nagendiran inflicted a blow with the aruval on his head.The third accused Ashok Kumar also made an attempt with his aruval to strike a blow but somehow he escaped, but, the accused kicked him with his leg.The accused Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings attacked him on his head and right hand.The fourth accused Vijayan had attacked with a log wood on his hip and behind the shoulder.The second accused Durairaj attacked with a log wood on his thigh, the fifth accused Chandran also attacked with a log wood on his right ribs and hence, he cried out in pain.Immediately, his father Durai Vaithiyalingam rushed to the scene of occurrence and then all the 7 accused attacked his aged father.The accused Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings inflicted injuries on his father's forehead.The fourth accused Vijayan, using a log wood attacked him on his head.The fifth accused Chandran attacked on his right ribs and the second accused attacked on his right hand.The first accused Nagaraj inflicted a blow on his father's ribs.As a consequence, his father had fallen down unconscious.The occurrence was witnessed by his brother Selvakumar, his mother Nagammal, his wife Chitra and another person Narayanaswamy.4. P.W.1 further adduced evidence that a car was arranged to take his father to the Mannargudi Government Hospital, wherein, the victim had been admitted for medical treatment.The head constable who is attached to the Perugavazhdan Police Station, had collected statements from him.For further medical treatment, he and his father had rushed to the medical college hospital, Thanjavur.The very next day, i.e, on 01.08.2002, at about 7.30 p.m,.his father breathed his last.The Inspector of Police had collected material objects from him, viz., coffee seed coloured lunghi, sandal wood coloured shirt and cream towel.P.W.1 had been cross examined by the counsel on the defence side and he further stated in his cross-examination that there was no previous enmity between the accused family and himself and the only quarrel was that while he was proceeding on his bicycle, Nagendran had developed a quarrel.He further admitted that the first and second accused are blood brothers.The first accused Nagaraj and the deceased Nagendiran were brothers and are the sons of the second accused.He deposed that the second and third accused are brothers and the fourth and fifth accused, who are the sons of the third accused are not related to other accused as well as Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings.P.W.1 further admits that all the above mentioned accused live in the same village.He further adduced evidence that the distance between the occurrence place and the police station is about 1 kilometer.He deposed that the Police personnel came to the occurrence place and sent him along with his father in a car and that his brother Muruganandham, Ravi @ Narayanaswamy accompanied them.P.W.1 further stated that the head constable had collected statements from him at the Government Hospital, Mannargudi.His brother Selvakumar, one Narayanaswamy, Muruganandham and Karunanithi had signed in the statement report as witnesses.He further stated that at the time of occurrence, a group of people assembled but his relatives were not present.All the relatives came to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur.P.W.1 further stated that when he was in a conscious state of mind at the Government Hospital, Mannargudi as well as at the Thanjavur Hospital, he informed the doctor that he was beaten with an iron road and one person gave him a blow with a knife.He had further informed that two persons had inflicted injuries on him with an aruval.Totally 7 of the accused attacked him, out of which, three of them had attacked him with aruval and the other four had attacked him with log woods.The head constable read over his statement to him and he agreed to the same.P.W.1 further stated that the first accused Nagendiran inflicted injuries on him with an aruval and the accused Nagarajan also inflicted injuries on him with an aruval and Ashok Kumar had attempted to assault him with an aruval and Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings had attacked him twice with log wood and the accused Chandiran had attacked him with an iron rod on his hip.The accused Durairaj and Vijayan had both attacked him with wood log and as a consequence, P.W.1 had fallen down.This attack had lasted for a period of 10 minutes.He deposed that his father came to the occurrence place after 15 minutes and all the seven accused attacked his father until he fell down.5. P.W.2, the brother of P.W.1, Selvakumar had adduced evidence that as his father was unconscious, he was unable to give a statement to the police.Initially his father was given medical treatment at Government Hospital, Mannargudi; thereafter, he was referred to Thanjavur Hospital, wherein he expired on 01.08.2002 at about 7.30 p.m. P.W.2 had further adduced evidence that as the occurrence had taken place around 1/2 an hour back and he was a witness of the same, he also cried out at the occurrence place and immediately his father came to the occurrence place.P.W.2 further adduced evidence that the accused Chandran, Mukkalagan, who had been split from the said proceedings and Vijayan had only beaten his father and that the other accused had not beaten his father.6. P.W.3, Narayanaswamy, P.W.4-Muthulakshmi and P.W.5-Somu had turned hostile.P.W.6 and P.W.7 are eyewitnesses but their evidence had not been supportive to the prosecution case and therefore had turned hostile.The eighth prosecution witness, Soundarrajan who had witnessed the occurrence which took place on 29.07.2002 