id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
51,810,750 |
Deceased Sanjay was the younger brother of P.W.1 Dhananjay.The another deceased Somnath was Sanjay's friend.Sanjay was a rickshaw driver.Accused persons were residing in the same vicinity.In September, 2006, a dispute arose between deceased Sanjay and accused No.1 Vijay on account of motorcycle.Since then, the relations between Sanjay and accused No.1 were not cordial.On the day of incident on 7.11.2006 at about 11.00 a.m. when P.W.1 Dhananjay was about to leave his house, in order to go to his shop of gold smith, P.W.4 Firoz Mujawar, came running to his house and informed him that at Tiwari galli, 4 to 5 persons including accused No.1 Vijay, were assaulting deceased Sanjay and Somnath.Hence P.W.1 Dhananjay went running upto Tiwari galli and witnessed that accused 5 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc Nos. 1 to 6 were assaulting his brother Sanjay and Sanjay's friend Somanth with knives and sickle.Accused No.1 Vijay gave blow of sickle on the head of Sanjay with such a force that Sanjay fell down on the ground with bleeding injury to his head.Other accused were piercing Sanjay with knives in their hands, they were also assaulting Somnath with the weapons in their hands.When P.W.1 Dhananjay tried to intervene, the persons gathered there did not allow him to do so, they held him up.As a result, assault was going on for 5 to 7 minutes.After both Sanjay and Somnath fell down on the ground in totally injured condition, appellants left the spot, leaving behind some of the weapons in their hands.P.W.1 Dhananjay then went near his brother and noticed that his brother Sanjay had received injuries on head, neck, chest and hand.He gave a call to Sanjay, however, Sanjay was not responding.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Immediately he took Sanjay in a rickshaw to Civil Hospital.There Doctor examined and declared him dead.Simultaneously Somnath was brought to Civil Hospital and he was also declared to be dead on admission.ο Injury No.29 : Incised wound over right mid lumbar region, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped- 5 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.According to him, all the injuries were antemortem in nature and are sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course.The cause of death was shock due to injury to vital organs.CLOSED FOR ORDER : 18 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 23rd DECEMBER, 2015 JUDGMENT : [PER: DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.]As these three appeals are arising out of one and the same judgment and order dated 28th August, 2007 of Sessions Judge, Sangli, in Sessions Case No.38 of 2007, they are being decided by this common judgment.By the impugned judgment, appellants, who are original accused Nos 1 to 6 are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years.Out of said compensation amount of Rs.50,000/-, the amount of Rs.25,000/-, is directed to be paid to the parents of deceased Sanjay and remaining amount of Rs.25,000/-, is directed to be paid to the wife of the deceased Somnath.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.docBy these appeals, the appellants are challenging their conviction and sentence.Brief facts of the appeals can be stated as follows :-On his complaint C.R.No.218 of 2006 was registered initially against accused Nos. 1 to 4 only.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.docOn registration of the offence, investigation of the same was taken over by P.W.22 Police Inspector- Shankar Jadhav.He alongwith, P.W. 1 Dhananjay went to Civil Hospital.The dead bodies were threafter handed over to P.W.12 Dr. Arjun Patil for postmortem.P.W.22 PI Kadam, then went to the spot of incident alongwith P.W.1 Dhananjay.There, in the presence of panchas, he collected some weapons which were found lying on the spot.A thorough search of accused and also of the eye witnesses to the incident was taken but on that day none of the accused could be traced.On 9.11.2006, P.W.1 Dhananjay again went to the police 7 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc Station and gave supplementary statement to the effect that after the funeral when he tried cooly to remember the entire incident in its proper perspective in chronological order, he remembered that accused No.5 Amit and accused No.6 Rohit were also involved in the said incident, as accused No.6 Rohit was holding Sanjay while accused No.5 Amit was assaulting Sanjay with knife, alongwith others.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::During the course of further investigation, the weapons of assault came to be seized at the instance of accused Nos 1 & 2 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In the custodial interrogation of accused Nos 1 to 6, role of accused Nos 7 to 9 was also transpired, as they were found involved in destroying evidence after commission of the offence, by burning clothes of the accused, which were stained with blood.Hence accused Nos 7 to 9 also came to be arrested.All the seized muddemal articles were sent to Chemical Analyzer.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried raising defence of denial and false implication.In support of its case, prosecution examined in all 22 witnesses.But most of them turned hostile and as a result prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of single eye witness P.W.1 Dhananjay and corroborating evidence of his friend P.W.4 Firoz.The accused, to substantiate their defence, examined one witness by name Dr. Basappa Koli to prove M.L.C. register entry No.7079 and 7980 dated 7.11.2006 showing that history of the deceased was not given in the hospital by P.W.1 Dhananjay, but by his father.Thus, an attempt was made by the accused to show that P.W.1 Dhananjay was not present at the time of incident and he has not witnessed the incident.On appreciation of this evidence, the trial Court was pleased 9 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc to acquit accused Nos. 7 to 9 in the absence of sufficient incriminating evidence on record against them.The trial Court, however, was pleased to convict accused Nos. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::During pendency of the appeals, accused No.1 Vijay Pawar has expired on 17.10.2010, hence as per order dated 9th October, 2015 , appeal stands abated against him.In these appeals, we have heard learned counsels for appellants, who have assailed the impugned judgment of the trial Court on the count that except for the solitary testimony of P.W.1 Dhananjay, there is absolutely no iota of evidence on record against accused.It is urged that in order to base conviction on the evidence of single eye witness, his evidence must be of an unimpeachable character.According to learned counsels for accused, the evidence of P.W. 1 Dhananjay, is not of a such a sterling quality as it suffers from several infirmities and lacuna.As to his presence at the time of incident except for the F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc lodged by him, there is no other documentary evidence on record.Even in the history given before the Doctor at the time of admission of Sanjay and Somanth, the name of P.W.1 Dhananjay is not appearing as the informant.The rickshaw in which P.W. 1 Dhananjay claims that he has brought injured Sanjay to the hospital is not seized by the police.Even the blood stained clothes of P.W.1 Dhananjay are not seized.The spot panchnama does not mention the place from which P.W.1 Dhananjay has allegedly witnessed the incident.It is also urged that he has implicated accused Nos. 5 and 6 in this offence, three days after the incident.Therefore, his testimony cannot be considered as of sterling worth to convict the accused on this solitary piece of evidence.In short, according to learned counsels for accused, the evidence on record in the present case, is not at all convincing, reliable and of unerring tendency;According 11 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc to learned APP, double murder of Sanjay and Somnath took place in the broad day light on the road in a most brutal manner which has created terror in the mind of the people.The Investigating Officer has therefore, deposed that no one was coming forward to give statement.At the time of trial also independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the case of prosecution, having been declared hostile.In such situation, the evidence of solitary eye witness cannot be discarded on some imaginary, assumptions, presumptions and groundless reasons.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Therefore, it is submitted by learned APP that the trial Court has rightly placed reliance on the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay to prove guilt of the accused and no interference is warranted in the well reasoned judgment and order of the trial Court, which had an opportunity to observe the witnesses, their demeanour and to appreciate their evidence at the first instance.In our considered opinion, for proper appreciation of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsels for accused and learned APP, it would be useful to refer to the factual aspects of the case as 12 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc brought on record through the evidence of witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::It leaves no manner of doubt about the involvement of not less than 5 to 6 persons in the assault.Just to reproduce evidence of P.W.12 Dr. Arjun Patil, the external injuries he found at the time of postmortem and are noted in the postmortem reports Exh.65 and 66 of Sanjay and Somanth are as follows :-In respect of deceased Sanjay, P.W.12 Dr. Patil, has noticed following external injuries :-::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc ο Injury No.1 : Incise wound over mid forehead, spindle shaped vertically oblique 2 cms x 1cm x bone deep with bleeding.No fracture of skull bone.ο Injury No.2 : Incise wound - 6 cms lateral to left eye, spindle shaped vertically oblique 2 Β½ cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding.No fracture of bone.ο Injury No.3 : Incise wound over left cheek, spindle shaped vertical 2 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.4 : Incise wound over left clavicular fosses region, horizontal oblique, 6 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.ο Injury No.5 : Incise wound on left upper arm lower 1/3rd region, Horizontal, spindle shaped, 2 cms x 1 cm x muscle deep, clotted blood.ο Injury No.6 : Incise wound over left thumb palm aspect vertical, spindle shaped, 1 cm x Β½ cm x muscle deep clotted blood.ο Injury No.7 : Incise wound 5 cms above and lateral to left breast horizontal oblique, spindle shaped, 6 cms x 3 cms to cavity deep bleeding present.ο Injury No.8 : Incise wound 4 cms medial to and below left breast vertical, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 4cms x cavity deep with bleeding present fracture forth rib.ο Injury No.9 : Incise wound over left 6th rib region laterally and 6 cms below left breast, horizontal oblique, 14 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc 5 cms x 2 cms x cavity deep with bleeding.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::ο Injury No.10 : Incise wound left epigastric region, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 2 cms x cavity deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.11 : Incised wound left buttock region, lower and laterally, vertical oblique, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.12 - Incised wound 6 cms below and lateral to injury No.11, vertical oblique, spindle shaped wound, 5 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep.ο Injury No.13 : Incised wound 2 cms below injury No.12, vertical oblique, spindle shaped 3 cms x 1 Β½ cms x muscle deep bleeding.ο Injury No.14 : Incised wound over right upper arm medial third posteriorily, horizontal, spindle, shaped, 3cms x 1 Β½ cm x muscle deep bleeding.ο Injury No.15 : Incised wound over mid of right palm, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped, 4 cms x 1 Β½ cms x muscle deep bleeding.ο Injury No.16 : Incised wound 3 cms lateral to right breast vertical to oblique, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep bleeding.ο Injury No.17 : Incised wound over right lower axillary region, 5th, 6th rib, vertical oblique, spindle shaped 5 cms x 3 cms x cavity deep, bleeding.ο Injury No.18 : Incised wound over mid occipital region, 15 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc horizontal, spindle shaped 8 cms x 3 cms x bone deep, bleeding.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::ο Injury No.19 : Incised wound - 2 cms below injury No.18, horizontal, spindle shaped 3 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding.ο Injury No. 20 : Incised wound over mid of left shoulder region, spindle shaped, 3 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No. 21 : Incised wound 2 cms medial to injury No.20, oblique spindle shaped, 4 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.22 : Incised wound below left scapula and mid back, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped 9 cms x 4 cms x cavity deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.23 : Incised wound over lateral to medial border of left scapula, vertical oblique, spindle shaped, 4 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.24: Incised wound - 6 cms below and lateral to injury No.22, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped, 4 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.25 : Incise wound just left lateral to vertibral column at T12 to L12 Region, vertical oblique, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 3 cms x cavity deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.26 : Incised wound just below and lateral to injury No.25, vertical oblique, spindle shaped, 4 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc ο Injury No.27 : Incised wound 2 cms below injury No.24, horizontal oblique, spindle shaped, 4 cms x 2 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.28 : Incised wound left iliac region, vertical oblique, spindle shaped, 5 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.There were corresponding internal injuries on his body as under.ο Rupture over left ventricular area .::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::In respect of deceased Somnath, P.W.12 Arjun Dr. Patil, has noticed following external injuries :-ο Injury No.1 : three Incised wounds over right parieto temporal region (confluent mixed) intermingled with each other, over the area of 14 cms x 5 cms x cavity deep, with multiple fractures of skull bones (4 pieces) and depressed inside with rupture of brain coverings and laceration to brain matter.Portion of brain matter protruding outside with blood clots and bleedings.ο Injury No.2 : Incised vertical wound 1 cms to medial to injury No.1, 3 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding, no fracture below it.ο Injury No.3 : Incised vertical wound 1 cms below to injury No.1 over mid forehead, 4 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding, no fracture below.ο Injury No.4 : Incised wound - over left parieto occipital area, 5 cms x 3 cms x bone deep with bleeding, no fracture below it.ο Injury No. 5 : Over nape of neck.Horizontally oblique irregular abrasion with contusion over region - 4 cms x 3 cms with clotted 18 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc blood.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::ο Injury No. 6 : Incised wound over dorsum of left hand - vertical-extending from mid wrist to base of middle finger - 7 cms x 2 cms x inside deep with bleeding.ο Injury No. 7 : Incised wound over lower phalenx of middle finger- horizontal oblique - 2 cms x 1 cm x bone deep with bleeding.ο Injury No. 8 : Incise wound over mid phalenx of left ring finger-horizontal oblique, 2 cms x 1 cm x bone deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.9 : Incised wound tip of left little finger, 1 cm x muscle deep x cut through and through distal portion missing bleeding.ο Injury No.10 : Incised wound postero lateral aspect of right forearm, vertical 7 cms x 3 cms x muscle deep with bleeding.ο Injury No.11 : Incised wound mid occipital area, vertical 5 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding, no fracture.ο Injury No.12 : Incised wound 1 cms medial to injury No.11 vertical 4 cms x 2 cms x bone deep with bleeding no fracture.There were corresponding internal injuries on his body as under.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::These injuries were also found to be antemortem and sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.The cause of his death was also found to be shock due to cranio cerebral injury.As per evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Arjun Patil, in case of Sanjay there were 8 injuries namely Injury Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 22 and 25 which were independently sufficient to cause death; whereas in case of Somnath injury No.1 which consists of three incised wounds intermingled with each other, resulting into multiple fractures of skull bones, was found to be sufficient to cause the death.According to P.W.12 Dr. Arjun Patil, these injuries found on the dead body of Sanjay and Somanth must have been caused by sharp edged weapons.Injury No.1 on the dead body of Somanth was likely to be caused by sickle.Similarly injuries found on the body of Sanjay were also possible by sickle and knives.The evidence of P.W. 1 Dhananjay goes to prove that he 20 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc has seen that the brain matter was protruding out of head of Somnath due to breaking of skull and head.One can therefore realise the ferocity of the assault.As deposed by Dr. Patil, death of both Sanjay and Somnath was instantaneous and must be within five minutes of the assaults.It may be stated that as per evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay, assault itself took place for about 5 to 7 minutes and that too by about 6 to 7 accused persons.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Learned counsels for accused, to be fair on their part are also not shying away from the fact that both the deaths were homicidal ones.The above said evidence led by prosecution, in our opinion , further proves that the assault was brutal and ferocious made with sharp edged weapons, clearly and purely with an intention to ensure that both Sanjay and Somnath are done away with instantaneously, without leaving any scope for survival and that too in most cruel and brutal manner.The real issue posed by learned counsels for accused is about ability of prosecution to prove the involvement of the accused, in this brutal assault.As stated above, the entire case of prosecution stands 21 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc on the sole testimony of P.W.1 Dhananjay.The brutality of the assault was such that, as deposed by P.W.22 Investigating Officer PI Shankar Jadhav, though several persons were present at the time of incident, no-::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::one was coming forward to give statements about witnessing the assault;all of them had as if gone underground and shelved themselves away.A sort of terror was created in the vicinity, right from beginning, as a result though the incident had taken place in broad day light in thickly populated area and though very large number of persons had witnessed the incident, police can record statements of only four eye witnesses and that too, two days after the incident.It is pertinent to note that at the time of trial also, except P.W.1 Dhananjay and P.W.4 Firoz, none of the witnesses have supported prosecution case.P.W.13 Mahesh Chavan to P.W.19 Sanjary Jadhav, who were having their shops in the vicinity and must have been witnessed the incident, have outrightly disowned the prosecution case and despite cross examination by learned APP, not supported the prosecution.The perusal of the judgment of the trial Court reveals that the trial Court was also constrained to observe that though on number of occasions summonses were police, the presence of those four eye 22 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc witnesses could not be secured as they went underground and were not traceable.The reports filed at Exh.71, 76, 79, 81 and 88 by APP to that effect are found to be self explanatory.The point, therefore, stressed is that this is not a case where prosecution has not attempted to lead corroborating evidence, but on account of the terror created in the vicinity, which is bound to be created, considering the brutality of attack on two persons at the hands of 5 to 6 persons with sharp edged weapons, no one was coming forward to depose.The prosecution was, therefore, helpless, and has therefore no option but to rely solely on the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay, the solitary eye witness to the incident.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::It is true that merely because prosecution could not bring other corroborating evidence of eye witnesses on record, the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay a solitary witness, cannot escape from the closer scrutiny of his testimony by the Court.His evidence has to be assessed independently to find out whether it is of such a quality as is expected when the conviction has to rest on his sole testimony.At times, one credible witness outweighs the testimony of 23 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc number of other witnesses of indifferent characters.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Hence he has to cross here the double test to place reliance on his testimony, though normally close relative of the deceased is the last person to screen real offender and implicate an innocent one.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::The evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay reveals that on the day of incident at about 11.00 a.m. while he was about to leave the house in order to go to his shop, his friend P.W.4 Firoz came running to his house and told him that in Tiwari Galli, 5 to 6 persons inclusive of accused No.1 Vijay Pawar were assaulting Somnath and Sanjay.As per his evidence, he immediately went running to Tiwari Galli.It is brought on record from his cross examination and also from the spot panchnama Exh.44 proved through the evidence of P.W. 2 Nana Jadhav that Tiwari Galli where the incident took place and Kanase galli, where P.W.1 Dhananjay was residing are just adjacent to each other.There was hardly a distance of 150 feet between the house of P.W.1 Dhananjay and the spot of incident.Hence it is but natural that he reached to the spot immediately on being informed by P.W.4 Firoz.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.docThere is corroborating evidence to this effect of P.W.4 Firoz that when he was proceeding to the house of P.W.1 Dhananjay, in order to go to Kolhapur, at the corner of Tiwari Galli, he heard shouts of quarrel.Hence he rushed to the spot and found accused No.1 Vijay giving pushes to Sanjay and Somnath.Hence he went to the house of P.W.1 Dhananjay and informed him about the incident.According to evidence of P.W.4 Firoz, P.W.1 Dhananjay started running towards the spot and told him to bring his motorcycle, then he searched key of the motorcycle and reached to the spot.As per further evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay, when he reached Tiwari Galli, he found accused Nos. 1 to 6 assaulting his brother Sanjay and Sanjay's friend Somnath with knives and sickle.Accused No.1 Vijay assaulted Somnath with sickle on head with such a force that Somnath immediately fell down.The others were piercing Somnath and Sanjay with knives in their hands.According to him, he wanted to intervene, however, the persons gathered there did not allow him to do so, they held him back physically.As per his evidence, assault was going on for about 5 to 7 minutes.Thereafter the assailants ran away 26 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc from the spot.Some of the assailants left behind the weapons.Then he went upto his brother Sanjay and noticed that Sanjay had received injuries on his head, neck, chest and hand.He called Sanjay.However, Sanjay did not respond.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::This part of evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay also gets corroboration from the spot panchnama Exh.44, which shows that on the spot there was pool of blood, various articles like the footwear, handle of the knife were lying there.At another spot where deceased Somath was assaulted, some portion of his head and skull was lying in a pool of blood with the blade of knife.The spot panchnama was conducted immediately after the incident and the spot was shown by P.W.1 Dhananjay himself, as deposed by P.W.22 PI Jadhav,The evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay then proves that he took Sanjay in a rickshaw to Civil Hospital.It was the same rickshaw, which Sanjay used to drive as rickshaw driver.In Civil Hospital, Doctor declared Sanjay dead.Almost simultaneously Somnath was also brought into hospital.He witnessed that brain matter was protruding out of the head of Somnath due to the breaking of head.Somnath was also 27 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc declared dead by the Doctor.On this aspect, there is corroborating evidence of P.W.22 PI Jadhav to prove that on the basis of this complaint, offence bearing C.R.No.218 of 2006 was registered immediately at about 12.30 hrs and he rushed to the hospital alongwith P.W.1 Dhananjay.In the complaint Exh.36, the names of accused Nos 1 to 4 as assailants of Sanjay and Somnath are clearly and correctly mentioned.In our considered opinion, this prompt lodging of F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::immediately after the incident, thus, gives strong corroboration and assurance to the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay.In evidence before the Court, he has identified all the weapons and also the accused.This witness is subjected to incisive cross examination at the hands of defence counsels, but absolutely nothing worthwhile is elicited in his cross examination to disbelieve him.His evidence is 28 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc having a ring of truthfulness, colour of consistency and sense of straightforwardness as a result of which it inspires confidence in the judicial mind.It is also not that his evidence is not corroborated at all on any aspect.As stated above, his evidence gets corroboration in material particulars from the evidence of P.W.4 Firoz, who immediately on witnessing the incident, had reached to inform him and then came to the spot following P.W.1 Dhananjay.The evidence of P.W.4 Firoz further reveals that when he followed P.W.1 Dhananjay on motorcycle and reached Tiwari galli, he witnessed that P.W.1 Dhananjay with the help of his uncle Uday Potdar was shifting Sanjay into rickshaw.P.W.1 Dhananjay himself was driving the rickshaw; whereas Uday was sitting on rear side of injured Sanjay, who was kept on the seat.As per evidence of P.W.4 Firoz, on the spot, he also found Somnath lying on the ground with injuries on his head.He had also followed P.W.1 Dhananjay to the hospital on the motorcycle where Doctors declared Sanjay and Somnath to be dead.According to his evidence, he was frightened.He did not leave the house for two days and only after 2 days, police came to his house.When police came to his house, he went to police station where his statement was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.docNo doubt in his cross examination, he has denied having seen the incident, but then the observations of his demeanour as made by the trial Court in respect of his answers, is very relevant.The trial Court has noticed that on the next day, when he appeared for further cross examination, he was found to be a totally changed person, either he was being pressurized, influenced or terrorized, but practically he was not the same witness who has given earlier deposition.In the words of trial Court, "he was a completely changed man when he was facing further cross examination on the next date".This observation of the trial Court cannot be overlooked as trial Court has an added advantage of observing witnesses live at the time of recording their evidence and therefore, the observations of the trial Court assume significance.It was the duty of learned APP to disown this witness after his cross examination, considering that he has turned hostile to the prosecution case, which phenomena was noticed in respect of other prosecution witnesses, but prosecution has not done so.In our considered opinion, however, even if the evidence of this witness is excluded from the consideration, there is no reason at all to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay.According to learned counsel for the accused, however, the 30 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc presence of P.W.1 Dhananjay at the spot is not proved beyond reasonable doubt in view of P.W.4 Firoz turning hostile in cross examination and not being declared so and subjected to cross examination by APP.It is further urged that if P.W.4 Firoz has not informed P.W.1 Dhananjay about the incident, there is no explanation about source of information from whom he came to know about the incident, so as to reach to the spot.It is further urged that except for the F.I.R. there is no other documentary evidence to prove presence of P.W.1 Dhananjay on the spot.Police had neither seized his blood stained clothes nor seized rickshaw in which he has allegedly carried Sanjay to the Hospital.The history given before Doctor is also by his father and not by this witness.Even the Station Diary Entries which are made and proved through the evidence, go to reveal that the information of the incident, according to C.M.O. Dr. Mahadeo Gore, was given by the father of deceased Sanjay and not by P.W.1 Dhananjay.Hence according to learned counsel for the accused, if P.W.1 Dhananjay was an eye witness to the incident, then it was for him to provide history of the incident to the Doctor.The defence witness Dr. Basappa Koli, has proved that the history was given by the father of Sanjay and not by P.W.1 Dhananjay.Thus, it is urged that if the presence of this only 31 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc single eye witness is not established beyond doubt, no question arises of placing reliance on his evidence to pass conviction of the accused on this sole piece of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::We have given our anxious consideration to this submission of the defence counsel and on close scrutiny of the same we are unable to accept the same.It need not be stated that when incident of such a magnitude was taking place, P.W.1 Dhananjay who was residing just near the spot of incident is bound to come to know about it, as admittedly several persons in the vicinity had gathered there.Therefore, even if evidence of P.W.4 Firoz, who has changed his colours in cross examination, is discarded, the fact remains that P.W.1 Dhananjay, his father and other family members are bound to know about the incident.Especially when the actual assault was going on for about 5 to 7 minutes after P.W. 1 Dhananjay reached there, it must have been preceded for some minutes with pushes and blows.Therefore, it is but natural that P.W. 1 Dhananjay must have rushed to the spot.Admittedly even as per evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay, Sanjay was taken by him in the rickshaw with help of his uncle Uday.The other family members like father of Sanjay, Arun Potdar must have rushed to the hospital.In view of the 32 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc precarious condition of Sanjay, Doctor must have immediately examined him and thereafter done the paper book of recording history and filling up M.L.C. register.Once Sanjay and Somnath were declared dead, the immediate concern for P.W.1 Dhananjay was to go to the police station and lodge complaint against accused and accordingly he has rushed to the police station.As regards giving of history before Doctor or filling up M.L.C. register, it might have been done by his father and other family members.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Moreover, evidence of Defence witness Dr. Basappa Koli, proves that if patient is brought to the hospital by more than one person, then normal practice is to write the name of nearest relative, as person giving information and in such process names of all those others who had brought patient are not reduced in writing in M.L.C. register.Here in the case also when several other family members and especially father of the deceased Sanjay was very much present and when there is every possibility of P.W.1 Dhananjay rushing to the police station to lodge complaint, there is nothing unnatural if the name of his father is mentioned in the M.L.C. register as the person giving information.It is also pertinent to note that Dr. Gore, who has made entry in the M.L.C.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc register Exh.143 has been not examined due to his physical disability and Dr. Koli has admitted that he has no personal knowledge about the information made in the M. L. C. Register.Therefore, possibility of P.W.1 Dhananjay giving history cannot be ruled out.Being eldest of family, his father's name might have been mentioned in the M.L.C.As regards Investigating Officer not seizing the rickshaw in which deceased was brought, it's seizure was not necessary as rickshaw was not used for commission of the offence.About non seizure of blood stained clothes of P.W.1 Dhananjay, it can be considered as a lapse on the part of Investigating Officer.The law is well settled that if Investigating Officer has either negligently or deliberately committed lapses in investigation, then it cannot affect the credibility of the version of events given by prosecution witnesses.As held by Apex Court in case of Ram Bihari Yadav -vs- State of Bihar, A.I.R. 1998 SC 1850, "If primacy is given to a designed or negligent investigation or to the omission or lapses created as a result of faulty investigation, the faith and confidence of the people would be shaken not only in the law enforcing agency but in the administration of justice".It would amount 34 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc to playing at the hands of Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Moreover, for proving presence of a particular witness on the spot, presence of blood stains on his clothes not necessary.His evidence as to actually witnessing incident is required to be appreciated independently to see whether it has got credibility or not.The contents of F.I.R. Exh.36 in the present case gives detailed account of the incident, including names of the assailants, and gives guarantee of the fact that it was lodged by someone who has witnessed the incident personally.According to learned counsel for accused, the involvement of accused Nos. 5 and 6 in the incident is, thus, after thought and that demolishes the credibility of P.W.1 Dhananjay, as it amounts an attempt on his part to falsely implicate as many number of persons as possible.In our considered 35 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc opinion, however, considering the fact that he has honestly admitted that he has disclosed the role and involvement of accused Nos. 5 and 6 in his supplementary statement after two days, gives an inbuilt guarantee of truthfulness of this witness.Otherwise he could have stated that he has given their names, but police had not recorded them.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::It must be remembered that F.I.R. in the present case is lodged within an hour after actual gruesome and ghastly incident of murderous assault on his younger brother and friend of his younger brother.As deposed by him, he was witness to the entire incident from close quarters.Though he wanted to rescue his brother from the assault, he was not allowed to intervene and save his brother as persons gathered there had caught hold of him.One can, therefore, imagine the impact of such incident on him.In the charged and excited state of mind, he must have rushed to the police station, on coming to know about death of his brother and brother's friend.It is but natural, therefore that at that time he might have missed to mention the names and involvement of accused Nos. 5 and 6 and only after funeral, when the said incident revived in his mind, it might have occasioned to him that he failed to mention the names of two accused persons.Considering the impact of the incident, 36 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc therefore, there is nothing unnatural if the witness has disclosed about role of these persons after two days.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Moreover, absolutely nothing is brought on record to point out any reason for him to implicate accused Nos. 5 and 6 falsely as an after thought.Admittedly his relations with either of the accused or even with accused Nos.1 to 4 were not strained.The dispute was between his brother Sanjay and Somnath on one side and the accused No.1 Vijay, but not between him and any of the accused.No evidence is brought on record to that effect.Therefore, the argument advanced that accused Nos.5 and 6 are implicated subsequently and as an after thought, deserves to be rejected.When the witness is giving truthful account of the incident and also about the lapses on his part, then he should be believed instead of discarding his evidence as an improvement.Moreover, this is not a case where the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay has is not supported from other source.As stated above, prompt lodging of F.I.R., the evidence of P.W.22 Investigating Officer PI Jadhav and the various Station Diary Entries made during the course of investigation support his evidence.In addition thereto, there is 37 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc medical evidence, discussed above, which proves not only involvement of 5 to 6 persons in the simultaneous attack on two persons but also proves the use of weapons which this witness has deposed in his evidence and also in his complaint.The medical evidence supports and corroborates evidence of this witness that deceased Somnath was assaulted on his head with sickle by accused No.1 Vijay with force.His evidence that the other accused were assaulting Sanjay and Somnath with knives in their hands is also proved from the medical evidence which shows presence of several incise wounds.Thus, here the medical evidence goes hand in hand and completely fortifies the evidence of P.W.1 Dhananjay, therefore his testimony is not a stand alone evidence.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::There is also corroborating evidence about recovery of the weapons of assault, proved through testimony of P. W.20 panch Avinash Jadhav and P.W.22 PI Jadhav.These weapons were sent to Chemical Analyzer and as per Chemical Analyzer's reports Exh.121 to 133, human blood stains were 38 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc found thereon.Though the results of blood grouping may be inconclusive, but presence of human blood on the weapons of assault definitely gives corroboration to the case of prosecution, as deposed by P.W.1 Dhananjay.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::These extracts go to prove that First Information of the incident was received in police station at 11.20 a.m. to the effect that some fight was going on at Tiwari Galli, hence police force was despatched to the spot.Second entry is made in Station Diary at 11.55 a.m. to the effect that C.M. O. Dr. Mahadeo Gore, informed that patients namely Sanjay and Somnath were brought to the hospital and father of Sanjay stated that at Panchmukhi Maruti Building, near Allopathic Dispensary, Sanjay was assaulted and died on the spot and Somnath was brought in injured condition around 11.45 a.m. and died at 11.50 a.m.. Third entry made at the same time shows that this information was given to P.W.22 PI Jadhav.The fourth 39 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc entry is made at 12.05 p.m. to the effect that API Shinde who had rushed to spot at 11.20 a.m., reported that on reaching the spot, he became aware of the fact that Sanjay and Somnath had been killed by accused No.1 Vijay Pawar and his friends and the victims had been taken to Civil Hospital before API Shinde reach to the spot.Last Station Diary Entry is made at 12.20 p.m. about registration of the F.I.R. at Exh.36 on the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.1 Dhananjay.Hence according to learned counsel for the accused, complaint lodged by P.W.1 at Exh.36 cannot be called as real F.I.R.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::In our opinion, this contention advanced by learned counsel for accused also fails as it has now become crystallized position of law that the cryptic information as to commission of offence given to police by wireless message or on telephone, not disclosing sufficiently nature of the offence, the names of assailants, the manner in which incident occurred, cannot be treated as F.I.R. The F.I.R. must be of such nature which will enable the police to set investigation machinery in process.Mere information of the occurrence of some incident cannot be called as an F.I.R. In the instant case, the Station Diary Entries, as noted above, do not give details of the incident or the names of all the assailants and 40 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc hence it has to be held that real F.I.R. of the incident is the complaint Exh.36 lodged by P.W.1 Dhananjay.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::Thus, on reappreciation of entire evidence on record in the light of the submissions advanced by defence counsels, we are of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.1 Dhanajay is completely reliable, it is thoroughly consistent, cogent and trust-worthy and hence we have no hesitation at all in placing reliance on him.His evidence also gets sufficient corroboration from medical evidence and the recovery of weapons and entire facts and circumstances of the case.The trial Court has considered and properly appreciated all these different shades and aspects of the evidence, as brought on record by prosecution and found prosecution case to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.On entire re-appreciation of evidence on record, we also do not find any reason to take a view which can be different from the view taken by the trial Court.The appeals, therefore, hold no merit and hence stand dismissed, confirming conviction and sentence of the appellant Nos. 2 to 6, for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::As regards accused No.5 Amit @ Bandya and accused No.6, Rohit Chavan, who are on bail, their bail bonds stand cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the trial Court within 12 weeks from the date of passing this order, for undergoing the remaining part of their sentence, failing which the learned trial Court to take steps to arrest them to undergo the remaining sentence.[ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.] [DR.SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 42 ::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 ::: OJ APPEAL 1102-G.doc CERTIFICATE Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed judgment.::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/12/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2015 23:58:51 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
518,111 |
Shorn of details, the prosecution case was as under:For about a year and a half she lived in her matrimonial home in village Rajkhola within police station Panchla.Thereafter, following an estrangement between them, she left her matrimonial home and started living with her mother in the village.Towards the latter part of Aug. 1979 there was village salish at the instance of the appellant to settle the controversy between him and his wife and it was decided in the salish that Manwara's mother would send her back to the appellant's house on condition that she would not be asked to do any work of Jari (lace) but would simply do household work.On the night of Sept. 6, 1979 Manwara and her husband slept together in a room of the house.On the following morning she was found lying dead inside the room with her tongue protruded and marks of small round burn injuries on her face, nose, feet and other parts of the body.As pointed out already Sujat Ali (P.W. 9) is the father of Haliman Bibi.His evidence was that on the night of occurrence he came to village Rajkhola from Panchla to see his daughter.According to him, sometime between 10 and 11 A.M. he, Rafiq and Rafiq's father took their meals together, served by Manwara.After taking their meals while he was having talks with Rafiq's father the appellant and Manwara entered the appellant's room and bolted the door from within.At that time she was pregnant.She suddenly went away.I decided to do away with her., So, I pressed her wind pipe with one hand and her mouth with the other hand.After a while, her body became cool.I shook her body and found her to be dead.JUDGMENT Sankar Bhattacharyya, J.Getting the news of her death the villagers came there and on interrogation, the appellant confessed before them that he committed the murder of the wife by strangulation.He further confessed that he caused the burn injuries with the blunt side of the heated needle used for lace work.The appellant was thereafter detained by the villagers while Sk.Babulal (P.W. 1), uncle of Manwara, went to the Panchla Police Station and lodged the first information report at 10.30 a.m. On the basis of the first information report the police registered a case of murder, took up investigation and arrested the appellant.After his production in court, the appellant made a judicial confession before a learned Magistrate to the effect that he had murdered his wife.On completion of the investigation the police submitted charge-sheet which, in the course, ended in committal of the case to the court of session.The defence of the appellant was that he was not in his house on the night of occurrence and was falsely implicated in the case.The prosecution examined all told 20 witnesses in support of its case, while the defence examined none.The murder of Manwara is not challanged before us and has also been proved by overwhelming evidence.Babulal (P.W. 1), Haliman Bibi (P.W. 2), Sarifan Bibi (P.W. 3), Sahadat (P.W.4) Sohorab (P.W. 6), Janab Ali (P.W. 7), Yasin Ali (P.W. 11) and Asgar Ali (P.W. 12) saw the dead body of Manwara lying on a mat inside the appellant's room with her tongue protruded and small round burn marks on different parts of her body.The autopsy on the dead body was conducted by Dr. S. N. Roy (P.W. 17), the then Sub-divisional Medical Officer of the Uluberia Hospital.He found the deceased's eyes open and protruding, the tongue protruding and small round burn injuries on the face, chest wall, nose and feet.Both the nostrils were found blocked with small pieces of cloth.There were marks of bleeding through the nostrils and one small abrasion was found on the chin.On dissection the uterus was found to contain a full term dead female child.In the opinion of Dr. Roy, death was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling which was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.The viscera was preserved and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratories but on chemical examination no poison could be detected in the viscera.Though Dr. Roy was cross-examined at some length, nothing tangible could be elicited from his cross-examination to show that the opinion given by him as regards the cause of death of Manwara suffers from any infirmity or is otherwise unacceptable.The evidence of Dr. Roy, therefore, leaves no room for doubt that this was a case of outright and give some murder.(i) the marriage between the appellant and Manwara deceased turned out to be unhappy and about a year and a half after the marriage she had to leave her matrimonial home and go back to her mother's house where she stayed for another year and a half;(ii) at the instance of the appellant there was a village salish and in accordance with the decision arrived at the salish, she came back to the appellant's house about 13 days before the date of occurrence;(iii) on the night of 5-9-79 both she and the appellant slept together in the same room after bolting the door from within;(iv) on the following morning, at or about 6.30 a.m., her dead body was found inside the room;(v) on post-mortem examination of the dead body, the autopsy surgeon expressed the opinion that death was due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and was ante-mortem and homicidal in nature;(vi) the conduct of the appellant after the discovery of the dead body was found to be unnatural;(vii) the appellant made an extra judicial confession before his neighbours shortly after the discovery of the dead body to the effect that he had committed the murder of his wife;(viii) after his production in court, the appellant also made a judicial confession to the above effect which was recorded by a judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cri.It is settled law that in cases in which the evidence is purely of a circumstantial nature, the facts and circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt of the accused is to be drawn must not only be fully established beyond any reasonable doubt and the facts and circumstances should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but they must be in their effect entirely incompatible with the innocence of the accused and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.We now advert to the evidence presented during the trial to see whether the facts and circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have been established beyond any reasonable doubt and, if so, whether they are such as cannot be explained on any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.There seems to be no controversy that about a year and a half after the marriage between the appellant and Manwara.the relation between then became embittered as a result of which, she left her matrimonial home and started living with her mother in the same village.This fact was deposed to by the informant Sk.Babulal (P.W. 1), uncle of the deceased and a resident of the same village.According to him, Manwara and the appellant were not on good terms and there were frequent bickerings between them which compelled her to leave her matrimonial home and take shelter in the house of her mother Oliman Bibi.The above evidence finds corroboration from Haliman Bibi (P.W. 2) wife of Rafiq, the elder brother of the appellant.She stated in her evidence that the appellant and Manwara lived peacefully for about a year and a half after the marriage but thereafter the appellant started torturing her and her mother had to take her away to her house.Though Sk.Babulal and Haliman Bibi were cross-examined by the defence their evidence on the above point remained unchallenged.That apart, it was elicited from the cross-examination of Sk.Babulal (P.W. 1) that although the parents of the appellant wanted the appellant to lead a happy conjugal life with Manwara, the appellant did not want it.The prosecution case about the salish to settle the dispute between the couple was also not challenged by the defence.Anwar Ali (P.W. 13), Noor Ali (P.W. 14) and Sahajamal (P.W. 15) were members of the salish and it appears from the evidence of Anwar (P.W. 13) that it was decided in the salish that Manwara would be sent back to the appellant's house but she would not be asked to do any work except household work.It further appears from the evidence of the aforementioned witnesses that even after the salish Manwara was not sent to her husband's house and the matter was brought to their notice by the parents of the appellant.When the parents of Manwara were asked why they were not sending her to her husband's house they expressed apprehension of danger to her life.Any way, she was ultimately sent to the appellant's house about 13 days before the date of occurrence (vide evidence of Haliman Bibi (P.W. 2)).From the cross-examination of the above witnesses it is seen that Manwara herself was hot present in the salish but her parents who were present complained of ill treatment and torture of their daughter by the appellant.We have carefully gone through their evidence but find nothing to doubt their credibility.The first and the second circumstances relied upon by the prosecution have therefore been proved beyond the slightest shadow of doubt.As regards the third circumstance, we may first of all refer to the evidence of the informent Sk.Babulal who, as pointed out already, happens to be the uncle of the deceased.His house and the appellant's house are situated in the same quartar of the same village.He deposed to the effect that the appellant and Manwara used to occupy one roam, while the appellant's elder brother Rafiq and his wife Haliman Bibi used to occupy another room of their house.According to Haliman Bibi (P.W. 2) the house consisted of two rooms and a covered verandah.While she and her husband used to occupy one room, the other room was in occupation of the appellant and his wife and the covered verandah was in the occupation of her father-in-law and brother-in-law.This evidence, it may be mentioned, was not even challenged in cross-examination.It next appears from the evidence of Haliman Bibi (P.W. 2) that after taking their meals on the night of occurrence the appellant and Manwara slept in one room after closing the door, while she and her husband slept in the adjacent room separated by a wall.It is also seen from her evidence that before going to bed, Manwara served food to her father-in-law and another relative who visited their house on that night.On the next morning she was awakened by the voice of the appellant who was asking his aunt Sarifan Bibi (P.W. 3) to enquire why the "daughters of rich men" (meaning herself and the deceased) had not left their beds.Hearing this, she and Sarifan Bibi entered the appellant's room and found to their hotter that Manwara was lying dead on a chatai(mat) on the floor of the room.In cross-examination Haliman Bibi stated that although Manwara came to their house about 13 days before the date of occurrence, the appellant did not sleep with her except on the night of occurrence.But the suggestion that the appellant did not sleep with his wife even on the night of occurrence was, stoutly derided by her.She also denied the suggestion that the appellant was not in his house on that night and returned home on the following morning,The evidence of Halimdn Bibi has seen assailed by Mr. Maitra, learned defence counsel on a number of grounds which we shall presently discuss.The first ground urged before us is that she was given talaq at or about 11 A.M. on the very day on which the dead body of Manwara was discovered.It transpires from the evidence of Sujat Ali (P.W. 9), father of Haliman Bibi, that Rafiq was a highly ill tempered person who used to assault Haliman frequently.Once he assaulted her even in his presence.According to him the talaq was given as the relation between his daughter and son-in-law was very bad.In cross-examination it was not even suggested to Haliman Bibi that she had any animus against the appellant as his elder brother Rafiq had given her talaq.The only suggestion given to her was that she was deposing falsely against the appellant as she was related to Manwara.The relationship is not disputed because it is seen from the evidence of sujat (P.W. 9) that Aliraan Bibi, mother of Manwara, happens to be his sister.In other words, Manwara was cousin of Haliman.We are, however, not prepared to accept the position that merely because of this relationship she would go to the extent of falsely implicating her brother-in-law with whom she had no quarrel, on a grave charge of murder.On the contrary, we are inclined to think that she is a natural and probable witness as she, Manwara and the appellant lived in two adjoining rooms of the same house.It would appear from the evidence of the Investigating Officer (P.W. 19) that after recording the first information report at 10.30 A.M. he left for the scene of the crime.Reaching there at 12.25 A.M. he made inquest on the dead body of Manwara and examined, amongst others, Haliman Bibi.Thereafter, he arrested the appellant and brought him to the police station.We think it to be too obvious to point out that the statements made by Haliman to the Investigating Officer which incriminated the appellant incensed his elder brother Rafiq and was the immediate cause for the talaq.The next ground of attack is that in her evidence Haliman tried to attribute a motive to the appellant for the murder of Manwara which she did not mention before the Investigating Officer.Haliman stated during trial that when Manwara came back from her mother's house she heard the appellent saying "now I have brought you and got you within my clutches." She, however, herself conceded in cross-examination that she did not make any such statement before the Investigating Officer.Another motive sought to be attributed by her to the appellant for the murder of Manwara is that the appellant had an intrigues with a girl of the village.In this context we may refer to the evidence of Sarif an Bibi (P. W. 3), aunt of the appellant, who fully corroborated Haliman Bibi as regards the last part of her evidence relating to the discovery of the dead body of Manwara.She said that in the morning of the date of occurrence the appellant called her and asked her to see what had happened to Manwara.At this, she went inside the appellant's room and found Manwara lying dead with Haliman sitting by her side.Sarifan further corroborated the evidence of Haliman that there are three rooms in the house of the appellant's father one of which was occupied by the appellant, the other room was occupied by his brother Rafiq and the third one was occupied by their father.It should be pointed out that there is a slight discrepancy between the evidence of Haliman Bibi and Sarifan Bibi in that while according to Haliman Bibi she and Sarifan Bibi, when she went inside the appellant's room she found Haliman Bibi sitting there, The discrepancy, however, appears to us to be of no moment at all and, at any rate, does not impeach the credibility of the witnesses.His daughter Haliman and son-in-law Rafiq also went to sleep in the other room.He then left the house of Rafiq and went to the house of his sister Aliman Bibi where he spent the night.On the next morning, getting the news of Manwara's death he went to the house of Rafiq's father.In view of the evidence discussed above, we find no reason to discard as untrue the prosecution case that on the night of occurrence the appellant and Manwara slept in the same room after bolting the door from within and in the following morning Manwara's dead body was found lying on a chatai (mat) on the floor of the room with her tongue and eyes protruding and blood oozing out of her nostrils.We have discussed already at some length the evidence of the autopsy surgeon which indicates beyond the slightest trace of doubt that Manwara was murdered by strangulation and we do not wish to dilate on the subject any more.As regards the conduct of the appellant it is seen from the evidence that even after Manwara was found to be dead he did not raise any hue and cry which was quite natural for a husband whose wife was found murdered.That apart, in the morning at about 5 A.M. he stealthly left the house and went to the house of Sk.Asgar Ali (P.W. 12) of the village to ask for some Jari work.At that time it was noticed by Asgar Ali and his brother Janab Ali (P.W. 7) that his eyes were red and his behaviour was somewhat abnormal.It further appears that the appellant went to the tea stall of Ejad Bux alias Kalo Babu (P.W. 8) and had tea and biscuits there.Thereafter he came back his house and asked his aunt to see what has happened to his wife.Had he cared to go inside the room the door of which was open, he could have himself seen what had happened and there could be no point in his asking his aunt to see what had happened to his wife.At the top of everything, he did not even wait to see what had actually happened to his wife because it is seen from the evidence of Sarifan Bibi that the appellant was not seen after she came out of the room.The conduct of the appellant, therefore, reveals that knowing well that his wife had been murdered he feigned ignorance of the murder and wanted someone else to break the news of murder.First of all, we may point out that the informant Sk.Babulal said nothing in his evidence about the alleged confession nor did he make any mention of it in the first information report which was lodged at 10.30 A.M. It is, however, seen from his evidence that as soon as the news of Manwara's death spread, the villagers came to the appellant's house and surrounded him accusing him of the murder of his wife.This would also appear from the evidence of sahadat (P.W. 4) which goes to show that the villagers kept the appellant in confinement till the arrival of the police.It will be further seen from the evidence that the appellant was taken to different places by the mob and was assaulted by some of them.In such circumstance the confession, if any, can never be said to be voluntary and, that being the position we need not enter into the further question whether it was true.We, therefore, leave the matter at that.The next and the most material piece of evidence for the prosecution is the judicial confession of the appellant which was recorded by a learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 164, Cri.P.C. The order sheet of the Magistrate's court indicates that the appellant was produced before him from police custody on 8-9-79 along with a prayer by the Investigating Officer for recording his confession.On 10-9-79 after the appellant's production in court, the learned Magistrate again administered due caution to him.The appellant, however, though sufficiently cautioned, insisted upon making the confession and the learned Magistrate after reaching his satisfaction that the appellant was going to make the confession voluntarily, proceeded .to record his statement.The confessional statement which was recorded by the learned Magistrate in his chamber has been marked Ext. 3 by the court below.On an examination of the document we find that the learned Magistrate first of all disclosed to the appellant that he was a judicial Magistrate and not a police officer.He then enquired of the appellant whether he was going to make the confession out of his own free will or at the tutoring of anyone, whether anybody had told him that he would be acquitted if he made the confession, whether anybody had told him that he would be harmed if he did not make the confession and whether anybody had compelled him to make the confession.It was also clearly explained to the appellant that he would not be remanded to police custody again even if he declined to confess, that if he made a confession but subsequently retracted it, it might not be of any help to him, that if he made any confession it might be used in evidence against him and on the basis of such confession, even capital sentence might be awarded to him.The learned Magistrate further enquired of him whether he was kept in segregation after his remand to judicial custody and whether, during this period, any outsider had met him.The learned Magistrate also pointedly asked the appellant whether he still wanted to make the confession after understanding its consequences to which the appellant replied that he wanted to confess out of repentence so that the soul of his deceased wife might find peace.For proper appreciation of the position we give below the English rendering of the confessional statement of the appellant, as recorded by the learned Magistrate.I was married a little over two years.After the marriage I came to know that she had intrigues with her next door neighbour but I did not see anything with my own eyes.Her mother's intention was to earn money by getting work of lace done by her.She did not care me properly.Be that as it may, I somehow carried on.In this way my wife went to her mother's house two to three times.A few days before this incident my wife went away.I sent my mother to bring her but she did not come.I also went personally but she did not come.They were under the impression that I would marry elsewhere.But, swearing by the name of Allah, I say that I never had any such intention.I informed the villagers.I also undertook not to get any work of lace done by my wife.I could not tolerate the idea that sitting with other male persons my wife would do work of lace in her mother's house.Later on, after negotiations between my father, father-in-law and uncle, my wife came.After a few days my Fufu (father's sister) came.She said to me 'well you are leading a very happy conjugal life'.I told her that this was possible due to my efforts and I had much affection for her as she was bearing my child in her womb.My wife retorted 'so much affection for the child? false'.I said' I will give you a blow.Ask Bubu (my friend) how often I speak about my child.' My wife became angry.She retired to bed within 7.30 P.M. after taking her meal.She became angry as I disclosed the ill feeling between my elder brother and sister-in-law on the one hand and the family of the father of my sister-in-law on the other.At or about 11 P.M. I "went inside the room, closed the door and wanted food from my wife.She said that food had been kept for me.After taking food I lay down and asked my wife what had happened.She replied that she was indisposed.Thereafter she said that she would punish me by going to her father's house on the next day.I tried to make her understand but she did not.I then thought that in that event 1 would be punished tomorrow.If anyone said anything against me then my uncle-in-law would demand Rs. 1,000/- from me on account of Denmohar (dower).They would further demand return of articles.At that time I noticed one bleeding wound and two other marks on her chin.I wiped off the blood and to remove the scar marks scorched the sites by applying the revet of a shoe which was fixed to the blunt side of my needle after heating it in the light of the lamp.But instead of producing blisters, it produced blackish spots.In the same way, I scorched other parts of her face, hand and feet.The string on one side of the mosquito curtain got untied.I tied it up again and sometimes sat, sometimes lay down.I did this act between 2 and 2.30 A.M. Thereafter, during the whole night, I kept sitting and wept.Early in the morning I went to the tea stall and had tea and biscuits.At that time 1 happened to meet one of the sons of my uncle-in-law.I had also a talk with him about my work.Returning home I found that my elder brother, sister-in-law, father and mother had not yet left their beds.They brought me before the villagers and told them that I had murdered my wife.The villagers then assaulted me.They also assaulted my elder brother and my blind father.The appellant will be entitled to set off under Section 428, Cri.J.N. Hore, J.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
518,123 |
ORDER M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.By this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 6.3.1998 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 37/97 confirming the order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for framing charges under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC against the petitioner.A Maruti Gypsy bearing registration No. DDV 8538 driven by the petitioner came from behind and hit the scooter causing the death of Pooja and injuries to Smt. Kanchan.According to the prosecution case, the alleged incident took place because of the rash and negligent driving of the said Gypsy by the petitioner.The report of the alleged incident was lodged by Surinder Malhotra.Investigation thereafter followed and the petitioner was put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC.The learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after considering requisite documents, explained particulars of the offences to the petitioner in the form of charges under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC.Not satisfied with this order of dismissal of the revision, the petitioner has come up before this Court under Section 482 Cr.It is significant to mention that by this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 10.2.1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate for framing charges under Sections 279/338/304-A IPC and the order dated 6.3.1998 passed by the learned Addtional Sessions Judge in revision petition No. 37/97 confirming the said order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate.Sub-section (3) to Section 397 Cr.P.C. bars the second revision.Ram Shree ).
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,818,574 |
( 29.08.2018)This revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.By the impugned order learned lower Court dismissed the application of the applicant filed for bail under Section 9 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (in short "Act 2015" hereinafter).-2- Cr.R. No.2943/2018 before the CJM, Singrauli on 09.02.2018 after his arrest in Crime No.81/2018, registered at Police Station Waidhan under Sections 363, 366- A, 376(2) of IPC, Section 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST Act and Section 4/6 of POCSO Act. CJM remanded the applicant into judicial custody and remand paper transmitted to the Sessions Court.On 23.02.2018 the accused was produced before the Sessions Judge / Special Judge, Singrauli.On 26.02.2018, an application under Section 9 of the Act, 2015 was filed on behalf of the applicant and in that application it was stated that the applicant has not completed the age of 18 years.The mark-sheet of class-Ist, issued by the Indian Children Academy School, Ganiyari Road, Waidhan, was also filed alongwith aforesaid application.On 26.03.2018, the challan was filed and Special Case No.20/2018 was registered.On 03.04.2010 the prosecution also examined witness Manish Tripathi.On 28.04.2018, the order impugned has been passed.5 Cr.R. No.2943/2018
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,821,056 |
Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history and there is no possibility of fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the witnesses and in case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail.The applicant has been in jail since 13.08.2020, hence, he is entitled to bail.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record of the present bail application.The present bail application has been filed by the applicant Anil with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case Crime No. 333 of 2020, under Sections 452, 354-Ka, 354-Kha, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 (a) I.T. Act, Police Station Shahbad, District Rampur.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case.Submission is that the photographs which have been alleged to have taken by the accused persons were taken, two years before the date of lodging of the first information report and for the same, no complaint was made from the side of informant.Subsequently, after two years when the marriage of the victim was settled, the alleged photographs which were taken by the accused persons were made viral on whatsapp and communicated to the would be husband of the victim.Consequently, the marriage settlement was broken and the first information report was lodged.Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of bail to the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.It has also been submitted that after investigation, the police has submitted charge sheet in the matter.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perusing the material on record as well as the fact that the alleged grievance appears to be that the marriage which was likely to be solemnized has been disturbed and broken, without expressing any opinion on merit of the case, let the applicant involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:-(i) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity.(ii) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,821,615 |
Defence counsel submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case.In no way they are involved in the alleged offence.F.I.R. has been filed against some unknown persons.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
51,823,004 |
Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after investigation is complete vide order dated 13.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 14170/2018 and second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after mater i al prosecution witnesses are examined vide order dated 27.04.2018 passed in M.Cr.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks parity with the order dated 06.07.2018 passed in M.Cr.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE shanu* SHANU RAIKWAR 2018.07.12 11:01:53 +05'30' 11.0.8
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,156,007 |
on 22.05.1993, she died an unfortunate unnatural death.Her body wasrecovered on 22.05.1993 at 4 p.m. from a well.It was cremated on thatday.As per his statement, it is he and his wife (PW-2) who brought upLaxmi.PW-1 also statedin his complaint that at the time of her marriage, there were negotiationswherein the appellant and her parents had demanded a cash of Rs.5,000/- andcertain gold ornaments.PW-1 could arrange Rs.2,000/- cash only at thattime which was given by him in dowry at the time of marriage alongwithcertain gold ornaments, clothes and other articles.However, since theywere not able to pay the balance of Rs.3,000/-, Laxmi was harassed andtortured, mentally and physically, because of non-fulfillment of dowrydemand and was asked repeatedly to bring the balance of Rs.3,000/- whichwas due towards dowry amount.Laxmi had intimated about this demand andharassment to her to PW-1 and PW-2 whenever she visited her parental house.In spite of their best efforts, they could not comply with the saiddemand.Few days before the fateful day, when she had come to her parentshouse, PW-1 and PW-2 sent her back to her matrimonial home by convincingher that they would pay the requisite amount soon after harvest of thecrops.It was further alleged that five days before her death, Laxmi hadcomplained about ill-treatment and harassment to her at the hands of theappellant and his parents.However, on 22.05.1993 between 10.00 a.m. to12.30 p.m., the maternal uncle was informed of the death of the deceaseddue to drowning in a well belonging to one Bylappa.Her parents were alsoinformed of the said unnatural death of the deceased.According to theinformant, they did not accept the theory of accidental fall into the wellwhen deceased went to wash the clothes, as set up by the appellant and thatthe accused persons after doing away with her life, had thrown her into thewell.It was also alleged that before they could reach the village ofaccused, the dead body of deceased Laxmi was cremated and they did not havean opportunity of seeing her face before she was cremated.(4) PW-1 in his complaint had stated that prior to the marriage,discussions were held wherein accused No.1 (father of the appellant) haddemanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- cash and ornaments.However, PW-8, Police Sub-Inspector who received the complaint, admitted in his cross-examinationthat this fact was not mentioned in the complaint (Ex.P/1).He alsoadmitted that in the complaint, it was also not mentioned that PW-1 wouldpay the remaining dowry after few days.(5) The trial court disbelieved the statement of PW-1 regarding payment ofRs.2,000/- and ornaments etc. because of the reason that he had stated inhis cross-examination that he had got 3 acres of land which is dry land andhe has to maintain his family from his income with no other source ofincome.Therefore, he was not capable of giving the aforesaid money andornaments.(6) The trial court further noted that as per PW-1 and PW-3, Laxmi wasvery beautiful girl and that was the reason the appellant married Laxmi ashe got attracted by her beauty.PW-1 and PW-3 also admitted that theaccused persons had incurred the marriage expenses and the marriage wasalso performed at the residence of the accused/appellant.(7) The P.W.1 Mariyappa in his cross-examination stated that, he had givencash and ornaments to the bride and bride groom as per the customs in theircommunity.In his examination-in-chief he stated that, the 2nd accusedVenkatappa demanded the dowry.The 2nd accused had died.On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, a case was registeredagainst the husband (appellant herein), father-in-law, mother-in-law andbrother-in-law of the deceased Laxmi.No doubt, the initial complaint byMariyappa (PW-1) was to the effect that the accused persons murdered Laxmiand then threw her into the well and also led the evidence of such crime todisappear by burning the dead body much prior to the approval of maternaluncle and parents of the deceased.However, after investigation, thechargesheet was filed only for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') read withSections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. During trial, mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased passed away.Brother-in-law ofthe deceased, being a minor, was sent to Juvenile Offenders' Court.Thus,only the appellant was tried for the aforesaid change.The prosecution examined 9 witnesses and 4 exhibits were marked.After the conclusion of trial, arguments were heard bythe learned Additional Sessions Judge who returned his verdict videjudgment dated 24.08.2001 acquitting the appellant of the charges with thefindings that prosecution was not able to prove the guilt of the appellantbeyond reasonable doubt.The State challenged the judgment of acquittal byfiling the appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. in the High Court ofKarnataka.After re-appreciating the entire evidence on record, the HighCourt has come to the conclusion that the appellant was in fact guilty ofoffence punishable under Sections 3 & 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act as well asunder Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 IPC.The judgment and order ofacquittal of trial court is, thereby, set aside by the High Courtpronouncing the following sentences on the appellant under the aforesaidprovisions:βHaving regarding to the facts and circumstances of this case, weimpose a sentence of five year of rigorous imprisonment and also minimumfine of Rs.15,000/- for the offence punishable u/s 3 of the DowryProhibition Act, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periodof six months.So far as offence u/s 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned,the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6months and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonmentfor a period of three months.So far as offence u/s 498-A IPC is concerned, the accused issentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-,in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.So far as Sec.304-B IPC, the accused shall undergo minimum sentenceof seven years rigorous imprisonment.Though the parents of the deceased were informed, it is also not in disputethat no postmortem was sought on the dead body of the deceased.Theappellant has also accepted the fact that as per the prevalent custom inthe community of the appellant as well as the complainant, dead bodies areburied.However, in the present case, deceased Laxmi was cremated.There is, however, some dispute about the presence of the parents ofthe deceased at the time of cremation.As per the prosecution, Laxmi wascremated before the parents or maternal uncle/aunt of the deceased couldreach the place of the appellant.On the other hand, the appellantmaintains that they had reached well in time and she was not only crematedin their presence but it was with their concurrence that the body wascremated and not buried.The persistent and consistent defence put up by the appellant wasthat it was an accidental death which occurred when Laxmi had gone to thewell to wash the clothes at about 8.00 a.m. on 22.05.1993 as she fell intothe well accidentally.As per the defence due to this fall, the cause ofdeath was asphyxia as a result of drowning.It was also the defence ofthe appellant that though, as per the customs in their community the deadbodies are buried, it was decided to cremate Laxmi because of unnaturaldeath and this decision was taken on the persuasion of the parents of thedeceased themselves.The defence had also taken a stand that theappellant and his family even wanted to inform the Police about theincident but her parents did not agree to the same.In so far asallegations of demand of dowry by the appellant and his family areconcerned, there was a complete denial on the part of the accused persons.A perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court would reflectthat it framed the following questions which had arisen for consideration:β(1) Whether the prosecutor has proved that, the accused No.1 whilemarrying with deceased Lakshmamma has demanded dowry from her parents for asum of Rupees Five Thousand and the ornaments and accordingly they hadgiven ornaments and cash of Rupees Two thousand as dowry, but he has notsummoned the same either to Lakshmamma or to her parents and thus committedan offence punishable under section 3, 4 and 6 of Dowry Prevention Act ?(2) Whether the Prosecutor has proved that, after the marriage Lakshmammastarted marital life with 1st accused, the first accused demanding his wifeLakshmamma to bring the remaining dowry amount of Rupees Three Thousandfrom her parents and started giving pinpricks and thus committed an offencepunishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code?(3) Whether the prosecutor has proved that, the 1st accused was givingmore pinpricks to his deceased wife and on that reason on 22.05.1993 shehas committed suicide.Hence he has committed an offence punishable undersection 304 (B) of Indian Penal Code?He in hisexamination-in-chief had not stated about dowry demand by the appellant.To the same effect is the testimony of PW-2, wife of PW-1 who categoricallystated that there was a custom of giving silver and gold ornaments andclothes; the ornaments given were got prepared much prior to the marriageof Laxmi; the alleged demand of dowry was made by the parents of groom andhis brother i.e. accused Nos. 2 to 4 and did not state about the demand ofdowry by the appellant.Even, PW-3, natural mother of Laxmi deposed on theidentical lines in respect of the dowry demand.On that basis, the trial court arrived at the conclusion that in theabsence of any evidence, oral or documentary, the chances are that whatevercash, clothes or ornaments were given at the time of marriage, was as perthe prevailing customs in the community and it was not the result of anydemand made by the appellant.In so far as question Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, they were taken uptogether by the trial court.In the first instance, the trial courtpointed out that though the complainant got the information about the deathof Laxmi on 22nd May, 1993, he lodged delayed complaint on 26th May, 1993i.e.four days thereafter.From the statement of PW-1 in the cross-examination that Laxmi was staying in her matrimonial house and visited herparental house 5-6 times alongwith her husband and even stayed there withher husband for some days and also from the admission of PW-1 that eventhey were visiting matrimonial house of Laxmi and had visited her house for5-6 times within a span of six months, the trial court observed that it wasan indication that the relationship of husband and wife was cordial andwith mutual love towards each other.Even, PW-2 and PW-3 had admittedthese facts in their cross-examination.The trial court further observedthat when the giving of dowry on the demand of the accused persons was notestablished, it was not possible to believe that they were demanding thealleged remaining dowry amount of Rs.3,000/- and giving pinpricks to herfor not fulfilling the said demand.According to the trial court, it wassignificant that PW-3 who is the natural mother of the deceased did noteven state that Laxmi was being harassed for not bringing the balance dowryamount.She had rather admitted that her daughter was happy for the firstthree months and also accepted in her cross-examination that she had nottold the Police about living peaceful life only for three months.She alsoadmitted that she never told the Police about giving of dowry of Rs.2,000/-and demand of balance amount which remained unpaid.The trial courtanalysed the testimony of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 on this aspect and pointedout that the allegation of demand of dowry could not be proved from theirtestimony either.The discussion on this aspect is concluded in thefollowing manner:β(27) After the marriage during the period of 6 months it was notmentioned in the complaint that the accused have assaulted Lakshmammaphysically and thrown out of the house nor stated the same before thecourt.Neither the villagers wherein the accused are residing nor theirneighbors have given any evidence before the court about pinpricks metedout to her.As against which D.W.1 Ramakrishnappa, aged 56 years, saidthat, from the beginning till the death of Lakshamma the accused personslooked after here well and not given any pinpricks to her, he further toldthat on that day she came to well for washing the cloth and due to slip ofher leg she fell in the well and he came to know about the same.In hiscross-examination no other statement was given on behalf of prosecution.(28) It is an arranged marriage in the presence of elders, in the event ofgiving any pinpricks about dowry harassment, this matter would have beenbrought to the notice of elders and convene a panchayath.But it neverrevealed anywhere about conveying the panchayath.Hence it is hereby seenthat the accused or her husband had not given pinpricks either in thematter of dowry or in any other matter.It cannot be said that she hascommitted for the said reason.Hence I answer both the questionsNegatively.βThe aforesaid was the raison d'etre which led to the acquittal of theappellant by the trial court.The High Court has, however, given adifferent glance to the entire matter.According to it, the aforesaidapproach of the trial court was erroneous in law as well as in appreciationof the evidence on record.After taking note of the fact that Laxmi diedwithin six months of her marriage and it was an unnatural death, the HighCourt has lamented on the conduct of the appellant and has arrived at theconclusion that it was the appellant who was responsible for the death ofLaxmi and found him guilty of offence under Section 304-B of IPC.The HighCourt has also accepted the version of the prosecution that Laxmi washarassed and humiliated on account of non fulfillment of the demand ofdowry made by the appellant and, therefore, presumption under Section 113-Bof the Evidence Act was attracted.As per the High Court, the appellanthas not been able to lead any satisfactory evidence to dislodge thispresumption.The infirmities found in the depositions of PW-1 to PW-5 bythe trial court have been brushed aside and discarded by the High Court asirrelevant and perverse.The High Court held that it would be impossibleto expect any party to the marriage talks to keep a record of demand andpayment of dowry as if it was a commercial transaction and, therefore, theabsence of documentary evidence in this regard should not have weighed withthe trial court.The High Court also observed that there was no admissionmade by PW-1 that even without the alleged demand of dowry, he would havegiven customary articles like clothes and ornaments and no such customarypractice was indicated.The finding of the trial court that the case ofthe prosecution regarding demand and payment of dowry was not proved in theabsence of anyone from the village of the accused is also brushed aside byobserving that such a demand and payment would not be made public inasmuchas such talks would be within closed doors and would be within theknowledge of the parties to the marriage and kith and kin of the bride andbridegroom.Further, apart from PW-1 to PW-3, PW-4, who is the neighbourof PW-1 and PW-2, supported the version of the demand of dowry and theharassment of Laxmi at the hands of the appellant and his family members.Due to the aforesaid divergent and conflicting outcome of theproceedings in the two courts below, we have gone through the testimony ofthese witnesses.We have eschewed and discarded these reasons assigned by the trial court.At the same time, it is necessary to find out as to whether the evidence ofthese witnesses (PW-1 to PW-3) is worthy of credence, on this aspect.They also accept the fact that they had reached theplace of occurrence.Body of the deceased was cremated on 22.05.1993.There is some dispute as to whether these persons were present at the timeof cremation.According to them, deceased was cremated before they reachedthe village of the appellant.To falsify this position taken by theprosecution through these witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellanthad taken us to the evidence of PW-8 who had drawn Mahazar near the well.It is also a matter of record that a specific suggestion was made to PW-3(mother of the deceased) in the cross-examination to the effect that it isshe who had pointed out the place of the dead body lying near the well tothe Police personnel.The version of PW-1 to PW-3 that they reached thevillage of the appellant after Laxmi had already been cremated, does notinspire confidence and appears to be mendacious.It would mean that when maternal uncle or aunt as well asmother of Laxmi were present and had seen the dead body lying at the spot,they objected to the body being cremated.They also wanted Police to beinformed.If it was so, why they did not put up any resistance? We have tokeep in mind that these family members of Laxmi have come out with theallegation that Laxmi was harassed as well as mentally and physicallytortured because of non fulfillment of dowry demand.In this backdrop, the testimony of these witnesses allegingdowry demand has to be tested more stringently and with some caution.The prosecution also could not establish that anydowry articles were given at the time of marriage.On the contrary, it isaccepted by these witnesses that the appellant had asked for the hand ofLaxmi because of her beauty by which he was attracted.At the same time, this circumstance whenseen with all other attendant factors surfacing on the record of this case,makes it somewhat difficult to swallow the prosecution version that therewould be a demand of dowry as a precondition for marriage.Other attendantcircumstances also negate the theory of demand.PW-1 and PW-3 havethemselves admitted that it is the accused persons who had incurred all themarriage expenses and also admitted that marriage was performed at theresidence of the appellant.This would be because of the reason, aspleaded by the appellant in support of which the appellant led evidence aswell, that the family members of Laxmi were poor persons and had notsufficient means to even incur the expenditure on the wedding of Laxmi.Even in respect of alleged demand of dowry, PW-1 Mariyappa stated that theso-called demand was by the father of the appellant and did not at allaccuse the appellant in this behalf.When the demand of dowry and giving of dowry at the time of marriagehas not been proved, further version of the prosecution witnesses thatthere was a demand for payment of remaining amount of Rs.3,000/- andharassment of Laxmi on that account, also becomes doubtful.It has come onrecord, and can be clearly discerned from the reading of the statements ofthe material witnesses viz. the family members of Laxmi, that during thisshort period of 6 months of the marriage, she had visited her matrimonialhouse 5-6 times.Pertinently, her visits were alongwith her husband.Thecouple had even stayed in the parental house of Laxmi for some days on fewoccasions.This indicates that the relationship of husband and wife wascordial.On thecontrary, she accepted that her daughter was happy for first 3 months.Somuch so in her statement to the Police, she had not told the Police aboutliving peaceful life only for 3 months.She did not tell the Police aboutgiving of dowry of Rs.2,000/- and demand of balance amount coupled withharassment because of death.In addition to the aforesaid material aspects which are highlightedfrom the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, most important featurewhich is accepted by these witnesses is that in so far as the appellantindividually is concerned, there was no demand of dowry by him.In theabsence of any particular allegation against the appellant in this behalf,would be improper to convict the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.Admittedly after her discharge from the hospital on 22nd April,1996, the complainant went to her parents' house and resided there.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,157,544 |
Heard both sides.3. Perused the records.The offences complained of, other than the offence under the Specialenactment, may not be serious in nature warranting initial detention in jail,even before considering the bail application.Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusivetrial of cases under SC/ST (POA Act), Sivagangai, is directed to accept thesurrender of the petitioners and consider their bail application on the verysame day purely on the basis of merits and in accordance with law.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA Act), Sivagangai,2.The Inspector of Police, SIPCOT Police Station, Manamadurai Taluk, Sivaganga District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,161,624 |
Heard on these first applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.118/2020 registered at Police Station Mandhata, District Khandwa for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 294, 323 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 08.05.2020 when the complaint Manoj (mentally retarded) was sitting in front of his house with his family members namely Dagdu, Majru, Krishna, etc., at that time the applicants armed with iron rod and sticks came there and attacked them.As a result of which Manoj, Dagdu and Krishna sustained injuries and they were taken to hospital where injury of Manoj was found to be serious in nature while injuries of Dagdu and Krishna were simple in nature.On postmortem of the deceased, it was found that the cause of death was due to drowning.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the crime.It is further submitted by the applicants that the applicant Rahul has lodged an 2 MCRC-20589-2020 FIR bearing Crime No.117/2020 against the complainant party for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of IPC.They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all terms and conditions imposed upon them.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the evidence.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicants on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application.The injuries of other injured persons were also found to be simple in nature.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, allegations made against the applicants, period of their incarceration and also looking to the exigency of Covid-19 disease, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Consequently, these first applications for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants, are allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount each to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their 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.In view of the outbreak of 'Corona Virus disease the applicants shall also comply with the rules and norms of social distancing.The Jail Authority shall ensure the medical examination of the applicants by the jail Doctor before their release.The applicants shall not be released, if they are suffering from 'Corona Virus disease'.For this purpose appropriate tests will be carried out.If it is found that the applicants are suffering from 'Corona Virus disease', necessary steps will be taken by the concerned authority by placing them in appropriate quarantine facility.These applications stand allowed and disposed of.Certified Copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE taj Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 2020.09.09 16:52:29 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,162,302 |
The petitioner will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The petitioner will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The petitioner will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.Petitioner apprehends his arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss. 353, 332, 294, 506, 186, 324, 147, 148, 149/34 of I.P.C., with newly added Ss.307, 427, 326 and 333 of I.P.C. registered as Crime No.89/16, by Police Station Nayagaon, District Bhind (M.P.).Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.The allegation against the petitioner is of abusing and creating obstruction in discharge of official duty on the issue of digging of a well.All offences except section 307 of I.P.C. are bailable in nature which has been subsequently added.Impulse more than intent appears to be the foundation of the case.In view of above facts, this court is inclined to extend benefit of bail to the petitioner but with certain stringent conditions in view of pending of investigation.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem fit appropriate to allow this application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. in the following 2 M.Cr.C. No. 1947/2017 terms.2 M.Cr.C. No. 1947/2017The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be,The petitioner shall mark his presence at the concerned police station once a week, till conclusion of the investigation.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Sheel Nagu) 3 M.Cr.C. No. 1947/2017 JUDGE Abhi3 M.Cr.C. No. 1947/2017
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,931,626 |
