id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
113,955,322 |
Original accused no.1 - Kiran, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 592 of 2014, original accused no.2 - Suresh, who is appellant no.2 in Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2014, original accused no.4 - Dumya alias Lakhan alias Inamdar Bhosale, who is appellant in ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 4 criapl583-2014-group Criminal Appeal No. 583 of 2014 and original accused no.5 - Santosh, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2015, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Each of them were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years, each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Original accused no.6 - Kishor, who is appellant no.1 in Criminal Appeal no.745 of 2014 and original accused no.7 - Appa, who is appellant in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2014, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(ii) of the MCOC Act r/w section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1, 2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 5 criapl583-2014-group rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Original accused no.6 and 7, as detailed above, were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(2) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.Original accused no.1,2, 4 and 5, as detailed above, were convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.120-B of the Indian Penal Code.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::were also convicted for the offence punishable under section 3(4) of the MCOC Act r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code.Original accused no.3 was absconding and, therefore, the trial as regards him was separated.Aggrieved by the various convictions and sentences, as detailed above, the appellants have preferred the present appeals.For the sake of convenience, all the appellants would be termed as the accused in the serial as they stood in the chargesheet framed by the trial Court.The prosecution case would reveal that on 18 th April, 2009, at village Bhada, District - Latur ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 7 criapl583-2014-group post-midnight, dacoity has occurred.Sojrabai Gaikwad.The house-breaking and theft were also noted in the house of one Lochanbai Sarvade and one Mallikarjun Swami.Further one motorcycle, each of Yogesh Shivankar and Padmakar Chincholkar were also taken away by the dacoits.As per the FIR of PW1 - Sojrabai, there was Satyanarayan puja and jagran gondhal function in her house in the said night.The same was over by 10.00 pm.In the night at about 2.00 am, as her she-goats started bleating, she awoke and found that 4 unknown persons were in her house.One of them was carrying tin box of valuables.She therefore shouted as "thief thief" ("pksj pksj").One of the dacoits pushed her away and all the 4 started running away towards the field in front of her house.Upon hearing her shouts, her husband PW8 -Vishnu Gaikwad, her son - PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and other neighbours started chasing those dacoits.After some time, however, PW2 - Revnath, Nagnath and Shivdas as well as her husband PW8 - Vishnu were brought by the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 8 criapl583-2014-group neighbours in injured condition as the dacoits had hit them while they were making an attempt to catch hold them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Accused no.5 - Santosh Bhosale was, however, caught by the villagers in the nearby field red-handed.In the incident, three gold rings weighing 5 gm each, two mobile handsets of nokia company, one lady's wrist watch of titan make, totally valued at Rs.21,750/- were looted.From the house of PW4 - Lochanbai Sarvade, cash of Rs.10,000/-, three sarees, one pair of silver chain, gold marriage string and ear studs, totally valued Rs.15,000/- were looted.From the house of PW5 - Mallikarjun Swami, cash of Rs.5,000/- and gold ring weighing 5 gm, totally valued at Rs.10,000/- were looted.The two motorcycles, as detailed above were taken away.The FIR was filed by PW1 - Sojarabai.Accused no.5 - Santosh, apprehended by the villagers, was also handed over to the Police.He was, however, unable to identify any of the accused.PW 4 - Lochanbai and PW 5 - Mallikarjun Swami did not depose anything regarding identity of the present appellants.What thus can be gathered from this piece of evidence is that accused no.5 - Santosh was caught red-handed on the spot and accused no.1 - Kiran and accused no.2 - Suresh were identified by PW 2 - Ramannath.All the appellants in present five appeals were convicted by the learned Special Judge under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (for short, "MCOC Act"), Aurangabad in Special Cae No. 10 of 2009, by judgement and order dated 31st July, 2014, for the offences punishable under section 395 r/w.Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years.They were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,00,000/- each, in default, they were directed to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years each.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Since the appellants were under-trial prisoners, set-off as per the provisions of section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was granted.The dacoits had barged into the house of the complainant - PW1 -::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::PW13 - API - Nanasaheb Ubale of Bhada Police Station registered the crime and ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 9 criapl583-2014-group conducted the investigation in the case.The injured as well as accused no.5 - Santosh were sent for medical treatment at Government Hospital, Latur.The Investigating Officer carried further investigation like preparation of panchanama of spot of occurrence at three places.The necessary investigation of the seizure of the blood stained clothes was carried.From the person of accused no.5 - Santosh, two wrist watches, one bracelet, cash amount and mobile phones etc. were seized.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::During further investigation and interrogation, the other accused came to be arrested.Either from the their persons certain valuables involved in the offence were recovered or on the basis of the statements made by them, the recovery has taken place.It appears that thereafter, the test identification parade was held (however, the prosecution has not examined the witnesses regarding the test identification parade).Since it was transpired that all the present appellants had earlier committed similar offences regarding the property in the past in organised manner, the Investigating Officer sent the proposal to the ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 10 criapl583-2014-group Special Inspector General of Police to seek his permission for registering the offence punishable under various sections of MCOC Act, as detailed above.Upon grant of permission, he added those sections of MCOC Act. The Investigating Officer thereafter handed over further investigation to Dy.S.P. Mr. Survase.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Upon registration of the crime for the offences under the provisions of MCOC Act, PW14 - Mr. Sanjay Latkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur, upon seeking necessary permission from his superior, gave direction to the then Sub Divisional Police Officer to carry further investigation.During his investigation, accused no.2 - Dumya Bhosale and accused no.6 - Kishor Bhosale voluntarily made confessional statements and after giving due time, the statements were recorded.Lateron, accused no.2 -Suresh Bhosale's confessional statement after taking due care was recorded.All these statements were forwarded for verification to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur.PW15 - Mr. Krishnakumar Itolikar, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Latur has separately recorded their statements and thereafter the chargesheet came to be ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 11 criapl583-2014-group filed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Before the learned Special Judge, in all 15 witnesses were examined which included the inmates of the house, the injured witnesses, as detailed above, respective panch witnesses, Medical Officer - PW 12 -Chandrashekhar Ramshette, Investigating Officers and the Chief Judicial Magistrate, as detailed above.The learned Special Judge found that the prosecution case has been fully proved and, therefore, the impugned order of conviction and sentence, as detailed supra came to be passed.The learned counsel for the respective appellants in each of the cases took me through the record of each of the case.They submitted that as per the complainant, only 4 persons had committed the offence.However, the prosecution has arrayed 7 accused persons.It was admitted by the complainant as well as other witnesses that there was darkness in the field and even the dacoits were masked.There are vague statements from some of the witnesses that there were 5-6 thieves.The property is not identified and no ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 12 criapl583-2014-group record regarding test identification parade was proved before the Court.There was no earlier crime committed by the accused persons in organised manner.Even in some of the crimes, the respective appellants were already acquitted at the time of invoking the provisions of MCOC Act or during pendency of the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::As regards accused no.4 - Dumnya, learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution case, one goldsmith has produced the golden ornaments on the statement that this accused had handed over the said ornaments to him.The said goldsmith, however, could not be examined as he has died during pendency of the trial.In the alternative, it was submitted on behalf of the appellants that the sentences imposed by the learned Special Judge are harsh.The appellants are behind the bars for a period of more than 5-6 years and, therefore, it was submitted that the appellants be released upon sentencing them for the period of ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 13 criapl583-2014-group imprisonment already undergone by them.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::On the other hand, the learned A.P.P. submitted that though the witnesses have admitted that there was darkness in the field and initially the dacoits were masked, it is to be noted that the injured inmates of the house as well as the villagers went in search for the dacoits.Even one of the dacoits was caught red-There was physical fight between the dacoits and the injured witnesses.In the circumstances, there could not have been any mask later-on and because of the physical contact between the witnesses and the accused, there was no difficulty in identifying them in the Court.It was further submitted by the learned A.P.P.that though the fact of holding test identification parade is not proved from the mouth of the Executive Magistrate, who has conducted the same or the panch witnesses, identification has been amply established as the witnesses have identified all the appellants in the witness box.They had no axe to grind against the appellants as they were not knowing the appellants earlier.Further there was a recovery of the valuables ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 14 criapl583-2014-group looted in the incident, either from the persons of some of the appellants or recovery of those articles on the basis of the statements made by the respective appellants.In the circumstances, it was submitted that all the appeals be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::As regards the sentences, it was submitted that the evidence on record would show that as three persons were injured, not only the dacoity was committed at three places and two motorcycles were taken away but also three persons were also injured by the appellants in the incident and hence it was submitted that no leniency is required to be shown to the appellants by interfering in the sentences awarded by the learned Special Judge.On the basis of above material on record and the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, the following points arise for my determination :-I. Whether the prosecution has proved that the present appellants along with the absconding accused had entered into criminal conspiracy to commit dacoity at ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 15 criapl583-2014-group villager Bhada and accordingly, committed dacoity at 3 places in the village in the night of 18th April, 2009 ?::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::Whether the prosecution has further proved that the appellants have committed the dacoity by using deadly weapons like Jambiya and caused grievous heart to injured Revannath and ig his family members ?Whether the prosecution has further proved that the present appellants have committed offence as a part of the organized crime by making preparation for commission of organized crime being the members of organized crime syndicate ?My findings to the above points are in the affirmative.The appeals are therefore, dismissed for the reasons to follow.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::PW 1 - Sojarabai, PW 2 - Revannath and PW 8 -PW 1 - Sojarabai is the complainant.She gave the details of the occurrence.During her cross-examination, she admitted that there was darkness in the field and the dacoits had masked their faces.It is, however, to be noted that the said witness has not identified any of the accused and has identified gold rings which were seized from the goldsmith, who has unfortunately died before the trial could begin.PW 2 - Revannath who was injured while catching the dacoits, has identified accused no.1 - Kiran and accused No. 2 - Suresh.It was argued that there was delay in holding the test identification parade.However, since we have no evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, but only this witness stating that test identification parade was held, there is no reason to disbelieve the version of this witness since he was injured in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::PW 12 - Chandrashekhar Ramshette, the Medical Officer of Primary Health Centre, Bhada, has deposed about the injuries to PW 8 - Vishnu and PW 2 - Revannath as well as his brothers - Nagnath and Shivdas.All the injury certificates were proved by him at Exhibit 117 toThere was no serious challenge to his testimony ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 18 criapl583-2014-group before the trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::PW 7 - Jalindar Rathane was the panch witness to the memorandum-cum-seizure panchnama of the articles, as regards accused no.6 Kishor.According to him, on 10th May, 2009, while the said accused was in custody made a statement before him that he was ready to point out the place where the mobile involved in the offence was hidden by him.He thereafter led the police and the panch witness to his house at village Tirth.There, from one tin box, he recovered a mobile of NOKIA make and two pieces of broken SIM card.The said articles were identified by this witness in the Court.The property was identified by PW 1 - Sojarabai as belonging to her.PW 9 - Nandu Agalave was the panch witness to the fact of seizure of recovery of Hero Honda motorcycle from accused no.4 - Dumya.PW 10 - Kishore Joshi deposed that he along with another panch - Kaka Bansode were called at the police station.Accused no.4 - Dumya, in his presence, ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 19 criapl583-2014-group made a statement that he would produce the dagger (Jambiya) used in the offence and accordingly, led the police party to his house and therefrom, recovered the said Jambiya.The said Jambiya was identified by the witness in the Court.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::PW 11 - Suresh Kunjir has deposed that from the shop of one Tapase goldsmith, in their presence three gold rings, two gold marriage strings and one small ear-ring of child were seized.The said goldsmith Tapase, however, died during the pendency of trial.PW 13 - API Nanasaheb Ubale has deposed about the investigation carried by him and the seizure of the property etc. According to him, during interrogation with accused no.4 - Dumya, he got the information that he had sold the ornaments looted during the dacoity to goldsmith Tapase and therefore, he seized the ornaments from goldsmith and recorded his statement.He further deposed that on 7th September, 2009 the test identification parade of accused Kishor Bhosale and accused Dumya Bhosale was conducted by Tahsildar-cum-::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::20 criapl583-2014-group Executive Magistrate.PW 14 - Sanjay Lathkar, the then Superintendent of Police, Latur has deposed about recording of confessional statements of the relevant accused, as detailed above, after taking all necessary precautions as provided by law, at Exhibit 196 and Exhibit 201, respectively.There is nothing on record to disbelieve the version of this Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police that the respective appellants have voluntarily made the confessional statements.It is true that the learned APP in the trial Court failed to place the evidence regarding holding of the test identification parade, however, besides the said test identification parade there was volumenous evidence, though goldsmith Tapase has died before his ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 21 criapl583-2014-group deposition could be recorded.We have the additional substantive evidence as detailed supra against said Dumya.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::As regards the conviction of the respective appellants for the offences punishable under the provisions of MCOC Act, the learned counsel for accused No.1 Kiran, accused No. 4 Dumya and accused No. 7 Appa placed before me charts showing the status of pending cases against the respective appellants.The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the ratio laid down in the cases of "Altaf Ismail ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 ::: 22 criapl583-2014-group Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others", reported in 2005 CRI.L.J. 3584 and "Sherbahadur Akram Khan and others Vs.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::In the case of "Altaf Ismail Sheikh Vs.The State of Maharashtra and others" (cited supra), the prosecution has alleged that the petitioner Altaf Ismail was involved in the organized crimes.The approval for recording of FIR was in relation to malpractices comprised of replacement of answer-sheets and forgery of signatures of invigilators and no other activities.However, the original complaint was not in relation to malpractices in selection process.::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::In the circumstances, the following order.All the present five criminal appeals are hereby dismissed.[M.T. JOSHI] JUDGE npj/criapl583-2014-group ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:24:47 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,619,472 |
Case Diary is available.This is fifth application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 21/03/2017 in connection with Crime No. 156/2017 registered at police station Civil Line, District Vidisha for offence under Sections 370, 376A, 344, 506, 120-B, 370-A, 376(2)(D), 376(gha), 372 of IPC.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 21/03/2017 and the trial is likely to take sufficiently long time.Considered the submission made by the counsel for the applicant.The allegation against the applicant is that she had taken the prosecutrix with her and kept her at Jaipur and she was sold by the applicant.The prosecutrix was, thereafter, subjected to rape.Considering the allegations against the applicant, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.The application is, accordingly, rejected.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB Digitally signed by MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK Date: 2019.06.24 18:11:21 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B 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.
|
856,200 |
Appellants 2 to 5 are the sons of the first appellant.P.W.1 is the younger brother of the deceased.P.W.5 is the son-in-law of the deceased.The deceased was a former Member of the Legislative Assembly and was a contractor by profession.He used to sell tamarind during tamarind season and was also running a rice mill.The appellants were residing at Dharmapuri, while the deceased was a resident of Madhikonpalayam village.During tamarind season, a dispute arose between the deceased and the first appellant, when trees were auctioned for plucking the tamarind fruits.On account of that, quarrels ensued between the parties and they were not on talking terms during the relevant period.On 11.11.1992 at about 7.30 p.m., P.Ws.1, 4 and one Nanjappan were sitting near a bus stop at Dharmapuri.The deceased was also present along with them.On seeing the second appellant, the deceased asked P.W.1 to go and collect donation for organising a meeting at Dharmapuri in connection with the visit of a Minister.The second appellant refused to pay any donation but made disparaging remarks about the deceased telling him that he has already earned money by illegal means and that he need not beg money from him.The deceased, on hearing the words of the second appellant, got annoyed and told him that if he is not willing to pay donation, there is no need for him to make such comments and that he should not behave in such an unruly manner.The second appellant insisted that he will behave in such a fashion and that he will be the person, who will finish him off one day.He has further stated that unless the deceased is finished off, they will not he able to improve their business.P.W.1 intervened in the quarrel and asked his brother to leave the place.Thereafter, the deceased and P.W.1 got into his car and went to Madhikonpalayam, where the deceased and P.W.1 alighted near the rice mill and sent the vehicle away.At the rice mill, the deceased and P.W.1 stayed for sometime, during which, they were discussing about the ensuing marriage of P.W.1's second son.At about 10.15 p.m., P.W. 1 came out of the rice mill and saw the first appellant coming from east.Appellants 2 to 5 were also seen coming along with him.On seeing P.W.1, appellants 2 to 5 held his hands and the first appellant, instigated them to finish him off.Immediately, the fourth appellant beat P.W. 1 with a cycle chain on his head, back of chest, chest, and left side of the wrist.The other three appellants beat him with hands.P.W.1 raised alarm and the deceased came out of the rice mill.The first appellant instigated his sons to finish off the deceased.Thereafter, appellants 3 to 5 held the hands of the deceased and the second appellant stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest.The deceased fell down and all the appellants ran away from the place.The deceased was writhing for pain and struggling for life.On examination, Ranganathan, the deceased, was found dead.P.W.14, the doctor, sent an intimation to the police authorities.4. P.W.1, thereafter, left the hospital and proceeded to Dharmapuri Police Station, which he reached it at 00.30 hours on 11/12.11.1992 and gave an oral statement, which was reduced into writing by P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police.On the complaint, Ex.P-1, a case in Crime No. 2132 of 1992 was registered against the appellants under Section 302, I.P.C. The printed first information report in the said crime is Ex.The express reports were sent to higher officials and P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, on getting the copy of the printed first information report at 1.40 a.m. on 12.11.1992, proceeded to the scene of occurrence and at 2.00 p.m., prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P-5, attested by P.W.9 and another.A rough sketch, Ex.P-23, was drawn by him.M.Os.5 and 6, the blood stained earth and sample earth respectively were recovered under a mahazar Ex.P-6 attested by the same witnesses.P.W.19, leaving the scene of occurrence, proceeded to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, where the Police Photographer was already present.The photographer, P.W.7, took photographs of the dead body.P.W.1.9 issued summons to the Panchayatdars and on their appearance, commenced inquest at 3.15 a.m. over the body of Ranganathan.The inquest was over by 4.30 a.m. and during the course of inquest, P.Ws.l, 2 and Ors.The doctor issued Ex.P-13 the copy of the wound certificate, with his opinion opining that the injuries are simple in nature.In the meantime, the officer, after the inquest, handed over the dead body of Ranganathan to P.W.l1, a Police Constable, with a requisition, Ex.P-14, to the doctor for conducting autopsy.P.W.15, the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Ranganathan, and found the following injury:"Penetrating injury 5 x 2 x 10 cms vertically over the left side chest at the function of second rib with sternum, which was probed and found to be entering the chest cavity through the lung into the heart."The doctor issued Ex. P-15, the post-mortem certificate, with his opinion that the deceased would have died on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the stab injury to vital organ and death would have occurred at about 10 to 12 hours prior to autopsy.On 13.11.1995, the doctor, P.W.15, who conducted autopsy, and other witnesses were examined and their statements were recorded.The appellants were found absconding and therefore, a special team was formed to nab them.On an information received, P.W.19 proceeded to Sovathur junction and at 7.30 a.m. on 20.11.1992, arrested the third appellant and his statement was recorded.The third appellant took the police party and produced M.Os.7 to 9, shirt, baniyan and dhothi, which were seized under a mahazar Ex.As the third appellant had injury on his person, he was referred to the hospital for treatment.The third appellant was examined by P.W.16, the Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, and he found the following injuries:(1) A sutured wound 2 cm in size seen over the left parietal area.