at 9.30 a.m., had subsequently disagreed with his earlier statement and turned hostile.P.W.9, Sankar had also turned hostile.P.W.21-Head Constable had adduced evidence that he had received information that P.W.1 and his father were admitted at the Government Hospital, Mannargudi and that he had informed it to the Head Constable, Govindaraj, through telephone.He also certified that P.W.1 had sustained serious injuries on his head and behind his head, right shoulder and right thigh.Subsequently, P.W.1 was referred to Thanjavur Medical Hospital.P.W.22-Inspector of Police had adduced evidence that on 27.11.2001, the (deceased) Durai Vaidhiyalingam had lodged a complaint and the same had been registered as Crime No.112 of 2001, for the offence under Sections 294(B) and 506(ii) of I.P.C. P.W.22 further adduced evidence that on the strength of the statement given by P.W.1, the case has been registered in Crime No.80 of 2002, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 IPC.He deposed that on the date of occurrence, at about 4.00 p.m., he had inspected the occurrence place and prepared observation mahazar in the presence of one Subramaniam and Pandian and that the rough sketch was also prepared.He further deposed that he had been informed by the outpost police station of the Thanjavur Medical College that the deceased Durai Vaidiyalingam had expired on 01.08.2002, at about 7.30 p.m.P.W.18, Head Constable had informed the death of Durai Vaidhiyalingam to head constable, Govindaraj; subsequently, the F.I.R. has been altered to a case of murder.On 02.08.2002, the first grade constable went to Thanjavur Medical College Hospital and arranged for postmortem and the same was done on 02.08.2002, between 10.30 a.m., to 11.30 a.m. On 03.08.2002 all the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai.The accused 1 to 5 had given confession statement and on the basis of confessional statement, the material objects viz., aruval, casuarina log woods were marked.Further, statements had been collected from the doctors and charge sheet has been filed.P.W.10 Inspector of Police and P.W.11-eyewitness, who had witnessed the preparation of the observation mahazar had also turned hostile.P.W.12-Karunanidhi had adduced evidence that her father-in-law deceased Durai Vaidhiyalingam had expired at the hospital due to the beatings by the accused.P.W.14 and P.W.15 who are the Village Administrative Officer and Village servant had turned hostile.P.W.24 doctor had adduced evidence that on 02.08.2002 she was requested to conduct postmortem and accordingly she had started the postmortem at 2.30 p.m., and she gave the opinion that the deceased had expired due to heavy hemorrhaging.On the side of the prosecution, the below mentioned witnesses were listed viz., P.W.1, Kumanan, P.W.2-Selvakumar, P.W.3-Ravi, P.W.4-Muthulakshmi, P.W.5-Somu, P.W.6-Rajendran, P.W.7-Veeramani, P.W.8-Soundararajan, P.W.9-Shankar, P.W.10-Subbiyan, P.W.11-Pandian, P.W.12-Karunanidhi, P.W.13-Dr.Ananda Krishnan, P.W.14-Gunasekaran, P.W.15-Viswanathan, P.W.16-Marudhan, P.W.17-Govindaraj, P.W.18-Devadas, P.W.19-Sadhanandham, P.W.20-Selvaraj, P.W.21-Ramanathan, P.W.22-Vinayagam, P.W.23-Dr.Anandha Sekar, P.W.24-Dr.Vijayalakshmi, P.W.24-Mariappan, P.W.26-Manavalan, P.W.27-Swaminathan.The prosecution had exhibited 35 documents, viz., complainant's statement, observation mahazar, death report, first information report dated 31.07.2002, rough sketch, C.S.R. receipt, special report, accident report, first information report dated 27.11.2001, charge sheet, accident report of the deceased, accident report of P.W.1, requisition letter for postmortem, postmortem report, discharge certificate, special express report, postmortem report, confessional statement of the accused and mahazars.The prosecution had also produced 12 documents viz., coffee colour lunghi, sandalwood coloured shirt, towel, waist-rope, vettaruval, casuarina log woods and val aruval etc. On the side of the defence, no documentary evidence and no oral evidence.Consequently, all the accused were acquitted.Aggrieved by the said acquittal order, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had preferred the above revision.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that P.W.1 is the injured eyewitness who also accompanied his father in a car to the Government Hospital Mannargudi, wherein both had undergone treatment.Subsequently, they had been taken to the Government Hospital, Thanjavur, wherein the (deceased) Durai Vaidhiyalingam had expired.P.W.1 is the main witness who narrated the entire occurrence before the trial Court.P.W.1's evidence which had been recorded by the trial Court is crystal clear for punishing the accused.The learned counsel further stated that the deceased Durai Vaidhiyalingam was killed by others which amounts to homicide and the the occurrence had taken place in the same village, wherein the deceased's family and accused families were living.Therefore, P.W.1 had rightly identified the accused and also their involvement in the said occurrence.Therefore, it had been clearly proved that there was enmity between the accused and the deceased's family.The learned counsel further submitted that some witnesses have turned hostile, but they had already given statement regarding the occurrence prior to their turning hostile.However, P.W.1's witness is the crucial one and on the basis of his evidence, the accused should be punished.Further, the murder had happened in day light and public also witnessed the same and therefore, the accused should be punished in the interest of justice and maintaining public confidence.The learned counsel for the revision petitioner further contended that