Appellants Krishna and Kaira are real brothers and are the sons of Sumera.Ram Manohar (PW-1) complainant and Chunua Chamar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') were real brothers.Both the parties are residents of the same village Piprenda, P.S. Tindwari, District Banda and are neighbours.Appellant Kaira borrowed Rs.350/- from deceased about 5 month prior to the occurrence, i.e. 8th July, 1980, about 7.15 a.m. Two days prior to the occurrence deceased demanded his money from Kaira, who not only refused to return the money but also denied to have borrowed any money from the deceased.On the following day again deceased demanded his money from Kaira and being enraged by this, accused Sumera, Krishna and Kaira quarrelled with deceased and Ram Manohar and chased to beat them.The deceased and Ram Manohar somehow managed to escape themselves by running away.On the fateful day i.e. 8.7.1980, deceased alongwith Ram Manohar (PW-1) in the morning after attending the call of nature went to Shripal Kori for seeking his advice as what should be done in the matter.Shripal advised him not to fight, but to lodge a complaint with the police.From the house of Shripal, deceased and Ram Manohar came to their house and without taking breakfast both of them proceeded to police outpost Chilla.Smt. Ram Pyari (PW-3), wife of deceased also followed them.It was about 7.15 a.m. when deceased and Ram Manohar reached near the field of Chunua Kanchi, which was in the west of rasta, accused Krishna armed with "Barchi", Sumera and Kaira armed with lathis came there from the eastern side.Accused persons started abusing deceased and his brother Ram Manohar.Deceased and Ram Manohar retaliated by abusing them.J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 835 OF 2007(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) NO. 3403 of 2006)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants.The trial Court i.e. learned IInd Additional Judge, Banda by his judgment dated 25.3.1981 found the appellant Krishna guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') and Section 307 and sentenced him to undergo RI for life and seven years respectively for the aforesaid offences.Though he was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC read with Section 34 IPC no separate sentence was awarded to him.Accused Sumera who was convicted for offences punishable under Section 302, 307, 323 read with Section 34 IPC has died.Appellant Kaira was similarly convicted.Sentence of imprisonment for life, three years and six months were respectively imposed for the above said offences.All the three accused persons preferred an appeal but since the appellant Sumera died during the pendency of the appeal, appeal was held to have abated so far as he is concerned.Background facts as projected by prosecution in a nutshell are as follows:Shiv Baran Singh (PW-2) reached there.Sumera gave lathi blow to deceased.When Shiv Baran Singh (PW-2) tried to intervene, appellant-Kaira gave lathi blow which hit him causing injury to his hand.When Ram Manohar (PW-1) tried to save and intervene Krishna gave Barchhi blow causing injury to him.Appellant-Krishna exhorted to eliminate Chunua.Thereupon Sumera gave lathi blow to deceased and Kaira also gave lathi blow.Krishna gave barchhi blow causing injury to deceased who fell down and died then and there in the field of Chunua Kanchi.On the hue and cry Surajpal, Arjun and many other villagers collected there.These persons chased the accused who run away towards the west.Leaving Smt. Rampyari near the dead body, after getting report drafted from Dasharath, Ram Manohar (P.W.1) accompanied by Shiv Baran Singh (PW-2) injured and, other village persons, proceeded to the police out post Chilla, P. S. Tindwari, District Banda which was about 18 or 20 kms.from the village Piprendha.There Ram Manohar (PW-1) handed-over the written report.On the basis of written report a case crime no. 123 of 1980 was registered at 8.45 am.on 8.7.1980, under Sections 302, 307, 504 IPC against all the three accused i.e. Sumera, Krishna and Kaira.of the case who was Incharge of the police out post, took up investigation, recorded the statements of injured Ram Manohar (P.W.l) and injured Shiv Baran Singh (PW-2) and sent them for medical examination to district hospital Banda.After the investigation was completed, charge sheet was filed.Charges were framed and the accused persons faced trial.Placing reliance on the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed sentence.Before the High Court a plea was taken that the accused had exercised the right of private defence; therefore, the conviction as done was not maintainable.High Court did not accept this plea and observed that since the accused persons were aggressors and in fact attacked the deceased first the question of exercise of right of private defence did not arise.Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,162,622 |
Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the objector.Arguments heard.This is first application filed by the applicants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.As per the prosecution story, the present applicant used to send various messages to the prosecutrix, who was 16 years of age.He was trying to stalk her and compel her to talk to him.It is further alleged that he uploaded some photographs with the prosecutrix on instagram and on 06.06.2016, it is alleged that he caught hold of her hand and tried to compel her for marrying him.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed printout of various messages, which were exchanged between the prosecutrix and the present applicant and from the messages, it is apparent that the prosecutrix was also interested in chatting with the present applicant.He further submits that no case is made out under Section 354 of IPC.Learned counsel for the State opposed the application.The application is accordingly dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,167,661 |
None for the victim though served.As per the prosecution case, the prosecutrix is a major woman, who earns her livelihood by giving live dance performances in the functions held in the villages.The appellant is said to have taken her on the pretext of a dance performance.She was taken on a motor-cycle to a field by the appellant.At that place, the appellant left the prosecutrix with co-accused persons Devendra, Raghvendra, Deepak and three other persons, who raped her.Devendra also beat with his waist belt coercing her to submit to their lust.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the following facts, in the opinion of this Court, appellant Shailendra deserves to be released on bail:the role that has been ascribed in the incident to the appellant is limited to luring the prosecutrix with the offer of work and transporting her from her home to the place of the incident and also providing liquor and food stuff to the main accused Devendra;appellant is not the main accused in the case;there is no allegation that appellant Shailendra actually raped the prosecutrix;he has been in custody since 11.05.2017, Consequently, this appeal for bail under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is allowed.The impugned order is set aside.It is directed that the appellant Shailendra @ Gajendra Yadav 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
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,931,756 |
P.W.1 is the grand son of the deceased Thirumal.He had four daughtersand three sons.A1 is the son of the deceased.P.W.2 is the daughter ofthe deceased.They were all residents of Manapadai village.The deceased hadvast landed properties.He retained 8 cents of land for his use and gave awayrest of the land to his sons.This 8 cents of lands, which he retained forhimself, was also left with his son, A1, but he did not maintain his fatherproperly.Hence he got back the said 8 cents of land.Hence there was strainedrelationship between the parties.On 3.3.1998 when the deceased and his familymembers went to harvest the crops in those 8 cents of land, A1 and A2 restrainedthem and hence the deceased came back, but he did not tell the same to anybody.At about 7.30 pm P.W.1, deceased, and P.W.2 went to see Nataraja Thevar, who wasthe panchayat president, to complain about the conduct of the first accused.When they were proceeding near Amman temple, the deceased was proceeding infront about 20 feet and following him P.W.1 and P.W.2 were walking.At thattime suddenly A1 attacked the deceased Thirumal by the wooden portion of aruval,A5 twisted his hands and thus he fell down.A2 attacked the deceased witharuval on his private part.A4 stamped the deceased on his chest.When P.W.2intervened, A4 stamped on her back and A3 holding the tuft of P.W.2 pushed herdown.Thirumal met an instantaneous death.All the accused fled away from thescene of occurrence.P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to Taluk police station on3.3.1998 at about 10.30 pm and gave a complaint to P.W.15, Sub Inspector ofPolice.That complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and on the strength of the same acase was registered in Crime No.106/98 for the offences punishable undersections 147, 148, 341, 323, 307 and 302 IPC.P-14, the First InformationReport, was despatched to Court through Constable.P.W.2 was sent to GovernmentHospital along with a memo for treatment.P.W.14, doctor, on receipt of themedical memo examined P.W.2 and gave treatment to her.P13 is a copy of theaccident register of P.W.2 issued by him.P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR,took up investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspectionin the presence of two witnesses and prepared Ex.P-2, the observation mahazarand Ex.P-15, the rough sketch.In the presence of the witnesses andpanchayatdars he conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P16, theinquest report.After the inquest was over the dead body was despatched to theGovernment Hospital, Tirunelveli along with a requisition for autopsy.P.W.9,doctor, attached to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli conducted autopsy onthe dead body and he has given his opinion that the deceased would appear tohave died of cumulative effect of neck, chest, abdomen and groin injuriessustained by him and death would have occurred about 16 to 20 hours prior toautopsy.Ex.P-8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him.A1voluntarily gave a confessional statement, the admissible portion of which ismarked as Ex.P17 and pursuant to the same he took the police party to a placewhere he concealed the aruval and produced two aruvals namely, M.O.1 and M.O.2.A1 also gave a complaint that at the time of occurrence he and A5 also sustainedinjuries and based on the said complaint a case in crime No.107/98 came to beregistered for the offences punishable under sections 341 and 323 IPC and Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The appellants three in number, who were arrayed as A1, A2 and A5 inS.C.No.539 of 1999 on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli,along with two others, who were arrayed as A3 and A4, stood charged, tried andfound guilty as follows:On trial A1 and A2 were found guilty for the offence punishable under section148 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year RI; A5 was found guilty for theoffence punishable under section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months RI;A1, A2 and A5 were found guilty for the offence punishable under section 341 IPCand sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment; A1, A2 and A5 were foundguilty for the offence punishable under section 302 read with 34 IPC and weresentenced to undergo life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and indefault to undergo one year RI and in respect of all charges A3 and A4 wereacquitted.Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence A1, A2 and A5have brought forth this appeal before this Court.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated thus:P18is a copy of the FIR in the said crime.A1 and A5 were also referred to theGovernment Hospital along with a memo for the injuries sustained by them.Afterthe treatment the accused were brought to the police station and sent to Courtfor remand.A requisition was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate to send allthe material objects recovered for chemical analysis.Accordingly they wereforwarded which resulted in Ex.P11, chemical report and Ex.P12, serologistreport and they were also placed before the committal court.On completion of the investigation, final report was filed before thelower court.The case was committed to Court of Sessions and necessary chargeswere framed.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution marched 16witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 6 M.Os.On completion of the evidence onthe side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of theprosecution witnesses.They denied the same as false.No defence witnesses wereexamined.The trial court, on hearing the arguments advanced by both sides andon scrutinizing the materials available, has found the accused guilty andawarded the punishment as referred to above.Learned counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia made thefollowing submissions:According to the prosecution the occurrence has taken place at 7.30 pm on3.3.1998 but the case was registered at the police station at 10.30 pm whilethere was a distance of only about 10 kms.and when the conveyance andtelephonic facilities were available.Learned counsel would further submit that P.W.2 in her cross examinationhas stated that the Sub Inspector of Police came to the scene of occurrence andtook the dead body of his father and only thereafter they went to the policestation.This would indicate that the case came to be registered at the policestation after the visit of the police at the scene of occurrence and thus, theFIR could not have come into existence as claimed by the prosecution and thusthere were all possibilities of embellishment.P.W.5 in his evidence stated thathe was standing 20 feet away from the scene of occurrence and the accused werestanding near haystick which was situated at the bottom of a banyan tree, but aperusal of the mahazar and rough sketch did not indicate the existence of any ofthem.P.W.5 in his evidence has not spoken to the presence of A3 and A4 in thealleged occurrence and this would only go to show that the alleged eyewitnessess are very much interested in implicating innocent persons as accusedand hence the evidence of P.W.5 could not have been accepted by the lower court.So far as the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.2 wereclosely related to each other and thus they were interested witnesses.So far asthe injuries that are found on the deceased are concerned, learned counsel wouldsubmit that though number of injuries were narrated, according to P.W.1, A1attacked the deceased with wooden portion of the aruval on the left cheek of thedeceased and so far as the injury caused by A2 is concerned, that was not fatalaccording to the postmortem doctor and thus the injuries narrated in thepostmortem certificate were not accounted either by P.W.1 or P.W.2 or P.W.5 andthus they could not have been eye witnesses and P.W.2 could not have sustainedinjuries at the time of occurrence.Hence the appellants areentitled for acquittal by this Court.6. Heard the learned counsel for the State on the above contentions.In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examinedP.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 as eye witnesses, of whom P.W.4 turned hostile.Since independent witness has not spoken anything about A3and A4 the lower court was not prepared to believe the case of the prosecutionas against A3 and A4 and thus recorded a finding of acquittal in respect of allthe charges levelled against them.In the instant caseP.W.2 was an injured witness.P.W.14 doctor who examined her has given Ex.P13, accident register.So far asP.W.1 is concerned, he was present at the place of occurrence.It is true thatP.Ws.1 and 2 were related to the deceased.So far as hisevidence was concerned not even one circumstance or reason has been broughtforth to disbelieve his evidence.P.W.5 in his evidence has categorically statedas to the presence of A1, A2 and A5 and has also pointed out the overt actattributed to them.The contention put forward by the learned counsel that themedical evidence did not support the prosecution case cannot be accepted.From the evidence available it could be seenthat death has been caused by the cumulative effect of the injuries caused.Itcannot be stated that they were neither present at the place nor attributed withany overt acts.In so far as the contention of the learned counsel that the FIRhas come into existence not in the way as claimed by the prosecution cannot beaccepted.Learned counsel took the court to the evidence of P.W.1 wherein ithas been stated that the body of the deceased was taken by the Sub Inspector andonly thereafter they went to the police station.Coming to the question of act of the accused to cause the death, the Court isunable to notice any common intention which was shared by the accused.So faras A1 and A2 are concerned, death has been brought forth by the cumulativeeffect of the act of A1 and A2, and so far as A5 was concerned, she has onlytwisted the hands of the deceased.In the circumstances, A1 and A2 wielded offthe aruval not intentionally or with any premeditation; but, it was well withintheir knowledge that such attack would likely to cause the death of thedeceased, and in the circumstances the act of A1 and A2 has got to bebroughtforth within the ambit of section 304 part II IPC and should be awardedpunishment accordingly.So far as the overt act attributed to A5 was concerned,the act of A5 has to be brought within the ambit of section 323 IPC.Accordingly the judgment of the lower court convicting the A1, A2 andA5 under section 302 read with 34 IPC is set aside and A1 and A2 are convictedunder section 304 part II IPC and awarded punishment of five years RI and A5 isconvicted under section 323 IPC and awarded punishment of three months RI.Sofar as the conviction of A2 for the offence under section 323 IPC for theinjuries caused on P.W.2 is concerned, it is sustained.Sentences are directedto run concurrently.With the above modification in the conviction and sentence the appeal isdismissed.1.Inspector of Police, Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station.2.The II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.through The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,175,958 |
/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Chanchal Roy @ Khudu Roy and another ... Petitioners Sk.Jalaluddin ... For the Petitioners Mrs. Debjani Sahu ... For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Salar Police Station Case No. 364 of 2015 dated 22.11.2015 under Sections 448/325/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant case out of village rivalry and the petitioners are in no way connected with the alleged offence.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,177,286 |
Heard on the question of admission.Also heard on I.A. No. 14216/17, appellant's application for suspension of his remaining jail sentence and grant of bail as appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 (five counts), 325 (three counts) of IPC and under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act with direction suffer RI for three months with fine of Rs.200/- under the first county, RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/- under the second count and RI for six months with fine of Rs.500/- under the last count.Having heard, keeping in view the arguments advanced, taking into consideration the short term of the jail sentence and subsequent to imposition of punishment, he has been released on bail for a limited period upto 26.07.2017 to approach this Court for obtaining the appropriate order for suspension of the jail sentence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, the I.A. is allowed and subject to verification of depositing the fine amount, the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is hereby suspended.It is further directed that on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. fifty thousand) along with one surety of like amount by the appellant to the satisfaction of the trial Court, the appellant Riyaz Quzi shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the Registry of this Court firstly on 27.03.2017 and also on all subsequent dates as are fixed by the Office in this regard, till disposal of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE bks
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
193,178,806 |
1) The proceeding is filed for adding sections 354 and 354-A of Indian Penal Code in the case already filed for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code against husband and relatives of the husband of the applicant.2) During argument learned counsel for the applicant drew attention of this Court to the complaint given to police on 17-8-2018 in which allegations of molestation were made against father-in-law.The application is disposed of.::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2019 04:04:14 :::::: Uploaded on - 19/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/06/2019 04:04:14 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,318,270 |
The brief facts of the prosecution case, shorn of unnecessary ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 2details are that, the complainant-Anand Motirao Tale (PW 5) is the resident of village Shahapur, Tq.Khamgaon, District Buldana.Respondent no.2-Smt.Prabhabai is the mother-in-law of deceased-Meena.After marriage, Meena started residing at her matrimonial home with the respondents at Chincholiganu.Out of the said wedlock, Meena gave birth to one son and one daughter.As far as the testimony of PW 3-Vishnu, who is the Panch witness, stated that police had come for enquiry at the Government well.The depth of the well was about 70 to 80 feet and the diameter was about 6 feet.The said wall was at a distance of 10 to 15 ft. from the residence of respondent no.1-Sanjay.PW 3-Vishnu stated that he noticed a pot kept near the well.According to PW 3, he noticed that bucket and rope were taken out from the well and the said bucket was used for fetching water.PW 3 stated that the women in the village used to go to well ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 4early in the morning for the purpose of fetching water.According to him, the injured were ante mortem.PW5 stated that he gave her an understanding and asked her to go to her matrimonial home.Thereafter Meena went along with her husband.PW5 stated that on 19.4.1999 Bhanudas Gotmare came to his house in the morning and informed him that Meena was serious.Therefore he along with his family members went to Chincholiganu.At that time, he saw dead body of Meena was taken out from the well.Her blouse was torn; her legs were fractured and abrasions were seen on her chest.judgment and order dated 11th February, 2003 passed by the learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No. 99/1999 thereby acquitting the accused/respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.On 19.4.1999 the Police Patil, by name, Bhanudas Gotmare R/o Chincholi lodged a report with regard to the death of Smt. Meena (Exh.29) by drowning into the well.On the basis of the said report, accidental death (AD) Case No.17/1999 was registered by PW 8-Nandkumar Kale, ASI.ASI Kale recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet.During the course of investigation, the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body of deceased (Exh.47).P.H.C. Devidas Ingle (PW 7) proceeded to the place of the incident and recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.38).He also recorded the Inquest Panchnama (Exh.31) on the dead body of the deceased.On 20.4.1999 father of deceased visited the Police Station and lodged his complaint (Exh.43).On the basis of said complaint PW8-Kale registered the office vide Crime No.68/1999 u/ss. 498A and 306 of the IPC against the respondents.The charge was framed by the learned trial Judge.After conducting the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondents, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::I have gone through the entire record with the assistance of learned Additional Public Prosecutor.The learned counsel for the respondents remained absent though represented by Advocates.In order to verify the contentions of the learned A.P.P. it is necessary to go through the testimony of the relevant witnesses.According to learned APP, deceased-Meena had died a suicidal death and not an accidental one.In order to substantiate his contention, he has taken me through the spot Panchnama as well as the post-mortem report.The prosecution examined PW 3-Vishnu Gavhne in order to prove the spot Panchnama (Exh.38).The said well was constructed by stones and on the date of the incident, in the morning, he had seen wife of respondent no.1-Sanjay on the well and while fetching water, she fell in the well while fetching water.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::On careful testimony of PW 3-Vishnu, it appears that on the date of the incident deceased-Meena had gone to fetch water from the well which was near her house in the early morning and while fetching water Meena along with the bucket and rope, fell down in the well and due to which her death occurred.Thus, the testimony of PW3 indicate that Meena died an accidental death.In order to prove the post-mortem report, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW4-Dr.Dilip Mankar.He noted the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:"(a) Abrasion over the right side of chest.It was measuring about 5 x 3 Β½ inches, extending from right side of breast to sternal.(b) Abrasion over the right thigh, on the anterior aspect, of size 6 x 2 inches.(c) Abrasion over the left thigh, on the anterior aspect, of size 6 x 2 inches.(d) Contusion measuring about x 2 inches, over the right thigh."PW 4-Dr.Mankar observed fracture of shaft of femur on the right side.He opined that the ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 5cause of death is asphyxia due to drowning.He prepared the PM report (Exh.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::41).According to PW4- Dr.Mankar, the injuries were not sufficient to cause death.He admitted that by accidental fall in a well having 5 to 6 feet diameter, 80 ft. depth construction by stones and bricks having iron angles fixed in it, the injuries shown in column No.17 can be caused.Thus, the testimony of PW4 is indicative of the fact that injuries were caused on the body of Meena due to falling in the well which was 80 feet in depth, made up of stones.Thus, the testimony of PW 4 further indicates that Meena might have died due to falling in the well while fetching water.As far as the testimony of PW5-Ananda Tale, who is the father of the deceased is concerned, he stated that after marriage of Meena she used to visit her parental house for Diwali purpose.At that time, Meena did not suggest any type of harassment at her matrimonial home for about 2 to 43 years.However when respondent no.1 became Sarpanch he got addicted to liquor and started harassing Meena.Whenever Meena used to visit his house she used to tell that her husband was not allowing her to sleep in the night and was asking her to press his hands and legs and used to beat her.She further told PW5 that her mother-in-law used to awake her from the sleep at dawn and used to ask to do the household chores.She told that her husband and mother-in-law used to harass her mentally and physically.According to PW5 on 3rd February, 1999 Meena visited his house for the purpose of delivery.She gave birth to a female child.After about two months ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 6she went to her matrimonial house.Nobody talked to him.He returned to his village.According to PW5 after about 5 to 6 months prior to the death of Meena, respondent no.1 demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from him and he had given an amount of Rs. 2000/-.PW5-Ananda Tale then lodged the complaint against the respondent nos.1 and 2 (Exh.43).On careful scrutiny of testimony of PW5, it is noticed that PW5 admitted that the complaints made by Meena were trivial in nature and therefore he had not lodged the report against the respondents.The said improvement goes to the root of the case.Similarly, the version of PW 5 that respondent no.1-Sanjay had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and he had given an amount of Rs.2000/-, also does not find place in the complaint.The said testimony of PW5 makes it clear that there was no ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 7demand from the respondent no.1-Sanjay with regard to the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.Thus, the testimony of PW5 indicates an improvement in his version and the alleged harassment at the hands of respondent nos.1 and::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::The prosecution further relied upon the testimony of PW 6- Malati Tale.According to PW6, who is the sister of the deceased, after marriage Meena used to visit her parental home nearly thrice in a year.At that time, she used to tell that her mother-in-law used to awaken her from her sleep at 4.00 a.m. and used to ask her to do household work.She used to tell her husband was not allowing her to sleep the whole night and asking her to press his legs and hands and used to harass her after consuming liquor.He also used to beat her.According to PW6, her sister was not subjected to harassment for about a period of two years after the marriage.However when respondent no.1-Sanjay became Sarpanch, he got addicted to liquor and used to harass Meena.As already discussed above in the testimony of PW5-Ananda Tale, father of deceased Meena, the said demand was found to be an improvement made by him in the Court.It is noticed that the statement of PW6 was recorded on 11.5.1999, after about 22 days from the incident.It is also noticed that PW 6-Malati Tale has made an improvement with regard to her mother in law awakening her from sleep ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 8at 4.00 a.m. and asking her to do the household chores.On going through the statement of PW 6 it is noticed that her testimony shows improvements, she has not told anyone about the said harassment at the hands of the respondents.In view thereof, PW 6 is not found to be reliable witness.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::So far as the testimony of PW1-Manikrao Take is concerned, he is the brother of Meena and he has deposed that in the year 1996-97 respondent no.1 became Sarpanch and since then he was addicted to liquor.His sister Meena used to tell him that after consuming liquor her husband used to beat her and abuse her mother-in-law used to taunt her in a rather sarcastic language.Her mother-in-law used to wake her from slumber at 4.00 a.m. He stated that Meena told her that her husband had asked her to bring the amount of Rs. 10,000/-.He had given the amount of Rs. 2000/- to her.It is noticed that PW1 had made improvements about the harassment by her husband and mother-in-law for the remaining amount to Rs. 8000/-.PW1 admitted that from the dead body of Meena it appears to him that she fell in the well before 6 to 7 hours and the villagers told him that while fetching water his sister fell down in the well.The testimony of the PW2 is not of much assistance to the prosecution case and is not found to be trustworthy due to improvements made before the court.On careful scrutiny of the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW 3-Vishnu Gavhale, the spot Panchnama on the point of place of the incident and the Medical Officer PW 4-Dr.Mankar, it is noticed that ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 ::: CRI.APPEAL.311.03 9Meena died an accidental death.It is not proved by the prosecution that she died a suicidal death.As far as the allegation of cruelty is concerned, the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent nos.1 and 2 ill-treated Meena, more particularly respondent no.1 for demanding an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from his father in law and asking her to press his legs and hands and not allowing her to sleep.The prosecution also failed to prove that due to said harassment, Meena drove herself to take drastic step of committing suicide by jumping into the well.The prosecution has failed to prove any of the charges levelled against the respondents.::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::JUDGESahare ::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 14:56:58 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,345,512 |
This appeal under section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read with section 438 of the Cr.P.C has been filed against the order dated 30.01.2019 passed by Special Judge (S/ST Act), Mandleshwar, district Khargone, by which trial Court has rejected the application filed by the appellant under section 438 of the Cr.P.C seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.513/2018 registered at Police Station Barwah, district Khargone for the offence punishable under sections 376, 376(2(n) of the IPC and under section 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities)accused/appellant with a false promise to marry her committed rape upon her.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix is a major lady aged about 30 years.Earlier she was married with one Tulsiram and out of that wedlock she has a girl child aged about 8 years.The prosecutrix was posted as ANM at Community Health Centre, Bagod where the appellant was also posted as Medical Officer.The prosecutrix being a divorced lady made intimacy with the appellant and physical relationship was also developed between them which clearly indicates that prosecutrix was also a consenting party.Although she has made allegation against the appellant that he committed rape upon her on the pretext of marriage, however, as per the FIR the appellant refused to marry her on 17.07.2018 but the FIR was lodged on 29.09.2018 i.e. after about 2 months and 12 days after his refusal.He further submits that appellant made a written complaint also against the prosecutrix to the SDOP Badwaha stating that she is trying to implicate him in false case.-3- CRA NO.1407/2019 investigation, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail in the matter.Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer.This order shall be governed by conditions No.1 to 3 of sub section (2) of section 438 Cr.P.C.C.c as per rules.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by Hari Kumar Nair Date: 22/02/2019 15:39:02
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,346,468 |
They are as under:-β i) The petitioner shall obtain necessary travel tickets for the 7th respondent and the child for their visit to the place where U.S. Court is situated;ii) On obtaining travel tickets, the petitioner shall intimate the same to the 7th respondent three weeks in advance of the date of departure to enable her to make necessary arrangements;iii) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of $5000 (Five thousand American dollars) in the name of the 7th respondent for enabling her to engage an advocate in US and to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court;iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the 7th respondent and the child for a period of fifteen (15) [sic] on their landing in USA.v) On petitioner providing travel tickets, depositing the amount as ordered above, and intimating the date of departure, if 7th respondent fails to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court along with the child, Master Anand Saisuday Bandi, in obedience to the orders passed in writ of Habeas Corpus by the US Court, she shall handover the custody of the child to the petitioner, who in turn shall produce the child before the US Court and custody of the child will abide by the decision of the US Court since the child is a citizen of USA.β(b) The petitioner (hereinafter referred to either as βthe petitionerβ, βthe wifeβ or βthe motherβ), aggrieved by the aforesaid directions, filed the special leave petitions giving rise to the present appeals.Events/ Legal Proceedings in the U.S.A.:(c) The marriage between the parties was solemnized according to Hindu rights on 9th November, 2003 in Atlanta, USA.They were both divorcees.After marriage, they had settled down in Seattle, USA.The husband was authorised to hold on to the passport and Person of Indian Origin Card (PIO Card) of Anand.Within days of the husband petitioning for dissolution of marriage, the wife on 13th November, 2006 submitted a complaint of domestic violence in which the Superior Court of Washington, Kent directed the husband to move out of the matrimonial home.Anand was to remain in the custody of wife with limited visitation rights were granted to the husband.The wife was, however, directed to pay US $ 1500 for the husbandβs expenses until the regular hearing.On 4th December, 2006, further orders were issued stipulating that the wife/mother would occupy the family home with the child.Furthermore, the father was to bear half of the mortgage on family home, childβs day care expenses and insurance costs for the child and the mother.The unsupervised visitation rights of the father were increased from 9 hours to 12 hours per week.Fatherβs attorney was required to hold Anandβs U.S.A. passport.On 1st March, 2007, Ms. Jennifer Keilin was appointed by the Superior Court of Washington, Kent as Guardian ad litem to make recommendations regarding the marriage and child custody.On 22nd June, 2007, Parenting Evaluation Report was submitted to the U.S. Court.The wife/mother was found suitable for custody in view of the problems of the husband/father at the work place, alcohol dependency and smoking addiction.It was also noted that the child Anand has very serious food allergies.On 9th July, 2007, the wife filed a motion before the Superior Court of Washington, Seattle for an emergency hearing on her petition requesting travel to India for two weeks.On the same day, the wife moved the Superior Court of Washington, Kent seeking an emergency hearing.This too was denied by the Court.On 25th July, 2007, at the regular hearing, the Superior Court of Washington, Kent passed an order permitting the wife to travel to India with the child.On 19th March, 2008, parenting plan was approved with primary custody of Anand given to the mother and limited visitation rights granted to the father.During summer vacations of two weeks, each parent was granted five consecutive days of residential time, at a time.Out of State or International travel was permitted to both the parties during the residential time.On the same day, i.e., 23rd August, 2008, the wife sent an e-mail to the husband informing him that she will return on 16th September, 2008 alongwith the child.The husband was made custodial parent and the wife was granted visitation rights.On 12th December, 2008, Superior Court of Washington, Seattle also issued a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the State and its officers to locate and take Anand into immediate custody and deliver him to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court of Washington, County of King.On 11th January, 2009, abduction notices were issued against the wife.This was followed by a Red Corner Notice.In the meantime, the services of the husband were terminated by his employer in February, 2009, due to the economic downturn.Similarly, the wife was also affected by the downturn and was not able to take up a new job in the USA.Since the wife did not return with the child on 13th March, 2009, Superior Court of Washington, Kent issued bailable warrants against her for Custodial Interference in the First Degree.In May, 2009, the husband sold the matrimonial house in USA.On 1st July, 2002, child Aditya was born while they were in USA.Subsequently, however, the husband objected to the wife staying in India.SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.1. Leave granted.These appeals arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 10606-10608 of 2010 are directed against the judgment and final order dated 24th September, 2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad in Writ Petition No. 25479 of 2009 issuing a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing the petitioner to submit to the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts.The appellant has framed three questions of law for the consideration of this Court in the Special Leave Petition giving rise to these appeals.(C) Is not the judgment of US Court βnot conclusiveβ as between the parties and hence unenforceable in India for being in violation of Section 13(c) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?βThe relevant facts giving rise to the aforesaid questions of law as narrated by the parties are as under:-On 30th October, 2006, respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as βrespondent No.1β, βthe husbandβ or βthe fatherβ) filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Superior Court of Washington, County of King at Seattle.In these proceedings, an ex parte order was issued restraining the wife from leaving the State of Washington.However, at the request of the husband, the said order was stayed, until his motion of reconsideration could be adjudicated.On 17th August, 2007, the wife filed motion for continuance of trial, permanent relocation to India with the child and requesting the court to order the father to undergo domestic violence assessment.On 4th September, 2007, Superior Court of Washington, Kent passed orders granting request of the wife for continuance of trial, appointing Ms. Keilin to conduct another evaluation to make recommendations regarding relocation.However, the request of the wife to order the husband to go through a further domestic violence assessment was denied.On the same day, i.e. 4th September, 2007, the appeal of the father against the order dated 25th July, 2007, permitting the wife to travel to India with the child, was allowed.(d) The trial in the main petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage commenced on 18th March, 2008 in the Superior Court of Washington, Kent.The attorney of the husband was ordered by the Superior Court of Washington to prepare final orders.On 20th March, 2008, the motion of the wife for relocation to India was denied.On 7th July, 2008, the wife filed a motion petition before the Superior Court of Washington, Kent requesting a clarification on final parenting plan to permit 13 consecutive days of vacation with the child for travelling to India.On 16th July, 2008, Superior Court of Washington denied her motion.On 22nd August, 2008, final orders were passed in the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage.On 23rd August, 2008, divorce decree entered by the Superior Court of Washington as part of final orders.This E-mail also contained the confirmed itinerary.Since the wife did not return with the child, the husband moved an application in September, 2008 seeking modification of the final parenting plan on the grounds of violation of earlier parenting plan (19th March, 2008) and interference with his visitation rights.On 9th December, 2008, Superior Court of Washington, Kent modified the parenting plan.On 20th November, 2009, the husband filed a Habeas Corpus petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court.Since there was no representation from the wife, the writ petition was admitted.A few days thereafter, the husband filed W.P.M.P. No.31378 of 2010 on 29th September, 2010, seeking inter alia custody of Anand for producing him before the US Consulate in Hyderabad; a direction to the Registrar (Judicial) of the Andhra Pradesh High Court to return his own Indian Passport; and a direction to the wife for providing her βcurrent nameβ, βxerox copies of her current passportβ, βvisa papersβ and βPIO Cardβ of Anand to the husband.On 14th December, 2010, the wife came to the High Court, albeit without Anand and served the copy of her Review Petition against the judgment dated 24th September, 2010 to the petitioner/husband.On 18th December, 2010, the present appeal was preferred before this Court, by the wife.Meanwhile on 22nd December, 2010, neither the wife nor Anand came to the High Court and a death in the family at Vijayawada was reported by her as the reason for the absence.Again on 28th December, 2010, the wife and Anand absented themselves from the High Court.On 18th January, 2011, the police could not locate either wife or Anand.Upon this, the High Court granted a weekβs time to the police to produce Anand.Meanwhile, this Court on 31st January, 2011, issued notice in the Civil Appeal filed by the wife and order dated 25th January, 2011 was stayed.The Review Petition pending before the High Court appears to have been withdrawn by the petitioner after the notice was issued by this court in the present Civil Appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.The mother has been looking after Anand single handedly without any help from the father.She has got a well paid job with IBM at Bangalore.Anand now lives in a joint family and is happy.He enjoys the company of his cousins.He is now 8 years of age and has developed roots in India.He has emphasised that the High Court has not considered the welfare of the child in passing the impugned judgment.He has submitted, by making exhaustive reference to the Parenting Evaluation Report, that it would be for the welfare of the child to remain with the mother in India.Learned senior counsel submitted that this Court would have to consider the benefits that would accrue to Anand if he is permitted to remain with her in India as opposed to the undesirability of compelling her to handover his custody to the father.Learned senior counsel submits that the Parenting Evaluation Report clearly notices that the father was subjected to Urinalysis Testing for alcohol.The mother had objected to her husbandβs use of alcohol.The husband frequently drank alcohol during the evening.At the same time, he tried to hide his alcohol dependency from his parents who were staying with him.The wife had also narrated before Ms. Jennifer Keilin who gave the Parenting Evaluation Report that the husband drank while watching television, consuming half a bottle of rum every evening.She had also claimed that the husband sometimes had difficulty in waking up in the morning and after drinking he suffered occasional hangovers.Mr. Shishodia also pointed out that the husband is also addicted to cigarette smoking.He also has a history of employment problems.This apart, the husband had also admitted before the evaluator about his past drug use.At this stage, he relied on the judgment of this Court in Smt. Surinder Kaur Sandhu Vs.Harbax Singh Sandhu & Anr.[1].He should have regular, limited visitation with Mr. Rao, increasing at regular intervals.Learned counsel pointed out that the High Court has totally ignored some very important issues as to why it would not be in the interest of Anand to be sent back to USA to live with the father.He also pointed out that the husband has lost his job in the USA and has been living in India for the past three years.He has also sold the family house in USA.Subsequently, however, the husband declined to return to India.He also pointed out that the removal of Anand from USA was neither thoughtless nor malicious.The wife had to return to India due to the serious ailment and old age of her parents.At the time of marriage, they were both divorcees.During the pendency of the proceedings in the USA Court, the wife had shown a consistent propensity to disobey the orders of the Court.At the same time, she filed a number of motions in the pending proceedings with regard to domestic violence; independent occupation of the matrimonial home, at the same time demanding that the husband bears half of the mortgage of the family home and other expenses for her as well as the child.Although both the parents were allowed five days residential time with the child during the two weeks summer vacation, the effort of the wife was always to remove him from the country of his birth.It was further admitted that in spite of the aforesaid direction, the child was removed from the jurisdiction of the Courts in which he was born.The fact of issuance of the Writ of Habeas Corpus by the United States Superior Court for production of the child was also admitted.Before the High Court, a submission was made on behalf of the petitioner-wife for grant of some time to submit to the jurisdiction of the US Court and to enable her to obtain necessary orders from the aforesaid court.Relying on the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner, the High Court had issued the directions reproduced earlier in this judgment.After obtaining such orders, the wife disappeared again from the scene.It was submitted before the Court that she had filed a review petition which ought to be taken up for hearing and sought one weekβs time for production of the child.According to Mr. Patwalia, she was all along misleading the Andhra Pradesh High Court, whilst preparing to file the SLP against the impugned judgment.The SLP was actually filed on 18th December, 2010, challenging three orders viz. orders dated 24th September, 2010 passed in W.P.No.25479 of 2009 and subsequent orders dated 3rd December, 2010 and 14th December, 2010 passed in W.P.M.P. No.31378 of 2010 in the aforesaid writ petition.The High Court noticed that in spite of the directions having been given, the petitioner has not produced the child in the Court.She had also not produced necessary papers relating to the child.On 22nd December, 2010, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that her maternal uncle had died and, therefore, she had left for Vijayawada.It was then represented before the High Court that the petitioner was staying at Vijayawada because the child was unwell and admitted in hospital.The High Court noticed that the petitioner appears to have made a false statement on the last date of hearing.Therefore, the directions were issued to the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad to produce the child before the Court on 17th January, 2011 at 4.00 p.m. On 18th January, 2011, the Court was informed by the Assistant Government Pleader that in spite of best efforts by the police, the child could not be traced and she sought further time to locate and produce the child in Court.Since the petitioner was failing to assist the authorities in locating the child, non-bailable warrants were issued for her.In the meantime, this Court on 31st January, 2011 issued notice in the SLP and stayed the operation of the impugned orders.From 6th April, 2010, the husband was entitled to see the child for 2Β½ hours.From 3rd October, 2010, the period was increased to 4 hours.The respondent and his parents had filed Criminal Petition no. 6711 of 2009 under section 482 of Cr.P.C., before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh seeking quashing of the criminal complaint.In the said proceedings, the High Court, vide order dated 23rd December 2011, partly allowed the said criminal petition and directed that the respondent husband and other co-accused should not be prosecuted for offences said to have taken place in USA without necessary permission from the Central Government.However, respondent No. 6, in violation of the said court's orders, removed the child to India on 28th June, 2007 for staying with her parents in Chennai.The petitioner in turn moved the USA Court on 8th August, 2007 for modification of custody order and for taking action against respondent No. 6 for violation of court order.On that very day, the petitioner was granted temporary sole legal and physical custody of the minor child and respondent No. 6 was directed to immediately turn over the minor child and his passport to the petitioner.The father was a Belgian national and the mother a British national who took Belgian nationality on marriage to him.The infant was born in Belgium.Shortly after the presentation of the main petition, an application under Section 12 of the Guardian and Wards Act read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was filed by the wife/mother of the child praying for an ex-parte interim order restraining the respondent from removing the minor from her custody and for an order granting interim custody of the minor to the Appellant.On the other hand, the husband had filed a case against the appellant alleging that she had abducted the minor child.On his application, a Red Corner Notice was issued against the wife.Further, in V. Ravichandranβs case (supra), even though the Court had directed that the child will be taken back to America, this Court took assurances from the husband that he would bear all the travelling expenses and make suitable arrangements for respondent No.6 in the U.S.A. He had also given an undertaking that he would take out necessary application for the removal of the Red Corner Notice so that the wife was not arrested on arrival in America.After the arguments in this matter had been concluded, we interviewed at length the husband and wife.The wife was prepared to go back to the USA and live with her husband.However, the husband was not prepared to cohabit with the wife.β(iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the respondent No.7 and the child in suitable accommodation in a locality according to her status prior to the dissolution of marriage for a period of three months on their landing in USA.β Direction No.(vi) β Prior to making any travel arrangements for the 7th respondent and Anand, the petitioner shall move the Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA for withdrawal of the bailable warrants issued against the respondent No.7 to enable her to attend the custody proceedings in the US Courts.Before parting with this order, we may also notice here that the respondent (husband) filed a Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3335 of 2012, challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.Since no arguments were advanced in the aforesaid matter, let this appeal be listed for arguments separately.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,347,308 |
The applicant shall undertake to remain present before this Court as and when directed.The Criminal Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.C.V. BHADANG, J.Mamta Kale::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 00:55:06 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/08/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 13/08/2020 00:55:06 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,350,917 |
A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 2 of 17 Motihari, Bihar and the accused was also arrested from there.After due formalities both were brought back to Delhi and their medical examination was got conducted.After that Section 376 IPC was also added.It also came in evidence that the accused entered into marriage with the victim and committed sexual intercourse with her."She called up the appellant on his mobile phone and met the appellant at a Bus Stand.The appellant enticed the prosecutrix by saying that he would keep her in a good condition and asked her to accompany him.PW-2 then accompanied the appellant to his native village in Motihari, Bihar.At Motihari, the appellant asked the prosecutrix to marry him, to which the prosecutrix refused; but later attempted to forcibly marry and the marriage was performed in a Mandir.Prosecutrix (PW-2) further deposed that after marriage, the appellant forced her for physical relations, but had not made physical relations with her as her father (PW-1) had come there.The prosecutrix remained with the appellant for about one month.The prosecutrix made a phone call to her parents and her father had come after about one month.PW-2 was then put a question by the Trial Court that when the father of the prosecutrix had come to Motihari after one month, why the accused could not make physical relations with her? The prosecutrix remained mum and proceeded to depose that her father had come with the police and the police had apprehended them.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 5 of 17As the prosecutrix was resiling from her statement made to the police under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), she was cross-examined by the Add.During her cross-examination, she stated that the appellant was known to her for about 8-9 months and she used to talk to her.She affirmed that whenever the appellant used to meet her, he used to promise getting a car and a lot of money.She further stated that after marriage, she and the appellant used to reside in a room at Motihari in the house of the appellant.At this stage, the prosecutrix affirmed that she had stated to the magistrate and the police in her statements that the appellant could not make physical relations with her and denied the suggestion that she had stated that the appellant had committed rape with her.On both the occasions, the prosecutrix was confronted with her previous statements (Ex.PW-2/A and Ex.PW-2/B), where it was recorded to the contrary.She further stated in her cross-examination that the appellant had committed rape with her and due to this reason, she had called her father.She explained that the fact was not previously deposed as she had forgotten the same.She further stated that she was in an affair with the appellant two-three days prior to her summer vacations.PW-2 stated that when being taken to Motihari, Crl. A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 6 of 17 she had not informed any police official or public person that she was being taken forcibly, nor did she inform the persons present at the time of her marriage that she was enticed.At the same time, she denied the suggestion that the appellant had not abducted her, or she had accompanied the appellant from her free will, or was willing to marry him as having a love affair.Jitender Kumar Verma (PW-1), father of the prosecutrix, deposed that in summer vacations of June, 2012, the victim/prosecutrix had gone to the house of his brother Shyam Kumar Verma (PW-3) and went missing from there.After 8-10 days, the brother of PW-1 had lodged a missing report of the victim at PS New Usmanpur.He deposed that the appellant had kidnapped the victim.The appellant was residing in his neighbourhood at Kapashera.He was unable to inform as to how he had come to know that the appellant had kidnapped the prosecutrix.Again, as he was resiling from his previous statement, PW-1 was cross-examined by the Addl.In his cross-examination, PW-1 stated that he had searched for the prosecutrix in the area of Brahanpuri in the neighbourhood of his brother.The appellant was residing in Kapashera village on rent in the same premises of the witness.Trial court record has been received.Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.For ease of reference, the appellant in Crl.A. 1181/2016, i.e. Mohan, is being referred to as the appellant.A. 1181/2016 has been filed by the convict/appellant against the judgment dated 21.11.2015 and the order on sentence dated 24.11.2015 passed by the Trial Court in SC 109/2012, by which the Crl. A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 1 of 17 appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376/366/363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC and is also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, failing which he shall undergo SI for one month; rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years for the offence punishable under section 366 IPC and is also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, failing which he shall undergo SI for one month; rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under section 363 IPC and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the said offence, failing which he shall undergo SI for two weeks.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 1 of 17Criminal Appeal 270/2016 has been instituted by the State aggrieved by the order on sentence dated 24.11.2015 contending that the Trial Court has erred in sentencing the appellant for a period less than the minimum sentence prescribed by the statute.Crl. A. 1181/2016The case of the prosecution, as noticed by the Trial Court, is as under:On 10.07.2012, Sh.On the basis of the said information, the present case was inititally registered under Section 363 IPC.On 14.07.2012, the complainant again approached the police with the father of the victim and raised suspicion that one Mohan had enticed and taken away the victim and as such, Section 366 IPC was added.On 07.08.2012, the victim was recovered from the house of accused Mohan at village Karasaia, District Crl.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 2 of 17After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376/366/363 IPC.A charge was framed against the appellant under the aforegoing sections, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.To establish the guilt of the accused/appellant herein, the prosecution had examined 14 witnesses in all.The defence did not lead any evidence.The appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case.Accused had attempted to commit wrong act with me Crl.He further stated that on the day of the incident, both the prosecutrix and the appellant had gone missing and thus, he had concluded that the appellant had kidnapped his daughter.He affirmed the suggestion that the prosecutrix had been recovered from the custody of the appellant at Motihari, Bihar.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 7 of 17In his cross-examination by the amicus for the appellant, PW-1 stated that prior to the incident, he had become aware of the affair of the prosecutrix and the appellant, though he did not disclose it to anyone.Nikita (PW-14) deposed that she had conducted the MLC (Ex.PW-11/B) of the prosecutrix and found that there was no injury, there was old tear of hymen, no evidence of semen and white discharge positive.She had sealed the sample and handed them over to the police.We may also note that PW-14 had deposed the prosecutrix had given the history of physical assault by the appellant with consent, but there was no history of recent sexual activity.We may also note that Shyam Kumar (PW-3) (brother of PW-1) has deposed that on 28.06.2012, the prosecutrix had gone outside his house to take household items from nearby market, but she never returned.PW-3 searched for the prosecutrix/victim to no avail and then informed his brother Jitender (PW-1).Both PW-1 and PW-3 searched for her for several days, but could not find her.Thereafter, they went to PS Usmanpur and made a statement regarding the missing of the victim.In the present case, the forensic evidence is of great significance.The FSL in its report [Ex.C-1 (Colly)] states that the alleges from the source of the exhibit 3a (blood sample of the appellant/accused) were accounted in the source of exhibits 1m (washing from vagina of the prosecutrix) and 2a (underwear of the prosecutrix)."DNA profiling (STR analysis) performed on exhibits is sufficient to conclude that DNA profile generated from the source of exhibit 3a is matching with DNA profile Crl.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 8 of 17 generated from the source of exhibits 1m & 2a.A female DNA profile was generated from the source of exhibit 1pl"A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 8 of 17(Emphasis Supplied)We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment and the Trial Court record.15).The prosecutrix (PW-2) has deposed that she was in a love affair with the appellant and had gone to Motihari with him and lived with him.The factum of sexual intercourse between the appellant and the prosecutrix also finds mentioned in the statements of the prosecutrix to the police (Ex.PW- 2/B) and before the Metropolitan Magistrate (Ex.PW-2/A).She had also stated that same to Dr.Nikita (PW-14) during her medico legal examination.We may also add that the Trial Court had, after noticing the demeanour of the prosecutrix, concluded in paragraph 19 that the Crl. A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 9 of 17 prosecutrix was attempting to hide the fact that the appellant was trying to have sexual relations with her.The prosecutrix/victim went missing on 28.06.2012 and the missing report was lodged on 10.07.2012, i.e. after a delay of 12 days.The only explanation forthcoming is contained in the testimony of PW-3 to the effect that they were searching for the prosecutrix on their own volition, which can by no means be a sufficient explanation.Thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.I have before me the prosecutrix's testimony.Before us, the prosecutrix/victim was Crl.A. 270/2016 & 1181/2016 Page 16 of 17Accordingly, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that minors consent is meaningless, we uphold the conviction dated 21.11.2015 and modify the order on sentence dated 24.11.2015 to the extent that the appellant Mohan shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years for the offence under Section 376 IPC.Order on payment on fine shall remain unchanged.Trial Court record be returned along with copy of this judgment.
|
['Section 376 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.
|
132,355,292 |
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.4.2013 at about 6:30 PM the appellant Rakesh Choudhary went with an unknown person to the house of the complainant Ramkumari (PW-1) situated at Village Ghansore (Police Station Ghansore District Seoni) on a pretext that the said unknown person was friend of her brother Shyam and he may be given some space in the house of Ramkumari and her mother Himma Bai (PW-6).Various children were playing in the courtyard.Himma Bai refused to provide the space to that unknown person, and therefore Rakesh Choudhary and his companion left the premises.After sometime it was found that the deceased-prosecutrix aged four years was missing.Ramkumari at about 8:35 PM lodged a missing report before the Police Station Ghansore.On 18.4.2013 some visitors found that one girl child was lying unconscious in the field of Badri Yadav.On getting information the witness Shyam Yadav went to the spot and found that the deceased-prosecutrix was lying unconscious and blood was oozing from her nostril.Her underwear was found lying in the side and skins of three bananas were also lying there.Shyam Yadav took the deceased-prosecutrix to the Government Hospital Ghansore.She was examined 4 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 by Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya, who sent an intimation Ex.P-37 to the Police Station Ghansore.Thereafter with permission of mother of the deceased-prosecutrix and the SDM Ghanshore, the deceased-prosecutrix was examined by Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya and thereafter she was referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur.The deceased- prosecutrix was unconscious and she was not able to give any evidence.In the Medical College, Jabalpur Dr. Bharti Sahu examined the deceased-prosecutrix and gave her report Ex.Dr. Hemant and Dr. P. Dhirawani had also examined the deceased-prosecutrix and treated her.They gave a report Ex.It was confirmed that rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix, and therefore the case was registered.Thereafter the deceased-prosecutrix was sent to the Care Hospital Nagpur so that her life could be saved, but on 29.4.2013 she expired at Care Hospital, Nagpur.Dr. Dipak Ramratan Goyal, who treated the deceased-prosecutrix found that due to pressure caused on the mouth and throat of the deceased, oxygen could not reach in the brain, and also due to contusion in the private part of the deceased-prosecutrix, she died due to cardiorespiratory arrest.Thereafter Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit did the postmortem on the body of the deceased at the Medical College, Nagpur and gave his report Ex.He also 5 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 found that the deceased-prosecutrix died due to bronchopneumonia and cerebral hypoxia owing to smothering.The various samples were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and investigation was done by the Investigation Officer.After much effort the appellant Mohd. Firoz was arrested.The identification parade was arranged with the help of Tahsildar Sudhir Jain (PW-16).Appellant Mohd. Firoz was duly identified by the complainant Ramkumari (PW-1), Ku.Priti Yadav (PW-7), Nitin Namdeo (PW-4) and Himma Bai (PW-6).Thereafter the clothings etc. of appellant Mohd. Firoz were recovered.Thereafter appellant Mohd. Firoz was permitted to change his position and Ku.Priti and Nitin Namdeo, it would be apparent that there is no illegality or perversity crapped up in the various identification parades arranged by the Tahsildar Sudhir Jain (PW-16).There was no police official present.It is proved beyond doubt that appellant Rakesh Choudhary took the appellant Mohd. Firoz to the house of complainant Ramkumari and thereafter he was the person who took the children Ramkishan and the deceased-prosecutrix.Nitin Namdeo (PW-4), fruit vendor has also identified the appellant Mohd. Firoz and he has categorically stated that appellant Mohd. Firoz purchased six bananas.Out of them three bananas were kept in a plastic packet, which was handed over to the witness Ramkishan and he was sent back to his house, whereas appellant Mohd. Firoz took the deceased-prosecutrix and plastic bag having three bananas in it.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 prosecutrix and she died due to activities done by the person, who committed rape.She has mentioned that blood was oozing from her nostril and surrounding of vagina was red.Looking to bad condition of the patient, she referred the patient immediately to the Medical College, Jabalpur and also sent an intimation to the police concerned.Dr. Bharti Sahu (PW-20) examined the deceased-prosecutrix at the Medical College, Jabalpur and gave a report Ex.She found that the deceased- prosecutrix was unconscious and in her arms and legs she was getting convulsions.There was redness on labia minora and abrasions on the surface on both sides.Hymen was torn for a length of 1cm at 6 o'clock position.She prepared the slides of her vaginal swab.She also took the frock of the child and thereafter handed over all such samples to the concerned Constable after their sealing.Dr. Hemant (PW-21), who treated the deceased- prosecutrix has found that the condition of the patient was bad.In the CT scan it was found that there was swelling on her brain.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 was feeling difficulty in taking breath.On 20.4.2013 the prosecutrix was discharged and referred to the Hospital of Nagpur.The physical condition of the prosecutrix- deceased could not be brought on record by such treating doctors because she was unconscious and she was unable to inform about the other injuries.But detail of various injuries etc. was given Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24), who did the postmortem on the body of the deceased.He found that right upper central incisor tooth and left upper lateral tooth were missing.Upper left central incisor tooth was shaken and gums near those teeth were swollen and of blue colour.Labia majora and Labia minora were contused and swollen having blue colour.Wall of the vagina was broken at 6 o'clock position and also it was broken from various places.There was swelling on vaginal wall.Hymen was broken at 3, 6 and 7 o'clock position.Its opening was dilated.Swelling and bruise were found on her vagina.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit found the following 13 injuries on the body of the deceased-prosecutrix, which are as under:-(i) A lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm muscle deep was found at centre of upper lip and limited portion of that lip was contused and blue.Shyam Yadav (PW-5) brother of complainant Ramkumari has stated that he was not residing with his mother Himma Bai in those days, but Ramkumari was residing with Himma Bai and he was not informed about the incident initially.On the next day of the incident, the Kotwar Santosh visited him with the intimation that one girl child was lying in a field.Witness Shyam Yadav went to the field along with the Kotwar Santosh and found that it was the deceased-prosecutrix, who was daughter of his sister.Underwear of the deceased-prosecutrix was lying in the side and skins of three bananas were also found near right hand of the deceased.The statement of Shyam Yadav is duly proved by Dr.She also gave an intimation Ex.P-37 to the police that the prosecutrix was brought to the hospital.Under such circumstances, it is duly proved that the deceased- prosecutrix was found lying in a field.Her underwear was removed and skins of three bananas were also found near her body.Also sum of Rs.25/- was found near her body.The recovery of unconscious injured prosecutrix from an open place with such other things, along with injuries on her private parts clearly indicates that she was given three bananas and sum of Rs.25/- and thereafter rape was committed with her.According to the evidence of the prosecution the prosecutrix was found in deadly condition within 10-12 hours of her kidnapping.And he had smothered her so forcefully so that she would die on the spot.But the prosecutrix remained unconscious for 12-13 days.Swelling was found on her brain and other respiratory parts.Ultimately it was found by the various doctors that due to suffocation caused sufficient oxygen could not reach to her brain and such symptoms were developed and ultimately she died.(15/7/2014) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by: N.K.Gupta,J:Since both the criminal appeals and criminal reference arose from a common impugned judgment 2 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 dated 26.10.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Special Case No.11/2013, and therefore these cases are decided by the present common judgment.Vide judgment dated 26.10.2013 the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni in Special Case No.11/2013 convicted and sentenced the present appellants as under:376(2)(i) of Life imprisonment with fine of IPC Rs.2000/-.5(m) r/w 6 Life imprisonment with fine of of POCSO Rs.2000/-.109 of IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/-.Since the death sentence was directed to the appellant Mohd. Firoz, therefore a reference was made to this 3 Cr.His bag left in the house of Himma Bai was also seized and his various identity cards etc. were seized from that bag.Some of the documents relating to his identification were recovered from the room in which he was residing prior to the incident.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed.The case was duly committed to the Sessions Judge, Seoni being Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short "POCSO Act").The appellants-accused abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea.No defence evidence was adduced from the side of appellant Mohd. Firoz whereas one Virendra Choudhary (DW-1) was examined from the side of appellant Rakesh Choudhary to show his 6 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 presence in the shop of Virendra Choudhary on that particular day.After considering the evidence adduced by the parties before the trial Court, the learned Sessions Judge, Seoni has convicted and sentenced the present appellants in the aforesaid manner.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.The circumstances proved by the prosecution may be considered one by one.Witnesses Ramkumari (PW-1), Madhu Yadav (PW-2), Himma Bai (PW-6), Ku.Priti Yadav (PW-7) and Ramkishan Yadav (PW-31) have stated that the appellant Rakesh Choudhary along with appellant Mohd. Firoz went to the house of complainant 7 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 Ramkumari and Rakesh Choudhary told Himma Bai that Mohd. Firoz would stay in the house, but Himma Bai did not permit them.Mohd. Firoz remained in the courtyard seated in a chair for a longer period and various children including Puja, Madhu, Ramkishan and Nilesh were playing near by him.Thereafter various witnesses have stated that the appellants disappeared from the house of Ramkumari and children Ramkishan and the deceased- prosecutrix were also missing.After sometime Ramkishan came back to the house.He informed that from the fruit vendor shop appellant Mohd. Firoz purchased six bananas.He gave three bananas to Ramkishan in a plastic bag and told him to go to his house and thereafter he took the deceased-prosecutrix with a plastic bag of remaining three bananas.The entire evidence proves the fact of last seen of appellant Mohd. Firoz with the deceased-prosecutrix.Appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to any of the above witnesses, and therefore there was no enmity between appellant Mohd. Firoz and aforesaid witnesses.Hence there is no possibility that appellant Mohd. Firoz would have been falsely implicated by these witnesses.To prove the fact of last seen, it is true that appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to the various witnesses, but after arrest of Mohd. Firoz the police had arranged 8 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Priti was called, who also identified appellant Mohd. Firoz and memo Ex.P-6 was recorded.Similarly, the fruit vendor Nitin Namdeo was called and after due identification a memo Ex.P-5 was recorded.Lastly, Himma Bai (PW-6) had identified appellant Mohd. Firoz in the test identification parade and a memo Ex.P-35 was recorded.After considering the evidence of Tahsildar Sudhir Jain and the witnesses Ramkishan, Himma Bai, Ku.There was no clue that witnesses could see appellant Mohd. Firoz prior to arrangement of test identification parade.Tahsildar Sudhir Jain permitted appellant Mohd. 9Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Under such circumstances, it is duly established that it was the appellant Mohd. Firoz, who was in the company of the deceased-prosecutrix soon before the incident and though he was not related with the children.He kidnapped the deceased-prosecutrix by giving promise to provide some fruits etc.Second circumstance which is proved by the prosecution is that a rape was committed with the minor 10 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.In that respect the prosecution examined series of doctors who examined the prosecutrix from time to time including Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya (PW-17).Dr. Bharti Sonkeshriya examined the prosecutrix and gave a report Ex.When medicine for reduction of swelling was given, she was getting convulsions and she 11 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13(ii) A lacerated wound 0.2cm x 0.2cm muscle deep was found in the centre of lower lip.The connected portion of that lip was contused and blue.(iii) Abrasion 2cm x 2cm of dark brown colour on outer portion of right neck and 3cm on mastoil bone.(v) Abrasion 0.3cmx 0.3cm found on right side of submandibular region.(vii) Abrasion 0.2cm x 0.2cm on right back.(viii) Abrasion 1.5cm x 0.5cm on left back.(ix) Multiple abrasions of various sizes 0.3cm x 0.2cm, 0.2cm x 0.1cm found on the right side of the abdomen.(x) Multiple linear was found on the back of left thigh having dimension 4cm x 3cm, 4cm x 0.2cm.(xi) In front of neck a stitched wound was found which was opening done during her treatment for tracheostomy.(xii) A whole was found in right side of the neck which was created to know central venous pressure.(xiii) There were several puncture marks relating to provide I.V. fluids on both elbows and writs of both hands and legs.On opening of the body, the symptoms of pneumonia were also found.In internal muscle of neck, blood was 13 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 deposited and all such organs were found congested.Edema was found in the brain, and therefore some portion of vaginal and uterine swab was preserved for various chemical examinations and histopathology.According to the opinion of Dr. Dixit and his companions, the deceased died due to bronchopneumonia caused due to smothering.He found that the injuries No.11 to 13 were not the injuries but those were caused during the treatment of the deceased-prosecutrix.After considering the evidence of various doctors, it would be apparent that forceful rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix and she died due to smothering.Hence the prosecution has successfully proved that the deceased-prosecutrix died due to smothering and looking to her injuries, penetration was done by the person concerned.Bharti Sahu (PW-20), who prepared two 14 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24) had also prepared the slides of vaginal swab of the prosecutrix on 30.4.2013 which was sent to the FSL.The deceased-prosecutrix remained unconscious for 12-13 days, who was suffering from convulsions, therefore her vaginal liquid would have discharged the entire portion of semen etc. in those 13 days.If the slides prepared by Dr.Bharti Sahu could be timely sent to the FSL, then the positive report relating to presence of semen would have been found, and therefore if in the FSL report Ex.P-72 no semen particles were found in the vaginal swab of the deceased-prosecutrix, then it makes no difference.Looking to the reports of various doctors and Dr. Dixit, who performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased-prosecutrix, it would be apparent that rape was committed with the deceased-prosecutrix and thereafter smothering was done to her.Hence the death of the deceased was homicidal which was caused after committing rape upon her.This is the second circumstance proved by the prosecution beyond doubt.So far as the motive is concerned, it would be apparent that initially the appellant Mohd. Firoz was not known to any of the family members of the complainant Ramkumari and he did not know about the family 15 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A currency note of 16 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 Rs.20/- and a coin of Rs.5 were also found.Thereafter he took the deceased Puja to the Police Station Ghansore and at that time she was alive, and therefore she was taken to Ghansore Hospital and referred to the Medical College, Jabalpur.If the accused would have kidnapped her for demand of ransom, then such demand would have been made.If he had handed over the prosecutrix to someone else for money or otherwise then 17 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.Hence on the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would be clear that the rape was committed upon her.Investigation Officer R.N.Parteti and ASI Mohd. Sultan have stated that from the spot they have seized the skins of bananas and piece of earth containing some hair.Nothing has been brought in the cross examination of these witnesses to show that they were not believable.That piece of earth including hair was sent for forensic science analysis.Dr. Pankaj Shrivastav (PW-25), Scientist Officer of FSL Sagar has stated that after examining the various samples, he gave DNA report Ex.According to him the DNA from hair found on the spot in the piece of earth was the same as the DNA obtained from the blood of the appellant Mohd. Firoz.This is also the circumstance against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.Sub Inspector S. Ram Maravi (PW-30) has stated as to how he arrested the appellant Mohd. Firoz.According to him, they went to District Bhagalpur and traced the appellant Mohd. Firoz in District Banka of Bihar State but he was not found.Thereafter they 18 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 contacted aunt of appellant Mohd. Firoz who informed that appellant Mohd. Firoz went with a fresh mobile SIM.With the help of the call details, he was located.The local police of Bhagalpur District was also requested to assist in the arrest of appellant Mohd. Firoz.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 deceased-prosecutrix and Ramkishan was returned back, the offence under Section 363 of IPC is duly established against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.After considering the various injuries etc. and circumstances proved by the prosecution, it would be apparent that the appellant Mohd. Firoz had intended to kill the deceased-prosecutrix.Various abrasions found on the neck also indicate that the appellant Mohd. Firoz tried to 22 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 commit throttling and thereafter left the body of the deceased at the spot.But since the deceased survived for 12-13 days, therefore apparent symptoms of throttling had disappeared and due to her survival she could breath for more days.If suffocation was caused during the course of rape, then certainly there was no question so that the prosecutrix would have received such injuries on her lips as well as on her neck.Dr. Pradeep Gangadhar Dixit (PW-24) has also found that the prosecutrix got two teeth broken and the gums near those teeth had turned blue and swelling was found.Under such 23 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 circumstances, if the prosecutrix died after 12-13 days, then it does not mean that the injuries caused by the appellant Mohd. Firoz were not sufficient to cause her death in a routine course of her life.She survived for 12-13 days due to the best medical aid given to her by the State, otherwise she would have in all probability died in the field itself.Looking to the injuries caused to the deceased, it would be apparent that the appellant Mohd. Firoz had intended to kill the deceased, and therefore he smothered the deceased-prosecutrix till end and he left her when he thought that she has expired.Under such circumstances, where the murder was committed with intention, offence under Section 302 of IPC is established against the appellant Mohd. Firoz.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion where the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, there is no reasonable doubt in favour of the appellant Mohd. Firoz and when he is found guilty of offence under Section 376(2)(i) and 376(2)(m) of IPC, then it is needless to say that he is guilty of parallel offence of Section 5(i) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act and Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of POCSO Act.So far as the crime of appellant Rakesh Choudhary is concerned, it would be apparent from the statement of Ramkumari, Himma Bai etc. that Rakesh 24 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 took the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz with him so that co- appellant Mohd. Firoz could get a shelter in the house of Shyam Yadav.Shyam Yadav has stated that in those days, he was not residing with his mother, and therefore according to Himma Bai she did not permit the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz to reside in the house.However, co-appellant Mohd. Firoz left his bag in the house of Himma Bai with the request that he would come back in the evening and thereafter the appellant Rakesh Choudhary was disappeared.In this context, the statement of fruit vendor Nitin Namdeo (PW-4) is acceptable that when the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz went to his shop and purchased bananas and he was accompanied by Ramkishan and the deceased- prosecutrix and Ramkishan was returned back by the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz, but the fruit vendor did not mention the attendance of appellant Rakesh Choudhary.It is true that Rakesh Choudhary took the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz to the house of Himma Bai, but Rakesh Choudhary as well as Mohd. Firoz were not aware about the family members of Shyam Yadav or Himma Bai, therefore it cannot be said that prior to leaving the house of Himma Bai, there was a conspiracy of accused persons that the deceased-prosecutrix would be kidnapped and 25 Cr.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.A.No.3132/13 the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz would commit rape upon the deceased-prosecutrix.He tried to give some money to the children to attract them and thereafter he took two children with him out of four children to provide some fruits etc. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that either the appellant Rakesh Choudhary abetted the co- appellant Mohd. Firoz to do such crime or he had any common intention with the co-appellant Mohd. Firoz.Reference No.9/2013 Cr.A.No.2920/13 & Cr.We, therefore, uphold the death sentence and also other sentences imposed upon the appellant Mohd. Firoz by the trial Court.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the Criminal Appeal No.3132/2013 filed by the appellant Rakesh Choudhary is accepted in toto.A.No.3132/13 trial Court.Whereas the Criminal Appeal No.2920/2013 filed by the appellant Mohd. Firoz is hereby dismissed and the death sentence awarded to appellant Mohd. Firoz is hereby confirmed.
|
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,358,437 |
C.R.M.6358 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16/08/2018 in connection with Raninagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018 dated 03/01/2018 under Sections 325/326/304/34 of the Indian gd Penal Code along with added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Srikanta Mandal & Anr.....petitioners.Mr. Ali Ahsan Alamgir ...for the petitioners.Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Dipankar Paramanick ...for the State.The petitioners seek anticipatory bail in connection with Raninagar P.S. Case No. 03 of 2018 dated 03/01/2018 under Sections 325/326/304/34 of the Indian Penal Code along with added Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary, refers to some of the witnesses' statements which specifically named these petitioners and relies on the postmortem report to demonstrate the brutality of the attack.The investigation has been completed and the charge-sheet has been filed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,358,448 |
Thereafter, vide order dated 29.06.2018, the Team of Doctors of M.Y. Hospital were directed to examine the health condition of the daughter of the petitioners and submit the report whether the pregnancy can be terminated at this stage.The daughter of the petitioners was examined by the Team of Doctors Dr. Nisha Mandloi, Dr. Vibha Mojes and Dr. Sumitra Yadav.Thereafter, they submitted a joint report to the Superintendent of M.Y. Hospital recommending termination of pregnancy.The report is reproduced below:The petitioners have approached this Court seeking permission/direction for termination of pregnancy of their minor daughter.The daughter of the petitioners is a rape victim.They lodged an FIR No.199/2018 dated 10.04.2018 at Police Station Kukshi, District Dhar.The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Because of that unfortunate incident, she became pregnant and as on 15.05.2018, the life of fetus was 25 weeks and six days.Since, the life of fetus has exceeded 12 weeks, therefore, under the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as "Act of 1971") the doctors have restrained themselves to terminate the pregnancy, Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of writ petition as victim do not want to 2 continue with pregnancy.By order dated 22.06.2018 this Court has directed Government Advocate to seek instructions.That ARORA Date: 2017.09.06 18:28:22 IST Reason: apart, it has also been opined that termination of pregnancy at this stage or delivery at term will have equal risks to the mother.The Board has also expressed the view that the baby born will be preterm and will have its own complications and would require Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (N.I.C.U.) admission.Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar shall apprise the Dean of Sir J.J. Group of Hospitals, Mumbai so that he/she can make necessary arrangements for termination of the pregnancy.A copy of the order passed today be handed over to learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nishant R. Katneshwarkar, learned standing counsel for the State of 8 Maharashtra.The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.There shall be no order as to costs."In light of the aforesaid judgment, considering the age of the girl, trauma which she has to suffer and the agony she is going through at present and also keeping in view the report of Medical Board constituted by this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the prayer made by the petitioner and his daughter deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.The case of the petitioner is covered under explanation of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Act of 1971, The respondents are directed to carry out termination of pregnancy immediately if health condition of the girl i.e. the daughter of the petitioners permits to do so.The Doctors specialized in the field are the best experts to take decision about health condition of girl before and after termination of pregnancy.This Court is only giving permission of termination of pregnancy in view of judgement passed by the Apex Court in aforementioned cases but subject to the health condition and consent under the Act. The Dean, MGM Medical College and M.Y. Hospital, Indore is directed to admit the daughter of the petitioners (prosecutrix) and examine before termination of pregnancy within 3 days positively as per the consent given by her parents as required under sub Section (4) of Section 3 of the Medical Termination of 9 Pregnancy Act, 1971 & health condition.It is needless to mention that the Head of the Department of Gynecologist, Head of the Department of Anesthesia and all other specialist will remain present at the time termination of pregnancy is carrying out, as the girl is of tender age and as their is a threat of life of the girl also.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,363,048 |
In default of payment of fine on each count one month's simple imprisonment was directed.The prosecution's case in short is that on 12.1.1996 at about 4.00 p.m in the evening the complainant Harshlal (PW1) and Panchamlal (PW4) were making some construction in their cattle 2 Criminal Appeal No..1410 of 2000 house situated at Village Akouri, (Police Station Naigarhi, District Rewa).One Keshav Prasad came to them and told that one doctor sahab was calling them and therefore, they went to the road.The appellant and other co-accused persons were present on the road and they abused the complainants on the basis of the cause and with obscene words.The accused persons assaulted the victims by sticks, knives and other weapons.On their shouting the witnesses Sheshmani and Ramsiya came to the spot who saved the complainants.(Delivered on the 6th day of November, 2012) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 4.5.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (Rewa) in Special Case No.65/1999 whereby the appellant was convicted for offence punishable under Sections 323, 506 (Part II) of I.P.C and sentenced for 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- for each count.The complainants had submitted a written report Ex.,P/1 on 16.1.1996 to the S.P Rewa with the blame that they had lodged an FIR at Police Station Narigarhi on 12.1.1996 but nothing was done of their complaint.A case was registered and after due investigation a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Rewa.The appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in defence.No defence evidence was adduced.After considering the prosecution's evidence the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused Onkar and Keshav from all the charges whereas the appellant Rajesh was convicted for offence punishable under Section 323, 506 (Part II) of the I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that a compromise took place between the victim Harshlal and the appellant Rajesh and therefore, the appellant was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Sections 323 and 506 3 Criminal Appeal No..1410 of 2000 (Part II) of I.P.C for the complainant Harshlal and therefore, the conviction was directed only for the complainant Panchamlal whereas Panchamlal has not stated specifically against the appellant that he assaulted him or he gave any threat.The trial Court has committed the error in convicting the appellant.In the alternate it is submitted that the appellant has faced the trial and appeal for last 13 years.He was a youth of 18 years at the time of incident and therefore, he should have been enlarged on probation.He remained in the custody for three days and therefore, the sentence of the appellant may be reduced to the period which he has already undergone in the custody.On the other hand the learned Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the appeal may be dismissed being without any merits.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case it is to be considered as to whether the appeal filed by the complainant can be accepted ? And whether the sentence directed against the appellant can be reduced ?9. Harshlal (PW1), Sheshmani (PW2), Ramsiya (PW3) and Pamcham (PW4) were examined as eye witnesses.Out of them all the witnesses have turned hostile.They did not confirm the prosecution's case either against the appellant or against the other co-accused persons.Sheshmani and Ramsiya turned hostile in toto.Harshlal did not say anything about the incident caused by the appellant towards the complainant Panchamlal. 4Criminal Appeal No..1410 of 2000 Panchamlal has stated in para 3 of his statement that he was threatened by the accused persons but no specific allegation was made upon the appellant.In this pretext if FIR Ex.On the contrary the prosecution has to prove that what was the object of the threat whether it was to terrorize the complainant or to pressurize the complainant to do or omit to do any act.Pancham could not tell the reason why he was threatened and therefore, if version of the witness Pancham is accepted it cannot be said that the appellant has committed an office of criminal intimidation under section 506 (Part II) of the I.P.C. The learned Special Judge has erred in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under section 506 (Part II) of I.P.C.The witness Panchamlal has stated in an omnibus manner that the accused persons assaulted him by sticks.He did not allege against the appellant that he assaulted him by a stick and caused any injury, on his particular portion of the body.FIR Ex.P/1 was lodged with delay of atleast four days and no reason has been shown about the delay.In the FIR Ex.P/1 it is mentioned that an FIR was lodged at Police Station, Naigarhi on the same day of the incident but, no such FIR was proved by the 5 Criminal Appeal No..1410 of 2000 prosecution.If prosecution's documents are perused because such can be perused in favour of the accused persons though they were not proved then it would be apparent that an MLC report was submitted by the investigation officer for the injuries caused to Harshlal along with charge sheet but, no MLC report has been produced for the victim Panchamlal and therefore, it is apparent that the victim Panchamlal did not sustain any injury in the incident.If it is accepted that the appellant assaulted the victim Panchamlal by a stick then he must have sustained atleast one injury on his person.Under such circumstances, it is apparent that the testimony of the complainant Panchamlal is nowhere corroborated.No eye witness has corroborated his testimony.His FIR was highly delayed which creates a doubt on the prosecution's case and it is not proved that any injury was caused to the victim Panchamlal.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witness Panchamlal is not acceptable and it is not proved beyond doubt that out of the accused persons the appellant Rajesh has also assaulted him.If any doubt is created then benefit of doubt is to be given to the accused and therefore, the appellant Rajesh could not be convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of I.P.C.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion it appears that the learned Special Judge erred in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 323, 506 (Part II) of I.P.C. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant can be accepted.The appeal filed by the appellant is hereby accepted.The 6 Criminal Appeal No..1410 of 2000 conviction as well as the sentence directed for offence punishable under Section 323, 506 (Part II) of I.P.C (for the complainant Panchamlal) is hereby set aside.The appellant is acquitted from all such charges.Copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE 6.11.2012 bina
|
['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.