(2) A sutured wound 3 cm in size over the right parietal area.The doctor issued Ex.P-16, the wound certificate, with his opinion that the injuries found on the third appellant are simple in nature.On 30.11.1992, he gave a requisition, Ex.P-17, to the Court to send the material objects for analysis.On 18.12.1992, he examined Rajaram and his further statement was recorded.On 3.1.1993, he examined P.W.13, who had given first aid to the third appellant, and further investigation was taken up by his successor, P.W.20, on the directions of the Additional Superintendent of Police.On 19.11.1992, P.W.20, on getting information about the other appellants, proceeded to Salem-Dharmapuri main road and arrested the second appellant at 9.00 a.m. He gave a statement and the admissible portion is marked by the prosecution as Ex.The second appellant took the police party to a river bed at Madhikonpalayam and produced M.O.1, Knife, which was kept concealed in a bush near a railway bridge.ORDER N. Dhinakar, J.Appellants 1 to 5 were charged under Section 147, I.P.C. and appellants 2 and 4 were charged under Section 148, I.P.C. The learned trial Judge, while finding appellants 1 to 5 guilty under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentencing each one of them to one year simple imprisonment found the second appellant alone guilty under Section 148, I.P.C. under charge No. 2, for which, he was sentenced to 18 months simple imprisonment.The trial Judge acquitted both appellants 1 and 4 under the above two charges.The trial Judge, while finding the second appellant guilty under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life, found appellants 3 to 5 guilty under Section 302 read with 149, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life.He also found the first, appellant guilty under Section 302 read with 109, I.P.C., for which, he was sentenced to imprisonment for life.The appellants challenge their conviction and sentence in this appeal.were examined, whose statements were recorded.The inquest report is Ex.Since the officer found injuries on P.W.1, he was referred to the hospital with a memo for taking treatment.Accordingly, P.W.1 appeared before P.W.18, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, who examined P.W.1 and found the following injuries on his person:(1) An abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm over right hand dorsam aspect.(2) A contusion of 1 cm x 1 cm over the nap of neck skin colour on the left side.(3) An abrasion of 1 cm x 3 cm in front of chest, transversely placed just above the nipple.(4) An abrasion of 1cm x 4 cm over the left loin.The same was seized under a mahazar Ex.He questioned the witnesses, who attested the mahazars, and recorded their statements.The second appellant was sent to Court for remand.The other appellants have surrendered before the Court.The appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them.The first appellant denied all the incriminating circumstances and stated that a false case had been foisted upon him.The second appellant, while denying the incriminating circumstances put against him, filed a written statement.In the written statement, the second appellant had come out with a version that it is true that there was a dispute in existence between his family and the family of the deceased; but denied that his family participated in the auction.He has stated that his father, who is the first appellant, was aged about 72 years and was confined to bed in the house.He has stated that his family could not adjust with the deceased, since the deceased and the third appellant, belonged to two different political parties.According to him, no donation was asked from him by P.W.1 and donation was asked by a cadre from the political party, to which, the deceased belonged and that he made a remark that the amounts, which have been already collected, can be utilised for arranging the meeting and why the deceased should resort to this kind of tactics for collecting money, and the above statement made by him fell into the ears of the deceased and P.W.1 He has further alleged that at about 8.30 p.m. on 11.11.1992, Mathikonpalayam village was in tense situation and he went to the house to see his father and heard, on the way, that he and his family members are going to be beaten by the political party to which the deceased belonged.He has further stated that he received an information at about 9.30 p.m. that the members belonging to the political party of the deceased are going to burn tiers and throw them into the rice mill of the appellants and he, therefore, asked his father and other family members to leave the house and to take shelter at a different place and that while he was proceeding in Thirupathur road, the third appellant, was beaten with a stone and that the third appellant ran away from the place.According to him, on seeing him, P.Ws.l, 3 and two others held him and dragged him towards the mill and threatened him that he is going to be tied and thrown into the fire and that the deceased was heard shouting that they must obtain a bond from him and that in order to escape from their attack and to save his life, he took out a pen knife, which was with his key bunch, and stabbed without aiming at anyone and without, any intention to cause injury to any particular person and thereafter, ran to Mathikonpalayam Police Station, where he surrendered.According to him, the third appellant was also at the police station and that a complaint was given to the police officers about the burning of his rice mill, but the police officers did not record the said complaint.He has further alleged that he was detained at the police station for a week and later he was remanded, on the advice of senior police officers.He has also stated that the henchmen of the deceased damaged his properties and that police officers did not take any action against them, as they belong to a particular political party and according to him, he has been falsely implicated in the case.He has denied that the first appellant instigated and that the fourth appellant beat P.W.1 with a cycle chain.He denied that he was arrested by the police officers at Thoppur and he did not produce M.0.1, The third appellant also filed a written statement and took a similar plea:The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the case of the defence as suggested to the witnesses and made clear by way of a written statement filed by the second and third appellants coupled with the answer given by P.W.19 in the cross examination show that the occurrence did not take place in the manner suggested by the eye witnesses, who were examined as P.Ws. 1 to 5 and that the second appellant stabbed the deceased in the exercise of his right of private defence and therefore, he is entitled for an acquittal.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and also heard the recorded evidence.The defence, before the trial Court, did not dispute that Ranganathan died on account of the stab injury to the chest.The doctor, P.W.15, who conducted autopsy, gave evidence in Court and according to him, the said injury, which he found on the dead body of Ranganathan, could have been caused with a sharp edged weapon like M.O.1 and that the said injury was on the vital part of the body of the deceased.On the medical evidence, we hold that the deceased, Ranganathan, died on account of homicidal violence.The said fact is also not disputed by the defence counsel.According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place when P.W. 1 came out of the rice mill belonging to the deceased and that the first appellant instigated his sons to attack him and while he was attacked by the fourth appellant and beaten by the other appellants, he raised alarm and the deceased came out of the rice mill.According, to the eye witnesses, on seeing the deceased coming out of the rice mill, the first appellant instigated the other appellants to finish him off and thereafter, appellants 3 to 5 held him by the hands and the second appellant inflicted a stab injury on the chest and thereafter, all the appellants ran away from the scene.It is the further case of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 that the deceased, Ranganathan was taken to the Government Hospital at Dharmapuri, where on being examined by the doctor.P.W.14, he was found dead and later, the complaint.Ex. P-1 was given at the police station by P.W. 1 to P.W.18, the Sub-Inspector of Police.According to the witnesses, P.Ws. 1 to 3, they saw the occurrence and witnessed P.W. 1 being beaten by the fourth appellant and the deceased being stabbed by the second appellant.Though the defence do not dispute that the second appellant stabbed the deceased, the second appellant had come out with a version by filing a written statement, the contents of which, we have already extracted.According to the second appellant, he stabbed with a pen knife and that he did not aim at anyone in particular and that according to him, he had to stab because his properties were destroyed and an attempt was made by the henchmen of the deceased to drag him into the rice mill with a view to tie him and throw him into the fire.He has further stated that, apprehending danger to his life, he took out a pen knife from the key bunch and stabbed without aiming at any anyone and the stab fell on the deceased.In view of the above admission of the second appellant that he stabbed the deceased and that the said stab injury was inflicted in the exercise of right of private defence, the Court is to find out whether the said statement is true or not.At this juncture, the admission made by P.W.19 assumes importance.It was he, who conducted most part of the investigation.In the cross-examination, he has admitted that during the occurrence the rice mill of the second appellant, house of the first appellant, godown, motorcycle and a maruthi car belonging to the third appellant were burnt and that P.W. 19 did not register any complaint, though he received information about the said incidences at 3.30 a.m. on 12.9.1992 itself.The officer has also stated that he did not even conduct any investigation as regards the damage suffered by the properties belonging to the appellants and that he did not even go to the place to find out the extent of damage to the properties of the appellants.After his arrest, he was sent for treatment and P.W.16, the doctor, who examined him, issued Ex.P-16, the wound certificate.When he was questioned, the third appellant told him that he suffered the said injuries on account of a person assaulting him near S.R. Rice Mill (rice mill belonging to the deceased) with a stone.We cannot also lose sight of the fact that the prosecution did not explain the said injury found on the third appellant, though we are aware that in all cases, the prosecution is not expected to explain the injuries found on the accused.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,621,323 |
2019ORAL JUDGMENT:Since both matters arise from the same crime and thecommon judgment and order is delivered by learned trial Judge andsince the paper-book is common, the same are being disposed bythis common judgment and order.Appeal No.706/2008 is preferred by original accusedno.1-Kishore Karmore, whereas Revision No. 248/2008 is filed bycomplainant-Lata Karmore, both of which have been directedagainst the judgment and order dated 11th September 2008,delivered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Darwha in Sessions ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 3Trial No.282/2004, whereby the appellant/accused-Kishore Karmorehas been convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A ofthe IPC, and sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay afine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to suffer further SI for one month.The appellant-Kishore, however, was acquitted of the offence u/s307 r/ws. 34 of the IPC.The other accused in the Sessions Trialtoo were acquitted of the offence punishable u/ss. 498A , 307 r/ws.34 of IPC.It is the case of the prosecutionthat when PW1 was at her parental home, the appellant-Kishorhad issued a letter asking her to bring the amount of Rs. 25,000/-from her parents.Therefore she came to her matrimonial home onthe same day.At that time, accused-Kishore asked her whethershe had brought the amount of Rs. 25,000/- and thereaftersuddenly he started assaulting her by means of an axe.Otheraccused too assaulted PW1 by means of fist and kick blows, due towhich she received bleeding injury on her left hand.The testimony of PW1-Lata Karmore demonstrates thateight days after the marriage it had taken place on 9.3.2000, all theaccused persons started ill-treating her.Her father had given Rs.25,000/- to the accused persons.A6-Usha, who is her sister-in-lawof PW1, tried to push her into the well.According to PW1, A1-Kishore i.e. her husband, has illicit relations with A6-Usha andhence she tried to push her into the well.Thereafter also, all theaccused persons were physically and mentally torturing her.On27.8.2000 all the accused persons administered poison to her and ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 8thereafter they left her in her bed room.On the messagegiven by accused, her parents visited the hospital and she narratedthe incident.Thereafter, the complaint was lodged in the PoliceStation.She told that she was discharged from the hospital on31.08.2000 itself.The accused-Kishor brought her to his house.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::The prosecution case in a nutshell can be summarizedas under :-Aftermarriage, PW1 started cohabiting with the appellant and her in-laws at village Jawala.Nearly eight days after the marriage, theaccused persons started ill-treating the complainant demanding anamount of Rs.25,000/- for setting up a Kirana (grocery) shop.Forthat purpose, they assaulted her.Four months after the marriage,her father handed over an amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the accused ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 4persons.ASI-Baban Dahake (PW4) who was attached to ArniPolice Station recorded the oral complaint of PW1 and on the basisof it, he registered the offence vide Cr.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and aftercompletion of investigation charge-sheet was filed in the Court of ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 5learned JMFC.However the compounding wasallowed only for offence punishable u/s 324 r/ws.34 IPC.Theevidence came to be recorded for offence u/s 498A of IPC.In themeantime, an application was moved by the State for alteration ofcharge, on the basis of the same allegations and Sec. 307 r/ws.34IPC was then added vide order dated 28.1.2004 (below Exh.53), bythe learned JMFC.The case was then committed to the Court ofSessions.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge framed the charge u/s498A r/ws.34 IPC , 324 r/ws.34 IPC and 307 r/ws.34 of IPC.Thelearned trial Judge after recording the evidence and hearing bothsides, convicted and sentenced accused-Kishore, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::Mr. Vinayak Dahat, learned Advocate h/for Mr. J.B.Kasat, for the accused vociferously argued that the learned trialJudge has not assessed the evidence led by the prosecutionwitnesses in its proper perspective and has erroneously convicted ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 6the accused.In these circumstances, the application for alteration ofcharge u/s 307 IPC, on the basis of the same allegations whichwere made u/s 324, should not have been considered.He furthersubmitted that even the conviction of the accused for the offencepunishable u/s 498-A is erroneous inasmuch as the learned trialJudge has failed to consider the material discrepancies in thetestimony of the all the concerned witnesses.He further submittedthat it is not considered that after making allegations about assaultPW1-Lata started cohabiting with the accused-Kishore meaningthereby that the act of the alleged ill-treatment and the assault wascondoned by the PW1-lata.In these circumstances, it is submittedthat the impugned judgment and order needs to be set aside.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::Per contra, Mr. I.J. Damle, the learned APP contendedthat the learned trial Judge has properly assessed the evidence ledby the prosecution witnesses and supported the impugned ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 7judgment.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::Allthe accused threatened her to set her ablaze.They also obtainedsignature on one blank paper and thereafter she continued toreside there till Diwali festival.She alleged that during the saidperiod all the accused persons removed gold ornaments worth Rs.40,000/-.On or before 25.11.2000 the accused sent her to herparental house for bringing an amount of Rs. 50,000/-.Shestayed there for about 4 to 8 days.On 25.11.2000 she went to hermatrimonial house as per the message given by A4-Sanjay, herbrother-in-law, telephonically, that accused A1-Kishore had metwith an accident.Thereafter the complainant was asked to bringan amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parental house and as shehad not brought the said amount, the accused persons assaultedher by means of fist and kick blows.She submitted that at that ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 9point of time she was carrying pregnancy of two months.Theaccused also abused her.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::The evidence of PW1 further shows that after lodgingher complainant, she filed an application before the WomenProtection Cell of City Police Station, Amravati.During thependency of the said application, A1-Kishore gave an undertakingon a stamp paper that he will not ill-treat PW1-Lata and wouldnot demand amount from her.Thereafter she returned to Jawala forcohabitation and gave birth to a female child.According to PW1,thereafter, the accused persons again ill-treated her to make herinsane.They gave medicines for that purpose.They also gave herpowder of glass and and waste water.PW1 stated that the accusedtook her to Digras Court and the Court referred her to MentalHospital.PW1 deposed that A1-Kishore then performed secondmarriage.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 10At the cost of repetition, it is worthwhile to note that allthe accused persons are acquitted of the offences punishable u/ss.324 and 307 r/ws. 34 of the IPC, except A1-Kishore who wasconvicted u/s 498-A of IPC.The cross-examination indicates that PW1 after thealleged ill-treatment at the hands of accused persons, had returnedto her matrimonial house indicates that she had condoned all themisdeeds of accused persons in respect of the alleged ill-treatment;so also the assault at the hands of the accused.The only allegationsthen remained that the accused persons had given severe ill-treatment to her to make her insane after she returned to hermatrimonial home after giving birth to a female child.According toPW1, the accused persons gave medicines to her for that purposeand also gave powder of glass and waste water.In this regard thereis absolutely no convincing evidence on record.It appears thatlearned JMFC has observed the conduct of PW1 and therefore hereferred her to the Mental Hospital.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 11Significantly, the cross-examination of PW1 is full ofexaggerations, improvements and embellishments.She had given a message to her parentsand her father had reported the matter to the police, after dischargefrom the hospital on 31.8.2000, A1-Kishore brought her to hermatrimonial home; A4-Sanjay threatened her to set her on fire bypouring kerosene on her person and the accused persons obtainedsignature on one blank paper and she stayed at Jawala till Diwalifestival and during that period all the accused removed her goldornaments worth Rs. 40,000/-.It is also an improvement in herversion that before 25.11.2000, the accused sent her to herparental home for bringing the amount of Rs. 50,000/-; she ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 12received the message with regard to the accident of A1 and whenshe went to the matrimonial home, the accused asked whethershe had brought the amount of Rs. 50,000/- and they assaulted her,due to which she received injuries on abdomen and at that timeshe was pregnant.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::All these improvements made by PW1 in her testimonygo to the root of the case and creates a serious doubt about theveracity of the witness.The testimony of PW1 is not found to betrustworthy and worthy of credence at all.It is not clear from thetestimony of PW1 that when she had suffered ill-treatment at thehands of the accused then why she started residing with all theaccused persons at Jawala.It is also not clear as to why the reportwas not lodged by her in the Police Station in respect of the saidalleged ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons.It appearsthat as her conduct was not appropriate in the Court, she wasreferred to the Mental Hospital for her treatment by learned JMFCIn any case, PW1 is not found to be reliable.Her testimony itselfshows that she had condoned the misdeeds of the accused persons ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 13and therefore the application for condoning of the offence filed inthe Court of learned JMFC and as narrated above, the offence u/s324 r/ws.34 of IPC was compounded.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::So far as the allegations u/s 307 r/ws.34 IPC areconcerned, the allegations were that as the accused persons hadadministered poison to PW1, Sec.307 was framed by learned trialJudge.However as there was no evidence on record to show thatthe accused persons had administered poison to the PW1, all theaccused were rightly acquitted by learned trial Judge.No doubt, the evidence of PW5-Dinu Divekar showsfollowing injuries on the person of PW1 when he examined her on25.11.2000:-1) Incise wound over left hand of length 5 inches x ¼ cm.scapular region of length of length 4cm.X 4 cm.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 14As discussed above, the offence u/s 324 r/ws.34 IPCwas compounded in the Court of learned JMFC on 11.7.2001.However PW1 on the point of alleged assault dated 25.11.2000 thetestimony of PW1 makes it clear that after the said incident shehad cohabited with the accused.She stayed there for a period ofthree months and then gave birth to a female child and thereafteron 11.7.2001 i.e. after a period of more than one year, anapplication for compounding of the offence was filed beforelearned JMFC and offence u/s 324 r/ws.34 of IPC wascompounded.Soalso the offence u/s 324 of IPC also does not stand as it wascompounded before the Court of learned JMFC.Furthermore, theact of PW1 by cohabiting with A1 shows that she had condonedthe act of A1 as well as other accused.On the point of allegationsunder section 307 of IPC i.e. administering poison to her, there isno convincing evidence at all, on record.The testimony of PW2-Kamlabai, mother of Lata (PW1) ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 15is on the same lines.According to her, theaccused persons demanded Rs. 25,000/- from her.She had givenan amount of Rs. 25,000/- to the father of accused, A2-Namdeorao.According to PW2 while PW1 was in their house they received amessage that A1 met with an accident therefore they went to thehouse of the accused persons.At that time, the accused askedPW1 whether she had brought the amount and assaulted her bymeans of an axe.Therefore, PW1 lodged report in the PoliceStation.Her cross examination shows that she had made materialimprovements about the alleged ill-treatment to PW1 for thedemand of Rs. 50,000/- and that PW2 had given the amount ofRs. 25,000/- to A2-Namdeorao.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::The testimony of PW3-Ramrao, father of PW1 alsoshows that there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- and he had giventhe amount of Rs. 25,000/- to A2-Namdeorao.According to him on27.8.2000 he had received message that PW1 was hospitalized.Hewent to the hospital and saw that she was serious as poison was ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 16administered to her.Afterregaining consciousness, she informed PW3 that she wasadministered poison by the accused persons namely, A2-Namdeo,A5-Kamlabai, A3-Prakash and A4-Sanjay but did not make anyallegation against A1-Kishor.According to PW3, he had gone tolodge the complaint against the accused persons at the Arni PoliceStation, but they did not accept his report.It is not clear from thetestimony of PW3 as to what action taken by the Police on thatreport.On 27.11.2000 he went to the house of accused alongwith PW1-Lata and PW2-Kamlabai.At that time, A1 asked herwhether she had brought the amount and thereafter all theaccused assaulted her by fist and kick blows and A1 assaulted herby means of an axe.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::There were contradictions in his testimony in ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 ::: CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 17respect of the fact that PW1 informed him that at the time of Diwalifestival she was treated nicely.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::As discussed above, the prosecution has failed toprove it case beyond reasonable doubt.The ingredients of section498A has not been proved against the accused persons.So alsosection 324 r/ws.34 IPC, as discussed above, was compoundedbefore learned JMFC.There is no convincing evidence on record inthat regard.Even the allegation of administration of poison to PW1is not proved by the prosecution.The learned trial Judge shouldhave properly assessed the evidence led by the prosecutionwitnesses.In view of the facts and circumstances, an interferenceat the hands of this Court in the impugned judgment, is warranted.Hence, the order.(i) Criminal Appeal No.706/2008 is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::CRI.APPEAL.706.08+ 18(ii) The judgment and order passed by learned AdditionalSessions Judge,Darwha in Sessions Trial No.282/2004 on 11thSeptember, 2008 convicting the appellant/accused, is set aside andhe is acquitted of the offence for which he was convicted.(iii) The bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.(iv) Fine amount if paid by the appellant/accused, be returned tohim.(v) Criminal Revision 248/2008 is dismissed.JUDGEsahare ::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/01/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 03:17:27 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,622,704 |