all the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Pattukottai and they have given confessional statement to the investigation officer about the murder of Durai Vaidhiyalingam.On the confessional statement of the accused, the weapons were seized in the presence of witnesses.All the weapons were marked as material objects and therefore, the accused shall be punished since the entire prosecution case has been established by the defacto complainant.The learned counsel for the accused contended that the prosecution had listed 27 witnesses and most of the witnesses have turned hostile.P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.12 are interested witnesses viz., sons and son-in-laws respectively of the deceased.The material objects, viz., M.O.7 to M.O.12 are artificial ones.But, however, P.W.9 had turned hostile and stated that there was no quarrel and therefore, the initial enmity between both parties had not been established and as such, the prosecution has lost its foundation.The competent counsel stated that it was alleged that all the accused had used aruval and casuarina log woods for attacking P.W.1 and his father.Subsequently, P.W.1 had informed the doctor at the Government Hospital at Mannargudi that he was beaten by iron rod.As such, P.W.1 has given inconsistent statement.P.W.1 further stated that his father came to the occurrence place only after 10 minutes after the occurrence of the incident.P.W.2 had adduced evidence that all the accused had beaten his father and brother and that he was simply watching which is highly unbelievable.The Village Administrative Officer and the Village servant who were listed as P.W.14 and P.W.15 had also turned hostile and both are competent persons to disclose the facts of the incident since they are permanently staying in the village.As such, there is a serious lacuna on the side of the prosecution to prove their case against the accused who are innocent persons and not involved in the said occurrence.The highly competent counsel for the State vehemently argued that the Station House Officer had received information and immediately rushed to the occurrence place and made necessary arrangements for medical treatment of P.W.1 and his father and both were sent to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi, wherein the Head Constable had recorded a statement from P.W.1 and registered a criminal case for the offence in Crime No.81 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 147, 342, 355, 323 and 506(ii) IPC.Subsequently, the deceased Durai Vaidhiyalingam had expired on 01.08.2002, therefore, the F.I.R. has been altered under Section 302 IPC and the prosecution case had been proceeded with.The prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.P.W.1 is the injured eyewitness and also the prime witness in the prosecution case.Further, occurrence had taken place on 31.07.2002 at about 7.30 a.m. i.e, in broad day light.All the accused belong to the same village.Initially, there was a quarrel between the first accused and P.W.2 on the public road and the same was compromised by P.W.9 one Shankar who was an eyewitness.The very next day again there was a quarrel picked by the accused, hence, the deceased had lodged a complaint before the Perugavazhdan Police Station, and a criminal case has been registered in crime No.112 of 2001 for the offence under Section 294(B) and 506(ii) IPC.Therefore, it is clear there was enmity between the accused and the deceased family.Finally all the accused had assembled unlawfully and murdered the deceased.Hence, the prosecution case has been proved crystal clear on the strength of P.W.1's evidence and material objects, also including documentary evidence.The medical opinion clearly stated that the deceased had expired due to heavy haemorrage i.e,.his blood vessels were cut and he had profuse bleeding.Therefore, it clearly amounts to homicide i.e, killing by others who are the accused herein and hence, the very competent counsel for the State entreats the court to set-aside the trial Court order and punish the accused.On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on all sides and on perusing the trial Court judgment, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding acquittal of the accused.This Court's further view is that P.W.1 had adduced evidence that the fifth accused Chandran had attacked him with iron rod but the same had not been produced as material evidence.Further, P.W.2 had adduced evidence that his brother P.W.1 was beaten by all the accused for about half an hour and he also witnessed the same from near the occurrence.Further, after half an hour, he had cried aloud and on hearing the voice, his father came from his house.This Court is of the further view that P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased further stated that the accused Chandran, Mukkalagan and Vijayan had beaten his father and other accused including A-1 had not attacked his father.Further, all the prosecution witnesses had not spoken on the same line and some of the main witnesses have turned hostile especially, P.W.14 and P.W.15 and 9, 3, 4, 5, 6 7 etc. Therefore, the prosecution case had not been proved beyond doubt.Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the above revision.In the result, the above revision is dismissed.Consequently, the judgment passed in S.C.No.28 of 2004, on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 22.02.2005 is confirmed.Accordingly ordered.r n sToThe District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.The Inspector of Police, Perugavazhdan Police Station, Mannargudi, Nagapattinam District
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.