|
1,323,730 |
2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:a) P.W.11 on 20.5.2005 after seeing the gunny bag with a dead body under the bridge, informed to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer.PW1, Village Administrative Officer proceeded to the spot at 1 p.m. along with his assistants and found the dead body of 30 years old male.b)Thereafter, P.W.1 immediately proceeded to the respondent police station and gave a complaint Ex.PW4 is living at Salem.A1 is the wife, A2 is the father of the first accused, A3 is the nephew of the first accused.After marriage, the deceased was living at Kuppandanpalayam.The second accused insisted the deceased to purchase 4 acres of land adjacent to his properties and asked him to go and live in his native place.Thereafter the deceased was living with his wife, the first accused at Vilaralimedu, Kavindapadi.They got only one son and one daughter.The deceased used to consume liquor and also used to enter into number of agreements for sale of the properties and received part of the consideration by which A1 and A2 were aggrieved.The deceased was in the habit of visiting his sister PW4 at Salem, once in a week.He was also talking to her over phone atleast once in two days.At last, on 12.5.2005, deceased Murugesan gone to the house of PW4 and stayed there for a full day and thereafter returned.In the meanwhile, Since PW4 did not get any phone call from the deceased, came to the house of the deceased on 31.5.2005 and when she arrived near the house of the deceased, the daughter of the deceased asked PW4 about her father and immediately PW4 asked the first accused about the deceased.The accused replied that he had actually gone to her house only.e).On the basis of the complaint given by PW1, a criminal case was registered in Crime No.51 of 2005 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC on 20.5.2005 by P.W.24, the Sub Inspector of Police, and the investigation was pending.The printed FIR is Ex.The Inspector of Police deputed PW22 to assist the doctor to conduct postmortem.f)P.W.20, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has given a categorical opinion that since the dead body was at the decomposed stage, he could not fix the cause of death.g. While pending the investigation, PW.26, the Investigation officer caused the arrest of the first accused and she gave a confessional statement and the admissible portion of the confessional statement which is marked as Ex.Following the same, she produced M.O.6 Motor Bike and M.O.17, Nylon Saree.Both were recovered under two independent mahazar.Thereafter, A2 was also arrested.Further, they were sent for judicial remand.He submitted a requisition to the Magistrate concerned to send the propertie for chemical analysis.Lastly, the deceased visited her sister at Salem on 12.5.2005 and stayed for a day.According to PW4, since she did not get any phone call, she made a visit to the house of the deceased and at that time, the daughter of the deceased came nearer to her and asked about her father.Immediately PW4 asked the first accused about the deceased.But, she gave an evasive answer stating that he went to her house only at Salem.P.1 and immediately the Sub-Inspector of Police rushed to the scene.On 20.5.2005, the Inspector of police examined PW1 and recorded the statement.The case was taken up for investigation.c) PW4 is the Sister of the accused.At last, she made a confession to PW4 that along with A2 and the absconding accused Prakash, she committed murder of the deceased.Further,she made a request not to divulge the same to any one else and made an appeal to consider sympathetically and further she was prepared to transfer the title of certain properties to the children of Murugesan.d)Thereafter, PW4 went to the police station and gave a complaint and the same is marked as Ex.He also submtited another reqisition to the Magistrate for conducting super-imposing test to identify the deceased which resulted in Ex.P.20, the Chemical report, Ex.P.21 and 22, the Serologist reports and Ex.P.25 the Hyoid Bone report.On completion of the investigation, PW.27, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses and also relied on 29 exhibits and 22 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined, but one document was marked Ex.The court below heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the accused/appellants guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment, which is the subject matter of challenge before this court.A1 along with A2 and other absconding accused Prakash has committed the murder of her husband and put the dead body in a gunny bag and threw it on a land.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.It relied upon only circumstantial evidence.It was a case where the prosecution came out with a story that the occurrence had taken place on 17.5.2005, but the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given on 31.5.2005 and thus there was a long interval and also it could be seen from the available materials that the relationship of PW4 with the first accused was strained.Apart from that, it could be seen that PW4 and the deceased used to talk over phone atleast once in a few days.In the instant case, there was a interval for nearly fifteen days, there was no phone call at all from the deceased.The only witness spoke about the fact was PW15, one Subayal who did not support the case of the prosecution.When there was a long interval of fifteen days.there was no phone call at all, the conduct of PW4 was that she came to the house of the deceased and at that time, the first accused came forward to give a confessional statement, cannot be believed.Added further, in the instant case, except the so called extra judicial confession,there was no evidence available at all.Further, in the instant case, following the confessional statement given by the first accused to PW4, the Investigation Officer produced two material objects one is M.O.6, Motor Bike in which the dead body was actually transported and also M.O.17, Nylon Saree with which the death was caused.Since the cause of death could not be fixed, the recovery of these materials pursuant to the confessional statement was of no avail to the prosecution case.Under these circumstances, no way the prosecution brought home the guilt of the accused.Added further learned counsel that in the instant case, the motive which was attributed for the heinous crime of murdering the husband by the first accused was feeble and flimsy and in so far as the second accused was concerned, the prosecution had no evidence at all.Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case.Hence, the appellants are entitled to acquittal.6.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.The dead body was identified.After the dead body was identified, enquiry was made by the Investigating Officer.After the inquest was made by the Investigating Officer, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem by P.W.20, the Doctor, who conducted autopsy on the dead body was unable to fix the cause of the death.Though the postmortem doctor was unable to fix the cause of death, the prosecution was able to show that it was the homicidal death and it was not the case of the prosecution that the deceased has committed suicide.The fact that the deceased died out of homicidal violence was never disputed by the appellants before the trial court and hence it has got to be recorded so.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants it is true that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.The Court must follow certain principles of law.In a case like this, the prosecution must able to place and prove necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused and also pointing to the fact that except the accused, no one could have committed the crime.The Court is satisifed that after thorough analysis of the evidence, the prosecution had brought home the first accused in the instant case.The occurrence had taken place on 17.5.2005 at about 7.30 p.m. A1 was the wife of the deceased.Both A1 and decreased were living along with their children during the relevant point of time.It is not the case of the accused before the trial Court that he was away or they were not living together.Under such circumstances, one would reasonably accept that A1 would speak how the death of her husband has happened.From the evidence avialable, it can be seen that PW4 is the sister of the deceased.She was living at Salem.At last, she came forward to give a confessional statement narrating the crime.It is pertinent to point out that it was PW.11 who first saw the dead body has brought to the notice of Village Administrative Officer who in turn gave a complaint Ex.P.1 to the respondent police station and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.51 of 2005 on 20.5.2005 itself.The investigation was pending.Immediately PW4 went to the police station and she has also gave a report Ex.Following the same, the investigator arrested the first accused and at that juncture, the accused came forward to give confession voluntarily and pursuant to which, she produced 2 Mos., first is M.O.6, Motor Bike which was used for transporting the dead body to the place where it was actually placed and also M.O.17, Nylon Saree which according to the accused was used for the purpose of causing death of her husband.Now at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that if not A1 divulged the truth to PW4, the investigator would not have proceeded further or the act of the first accused could not have come to the knowledge of the respondent police.The contention of the learned counsel that the relationship of PW4 and the first accuseds were strained and hence accused could not have come forward to divulge such a heinous crime to PW4, cannot be accepted.Nowhere it is stated that they were in enimical term.Actually PW4 used to visit his brother's house.The deceased also visited PW4's house at salem.It is true that actually there was difference of opinion between PW4 and the first accused, since PW4 also joined her brother in signing the sale agreements, It did not mean that PW4 was not only in enimical term with the first accused, but there was also strained relationship between them.A comment was made by the learned counsel that PW4 did not visit her brother's house for fifteen days, though she did not get a call from him.It is true that from the evidence it is clear that she used to get a phone call.when she came and questioned the first accused, she made confessional statement to the first accused.Before accepting any extra judicial confession, the Court must apply two tests.First, to whom and under what circumstances extra judicial confession was made and secondly whether the evidence of person to whom extra judicial confession made, inspires confidence of the Court.In the instant case, extra judicial confession was made by A1 to PW4, her sister-in-,law that too, at the first instance after so many queries made.Secondly the evidence of PW4 would clearly indicate that it inspires confidence of the trial court as well as this Court and the trial court accepted the evidence rightly too.Under such circumstances, the Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the first accused and there was sufficient motive for her to do the crime.The deceased was a drunkard and that he used to execute the sale agreements in favour of third parties which are deteimental and prejudicial to the interest of the family.Therefore, he has to be acquitted of the charges.The appeal fails and the same is dismissed .It is reported that the appellant is on bail and hence the learned trial Judge shall take steps to secure her presence and commit her to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.In so far as A2 is concerned, the appeal is allowed and the he is acquitted of the charges..Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the second appellant by the trial court is set aside.The bail bond, if any, executed by him shall stand terminated and the fine amount, if any paid by him is ordered to be refunded to him.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.11.In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed in respect of first accused and the same is allowed in respect of second accused.1.The First Additional District Sessions Judge, ErodeInspector of Police, Thingalur Police Station, Erode District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,379,241 |
I- 142 of 2018 registered with Central Police Station, Ulhas Nagar, the applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;(ii) The applicant shall report the investigating officer of Central Police Station, Ulhas Nagar from 10th December 2018 to 14th December 2018 between 11 am and 1 pm and co-operate in the investigation;(iii) This interim direction is granted till next date of hearing.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:07:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 08:07:02 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,470,369 |
The same is taken on record.BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 1 of 8The relevant recitals of the said Settlement Agreement dated 24.12.2015 are as follows:-That after considering all the circumstances the Parties have mutually agreed that their marriage should be dissolved and they are now ready to amicably party ways by mutually applying for getting their marriage dissolved through Competent Court of Law at Delhi.Both Parties have agreed to amicably and mutually resolved and settled, in full and final, all their differneces and disputes.It is agreed that towards full and final settlement of all the differneces and disputes between the Parties and towards past, present and future maintenance of the Scond Party and Baby Meher, the First Party shall pay (as per the terms of this Settlement Deed) a total sum of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) (hereinafter "Full and Final Settlement Amount"), which shall be paid in various tranches at various stages as set forth below.Out of the Full and Final Settlement Amount, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) shall be paid by the First Party to the Second Party at the time of hearing of bail application no. 2568/2015 on 15.01.2016, as pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.Second Party undertakes to extend full cooperation to the First Party in the bail proceedings.BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 2 of 8Out of the Full and Final Settlement Amount, a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) shall be paid by the First Party to the Second Party at the time of hearing of the first motion for divorce by mutual consent before the concerned Court of competent jurisdiction.Out of the Full and Final Settlement Amount, the First Party shall pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs only) to the Second Party, at the time of hearing of the second motion for the divorce by mutual consent, which shall be filed between 6 to 10 months from the date of the First Motion.It is also agreed that at the time of hearing of the petition for quashing of the said FIR, the First Party shall pay a further sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the Second Party.That all the dowry articles of the Second Party are lying in the rented house at House No. VP-258 C, VP Block, Pitampura, Delhi- 110034, which is already in the possession of the Second Party.However, the Second Party shall allow the First Party to take back certain articles belonging to the First Party which are lying in the said rented accommodation i.e. (a) one window AC, (b) BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 3 of 8 clothing items of the First Party, (c) shoes and (d) other personal grooming accessories.The parties shall mutually discuss the date and time of visit of the First Party for taking back the aforesaid articles, which shall not be later than 30.12.2015, in the presence of respective cousels of the parties.However, the First Party also undertakes to allow the Second Prty to directly take back the security amount of Rs.10,000/- as deposited with the landlord.Further, the First Party undertakes to clear the arrears of rent, if any, up to 31.12.2015 with regard to the rented accommodation.If for any reason whatsoever the Second Party does not vacate the rented premises mentioned above then the First Party shall not be liable for the payment of any rent after 05.01.2016 and the Second Party shall be liable for the same to the landlord.BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 3 of 8Both Parties confirm and acknowledge that all articles and valuables including istridhan, jewelry, belonging to respective parties have been exchanged and the respective parties acknowledge the same.The Second Party confirms and acknowledges that she has received all her belongings and articles, including istridhan and jewellery, from the First Party, and no articles remain receivable to her from the First Party and/or his family members, except as stated above.That as per the terms of the present Settlement Deed, all the disputes of the Second Party and her assigns shall stand settled in FULL AND FINAL with the First Party and his family members (that is, entire and all claims towards cost of maintenance of the Second Party and her daughter Baby Meher i.e. past, present and future maintenance, also towards all other claims that Second Party may have against First Party due to said wedlock/legal relation that BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 4 of 8 includes claims with respect to dowry, instridhan alimony, gifts, jewelry, expenditure, any other claim what so ever that the Party of the Second Part may claim against party of Second Part due to said matrimonial relation.) The Second Party will have no right of claim on any of the property movable or immovable, self acquired, ancestral, joint or HUF of the Second Party, or his family for any past, present or future claims, which have all been settled in terms of the present Settlement Deed.BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 4 of 8That the Second Party reiterates and acknowledges that neither Second Party nor Baby Meher shall have any right or claim on any of the property movable or immovable, self acquired, ancestral, joint or HUF of the First Party, or his family for any past, present or future claims.That the Second Party shall make no further claim/right against any movable or immoveable property of the First Party or his family members.That both parties and also their respective families shall make an endeavor not to speak ill about each other or their respective family members.That both the parties shall have on satisfaction of aforementioned terms no further claims whatsoever against each other from this day onwards and terms of the aforementioned deed are binding on them and the both the parties hereby undertake to abide by the terms and conditions of the present agreement.That the present Settlement Deed has been entered into to avoid undue hardship in life, so that both the Parties can separately move on with their respective lives.That the Parties have entered into the present Settlement Deed with their consent, free will & wish and in the sound disposition of mind and without any force, coercion, pressure, undue influence from each other or from any third party.The parties shall now abide by the terms and conditions thereof without demur.In pursuance to the aforesaid settlement a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been handed over by the applicant to the complainant-wife in court today by way of a demand draft bearing No.390166 dated 15.01.2016 drawn on Citi Bank, N.A. Delhi.The complainant acknowledges receipt subject to its realization.The present dispute arose out of a matrimonial discord.The same has been settled as aforesaid.Through: Ms Radhika Kolluru, APP with SI Tulsi Ram, PS- Shalimar Bagh.HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J (ORAL)The present is an application under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeking pre-arrest bail in FIR No.798/2015, under sections 406/498A/34 IPC registered at Police Station- Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant as well as the complainant, on instructions from the latter, who are present in court, state that with the assistance of the Mediator, they have arrived at an amicable BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 1 of 8 resolution of all their outstanding marital disputes vide Settlement Deed dated 24.12.2015, a copy of which has been handed over in court today.It is agreed that within a period of two months from the filing and grant of the Second Motion for divorce by mutual consent, the First Party shall file a petition before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court for quashing of the said FIR [i.e., FIR No. 798/2015 u/s 498A/406/34IPC dated 29.06.2015, PS: Shalimar Bagh].Both Parties shall extend full cooperation and support to each other for the filing of the First Motion, Second Motion, petition for quashing before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and/or any other document as may be required to be filed by the Parties for obtaining the decree of divorce by mutual consent.The Second Party also undertakes to withdraw the Pending Litigations as mentioned above on the respective next date of hearings in the said cases.That any other complaint/all other complaints/cases filed by the Second Party and her family members against the First Party and his family members and vice versa, shall be treated as withdrawn/closed.That the marriage between the Parties was solemnized at Delhi.That the present Settlement Deed can be executed through any Competent Court of Law at Delhi.It is further agreed that in case the First Party breaches the terms and conditions of the present settlement then the Second Party shall be entitled to take action against him in accordance with law including revival of cases.And n case the Second Party breaches the terms and conditions of the present settlement then the Second Party shall be liable to return the amount of money as received by BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 6 of 8 her and for withdrawal of cases and quashing of FIR there shall be implied consent for the Second Party.As a consequence of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a quietus will be applied to the following proceedings in addition to the disposal of the present bail application:-(i) Complaint u/s 12 of the DV Act filed by the Second Party pending before the Court of Ms.(ii) Contempt petition filed by the Second Party [Cont.Narottam Kaushal, Principal Judge, Family Court, Rohini.Resultantly, the present application is allowed.In the event of his arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer/Station House Incharge.The application is disposed of accordingly.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JANUARY 15, 2016 mk BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 8 of 8BAIL APPLN.2568/2015 Page 8 of 8
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,471,248 |
2.According to the prosecution, on 13.06.2011 when PW1 Esakkiammal was standing at Sarakkalmettu Street in front of her house along with her sister Seetha (PW2), the accused abused Seetha with filthy language in a public place and when the same was questioned, the accused with an intention to assault Essakkiammal cut her with Aruval and caused injuries on her left wrist.In this regard, the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kallidaikurichi Police has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.3.The trial court, on proper appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary convicted the petitioner for the offence under sections 294(b) and 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- forhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 each offence.On appeal, the first appellate court set side the conviction and sentenced imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 294(b) IPC and modified the sentence for the offence 324 IPC into three months rigorous imprisonment.Against which, the petitioner is before this court.4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.5.PW1 is the injured and she gave Ex.P1 complaint to the police.PW1 in her complaint and evidence stated that on 13.06.2011 at 5.00 pm, when she was standing in front of her house at Sarakkalmettu Street, at that time, the accused came and used filthy language against his wife and when she questioned it, the accused with aruval caused injury on her left hand wrist and caused injury and when she was at first taken to the private hospital and then she was taken to the Government Hospital for further treatment and Ex.P1 complaint statement was given to the police.Hence, the evidence of PW1 is corroborated with the contents found in Ex.P1 complaint.6.PW2 is the sister of PW1 and the wife of the accused.PW2 deposed that as her husband subjected her to cruelty, she came to her parental home and prior to five months at about 5.00 pm, she and her mother came to the house of PW1, at that time the accused came and used filthy language against her and when it was questioned her sister, her husband with aruval caused injury on the left hand wrist of her sister and her sister was taken to the hospital.PW4 deposed that on 13.06.2011 when she was rolling beedi in her house, at that time the accused came and bet her daughter Seetha and then he assaulted PW1 with aruval.PW6 deposed that on 14.06.2011 at 9.30 am, while he was on duty, PW1 came to the hospital for treatment and she told him that she was assaulted by a known person with aruval and she got first aid in a private hospital.9.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused submitted that the Doctor, who gave first treatment was not examined in this case and the non-examination of the Doctor, who gave first aid to the injured is fatal to the prosecution.10.The non-examination of the Doctor, who gave first aid to the injured is the patent on the investigating Officer.The patent on the basis of the Investigating Officer will not in anyway affect the case of the prosecution.But PW1 category told to PW6 Doctor that she was assaulted by a known person with aruval.PW5 and PW6 are cited as magazar witnesses.PW5 deposed that on 14.06.2010, the police visited the place of occurrence and prepared mahazar.12.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused argued that the occurrence took place on 13.06.2010 at 5 pm, but the complaint was given on 13.06.2010 athttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 23.00 hours and hence, there is a delay in giving the complaint and registering the case and no proper explanation was given on the side of the prosecution for the delay in giving the complaint and registering the case and hence, it is fatal to the prosecution.13.In this case, after the occurrence, at first, PW1 went to the private hospital and took first aid and then she went to the Government Hospital for further treatment and hence, there is a delay in giving the complaint and hence, proper explanation was given on the side of the prosecution for the delay in giving the complaint and registering the case.Therefore, it is held that it is not fatal to the prosecution.14.This court is of the considered view that the first appellate court, considering all these aspects has given a correct finding, which do not call for any interference by this court.However, considering the fact that the petitioner is the sole breadwinner of the family, the punishment imposed on the petitioner requires modification.15.In the result, the criminal revision is partly allowed.The punishment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under section 324 IPC by the first appellate court is reduced to one month RI.The period of sentence, if any already undergone by the petitioner shall be given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the victim/PW1, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the punishment imposed by the first appellate court shall stand restored.For reporting compliance, post the matter after two weeks.26.02.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No erhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 T.KRISHNAVALLI,J er To,1.The Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.2.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelvelli.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.RC(MD)No.251 of 2015 26.02.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 9 G.MUTHUKRISHNAN, ACCOUNT NO.30289614394 STATE BANK OF INDIA, IFC CODE:SBIN0000796 VENKATASAPURAM, PERAMBALUR.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,474,346 |
On 27.12.1990 at about 6.30 AM PW-1 Radhey Shyam lodged FIR Ext.A-1with Police Station Manglaur that his nephew Pawan Kumar had left his houseat about 8.00 PM on the previous day and that in the intervening night of26th and 27th December 1990 PW-1 heard shrieks of Pawan Kumar from thehouse of one Raees in the neighbourhood, whereafter PW-1 along with hisother nephew PW-2 Anil Kumar came out of the house and saw that the handsof Pawan Kumar were tied and he was ablaze in the courtyard of the houseof Raees.Both PWs 1 and 2 rushed there and put a quilt on Pawan Kumar.In this report, PW-1 Radhey Shyam further stated that he had seen theappellants and their associates Naseem Khan and Anees Khan setting PawanKumar on fire.Soon after this reporting, the police came to the spot andsent Pawan Kumar to Primary Health Centre, Manglaur for medical attention.Pappuβs flourmill is on Lakshar Road.Name of brother of Pappu is Zinda Hasan.β Below the above dying declaration Ext.A-24, a certificate to theeffect that Pawan Kumar was in a fit state of mind to give the dyingdeclaration was recorded by Dr. S.K. Mittal.On 27.12.1990 itself PW-2 Anil Kumar who had burnt his hands whiletrying to save Pawan Kumar, was examined by PW-7 Dr. N.D. Arora, whoprepared injury report Ext.This report mentioned that when he cameto the Primary Health Centre, there were burn injuries on the hands of PW-2Anil Kumar.On 27.12.1990 at about 4.30 PM Pawan Kumar succumbed to burn injurieswhile he was being taken to Meerut for medical treatment.Crime No.328 of1990 was thereafter converted to one under Section 302 IPC.After thedeath of Pawan Kumar, PW-6 Sub-Inspector Saudan Singh, InvestigatingOfficer took the dead body in his possession at about 5.30 PM on 27.12.1990and prepared inquest report Ext.Thereafter by letter Ext.A-8 he sentthe body for post-mortem.PW-6 Investigating Officer had interrogated thewitnesses and had also taken in possession quilt, match box, shawl andkerosene from the spot vide Memorandum Ext.PW-4 Dr. Rakesh Kumar conducted post-mortem on the dead body ofPawan Kumar at about 12.30 PM on 28.12.1990 and found ante-mortem injurieson the body and opined that the deceased had died due to shock from burninjuries.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet Ext.A-16 was filedagainst the appellants as well as Naseem Khan and Anees Khan.Theprosecution examined 9 witnesses.PW-1 Radhey Shyam and PW-2 Anil Kumarwere examined as eye witnesses and so also PW-3 Narendra Kumar who had seenthe accused taking Pawan Kumar and setting him on fire.According to him, the causeof the death was shock from burn injuries.The Investigating Officer Saudan Singhwas examined as PW-6 who proved Site Plans Ext.A-4 and A-5, sample sealmemo Ext.A-7, Inquest Report Ext. A-9, Seizure Memo of quilt Ext. A-10,Seizure Memo of burnt clothes of Pawan Ext.Uday U. Lalit, J.These appeals by special leave at the instance of Appellants Mumtaz aliasMuntyaz and Dilshad alias Pappu challenge correctness of the decision ofthe High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2001affirming their conviction and sentence for offences punishable underSection 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short theβIPCβ) passed in Sessions Trial No.15 of 1991 on the file of the AdditionalSessions Judge, Roorkee.Aforesaid FIR Ext.A-1 led to registration of Crime No.328 of 1990 at PoliceStation Manglaur relating to offences punishable under Sections 307 and 342IPC.At Primary Health Centre, a dying declaration Ext.A-24 of Pawan Kumarwas recorded at 7.35 AM by PW-5 Satya Prakash Mishra, Sub-DivisionalMagistrate in which Pawan Kumar stated that the appellants had set him onfire.The translation of the relevant portion of the dying declarationExt.A-24 is as under:βTwo persons after pouring kerosene set me on fire.I was set on fire thismorning at about 2.00 β 2.30 AM.I was set on fire by Pappu, son ofunknown, R/o Landhaura and Mumtaz, son of unknown, R/o Landhaura.Mumtazworks in the flour mill of Pappu.When I was coming after running a VCR onthe way, I was taken to house of a Pathani lady whose name is Joulie.Joulie is wife of Raees, R/o Landhaura.In the presence of Joulie, Pappuand Mumtaz poured kerosene on me and set me on fire and ran away.When Istarted burning, I shouted and a person who is not known to me came thereand extinguished fire by pouring water.Thereafter what happened I do notknow.I do not know why Pappu and Mumtaz set me on fire.A-11, Seizure Memo of burntshawl Ext.A-14 and other relevant documents.PW-8 Dr. R. D. Sharma proved the endorsement of Dr. S.K.Mittal on the dying declaration of Pawan Kumar Ext.No witness wasexamined on behalf of the defence.The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 19.12.1994 found theappellants guilty of the charges punishable under Section 302 read withSection 34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life and alsodirected them to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof they weredirected to undergo further imprisonment for one year.Naseem Khan andAnees Khan were however acquitted of all the charges.Aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellantspreferred Criminal Appeal No.2007 of 1994 in the High Court of Judicatureat Allahabad.The appeal was thereafter transferred to the High Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital and re-numbered as Criminal Appeal No.270 of 2001.The High Court by its judgment and order under appeal affirmed theconviction and sentence passed against the appellants.The High Courtprincipally relied upon eye-witness account through PW-1 Radhey Shyam andPW-2 Anil Kumar as well as dying-declaration Ext.After granting special leave to appeal, by orders dated 15.11.2010and 03.01.2011 appellant Mumtaz @ Muntyaz and appellant Dilshad @ Pappurespectively were ordered to be released on bail during pendency of theseappeals.βApplication seeking permission documents on record is allowed.Learnedsenior counsel would submit that an inquiry should be held by the Districtand Sessions Judge, Roorkee, and the report be made available to this Courtand thereafter the hearing may take place.Regard being had to the language employed in Section 7A of the JuvenileJustice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it is directed thatthe concerned District & Sessions Judge, Roorkee shall cause an inquirywith regard to juvenility of the appellant, Dilshad @ Pappu, afterfollowing the procedure as engrafted under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice(Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 and submit his report withina period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order passed today.Learned District & Sessions Judge shall submit the documents forming thebasis of his report.βAn appropriate enquiry was thereafter conducted by the FirstAdditional and District Sessions Judge, Roorkee, Haridwar who by his reportdated 05.09.2014 concluded as under:-The entries made therein have notbeen controverted by the Counsel appearing for the State and there isnothing on record to refute or rebut the factum of date of birth as enteredin above Exhibits.On 14.01.2015 when the matters were taken up, the counsel appearingfor the State submitted that the decision of this Court in Jitendra Singhand another v. State of U.P.[1] which was relied upon by the counsel forthe appellants required re-consideration.On and with effect from15.01.2016, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act,2015 (hereinafter referred to as βthe 2015 Actβ) came into force whichrepealed the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000(hereinafter referred to as βthe 2000 Actβ).The matters were thereafter taken up for hearing.We heard Mr.K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior Advocate in support of these appeals and Mr.Tanmaya Agarwal, learned Advocate for the State.There are several discrepancies, inconsistencies and contradictionsthat raise a serious doubt about the reliability of the dying declaration.The prosecution case and the dying declaration itself furnishes thedefense of grave provocation as a result of which every normal human beingwill be deprived of the power of self-control.The fact that the deceasedis found at the house of appellantβs brother at 03:00 am with whose wife hewas suspected to be having an illicit liaison it establishes graveprovocation.The case would fall within the exception 4 of Section 300 ofIPC making him liable for sentence only under Section 304 part-II of IPC.βWe have gone through dying declaration Ext.A-24 and the examinationof PW-5 Satya Prakash Mishra.The witness clearly stated that all throughthe recording of his statement, Pawan Kumar remained in fit condition andthat the witness had got this fact confirmed from the Doctor on duty.Thedying declaration bears appropriate endorsement of the Doctor on dutynamely Dr. S.K. Mittal which endorsement was proved by PW-8 Dr. R. D.Sharma.There is nothing in the cross examination of either PW-5 or PW-8nor in the dying declaration Ext.A-24 which could raise any doubt.A-24 to be reliable.We, therefore, reject the first submissionadvanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant Mumtaz @ Muntyaz.The second submission advanced by the learned Senior Advocate isbased on the theory or defence of alleged grave provocation.It is truethat deceased Pawan Kumar was found at 3:00 a.m. in the house of thebrother of appellant Mumtaz @ Muntyaz.The eye witness account shows thathis hands were tied and he was set ablaze.The memorandum of the seizureof burnt shawl clearly corroborates said assertion.Therefore, merepresence of Pawan Kumar in the house of the brother of appellant Mumtazalia Muntyaz by itself does not support the theory of grave provocationspecially when Pawan Kumar was found with his hands tied.Not a singlewitness was examined on behalf of the defence nor is there any material tosupport such theory.What kind of provocation and in what manner was itmade are all matters of evidence, which are completely absent on record.It is true that in the dying declaration Ext. A-24, the deceased had stated that he did not know the person who extinguished the fire bypouring water.It could be that while he was in flames, the deceased couldnot identify the person who tried to save him.The prompt lodging of theFIR and the fact that one of the eyewitnesses was having burn injuriesestablishes the presence of the eyewitnesses.In any case, even if theeyewitness account is taken to be inconsistent with this part of the dyingdeclaration, once the dying declaration is found reliable, trustworthy andconsistent with circumstantial evidence on record, such dying declarationby itself is adequate to bring home the case against the accused.Having gone through the material on record, we do not see any reasonto upset the findings recorded by the Trial Court and the High Courtregarding conviction and sentence of appellant Mumtaz @ Muntyaz.Confirming his conviction and sentence we dismiss Criminal Appeal No.2084of 2009 preferred by appellant Mumtaz @ Muntyaz.As regards Dilshad@Pappu, by order dated 7.08.2014 District andSessions Judge, Roorkee was directed to cause inquiry with regard tojuvenility of the appellant.The report dated 5.09.2014, clearly shows thaton considering the entirety of the matter the claim was found to beacceptable.The counsel appearing for the State could not refute or rebutthe fact that his date of birth was 22.07.1974 and that on the date ofoccurrence he was 16 years 5 months and 5 days old.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,481,127 |
We keep allcontentions of the petitioner open and dispose of the present petition.::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2020 20:57:04 :::(N. R. BORKAR, J.) (B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2020 20:57:04 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2020 20:57:04 :::
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,482,225 |
Shri Anurag Shivhare, Advocate for appellants.Shri Sameer Chile, GA for State.Heard on I.A. No. 18666/2014, which is fourth application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 3 Ramkishun.First application was dismissed on merits, thereafter remaining two applications were dismissed as withdrawn.Appellant No. 3 has been convicted by the trial Court under Sections 307/149 (two counts), 325/149, 323/149, 148 of the IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years with fine of `1000/- (on each count), R.I. for 1 year with fine of `500/-, R.I. for 6 months with fine of `500/- and R.I. for 1 year with fine of `500/- respectively with default stipulation.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier application for jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant No. 3 was dismissed with the observation that he was having Axe (sharp edged weapon) in his hand.One of the witnesses Suresh has stated that the appellant assaulted him by Axe.However, other injured witnesses like Hari Mishra (PW-2) and Rohit Mishra (PW-3) have stated that appellant No. 3 assaulted them by using Farsa.None of the aforesaid witnesses sustained any grievous injuries, therefore, at the most, the case of appellant No. 3 would fall under Section 324 of the IPC.Remaining jail sentence of appellant No. 3 is hereby suspended and it is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount and furnishing the personal bond in a sum of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court concerned, appellant No. 3 Ramkishun shall be released on bail with further direction to appear before the registry of this Court firstly on 25.3.2015 and also on such other dates as may be fixed by the registry in this regard during the pendency of this appeal.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,491,846 |
Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and at the instance of the informer, the premises at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was raided.He further disclosed that one Bijender Chikara would be sending the answer key of morning shift examination through SMS.Thereafter, a SMS was received from the mobile of Bijender Chikara containing e-mail and password of the same.Another SMS from mobile No.9310441200 was received by Ajeet son of Devi Singh having email and password in respect of another key.The said mails were accessed on the laptop available in the room and the question paper uploaded on the email was printed out.The attachment consisted of 27 papers having code Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19 011kpo-Part-A on front page containing 200 multiple questions.The said question papers were counter checked and verified from Examination Centre at Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Sector 11, Rohini and the same question paper was found which was circulated to the candidates.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19The prosecution has taken the printout of the question papers from the printer installed at the spot.Mobile phones, two laptops and one printer of Canon alongwith slips containing names of candidates, etc. were also seized.Thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi vide FIR No. 73/2013 under Section 120- B read with Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201, 511, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. Nine persons found at the spot were arrested, when they were in the process of receiving question paper and answer keys for solving the paper.Subsequently, specific recoveries were affected from all the nine accused persons.Ashu Sharma, one of the arrested person disclosed about Bijender Chikara working as LDC in MCD Office at Sector 5, Rohini, who can arrange question paper of SSC Combined Graduate level examination to be held on 21.04.2013 for both the shifts and the same can be sent through email at the cost of Rs.3.5 lac.During investigation, it was revealed that Ajit was assigned to manage a place for execution of conspiracy and his friend Sushil was to arrange one house on rent.Ravinder was sent to Sushil for taking house on rent.Thereafter, the rent agreement was executed and all the Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19 accused persons assembled at the rented accommodation in Pooth Kalan, Delhi.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19The origin of the paper leak has to be ascertained from the accused.The examination centre, out of the various centres in Delhi, NCR, from where the paper was leaked has to be ascertained and identified.The involvement of the large number of students in the racket who have benefited from the leakage is also to be identified and ascertained at the instance of the accused/respondent.Electronic gadgets of the accused including cell phone, data cards or laptops, computer used etc., are to be recovered which are of utmost evidentiary value.P.S.TEJI, J.The aforesaid four petitions have been preferred by the State primarily for the purpose of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused - Sushil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.However, petitioner - Vikram Dahiya has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.Since the cause of action as well as facts of all the aforesaid four petitions are same and the accused persons have been granted Crl.During investigation, it was revealed that the URL logs, as provided by the franchisee Gaurav Bhardwaj were logged into the Gmail accounts at the time of uploading the SSC CGL 2013 question paper by the persons named - Pawan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Sarvesh Saroha and Ashok Arya.During investigation, it was also revealed that the internet connection of world Phone Internet Connection was being used at his shop for customer complaints and subsequently used by Ashish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and their relative Vikram Dahiya on weekends.The said fact was confirmed on the basis of the frequent cell phone conversation which took place amongst them as detailed in the call detail records of the said accused.The suspect/accused in conspiracy with Vikram Dahiya had facilitated his premises and his internet connection knowingly as to circulate the leaked SSC CGL 2013 question paper for monetary gains.During further investigation, disclosure statement of accused Bijender Chikara, analysis of mobile phone call detail records of arrested accused and Vikram Dahiya, Sushil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar (respondents herein) were found to be having direct nexus in conspiracy.While arguing the present petitions, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the offences are not only serious but are targeted towards causing loss to Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19 the public at large as the case relates to the leakage of question paper of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2013, illegal solving of the paper and then supplying the answers through answer keys, to the candidates appearing in the exam.It is further contended that none of the accused have direct relation to exam governing agency i.e. SSC, still the question paper and respective keys came in hands of the accused persons and there is every possibility of such leak with different examination centres where the question papers were supplied by SSC.It is further submitted that the question paper was leaked only after the question paper reached the examination centres and before the actual time of the start of the examination i.e. about 1.5 hours before the examination.Therefore, there is every possibility of involvement of school authorities and their officials, i.e. Principals, teachers, etc. in the said offence.It is further contended that the conspiracy is hatched by a group of several persons divided into several groups acting as an organized gang for the said purpose.Some of them procured the question paper, some arranged the prospective competitors, and some arranged their meeting and some solved the question paper.The racket was well organised in the way that they had even obtained mobile phones on fake and fictious identities.The chain of circumstances in between are turning and are woven in such a manner that tampering at any stage will make the efforts to unearth the conspiracy, almost impossible.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that till the time of granting the bail by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19 Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents/accused persons were absconding and non-bailable warrants were also issued qua their arrest but it was not taken into consideration by the concerned Court.Apprehension of respondents in manipulating and tampering with the crucial and sensitive evidence has been raised, and it has been submitted that the respondents were members of a well organized racket involved in leakage of question paper, therefore, they are not entitled to have the benefit of anticipatory bail.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further drew attention of this Court to the impugned order in which the respondents were granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.In this regard, it is contended that the co-accused persons in the case were not granted anticipatory bail and rather they were given regular bail after remaining in custody for more than 60 days and that too, after filing of the initial charge sheet wherein the factum of the respondents absconding was clearly mentioned which resulted in issuance of NBWs against the respondents by the Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that one of the co-accused namely Vikram Dahiya having been denied anticipatory bail by the District Court had approached this Court for bail, but the same was also denied vide order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Bail Appl.No.1260/2013, wherein this Court had directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19 contended that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for providing the following vital and important information:-M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19The call detail records (CDR logs) have to be confronted with the accused for further identification of the person involved in the conspiracy.The IP logs also are required to be confronted with the accused.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 8 of 19Hide outs of the co-accused at Jind, Gannaur, Sonepat and other places are to be visited with the accused in custody.The sustained interrogation of the accused/ respondent is required to be conducted which is necessary to unearth and expose the entire conspiracy behind the racket of leaking the concerned question paper.It has specifically been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Session Judge that the respondent shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday of English Calendar month.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Sushil Kumar that in view of the directions of learned Additional Session Judge, the respondent remained present at the office of the Investigating Officer on 10th August 2013 from 9AM to 7 PM, but no one in the office entertained the respondent.In this regard, the respondent had sent a written communication regarding his physical Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19 presence to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.It is further contended that the respondent remained physically present at the office of Investigating Officer on 17.8.2013 from 11 AM to 6 PM but he was not entertained and the written communication about his physical presence was conveyed to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.Similar was the position on 24th August 2013, when the respondent remained present in the office of Investigating Officer from 10 am to 5.30 pm.Respondent again visited the office of Investigating Officer on 3rd September 2013, 7th September 2013 and 14th September 2013, but he was not entertained.Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) CC Cases 66 (SC) in support of his submissions and submitted that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during trial.Counsel for the respondent further contended that there is no averment in the petition filed by the State that the respondent has not joined investigation and did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer; or has mentioned that the respondent had tampered with evidence or pressurised or intimidated any witnesses or that the bail order had been obtained fraudulently, therefore, the petition filed by the State deserves to be outrightly dismissal.Counsel for the respondent further contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled as the State failed to make out a Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19 case for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 438 of Cr.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19 respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the directions passed by learned Additional Session Judge, rather it was the Investigating Officer who was not interested in investigation from the respondent and the interest of the State seems to be to somehow take the respondent into custody and to harass him and to ruin his entire life and for such ill motivated and malafide intentions, the petitioner is legally prohibited from seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19While arguing the case of the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, Mr. V. Madhokar, counsel for the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions given by learned Additional Session Judge, the respondents alongwith his surety and advocate visited the office of ACP, Crime Branch, Sector 16, Rohini on 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 and showed the order of learned Additional Session Judge to mark his presence and allow them to join the investigation, but they were not allowed to join the investigation and they were not even allowed to mark their presence.In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the video clipping to show that the respondents had visited the office of the ACP, Crime Branch.Thereafter, the respondents reported the matter of Commissioner of Police and had also apprised the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as well as to Sessions Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 12 of 19Counsel for the respondents further contended that it is not the seriousness/gravity of the offence only which is to be looked into by the learned Session Judge while entertaining the bail application but the specific role and the involvement of the accused is also to be considered and which the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly looked into and there is no infirmity in the order granting bail to the respondents.Counsel for the respondents further contended that mere issuance of NBWs or filing of charge sheet is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the accused.In support of his contention, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naturasu and other vs. The State, 1988 CriLJ 1762 and Bharat Choudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar and Anr, AIR 2003 SC 4662 were relied upon by counsel for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar further contended that the prosecution has given clean chits to the other two accused namely Ashok Arya and Sarvesh Saroha against whom there are almost similar allegations and the prosecution is bent upon to send the respondents in jail.The prosecution has already raided the shop and seized the modem and the computer of the Institute, therefore there is no need of any custodial interrogation to make any recoveries from the respondents.The respondents were granted bail Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19 on parity with the accused who were already granted bail in the case.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19On behalf of respondent- Vikram Dahiya, Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, apart from the legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent does not call for interference as in compliance thereof, the respondent alongwith his surety and advocate visited the ACP Office, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony Police Station on 23.11.2013 and the respondent was subjected to sustained and prolonged interrogation by a team consisting of ACP Raja Ram Yadav, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Surajbhan, one cyber expert and two other officials.The interrogation was conducted in writing and the replies were also given in writing and to a question whether respondent is ready for narco test, it was replied that since he is undergoing treatment for brain tumour, therefore he will consult his doctor.Thereafter the police official left the space blank and obtained the signature of the respondent on the statement.The mobile phone of the respondent was also thoroughly examined by the expert .It is further contended that during the prolonged and sustained interrogation nothing incriminating was Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19 found against the respondent.The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - Vikram Dahiya contended that apart from the ground of parity the other main ground of the bail application of the respondent was that no offence under Section 420/468/671/34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act are made out against the respondent even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as its face value and the State has failed to satisfy the learned Additional Session Judge that the offences are made out against the respondent.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Vikram Dahiya that the impugned order is not against proprietary and the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly interpreted and followed the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19I have heard the contentions raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the respective counsel representing the case of the respondents.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge and also perused the documents placed on record.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 15 of 19The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit Vs.Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014)10SCC754 held as under:-Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.This Court observes that there is specific averment on behalf of the respondents in their replies to the present petitions that they had approached the Investigating Officer for performing their part of Crl.This Court is of the opinion that at best, the investigating officer should have started the investigation and during investigation, if he would have found any clue of respondents hiding any material information or found some concrete reason for not cooperating the investigation, then it was open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Court passing the order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents, for cancellation of the impugned order.The real position is that the State has preferred to take steps to file petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, rather than to comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge.Finding no merit in the present petitions filed by the Crl.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 19 of 19
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
13,249,331 |
The first defendant in O.S No.320 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, madurai is the revision petitioner herein.The said suit was instituted by the first respondent herein.The matter pertains to the affairs of a registered Trust known as SR Trust which is running the well known Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit Trust is a public charitable Trust in which he is the lifetime trustee.The plaintiff S.Ramesh and the fourth respondent herein Dr.Gurusankar and Dr.Brathiba are the children of the second defendant Dr.N.Sethuraman and the third defendant namely Rajam Sethuraman.Brathibha filed a suit in O.S No.224 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Madurai.This led to certain serious difference of opinion between the first respondent herein on the one hand and the other trustees.On 17.02.2011, a meeting of the Board of Trustees was convened and a resolution was passed for removal of the plaintiff S.Ramesh.The plaintiff alleges that in the said board meeting, the second defendant Dr.N.Sethuraman was not present and that the so called meeting held on 17.02.2011 and the removal of the plaintiff as a trustee of SR Trust is illegal, null and avoid.2.In the said suit, the defendants 1, 3 to 5 filed I.A No.269 of 2018 for striking off the plaint in O.S No.320 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Madurai.Questioning the same, this civil revision petition has been filed.3.Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the civil revision petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent herein.It is true that an appeal has been filed questioning the said Judgment.Elaborate written submissions have also been filed.He faultedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 the learned Trial Judge for not considering the contentions raised by the revision petitioner.7.The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff/first respondent responded to the contentions raised by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner.The first respondent also filed notes and submissions.8.I carefully considered the rival contentions.By order dated 17.08.2011, the civil revision petition was allowed and the suit in O.S No.320 of 2011 along with I.A No.378 of 2011 then pending on the file of the First Additional Sub Court, Madurai was struck off.The first respondent herein filed Civil Appeal No.10559 of 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P(C) No.9831 of 2013) questioning the said order.The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 25.11.2014 set aside the same and directed that the suit shall be restored to file and adjudicated on merits.The judgment of conviction against the plaintiff herein was passed on 03.01.2014 during the pendency of the aforesaid civil appeal.In the paper book filed in the said SLP, the judgment of conviction in CC No.58 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur was placed on record.But, the fact remains that this point was very much available to be advanced thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 13 revision petitioner before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.When the Hon'ble Supreme court had specifically directed that the suit is to be adjudicated on merits, it would not be appropriate to short circuit the process by seeking to strike off the plaint itself.
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
132,493,936 |
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.175 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatam, thereby having been taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioners along with other accused were illegally assembled and protested in the public road without getting prior permission from the concerned authority against Citizenship Amendment Act enacted by the Parliament.On the basis of the above said allegation, the respondent police registered the complaint and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners and others for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC in S.T.C.No.175 of 2020, on the file the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatam.However, the 3/12http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.10283 of 2020 officials of the respondent police had beaten the petitioners and others.When there was lot of members involved in the protest, the respondent police had registered this case, under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioners and others.Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.10283 of 2020Heard Mr.Therefore, the respondent police levelled the charges under Sections 143, 341 and 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners and others.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charges against the petitioners.An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.10283 of 2020In the case on hand, the First Information Report has been registered by the respondent police for the offences under Sections 143, 341 and 188 IPC.They are not a competent person to register FIR for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.As such, the First Information Report or final report is liable to be quashed for the offences under Section 188 of IPC.Further, the complaint does not even state as to how the protest formed by the petitioners and others is an unlawful protest and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 143 of IPC.Therefore, the final report cannot be sustained and it is liable to be quashed.Accordingly, the proceedings in S.T.C.No.175 of 2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Gudiyatham, is quashed and the Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.07.07.2020 Internet:Yes Index:Yes/no Speaking/Non speaking order kv 11/12http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.10283 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Judicial Magistrate Court, Gudiyatam.The The Inspector of Police, Pernampet Police Station, Vellore.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.CRL.O.P.No.10283 of 2020 07.07.2020
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,003,975 |
(Jabalpur dt.: 09.08.2018) Per : V.K. Shukla, J.-APPELLANT NO.1 RAJESH SHARMA Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(2)(g) R.I. for life and fine of of IPC.(Substantive sentence to run concurrently) APPELLANT NO.2 NEHRULAL SHARMA Conviction Sentence Under Section 376(2)(g) R.I. for life and fine of of IPC.Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I, for 3 years.The prosecution case is that with respect to an offence of rape committed on the prosecutrix (PW-4)(name is not being mentioned), aged about 24 years, daughter of Teekaram.The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-3) Poona Bai used to clean utensils in the house of absconding accused Shailendra Paul.The prosecutrix had passed her M.A. examination in Social Science and was in search of employment.Shailendra Paul together with appellant no.1 Rajesh Sharma went to her house on 07-09-1995 and represented to her that he would sent her to the house of his uncle at Bhopal, where she would get service.On 08-09-1995, the prosecutrix left for Bhopal alongwith appellant no.1 Rajesh Sharma and she was told that she would stay at the house of appellant no.2 Nehrulal 3 Sharma till she secures a service.Nehrulal Sharma was living in that house alongwith his sister and his brother-in-law.On 09-09-1995, at about 8.00 p.m., appellant no.1 Rajesh Sharma is alleged to have committed rape and thereafter the absconding accused Shailendra Paul committed rape.After that appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma also committed rape on her.That was repeated on the next night also.She stated that she was residing at Jabalpur and Shailendra Kumar Patel was residing close to her house.He used to come to her house.He brought accused Rajesh Sharma to her house and he was introduced by him.Appellant no.2 was made acquainted to her by appellant Rajesh Sharma.She admitted that she is aged about 24 years and possessed of Post Graduate degree M.A. On 07-09-1995 abscond accused Shailendra brought Rajesh to her house and said that his uncle is at Bhopal and he will make all arrangements for her service at Bhopal and therefore, she should go to Bhopal and can live there.Thereafter, appellant Rajesh and Shailendra came to her house to bring her from Jabalpur to Bhopal and Shailendra stated that he will not go to Bhopal alognwith her and therefore, she came to Bhopal alongwith accused Rajesh.She came to Bhopal by bus.She was taken to the house of Nehrulal Sharma where his sister and brother-in-law were also staying.It is alleged that on 09-09-1995, appellant no.1 Rajesh Sharma first committed forcible sexual intercourse with her and thereafter another accused Shailendra and appellant no.2 Nehrulal violated her.It is alleged that on the 7 next day also same was repeated.In para-8 she states that on the next day she talked to her sister.Thereafter her sister had come to Bhopal.She had gone to take her and came to the house in Mini Bus.She had not disclosed the incident to her sister.She alleges that again she was violated by the accused persons.After her sister had gone back, the mother of appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma came and thereafter they got married.At the time of marriage, she came to know that Nehrulal is already married and there are two children.The photographs of the marriage were also taken.After marriage, she was taken to Gwalior.From Gwalior, she came back to Bhopal.Then she came to know that accused Rajesh had sold her to Nehrulal Sharma.In the present appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenge has been made to the order of conviction and sentence dated 18-01-1999, passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in S.T.No.90/1997, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under :Rs.50,000/-,in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 years.Under Section 506(II) of R.I. for one year and fine IPC of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 3 months.On 19-10-1995, a written report was submitted by the prosecutrix to Police Inspector Jabalpur and the same was forwarded to Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur.On the basis of which, the case was registered in Mahila Police Station Jabalpur.The prosecutrix was sent for medical examination and the documents produced by her were seized.Accused Rajesh and Nehrulal were arrested.Handwriting of accused Rajesh was got examined by handwriting expert and after investigation the charge sheet was filed against three persons appellants and one more Shailendra Paul, who had absconded and was not available for the trial .The appellants denied the charges and submitted that they have been falsely implicated as the prosecutrix, her mother and sister demanded money from appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma and since it was not given, a false case has been lodged.It is further submitted in defence that in response to an advertisement in the news paper on 25-08- 1975 Ex.D-14, the prosecutrix had gone to Bhopal on her own will and stayed there at the house of appellant no.2 Nehrulal's sister and brother-in-law.It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the affidavit and other documents including photographs proves that she had married appellant no.2 Nehrulal on her own free will.The documents were seized by the Investigating Officer PW-11 M.S.Parihar.An affidavit was also sworn by the prosecutrix before DW-3 B.K.Sanghi, a notary who has also affirmed that she made statement on her own free will after understanding the contents thereof.Further as per the testimony of the evidence of the mother and sister of the prosecutrix, it has come on record that they had also visited at Bhopal where the prosecutrix was residing with appellant no.2 Nehrulal after marriage.It is further submitted that upon perusal of the photographs, it is evincible that there was no threat or any undue force applied for the marriage.After marriage they had also visited Bhedaghat in Jabalpur.Thus, the trial court has committed an error convicting the appellants on the ground that the consent of the prosecutrix was obtained by false promise of employment, which amounts to rape.Per contra, learned counsel for the State submitted that the conviction of the appellants is based on proper appreciation of the evidence.The prosecutrix was taken from Jabalpur on the promise that she will be given a job and thereafter she was exploited physically by the appellants and she was fraudulently made to marry appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma as he was already married.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.On 19-10-1995 she lodged the report.The prosecutrix was examined by PW-10 Dr.Sulekha Trivedi on 27-10-1995 but no injury was found on her person.There was old rupture in her hymen and her private part easily admitted two fingers and she was found used to sexual intercourse.On assimilation of the testimony of the prosecutrix, other witnesses and photographs, it is evincible that she had married appellant no.2 Nehrulal on her own free will.These photographs were seized by the Investigating Officer PW-11 M.S.Parihar from the prosecutrix on 27-10-95. 8 An affidavit was also sworn by her before DW-3 B.K.Sanghi, who is a notary.He had affirmed that the prosecutrix had stated before him that she was making affidavit on her own will after understanding the contents thereof. PW-6 Harish Chandra Vidya Wachispati stated that on 25-10-1995 the prosecutrix had applied in writing that she wanted to get married to Nehrulal Sharma.The witness asked the parties to come after one month with an affidavit which was done by the parties and thereafter he married them.In her cross- examination, there is no suggestion that his evidence is not correct.Another witness PW-5 Jai Kumar Jain, the landlord of the house in which appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma lived with his brother-in-law Raju and sister also stated that the prosecutrix lived in the house and that the mother of the prosecutrix had also come and stayed there.He further stated that appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma had married prosecutrix and stayed in his house for about two and half months.He further stated that the sister of the prosecutrix had also come and stayed in their house.During this period, the mother and sister of the prosecutrix used to come and stay in that house.PW-8 Videsh Kumar, who is married to the elder sister of the prosecutrix had also come to Bhopal on 05-10-1995, where he learnt that the prosecutrix had married appellant no.2 9 Nehrulal Sharma and had gone to Gwalior.He met the prosecutrix after about 25 days at Jabalpur.The story of the prosecutrix that she was administered some drug was not found to be established and the same was rejected by the trial court in paragraph-23 of the judgment.The defence of the accused persons is that they have been falsely implicated as after the marriage, the mother and sister of the prosecutrix demanded money from appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma and since it was not given, false report has been lodged.The defence version is that in response to an advertisement in the News Paper on 25-08-1995 Ex.D-14, the prosecutrix had gone to Bhopal on her own will and stayed there in the house of appellant no.2 Nehrulal's sister and brother-in-law.PW-12 Sadhana Singh, Station House Officer of the Mahila Thana, Bhopal had sent this letter to the party concerned in Delhi and the letter was found to be genuine.Thus, the prosecution could not establish that there was any false promise of giving employment and marriage given by the appellants to the prosecutrix.There was no material to prove the allegation that appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma was already married and was having two children barring the bald statement of the prosecutrix.Further taking into consideration the testimony of PW-3 Poona Bai, mother of the prosecutrix, PW-2 Somwati sister of the prosecutrix and also statement of PW-8 Videsh Kumar, it leaves no doubt that the prosecutrix was living with appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma on her own will.Further a lady of 24 years old with the background of education of M.A. it is highly improbable that she was taken from Jabalpur to Bhopal on the pretext of promise of employment and there she stayed for a long time with appellant no.2 Nehrulal Sharma without making any complaint to any family member.It is also not 11 believable that the prosecutrix was subjected to forcible intercourse by the three persons in a rented house but she did not raise any alarm at any stage.In view of the aforesaid assimilation of the entire facts, evidence and circumstances of the case, we find that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond doubt and the accused persons are entitled for the benefit of doubt.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.The appellants be set at liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
|
['Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,042,953 |
Heard on I.A. No. 6780/2015, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Appellant has been convicted of offence under sections 363, 366 & 376 of IPC and sentenced to suffer maximum period of ten years rigorous imprisonment with total fine of Rs. 3,000/-.Learned counsel for the State has already filed objection.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the appellant has contended that the prosecutrix (PW-3) was shown to be 16 years of age, but in ossification test Dr. M.K. Goyal (PW-6) found her age to be below 18 years, however, looking to the statement of the prosecutrix she resided with the appellant for a longer period without any resistance.She told her age to be 16 years.Since incident took place in the year of 2007 at that time the age of consent of the prosecutrix was 16 years, prima facie, no offence under section 376 of Suresh vs. State of M.P.2 Criminal Appeal No. 178/2015 IPC is made out.Looking to the conduct of prosecutrix as depicted in her evidence she was a consenting party in living the house of her parents and she went with the appellant.The appellant remained in custody for seven months and seventeen days during trial.Since 08/01/2015, the appellant is in custody and therefore, his custody period appears to be approximately of 19 months.It is possible that sentence of offence under section 363 of IPC may be reduced to the period for which he remained in custody.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and, therefore, appellant - Suresh prays for bail and suspension of execution of jail sentence.On the other hand, Shri Vijay Sundaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the suspension application.Keeping in view the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the parties and the facts & circumstances of the case, I.A. No. 6780/2015 stands allowed.However, this order shall be applicable subject to deposit of fine amount.List the case for final hearing in due course Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,700,441 |
The letter of the Solicitor in the penultimate paragraph stated."If you fail or neglect to furnish the information asked for and comply with the requisition contained in the preceding paragraph and also to publish your unqualified apology in bold types in a prominent place of the Anandabazar Patrika within seven days from receipt thereof, my clients will take it that you refuse to comply with the requisition contained herein, and you are in the premises willing to accept full responsibility therefor, and my clients will proceed further accordingly as they may be advised without any further reference to you."The damage assessed in that letter is Rupees 5,00,000 for this defamation.The contention is that this Solicitor's letter is a contempt of the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistate, Jalpaiguri where a complaint is pending against the two petitioners in this Rule and another Sri Amiya Nath Bose.JUDGMENT Mukharji, J.A.K. Sarkar, Editor, Anandabazar Patrika and Sri Suresh Chandra Bhattacharya, Printer and Publisher, Anandabazar Patrika are the petitioners who obtained this Rule to commit to prison these four persons.(1) Kadha Kanta Pandey, (2) Monoranjan Bhowmick, (3) Ratan Maheswari and (4) S.C. Chowdhuri.The first three opposite parties are representation the Soulmari Ashram and Sri S.N. Choudhuri, the fourth opposite party is their Solicitor on record.The main and the only ground for contempt is stated to be a letter written by the Solicitor opposite party S.N. Chaudhari to the petitioner dated 16th August.1965 in which the Solicitor under instructions from the first three opposite parties and members of the Soulmari Ashram, complained of an item of news made, printed and published by the said Paper which was alleged to be defamatory.The complaint pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code.The Soulmari Ashram represented by Mr. Monoranjan Bhowmik filed this complaint under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code, complaining against the publication on the 3rd November 1964 in the Third Dak Edition of the Daily Issue of the newspaper the Anandabazar Patrika of a particular news item mentioned in paragraph 7 of the annexure to the petition here.The main facts therefore lie within a clear and narrow compass.It was on that date, 29th December, 1964 that a process was issued and summons was also issued directing the Editor and Printer to appear on 5-2-65 before the Magistrate.Thereupon OB the 12th April 1965 the present petitioner made an application under Section 205 Cr. P. C. for appearance through lawyers which was refused Against that a proceeding has been taken to this High Court and the hearing of the complaint under Section 500 I. P. C. has been stayed.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,049,965 |