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of complaint i.e. CC No. 98/1/09 titled as "Jawahar Lal vs. K.S.Bhatnagar & Ors" and the summoning order dated 18th September, 2010 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka, Delhi whereby the petitioner was summoned under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC.The brief facts of the case are mentioned below:-(i) On 8th October, 2006 an altercation took place between the neighbours i.e. Sh.Lal Singh and respondent No.2/ Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 1 of 12 complainant Jawahar Lal in respect of part of disputed plot measuring 41 sq. yards in Najafgarh on which both the parties staked their claim.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 1 of 12(ii) On 9th October, 2006, on the basis of cross-complainants by said Sh.Lal Singh and respondent No.2 two cross-FIR's were registered being FIR No. 966/06 and 967/06 at P.S. Najafgarh.(iii) On 10th October, 2006 another complaint dated 10th October, 2006 was received at P.S.Najafgarh from respondent No.2 alleging that Sh.Lal Singh along with his associates had come to his alleged plot on 9th October, 2006 and inter alia abused Sh.Jawahar Lal using caste based words.As there were already two cross-FIR's registered, a preliminary investigation was conducted before registering an FIR.(iv) On 25th October, 2006, on the basis of the preliminary enquiry, FIR No.1018/2006 under Section 3 & 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered by SHO.(v) On 8th November, 2006, during the investigation, respondent No.2 filed another complaint before the Home Minister against various Senior Police Officials and local residents in order to falsely implicate them and requested for transfer of the investigation.(vi) On 17th November, 2006, during the investigation of the FIR No. 1018/06, the petitioner in his official capacity acting as the Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 2 of 12(vii) On 20th November, 2006, respondent No.2 submitted the photocopies of the documents, which were received in the office of the ACP: Najafgarh by Constable Sh.(viii) On 10th January, 2007, the IO/petitioner filed the Challan before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Concerned Court after conducting investigation in the abovementioned FIR.Thereafter, the investigation of FIR No. 1018/06 was transferred to the Crime Branch, Delhi Police, and on 1st February, 2007, respondent No.2/complainant vide his Letter dated 1st February, 2007 asked the IO/petitioner to return the property papers.On the same day, Sh.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 9 of 12 exonerated from every allegation raised by the complainant.The said Vigilance Enquiry Report has never been challenged by the complainant and therefore, the said Vigilance Enquiry Report has attained finality.The said Report was sent to the Chairman of the SC & ST Commission through Spl.Johny Anto (SI of the petitioner and the co-accused) replied wherein he stated that all documents filed by respondent No.2 were photocopies and the same have been attached to the case file of FIR No.1018/06 and the investigation of the other cases has been transferred to Crime Branch, Chanakyapuri.Again on 3rd February, 2007, another reply was drafted by the IO/petitioner, wherein it was stated that the documents which were provided by respondent No.2 were photocopies.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 3 of 12(ix) On 4th February, 2007 and 5th February, 2007, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the SHO, Police Station: Najafgarh as well as before the DCP (South-West), whereby respondent No.2 alleged that original documents were handed over to Sh.Johny Anto in presence of IO/petitioner herein and the same have been misappropriated and hence an FIR be registered against Sh.Johny Anto as well as the IO/petitioner.(x) On 20th February, 2007, the complainant/respondent No.2 filed his first complaint being Complaint No. 977/1 under Section 190 read with Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against the IO/petitioner herein before the ACMM, Patiala House Courts, Delhi alleging, in addition to other false allegations, that the original property papers were handed over to the petitioner, whereas, earlier in the complaint dated 4th February, 2007 filed before the SHO: Najafgarh, he had alleged that property papers were handed over to SI Johny Anto and that the petitioner had misappropriated the alleged original property documents.(xi) On 12th June, 2008, upon the transfer of investigation to the Crime Branch, concluded its investigation and also filed a Charge-sheet, wherein it categorically noted that the allegations of misappropriation of documents remains unproved against the petitioner and that documents were received by Constable Bhompal.It is alleged by the petitioner that the complainant malafidely changed his allegations and Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 4 of 12(xii) On 18th September, 2009, the SHO PS Najafgarh filed a detailed Status Report, wherein the SHO clearly indicated that the complainant/respondent No.2 had approached various authorities and has levelled the same baseless and false allegations.(xiii) On 18th September, 2010, the Metropolitan Magistrate passed summoning order dated 18th September, 2010, whereby the IO/petitioner along with Sh.Johny Anto was summoned under Section 409 read with Section 34 IPC.The present petition Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 5 of 12 has been filed for quashing of the said order dated 18th September, 2010 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate in the second complaint.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 5 of 12It is argued by the Senior counsel for the petitioner that complainant/respondent No.2 has filed an absolutely false and a frivolous complaint stating that the petitioner had taken his original property papers.It is also stated that the photocopies of the property papers were handed over to Constable Bhompal, when the IO was not present in Police Station and the complainant/respondent No.2 took a receipt of the said photocopy documents from Constable Bhompal.It is argued that even if presumed though not admitted that there was a failure or omission to return papers pertaining to the property of the complainant, the same would not constitute an offence under Section 405 or 409 IPC.It is stated that the entire complaint is absolutely silent on the aspect of dishonest misappropriation of documents and converting the same to its own use by the IO/petitioner and in absence of any such allegation the ingredients of the offence under Section 409 IPC are not made out.Counsel has referred the decision of Sardar Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1977 (1) SCC 463 (para 2), SW Palanitkar & Others vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) SCC 241 (para 9, 20), Kishore Kirtilal Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 6 of 12 Mehta & Others vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Indlaw Mum 1243 (para 25, 26, 31, 37) in this regard.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 6 of 12In the complaint it was merely stated that documents were handed over to SI Johny Anto in presence of the petitioner.Admittedly, the documents were never handed over to the petitioner.It is argued that as per settled principle of law there is no concept of vicarious liability under criminal law.It is also submitted that the papers pertaining to the property of the complainant cannot be of any use to anybody as the same are not even registered documents.Above all, the said documents have neither been ever received or used or misappropriated by the IO.The second complaint on the same facts and circumstances is against the settled principles of law.It is evident that the first complaint was filed on 20th February, 2007 and at paragraphs 13 and 22 of the complaint, the complainant had clearly narrated the story of seizure of original documents and alleged misappropriation of documents.The complainant filed a second complaint on 20th August, 2009 i.e. after a lapse of two years and six months.A bare perusal of the second complaint makes it clear that it is merely an improved version of the first complaint with the view to fill up the lacunas in the first complaint, which became evident after investigation of the Crime Branch.The second complaint was filed during the pendency of the first complaint and after the completion of the investigation done by the Crime Branch.The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 20th March, 2010, while dismissing the first complaint had duly noted the Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 7 of 12 allegations regarding alleged misappropriation of documents.B. The second complaint, on almost identical facts, can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances.C. The Complainant must disclose the dismissal of First Complaint.C.P. (Vigilance) and C.P. (Delhi).The Vigilance Report bearing No. 47/P/Sec/DCP/Vig.clearly mention as follows :M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 9 of 12Joy Trikey, ACP/Crime.If approved a reply to this effect would be sent to National Commission for Scheduled Caste and also CVC"A bare perusal of the Charge- sheet filed by Dr. Joy Tirkey makes it amply clear that there was no basis for submitting the original documents when photocopies of the documents had been summoned by the IO.It is only after the completion of investigation by the Crime Branch, the complainant has filed the second complaint with the sole intention to cover-up the complainant's own illegal and malicious acts.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 10 of 12The complainant has failed to obtain any sanction from the Sanctioning Authority under Section 140 of the Delhi Police Act nor has the Sanctioning Authority granted the same to the complainant.Therefore, prosecution of the petitioner on the illegal, malicious and mis-leading complaint of the complainant is bad in law.The complainant has also not challenged the Status Report dated 17th September, 2009 which was filed by the local police, wherein detailed description of malicious and vindictive acts of the complainant was enumerated.It is admitted by the complainant that the said papers of suit property have not been used by the petitioner directly or indirectly against the complainant.The petitioner has also given an undertaking to the Court that firstly he has no papers of the suit property and secondly that he has no intention to do so in future.The suit property is still with the Crl.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 11 of 12 complainant.Thus, both complaints filed by the complainant are false, frivolous and unnecessary.The same have been filed with ulterior motive and are not maintainable.The same are dismissed.M.C. No.1867/2011 Page 11 of 12The impugned order dated 18th September, 2010 passed by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka New Delhi and the impugned Complaint No.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,625,674 |
It is alleged that he also sent some letters to the prosecutrix.As per prosecution, on 08.05.2017, at about 02:00 p.m., when prosecutrix was preparing lunch in her house, then suddenly appellant came there and asked for drinking water, then prosecutrix reached in his room with drinking water then appellant caught hold of her hand and accordingly, used force to outrage her modesty.On these grounds, learned counsel for the appellant prays for grant of bail to the appellant.Per-contra, learned G.A. opposes the prayer of bail.After hearing arguments of the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to release the appellant on bail, therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, appeal of the present appellant, namely, Rajesh Rai @ Raju under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seems to be acceptable.It is directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. Singh) JUDGE GT Digitally signed by GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh, ou=Administration, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=6fdf031d90def121483fc12fcfac394cfeeb8d28e3f811e791eb 3ec28b88fbbf, serialNumber=6b781c2574ea3d78780a268ab221e624844669cb51f6 ad6ad5ee5578d76f4e62, cn=GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI Date: 2017.08.29 11:37:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,625,728 |
A1 to A14 also belong to the same village, but, they belong to a different group.A1 is the group leader.It is stated that in a temple festival held in the said village, there was a quarrel between these two groups of people.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.It is stated that on 26.09.2010, around 05.00 p.m., P.W.1 was sitting in front of his house along with P.Ws.2, 4 and the deceased.They were engaged in chatting.At that time, A1 to A2 came to the said place in a motor cycle and by raising the accelerator of the motor cycle increased the noise level in the air.When it was questioned by P.W.1, immediately, A1 and A2 parked the motor cycle, got down from the motor cycle, took out the velikathan sticks lying there and started attacking P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and the deceased.A3 to A14 also came there.Parthiban, examined P.W.1 at 06.15 p.m. and found a laceration measuring 10 x 1 cm on occipital scalp and an abrasion measuring 9 x 2 cm over right knee.He told that he was attacked by five known persons with wooden logs.P.10 is the wound certificate.He also told that he was attacked by five known persons with wooden logs.P.9 is the wound certificate.The deceased was examined by P.W.13, Dr.S.Prem Anand, at 06.30 p.m. at Sri Balaji Hospital, Guindy, Chennai.The deceased was semi conscious and he was not able to speak.There was bleeding through his ears.There were also abrasions on the body.P.W.13, the doctor, took X-Ray on the head of the deceased.It revealed that there was internal bleeding in the brain and also contusion.P.16 is the FIR.In the mean time, taking up the case for investigation, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, visited the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.2), a rough sketch (Ex.P17) in the presence of P.W.5 and another witnesses.Then, he examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and few more witnesses.P.W.14 was unable to examine the deceased because he was still unconscious.After the death of the deceased on 28.09.2010, P.W.14 altered the case into one under Section 302 of IPC.Stomach contains about 350 grams of partially digested food particles with no specific odour.Liver, Spleen and Kidneys - Normal in size C/S congested.According to P.W.13, the doctor, the death was due to head injury.P.13 is the postmortem certificate.He further opined that the injuries could have been caused by wooden stick.On such arrest, A1 gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden the wooden logs.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and the witnesses to the place of hide out and produced five velikathan sticks.P.W.14 recovered the velikathan sticks (M.O.1 to 5) under a mahazar (Ex.P.21) in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.Then, on the same day, he recovered a Hero Honda motor cycle (M.O.6) belonging to A1 under a mahazar (Ex.P.22) in the presence of the same witnesses.On returning to the police station, he forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand and handed over the material objects also to the court.Thereafter, he examined the doctor, collected the medical records.For Appellant(s):Mr.K.Doraisami, Senior Counsel for Mr.Muthumani Doraisami for appellants in both Criminal AppealsFor Respondent:Mr.M.Maharaja, APP for respondent in both Criminal AppealsCOMMON JUDGEMENT(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2015 are A1 to A6 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2015 is A7 in S.C.No.4 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge-II, Kancheepuram.There were totally 14 accused, including the appellants, in the said case.They stood charge as detailed below:-Charge NumberCharge framed againstPenal provision under which charge framed under1A1 to A14Section 147 of IPC2A1 to A14Section 148 of IPC3A1 to A6Section 326 of IPC4A1 to A6Section 324 of IPC5A7 to A14Section 323 of IPC6A7Section 294(b) of IPC7A7 to A14Section 302 of IPCThe trial court, by judgement dated 24.07.2015, acquitted A7 from the charges under Sections 323 and 302 of IPC and acquitted A8 to A14 from all the charges, but, however, convicted A1 to A7 and sentenced them as detailed below:-Rank of the Accused Penal provision under which conviction recordedQuantum of Sentence ImposedA1 to A7Section 147 of IPCSimple Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three monthsA1 to A7Section 148 of IPCSimple imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six monthsA1 to A6Section 326 of IPCSimple imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of six monthsA1 to A6Section 324 of IPCSimple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/- each in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of three monthsA1 to A6Section 302 of IPCImprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one yearA7Section 294(b)Simple imprisonment for three months and fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a further period of one weekThe deceased in this case was one Mr.P.Ws.2, 4 and the deceased were all friends of P.W.1 and they belong to a group.They also took out velikathan sticks and indiscriminately attacked all the four.P.Ws.1, 2 and the deceased sustained injuries.All the accused thereafter ran away from the scene of occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased were immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Madurantakam.P.W.10, Dr.P.W.13 conducted surgery.Despite treatment on 27.09.2010 at 09.00 p.m. the deceased died in the hospital.When P.W.1 was in the hospital, on receiving intimation from the hospital authorities, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, rushed to the hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and on returning to the police station at 10.00 p.m. on 26.09.2010, he registered a case in Crime No. 410 of 2010 under Sections, 147, 148, 294, 323, 324 and 307 of IPC.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between 09.00 a.m. and 11.00 a.m and then forwarded the same for postmortem.8. P.W.12, Dr.He found the following injuries:"Injuries:A reddish brown abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the lateral side of right knee joint.A reddish brown abrasion of size 1 x 1 cm on the front of the middle part of left leg.A reddish brown abrasion of size 3 x 1 cm on the dorsum of the left foot.A 'C' shaped surgical suture wound with 24 sutures and of length 26 cm over the left fronto tempero parietal region.A 'C' shaped surgical suture wound with 33 sutures and of length 26 cm over the right fronto tempero parietal region.A surgical craniotomy defect measuring 12 x 11 cm with one burn hole over right fronto temporo parietal region.Another surgical craniotomy defect measuring 13 x 12 cm with two burn holes seen over the left fronto temporo parietal region exposing the underlying brain matter.A linear fissure fracture of length 8 cm seen over the mid parietal region.A sutured wound with 4 sutures and of length 5 cm over the mid parietal region.On removal of sutures edges are irregular and bone deep.On dissection of head, Scalp found contused over the surface.Diffuse sub dural haemorrhage seen all over the brain surface.A laceration of size 2 x 1 x 0.5 cm seen on the right anterior lobe.Brain oedematous.A linear fissure of length 15 cm over the both middle cranial fossa.On further dissection, Heart-Normal in size C/S all chambers found to contain fluid blood.Lungs both normal in size C/S congested.No evidence of rib fracture on both sides.Hyoid bone, Pelvis and spinal column found intact."He preserved the visceral organs for chemical analysis.On 04.10.2010, he arrested A8, A9 and A14 and forwarded them to the court for judicial remand.On 14.10.2010, he arrested A7 and forwarded her to the court for judicial remand.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined, 24 documents and 6 material objects were marked.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured eye witnesses.They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.P.W.3 also claims to have witnessed the occurrence.He has also spoken about a part of the occurrence.P.W.4 has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he went to the place of occurrence and took the injured including the deceased to the hospital.P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation by the police at the place of occurrence.P.W.7, the Police Constable, has stated that he handed over the FIR and the complaint to the court as directed by the Inspector of Police.P.W.8 has stated that he handed over the dead body at the hospital and identified the same to the doctor for postmortem.P.W.9 has stated about the arrest of A1 and the consequential recoveries of material objects on his disclosure statement.P.W.10 has spoken about the treatment given to P.Ws.1 and 2 at Madurantakam Government Hospital.P.W.11 has spoken about the further treatment given to P.W.2 at Government Ophthalmic Hospital, Egmore, Chennai, for the injuries sustained in the occurrence.P.W.12 has spoken about the autopsy conducted on the dead body of the deceased.P.W.13 has spoken about the treatment given to the deceased at Balaji Hospital, Guindy, Chennai.P.W.14 has spoken about the registration of the case, investigation done by him in this case and the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor did they mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial court convicted the appellants/A1 to A7 alone as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the above said conviction and sentences, A1 to A6 have come up with Crl.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 to A7 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State and we have also perused the records carefully.As we have already pointed out, the prosecution relies on the eye witness account of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. P.W.3 has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw only a part of the occurrence.P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured eye witnesses.At that time, A1 and A2 who came in a motor cycle, stopped their motor cycle there and added volume to the air by raising the accelerator of the motor cycle.When it was questioned by P.W.1, A1 and A2 parked the motor cycle, got down and then started attacking all the four with velikathan sticks.They have further stated that the rest of the accused namely, A3 to A14 also came there, took out velikathan sticks and indiscriminately attacked them.Though P.W.1 has stated so in his chief examination, he has stated in his cross examination that he did not know anything as to who had attacked him and with what weapon.During cross examination, he has given a complete go by to the chief examination.P.W.2 has stated only in general terms that on 26.09.2010 the accused had indiscriminately attacked.That is what stated by P.W.1 also.We are not prepared to believe the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 3 as against A1 to A7 alone.For a moment, we want to stress that it is not our view that the principle "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus", is applicable stricto sensu to the Indian Criminal Jurisprudence.The well settled law of the country is that if in the evidence of the eye witnesses the facts and falsity are mixed up with each other and in the event, the Court is able to separate the grains from the chaff, it is well within the power of the Court to act upon the truth, thereby rejecting the falsity and convict the accused.When that be so, we find it difficult to separate the case against A1 to A7 alone from the case against the rest of the acquitted accused.In other words, we find it difficult to give a different treatment to A1 to A7 alone.These appellants also stand in the same footing as that of the acquitted accused who have been given the benefit of doubt.Thus, the appellants are also entitled for similar treatment and they are entitled for acquittal.Above all, there is an inordinate delay in the FIR reaching the court.There is absolutely no explanation for the said delay.In a case of this nature, where there were multiple number of accused and witnesses are also highly partisan, prompt launching of FIR and dispatching the same to the learned Magistrate would, to some extent, ensure the truth of allegations found therein.But, in this case, the delay is not only enormous, but the same has also not been explained away.In Thulia Kali v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1973 SC 501, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an identical circumstance, disbelieved the evidence of the injured eye witness.We, thus, hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges as against the appellants also and and so, they are entitled for acquittal.In the result, (i) Criminal Appeal No.502 of 2015:- This criminal appeal is allowed.The conviction and sentences imposed on the appellants/A1 to A6 by the trial court are hereby set aside and they are acquitted from all the charges.Fine amount already paid, if any, shall be refunded to them.The bail bonds executed by the appellants/A1 to A6 shall stand terminated.(ii) Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2015:- This criminal appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
856,288 |
Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur, in his S.T. No. 137 of 1988 (State of M.P. v. Munna and 3 others) on 24-10-89 held these three appellants and co-accused Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased during pendency of appeal whose appeal has abated on 29-10-2001) guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('Code' for short) and sentenced them to undergo RI for life and to pay fine of Rs. -3,000/- each and in default, to further undergo RI for one year each.As per prosecution, Girjabai (P.W. 5) on 28-8-88 had gone to see off her husband Late Nanhu who was going to Jarela, upto the village tank.She was resting near the tank when she heard the shouts for help of her husband.She rushed to the place of Bhairo Baba and saw that Munna (A-1), Babulal (A-2), Chhota @ Chhutua @ Chhotelal (A-3) and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) were belabouring her husband by lathis.She came to village crying and returned to the spot and saw that her husband was lying unconscious.She saw Chunnulal (P.W. 6), Bhura Kori and Rambhajan (P.W. 7) there.Certain other persons of the village had also assembled.She brought her husband to the village with the help of villagers and was taking him in a bullock cart to Police Station, Gourihar but he succumbed to his injuries in the way.However, before his death, Late Nanhu named all 4 accused as the assailants who were responsible for his death.On internal examination, the brain matter was found semisolid due to decomposition.Fracture of left scapula and adjoining ribs were noted.Pleura and right lung were congested.Left lung was lacerated on upper and middle aspect.Blood was found in pleural cavity.Right side of heart was full while left was empty.Decomposition started in paracardiack, semisolid food material was found in stomach and intestines, liver, spleen and kidney were congested.A First Information Report (Ex. P-6) was lodged in Police Station, Gourihar at 22.15 on the same day.As per prosecution, H.P. Singhai, S.O., Gourihar had scribed the FIR (Ex. P-6).The dead-body of deceased Nanhu was taken to the police station in a bullock cart and inquest report (Ex. P-10) was prepared in police station after giving notice to the Panch witnesses.The dead-body was sent to the Primary Health Centre, Laundi.Dr. Devideen Chourasia (P.W.1), the Assistant Surgeon posted there noted following ante-mortem injuries on his person:--"(1) A lacerated wound 3 cm x .5 cm x .5 cm on middle of scalp situated anterior posteriorly.(2) A contusion 10 cm x 2 cm on back left scapula, oblique.(3) A contusion 6 cm x 2 cm on back of left scapula lower part.(4) A contusion 8 cm x 2 cm on back of right scapula.(5) A contusion 4 cm x 2 cm on left gluteal region."All these injuries were caused within 24 to 48 hours of the examination.Cause of death was asphyxia due to rupture of lungs due to injuries.Spot map (Ex. P-8) was also prepared.On information given by these appellants and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) lathis were seized from them.The Chemical Examiner found blood in earth seized from spot and on clothes of the deceased.After due investigation, a charge-sheet under Section 302/34 of the Code was filed.All these three appellants pleaded not guilty.They claimed that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity as Atmaram father of Munna (A-1) and Babulal (A-2) had deposed against Smt. Girjabai (P.W. 5) and her family members who were convicted and sentenced.Bhau (D.W. 1), Pragi Lal (D.W. 2) and Nanhuram (D.W. 3) have been examined in defence to show that none of the witnesses Girjabai (P.W. 5), Chunnulal (P.W. 6) and Rambhajan (P.W. 7) was present at the time when deceased Nanhu was seen lying injured and unconscious near the temple of Bhairo Baba.However, the learned Trial Judge found these appellants and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) guilty and sentenced them, as aforesaid.Here, in this appeal, the advocate for the appellants has mainly emphasised on the following points :--(1) The evidence of Smt. Girjabai (P.W. 5), Rambhajan (P.W. 7) and Chunnulal (P.W. 6) is unreliable.They were not present on spot.They had not seen the occurrence.No oral dying declaration was made to any of them by Late Nanhu.The learned Sessions Court has wrongly relied upon their statements.(2) Offence of murder is not made out against the appellants.At the most, it may be a case either under Section 304, Part I or Part II of the Code.Dr. Devideen Chourasia conducted post-mortem examination on dead-body of Nanhu and noted ante-mortem injuries quoted in this judgment above.The doctor has opined that Late Nanhu had died due to rupture of the lung which was a consequence of fracture of the corresponding rib.As per doctor, death was homicidal.Even the defence witnesses Bhau (D.W. 1), Pragilal (D.W. 2) and Nanhuram (D.W. 3) had seen Late Nanhu lying injured though, of course, they claimed that he was unconscious and unable to speak.The appellants have shown ignorance on the point which is of no avail being evasive.Thus, the finding that the death of Late Nanhu was homicidal is affirmed.Next question is whether the appellants had caused death of Late Nanhu.Girjabai (P.W. 5) the widow of Late Nanhu has claimed that she had followed her husband who was going to Village Jarela upto the other side of the tank out of village and had stayed there.She had heard the shouts of help of her husband and had rushed to the temple of Bhairo Baba where she saw Munna (A-1), Guruwa @ Gorelal (A-4), Chhota (A-3) and Babulal (A-2) belabouring her husband by lathi.She returned to the village crying to get help and went back with Bhura, Chhunua @ Chunnulal (P.W. 6), Rambhajan (P.W. 7) and Ramaiya and saw her husband badly injured.According to her, on enquiry by Chunnulal (P.W. 6), Rambhajan (P.W. 7), Ramaiya, Chunuwa, Bhura, her husband informed them that Munna (A-1), Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased), Chhota (A-3) and Babulal (A-2) had beaten him with lathis.She claimed that later on also Late Nanhu had taken the names of these appellants and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased).Late Nanhu had stopped talking near Village Silap when he was being carried in a bullock cart to the police station and died thereafter.Her statement finds support from FIR (Ex.P-6) lodged by her on the same day at Police Station, Gourihar.Both Chunnulal (P.W. 6) and Rambhajan (P.W. 7) have supported her fully claiming that they had reached the spot where they had seen Girjabai (P.W. 5).Chunuwa and Bhura both have claimed that Late Nanhu was injured but was alive and in senses.They have claimed that Late Nanhu had told them that all these three appellants and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) had belaboured him by lathi.They have claimed that later on also Late Nanhu had taken names of all three appellants and Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) in presence of other villagers.It is noteworthy that factum of Late Nanhu disclosing the names of assailants to villagers has been referred to in promptly recorded FIR (Ex. P-6) also.As has already been seen that cause of death as rupture of lung due to fracture of rib resulting in asphyxia.According to him, one of the lung of Late Nanhu was not injured and was workable.According to him, a man can live with one lung only.In Para 12, he claimed that death of Late Nanhu was not instantaneous and clearly he had an opportunity to speak out the names of assailants to Chunnulal (P.W. 6) and Rambhajan (P.W. 7).The learned advocate for the appellants has emphasised that Late Nanhu could not be in a condition fit to give a dying declaration.He has drawn our attention to statement of Bhau (D.W. 1), Pragilal (D.W. 2) and Nanhuram (D.W. 3) who claimed to have seen Late Nanhu unconscious near temple of Bhairo Baba.Girjabai (P.W. 5) has been cross-examined at length.Conviction can be based on sole evidence of a witness if he is found trustworthy.Here, in the present case, statements of Girjabai (P.W. 5) was corroborated by two witnesses Chunnulal (P.W. 6) and Rambhajan (P.W. 7) and prompt FIR (Ex. P-6) which go a long way to support the prosecution.Obviously, Smt. Girjabai has given a sufficient explanation of her presence on the spot.Of course, the spot is outside the village, yet a close study of spot map (Ex. P-8) drawn by H.P. Singhai (P.W. 8) the I.O. and Ex. P-5 drawn by Jagdev Prasad (P.W. 4) Patwari clearly show that there was no obstacle for either side for hearing from the spot to the place where Girjabai (P.W. 5) was there to deter her to reach the spot on hearing shouts of help of her late husband.It is true that Girjabai (P.W. 5) in Para 9, had admitted that her husband Nanhu, her three sons Ramsharan, Chunua and Keta and she herself were convicted for murder of Bhura who was brother of Guruwa @ Gorelal (since deceased) and Chhotelal (A-3).She has further admitted that Atmaram father of Munna (A-1) and Babulal (A-2) were witnesses against them in such murder trial.Her three sons were in jail while she herself, her husband Late Nanhu and Chunuwa were on bail since Jeth month.Conviction can be based on their evidence.The appellants had merely denied the prosecution version.Obviously, they were armed only with lathis.Smt. Girjabai (P.W. 5) had reached the spot hearing the shouts of her husband for help.Thus, there has been no evidence as to how the actual assault had started.In all one lacerated wound and 4 contusions were there on the body of Late Nanhu.Left scapula and adjoining rib had been broken causing damage to the left pleaura and lung.Facts of case are not similar, to Karam Singh v. State of Punjab [1994 SCC (Cr.) 64] as is the claim of defence.In that case, 10 injuries were found on post-mortem.Some of them were abrasions.A lacerated wound was seen on head but there was no corresponding internal injury.The contusion and injury Nos. 5 to 7 had resulted in fracture of the rib which was responsible for death as liver and spleen had been ruptured.The Apex Court had held (in their own words):--Murderous assault on him was in the month of Shravan.Thus, appeal fails.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,563,027 |
% Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 8th December 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II (ASJ), (North-West), Rohini Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.147/2013 arising out of FIR No.244/2013 registered at Police Station (PS) Sultanpuri convicting the Appellant, Govind, for the offence punishable under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the order on sentence dated 15th December 2014 whereby he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life with the further condition that he would spend at least 25 years in actual custody and "shall not be considered for grant of remission till he CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 1 of 18 undergoes an actual sentence of 25 years" and also a fine for a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs; and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for a further period of six months.The fine amount recovered was ordered to be disbursed to the families/LRs of the deceased, Babloo and Ramesh @ Ramesh, as compensation under Section 357 Cr PC.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 1 of 18At the outset, it must be noted that the Appellant, Govind (A-1), was sent up for trial along with Anoop @ Lakhan (A-2) and Satish Kumar @ Sonu @ Soda (A-3).The charge against them was that on or before 6th April 2013, all three of them hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of the deceased, Bablu @ Bhushan and Ramesh @ Lambu, thereby committing the offences under Section 120B IPC; that at around 5.00 pm on 6th April 2013, at the second floor of House No.On 6th April 2013, at around 6.28 pm, information was received at PS Sultanpuri regarding a stabbing incident involving two boys at Gali No.5, P-1 Block.This information was noted down as DD No. 47A. Sub Inspector (SI) Vikas Pawar (PW-28) along with Constable (Ct.) Balbir Singh (PW-29) reached the spot and came to know that the incident had taken place inside House No.P-1/970, Second Floor.A large crowd had gathered.The police team found the dead bodies of two males, one on the floor with CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 2 of 18 head facing towards the northern wall and one on the folding bed with the head facing in the southern direction towards the door.On enquiries being made, the police team learnt that the bodies were of Babloo @ Bhushan and Ramesh @ Lambu both of whom were friends.While Babloo was stated to be residing as a tenant in the same room, Ramesh was a resident of Vijay Vihar.The crime team was called to the spot and inquires were made from public persons regarding eye-witnesses.However, no one came forward to give information to the police.Both dead bodies were sent to the mortuary for post-mortem examination.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 2 of 18Post-mortem examinationsDr. Manoj Dhingra (PW-17) performed the post-mortem examination of the dead body of Babloo and noticed one stab wound measuring 4 cm x 1.3 cm "cavity deep (upto pancreas and aorta) wedge shaped lying obliquely in epigastrium area"; one incised wound, seen over mid lateral aspect of dorsum of left hand; and an incised wound on the left palm.The death was opined to be due to "shock associated with damage for abdominal structures under Injury No.1" which was deemed to be sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Dr. Dhingra was assisted in the exercise by Dr. Vivek Rawat (PW-18).PWs- 17 and 18 also performed the post-mortem examination of Ramesh @ Lambu.There was a reddish coloured abrasion 4 cm x 3 cm over the left knee.Injury No.1 was said to have been sufficient to have caused the death.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 3 of 18In respect of both Babloo and Lambu, it was noted in the post-mortem reports that "there was history of chronic alcoholism".Apparently, the viscera were not preserved to confirm this.The investigation of the case was taken over by Inspector K.S.N. Subudhi (PW-32) who was posted at PS Sultanpuri as Station House Officer (SHO).When he reached the spot, he found PW-28, PW-29 and Ct.Komesh (PW-30) were already present there.He prepared the site plan (Ex.PW-28/B).PW-28 converted the DD No. 47A into rukka and handed it over to Ct.Satish for registration of the FIR.After receipt of the registered FIR, PW-32 lifted various exhibits from the spot including earth control sample.After the post-mortem examinations, the police returned to C-Block, Sultanpuri and the statements of Sagar (PW-12) and Vinod (PW-9) were recorded.PW-12 was only 14 years old and a resident of a jhuggi in Block P-1, Sultan Puri.He stated that on 6th April 2013, at around 12.30 pm, he was sitting with PW-9 in the park in Block C-6 of Sultanpuri when he noticed that a quarrel was ongoing between Ramesh and Babloo on one side and Govind, Anoop and Satish Kumar on the other.He saw Ramesh slap Govind.PW-12 claimed that he and PW-9 pacified the parties.He noticed that the present Appellant had a knife and he was snatched by Ramesh.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 4 of 18In the said statement, he stated that he and PW-9 were, at 12.30 pm on 6th April 2013, proceeding from their house towards the park at Block C-6 when they noticed that Ramesh was with Babloo.Ramesh slapped Govind who had a knife.Ramesh then snatched Govinds knife.Thereafter, they fought and Govind took back the knife.Thereafter, Babloo went away.He further added that Ramesh had also slapped Satish Kumar.After some time, Anoop, Govind and Satish Kumar are stated to have come to the park and all three of them began abusing Ramesh and Babloo.Govind, Anoop and Satish Kumar were all three stating that they will kill Babloo and Ramesh.Govind is stated to have had a knife with a long iron blade.After some time, the three co-accused as well as PWs- 9 and 12 left.PW-12 also states that Govind had consumed ten golis (drugs) and he was giving a large number of the said golis to Ramesh and Babloo.He stated that he suspected that it was Govind who, along with Anoop, had killed Ramesh and Babloo.The police also recorded the statement of Vinod (PW-9) under Section 164 Cr PC.In his statement, Vinod (PW-9) stated that a fight ensued between Babloo and Ramesh on the one hand and Govind, Anoop and Satish Kumar on the other hand; Ramesh had slapped Govind, Anoop and Satish Kumar and both PW-9 and 12 had tried to pacify them; that Ramesh had snatched the knife of Govind and Govind forced him to give it back and thereafter, Ramesh and Babloo left from there.Govind was abusing the two CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 5 of 18 deceased and also threatened to kill them.Anoop and Satish Kumar were also with Govind at the time.According to PW-9, that is all he saw and after that, both of them, i.e. PW-9 and PW-12, left from there and he was not aware as to what happened thereafter.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 5 of 18He constituted a raiding party and found both A-2 and A-3 in the corner of the park and got both of them apprehended, interrogated, and arrested.Their disclosure statements were recorded.Both stated to have disclosed the name of the third accused, i.e. Govind (A-1), who was injured after he jumped from a roof and was stated to be present in his house.12. A-1 was thereafter apprehended from his house.He is supposed to have disclosed that he had received the injuries at the time of incident.He had already been medically examined and treated at Jeevan Hospital.He produced treatment papers from Jeevan Hospital.These were taken into possession under seizure memo (Ex.PW-26/I).(i) Neeraj (PW-16) was the landlord of the deceased, Babloo.He confirmed that at around 11.00 am on 6th April 2013, he was leaving his house and he saw that A-1 and A-2 were calling out to Babloo.(ii) The oral testimony of PW-16 and members of the investigation team had confirmed that both the deceased were good friends and that they often consumed alcohol and drugs together; this was confirmed from the post-mortem and viscera reports; A-1, A-2, and A-3 were also addicted to drugs; at the time of incident, A-1 consumed intoxicating pills and was under the influence thereby exhibiting extremely aggressive behaviour.(iii) PW-9 and PW-12 had confirmed that both of them were ganja addicts and often went to the park at C-Block, Sultanpuri.They witnessed the quarrel between A-1, A-2 and A-3 on the one side and the two deceased on the other at around 12.30 pm.They pacified it.P1/970, Sultanpuri, Delhi pursuant to the above stated conspiracy, all three of them committed the murder of Babloo @ Bhushan and Ramesh @ Lambu thereby committing offences under Section 302 read with 120B IPC.By the impugned judgment, the trial Court has acquitted A-2 and A-3 of the aforementioned offences.While Ramesh and Babloo thereafter left the park, the Appellant was using abusive language against them.The Appellant is stated to have followed Ramesh and returned with the knife while also muttering, "aaj hi aaj me CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 4 of 18 inhe maroonga".In his disclosure statement, A-1 is stated to have offered to get the weapon of offence recovered as well as the clothes he was wearing at the time of incident.The clothes were a T- shirt, capri and an underwear.These were converted into a pullanda and sealed and taken into possession.Neeraj (PW-16), the son of the landlord of the place of incident, then met the police.The accused then took the CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 6 of 18 police to the place of incidence and the pointing out memo was drawn up.Thereafter, A-1 is stated to have led the police party towards the ganda nala, Block P-1, Sultanpuri and got recovered the knife which was used in the commission of the offence (Ex.PW-16/A).CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 6 of 18While the police were still at the ganda nala, one child, Gaurav (PW-24), came to the spot and identified A-1 as the person who was having injuries on both his legs and A-1 had requested PW-24 for using his mobile phone to call somebody from his family to pick him up.The accused were then sent to SGM hospital for medical examination.They were produced before the Illaka Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody.At the end of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet.By an order dated 27th August 2013, charges were framed as indicated hereinbefore against the three accused.Thirty-three witnesses were examined by the prosecution.In his statement under Section 313 Cr PC, while denying the circumstances put to him, A-1 stated that it is a false case in which he has been falsely implicated and that no recoveries at his instance have been made.He maintained that the police want to save the real culprits and, therefore, had made a false case against him.A supplementary statement was recorded on 27 th August 2013 that the accused were admitting the statements made under Section 164 Cr PC of Vinod and Sagar and they had no objection if the learned MM who had recorded the statement is not examined as a witness.The grandmother of PW-16 had asked Babloo to vacate the room but Babloo had requested her to permit him to stay explaining that his daughter was studying and her education was continuing in a local school.On the date of the incident, Babloos minor daughter was not present.(iv) Both PW-9 and PW-12 spoke about A-1 taking out the knife and threatening Ramesh @ Lambu who then snatched knife and walked CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 8 of 18 away but A-1 followed him and retrieved the knife.He threatened to kill both the deceased on the same day.PW-9 and PW-12 had supported each other on the material aspects.While PW-9 and PW-12 had confirmed the presence of A-2 and A-3, no allegations were made against A-2 or A-3 of having issued any threats.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 8 of 18(v) On the date of incident, A-1 was found in an injured condition by Gaurav Kumar (PW-24).He was found sitting in front of his house crying in pain.A-1 was sitting on the chabutra.Gaurav Kumar was aged about 14 years.A-1 is supposed to have used the mobile phone of the mother of PW-24 for making a call.He failed to explain why he reached the area, i.e. P-1/84, Sultanpuri situated in the same street where Babloo was residing.Electronic evidence confirmed that A-1 had made a call from the mobile number of the mother of PW-24 at 5.33 pm and A-1 did not deny the same.He, however, claimed that he had met with a motorcycle accident.The killings of the two deceased was discovered soon thereafter.Around 6.30 pm, a call was made to the PCR.(vii) As per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA), A-1 was the person in the best position to offer an explanation for his injuries.His claim that he met with a motorcycle accident stands demolished due to the medical record (Ex.PW-13/A) which confirms that he had received fractures on both heel bones.Such an injury could only have been sustained on account of a fall from a height and not due to a road accident.This is consistent with the fact that the family members had given the history to Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW-13) of Jeevan Hospital CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 9 of 18 as fall from a height.There was close proximity between when A-1 had come to the house of Babloo looking from him and Ramesh at 11.00 am and the quarrel that took place in C-Block park at 12.30 pm.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 9 of 18(viii) The recovery of the knife at the instance of A-1 was also believed.This was witnessed by PW-25 as well was an independent witness.There was human blood on the t-shirt of the Appellant.(ix) It was argued before the learned trial Court that the Appellant was under the influence of drugs having consumed intoxicating pills and was, therefore, incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing is contrary to the law.After referring to Section 85 and 86 IPC, the trial Court held that Sections 85 and 86 protected only such offenders being intoxicated "without knowledge or against their will".It was held that such a defence does not come to the aid of an offender who "voluntary consumes alcohol or other intoxicating substances like drugs etc. and then commits the offence".Even otherwise, A-1 was fully conscious and aware of the consequences of his act.It is for this reason that after committing the double murder he panicked and in order to save himself and avoid detection, he jumped from the window of the bathroom attached to the room of the deceased onto the roof of the lower floor which is how he sustained the injuries on his ankles.It was held that no person can be permitted to voluntarily consume drugs/intoxicants and then wreak havoc by going on a killing spree and claim the same as a defence.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 10 of 18Accordingly, the trial Court proceeded to acquit A-2 and A-3 while convicting A-1 for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him by a separate order on sentence in the manner indicated hereinbefore.This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. M.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, learned APP for the State.It is submitted by Mr. Yadav, learned counsel for the Appellant that there was no actual evidence of last seen because PW-16 saw the accused outside the house of the deceased at 11.00 am and thereafter, PWs- 9 and12 spoke about his presence in the park at 12.30 pm whereas the deaths are supposed to have occurred around 5.00 pm.On account of the time gap between the time of death and the time of last seen and also on account of the fact that the place of last seen was not the same as the place where the dead body was found, the evidence of PWs- 16, 9, and 12 cannot be said to be last seen evidence.The statement of PW-12 statement under Section 164 Cr PC was recorded on 20th April 2013 itself.There was sufficient time for the accused to commit the murder of the two deceased.Neither PW-9 nor PW-12 has been shaken in their cross-examination.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 11 of 18As pointed out by the trial Court, both these witnesses proved that the two deceased and the three accused were also drug addicts.Even PW-16 has confirmed that the deceased used to consume drugs and Babloo was not of a good character.He also noticed A-1 and A-2 outside the house where the offence occurred at 11.00 am.Although there is a time gap between when the quarrel involving the two deceased and the three co-accused took place and the time of deaths, i.e. 5.00 pm, in the absence of evidence which would probablise the presence of either the Appellant or the two deceased elsewhere, such evidence can be taken to be evidence of last seen.This circumstance is therefore conclusively proved by the prosecution.Presence of Appellant at the scene of crimeThere is no direct evidence to prove the presence of the Appellant at the scene of crime.However, PW-24 spoke of the presence of the Appellant at the chabutra in front of his house at around 5.30 pm which is not far from the house of the deceased.The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant panicked after having committed the CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 12 of 18 murders of the two deceased and jumped first on to the roof of the the first floor and thereafter again on the street thereby fracturing both his heels.