With reference to the discussion had with you, we are pleased to renew and re-allot to you, with effect from 1.4.88, contract for running both the covered car parking and cycle/scooter stand at the abovementioned premises on the following terms and conditions:1. ...........Yours faithfully, _ Sd Gopal Ansal Director 7.14 Ex.P-56/A does not contain any direction or condition to the parking contractor to ensure that vehicles were to be parked in conformity with the plan sanctioned by the authorities.This aspect is important, because by the time this agreement was entered into by the accused, it was known that there were two electrical transformers in that parking lot.There was need to ensure a higher degree of care, at all times, to conform to the parking plan, avoid congestion in parking.Crucially, it was necessary that the parking contractor, as well as the owner and occupier of the building, ensured that sufficient space was available for Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 222 vehicles to leave the building, and also that the 16' parking aisle mandated by the parking sanctioned plan was kept for free movement of vehicles, at all times.7.15 As far as oral testimony goes, in cross examination, PW-24 stated that a car had been parked one and a half metres away from the transformer room; PW-27, the fireman, Bansilal Meena, mentions about flames in the parking area, when he went, to quell the fire.Ex. PW- 35/A, the report of Shri K.V. Singh, also mentions about existence of burnt vehicles in the parking area.PW-49/A, the report of the Chief Fire Officer, R.C. Sharma, mentions about existence of cars 1 meter away from the transformer.He mentions, significantly that no parking lines existed separating the areas; there were no separation line near the transformer, for parking of vehicles.The fire, according to him, was confined to the DVB transformer room and a number of cars and scooters in the parking area.PW-56, the parking contractor deposed that cars were parked at a distance of 3-4 feet from the transformer room and that one Contessa car was parked just touching the transformer room; but he deposed that according to his employee, that vehicle was forcibly parked by its owner there.He also stated that 18 car parking tokens were issued; he stated that a further 8-10 cars were parked in the ground floor, belonging to the staff.This was corroborated by Ex. PW.The inspection report outlined certain deviations and irregularities.PW-15/X-9) containing the signatures of the same MCD Officer and that of the owner.This, however, shows that the portion of the outer wall (shown in this plan also consistently as 3 foot height wall, (but corresponding at the back of the wall from the middle transformer room) was coloured in red.PW-15/Y3) is Ex.7.55 Point No.3, 8 & 10 in very report Ex.PW-17/B dated 9.6.1983 mentioned about letting out the Third floor to various organizations, creation of a part in staircase into an office plus loft over it on a part of the staircase on the top floor and extending it to the portion above toilets shown in the sanctioned plan and lack of permission in terms of condition 17 of license Crl.R.17/2008 Page 248 for the offices.The subsequent reports PW-37/K dated 29.8.1988; PW-17/D dated 30.4.1997, the report dated 12.8.1994 and PW-16/E dated 6.5.1996, all reiterated these objections.The post 13.6.1997 reports i.e. Ex.Also proper fire arrangements are existing in the basement.In this connection, it is to inform you that the inspection of Uphaar Cinema was carried out by the Asstt.During the course of inspection, following shortcomings were observed:Erection of R.S. joists in between stilt & first floor to create extra floor;Enclosure of stilt area and construction of dispensary in the stilt area;Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 252Storing and using of various combustible materials including provision of wooden acoustic panels and wooden partitions in the building;Considerable increase in number of seats in the auditorium and also creation of boxes/dress circle; andClosure of one of the exits and shifting of gangway from its proper sanctioned plans and also reduction in width of one of the gangways thereby increasing travel distance.The court found that in 1974, the inspection room was converted into a 14 seater private box for the use of the owners and subsequently, due to the increase in the number of seats, the right side gangway was closed in lieu of which the middle gangway was created.In 1979, the earlier notification (of 1976) allowing additional seats were withdrawn and a show cause notice was issued for removal all 100 additional seats sanctioned at Uphaar Cinema.The withdrawal/cancellation notification was challenged before this Court, which directed the issue to be considered by the licensing authorities after inspection.In the meanwhile, w.e.f. June 1978, an 8-seater additional box was installed where the right-side exit from the balcony had originally been sanctioned (Ex.29/DL).In the year 1980, the cinema hall sought for permission to install additional 15 seats in the balcony.The license under the Cinematograph Act, was issued on 24.04.1973 Ex.17/DB.The auditorium, i.e. located on the first floor measured 7839 square feet and was allotted 750 seats.The sanctioned area for the balcony was 2691 sq. feet, 250 seats were sanctioned for balcony.It deals with the balcony.The plans reveal that 250 seats were permitted.R.17/2008 Page 282 from the right side of the building and the other from the left.Upon entrance the patrons could move up to their seats.Two exits on either side of the balcony were provided for at the same level.For movement, four vertical gangways were interspersed, they also led to a horizontal gangway or a passage, facing the screen, described as Cross Gangway.This is also reflected in the balcony plan exhibited through the trial and marked as Ex.Thanking you in anticipation Yours faithfully, For GREEN PARK THEATRES ACCS (P) LTD.The plan received with your above referred letter showing the proposed additional box is enclosed herewith in duplicate duly approved.7.74 The Entertainment Tax officer expressed some reservation on 02.09.1978 (Ex.29/DM).On 20.09.1978, Shri Dandona wrote back (Ex. 29/DN) as follows:The said inspection report reads as follows:"Of the 43 additional seats sanctioned in balcony, 6 additional seats (i.e Seat No. 9 in rows A to F) and all the 56 additional seats in hall are blocking vertical gangways causing obstruction to free egress of patrons from the hall.These 62 additional seats are in gross contravention of Paras 7(1) and 8(1) of the First Schedule of Delhi Cinematograph Rules.PW 29/DR.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 290 7.79 On 29.07.1980 the cinema hall acting through the second accused Gopal Ansal wrote the letter (marked as Ex. PW100/AA7) seeking permission to install 15 additional seats in the balcony.The said letter is as follows:" We now wish to bring to your kind notice that Seats No. 9 ( Rows A to F), i.e., a total of six seats are causing lot of inconvenience to the patrons because of the fact that the gangway after two rows i.e H and G, suddenly widens up to an irregular size of about 64 ".In addition to the above, we wish to apply for an additional nine seats marked G-36 to G-38, H- 36 to H-38, and I-38 to I-40, since the corner as shown in red is lying vacant in the Balcony of our above-mentioned Theatre.Hope you would find the above in order and oblige us by giving the necessary sanction for a total of 15 additional seats ".On 20.08.1980 DCP (Licensing) write a letter to the Executive Engineer marked and produced as Ex. PW 29/DS.The said letter reads as follows :The Licensee, Uphaar Cinema Green Park, New Delhi has submitted revised plan to this office for the grant of permission to install 15 additional seats in the Balcony i.e one seat each in rows A to F, three seats each in three rows at left hand side of the Balcony, as shown in the enclosed plan which may please be examined with reference to para 6,7,8,10,12,14,16 of First Scheme of Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 and a detailed report may be sent to this office, at an early date with recommendations to consider the case ".On 03.09.1980 the Executive Engineer Shri Dandona replied to the queries of DCP (Licensing).In Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 292 continuation of the same, we are enclosing herewith revised plan for the said 15 additional seats as per your requirement.Hope you would find the same in order and accord us the necessary sanction.Thanking you in anticipation.Yours faithfully, For GREEN PARK THEATRES ASSOCIATED PVT. LTD.SD (DIRECTOR) Encl : As above CC : The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) MSO Building, 4th Floor, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi Fire Officer, New Delhi Together with the plans.In reply Mr. Dandona, Executive Engineer, PWD, after considering proposal submitted his report through Ex. PW 29/DX after 10.09.1980 in the following terms:The number of exits at site at present are three in number.As per First Schedule of DCR, 1953, the number of exits should be one per 100 seats and on account of which seats would be in excess, but at the time of removal of additional seats in October, 1979 during a meeting held in your room where D.C.P and Chief Fire Officer were also present, it was decided that keeping in view the High Courts' orders for substantial compliance 1% excess number of seats over the required number of exits should be allowed and accordingly so many cinemas were allowed to retain one per cent excess number of seats than the permissible limit of one exit per 100 number of seats.The approval is subject to the final inspection after the completion of work ".R.17/2008 Page 293 The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Licensing) on 04.10.1980 (marked and exhibited as Ex.PW 29/DY) allowed installation of these proposed additional 15 seats in the balcony, stating as follows:R.17/2008 Page 294 inspection of all cinema houses.A joint team of officials inspected various cinema theaters including Uphaar.The Court had taken into consideration the sanctioned plans for this purpose.The state of the transformers either of Uphaar or that of DVB before 1989 and the relative maintenance reviewed are very clear from the record.According to ___, during the late evening show at 11:45 PM, the fire occurred which extensively damaged the Uphaar transformer as well as the then existing 750 KVA DVB transformer.The Prosecution relied upon Ex.PW-88/A, recovered from the Fire Department; it is a note sheet.PW-88/B is a letter dated 7.7.1989, written by the Uphaar Cinema to the Chief Fire Officer intimating about the fire in the Cinema Hall.The fire report dated 13.7.1989 by the Chief Fire Officer records the nature of the incident.It states that the fire occurred at 11:40 hrs.in the Uphaar cinema transformer at ground floor level, also tripping the D.C. Battery of the DESU transformer.The HT panel board, cable shaft and A.C.Duct of the cinema were affected.The report noted that smoke and hot gases Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 310 affected the main hall, balcony, projection and rewinding room, the screen, furniture and various offices located in the cinema complex.A report (Ex.PW-88/D) describing serious fire on 6.7.89 is also on record as is another report giving details of the fire and estimated loss.This document Ex.PW-88/E repeats the contents the value of estimated loss is about Rs.30 Lacs.Ex.88/F is the Seizure Memo evidencing recovery of the file containing the note sheets and papers from the Fire Department.7.93 PW-88, Surender Kumar, Dy.Chief Fire Officer who deposed in support of the exhibits produced in the Ex.PW-48/A. The relevant part of his report 48/A reads as follows: -The file in question containing the relevant details with regard to HT connection alongwith provisions of erstwhile DESU transformer at Uphaar Cinema has already been sent to Deputy Commissioner, South, Enquiry Magistrate.As per our understanding and information obtained so far, none of the transformers actually caught fire.However, there appears to have been sparking, earthing of LT leads at the terminals of the transformer owned by DVB.As per information/records traced so far, on 09.07.1989, i.e. the date of installation of the concerned transformer, Shri S.K. Choudhary was the Executive Engineer S/Stn.South Circle and Sh.V.K. Singhal was Asstt.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.And also at Grid S/Stn.at AIIMS.The earth cable of the transformer has been found temporarily fitted with the earth strip i.e twisting of earth cable.There was no cable trench to conceal the cable.HT panel board of transformer did not had any relay system to trip the transformer in case of any fault.The Buchholtz relay system was not fitted on the transformerR.17/2008 Page 313 7.97 On the morning of 13-6-1997, a fire broke out in the DVB transformer.This was immediately reported to the DVB; Deep Chand, Attendant, DVB, PW-41, deposes having received this information at about 6:55 AM.He claims to have sent Munna Lal (PW-47) who came back to the R K Puram Sub-station and passed on the information that one lead in LT side of DVB transformer has burnt due to which electric supply has been disrupted; he passed on information to C J Singh, the Superintendent.The nature of the repairs carried out.He deposed that the entire repair work was finished within 45 minutes and after replacing the socket and connecting it to the bus bar, the transformer was switched on and electricity supply restored.He stated, in the course of cross examination on behalf of Mr. B.M. Satija, that he was not aware whether the R-phase, B-phase or Y-phase was changed.He deposed that they were working in the middle phase of the transformer and that two sockets were replaced.According to PW-44, when the transformer was switched on, there was no sparking.The evidence of PW-44 only was that he was unaware as to which phase was repaired, presumably because he stood at a distance.He clearly mentions that Mr. Bir Singh carried out repairs under the supervision of Mr. B.M. Satija.The premises from where the fire started, as reported by the witnesses, is a Sub-station located on the raised ground floor (stilt floor), Uphaar Cinema Complex, Green Park, New Delhi.This sub-station comprises of three rooms which are adjacent to each other and there is rampway leading to the basement on the rear portion of these rooms & the space in front of these rooms was being used as a car parking lot, where number of cars in burnt condition still had been found parked.In the extreme left room (nearer to balcony exit stair-case) a 500 KVA, 11/0.43 KV transformer belonging to consumer i.e. Uphaar Cinema was installed and the same was being used to feed electricity to the Uphaar Cinema complex.In the middle room, a 1000 KVA,11/0.43 KV transformer of DVB was installed and had been feeding electricity to the adjoining Green Park locality exclusively and not the Uphaar Cinema Complex.In the third room, adjacent to DVB room, Low Tension (L.T.) Panel, Metering Cubicle, Battery Charger, High Tension (H.T.) four Panel Board of DVB was found installed.On physical examination, we found that the 600 KVA transformer of consumer was almost intact, whereas the 1000 KVA transformer and H.T./L.T. Panel Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 321 Boards and Battery Charter of DVB were affected by the fire.On inspection of the DVB transformer, it was observed that there were two L.T. Bushings for each phase of the transformer and the Bushings of each phase had been found shorted with a common metal bar (known as Bus-Bar).There were four holes in each of the Bus-Bar mounted on the transformer L.T. Bushing.Out of these four holes, two holes were used for fixing the Bus-Bar on the L.T. Bushing Terminals and the remaining two holes were used for jointing the L.T. Cable- end-sockets with the Bus-Bar.On each phase three Nos. of single core aluminium cables of size 630 Sq.mm. had been connected for carrying electric supply from the transformer to the Air Circuit Breaker installed on the L.T. Panel Board.On detailed examination/inspection of the 1000 KVA transformer and H.T./L.T. Panel Boards of DVB, the following observations were made: -Two H.T. Bushings of the transformer were broken and the third one cracked.There were no flash marks on H.T. supply leads and H.T. Bushings of the transformer.One of the L.T. supply cable-end-socket of B-Phase through which the L.T. supply from transformer to L.T. ACB had been taken, was found detached from the transformer L.T. Bus Bar (Blue-Phase) and was lying by the side of the transformer radiator.There was a cavity in the B-Phase Bus-bar (around the hole from where cable got detached) of the transformer and the upper portion of the cable-end- socket which was lying by the side of the radiator also melted/burnt in a way that the centre hole of the socket took a U-shape.The earth conductors connected to neutral terminal of the transformer were found disconnected near the neutral terminal.There were short-circuit marks on these earth conductors (indicating beads formation at the end of these earth conductors).The neutral Bus-Bar was loose and the check nut used for tightening the Bus-Bar was also loose.The P.V.C. insulation of the L.T. Cables connected to the transformer Bus- Bar were found damaged/burnt.The insulation of the cable, which was lying Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 322 by the side of the radiator, was also found almost burnt out from transformer up to L.T. Switch Room.Battery Charger & L.T. Panel Board were found almost damaged with fire.No protection relays/system were found installed on any of the HT Breakers of the said H.T. Four Panel Board, from where the HT supply to 1000 KVA transformer in question had been fed.R.17/2008 Page 323 At the time of inspection the following provisions of the Indian Electricity Rules, 1956 had not been found complied with by DVB: - (1) No protection system against Over-Current, Earth Fault and excessive Gas Pressure had been found provided for the said 1000 KVA transformer of DVB installed at Uphaar Cinema Complex, so as to automatically disconnect the supply under abnormal conditions as required under the provisions of Rule 64A (2) of the said rules.R.17/2008 Page 324 feeding electricity to nearby area from LT panel installed in adjacent room which is same as HT room.On the visual inspection it was found that 500 KVA transformer which belongs to Uphaar Cinema was undamaged.It is felt that the transformer was not cause of fire at least.R.17/2008 Page 325 one HT supply connection.It was seen that all these 4 oil circuits breaker were without any kind of protection against earth fault and over current.It was also found that potential transformer was in disconnected condition of OCB operation mechanism which includes the battery charger etc appeared to be defective and they were heavily damaged due to the fire.Ex PW 64/D The inspection of scene of occurrence of fire at Uphaar Cinema Complex by the undersigned reveal the following: -The fire has started from DVB transformer which is situated in the western portion of the car parking hall situated in ground floor of cinema complex.The shutter of the transformer room opens towards the car parking lot.Thereafter, the smoke appears to have traveled in two directions i.e. northward and southward.The northward bound smoke encountered collapsible gate and a staircase adjacent to it.The smoke has gushed through stairwell due to chimney effect.The doors next to the screen on either side has severe smoke effect.The doors on either side of screen are two plank doors.Another door was to the right of the above door and one plank of the door was open at the time of fire.This way the smoke had entered the auditorium through right door as one plank of the door was opened at the time of fire incident.The southward bound smoke traveled through ariel route towards the staircase situated to the south of the DVB transformer.The earth cable of the transformer has been found temporarily fitted with the earth strip i.e. twisting of earth cable.There was no cable trench to conceal the cable.Regarding query 6: The inspection of scene of occurrence i.e Uphaar Cinema Complex reveal that the ground floor basement i.e. car parking lot has been effected by fire and rest of the cinema complex is effected by smoke.Regarding query 7: No emergency light system could be detected in the auditorium and balcony of Cinema Hall at the time of inspection.Regarding query 8: The physical examination of DVB transformer reveal that the cables on bus bars on L.T. side did not have check nuts.Except one lower terminal of phase Y and neutral terminal.The check nut of neutral terminal was found in loose condition.The blue phase single cable at the top along with cable-end-socket (detached cable) fell down on radiator fin due to constant arching/sparking at nut bolt portion on bus bar, decoiling effect of cable and weight of cable.All coupled together led to eating away of metal of cable end socket resulting in U shape cable socket end.Regarding query 4: (Chemistry portion) The Laboratory examination of fire extinguishers reveal the following: -a crimping machine and the dominant cause of the electrical fire being the defective crimping through the aid of dye and hammer.PW-26, Mr. A.K. Aggarwal, Assistant Electrical Inspector also deposed that the cables and socket were not fixed by crimping but with dye and hammer.He further deposed that according to the rules, all conductors of XLPE terminators are to be terminated either by crimping, compression or by welding methods.3) The leaking oil must have caught fire either due to the arcing or some unknown cause.vi) The report of PW-64, ie.Ex. PW-64/D says that:The physical examination of DVB transformer reveal that the cables on bus bars on LT side did not have checked nuts.Except one lower terminal of phase Y and neutral terminal.The check nut of neutral terminal was found in loose condition.The blue phase single cable at the top alongwith cable end socket (detached cable) fell down on radiator fin due to constant arching/sparking at nut bolt portion on bus bar, decoiling effect of cable and weight of cable.All coupled together led to eating away of metal of cable end socket resulting in U-shape cable socket end.They chose to do neither.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 341 or melting) of metal of cable end socket, resulting in U shape cable socket end.This in turn caused a slit in the radiator fin through which transformer oil gushed out in the form of spray, caught fire and spilled on to the transformer room floor.This flowed outside the transformer room.7.123 The Trial Court found that the fire in the transformer room soon engulfed several cars parked nearby, which in turn led to thick black smoke.The Court further held that the smoke travelled from the first floor, into the auditorium from the back of the screen and through the staircase, blistering the doors on the first floor and finally entering the second floor, into the balcony from the left side.This led to a cavity on the B-phase bus-bar, melting the upper portion of the socket.The weight of the cable and its decoiling effect might have exerted pull on the bolt; as a result, the cable-end-socket detached with a flick from the bolt portion after forming an opening and hit transformer radiator's fin.Due to cable overheating, its insulation gave away and the conductor was exposed.The live conductor which hit the radiator fin, found an opening due to short- circuiting from where the transformer oil gushed and spilled-out on the floor.The short- circuiting appeared to have continued for sufficient time.The transformer oil thus caught fire due to arching/sparking.R.17/2008 Page 343 7.125 PW-35 who prepared his report Ex.PW-35/A, after inspecting the cinema hall on 19.06.1997 supported the findings of PW-24. PW-36, as noticed earlier, also said much the same thing.Further, the spread of fire was described in Ex.PW-35/A where it states that the spillage of transformer oil continued; it went outside the transformer room.The fire was aggravated, according to PW- 35/A, by presence of petrol, diesel oil parked in vessels of transformer room.The reason for spread of fire, according to PW-35/A, through the air conditioning system was that between the period when electricity supply was restored at 04.55 pm and at 05.05 pm, when it was shut down as a result of tripping in AIIMS grid, there was a possibility of the air conditioning blowers having started.On inspection of the AHU (Air Handling Unit), it was found that the filters installed there near the door were covered with black smoke.After removal of filters, it was found that the cooling coil' face also showed traces of smoke.PW-35/A, the report, states that the blower might have been working for ten minutes.It further states that the AC blower was in ON position and concluded that the condition of the generator room was such that there was lot of dust indicating its disuse and that the blower was not working on the generator at the relevant time.The next witness was PW-25, who inspected the site.He noticed black smoke from the transformer room going to the staircase area.He also mentioned in cross-examination that cars were parked in the parking area which too showed traces of smoke.According to PW-25, when a fire occurs, it results in high pressure in a slightly high area and low pressure at a lower height.Wind blows from higher to lower levels.He deposed that part of the smoke had travelled through AC ducts.He mentioned that there was a small opening of 45 cm.dia at the roof of the ground floor responsible for the spread of smoke to the first floor through AC tunnels.This was also mentioned in his report, Ex. PW-25/A.7.126 PW-64, in his report had given the opinion that fire started from the transformer room situated in the western side of car parking area on the ground floor.He stated that smoke appears to have traveled in northward and southward direction.The northward bound smoke encountered a collapsible gate and staircase adjacent to it.The smoke gushed to staircase due to Chimney Effect'.Two plank doors on either side of the screen showed severe smoke effects.The door opposite the staircase was closed; it also showed smoke effects.The smoke entered according to him, into the auditorium through the right door as one plank was open.Southward air traveled through the aerial route towards the staircase south of the DVB transformer room.This, according to PW-64 was due to concrete pillars not showing any sign of smoke in the lower portion and the cables hanging overhead showing signs of heat and smoke.Rear stall canteen was not affected by smoke or fire, since it disclosed strong blisters.The smoke, therefore, had gone up and reached the lower portion of auditorium balcony.R.17/2008 Page 345 plank portion of the door next to the stairwell leading in to the lower portion of the balcony.The smoke entered through this half-opened door.The door connecting fire canteen from the staircase was closed.This showed smoke and heat effect from the outside portion.Smoke went up and its effect was detected on the entry door to the rear portion of the balcony.The doors from the fire canteen to the auditorium were closed at the time of the incident.7.127 Among the eye-witnesses, PW-3, Mr. Raman Kumar deposed having noticed smoke emerging from the air-conditioner duct.He managed to leave the theatre but could not enter the hall due to dense smoke.Mr. Rishi Arora, PW-7 felt gases in the rear stall after interval and felt suffocation due to smoke and gases.PW-11 also noticed lot of smoke and gas after the interval.He also deposed having encountered smoke in the lobby and having lost consciousness.According to the witness, nothing was visible due to smoke.PW-8, Amit deposed having noticed that after lights went out, some smoke arose before the screen.7.128 PW-63 also deposed noticing fire in the DVB transformer.He noticed smoke in the stairs and lot of gases on the top floor.Similarly, PW-27, 49 and 52, all mentioned about fire and smoke in the parking area of the building.PW-49, the Chief Fire Officer deposed having reached the cinema hall complex at 05.45 pm, and entered the balcony area.According to his deposition, there was thick black smoke and lot of heat.The balcony fire door could not be opened and had to be forced open by his officers.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 346 7.129 Ex.According to the document, a call reporting fire was received at 05.10 hours in the Delhi Fire Control Room from PCO.Four fire tenders were requisitioned from nearby places.The earliest tenders, with one ambulance reached the fire scene at 05.16 hours.The first unit reached at 05.21 hours and started fire-fighting operations.On receiving a message, four motor tenders, two motor pumps along with two hydraulic platforms were sent at 05.27 hours.The fire was declared to be of medium category due to the number of persons trapped in the hall, at 05.31 hours, by the officer incharge of the scene.Fire fighting operations were strengthened by the responding seven water tenders, two light vans, hose tender, water pump and two mini buses with manual power, at 05.32 hours.The Dy.Chief Fire Officer and Asst.Divisional Officer also rushed to the scene.The fire was declared as of serious category at 05.50 hours with eight water tenders, one Bronto, one ambulance, two motor pumps and one hose tender.The Chief Fire Officer also rushed to the scene.The report stated that there was heavy traffic in the road leading to considerable delay in the fire engines reaching the site of the accident; the fire was brought under control at 06.20 pm and rescue of the last person completed at about 07.45 pm.7.130 The prosecution had, for the purpose of proving composition of substances seized soil samples through Ex.These included soil samples beneath Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Again, another sample, four feet away from the shutter base and right side of the bottom of the wall near a car which was in completely burnt condition, was recovered.One soil sample was collected 7 ft. away from the transformer room in the right direction underneath a burnt car and one sample was collected from a burnt scooter near the staircase.H2S is extremely dangerous to mucos membrane.The discussion of the above material would disclose that medical experts' evidence, in the form of Ex. PW- 62/C was clear as to cause of death of two victims, who were brought in on that day, though who died later.The board, which gave its opinion, also examined the autopsy report of Capt.Ex PW 77/A, the autopsy report, says that the cause of death was declared as Asphyxia.The relevant extract of that report, prepared by the Command Hospital, and seized by Ex. PW-77/B, is as follows:Pupils fixed and dilated.Cornea hazy.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 351 C. INTERNAL EXAMINATIONa) ALIMENTARY SYSTEM Mouth, pharynx and esophagus.Frothy blood mixed fluid with blacking particles preSent.Mucosa of pharnyx congested 2(a) ...Nose, nasopharnyx, larnyx, trachea, and bronchi mucosa of nasopharnyx, larnyx, trachea and brochi parched and congested.Frothy blood mixed fluid with black particles present in the lumen.(F).It was urged that the experts' reports did not support this theory; on the contrary, Ex. PW-35/A expressly stated that the air-conditioning system was not using the generator.7.138 According to PW-35/A smoke went through the air conditioning duct.He however, found that air conditioning blowers were not connected through generator supply.He, therefore, blowers were not working and the smoke did not travel through air conditioning duct, after the fire, the blower should have stopped working but it did not.The supply was restored between 4.55 to 5.05 and during that period, the blowers were on which enhanced the speed of smoke inside the cinema hall.These observations were premised on his seeing that the blower was in the ON position when the A/C unit was inspected by him.PW-25, in his report Ex. PW-25/A states this:In the meanwhile, the smoke caused by fire in the ground floor, spread through the staircase, into the cinema hall and balcony; it also entered the balcony, through the air-conditioning tunnels.7.140 The findings of the trial court, therefore, about the cause of fire in the transformer room, vehicles catching fire, spread of smoke into various parts of the building and the manner of spread of smoke, choking of patrons due to hot smoke, their sustained exposure, for 30-45 minutes, to such smoke, are based on sufficient materials; the prosecution has been able to establish its case on this score.The doubts sought to be expressed are not of such a character as to undermine the findings.Statutory clearances/approvals and position of inspection concerning fire safety Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.In this section it is proposed to examine the role of various statutory/licensing agencies and the individuals working in such agencies, arrayed as accused, while granting the clearances.7.142 The first agency in this regard would be the Licensing Department.While considering the nature of deviations, particular those in the balcony, various letters and correspondences exchanged between the PWD through Mr. S.N. Dandona and the concerned DCP (Licensing) Mr. Amod Kanth were discussed.7.148 The third agency which issued no objections at the relevant time was MCD.R.17/2008 Page 361 7.149 Ex. PW 39/DA is a letter dated 20.4.1995 to the Zonal Engineer Building, MCD from the DCP (Licensing).The letter was marked to one Jr. Engineer Mr. Sherawat.The noting of Jr. Engineer on the letter was that the matter pertained to the Licensing Department; on 28.9.1995, the said accused merely stated that if aggeed MCD could issue NOC for the renewal of licenses.In the circumstances, NOC Ex.The original NOC was handed over directly to accused K.L. Malhotra on 28.9.95 by Shyam Sunder Sharma.The prosecution, they contend, was unable to establish any negligence or illegal omission in this regard.7.158 The prosecution had adduced evidence in the form of request letters by the DCP (Licensing) to the Fire Department (i.e. the CFO) for the period 1982-83 to 1988-89 as Ex.PW-37/H. Some of the inspection reports Ex.PW-37/J (dated 10.8.1988), Ex.PW-37/M (dated 20.5.1989); PW-37/O (dated 25.4.1990) being a request for CFO to inspect the premises; inspection report Ex.PW-37/P (dated 14.6.1990); Ex.PW-37/R (dated 28.4.1991) being inspection report in regard to the renewal of the license for the period 1.4.1991 to 31.3.1992 have been relied upon.After inspection of the premises on 28.4.1991(Ex.PW- 37/R) the Divisional Officer in the Fire Department wrote on 29.4.1991 (Ex.PW-37/S), outlining deficiencies in the fire equipment, noticed in the Uphaar Cinema.The rows concerned the placement of equipment such as hose reels, water bucket drum, blankets, exit lights, emergency lights, trained fireman, fire protection/safety arrangement including placement of extinguishers etc. The columns interestingly dealt with the various places in the cinema such as the hall, balcony box, pantry, projection room, rectifier room, rewinding room, AC plant/blower, generator room, electrical sub- station/distribution panel and covered parking.The inspection reports only mention about the presence of certain fire safety equipment but did not indicate in any other detail the deficiency or compliance with the standards.This is a common feature noticeable with all the inspection reports right up to the last one issued before the fire.7.160 Ex.The Ex......We have treated the wooden partition in the offices with fire retardant paint to increase the fire rating of wood and these partitions are in existence for the last 20 years as per normal practice to sub-divide larger offices by wooden partition...... 7.163 In the inspection proforma pertaining to year 1995-96, there is no mention whether the shortcomings still existed.The said shortcomings were found to exist in the cinema hall building after inspections were conducted after the occurrence of the incident.3) The wooden planks are stored in the basement.It requires to be totally removed from there.4) First aid box shall be provided in the projector room which is not available.5) Fire safety measures shall be provided in the visitor lounge on each floor, director office and guest room and on the ground floor parking6) Foot lights in the balcony shall be provided In view of the above 'No Objection Certificate' shall only be considered after compliance of the aforesaid shortcomings and re-inspection by the department... . 7.165 On 28.11.96, by letter Ex.PW33/F information was sent on the letter head of the Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd. by Shri Vimal Nagpal of Uphaar Cinema informing the Divisional officer, Delhi Fire service that the short comings pointed out were rectified and a request was made to issue 'No Objection Certificate'.On 22.12.96 re-inspection was carried out by accused H. S. Panwar and Station House Officer Surender Dutt and thereafter, inspection report/No Objection Certificate Ex. PW 33/D was sent on 24.12.1996 to DCP (Licensing ); it reads as follows:......During the course of inspection , fire fighting arrangements already provided by the cinema management were seen.Position in the balcony 7.171 The trial court found that the balcony was unmanned at the time of the accident; there was no gatekeeper or torch-man, the public announcement system did not function, the emergency lights did not operate, and the balcony doors were shut.This, it was held, resulted in delaying the patrons' exit, leading to fatalities and serious injuries, due to smoke exposure.7.172 PW-1 deposed about commotion in the balcony and other patrons saying that balcony doors were closed.According to PW-3, in the balcony, at when the smoke entered, no exit lights were on, there was no alarm and nobody from management was there.He deposed that patrons were trying to push the main door but it was locked.He watched people Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 382 bringing their babies, children and other persons dead out of the cinema building.PW-7 deposed that at that time, (i.e when smoke entered the balcony) lights went off and it was pitch dark.Noise was heard from the auditorium and people started going out.There was lot of smoke.They tried to come out.All doors were closed and he could not open them.They were able to break open.There was lot of smoke and nobody was there to help.PW-11 stated about absence of announcement systems, and lights.The public (patrons) near the balcony door pushed it open.A lot of smoke and gas was there.He immediately closed the door.He entered inside the office on the fourth floor, when members of the public followed him.PW-49, the Chief Fire Officer, reached the cinema hall at 5-45 PM and found that some people were trapped in the balcony area.The claimants' ship was being unloaded in Casablanca when a quantity of benzene leaked into the hold.As a result of the negligence of certain stevedores who were carrying planks, one of the planks fell into the hold causing a Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The victim was taken to hospital where he was operated on and placed in intensive care.While in hospital he developed respiratory problems and a tracheotomy tube was placed in his windpipe to assist his breathing.The tube remained in place for four weeks.The outlet from the tank was governed by a tap, which had no lock.We are giving you the space on the above undertaking.....For Green Park Theaters Associated (P) Ltd.''....I, Sushil Ansal Managing Director, Green Park Theatres Associated (P) Ltd. New Delhi and licensee of Uphaar Cinema, Green Park Extn. Market for the year 1975-76 have not without without the permission transferred the license or the licensed place or the Cinematograph not allowed any other person during the year 1974-75 to exhibit film in the licensed place.I am still the occupier of the licensed premises and owner of cinematograph .....''.Their signatures are also attested hereunder for your records:R.17/2008 Page 434 to 23.04.1993 in describing himself as licensee of the Uphaar cinema.The same are as follows :In this connection we are sending herewith the following documents:Existing License no.51 dated 24.4.1973 (already lying with you)Affidavit We shall be grateful if you can renew our license for the period 24.4.1992 to 23.4.1993....'' Affidavit :-I have not without permission, transferred the License or the Licensed place or the Cinematograph to any person during the year 1991-92 to exhibit films in the Licensed place.I am still the occupier of the licensed premises and owner of the Cinematograph.....''.9.23 The accused Sushil Ansal, in response to the query under Section 313 (Question No.381) only stated that he could have been authorised to sign the letter, by the Board of Directors.He did not deny the letter; he did not also give any explanation why he was authorised to sign it.He described himself as licensee in the application and affirmed the affidavit in such capacity.9.24 The Minutes of Board of Directors meeting dated 24.12.1994 disclosed that Gopal Ansal was Director and Sushil Ansal was a special invitee.The minutes resolved for appointment of Gopal Ansal as an Additional Director till the next annual general meeting.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 435 9.25 A cheque being No.955725 dated 26.06.1995, for an amount of Rs.50 lakhs was drawn from the account of M/s Green Park Theatre Associated Pvt. Ltd. in favour of Mr. Sushil Ansal.The account being current account No.4129 was maintained with the Punjab National Bank.The said cheque was proved as Ex. 31/9.26 According to the Board of Directors meeting held on 25.03.1996 Ex. PW 103/XX-3, Gopal Ansal was appointed as authorized to operate bank account of the company upto any amount.Three others were granted power to operate bank accounts for a sum not exceeding Rs.7,50,000/-.Six persons were conferred power to jointly operate account with any two of each of four upto an amount not exceeding Rs.2,50,000/-.Similar powers were conferred on the said persons, including unlimited power in relation to the opening and operation of a new current account.9.27 Shri Gopal Ansal issued a cheque Ex. Pw 93/B for Rs.9711/- from the bank account of GPT, this was seized by memo Ex. 93/A. By this time the name of GPT has been changed to Ansal Theatres and Clubotels (P) Ltd., a fact recorded in the minutes of meeting held on 25.031996 adverted to earlier.The resolution of 30.06.1995, however, had recorded that Gopal Ansal resigned from the Board of Directors (Ex. PW 103/XX-3).9.28 By two resolutions dated 04.09.1996 Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal were authorized and empowered to deposit title deeds of the company with the intent to create an acquitable mortgage to secure a term loan of Rs.40 crores.The second Board resolution authorized Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 436 Gopal Ansal and Sushil Ansal inter alia to operate various bank accounts of the company upto any amounts.9.29 A cheque dated 30.11.1996 (Ex. PW 90/B) was issued by Gopal Ansal for a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the account of Ansal Theatre and Clubotels Limited.9.30 By two office memos (Ex. PW 102/D-54 and PW 102/D-56) dated 18.12.1996, day to day activities of Uphaar cinema were sought to be delegated.The memo stated that erring officials would be dealt with severely if necessary by dismissal from service.These memo were also marked to MD (APIL) for his information..... Significantly there was no Managing Director of Ansal's Theatres and Clubotels Limited and reference of AIPL appears to be Ansal's Properties and Industries Limited.9.30 By Board of Directors resolution dated 31.12.1995 Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal were appointed and constituted as authorized signatory upto any amount, for operating the current accounts with the companies banks.9.31 By cheque Ex. PW 90/C dated 12.02.1997 Gopal Ansal sought to withdraw a sum of Rs.2,96,550/- from the account of Ansal Theatres and Clubotels (P) Ltd, payable to Chancellor Club.9.32 By the minutes recorded at the meeting of Board of Directors dated 28.03.1997, inter alia, Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal were authorized to operate the bank accounts of the company upto any amount.The banks were authorized to honour and accept all cheques, Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A brief discussion about these is necessary.R.17/2008 Page 438 9.35 Ex. PW 98/X-4, a letter written by accused Ajit Chaudhary, forwarded to the DGM (Uphaar).The said minutes/document itself does not bear the signature of anyone and is not dated too.It is only for the sake of convenience that Shri Sushil Ansal was described as a representative licensee.However, at all material times, the licensee continued to be in the name of the company.R.17/2008 Page 443 9.44 All the cinema licenses through issued temporarily for two months period continuously from 1986 onwards, referred Sushil Ansal as the licensee.All these are part of Ex PW 69/AA, Ex. PW 69/BB, Ex. Pw 69/CC.It has also been noticed during the evidence that some originals of those documents went missing during the trial.The findings, therefore, were challenged as unfounded in fact.The remuneration register Ex. PW.108/DB corroborates this position.He deposed that routinely, gate keepers, who were about 14, were on duty from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. and the second shift was from 5 P.M. till the end of the show.He identified Uniyal who was in the Court as a gate keeper.According to the witness, a duty list was prepared and gate keepers used to depute themselves as to who would be working in the balcony and who would be on duty in the hall.He identified the signatures of Manmohan Uniyal and his own signatures, at points A & B in Ex.PW-97/A. Ex.PW--97/B-1-B-20 were also proved by this witness.They were duty rosters signed by their respective staff.In addition Ex.PW-97/C, an attendance register maintained by the cinema hall was also proved.11.3 A look at Ex.-PW-97/B-1 to B-20 reveals that duty slips/rosters for different parts of the cinema halls had been printed.There were two slips for each day - one for the morning shift and the other, for the evening shift.The other duty rosters Ex.A co- relation between these duty slips and Ex. PW-97/C, the attendance register disclose that Manmohan Uniyal attended on all the 11 days; he consistently worked as the gate keeper in the balcony in the morning shift.The rosters Ex. PW-97/B-1 to B-20 show that the evening gate keeper in the balcony was Pitamber Jha.Mr. Surender Dutt, who was charged along with Mr. H.S. Panwar, died during the pendency of the proceeding.As discussed in the preceding portions relating to structural deviations, installation of transformer and inspections, there were several building deviations noticed by the licensing authority as well as the Fire Department.The earliest deviation noticed was in 1983 (Ex.17/B), which included offices in the top floor.They were again noticed in 1994 and in the official inspection before the fire, i.e. 06.05.1996 (Ex. PW-16/E).These reports consistently said that from the fire safety angle, the obstructions in the top floor were hazardous.R.17/2008 Page 490 12.2 It has been also discussed that on 09.04.1996, an inspection was carried out; the report was exhibited as Ex.PW-32/A. A No Objection Certificate' (Ex.PW-32/B) was issued on 18.04.1996 by Mr. H.S. Panwar.A letter (Ex.PW-37/AL) was sent on 20.09.1996 to the Chief Fire Officer by the DCP (Licensing) requiring an inspection report.This letter stated that the requisite report from the fire office had not been received by the licensing office.12.3 Further to the licensing authorities request, an inspection was carried out on 18.11.1996; the report is PW-33/C. It listed deficiencies which included fire extinguishers requiring refilling; sprinkler system in the basement not operating; storage of wooden planks in the basement under warning that they should be removed; direction to provide fire safety measures in the visitor's lounge on each floor, Director office and guest room on the ground floor parking and directed that footlights in the balcony should be provided.The No Objection Certificate' was withheld on the ground that the matter would be re-considered only after removal of listed deficiencies and shortcomings.By a letter dated 28.11.1996, the Ansals informed fire office that shortcomings had been cured.Thereafter, a No Objection Certificate' (Ex.33/B) was sent on 24.11.1997 to the DCP (Licensing).The re-inspection report stated that fire-fighting arrangements by the cinema management were seen and some of the fire extinguishers and some hoses were operated and found satisfactory.12.5 The evidence of Mr. Surender Singh (PW-31), Fire Man, is crucial.He identified Ex.The witnesses also deposed in cross-examination that all equipments are not checked during inspection of buildings.That sprinkler was in the ground floor.There was no sprinkler seized after the event, although 22 fire extinguishers were seized.12.10 PW-85 mentioned that he was not trained to operate any fire safety equipment.This document is, therefore, of no use to establish the presence of one or the other employee.So far as the other evidence is concerned, what emerges is that B.M. Satija was the Inspector Incharge of the maintenance of the Uphar DVB transformer.According to PW-40, he had a duty to inspect it every month.PW-40 also spoke about chalking out the programme for attending the Uphar Cinema complaint with B.M. Satija.Their rash acts caused the fire.As concluded earlier, being professionally experienced and responsible, the standard of foresight attributable to them is higher; they should have been reasonably aware of the risk factors existing that day in the form of two transformers, one of which was unauthorized, both being in the parking area, the lack of protection relays, etc. Yet, they went ahead, and carried out defective repairs without the aid of standard equipments.56/B (seized by memo PW.56/C dated 31-7-1997) a description of the tokens issued for the show; they mention issuance of 18 tokens at 3-30 PM.The seizure memo dated 7-7-1997, Ex. PW-78/C corroborates this evidence; 16 cars, both in burnt and un-burnt condition were seized on that Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 223 date.The photographs PW-61/191, PW-61/208 and PW-61/211 also bear out the fact that several cars were parked in the ground floor; many of them were in burnt condition.These photographs were taken at site, on 29th July, 1997, by Gautam Roy, PW-61, Scientific Assistant, CFSL.Ex. PW-2/A, a report by PW-2, confirms that in the original plan sanctioned by MCD, a 16 feet width passage in front of the transformer was to be left unoccupied/vacant.However, he stated that vehicles were parked on this area, which affected free and smooth movement of vehicles.PW-64 says that the parking lot was affected by fire.Reliance was placed on sanctioned plans, which allowed parking of cars in the ground floor of the building, and two wheeler vehicles and cycles in the basement.The said accused No. 1 &2 had no control over PW-56 or the manner in which he performed his job; they could not be therefore held responsible for the so-called improper parking of vehicles, even if it was proved that excess vehicles were parked.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.7.17 This court has considered the materials on record.Accused No. 2, who had signed the letter Ex. PW.56/A, claimed ignorance about the arrangement.Both accused said that they knew about the parking contract, and the existence of cars in the parking lot.The sanctioned plans no doubt indicate that 15 cars could be parked inside the ground floor premises; they also contain clear triangular demarcations for this purpose.These plans (Ex. PW-15/Y-3; PW-102/C-16) show this position.Yet, these plans also reveal that a 16 foot passage had to be maintained, for passage of the vehicles.He was also not present at the spot, when the fire occurred.He went there later.One of those cars definitely was very near the transformer room.Many of these cars were burnt.The parking contract does not disclose that the contractor was made aware about the conditions imposed in the sanctioned plan, regarding restrictions on the number of cars which could be parked, or about the need to maintain the passage, unimpeded at all times; the arrangement was also not subject to any kind of check or supervision.All these show serious and grave omissions, amounting to illegalities, in the manner of maintenance and supervision of the parking lot.Both under the Cinematograph Act, as well as generally, they had a duty to ensure that vehicles which were parked in the ground floor immediately below the viewing area (first floor) were maintained keeping all safety standards in mind.The document was produced and marked as Ex. PW-17/B. The trial court recorded that:In 1983, due to fire incident in LPG godown at Shakur Basti and Gopala Tower, Lt. Governor ordered for inspection of all cinema houses.Accordingly, Joint Team of competent authorities inspected Uphaar Cinema on different dates and structural and fire safety deviations were observed in Uphaar Cinema on which the license of Uphaar Cinema was suspended for a period of four days.It was noticed, later in the judgment that:On 1.2.1984, accused Sushil Ansal, Chairman of M/s Green Park Theaters Associated Pvt. Ltd requested for renewal of cinema license.Shri S P Aggarwal, Chief Fire Officer cum Deputy Commissioner ( Water) inspected Uphaar cinema and pointed out certain deviations.This document was proved by PW-37 Ganesh Das Verma, retired Senior Stenographer, MCD.The document is part of a common report in respect of 13 cinema halls that were inspected.The report, as may be, noticed from the preceding Table-I above, lists out 11 points.It was Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 227 contended on behalf of accused No.1&2 that a comparison of Ex.PW-17/B and Ex.PW-37/K would show that whereas the former listed 11 irregularities, the later inspection of 29.8.1998 showed that in August, 1998 itself the wooden plank flooring, (one of the main objections relating to creation of additional floor between stilt floor and floor of the auditorium) had been removed.The second report also showed that the Homeopathic Dispensary was not seen as a fire hazard and that the printing press noticed in Ex.PW17-B as well as combustible material stored in the basement had been removed.It was submitted that the other objections pertaining to occupation of basement, blockage of other areas (excepts as regards occupation of various agencies and offices forming part of staircase and loft) were not even mentioned or even spelt out in this report by the Delhi Fire Service.7.21 According to the accused Ex.17/D (dated 30.4.96) as well as Ex.16/E (dated 6.5.96) showed that: -Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.(5) Third floor was let out to various organizations.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 229 Ex. PW 37/K, Ex PW 17/D, Ex PW16/E and the report dated 12.8.94 (marked as C-95 by PW 37).(11) The space marked for restaurant was let out to a Bank.7.22 The contentions here were that contemporaneous inspections reflected in the reports produced by the prosecution had shown how progressively the cinema addressed the issue of fire hazard.When it was pointed out that wooden plank based additional floor on R.S. Joists had been created, the planks was immediately removed.The other contention with regard to the letting out the third floor to various organizations and existence of offices on the top floor for which no permission was required, two arguments were made.Similarly the partitions of basement were itself not an unlawful act for the reason that it was compoundable deviation if there was proper ventilation in the basement.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The accused contended that there were several internal inconsistencies and glaring contradictions between such reports relied upon by the prosecution i.e. Ex.39/B dated 30.06.1997, Ex. PW-29A dated 2.8.1997 and Ex.The first in the series was a report of PW/39 it listed only six so called irregularities.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The document was included in the list of documents, and the irregularity of the police in not signing at the time of inspection, cannot be such as to undermine its credibility, since PW-29 was extensively cross-examined.Besides, the witness is unconnected with the event, as he is an engineer from the Public Works Department (PWD).For these reasons, the arguments of the accused, about Ex. PW-29/A are unfounded.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Reliance was also placed on Ex.PW- 37/K noticed that wooden flooring had been removed.Having regard to the evidence of PW- 27 and PW-49 who visited the site earliest in point of time and clearly mentioned that there was no burnt wood at the spot as well as the evidence of PW-64 and the reports Ex.PW-24/A and Ex.PW-64/D (which nowhere disclose any burnt wood, carbon or charcoal attributable to such wood).These observations in Ex. PW-29/A and Ex.PW-22/F were blindly accepted by the Trial Court.The documentary evidence is in the form of plan Ex.15/X-9 (the stilt/ground floor plan sanctioned by order dated 30.5.1972).This drawing (No.4) is in the series containing proposed additions in red colour and deletions in yellow.In both the drawings, i.e. Ex. PW102/C-1 as also Ex.PW-15/X9, the rest of the outer wall is shown as parapet wall.7.31 The building parking plan relied upon by the prosecution and recovered from the office of the MCD Ex.PW-15/X7 is similar to the Ground floor plan (Ex.This MCD map, a cloth backed one does not show that the parapet wall is covered; indeed it shows that the entire outer wall up to the end of the back side of the transformer room was 3 foot height parapet wall.The corresponding map recovered from the Ansal Bhawan Ex.PW102/C-2 (through Seizure Memo Ex.PW102/A) is a copy of Ex.This, however, shows a section of the parapet wall is built up.The 1973 Parking plan recovered from the office of the MCD, Ex.This shows a 3 foot height parapet wall.It is an original plan recovered from the MCD office and is cloth backed one, according to the Bye laws.The alterations and deletions are marked in red and yellow colour respectively.There is no indication that the concerned section parallel to the Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 237 transformer section was to be fully built up.A copy of this document (Ex.PW-102/C-16 seized through Ex.PW-102/A from the Ansals' office.It is the copy of Ex.It also reflects the 3 foot height parapet wall.Unlike PW-102/C-1 or PW- 102/C2 this does not bears the original signatures of any MCD officials or the stamp sanctioning the plan.No further comment can be made about this except that it corresponds in all respects with Ex.PW-15/Y3 as regards the extent of 3 foot outer parapet wall in the entirety of that section.The last in these series is Ex.PW-15/Y-11 recovered from the office of the MCD.This too uniformly shows that the outer wall at a height of 3 foot; it does not disclose that any portion of that outer wall extended to the ceiling.7.32 The oral evidence in this regard may be summarized at this stage.He stated that the wall was not sanctioned up to ceiling height.He stated in the report Ex.PW-2/A that a parapet wall was constructed in full height whereas this wall has been shown in sanctioned plan up to the height of 12 feet i.e. without any enclosure except some portion which was provided with parapet, railing etc. for safety reasons.This witness supported his report and deposed that the full wall up to the ceiling height as found at site was unsanctioned.PW-29/A the Assistant Engineer in his report dated 2.9.1997 clearly mentioned that the outer wall behind Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 238 HT & LT room, transformer room was constructed up to the first floor height instead of 3 feet height.In cross-examination on 21.09.2002 he stated that the full height of the wall had been sanctioned.The maps in question i.e. the Parking plan and the Ground floor plans recovered from the office of the MCD as well as the Ansals show that: -(1) All plans consistently reflected two parallel lines as the outer wall.PW-102/A and the corresponding cloth backed MCD plan Ex.PW-15/Y-3 also describes the outer wall as a 3 foot parapet wall.(4) The Ground floor plan recovered from MCD office (Ex.PW15/Y-11) also shows that the outer wall has a uniform height at 3 feet and describes it as a parapet wall.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 239 (5) There is a variation between the two sets of plans relating to ground floor and the parking respectively sanctioned on 30.5.1972, recovered from the office of MCD on the one hand and from the offices of the Ansals on the other.They coincide in all details except that in respect of the outer wall described as 3 foot parapet wall the plan Ex.15/X-9 does not contain any red colour (signifying addition) for a section of the 3 foot parapet wall behind the LT and transformer room, whereas the plan recovered from the Ansals PW-102/C-I does so.The MCD Parking plan Ex.PW15/X9 does also not contain such proposed additions; the Ansals' plan Ex.PW102/C-1 contains such additions in red.The other set i.e. the parking plan similarly reflect the same variations.PW-15/X7, the cloth backed MCD plan recovered from its office does not show a covered parapet; there is no proposal to add anything on that section of the wall.7.34 The net result of all this is that there are definitely discernable differences between the plans, i.e. the two sets of plan recovered, from the MCD office on the one hand and those of Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 240 Ansals on the other.So far as the accused's arguments on this aspect are concerned, the evidence of PW-39, who first inspected the site after the accident suggests that he did not visit the place with the copy of any sanctioned plan.His report clearly reflects the deviations i.e. construction of section of the outer wall up to ceiling height.Now, it is a matter of record borne by evidence that the ground floor ceiling is 16 feet.If the originally sanctioned plans permitted a 3 feet parapet wall, the open section had to be above 12 feet, (since it has come in evidence, in more than one place that R.S. Joists were at a height of 8' feet from the ceiling, about half the height of the stilt floor).In view of this, it is apparent that when PW-2 talks of a 12 foot wall and at the same time speaks of a 3 foot parapet wall, the implication is that the space for the outer wall (left open) is 12 feet.If these are seen together with the fact that plans recovered from the MCD, kept in the normal course of official business, as well as Ex.PW-29/A/A-14 & 29/A-3 (original certified copies of the plans, parking plans and Stilt plan recovered from the PWD office with the seals, produced along with PW 29/A in the report) it is clear that outer wall had to be a 3 foot parapet wall; no more no less.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 241 7.35 So far as the evidence of PW-29 is concerned, the extracts of his deposition, the first during his cross-examination on 21.09.2002 read as follows:-from the roof level.The wall upto first floor was sanctioned and thereafter, parafit wall upto 3ft. is sanctioned and thereafter, if there is any construction, that is not sanctioned.The subsequent deposition, during cross examination on 24.09.2002 is as follows:Butan counsel for accused No.2 Gopal Ansal Nil (opp.given).(at this stage the witness submits that he wants to submit that height of outer wall behind HT, LT panel and transformer room had been raised upto first floor height instead of three feet).Naseem, counsel for Sushil Ansal:I had given the correct statement on that date.It is correct that question regarding this wall was put to me on the last date of hearing thrice.there was interruption on both the sides so there was mistake.It is correct that when the said statement was read by me before signing, the CBI Prosecutor and Ms. Krishna Murti was present.But I read it myself and correction was made by me.After reading the statement I had signed the statement and left.I had signed the statement after reading the same and finding it correct.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.This was pointed out as a deficiency and the subsequent report Ex-37/K shows that the wooden planks were removed.Later, pre-1997 reports (Ex.-PW/37K, 17/D and 16/E) all consistently mentioned that wooden planks were removed from the mezzanine but the R.S. Joists did not exist.The evidence of PW-27 Mr. B.R. Meena, one of the Fireman to first reach the site and attend to the fire as per as PW-49 Mr. R.C. Sharma, Chief Fire Officer show that there were no ash, coal or burnt wood seen by them.The prosecution has also not disclosed that any wood ash recovered and sent for analysis by any expert to be so.7.38 So far as the observation in PW-2/A that the parking area on the Ground floor did not contain demarcations, the Parking plans consistently reflected that clear markings had to exist Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 243 at the site.Besides, these parking plans also delineated a 16 foot passage on the ground floor for easy passage of vehicles.The report of PW-2 that such markings for cars did not exist and that such demarcation of 16 foot passage also did not exist has gone unchallenged.Besides, PW-49 also deposed about this.The findings of the Trial Court are, therefore, borne out by the record.7.39 Neither Ex.PW15/X9 recovered from the MCD office nor the parking plans recovered from the Ansals' office PW-102/CD and PW 102/C-16 (the 1973 plans) or even the parking plans recovered from MCD office (PW-15/X7 and PW 15/Y3) reflect that any of the following ground floor structures were approved: -(i) Homeopathic Dispensary behind LT/HT/Transformer Rooms on a part of the ramp.(ii) Enclosure of space to create a glazed verandah next to the Manager's room.(iii) Enclosure of an open space adjoining the HT room as a ticket counter.(iv) Use of a small portion at the mid landing of the staircase of the stilt floor at a height of 8 feet, for use as an office.7.40 As far as the permissibility of R.S. Joists is concerned, the evidence of PW-18 reveals that he was unable to say whether this was contrary to rules or bye laws.PW-39 who Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 244 prepared the report Ex.PW-39/A too could not say whether they violated any building bye- laws.7.41 The prosecution contention about a deviation in the height of the transformer room, i.e. its being sanctioned at 3 feet 6 inches below the ramp level, is based on a reading of the sanctioned plan (Ex.PW-15-Y/3) and the report of CBRI (Ex.PW-25/A) as well as testimony of PW-25, who mentioned that the transformer room was at a higher level than the parking ramp.The evidence of PW-2, PW-29 and PW-39 as well as the reports submitted by them, Ex.PW-2/A, PW-29/A and PW-39/A, however, do not reflect these as deviations.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The first two accused did not cross examine either PW/2 or PW/29 in this regard.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.PW-2/A, Ex-39/B and Ex.29/A also referred to four offices as well as conversion of stair case over the loft level at different levels into office.The Trial Court found that these amounted to violations.Under these circumstances, determination by the very same agencies after the event should be seen all such offices being contrary to bye-laws should be viewed suspicion as an attempt to cover up the official omissions rather than pointing at any fault by the Cinema or its Management.7.57 The argument that the licensing department had given permission, for the letting out of the third floor or for that matter any part of the premises through a letter dated 12.7.1974 (Ex PW 102/D and Ex PW 17/DC), has to be viewed in the context of the other facts and circumstances.With reference to your letter dated 19.6.74 on the subject noted above, you are allowed to let out the portion of the cinema building i.e. top floor and Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 249 ground floor to commercial establishments u/r 45 (xi) of the Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 7.58 All the pre-tragedy inspection reports, such as, Ex PW 37/K, Ex PW 37/C, Ex PW 17/D and Ex PW 16/E mention about the third floor commercial establishments as well as the homeopathic dispensary on the ground floor.No doubt, Ex.PW 37/C, Ex PW 17/D and Ex PW 16/E also mention this.So far as the top floor offices and the enclosure of a part of the staircase, as well as the creation of the lot are concerned, Ex PW 37/C, Ex PW 17/B and Ex PW 16/E mention that they have been removed.The letter of the cinema management dated 30/8/1994 (Ex PW 49/F), claimed that the concerns have been addressed in the following terms:Your Divisional Officer Mr. Pawar inspected the above premises as per the Court Directives to ascertain whether we have complied with the conditions issued by the Court or not to meet the fire fighting and fire safety measures in the above complex.We confirm the following:Wooden planks have been removed.(parking)Homeopathic Doctor's cabin has bgeen got vacated.(parking) 3&4 The basement is not being used for any other purposes except for parking as sanctioned.The entire basement has automatic sprinkling system.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 250 No combustible material are being stored in the basement.Incidental spares for operating cinema are only being stored in a small store in the basement room.No office exists above the stair case as alleged.Store room in the basement is being used as store of Cinema only and not by any company.Offices on the top floor have been provided with suitable fire protection arrangements.The restaurant sanctioned on ground floor is in the possession/occupation of Syndicate Bank which is less hazardous than a restaurant.9. Denied.Yours faithfully for GREEN PARK THEATRES ASSOCIATED PVT.7.59 Ex PW 37/AC was the reply to the above letter, by the Fire Service Authorities, which clearly stated that the offices near the staircase and on the top floor, were still matters of concern from the point of view of fire safety, in the following terms:Please refer to your letter No.nil dated 30.8.94 on the matter cited as subject.In view of the above you are requested to rectify the above mentioned shortcomings under intimation to the undersigned.7.60 Cumulatively, these show that although permission to let out the top floor was given on 12.7.74, yet, all the inspection by statutory agencies, particularly the fire safety authorities unanimously determined them to be fire hazardous from the safety angle.These deviations, therefore, assumed an incrementally risky character, which the cinema occupier/licensee and management were aware of.That no penal action was taken at that time, in the opinion of the court, is no answer to the existence of these risks and the consciousness on the part of the licensees/occupier of the cinema.More importantly, the aspect of structural deviations and issue of the fire hazards, has to be viewed in the light of the following remarks made in Ex PW 2/A:Conversion of cinema hall into cinema cum private office complex;Shifting of cinema administration offices at various floors without keeping in mind the aspect of proper ventilation and sanitary requirements;Opening of exhaust fans in the stair-hall instead of opening into a direct open space;The Cinema Management applied for provision of additional 14 seats, apparently by converting the space sanctioned for an inspection room.They were permitted to do so by letter dated 02.11.1974 issued by the Executive Engineer, PWD.This was marked as Ex.PW 29/DF.7.71 On 30.09.1976, a notification, marked as PW 29/DC was issued by the Delhi Government sanctioning extra seats, for various cinema halls in Delhi.The relevant portion of that notification as far as it concerns Uphaar cinema distributed additional seats; 43 seats were permitted in the balcony by adding seats in two vertical gangways and introducing new gangway in the middle in lieu of this.This alteration is to be carried out in the right wing of the balcony.This resulted in a total of 293 seats in the balcony.The right side gangway was closed.A gangway 111 CM wide between seat Nos. 8 & 9, in rows A to H was created; the other three gangways remained unaffected.This shows that seats were added on the right side gangway which was completely closed and a new middle gangway was created in the right side of the Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.7.72 On 24.05.1978, Accused-2 wrote the following letter (Ex.110/AA-20).The relevant portion of the said letter is as follows :May 24, 1978 The Entertainment Tax Officer, 2, Battery Lane, DELHI Subject : Sanction of an additional box at Uphaar Cinema.Dear Sir, We are grateful to you for having sanctioned a family box for 14 persons at Uphaar Cinema quite some time back.You will appreciate that with the passage of time, the family is growing; we would, therefore, be grateful if you could kindly sanction us an additional private box comprising of eight seats.We wish to assure you that the same would be strictly for personal use.The necessary drawings for the same are enclosed herewith.3. Hope you would consider the case sympathetically and accord the necessary sanction.(DIRECTOR) Encl : 3 sets of proposed drawings.7.73 On 19.06.1978 (Ex. PW29/DK) the Entertainment Tax Officer to whom the request for placement of additional eight seater box was made forwarded the application to the Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 284 Licensing Branch with copies of the proposed plan seeking the latter's comments and approval.On 28.06.1978, the Executive Engineer S.N. Dandona replied to the Entertainment Tax Officer, a copy of this letter was also forwarded to the Uphaar Cinema.The said letter reads as follows :"The site has been inspected on 27.6.78 and the additional eight number seats as a Private Box are in accordance with the Cinematograph Rules.PUBLIC WORKS DEPTT (DA) No.12 (62)/Uphaar/7879 Dated New Delhi the 20/9/78 To The Entertain Tax Officer, 2-Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Delhi Subject : Installation of 8 seats at Uphaar Cinema Sir, Kindly refer your letter No.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.2(DA) New Delhi Copy to the Licensee, Uphaar cinema Green Park, New Delhi for information Executive Engineer.The said letter is in Ex. PW 69/AA.7.75 The result of this entire exercise was that the right side exit was rendered inaccessible coupled with the complete closure of the right gangway.It is significant to notice at this stage that :(1) The notification dated 30.09.1976 (hereinafter referred to as `1976 notification') allowed placement of seats and creation of a middle gangway.However, it did not authorize the closure of the entire right side gangway, as that would have been violative of DCR 1953, Para 10 of the Ist Schedule.(2) The licensing authority as well as the Entertainment Tax Officer who authorized closure of the right side gangway and blocking of exit on the right side, with the permission to install eight seater additional family box, did not advert to any specific provisions of DCR Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 286 1953 which mandated existence of such gangway and the necessity of exits being positioned on either side.(3) On 27.07.1979, the Delhi Administration issued a notification (hereinafter referred to as `the 1979 notification') withdrawing and canceling the 1976 notification.The court passed an entire order requiring inspection of individual cinema halls.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.7.77 On 06.12.1979 the licensing department, through the DCP issued a show cause notice asking the Uphaar cinema to remove all the 100 additional seats including 43 balcony seats.This notice was exhibited and marked as part of Ex.69/AA- File.Balcony: 43 additional seats installed by adding seats in two vertical gangways and introducing new gangway in the middle in lieu of this.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.1953 and must, therefore, be removed.The original number of vertical gangways in the hall must be restored.The remaining 37 additional seats in the balcony were found to be in substantial compliance of the rules and may, therefore, be retained.Similarly, one additional seat on the back row in hall (i.e Seat No. A-33) has also been found to be insubstantial compliance of the rules and may, therefore, be retained.By order dated 24.12.1979, 37 seats (out of original 43) were permitted to be retained in balcony by orders of Mr. A.K. Sinha, DCP (Licensing).That order was marked as Ex.His letter was marked as PW 29/DU.He rejected the proposal for installation of additional 15 seats, as not conforming to the first Schedule, DCR 1953 in the following terms:Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The addition of one seat each in row A to F makes the total number of seats in a row as 9 Nos i.e from 9 to 17, therefore, it requires aisles on both sides against one aisel shown on the plan and as well as at site.After installation of three Nos of proposes rows with three seats each i.e 38 to 40, the space left between the last row and the exit will be less than 44 " which is required under the rules.The position of the exit shown between seat No. 37 and 38 to row I in the back wall of balcony is not correct as per its original position at site.The above observations were also brought to the notice of Licensee's representative Shri Malhotra during the site inspection on 2.9.80 and who also agreed for the same.7.80 The cinema GPT Limited, through Mr. Gopal Ansal, submitted a revised proposal for addition of 15 seats on 05.09.1980 (letter marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 29/DV).The same reads as follows:Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl." Permission is hereby accorded for the installation of 15 additional seats in the Uphaar Cinema i.e. two additional rows each of three seats in front of exit in the balcony, one seat against back wall adjacent to Seat No. 37 and 8 additional seats in the balcony by adding one seat in row A to H by making readjustment of seats in these rows.The permission is provisional subject to the final inspection by Public Works Department.The seats may be installed strictly in accordance with the plans approved and these should be inconformity with the First Scheme of Delhi Cinematograph Rules. "That letter was produced as Ex. PW 29/DZ, the relevant part of which are extracted below:Kindly refer to your letter No.13811/DCP/Lie dated 27.8.80 regarding installation of proposed 15 additioal seats, as per revised plane received from the cinema management.They have proposed two additional rows, each of 3 seats in front of the exit in the balcony.They have also proposed 8 additional seats in the balcony by adding one seat in row A to H this will be done by making readjustment of the seats in these rows.The proposed additional 15 seats are I conformity of First Scheme of DCR - 1953 therefore this department has no objection to the grant of proposed additional seats.7.81 In 1983 two serious fire accidents took place in the city; one at Shakur Basti and another was in Gopala Tower.Consequently the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi directed Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.7.82 On 29.06.1983 Uphaar license was suspended for four days by orders of DCP (Licensing).He required that deviations listed in the report be removed within the said period of four days or the license would be revoked.Similar orders were made against other cinema houses.By the order dated 25th March, 1986, the Court confirmed the interim order.While doing so it noticed the concern expressed on behalf of the Delhi Administration, by its counsel and recorded as follows:If there is any Fire hazard or no proper fire fighting equipments, the respondent will be at liberty to call upon the petitioner to remove the fire hazard or to use proper adequate fire fighting equipments and also call upon the petitioner to remove serious irregularities, if any.If the petitioner fails to comply with the same, the respondent will be at liberty to move the Court for variation of the said order and for obtaining appropriate directions in this behalf.The material part of the above order has been extracted in the inspection report dated 02.05.1980, marked and exhibited as Ex. PW 37/K.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The deviations in the balcony, from their reports are listed below:incident one of them had been reduced to 1 feet & 10.5 inches.However, this was not in conformity with DCR 1953 and 1981, since two exists were to be provided on either side of the balcony leading to independent stair case.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.(g) Operator rest room and a single room tenement for sweeper were converted into a retiring room along with office and attached toilet.(h) Four exhausts fans opened in front of the stair case instead of opening outside to an open space.(i) Obstruction by a reception of M/s Sarin Associations on the stair case leading to terrace.7.85 The materials on record in the form of the inspection reports Ex. PW 2/A, 29/A and 39/A, as well as the sitting plan sanctioned produced before the court Ex. PW 95/B4 would disclose the following:(1) As against the original 250 seats proposed, 302 seats (excluding 22 seats, which were part of two additional blocks) were discovered in the balcony.However, the cinema management did not provide for an additional exit.It sought to rely upon the letter Ex. PW29/DX, which stated that if the increase was less than 1% and therefore, in substantial compliance of the Rules.(2) Protection- All systems and circuits shall be so protected as to automatically disconnect the supply under abnormal conditions.The following protection shall be provided, namely: -The covering letter and the annexure which contains specific replies dated 2.7.97 were produced as Ex.However, we are ascertaining the name of the supervisors and this will be made available shortly.As per the record available, on the night of 6th July, 1989, and th morning of 7 July, 1989 both the transformers i.e. one placed by Green Park Theatres Associated Pvt. Ltd. (500 KVA) and by DESU (750 KVA) were burnt due to short-circuiting.The DESU transformer was replaced by another new transformer of 1000 KVA.The officers mentioned in reply to para 4 above were concerned only with the installation of DESU transformer (1000 KVA).Relevant portion of these replies, forming part of PW-49/G which reads as follows: -A perusal of old record indicates that the relays provided initially in the HT panels got damaged on 6/7.7.89 when fire occurred at the sub station.However, back-up protection was available both at K-84, Green Park S/Stn.No record is available regarding replacement of relays after the above date.It has already been indicated above, that the relays existing in HT panels at Uphaar Cinema S/Stn.Needless to mention that relays from unattended S/Stn. have been getting stolen from different sub stations all over Delhi and this activity by unscrupulous elements is causing a dent on the maintenance of the S/Stn.7.94 The evidence on record, in the form of Ex. PW-40/B, the maintenance register seized from the DVB office, reveals that upon inspection of the DVB transformer on 22-1-1997, it was found that protection relays were missing.This was confirmed by PW-40, the Assistant Engineer for the concerned region.The relays were also missing on the date of the incident, as is evident from the following observations of the CFSL expert, PW-64, in his report PW- 64/D (dated 11-8-1997):Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Temperature meter was not found fitted on the transformer... 7.95 On 25-6-1997, PW-24, the Electrical Inspector, Shri K.L. Grover, too had mentioned the absence of this equipment, in his report PW-24/A:8.No protection relays/system were found installed on any of the HT Breakers of the said HT Four Panel Board from where the HT supply to 1000 KVA transformer in question was fed.........'' 7.96 PW-24 supports his report, in the deposition.PW-26, Shri A.K. Agarwal too corroborates this evidence, about lack of protection and the Buchholtz relay system, in the transformer.This report was supported by Professor Kothari, another expert, from the IIT, Delhi, in PW-36/A (dated 2-7-1997).The importance of these relays is apparent from the fact that in the event of a fault, they would have tripped and disconnected electricity supply.He proved the entry as Ex. PW 41/A, in the No Current Complaint Register maintained by the DVB.PW -42, CJ Singh corroborated having received information at about 7.20 hours, from the Green Park Complaint Centre and also from Munna Lal about the fire having taken place in Uphaar transformer and he along with his team reaching the Uphaar Cinema at 7.40am.On inspecting the DVB transformer he found that three leads out of 11 leads were partly burnt on the LT side of the transformer.The fault was not repairable at his level.He proved Ex. PW-42/A, the relevant part of the General Diary Break down, maintained by the DVB at RK Puram.PW-46, Junior Lineman Munna Lal, deposed having gone to the Uphaar cinema in the morning of 13-6-1997, found some fire and that insulation of one lead upto one feet and second lead upto six inches were burning and melting.He deposed to switching off the HT panel of the adjoining room, putting sand on fire and reporting the matter to his office.He went back to his office and reported to Deep Chand who passed on the information to the Break Down division.These facts are also corroborated by PW-45 Jagpal.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 314 7.98 PW-40, Mr. P.C. Bhardwaj deposed that he received information about the morning incident at 08.00 am, and that he instructed Mr. B.M. Satija, Inspector to attend to the complaint.The Prosecution relied on the depositions of PW-40 and PW-44 in support of the case that such repairs were carried out by Mr. Bir Singh, Senior Fitter under supervision of Mr. B.M. Satija and Mr. A.K. Gera, Inspectors.7.99 The Trial Court held that these repairs were in the form of replacements of Blue (B) Phase Cables with the aid of dye and hammer, and that the said three accused left the Uphaar premises at 11.30 am after repairing the DVB transformer.Further findings by the Trial Court in this regard were that, between 03.55 pm and 04.55 pm that day, there was a power cut/load shedding.Soon after resumption of power, there was a loud bang in the transformer room which led to the B-Phase Cable detaching itself from the Bus Bar, its subsequent de-coiling and settling on one of the transformer fins.It was found that this was preceded and followed by intense sparking and that the heat generated by the incident at that stage led to continuous sparking/arching, which resulted in a slit in the transformer radiator; in turn this led to spillage of more than 900 litres of transformer oil, which caught fire due to the sparking.The Trial Court held that transformer oil flowed out of the transformer room, setting ablaze many vehicles parked near the transformer room.The smoke from this conflagration went into the theatre resulting in death of 59 persons and grievous injury to 100 others.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 315 7.100 The Trial Court relied upon the reports of Mr. K.L. Grover's (Electrical Inspector) report (Ex.PW-24/A) as well as his depositions.The facts relating to load shedding were corroborated by Ex.24/DA.It was held that the sparking/arching most probably continued for about ten minutes (till 05.05 pm) when the AIIMS Grid Station tripped and was shut down.The Trial Court also relied upon the other reports, such as that of Mr. K.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical), PWD (Ex.The Trial Court further relied upon the report of PW-64 (Dr. Rajender Singh, Director and Scientist from CFSL), being Ex.Dr. Rajender Singh deposed as PW-64 before the Trial Court.The Prosecution relied upon PW-40/B, a photocopy of the report of Mr. A.K. Gera regarding the repairs conducted on DVB transformer; it was sought to be proved as Ex. 108/AA.7.101 The common argument advanced by the accused, Mr. Bir Singh and Mr. B.M. Satija, and implicitly endorsed by accused, Mr. A.K. Gera was that the prosecution could not prove the charges leveled against them.Certain contentions were raised, casting doubts on the findings of the Trial Court on the basis of evidence in regard to:Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Absence of any fault or negligence on the part of the said accused, since the risks of fire had been increased by negligence in regard to parking of vehicles; whether the repairs carried out could be the cause having regard to an intervening incident reported to have taken place in the building around 02.00 pm.The appropriateness of the use of dye and hammer to fix the cables while attending to the complaint.Whether the transformer itself was a cause for the fire or something else.7.102 Sequentially, the first aspect in this regard would be the manner in which the complaint was attended.PW-40 deposed that he asked the three accused at 09.15 am to attend to the complaint.He proved Ex.40/A, a General Diary Register for the period from 14.05.1996 to 13.06.1997, which contained an entry Ex.PW-40/C to the effect that two 630 mm.aluminum sockets were replaced in the DVB Uphaar Cinema local transformer.7.103 The version of PW-40 about the three DESU employee/accused attending to the complaint was corroborated by an eyewitness, PW-44, Mr. Bhagwan Din.He was Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 317 working as Mazdoor on that day.He deposed to having accompanied Mr. B.M. Satija, Mr. A.K. Gera and Mr. Bir Singh to Uphaar Cinema at about 10.00-10.30 am.7.104 It is evident from the depositions of PW-40 and PW-44 as well as Ex. PW- 40/C that two 630 mm.Sockets were changed.Counsel for the accused had argued that there was no evidence to show that the B-phase sockets had in fact been replaced and that the deposition of PW-44 was explicit that the middle phase was the one concerned with repairs.It was, therefore, contended that the Y-phase socket was attended to in the morning and not the B-phase, which was the alleged cause of the accident.The said accused also relied upon the Ex.24/A, report of Mr. K.L. Grover, which had spoken about the Y-phase repair.The relevant part of Ex. PW-24/A relied upon on behalf of the accused in this regard reads as follows:- Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The DVB staff attended to the complaint on the noon of that day and stated that they had switched ON' the transformer after replacing 2 NOS.of burnt cable and sockets of Y-phase of L.T. Supply Cables.The cable end sockets of B-phase of L.T. supply cables had not been fixed properly as they appeared to have been fixed by hammer and not by crimping machine or by any other proper system.Necessary tests such as testing of protecting system as specified in specification no. 13 (B) Table-2 of IES Code 1886-1967 had not been carried out from time to time.......... PW-64, the Director, CFSL was asked specific queries as regard the accident.Query no. 8, forwarded by Ex.64/A dated 01.08.1997 was as follows:-Please examine the transformer and other electric connections/appliances and articles, items seized from transformer room and other places and sent to CFSL for examination and opine on the condition of nuts and bolts of the transformer in question in the morning of 13.06.1997 when there was spark in the said transformer at about 07.00 am which was reported to have been repaired at 11.30 am that day and also in the evening before the fire incident.PW-64/D, the report of Director, CFSL dated 11.08.1997 as regards to query no. 8 was as follows:-Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The blue phase single cable at the top along with cable and socket (detached cable fell down on radiator fin due to constant arching/sparking at nut, bolt portion on bus bar de-coiling effect of the cable due to weight of cable.All coupled together to eating away of metal of cable and socket resulting in U-shaped cable socket end.PW-44 was a Mazdoor.Concededly, he did not attend to the complaint but was standing outside.His job appears to have been only to carry the tool box for the others who attended to the transformer repair.No doubt, the witness mentioned that the officers were working in the middle phase of the transformer.Further he clarified immediately that he could not see whether it was the R-phase, B-phase or Y-phase.The attempt by the said accused to cast a doubt about the phase upon which such repairs were carried-out, is unfounded.Both experts, i.e. PW-24 and PW-64, who examined the transformer consistently spoke about the B-phase being detached.If he was within reasonable distance from the transformer room, there is no reason to assume why he would not have said that the repairs were not carried-out at B-phase or put differently, were carried out at Y-phase.The Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 320 Trial Court findings about the morning repairs being carried-out upon the B-phase are, therefore, are based on materials placed on the record and cannot be interfered. 7.106 The next question is whether use of dye and hammer, instead of a crimping machine by the accused was improper and led to defective repairs, which ultimately led to sparking and subsequent fire in the transformer.At this stage, it would be necessary to extract the reports of the three experts examined by the Prosecution.7.107 Ex. PW 24/A, the report of Mr. K.L. Grover, the Electrical Inspector who visited the site on 14.06.1997 and submitted the report on 25.06.1997 is as follows:-It was told by the representative of Uphaar Cinema present at the site that they had lodged a complaint with DVB Complaint Centre regarding sparking in DVB transformer on 13.6.97, the DVB staff attended to the complaint on the noon of that day and stated that they had switched ON' the transformer after replacing the two nos. of burnt cable-end-sockets of Y-phase of L.T. supply cables.From the above it is evident that due to loose connection of the cable- end- socket of the B-phase Bus-Bar of transformer, there was sparking at the said connection.At that time, the transformer was 'on load' and the current supplied from the 1000 KVA transformer was passing through these Bus-Bars and at the same time, sparking was there on the B-phase Bus-Bar, thus the magnitude of the current supplied through B-phase could be large which had caused excessive heating of the transformer B-phase Bus-Bar and cable-end- socket.The excessive heating and sparking formed a cavity on the B-phase Bus-Bar and also melted the upper portion of the cable-end-socket.Due to weight of cable and decoiling effect of the cable, it might have exerted pull on the Bolt (used for fixing the cable-end-socket at transformer Bus-Bar), as a result cable-end-socket came out with a flick from the bolt portion, after formation of an opening in the cable-end-socket (U-formation of socket) and hit the transformer radiator's fin.Due to over-heating of the cable, its insulation gave-way and conductor became naked/exposed.The live conductor of this cable, which hitted the radiator-fin, formed an opening in the radiator- fin (due to short circuiting) from where transformer oil gushed out and spilled over the floor.It appeared that the short circuiting of cable with the radiator fin continued for a sufficient time, since there was no protection system provided for the transformer at the said sub-station, as a result the transformer's oil caught fire due to arcing/sparking caused by short circuiting.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.(2) The cable-end-socket of B-phase of L.T. supply cables had not been fixed properly as the same appeared to have been fixed by hammering & not by the crimping machine or any other proper system.Necessary tests such as testing of protection system etc. as specified in the specification No.13.3 (Table-2) of I.S. Code No.1886-1967 had not been carried out from time to time and as such the said transformer had not been found maintained in healthy condition as required under the provisions of Rule 65 (5) of the said rules.The effect of short circuiting of L.T. supply cable with the transformer and subsequently catching of fire by the transformer's oil, could have been avoided, had the fault (may be loose connection etc.) in the transformer which was detected in the morning of 13.6.97, been repaired properly & also the protection relays/system which were missing, been there (on the H.T. Breaker controlling the supply to transformer in question) to protect the transformer against Over-Current, Earth Fault & excessive Gas Pressure (Buchholts- Relay) 7.108 The report of Mr. K.V. Singh, Executive Engineer (Electrical), PWD dated 29.06.1997, i.e. Ex. PW.35/A is also corroborative.It reads as follows:-It was found that the transformer etc are installed on the ground floor level where the vehicle (car) parking is also in the same floor.It was noticed that HT panel installed in the sub station consist of 4 panels of which 2 panels were incoming panels & 2 panels were outgoing panels.11 KV supply was further connected with two different transformers installed in two separate adjacent rooms.One transformer capacity is 500 KVA which belongs to Uphaar Cinema Management & Caters to their Electricity needs.The other transformer is of 1000KVA and connected from second outgoing panel of the above said HT panel.This 1000KVA transformer belongs to DVB and it was Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.On the inspection of 1000KVA transformer, it was found that the transformer cover was open (it was stated to be opened by other officers who visited before us).The one part of radiator was also not available and it was stated to be taken away for further investigation by some other investigating agency.It was seen that the LT terminal box of the transformer was having 2 bushings on each phase.These 2 bushings were connected through copper bus bar.From the each phase 3 single core cables of the size 630 sq. mm was connected.The bus bar of the B' phase was not available and it was seen that one of the cable leads along with the socket was also not available.It was told that bus bar and part of cable lead was taken away along with radiator for further enquiry.It was noticed that the transformer tank inside was clean and as such there were no sign of smoking inside.There was no oil except a little bit of oil at bottom in the transformer tank.Apparently, it was no electrical fault inside the transformer.It was also seen that all the cable connected to the LT terminal box of the transformer were damaged and insulation of cables was heavily burnt up to the wall of LT room.The transformer room was fully dark with black smoke particle deposited on its all walls and roof.It was noticed that earth strips were lying in the transformer room but the joint in the earth stripped was not proper.It was also noticed that the earth connection to the neutral was also broken.INSPECTION OF LT & LT PANELS The cubical LT panel was heavily burnt.The main incoming switch to the LT panel was in the form of 1600 ampere air circuit breaker.It was noticed that all the out going switches from the LT panel were without fuses.There was no sign of HRC fuses.It was not correct to use wire in place of proper use.The HT panel as has already been described above that HT panel consist of 2 incoming oil circuit breakers & 2 out going oil circuit breakers.Out of the two incoming circuit breakers one is connected to receive HT supply from nearby Ashirwad building sub station.The other incoming feeder was only for making use of standby/duplicate HT supply in case of failure of Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.There was one metering cubical was also available.POSSIBLE CAUSE OF FIRE As we have seen in the photographs that one of the LT cables got disconnected from the cables from 'B' phase.It was evident from the photographs that the cable was touching the radiator fin.There was a hole in the radiator fin.There was also mark of sparking on the other fins.It is apparent after seeing the various photographs of the transformer room, cable leads and cable sockets, that one of the cable sockets got away from the nut & bolts after getting melted due to severe heat.When it disconnected from the bus bar terminal it came sliding from the fins of the radiator and caused sparking marks on the radiator fins & finally it struck one radiator fin, since heavy current was flowing due to earth fault and the temperature of the lead was very high.The radiator sheet got damaged and the hole was created in the fin because of continued arc.The transformer oil coming out from this hole must have caught fire either from the existing arc which was there due to touching of the current carrying conductor with the body of the transformer of possible burning of PVC cable insulation.This arc must have continue for some time as there was no immediate in tripping system available in the HT panel.Once the oil got fire and oil continued to come out from the radiator it was must have caused spread of fire.When oil was spreading it must have taken the fire outside the transformer room also.The fire was aggravated further by the presence of the petrol/diesel carrying vehicles parked in front of transformer room.It is concluded that this unfortunate incident of fire occurred due to possible over heating of one of the LT connections which may be due to loose connections or over current.It was further aggravated because there were no protection system was available in the HT panels installed at Uphaar cinema.It was ultimately found that the only tripping took place at 33 KV and sub station at behind AIIMS.The fire could have been controlled, had there been any fire fighting equipment installed inside the car parking area and substation building itself.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 326 POSSIBILITY OF SPREAD OF FIRE/SMOKE THROUGH AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM On the preliminary inspection at the site, it was evident that most of the fire took place only in the parking area & sub station area of Uphaar cinema and the question of possibility of spread of fire/smoke through air conditioning conduct was examined.We were told that electric supply to the Uphaar sub station was not there from 3.55 p.m. to 4.55 p.m. Electric supply to Uphaar Cinema sub station was restored at 4.55 p.m. As per the information, the tripping in the 33 KV grid at AIIMS took place at 5.05 p.m. which means that main power supply was available for a period of 10 minutes between 4.55p.m.to 5.05 p.m. On the inspection of AC plant room it was noticed that switches of the AC blower were in 'ON' position.It was also quite possible during these 10 minutes the blowers were started.To check this possibility the AHU room was inspected.The wire mash filters of the one of the AHU installed near the door were covered with black smoke.When the filters were removed the sign of smoke were also seen on the cooling coil face.Therefore, it can be said that blower might be working during those 10 minutes.The possibility of working of the blower after the tripping of supply was also examined.It was found that the main switch from generator supply which was going to the blower was without fuses and fuses of that particular switch were found inside the body of switch.The condition of fuses was such that it looked as if that the particular switch was not being used for quite a long time as fuses were covered with the dust.Hence, it can be said that blower did not work on generator supply.7.109 PW-64, Dr. Rajender Singh was asked certain queries by the CBI and he submitted two reports Ex PW-64/B (dated 27.6.1997 and Ex-PW 64/D (dated 11.8.1997, relevant parts of which are reproduced below:PW-64/B The inspection of scene of crime carried out by undersigned from 13th th to 15 June, 1997 in the premises of Uphaar Grand Cinema and subsequent detailed Laboratory scientific examinations of exhibits marked 1, 2a, 2b, 3 and 5 revealed the following: -Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The smaller transformer situated at one of the corner room stated to be of Uphaar cinema was found intact.The other bigger transformer of 1000KV installed in the adjacent room stated to be of DVB have maximum burning effect of fire.The one electric phase cable of LT side mounted on bus- bar of this transformer has been found to be detached and fallen on ground due to constant sparking as electric sparking effects were detected on the nut and bolts bus-bar and fastener end.In the process of falling down of the detached phase cable the same has apparently come in contact with fins of radiator at many places leading to intense sparking and creating U Shape hole in one end fin of the radiator resulting in oil spill.This U-shape hole is of same dimensions as that of cable fastener.Approximately 10-12 liters of transformer oil was found in transformer.On the basis of the fact stated above and laboratory findings it is concluded that the constant intense sparking between detached phase cable and radiator has initiated the fire and thus spreading along the oil spill.The flash point of transformer oil (minimum temperature at which transformer oil catches fire) marked exhibit 1 is 158 degree Celsius.The aluminum cable marked exhibit 5 reveal signs of short circuiting.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The ariel route is exhibited by the fact that the concrete pillars of the building do not show any signs of smoke at the bottom portion and cable hanging overhead of Uphaar Cinema complex shows signs of heat and smoke.The smoke gushed through the stairwell due to chimney effect.The rear stall foyer canteen was not effected by smoke as well as fire as the connecting door from this staircase was closed.This connecting door has strong blisters i.e. effect of smoke and temperature (heat) on staircase side of door.Hence, the smoke has gone further up the stair case and reached the foot/lower portion of balcony of auditorium.The balcony has three entrances, they are one entrance is next to this particular stairwell and one entrance is through foyer/canteen lobby and third entrance is one floor above.The smoke effect had been seen on the outside as well inside of on one plank portion of door next to this stairwell, leading to foot of the balcony.The smoke has entered the balcony through this half open door.The connecting door to the foyer/canteen from this staircase was closed.Hence, this door had effect of smoke and heat on outside portion.Further the smoke has gone up and effect of smoke was detected on entry door to the rear portion of balcony.The doors from the foyer canteen side to the auditorium and balcony were closed at the time of incident.Out of four doors from rear stall side, three doors of double planks have been forcibly opened from the inner side of Cinema Hall.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The Buchholtz Relay system was not fitted on the transformerTemperature meter was not found fitted on the transformer.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.For this purpose, the testimony of PW-14 (who talked about the fire breaking out at around 4- 30PM or 4-45 PM); the deposition of PW-54, a tenant at Upahaar complex, who stated that he saw the fire at about 4-45 PM, and the statement of PW-59, that he heard a loud bang at 5- Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.7.120 Now, the evidence relied on by the trial court, about the occurrence of the incident, was the General Diary Register of DVB, PW-43/A, which recorded about the incident at 5-00 PM, the log sheet of DVB 33MV Grid Station at AIIMS, Ex. 24/DA and document Ex. PW-96/E, which records that the fire brigade office was intimated at 5-10 PM that day.The note sheet in the office of the Chief Fire Officer, marked as Ex. PW-49/E is also to this effect.PW-1 and 3 mentioned about the fire having occurred about 10 minutes after the interval; PW-52 deposed having informed Shri K.L. Malhotra at 4-55 PM.PW 47 Baljit Singh, a DVB Junior Engineer deposed about load shedding in the Green Park feeder from 15.55 hours to 16.55 hours; the relevant entry, made in the Log Sheet dated 13.6.97, was marked as Ex. PW 24/DA.PW-47 stated that the electric supply to Green Park feeder tripped off at 17.05 hours, and that he passed on that information to the South Circle, endorsement was made on it, and signed by other officers who were present there.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.It is also a matter of record that the incident was reported to the DVB office at 5-00 PM.PW-24, in his deposition, to a specific query, states that the melting of socket and falling of a cable would depend on variable factors, and it might have occurred in 5 or 10 minutes.These show that:iii) Due to tripping at the grid, at 5-05, there was power shut down at the Upahaar cinema complex and DVB transformer.transformer, specifically due to the cable falling on the transformer fin.2) A line to ground fault has occurred on LT side due to one of the lead having fallen on the radiator fin.He deposed that wind must have come through the grill gate to the parking Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The smoke effect had been seen on the outside as well as inside one Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.These samples were sent as Ex.S(1) to S(15), to the CFSL.The report of Director, CFSL, Ex.PW-64/D adverted to a chemical analysis report forthcoming on a later date.PW-83/A was the report prepared by K.S. Chabra, Senior Scientific Officer-cum-Assistant Examiner, CFSL, relating to the samples.He deposed having examined parcel nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8 containing transformer oil, Ex.P-6, petrol, Ex.P-7 and soil samples taken from the site.In his deposition and the report, the witness stated that there was presence of petrol in Ex.Specifically, the report, Ex. 62/C, prepared by a panel of doctors, mentioned about the death of two persons, namely Srishti, on 19.06.1997, due to carbon monoxide poisoning and Amarpal, on 29.06.1997, due to smoke inhalation injury chest infection, Septicemia, acute renal failure, acute liver necrosis and Leptospirosis.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The possible items which may have been burnt were likely to be made of rubber, polyurethane, polyvinylchloride, acrylonitrile-butadiene styrene, petrol, diesel & nylon.The product of combustion of such items may contain carbon soot, hydrocarbons (saturated+unsaturated), carbon-monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide, nitrous oxide, hydrocyanic acid, hydrochloride, vinylchloride, phosgene, ammonia, aldehydes etc. The photo copies of relevant literature from the Text Book of Medical Toxicology and Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies are attached herewith as Annexure.III & IV for ready reference.Among them, the most common cause of smoke inhalation related deaths is carbon monoxide, which is a systemic toxin with no irritant properties.In the postmortem report of deceased Shri M.S. Bhinder, lungs are described to be exuding pinkish fluid' on sectioning and compressing of lungs.Such a finding can be seen in Carbonmonoxide poisoning.The report also stated that there were no burn injury or other cause of suffocation.It stated that:Since the fire load, which is responsible to the growth and spread of fire was in the form of cushion seats, tyres, petrol/diesel, transformer oil and cable besides other materials like wood etc. The nature of the flammable material and their amount with low ventilation has resulted in the burning which can be categorised as partial burning or burning as a result of defficient oxygen supply.This has resulted in the high smoke generation evolving the toxic gases (alongwith carbon dioxide gases ) like carbon monoxide, hydrocloric, (HCL) gas, cynogen gas (HCN), Sulphur dioxide etc. The later these gases may be in very low concentration but they are highly toxic to cause fatal injury.The report further outlined toxicants, their sources, their effects and the estimate of their short term lethal concentrant.They included hydrogen chloride, other Halogen acid gases, sulfur dioxide, (SO2) Hydrogen cyanide (HCN), Nitrogen dioxide, and other dioxides of nitrogen, ammonia.It further says that:SO2 results in damage of mucos, is extremely pungent and leads to death due to 1) asphyxiation 2) cardio respiratory disorder.SALIENT AUTOPSY FINDINGSCongestion and oedema of larnyx trachea and bronchi2. Evidence of pulmonary oedemaCAUSE OF DEATH Asphyxia ......'' 7.134 The AIIMS constituted a medical board, consisting of Prof. T D Dogra, Dept. of Forensic Medicines, (PW-62) Prof. S K Sharma, Dept. of Medicines, Prof. R.K Khazanchi, Dept. of Surgery, Dr. Praveen Aggarwal, Associate Professor, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Associate Prof. L R Murmu, Dept. of Emergency Medicine, Associate Prof. Dr. Shakti Gupta, Dept. of Hosp.Dr. Shakti Gupta, member secretary, Dr. Arun Sahu, the then Deputy Director.The experts arrived at a unanimous report, and answered the questions posed by CBI.The relevant part of the report, in relation to Questions 2 and 3 has been noticed above; it unambiguously states that the post mortem report of Capt.Bhinder showed that lungs were described as exuding 'pinkish fluid' on sectioning and compressing of lungs and that such finding could be seen in carbon monoxide poisoning.The sample was of transformer oil; it mentioned that the flash point of the sample was O 149 C, with methane content @ 2 PPM (parts per million); ethane @ less than 1 PPM; ethylene @ 2 PPM; acetylene @ <1 PPM Carbon dioxide @ 545 PPM and Hydrogen @ <50 PPM.The total gas content per ml of oil was 10.72 ml.Ex. PW-83/A was the Gas Liquid Chromatography test, on samples S-1(1) to S-1(5).They were said to have higher volatile fractions.Ex. S(2) was said to contain petrol.The volatile fractions of both were the same.7.135 A criticism of the accused appellant was that the trial court's findings are in the absence of any supporting materials about the nature of toxic gases, and that they caused fatalities or injuries.No doubt, some deficiencies can perhaps be perceived in the investigation.For instance, the prosecution does not appear to have collected soot samples from the cinema hall, or balcony, which could possibly have assisted in further precision about composition of the gases and smoke which entered the balcony.They also do not appear to have meaningfully co-related the observations in some expert reports with the exhibits.However, the court has to see whether these shortcomings undermine its case about the cause of fire, cause of smoke in the balcony and the resultant death of patrons.The ocular evidence of several witnesses (PW-1, 3, 7,8, 11, 12, 63, 27, 49, 51,52, 57 and 59) establish the following:establish the manner whereby the smoke sped and spread on to the upper floors (first floor, second floor-including balcony- and top floor) of the cinema building.The reports PW-83/A and 108/N mentioned about composition of transformer oil and petrol.The report PW-25 detailed, on the basis of observations - including the burnt cars at the site, the composition and toxicity of various substances, which were burnt by the fire.Soil samples had been taken near cars and other vehicles; more than one witness spoke about several cars having been lit up by fire.The substances mentioned in PW-25/A, and described above, were highly toxic.PW-62, who headed the medical board, that submitted the report Ex. PW-62/C clearly mentioned the cause of death of two patrons.It was said that Shristi, a victim, died on 19th June, 1997 due to carbon monoxide poisoning; the causes of death of Amarpal (who died on 29-6-97) were several, including smoke inhalation injury, chest infection, septicemia, acute renal failure.Examination of PW-77/C, the autopsy report of Capt.Bhinder, according to the medical Board, showed that the cause of death was due to carbon monoxide poisoning.The Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The evidence of PW-35, PW-25 and PW-3, therefore, is to the effect that the air-conditioning was not linked with the generator system.It would be relevant at this stage to notice the evidence and materials adduced by the prosecution with regard to the role of the Licensing Department.The prosecution relied upon inspection reports dated 8.4.1977; 16.11.1977, 22.5.1978, 28.3.1979, 7.3.1980, 25.3.1981, 10.3.1983, 26.4.1985, 20.5.1987 and 19.5.1990, among other inspection reports.These were all parts of Ex.PW-69/AA, the file Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 357 seized from the office of the PWD.These inspection reports are stereo typed and have repeated year after year the same observations.Interestingly the reports for inspection dated 23.2.1978 and 28.3.1979 specifically say that no side gangway was provided in the balcony due to new seating arrangements.However, those observations do not find mention in the later reports.Two other irregularities noticed in relation to gangway is that instead of 1.20 metres, mentioned in the inspection report, the width of 3 gangway is mentioned as 1.15 meters.The inspection report also speaks about one existing water tank.The inspections are completely silent about existence of two transformers in the ground floor and that they were located near the parking lot.7.143 The above evidence would show that Licensing Department continued to issue clearances periodically in a mechanically manner.In the part concerning deviations found in the balcony, this Court had held that there were several breaches of DCR 1953 such as Para 8 (1), First Schedule; para 8 (4), First Schedule DCR 1953 which mandated that exits and gangways leading to exits shall be kept clear of obstructions as well as Paras 10 (1), 10 (2), 10 (4) & 10 (a).The Licensing Inspectors/PWD officers did not apparently even deem it Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 358 appropriate to consider the fire safety angle having regard to the location and capacity of the second DVB transformer and its proximity to the parking lot.Three such inspection reports, namely, PW-24/DB (dt.6.6.95); PW-24/DC (dt.21.5.96) and PW-24/DW (dt.6.5.97) are material.Each of these was issued by the office of the Electrical Inspector, under the Electricity Act. They all clearly mentioned that there was no objection if the license of the Cinema were renewed.The facts relating to that incident were discussed in a separate part of this judgment.It appears to have been issued merely for the asking.7.150 Ex PW-23/PA is a letter dated 11.3.1996 by the DCP (Licensing) to the MCD concerning the NOC to be issued by the latter.The MCD received a letter dated 19.9.96 (Ex.PW-23/DB) seeking no objection from the annual renewal of license for the year 1996-The said letter itself contained a noting by Mr. N.D. Tiwari recommending issuance of NOC.Pursuant to this, Mr. Bharat Bhushan, PW-23 made a noting on 23.9.97 and Ex.The materials on record show that in the successive inspections which took place in 1988, 1994 and 1996, several deviations were noticed, including those in the top floor.The applications for grant of annual licenses under the Cinematograph Act were not granted; instead two month's temporary licenses were issued - apparently because the matter was pending and had not been resolved by the Court.In the meanwhile, with advent of the 1986 Act and the Rules framed under it, the standards of fire safety, both as regards structural aspects as well as availability of appliances, were prescribed under Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules.These assumed mandatory character and being specific as regards the question of fire safety, acquired primacy over bye-law 3.7of 1983 bye- laws.The said bye-law-3 had exempted application of certain bye-laws in its operation to building authorized under the previous 1959 bye-laws.As a consequence of the combined operation of the non obstante clause under Section 6 of the 1986 Act as well as Rule 5, the fire safety measures prescribed in 1983 became universally applicable to all buildings.In addition Rule 5 of the 1987 Rules also prescribed the standards which were to be complied with by all buildings, towards fire safety.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.This included the observations regarding two broken fire extinguisher nozzles; installation of improper fire extinguishers in the main hall; a direction to refill the water tank fire extinguishers in the main hall and balcony; provision for rubber mat etc. After these deficiencies were pointed, a letter (Ex.PW-37/T) was written to the DCP (Licensing) on 6.6.1991 by the Fire Department stating that the deficiencies had been rectified.This was preceded by a letter written on behalf of the Uphaar Cinema.PW-37/Y is the letter of request by the DCP (Licensing) to the office of the CFO asking it to inspect the premises.PW-37/Z is the inspection report dated 29.4.93 recording compliance with the norms.PW-37/AB is a letter issued by the DCP (Licensing) to the CFO requesting the latter to inspect the premises and intimate the position of fire safety and if necessary to bring to the notice of the licensee any comments in that regard.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The cinema management wrote back on 12.10.1994 saying that deficiencies had been rectified.The report was exhibited as PW-33/H. After the inspection, a letter (Ex.PW-33/A) dated 17.4.1995 was written to the G.P.T. Ltd i.e. the Cinema.This recorded that six fire extinguishers of CO-2 type were installed in the top floor.7.162 An inspection of the cinema was conducted on 29-4-1995 by Divisional Officer Shri PK Sharma and Station officer accused Surender Dutt (now expired) in the presence of accused KL Malhotra (now expired) by inspection report Ex.PW37/AH.The inspection report sent by the Chief Fire officer reads as under:.....During the course of inspection, fire fighting arrangements already provided by the cinema management were seen.Some of the fire extinguishers and hose reels were operated to adjudge the performance and the same was found satisfactory at the time of inspection and must always be maintained in similar efficient working condition at all time and at least two trained persons must be available during exhibition of the films and then in the end , it is very specifically mentioned that in view of the above, the department has no objection to the renewal of license of the above mentioned cinema from fire safety and means of escape point of view...... _ Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The report of the Chief Fire officer's office, for 1994-95, Ex. PW37/AC had pointed out following shortcomings in the cinema hall building.1) An office has been erected forming part of the staircase on thetop floor.2) Atleast three offices on the top floor having wooden partition were in existence and there was no fire extinguisher present except one of non ISI mark.It is significant to note on 08.03.95 vide Ex. PW 37/AD Dy.Chief Fire Officer wrote to the management of Uphaar cinema:.....during the inspection it has been seen that Point 1 has been rectified.As already held herein before that the said office existed on the top floor forming part of the staircase on the day of the occurence of the incident.It is also very significant to note the reply was sent by the management of Uphaar Cinema to the Chief Fire Officer on 31.03.95 vide Ex. PW 37/AF.The relevant portion of the reply reads as under :Combustible material continued in the cinema hall building, despite previous warnings.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.After the inspection 'No Objection Certificate' Ex.PW32/B dated 18.4.96 was issued by HS Panwar, for DFS.The relevant portion of the said 'No Objection Certificate' reads as under :....During the course of inspection , fire fighting arrangements already provided by the cinema management were seen.Some of the fire extinguishers and hose reels were operated to adjudge the performance and the same was found satisfactory at the time of inspection and must always be maintained in similar efficient working condition at all time and atleast two trained persons must be available during exhibition of the films and then in the end , it is very specifically a mentioned that in view of the above, the department has no objection to the renewal of license of the above mentioned cinema from fire safety and means of escape point of view..... _ Thereafter a letter dated 20.09.06 Ex.PW37/AL was sent to CFO by DCP (Licensing) requesting comments from the CFO.The letter says that the report had not been received, and requests it, at the earliest, to enable this office to renew the license of cinema as licensee is pressing hard for the same.....'' The tone is suggestive of the authorities anxiety to accommodate the licensee, rather than being satisfied that all safety norms were complied with.The inspection was carried out in the presence of K. L. Malhotra and accused Shri Sharma, of Uphaar cinema.The following deficiencies were found and were intimated to the Manager, Uphaar Cinema on 18/11/96 by letter Ex.PW33/C:Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.This inspection was carried out by accused HS Panwar and Station Officer Surender Dutt (since expired) on 12.5.97 by Ex.PW31/DB.The 'No Objection Certificate' was sent on 15.5.97, through Ex.PW31/DC which reads as follows:-During the course of inspection, fire fighting arrangements already provided by the cinema management were seen.Some of the fire extinguishers and hose reels were operated to adjudge the performance and the same was found satisfactory at the time of inspection and must always be maintained in similar efficient working condition at all time and at least two trained persons must be available during exhibition of films and then, in the end, it is very specifically mentioned that in view of the above, the department has no objection to the renewal of license of the above mentioned cinema from fire safety and means of escape point of view... 7.167 On PW-60, a tenant in the building, stated in his deposition that there were no fire extinguishers in his premises.PW-78 deposed that after the accident, he seized 22 fire extinguishers from various places in the cinema hall.PW-49, the CFO deposed that the proforma for inspection from the fire safety angle had been changed; it incorporated Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 378 particulars such as fire extinguishers in specific areas, provision for rubber mats, public announcement system, emergency exits, signage, standby power supply, first aid box, asbestos blankets, hose reels, water tanks and trained personnel.This witness also deposed that after the accident, he operated two or three fire extinguishers, which were functioning.He stated that though there was a hose reel, water was not available, due to lack of electricity.PW-48 deposed about the state of inspection, on 5-7-1997, and his report Ex. PW-48/D. In the report, he observed that during inspection, no fire fighting material, viz. buckets or fire extinguishers were found, placed inside the transformer room.According to DVB's practice, such equipments were placed in HT switchgear room; however, in this case, they were missing from the HT room.PW-64, who had tested the fire extinguishers, annexed a table in his report PW-64/D, which was extracted in the previous part of this judgment.7.168 PW-85 deposed to being untrained for operating fire extinguishers.He also deposed that the mike for the public address system in the theatre was not operational.According to him, emergency lights were not controlled from the operator room; they were also not connected to the projector room.He admitted that two fire extinguishers were there in the operator room, that were operated during inspection by the Naresh Kumar committee inspection.by the licensee, of the cinema hall.The inspection reports which preceded these exercises were in proforma or standard form; the inspections carried out lackadaisically granted the permission to renew licenses.(2) The concerns required to be addressed in DCR 1953 and DCR 1981, regarding fire safety as well as means of escape and exit, (or rapid dispersal) in the event of fire or other emergency, were not even considered.In fact, on the contrary, Ex. PW 33/D on 24.12.1996 to DCP (Licensing ) records that the department has no objection to the renewal of license of the above mentioned cinema from fire safety and means of escape point of view.... (3) The last inspection report, dated 12-5-1997, does not show any application of mind to the compliance with the gangway, exit rules or other vital aspects which the fire department had to necessarily consider as part of its obligation, under Section 6 of the 1986 Act, read with Rule 5;(4) All the reports, preceding the fire incident of 13-6-1997, talk of existence of equipments mandated by the rules.However, significantly, they omit any mention whether these equipment were tested, and found in order.Similarly, it is not known whether the report of 12-5-1997 was preceded by testing of the emergency, and other lights.(5) The evidence of PW-85 that the emergency lights were not controlled from the operator or projector room, assumes significance.According to the contention of accused Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 380 Gopal Ansal, the lack of electricity, due to tripping at 5-05 possibly meant that the lights went off.(7) None of the inspection reports even notices that two transformers, one of 1000 KVA capacity, (installed by DVB) existed on the ground floor, near the parking area.There was no advertence or assessment of fire hazard of that equipment, or in the transformers' proximity, or its condition, in relation to the parked vehicles.No advisory in that regard was even mentioned; perhaps not even thought of.(8) There was no fire extinguisher, of any type in the DVB transformer room; (9) The report of the fire department dated 18-11-1996 PW-33/C had noted inadequacies in the existing transformer.However, the subsequent report stated that the deficiencies were rectified.This inspection was supposedly carried out- as the evidence points out- when the accused H.S. Panwar was on leave.The subsequent report mechanically gave clearance, vis- -vis fire safety.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Both felt suffocated due to smoke and gases; it was difficult to breathe and they got stuck in the balcony, for 10 to 15 minutes.He deposed that there was no gate keeper, no torch man, no emergency announcement system, or any emergency light.PW 8 Amit, deposed that while the show was on, the lights went off and some smoke arose before the screen.He was in the last row in the middle of the balcony; he mentions about commotion and that balcony doors were shut.Half the people were standing and half were sitting, a situation which continued for 5-7 minutes.He deposes about lot of pushing and people trying to go out, without a care for others.He did not know the number of exits, but deposes about one separate exit and one entry.He denied the suggestion that there was light, in the balcony.PW-63, the security guard, after noticing the fire and smoke, rushed up; he went to the staircase which led on to the fourth floor and where a door was located.He pushed that door open.He asked the people to go upstairs, but at the end the staircase was locked.He broke open the door and tried to use another staircase leading to top floor which was at some Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 383 distance from there.The door was found bolted; he tried to open it.He helped rescuing 3 persons, who were not responsive or moving, as well as a girl.In its reply, (written by accused Gopal Ansal) on 4-6-1982 (Ex. PW-110/AA-24) the licensing department was assured that such practice could have been due to constant opening of the doors or due to pressure of air conditioning.It was stated that:Many patrons, who managed to exit from the balcony, were still trapped; they tried to flee the hall, and broke open some windows This exposure to smoke, and lack of easy access outside, resulted in death of several persons and serious injury to many others.The Law on Criminal Negligence Section 304-A, IPC - rashness, negligence, foresight and causation; consideration of Section 36, IPC All our work, our whole life is a matter of semantics, because words are the tools with which we work, the material out of which laws are made, out of which the Constitution was written.The premises were used for grinding sulphur for manufacturing gun-powder.The premises caught fire, as a result of which three women died Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The contractors engaged by the local council for this purpose had breached a water main causing the foundations of the house to be undermined.As a result the house became unsafe causing the tenant to move out.Thus the house was left unoccupied to await repair..........Resolved unanimously that Shri Gopal Ansal be and is hereby authorised to sign all the document, drawings and other connected papers regarding submission of revised plans, applications for water and electric connections, licences, permission from time to time regarding Uphaar Cinema, Green Park Extension Market, New Delhi to all concerned authorities....... 9.6 An application was made to the erstwhile DESU, (DVB) for the electricity connection of the cinema which is produced as part of file Ex. PW 100/M. On 02.02.1973 Sushil Ansal Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 428 as Managing Director of GPT, wrote to DESU agreeing to give two rooms for the DESU transformer.The said letter inter alia reads as follows :..... This is to confirm the discussions the undersigned had with you yesterday when we agreed to give you two rooms measuring 10'-6'' x 30' and 10'-g'' x 15' for your transformer and HT and LT panels.This accommodation we will give you at a nominal rent of Rs. 11 per year.We further undertake to execute the civil maintenance work.....It is therefore, requested to kindly get the transformer and HT and LT Panels and laying of necessary cables expedited so that the necessary connection can be given in time.For Green Park Theaters Associated (P) Ltd.Sushil Ansal (Managing Director) 9.7 On 20.02.1973 Sushil Ansal again wrote to DESU regarding its transformer (Part of Ex. PW 100/M).The said portion of the letter reads as follows :.....Though we are installing our own transformer for our requirements, but during emergency you will give us current from your transformer on L.T. Supply for the sub-station to be installed at Uphaar cinema.Sushil Ansal (Managing Director) 9.8 License No.51, produced as Ex. PW 17/DB dated 24.04.1973 was issued through Sushil Ansal as Managing Director.At this stage it may be noticed that all subsequent renewals adverted to this license and also referred to licensee in this document.The material portion of the license reads as follows :9.11 Sushil Ansal likewise sought for renewal of licence on 02.04.1979 - a part of Ex. PW 69/CC.This document states that the original license No.51 dated 24.04.1993, due for renewal with effect from 24.04.1979 had been misplaced from the Head Office at Ansal Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 430 Bhawan, and requested for issuance of a duplicate license along with the annual renewal.Significantly, Sushil Ansal described himself as licensee in the said document.9.12 By Ex. PW 15/I, Sushil Ansal authorized V.K. Bedi, Architect to discuss the issues with the authorities.LETTER OF AUTHORITY I/We the undersigned hereby authorize Mr. V K Bedi (Architect) to deal, discuss and explain in connection of Building Plan on Plot/House No:.......Ward No./Block No: Green Park Theaters situated at New Delhi.I/We also authorize him to make necessary corrections in the above stated plan as required under the Building Bye Laws and to collect the sanctioned plan on my/our behalf.For Green Park Theaters Associated Pvt. Ltd.-Sd Sushil Ansal Signature of Owner....... 9.13 Accused Gopal Ansal, acting as Director, GPT, wrote a letter on 24.05.1978 to the Entertainment Tax Officer, for permission to install an eight seater box.The letter is Ex. PW 110/AA 20 which reads as follows :".... We are grateful to you for having sanctioned a family box for 14 persons at Uphaar Cinema quite some time back.You will appreciate that with the passage of time, the family is growing; we would , therefore, be grateful if you could kindly sanction us an additional private box comprising of eight seats.We wish to assure you that the same would be strictly for personal use.The necessary drawings for the same are enclosed herewith.Hope you would consider the case sympathetically and accord the necessary sanction......"Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 431 9.14 On 06.12.1979 a show cause notice being part of Ex. PW 69 was issued for removal of 100 additional seats, permitted by 1976 notification.Gopal Ansal as a Director of GPT replied on 13.12.1979 (PW 100/AA-2), taking the following position:".....It is surprising to note that the Administration without applying it's mind as directed by the Hon'ble High Court seems to have formed its view on the basis of some earlier inspection that all the additional seats installed by us would require removal.We will request you to please consider the case of our additional seats on merits.If the guidelines furnished by the Cinematograph Act, 1952 and reiterated by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court are kept in view, you will appreciate that the additional seats installed by us are within the Rules and accordingly not liable to be removed merely because the relaxation has been withdrawn.Without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, in any event, we submit that all the 85 number of additional seats in the Balcony and Auditorium are clearly within the Rules and cannot be said to be violative of any of the rules.We would request that after due intimation to us, you may kindly inspect the Cinema in the light of the High Court's order.We request you to give us a personal hearing before you take any final decision in the matter .....".9.15 On 29.07.1980 Gopal Ansal wrote a letter Ex. PW 110/AA 7 for permission to install 15 additional seats.This document has been discussed in the preceding portion of this judgment, dealing with deviations and changes in the balcony.9.18 On 11.05.1981, the DCP (Licensing) has issued a show cause notice to the licensee asking why the cinema license should not be suspended.Sushil Ansal sought for intervention Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.As discussed with your, we agree that the order of suspension is acceptable to us and that we shall not appeal against this to the court of law.We would , however, leave it to you to review the matter.We shall be grateful for your co-operation at this juncture which will be in the larger interests of the public.For Green Park Theaters Associated Pvt.Ltd.Gopal Ansal as Director of GPT replied on 04.06.1982 (PW Ex.110/AA-24).He mentioned the possibilities of such doors being bolted due to pressure from patrons or pressure from air conditioning.The said letter has been discussed in the previous section of this judgment dealing with Safety Precautions in the Balcony.R.17/2008 Page 433 persons as nominees, describing himself as Director.This letter when sought to be produced was objected to.The witness Mr. Phartyal mentioned that he seized the file and the signature of one Mr. Avtar Singh were obtained on the original.PW 107 Avtar Singh confirmed having signed the memo Ex. Pw 98/A. The said letter reads as follows :22 February 1989 The Entertainment Tax Officer Office of the Entertainment Tax Commissioner 2 Battery Lane, Rajpur Road Delhi Sub : Nominee for Uphaar Cinema Dear Sir, Further to our earlier letters giving the names of our Nominees for Uphaar Cinema, we request you to kindly cancel the nomination of Mr. S.K. Bhatnagar as he is no longer working with us.Also we would like to have the following person as an additional nominee for Uphaar Cinema.Mr. Krishan Gopal Arora Booking Clerk The signature of Mr. Krishan Gopal Arora is attested hereunder.Also we already have the following Nominees.Mr. K.L. Malhotra, Dy General Manager Mr. R K Shrma, Manager Mr. N S Chopra, Assistant Manager Yours faithfully, For GREEN PARK THEATRES ASSOCIATED (P) LTD SD (GOPAL ANSAL) DIRECTOR 9.22 By Ex. PW 50/B a letter dated 03.03.1992, Sushil Ansal (who by then had resigned as Director of the company) sought for renewal of the annual license for the period 24.04.1992 Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.He also filed an affidavit.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal inter alia were authorized to sign documents including giving corporate guarantees and other necessary documents.This loan was to be disbursed to the said Ansal Properties and Industries Limited by Punjab National Bank, Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi.9.33 The trial court had relied upon certain other documents, such as minutes of MD conference dated 27.02.1997 (Ex PW 98/X-4), 02.04.1997 (Ex PW 98/X-2), 02.04.1997 (Ex. PW98/C - File.He deposed to this effect.Ex. PW 98/C file contains the other documents which were relied upon by the trial court to underline the active involvement of Gopal Ansal.The minutes record a variety of issues having been discussed including ones relating to fixing of responsibility upon various officials by the MD for furnishing a feasibility report, for advance booking counter; the fixing of responsibility for maintenance and repairs within the building, placed upon the GM (Construction), installation of improved version of sound system and financial application, advertisement and publicity, covering of empty show windows, etc., indicating the involvement of the M.D. Likewise Ex. PW 98/X 2 was signed by Ajit Chaudhary.This also lists out 11 matters which were discussed in the meeting and for which responsibility was fixed on various officials.The matter discussed included a photograph taken during the night placement of rope light, neon light, emphasis on maintenance of cleanliness of auditorium, proper display of items in the canteen, beautification, proper parking place in front of the cinema hall, scheme for installation of EPABX and so on.A list of 11 points discussed is recorded in the said minutes which are again undated and unsigned.They are part of Ex. PW 98/C. The third in this series is Ex. PW 98/X-3 dated 02.05.1997, it encloses the minutes of Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.The letter Ex. PW 98/X-3 describes Mr. Gopal Ansal as MD in the Chair.The letter adverted to the original license issued since 1973 and stated you may however, please note that there will be no change in the name of licensee of the cinema.It described a common corporate management which included Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal.The diary was seized by PW 78 Rajbir Singh by seizure memo Ex. Pw 78/F, which lists Ansal Theatres and Clubotels (P) Ltd., as part of the group company.Shri Sushil Ansal shown as Corporate Chairman.Apart from Uphar cinema, Charanjeev Charitable Trust is also shown as running Homeopathy dispensary in the Uphaar Cinema.That trust is also shown as part of the group.9.38 The argument made on behalf of the accused Sushil Ansal is that company GPT owned the land as well as the cinema.The license issued for the cinema was also in favour of the company.With effect from 1994, the company explicitly nominated Shri R.M. Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The letter nominating Shri R.M Puri issued on behalf of the company only described him as an authorised signatory.9.46 The application for renewal made on 03.03.1992 (Ex. PW 50/B) was signed by Sushil Ansal.9.51 At the relevant stage the defence i.e. appellants 1 and 2 objected to their being marked as exhibits.The prosecution sought to substitute the missing Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.Moressa [1893] 1 QB 359, the Attorney - General has asked where we are to draw the line.It is enough for us to say that the present case is on the right side of any line that could reasonably be drawn.9.93 In the circumstances the trial court's finding about the conviction of Sushil Ansal and Gopal Ansal under Section 304 A read with Section 337, 338 and 36 of IPC and Section 14 of Cinematograph are justified.The conviction is, accordingly affirmed.X CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.10.5 PW-63, the Security Guard, PW-85 Bagde, the Operator, PW-97, a Gatekeeper and PW-52, Sumer Singh, a police constable, all mention that both Chopra and Sharma were working as Managers, at the relevant time.The letter 22-2-1989 (in file Ex. PW-98/C) addressed to the licensing authority, by the GPT Ltd, says that Chopra and Sharma were Manager nominees of the company.10.6 The above discussion would show that what the prosecution could prove was that Chopra and Sharma were Managers of the cinema hall.They were also shown to be managers, in the letter written by the company, to the licensing department.Witnesses spoke about their position as Managers.The documentary evidence pointed to the presence of accused Sharma, from 8-00 AM in the morning.However, N.S. Chopra's presence is not established, through any material, or witness.10.7 The prosecution, however, has not been able to prove that either Sharma or Chopra fled the spot, after learning or coming to know that a fire had broken out, and smoke entered Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The attendance register also discloses that he was in the cinema hall, when the DVB repairs took place at 11-30 AM, since he reported for duty at 8-00 PM.In his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC, he contended having left the cinema hall at 4-30 PM.N.S. Chopra, on the other hand, according to the documentary evidence (Ex. PW-108/DB-1, found in Ex.PW97/C) had not reported for duty.In his statement under Section 313, he mentioned having reached the cinema hall at 5-30 PM, and not being allowed inside, since the fire was raging in the building.10.14 R.K. Sharma was a manager; he is also adverted to in Ex. PW-98/C file containing the letter to the licensing department, dated 22-2-1989, whereby his name as a manager was intimated to the authorities.PW-63 mentions that after the repairs a decision was taken by the manager to resume the show.As a manager, he could be attributed with awareness about the fire risk in the cinema, particularly in the light of the 1989 fire incident.The endeavour of the prosecution was to show that they were deemed to be aware of the dangers that lurked in the cinema hall, particularly the balcony, due to the deviations, and as manager should have taken reasonable care, supervised the cinema hall and balcony, and Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 477 have been present to guide the patrons to evacuate from the building, when the smoke entered the balcony.The other two were K.L. Malhotra, and Ajit Chowdhury, both of whom were accused, but died later.PW-63, who deposed about the morning incident, merely mentioned that Shri Sharma was present; however, he specifically deposed about the role of K.L. Malhotra in connection with the decision to start the morning show, after the DVB transformer had been repaired around 11-30 to 12-00 AM.10.17 The totality of the above circumstances no doubt points to complete managerial and supervisory failure in the cinema.Their appeals are entitled to succeed.These appellants have to, therefore, be acquitted of the charges.The attendance register would show that 12.6.1997 was the Pitamber Jha's day off.The most contemporary document seized at the earliest point of investigation Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 481 thus established that at the relevant point of time, Uniyal was working as gate keeper in the balcony and that Pitamber Jha who in the normal course should have relieved him on the 13.6.1997 had not yet reported for duty.11.4 The earlier discussion and findings of this Court have showed that everything was normal till about the interval and that an explosion was heard ten minutes later after which smoke entered the balcony.It was urged on behalf of Uniyal that even eye witness accounts did not pin pointedly state that there were no staff members of the cinema hall and that the prosecution was unable to establish whether he was a gateman or torchman and further that he was never identified by anyone.It was lastly argued that Pitamber Jha, his reliever had in fact reported and that his withholding from the trial, amounted to unfairness since relevant evidence was kept away from the Court.11.5 PW-3, PW-7, PW-8 & PW-11, all eye witnesses who experienced the effects of hot gases and smoke in the balcony, deposed about the exit gates being locked or shut.PW-49 corroborated this when he said that the foyer door had to be forced open by his officers and that there was lot of heat and smoke.The eye witnesses also deposed that there was no help in the balcony at that time to assist people escape or at least facilitate or guide them to easily exit from the staircases.11.6 Rishi Arora PW-7 deposed that he and his sister were trapped in the balcony for 10-15 minutes and it was difficult to breathe.He also clearly deposed that there was no gate keeper or torchman, though he admitted lack of awareness as to who were from the management.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 482 He confirmed his version about absence of any help from gate keeper or torchman in the balcony when the smoke was present.The doors were locked or bolted.This witness also mentioned about efforts by people to get out which resulted in their pushing each other.11.7 From these eye witness accounts and the evidence of PW/97 who was not cross examined by Uniyal, as well as the documents PW-97/B-1 to B-20 and 97/C, the prosecution was undoubtedly able to establish that Uniyal had reported for duty on the 13th of June, 1997; his duty was in the balcony and that neither he nor others expected to be in the balcony were present when the smoke was detected there.It has also established that the balcony doors were bolted and had to be broken open by the patrons; the foyer entry door was broken open by the Fire Brigade employees.Barring this, the No Objection Certificate' did not mention that all the other deficiencies mentioned in the previous objections dated 08.11.1996 (Ex.33/C) had been cured or rectified.There was no mention of the provision of footlights in Crl.A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.PW- 31/A-1, the entry showing departure of Mr. H.S. Panwar for the purpose of inspection.The words, Saath mein SDO was added in June.He also proved entry (Ex.PW-31/B) which was added later at the instance of SDO, Mr. Surender Dutt.12.6 The prosecution sought to prove that on 22.12.1996, the date when Mr. H.S. Panwar had inspected and given approval for issuance of No Objection Certificate, he was on leave.This was sought to be done by placing on record an extract of his Leave Register (Ex. PW- 88/J).The said Leave Register was seized during the course of investigation through Ex.PW- 88/G. Dy.Chief Fire Officer (PW-88), who deposed in support of it submitted that the Leave Register was maintained in the normal course of official duties and related to personnel from Crl.He identified Ex.PW-88/J and his signature on it.He also deposed that according to the record, Mr. H.S. Panwar was on leave on 22.12.1996 which was also sanctioned by the Chief Fire Officer.In the cross-examination on behalf of Mr. H.S. Panwar what was sought to be put to him was that an officer of Fire Department is on duty for 24 hours and is available in case of need.The inspection reports (Ex.33/D and 31/DB dated 24.12.1996 and 12.05.1997) crucially are entirely silent about the concerns expressed in the previous letter on 18.11.1996 (Ex.33/C).Having recorded that fire sprinklers were unavailable in the balcony area and that the fire extinguishers in the cinema hall were filled-up, the least that could have been done by Mr. H.S. Panwar and the others inspecting the cinema was to indicate whether all these concerns Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.This Court had found that the certificate of no objection' letters issued on 24.12.1996 and 12.05.1997 as well as the inspection reports made no record of satisfaction that such electrical appliance had been tested and found in working order.12.9 The acts of Mr. H.S. Panwar, who had been inspecting the cinema hall right from 1994, show a completely negligent and rash attitude towards his duties.Without delving into too deep whether he inspected the hall on 22.12.1996 and assuming contention to be so and in view of his explanation in response to queries under Section 313 of Cr.PC, nevertheless what cannot be overlooked is that the No Objection Certificate' completely glossed over the fire hazard, so glaringly evident due to the second DVB transformer in the balcony area as well as the exit and the gangways in the balcony which were in clear violation of the norms.The fact that accused 1 & 2 were licensees or there were others acting as Managers of the cinema hall did not in any manner undermine Mr. H.S. Panwar's basic duty to record satisfaction on the basis of the prescribed norms of fire safety.H.S. Panwar, in none of his reports, mentioned any details - a prescribed from was filled.The report Ex. PW-64/D shows that a few extinguishers, sent for testing, were not in working order.12.11 The appellant, Mr. H.S. Panwar, as a responsible officer could reasonably be expected to foresee that any laxity in the enforcement of fire safety norms and mechanical issuance of No Objection Certificate' would result in the licensing authority proceeding ahead and issuing permits under the Cinematograph Act. The role of the fire department under Delhi Cinematograph Rules, 1953 as well as the 1986 Act and Rules was, therefore, crucial.Yet, he completely omitted to adhere to all norms and in a routine manner issued No Objection Certificate'.Had he not done so and had diligently Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 495 listed deficiencies, including the fire hazard from the transformers and the fire hazard from the exit point of view as well as tested the appliances in the cinema hall, the no objection' could not have been granted.This action has significance and to an important degree contributed to the tragedy whereby 59 patrons lost their lives and 100 others sustained serious and grave injuries due to smoke exposure.In these circumstances, the Court is of opinion that the materials on record justify his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 304A as well as 337/338 read with section 36 IPC.on their issuing No Objection Certificates for 1995-96 and 1996-97 respectively.It was also found that they handed over the certificates directly to Mr. K.L. Malhotra of the Uphaar Cinema.It was held that the No Objection Certificates were issued mechanically, to benefit the Uphaar Cinema and were not preceded by any inspection.13.2 The cinema licenses had to be preceded by inspection of various authorities.DCR, 1953 mandated by Rule 12 states inspection of the cinema hall premises to access structural and fire safety as a condition for grant of license.Rule 14 of DCR, 1981 prescribed for inspections of the cinema premises by the electrical inspector, Executive Engineer and the Chief Fire Officer.13.3 The expression Executive Engineer' was defined in DCR, 1953, to mean, by Rule 2(viii) as follows:Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 496 ........in relation to licensing of any place for cinema exhibitions means the officer holding charge of the Delhi State division of the Central Public Works Department or such other officer as may be appointed by the Chief Commissioner to perform the duty of the Executive Engineer under these rules; 13.4 Rule 2 (ix) of the DCR, 1981 was cast in identical or parimetiria terms - it is thus clear that in terms of the legal obligation to conduct the inspection, the concerned Executive Engineer of the Central Public Works Department had to inspect the premises.The evidence of PW-2 on records, in the form of deposition clearly shows that only the Executive Engineers and the Zonal Engineers (of MCD) were competent to issue No Objection Certificate'.PW-65 deposed that the DCP (Licensing) used to routinely issue two month license or permits on account of the said order of the High Court without receipt of technical reports.It has further come on the record that the protocol for coordinating various authorities's work was sought to be worked out through a statutory notification dated 03.05.1997; PW-39, the Executive Engineer deposed on this aspect.PW -22 deposed without challenge that the trade department (where the accused Tiwari and Sharma were working) used to look after licensing of cinema premises for storage of films.Apart from commenting that the accused Mr. Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 497 S.S. Sharma and Mr. N.D. Tiwari acted casually or carelessly without ensuring any inspection prior to issuance of No Objection Certificate, the prosecution had not substantiated what were their duties.On the other hand, both provisions of DCR, 1953 (Rule 12) and DCR, 1981 (Rule 14) point to a duty, if at all, on the part of the Executive Engineer, as a technical expert to assess the structural soundness of the cinema hall premises, certify it and ensure that it complies with all norms.The curious practice of the designated official, i.e. the Executive Engineer/Zonal Engineer, who in this case was PW-39 - marking the letter for no objection to officers not authorized to inspect the premises and not empowered to issue the certificates, was not even examined, much less explained.The charge-sheet had mentioned about a notification dated 03.05.1994 changing the procedure and the MCD Building Department, having to inspect the premises annually instead of the PWD.The trial court also found it to be so.However, no such notification was produced during the trial; on the other hand, PW- 39 spoke to having seen it when his statement was recorded by the CBI.Rule 14, DCR 1981 talks of inspection by Executive Engineer, defined as such official from CPWD.If the position were indeed different, it is not clear how these accused could have been charged; the duty was clearly that of the Executive Engineer.13.6 The prosecution, in order to succeed in its charge of accused Mr. S.S. Sharma and Mr. N.D. Tiwari having acted with criminal negligence and caused death and serious injury, should have first established the duty of care either through some enacted law like DCR, 1953 or DCR, 1981 or a general duty discernable in their normal course of official functions.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 498 In addition, the prosecution should have established breach of such duty would have resulted in a foreseeable damage and death to or in grievous injury to several persons.The rationale for obtaining no objections' from these officers has been left unexplained.It has been established by the evidence adduced that in 1996, the licensing department had sought for reports from various agencies, including the MCD.A three member team had inspected the premises on 30.04.1996 and submitted its report (Ex. PW-17/D).According to PW-17, the members of this team were engineers; the report was marked to the Executive Engineer, PW-39, by Ex.PW-17/E. This shows that the duty of inspecting premises, according to practice, was of the Engineering staff; they had to furnish the technical report.14.2 The evidence on record establishes that: -(1) In the morning of 13.6.1997 around 7:00 AM, a fire was reported in the Uphaar DVB transformer.Information was received by PW-41; PW-47 Munna Lal was deputed.The entry PW-41/A in the no current complaint register corroborated this; PW-42 Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.(3) PW-44 Bhagwandin, a daily wager carried the tool box.He deposed about the presence of B.M. Satija, Bir Singh and A.K. Gera.(5) The inspection of the transformer which was conducted on 22.1.1997 showed that protection relays which were so crucial to precisely guard against the contingencies of the type which occurred on 13.6.1997 were missing - they are mentioned in PW-40/DA-1 (6) The evidence of senior officials such as PW-48, PW-67 and PW-73 of the DVB showed that crimping was the proper method of joining the cable.The evidence also established that crimping machines were available at the sub-station.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.After receiving the complaint, the DVB office deputed staff for emergency purposes, who switched off the transformer.14.14 The depositions of other witnesses assume importance.PW-40 clearly mentioned that he had discussed the complaint with Satija and chalked out the programme.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 507 deposed having accompanied Satija, Bir Singh and Gera to the relevant site at Uphar and witnessing the repairs with the aid of dye and hammer.At one place, he mentioned that Bir Singh carried out the repair under the supervision of both the officers, in another place of his deposition, he mentioned that Bir Singh's work was supervised by Satija.14.15 The evidence of PW-73 and PW 48 establish the role of various officials at the Inspector/J.E. level.14.16 As stated earlier Ex.The mere Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.The evidence also points to a discussion between PW- 40, who was overall Incharge of the maintenance of the transformer, and accused Satija who chalked out the programme for attending complaints.It also establishes that there was another complaint in Zone-1603 which had to be attended to.The cinema license continued in the name of the first accused, Sushil Ansal.Both he and Gopal Ansal were engaged in the crucial decisions regarding running of the cinema hall.They also had unlimited power to bind the company financially as well as encumber its assets, to its detriment, even as on the day of the incidents.Crucial decisions, like location and installation of the second, DVB transformer, the parking contract, letting out of the building at once converting it into a commercial complex, and also hindering movement in the top floor, besides causing obstructions in the lower floors, and most importantly, the placement of additional seats on the one hand, and compromising all important norms relating to fire safety, contrary to DCR 1981, were taken at the behest of the said Accused.They were also aware that an identical accident occurred in 1989; the morning fire on 13th Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 517 June, 1997, should also have served as a warning.R. 238/2001 filed on behalf of petitioner-Sh.R. 270/2001 has been filed by Association of Victims of Uphaar tragedy with a prayer to charge Sh.Sushil Ansal and Sh.Gopal Ansal under S. 304, I.P.C. also in addition to the charges already framed against them.Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.R.17/2008 Page 521 I have heard Sh.R. K. Naseem, Advocate for petitioner-Sh.The intering orders dated 22-5-2001 stand vacated.Nothing stated herein shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case pending before the trial Court as the observations made herein are on prima facie basis and tentative only.Now take the case of an accused who was called upon to defend only a charge under Section 302 IPC.The burden of proof never shifts onto him.It ever remains on the prosecution which has to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubt.Their revisions were rejected.These concerns were held to be justified by the trial court, which directed the CBI to investigate into the role of such persons.Though more than a year has elapsed, nothing seems to have happened.On the other, hand the CBI chose to array, as accused for the charge under section 304 Part-II persons against whom there was no material to substantiate knowledge.Appeal Nos 794/2007 and Cr.Having regard to all the conspectus of facts, this court sentences this appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years, for the offence under Section 304-A, along with fine of Rs. 2000; rigorous imprisonment for six months, with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 337, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year, with fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the Crl. A. Nos.794,846,830/2007, Crl.A. 4,9,21,33,45,46,56,66,/2008 & Crl.If he had displayed the same zeal that he did in November, 1996, when the inspection report did not yield a no objection there would have been a greater scrutiny of the fire safety norms.Instead, he certified that fire safety norms had been complied with, whereas in actuality they were not.No doubt, he has served the Delhi Fire Service for a long time; according to the trial court judgment, he was 68 years when the impugned judgment was pronounced.He is also a recipient of commendations.Appeal No. 4/2008 is partly allowed to this extent.Having regard to all the conspectus of facts, this court sentences these appellants to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 2 years, and a fine of Rs. 5000/- each, for the offence under Section 304-A, rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 337, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year, with fine of Rs. 1000/-, for the offence under Section 338, IPC.In default of payment of fine for any of the sentences, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for four months.The sentence shall run concurrently, and the appellants shall also be entitled to set off the period of detention, under Section 428 Cr. PC.16.11 For the reasons mentioned in the previous part of the judgment, the appeals of R. K. Sharma, N.C. Chopra, S.S. Sharma, N.D. Tiwari and A.K. Gera, are allowed; they are acquitted.They shall be forthwith released.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,050,012 |
This is the first application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant.The applicant has been arrested on 01.01.2015 in connection with Crime No. 01/2015 registered at Police Kotwali district Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 506-B of IPC and read with Section 34 of IPC.As per the prosecution on 01.01.2015 at about 7PM complainant Khilan Singh when reached at his home.Co-accused persons applicant Komal Prasad and Krishan Gopal and Ankit Sen were beating his nephew Lomesh.When the complainant tried to save him the co-accused persons armed with knife ran after the complainant and inflicted grievous injuries.Co-accused Krishan Gopal inflicted injury by knife at his stomach.Lomesh and neighbors save him.On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the applicant is innocent.Injuries caused to the complainant by the other co-accused namely Krishan Gopal and Anil Sen are simple in nature and that too are not attributed to the present applicant Komal Prasad.Therefore he be granted the benefit of regular bail.Learned Panel lawyer for the State opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to extend the benefit of bail to the present applicant.Accordingly, this bail application is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in a 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 securing his presence before the concerned Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for compliance.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
170,054,172 |
Gwalior).It is stated by the petitioner that on 21.10.1995 one Munshiram was murdered.Hence, the police is not taking any action against the accused.The High Court directed the Superintendent of Police (SP) to look into the matter.It is also stated in the petition that even in the bail application preferred by respondent No.2, this Court directed for conducting proper investigation.The AFR MCRC.1084/2010 2 petitioner contends that at relevant time, the petitioner was working as City Superintendent and did not have any connection with the said crime registered at Police Station Belgada.AFR MCRC.1084/2010 2It is urged that Shri Ram Niwas was the Superintendent of Police (SP) at the relevant time.The petitioner stated that initially the respondent No.2 was interrogated by the said SP.A request was made before the Addl.Sessions Judge, Dabra for handing over the respondent No.2 for investigation to police authorities.In turn, the said Sessions Judge directed that the respondent No.2 herein be handed over for investigation to police authorities.Shri Ram Niwas (the then SP) started investigation.During investigation, respondent No.2 informed him that the axe by which he killed Munshiram is kept in his village Belgada.He agreed to provide the said axe to police authorities.The said statement of respondent No.2 was recorded by SP in presence of the witnesses.In Section 27 Memorandum, along with respondent No.2, other witnesses put their signatures.It was also signed by the-then SP.In obedience of the order of superior officer, the petitioner took with him the respondent No.2 and went to Belgada, which is about 60 Kms.away from Dabra.At Belgada the axe was recovered by respondent No.2 in presence of witnesses.A seizure memo was prepared.The petitioner after undertaking aforesaid exercise, brought the respondent No.2 back from Belgada to Dabra.(24/09/2015 ) The petitioner, a gazetted police officer, has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to assail the order dated 2.3.2001, passed in complaint proceedings pending before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhitarwar (Distt.The allegation of said murder was made against respondent No.2 herein.The FIR for the offences under Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 IPC was registered against the respondent No.2 in Police Station Belgada.The father of deceased Munshiram filed a petition before the High Court contending that his son is murdered by son of an influential politician.It is urged that at that time the road between Dabra and AFR MCRC.1084/2010 3 Belgada was in a very bad condition, therefore, petitioner could reach Dabra at around 7.00 pm.He took respondent No.2 to the residence of the-then Addl.Sessions Judge, Dabra.He produced him before the said judicial officer.At that time, counsel of respondent No.2 was also present before said judicial authority.The respondent No.2's counsel did not make any complaint/objection about anything before the Addl.Sessions Judge.AFR MCRC.1084/2010 3In the said complaint, certain allegations were made against him.The court below took cognizance of said complaint on 2.3.2001 and summoned the present petitioner.The Government servant filed writ petition before the High Court.The complaint was filed before CJM, Patna.The same was entertained.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,721,920 |
Two months ago, her husband left her and went to live with his parents and is not even arranging for her maintenance.Her parents-in-law are also supporting her husband and they are harassing her.Her parents are poor and cannot fulfill the applicants' demand.For this reason, applicants have been harassing her for almost 2 years.She is currently pregnant and needs support but applicants are trying to drive her away from the rented house too.She is very ill-treated by the applicants.Reserved on : 19/11/2019 Delivered on : 25/11/2019 This criminal revision has been filed under Section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 11/05/2019 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dindori in Criminal Case No.209/2018, whereby learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed the charge against the applicants/accused Vijay Gupta, Dinesh Gupta and Neerajlata for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC.Brief facts of the case which are relevant to the disposal of this revision are that on 30/01/2018 complainant/respondent No.2 Pooja Gupta lodged a report at Police Station Kajariya, District Dindori averring that she married applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta on 17/02/2016 at Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Amarkantak, District-Anuppur.Thereafter, she lived with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta-husband, applicant No.2 Dinesh-father-in-law and applicant Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.11.26 10:48:29 +05'30' 2 Cr.R.No.3819/2019 No.3-Neerajlata mother-in-law.After ten days of her marriage behaviour of the applicants changed with her.They used to demand Rs.3 lakhs and harassed her physically and mentally.Due to which she moved from her in- law's house and started living in a rented house with her husband applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta.Currently, she is seven to eight months' pregnant.So action be taken against them.On that police registered Crime No.11/2018 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC against the applicants and investigated the matter.During the investigation, Police recorded the statements of the complainant herself, Balmukund & Sumitra Gupta, parents of the complainant, Savitri Bai landlord of complainant Pooja Gupta where she resided with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, Dasrath Prasad, Ramnarayan Sahu and Devan neighbour of the complainant and after investigation filed charge-sheet against the applicants.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case, No.209/2018 was registered.Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class framed charge against the applicants vide order dated 11/05/2019 for the offence punishable 498-A, 34 of the IPC.Being aggrieved from that order, applicants have filed this revision.2 Cr.At the time of marriage complainant/respondent No.2 had filed an application and also sworn an affidavit indicating that she was unmarried and her marriage has never taken place earlier.Thereafter marriage of applicant No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant was solemnized Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.11.26 10:48:49 +05'30' 3 Cr.R.No.3819/2019 as per Hindu customs & rituals and marriage certificate of the same was issued by Gayatri Shakti Peeth, Amarkantak, District Anuppur after performing the marriage.After, marriage complainant lived in the company of applicants, but the behaviour of the respondent No.2/complainant was not good with the applicants.On that applicant, No.1 started living separately along with the complainant in a rented house.But the behaviour of the complainant did not change and she used to threaten applicants to implicate them in a false criminal case.Feeling aggrieved by the attitude of the complainant, the applicant No.1 lodged a report against her on 30/9/2016 at P.S. Karanjiya, District-Dindori.He further submitted that in the meantime it was revealed that before marrying the applicant No.1, complainant had already married with one Kamlesh Gupta, resident of Hanumantal, Jabalpur and without getting a valid divorce from Kamlesh Gupta, complainant performed marriage with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta by suppressing this fact.Learned counsel for the applicant further submitted that since the complainant was a married lady and she performed second marriage with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, without getting divorce from her earlier husband, applicant No.1 filed a criminal complaint against the respondent No.2/complainant and her parents under Section 420, 500/34 of the IPC and also filed a Civil Case 78A/2016 under Section 11 of Hindu Marriage Act for annulment of marriage in the court of Principal Judge Family Court, Dindori.Learned Principal Judge Family Court vide judgment and decree dated 09/11/2017 allowed the applicant's petition and declared the marriage between applicant No.1 and respondent No.2/complainant null and void.Thereafter, the complainant filed this false complaint against the applicants to harass them.Hence, it is prayed that the complaint be quashed.In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgement passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramkumar Sarathe and others Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh & another in M.Cr.State of M.P. and Ors.3 Cr.4 Cr.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that at the stage of framing of charge, only charge-sheet has to be seen and from the charge-sheet it is apparent that the applicants who are the husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant/respondent No.2 respectively used to harass her and demanded dowry, so learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in framing the charge against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the IPC.Respondent No.2/complainant performed marriage with the applicant No.1 suppressing the fact that she was already married, or her behaviour was not good with the applicants and she harassed the applicants and lodged a false report against the applicants is the defence of the applicants which cannot be considered at this stage because it requires evidence to decide.In the instant case, it is apparent from the record that after investigation of the report lodged by non-applicant No.2 Police found prima facie case against the applicants and filed charge sheet against them.In the F.I.R. it is clearly mentioned that applicants used to demand Rs.3 lakhs and harassed complainant physically and mentally this fact is also corroborated by the case diary statements of Balmukund & Sumitra Gupta, parents of the complainant, Savitri Bai, landlord of complainant Pooja Gupta in her house she resided with the applicant No.1 Vijay Gupta, Dasrath Prasad, Ramnarayan Sahu and Devan neighbour of the complainant.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,822,401 |
No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 5493 of 2019 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 28/06/2019 in connection with Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 168 of 2019 dated 12/05/2019 under Sections 448/354A/376/511/323 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Mainuddin Sk @ Maynaddin Sk ....petitioner.In the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also be subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that he shall meet the investigating officer once in a week until further orders and that he shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,853,348 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants in connection with Crime No.49/2019 registered at Police Station Hindoriya, District Damoh under Sections 341, 323, 324, 326, 294 and 506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 19.02.2019 at about 10:10 pm near the shop of Raghvendra, Arora Trigadda, Jamuniya Hajari, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Hindoriya, District Damoh, co-accused persons Halle Yadav and Pramod Yadav have intercepted complainant Chhotu @ Rajendra and started abusing him.When he restrained, then they inflicted injuries by means of of wooden stick and knife and injured him badly.Later on, applicants along with other co-accused Golu Yadav have also reached the spot.Applicant armed with sticks and co- accused Golu Yadav armed with axe have inflicted injuries to the complainant, as a result of which, he sustained injuries.Report of the incidence was lodged on the next day, on that basis, Crime No.49/2019 for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 294, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code have been registered.Later on, after medical examination of the complainant, offence under Section 326 Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 18/06/2019 04:28:23 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-23514-2019 (DAYARAM & ANO.There is no chance of their absconding or tampering with the witnesses.They are ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the directions and conditions which may be imposed upon them.It is also submitted that the applicants have been in custody since 27.05.2019; therefore, it has been prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the bail application.On perusal of the case diary, it seems that the allegation against the applicants is that they armed with sticks, reached on the spot after the main incidence have happened and beaten the complainant Chhotu @ Rajendra.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the fact as pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicants, allegation made against the applicants and looking to the period of detention of the applicants, in the opinion of this Court, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 18/06/2019 04:28:23 The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC-23514-2019 (DAYARAM & ANO.THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 3 Consequently, this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants-Dayaram and Bhole Yadav, stands allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 18/06/2019 04:28:23
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
167,905,672 |
This petition has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.804 of 2014 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is an innocent person and he has not committed any offencehttp://www.judis.nic.in 1/6 CRL.O.P.No.6524 of 2016 as alleged by the prosecution.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.804 of 2014 for offences under Sections 420 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2014, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.804 of 2014 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.11.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 CRL.O.P.No.6524 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station, KanchipuramThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.6524 of 2016 11.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,680,863 |
Act to override other law.ORDER R. M. Lodha.The Petitioner is said to have surrendered on 17th June, 2000 before the.Designated Court constituted under Section 6 of the Act of 1999 and remanded by the concerned Designated Court on that day.We read the proceedings which took place after 17th June, 2000 before the Designated Court and various orders passed.The said orders are not material for our purposes.On 17th August, 2000, the Petitioner made an application before the Designated Court for his release under the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since the challan was not filed by the Investigating Officer.The said application under the proviso to section 167(2) made on 17th August, 2000 was opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor and the Designated Court vide its order of the even date rejected the application.The Designated Court accordingly rejected the application.The learned Single Judge hearing the bail applications heard the bail application on 22nd August.On 23rd August.2000, as indicated above, the learned Single Judge referred the matter to Division Bench observing that, considering the magnitude of the offence the question whether the proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is attracted to the offence under the Act of 1999 needs to be considered by the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement on the point and accordingly directed the registry to seek appropriate orders from the Hon'ble Chief Justice.The Hon'ble Chief Justice on 25th August, 2000 assigned the bail application for hearing to this Bench and that is how the matter has come up before us.The said application was rejected by the Designated Court on 17th August, 2000 itself.The bail application came up before us on 29th August, 2000 and, on that date, Mr. Manohar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused, concluded his arguments.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,681,123 |
Then they brought him near Railway Colony, Jabalpur on the point of knife.He was given beating and was physically assaulted.ORDER S.C. Pandey, J.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
168,159,056 |
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINOD GOEL VINOD GOEL, J:Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (NDPS), West Delhi (ASJ) in Session Case No.50/2010 vide FIR No.25/2010 u/s 302/304B/498A IPC, PS Moti Nagar, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and order on sentence dated 28.02.2011 sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of fine, simple imprisonment for two months.The Ld.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 1 of 20As per the factual matrix, the appellant and the deceased got married on 20.10.2004 as per the Arya Samaj rites and rituals.On 30.01.2010, the appellant made a telephonic call to the deceaseds father, Mr. Shanti Prakash Sardana (PW-1), at about 1:45 AM and informed him that she had fallen ill and has to be taken to a Hospital.PW-1 along with the deceaseds sister-in-law, Mrs.Shiksha Sardana (PW-5) reached the appellants house where they found the deceased in an unconscious condition and took her to Khetrapal Hospital where she was declared as brought dead.PW-1 along with PW-5 and the appellant then took the deceased to Acharya Bikshu Govt. Hospital, Moti Nagar where after examination, she was declared as brought dead.3. DD No.6A (Ex.PW11/A) was recorded on 30.01.2010 by HC Mewa Ram (PW-20) posted at P.S. Moti Nagar after a call was received from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital about the deceased being brought to the Hospital by her father and husband and declared as brought dead.PW-1 refused to give his statement to the Police Officials as he informed them that his son had gone to London and his wife had gone to Kota and he would give a statement only on their return.The dead body was taken to DDU hospital for preservation by Constable Jai Prakash (PW-16).ASI Jai Singh (PW-9), Incharge of the Mobile Crime Team (West) on CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20 receiving information from P.S. Moti Nagar reached the house of the appellant at WZ 81/1, Gali no.10, Ram Garh Colony at 5:30 AM and inspected the house till 6:00 AM.He submitted his report, Ex.PW9/A. He found that the injured was taken to the Hospital.He got the photographs of the site taken from the photographer, Ct.PW-11 along with PW-21 also reached the appellants house and inspected the scene of crime.PW-19 proved the negatives of the photographs, Ex.PW19/1 to Ex.PW19/5 and the positives, Ex.PW19/6 to Ex.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 2 of 20Dr. Munish (PW-12), Junior Resident in Acharya Bhikshu Hospital, Moti Nagar deposed that on 30.01.2010, he had examined the deceased, Chandni who was brought to the casualty.He declared her brought dead vide casualty card, Ex.PW12/A. He stated that the police had reached there and shifted the body to DDU Hospital.Whole brain oedematous with flattened gyri of the brain with relatively congested meninges of the brain."The statement of PW-1 (Ex.PW1/A) was recorded in the presence of Shri R.K Saini, Executive Magistrate (PW-13).The Rukka (Ex.PW21/A) was prepared by PW-21 on the basis of this statement and FIR (Ex.PW7/A) was registered at P.S. Moti Nagar by HC Bricha Singh (PW-7).On 01.02.2010, the viscera sample of the deceased was deposited by PW-11 with MHCM, P.S. Moti Nagar HC Rajesh Kumar (PW-13).On 25.02.2010, the viscera sample was sent to FSL through Ct.The appellant was apprehended on 01.02.2010 from Moti Nagar Metro Station and CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20 brought to P.S. Moti Nagar.He argued that the deceaseds family members had concocted a false story to falsely implicate the appellant which is clear from the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20 fact that PW-1, who had accompanied the appellant to the Hospital on the fateful night, had refused to give his statement on the same day i.e. 30.01.2010 and had waited for two days till 01.02.2010, to give his statement.He further argued that since the Trial Court had disbelieved the testimony of the deceaseds father (PW-1), brother, Atul Sardana (PW-6) and the appellants landlady of the house, Ms. Rajani Kapoor (PW-2) with respect to the alleged demand of dowry and causing cruelty to the deceased by the appellant and acquitted the appellant under Section 498A and 304B, the testimony of PW-1 and PW-6 on the other aspects is under serious doubt.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 5 of 20Question: It is evidence against you that on the date of the incident i.e. 29/1/2010 you had not reached so Chandani was perturbed you reached at room of PW2 Rajni Kapoor by knocking her door and called her.What do you say?CRL.A.572/2011 Page 9 of 20My wife was suffering from high blood pressure for which she was taking medicines and had become anemic.On the day of incident she fell from the bed and suffered injuries.Immediately I called my father in law and brother in law."Ans: It is possible, Vol.The present criminal appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 26.02.2011 passed by the Court of Ld.On 01.02.2010, at 1:15 PM Dr. B.N Mishra, Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine (PW-15) conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased aged 25 years.5. PW-15 founds the following external injuries on the body of the deceased:Fractured nasal bone with brusing of adjacent tissue and collection of blood clots in the nasal cavity and torn nasal Macosa with dark reddish in colour.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 3 of 20Two apartly places linear Bruise of size 03 x 1 cm and 2.5 cm x 1 cm respectively with vertical placement at lower part of back over lumber spine with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 4 x 2 cm present on the right lower part of the back 5 cm apart from external injury no.2 with reddish brown in colour.Abrasion of size 2 x 2 cm present on the left side of cheek bone with reddish brown in colour.Nails marks in cresentric shape presen on the right side of cheek bone and 2 cm below from Laternal canthus of right eye with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 1 cm x 0.5 cm present on tip of the right shoulder with reddish brown in colour.Bruise of size 4 x 5 cm present on the thenier eminence of right palm with dark reddish colour, blood cots on secion.HEAD: Subdural Haematoma present on the right tampero parital region with thick layered and dark red in colour.He was interrogated and then arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/G.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 4 of 20As per the Post Mortem report dated 01.02.2010 (Ex.PW15/B), the time since death was about two and a half days prior to the Post Mortem examination.The cause of death was kept pending in the Post Mortem Report (PMR) dated 01.02.2010 till the FSL and the Histopathological Reports were received.Dr. B.N Mishra (PW-15) mentioned in the PMR "However the association of assault on the part of her death could not be ruled out.All injuries are ante- mortem." The FSL report (Ex.PW21/E and Ex.In the subsequent opinion (Ex.PW15/A) dated 25.10.2010, the cause of death was opined as "due to coma caused by Cranio Cerebral injury (Head injury) by means of hard blunt and forceful impact upon head.The possibility of homicide cannot be not ruled out."On 19.05.2010, the Ld. ASJ framed charges against the appellant under Section 498A/304B/302 IPC to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused while the appellant examined one witness in his defence.He contended that the Police did not recover any weapon from the appellants home to connect him to the incident and no motive has been imputed to the appellant by the prosecution.He argued that the injuries were well explained by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) and in any case, these injuries were not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death and hence the ingredients of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) were not fulfilled.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 6 of 20Per contra, Mr.Amit Gupta, the ld.APP for State argued that the impugned judgment suffered from no perversity or illegality and hence does not merit any interference.We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and the ld.APP for the State.The appellant has given different versions of what had transpired on the fateful night in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. It would be necessary to analyse his version of the events here, hence the relevant questions and answers in the statement under Section 313 are being reproduced herein below: -"1. Question: It is in evidence against you that on 30/1/10 at about 3:15am an information was received in Police Station Moti Nagar from Acharya Bhikshu Hospital telephonically that Chandni w/o Sarbjit R/o WZ 81/1 Gali no.10 Ram Gard Colony was brought in the hospital by her father and husband and was declared brought dead.What do you have to say?Ans: It is correct as my wife was sick, I called my father in law and along with him took her to the hospital as she had fallen from the bed."CRL.A.572/2011 Page 7 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that the fact regarding death of Chandni was disclosed to PW6 by his wife by saying that you had telephoned her and asked her to come immediately to your residence as there was a fight between you and chandani and at that time you were with her on which PW6 also talked with you and inquired from you on this you told him that there was a fight between you and Chandani and you had given her a push on her neck and thereafter she was not getting up.What do you say?Ans: It is incorrect.I never had any fight with my wife Chandani.However, she was sick and was lying on the bed because of weakness she could not even go to natural calls and she fell down from the bed I immediately called my father in law and her brother.My father in law came to my house and alongwith me went to the hospital.I made several calls and had also received several calls to my father in law and brother in law."What do you say?Ans: My wife was anemic and required good food which she avoided.She was given proper medical treatment and all the goods and papers were removed by the police and my father-in-law from the house."Question: It is evidence against you that on the night of 29/1/2010 at 1:45am PW1 received a call which was made by you and told to him to come soon as Chandani fell ill and you have to go to hospital for treatment of Chandani.What do you say? Ans: Since my wife had developed uneasiness because of fall from her bed I immediately made a call to my father in law for help and also to inform him about the CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20 illness and took him alongwith him to the hospital my immediate neighbours were also called and they also helped me in taking my wife to the hospital."CRL.A.572/2011 Page 8 of 20Question: It is in evidence against you that when PW1 reached at the residence of his daughter she had already died as PW1 checked her pulse to verify whether she was dead or live.What do you say?It is incorrect.I do not know at what time she had died but she was responding at the time she was taken the hospital."Question: It is in evidence against you that Chandani was at the residence of PW1 Shanti Prakash Sardana till about 3pm.What do you say? Ans.As soon as my wife fell from the bed I had informed my father in law and brother in law of the incident on telephone and they immediately came to my residence I alongwith my father in law and brother in law went to the hospital but before that my father in law took my wife to his house to pick up my mother in law at that time my wife was alive and responding."Question: It is in evidence against you that on receiving the call from you PW1 had reached initially in the house no.81/1 gali no.10 Ram Garh Colony where Chandani was lying unconscious consition and she was taken to the hospital.What do you say? Ans.It is correct.However, my wife was not unconscious and was responding."Since my wife was not responding to the door because of her weakness I called Rajni Kapoor so that she could open the door from inside."Question: Do you want to say anything else? Ans.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 10 of 20Question: The photograph on which no.171 (Ex.PW19/8) is written is shown to the witness and asked, is it possible if a person have sudden fall which face towards the ground and hits the edge as shown in pt-A on the photograph, the said person may get nasal bone fractured?However, same may be caused by getting hit with blunt object.Question: For the 7 external injuries as mentioned in the postmortem report Ex.PW15/B either the person be hit with some solid edged object like danda or a person may have a free fall on some solid edged object like bed?The injury noted in PM report are not possible to be inflicted on the body during the single episode as above mentioned modes.stated as the above mentioned injuries are variable in their nature and the distribution on the body, the above suggested conditions cannot caused these injuries.Question: How many hits are necessary for causing the injury no.1 to 7?Ans: The injury present on the body of the deceased cannot be caused only due to falling on the hard surface/blunt object.The same may have been caused by different means of causing injuries.Question: I suggest to you that the injury no.1 to 7 had been sustained by the deceased when she was coming to the bed in darkness and had struck with something on the floor due to which she lost balance and had a free fall on the edge of the bed?Ans: These injuries no.1 to 7 are not possible only in the above manner and the same are not possible to have been sustained only by one fall as above mentioned."For this purpose, a certified copy of this judgment shall also be delivered forthwith to the Secretary, DLSA with a further direction to submit a compliance report to this Court within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment.If no such compliance is forthcoming within the stipulated time, the Registry will place the matter before Roster Bench for further directions.CRL.A.572/2011 Page 19 of 20The appeal is dismissed on the above terms.(VINOD GOEL) JUDGE (HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE JULY 08, 2019 CRL.A.572/2011 Page 20 of 20
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,142 |
ORDER Raghubar Dayal, J.On 6th February 1949 they were found in possession of Jhagru applicant.He was wearing the sweater and muffler and he produced the coat on being asked about it.Dwarka was convicted under Section 379, Penal Code, Jhagru was convicted under Section 411, Penal Code.The revision was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge and so Jhagru comes up in revision to this Court.I am of opinion that it cannot be said that Jhagru had received these stolen clothes knowing or having reason to believe them to be stolen property.He had been wearing these clothes and it was on account of a friend of Ram Chandra having seen him put on the coat that Ram Chandra and others went to the applicant's house and questioned him about the coat which he did not happen to be wearing at the time On inquiry he at once produced the coat and informed them that he had purchased these things for Rs. 10 from Dwarka.Jhagru, applicant, stated in Court that Dwarka had told him that he had got these clothes from students as a reward.It appears that Jhagru felt satisfied at this statement and purchased the articles.The presumption arising against the applicant under Section 114, illus.Exhibits 1, 2 and 3 will fit a man of tall stature.Exhibit 1 is a woollen coat not an old one.It the accused would have acted as a normal reasonable man, he would have known that the articles were stolen ones."