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 12 of 18Strangely, the Appellant does not deny that he was on the chabutra.The explanation given by him for being found there is strange.In answer to question 21 regarding the evidence of PW-24, he said that "the alleged incident has nothing to do with the offence.The injuries sustained by me were due to road accident".The Appellant also did not deny that he had used the mobile phone bearing the number 8743977286 "to inform the family members about my accident".He did not know about the owner of the mobile phone "but some boy gave me the mobile phone".Therefore, he did not deny that he was in fact on the chabutra and borrowed the phone from PW-24 to call his family.Then we have the evidence of the treatment received by the Appellant at Jeevan Hospital.This is spoken to by Dr. Ashutosh Gupta (PW-13).The OPD receipt issued by him is marked as Ex.PW-13/A. As per his deposition, the Appellant was brought there by his mother, Santosh, brother, Bunty, and another brother, Ram Kishan "with alleged history of fall from height".Therefore, this clearly showed that the explanation offered by the Appellant for the CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 13 of 18 fractures on both heels being due to a road accident was false.The medical evidence disproved this.There is no cross-examination of PW- 13 to suggest that he was speaking falsehood.CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 13 of 18The FSL report was proved by Santosh Tripathi (PW-15).The blood samples of the two deceased showed the presence of alcohol, and clearly therefore both the deceased were to in an inebriated state.The Court is satisfied that the Appellant has no valid explanation for the injuries on both heels.He has not cared to examine his own mother and brothers.The medical evidence disproves that he suffered injuries as a result of a road accident.It is argued by Mr. Yadav that the chabutra was at a distance from the house of the deceased.He submits that the prosecution has not been able to explain how the Appellant could, in such an injured condition, possibly carry himself to the chabutra.On the other hand, the learned APP sought to explain that the Appellant could have dragged himself to the chabutra which was down the road where the house of the deceased was.In fact, it was pursuant to his own disclosure that he could reach Jeevan Hospital and collected the medical treatment papers as proved by PW-26, PW-31, and the IO (PW-32).CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 14 of 18The t-shirt worn by the Appellant also had bloodstains which were of human blood.This is apart from the fact that the knife got recovered at his instance from the ganda nala.Therefore, the following circumstances can be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt:(i) The presence of the Appellant outside the house of the deceased at 11.00 am as proved by PW-16;(ii) The quarrel that took place in the park between the accused and the deceased as spoken to by PWs- 9 and 12;(iii) The fact that the accused was consuming drugs and also giving them to the deceased is again proved by PWs 9 and 12;(iv) Homicidal death of the both deceased from the house of Babloo at around 5.00-5.30 pm;(v) The accused being found with injuries to his heels at chabutra by PW-24 outside the house of PW-24 which is down road from the place where the house of the deceased was located;(vi) The accused operating the mobile phone of PW-24 to make a call informing family members at 5.30 pm as proved by the CDR of the said mobile and is not denied by the police;(vii) The treatment received by the Appellant at Jeevan Hospital for fractures on both ankles as a result of a fall from a height;CRL.A. 81/2015 Page 15 of 18(viii) Recovery of the knife and presence of human blood on the t-shirt of the Appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
856,343 |
Marayammal - P.W.5 |The deceased Natarajan was running a Power Loom Factory.He suffered extensive loss of more than Rs.75,000/-.P.W.1 was thus in possession of vast extent of thefamily properties as Bohgium.The accused was in cultivation of Thundukkaduabout an extent of 4 acres.Natarajan was in cultivation of AthikkattuThottam.Since P.W.1 was in possession of family lands, P.W.5 - Marayammalwas living in Athikkattu Thottam belonging to Natarajan.These aspects arenot much disputed by the accused.The facts which led to the prosecution case on theallegation that the accused caused the death of his brother-in-law Natarajan,could briefly be narrated thus:- P.W.1 - Periasamy married Sornaththal -sister of Natarajan; while the accused married another sister Poovaththal.Since the whole family lands of 35 acres was given to his co-brother - P.W.1,the accused has driven away his wife Poovaththal.Poovaththal and herchildren had taken shelter with their mother P.W.5 - Marayammal, who wasliving in Athikkattu Thottam.Further case of the prosecution is that on the date ofoccurrence, the accused scolded P.W.5 - Marayammal, while she was grazing theCattle.P.W.5 informed the same to P.W.1 - Periasamy, who in turn informedthe same to Natarajan.To question about the conduct of the accused, on thenight of 02.02.1996, deceased Natarajan, P.Ws.1 to 3, Dhandabani and oneVeerasamy went to the house of the accused in Veerachozhapuram.Enraged over the same,Natarajan went inside the house.At that time, the accused stabbed Natarajanwith M.O.1 - Soorikathi.The deceased in turn, attacked the accused withPower Loom Wooden Log (M.O.2) on his head.The accused escaped from the sceneof occurrence.Injured Natarajan was taken to the Hospital in T.V.S.50Moped of Dhandabani.P.W.3 - Kuppusamy accompanied them.On the way toHospital, Natarajan was found dead and hence, they returned back.Dhandabaniand P.W.3 brought back the body of the deceased and placed it near the houseof the accused.Complaint and registration of F.I.R. P.W.1 - Periasamywent to Vellakoil Police Station at 7.00 a.m. on the following day i.e. on03 .02.1996 and gave Ex.P.1 - Complaint.On the basis of Ex.P.1 - Complaint,P.W.10 - Inspector of Police registered the case in Crime No.70 of 1996 underSec.302 I.P.C. under Ex.P.12 - First Information Report.P.W.10 - I.O. had taken up theinvestigation.He has inspected the place, where the body of Natarajan wasfound lying.Regarding that place, Ex.P.2 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.13 -Rough Plan were prepared.The Trial Court is directed to take immediate steps forsecuring the Accused to commit him to prison for serving the remaining periodof sentence.Index:YesInternet:YessbiToThe Principal Sessions Judge,Erode.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Coimbatore.Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.157 of 1996 on the file ofSessions Court, Erode.By the Judgment dated 25.04.1997, the Appellant /Accused was convicted under Sec.304 Part II I.P.C. for causing the death ofhis brother-in-law Natarajan.Shorn of factual details of the occurrence and theprosecution case, the relationship of the parties and the common facts couldbe firstly referred to.The accused, deceased Natarajan and prosecutionwitnesses are related as under:-Photographs were also taken.M.O.10 - BloodStained Dhoti was seized under Ex.P.7 - Seizure Mahazar.Scene of occurrence- house of the accused was also inspected and Ex.P.3 - Observation Mahazar andEx.P.14 - Rough Plan regarding the house of the accused were prepared.M.Os.2to 7 were seized under Ex.P.4 - Seizure Mahazar.Inquest was held on the body of deceased Natarajan,examining the witnesses in the presence of Panchayatdars.P.5 is theInquest Report.After inquest, body was sent to Autopsy.P.W.8 - Dr.Manoramani has noted the injuries on the body of deceased and issued Ex.P.9 -Post-mortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased died of shock andhaemorrhage due to injury to heart.P.W.11 - Head Constableattached to Vellakoil Police Station received intimation (Ex.P.24) fromKangeyam Hospital about the admission of the accused in the Hospital.Onreceipt of such intimation, P.W.11 went to the Hospital and recorded thestatement of the accused.On the basis of his statement, P.W.11 registeredthe First Information Report - Ex.P.25 in Crime No.71 of 1 996 under Ss.147,448 and 323 I.P.C. against the deceased Natarajan, P.Ws.1 to 3 and others.Hisconfession statement (Admissible Portion - Ex.P.17) led to the recovery ofM.O.1 - Soorikathi under Ex.P.11 - Seizure Mahazar.Upon investigation, CrimeNo.71 of 1996 was referred as " Mistake of Fact ".P.1 to P.25 were marked; M.Os.1 to15 were remanded to Court.The accused was questioned under Sec.3 13 Crl.Duringquestioning, the accused had filed a statement in writing stating thatdeceased Natarajan and his servants viz. Dhandabani, Kuppusamy (P.W.3),Veerasamy and others came to his house during night time and deceased hadbeaten him with M.O.2 - Power Loom Wooden Log.In the light of facts and evidence adduced is theAppellant / Accused right in putting forth the plea of self-defence ? is theshort point arising for consideration.Considering the number of injuries /single blow on the chest, whether the conviction under Section 30 4 Part III.P.C. warrants any interference ? is yet another point arising forconsideration in this appeal.Without much elaborating on the factual details, we maystraightly proceed to consider the main point urged by the Appellant / Accusedthat the accused had only acted in self-defence.This plea is to beconsidered in the light of ill-will subsisting in the mind of the accused.Asnoted in Para (4), the Appellant / Accused was enraged over the fact thatP.W.1 - Periasamy was in possession of the entire family lands.Nurturingill-will, the Appellant / Accused had also driven away his wife Poovaththal,who had taken shelter with her mother - P.W.5, who is residing in AthikkattuThottam, which was under the cultivation of Natarajan.On that day, the accused chased P.W.5 with Aruval.P.W.5 informed the same to her elder son-in-law - P.W.1, who in turn, informedthe same to deceased Natarajan.On hearing about the same, quite naturallythat the deceased Natarajan must have infuriated over the same.On the night of 02.02.1996 - 10.30 p.m., Natarajangathered his three servants viz. Dhandabani, Kuppusamy (P.W.3) and Veerasamyand went to the house of the accused along with P.W.1 in Vellakoil,Veerachozhapuram.On their way, his father-in-law P.W.2 - Kumarasamy alsojoined them.The group of men went to the house of the accused at the oddtime at about 10.30 - 11.00 p.m. Laying emphasis upon the odd time, in whichthe deceased Natarajan gathered men and went to the house of the accused toquestion his conduct, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accusedsubmitted that the deceased is the aggressor.In the light of the evidence,this contention has no merits.No doubt, deceased Natarajan gathered numberof persons and went to the house of the accused during the night time, whichmay be improper.But from the evidence, it is seen that the persons whoaccompanied deceased Natarajan were only outside the house of the accusedtalking with each other.From the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that eh';fs;5 ngUk; tPl;L jpz;izapy; cl;fhh;e;jpUe;njhk;/ mth;fs; ,UtUk; (Accused andP.W.2 - Kumarasamy) tPl;Lf;Fs; Rkhh; 1-2 kzp neuk; ngrpf; bfhz; oUe;jhh;fs;.It is obvious that only P.W.2 went inside the house and all others remainedoutside.It is not as if the accused was surrounded by deceased Natarajanalong with the group of men to infer that they were the aggressors.Onhearing the same, the deceased Natarajan angered over the same and went insidethe house.Though he went inside the house, the first blow i. e., the cutinjury was inflicted on the chest of the deceased only by the accused.Fromthe evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that only after sustaining the stabinjuries on the chest, Natarajan reacted to the same hitting the accused withM.O.2 - Wooden Log.Having firstly inflicted stab injury on thedeceased, it is not open to the accused to put forth the plea of self-defence.The learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused contendedthat in all probabilities M.O.2 - Wooden Log must have been brought only bydeceased Natarajan, who was running Power Loom Factory.It is the furthercontention that the intention of deceased Natarajan to attack the accused isto be inferred by the said act of carrying M.O.2 - Wooden Log.From theevidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 it is clear that Natarajan hit a blow on the accusedwith M.O.2 - Wooden Log, which was lying there.It is highly improbable thatdeceased Natarajan would have carried the same to the scene of occurrence.The point that the accused has no Power Loom is advanced for the first timeonly during the arguments.When the accused was questioned under Sec.313Crl.P.C., he had not denied the same, nor it was put to the witnesses denyingowning of Power Loom by the accused.Without laying such a foundation duringtrial, it is not open to the Appellant / Accused to raise this contentiouspoint in the appeal.The merit of the main contention on the availability ofselfdefence is only to be considered.But there is no material onrecord to show that the Appellant / Accused had acted in self-defence.On factual aspects and on the evidence on record, plea ofself-defence is fragile and has no force.No doubt, as pointed out by thetrial Court, deceased Natarajan was not right in going to the house of theaccused at that night time, gathering men.But that does not in any wayjustify the wielding of the knife inflicting deep stab injury on the chest ofthe deceased.Upon hearing the accused again scolded P.W.5, deceasedNatarajan went inside the house and at that time, the accused inflicted cutinjury on the chest.It was only thereafter the deceased hit the accused withIt is the contention of the Appellant / Accused that theaccused acted in self-defence, on being surrounded by Natarajan and his menand only the deceased firstly struck the accused with M.O.2 - Wooden Log.Without accepting this defence, for the sake of arguments, even if we assumethat the deceased had beaten the accused with M.O.2, it is seen from Ex.P.10 -Accident Register that the accused had sustained only simple injuries.He hassustained lacerated injuries on the root of the nose and left parietal region;and contusion on the right upper arm.All the injuries sustained by theaccused are only simple in nature.The injuries on the person of the accusedare well explained by the prosecution.There is no merit in the contentionthat the prosecution has not explained the injuries.Considering the simplenature of injuries sustained by the accused, no right of private defence wasavailable to the accused.This is all the more so, when the accused wasalready inimical towards Natarajan and the family members.The plea ofself-defence was rightly rejected by the trial Court and no convincing groundis made out to take a different view.The other point urged onbehalf of the Appellant / Accusedis the delay in lodging the complaint and registration of the case.For theoccurrence on the night of 02.02.1996, Ex.P.1 - Complaint was lodged at 7.00a.m.Contending that there is enormous delay in lodging thecomplaint, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused submitted thatthere was much deliberation or consultation in lodging the complaint, whichthrows doubt on the prosecution case.It is the further contention that theearlier oral complaint given by P.W.1 - Periasamy is suppressed by theprosecution with the intention to suppress the actual occurrence.This pointwas raised before the trial Court, which was well considered.Necessarily, the family members ought to havetaken time to inform the death to their relatives and had taken time inlodging the complaint on the following day.The Appellant / Accused is proved to be responsible forcausing the stab injury on the chest of the deceased.The single blow on thecentre of the chest at the level of 4th ribs, on D/D, has entered into thesternal bone and has pierced the Right Ventricle, front side.500 ml of bloodpresent surrounding the heart.There was no premeditation or intention tocause the death.Had Natarajan not gone to the house of the accused, thedeceased would not have met the fateful occurrence.The fatal blow wasinflicted in the heat of moment.Considering the fact that there was nopremeditation for the occurrence, the learned Sessions Judge has rightlyconvicted the accused under Sec.304 Part II I.P.C. Considering the nature ofinjury and circumstances of the case, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment offive years is also reasonable and cannot be said to be excessive.The findingof guilt, conviction and the sentence of imprisonment ought to be confirmedand this appeal is liable to be dismissed.Therefore, the Judgment of Sessions Court, Erode inS.C.No.157 of 1996 (dated: 25.04.1997) convicting the Appellant / Accusedunder Ss.304 Part II I.P.C. and the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of fiveyears are confirmed and this appeal is dismissed.The Inspector of Police,Vellakoil Police Station,Erode District.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,637,352 |
His testimony, however, belies the testimony of the victim that she stayed locked in a room for the entire period of about a month while she stayed with the accused.It further shows that it was within the knowledge of the neighbours that victim and accused wanted to get married.She emphasises that the prosecutrix in her deposition had stated that she had been confined in a room by the Respondent-accused.5. Learned APP for State also submits that the consent of the Prosecutrix was immaterial as the Prosecutrix was a minor at the time of commission of the offence.MANMOHAN, J: (Oral) Crl.M.A. 992/2020 (exemption) Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.Accordingly, present application stands disposed of.L.P. 63/2020 Page 1 of 6The relevant facts as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-The allegation against the accused is that on 20.02.2013 at about 1:00 pm at H. No. 88 A Block, Hari Nagar, Delhi, he kidnapped the minor victim with the intent that she might be forced to illicit intercourse.He also raped the minor victim during the period from 20.02.2013 to 12.03.2013"The trial court by way of its impugned judgement acquitted the Respondent-accused.The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced hereinbelow:-As has been observed, it could not be proved that the victim was a minor at the time of incident.As per the victim, accused had established physical relations with her even prior to lodging of instant FIR yet she left the house of her parents and went with the accused by train.The statement of the victim that she stayed locked in the said room and someone used to provide food to her is vague.There is no explanation as to why the victim did not disclose about her circumstance to that someone.The cross-examination of PW10 ASI Kalam Singh shows that when he reached the spot at Gauda alongwith the police team, the victim was found inside the room and the room was not locked from outside.PW10 also admitted that he did not collect the call details of the father of the victim and the call details of the mobile phone of the victim were not received.PW10 also deposed that he heard from the local people at Gauda that the victim and the accused had moved an application on 12.02.2013 before local SDM/Marriage Registration Office for registration of their marriage.This fact, however, could not be confirmed by the IO.The circumstances as are veiled from the testimonies of PW3 & PW10 show that the victim had accompanied the accused CRL.L.P. 63/2020 Page 2 of 6 willingly and was residing with him willingly.Further, they both wanted to marry each other.From such a circumstances, it cannot be deducted conclusively that the victim was taken away by the accused by deceitful means and that the sexual relations between them were forcible.The allegations of offence punishable u/s 366 IPC & 376 IPC, therefore, could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt."6. Learned APP for the State further contends that the Respondent- accused established a physical relationship with the Prosecutrix on the false pretext of marriage.Having perused the leave petition as well as accompanying documents, this Court finds that the prosecutrix in her cross-examination had admitted that she was eighteen years old on the date of the incident.The CRL.L.P. 63/2020 Page 3 of 6 relevant portion of the testimony of the Prosecutrix (PW-3) is reproduced hereinbelow:-L.P. 63/2020 Page 3 of 6"The accused was doing the work of labour in subordination of my father.I know the accused one year prior to the registration of the present case.....When the occurrence has taken place, I was about 18 years of age.xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx .....I was induced away by the accused as he had told me that he would marry with me......xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx ....He had also made physical relation with me prior to the present complaint...."(emphasis supplied)Further, the prosecution was not able to establish the age of the prosecutrix beyond doubt as it itself produced two contrary documents.examination, the prosecutrix will have to be treated as eighteen years old on the date of the incident.The Prosecutrix had admitted that she had been known to the Respondent-accused for more than one year and they had had physical relations prior to the present complaint being filed by her."......When we reached the spot which was a room at Godda, the victim was inside the room and the room was not locked from outside......"L.P. 63/2020 Page 4 of 6L.P. 63/2020 Page 4 of 6L.P. 63/2020 Page 5 of 6 established on the false pretext of marriage is not made out.Accordingly, the present leave petition, being bereft of merit, is dismissed.MANMOHAN, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J JANUARY 20, 2020 SB/rn CRL.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
586,287 |
ORDER M. Karpagavinayagam, J.V.Devan, formerly Inspector of Police, Needamangalam Police Station is facing suo motu contempt proceedings before this Court for having filed a false affidavit.Relating to the detention of one Tamilarvan, a habeas corpus petition had been filed in H.C.P.No.656 of 2003 for the production of the said Tamilarvan.V. Devan, the Inspector of Police, the contemner herein filed a counter affidavit dated 23.6.2003 stating that the said Tamilarvan was arrested on 26.2.2003 at 4.30 p.m. in pursuance of the detention order dated 24.2.2003 issued by the District Collector and after service of the detention order, he was taken to the Police Jeep.However, the said Tamilarvan escaped from the custody of the Police at 5.00 p.m. and a case was registered in Crime No. 37/2003 under Section 224, I.P.C.On perusal of this counter affidavit, the Division Bench wondered as to how the detenu was allowed to be escaped even though the said Tamilarvan was standing in front of the Guru Hotel for half-an-hour.Unable to appreciate the statement of the Inspector of Police that immediately after service of the detention order, the detenu escaped when he was taken to the Police Jeep after allowing him to stand for half-an-hour in front of the Guru Hotel, Needamangalam, the Division Bench by the order dated 2.7.2003 directed the Superintendent of Police to cause an enquiry to be conducted into the alleged escape of the detenu in the broad day light.In pursuance of the said order, the Superintendent of Police, Tiruvarur District conducted enquiry and filed an affidavit on 16.7.2003 stating that the said Tamilarvan was arrested by the Inspector of Police V. Devan and other Constables at 4.30 p.m. on 26.2.2003 at Needamangalam and he was taken in the Jeep and left for Trichy.When the Jeep came near to the front entrance of the Central Prison at about 7.30 p.m., the said Tamilarvan made a request to attend call of nature and accordingly, the said Tamilarvan was allowed to go nearby to pass urine and at that point of time, the said Tamilarvan taking advantage of the darkness of night hours under the guise of passing urine, ran away from that place and escaped from the lawful custody.In the light of the affidavit filed by the Superintendent of Police giving the details relating to the time and place of arrest and the place from where Tamilarvan escaped custody, which are contrary to the details given by V.Devan, the Inspector of Police, the contemner herein, he filed an additional counter affidavit in H.C.P.No.656 of 2003 on 28.7.2003 admitting that his first statement contained in his counter affidavit dated 23.6.2003 to the effect that the arrested person Tamilarvan was escaped from the custody of the police at 5.00 p.m. on 26.2.2003 in front of Guru Hotel, was false and the said accused was escaped only in front of the Central Prison, Trichy at 7.30 p.m. and the said wrong statement made on 23.6.2003 was purely because of fear for his superior officers.The Division Bench on perusal of the affidavit of the Superintendent of Police as well as the additional counter affidavit of the Inspector of Police who admitted that what he had stated in his earlier counter affidavit was false, felt that there is a prima facie case for contempt.On receipt of the notice, the contemner filed an affidavit dated 29.8.2003 before this Division Bench again admitting having made a false statement in his first affidavit on 23.6.2003 and submitting that the same was made without any bad intention and only out of fear for a stringent departmental action.Through his affidavit, he tendered his unconditional apology and requested this Court to discharge him from the contempt proceedings.Again on 12.7.2004, he filed an additional affidavit in the contempt proceedings stating that in respect of the charges for having shown negligence in allowing the detenu to escape from the custody and also for having filed a false F.I.R. containing incorrect details, separate departmental action was taken against him and after the enquiry, the authority passed an order by way of punishment for stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect and since he was punished departmentally, his apology may be accepted and he may not be further punished.
|
['Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,863,206 |
The prosecution case, in short, is that on 17.12.2013 at about 1.30 pm.the victim Arvind and Govind were going on their motorcycle.Arvind was driving the motorcycle.When they reached in front of Tushar Garage, Kumhar Khadi, Kila Road, Indore, their motorcycle dashed with applicant-Sachin.Then Sachin started to abuse Arvind and thereafter, he call other applicants i.e. Kapil, Apil and Bablu.(Passed on 2nd September, 2014) This revision petition u/s. 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated 17.4.2015 passed by Eighth Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore in S.T. No.108/2014, whereby learned Addl.Sessions Judge framed the charges against the applicants u/s. 307, 307/34, 323/34 and u/s. 25(1-B) of the Arms Act.Sachin assaulted with sword on Arvind's head and other applicants caused injury to Arvind by wooden stick.Govind lodged the report with Police Station Banganga, 2 Indore and the Crime No.1060/2013 was registered by the Police for the offences u/s. 307, 294 of I.P.C. against the applicants.The final report has been filed.Considering the material available on record, learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Indore has framed the charges against the applicants u/s. 307, 307/34, 323/34 of the I.P.C. and u/s. 25(1-B) of the Arms Act. Being aggrieved by this, applicants have preferred the present revision.On the basis of submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, at present it is to be seen as to whether prima facie applicants had any intention to kill the victim Arvind or not.The charge u/s. 307 or 307/34 of I.P.C. has been framed in reference to victim Arvind.On examination of Arvind, Dr. P. Joshi found the injuries as under :-(1) Incised wound of 2 cm below right elbow Med.Post- 6 x 2 cm in size exposing bone.(2) Lacerated wound on middle head - 2.5 x .5 x .5 cm in size.(3) Lacerated wound on upper occipital region on left side - 2 x .5 x .5 cm in size.(4) Swelling on lower occipital region - 3 x 3 cm in size.Dr. P. Joshi opined that the injury No. 2 to 6 were caused by hard and blunt object, whereas the injury No.1 was caused by sharp cutting object.In reply to query, Dr. Joshi opined that after examination of CT scan and X-ray report, none of the injury was fatal and all were simple in nature.No bony injury was found.Now, I have to consider the attending circumstances of the incident.There was no previous enmity between the applicants and Arvind.The incident took place on spur of moment due to vehicular accident.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, present revision petition is liable to be allowed and it is hereby allowed.The impugned order dated 17.4.2015 is hereby set aside.With the aforesaid, this revision stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,863,787 |
Through : Mr.Sanjay Lao, APP.HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.P.GARG SANJIV KHANNA, J. (Open Court)Homicidal death of Dhunu Lal is established from the evidence of PW-16 (Dr.Kulbhushan Goel) who had conducted post- mortem of the body of Dhunu Lal.There were five external injuries on the dead body.Injury No.1 consisted of lacerated penetrative wound over the right side base of the neck of the size 3.4 cm X 1.8 cm X 2 cm with contused margins and which had abraded area 3 X 1.25 cm.The wound had pierced the soft tissues at the base of the right side of the neck and went downwards at an angular route to the right side of the chest cavity and had entered into the upper lobe of the right lung and came out from the middle lobe anteriorly making an exit from the lung.It fractured the sternum at fourth rib site on the right side and the third and fourth ribs.The second injury was a lacerated penetrative wound 1.25 X 0.8 cm just on the medial end of the left clavicle with contused margins and which had an abraded area of 3.5 X 1.25 cm and had fractured the underlying clavicle bone at the medial end and entered into the left chest cavity taking a downward and angular route which had pierced the left lung and fractured 1 to 6 ribs and costal cartilages.The death was caused due to asphyxia and hemorrhagic shock consequent upon bilateral chest and lung Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 2 of 14 injuries resulting into haemothorax.The injuries No.1 and 2 were caused by a moderately heavy weapon with a cutting edge which was not so sharp and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature individually or collectively.PW-4 (Makdum) is the father of the appellant.In his statement, he had stated that on 22.07.2004 he was present with the appellant in his jhuggi.At about 11.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between him and the appellant on the question whether the appellants wife should come back to Delhi.The appellant became angry and took out a getti', which is used for digging earth.He hit getti on the head of PW-4 (his father) and also hit his mother with it.Thereafter, PW- 4 did not support the prosecutions case and did not state that the appellant Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 3 of 14 had caused injuries on Dhunu Lal.PW-4 had stated that Dhunu Lal, the deceased who was a watchman, was sitting on the statue of George-V in the Coronation Park.He had stated that he was in his jhuggi and outside of the boundary wall of the statue of George-V. Dhunu Lal and his wife were inside the park.The police came there and removed them i.e. she (PW-2), brother Ram Parsad (PW-A. 682/2009 Page 4 of 145), son Rakesh and father of the appellant, Makdum (PW-4) to the hospital.He woke up at about 11.30 P.M. or midnight on hearing the quarrel.He intervened but was hit on his head by someone.He fell down on the ground and became unconscious.He regained consciousness in the hospital.Later on, he came to know Dhunu Lal died in that quarrel.He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.In the cross-examination, he accepted that Makdum, father of the appellant along with his wife and sons was living in jhuggi in the Coronation Park.He also stated that the appellant used to ply a rickshaw sometimes and on other occasions, he used to do labour work.He testified that at about 11.30 P.M., the appellant had caused injuries with the getti on the person of Makdum (PW-4) and on the person of his sister (PW-2) and Dhunu Lal (the deceased).PW-11 (Dr.D.K.Sinha) has proved MLCs bearing Nos.6713, 6714 and 6716 issued by the Casualty Ward, Hindu Rao Hospital, Delhi which were marked Ex.PW-11/A to Ex.PW-11/C, respectively and were recorded on 22.07.2004 at 0.45 A.M. i.e. soon after midnight.They refer to history of assault and record details of the injuries suffered by PW-2, Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 6 of 14The post-mortem report of the deceased Dhunu Lal (Ex.PW- 16/A) refers to five external injuries suffered by the deceased including the two lacerated penetrating wounds which have been stated above.It is opined that the time since death was about 14 hours.The post-mortem was done on 22.07.2004 at 01.20 P.M. The post-mortem report (Ex.PW- 16/A) and the MLCs (Ex.PW-11/A to Ex.PW-11/C) corroborated the statements made by PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 about the occurrence and the time of the occurrence.PW-4 is the father of the appellant.He had admitted to the presence of the appellant at the spot and the fact that appellant hit getti on his head.He had however, denied that he had seen the appellant hitting Dhunu Lal (the deceased), PW-2 (Kamla) and PW-5 (Ram Parsad).PW-4 is the father of the appellant and his attempt to save and absolve his son, the appellant, for the injuries suffered by PW-2, PW-5 and Dhunu Lal is apparent and can be explained.PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5 had gone to the hospital together and were treated in the same hospital.They had all suffered external injuries in the same occurrence.They were taken to the Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 7 of 14 hospital in 659 PCR-C-61 by HC Ram Naresh Singh.Statements and testimonies of PW-2 and PW-5 are trustworthy and creditable.DD No.64B was recorded at 11.45 P.M. by PW-10 (Const.Randhir Singh) containing information that somebody had killed Sonnu Lal of Dhir Pur village.He accordingly reached the spot and saw a person lying dead on the chabutara.PW-21 SHO Insp.P.C.Maan (Retd.) was also present with staff.PW-21 (Insp.P.C.Maan) has stated that he had gone to the spot after handing over DD No.64B to SI Bakshish Singh.Dead body of Dhunu Lal was there.Injured Kamla (PW-2), Makdum (PW-4) and Ram Parsad (PW-5) were taken to the hospital in the PCR van.He reached the hospital after leaving the staff at the spot and collected the MLCs of the injured persons.PW-1/A) was registered.The appellant was arrested on 22.07.2004 at about 04.15 P.M. He was apprehended from village Dhirpur, Delhi.He made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-19/E) and getti was recovered from under a Kikar Tree in the Coronation Park.The getti was blood stained.It was seized vide memo Ex.Ram Chander has preferred this appeal against his conviction by impugned judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 24.07.2008 under Sections 302 and 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder of Dhunu Lal and for having caused injuries to Kamla, Ram Prasad and Makdum.By the order of sentence dated 31.07.2008, the appellant has been sentenced to Imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 with fine of `5,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of `5,000/- for the offence under Section 307 IPC.In case of default for Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 1 of 14 payment of fine of `5,000/-, the appellant is to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.A. 682/2009 Page 1 of 14Injuries No.3 to 5 were caused by a blunt force impact.A. 682/2009 Page 2 of 14Death of Dhunu Lal is also proved from the statements of PW-5 (Ram Prasad), PW-2 (Kamla) and PW-13 (Mukesh Kumar).Their statements have been referred to below while dealing with the contentions whether or not the appellant had caused the said injuries and has been rightly convicted for the offences under Section 302 and 307 IPC.4. PW-2 (Kamla), PW-4 (Makdum) and PW-5 (Ram Prasad) were injured in the said occurrence allegedly by the appellant.They are the eye witnesses as per the prosecution case.He was cross-examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor but PW4 had stated that he had not told the police that the appellant had given getti blows on Dhunu Lal (deceased), his wife Kamla (PW-2) and Ram Prasad (PW-4) in his presence.He however, admitted that the Dhunu Lal died on the same night, while he was inside the boundary wall, after sustaining injuries.In the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, PW-4 had stated that he had not seen the appellant causing injury with getti to deceased Dhunu Lal, his wife Kamla and Ram Prasad.A. 682/2009 Page 3 of 145. PW-2 (Kamla) had stated that on 21.07.2004 at about 11.00 P.M. or midnight she along with her brother Ram Parsad, her two sons- Rekesh and Mukesh and her husband Dhunu Lal was present near the statue of George-V, in the Coronation Park, Delhi.Her husband was a watchman.Makdum and the appellant Ram Parsad were living in a jhuggi near the statue of George-V, Coronatin Park, Delhi and were quarrelling Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 4 of 14 with each other whether the wife of the appellant Ram hander should be brought from her parents house.She and her husband tried to pacify and make the appellant understand but on this the accused took out the getti and hit the head of her husband.The appellant had also given three getti blows on her husbands head, neck and other parts of body.Her husband died there.He hit the getti on lower left side of her abdomen and on the left side of her lower eye brow.The appellant also hit getti on the head of her brother, Ram Parsad.Her son Rakesh was also hit on the upper part of his back with the getti.She identified the getti (Ex.P1).She was cross-examined but there is nothing in the cross- examination to suggest that statement made by PW-2 in her examination- in-chief was not creditable or trustworthy.As noticed below, PW-2 was one of the injured persons and the injuries suffered by her have been proved in the MLC recorded by PW-11 (Dr.D.K.Sinha).We shall refer to the MLCs together subsequently.A. 682/2009 Page 5 of 14A. 682/2009 Page 5 of 147. PW-5 (Ram Parsad) has made a similar statement.At that time, he was sleeping on the chabutra of the statue of the English King.Injuries suffered have been discussed below, while examining the conviction under Section 307 IPC.A. 682/2009 Page 7 of 14PW-12 (HC Hoshiar Singh) in his statement has mentioned that he had received a telephone from one Ramesh who had reported that chowkidar named Dhunu Lal had been beaten up by someone in a park near Yuvraj Nagar Colony, Dhir Pur village, Delhi.PW-1 (HC Prem Dutt Sharma) had recorded FIR No.302/04 (Ex.PW-1/A) under Section 302/307 IPC on the basis of rukka sent by the Insp.He also recorded statement of Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 8 of 14 Kamla (PW-2) and then made an endorsement (Ex.PW-21/A) on the statement and prepared the rukka, which was sent to the police station and FIR (Ex.PW-19/C. The clothes of the accused which he was wearing having blood stains were also seized vide memo Ex.PW-19/D.A. 682/2009 Page 8 of 14The FSL reports are Ex.PW-17/A and Ex.PW-17/B and have been proved by Naresh Kumar, Sr.Scientific Assistant, Biology, FSL Rohini, Delhi.As per the said reports human blood was detected on getti, shirts and pants, which were seized/recovered from the appellant on the basis of the statement made by him.Blood was of human origin but there was no reaction and blood group could not ascertained on the getti and shirt.In the case of pants, the blood group was ascertained as AB.The blood group of the deceased as per the FSL report Ex.PW-17/B was AB.A. 682/2009 Page 9 of 14 beyond doubt.PW-4, the father of the appellant has partly supported the prosecutions case.The MLCs and the post-mortem report (Ex.PW-11/A to Ex.A. 682/2009 Page 9 of 14PW-16/A), in the present case, highlights five injuries and details the first two injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, individually and collectively.The deceased had died at the spot itself.The blows in question were by a sharp edged weapon and had caused the external and the internal injuries, which have been indicated and mentioned above.In the present case, we are satisfied that the intention to cause injuries at vital parts of the body was present.The appellant has been rightly convicted under Section 302 IPC.A. 682/2009 Page 12 of 14The MLCs (Ex.PW-11/A to Ex.PW-11/C) record that the injuries suffered by PW-5 (Ram Parsad) were dangerous.He had suffered a lacerated wound over head around the right paritorial region of about 6 cm.X 2 cm.The bone was exposed and there was bleeding.It is mentioned that the patient was drowsy and was not responding to visible command.However, the MLC does not show that Ram Parsad was admitted in the hospital for treatment or observation.PW-4 (Makdum) had received wound over right peritorial temporal region on the head and was bleeding.In addition, he had a lacerated wound over the left forearm which was also bleeding.There was swelling on the left arm upper part.The patient was conscious, co-operative and oriented.PW-2 (Kamla) had a lacerated wound over the forehead near the left eye and was bleeding.The wound has been described as simple.It is apparent that the aforesaid three witnesses were discharged from the hospital after first aid and were not admitted.Considering the nature of injuries suffered by three of them, we feel that the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is not correct and he is convicted under Section 325 IPC.The conviction of the appellant, to this extent, stands modified.A. 682/2009 Page 13 of 14A. 682/2009 Page 13 of 14For the offence under Section 325 IPC, the appellant will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and shall also pay a fine of `5,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he will further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.We confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life and fine of `5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 IPC.In default of payment of fine, the appellant will undergo simple imprisonment for one month.The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 04, 2012 tr Crl.A. 682/2009 Page 14 of 14A. 682/2009 Page 14 of 14
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,641,541 |
The appellant has been convicted of offences of under Sections 498A/302 of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting his deceased wife, Tapasi to continuous mental and physical torture and ultimately committing her murder in the morning of 5th September 1998 upon setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her.The appellant and the victim hail from the same village, Nawpala in the district of Howrah.They had two sons and one daughter from their marriage.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court 1, Uluberia delivered the judgment on 25th July 2008, finding the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offences.The postmortem report records the provisional opinion of the autopsy surgeon as regards the cause of death to be acute shock due to extensive burn which was ante-mortem in nature.It is also recorded in the opinion column of the postmortem report that final opinion would be given on receipt of repots of chemical analysis.No final report however was available at the time of trial.At the material point of time, the appellant was working as a class four staff with the Indian Railways.A written complaint was made by the father of the deceased, Kartick Das (P.W. 13) on 6th September 1998, the day following the date of alleged commission of offence.This has been marked Exhibit 7 by the First Court at the time of trial.In the written complaint the P.W. 13 (father of the deceased) has in substance alleged that his son-in-law, the appellant used to torture the deceased physically and mentally.According to the P.W. 13, the appellant was addicted to gambling which the deceased tried to prevent him from indulging in and torture was inflicted on her because of such objection or resistance.On the night of 4th September 1998, the appellant had beaten up the deceased severely, as it appears from the written complaint, and in the morning of 5th September also the victim was assaulted.At about 11.30 A.M., on the day of occurrence of the incident one Haru Das (P.W. 8) had informed the son of the complainant Bapi Das (P.W. 1) that there was fire in the residential house of the appellant.When the P.W. 1 reached the matrimonial home of the victim, he found his sister lying dead in burnt condition.It has been stated in the written complaint that the de facto complainant came to know from the local people as also from the son of the victim Gouranga (who has deposed as P.W. 6) that the appellant was inside the room when the victim was burning and he fled when smoke started billowing out of the room and the neighbouring people started shouting.Though written complaint was made on the next day, police had reached the place of occurrence for inquest on that very day, on the basis of an Unnatural Death case registered as U.D. Case No. 61/98 of Bagnan police station.It appears from the deposition of P.W. 1 that their Gram Pradhan, one Naren Mukherjee, had reported to police of occurrence of the incident.The unnatural Death case, however, was registered on the basis of information given by one Sailen Bhowmik.It transpires from the deposition of P.W.15, Bhaskar Das (one of the two officers who investigated the case) that it was a written information, but the same did not disclose any cognizable offence.Assistant sub-inspector Nimai Sasmal (P.W. 10) conducted inquest as per direction of P.W. 15 between 4 PM and 4.30 PM on the date of occurrence itself.This inquest was made on the basis of the unnatural death case.The body of the deceased was sent to the morgue of the Uluberia Sadar hospital for ascertaining the cause of death through a constable, Krishna Mohan Mitra.The autopsy surgeon Dr. M.A. Chowdhury (P.W. 14) deposed that the dead body was brought from the house of the appellant, and was identified by said Krishna Mohan Mitra.Postmortem was conducted at Uluberia hospital morgue.Thereafter he was taken into custody.Charges were framed by the Court under Sections 498A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), to which the appellant pleaded not guilty.In the trial, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, whereas the defence examined three witnesses.Among the seventeen prosecution witnesses the P.W. 3 (Champa Nayek, wife of the brother of the appellant), P.W. 4 (Laxmi Nayek), P.W. 5 (Nimai Nayek), all being relatives of the appellant, P.W. 6 (Gourango Nayek son of the appellant and the victim) P.W. 9 (Pratima Nayek - daughter of the appellant and victim) as also P.W. 11 - Lal Mohan Das (paternal uncle of the victim) and Kanchan Roy (P.W. 12, a co-villager) were declared hostile.P.W. 10 deposed as the officer who made inquest.Bablu Das (D.W.3) deposed that on one occasion in the past he had carried the victim to hospital on his trolly-van.On the aspect of several witnesses from the prosecution side turning hostile, the First Court opined that majority of them being members of the family or neighbours of the accused, they were not inclined to depose against the accused.The First Court found that the accused had not given any explanation as to whether on the date of the incident he had attended his duty.If any other person made attempt to rescue the deceased, in the event, such type of deep burn would not have been done After holding post mortem examination, I prepared a post mortem report in triplicate in carbon process under the same sitting under my own handwriting and signature".The P.W.14, however, referring to certain features of the dead body did not rule out the possibility of the deceased being first murdered by throttling and her body thereafter was put on fire.In his cross- examination, he stated:-The autopsy surgeon in the postmortem report opined provisionally that cause of death was acute shock because of extensive burn which was ante-mortem in nature.He had reserved his final opinion which was to be given on receipt of reports of chemical analysis of viscera.In his examination in chief, he stated that cause of death due to burn could be safely concluded even without having chemical examination report of the viscera and viscera was sent for chemical examination only as a routine matter.The appellant has been directed by the First Court to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.The sentence prescribes further rigorous imprisonment of one month in default in payment of fine.For committing the offence under Section 498A of the IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant has been directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a term of three months.PW. 15 and P.W. 16 (Biman Behari Dey) were the two Investigating Officers of the case, and they were also examined by the prosecution.Other prosecution witnesses were Bapi Das (P.W. 1 - brother of the victim), Anandomohan Mukhopadhyay (P.W. 2, a co-villager of both the appellant and the de facto complainant) who was also the scribe of the written complaint.P.W. 7 (Bandana Das mother of the victim) and P.W. 8 (Haru Das, a relative of the victim).Prosecution version of the case is that the appellant used to assault the victim on regular basis as he was in the habit of wasting money because of his gambling habits and on some occasions the mother of the victim used to pay up the money.On 4th and 5th September 1998, the appellant inflicted mental and physical torture on the victim and caused death of the victim by setting her on fire after pouring kerosene oil on her person.In his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the appellant denied the allegations and sought to set up defence that at the time of occurrence of the incident he was not present in his residence and he had left for work.The appellant's case is that his wife got burnt while boiling fodder for cattle.The appellant sought to support the case of catching fire while boiling cattle feed, referring to two earlier incidents when the victim caught fire under similar circumstance, but was eventually rescued.This appears from deposition of P.W. 3, Bela Chattopadhyay (D.W. 1) and Kachiram Nayek (D.W.2).D.W.1, a co-villager is a post-occurrence witness and she stated in her examination that at about 9/9.30 A.M. on the day of occurrence she had seen the appellant giving money to his son Gouranga and thereafter the appellant went to discharge his duty.She had visited the place of occurrence at about 11/11.30 A.M. on hearing "hue and cry" and found the victim lying dead in burnt condition.The second defence witness, Kachiram Nayek (D.W. 2) is also a relative of Santi and also a co-villager.He deposed that on the day of occurrence at about 11.30 