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,714,338 |
It was alleged that the appellant was found to be in possession of prewritten answer sheets which were similar, if not identical, to the answer sheets supplied by the Examination Board.The appellant was taken out of the hall and a statement was recorded in which he confessed to have prewritten answer sheets with him.The matter was then reported to UPSC Head Office at New Delhi.The said section, therefore, may be quoted in extenso;(ii) An order must be passed by the Central Government extending the powers and jurisdiction of Delhi Special Police Establishment to any State in respect of the offences specified under Section 3 (Section 5); and(iii) Consent of the State Government must be obtained for the exercise of powers by Delhi Special Police Establishment in the State (Section 6).Now, so far as the first two conditions are concerned, they have been complied with and the requisite material is on record of the case.A notification required to be issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Delhi Act specifying offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as also under several other Acts has been issued on September 7, 1989 and has been placed by the respondent on record along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by M.C. Sahni, Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bhopal.The said notification covers inter alia, the offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474, 511, IPC.Likewise, the Central Govenrment passed an order on February 18, 1963 as contemplated by Section 5 of the Delhi Act extending the powers and jurisdiction of the members of Special Police Establishment to various States including the State of Madhya Pradesh for the investigation of offences specified in the Schedule annexed to the said schedule.The Schedule specifies various offences under IPC including the offences referred to hereinabove, offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act and various other enactments.Thus, Section 3 and 5 of the Delhi Act have been complied with.The question, therefore, which has to be considered is whether the consent contemplated by Section 6 of the Delhi Act has been given by the State Government.According to the appellant, no such consent has been given by the State of Madhya Pradesh.A copy of the letter addressed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Madhya Pradesh to the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi has been placed on record by the appellant, which reads thus;"ToThe Secretary,Ministry of Home Affairs,Govt.of India,New Delhi.Bhopal, dated 5th February, 1957Sub: Consent of the State Government to the functioning of the Special Police Establishment in the State.Sir, In continuation of this department letter No. 20/12(II)/Home Police dated the 29th December, 1956 on the above subject, I am directed to state that this State Government have no objection to the members of the Delhi State Police Establishment exercising powers and jurisdiction within this state.Yours faithfully, Sd/-R.N. MISHRA Deputy Secretary to the Govt.J U D G M E N TCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 491 OF 2008ARISING OUT OFSPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 1125 OF 2007C.K. THAKKER, J.1. Leave granted.on January 2, 2007 in Criminal Revision No. 176A preliminary inquiry was instituted and on being prima facie satisfied about the allegations levelled, the Secretary, UPSC, lodged a Criminal Case against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 420, 471, 474, 467, 468 and 417 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).A charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Special Magistrate, Central Bureau of Investigation ('CBI' for short), Indore.The learned Magistrate, by an order dated December 17, 2002 rejected the preliminary objection.Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred Revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Indore Bench), and as stated above, the High Court dismissed the Revision Petition.The said order is challenged by the appellant by filing the present appeal.On March 8, 2007, notice was issued by this Court.On August 6, 2007, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing.That is how the matter has been placed before us.We have heard learned counsel for the parties.The learned counsel for the appellant raised several contentions.The order, however, contains all such information.The deponent has annexed the order as one of the annexures (Annexure IV) to his reply and the same reads thus;ToThe District Magistrate,Surat.Subject :- Preventive Detention Act, 1950 - Review of detention orders issued under the -Reference your letter No. Pol.1187/P, dated the 23rd February, 1951, on the subject noted above.In accordance with section 9 of the Preventive Detention Act, 1950, the case of detenu Shri Dattatreya Moreshwar Pangarkar was placed before the Advisory Board which has reported that there is sufficient cause for his detention.Government is accordingly pleased to confirm the detention order issued against the detenu.The order of removal was upheld by the High Court.Against the said order, he preferred an appeal to the State Government.He, however, submitted an advance copy to the Revenue Minister of Pepsu.The Minister called for the record of the case immediately and wrote on the file that instead of dismissal, he should be reverted to his original post of Qanungo.On the next day, the State of Pepsu merged in the State of Punjab.After the merger, the file was put up before the Revenue Minister of Punjab who remarked that the charges were serious and put up a note: "C.M. may kindly advise".The Chief Minister opined that the order of dismissal should be maintained.The said order was then communicated to the appellant who challenged it by filing a petition in the High Court which was dismissed.The appellant approached this Court.It was, inter alia, contended by the appellant that the order passed by the Revenue Minister of Pepsu reducing punishment from dismissal to reversion could not have been reviewed by the successor Government.The record revealed that there was noting by the Revenue Minister of Pepsu.Whether the noting could be said to be 'remarks' or 'order' but it was not in dispute that it was never formally communicated to the appellant apart from the fact that it was not expressed in the name of Governor.Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister."According to learned counsel for the appellant his appeal pertains to the department which was in charge of the Revenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal with it.The High Court upheld the contention.CBI approached this Court.The appeal, hence, deserves to be dismissed and we accordingly do so.The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,435,235 |
C. C. as per rules.(S.K. GANGELE) sh JUDGE e ad pb Pr a hy Digitally signed by PRASHANT ad BAGJILEWALE Date: 2018.05.08 03:33:59 -07'00' M of rt ou C h ig HTHE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-15038-2018 (SAKHARAM Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH) 2 Jabalpur, Dated : 04-05-2018 Shri Durgesh Pandy, counsel for the applicants.Shri B.P. Pandey, Govt. Adv.for the State.Shri Amit Jain, counsel for the objector.sh Perused the case diary.This is first application under Section 438 of Cr. P. C. for e ad grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants, as they are under apprehension of their arrest in connection of Crime No.60/2017, Pr registered at Police Station Timarni District Harda for commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 409 and a 120-B of IPC.hy Earlier the applicants were granted anticipatory bail by the ad trial Court vide order dated 04.04.2017 for commission of offence punishable under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC.Subsequently, M Section 409 of IPC has been added by the prosecution hence, the of applicants filed another application for grant of anticipatory bail before the trial Court.ou During the period 2011-12 to 2015-16 Societies purchased wheat from farmers on support price fixed by the Government.C Audit of the Society was conducted and no irregularity was found.h Subsequently, complaints were made that a loss to the different ig Societies was caused.Thereafter, special audit was conducted H and an offence under Section 420 and 120-B of IPC was registered.Accused persons were granted anticipatory bail by the trial Court.Subsequently, Section 409 of IPC has been added.Section 405 prescribes Criminal breach of trust.Prima facie, the offence of Criminal breach of trust appears to be suspicious.Applicants were granted anticipatory bail.They are on bail and they have not misused the liberty.In this view of the matter, and looking to the nature of allegation and evidence, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, application is allowed.It is directed that at the event of arrest of the applicants in respect of the aforesaid crime, on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) by each of the applicant along with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating officer, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail.The applicants are directed to cooperate with the investigating agency.They will further abide by the conditions enumerated in sub-Section 2 of Section 438 of Cr. P. C.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,446,383 |
BRIJESH SETHI, J (ORAL)Vide this order, I shall dispose of an anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner Ramesh Kakar under section 438 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C.in FIR No. 537/2018 u/s. 420/34 IPC, PS Karol Bagh.Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.1 of 8Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail on the ground that petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated.He is a senior citizen, aged about 61 years.It is submitted that complainant Ajay Khurana has lodged the present FIR on the basis of false story and on fabricated documents dated 05.01.2017 i.e. Agreement to Sell prepared by him on a blank signed paper.Counsel has submitted that it is alleged against the petitioner that during the period of demonetization, the complainant had given Rs. 90,00,000/- in cash for purchase of property in question against total consideration amount of Rs. 2 Crore.It is submitted that at that time it was impossible to pay an amount of Rs. 90,00,000/-in cash.In fact, the complainant is in the business of financing money namely M/S Honey Portfolio and complainant had taken signed cheques and is misusing the same to extort money now.It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that it is reflected from the status report that the stamp paper on which the agreement to sell has been made was purchased by the complainant Mr. Ajay Khurana.However, the stamp paper vendor who was Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.2 of 8 examined in this regard has stated that he does not keep any separate record as to who has purchased the stamp paper.Statement of one of the witness to the agreement to sell namely Sh.Satinder Pal Narula has also been recorded.The said agreement to sell was shown to him.He has clearly stated that he was a regular visitor to the company namely Honey Portfolio.One day, the complainant had called him in his office and asked him to sign on a paper stating that he was getting his car transferred and he required his reference for the same.It is further submitted that petitioner was first granted interim protection vide order dated 31.05.2019 and thereafter the matter was referred to the Mediation Centre.Later on, the interim protection was granted to the petitioner on the basis of settlement.It is further submitted that there is an apprehension that police may arrest the petitioner in present FIR bearing no. 537/2018 who is Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.3 of 8 innocent and falsely implicated.He is ready to join the investigation as and when required and in these circumstances, it is prayed that he be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest.The anticipatory bail application is opposed by the Ld. APP for the State and Ld.Counsel for the complainant on the ground that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.Custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the alleged amount.APP has, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the anticipatory bail application.I have considered the rival submissions.Complainant Ajay Khurana had filed a complaint on 24.12.2018 at PS Karol Bagh alleging that petitioner Ramesh Kakar and his son Akhil Kakar persuaded him to purchase property bearing no. A-4/73, Priyarshini Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi for an amount of Rs. 2 Crores registered in the name of petitioner Ramesh Kakar.Complainant paid a sum of Rs. 90 lakhs in five instalments against receipts and an Agreement to Sell dated 05.01.2017 was executed between the complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar.It was also Bail Appl.However later on, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the property in question does not belong to the petitioner and accordingly, the present FIR bearing no. 537/2018 was registered.During the course of investigation, it was found that the alleged property does not belong to any of the accused persons.The case was settled in Mediation Centre and it was reflected in the order dated 27.08.2019 and on the said ground, interim order was continued.The said order dated 27.08.2019 runs as under:-Copy has been given to learned APP.Ld. APP for the State seeks time to verify the same.Interim order to continue."Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.5 of 8Perusal of record, thus, reveals that the matter was amicably resolved vide settlement deed dated 24th August, 2019 arrived at between complainant and petitioner Ramesh Kakar.Thus, as per the settlement dated 24.08.2019, it was agreed that on clearance/payment of first instalment of Rs. 30,00,000/- both the parties shall pray to the court to grant anticipatory bail to Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.6 of 8 petitioner and his son Akhil Kakar.APP, the complainant has receipts regarding payment of the said amount.As per status report filed by the investigating agency, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the alleged amount.It has further come on record that petitioner and other co- accused are not the actual owner of the property in question.Prime facie, it bears the signature of both the parties and there are no reasons to doubt the authenticity of the same at the stage of bail.Moreover, it Bail Appl.no. 1229/2019 Page no.7 of 8 is also surprising that though the petitioner has challenged the genuineness of agreement to sell and has alleged it to be forged and fabricated but even at the same time he has entered into a settlement deed dated 24.8.2019 regarding the present FIR which is based upon agreement to sell.Though, the petitioner has backed out from the said settlement stating that it was signed under coercion, however, as stated earlier, at this stage, a mini trial cannot be conducted to find out whether the Agreement to sell is forged or fabricated or settlement deed was signed under coercion.In view of the above discussion and keeping in mind the fact that complainant has been cheated for a huge amount and the petitioner after the settlement has backed out from the same and custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to recover the amount, no grounds for anticipatory bail are made out.The anticipatory bail application is, therefore, dismissed and stands disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,714,557 |
Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: One Mohan Delkar had contested the election for the post of M.P. onbehalf of B.J.P. On 6/3/1998, while one Uttam Patel contested the saidelection on behalf of Shiv Sena in Dadra and Nagar Haveli Constituency.During the said election Uttam Patel was defeated and Mohan Delkar wonthe election.After declaration of the said election results, there wereincidents of violence and 'shop premises' of Shiv Sena workers weredestroyed by the workers of Mohan Delkar.The car of Dr. Gulab Patel(P.W.5) who was the main supporter of Uttam Patel was also destroyed bythe supporters of Mohan Delkar.Some of the present accused were alsoinvolved in the said incident of burning the car.It is further case of theprosecution that during the election period, complainant KumarShanmugam, the owner of the hotel used to serve eatables to the workers ofUttam Patel, Shiv Sena candidate for M.P. A threat was also given to saidKumar Shanmugam for the same by the supporters of Mohan Delkar.On the fateful day i.e. on 7/6/1998 at about 10.15 a.m., 10 to 12persons came in two rickshaws and entered in the hotel of KumarShanmugam after breaking the glass of windows.The customers who weresitting in the hotel went running towards the kitchen and one of thecustomers closed the shutter of the rear side.The complainant Shanmugam 2 was inside the kitchen while the hotel manager Virendra Choudhary wassitting on the counter and other employees namely Vasu Pillai (P.W.12) andKumar Ganpati (P.W.15) were in the main hall.The assailants were armedwith sword, Iron bar, hockey sticks etc. As the complainant KumarShanmugam was not found there, they assaulted the other employeespresent there.His employees particularly Virendra Choudhary and VasuPillai were severely beaten and sustained serious injuries.Meanwhile, thecomplainant Kumar Shanmugam contacted Dr. Gulab Patel (P.W.5) onphone and requested him to inform the police and to arrange for vehicle.The complainant Kumar Shanmugam (P.W.11) simultaneously contactedControl Room for help.Then Dr. Gulab Patel (P.W.5) arranged vehicle andsent two friends namely Shri Aslam Khutliwala (P.W.3) and RonaldCouttho (P.W.I8) in Maruti car.In view of the serious conditions, Choudhary and VasuPillai were shifted to Handa hospital at Vapi.Virendra Choudhary who wasunconscious since beginning was then taken to civil hospital, Surat.Meanwhile on the basis of FIR Exh. 54 offence came to be registeredunder Cr.No.1-171/98 initially for attempt to murder and rioting.Then as 3 per the direction of P.S.I. Manoj Patel (P.W.22) the investigation was takenover by P.S.I. Rohit (P.W.23).On the same day the statements of certainwitnesses were recorded.Some of the accused namely accused no.2, 5, 6 and 7 came to be arrested on 8/6/1998 at the hands of P.S.I. ManojPatel.On 13/6/1998, when these accused were under the police custody,certain weapons including sword and wooden places of handle of Tikamwere recovered from them pursuant to their statement under section 27 ofthe Indian Evidence Act., 1872 (in short `Evidence Act').Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of theBombay High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellantquestioning the correctness of the judgment rendered by learned SessionsJudge, Dadra And Nagar Haveli and Silvassa in Sessions Case No.24/1999.The appeal was filed on the ground that acquittal as recorded was uncalledfor.It appears that being not satisfied by the investigation of the LocalPolice, the complainant Kumar Shanmugam had filed Writ Petition bearingNo.6904/98, in the Bombay High Court making grievances for not arresting 4 the accused nos. 1, 3 and 4 in spite of their names appearing in the FIR.TheHigh Court vide its order dated 16/9/1998 transferred the investigation ofthe case to C.B.I. In pursuance of the directions, Dy.S.P. Sinha (P.W.28)took charge of the matter in the middle of October, 1998 and the case wasre-registered under RC.C(S)/98-SCN-II/DLI in a Special Branch ofC.B.I. under Sections 302, 307, 506 read with 149 of I.P.C. etc. Then hewith the assistance of other officers recorded statements of some morewitnesses including Dr. Gulab Patel (P.W.5), Aslam Khutliwala (P.W.3),besides supplementary statement of complainant Kumar Shanmugam(P.W.11), Vasu Pillai (P.W.12), Kumar Ganpati (P.W.15).After completing the investigationcharge sheet was filed against 12 persons including accused Nos. 1 to 9 on23-10-1999 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Silvassa.The Chief Judicial Magistrate in turn committed the case for trial toCourt of Sessions.During the pendency of the trial a bail application cameto be filed by some accused.Directions were given for expeditious hearingof the trial.After recording the evidence of 3 to 4 witnesses during thecourse of trial, a Writ Petition was filed on behalf of the complainant to 5 transfer the venue of trial to Mumbai apprehending danger to the life of thewitnesses.With consent of both the parties, the High Court directedSessions Court to hold a sitting at Bombay for recording the evidence.Accordingly most of the evidence was recorded at Mumbai.Nine persons faced trial for alleged commission of offencespunishable under Sections 120B, 143, 147, 148, 302, 307, 323, 324, 427,506(II) read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the`IPC').After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed and accusedpersons faced trial as they pleaded innocence.By order dated 29.9.2000,learned Sessions Judge held that the accused persons 1 to 4 were guilty, andconvicted each for the offences punishable under Section 147 and Section302 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment forlife and fine.Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were also found and convicted foroffence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC.Similarwas the position in respect of offence punishable under Section 324 readwith Section 149 IPC, Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC, 427 read withSection 149 IPC, 453 read with Section 149 IPC and 506(II) read withSection 149 IPC.Each was also convicted for the offence punishable underSection 148 IPC.6 After dealing with various offences purported to have been madeagainst accused Nos. 1 to 4 the trial Court found them guilty and imposedsentences.Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were acquitted of the charges relating toSection 120B IPC.Accused Nos. 5 to 9 the present respondents were foundnot guilty and were acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.Aggrieved by the order of learned Sessions Judge, the appellant filed anappeal before the High Court challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos. 1 to4 for offence punishable under Section 120B IPC and accused Nos. 5 to 9from all the charges.The High Court dismissed the appeal and observed asfollows:"Heard counsel for the parties.On the basis of the material on record, the conclusion reached by the trial Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.In fact the view taken by the trial Court is a possible reasonable view on the evidence on record.This appeal is therefore dismissed."According to the learned counsel for the appellant the appeal is stillpending so far as the appeal filed by accused persons 1 to 4 is concerned.By 7 a cryptic and practically non-reasoned order the High Court has dismissedthe appeal.Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the High Courtfound the evidence to be not believable so far as the present respondents areconcerned and therefore was justified in dismissing the appeal.It is to be noted that the High Court has simply referred to theconclusion of the trial Court to come to a conclusion that the same cannotbe termed to be unreasonable or perverse.It is pointed out that no findingwas recorded so far as the other four accused persons are concerned, and inany event the accused Nos. 1 to 4 have questioned their conviction andappeal is pending.It is to be noted that investigation by CBI was directed as theinvestigation by the local police was found to be not fair.The appeal hasbeen dismissed so far as the present respondents are concerned, by holdingthat it was a possible view.There was no discussion as to why it is so.The appeal filed by the present appellant also related 8 to the acquittal of accused Nos. 1 to 4 of the charges relating to Section120B IPC.That being so, the order of the High Court is also not maintainable.Accordingly, we setaside the impugned order and remit the matter to the High Court for freshconsideration.The appeal shall be taken up along with the appeal filed bythe convicted accused persons...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ..........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)New Delhi,October 15, 2008 9 10
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,230,589 |
3] In brief, it is alleged in the FIR by respondent no.2 that, the applicant and respondent no.2 are resident of the same village.Respondent no.2 was working as Nurse in the Priti Deshpande Hospital, Anandibazar, Ahmednagar.She started residing at Mudgalwada, Nalegaon.The applicant, whose mobile Number is 7720006373, used to call respondent no.2 on her mobile Nos.9623579403 and 9767340577, and used to tell her that he loves her.It is alleged that on 22nd December, 2015, at 7.00 p.m. the applicant came to meet respondent no.2 at Sidhi Baug,::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.Thereafter, he left Ahmednagar and went to his native place.Again he came at Ahmednagar on 25th December, 2015, and respondent no.2 was called at Delhi Gate, and on his motorbike the applicant took respondent no.2 to Chandbibi Mahal and promised her that, the applicant will marry with her.However, she should not tell to her family members and respondent no.2 gave consent for such marriage.Thereafter, the applicant caught hold her and took selfie in his mobile.Thereafter, he left respondent no.2 at Ahmednagar and he left for Pune.4] It is further alleged that in the month of March, 2016, the applicant came at Kedgaon, Ahmednagar, and stayed in Nisha Lodge.Thereafter, the applicant took respondent no.2 to Pimpri Chinchwad, Pune, and also performed sex with her.In the year 2016, respondent no.2 suspected that, she is pregnant, and after ascertaining that she is pregnant, she informed the applicant.On 9th June, 2016, the applicant called her at Bhugaon Lawasa Phata, Pune, and in Inamdar Hospital, terminated the pregnancy; informing the said Hospital that the applicant and respondent no.2 are the husband and wife.Reserved on : 31.01.2019 Pronounced on : 05.02.2019 JUDGMENT: [Per S.S.Shinde, J.]: 1] Heard.Rule made returnable forthwith, and heard finally with the consent of the parties.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::Respondent no.2 was called by the applicant at the said Lodge, and one night::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 4 they stayed there.On the said night, by giving promise of marriage, the applicant without consent of respondent no.2, forcibly committed rape twice.On next day morning, he left her at Delhi Gate and went to Pune.Thereafter, he used to come at Nisha Lodge frequently, and used to call her for sexual intercourse.When respondent no.2 asked the applicant in the month of January, 2017, to perform marriage, the applicant started avoiding.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::WP 5 Again the applicant called respondent no.2 on 6th and 7th November, 2017, at Omega Hotel, Pune, and performed sex with her.During the said night, there was one call to the applicant.Respondent no.2 enquired the applicant about the said call, when the applicant informed her that, the said call was by one Usha, a girl selected by his parents for performing marriage with him.Then respondent no.2 told the applicant that the applicant was to marry her.Then the applicant started quarreling with her and told respondent no.2 that, he would not solemnize / perform marriage with her.Thereafter, respondent no.2 came to Ahmednagar and went to the place of her parents that the applicant is not ready to marry with her.Thereafter, respondent no.2 along with her parents went to the house of the applicant, however, the parents of the applicant stated that already the marriage of::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 6 the applicant is fixed with some other girl.Thereafter, with intervention of the relatives and well wishers, respondent no.2 tried to convince the applicant to perform the marriage, however, the applicant refused to marry.Therefore, respondent no.2 lodged the FIR, alleging that during the period of 22nd December, 2015 to 7th November, 2017, the applicant, by giving promise of marriage, without consent of respondent no.2, committed sex, and as a result respondent no.2 became pregnant, and subsequently, the said pregnancy was terminated.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::5] It is the case of the applicant that the applicant and respondent no.2 have settled the dispute amicably, and respondent no.2 has given consent for quashing the FIR.Respondent no.2 has no grievance for quashing such FIR, since they have resolved their dispute.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::State of Rajasthan & another in Criminal Misc.Petition No.2556 of 2016 [Rajasthan High Court], decided on 24th July, 2015, and submits that the Application may be allowed.7] Respondent no.2 has filed affidavit and also additional affidavit, stating therein that the applicant and respondent no.2 have agreed to settle their dispute amicably, and to that effect the consent terms are placed on record.It is stated that the applicant and respondent no.2 have no grievance against each other.They do not have claim against each other.1. 2012 (10) SC Page 303;2. 2014 AIR SCW 2065::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 9 Bench [Coram : Naresh H. Patil & Prakash D. Naik, JJ.] at Principal Seat at Bombay, in the case of Mohammad Faizan Amir Khan Vs.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::Having stated the aforesaid, ordinarily we would have proceeded to record our formal conclusion, but, an extremely pertinent and pregnant one, another aspect in the context of this case warrants to be addressed.As it seems to us the learned Single Judge has been influenced by the compromise that has been entered into between the accused and the parents of the victim as the victim was a minor.The learned trial Judge had rejected the said application on the ground that the offence was not::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::WP 12 additional burden on the victim.The accused may use all his influence to pressurise her for a compromise.So, in the interest of justice and to avoid unnecessary pressure/harassment to the victim, it would not be safe in considering the compromise arrived at] between the parties in rape cases to be a ground for the Court to exercise the discretionary power under the proviso of Section 376 (2) IPC."::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::The aforesaid view was expressed while dealing with the imposition of sentence.We would like to clearly state that in a case of rape or attempt of rape, the conception of compromise under no circumstances can really be thought of.These are crimes against the body of a woman which is her own temple.These are offences which suffocate the breath of life and sully the reputation.And::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 13 reputation, needless to emphasise, is the richest jewel one can conceive of in life.No one would allow it to be extinguished.When a human frame is defiled, the "purest treasure", is lost.Dignity of a woman is a part of her non- perishable and immortal self and no one should ever think of painting it in clay.There cannot be a compromise or settlement as it would be against her honour which matters the most.Or to put it::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::"Respect for reputation of women in the society shows the basic civility of a civilised society.It should be paramount in everyones mind that, on the one hand, society as a whole cannot preach from the pulpit about social, economic and political equality of the sexes and, on the other, some perverted members of the same society dehumanise the woman by attacking her body and ruining her chastity.WP 17 (supra), a two-Judge Bench taking note of the fact that there was a compromise has opined thus:-::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::invoking the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC for awarding lesser sentence, as the incident is 20 years old and the fact that the parties are married and have entered into a compromise, are the adequate and special reasons.Therefore, although we::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 18 uphold the conviction of the appellant but reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellant.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::We are not inclined to quash the impugned FIR on the basis of alleged settlement.The Division Bench [Coram : Naresh H. Patil & Prakash D. Naik, JJ.] at::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 19 Principal Seat, in the case of Mohammad Faizan Amir Khan Vs.The State of Maharashtra & others in Criminal Writ Petition No.1721 of 2016, in similar facts situation, in para 8 and 9 held thus:::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::WP 20 No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the Court.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::The factual aspects of the FIR fortified by the conduct of the accused and subsequent events, are sufficient to decline the prayers made in this petition.The observations made herein are only for the purpose of deciding the present petition.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::Madanlal [supra], and in::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 ::: 1810.18Cri.WP 23 the case of Gian Singh [supra], and the factual aspects of the present case, we are not inclined to allow the Application and quash the FIR on the basis of alleged settlement.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::13] An observations made herein above are only for the purpose of deciding the present Petition.::: Uploaded on - 06/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2019 23:48:16 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,318,046 |
When the deceased Zahiruddin came to know about the said conduct of Masook, father of the accused 1 to 6, he went and protested by questioning him as to how for the grazing of the maize crop by the goat belonging to Masook, the son of the deceased could be held in captivity.The said protest raised by deceased Zahiruddin was not liked by Masook and both stated to have abused each other.Pursuant to the said incident, on 05.09.1997 at about 3.00 pm, all the appellants-accused armed with country-made gun (Addhi) as well as country-made pistols and the first accused holding his gun, entered the house of the deceased where P.Ws.1 to 3 were conversing with the deceased, Zahiruddin and made indiscriminate firing towards the deceased and the other persons.The deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 stated to have sustained firearm injuries and they raised alarm pursuant to which others rushed to the spot.The appellants stated to have escaped from the scene of occurrence after giving further threats.The crime was registered as Crime No.397/97, as was evident from the G.D. entry Ext.The Investigating Officer P.W.6 stated to have recorded the statement of the deceased Zahiruddin purportedly under Section 161 Cr.The injured along with the deceased stated to have been sent to the hospital where the injured persons including the deceased were examined by the doctor.The deceased Zahiruddin died on the next day, i.e. on 06.09.1997 at 3:30 pm.P.W.4 Dr. Irfan Ahmad was the doctor who conducted the postmortem and issued the postmortem certificate.When we come to the other question as to whether there was any controversy relating to the place of occurrence in order to doubt the case of the prosecution, Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants contended that in the FIR the complainant P.W.1 himself stated that he came later and that the incident took place in his house; that the staircase in the house was leading upto the first floor; that the place where the incident took place was a narrow one; that he was not certain as to whether all the accused opened fire or one or two alone opened fire; that the firing took place only for a minute; that when the accused entered the place P.Ws.2 and 3, as well as the deceased were facing north and that in another place he stated that the deceased was present on the roof and that no pellets were seen on the wall, nor any empty cartridge was recovered.This house was three storied.The I.O. has shown 1st floor, 2nd floor and 3rd floor in his site plan, meaning thereby, technically speaking, the ground floor has been shown as 1st floor and 1st floor as 2nd floor and 2nd floor as 3rd floor.Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.This appeal by the eight accused who were proceeded against in Crime No.397/97 in Sessions Case No.35/1998 in the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Kannauj, were charged and convicted for offences falling under Section 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149, as well as for offences under Sections 452, 148 and 147 IPC.The charge-sheet was Ext.P.W.2, the wife of the deceased suffered two injuries, while P.W.3, the niece of the deceased, suffered one injury.The deceased suffered as many as eight injuries.It was in evidence that all the injuries were due to gun shots.The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station was stated to be 20 kilometers.All the injured were examined by the doctor by 5:45 pm to 6.10 pm on 05.09.1997 itself.It is in the evidence of P.W.5, postmortem doctor that based on the injuries noted on the body of the deceased it could be stated that he was capable of speaking in spite of the injuries sustained by him.Based on the evidence before the trial Court and the incriminating circumstances existed against the appellants, they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and all the appellants denied their involvement and stated that due to animosity the evidence had been adduced against them.It was also stated that all of them belong to one and the same family.They did not choose to let in any evidence in support of their defence.It is in the above-stated background the conviction and sentence came to be imposed by the trial Court, which was also affirmed by the High Court in toto.Assailing the judgment impugned, Mr. Jaspal Singh, learned senior counsel for the appellants after taking us through the relevant evidence on record, as well as the judgments impugned before us submitted that the presence of P.W.1 in the place of occurrence was doubtful; that there were prevaricating statements by the witnesses about the exact place of occurrence; that there were grave doubts as to whether all the accused opened fire or only few of them; that having regard to the position in which P.Ws.2, 3 and deceased were placed at the time of occurrence the occurrence could not have been witnessed by the said so called eye- witnesses as narrated by them and that though only fire shot injuries were said to have been caused, not even a single pellet or an empty cartridge was recovered from the scene of occurrence.According to the learned senior counsel, there were serious doubts as to whether the postmortem report related to the body of the deceased.The learned senior counsel also contended that the accused were not questioned with reference to the so called dying declaration of the deceased in the 313 questioning.The learned senior counsel, therefore, contended that all the above factors created lot of doubts as to the factum of the occurrence, as well as the crime and that in any event the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be said to have been made out and at best it may fall under Section 304 Part I or II and that Section 148 will not apply.According to him, if at all the accused had any grievance it could have been only against Shamshuddin, but certainly none had any object to kill Zahiruddin, the deceased.As against the above submissions, Mr. Aarohi Bhalla, learned counsel for the State by referring to the judgment of the trial Court contended that after a detailed consideration of the stand of the appellants, the trial Court was able to conclude with all certainty about the place of occurrence and, therefore, the said submission made on behalf of the appellants do not merit any consideration.According to the learned State counsel, the family of P.W.1 and the deceased were only living in two different portions of the same building and, therefore, the submission raising doubts about the place of occurrence does not merit any consideration.6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having bestowed our serious consideration to the various submissions made before us, we find that the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants raise the following questions for consideration, namely:- I. Whether the reliance placed upon by the High Court on Ext.Ka-9, the recorded statement of the deceased Zahiruddin, which was relied upon by the High Court as a dying declaration and the confirmation of the conviction on that basis was justified?Whether there was any controversy relating to the place of occurrence in order to doubt the case of the prosecution?Whether there was any doubt about the death of the deceased as submitted on behalf of the appellants?The motive for the offence was stated to be the grazing of maize crop by the goat belonging to the father of the appellants-accused 1 to 6 and the grand- father of appellant-accused 8 in the field of the deceased seven days prior to the date of occurrence.Admittedly, all the accused were closely related.Most of them belong to one family, namely, Masook.Even in the evidence nothing was stated to have been brought out in order to reject the said case pleaded by the prosecution.As regards the presence of the deceased and the other injured witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 and 3 in the police station at the instance of P.W.1 who was also an eye-witness to the occurrence, was also not seriously disputed.We also find that the occurrence, which was stated to have taken place at 3.00 pm on 05.09.1997, was brought to the notice of the police without further loss of time, which was located about 20 kilometers away from the place of occurrence.There was also no serious argument raised as regards the registration of the FIR relating to the occurrence.The injury reports Ext.Ka- 3, Ext.Ka-4 and Ext.Ka-2 of the deceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3, read along with the evidence of P.W.4 Dr. Irfan Ahmad, sufficiently establish the nature of injuries sustained by all the three of them.Ka-9 the statement of the deceased recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by P.W.6 at the police station when he was in the injured condition immediately after the incident, disclose the specific overt act against the appellants- accused as revealed by the deceased himself.It is true that the trial Court declined to rely upon the said statement by treating it as a dying declaration, while the High Court fully relied upon the said statement as a dying declaration of the deceased.In that respect certain other factors, which are relevant to be stated are that the deceased was 45 years old at the time of his death, as noted by P.W.4 Dr. Irfan Ahmad.P.W.5, Dr. P.V.S. Chauhan, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased, in the course of the cross-examination, categorically stated that because of the injury it cannot be concluded that the injured was unconscious and was not able to speak.He further stated that after getting the injuries in the brain it is not necessary that the injured would immediately go to coma stage and that it cannot be definitely stated within which time a person would reach the state of coma.It is also relevant to state that it has come in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that the families of the deceased Zahiruddin, as well as his brother P.W.1 were living in the same premises in two different portions.The presence of P.W.3, the niece of the deceased Zahiruddin, at the place and time of occurrence has also been sufficiently stated and corroborated by all the three witnesses.Keeping the above factors in mind when we examine the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, as far as the reliance placed upon by the High Court in the impugned judgment on Ext.Ka-9 by treating it as a dying declaration, the High Court has noted the details mentioned in the said exhibit by extracting the same in the judgment impugned, which is to the following effect:βOn the west side of my house, there is field of corn crop wherein 7 days prior to today i.e. 5.9.97, the goats of my co-villager Massok s/o Altaf had entered.My younger son Ezaz, aged 7 years had caught goat and was taking the same away on which Massok had freed the goat and started to take away my son, on which we came to know and I asked him not to do so that you are making the goat to eat the crop and simultaneously you are taking my son also away, it is not the right thing, on which they hurled abuses.Today on 5.9.97 I was sitting in the verandah of my house that suddenly around 3 oβclock Rauf, Ishtiyaq, Ataullah, Ayub, Pauva alias Pappu, Latif sons of Massok, Nisar s/o Farukh and Karim s/o Rauf came there out of them Latif was carrying Adhi and Rauf was carrying desi gun and others were carrying tamancha, and they came to my house climbing the stairs, my brother Shamsuddin, my wife Zabira and Mushtaqβs daughter Shehnaz also present there.All the accused persons after arriving started firing indiscriminately on myself and my family members with an intention to kill us, on sustaining injuries I fell down on the ground and my wife and Shehnaz d/o Mushtaq also sustained pellet injuries.Then we raised alarm, hearing the same Shamsuddin, who had gone out of the house and Mushtaq s/o Defendar and Majeed s/o Panna came there and challenged the accused persons on which the accused persons went away towards their house.The accused persons were threatening of dire consequences.The accused persons had fired from close distance.I have sustained grievous injuries on different part of my body.My voice is becoming unclear, and my brother Shamsuddin has brought me to Thana on jeep.βThe said statement refers to the incident, which took place seven days prior to the date of occurrence, which formed the motive for the occurrence.It also refers to the presence of all the accused on 05.09.1997 at 3 Oβclock in his house and the arms, which were in their possession.It also mentions the presence of P.Ws.1 to 3 at that time.It also refers to the alarm raised by P.W.2 and the rushing in of Mushtaq s/o Defendar and Majeed s/o Panna pursuant to which the appellants- accused went away after making further threats against the victim.Finally, it was stated that he was taken to the police station by his brother P.W.1 in a Jeep.The important question for consideration, therefore, is whether the said statement made by the deceased can be taken as a dying declaration and reliance can be placed upon the same.The High Court while relying upon the said statement has noted certain circumstances, namely, the evidence of P.W.6, Investigating Officer, who deposed that the deceased was fully conscious when he was brought to the police station with injuries on his face, chest and other parts of the body and that he recorded his statement.It was also noted that after recording his statement the Investigating Officer referred him to the hospital for medical examination and treatment.The High Court, thereafter, noted the evidence of P.W.5 the postmortem doctor who categorically stated in his cross-examination that the injured was also in a position to speak and that it was not necessary that in all cases after sustaining injury in the brain a person cannot retain his conscience or will not be in a position to speak.The High Court noted the further statement of the doctor that it is not necessary that in every such case the patient would immediately go to a coma stage.The High Court, therefore, reached a conclusion that the deceased Zahiruddin, was in a position to speak and that the statement under Ext.Ka-9 was given by him who expired on the next day evening.The author Phipson in his 9th Ed., of the book on Evidence made the following observations:"......The deceased then signed a statement implicating the prisoner, but which was not elicited by question and answer, and died on MarchIn the High Court the so called contradictions referred to on behalf of the appellants were considered in detail in the following paragraphs and ultimately rejected by stating as under: βMuch emphasis was laid on the contradictions regarding place of occurrence.According to the prosecution case, the incident took place in the verandah of the house.Some contradictory statements have been given by the eyewitnesses regarding the situation of verandah.The I.O. prepared the site plan, Ext.Ka-6, in which he has marked the place of occurrence by letter βXβ.From letter βAβ the accused persons had made fire, at place βPβ he got the pellets and from place A-1, L, B, the witnesses had seen the occurrence.Ka-6, the place of occurrence was the third floor of the house.There was also misunderstanding between eyewitnesses regarding narration of the storeyes of the house.The witnesses were the illiterate rustic villagers who did not know the difference between storey and floor.The ground floor is narrated as 1st storey or 1st floor.We are of the opinion that the I.O. had made negligence in preparing site plan and did not show important things in it.For example, he has not shown the house of PW-1 Shamshuddin in the site plan.He has also not described in the site plan that the 2nd and 3rd storey of the house was in the level of agricultural field situate towards west or the ground floor or 1st floor was situate on the low level of the agricultural field situate towards west or the ground floor or 1st floor was situate on the low level of the agricultural field situate towards west.PW-1 Shamshuddin, the real brother of the deceased has stated in his cross-examination that the house of the deceased was three storeyed.There was a βZeenaβ in the second storey of the house but there was no βZeenaβ in the 2nd storey.Further he has stated that in the 3rd storey there were three rooms and verandah but later on he has stated that three rooms and verandah were situated in the 2nd storey and in the 3rd storey there were two rooms and one verandah, in which the incident took place.Further, he has stated that βZeenaβ was present on the second storey of the house from where the accused persons entered the Verandah.PW-2 Smt. Zabira has stated in her cross-examination that the third storey of the house was in the level of agricultural field situate towards west.Further, she has stated that the incident had taken place in the 3rd storey of the house.PW-3 Smt. Shahnaz has stated in her cross-examination that in the second storey of the house there was no room but it was in the shape of verandah.Further, she has stated that the incident had taken place in the 2nd storey of the house.Further, she has stated that the βZeenaβ was situate in the 2nd storey of the house, which was in the level of the agricultural field situate towards west.The learned Trial Court has made a detailed discussion over the said contradictions and he has given a finding that due to illiteracy and rustic background some contradictions have come in their statements.The I.O. found blood in the βVerandahβ of the third storey.He also found some pellets there.He had prepared memo Ext.It is also said that the incient had taken place in the βVerandahβ of the third storey of the house.PW-2 Smt. Zabira has clearly stated in her cross- examination that at the time of the incident all the injured were sitting in the βVerandahβ of the third storey.Thus, the place of occurrence was not doubtful.βHaving considered the various facts noted by the Trial Court and approved by the High Court in dealing with the above submissions, we hold that the said submission does not impress upon us in order to interfere with the judgment impugned in this appeal.The said question is also, therefore, answered against the appellants.The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether there was any doubt about the death of the deceased, as submitted on behalf of the appellants.The learned counsel made further reference to Ext.We should also state that nothing was put to the above said witnesses with reference to those alleged doubts relating to the death of the deceased Zahiruddin.The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,323,499 |
After her marriage they were residing at village Pinjar in Akola District.DATE : 12.02.2014 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)The appellant-accused no.1 seeks to challenge his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498 A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to as "the Penal Code" for short) vide judgment dated 21.9.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge - 2, Akola.The appellant was running an electronic shop in the said village.On ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 ::: apeal594.10.odt 2 24.4.2008, the appellant and his wife had been to Amravati for attending the marriage of Nazia's cousin sister.Nazia stayed at Amravati after attending said marriage.On 12.5.2008, the parents had been to Amravati to bring his wife back.On the next day, Nazia had told her brother and mother that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/- for his electronic shop.Nazia's mother collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- and paid the same to the appellant.On 14.5.2008, the sister of Nazia received a message from the appellant's brother that Nazia had sustained burn injuries and she was serious.The relatives of Nazia rushed to Pinjar, where they found dead body of Nazia.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::On the same day, the appellant had lodged report to the police that his wife had suffered accidental burn injuries.Report in this regard was thereafter lodged on 15.5.2008 by the brother of Nazia.After conducting postmortem examination, it transpired that Nazia had been strangulated before her death and with a view to destroy the evidence, her dead body had been burnt by the accused.After making necessary investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant, his parents and his sister.The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions, as it was alleged that offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code had been committed.Charges were duly framed but all the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.On conclusion of the trial, the learned ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 ::: apeal594.10.odt 3 Judge of the Sessions Court convicted the appellant - accused no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498 A and 201 of the Penal Code.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::However, accused nos.2 to 4 were acquitted by the Sessions Court.Ms U.K. Kalsi, the learned Counsel, appearing for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been wrongly convicted by the Sessions Court.It is submitted that there was no eyewitness to the said incident and the appellant had been convicted merely on the basis of surmises.The learned Counsel has further submitted that if the evidence of P.W.4 - Dr. Ravikant Ghoderao is appreciated in a proper manner, it would be clear that Nazia had died on account of burn injuries and she had not been strangulated.There was further corroborative evidence in that regard but the same had been overlooked by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court.It was further submitted that there was no material on record to convict the appellant either under Section 302 of the Penal Code or under Section 498 A of the Penal Code.The statements of the independent witnesses, though recorded, had not been placed on record as said statements were favouring the appellant.The learned Counsel, therefore, prayed for setting aside the conviction and allowing the appeal.Per contra, Shri S.S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order of conviction recorded by the Sessions ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 ::: apeal594.10.odt 4 Court.It was submitted that the appellant had first strangulated Nazia and had thereafter set her on fire so as to do away with her body.It was further submitted that there was material on record to show ill-treatment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant and his family members.The learned Counsel further submitted that in view of provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it was for the appellant to explain the reason as regards the cause of death of Nazia as he was last seen in her company.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, therefore, submitted that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant.He submitted that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties, we have carefully gone through the entire material on record.She is the mother of Nazia.She has stated that on 12.5.2008, the appellant had come to their house at Amravati.Thereafter, there was a quarrel with Nazia and on the next day, her daughter had told her that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/- for expanding his business.She has stated that she collected Rs.20,000/- from her relatives and handed over ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 ::: apeal594.10.odt 5 the same to the appellant.She has stated that on 14.5.2008 her son received a message that her daughter was burnt and she was in a serious condition.On the said date, for the first time, she gave information to the police about the incident and before giving said statement, she did not disclose said fact to anyone.It was suggested to her that family of the appellant had not ill-treated her daughter, but she has denied the said suggestion.The omission as regards joint residence of the appellant with other family members in her statement, made to the police, was also put to her.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::She has stated that Nazia was her sister-in-law and she has narrated about the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the appellant and that Rs.20,000/- was thereafter paid.The omission as regards joint residence of the appellant with his parents and sister, in the statement recorded on 28.5.2008, has been admitted by the said witness.This witness, in his cross-examination, has stated that he did not make any enquiry about the illness of his sister.In his cross-examination, the omission to mention demand of Rs.50,000/- and payment of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, in his report dated 15.5.2008, has been put.He has further admitted that report was not lodged on the date of the incident.It was suggested to the said witness that his sister was suffering from some ailment on account of which she was disturbed.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::It was also suggested that his sister did not like to reside in a small village.These suggestions, however, have been denied.Said witness was M.D. in Forensic Medicine and M.S.(ENT).He has stated that the body was received at 5:55 p.m. on 14.5.2008 and the postmortem was completed at 7:00 p.m. on the same day.He has stated that the following external injuries were found on the body of Nazia."(1) A circular depressed ligature mark present in the mid portion of the neck.It is well marked anteriorly and less marked posteriorly.It is placed almost horizontally.Subcidaneous hemorrhages present at the side of the ligature mark.(2) There were 100% burns all over the body.Injury No.1 mentioned above is ante-mortem injury and injury No.2 i.e. burns over post mortem injury."::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::apeal594.10.odt 7 He has opined that the cause of death as per the postmortem report - Exh.55 is on account of asphyxia due to strangulation.He has further stated that it was likely that the death had occurred between 12 to 24 hours prior to conducting the postmortem.This witness has been thoroughly cross-examined by the defence.The said witness was confronted with literature in the form of Medical Jurisprudence by Dr. Zhala as well as Modi's Medical Jurisprudence.The line of cross-examination of the said witness was to bring on record the fact that the death had occurred on account of burn injuries and that Nazia had not been strangulated at all.This witness, in his cross-examination, has admitted that he did not notice that the hands of the deceased were clenched.He has further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, hands are usually clenched.Similarly, he has admitted that he did not notice that at the time of conducting the postmortem, the tongue was swollen, bruised and dark in colour.He has further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, the tongue is found swollen, bruised and dark in colour.Similarly, he has further admitted that at the time of conducting the postmortem, he did not notice frothy mucus in the larynx and trachea.He has further admitted that when death is caused due to strangulation, frothy mucus is noticed in the larynx and trachea.He has further admitted that he did not notice emphysematous bullae on ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 ::: apeal594.10.odt 8 the surface of the lungs and he has admitted that when death is due to strangulation emphysematous bullae is noticed on the surface of the lungs.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:19 :::Similarly, this witness has stated that he did not notice haemorrhagic spot which is known as Tardicu spot under pericardium, thymus, and visceral pleura.He has further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, these spots are noticed on pericardium, thymus and visceral pleura.He has further stated that he did not notice frothy mucus in branchial tubes and when death is due to strangulation frothy mucus is noticed in branchial tubes.Another material admission given by this witness is that when death is due to strangulation, right side of the heart is full of blood and the left side is empty.He has admitted that in the postmortem report, he had not written that the right side of heart was full of blood and the left side was empty.This witness has stated that when death is due to strangulation, the lungs are marketdly congested and on being cut, acute frothy dark blood stain fluid is seen.He has admitted that he did not notice the said condition of the lungs.It was suggested to him that cause of death was burning and not due to strangulation.However, he has denied the aforesaid suggestion.Similarly, it was suggested to him that at the instance of relatives of the deceased and some political leaders, he had given a false postmortem report.This suggestion has also been ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 9 denied.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::He is the panch witness insofar as seizure panchanamas at Exhs.60 and 61 and inquest panchanama at Exh.62 are concerned.In his cross-examination, he has stated that the appellant used to go to his electronic shop at 8:00 a.m. He has further stated that when he saw dead body of Nazia, he did not notice any injury marks around the neck.He has stated that he was called by the police to the house of the appellant for taking photographs.In his cross-examination, he has stated that the wall and door of the house of the appellant was blackened on account of fire.He has stated that he did not notice any injury marks around the neck of the deceased.He was the panch witness when the seizure of the scarf was effected.This seizure on memorandum has been effected on 18.5.2008 at the house of the appellant.He has stated that the statement in the memorandum that the scarf was kept below the mattress of the cot was not correct.He has referred to various formalities ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 10 undertaken during the course of investigation.In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not make any enquiry with Jamirroddin nor did he record his statement.Similarly, he has admitted that he did not make any enquiry with the shopkeepers, whose shops were adjoining to the shop of the appellant as regards his presence in the shop on 14.5.2008 at 9:00 a.m. He has admitted that on 14.5.2008 though the relatives of the deceased were present, no complaint was filed.He has stated that in inquest panchanama it is required to be mentioned, if any, injury is noticed on the dead body.He has further admitted that he did not notice ligature mark on the neck of the deceased.This witness has further stated that he had made enquiries with the neighbours as to whether there was any dispute between the appellant and the deceased but it did not transpire that there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::He has further stated that he did not record the statement of the person who paid Rs.20,000/- to the mother of Nazia.Insofar as the inquest panchanama (Exh.62) that was conducted on 14.5.2008 is concerned, the same does not refer to any ligature marks on the neck of deceased Nazia.This fact is also admitted by P.W. 10, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination.Having referred to the aforesaid material on record, it would be now necessary to consider whether the prosecution has been able to ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 11 prove that the death of Nazia was homicidal.There being no eyewitness, the other circumstances coupled with the postmortem report would have to be considered while arriving at said finding.Insofar as the presence of the appellant at his residential house on 14.5.2008 is concerned, the Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has admitted that he did not make necessary enquiries with adjoining shopkeepers, where the appellant was having his shop, regarding the appellant's presence there at 9:00 a.m. In the report lodged by the appellant on 14.5.2008, it has been stated by him that his cousin brother Jamirroddin had telephoned him at 9:30 a.m. on 14.5.2008 and informed him that smoke was seen in his house and Nazia was alone at home.The Investigating Officer has, however, admitted in his cross-examination that he did not make any enquiry with Jamirroddin and that till filing of the chargesheet, his statement had not been recorded.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::P.W. 5 - Hasan Khan has in his cross-examination stated that the appellant used to go to his shop at 8:00 a.m. Similarly, P.W. 8 - Ashok Govindrao Nikhade (Exh.70) the Head Constable who accepted the report of the appellant in his cross-examination has stated that on the basis of report given by the appellant and the station diary, it appeared that the appellant was in his shop when he received information about the incident.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::Insofar as the aspect of homicidal death of Nazia is concerned, the postmortem report (Exh.55) is an important piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution.To prove said postmortem report, P.W. 4 - Dr. Ravikant was examined.As stated above, he was highly qualified being M.D. in Forensic Medicine and M.S. (ENT).He was thus an expert witness.While appreciating the evidence of an expert witness, certain settled principles will have to be kept in mind.Some of said settled principles are as under :....sufficient weightage should be given to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted the post- mortem, as compared to the statements found in the textbooks, but giving weightage does not ipso facto mean that each and every statement made by a medical witness should be accepted on its face value even when it is self- contradictory."(1999) 6 Supreme Court Cases 120 (Mohd.Zahid...Versus...State of T.N.).::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::To rely upon the findings of the medical man who conducted the post-mortem and of the chemical analyser as decisive of the matter is to render the other evidence entirely fruitless. ..."AIR 1960 Supreme Court 500 (Anant Chintaman Lagu...Versus...The State of Bombay).::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::It has been opined by P.W.4 that the cause of death was due to asphyxia due to strangulation and the death occurred between 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem.In his cross-examination, it was suggested that when death occurs on account of suffocation due to smoke then there would be small fine particles carbon soot in the air passage, larynx and lungs.This was admitted by the said witness to be true.However, no such fine particles were so found on the body of the deceased.It was further suggested that in the report it was mentioned that the tongue was protruding and it was clenched between the teeth.The witness admitted that the same could be possible by effect of heat on blood.It was further suggested to the witness that in burn cases the brain is generally congested.This suggestion was given relying upon Modi's textbook.The witness agreed with aforesaid suggestion and stated that at the time of postmortem, he noticed that the brain was congested.Similarly, he also noted in the said report that the lungs were congested and it so happens in burn cases.Similarly, the witness stated that while doing the postmortem, he did not notice that conjunctiva was found congested.He admitted that when death is due to strangulation, conjunctiva are congested.The witness further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, blood foam is found oozing from the nose and ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 15 mouth.However, the witness admitted that at the time of postmortem, he did not notice blood foam oozing from mouth, nose and ears.He further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, the tongue is found swollen, bruised and dark in colour.It was not so noticed at the time of postmortem of the victim.Similarly, he admitted that when death is due to strangulation, emphysematous bullae is noticed on the surface of the lungs but he did not notice the same during the victim's examination.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::Similarly, he did not notice pitachel haemorrhage in brain during postmortem and admitted that when death is due to strangulation, pitachel haemorrhage is noticed in brain.The witness further admitted that when death is due to strangulation, the right side of the heart is full of blood and the left side is empty.Said aspect was, however, missing in the postmortem report.The witness further admitted that in case of strangulation, abrasion is noticed on the skin adjacent to the ligature mark.However, he did not notice any abrasion.This witness in his cross-examination has stated that ligature mark can also be seen by naked eye.We have failed to notice any injury marks around the ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 16 neck of the deceased in said photographs.This witness has further admitted that no skin from neck was peeled out.It was then suggested to this witness that the cause of death was due to burning and not due to strangulation.Said witness, however, has denied aforesaid suggestion.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::The aforesaid evidence reveals that various indicators of strangulation were not noticed during the postmortem conducted on the deceased.The witness agreed with the standard literature with which he was confronted during the course of his cross-examination.However, the tell-tale signs that are found when death occurs on account of strangulation are missing in said postmortem report.It may be noted that said witness being an expert in his field was confronted with literature on the subject prepared by experts.Said witness candidly admitted various propositions stated by said experts and did not state that he held another view of the matter.Thus, the conclusion as arrived at by said expert that death was caused on account of asphyxia due to strangulation cannot be accepted on its face value in the absence of ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 17 various features noted by expert that are present when death is caused due to strangulation.In view of this, therefore, it cannot be said with certainty that the death of Nazia was caused due to asphyxia on account of strangulation.Absence of various features when death is caused due to strangulation that are noted by experts in the literature with which said witness also agrees, therefore, creates a doubt as regards the manner in which the death of Nazia occurred.The defence has, therefore, succeeded in creating a doubt as regards the death of Nazia being homicidal and caused on account of asphyxia as a result of strangulation.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::Similarly, as regards the time of occurrence of death is concerned, it is to be noted that P.W.4 - Dr. Ravikant has stated that death occurred in between 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem.According to the said witness, death might have occurred before 6 a.m. i.e. 12 hours before.The postmortem examination commenced at 5:55 p.m. on 14.5.2008 and concluded at 7:00 p.m. on same day.In his cross-examination, the said witness has stated that rigor mortis develops from the head to feet within 12 hours and it is maintained for further 12 hours and disappears within next 12 hours.He has stated that in the present case rigor mortis was present partially.Thus, if said witness has noticed that rigor mortis was present partially and the same normally develops within 12 hours and is ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 18 maintained for further 12 hours, it would be clear that his earlier statement given during his examination-in-chief that the death might have occurred before 6 a.m. on said date i.e. 12 hours before is contradicted by his own finding that rigor mortis was partially present when he conducted the postmortem examination.This again raises a doubt as regards the time of occurrence of death of Nazia.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::Said memorandum is recorded on 18.5.2008 and said scarf is shown to be seized from the residence of the accused from a room where his younger brother was present.In the seizure memo (Exh.69), it is stated that the same was seized from the place below the cot.P.W. 7 - Naresh Ramrao Deshmukh, who was the panch witness, has stated that the statement mentioned in the memorandum that the 'Odhani' was kept below the mattress of the cot was not correct.He has further stated that he could not assign any reason why it was so mentioned.P.W.5 - Hasan Khan, in his cross-examination, has stated that the appellant used to go to his shop at Pinjar at 8:00 a.m. He has further ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 19 stated that telephone call had been made by the appellant's cousin brother Jamirroddin and he had called the appellant from his shop.The Investigating Officer, as stated above, did not record the statement of Jamirroddin nor did he make enquiries with the adjoining shop owners.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::There is, thus, no evidence on record to come to the conclusion that the appellant was present at home when the aforesaid incident took place.It is pertinent to note that in the examination of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure he had while answering question no.44 specifically stated that he was not present at his house at the time of the incident.It is only after the prosecution succeeds in proving the presence of the appellant at his residence just prior to occurrence of the incident that the burden would shift on him to explain the alleged occurrence on the basis of last seen theory.Here, we have found that the prosecution has failed to discharge the initial burden of showing the presence of the appellant at ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 20 his residence shortly prior to occurrence of the incident.Hence, in absence of evidence in that regard being placed on record, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would not automatically shift on the appellant in these circumstances.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::The manner in which the investigation has been conducted is also required to be looked into.The Investigating Officer in his cross-examination has admitted that though he recorded statements of various persons including neighbours but no independent witness has been examined in that regard.The prosecution witnesses examined were related to the deceased.P.W.1 was her mother, P.W.2 was her sister-in-law, while P.W.3 was her brother.Absence of corroborative evidence of any independent witness especially when their statements were recorded by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation is a factor that cannot be overlooked.Similarly, we find that in absence of any material the other family members of the appellant have been implicated in the present case.It can be seen that there was material on record to indicate that the parents of the appellant and his sister were residing at Akola while the appellant was staying at Pinjar.Even P.W.1 - Ayashabi Syed Ali and P.W.2 -Shamshad Parvin do not make any grievance against the said accused nos. 2 to 4 in their examination-in-chief.Though they have been rightly ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 21 acquitted of the aforesaid offences by the learned Judge of the Sessions Court, we find that there was no material whatsoever on record to even implicate them.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::From the material on record, therefore, we find that the chain of events leading to the guilt of the appellant has not been proved.As stated above, the present is a case based on circumstantial evidence.The chain of circumstances is not at all complete and in fact with regard to each circumstance there is a doubt created.The prosecution has, thus, failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the appellant.The appellant, therefore, cannot be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code.Insofar as conviction of the appellant under Section 498 A of the Penal Code is concerned, we find that the evidence on record even in that regard is insufficient for recording the appellant's conviction.Though P.W.1 stated that she had collected ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 22 Rs.20,000/- from her relatives, no such relative has been examined.Similarly, from the statements of neighbours it did not transpire that there was any dispute between the appellant and the deceased.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::The requirement of provisions of Section 498 A of the Penal Code of subjecting "such woman to cruelty" is missing in the present case.Hence, on said count also the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained.Perusal of the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge indicates that the learned Judge has not taken into account the entire deposition of P.W. 4 Dr. Ravikant Ghoderao.The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the effect of various admissions of said witness with regard to the cause of death of Nazia.If the entire testimony is considered, there is a grave doubt created as regards the actual cause of death of Nazia.The learned Sessions Judge has also wrongly held that it ::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 ::: apeal594.10.odt 23 was for the appellant to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. As stated above, the said burden would shift only after the prosecution had succeeded in discharging the initial burden on it.Hence, after considering the entire material on record and having given it our anxious consideration, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::Before concluding, it would be necessary to place on record the manner in which P.W. 4 - Dr. Ravikant Ghoderao was cross-examined.Said witness being an expert, his cross-examination reveals that the same was conducted after thorough preparation of the subject.Reliance placed by the defence Counsel Shri D.B. Kate, Advocate on the literature in that regard was appropriate.Said cross-examination conducted meticulously has resulted in creating a grave doubt as regards the cause of death.Such detailed and studied cross-examination has now-a-days become a rarity.Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.The appellant is directed to be set at liberty if not required in any other case.::: Downloaded on - 01/03/2014 00:10:20 :::
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,741,290 |
Hence, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,274,970 |
The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-P.W.5 is mother of P.W.1 and the deceased.Having married P.W.8, the accused used to commit cruelty on her and used to abuse her without any reason.On 31.05.2011 at about 7 p.m., when P.W.1 went to his mother's house, the deceased, brother of P.W.1 was present there and one Amavasai, relative of P.W.1 was also present there.At that time, P.W.8 arrived there at about 7 p.m. and informed the witnesses that her husband, the accused, in a drunken mood picked up a quarrel with her and took away the TV and VCR player and their two little children and left the place and requested P.W.1 and the deceased to help her to search her husband.Accordingly, P.W.1 and Kanagaraj, went in search of the accused.On such search, they spotted the accused at Mettupalayam in Ramasamy Nagar at 10.00 p.m. The deceased advised the accused to go to home with children, for which the accused replied that it is the routine job of P.W.1 and his brother to intervene in his family matter and by saying that, he picked a bill hook from his waist and cut the deceased on the knee.Immediately, the deceased fell down and the accused sat on his chest and cut him on his face repeatedly and also on his neck.P.W.1 on seeing the accused attacking the deceased rushed to the place of occurrence.One Amavasai and P.W.4, an auto driver also came to the rescue of the deceased.Immediately, the accused left the place.The deceased succumbed to the injuries there itself.The above occurrence was also witnessed by P.W.2 to 4 and the minor daughter of the accused also witnessed the occurrence.P.W.1 immediately lodged Ex.P.1 report with the help of P.W.1, to P.W.17 Sub Inspector of Police.2. P.W.17, on receipt of Ex.P.1 report, registered Ex.P.16 First Information Report and forwarded it with the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate.Thereafter, P.W.18, Inspector of Police took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.17 Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.He also seized M.Os.1 and 2, under Ex.Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared Ex.P.18 Inquest Report and forwarded the body of the deceased to the Government Hospital for postmortem.4. P.W.13, Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Mettupalayam and conducted autopsy and found the following injuries :1. 10x5x7cm cut injury rt thigh just above rt.Knee jus exposed subcutanious time and muscles2. 15cm above the prior marked injury is right thigh a cut injury above 3 x 2 x 3 cm present.3. 5x2x5cm cut injury over left inquinar region15x5cm cut injury front of neck with fracture of trachea7x4x5cm cut injury extending from rt.Cheek to nose6. 15x5x6cm cut injury extending from rt.Cheek to left cheek5x4x5cm cut injury inserting root of nose extending from rt ear to left eye brow.Cut injury over lt earCut injury over cavity with # mandible Tongu cutting over rt side tongueCheek 6x2x5cm[Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] Appellant is the sole accused in the case tried in SC.No.54/2012 on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore for offence u/s.302 IPC.The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 16.04.2013, found him guilty of offence u/s.304(i) IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, 6 months rigorous imprisonment.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.Cut injury over Lt. Anterior chest 4x2x5cm over intereost region.Cut injury 2x2x3cm just below 4 clavicle noseCut injury lt.Cut injury over rt.Flaid region and issued Ex.P.7 Postmortem Certificate and gave final opinion Ex.P.9 that the deceased died of shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital structures namely trachea and adjacent blood vessels within 12-24 hours prior to autopsy.P.W.16 handed over M.Os.10 and 11, the dress worn by the deceased, under Special Report, Ex.P.W.17, on the next day, i.e., on 01.0.2011, arrested the accused and recorded voluntary confession statement of the accused in the presence of PW.7 and pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement Ex.P.4, he seized M.O.1 Bill hook and M.O.4 and M.O.5 blood stained shirt and dhoti concealed in a bush under Ex.P.5 Mahazar and he sent Ex.P.10 requisition to send the material objects to the Forensic Laboratory.The Biological Report is Ex.P.11, Ex.P.12 is Sample blood report and Ex.P.13 is Serological Report and Ex.P.14 is Soil report.P.W.17, after completion of investigation laid final report for the offence under section 302 IPC.The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and M.O.1 to M.O.12 were marked.The appellant/accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false.No witness was examined and no documentary evidence was marked on the side of the appellant/accused.The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has convicted and sentenced him imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, 6 months rigorous imprisonment as against which, the present appeal came to be filed.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that eye witnesses version is not reliable and the offence took place at 10.00 p.m. and all the witnesses are interested witnesses and their evidence is not reliable.It is the further contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant that the occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel and leniency may be shown to him and lesser punishment may be awarded.Heard Mrs.M.Prabhavathi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the entire materials available on record.The deceased and P.W.1 are sons of P.W.5 and P.W.9 is the minor daughter of the accused.It is the version of the prosecution that the accused having married P.W.8, used to cause all sorts of cruelty to her both physically and mentally and he is a drunkard.When they were all talking together, P.W.8, wife of the accused came to their house and informed P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 about the act of the accused taking two minor children with him along with TV and DVD.It is the evidence of P.W.1, that P.W.8 sought the help of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the deceased and the family members to intervene and solve the issue.Accordingly, P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased went in search of the accused.P.W.1 and 2 spotted the accused in Mettupalayam Road near Ramasamy Nagar and P.W.1 followed the deceased.The deceased stopped the accused and requested him to go to the house with children.The accused by saying that 'you and your brother were always interfering in my family matters', cut the deceased indiscriminately, as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries.12. P.W.2 was also present in the house, when P.W.8 sought the help from P.W.1 and the deceased.Thereafter, when P.W.2 after unloading certain goods in the saw mill, where he was working, when he and P.W.3 were returning, he found the deceased and the accused speaking in front of the Ameerbai work shop.When the deceased questioned the accused as to why he had taken the children at night, the accused took M.O.1 and cut the deceased indiscriminately.P.W.2 and P.W.3 also rushed to the place of occurrence.However, the accused left the place, leaving the children there itself.P.W.3 also supported the version of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the occurrence.P.W.4 is an auto driver and while he was sitting in the auto along with his friend, he saw the accused bringing two children at 10 p.m. and in a nearby workshop, the deceased and the accused were talking for some time.At that time, as P.W.1 made an alarm, they ran towards place of occurrence.P.W.4 also followed P.W.1 and witnessed the accused cutting the deceased repeatedly.P.W.5 also rushed to the place of occurrence and found the dead body.P.W.9, minor daughter of the accused, in her evidence has stated that the accused in a drunken mood fought with her mother and took P.W.9 and her sister from the house towards the place called 'Odam' at about 10.00 p.m. and when they were coming to the place called Ramasamy Nagar, the deceased came there and requested the accused to go to the house and the accused removed M.O.1 from his waist and cut on the knee of the deceased.Immediately, the deceased fell down.Thereafter, the accused cut the deceased at several places all over his body.The above witnesses witnessed the accused cutting the deceased indiscriminately and they witnessed the occurrence in the street light.Further it is to be noted that P.W.4, auto driver, is an independent witness and he has no axe to grind against the accused.He has also spoken about the role played by the accused.From the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and P.W.8 and P.W.9, we are of the view that their evidence cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the occurrence took place at 10 p.m. P.W.1 and the deceased going to the place of occurrence, in search of the accused and two children, is quite natural.P.W.8 is the wife of the accused.She has categorically stated that she has requested P.W.1 and his family members to bring back her husband and the children.P.W.9, who is one of the children, taken away by the accused, in her evidence has categorically stated that her father had taken them out of the house along with TV and DVD and when the deceased spotted the accused and requested him to go to the house, her father cut him indiscriminately.There is no reason, whatsoever to disbelieve her evidence.The evidence of P.W.11, line man of Mettupalayam Municipality shows that there was power in that area on the date of occurrence.The medical officer conducted autopsy and found almost 13 cut injuries and opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injuries to vital structures namely trachea and adjacent blood vessels within 12-24 hours prior to autopsy.Complaint was given immediately within one hour of the occurrence without any delay and the FIR has also reached the Judicial Magistrate on the early morning 5 am.All these facts shows that there is no delay which creates serious doubt about the version of the witnesses.Normally, when the FIR is filed in the night hours, the same will reach the judicial Magistrate on the next day morning only.These facts cannot be ignored altogether.Merely there is some dispatching delay, the same cannot be meant to disbelieve the prosecution version.P.W.18, the Investigating Officer also arrested the accused the very next day and recorded his voluntary confession and pursuant to the same, he has also seized the bill hook and blood stained dhoti and the shirt of the accused.These material objects contained human blood group 'B'.In fact, the dresses seized from the body of the deceased is also of the same blood group.Serology Report Ex.P.13 also clearly establish the complicity of the accused.Though the accused was carrying TV, VCR player and at the time of conversation with the deceased, those items were kept on the road and the accused removed the bill hook from the waist and attacked the deceased.Therefore, the minor discrepancies cannot be given much importance.The trial Court, having found that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime has held that the act of the accused will fall within the ambit of 304(i) of IPC, convicted the accused for the offence under section 304(i) for life imprisonment and imposed fine of Rs.10,000/-.The manner in which several cut injuries caused on the body of the deceased namely 13 injuries as noticed by the medical officer P.W.13 under Ex.P.7 Postmortem Certificate, we are of the view that the accused had intention to cause the death of the deceased.The intention can be easily gathered from the nature of the injuries caused by him and there is no material available on record to hold that the occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel or without any premeditation.In the absence of any materials, to bring home the offence under section 304(i) IPC, culpable homicide, we are of the view that the manner in which the occurrence took place and the number of cut injuries inflicted, only offence under section 302 alone will be attracted in this case and the act of the accused will certainly fall under section 300 IPC.Though the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence under section 304(i) of IPC, we are of the view that no notice is necessary for the accused as the trial Court has already awarded life imprisonment after hearing the accused before passing sentence.Hence, we are of the view that the imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for imprisonment of life does not require any modification at all.However, we hold that the above imprisonment shall be for an offence under section 302 of IPC instead of Rs.304(i).With the above observations, the appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,727,525 |
TISCO has itsiron ore and manganese mines at Naomundi.Ore is beingtransported from Banaspani and Naomundi to Tatanagar,delivery point being railway yard at Adityapur.Theallegation is that some of the empty wagons after ore wasdelivered at Adityapur Railway Station Yard on the returnjourney to Banaspani/Naomundi were loaded with pearl cokewithout being booked according to railway rules and withoutthe issuance of railway receipts with the connivance of thelocal railway officials and the railway was defrauded of itslegitimate revenue.It was also alleged that24some tanks containing furnace oil were diverted withoutregular booking which also resulted in deprivation of thelegitimate revenue to the Railway.Adityapur railway yardwas not, according to the railway administration, a bookingstation and hence no booking staff was posted there and,therefore, wagons could not have been booked from Adityapurrailway yard and there was considerable variation in thenumber of wagons booked from Tatanagar and received atBanaspani as set out in first information report.On theseallegations a first information report was lodged on March11, 1977, consequent upon which an offence was registered atTatanagar G.R.P.S. under sections 420/120-B, 418 and 368,Indian Penal Code, and ss. 105/106 of the Indian RailwaysAct against 9 persons.The Government of Bihar appears to havereceived an application signed by MLAs.and MLCs., 7 in all,addressed to Inspector General of Police, Vigilance, Bihar,making serious allegations against the investigation doneunder the supervision of respondent 3 and suspecting a foulplay possibly with a view to covering up the case andrequested the Government to get the investigation donethrough I.G., Vigilance.Such a complaint appears to havebeen made to the then Prime Minister of India as also somequestion appears to have been asked in Parliament.The thenChief Secretary submitted a note to the Chief Minister onAugust 28, 1978, with reference to the letter of theMLAs./MLCs.The Chief Secretary thereaftersubmitted a further note to the Chief Minister on February8, 1979, stating therein 'hat the C.B.I. is not in aposition to take up the investigation and that theI.G.,Vigilance, is recommended for investigation and,therefore, the Chief Minister was requested to pass anappropriate order directing I.G., Vigilance to get the caseinvestigated by the Vigilance Department 3-868SCI/7926under his personal control.In between, onJanuary 18, 1979, even though the papers were still with theChief Secretary, respondent 3 directed the investigatingofficer respondent 4 to submit the final report.When theChief Secretary came to know about it he wrote to respondent2 deprecating the conduct of respondent 3 in pushing throughthe matter though the papers were not with him and he wasorally instructed not to submit the final report.made certain allegations against respondent 3which may be ignored for the time being but two thingstranspire from his complaint which are of considerableimportance.It appears that TISCO has a special preferencefor retired highly placed State and Union level officers andattracts them on salary which none of them drew throughouthis service.Basudeo Prasad and R. P. Singh for the Appellant inCrl.A. K. Sen, Y. S. Chitale, J. B. Dadachanji, S. B.Sanyal, N. C. Ganguli, S. Warup, J. S. Sinha and K. J. Johnfor Respondent No. 1 in both the appeals.Prabha Shankar Mishra and B.P. Singh for RespondentNos.2-3 in both the appeals.M. P. Jha for Respondent No. 4 in both the appeals.It appears that the D.I.G., Railway Police who wasthe immediate superior of respondent 6, wrote a letter tothe then D.I.G., C.I.D. Bihar, on May 11, 1977 requestinghim to entrust the investigation of the aforementionedoffences to Central Bureau of Investigation but theInspector General of Police, Bihar, as per his letter datedJune 24, 1977, declined the request.In the mean time oneShri Rusi Modi, resident representative of TISCO at Patnaappears to have written a personal letter to Shri SaranSingh, the then Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar,complaining about the harassment suffered by the officers ofTISCO pursuant to the investigation carried on by railwaypolice under the supervision of respondent 6 and requestinghim to take whatever steps the Chief Secretary consideredappropriate to curb the enthusiasm of respondent 6 incarrying on the investigation of the offences.It appearsfrom the reply affidavit filed by M. J. Basha, an officer ofTISCO, that on June 16, 1977, the very day the residentrepresentative handed over his letter to the ChiefSecretary, Cabinet took the decision to transfer respondent"After hearing both the parties, I consider it proper to await report on further investigation.Therefore, put up on 23-3-1979 for further orders awaiting report on further investigation".On March 5, 1979, J.A.C. Saldanha, original petitioner(respondent 1) filed a petition in the High Courtquestioning the validity, legality and correctness of theorder of the Addl.Chief Judicial Magistrate.The High Court gave variousdirections to the learned Addl.Chief Judicial Magistratehow to dispose of the case.Two appeals have been preferredby special leave, one by the State of Bihar, and the otherby original respondent 7 (respondent 6 herein), the thenSuperintendent of Police, Railway.Buton an entirely untenable extraneous ground he directedreversion of the delinquent from the post of Inspector ofPolice to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police.Thedelinquent preferred an appeal to the Government which wasdismissed and the delinquent filed a writ petition in theHigh Court, Patna, which was allowed with a direction thatthe appeal of the delinquent be heard by the Government overagain.The High Court found circumstances in whichinvestigation was directed to be taken by the Inspector-General of Vigilance as peculiar35and unconventional.There are some tell-tale facts disclosedin the record which would totally dispel any doubt in thisbehalf.After respondent 3 took over the investigation incircumstances far more curious and unintelligible than whatthe High Court found in respect of the direction given bythe State Government, respondent 3 directed his subordinateofficer respondent 4 to carry on further investigation underhis supervision.It would not be out of place to brieflynarrate the circumstances in which respondent 3 took overinvestigation of this case.On a complaint received from oneR. H. Modi, Managing Director of TISCO in respect of anintimation calling him to appear at the police station, theInspector-General of Police, Bihar, requested respondent 3,Addl.Inspector-General, C.I.D., purports to be an ordertransferring the investigation from Railway Police to C.I.D.It is stretching credulity to extreme to interpret thedirection to look into the complaint as one orderingtransfer of investigation.The High Court was in error in sointerpreting such an innocuous endorsement.This is howrespondent 3 arrogated to himself the authority toinvestigate this case and even when papers of investigationwere called from him by the Chief Secretary and were lyingwith him which would indicate that for the time beingrespondent 3 was not to take any action in the matter, heproceeded to direct that a report exonerating the personswhose names were set out in the first information report befiled in the Court.This would imply that the decisionreached by the Superintendent, Railway Police, respondent 6and his subordinate Inspector Rizvi who had concluded that acharge-sheet had to be filed, was unacceptable torespondents 3 and 4 and in the guise of furtherinvestigation, they re-opened the investigation to explainaway certain peculiar features of the case of which atpresent no note need be taken.After making him a respondent in the HighCourt an opportunity was taken to cast aspersions againsthis character.
|
['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.
|
172,752,676 |
As per office report dated 26.08.2014, notice upon the opposite party no.2 has been served personally.Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and the learned AGA for the State.By means of the instant revision, the revisionist Vijaypal father/natural guardian son of Fattan has sought bail of his minor son Ashu Kumar in Case No.10/11 of 2013 State Vs.Ashu Kumar arising out of Case Crime No.18 of 2013 under Sections 376(2) (g), 364 I.P.C. Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffarnagar, with the prayer that the impugned order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2013, affirming the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Muzaffarnagar, be set aside and the application moved for bail of delinquent minor be allowed.Brief sketch of relevant facts as discernible from record indicate that an FIR was lodged on 09.01.2013 under Sections 364, 376 (2) (g) I.P.C., which was registered at Case Crime No.18 of 2013, Police Station Civil Lines, District Muzaffar Nagar, wherein the delinquent juvenile along with other co-accused were named and alleged to have committed offence of gang rape.The matter was investigated into and the statement of the victim was also got recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation after collecting all the relevant material, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against the accused persons including the delinquent minor under the aforesaid sections of I.P.C.During course of proceeding, an application was moved by the applicant Ashu Kumar for declaring him juvenile.The bail application was initially moved before the Juvenile Justice Board which was rejected vide order dated 01.11.2013, against which Criminal Appeal No.103 of 2013 was preferred.Upon consideration of the same, the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffar Nagar rejected/dismissed the prayer for bail made in the aforesaid appeal.Hence this revision.The observation of the District Probation Officer in absence of any supporting material becomes bald and vague.Consequently, the same is to be ignored in a situation when father of the delinquent juvenile promises to work for improvement of his son.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,727,533 |
Some new facts and contentions are raised in the present petition for the grant of bail.(2) In order to dispose of the bail application it would be necessary to set out in some details the allegations of the Gbi against the petitioner which led to his arrest and the filing of the charge-sheet against him.The petitioner Rajendra Singh Sethia, an Indian National based at U.K., is the Managing Director of the Group of Esal (Commodities) Ltd., London Some time during 1982-84 be entered into a criminal conspiracy with his own employees as well as with certain officials of the branches of Punjab National Bank, Union Bank of India, Central Bank of India and other Institutions based at U.K., the object of which was to defraud those Banks/ Institutions to the tune of millions of pounds sterlings He dishonestly induced these Banks/Institutions to extend loans in respect of alleged contracts with Nigerian National Supply Corporation and other African Bodies which did not have sufficient foreign exchange reserves and the said loans were obtained by making false representations regarding the value of the assets held by him.(3) The petitioner Rajendra Singh Sethia was the Chairman of Esal Group of Companies since April 1977 and was controlling all the financial matters of all the Companies of this Group.His co-accused Amarjit Singh was posted as the General Manager at the London Branch of Punjab National Bank and both of them were quite close to each other.Esal (Commodities) Ltd., 19/20, Noel Street, London had various accounts with Punjab National Bank at London including 'Dollars Merchanting Account' which was being operated by the petitioner as well, and in his capacity as the Chairman of the Esal Group of Companies was not only responsible for the transactions entered into but was also the beneficiary of the same.(4) The financial condition of the Esal (Commodities) Ltd. was in a .bad shape and it required huge amounts in order to reduce the dues outstanding against it and he and his co-accused Amarjit Singh, towards the close of 1983, entered into a criminal conspiracy with some unknown persons to defraud and cheat Punjab National Bank, London Branch on the strength of false and forged bills of exchange supported by false shipping documents purporting to show the shipments of granulated sugar to Nigeria and in pursuance to the said conspiracy four bills bearing Nos COM/SUG/ 0299-0302 all dated 5-12-1983 and of the total value of Us $ 10400000 were submitted by the petitioner to the Punjab National Bank, London on 7.12.1983 knowing or having reason to believe that the said bills and the supporting documents were false and forged and no sugar, as was shown in the supporting documents of shipping, was shipped in the vessel Golden Venture".Those bills were drawn on Alglobe Trading Limited, Hongkong, a concern of the Esal (Commodities) Ltd. The co-accused Amarjit Singh, in pursuance of the said Criminal conspiracy, dishonestly allowed an advance of Us $ 7.649 millions against 25/, cash margin to the Esal (Commodities) Ltd. knowing or having reason to believe that the aforesaid bills and the supporting shipping documents were false and forged.(5) The aforesaid bills of exchange along with shipping documents were forwarded by Punjab National Bank.London to Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation on 13-121983 and the same were presented to M/s. Alglobe Trading Ltd .Hongkong which returned those bills after acceptance Along with shipping documents Those documents did not, however, contain the original bills of lading purporting to show the shipment by "Golden Venture".Those bills were found supported by different bill of lading purporting to show the shipment of sugar by vessel "Eleni" and "SUMMERSun".It subsequently transpired that the company M/s. Bright Planet Enterprises Ltd., Hongkong had come into existence only for the purpose of acceptance of the bills of exchange.The bills of exchange and the supporting documents were found to be forged and it is alleged that the petitioner and his co-accused Amarjit Singh had cheated/defrauded Punjab National Bank, London to the extent of Us $ 7 649 millions (Rs. 9.5 crores approximately) in respect of that instance.It is further alleged that the capacity of the vessel "Golden Venture" was 12500 M. Ts.passport no. 7404510 issued at Lagos on 23-1-1981, passport No. 270290 issued at Lagos on 28-1-1979 and passport No. 934209 issued at London on 29-10-1976 which were.The petitioner arrived in India on 15-1-1985 when he landed at Bombay.He came to India in the name of Rajendra Singh Sethia Between this date and March 1, 1985, it appears, he was able to get a passport in an assumed name of R.K.Dugar, a Swiss air ticket in this name and had confirmed booking from Indian Airlines from Delhi to Bombay and he had asked for further air booking to Cairo from Bombay.JUDGMENT Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This order shall dispose of the bail application dated 14-5-1986 of Rajendra Singh Sethia.His earlier bail applications were dismissed by the magistrate and also by the Additional Sessions Judge.The last order dismissing his prayer for bail was passed on 5.51.986 by Shri Subhash Wason, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.The Hongkong and Shanghai Bank could not detect the replacement for want of any document at their end.(6) Thereafter M/s. Esal (Commodities) Ltd., London submitted four fresh bills of exchange for the aforesaid amount drawn on another company M/s. Bright Planet Enterprises Ltd., Hongkong in lieu of the previous bills of exchange with the request that the previous bills be replaced as the same were erroneously drawn on M/s Alglebe Trading Ltd., Hongkong, and those fresh bills of exchange were forwarded by Punjab National Bank, London on 10.1.1984 to Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Hongkong and the same were in turn received by M/s. Bright Planet Enterprises Ltd, Hongkong but the same remained unpaid.whereas the bills dated 5.12.1983 revealed that more than 25000 M.Ts, of sugar was loaded in that vessel, and further that the said vessel was already on voyage for carrying sugar to Lagos and reached Lagos on 30.11.1983 and as such this ship was not engaged at all to carry the sugar as shown in the aforesaid bills of exchange and other shipping documents.(7) It is further alleged that the particulars of all the shipments were maintained and recorded in the import/bill book of M/s. Esal (Commodities) Ltd.. but inch details of the particulars in respect of the above- mentioned four bills dated 5.12.1983 were missing in the said import/bill book which factor confirmed that all those four bills of exchange dated 512.1983 were bogus or forged.(8) The charge-sheet was, thus, filed against the petitioner and coaccused Amarjit Singh for offences under Section 120-B read with Sees.420, 467" 468 and 471 Indian Penal Code and also for substantive offences under Sees.420 and 471 read with Section 467 IPC.(9) The charge-sheet was filed byC.B.I,on29.51985 where after the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Shri Subhash Wason vide his order dated 13-3-1986 came to the view that there was a prima face case against both the accused persons for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 420 Ipc and for substantive offence under Sec 420 Indian Penal Code and he ordered the framing of the charges against both of them accordingly He was also of the view that there was no prima face case against them for forgery.Charges were framed accordingly on 2.4.1986 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.(10) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was arrested as far back as 1-3-1985 and has since been in jail for a period of about 17 months, that the co-accused Amarjit Singh was released on bail on 16-4-1985 and after the rejection of the earlier bail application of the petitioner on 17-6-1985 by the High Court the allegations of forgery did not find favor with the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who vide his order dated 13-3-1986 did not order the framing of charge for the same.He also pointed out that the essential elements of Section 420 Indian Penal Code were not made out from the allegations of the Cbi and that there was sufficient money at the disposal of Esal (Commodities) Ltd. to pay off the dues of the PunjabNationalBank,London.in pursuance of the order dated 13-3-1986 by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and for all that delay the petitioner was in no way to blame and that every trial should be commenced and concluded expeditiously, and, thus, for all these reasons the petitioner is entitled to the grant of bail.All these contentions were resisted by Mr. B. Dutta Additional Solicitor General representing the C.B.I.cancelled one after the other in lieu of new one issued.This passport issued from London on 12-8-1983 show accused Sethia with long hairs and moustaches.In this passport Sethia has been shown in entirely different outfit, clean shaved, without moustaches and very small scalp hair.If that was not all.the room had resulted in the recovery of passport No. 900509 issued by passport officer, Calcutta on 13-2-1985 in the name of Raj Kumar Dugar having the photographs of accused Sethia embossed thereon.In thi(r) photograph, Sethia has been shown having grown small beard, short moustaches and short scalp hair with specs on.The recovery had also shown that the accused was having a confirmed ticket for travel abroad in the name of R.K. Dugar with necessary foreign exchange already collected by him on 27-2-1985 and other necessary travel documents to enable him to leave this country with the assumed name of R.K. Dugar."The High Court in its earlier order dated 17-6-1985 had also taken note of the aforesaid para from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge and had observed as follows :- "Ithink, the recovery of the passport, air ticket and other documents bearing the name of R.K. Dugar would in itself be sufficient to dismiss the present petition for release of the petitioner on bail.The petitioner had been wanted by the London Police since 8-2-1984 and be was able to evade arrest despite a warrant of arrest having been issued against him, as observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.This affidavit further speaks of the petitioner having obtained a passport dated 13-2-1985- from Regional Passport Office, Calcutta in the assumed name of R.K. Dugar and also holding a Swiss air ticket with booking to leave India on the night of 2/3-3-1985 as he wanted to visit abroad under cover.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,754,094 |
This appeal under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant Ashish Agnihotri in connection with Crime No.113/2018 of P.S. Itarsi, Distt.Hoshangabad for offences U/s.376 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(W)(i), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.Learned counsel for the State informs that compliance of Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act has been done.The appellant is in judicial custody since 23.2.2018 in the above said case.According to the allegation in the F.I.R., the appellant is stated to have raped the prosecutrix under the promise of marriage and thereafter refused to marry her as she belongs to SC/ST community.Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the State have objected to the bail being granted as the appellant herein had committed rape with her after giving her the assurance of marriage.Prima-facie it appears that the allegations levelled against the appellant herein are false on account of her previous conduct where she has levelled identical allegations against another person namely Nilesh Sahu, tried him before the trial Court for an offence of rape and for the offences of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and thereafter turned hostile after compromise before the trial Court.Under the circumstances, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant herein shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Accordingly , the appeal is disposed of.C.C. as per rules.(Atul Sreedharan) Judge a ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH DATTA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, ou=P S, postalCode=482008, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=39687ae2c05d9fbaae8af68cd0db0f DATTA 2d72ea51435fe1da821e718b7963f8eeba, 2.5.4.45=0321009FFBC4775F25A882B8A623 3418905D27AA9BED4D5486CEF84C16DFB5 884A7E01, cn=ASHISH DATTA Date: 2018.04.19 17:45:46 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,755,362 |
After marriage, she joined the company of the husband for cohabitation at her matrimonial home.Respondents/accused No. 2 and 4 are in-laws of the deceased Subhangi whereas respondent No.3 was her brother-in-law.All residing jointly at village New Kaigaon, Tq.Gangapur, District Aurangabad.It::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 ::: 2 933-ALS-143-18 has been alleged that after the marriage, husband and other inmates of matrimonial home initially for a period of four months behaved with her in proper manner.But, thereafter, she was subjected to maltreatment and cruelty.The husband used to abuse and beat her on account of suspicion of her character.On the day of incident, there was quarrel in between husband and deceased Subhangi.The husband raised suspicion about her character and asked her not to cohabit with him.The deceased was assaulted by husband.Fed - up with daily harangue, the victim Subhangi took drastic step of self immolation.She poured kerosene and set herself ablaze.Thereafter, she was taken to hospital for medical treatment.The Police and Revenue Personnels attended and recorded her dying declaration for cause of her burn.The victim Subhangi divulged her ordeals and maltreatment at the hands of her husband and inmates of her matrimonial home.DATED : 11th APRIL, 2019 Order :-The applicant-State preferred the present application seeking leave under Section 378(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr.P.C.) to present an appeal against the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal of respondents-accused passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vaijapur, District Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 01 of 2015, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 504 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").She blamed the respondents-accused for her burn injuries.The Police registered the crime and carried out the investigation.After completion of investigation, proceeding of Sessions Case No. 01 of 2015 came to be initiated against respondents-accused.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::In order to bring home guilt of the respondents-accused, prosecution examined in all eleven witnesses in this case.Accused denied the allegations and claimed their innocence.Learned trial Court considered the oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record and exonerated the respondents-accused for the charges pitted against them on the ground that prosecution failed to prove the factum of cruelty and abetment of committing suicide by victim Subhangi.Accordingly, learned learned trial Court passed the impugned Judgment::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 ::: 3 933-ALS-143-18 and order, which is the subject-matter of present proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::The prosecution is intending to prefer an appeal, therefore, the application seeking leave to present an appeal under section 378(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. is preferred on behalf of applicant-prosecution.5. Having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of learned APP and learned counsel appearing for respondents/accused, I find that reasonable opportunity is essential to be granted to the applicant-prosecution to ventilate its grievance before the appellate forum against the impugned findings of acquittal of respondents-accused expressed by the learned trial Court.Definitely, it would sub-serve the purpose for awarding substantial justice.It is not in dispute that the victim Subhangi was married with respondent No. 1 Amol, on 25-11-2013 and within a span of six to seven months of her matrimonial life, present incident of burning of victim Subhangi occurred at her matrimonial home.Unfortunately, the victim Subhangi received serious burn injuries and while medical treatment she succumbed to it.In the matter in hand, prosecution adduced evidence of PW 1 - Bharat Pandav, PW 2-Ranjana Bharat Pandav, PW 3 - Chandrakant Pandhav and PW 4 - Yamaji Ramnath Javade, all are relatives of the victim Subhangi.The prosecution also examined P.W. 5- Bhausaheb Thorat, Tahsildar, who has recorded dying declaration of deceased in the hospital.P.W.10-Balajising Thakur, Investigating Officer, reduced into writing the statement of deceased Subhangi, when she was hospitalized for medical treatment for her burns.It would be seen from multiple dying declarations that the victim Shubangi::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 ::: 4 933-ALS-143-18 disclosed about the hostile atmosphere at her matrimonial home.Learned trial Court gave much more emphasis on the discrepancies in the dying declarations recorded by Revenue and Police Personnels.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::It is to be noted that the deceased Subhangi cohabited with husband for a short span of six/seven months at her matrimonial home.Whenever she had been to the parental home, she disclosed about her ordeals to the kith and kins.In view of settled rule of law that in the proceeding of cruelty to married women, generally, incident used to occur within four walls of the matrimonial home.Therefore, the victim and her relatives to whom she used to disclose about her cruelty are only the reliable witnesses into the matter.In the matter in hand there are multiple dying declarations of the deceased recorded by Police and Revenue Personnels.The learned trial Court found reluctant to rely upon the dying declarations for the reason that there are no certification of the Doctor about mental state of deceased on dying declarations.Moreover, the dying declarations were recorded by the same Officers, on two occasions.The learned trial Court also found discrepancies in regard to the incident narrated by victim Subhangi in these dying declarations.Therefore, learned trial Court did not accept the evidence of prosecution witnesses and proceeded to exonerate the respondents-accused in this case.The superficial scrutiny of the entire oral and circumstantial evidence adduced on record as referred above.I find that the sufficient opportunity is essential to be granted to the prosecution for re- evaluation of the evidence adduced on record on behalf of prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::5 933-ALS-143-18 Prima facie, I find substance in the contentions put-forth on behalf of prosecution that there is hope of success for the prosecution in the present matter.Hence, leave as prayed deserves to be accorded.Accordingly, leave as prescribed under section 378(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. is hereby granted.The prosecution is permitted to proceed further for filing an appeal against the impugned Judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court.The Application for leave to appeal by state stands disposed of.Registry to take requisite steps for further process.On registration of appeal, issue notice to respondents /accused.Mr. Bharad, learned counsel waives service of notice on behalf of respondents-accused.Record and proceedings has already been received to this Court.After compliance of procedural formalities, list the appeal for admission in due course.[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] MTK::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 13/04/2019 04:10:50 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
172,755,642 |
This is first bail application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. for an offence under Sections 420, 467 (added later on) of IPC in connection with Crime No.6/2015 registered at Police Station Aagasaud, District Sagar.Learned counsel for the applicant contends that as alleged by the prosecution present applicant show him to be an advocate and received Rs.2,100/- from 12 persons, however FIR was lodged.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,275,667 |
ComplainantCommon Prayer: Revisions are filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C.,praying to set aside the order, dated 22.12.2016 respectively made inCrl.M.P.Nos.217 & 218 of 2016 in Special S.C.Nos.27 & 28 of 2007 on the fileof the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakujdi,Ramanthapuram District and release the petitioner forthwith.!For Petitioner :Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian ^For Respondent :Mr.P. Kandasamy Government Advocate(Crl.Side):COMMON ORDER The above Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed praying to setaside the order, dated 22.12.2016 respectively made in Crl.M.P.Nos.217 & 218of 2016 in Special S.C.Nos.27 & 28 of 2007 on the file of the learnedAdditional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakujdi, RamanthapuramDistrict and release the petitioner forthwith.The petitioner herein is arrayed as A1 in Crime No.53 of 2006 underSection 120(B), 307, 395 r/w 397 IPC., and in Crime No.54 of 2006 underSections 120(B), 302 and 396 of IPC., respectively, on the file of therespondent Police.After completing the investigation in both the casesfinal reports were laid and are pending as S.C.Nos.28 & 27 of 2007respectively on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast TrackCourt), Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, for examination of InvestigatingOfficer by the respondent Police.The Petitioner / A1 in S.C.No.28 of 2007 filed bail application inCrl.M.P.No.48 of 2015 and in S.C.No.27 of 2007 filed bail applicationCrl.M.P.No.47 of 2015, before the learned Additional District Sessions Court,Ramanathapuram and in both the cases, the petitioner was ordered to bereleased on bail by its order dated 18.03.2015 and both the cases weretransferred to the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court,Paramakudi and are pending in that Court.The trial Court issued NBW againstthe petitioner for his absence on 13.06.2016 in both the cases and while theNBW issued against the petitioner was pending before the Court, thepetitioner was produced before the trial Court on 12.07.2016, under theP.T.Warrant and remanded the petitioner into judicial custody in both thecases.Challenging the said order of remand, after producing the petitionerunder P.T.Warrant, the petitioner has filed Crl.M.P.Nos.218 of 2016 inS.C.No. 28 of 2007 and Crl.Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, thepetitioner / A1 filed the present Revision Petition Nos.271 & 272 of 2017respectively before this Court.Hence, the remand order isunjustified.The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) appearing for therespondent would submit on the allegation made in the counter by therespondent that the petitioner is a notorious criminal and his name is alsoentered in the rowdy list from the year 2003 and more than 24 criminal caseshave been pending against the petitioner in all over the State and out ofwhich, more than 13 criminal cases are robbery and decoity; more than 2cases are murder cases and more than 5 cases are attempt to murder cases and there is no illegality in the order of the dismissal, dated 22.12.2016 passedby the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakujdi,Ramanthapuram District and further the entire trial proceedings of thecriminal case is going to an end within a short span of time period and thepresent Criminal Revision Petitions are devoid of merits.The respondent has categorically admitted in his counter that thepetitioner was released on bail on 18.03.2015 and he furnished sureties, butsince he was remanded in some other cases, he was not able to release from the prison.The antecedents of the petitioner, who issaid to be involved in several criminal cases, need not be looked into or notnecessary for deciding the issue in the petition filed by the petitioner.M.P.No.218 of 2016 and in Crl.M.P.(MD)No.217 of 2016, by the learnedAdditional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District.In the result, the Criminal Revision Petitions are allowed and theimpugned order, dated 22.12.2016, passed in Crl.M.P.Nos.217 & 218 of 2016 inS.C.Nos.27 & 28 of 2007, by the learned Additional District Judge (FastTrack Court), Paramakudi, Ramanthapuram District, is set aside and thepetitioner is ordered to be released forthwith, if his presence is notrequired in connection with any other cases.1.The Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Paramakujdi, Ramanthapuram District2.The Inspector of Police, Abiramam Police Station, Ramanathapuram District3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.The Record Keeper, Vernacular Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,372,692 |
1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.Heard finally, with consent of the parties.At the outset, we constrained to observe that, in spite of sufficient time granted to the respondents, the original record::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 ::: 2 Cri.WP-531-17 pertains to the case of the petitioner in relation to the externment was not made available for perusal, we express displeasure and direct respondent No. 1, to cause enquiry of respondents Nos. 2 and submit report to this Court within two months from today.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised two grounds; firstly, the alleged activities of the petitioner are confined to the Newasa town and even the offences are registered at Newasa Police Station, and therefore, there was no reason for respondent No. 2 to extern the petitioner from the entire Ahmednagar District.He, therefore, submits that petition deserves to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::On the other hand, learned APP relying upon the contents of the show cause notice and the reasons assigned by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the impugned decisions submits that the alleged movements and acts of the petitioner were causing alarm, danger and harm to person of the citizens at Newasa and adjoining area of Newasa Taluka, as same is evident from the number of offences registered against the petitioner, therefore, the respondent No. 2 was constrained to initiate an externment 2 1989 (3) Bom.C.R. 240::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 ::: 4 Cri.WP-531-17 proceeding against the petitioner.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::We have given thoughtful consideration to the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings in the petition and grounds taken therein, contents of the show cause notice and also the reasons assigned by respondent Nos.2 and 3 in the impugned judgments and we are of the opinion that petition deserves to be allowed for the reasons stated hereinbelow.Firstly, there is no discussion in the impugned judgments of respondent Nos.2 and 3 that, there is live link between initiation of an externment proceeding against the petitioner and the offences i.e. Crime Nos. 19 of 2011, 212 of 2011, 126 of 2013 registered against him in Newasa Police Station, District Ahmednagar.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::The order of externment can also be passed against::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 ::: 6 Cri.In addition to this the designated officer should be of the opinion that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence in public against such person by reason of apprehension on their part as regards the safety of their person or property.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::We have already, after examining the provisions of section 56(i) of the Bombay Police Act, held that in every case of acts involved on the part of the proposed externee, where an order of externment in proposed to be passed, it is necessary that the officer concerned must be satisfied that witnesses are not willing to come forward to give evidence against him.Notice of such satisfaction must also necessarily be given to the proposed externee under section 59 of the Bombay Police Act. In the present case, though notice of the fact that witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against the proposed externee has been given in so far as the ground mentioned in the first part of Clause (b) of section 56(i) is concerned, no such notice has been given is so far as the ground mentioned in the second part of section 56(i)(b) in concerned.In other words,::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 ::: 7 Cri.WP-531-17 when the authority proceeded to give notice to the proposed externee on the ground that he is engaged in, the commission of offences punishable under Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code, he failed to mention also that the witnesses are not coming forward to give evidence against him." (underlines added)::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::No order as to costs.12. List the matter for compliance of directions contained in paragraph no. 1 of this order.::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2017 00:56:02 :::
|
['Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,487,665 |
Mr. Sumeet A. Gemnahi i/by Mr. Satyam Pille for theApplicant.Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa , APP for the Respondent-State.Vinod Kamdi attached to Control Police Station,Ulhasnagar.CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2019P.C. :3 Manager of the Central Park Lodging andBoarding reported that accused Tonesh Khatri at the behestof the applicant, committed extortion by threatening toShivgan 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 04:55:30 ::: 905-ABA-2812-::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 04:55:30 :::2019.odtreveal private/damaging information in relation to hisestablishment of Boarding .However, prosecution could notpoint out link between the applicant and Tonesh Khatri thatthe act of extortion was committed at the instance of theapplicant.Stand over to 31st January, 2020.4 In the meantime, in the event of arrest of theapplicant in Crime No.I-42 of 2017 registered with CentralPolice Station, Ulhasnagar, he shall be released onexecuting PR bond in the sum of Rs.2,,000/- with one ormore sureties in like amount., He shall attend the concerned police station on24th , 27th December, 2019 and again on 65th, 13th and 20thJanuary, 2020 between 11 a.m. to 1 noon.::: Uploaded on - 20/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/12/2019 04:55:30 :::
|
['Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,555,146 |
These connected appeals have come up for hearing pursuant to the directions issued for expediting hearing in appeals filed by persons in custody (with sentence upto five years).Pursuant to the production warrants issued against the appellants, they have been produced from J/C.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 1 of 6The appellants have preferred these appeals impugning the judgment and order on sentence dated 10.07.2015 & 17.08.2015 respectively whereby they have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/342 read with Section 149 IPC, under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 392/34 IPC and sentenced as under :(i) U/S 147 IPC : to undergo RI for one year with fine of 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.(ii) U/S 148 IPC : to undergo RI for one year with fine of 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.(iii) U/S 342 IPC : to undergo RI for one year with fine of 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months.(iv) U/S 307/34 IPC : to undergo RI for five years with fine of 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.(v) U/S 392/34 IPC : to undergo RI for three years with fine of 5000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for six months.On that day, on receiving the secret information about huge stock of illicit liquor, SI Vijay Singh alongwith three Constables namely Ct.Ombir, Ct.Dharmender and Crl.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 2 of 6 Ct.Jitender all posted in Excise Intelligence Bureau, reached house No.WZ- 160, Ravi Nagar, Khyala.A jeep bearing registration No.HR-06-P-0232 was found parked there.When they peeped inside the jeep, it was found containing cartons of illicit liquor.While appellant Amarjeet was standing near the jeep, appellant Ramesh was inside the room.When the raiding team entered that room, they found stock of liquor stored there also in poly packs.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 2 of 6Appellant Ramesh was asked to hand over the keys of the jeep but he came out of the room and apprehended by the raiding team.Appellant Amarjeet asked them to stop and he called his family members including his mother and brothers.The members of their family were armed with hockeys, lathis and dandas and they started beating the raiding team.Appellant Ramesh snatched wireless set from SI Vijay Singh and pistol from Ct.Ombir and handed over to appellant Amarjeet.As per prosecution, appellant Amarjeet fired the pistol and the bullet hit on the hip of Ct.Appellant Ramesh exhorted 'pistol ki saari goliyan isi mein utaar de'.The car in which the raiding team visited the spot was also damaged.They were also bolted in a room and rescued by the local police.Thereafter they were sent for medical examination.After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellants and other co-accused persons namely Anil and Virender.On conclusion of trial, the appellants Ramesh and Amarjeet have been convicted for committing the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/342 read with Section 149 IPC, under Section 307/34 IPC and under Section 392/34 IPC and sentenced in the manner stated above.The other co-accused Virender has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 411 IPC and co-A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 3 of 6accused Anil has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 147/148/342 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 427 IPC.Vide order on sentence dated 17.08.2015 both these co-accused persons namely Virender and Anil have been released on probation.I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as the appellants, who have been produced from judicial custody.Learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions from the appellants, have submitted that the appellants are not challenging their conviction and praying for mercy by reducing the substantive sentence.9. Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that it is a case where the incident has taken place when the raiding team visited the place of incident on getting the secret information about huge stock of liquor being stored.The appellants had no intention or made any attempt to kill any member of the raiding party including Ct.Ombir as the firing was accidental and not intentional.The fact that when the pistol was recovered it was containing one live cartridge strengthens their contention.Learned counsel for the appellants have also submitted that in this case incident has taken place about 16 years ago.The nature of the injury even by gunshot was simple and not on vital part of the body.On the basis of same set of evidence, the co-convicts Virender and Anil Kumar who have been convicted for committing the offence 147/148/342 read with Section 149 IPC and under Section 411/427 IPC, were given the benefit of release on probation.The appellants are not challenging their conviction but limiting their prayer to the extent that the substantive sentence awarded to them may be reduced to the period already undergone by them in this case.Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that convict Amarjeet is aged Crl.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 4 of 6 about 50 years and having family consisting of wife and four sons to support.One of his son is differently disabled.Convict Ramesh is aged about 58 years.He is the sole bread earner in the family and having wife and two children to support.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 4 of 610. Learned APP for the State has submitted that it was a case of assault on the raiding team from Excise Intelligence Bureau that had gone there to conduct raid but assaulted by the appellants and co-convicts.While not disputing that there was a single fire and injury was simple and not on the vital part of the body, prayer for sentencing them to the period already undergone by them in this case has been opposed.After considering the rival submissions, I am of the view that in the facts and circumstances in which the occurrence/firing has taken place, it is necessary that not only the appellants must be made to realise about the nature and gravity of the offence committed by them but at the same time there should be proportionality between the offence committed and the sentence awarded.They have faced the agony of trial for the last 16 years.In the given facts and taking into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the appellants, I am of the opinion that it would meet the ends of justice, if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants for committing the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and under Section 392/34 IPC is reduced to two years.Accordingly, while upholding the conviction of the appellants, the substantive sentence awarded to them for committing the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC i.e. to undergo RI for five years and substantive sentence awarded for committing the offence punishable under Section 392/34 IPC i.e. to undergo RI for three years, is reduced to two years.A.Nos.988 & 1072 of 2015 Page 5 of 6Remaining substantive sentences of the appellants as well as sentence of fine shall remain the same.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary compliance.A copy of the order be also sent to the appellants through concerned Jail Superintendent.PRATIBHA RANI, J.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,745,823 |
The petitioners are social workers and Members of KisanAdivasi Sangathan', Kerala.The said 'Sangathan' is activelyworking against all kinds of exploitation purported againstthe local farmers and tribal people in the district ofHoshangabad.In villages of Morpani and Madikhoh of Hoshan-gabad District there was only one school teacher employed inthe Morpani school.The teacher was not attending the schoolfor the last one and half years.Inspite of several com-plaints lodged against the teacher, the authorities did notpay any attention in this regard.Therefore on 27/28.7.1988,the petitioners 1 to 3 along with a large number of tribalwomen and children staged a peaceful 'dharna' in front ofthe office of Block Education Officer, Kesala demandingappointment of two regular teachers in the schools locatedin tribal hamlets.The Assistant District Inspector ofSchools gave an assurance in writing stating that he wouldmake enquiries and initiate action in this regard.It is stated that evenafter the pronouncement of the judgment, the police onceagain abused them, made obscene gestures, beat and took themto the penitentiary handcuffed.The fourth petitioner wasarrested in connection with the peaceful dharna on25.11.1987 before the office of the Block Education Officer,Kesala and put behind the bars.He justifies the action of the police statingthat the petitioners on pronouncement of their conviction,got agitated, turned violent and shouted slogans inside theCourt which necessitated the escort police to handcuff thepetitioners.He cites Madhya Pradesh Police Regulation paraNo. 465(1) as per which if the escort in-charge876feels the necessity of handcuffing persons, he is empoweredto do so.The followingaverments are made in the writ petition:(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).R.B. Mehrotra for the Petitioners.U.N. Bachhawat, Uma Nath Singh and N.N. Johri for theRespondents.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. Two important questions arisingfor consideration in the above matter are:1989 without any order ofremand?Whether the petitioners 1 to 3 on being arrested weresubjected to torture and treated in a degrading and inhumanmanner by handcuffing and parading them through the publicthorough-fare during transit to the Court in utter disregardto874the judicial mandates declared in a number of decisions ofthis Court and whether they are entitled for compensation?The salient and material facts as set out in the WritPetitions are as follows:But tothe petitioners' dismay, the local police initiated criminalproceedings against the petitioners 1 to 3 and one oldAdivasi widow aged about 65 years who was not paid her wagesby the said teacher, for an offence punishable under Section186 IPC on the allegations that the petitioners and theAdivasi woman have obstructed public servants in dischargeof their public functions.In connection with the saidcriminal proceeding, the petitioners were arrested, abused,beaten and taken to the Court of 1st Class Judicial Magis-trate, Hoshangabad by handcuffing them.It seems that thepetitioners when questioned refused to tender apology orrepent for their conduct but tried to justify their actionof having staged the dharna for a legitimate cause.TheMagistrate convicted the petitioners 1 to 3 and sentencedthem to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of onemonth while acquitting the woman.1989 in connection withsome other false case.According to the petitioner, they allwere working for the welfare of the weaker sections anddown-trodden people in875a peaceful manner but they were inhumanly treated againstall norms of decency by the police in utter disregard of therepeated and consistent mandates of this Court and in utterviolation of their fundamental rights guaranteed underArticles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India.There-after, the petitioners filed Criminal Miscellaneous PetitionNos.282 1-24 of 1989 in the above writ petitions for im-pleading the Superintendent, District Jail and the 1st classMagistrate, Hoshangabad as additional respondents and totreat the additional facts as part of the main writ peti-tions.The additional facts are as follows:1989 they were not released from the jailbut continued to be detained on the allegation that theywere wanted in two more cases, namely, in Case No. 470 of1988 registered under Section 341 read with Section 34 IPCpending in the .Court of 1st Class Magistrate, Hoshangabadand another in a case registered as Criminal Case No. 569/88against the two petitioners and others under Section 353,148 and 149, IPC.The Counter-affidavit is filed by one R.K. Shivhare, thethen SHO (Police), Itarsi, Hoshangabad District on behalf ofthe respondents giving a detailed version about the incidentleading to the registration of various cases and justifyingthe conduct of the police officials in handcuffing thepetitioners.Alongwith this affidavit, he has filed Annex-ures I to VI.However, he denies allegations of torture, obscenegestures etc. A copy of the police report dated nil and without dis-closing the author of the same is filed stating that whilefirst and second petitioners were taken to the prison ontheir conviction, they turned violent not only inside theCourt but also outside the Court and they were taken to theorison with the help of other members of the police force.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Headquarters, Hoshanga-bad has filed a separate counter-affidavit denying theallegations made in the writ petition.A rejoinder is filedby the first petitioner reiterating his earlier stand andannexing certain newspaper clippings and some other docu-ments inclusive of the copy of the judgment of the IIndAdditional Sessions Judge, Hoshangabad made in CriminalAppeal No. 59 of 1989 setting aside the conviction of thepetitioners recorded by the Judicial Magistrate for theoffences under Section 186 IPC, and acquitting the petition-ers of the said offence.Head Constable No. 66, who wasincharge of the escort party has sworn to an affidavitstating that the petitioners 1 and 2 were taken to the jailon being handed over by the Court after their conviction andthey took them to the prison by handcuffing them under abona fide belief that the situation might become worse.Healso cites paragraph 465(1) of the M.P. Police Regulation insupport of his action of putting the petitioners 1 to 3under shackles.One other supporting affidavit is also filedby a constable of the escort party.It seems that a Sub-Inspector of CID made an enquiry on a petition regarding thehandcuffing of petitioners 1 and 2 and submitted his reportto the Superintendent of Police.The relevant portion of thereport reads as follows:" ..... And the Court called the police guard and as perCourt's direction the three accused were handcuffed and keptin the lock-up, later on the Court again called all thethree accused persons to the Court where Purushottam Nayakwas released on bail .......................... It wasfound on enquiry that the appellants Sunil and Rajnarayanwere sentenced to one-month imprisonment each under Section186 IPC in the Court of Shri Chand Soria and police guardsunder the order of the honourable court handcuffed theappellants in the court itself and lodged them in jail.Theappellants say that they should not have been handcuffed butthe guards had no other instruction to the contrary in thisregard."From the writ petition, counter affidavits and rejoinderaffidavit, we are able to gather certain facts, they being:A case in Crime No. 86/87 under Section 353, 323, 332read with Sec. 34 IPC was registered against the petitionerson 25.11.87 by Kesala police.A case in Crime No. 87/87 under Section 34 1 read withSec. 34 was registered against the petitioners on 25.11.1987 itself.
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,605,744 |
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
174,640,465 |
In nutshell, case of the prosecution is that on 17.06.2000, on receipt of DD No.20B, SI Hardeep Singh (PW10) Investigating Officer of the case alongwith a constable went to the spot, i.e., H. No.C-3/234, Janakpuri, where a large crowd of people was present and was giving beatings to a person.On enquiry, name of the said person revealed as Rajesh S/o Sh.At about 9.30 PM, when they reached in front of their house, three boys came on a scooter from behind, one of them gave a blow on his hip with an iron object due to which he fell down and then the said person pointed out a country made pistol on him and threatened him to hand over the bag to him or he would be shot.Then the other boy snatched the bag from his hand containing Rs.30,000/-.The third boy was sitting on the scooter.Complainant and his son raised an alarm and some neighbours came there.1. Vide the present appeal, the appellants seek setting aside of the judgment dated 30.04.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No.69/2000, whereby the appellants were held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 392 read with 34 and 394 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC') and order on sentence dated 02.05.2002, whereby they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 394 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 392 IPC.Appeal No.406/2002 Page 1 of 6Jamun Parshad, who was having a country made pistol.Complainant Ram Avtar Goel (PW1) made a statement Ex. PW1/A,whereby stated that he was residing at the aforesaid address and run a kiryana shop at C-4E Market, Janakpuri, and on that day he alongwith his son Amit Goel (PW4) was returning to his house on Scooter No.DL 4SQ 8393 after closing the shop.PW4 was driving the said scooter and the complainant was the pillion rider.Out of the three boys, two boys managed to escape from the spot alongwith the bag, while the third body holding the katta was apprehended by the public with the scooter bearing No. DL 2SJ 5720 and the katta.The Investigating Officer seized the scooter vide memo Ex. PW1/B and the country made pistol vide memo Ex. PW1/C. PW1 also stated that he could identify the other two boys.During the course of investigation, other two accused Daljeet and Ravi, i.e., the appellants herein were also apprehended.Their test Crl.Appeal No.406/2002 Page 2 of 6 identification parade was got conducted.Accordingly, chargesheet was filed.Charges for offences punishable under Sections 392/34 IPC and 394/34 IPC were framed against both the appellants and other co-accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses in all including the eye witnesses, namely, Ram Avtar Goel (PW1) complainant and Amit Goel (PW4).Appeal No.406/2002 Page 2 of 6Consequently, vide judgment dated 30.04.2000 and order on sentence dated 02.05.2000, the appellants alongwith accused Rajesh were held guilty and convicted as noted in para 1 above.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset submits that he does not want to press the appeal on merits but prays that the appellants be released on the sentence of imprisonment which they had already undergone.In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants, I do not deem it necessary to deal with other aspects of this case.Appellant Daljeet was arrested in this case on 24.06.2000 and has already undergone imprisonment for about two years, whereas appellant Ravi Gulati was arrested on 21.06.2000 and has already undergone imprisonment for one year and nine months.Both the appellants are not involved in any other criminal case.As per the nominal roll conduct of the appellants is satisfactory.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that during the pendency of the instant appeal, both the appellants got married and are having two minor children to look after.The appellants have faced the Crl.Appeal No.406/2002 Page 3 of 6 agony and trauma of criminal proceedings, trial and ignominy and humiliation of the conviction for almost sixteen years.Too lenient as well as too harsh sentence both lose their efficaciousness.One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal.Appeal No.406/2002 Page 5 of 6The Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Jail Superintendent for information.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) FEBRUARY 24, 2016 Sb/jg Crl.Appeal No.406/2002 Page 6 of 6Appeal No.406/2002 Page 6 of 6
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,746,794 |
As all the appeals of the appellants stated above are connected and arise out of one and the same incidence, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.The informant Vinod Kumar P.W. 1 and injured witnesses, namely Dhirendra Kumar PW 2 and Ravindra Kumar PW 3, are residents of village Gudrapur P.S. Mahroni.district Lalitpur.The prosecution case, as set up in the F.I.R. briefly slated is that Vinod Kumar gave his field (known as Labuda) to Karan accused in the previous year on batal system but Karan dishonestly did not give the crop of his share to him.Even then Karan was demanding the field, of Vinod Kumar on batal for the current year but Phoolchand refused to do so; hence Karan and his companions enraged enmity against Phoolchand.On the day of occurrence 11-7-1979 Phoolchand sent Mukunda and Hallan for plouging that field.Thereafter Phoolchand and his sons informant Vinod Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Devendra Kumar went to the field where Karan holding a lathis reached and told them that they would riot be able to sow the field and bad consequence would follow.Phool Chand told that he had committed dishonesty; hence he.would not give the field to him for cultivation.Karan thereupon became angry and returned to the village.After sometime in the afternoon Phoolchand and his sons were going to their house, for taking lunch.When they reached Tagra.field of Patwari, accused Karat, Thulua, Gorey Lal, Har Bhajan, Lakshman, .Jalam Phundi holiding lathis, Halka holding axe.Hiralal and Tulsi armed with Parena surrounded them.Karam asked Phoolchand as to why he had not given his field to him and the complainant party could not.plough and sow the field.Phoolchand asserted that the field was of his own, he will cultivate the same, and what concern they have with it.Thereupon Karan exhorted his companions to give him a lesson of not giving the field saying that. 'Baniya Sala had become idiot and unsound mind.' Thereupon all of them started assaulting Phoolchand.When his sons tried to rescue their father, the accused persons started assaulting them also.The sons of Phoolchand also wielded their lathis and Parena in self-defence.Due to this enmity all the accused assaulted the complainant, and his brothers and committed the murder of his father.The distance of the police station from the place of occurrence is eight miles.P.W. Karrita Singh was posted a! that time as Station Officer at the police station.He started investigation.He went to village Gudrapur where he found the dead body of Phoolchand lying in his house.He took blood stained bed sheet in custody and prepared a recovery memo.He also took Banian and underwear of the deceased in custody.He went in search of the accused persons at their houses but none of them could be made available.He arrested.He inspected the venue and prepared a site plan.The I.O. went to the District Hospital Lalitpur on 14-7-1979 where he reported the statements of Vinod Kumar Devendra Kumar injured persons.He also collected the.copy of N.C.R. and copy of the complaint.Karan staled in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that he had no money transaction with the complainant.When in the morning of the day of incident he was sitting in front of his house, several persons were present there and he saw various persons bringing the dead body of Phoolcharid.His house was near the house of Sclh Phoolchand.At that time Vinod Kumar, Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar will 2-3 servants came from their house and they started abusing and assaulting him.They had beaten him and he also assaulted them.Phundi also stated in his statement recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that alter the murder of Phoolchand, Vinod Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Devendra Kumar with 2-3 servants assaulted Karan at his house.He intervened and rescued him.In that process Vinod Kumar, Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar sustained injuries and few lathi injuries were also sustained on his side.Lakshman stated that Seth Phool Chand wanted him to give evidence in Court in a case against Tulsi accused but he refused to do so, hence he has been involved falsely in the present case.Gorey Lal stated that he heard in the morning that Seth Phopl Chand had been killed.Various people had brought his body to his house.The house of Karan lies in the way.Karan was sitting in front of his house.Several persons including the accused were present there.The accsued persons rescued him and subsided the matter, hence they have been falsely implicated in the present case.The defence also examined DW 1 Pragi, who stated that at about 6 or 7 a.m. on the date of the incident he heard that Phoolchand, father of Vinod Kumar had been murdered.25-30 village people had gone in search of the dead body.At that time all the three sons of Phoolchand had accompanied them and the dead body was found in the Nala.A cot was brought by Dhamma and the dead body was brought to the house of the deceased.At that time, several persons were present there.Then he went to his house.He was called by the I.O. at 4 p.m. The dead body was sealed and his signatures were taken on the memo and other papers.DW 2 Janki stated that he saw that a quarrel had taken place in front of the house of Karan in which Devendra Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Vinod Kumar with 2-3 servants assaulted Karan with lathis.The other accused persons Lakshman, Phundi, Gorey Lal, and Tulsi intervened and rescued Karan.Phundi and Karan also sustained injuries.The accused persons also assaulted Devendra Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Vinod Kumar because they were assaulting Karan and other accused persons and were not stopping the Marpit.All the three brothers along with their servants ran away.In that Marpit Devendra Kumar, Ravindra Kumar and Vinod Kumar sustained injuries.On the side of accused Karan and Phundi also sustained injuries.The house of Karan was at a distance of about 20-25 steps away from that of Phoolchand.At the time of the incident 100-150 persons were present there.It was 8 or 9 a.m.The learned Counsel for the appellants placed the evidence of all the three eye witnesses,.who consistently deposed that at the time when the sons of the deceased along with his father were coming to their house, near the Tagra field of Patwari all the accused armed with lathis, Parena and axes reached there and Karan asked the deceased as to why the field had not been given to him.When the complainant and his other brothers Ravindra Kumar and Devendra Kumar tried to rescue their father, they were also assaulted by the accused.JUDGMENT Kundan Singh, J.Karan, Thalua, Har Bhchan, Gorey Lal, Lakshman, Jalam, Phund, Hira Lal, Tulsi and Halka have preferred the aforesaid criminal appeals against the judgment and order dated 30-6-1980 by Sri S.N. Singh, the then Addl.Session Judge, Lalitpur in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1979 whereby all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life.They have also been convicted under Sections 307/149, I.P.C. and sentence to seven years R.I. They have further been convicted under Sections 323/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. each.Halka has also been convicted under Section 148, I.P.C. and sentenced to one and a half years R.I. while other appellants have been convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year R.I. each.Five lacerated wounds, four incised wounds, three punctured wounds and 12 contusion.s were found on the body of Phoolchand.He found five contusions and one facerated wound on the person of Vinod Kumar, seven, lacerated wounds, eight contusions, one traumatic swelling and one abrasion on the person of I Jevcndra Kumar and four contusios and one lacerated wound on the person of Ravindra Kumar.The I.O. after completing other formalities submitted a charge-sheet against all the accused persons in Court.The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in all to prove its case.Out of them Vinod Kumar Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar were the witnesses of factum of the incident while the other witnesses were of formal nature.The accused persons denied She prosecution version and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge after considering the evidence on record held the appellants guilty of the offences charged with and convicted and sentenced them as stated above.The appellants have come up before this Court in these appeals against their conviction and sentence.Heard Sri Krishna, Kapoor, counsel for the appellants and Sri Deepak, learned A.G. A. for the State.The complainant party, however also wielded their lathi and Parena in self-defence.Hallan and Mukunda, when asked the accused not to beat them, then the accused ran away.Phoolchand succumbed to his injuries at the spot.Vinod Kumar, Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar sustained numerous injuries on their person.The deceased sustained 25 injuries.The following injuries were found on the person of Phoolchand by the doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination:Lacerated wound 11 cm x 4 cm x bone deep on the left side of head.4 cm above from left eye brow, longitude Margin lacerated.Lacerated wound 7 cm.x 3 cm.x bone deep on the left side of head just outer and paralled to injury No. 1 Margin lacerated clotted blood present.Incised wound 6 cm.x 2 cm.x bone deep in mid of skull 6 cm above from bridge of nose.Margin sharp clean out no tailing vertical.Incised wound 3 cm.x 2 cm.x hone deep on right side head 6 cm above from right eye brow and 4 cm above from tip of the right ear.Margin sharp.Lacerated wound 3 cm.x 2 cm.x bone deep on right side head at back.Margin lacerated and torn.Incised wound 4 cm.x 2 cm.x deep out bone right side of lower jaw oblique Margin sharp and clean cut.Fracture right side mandible at middle.Incised wound 2.5 cm.x 2 cm.x 1.4 cm.just at chain Margin chopped, clean out no tailing.Contusion 12 cm.x 6 cm.on right side chest frontal lateral aspect, oblique, 4 cm.below from on right nipple.Contusion 8 cm.x 4 cm.on epigastriun, oblique.Abraided contusion 11 cm.x 4 cm.on right shoulder.Contusion 4 cm.x 4 cm.on upper part outer aspect of right arm.Contusion 4 cm.x 3 cm.Lacerated wound on back of hand fright side 3 cm.x 3 cm.x 2 cm.just below middle finger.Margin lacerated.Lacerated wound 2 cm .x 2 cm.x 2 cm.Margin lacerated.Contusion multiple average size 3 cm.x 2 cm.to 2 cm.x 2 cm.on outer aspect of left arm arranged in one upon another in area about 10 cm.x 6 cm.Contusion 4 cm.x 2 cm.lower outer aspect of left arm.Punctured wound 2 cm x 2 cm.6 cm.in front of left arm middle.Margin lacerated.Punctured wound 2 cm x 2 cm.4 cm.on left elbow back upper part.Left fore arm clotted blood present.Margin lacerated Fracture of ulna upper part seen.Punctured wound 2 cm.x 2 cm.4 cm.on left wrist, outer aspect margin lacerated clotted blood present.Contusion 6 cm.x 4 cm.on back of left hand in middle.Abraided contusion 4 cm.x 2 cm.in upper front of left thigh.Abraided contusion 3 cm.x 2 cm.Abraided contusion 2 cm.x 1 cm.x 1 cm.on front of right skin of right leg.Contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on left side back of chest 7 crn.below inferior angle of left scapula.Contusion 4 crn.x 2 cm.on left shoulder blade.On exploration under injury No. 1 and 2 temporal pariental bone was found fractured and membrane longitudely torn and contused in an area of 6 cm.x 4 cm.x 2 cm oz of clotted and semi clotted blood under injuries No. 6 and 7 was found.Mandible was fractured.Cause of death was, in the opinion of the doctor, due to multiple injuries on vital organs and due to shock and haemorrhage.The injuries of Vinod Kumark, Devendra Kumar and Ravindra Kumar were also examined by Dr. S.K. Jain, who found various injuries on the person of the aforesaid injured, as stated above.The witnesses have also stated about the motive that the accused Thalua, Halka, Jalam, Lakshman, Hiralal, Gorey Lal, Phundi and Karan had money transactions with the deceased.The deceased had also filed a case against Har Bhajan and Tulsi about a year prior to the incident.The papers regarding money transaction are on record, questions No. 7 and 8 regarding money transaction and the quarrel and litigation having taken place prior to the incident were specifically put to the accused but they denied the same.PW 2 Devendra Kumar stated in his cross examination that when all the ten accused persons surrounded Phoolchand and started assaulting him with their respectively weapons, the three injured sons of the deceased tried to rescue their father, they were also assaulted with the weapons.The learned Counsel for the appellants has not disputed the factum of the incident.The common intention of the accused persons was only to give a lesson by assaulting or inflicting grievous injuries.Under injuries No. 1 and 2 the parietal and temporal bones of the deceased were found fracture and mandible was also found fractured.The prosecution has not come with a case attributing the specific role to any of the accused persons for causing those inuries.As such at the most the offence would fall under Section 325/149, I.P.C. for causing the grievous hurt to the injuries.The accused surrounded Phoolchand and started belabouring him with their respective weapons.When his three sons intervened and rescued their father, they were also assaulted.The deceased sustained as many as 25 injuries on his body.The injured persons also sustained 2.8 injuries in rescuing their father, who was assaulted till his last breath.No other point has been pressed.They shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out their sentence.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,491,073 |
O R D E R (Passed on 13 April, 2015)The applicant has preferred this application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by an order dated 14/03/2013 passed by the 8 th Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur in miscellaneous criminal case No. 477/2013 Swatantra Tripathi Vs.State of M.P. & another, by which her application filed under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. is rejected.The facts material for adjudication of the application are as under:-2.1 On 10/02/2013, applicant Swatantra Tirpathi made (2) M.Cr.C. No.2527/2014 an oral report at Police Station-Garha, Jabalpur stating that she is an advocate by profession and she lives with her mother, brother and sister in Sanjivni Nagar Colony, Garha Jabalpur.In the early morning of 10/02/2013, she was to go to Sharda Mata Mandir, Maihar for offering darshan along with her mother Mohni.At about 4 a.m. she was opening the gate of her house.At that time, she saw two motor cycles stopped near her house.On one motor cycle Shiv Shankar Tripathi, who is respondent no. 2 herein, Ravishankar and Ashish were sitting and on the other motor cycle there was only a rider, whom she does not know by name and face.Respondent Shiv Shankar got off the motor cycle and raised a pistol upon her.On the instigation of Ravishankar, he fired at her with an intention to kill her, but she escaped herself.As a result, she sustained gun shot injury in her left arm.Thereafter, upon exhortation of Ashish, respondent Shiv Shankar fired 2 to 3 rounds.Hearing a loud report of gun-shots, her mother and sister came out of the house.Seeing them, they ran away on their motor cycles.On the basis of oral report of the applicant, an FIR was recorded and the same was registered at crime no. 103/2013 under Sections 307 and 34 of the IPC against the aforesaid.2.2 On 11/02/2013, the police Garha arrested (3) M.Cr.2.3 On 11/02/2013, respondent Shiv Shankar filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. before the Sessions Judge, Sessions Division Jabalpur.His application was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 386/2013 Shiv Shankar Vs.The same was made over to the 8th Additional Sessions Judge Jabalpur for adjudication.Vide order dated 12/02/2013, the learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail to him.2.4 Feeling aggrieved by the grant of bail to respondent Shiv Shankar, the applicant moved an application under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail order dated 12/02/2013, which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 477/2013 Swatantra Tripathi Vs.State of M.P. & another.Having heard parties to the case, the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejected the application by the impugned order dated 14.03.2013 holding that there is no cogent and solid ground for cancellation (4) M.Cr.C. No.2527/2014 of the bail granted to respondent Shiv Shankar.2.5 It may be noted that the applicant had initially preferred criminal revision against the impugned order.However, on the application of the applicant, this Court has permitted her to convert this revision into M.Cr.(4)The learned applicant herself argued her case.In fact, the police produced respondent Shiv Shankar under the pressure of the District Bar Jabalpur as he is a practicing lawyer at Jabalpur.The preponing of date of hearing shows that the Bar had brought the pressure upon the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It is also argued by her that while hearing the bail application, the learned Additional Sessions Judge had not considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the fire arm injury sustained by her in right perspective.In fact, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted bail to respondent Shiv Shankar only on the ground that he is a practicing lawyer and much more under the pressure of the Bar.Therefore, the bail order was not based on proper appreciation of the facts and circumstance of the case.When she strongly mounted protests at various levels against his mischievous promise, two unknown offenders at his behest threw acid at her in order to brow beat her so that she could not raise protests.She lodged a report of the said incident to Mahila Police Station, Jabalpur.Upon her report, the Mahila Police registered a crime against respondent Shiv Shankar and others at crime no. 14/13 under Sections 294, 323, 313, 493, 506 Part- II and 34 of the IPC.
|
['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.
|
296,625 |
Mrs. Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner.The Joint Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Haddows Road, Chennai-6. .. 6th Respondent... Respondents.W.P.No. 3009 of 2005Mrs.Muthulakshmi,W/o.Munusamy Veerappan,T.M.B. Nagar, Puthuchampalli,Mettur Dam-2, Salem District... Petitioner.The Government of Tamil Nadu, represented by its Secretary, Department of Home, Fort St. George, Chennai.The Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam, Erode District.The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri District.The Station House Officer, Kolathur Police Station, Dharmapuri District... Respondents.Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against order in so faras it relates to Clause (ii) of para 12 of order date 4 -2-2005 and partlyallowing in portion of the order dated 7-2-2005 in so far as para 6 of themodification order, made in Writ Petition No. 3009/2005 by Single Judge ofthis Court; and Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issuea Writ of Mandamus, directing the 6th respondent herein to depute a competentofficer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221/2004 dated 19-10-2004from the file of 5th respondent and investigate the same under the supervisionof the 6th respondent and procedure as per law, also by invoking the relevantsection of Indian Penal Code against the erring 3rd respondent personnel,award costs.!Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,assisted by Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special Govt.Mr. A.L. Somayaji, Additional Advocate General,assisted by Mr. D. Krishnakumar, Special GovernmentPleader and Mr. C. Manishankar, Special PublicProsecutor for Respondents in W.P.No.Muthulakshmi, wife of Munusamy Veerappan, Puthuchampally, MetturDam-2, Salem District, has filed Writ Petition No. 3009/2 005 praying forissuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing 6th respondent-Joint Director,Central Bureau of Investigation, Haddows Road, Chennai-6 to depute a competentofficer to take up the investigation of Crime No. 1221 of 2004 dated19-10-2004 from the file of 5th respondent-Station House Officer, KolathurPolice Station, Dharmapuri District and investigate the same under thesupervision of 6th respondent i.e., C.B.I as per law against the thirdrespondent-Additional Director General of Police, Special Task Force,Sathiyamangalam, Erode District.Inasmuch as the Writ Appeal filed by the Government is against aninterim direction pending disposal of the main writ petition and in view ofthe fact that both the Writ Appeal and the Writ Petition are taken up togetherfor disposed, let us consider the case of the writ petitioner, namely,Muthulakshmi.According to her, the Special Task Force allegedly killed herhusband deceased Munusamy Veerappan (hereinafter referred to as "Veerappan")along with his three accomplices in an encounter at Padi in DharmapuriDistrict.The Tamil Nadu Police had tortured her husband in the year 1985.Therefore, he escaped from their custody into the forest.Though the citizensof Karnataka and Tamil Nadu and Kerala heaved a sigh of relief at theelimination of her husband, Veerappan, the sequence of events that lead toshoot out and the death of her husband, has caused suspicion in the minds ofwell informed persons and enlightened citizens.The Tamil Nadu Government hasgiven lagesse to the tune of Rs.22.5 Crores which include Rs. 3 Lakhs eachcash award, a housing plot and accelerated promotion for all the 752 SpecialTask Force (S.T.F in short) personnel.It is her further claim that the Government of Tamil Nadu areshowing undue haste to honour the S.T.F personnel in Tamil Nadu only to createa record and register it in history for the posterity to glorify the TamilNadu Police.There is an apprehension in the minds of general public that herhusband might have committed suicide when cornered by the S.T.F., personnel.The S.T.F., personnel have miserably failed to nab her husband alive, insteadthey ventured to kill him or allowed him to commit suicide.The Chief ofS.T.F., has killed several persons in the name of encounters.Hundreds ofvictims who lost their lives and materials of excesses committed by the S.T.F.. personnel, including rape and murder were unfortunately forgotten bythe Government of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.Her husband's murder has created so manysuspicions.It is further stated that the fact finding team, which wascomprised eight Human Rights Organisations, has gone to the occurrence place,enquired and collected materials from the general public.The team has issueda report and also given press release on 18-01-2005 stating that her husbandand three others were given anaesthetic through buttermilk by her relatives,which showed that the third respondent has captured her husband and 3 othersafter they become unconscious because of the given anaesthetic.The Chief ofS.T.F. has also agreed to conduct re-post-mortem.One Mr. Haribabu, who isan Advocate and also Convenor of the Fact Finding Team, has made arepresentation dated 15-11-2004 to the fourth respondent for re-postmortem ofthe dead body of her husband.No action has been taken so far.On behalf of Government of Tamil Nadu, first respondent, theAdditional Secretary to the Government, Home Department, has filed a counteraffidavit wherein it is stated that petitioner's husband Veerappan, Son ofKoose Munusamy of Gopinatham village in Karnataka State of Tamil origin was ahard core criminal.During the period 1978-2001, he had killed 2000 maleelephants and stolen 40,000 kgs of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded theforests of sandalwood in a large scale and murdered 124 persons belonging toPolice, Forests, Civilians of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.Further, he abducted45 persons.When he abducted Dr. Rajkumar, Karnataka Cine fame actor, thelives and properties of the entire Tamil Community in Karnataka were underconstant threat besides his activities brought shame to the State as well asto the country and disgrace to the humanity.In order to prevent Veerappan and his gang from committingatrocities and to nab them, the operation Vanamalai was launched in 1990,jointly by the Governments of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.Government of TamilNadu formed a Special Task Force (STF) on 01-05-19 93 with 200 selectivepolicemen from different wings of the police department under the thenAdditional Director General of Police.Subsequently, regular Special TaskForce was formed with strength of 239 police personnel.In the year 1999, apost of Inspector General of Police, Special Task Force was created.Afterrelease of the abducted Kannada Cine actor Dr. Rajkumar on 15-11-2000, sincethe forest brigand Veerappan was eluding the Special Task Force personnel, theGovernment sanctioned an additional post of Deputy Inspector General of Policeand two Superintendents of Police for Special Task Force on 22-11-2 000 forintensive combing operations and to nab the forest brigand alive.After revamping and activating the S.T.F during June, 2001,developments activities have been initiated to make the Special Task Forcepeople-friendly and to isolate the Forest Brigand Veerappan from the localpeople.Due to manipulation of Veerappan a land mine exploded in the forestarea, wherein Veerappan and his gang were hiding resulting in the death of 5Police Constables and two forest watchers.The Government of Tamil Nadusanctioned a financial incentive of Rs.50,000/- to those who give usefulinformation leading to the arrest of Veerappan and his gang.In G.O.Ms.No.615, Home dated 02-07-2001 orders were issued enhancing the reward amount fromRs.20 lakhs to Rs. 25 lakhs to those who capture/giving clues leading to thecapture of the forest brigand Veerappan and his brother Arjunan.TheGovernment also sanctioned a reward of Rs.15 lakhs to those who give vitalclue to nab Sethukuli Govindan and the Government sanctioned the reward amountof Rs.10 lakhs to those who give vital clue to nab other members (for each) ofthe dreaded Veerappan gang.While the police party attempted to captureVeerappan and his associates, they opened fire towards the police party and inthe encounter they were killed.All the three doctors who conducted post-mortem arewell experienced and competent in conducting post-mortem examination of deadbodies involved in medico-legal cases and in particular experienced inconducting post-mortem of dead bodies whose death were caused by FireArms/Explosives.In the proceedings No.ROC.58187/04/C1 dated 19-10-20 04, theCollector has ordered an enquiry under Section 150 (3) of Police StandingOrder into the death of Veerappan and his close associates.The reportdiscloses, that during the enquiry 196 witnesses have been examined.Expertsreports from Biology, Serology, Ballistic, Viscera, Physical, explosive, etc.,have been obtained and considered by Revenue Divisional Officer.Consideringall the statements obtained from the witnesses and reports, the RevenueDivisional Officer has concluded that it is an intelligence operation whichwas evolved and in such an operation, the Special Task Force personnel wasleft with no other option except to open fire in self defence and in theirattempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminals Veerappan and threeothers.Regarding shoot out, it is stated that Veerappan and hisassociate criminals who were threatening two State Governments for the past 20years, while the police party attempted to capture them, Veerappan and hisassociates fired towards the police party and in the encounter, they met theirend and so the brave personnel of the S.T.F deserve honour and reward andthere is nothing wrong in recognizing their courage by awarding the rewards.While denying the encounter as a fake encounter, different police officialshad to open fire due to unavoidable circumstances, which warranted firing forself defence.Various other encounters referred to in the affidavit, it isstated that the said encounters were conducted by different police officersand as a conscientious officer, he has discharged his duty with devotion andin good faith.Further, as per the orders of the Government, the entireincident was enquired by the Revenue Divisional Officer.In fact, thepetitioner also participated in the said enquiry.iv) The petitioner has a reliable information that her husband Veerappan wasadministered anaesthetic material, due to which he was killed;v) The investigation by the Human Rights activities lead to a differentconclusion regarding cause of her husband's death; hence enquiry by CentralBureau of Investigation is a must;vi) The various instructions of the Human Rights Commission have not beenfollowed, but violated.Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned Additional Advocate General, met allthe contentions.According to him, the details furnished in the counteraffidavit of the first and third respondents are answers to all thecontentions.She has apprehended that herhusband was tortured by the S.T.F. personnel and might have committedsuicide, and that the S.T.F. personnel instead of nabbing him alive, killedhim or allowed to commit suicide.She further stated that during post-mortem,several injuries found on her husband's dead body have not been traced out andbrought to light by the Postmortem doctors.The request of her and otherHuman Rights activists for re-post-mortem of the body of Veerappan has notbeen considered.According to her, there are human rights violations.Therefore, she prays for entrusting the investigation of this case with theCentral Bureau of Investigation.We are very well conscious of the fact thatthough Veerappan and his associates are dreaded criminals, still their libertyto life cannot be taken away without following proper procedure.383/2004 on 13-11-2004 as per the rules and procedure the same was transferred to theinvestigation officer Thiru P. Krishnaraj, Deputy Superintendent of Police,Dharmapuri District for further action.It is further stated that the saidinvestigation officer has forwarded the said petition to the RevenueDivisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on file as per Section 160 (3)Cr.P.C. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri is the enquiry officernominated by the District Collector, Dharmapuri to conduct enquiry under Order150 (3) of Police Standing Order.In para 3 of his affidavit, he hasspecifically stated that no such petition alleged to have been sent byThirumathi Muthulakshmi was received either by post or in person by him; hencethe question of registering F.I.R for taking action against the S.T.F.personnel by him did not arise.This specific averment of the Inspector ofPolice, Dharmapuri Town Police Station has not been denied by the petitionerby filing counter or reply.In view of the information of 5th respondent andof the fact that her complaint has been forwarded to the Revenue DivisionalOfficer, who conducted enquiry relating to the death of Veerappan and hisassociates before whom the petitioner also deposed, the grievance expressed bythe petitioner as to the fate of her alleged complaint dated 8-11-2004 isliable to be rejected.Since the rest of the contentions/allegations areinter-connected, they are being considered in the following paragraphs.It yielded to the pressure tactics of those who according to theGovernment are out to terrorise the police force and to overawe the electedGovernments.It does not appear that any one considered that with theiraction people may lose faith in the democratic process, when they see publicauthority flouted and the helplessness of the Government.The aspect ofparalysing and discrediting the democratic authority had to be taken intoconsideration.Index:- YesInternet:- YesR.B.The Secretary to the Government,Department of Home,Fort St. George, Chennai.The Additional Director General of Police,Special Task Force, Sathiyamangalam,Erode District.The Revenue Divisional Officer,Dharmapuri District.The Station House Officer,Kolathur Police Station,Dharmapuri District.The Chief of the Special TaskForce of Karnataka Mr. Jyothi Prakash Mirji has stated that whether Veerappancommitted suicide would be probed, and thus there is an element of suspicionin the death of Veerappan and his accomplices at the hand of Special TaskForce of Tamil Nadu.Though four persons, including her husband were killedin an alleged encounter on 18-10-2004, a case was filed in Crime No.1221/2004 under Section 154 of Code of Criminal Procedure for offences underSections 307, 323 I.P.C., read with Sections 25 and 27 of Indian Arms Act and4 (b) of Explosive Substance Act against her husband and three others, thefifth respondent has not deliberately registered F.I.R. under Section 302I.P.C. against the third respondent herein, subsequently who are all involvedin the murder of her husband and 3 others.It is further stated that though the suspicion over the death ofher husband is not yet cleared, there are so many contradictions in thestatements of Mr. Vijayakumar, I.P.S., Chief of Special Task Force, TamilNadu, who claimed that her husband was killed in an encounter and in thestatement of Mr. Jothi Prakash Mirji, Chief of Special Task Force, Karnataka,who claimed that Veerappan might have committed suicide, the State Governmentsof Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have played up the incident and attempted to takecredit for the gunning down of the brigand and hastily announced rewards andlargesse for the Special Task Force personnel.The respondents have shown totalindifference to the rights of the victims of crime S.T. F., personnel andsuch an indifference will erode faith of the society in general and thevictims of crime in particular in the country's democracy.Though the post-mortemdoctors have mentioned so many injuries on the dead body, they deliberatelyomitted some major and controversial injuries on the dead body of her husbandnamely, injury on his right hand fingers.The post-mortem report did notdisclose about the injuries on his legs below the hip.The post-mortem hasnot been done properly.The post-mortem report is vague and it has been doneby incompetent medical officers.Therefore, the brave personnel of the SpecialTask Force deserve honour and reward and the Government have considered theservices of the personnel of Special Task Force from the rank of theAdditional Director General of Police, Special Task Force to policeconstables, cooks and orderlies, who have risked their lives and sacrificedtheir safety and the comfort of their homes, spending years away from theirfamilies, leading dangerous lives in the thick Sathyamangalam forest, bravinghardship and sickness, courting danger and death every day.Hence, it wasdecided to award each man and Officer of the Special Task Force.Further,recognizing the bravery is the duty of the Government, and in doing so, theGovernment sanctioned the cash awards and other benefits and thereby tomotivate the police force.The National Human Rights Commission sought forremarks of the State Governments.Regarding the post-mortem and the doctors who conducted, it isstated that a team of competent doctors conducted a thorough post-mortemexamination on the dead bodies of the deceased Veerappan and three others andthe entire post-mortem was video graphed.In the encounter Veerappan, Chandregowda, Sethumani and SethukuliGovindan were killed.The Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded that theaction of the Special Task Force personnel is justified and the Governmenthave issued orders accepting the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer.The petitioner has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of this Courtunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India.The prayer for investigationby C.B.I is not maintainable.Further, concurrence of the State Government isnecessary for entrusting a case for investigation by the C.B.I.After enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, the investigation officer inCrime No. 1221/2004 can investigate the case and submit a final report to thecourt concerned.The prayer for investigation by the Central Bureau ofInvestigation is not maintainable and the writ petition is liable to bedismissed.However, he hastaken the petition on the file of Kolathur Police Station C.S.R.No.383/2004on 13-11-20 04 and as per the rules and procedure, the said petition wastransferred to the investigation officer Thiru P. Krishnaraj, DeputySuperintendent of Police, Dharmapuri District for further action.The saidinvestigation officer has forwarded the said petition to the RevenueDivisional Officer, Dharmapuri to take it on file as per 160 (3) Cr.P.C.In the light of the above pleadings, we heard Mr. R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Mr. A.L. Somayaji,learned Additional Advocate General for the State.No.1652 Home dated 9-11-1993 cannot be sustained.iii) Three days prior to the alleged incident on 18-10-2004, Veerappan and hisassociates were captured and tortured by the S.T. F. personnel;He further pointed out that the petitioner is not consistentwith her version regarding cause of death of her husband.Even the complaintis an after thought.He further contended that the so-called Human RightsOrganisations have no sanctity and their alleged reports have no value.Inview of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer and his report that hasbeen accepted by the Government, no further enquiry by agency like CentralBureau of Investigation is warranted.According to him, the petitioner havingappeared in the enquiry before the Revenue Divisional Officer and consideringthe fact that the Government have accepted the report of the RevenueDivisional Officer, there was no case for further enquiry by other agency likeCentral Bureau of Investigation.We have perused the materials placed by the petitioner, variousdetails furnished in the counter affidavit of the respondents and rivalcontentions of the counsel for petitioner as well as respondents.It is the case of the State that Veerappan, deceased in this casewas a notorious criminal and during the period 1978-2001 , he had murdered 124persons and abducted 45 persons belonging to Police, Forest Deppartments andcivilians of States of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.He had also killed 2000 maleelephants and stolen 40,000 kgs.Of tusks (worth Rs.12 crores), denuded theforests of Sandal Wood in a large scale.As his activities brought shame tothe State and gave constant threat to the lives and properties of the peopleof both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and in order to prevent Veerappan and hisgang from killing human beings and animals and committing atrocities and tonab them, the Tamil Nadu Government formed a team called " Special Task Force"in the year 1993, comprising police and forest personnel.The series ofattempts to nab them ended in vain.It is stated that while police partyattempted to capture Veerappan and his associates, they opened fire towardsthe police party and in the encounter on 18-10-2004, he and his gang of threepersons were killed by the S.T.F. personnel, headed by Mr. Vijaykumar,I.P.S., Chief of S.T.F. Muthulakshmi, wife of the deceased Veerappan has comeforward with this Writ Petition raising suspicion over the killing of herhusband, the way in which the post-mortem was conducted on the dead body ofher deceased husband, the haste action of the Government in granting hugeincentives, rewards to the personnel involving in the operation andnon-registering her complaint by the police.Keeping itin our mind, we will see whether the reasons and contentions raised by thesaid Muthulakshmi fulfil the requirements of the Law warranting for orderinginvestigation of Crime No. 1221/2004 pending on the file of Station HouseOfficer, Kolathur Police Station to the Central Bureau of Investigation in thefollowing order.Before considering the contentions in seriatim, it is useful torefer the relief sought for in the main writ petition.Though we have alreadystated in the earlier part of this judgment, for the sake of repetition, theonly relief prayed in the writ petition by the writ petitioner, wife ofVeerappan, is to entrust the investigation in Crime No. 1221/2004 of StationHouse Officer, Kolathur Police Station, which is pending, on the sixthrespondent-Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as"C.B.I.").Now we have to see whether the petitioner has made out a case inorder to hand over the investigation to C.B.I.The first contention of Mr. R. Sakarasubbu is that though acomplaint was made by the petitioner as early as 08-11-2004 against Chief ofS.T.F and their officers, the same has not been registered and no actiontaken.According to him, when a cognizable offence is made out, it is properon the part of the Station House Officer to register it in accordance with theCode of Criminal Procedure and deal with the same.With reference to the saidcontention, the fifth respondent-Station House Officer, Kolathur PoliceStation has filed a counter affidavit dated 30-03-2005 that on receipt of thepetition on the file of Kolathur Police Station in C.S.R.No.He further explained that dueto high velocity of the missile ( bullets) entering into the left side cranialcavity, the left side of the orbit was found to be collapsed.In the case on hand, we have already referred to the factualdetails furnished in the form of counter affidavit by respondents 1 and 3.Even the complaint/representation of the petitioner dated 8-11-2004 in view ofconstitution of an enquiry by the Government, the same had been forwarded toenquiring authority, namely, Revenue Divisional Officer.Further, we havealready found that the allegations that Veerappan and his associates werecaptured three days prior to the incident and tortured and he was administeredanaesthetic material due to which he and his associates killed have not beensubstantiated.The petitioner, wife ofthe deceased Veerappan also appeared and gave statement in the enquiry.Expert reports from Biology, Serology, Ballistic, Viscera, Physical,explosive, etc., have been obtained and considered by Revenue DivisionalOfficer.Considering all the statements obtained from the witnesses andreports, the Revenue Divisional Officer has concluded that it is anintelligence operation which was evolved and in such an operation, the SpecialTask Force personnel was left with no other option except to open fire in selfdefence and in their attempt to apprehend or arrest the said dreaded criminalsVeerappan and three others.In the light of the above discussion, we are satisfied that thematerials do not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation bythe C.B.I., accordingly, the writ petition filed by Muthulakshmi is liable tobe dismissed.In the initial order dated 4-2-2005, learned Single Judge hasdirected the Inspector of Police to whom the complaint of the petitioner dated8-11-2004 has been given to take the complaint on file and register the sameforthwith without any delay, however, on mentioning, by subsequent order dated7-2-2005, directed the Inspector of Police to take it on file after thecompletion of the enquiry by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharmapuri, whichshall be completed within a period of one month.Aggrieved by the said order,Home Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and others filed Writ AppealNo.Though counter-complaint is permissible and not prohibitedunder Cr.P.C., as enunciated in Upkar Singh's case (2005 Supreme Court cases(cri) 211), inasmuch as the same had been forwarded to the enquiry officeri.e., Sub Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer and the same ispart of enquiry record/proceedings and taking note of the fact that thecomplainant/ writ petitioner herself made a statement and enquired by theenquiry officer, we are of the view that the direction of the learned Judgedated 7-2-2005 is not warranted and in any event cannot be sustained.Though the petitioner has prayed for several directions in theform of writ miscellaneous petitions pending disposal of the main writpetition, in the light of our conclusion holding that the petitioner has notmade out a case for enquiry by C.B.I., those petitions are liable to bedismissed.In the result, Writ Appeal No. 479 of 2005 is allowed.WritPetition No. 3009 of 2005 is dismissed; and connected W.P. M.Ps., are alsodismissed.No costs.****** After pronouncement of judgment in the above matter, Mr. R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, seeks leave toAppeal to the Supreme Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,663,157 |
% (ORAL) Quashing of FIR No.479/2009, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of the IPC, registered at police station Patel Nagar, Delhi is sought in this petition.Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the FIR in question was got registered at the instance of respondent No.2 against petitioners, who are the parents in law as well as her husband, since deceased and sister-in-law, who has been discharged by the trial court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
29,666,656 |