A.M., he along with the daughter (Pratima) and Sanatan, the youngest son of the victim were watching a serial 'Saktiman' on television in the house of one Raju Nayek.He also stated on oath that he had rushed to the house of the appellant on hearing "hue and cry" and found the victim lying on the dalan (balcony) in burnt condition.D.W. 2 described Santi having good moral character.The D.W. 3, also a co- villager of the appellant, is a trolly van puller by occupation.All the three defence witnesses deposed that they did not know of any dispute between the appellant and the victim and D.W.1 has stated that the appellant and the victim had cordial relation.The son and the daughter of the appellant had made statements which were recorded under Section 164 of the Code before a learned Magistrate on 11th September 1998 and both of them had implicated the appellant of committing murder of the deceased.Gourango Nayek (P.W.6), son of the appellant and victim stated before the learned Magistrate that on the evening of Friday the appellant had assaulted the victim and repeated such assault in the morning of Saturday.He was chased out by his father when he tried to enter the room.Later on he heard that his father had set fire on his mother.It is further recorded in his statement that thereafter he saw his father cycling away.Reaching home, he saw his mother burning with fire.The neighbours tried to douse the fire with water.The daughter of the victim, Protima P.W. 9 in her statement recorded under the aforesaid provision of the 1973 Code claimed to be an eye-witness to the incident and stated that she saw her father pouring kerosene oil on the deceased and thereafter escaped by breaking open window after setting her on fire.But both of them after deposing that they had stated before the Magistrate what they saw or knew, in course of depositions in substance retracted their statements made before the Magistrate in which they had implicated the appellant.They stated that the statements made before the Magistrate were tutored by their maternal uncle.The First Court, however, largely relied on the statements recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code while convicting the appellant.Case made out by the prosecution is that upon setting the victim on fire, the appellant/accused had escaped through a window on the northern side of the residential house of the appellant by breaking the window bars.The inquest officer on reaching the place of occurrence found the body of the deceased laid on its right side on the floor of a room facing south in the mud hut with tiled shed.The P.W. 3, Champa Nayek confirmed that the victim died of burn injury.The First Court in the judgment under appeal primarily relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 4, P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 as also the statements of P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of the 1973 Code.While finding the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the 1860 Code, the First Court came to the conclusion that the incident had taken place in his house.It was further held by the First Court that the accused was found to be in the room, which was the place of occurence till 9.30 A.M. As regards cause of death of the victim, the First Court's finding is that the victim was murdered by throttling and thereafter she was burnt on the said morning.The appellant and the victim were last seen together and on the basis of depositions of different prosecution witnesses, the First Court also concluded:-"From the evidence of P.Ws and the conduct of the accused person with his wife, I find that the husband i.e. accused persons Santi was highly a man of cruel nature and make houselife difficult for Tapasi by Physical torture upon her and also denying her family life and comforts, behaviour/illtreatment with her-it would amount to cruelty."Out of seventeen prosecution witnesses, seven had turned hostile.Two key prosecution witnesses being the son and daughter of the appellant and the victim had retracted their statements made under Section 164 of the 1973 Code.Both of them in their depositions gave a different version of sequence of events on the day of occurrence of the incident.Two initial informants of the incident, Naren Mukherjee and Sailen Bhowmik, were not examined.The Investigating Officer had seized on 6th September 1998 between 14.25 and 15.00 hours from the place of occurrence several articles, which included a mat burnt in patches, a polythene jar containing about two litres blue coloured kerosene oil, control earth sample, and an old polythene bag containing burnt dal and pieces of cloth materials in burnt condition.These materials were seized from inside the room in which the body of the deceased was found but these were not sent for chemical analysis.It appears from the sketch map of the place of occurrence, which is Exhibit 8, the residential house of the appellant as the P.O. comprises of two rooms, a veranda and a kitchen under tiled shed having three of its sides open.The Inquest Officer found the body lying on the veranda.There are three other detached mud houses in close proximity to the place of occurrence, being the houses of Ananda Nayek, Bechu Nayek and Kachiram Nayek who are all brothers of the appellant.Champa (P.W. 3), who was declared hostile is the wife of said Ananda Nayek.In her deposition, however, she stated that the appellant had only a single room of his own.Viscera of the deceased was collected by the Investigating Officer and sent for chemical examination but the chemical examination report was not available.Mr. Ganguly emphasized that this case was dependent on circumstantial evidence and the chain of circumstances demonstrated by the prosecution cannot implicate the accused in the offence.He pointed out that the autopsy surgeon could not come to a definitive conclusion as to whether the death was homicidal, suicidal or accidental.He has taken us through the inquest report (Exhibit 1/1) as well as the written complaint and submitted that there was no major contradiction in narration of events recorded in these two exhibits.The inquest was made in the afternoon of the day of occurence between 4:00 - 4:30 P.M., whereas the F.I.R was lodged in the morning of the next day.On the basis of evidence of these two witnesses along with the deposition of P.W.7, he argued that torture of the victim stood established.He also submitted that the statements of the P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code also ought to be considered and relied upon.We have gone through the written complaint as also the inquest report and do not find any major contradiction as regards the substance of complaint.Burn injury: 98% body surface burn both superficial and deep (only both feet dorsum and dorsal and 1/3rd of lower legs of both sides are escaped).Deep burn: Chest wall below breasts down to upper abdomen both sides.Right mid and lower abdomen causing bursting of abdominal wall and thus large guard ballooned with gases coming out and hanging through the passage outside.Right inguinal region.Both axilla.Superficial burn: Rest of burn is a superficial type.My provisional opinion- is cause of death is acute shock due to above noted extensive burn which was antemortem in nature.Final opinion: to be given on receipt of reports of chemical analysis of visceras.The cause of death due to burn-safely be concluded even without having chemical examination report.I preserved and sent the visceras of the deceased for chemical examination only as a routine matter, as the stomach of the deceased was found empty.The bursting of abdomen wall and thus large guard ballooned with gases coming out and hanging through the passage outside."Considering the profused protruded tongue of the deceased coupled with the absence of black shoots in the nasal track, etc. absence of pugilistic attitude, quantity of superficial and deep burn appearing in this post mortem report and the probable time taken for such deep burn, the possibility, that the deceased was first murdured by throttling and thereafter she was burnt-can not altogether ruled out".It was the case of both the prosecution and the defence that the victim had died of burn injury.P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 13, being the key prosecution witnesses deposed that the victim died of burn injury.So did P.W. 3, P.W. 6 and P.W. 9, all of whom were declared hostile.The charge framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the 1860 Code also specified intentional cause of death of the victim after pouring kerosene oil on her.Thus, we do not think there is any scope of doubting the cause of the victim's death being burn injury at this stage, solely on the basis of a possibility indicated by the autopsy surgeon in his deposition.We are unable to agree with the finding of the First Court that the victim was killed first by throttling and thereafter her body was burnt.The question which still remains to be answered is as to whether the victim was set on fire by the appellant or not.Now we shall examine the materials on record to ascertain how death of the victim was caused.We do not think two past incidents of catching fire while boiling cattle feed would be a safe guide for us to conclude that in the third incident of burn also it must be a similar accident.In her statements made before the Magistrate recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code, P.W.9 stated that the appellant had slapped the victim after heated exchange of words, as a result of which she fell and thereafter she was set on fire by the appellant.The P.W.6, as per the statement recorded under the said provision of the 1973 Code stated that while the appellant was assaulting his wife, he tried to enter the room when he was beaten up by his father and out of fear he ran out.He later on heard that his father had set fire on the body of his mother.He also stated that he saw his father passing by on a cycle.In his examination in chief, the P.W.6 inter alia stated, before being declared hostile:-"Subsequently, I was taken to Hakim Saheb at Uluberia court and I made my statements before him.My statements were recorded by Hakim Saheb at that time.After recording my statements by Hakim Saheb, I put my signature on that recorded statements.This is my signature on this recorded statement.(Mark Exbt.3).Hakim Saheb recorded this statement whatever I stated before him and thereafter I signed thereon.Whatever I stated before Hakim Saheb were all true.I also stated all about the incidents before police".The P.W.9 also spoke in same terms in her examination in chief:-"My mother expired due to burn injuries at our house.There was no bar (....) in the northen side window of my mother's room.After the death of my mother, we gave our statements before the Magistrate at Uluberia Court.That Magistrate recorded my statements whatever I stated to him.What ever I knew about the incident I stated the same to the said Magistrate".After being declared hostile, however the P.W.6, in his cross examination by the defence stated that whatever he had stated to police and before the 'Hakim Saheb' (Magistrate) was tutored by his maternal grandparents and maternal uncle and such things were stated on apprehension of beating by his maternal uncle.P.W.9 stated that she was never interrogated by police.After being declared hostile, she deposed that she did not see the incident of burning of her mother.Being tutored by her maternal grandparents and uncle and out of their fear she made the statements before the Magistrate.So far ratio of the decision in the case of V.K. Mishra (Supra) is concerned, Mr. Banerjee wanted us to examine the statements made by the P.W.6 to the I.O. under Section 161 of the Code, on the ground that these statements were put to his notice in course of his examination.In his deposition, however, the P.W. 6 has admitted making such statements, but he also stated that whatever he stated to the police were also tutored by his maternal grandparents and maternal uncle.Thus, he sought to disprove the veracity of the statements he had made to the police, after admitting having made those statements.It is in this perspective we shall test his evidence.Thus, there are contradictions in the statements made by both P.W.6 and P.W.9 in course of their depositions which dilute creditworthiness of their evidence.If we leave aside P.W.9 as an eye witness of the incident, the one who was closest to the incident both in terms of distance and time was P.W.3, Tapasi Nayek.Her version of the incident, as it transpires from her deposition, is:-"My room is just in front of the room of Tapasi.I was at my room in the morning of the date of incident.Santi was at their room till about 9.30 A.M. and thereafter he left the house on account of his profession.After this accused left their house in that morning, Tapasi started to prepare boiled cow feed.Thereafter, I went to take my bath.After my return while I was changing my wearing apparels inside my room, suddenly I found that smoke was coming out from the window of Tapasi's room which is just in front of my room.Thereafter I rushed to their room and peeped through the window and found that Tapasi was then burning inside.Thereafter I broke open the bars made of split bamboo of the window and by putting my hands inside, collected the pillow from the bed and threw the same towards the burning body of Tapasi so that, fire may be extinguished.At that particular time neither this accused nor their other children were present at their house".We do not have clear evidence from any of the witnesses the exact location of the house where the victim was boiling cattle-fodder, while considering the defence case that at the time of occurrence of the incident, the deceased was boiling cattle-fodder.There is no evidence, however, that there was any oven in the room in which the victim got burnt and there is indication in evidence of P.W.3 that after her wearing apparels caught fire, the victim rushed inside her room.In her deposition the P.W.3, has stated:-"It may be that on the date of incident involved in this case, the wearing apparels of Tapasi might have caught fire while preparing boiled cow feed and thereafter she rushed inside her room and ultimately burnt".We find this conduct attributed to the victim by the P.W.3 to be unusual as a person who accidentally catches fire ought to try to have it doused and raise alarm rather than rush inside a room.Moreover, the room in which she is meant to have had rushed into appears to have had been bolted from inside, as the P.W.3 had to access the room breaking the window bars.But even if we disbelieve the P.W.3 on her narration of sequence of events, does the evidence adduced by the prosecution pinpoints appellant as the offender?The statement of P.W.9 recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code, if accepted on its face, that does not give a reliable account of the incident encapsulated in her statement.The P.W.9 in her statement before the Magistrate stated that she saw her father setting fire on the deceased and thereafter he escaped through the window.If the P.W.9 was inside the room at that point of time, then also there is no indication as to what happened after her father had escaped through the window.There is no evidence that the P.W.9 had alerted any one about the said offending act.Moreover, in course of her deposition she has stated that she was in the house of Raju Nayek, which is corroborated by P.W.3 and also D.W.2 (Kachiram Nayek).We appreciate the opinion of the First Court that the P.W.6 and P.W.9 and other family members and neighbours might side with the appellant out of sympathy.There is evidence that at the time of recordal of their statements under the 1973 Code they were residing with their maternal grandparents and uncle, whereas at the time they were examined during trial, they were back with their father.But such assessment of their sympathetic mental condition is in the realm of possibilities, and in the absence of reliable evidence, we cannot conclude on guilt of the appellant taking into consideration that factor.We have already found the statement of P.W. 9 made under Section 164 of the 1973 Code to be unreliable.Her statement made in course of deposition that she was watching television at the material point of time in the house of Raju Nayek has not been contradicted.He has stated in his deposition that he had found the appellant proceed on his bicycle through the village pathway.This story of the appellant being seen by the P.W. 1 at that point of time, however, surfaced only at the time of his deposition, and the said prosecution witness in his cross-examination also stated that he had told the I.O. that he "found this accused to proceed through the village pathway on his bicycle, immediately prior to the incident." But this is not reflected in the inquest report, and the Investigating Officer (P.W.15) in course of his deposition denied that such a statement was made by the P.W. 1 at the time of investigation.In our opinion, solely on this evidence, we cannot come to a finding that at or around the time of occurrence of offence, the appellant was at the place of occurrence.We also find that there is no evidence in this case that the appellant and the victim were last seen together before death of the victim.Evidence was that the appellant was near the place of occurrence at about 9/9:30 A.M. on that date.The appellant's obligation to explain the cause of death does not get diluted fully in such circumstances, as the victim died in her matrimonial home - which is the residence of the appellant.The appellant has also failed to adduce any evidence from his workplace that he was discharging his duties at the time of occurrence of the incident.At the time the appellant was seen by the witnesses near the place of occurrence, being 9 A.M. - 9.30 A.M. also appears to be beyond his normal duty hours, as the P.W. 13 has deposed that the appellant's normal duty hours was between 7A.M. and 4 P.M., and this part of deposition of P.W. 13 remained unchallenged.But for this reason alone, without any further corroboration we are unable to come to a finding that the appellant was guilty of the charge framed under Section 302 of the 1860 Code.We do not find sufficient corroboration of the prosecution case that the appellant was present at or near the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence of the incident.The evidence of P.W. 1 and the statements of P.W. 6 and P.W. 9 recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code are unreliable to establish the prosecution version, having regard to their subsequent depositions.They are the brother, mother and father of the deceased, most likely to be apprised of such offending acts.Both of them stated that they did not see any altercation between their parents.But both of them were very young when their mother died an unnatural death.P.W.6 used to study in Class V whereas P.W.9 was a student of Class III, and it is unlikely that they would have had remembered such incidents.D.W. 1 deposed that she did not hear or see the appellant perpetrate mental and physical torture on the victim, whereas D.W. 2 deposed that the appellant used to lead peaceful family life.But they were co-villagers and might not have had a micro-view of family affairs of the appellant.We do not find any reason to disbelieve the P.W. 1, P.W. 7 and P.W. 13, all of whom were close relatives of the victim.Referring to the evidence of P.W. 7, Mr. Ganguly had submitted that since she was not interrogated by the police at the state investigation and no statement of her was recorded under Section 161 of 1973 Code, her evidence ought not to be given credence to.The appeal stands partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
5,864,419 |
The revisional powers of this Court u/S. 397 Cr.2017 whereby the learned trial judge has framed charge against all the four petitioners for offences punishable u/Ss. 307, 294 and 506 part II of IPC.Pertinently Sec. 34 alleging common intention to commit attempt to murder has also been alleged against the petitioner Chandrakant and Vinod.The petitioner no. 2 in person and the State counsel and the victim in person are heard.The chargesheet has been brought on record and the same is perused.2016 in injured state orally lodged complaint with the Police Station Inderganj that around 12 noon on 27.6.2016 when the victim who happens to be practicing lawyer was coming out of the main gate of the district courts, he met all the four petitioners who objected to the victim having sued them in the Court.The FIR further alleges that the petitioners abused the victim.Whereafter the petitioner Ashok took the base ball bat of his son Krishna Kanth and assaulted the victim with the same on the head.Thereafter it is alleged that Krishna Kanth, Chandrakanth and Vinod gave kicks and fist blows to the victim and threatened him of dire consequences.The victim alleged that he fell to the ground because of the injury sustained and was taken to the hospital by Vinod Kumar and Ors v. State of MP and Anr.2 Cr.R.257.2017 one Jitendra Sharma.Vinod Kumar and Ors v. State of MP and Anr. 2A bare perusal of the Dehati Nalishi and also the statement of Arvind Verma, Mohan Verma, Smt Sandhya, Smt Parval Devi Verma and Devendra Singh Kushwaha recorded u/S. 161 corroborate the allegations contained in the FIR.The MLC of the victim respondent no. 2 discloses five (5) injuries.One bruise near the eye, one lacerated wound on the left forehead, one abrasion near the left eye brow and two (2) contusions one on the left cheek and the other on the right cheek.The X-ray report dated 26.6.2016 opined absence of bony injury and the other report of the trauma center of the same date of provisional diagnosis discloses facial injuries plus eye injury.Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on Suresh Sharma and Ors.State of M.P., 2017 (I) MPWN 69; Kamarlal Vs.State of M.P. (CRR No. 67 of 1992 decided on 05.04.1992); Nawab Khan Vs.State of M.P. & Anr.(CRR No. 132 of 2014 dated 22-January, 2015), Dilwar Balu Kurane Vs.State of Maharashtra, 2002 Legal Eagle (SC) 7 to emphasise the scope, ambit and sweep of Sec. 227 Cr.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
586,446 |
It is put forth in the revision petition which has been filed by the accused-petitioner that after the incident the petitioner had gone to report the matter at Shahjahanabad police station as he was abused by the constable who was on duty but at the police station with the intervention of senior police officials the matter was amicably resolved.Thereafter, the petitioner went to the hospital and got himself treated.As in this letter the offence under Section 506, IPC was not mentioned, another letter was sent mentioning the aforesaid section to be read along with the letter written on the first occasion.In pursuance of the aforeasid communications the Public Prosecutor filed an application under Section 321 of the Code seeking permission to withdraw the case.The said prayer was rejected by the learned Magistrate by order dated 11-2-97 on the ground that there had been no application of mind by the Public Prosecutor and the circumstances did not warrant grant of permission for withdrawal of the prosecution.The prosecution assailed the aforesaid order before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhopal which ultimately came to be disposed of by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge who confirmed the order passed by the learned Magistrate on the basis that the grounds mentioned in the petition did not justify grant of permission to withdraw the prosecution.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,646,139 |