Indira Banerjee, J.This appeal is against a common judgment and order dated 29th September 2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, dismissing Criminal Appeal No.1145 of 2006, filed by the Appellant, partly allowing Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2006, filed by Respondent State, affirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 18th January 2006, passed bySignature Not Verified Additional City Sessions Judge (Court No.6) at Ahmedabad City inDigitally signed byMAHABIR SINGHDate: 2020.06.18 Sessions Case No.245 of 2004, but enhancing the sentence of17:41:16 ISTReason:rigorous imprisonment from six to seven years, for offence under 2Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.It is the case of the Prosecution that the victim, who wasgoing to his laboratory from his residence at around 4.45 p.m. on3.12.2002, in his Indica Car bearing the Registration No. GJI HE1575, driven by his driver Jignesh G. Vyas, being the complainant,was shot near the Galaxy Cinema, from a pistol fired by the firstaccused, from a motorbike, driven by the Appellant, on which thefirst accused was the pillion rider.When the car had to slow down to negotiate a speedbreaker, as it was approaching the Galaxy Cinema, the Appellantsuddenly stopped the motorbike beside the victimβs car, on theside the victim was sitting, and the first accused took out a pistoland fired at the victim, after which the Appellant and the firstaccused fled the scene of occurrence.The bullet pierced the glasswindow and hit the victim on his face.It appears that, after the victim was shot, he instructed thecomplainant to take him to the Hospital of Dr. Pareshbhai, whichwas nearby.However as Dr. Pareshbhai was not available, thevictim was taken to Anand Surgical Hospital of one Dr. NarenderSanghvi, at Siazpur, where the victim was given preliminarytreatment.On the advice of Dr. Singhvi, that the victim should betaken to a better equipped hospital, the victim was rushed toSterling Hospital.In the meanwhile, the complainant filed acomplaint under Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code withthe police who had rushed to the Anand Surgical Hospital on 4getting information of the incident.Thereafter, the police took up investigation, examined thecomplainant, went to the place of occurrence, seized articles suchas pieces of broken glass etc. Later, the clothes worn by thevictim when he was shot, the mats of the car and a cover kept onthe rear seat of the car,described as carpet which containedhuman blood etc., and other articles found inside the car were alsoseized.After the bullet was operated and removed and the victimwas in a position to be examined the Investigating Officer recordedhis statement.The first accused and the Appellant were arrestedon 30.12.2002 and 31.12.2002 respectively.While theaccused were in custody, the weapon used for the offence wasrecovered by the police on the confession of the Appellant, fromthe place shown by the Appellant.Three weapons- a country made pistol, a pistol apparentlymade in England and another pistol apparently made in China,were recovered from underneath the earth in an open ground nearthe Shahalam Dargah, described in the Panchnama under whichthey were seized.The weapons were sent to the Forensic ScienceLaboratory for analysis and test as also the bullet recovered fromthe body of the injured.The accusedhad entered into a conspiracy to target and finish off prominentmembers of the religious community, to which the victimbelonged.The accused persons accordingly started monitoringthe movements of the victim, a prominent member of a religiousorganization and its Secretary at the time of the riots, who ran apathological laboratory.Jaimini P PatelMahesh Ravjibhai PatelPunambhai Ranchodbhai PatelDr. Narendra P SanghviDevang M ParikhPareshkumar P JethwalJignesh G. VyasDr. Anil BansalPradip Mohanbhai PatelMohmedyunus A MansuriWhenthe car was passing by the Galaxy Cinema, it slowed down at aspeed breaker.As the car negotiated the speed breaker, there wasa noise from the left which the victim, later in cross examination,explained as the sound of an approaching motorbike.On hearingthe noise, the victim turned in the direction of the motorbike, 7which was by the side of the car, and saw that there were twopersons on the motor cycle.The pillion rider had a weapon, whichlooked like a pistol, in his hand.The pillion rider opened fire.Thevictim was hit by the bullet and he slumped to the right.He saidhe was taken to the hospital of Dr. Pareshbhai which was near hislaboratory but the Doctor was not there.He then asked his driverto take him to Anand Surgical Hospital.He was in severe pain.They reached Anand Surgical Hospital and narrated the incident toDr.Narender Sangvi.Dr. Sanghvi started treatment, took an X-rayand gave primary treatment but recommended that the victimshould be taken to a bigger hospital.Thereafter, the victim wasshifted to Sterling Hospital.The victim further deposed that afterexamining diagnostic reports, the doctors of Sterling Hospitaldecided to operate on the victim.The operation was performed on4th December 2002 at the Sterling Hospital and the bullet wasremoved.He said that due to the injury, the bonebelow his left eye was broken for which he had to undergotreatment for about six months after his discharge from thehospital.He said that the vision of his left eye had deterioratedbecause of the injury.In course of his examination, the victim asserted that he hadseen and could recognize both the Motorcyclists - the driver and 8the pillion rider, whom he had identified at the Test Identificationparade, and also in Court.The complainant deposed as the eighth witness (PW-8).Thiswitness (PW-8) deposed that he had to slow down the car nearGalaxy Cinema as there was a speed breaker.At that time therewas a bike behind the car with two persons.The person in fronthad dark glasses and a black cap.PW-3 said that just as henegotiated the speed breaker, he heard the sound of firing and onturning to his left he found that the persons on the bike weredriving away towards Chandresh Nagar Society.The person sittingon the pillion had a weapon that looked like pistol or a revolver,which he put into the pocket of his jacket.When PW-8 lookedbehind he found that the left eye of the victim was bleeding.This witness confirmed that he first took the victim to thehospital of Dr. Pareshbhai but the Doctor was not there.The victimwas therefore taken to Anand Surgical Hospital of Dr. NarenderSanghvi, where the victim was given primary treatment.Whilethe treatment was going on, the police arrived and took hiscomplaint.He confirmed that the facts stated in the complaintwere true.This witness also stated that in deference to the advice of Dr.Narender Sanghvi that the victim should be taken to a betterequipped hospital, the victim was shifted to Sterling Hospital onthe same day.This witness also identified the clothes wornby the victim at the time of the incident.This witness was cross-examined at length.He, however,remained unshaken in cross-examination.He confidently deposedthat the motorcycle was a Yamaha motor cycle.It is true that the place from where the weapon was found out was open space, there was no traffic.The learned Sessions Judge had, by his aforesaid judgmentand order convicted the Appellant and one Salim alias SalimChaurala Yakubhai Patel, hereinafter referred to as the firstaccused, of offence punishable under Section 307 read withSection 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1)(B)(a) ofthe Arms Act read with Section 135 (1) of the Bombay Police Actfor targeting and attempting to murder one Dr. Jaydeep Patel,hereinafter referred to as the victim, by aiding and abetting eachother.The third accused, Abhasbeg Habibbeg Mirza, wasacquitted of all the charges levelled against him.To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined following14 witness including the complainant and the victim, who wereeye witnesses:-Dr. Jaydeep A Patel 6Dr. Shreekant PrabhakarThe Prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidencesuch as, the complaint filed by the complainant, medicalreports/certificates of the victim, Panchnama prepared at thescene of occurrence, Panchnamas relating to recovery of articles,clothing etc. Panchnamas relating to identification of the firstaccused and the Appellant (second accused), Panchnamas relatingto recovery of weapons on the basis of the statement of theAppellant and the bullet extracted from the body of the victim,Forensic Science Laboratory Reports, the Lie Detection AnalysisReport etc.The victim who had himself deposed as the 12 th Witness(PW-12) said that the incident had occurred around 4.45 p.m. on3rd December 2002, when the victim was on his way to hispathological laboratory from his home, in his car being a TataIndica car, with Registration Number GJI HE 1575, which was beingdriven by the complainant being his driver.The victim deposedthat he was seated at the back, on the left side of the car.This witness identified the complaint made by him andstated that the police officer had also signed the complaint in hispresence.On the next day, the complainant showed thepolice the place of occurrence.The police made investigations.This witness (PW-8) stated that on 4 th January 2003, thepolice summoned him to Gheekanta Court.The Court peon madethis witness sit outside the Court for about 15 to 20 minutes afterwhich he was taken to the Court room before the Judge, and theJudge asked him to identify the accused from out of six persons.This witness identified the person driving the motorcycle.Theperson identified by PW-3 stated that his name was Mustak @Kanio.After the identification, the Judge asked the complainant togo out.In Court this witness again identified the said person whomhe had earlier identified during the identification parade and whohad stated that his name was Mustak @ Kanio.This witness alsoidentified the person driving the motor cycle, being the firstaccused, in Court.This witness said that on the left back door of the vehiclethere was a small glass with a steel strip fitted to it.The bulletcame from the said strip and the glass cracked.Pieces of glassfell on the back seat.The board at the back where speakers had 10been kept, the back seat belt as also the carpet on the seat werestained with blood.Though he did notknow its number.He confirmed that he had identified the secondaccused at the identification parade and he had identified both theAppellant (second accused) and first accused (Salim) in Court, asthe Driver of the motorcycle and the pillion rider, who had openedfire.The recovery of the weapon with which the offence wascommitted, on the confession of the appellant, from underneaththe ground from the place shown by the Appellant has beenproved by the oral evidence of the Pancha Witness, PradipMohanbhai Patel who deposed as the tenth witness (PW-10).Thiswitness also identified the Appellant in Court, as the person atwhose instance three weapons were recovered by the police, in hispresence.The Judicial Magistrate who conducted the Test IdentificationParade namely Mohmedyunus A. Mansuri, deposed as the eleventhwitness (PW-11).He corroborated identification of the Appellant bythe complainant and the victim at the Test Identification Parades 11conducted by him.Three doctors have deposed in this case.Dr. Narendra P.Sanghvi who deposed as PW-5 stated that he gave primarytreatment to the victim, conducted tests and recommended thatthe victim be taken to a bigger, better equipped hospital,considering the gravity of his injury.9th Prosecution Witness (PW-He appeared to have beeninjured by a bullet.This witness along with other Doctors hadphysically examined the victim.It appeared that he had a woundof one centimeter below the left eye but he was fully consciousand his pulse, blood pressure etc. were normal.This witnessdeposed that the victim was immediately shifted to the operationtheatre where he was operated upon and the bullet was taken out.This witness also identified the certificate issued by thehospital to the victim regarding his injuries and treatment.He saidthat the certificate was issued in printed form but he identified hishand writing and signature on the certificate.This witnessobserved that the injuries sustained to the patient could be said tobe serious because bullet had entered the neck of the patient fromlower part of left eye.The 13th Prosecution Witness (PW-13), Dr. Srikant, a Surgeonsaid that on 4th December 2002 he along with his team of Doctorshad performed surgery of the victim who had a bullet injury.Thebullet was lodged on the left side of the neck.This Doctordescribed how the bullet had been taken out.Both the complainant (PW-8) and the victim (PW-12)have deposed that while the said car slowed down near GalaxyCinema to negotiate speed breaker a motor cycle which wasfollowing the car pulled up to the left, the pillion rider pulled outpistol and fired at the victim (PW-12) at point blank range and fledaway.Both the complainant and the victim have as eye witnesses,identified the Appellant.The Appellant did not examine any witness.After the 14prosecution witnesses named above were examined the Appellantwas examined under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code.His defence was of total denial.Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing onbehalf of the Appellant submitted that the Test IdentificationParade of the Appellant had been conducted contrary to the rulesof evidence and failed to establish the identity of the Appellant.She argued that as per the case of the Prosecution, the only twoeye witnesses were the complainant (PW-8) and the victim (PW-12).From the judgment and order of the Sessions Court, dulyaffirmed by the High Court, it appears that the Appellant has beenidentified by both the victim (PW-12) and the complainant (PW-8)apart from the Pancha witness (PW-10) Be that as it may, thetestimony of an injured victim is sufficient for conviction.To impress upon this Court that the complainant being thedriver of the car could not have recognized the Appellant, Ms.Arora pointed out that the complainant had, in his complaintstated βI saw then two persons were on the back behind my car,out of them the person plying had put on black goggles and blackcapβ.In his testimony in Court he said:-ββ¦β¦.I saw back side from centre mirror.At that time two persons were coming on bike after me, wherein the person in front had put on black glasses and back capβ (examination in chief) 14β¦...Thereafter on 4/1/2003 the police summoned me atGheekanta Court.I reached over there between 3.45 to4.00 Oβ clock evening.The peon made me seatedoutside of court at the sitting place and I was againcalled after about fifteen to twenty minutes.I wastaken in the Court room before the Judge and the Judgeover there asked me my name, address etc.Thereafter asked me to identify the person I couldidentify from six persons.That I had identified aperson standing third and fourth in the middle andcaught and dragged his hand.The Judge asked nameto this person and the person stated his name to beMustak alias Kanio.On completion of the procedure the(Judge) asked me to go.(examination in chief)ββ¦.. It is true that, I have never seen any of the personseated on the motor cycle prior the incident.It is truethat I saw only back of person seated in back of themotor cycle.Said motor cycle went away from theplace of incident at a speed of about forty to fiftykilometer.It is true that, after the incident the motorcycle went away on rough road turning by left back sidedoor of our car.Said motor cycle did not go from frontof our car but turned on left side back door of our carand went awayβ (Cross-examination) It is true that I saw the motor cyclist, heard the blast,and the motor cyclists were turned towards ChandreshNagar, all this was happened just within blink of eye β¦.It is true that at the very same time I saw the motorcyclists turning towards Chandreshnagar.It is true thatthe road on which our vehicle was, is very busy road.Itis not true that it was not the Yamaha Motor cycle butwas the motor cycle like Yamaha.The witnessempathetically states that, it was the Yamaha motorcycle only.It is true that, on occurrence of incident I didnot come out from the car.For the first time I came outform the car after reaching to hospital of Dr. PareshShah, at that time Jaydipbhai was also taken out ofcarβ¦.(cross-examination)Referring to the evidence of the complainant, as extractedabove, as also the part of the complaint extracted above, Ms.Arora emphatically argued that the complainant could notpossibly have identified the Appellant with certainty as theAppellant had been wearing dark glasses and a cap, the motorcycle was behind and not in front of the car, the complainant hadseen the Appellant from the rear mirror when the motor cycle wasat a speed of 40-50 kilometers per hour and the motor cycle hadturned away within the blink of an eye, after the complainantturned around on hearing the pistol shot.With the greatest of respect, the evidence of the witnesseshave to be read as a whole.Words and sentences cannot betruncated and read in isolation.The witness has categoricallystated that he would be able to identify and actually identified thedriver of the motor cycle as the Appellant.β¦...Thereafter, called five dummy persons from outside through my peon.In the meantime the witnesses of the case had not come and my another peon had informed about they came at 16.35 oβclock.β¦..I did not ask the witness as to have you seen the accused before the identification parade or not.It is true that it was appeared from the yadi that two persons were the motor cyclist and had put on black goggles and black cap and were aged about twenty to twenty five years of age.It was also appeared from the yadi that the pillion rider had put on black jacket and black jeans.It is true that it was also mentioned in the yadi that the complainant can identify the motorcyclists and the witness can identify the person who executed fire.From yadi exhibit-64 I did not feel that the accused Salim was the driver of the motorcycleβ¦β¦ It is true that, in spite of my instructions both the accused were not brought to me covered under veil at the time of identification parade.I have not done any proceedings for the police did not follow such clear instruction from me.It 17 is true that from both the yadis I had realized that which witness could identify to which accused.It is true that, there is a corridor outside of my court room and thereafter the compound wall is situated.The suggestion of there being many police men in thecorridor as also members of the public insinuates that thewitnesses may have been been tipped off by the police.I do not know anything as to such bullet should be kept in free box and to be sent to the F.S.L. It is true that nowhere I have mentioned any description of said bullet.β (Cross-examination @ Pg. 118-119)βThe Prosecution failed to doso.Ms. Arora questioned the correctness of the following findingsof the Trial Court:-I have not recorded statement of anyone form the residential houses situated nearby the said place.βIn my considered opinion, minor discrepancies in evidenceand inability to recall details of the description of houses, roadsand streets after several years, do not vitiate the evidence ofrecovery itself.The Appellant showed the police the spot wherethe weapons had been hidden under the sand.The Trial Courtupon appreciation of evidence on record very rightly held:- 24βAgain providing positive corroboration to the entire version is the fact of the discovery of the muddamal weapon in terms of the panchnama exh.88 at the behest of accused no.2 which panchnama, positively establishes the recovery of the muddamal.The weapons were dug out from underneath thesand in an open ground behind the Shah Alam Dargah.2 (2003) 5 SCC 499 Para 9-123 (2002) 8 SCC 45 para 18 25Ms. Arora finally argued that the Prosecution had failed toprove motive and conspiracy which was essential to convict theAppellant.However, where the firing had taken place and therewere eye witnesses to the firing, it was not necessary to establisha motive.At the cost of repetition it is reiterated that both theAppellant and the first accused were identified by the eyewitnesses to the firing, being the complainant (PW-8) and theAppellant.PW-10 testified to the recovery of offence in his presence, at the 26instance of the Appellant and also identified the Appellant in Court.Considering the gravity of offence and the seriousness of the injuryand the manner in which the victim was shot, there can hardly beany doubt that the attempt was to murder the victim.The HighCourt confirmed the judgment and order of conviction butenhanced sentence under Section 307 read with 114 of the IndianPenal Code to seven years instead of six.The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record andafter hearing the Prosecution, the Appellant and the other accusedfound that the third accused was not present at the place ofoccurrence and there was no evidence to establish that he waspart of any conspiracy.The third accused was accordinglyacquitted.The Trial Court, in effect, found:(i) It had been established beyond any iota of doubt that the victim had sustained bullet injuries.(ii) The contention of the defence that the injuries were not so life threatening or grave or serious as to attract Section 307 of the Indian Penal code was not acceptable, considering the testimony of three Medical experts who deposed with regard to the gravity and seriousness of the injury.(iii) The evidence of the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) Expert, Mukesh N. Joshi coupled with Exhibit 92 established that an offence attracting the provisions of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code had taken place.(iv) The recovery of the weapon in terms of Panchnama (Exhibit 88) was proved beyond reasonable doubt.(v) Minor irregularities on the part of the investigationand, in particular, the casual manner in which theInvestigating Officer (PW-14) testified would not vitiate thecase of the Prosecution.(vi) The Appellant as also first accused were dulyidentified both by the complainant (PW-8) and the victim(PW-12) in course of identification parade held on 1st and 3rdJanuary 2003 and they were also identified in Court.(vii) Both the eye-witnesses had identified the Appellantand the first accused as being the persons who were onthe motorcycle.The motor cycle was driven by theAppellant and the first accused was the pillion rider.Boththe eye-witnesses had seen the pillion rider, that is, the firstaccused handling the weapon.The victim clearly deposedthat the first accused had fired at the victim at point blankrange.The said witnesses remained unshaken despiteextensive cross-examination.(viii) The concerned Executive Magistrate who conductedthe identification parade (PW-11) corroborated the evidenceof PW-12 and PW-8 with regard to the identification and healso could not be shaken despite extensive cross- 29(ix) The Panchnama being Exhibit-88 relating to recovery of the weapon was duly proved by the oral testimony of Pradeep Mohanbhai Patel (PW-10) who had also identified the Appellant.(x) The Prosecution had established from the ballistic report being Exhibit-92, and the evidence of FSL experts that the bullet that was extracted from the body of the victim, had been fired from the weapon recovered on the confession of the Appellant.The sessions Judge, in our considered opinion, correctlyfound that notwithstanding minor discrepancies, the Prosecutionhad successfully established the chain of events, linking the crimeto inter alia the Appellant.In this appeal, we are not concerned with the conviction ofthe first accused.The involvement of the Appellant in theoffences alleged has, in our opinion, duly been established interalia by the injury of the victim; extraction of bullet from the bodyof the victim; linking of the bullet to the weapon recovered on theconfession of the Appellant upon Forensic examination; theevidence of two eye-witnesses to the crime, namely thecomplainant (PW-8) and victim (PW-12); Identification by thecomplainant and the victim of the Appellant in the IdentificationParades as also in Court; Identification by the Pancha witness (PW- 3010) of the Appellant as the person at whose instance the weaponof offence was recovered.The finding of the Sessions Court that the Prosecution hadnot been able to establish the involvement of the third accused, orto establish that the Appellant and the first accused were part of aconspiracy, which had targeted prominent leaders of the Hinducommunity did not, in our view, warrant interference.In our view,the High Court rightly dismissed the Criminal Appeal No.1145 of2006, and allowed Criminal Appeal No.567 of 2006 filed by theRespondent State, only to the extent of enhancing the sentence ofimprisonment inter alia of the Appellant to 7 years under Section307 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, consideringthe gravity and seriousness of the offence.For the reasons discussed above, we dismiss this Appeal andaffirm the conviction of the Appellant and the sentence imposedupon the Appellant as enhanced by the High Court..................................J [R. Banumathi] .................................J [Indira Banerjee]JUNE 18, 2020;NEW DELHI.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,671,645 |
The applicant RAJARAM S/O KONDIBA @ KONDBARAO PUND be released on bail in connection with Crime No. 0198 of 2018 registered with Kurunda Police Station, District Hingoli for the offences punishable under sections 306, 504 read with 34 of::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2019 06:57:10 ::: 5-BA-262-2019 -4- IPC, on his furnishing P.B. of Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand) with one solvent surety of the like amount on condition that the applicant shall not tamper the prosecution evidence in any manner.::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2019 06:57:10 :::Application is accordingly disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2019 06:57:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/03/2019 06:57:10 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,679,345 |
Shri A. Dubey, counsel for the appellant.Shri A. Shukla, Panel Lawyer for the State.Heard on I.A. No.143/2016, application for suspension of sentence.Appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 450, 376(1), 302, 324 and 506-II of IPC.So far as offence under Section 376 is concerned, in para 54 of the impugned judgment, after analyzing the material seized from both the prosecutrix as well as from the accused and after medical examination of the prosecutrix, the findings recorded is that no definite opinion about commission of rape can be made out.Seized articles which include cloths of prosecutrix and accused does not show presence of any material supporting evidence of commission of rape.That being so, prima facie the offence under Section 376(1) seems to be not made out.That apart, in the FIR lodged by PW-4 Deepak Halwai, the sole eye-witness to the entire incident, he speaks about hearing of some noise from the house where his mother was sleeping, he saw accused was strangulating his mother and thereafter accused was apprehended.That being so, at this stage advantage of aforesaid can be granted to the appellant.Accordingly, we allow the application for suspension of sentence.Appellant Manish Verma is directed to be released on bail and operation of the jail sentence shall remain suspended on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty 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 on 20.09.2016 and on such other dates as may be ordered.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
296,848 |
Her father (accused ) informed "S" that Prabodhini had gone to attend the School.At that time it was raining and, therefore "S"(victim) requested the accused to provide an umbrella to her.The accused told "S" that umbrella was taken away by Prabodhini and asked "S" to sit inside the house as it was raining."S" went inside house and sat on the sofa.The accused then offered one book to "S" and asked her to go through the same and then asked her whether she wants water for drinking."S" refused.The accused went ahead ; closed the front door of the house by bolting it from inside.There was nobody else in the house.The accused came near "S", gagged her mouth and made her to lie down on cot, lifted his lungi by one hand, removed her inner-wear and inserted his private part in her private part.While "S" tried to push the accused, she could not.After some time she succeeded to push the accused."S" found sticky substance and blood oozing out from her private part.The accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 ::: 3 asked "S" to wash her private part.Victim who was frightened to the hilt, washed it in the bathroom.The accused threatened "S" not to disclose the incident to anybody else she will be defamed.Victim who rushed outside, tried to contact by phone to her father from a nearby STD booth but her father was on duty and as such could not be contacted.Her School bag was inside the house of the accused.Hence she stood outside the house as she had no courage to enter in house .Later when mother of Prabodhini came, she asked the victim to come inside as it was drizzling and then gave clothes of Prabodhini to wear as clothes of the victim were wet due to incessant rain.Prabodhini who returned from the school, asked "S" as to why she did not attend the School."S" told her that she was late and could not attend and thereafter narrated the incident to Prabodhini who went inside the house and brought school bag and wet clothes of "S" and also narrated the incident to her mother.Mother of Prabodhini asked "S" not to disclose the incident to anybody, and then Prabodhini and her mother accompanied "S" to her house.As the accused had threatened "S", she could not disclose the incident to her mother.Later "S" disclosed it to her friends, Neha and her mother and Vedashree.After "S" returned from the school her mother inquired with her about the incident and she narrated it to her mother.Her mother had gone to question the accused about it but he was not at home.On the next day, mother of "S" along with few ladies again went to the house of the accused.In the evening "S" along with her parents proceeded to Police Station to lodge complaint.The Police had referred "S"to the General Hospital, Chandrapur for medical examination.Thereafter, statement of "S" was recorded.The incident was reported by Smt.Smita (PW 1), mother of the victim as FIR No. 245/2008 on 12.7.2008 at Ramnagar Police Station in Chandrapur, who registered offences punishable under section 342 and 376 of the IPC.API Shri M M Dhande (PW 8) recorded complaint (FIR :Exh.32) and started investigation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::Prabodhini's house.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::He referred the victim girl for medical examination to General Hospital, Chandrapur.He arrested the accused on 12.7.2008 under arrest memo (Exh.14) and sent him to General Hospital for medical examination.Shri Dhande API recorded the statement of victim and visited the spot pointed out by the victim and prepared spot panchnama (Exh.51).He also received sample of blood, pubic hair of the accused and seized under Panchnama (Exh.21).C.,A. reports were received (Exh.25 colly).3 Charge (Exh.5) for offence punishable under sections 376, 342, 201 IPC was read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.4 The prosecution examined a total of eight witnesses and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 ::: 5 closed evidence.The defence admitted genuineness of documents listed at Exh.9 and examined three witnesses who were Prabodhini (daughter of accused), Smt Bangubai (mother in law of the accused ); and Rana Hatesingh ( friend of the accused).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::5 In his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C. the evidence that in 2008 the victim "S", aged 15 years was studying in 10 th standard in Vidya Niketan Vidyalaya, Urjanagar, Chandrapur in the same class of Prabodhini (daughter of the accused ) is not in dispute.6 Learned Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, upon recording evidence and hearing the parties concluded that the accused committed heinous offence punishable under sections 376, 342 read with with Section 201 IPC and recorded sentences accordingly.7 Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the finding of conviction is unreasonable and not justified as according to him, the incident was not proved by reliable and independent evidence.He also submitted that the evidence of the victim girl was not trustworthy for to base conviction upon it.Learned Advocate contended that the evidence of victim suffered from vice of improvements and her evidence without independent corroborating evidence ought not to have been accepted by the learned trial Judge.He further submitted that the incident as alleged occurred on 8.7.2008, but it was reported on 12.7.2008 ; hence delay in reporting the incident was not explained.According to learned Advocate, the accused was entitled to claim benefit of doubt for contradictions in evidence, improvements over oral report, and lack of observance of laid down procedure u/s 164- A of the Cr.P.C. Learned Advocate submitted that victim stated that after the incident of rape, she tried to contact her father from STD booth but owner of STD booth was not examined to corroborate the testimony of "S" in this regard and, therefore, prosecution did suppress best evidence that could have been led.Learned Advocate made reference to plethora of rulings in support of his submissions to argue that the testimony of "S" required independent corroboration and the trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence of witnesses.He, therefore, urged to set aside the conviction and to acquit the accused.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::The rulings relied upon by the parties were also perused and referred to in the light of penal provisions and the legal position.According to him, no case is made out to disturb the findings of guilt.9 I have heard submissions at the Bar and also perused written submissions placed on record as also the number of rulings cited by the parties.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::10 The prosecution has relied upon evidence of "S" prosecutrix (PW 2) to prove the incident of rape and to corroborate her evidence examined Smt. Smita (PW 1) who is mother of prosecutrix, Ujjawala (PW3) who friend of Smt.Smita, Vedashree (PW 6) and Neha (PW 7) who are friends of victim to when victim had narrated the incident of rape.The prosecution also proved Kumari "S"'s date of birth as 29.3.1993 by examining Municipal Clerk (PW 4) to positively establish that victim was below 16 years of age on the date of incident.Investigating Officer Shri Madhav (PW 8) was examined to establish the investigation done in the case.The accused chose to lead defence evidence and examined three witnesses who are daughter, mother -in-law and a friend of the accused.In his statement u/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., the accused did not dispute that victim was aged about 15 years studying in 10th standard in Vidyaniketan Vidyalaya in Urja Nagar, Chandrapur along with his daughter Prabodhini and the fact that he resided in Urja Nagar.The accused defended the prosecution case on the ground that he is falsely implicated because he had opposed mother of victim (PW 1) while she contested in Gram Panchayat elections.The suggestions in this regard were denied by PW 1 stating that Gram Panchayat elections were held after the complaint was filed.The accused also sought to prove that there was alleged incident of riot when victim's mother with her friends (PW 3) etc. visited house of the accused and questioned him about incident and allegedly assaulted him for which he lodged complaint with police.The entire evidence and defence contentions ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 ::: 8 which were raised in this appeal, if considered in totality, one cannot find that any benefit can be extended to the accused.It is true that there was four days delay to report the incident to the Police Station but it was not fatal in the facts and circumstances of the case.The victim girl was threatened by the accused not to disclose the incident to anybody .She had naturally disclosed it to her girl friends and mother of her girl friend.Immediately after the incident, she tried her level best to contact her father from nearby STD booth but could not .The mother of victim came to know of the incident from Ujjawala (PW 3) who is mother of victim's girl friend and then inquired with the victim.She had also decided to question about the incident to the accused who offered his apology for the incident.In these circumstances there was no unreasonable delay to report the incident.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::11 The trial Court could not be blamed for relying upon genuineness of the documentary evidence tendered by the prosecution which was admitted by the defence in view of Section 294 of the Cr.P.Code, as any such document may be read in evidence in trial without insisting upon evidence of signatory.In non-permissive Indian society, an unmarried girl would be most reluctant to level such accusations that too against father of her school-mate.Every unmarried girl has chastity dear to her heart and would not normally disclose such incident which can lead to her defamation or ostracization by the society.Therefore, like an injured witness in the criminal trial, her testimony is entitled to a great weight.Credibility of the prosecutrix in the present case remained unshaken.There was sufficient corroboration to her testimony on the record.The evidence of the victim girl was corroborated by her mother, friends, and mother of her friend.Learned Advocate for appellant also tried to submit that the trial Court did not record statement of the accused but a Clerk of the Court recorded it.This submission appears bald and result of an afterthought and must be rejected as baseless and groundless.The defence evidence was led and there is nothing to believe that the accused would sign each page when Court did not question him in statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::13 Learned counsel for appellant placed reliance on Jogi Dan and others vs. State of Rajasthan (2004 Cri.He pressed into service Vimal Suresh Kamble vs. Chaluverapinake Apal and another (2003 Cri.14 The rulings cited by the learned Advocate for defense are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case to rescue the appellant from the clutches of law.He had taken disadvantage of situation and in wrongful confinement, committed rape upon minor girl below 16 years of age, who was the same age as of his school going unmarried daughter studying in the same class.He also tried to ensure that evidence may disappear by asking the victim to wash her private part.The trial Court did consider the entire evidence to reach a right conclusion.The gravity of the offences do not warrant any sympathy or generosity to award lesser sentence.The Appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.JUDGE sahare ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:42:54 :::
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
29,697,047 |
No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 6497 of 2019 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23/07/2019 in connection with Goaltore P.S. Case No. 134 of 2019 dated 21/06/2019 under Section 341/448/354B/325/308/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Bajrul Rahaman Mallick & Ors.....petitioners.Mr. P. Bhattacharya ...for the petitioners.In the event the petitioners fail to comply with the conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court 2 to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,097 |
(a) P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.W.9 is the elder sister of the accused.She was an illiterate and the deceased usedto help her for writing letters.40 days prior to the date of occurrence, theaccused came and stayed with her sister.Just 20 days prior to theoccurrence, he took all the jewels of the daughter of P.W.9 and all theletters written by her husband.P.W.9 was under the impression that theaccused gone to his native place Kurumbur.She went over there and broughthim back.From the time of his return, there was a continuous quarrel betweenthe accused and his sister, P.W.9, as to the return of the jewels.On theprevious day of the occurrence, i.e. on 17.2.1994, there was a heatedexchange between P.W.9 and her brother, the accused.As usual, the deceased went over there and tried to pacify the situation.The deceased uttered "Notto quarrel with a lady, and if he was brave, he can face him." P.W.9 asked theaccused to go out.The accused became enraged over the same.On 18.2.1994, P.W.1 came back from her work and at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased went toupstairs to take out dried clothes.P.W.1 also followed her husband.Both ofthem did not know the fact that the accused was present in the upstairs.There was again a quarrel.At that time, the deceased asked the accused toreturn the jewels to his sister and asked why he was quarreling with her.Onhearing the same, the accused uttered a few words and the deceased caught the shirt of the accused.On being enraged over the same, the accused provoked,got down, took a knife, came back and stabbed the deceased.When P.W.1 interfered, she was also attacked.The accused gave two stabs on the chestand on the flank of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased felldown.P.W.1 also sustained injuries.The accused immediately fled away fromthe place of occurrence.P.W.1 and the deceased were taken to a privatenursing home called JJ Hospital, where, P.W.3 the Doctor, was present.Atthat time since it was a medico-legal case, the Doctor informed them to go toKilpauk Medical College Hospital for further treatment.P.W.4, the MedicalOfficer, was present at Kilpauk Medical College Hospital and he treated P.W.1.Ex.He also examined thedeceased and declared him dead.P3 is the death intimation, which wasgiven to Avadi Police Station.(b) P.W.16, Sub Inspector of Police, Avadi Police Station, on receiptof death intimation, reached Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, where herecorded the statement of P.W.1 under Ex.P1, on the strength of which, heregistered a case in Crime No.394/1994 for the offences under sections 302 and324 IPC.P24, the printed First Information Report, was despatched to theCourt.On receipt of the same, P.W.17, Inspector of Police, took upinvestigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, made an inspection in thepresence of two witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P9 and arough sketch, Ex.The Principal Sessions Judge, Chingleput.The District Collector, Chingleput.The DGP, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Chennai.5.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Cuddalore.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J The sole appellant who stood charged, tried and found guilty by theCourt of Principal Sessions Judge, Chingleput and awarded life imprisonmentfor an offence under section 302 IPC and one year rigorous imprisonment for anoffence under section 324 IPC, has brought forth this appeal.The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appealcan be stated thus:-Material Objects were also recovered from the scene ofoccurrence under a mahazar.He conducted inquest on the dead body of thedeceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayathars and prepared Ex.P26, the inquest report.Following the same, the dead body of Manokaran, was sentto the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, with a requisition Ex. P5 forconducting autopsy.(c) P.W.5, the Professor and Head of the Department, ForensicMedicine, Kilpauk Medical College, Madras, on receipt of the requisition,conducted autopsy on the dead body of Manokaran and found the followinginjuries:-1.Incised wounds on (a) back of left elbow 4 x 2 cm x skin deep.(b) Over the back of left upper arm 4 x 2 cm x skin deep.(c) On the middle of left thigh on the outer aspect 3 x 1.5 cm x skin deep.An obliquely placed stab wound 3 x 2 cms on the front of left side ofchest along the anterior axillary line and the upper end is 26 cms below theouter end of the left collar bone and the lower end is 14 cms away from themidline.The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P6 and has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to stab injuryto the heart and left lung.(d) During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officerarrested the accused on 1.3.1994 and he gave a confessional statement, whichwas recorded by him in the presence of two witnesses and the admissible partis marked as Ex.The accused was remanded to judicial custody.Thestatements of the accused and P.Ws.1, 2 and 9 and one Arul were recorded bythe Court, on a requisition given by him, and the jewels belonging to P.W.9were recovered pending investigation, from P.W.12 and they were also sent toCourt.Following the same, a requisition was forwarded to the concerned Courtfor sending all the material objects for chemical analysis.Accordingly, theywere subjected to chemical analysis and reports were received by the concernedCourt.On completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer filed thefinal report before the Committal Court.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary chargeswere framed against the appellant/ accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and relied on 29 exhibits and 23material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which he flatly denied as false.Neither a witness was examinednor a document was marked on the side of the defence.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and onscrutiny of the materials available on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment referred to above,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal, at the instance ofthe appellant/accused.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant inter alia madethe following submissions:-P.W.1 was none else than the wife of the deceased.Under the circumstances, the lower court should not have given much credenceto her evidence as she is an interested witness.P.W.6, the doctor, who conducted postmortem, has also been examined and she has issued Ex.P6, the postmortem certificate, wherein she has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to stab injuryto the heart and left lung.It was not disputed by the appellant eitherbefore the lower court or before this Court that the deceased died out ofhomicidal violence.Therefore, without any difficulty, whatsoever, it can besafely recorded that Mahoharan died out of homicidal violence.It is no wheredisputed as to the presence of the accused/appellant at the time and on thedate of occurrence, throughout the case.Immediately after the occurrence,P.W.1 and the deceased were taken to the hospital.P.W.4 the Doctor, issued acopy of accident register Ex.P2, the earliest document.In that document, theplace and time of occurrence have been specifically mentioned.Following thesame, a case has been registered by the respondent police.No circumstance orreason is brought forth before this court to suspect the testimony of P.W.1,who is also an injured witness.Thus there isample evidence in the instant case to connect the accused with the crime, inwhich, he has killed the husband of P.W.1 and also caused injury to her.In the instantcase, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that even prior to the date ofoccurrence, there was a quarrel.She has also stated in her evidence that onthe date of occurrence also at about 9.30 a.m, there was a quarrel, whicharose due to return of jewels by the accused to his sister, and at that time,it was the deceased who caught the shirt of the accused and provoked by that,the accused got down from the upstairs, took a knife and stabbed him.WhenP.W.1 went to the rescue, she was also attacked.The sentence imposed upon theappellant in respect of both the offences shall run concurrently.With the above modification in conviction and sentence, theappeal fails and the same is dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,912,202 |
Heard finally.It is also pointed out that the prosecutrix also file an affidavit Annexure A/4 in favour of the applicant.The conclusion of trial would take considerable time.On the aforesaid grounds, it is prayed that the applicant be released on bail.Hence, this third repeat bail application being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.Before parting with the case, it is directed that learned trial Court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial as early as possible.A separate copy of this order be made available to learned trial Court for information and compliance.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,132 |
Two others had filed Criminal AppealNo. 411 of 2000(R) and they were found guilty of offencepunishable under Section 302/34 and 302/149 IPC.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:Informant Phulchand Mahto was planting sweet potatoalongwith Buddhu Mahto (hereinafter referred to as`deceased') in the morning of 17.7.1987 in the field situatednear their house in village Taranari, Tola-Beharatand, whenappellants Kartik Mahto, Sukar Mahto and Bhim Mahto camethere with bullock to plough and tried to plough the fieldbelonging to them.This was protested to and they were forcedto retreat by the informant side.However, within a short time,all the above named accused persons along with appellantsBeni Mahto, Manjhi Mahto, Nunuchandra Mahto, Latu Mahto, 2 Koyla Mahto, Khiru Mahto, Mahru Thakur returned armedvariously with Bhakuwa, farsa, sword, lathi, bows and arrows.According to the informant, appellant Beni Mahto wascarrying Bhakuwa, appellant Kartik was carrying sword,appellant Koyal Mahto was carrying Farsa, appellant KhiruMahto was carrying Ballam, appellant Sukar Mahto wascarrying bow and arrows, appellant Nunuchand was carryingTangri, and appellant Bhim Mahto was carrying Bhakuwa andothers were carrying lathi.According to informant Phulchand Mahto (PW4),deceased was given Bhakuwa blow by appellant Beni Mahtoon his neck after which he fell down.Thereafter, Kartik Mahtostarted giving sword blows on his father causing variousinjuries on his body.It is further asserted that when theinformant and his uncle Bhola Mahto tried to intervene, theywere also assaulted.Appellants further assaulted SanjhwaDevi and one Lakhan Mahto, who were ploughing the fieldnearby.During this incident, appellant Sukar Mahto was 3 shooting arrows.The informant and other injured witnessesraised alarms on which the villagers arrived there and saw theoccurrence.The appellants thereafter fled away.The reasonbehind this incident was said to be dispute regardingGairmajarua land which was possessed by the informant sincelong.The father of the informant, Budhu Mahto died on thespot.Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a DivisionBench of the Jharkhand High Court dismissing the appealfiled by the appellant.Three appeals were filed by ten accusedpersons.In all there were 11 accused persons who wereconvicted.Appellants Latu Mahto and Nanu Chand Mahtoalong with one Khiru Mahto had filed Criminal Appeal No.384 of 2000 (R).Five others had filed Criminal Appeal No. 362 of2000 (R).They were convicted for offences punishable underSection 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short the `IPC').The matter was reported to Nawadih Police, whicharrived at the spot in presence of witnesses and startedinvestigation.The police prepared inquest report of the deadbody of Budhu Mahto and seized bloodstained Bhakuwa, soiland seven arrows from the spot in presence of witnesses.Onthe basis of the fardbeyan, Nawadih P.S. Case No.38 of 1987was registered under Sections 147,148,149,323,324,307,302and 447 IPC.The police completed investigation and finallysubmitted charge sheet against eleven accused persons whowere charged under Sections 326,147,148,447and 302/149 4 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty.They were furthercharged under Section 302/34 IPC.The main defence taken by the appellants was false ofimplication.They also claimed that they were ploughing theland in question since long.However, the learned trial courtafter examining the witnesses found and held all of themguilty of offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC.Thelearned trial court further found and held guilty appellantsBeni Mahto and Kartik Mahto in Criminal Appeal No.411 of2000(R) under Section 302/34 IPC.All the appellants weresentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life for theoffences proved against them.However, they were notsentenced for any of the minor offences though found to beproved against them.Appellants Koyla Mahto, Mahru Mahtoand Khiru Mahto died during pendency of the appeals.It is to be noted that out of accused persons who hadfiled appeals before the High Court, appellants Koyla Mahto,Manjhi Mahto and Bhim Mahto died during the pendency of 5 the appeal.Apart from other factual aspects appellants inthe appeal before the High Court had submitted that theexamination under Section 313 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (in short the `Cr.P.C.') was not properly done.The details of the accusations were not brought to their noticeeven the charges framed were not proper.The High Courtnoted that separate charge form was not framed by the trialcourt against the appellant while framing charges.It was heldthat the accusations were explained to the appellants duringtheir statements while their statements were being recordedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that theappellants have been convicted by application of Section 149IPC.Their presence and/or participation have not beenestablished.The appellants are acquitted from the charges.They beset at liberty forthwith unless required to be in custody inconnection with any other case.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,916,998 |
Sri Akhilesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant has filed supplementary affidavit today in the Court which is taken on record.As per the office report dated 02.09.2020 notice on informant/opposite party no.2 has been effected who has been served personally.Hence, the service is sufficient.(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence intimidating/pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial and shall co-operate in trial.(v) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(vii) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.Order Date :- 8.9.2020/VKG
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,917,345 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA and perused the record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 131 of 2019, under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Kolhui, District- Mahrajganj is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.[Criminal Appeal No. 1443 of 2018 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.6532 of 2018].It has lastly been submitted that the applicant is in jail since17.06.2019 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicantShamshad, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,918,650 |
Heard on the question of admission.It is an arguable case.Record be called for.Heard on I.A. No. 7207/15 an application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and release the appellant Manish Jainl on bail.The appellant has been convicted by the 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Ashoknagar in Sessions Trial No. 03/2009 vide judgment dated 10.08.2015 and sentenced as follows:-Sections Imprisonment Fine In default 307/149 of IPC 5 years RI 500/- 3 months RI 323/149 of IPC xx 500/- 7 days RI 323/149 of IPC xx 500/- 7 days RI On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that the appellant has deposited the fine amount.The appellant has no overt act.Appellant has not been attributed to cause any injury to the injured Bhura, Balla and Ashok.It is stated that the 2 Cr.A. No. 757/2015 appellant was on bail during the trial and did not misuse the same.Therefore, the appellant be given the benefit of Section 389 of Cr.P.C.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that appellant was accompanying the other accused persons including Dhanpal, who is the main accused and who fired gun shot at Bhuralal and Ashok.On perusal of the record, it is found that the wife of Balla, lodged a report earlier to the incident against Harpal and others.Due to which, accused Dhanpal Yadav armed with 12 bore gun, appellant Harpal, accused persons Ravindra Sharma, Manish Jain armed with lathi, came in front of Pahalwan's House and had an altercation with the complainant.Complainant was caught, on her shout, Ashok and Bhura (brother and uncle of the complainant respectively) came there.Accused, Dhanpal with intention to kill, fired gun shot to Ashok and Bhura.Therefore, crime was registered against the petitioners including the appellant.The gun shot injury was caused by Dhanpal Yadav.On the report of Dhanpal.cross case was registered against the complainant party.Appellant Harpal is not attributed to gun shot injury to Ashok and Bhura.Fine amount has already been 3 Cr.A. No. 757/2015 deposited and the appellant is in custody from the date of judgment.(S.K. Palo) Judge mani
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,197 |
JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.2. PW-1 is the son of the deceased.Accused-2 and 3 are related to the first accused as cousins.There was a land dispute between the first accused and the deceased.In this regard, the deceased gave a police complaint, but however, the police refused to intervene since they took the view that the dispute is one of a civil nature.Nothing happened in the said panchayat since, on that day, one of the panchayatdars failed to turn up.On 24.10.1998, when the panchayat met, 1st accused refused to attend the panchayat saying that unless the panchayat is convened in his place, he would not participate.On the fateful day, PW-1 and the deceased went to the house of Sarasu viz., the sister of PW-1 at Sithyampatti.That was at about 4.30 P.M. Thereafter, PW-1 and the deceased returned to the village at about 6 P.M. and they were proceeding from Sithyampatti to Nadukottai.The distance between these two places is about 4 Kms.The accused then suddenly appeared armed with weapons.A-1 saying ",j;njhL xHpe;J nghlh" stabbed the deceased with knife on the left neck and mouth while A-2 with suri knife stabbed the deceased on the forehead and cheek, and A-3 attacked the deceased with a stone on the chest.PW-1 was able to see this with the help of a torch light which he was having at that time.When PW.1 attempted to go near the accused, he was threatened by the 1st accused saying that he would also have the same fate if he comes near.Not only PW-1 but also PW-4, who also belongs to Kettesampatti Village and who happened to come there hearing the noise, witnessed the occurrence.The deceased who received injuries fell down and died on the spot.Residents of Kettesampatti viz., Chinnamuthu, Pachiappan, Govindan and others then came there and saw the deceased lying dead.Thereafter, PW-1 proceeded to his house to inform the relatives and villagers.In fact, PW-1 fainted for a couple of hours after seeing the gruesome attack on the deceased by the accused.PW-2 reduced the statement of PW-1 to writing and the complaint is Ex.P-1 in which PW-1 signed.Thereafter, both PWs-1 and 2 proceeded to Karimangalam Police Station.At about 6 A.M., PWs-1 and 2 appeared before PW-13, the Sub Inspector of Police and gave a complaint.He took steps to send the same to the Court of Judicial Magistrate and copies to his superiors.PW-15 is the Inspector of Police of Kaveripattinam Police Station and he was also in charge of Karimangalam Police Station.At about 8 A.M., he received the First Information Report, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at about 9.30 A.M. After inspecting the scene of occurrence, he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-3 and Sketch Ex.P-20 in the presence of witnesses.He held inquest over the body of the deceased between 11.30 AM.and 3.30 PM.P-21 is the inquest report.During inquest, he examined Raman, Krishnan, Govindasamy, Venkattan and others and recorded their statements.Then, he took steps to send the body with a requisition to the Government Hospital for the purpose of conducting post mortem.PW-14 is the Doctor attached to Dharmapuri Government Head Quarters Hospital.Pursuant to the requisition Ex.Ex.P-19 is the Post Mortem Certificate.Lungs pale, Heart pale.Chambers empty.Abdomen: Liver-Pale, Kidneys:pale, Stomach - (did not contain food particles) Intestines - Distended with gas.Bladder empty."According to the Doctor, the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy.PW-15, the Inspector of Police at about 5.45 P.M. on 25.10.1998 seized bloodstained earth MO-1, ordinary earth MO-2, stone MO-3, fire-box MO-4, notice MO-5, coins MO-6 series and butt of beedi MO-7 under Ex.P-2 mahazar.A two wheeler (TVS-50) bearing Registration No. TN-29 B-5190 which was left by the accused at the scene was recovered under Ex.P-5 mahazar in the presence of witnesses.On 29.10.1998 at about 11.45 A.M., at the junction of Karimangalam-Periampatti-Pulampatti, A-3 was arrested in the presence of PW-3 and another.He was taken to the police station, where he gave a confession statement and Ex.P-11 is the admissible portion in the said statement.The accused took the police party and witnesses to a place near a road leading from Kettesampatti to Jogipatti and took out a stone from a bush where he had hidden that stone earlier.The said stone is MO-9 and it was recovered under Ex.P-6 mahazar.The admissible portion in the statement of A-1 is Ex.Subsequently, at about 9 A.M. A-2 also gave a confession statement again in the presence of witnesses.The admissible portion in it is Ex.P-8. A-1 took the police party and witnesses to a sugarcane field and from the northern corner of that field he produced MO-10 Koduval. A-2 also took the police party and witnesses to his house and from the roof, he took out a knife (MO-11), which he had hidden there earlier.1. Learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, tried the appellants herein in Sessions Case No. 152 of 1999 for charges under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC and 506(II) IPC.for causing the death of one Chinnasamy at about 7.30 P.M. on 24.10.1998 in Kettesampatty Village.The Court found them guilty under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.For the offence under Section 506(II) IPC., the court imposed rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/-.Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the appellants have preferred the above appeal.On the basis of the said complaint, he registered Cr.No. 1237/98 under Section 302 IPC and prepared the Express F.I.R. Ex.In the said Certificate, the Doctor had made the following notings:-" A moderately built male body lying on its back, arms by the side.Eyes and mouth closed with loss of many teeth (only 6 teeth left) without any discharge from mouth, nostrils anus and urethra.External Injuries:An incised wound of size 2c x 2c x bone deep near the left eye.A lacerated injury of size 2 cm x 2 cm.x bone deep just below wound (1).3.A lacerated injury of size 2 cm.x 1 cm.x bone deep over left ear.An incised wound of size 8 cm.x 3 cm.x bone deep on left neck.An incised wound of size 3 cm.x 2 cm.x 1 cm.extending from right ear to the right upper lip.An incised wound 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep below right eye.A lacerated injury 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep on right temple.A lacerated injury 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep below right eye brow.A lacerated injury 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep right forehead.A lacerated injury of size 1 1/2 cm.x 1/2 cm.x bone deep left fore head.An incised wound of size 10 cm.x 2 cm.x bone deep over the right lower side of the lower jaw and the jaw is fractured.A contusion of size 10 cm.x 3 cm.on the left chest.On Internal Examination:Skull: Skull fractured on the frontal region.Brain liquified.A-1 and A-2 surrendered before Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Dharmapuri on 30.10.1998 and 2.11.1998 respectively.The Inspector of Police took steps to secure police custody of those accused.On 11.11.1998, at about 6 A.M., A-1 gave a confession statement in the presence of PW.3 Selvaraj, Sundaresan and others.Both the material objects were recovered under mahazars.The recovered material objects were sent to the court with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis.While examining PW-1 on 25.10.1998, MO-17 torch light used by him was recovered by the Investigating Officer.The other witnesses including the Doctor who conducted the post mortem were examined and final report was filed by the Inspector.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied having any complicity in the commission of the offence and pleaded total ignorance.4. PW-14 is the Doctor attached to Dharmapuri Government Head Quarters Hospital, who, pursuant to the requisition Ex.P-16 from the Inspector of Police, conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased on 26.10.1998 and issued Ex.P-19 post mortem certificate.In the said certificate, the Doctor has noted as many as 12 external injuries.On dissection, he found fracture of skull on the frontal region.However, he found base of skull intact.Before Court, he has deposed that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy.Similarly, he has testified that the injuries found on the fore head, chest and eye-brow could have been caused by weapon like MO-9 stone.In the earlier part of this Judgment, while referring to the post mortem certificate, we have given a complete description of the various injuries as found by the Doctor.Hence, it is unnecessary to repeat the same over again.The medical evidence available would amply show that the deceased died of shock and haemorhage due to the injuries caused.Hence, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the deceased died only of homicidal violence.Then the question is, is it that these appellants/accused who committed this grave crime and that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts.The prosecution examined two witnesses viz., PW-1 and PW-4 to speak about the occurrence.PW-4 has turned hostile and the testimony of PW-1 alone is available for consideration before this Court.In case this Court accepts the testimony of PW-1, then, the conviction and sentence imposed on these accused can be sustained, but if it is in other way, then straight away the appellants/accused have to be acquitted.7. PW-1 is none else than the son of the deceased.On that day, the accused refused to attend the panchayat saying that unless the panchayat is convened in his place, he would not participate.According to PW-1, thereafter himself and his father went to the house of one Sarasu, who is the sister of PW-1 in the village called Sithiampattti and they were returning to their village at about 6 P.M. At about 7.30 P.M., when they had covered nearly 4 Kms.and reached Kettesampatti, near the land of one Marimuthu, the deceased was attacked by A-1 with a knife on the neck and mouth. A-2 with suri knife attacked the deceased on the fore head and cheek while A-3 attacked the deceased with stone on his chest.This was seen by PW-1 with the help of a torch light.PW-1 has positively deposed before court that A-1 while attacking the deceased, uttered the words ",j;njhL xHpe;J nghlh".Further A-1 threatened PW-1 also.This occurrence was witnessed by PW-4 as well.Thereafter, both PWs-1 and 2 went to the police station, reached there at about 6 A.M. and gave complaint.There being only a solitary evidence to be considered by this Court, the duty of this Court is to see whether the testimony is wholly reliable.Two aspects to be kept in mind are, PW-1 is none else than the son of the deceased.The other one is, admittedly, there has been enmity between the first accused and the deceased.Accused 2 and 3 are related to the first accused as cousins.According to PW-1, the occurrence took place while himself and the deceased were proceeding from Sithyampatti to Nadukottai and at that time it was 7.30 P.M. According to PW-1, after the occurrence, he was proceeding to his village to inform his relatives and others and on the way, he met Chinnamuthu, Pachiappan, Govindan and others.Of course, here, the testimony of this witness is not clear.A reading of the evidence of PW-1 wold show that Chinnamuthu, Pachiappan and Govindan came to the scene of occurrence immediately after the attack and saw the body of the deceased and only thereafter, PW-1 left for the village.It is relevant to point out that none of these three witnesses has been examined.Of course, these witnesses, not being eye witnesses to the occurrence, would not have deposed about the occurrence, but, they would have at least deposed about the presence of PW-1 at the scene of occurrence.Then, it is claimed that this witness saw the entire occurrence with the help of torch light.We carefully examined Ex.P-1 complaint given by him to PW-2 the Village Administrative Officer, but, there is no mentioning about it in Ex.That apart, PW-2 the Village Administrative Officer also in cross examination has admitted that PW-1 did not tell him anything in this regard.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor of course put forth an argument that A-1 to A-3 being known persons and that only after uttering some words they attacked the deceased, PW-1 would not have had any difficulty in identifying them.Much argument has been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants on the dealy in giving police complaint so also the F.I.R. reaching court.Learned counsel contended that the occurrence was at about 7.30 P.M. on 24.10.1998 and PW-2 was approached only at about 3.30 A.M. on the next day.With regard to this, the prosecution would endeavour to explain the delay by saying that PW-1 was unconscious he having witnessed the brutal attack by the accused on his father.To this effect PW-1 also deposed in his evidence.But, we do not find anything about this in the complaint Ex.Then, the next stage is, PWs-1 and 2 went to police station and gave complaint at 6 A.M. This complaint reached the Court only at 8.10 P.M., that is, after 14 Hours and 10 minutes.The prosecution would try to explain this delay by saying that the distance between the police station and the court is 12 Kms.In that event, the FIR should have reached the Magistrate at 8.30 A.M. It is not as if because of some reasons such as lack of police force or deputation of police force for some other urgent work like maintenance of law and order, there was none available to take the FIR to the court of Judicial Magistrate.In this context, we also take note of the fact that PW-1 admitted in his cross examination that police came immediately two hours after the occurrence.We entertain a very serious doubt with reference to the case of the prosecution particularly because of non-examination of the persons who came to the scene of occurrence immediately after the attack, delay in FIR reaching the court of judicial magistrate, and non-mentioning in Ex.P-1 that PW-1 was having torch light with him at the time of occurrence.Once we come to such conclusion the fact that certain weapons stained with human blood group as that of the deceased were recovered cannot advance the case of the prosecution.Having rejected the evidence of the sole eye witness in toto, this Court has to necessarily acquit all the accused of all the charges.In the result, the appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,925,009 |
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE W.P. No.26141/2018 Indore, Dated: 12/11/2018 Parties through their counsel.The petitioner shall certainly be free to file an appropriate application under the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure as well as shall be free to file a complaint case.With the aforesaid, the present petition stands disposed of.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,925,582 |
Shri Aseem Kumar Dixit, learned counsel for the Objector.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicant seeks withdrawal of this second bail application with liberty to file fresh application after recording statement of the prosecutrix.Learned counsel further submitted that learned trial court be directed to record the statement of the prosecutrix as early as possible even during Covid-19 pandemic regular hearing is not taking place, this case be given priority.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, learned trial court is directed to call for the prosecutrix to record her statement considering it as special case within 3 months.Accordingly, this bail application stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty and direction.A typed copy of this order be sent to the learned trial court for information and compliance.Certified copy as per rules (J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed tarun by TARUN KUMAR SALUNKE Date: 2020.09.25 13:58:37 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,256 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Sen, J.This Full Bench Reference arises from a revisional application by the petitioner Arun Kumar Roy against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kurseong, dated 12th September, 1960, calling for charge-sheet against the petitioner under Sections 304A and 279 of the Indian Penal Code.On 16th April, 1960, about 8-30 P. M. the petitioner when driving a car is alleged to have knocked down a woman named Rani Tamangni who died on the spot.Sub-Inspector S.K. Roy registered a case, but after investigation he submitted a final report on 6th September, 1960, put up on 8th September 1960, before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, taking the view that it was an accident, the death of the woman being due to her sudden rush across the road, so that the petitioner was not to blame.The Magistrate called for the case diary, and after perusing the same he took the view that prima facie the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence, and so he called for a charge-sheet under Sections 304A and 279 I. P. C.The petitioner moved the Sessions Judge, Darjeeling, against the order.The learned Sessions Judge, relying on the Bombay decision State v. Muralldhar Gobardhan, AIR 1960 Bom.In the other case.Criminal Revn.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,929,700 |
Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant as well as learned Additional Government Advocate and gone through the entire record.By means of this application under Section 439 CrPC, the accused-applicant seeks bail in FIR No.072 of 2018, under Sections 376 and 324 IPC lodged at Police Station Mallawan, District Hardoi.Initially, the FIR was lodged under Section 354A IPC.3. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that in the FIR no allegation of rape or attempt to rape was made.The prosecutrix is a 35 years old lady, having a son, around 14 years of age.The incident is alleged to have taken place at 11:00 p.m. when everybody was present at home, including son and brother of the complainant.Statement of victim, which was recorded after three days, implicates the accused-applicant for offence under Section 376 IPC.Considering the aforesaid aspects and without commenting any further on merit of the case, it would be appropriate to release the accused-applicant on bail.the applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,393,172 |
2 The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant resides at Village Sakori along with his family and Bhima Ughade was his neighbour.Relations between complainant and Bhima were cordial.They used to consult each other in family matters and agriculture affairs.Civil litigation was pending in the court.Accused disliked relations between complainant and Bhima Ughade.The Accused told the complainant not to keep relations with Bhima.PW-1 Ashok Ughade has deposed that the accused gave abuses to him.He also told him not to keep relation with Bhimaji.Accused no.1 (applicant) gave fist blow on his face and thereby his tooth was broken and he fell down.Accused no. 2 assaulted him with fist blows and kicks.His mother, sister and wife intervened.Accused also scuffled with them.On the next day he lodged report to the police.Police referred him to Government Hospital.He was examined by Doctor.Medical Certificate was issued.He identified the shirt and tooth before the court.In the cross-examination he deposed that his relation with Bhima Ughade were cordial.Thereby his front upper tooth had fallen.Both accused assaulted her husband by fists and kick blows on his chest and stomach.She along with her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and brother-in-law::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 9/23 revn-150-2002.doc Suryakant tried to separate quarrel.Accused scuffled with them and left the spot.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::On the said count, accused also gave threats to complainant.Since the accused was in Bhavki, the::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 3/23 revn-150-2002.doc complainant did not report the matter to Police.On 10 th December, 1995 at about 09:00 p.m., the complainant was about to go for his duty and when he came in front of his house, both the accused told him not to keep relations with Bhima Ughade and not to assist him.The Accused gave fist blows on mouth and thereby upper front of tooth complainant was broken.Accused no.2 Sadashiv Ughade assaulted complainant with fist blows and kicks.The complainant's wife and sister tried to intervene.Accused gave threats to them.Then accused left the spot.As it was too late and night time and there was no facility of transport report was filed by complainant on the next day.Police issued Yadi for examination and treatment.Crime No. 148 of 1995 was registered.On completing investigation charge sheet was filed.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Charge was framed against the accused vide Exhibit-19 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC", for short).::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Ashok Ughade is the complainant, PW-2 Ranjana Ughade is the wife of complainant, PW-3 Suryakant Ughade is the eye-witness, PW-4 Vinayak Sambherao is the Panch witness for spot Panchnama and seizure of Muddemal property, PW-5 Dr. Janardhan Muneshwar examined injured Ashok Ughade.PW-6 is Damodhar Gavari, conducted investigation.Trial Court convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer Simple imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rs. One thousand).Accused no. 2 was acquitted for the offence punishable under section 325 of IPC.Both the accused are convicted for the offence under section 323 read with 34 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred), each.They were acquitted for the offence punishable under section 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Ethape 5/23 revn-150-2002.docLearned Advocate for the applicant submitted that judgments and orders passed by the subordinate courts are patently erroneous and against well establish principles of law.The courts had drawn unwarranted and unfounded inferences.Both the courts erroneously came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved against the applicant offences punishable under sections 325, 323 of IPC, in absence of any independent and cogent evidence.The evidence led by the prosecution in respect to motive is vague and insufficient.No independent witness is examined on this point.On the contrary, the first informant had motive to falsely implicate applicant in the crime.There are number of omissions, material improvements and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.There was unnecessary delay in lodging First Information Report (hereinafter referred to as "FIR", for short) and recording of statements of witnesses.The prosecution has failed to prove the injury sustained by first informant due to assault by the applicant.The courts ignored the medical::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 6/23 revn-150-2002.doc evidence on record, which indicate that the applicant could not have caused the injuries and the first informant might have received the same by accident.The applicant is well educated person.He has completed M.A. in English.He is a lecturer of M.A. English in the College.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Learned APP submitted that there is concurrent findings of two courts convicting the applicant.There is no reason to discard the evidence of witnesses.Motive has been established.There is no reason to disbelieve injured eye-witness.Medical evidence supports the prosecution case.The spot of offence is proved by Panch witness.The evidence of PW-1 to PW- 4 shows that the incident took place in front of house of complainant towards west side.There are minor contradictions in the evidence of witnesses which is not fatal to the prosecution case.The revisional court has limited scope while dealing with the revision against conviction.Muddemal property is identified by prosecution witnesses before the court.The prosecution::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 7/23 revn-150-2002.doc has proved that accused no. 1 had caused grievous hurt to complainant by giving fist blows on his mouth.The Revision Application may be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::I have perused the evidence on record.To appreciate the submissions advanced by both sides, it would be necessary to analyse the evidence.There was dispute between Bhima and accused on count of land::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 8/23 revn-150-2002.doc and the litigation was filed in the court.There was no talk between accused and Bhimaji after the filling of litigation in the court.He sustained injury on his lip.He had shown injuries sustained by him to the medical officer.He had stated to police that he sustained injuries to his lip.Without reading complaint Exhibit-24, he signed the same.He do not know whether police has written the contents of complaint right or wrong.The accused Sadashiv gave 10 to 12 fist and kick blows.His house is situated in populated area.It is not specifically mentioned in his complaint that the accused also scuffled with his wife and sister.up to the incident his relations with accused were cordial.He told police that at the relevant time he felt giddiness.She stated that, accused assaulted her husband and gave abuses.Accused no. 1 assaulted PW-1 with hand on face.It was night time and no transport facility was available to reach police station.On next day morning they went to police station.In the cross- examination, she stated that her mother-in-law, sister-in- law are residing separately.The relation of PW-1 were cordial with Bhima Ughade.There was dispute between accused and Bhima Ughade on count of land and they were not on talking terms with Bhima since last 7 to 8 years .Bhima was uncle of complainant.Prior to incident, there was no dispute between complainant and accused to high extent.Prior to 7 to 8 days, both accused told complainant not to give advise to Bhima Ughade or not to interfere in the dispute between them.Her husband used to go on duly on bicycle.Suryakant is son of Bhima Ughade.Accused not gave 2 to 3 blows on face of complainant and chest and stomach of complainant.In her statement it is not specifically mentioned that after giving fist blow by accused Dilip on the face of complainant, his front teeth was::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 10/23 revn-150-2002.doc broken.In the statement, it is not specifically mentioned that accused beat complainant with fist and kicks.The fact that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Suryakant came on the spot was stated to police, is not mentioned in her statement.It was stated to police that they tried to separate the quarrel and the accused scuffled with them but, the said fact is not reflected in her statement.She had stated to the police that due to assault, her husband, felt giddiness and that she had collected tooth of her husband from the spot, however, the same is not mentioned in the statement.PW-3 Suryakant Ughade is the cousin of complainant.He deposed that accused had assaulted complainant with fists and kicks.Accused Dilip beat complainant on his face and the other accused assaulted him with fist blows and kicks on his chest and stomach.Due to assault on face, one tooth of complainant had fallen.In the cross-examination he deposed that before the police he had stated that accused no.1 was giving blow on the face of complainant.But, it is not specifically mentioned in::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 11/23 revn-150-2002.doc his statement before the police.He had not stated before the police that accused no. 2 assaulted complainant on his chest and stomach with fist.Complaint was filed against him and Ashok (PW-1) at Parner by in laws of Nanda Shinde.His relations with PW-1 is friendly.PW-4 Vinayak Sambherao deposed that he acted as the panch witness to the spot panchnama.Complainant was present when he produced one tooth and shirt with blood stains.In the cross-examination, He stated that complainant paid his fare charges from Narayangaon to Junnar.PW-5 Dr. Janardhan Muneshwar deposed that he was attached to Public Health Center Belha.He examined injured.He noticed injuries on his person such as CLW at the root of left first incisor upper with loss of upper left tooth, the underline wound, bleeding on touch.Tenderness on right side of chest.Tenderness on back at right scapular region.Tenderness on right hypochontrise region, abrasion on nose and left maxillary region.He had asked about history of assault to the patient.He did not take note of it.Injury no. 1 may be possible only if blow of fist was given with force.The person who assaulted by fist, must sustain injury on his fist.Due to assault by fist on face, there should be injury on lip.There was no injury to the lip and no incise wound to teeth.There was no injury to the patient in his lips and no tenderness on the lip.If assault to a person given by fist and kick blow in force then injury would be abrasion and swelling.If there was blow to the chest then there may or may not be injury on lung.If there is kick blow on stomach there is every possibility of injury on abdomen.Injury no. 5 is possible if a person fall from the::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 13/23 revn-150-2002.doc bicycle on rough and hard surface.If a person received blow of kick forcibly on the nose, swelling is possible.Injury no. 2 is possible if a person has impact on chest or handle of bicycle.Injury No. 6 may be possible if a person fall from the bicycle on hard and rough surface on the ground.PW-6 Damodhar Gawari recorded the complaint.He prepared spot panchnama.He recorded statement of witnesses.Complainant produced tooth and shirt.In cross-examination, it was stated that he did not prepare arrest panchanama during investigation.It is not revealed that accused no. 1 had any injury on his right or left fist.The spot of offence is towards south side of house of complainant.There is house at the distance of 20 feet from the house of complainant.At the time of filling of complaint, the complainant has not produced teeth and blood stained shirt.Complainant::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 14/23 revn-150-2002.doc brought teeth and blood stained shirt to Police Station at about 02:30 p.m. There was dispute between accused and Bhima Ughade on the count of agricultural land.The omission which was brought vide cross-examination of witnesses were proved through him.It is not revealed during investigation or nobody stated that the teeth of complainant cause insize injury to the lip.The timing of referring the complainant at hospital has not been mentioned in Yadi.He did not make inquiry about duty hours of complainant.There is no streetlight at the spot.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Although there is concurrent findings of both the courts below, on scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution, I find that the evidence suffers from serious infirmities.The veracity of deposition of witnesses is under clouds of suspicion.The evidence does not inspire confidence.The accused was charged for the commission of offences under sections 325, 323 and 504 read with 34 of I.P.C. The accused no. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of I.P.C. Both the accused::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 15/23 revn-150-2002.doc were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with 34 of I.P.C. and both the accused were acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with 34 of I.P.C. In paragraph 20 of the judgment of the trial court, it is observed that accused no. 2 has no share in the offence punishable under section 325 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::According to PW-1, accused no. 1 assaulted him by giving fist blows on his face and his tooth was broken.Accused no. 2 assaulted him with fist blows and kicks.Accused also scuffled with the relative of PW-1, who had intervened.Complaint was not lodged on the same day.The explanation for lodging the complaint on the next day given by the complainant is that the he had suffered giddiness, the prosecution case is that there was dispute between Bhimaji Ughade and accused.The litigation is pending between them since then.PW-1 was acquainted with Bhimaji.He was assaulted by the accused.Except oral statement, nothing is brought on record to show that there::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 16/23 revn-150-2002.doc was any dispute between Bhimaji and accused.The motive is, thus, very vague in nature.The fact that PW-1 felt giddiness is not reflected in his complaint.Thus, the explanation for lodging the complaint on the next day is apparently afterthought.The defense has brought on record that the relation between PW-1 and Bhimaji Ughade were cordial.PW-1 and Bhimaji were taking advise of each other.There are dispute between accused and Bhimaji Ughade since last 7 to 8 years.However, there was no dispute between complainant and accused.The defence of the accused is that on account of cordial relationship between PW-1 and Bhimaji, the accused were falsely implicated in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::The evidence of PW-2 suffers from serious omissions, which are as follows:(i) After giving blows by accused no. 1 on the face of the complainant, the front tooth was broken;::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::assaulted complainant with fists and kicks;(iv) Her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and Suryakant came on the spot when the incident was going on;(v) When they tried to separate quarrel, accused scuffled with them;(vi) Due to assault, PW-1 felt giddiness;(vii) P.W.-2 collected tooth of her husband on spot.These facts are not mentioned in her statement.Taking into consideration the improvements and serious omissions in the statement, it is difficult to believe her version.PW-3 is allegedly the eye-witness to the incident.From the evidence of PW-2 it is apparent that she had not stated in her statement that her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and PW-3 came on the spot when incident was going on.Thus, presence of PW-3 at the place of incident is doubtful.The fact that accused no. 1 was giving blow on::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 18/23 revn-150-2002.doc the face of the complainant is not specifically mentioned in his statement before the police.He has not stated that accused no. 2 assaulted complainant on chest and stomach with fist.PW-4 is the Panch witness for seizure of clothes of the injured.PW-5 have stated that injury no.1 is possible only with forceful fist blows.He also stated that the person who assaulted by fist, himself shall sustain injury on his fist.There should be injury on lip.However, there was no injury on lip of PW-1 and no incise wound to the teeth.There was no tenderness on the lip.The certificate also did not mention that the roots of tooth were broken.If there is kick blows on stomach, there is possibility of injury on abdomen.Injury no.5 is possible if a person fall from the bicycle on rough and hard surface.Injury no. 6 is possible if a person fall from the bicycle on hard and rough surface on the ground.Injury no. 1 is::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 19/23 revn-150-2002.doc possible if a person fall from the bicycle on stone.Injury no. 2 is possible if a person has imfact on chest or handle of bicycle and injury no. 3 is possible if there is multifall.If the version of the said witnesses about kicks and blows on the mouth of PW-1 is accepted, there has to be corresponding injury.It is pertinent to note that initially N.C. complaint was lodged.The prosecution case is that PW-1 was closely associated with Bhima Ughade.Thus, possibility of applicant having falsely implicated in the case, cannot be ruled out.There is doubt whether the accused have caused injury to the complainant.The investigating officer did not prepare arrest Panchnama.From the evidence of medical officer, it was established that in the event forceful blows in the kicks, there would be injury on the fist of each hand of the assailant.There is no other independent evidence to support the prosecution case.PW-6 have stated that at the time of lodging complaint, the complainant has not produced tooth and::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 20/23 revn-150-2002.doc blood strained shirt.He produced the same at about 02:30 p.m. at the Police Station.During investigation it was not revealed that tooth of complainant had caused incise injury to his lip, at the time of referring the complainant to Primary Health Center.The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 suffers from contradictions and omissions.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::13. PW-6 has also stated that there is no streetlight at the spot.PW-2 has not stated in her statement that accused gave fist blow to complainant on his nose, back and below eye.She has stated that accused gave one fist blow.There is no evidence to show that she went to PHC and that due to fist blow given by accused no.1, tooth of complainant had fallen.She did not specifically state that both accused assaulted on stomach and chest of complaint and due to assault, complainant felt giddiness.PW-3 have not stated in his statement that incident took place out of house of complainant, due to assault of accused, the tooth of complainant had fallen.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::Ethape 21/23 revn-150-2002.doc14. PW-1 did not stated that he was assaulted by fist and kicks on chest and stomach.Whereas PW-2 deposed that both accused assaulted PW-1 by fist and kicks on chest and stomach.PW-1 has not referred to presence of PW-3 at the place of incident.PW-2 however, stated that PW-3 had intervened along with her mother-in-law and sister.The presence of PW-3 is afterthought and his version is apparently concocted.From the evidence of PW-1 it is also revealed that house of Police Patil is of a distance of 500 feet.From his house.There is no evidence that incident was disclosed to Police Patil since the complainant to police was lodged on next day.It is evident from evidence of PW-2 that prior to incident there were no disputes between PW-1 and accused to high extent.She also stated hat 7 to 8 days accused had told complainant not to give advise to Bhima or not to interfere in dispute between them in respect of land.However, PW-1 is silent it that regard.PW-1 in fact stated that up to incident his relations with accused were cordial.PW-2 stated that accused gave 2 to 3 blows on face::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 22/23 revn-150-2002.doc and chest/stomach of complainant.However, PW-1 has not stated so.Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of serious infirmities in the evidence of the witnesses, I do not find that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::(ii) The impugned judgment & order dated 18th March, 2000, passed by Judicial Magistrate::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 ::: Ethape 23/23 revn-150-2002.doc First Class, Junner, District-Pune, convicting the applicant for the offence under section 325 of IPC and Section 323 read with 34 of IPC and the judgment & order dated 27th March, 2002, passed by Sessions Judge Pune, confirming the conviction awarded by trial court, are quashed and set aside, and, applicant is acquitted of the charges.::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::(iii) Criminal Revision Application is disposed of.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 03:46:57 :::
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,937,465 |
Item No. 03Subject to such undertaking, the application is taken up for hearing through video conference.Accordingly, the application, being CRAN 2472 of 2020, is disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,412 |
This is an appeal filed under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khandpceth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short "the Adhiniyam") against the order dated 12-12-2007 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 15842/2007 (S).The relevant facts briefly are that a reference was made under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") by the Central Government to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur (for short "the Tribunal") to decide a dispute between the appellant and the respondent.Before the Tribunal, an application was filed by the appellant-Union for oral examination of the workers, but by order dated 31-10-2007, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal rejected the application.Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 15842/2007 (S) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in this Court and by the impugned order dated 12-12-2007 the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily.Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.They submitted that the learned Single Judge has taken a view in the impugned order dated 12-12-2007 that Tribunal cannot be said to be having acted illegally in rejecting the application of the appellant and as such no prejudice has been caused to the workers by the impugned order.They further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, in any case, is one under Article 227 of the Constitution and the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Adhiniyam is clear that no appeal will lie against an order passed by the learned Single Judge under Article 227 of the Constitution to a Division Bench.It is very clear from the application No. 461 that this dispute is in respect of 3405 workers.All of them have been alleged to be extremely poor in health, financially poor, physically handicapped.Only relevant questions have been permitted by me to be asked in cross-examination of the workers.Under the above circumstances, I find no force in the application of the Union for permitting the Union to examine the workers orally before this Tribunal.If the workers were illiterate Adivasis and Harijans, they will not be able to read the facts stated in the affidavits.The appeal is allowed.No cost.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,419 |
Rambihari had an axe and Ramswarup was armed with a Bhala, They caused injuries to Ghuram with these weapons.He fell down and died.According to this witness he was threatened by accused Ramswarup that he would cause his death if he does not help him in burying the dead body of Ghuram under the debris and, therefore, he also covered the dead body of Ghuram with the cow dung lying there.This witness has further stated that in the process of doing so his clothes were stained in the blood.Appellants Rambihari, Ramswarup and Devideen have been convicted under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life.They have also been convicted under Section 120B Indian Penal Code and awarded the same punishment.Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Appellant No. 2 Ramswarup has died during the pendency of this appeal and, therefore, his appeal has abated.The prosecution case was that in the intervening night of 15th and 16th March, 1987 accused Rambihari, Ramswarup, Kallu and Devideen committed murder of Ghuram in furtherance of their common intention after hatching a conspiracy.On that night Goli and Sullu were also done to death by the accused persons to take revenge of the murder of Manku, father of accused Rambihari and Ramswarup.It is also the prosecution case that Ghuram was meted out the same treatment by the accused persons so that later on he may not avenge the death of his father Goli.It has been stated during the course of hearing of this appeal that the accused persons have been acquitted of the charge of committing murder of Goli and Sullu.The dead body of Ghuram is said to have been buried under the debris by the accused persons in the outskirts of village Sarani.According to the prosecution case accused Kallu took Ghuram from his house to the forest on the pretext of searching his father.On the way accused Devideen accompanied them.They went to a place where accused Rambihari and Ramswarup were standing with a bullock-cart.Then they buried his dead body under the debris.Their clothes were stained with blood.The prosecution case has been built up mainly 6n the statement of co-accused Kallu who has been granted pardon under Section 307 Cr.P.C. after recording his statement on 12-10-1987 by the Trial Court.The prosecution has alleged that the dead body of Ghuram was recovered on the basis of the information given by the accused persons.3. Kallu (P.W 1) was examined as a witness during the trial after the pardon was granted to him.It is primarily on the basis of his testimony that the appellants have been convicted for the aforesaid offences.Corroboration has been sought from the recovery of dead body of the deceased on the basis of the information given by the accused persons under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and also the recovery of certain weapons and blood stained clothes on similar information.It is no longer in dispute that deceased Ghuram met a homicidal end.That is clearly established from the evidence of Dr. Sudhir Kumar Khare (P.W, 2) and the post mortem report (Ex. P-3).In this appeal it has been argued that the evidence of Kallu (P.W. 1), the approver, is not reliable and there is no independent corroboration of his evidence.The evidence of Kallu (P.W. 1) and other material on record have been carefully scrutinized by this Court.Kallu (P.W. 1) has deposed that on the date of Holi he went to the house of Ghuram at about 8.00 P.M. He claims that deceased Ghuram was his friend.He was asked by the mother of Ghuram to accompany him to the forest for the search of the father of Ghuram.Therefore, he accompanied Ghuram to a place known as "Kherihar".On the way accused Devideen met him and he accompanied them.Thereafter accused Rambihari and Ramswarup exclaimed that Ghuram's father was with them.They went towards them.Accused Rambihari was armed with an axe and Ramswarup was having a Bhala, Accused Rambihari dealt an axe blow on the head of Ghuram.This witness has further stated that he asked accused Rambihari that he should desist from causing any further injury to Ghuram and at that point time accused Ramswarup caused injuries with Bhala to Ghuram.Accused Rambihari and Ramswarup inflicted more injuries on the body of Ghuram, as a result of which he died on the spot.There were blood stains on the clothes of other accused persons.Kallu (P.W.1) has further deposed that he was threatened by accused Rambihari and Ramswarup that they would cause his death if he disclosed this incident to anyone.In Para 14 he has stated that next day at about 9.00 A.M. the police came to him and he disclosed to the police that the dead body of Ghuram is lying under the debris.He was also taken by the police to the police station and he was taken into custody.Thereafter accused Rambihari and Ramswarup took the police to the place where the dead body of Ghuram was buried and it was taken out by the police.A close scrutiny of the evidence of Kallu (PW. 1) shows that he has made every attempt to exculpate him from the crime.He has thrown entire blame on accused Rambihari and Ramswarup.It must be taken note of that statement of Kallu was not recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He was also not produced before any Magistrate for recording his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He also did not make any confessional statement before the Magistrate by whom the case was committed to the Court of Session.For the first time he submitted an application in the Court of Session under Section 307 Cr.P.C. and he was granted pardon by the Court after recording his statement.He was on bail when he was examined as a witness.In cross-examination he has denied the suggestion that he himself has caused the death of Ghuram.He has further admitted in cross-examination that at about 9.00 A.M. he had informed the police that the dead body of Ghuram is lying under the debris.Ghasitia (P.W. 5) is mother of deceased Ghuram.She has deposed that she asked her son Ghuram to go with Kallu (P.W. 1) to search out his father.Hardas Bairagi (P.W. 13) is the investigating officer.He has deposed in Para 2 that Kallu, who was subsequently examined as P.W. 1, informed him for the first time that the dead body of Ghuram was lying under the debris of cow dung.Then Kallu took him to the place where the dead body of Ghuram was concealed and took it out.He has further stated that accused Rambihari and Ramswarup subsequently informed him regarding the place where the dead body of Ghuram was hidden.The two Panch witnesses have not been examined.From the evidence of investigating officer it is clear that the dead body of Ghuram was recovered on the basis of the information given by Kallu (PW. 1).He was first to inform him about this fact.As the police officer on the information given by Kallu had come to know about the place where the dead body was hidden, the subsequent statements of accused Rambihari and Ramswarup are not admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as the dead body of Ghuram was recovered in consequence of the information given by Kallu (P.W. 1).The evidence of Kallu (P.W. 1) is not reliable.He did not disclose the incident to anyone for a long time after he is said to have been released by the other two accused persons.As already stated, his statement was not recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr. EC.He was also not produced before any Magistrate for his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He kept silent for a long time.He did not submit any application before the Magistrate by whom the case was committed to the Court of Session to tender pardon to him on his promise to disclose the full facts.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,942,151 |
As per the grounds of detention dated 14.05.2015, passed by second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: SlNo.Name of the Police station and Crime No.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.According to learned counsel appearing for petitioner, insofar as the ground case in Crime No.134 of 2015 is concerned, the detenu has filed bail application before Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruppur, in C.M.P.No.535/2015 and the said application was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order.This according to learned counsel appearing for petitioner is bereft of particulars without cogent materials, which vitiates the impugned order of detention.The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.We have heard learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.Therefore, the impugned order passed suffers from infirmity and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, M.Karuppasamy, aged 24 years, S/o.2.The Commissioner of Police, The Detaining Authority, Tiruppur City, Tiruppur District.3.The Sponsoring Authority, The Inspector of Police, Tiruppur South Police Station, Tiruppur District.4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.S.TAMILVANAN,J.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.cse H.C.P.No.1516 of 201508.09.2015
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,139,439 |
Appavu (deceased), is the brother of Ammasai, P.W. 2, and P.W.4 is the wife of the former.Thangavelu (A-1) and Vetrivelu (A-2) are brothers.Kaliaperumal (A-3) is their half brother.Kaliaperumal (A-4) and Sothukatti alias Thiagarajan (A-5) are the associates of the other accused.These prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the village of Pullianthurai.There has been some amount of factious enmity subsisting between Appavu and Thangavelu (A-1) since Appavu demanded from the latter, accounts for the collections and expendie ture relating to the village kaman templ-festival.The first accused questioned Appavu's right to demand accounts and he refused to account.Appavu and his brother Ammasai (P.W. 2) did not make any further contributions to the festival.They even refrained from going to the temple.Just a month prior to this occurrence (19th July, 1970) the concubine of Thangavelu (A-1) by name Vembu, suddenly disappeared from the village after having lived with A-1 for nearly a year.The first accused suspected Appavu in regard to the disappearance of Vembu and had been indulging in abuses.He complained to the village headman who sent for Appavu and enquired.Appavu did not admit any connection with Vembu.The matter remained at that stage.On 19th July, 1970, at about 8 P.M., one Sundararaja Reddiar (P.W. 1) was coming back from his field.He met Appavu in the betel shop of Kesavan (P.W. 7).Both P.W. 1 and Appavu walked together on their way to their respective houses.The five appellants were standing in front of the house of the deceased Appavu.Thangavelu (A-1) was having a short aruval M.O. 1 in his hand.The second accused, Vetrivelu was having a long aruval in his hand and the other three accused each had a stick in his hand.P.W. 5, the village headman and his son Ramaswamy (P.W. 6) came to the house of Ammasai (P.W. 2) after learning from the latter about the occurrence.They found Appavu lying with a cut injury on his right elbow at the front entrance of the house of Ammasai (P.W. 2).There was profuse bleeding from the injury.But Appavu was concious and was able to make a statement.P.W. 5 collected M.O. 1 and the stick M.O. 2 (both bloodstained) and took the injured Appavu and Ammasai in a cart to Anaikaranchatram Police Station.P.W. 11, the Sub-Inspector registered a case and recorded a statement from Appavu who was in full possession of his senses and was able to talk coherently.The Sub-Inspector after recording a statement from Ammasai sent both the injured to the Sirkali hospital.On the way Appavu died.P.W. 8 is the doctor (Dr. Thiagarajan) who conducted autospy over the body of Appavu.He found the following:A clean cut oblique wound about 6" x 4", bone deep, over the right elbow extending from the outer end of the right elbow to the inner border of the upper third of the right forearm.1/2" x 1/4" in size.There was no internal injury and all organs were found to be normal.The said doctor examined P.W. 2 and expressed his opinion that the two injuries sustained by P.W. 2 are simple.The first and second accused also were examined by the doctor and the doctor expressed the opinion that the three injuries found on the first accused are simple.He described the injuries on A-1 and A-2 thus:On A-1:Old horizontal wound about l" x 1/4," skin deep, over the left cheek, about 1-1/2" below the left eye.Scab and oedima around the left eye present.Vertically irregular old abrasion, about 3" long, over the back of the right forearm.Oedima of the right hand, outer side, on the back of the hand, about 3/4" in diameter.The five appellant seek to question their convictions and sentences under Sections 147, Indian.Penal Code (A-1 to A-5), 148, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2) 302, Indian Penal Code (A-1) 448, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2) and 324, Indian Penal Code (A-1 and A-2).Since P.W. 1 was threatened by the appellants, he ran to some distance, about 25 feet an d watched the other stages of the occurrence.P.W. 2 who was in his house at that time heard the voice of his brother Appavu when Appavu shouted that Thangavelu had cut.He naturally rushed up to the spot with the stick M.O. 2 and saw his brother Appavu walking towards his house and with a deep cut on his right elbow, and nearby Thangavelu with M.O. 1 in his hand, Vetrivelu (A-2) with a long aruval and the other accused each with a stick all were standing.Ammasai with the aruval, M.O. 1, on his left upper arm saying that he would not be left out.P.W. 2 attacked Thangavelu (A-1) with his stick M.O. 2 and hit him on his hand, with the result the aruval M.O. 1 was knocked off from theh and of Thangavelu (A-1) and M.O. 1 fell down.The second accused inflicted a cut on the head of Ammasai, P.W. 2, with the aruval which he had in his hand but in the course of warding off the attack, P.W. 2 sustained a cut on his left palm.P.W. 2 inflicted 2 or 3 blows with the stick M.O.2 on Vetrivelu (A-2).Thereafter P.W. 2 took the aruval M.O. 1 and threw it away along with his stick, M.O. 2, and ran into the house of Kaliaperumal (P.W. 3) and made good his escape.While running he heard Appavu shouting that he had been murdered.Appavu (deceased) went into the house of Ammasai (P.W. 2) and all the five accused followed him inside.P.W. 3 Kaliaperumal and P.W. 4, the wife of the deceased heard Appavu shouting from inside the house that he was being murdered.The muscles were cut and the elbow joint was exposed.Irregularly oblique wound, about 4" long.The wound gaped about 1/4", only at its centre and in other areas it was only a scratch mark, about 2-1/2" above the right outer melleolus melleous (ankle).A skin deep cut wound, with irregular margin and with peeled skin covering it, over the palmar aspect of the base of the left little finger.No tenderness.There was no evidence of any fracture.On A-2:Infected closed wound, about 2" x 1/2" over the innerside of the left parietal area of the scalp.Old horizontal abrasion, with scab formation about 2"x 1/4" over the left side of the back.In the statutory explanation given by the first accused under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code, the first accused admitted that he had a concubine by name Vembu but he denied the other evidence regarding the prosecution case adduced against him.According to the first accused, Appavu (deceased) beat him as a result of which he sustained the injuries and he did not know what happened thereafter.The second accused Vetrivelu had stated that the entire evidence appearing on the prosecution side was false and that when he went to lift his brother Thangavelu (A-1), P.W. 2 Ammasai hit him on his head.The plea of the other accused is one of denial.The first accused denied that he was armed with aruval at the time of the occurrence and had claimed that P.W. 2 Ammasai had beaten him.In fact, according to A-1, his brother A-2 called him for taking his food and that when he was on his way, Appavu questioned him as to why he was making a fuss relating to the girl and cut him severely with an aruval.Ammasai, P.W. 2, beat him and the first accused snatched the aruval from Appavu and inflicted a severe cut with it.But he did not notice where the cut fell.(P.W. 2) beat him and the aruval fell from his hand.The first accused then said that heran away to the house of his brother Vetrivelu and went to the village headman sometime later.The plea of the second accused also was one of denial but he stated that when he called his brother Thangavelu, A-1, to take his food, Appavu cut Thangavelu with a knife saying: "why are you talking ill of that woman" and that Ammasai P.W. 2 came running and inflicted two or three blows and he ran away.The learned Sessions Judge accepted the testimony of P.W. 1, Sundararaja Reddiar stating:In my opinion, this witness is an entirely truthful witness who has not been shown to have any special interest, either in the deceased or in the accused, to make any false statement, either in favour of the prosecution or against any of the accused.In fact, the learned Sessions Judge characterises Sundaraja Reddiar, P.W. 1, as an absolutely independent and truthful witness who has no motive whatsoever to speak anything false against any of the accused.The learned Sessions Judge further believed the evidence of P.W. 1 that he was within 6 feet of Appavu, when Thangavelu (A-1) cut him and that since it was a day previous to the full moon day, there was moonlight for him to identify persons involved.The learned Judge further accepted the evidence of P.W. 6 and P.W. 5 and gave a finding that Exhibit P-1 is a statement made only by Appavu when he was quite capable of making such a statement.The learned Judge after noticing some variations in the two dying declarations of Appavu, Exhibits P.1 and P.23, concluded that the material parts of Exhibits P-1 and P-23 are substantially identical.The learned Judge further held that the version given in Exhibit P-1 is fully substantiated by the evidence of Sundraraja Reddiar, P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8, the doctor.The learned Judge ultimately gave a finding that the first accused caused the death of Appavu by cutting him with the deadly weapon, M.O. 1, with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death by such act, within the meaning of Section 299, Indian Penal Code The learned Judge in paragraph 43 of his judgment notices the fact that Thangavelu (A-1) has stated in the Sessions Court that he delivered a violent cut with the aruval, which he snatched from Appavu and that he ran away.The learned Judge also notices that Vertivelu, the second accused, has stated nothing at all about either he or Thangavelu (A.1) having cut anybody, but only refers to Appavu having cut Thangavelu (A-1) with an aruval.It was suggested to Ammasai P.W.2, that since A.1 was abusing him and his brother Appavu on the day of the occurrence, Appavu assaulted A-1 and A-2 with a knife and that P.W.2 assaulted them with a rod.This is not either the plea of the first accused or the second accused in the statements made by them under Section 342, Criminal Procedure Code.The further suggestion is that in order to escape from such an attack, the first accused wrestled the aruval from Appavu and attacked Appavu.Even these two suggestions are not consistent, the earlier suggestion referring to knife and the later suggestion referring to aruval.In the Court of the Sub-Magistrate, Sirkali, the plea of the first accused was that Appavu (deceased) cut him.The first accused claimed that he did not know what happened subsequently.He says that he went to the police station.In the Court of Sessions, the first accused stated:The second accused stated in the Court of the committing Magistrate that when Thangavelu (A-1) was being lifted P.W. 2 hit him on his head.In the Court of Sessions, the second accused stated:Considering the pleas of the accused 1 and 2, it would emerge clearly that these five accused stationed themselves near the house of the deceased for this murderous attack.Even accepting the plea of the first accused that he wrested the aruval from Appavu and cut him, it is not possible to hold that after having disarmed Appavu he could really apprehend such bodily injury as would cause death or grievous injury to him.Suffice it for our purpose to characterise these various pleas of accused 1 and 2 as totally inconsistent and grotesquely irreconcilable.In view of the plea of the first accused who states that he wrested the aruval and cut Appavu, the only question that arises for our determination would be whether the facts and circumstances of this case would justify the plea of self-defence.In fact, the learned Counsel did not make any vigorous attempt to show that the benefit of right of private defence would enure to these accused.The trial Judge Was perfectly justified in rejecting this theory of self-defence put forward on behalf of the accused.The doctor in his evidence has stated:Q. Is it not the tendency of blood vessel as soon as it is cut cleanly to constrict as well as contract?A. Only small blood vessels.The conviction of the first appellant for an offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code is confirmed.The learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting A-1 and A-2 for an offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code after convicting them for an offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.Besides, it is a useless surplusage and an unnecessary addition to the punishment of a more severe offence under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.We set aside the conviction of A-1 and A-2 for the offence under Section 147, Indian Penal Code and we maintain the conviction of A-1 and A-2 under Section 148, Indian Penal Code.There are no other merits in this appeal which is totally devoid of substance.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,955,055 |
This petition has been filed on the ground that the allegations against the petitioners are false and on behalf of the petitioners, an FIR was lodged against the complainant party, on which, crime no.55/15 was registered at Police Station Ajaygarh, District Panna, for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 294, 506/149 of the IPC and the charge sheet has been filed against the complainant party.Only on this reason, the complainant party has lodged a false report against the petitioners and they are being prosecuted on the basis of aforesaid false report.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.