Deceased Govind Pawar, was the husband of a sister of firstinformant Kundlik Rathod.Deceased was resident of Deoli Tanda,Tahsil Ghansawangi, District Jalna and first informant also hails fromthe same village.All the accused persons are residents of the samevillage.Bhimaand other persons in that case were acquitted.After the decision ofacquittal, Bhima had given threat to Govind to teach him lesson.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::3 The incident in question took place on 29 th July, 2001,which was Sunday and weekly Bazar day of Paradgaon.DeceasedGovind, first informant and Seva Chavan had gone to Paradgaon forBazar.They were returning from Paradgaon to Deoli Tanda andwhen they were present in one lane of Paradgaon, from the back sideall the four accused came running and they intercepted thesepersons.During the incident, Accused No.4 Achyut and AccusedNo.2 Pandurang held Govind and then Accused No.1 Ganesh gaveblows of Jambia (dragger) on the back and abdomen of Govind.Govind sustained bleeding injuries and he collapsed on the ground.After that Bhima gave kick blows to Govind.Appeal 207 of 2003.odt4 Kundlik and Seva Chavan tried to intervene by requestingthe accused not to assault Govind, but Ganesh said that they werethere to finish Govind.Then, Kundlik used force and snatchedJambia from the hand of Ganesh.When Kundlik snatched Jambia,Ganesh sustained bleeding injury to his hand.There was hue and cryand the people of that lane started gathering.All the four accusedthen ran away.5 Kundlik shifted Govind in one four wheeler to RanjaniGovernment Hospital.Some persons including Seva Chavan helpedhim.Seva Chavan was sent to village to give news.Police hadalready reached the hospital and from there Govind was shifted toGovernment Hospital, Jalna and then to Government Hospital,Aurangabad.Govind had become unconscious.First informant,Police Patil of the village, Sudam, widow of Govind and others shiftedGovind to Civil Hospital, Aurangabad in a vehicle and they remainedin his company.After admitting Govind in the Government Hospital,first informant, Police Patil and one more person went toGhansawangi Police Station to give report.Jambia, which the firstinformant had snatched from the hand of Ganesh was with the first ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 5 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtinformant and he produced Jambia before Police.He took the namesof all the four accused and he described the aforesaid incident to thePolice.6 During the course of investigation, Police preparedPanchanama of spot where the incident had taken place and alsorecorded the statements of eye witnesses and other persons.Jambiawas taken over.order of Sessions Case No.247 of 2001, which was pending in theCourt of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna.All the Respondentsare acquitted by the Trial Court of the offence punishable underSection 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.During thependency of present appeal, Respondent No.4 died, the appealagainst him needs to be abated and so the appeal against theremaining three Respondents is heard.2 In short, the facts leading to institution of the appeal canbe stated as follows:::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 4::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::Govind succumbed to injuries sustained in theincident and postmortem was conducted on his dead body.So manyinjuries caused by the sharp weapon were found on the dead bodyand doctor gave opinion that the death took place due to injuriescaused by sharp weapon like Jambia, which was taken over by thePolice in the matter.Articles taken over were sent to CA office.Blood was detected on the earth sample collected from the spot ofoffence and also on Jambia (dragger).Charge-sheet was filedagainst all the four accused for the offence punishable under Section302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Charge was framed for ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 6 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtthis offence.All the accused pleaded not guilty.Prosecutionexamined in all eight witnesses.The Trial Court has not believed theprosecution evidence and acquittal is given in favour of all the fouraccused.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::7 At the time of considering the evidence given by theprosecution, it needs to be kept in mind that Accused No.1 Ganesh isnot disputing that he was present on the spot at the relevant time.Hehas contended that he had also sustained injuries.The admittedrecord, injury certificate is at Exhibit 20 and it shows that he sustainedone incised would on right palm and one incised wound over left indexfinger.These injuries were caused by sharp weapon and they werecaused within six hours prior to the examination.Admitted documentat Exhibit 20 shows that Accused No.1 was examined on 29 th July,2001 at 05:00 pm when the incident had taken place on that day innoon time.There is statement given by Accused No.1 under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure also.Thus, Accused No.1 hadadmitted his presence on the spot and involvement in the incident.He had admitted that there was scuffle between him and deceasedGovind.There is no such material against the remaining accused ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 7 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtpersons.These circumstances are not considered by the Trial Court.The provisions of Sections 18 and 58 of EvidenceAct are virtually ignored by the Trial Court.It is the duty of Court toascertain whether inference is possible on such admission.8 Kundlik Rathod (PW-1) has given evidence on motive.He has given evidence that in the past, there was quarrel betweendeceased Govind and the accused persons including Accused No.1and during quarrel Bhima had assaulted Govind with axe.He has given evidencethat after the decision of the case, accused Bhima had given threat toGovind to teach him lesson.During the statement recorded underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this part of evidencewas put to all the accused.Accused No.1 has admitted that therewas a case filed against him in respect of the aforesaid incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 8::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::Appeal 207 of 2003.odt9 Kundlik Rathod (PW-1) has given evidence that afterabout one month of the decision of previous case in favour of accusedpersons, the incident in question took place and it took place in villageParadgaon.He has given evidence that he, witness Seva anddeceased Govind were returning to their village from Paradgaon.Hehas deposed that Accused Nos.1 to 4 followed them and thenaccused Pandurang and Achyut held Govind in the incident andGanesh gave blows of dragger on the person of Govind.He hasgiven evidence that many blows were given and Govind collapsed onthe ground.He has given evidence against Bhima that Bhima gavestick blows to Govind and he snatched the dragger from the hand ofGanesh and during that attempt Ganesh sustained injuries to hishand.He has given evidence that there was hue and cry and thenaccused persons ran away from the spot.He has given evidence thathe shifted Govind to Hospital of Ranjani and from there Govind wasshifted to Civil Hospital of Jalna and from hospital of Jalna, theyshifted Govind to Government Hospital, Aurangabad.He has givenevidence that after admitting Govind in Aurangabad GovernmentHospital, he went to Ghansawangi Police Station to lodge the report ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 9 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtand the report at Exhibit 28 was given by him.He has given evidencethat the dragger, which was produced in the Court, was snatched byhim from the hand of Ganesh and it was produced before Police.Hehas given evidence that when Police prepared spot Panchanama,spot was shown by him and he produced his clothes before the Policeas there were blood stains on the clothes, article 5 and article 6.10 The FIR at Exhibit 28 is consistent on material points withthe oral version given in the Court by Kundlik Rathod (PW-1).Thereis only one exaggeration.In FIR, he had not mentioned that Bhimahad assaulted the deceased by using stick.On this evidence, witnesswas cross-examined.During cross-examination, he admitted thatBhima had not assaulted Govind by using stick.Thus, the evidenceas against Bhima that he used stick cannot be used against Bhima.Further, postmortem report, which this Court is considering at laterstage, does not show that any injury was caused due to the weaponlike stick.Thus, there is corroboration of FIR to oral evidence givenagainst Ganesh.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::11 Seva Chavan (PW-6) is examined as eye witness byPolice and his name is mentioned in FIR as eye witness.He is from ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 10 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtvillage Deoli Tanda, Tahsil Ghansawangi.He has given evidence thathe knew deceased Govind and all the accused from prior to the day ofincident.He has given evidence that on the day of incident, he andKundlik were in the company of Govind and at about 04:00 pm theywere returning from Paradgaon.He has deposed that he noticed thatwhen Govind was behind him, incident started and he looked back asthere was shouting.He has given evidence that in the incidentaccused Pandurang and accused Achyut held Govind and Ganeshassaulted Govind by using dragger.He has given evidence thatBhima gave kick blows to Govind.He has given evidence that in theincident Kundlik snatched dragger from the hand of Ganesh and inthat incident, Ganesh received injuries to his right hand.He has givenevidence that after the incident, due to request made by Kundlik, hewent to the village to give message.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::12 The evidence of Seva Chavan (PW-6) remainedunshattered during his extensive cross-examination.It is true that hisevidence does not show that he intervened in the indent to saveGovind, but that does not mean that he was not present on the spot.It can be said that there is possibility of exaggeration and this witness ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 11 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtwas at some distance from Govind and he paid attention to backsidewhen incident started and he had virtually no time to intervene in theincident.There are other circumstances showing that the widow ofGovind and other persons of the village including Police Patil came toPrimary Health Center, Ranjani.The evidence is given by thiswitness that it is he who went to village and gave news about theincident.The tenor of cross-examination of this witness shows thathis presence on the spot is not disputed.It is suggested to him thatexcept Ganesh, no other accused was present on the spot at the timeof incident.The tenor of cross-examination of Kundlik (PW-1) issimilar.Thus, the presence of Kundlik is also not disputed.As thereare aforesaid circumstances and as there is name of Seva (PW-6) inFIR, no doubt is created about the version of Seva that the injuries,which were found on the dead body of Govind, were inflicted byaccused Ganesh.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::13 Jagannath Pawar (PW-4) is resident of Deoli Tanda and ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 12 Appeal 207 of 2003.odthe is also examined as eye witness.He has deposed that he hadseen Govind, Kundlik and Seva together near Grampanchayat Office,Paradgaon and he had also seen the accused persons in villageParadgaon.He has given evidence that he was present in the vicinityof village Panchayat office and when he heard shouting, he rushed tothe spot.He has given evidence on incident, which is similar to theevidence given by aforesaid eye witnesses.His evidence is alsomainly against accused Ganesh that Ganesh assaulted Govind byusing dragger and then Govind collapsed on the ground.He hasgiven evidence that in his presence Kundlik snatched dragger fromthe hand of Ganesh and then accused ran away.Evidence of thiswitness shows that he knew Govind and accused persons prior to thedate of incident.His evidence shows that he remained with Govindwhen Govind was first shifted to Primary Health Center Ranjani, thenCivil Hospital, Jalna and then to Civil Hospital, Aurangabad.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::14 The tenor of cross-examination of Jagannath (PW-4) alsoshows that the defence has not disputed that he had gone to Primary ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 13 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtHealth Center, Ranjani.Some omissions in relation to previousstatement of this witness are proved and they are in respect ofevidence given against accused Bhima by this witness.Nothing isbrought on record to create probability that this witness has anyreason to give false evidence against the accused persons.There isclear suggestion given to him in the cross-examination that in theincident Govind was attempting to finish Ganesh by using article 1,but Ganesh had scuffle with Govind and in the scuffle Govindsustained injuries.The suggestion about scuffle is denied by thiswitness, but the facts remained that the defence did not dispute thatthis witness was present on the spot at the relevant time.15 The prosecution examined one more eye witness namelySyed Qudratali Osmanali (PW-5).He has given evidence, which issimilar to the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses.Though he isnot named in the FIR, he is resident of Ranjani Tahsil Ghansawangi.He has given evidence that he was at Paradgaon and he had seenboth deceased and accused in village Paradgaon at 04:00 pm.Incident took place near village Panchayat and so his evidence isimportant.He has given evidence against Ganesh that Ganesh ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 14 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtassaulted Govind by using knife.Though he has given evidenceagainst Bhima that Bhima had given kick blows, as injuries caused byother weapon were not found on the dead body and as there ispossibility of exaggeration, there is no need to discuss the evidence ofthis witness also as against Bhima.He has given evidence on motivealso and his evidence shows that he knew deceased and Ganeshfrom prior to the day of incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::16 Other witness like Ramesh Pawar (PW-2) has givenevidence on the disclosure made about the incident by Govind inRanjani Hospital.There is no medical record to show that Govindwas conscious when he was taken to Ranjani Primary Health Center.However, other evidence of this witness,which is on disclosure made by Kundlik to him is there.In any casewhen there is evidence of eye witness, even if evidence of Ramesh(PW-2) is ignored, that cannot go to the root of the case ofprosecution.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 15::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::Appeal 207 of 2003.odt17 The evidence of Police Inspector, Pandharinath Bhosale(PW-8) shows that he had made attempt to see that the dyingdeclaration of Govind is recorded, but his version shows that no suchdying declaration could be recorded.His evidence shows that Policehad referred Accused No.1 Ganesh to Civil Hospital, Jalna fromPrimary Health Center Ghansawangi for treatment.Thus, on 29th July,2001, either accused Ganesh had approached police or police hadinformation against Ganesh about his involvement in the incident.This circumstance is important in view of the nature of defence takenby Ganesh in the present matter.Though such circumstance createsprobability of receiving specific information regarding commission ofcrime and involvement of particular person as accused by police anddue to that, it can be inferred that the information of the nature of FIRwas received by Police, that circumstance cannot go to the rood ofprosecution case.In the resent case, even if thereis no such corroboration and it is presumed that police had alreadyspecific information of the nature of FIR prior to giving of report byPW-1, the other evidence is sufficient for basing conviction.18 It is already observed that Accused No.1 has not disputedhis presence on the spot.The presence of most of the eye witnesseson the spot at the relevant time is also not disputed.The evidence ofPandharinath (PW-8) shows that the clothes of Complainant weretaken over as there were blood stains on those clothes.Thoseclothes were sent to CA office and blood was detected on thoseclothes.Such circumstance gives corroboration to the version of eyewitnesses and it shows that the witness was present on the spot atthe relevant time.The evidence of spot of offence is not disputed andthat evidence also corroborates the versions of eye witnesses.Postmortemwas conducted on the dead body on 30th June, 2001 between 02:00 ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 17 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtpm and 03:00 pm.The doctor found followinginjuries on the dead body of Govind :::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::"1- Two incised wounds either side of chest IVth and Vth I.C.S. margins sharp, oedematons, deep to the thorasic cavity, No lungs parenchyma injured, appeared to be a surgical intervention for drain out the plural collection.2- A stab injury over back, left infra scapular area, 7 x 3 cms.Tailing seen at one end.5 cm deep, margins sharp and incised, oedemations.Evidence of injured lung parenchyma seen with injury to bronchioles.The lung Parechyma is oedematons.Pleura incised at the site.3- Stab injury 7 x 3 cms over back, in the middle of medial boarder of Rt.scapula, 5 cms deep tailing seen at one end 5 cms deep.Margins sharp and incised, oedemators, evidence of injured lung parenchyma with injury to Bronchitons and pleura seen.4- A stab wound seen over abdomen, Lt.Lumbar quadrant 5 x 3 cms one end tailing seen, margins incised and clean cut 9 cms deep, injury to the mesentry seen with contused appearance, small intestine contused."::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::Appeal 207 of 2003.odt20 Dr. Sunil Jawale (PW-7) has given evidence that all theaforesaid injuries were ante-mortem in nature and these injuries aresufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The weapondragger, article 1 was shown to the doctor and the doctor has givenopinion that such weapon can cause the aforesaid injuries.It can be said thatthe defence is not disputing that Govind died homicidal death andaforesaid injuries caused the death.21 The aforesaid discussion shows the following things:a) There was motive for Accused No.1 Ganesh for the crime.b) Ganesh is admitting his presence on the spot at the relevant time and also his involvement in the incident by admitting that there was scuffle between him and deceased Govind.c) Ganesh is admitting that weapon dragger was used in the incident.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::Appeal 207 of 2003.odtd) Ganesh is admitting that he sustained injuries to his hand in the incident.e) There is direct evidence of the witnesses, some of whom are from other place.Both the witnesses mentioned in the FIR supported the case of prosecution.Their presence on the spot is not disputed by the defence.There is also corroboration of other circumstances to the evidence of witnesses mentioned in the FIR.The evidence shows that the deceased was first shifted to Primary Health Center, Ranjani, then to Civil Hospital, Jalna and then Civil Hospital, Aurangabad and the first informant was busy, he was in company of deceased and so some delay was caused in giving FIR to the police.After FIR Police could make proper investigation.f) Accused Ganesh was referred by Police on 29th July, 2001 for medical examination and Ganesh has::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 20 Appeal 207 of 2003.odt admitted that he sustained injuries in the incident.His explanation that he was trying to save himself is not plausible as injuries on his hand were sustained due to snatching of weapon and not due to assault.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::g) Medical evidence is consistent with the evidence given by the eye witnesses.h) There is consistency in the evidence given by the eye witnesses and there is corroboration of the circumstantial evidence to the direct evidence.22 The aforesaid material is not considered and appreciatedby the Trial Court atleast as against Accused No.1 Ganesh.Considering the site of body of deceased where injuries were inflictedon him and considering the site of body of accused where hesustained the injuries, the Trial Court ought to have drawn properinference.The Trial Court ought to have considered the defencetaken by Ganesh at the time of appreciation of direct evidence andought to have come to the conclusion as to whether defence taken byaccused was probable in nature.This Court holds that the evidence ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 21 Appeal 207 of 2003.odtgiven by the prosecution was more than sufficient to prove that it isGanesh who caused the aforesaid injuries intentionally to Govind.Inference is also easy that there was intention to finish Govind.Further, there is evidence of doctor that these injuries are sufficient inordinary course of nature to cause death.Thus, only one inference ispossible that it is murder and accused No.1 Ganesh murderedGovind.This Court holds that the Trial Court has not properlyappreciated the material available under Section 3 of the EvidenceAct and the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the interpretation ofthe term "proved" used in Section 3 of the Evidence Act. When thereis direct evidence of witness, whose presence on the spot is notdisputed and when there is circumstantial evidence falling underSections 6, 7 and 8 of the Evidence Act, very convincing reasonsneed to be given for not believing such evidence.This Court holdsthat the Trial Court has not considered the aforesaid material asprovided by the aforesaid provisions of the Evidence Act and the TrialCourt has committed serious error in giving decision of acquittal infavour of Accused No.1 Ganesh.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::It is also true that thecrime was registered late and prior to the registration of crime, therewas specific information atleast as against Ganesh.In suchcircumstances, truth was easily separable.The evidence given asagainst Accused Nos.2 to 4 could have been easily ignored and onthe basis of other evidence the Trial Court could have safely convictedAccused No.1 for the offence of murder.As this Court is giving imprisonment for life, there is noneed to give hearing to the accused on the point of quantum ofsentence.Such hearing was given to the learned counsel for theAccused.In the result, the following order is passed:::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::O R D E R I. The appeal as against Respondent No.1 Ganesh s/o Vitthal Pawar is hereby allowed.The judgment and order of the Trial Court acquitting Respondent No.1 Ganesh s/o Vitthal ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 ::: 23 Appeal 207 of 2003.odt Pawar of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby set aside.He stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.In default of payment of fine, he is to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.He is entitled to set off in respect of the period for which he was behind the bars in this case.He is to surrender to his bail bonds for undergoing sentence.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::The appeal as against Respondent Nos.2 and 3 stands dismissed.Appeal as against Respondent No.4 is disposed of as abated.::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/07/2018 23:11:35 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
58,650,314 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that marriage of respondent and Anitabai (since deceased) was solemnized according to the customs prevalent in their caste.In the wedlock, they were blessed with three children, but respondent used to suspect her chastity and as a result of differences Anitabai was staying separately at Khandwa.On 02/04/2011, when Anitabai had gone to the house of respondent, respondent had inflicted a Phawada (Spade) blow on her head leading to her death and to cause disappearance of the corresponding evidence, had concealed the dead body in a sack and threw the same in Bagwa Nala.On 24/04/2011 when the dead body was found by Chowkidar of the village, Morgue Intimation (Ex. P/2) was recorded at Police Station Mundi and after investigation offences under sections 302 and 201 of the IPC were registered against the respondent and charge-sheet was filed.To prove the evidence of last seen, Roshni (PW6), daughter of deceased, was examined, but she has not at all supported the case of prosecution.Prabhu (PW1), father of the deceased was also examined, but he has not stated anything against the respondent, and besides this, his police statement (Ex.D/1) was recorded after 8 days.Witnesses of extra judicial confession namely Prem Singh (PW5) and Roshni (PW6) were examined, but Roshni has not supported the case of the prosecution and the evidence of Prem Singh was also disbelieved being full of contradictions and having been given before police.Bullock cart allegedly used to shift the dead body from the spot, was also not found to contain any blood stains and accordingly, the corresponding evidence of seizure was disbelieved by the trial Court.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the chain of circumstantial evidence was not complete and the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,906,085 |
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by tarunKUMAR TARUN SALUNKE Date: 2020.11.11 16:29:06 +05'30'This is the first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 filed for grant of bail to the applicant who has been arrested on 12/09/2020 in connection with Crime No.363/2020 for offences registered under Sections 452, 354-A, 506 of IPC and section 7, 8 of POCSO Act, police station Pawai, District Panna.Allegation against the applicant/accused is that in the night the applicant entered into the house of the victim and assaulted and outrage modesty and also threatened to kill her if the matter is reported to anybody.Charge sheet has been filed and trial will take time.
|
['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.
|
1,179,103 |
Rasika says that one of them, Nilia, hitRamchander on the thigh with his stick and assigns noparticular blow to the other.Rasika Bai's version is that on seeing the assault shecalled out to the accused not to hit but they " raisedtheir axes and sticks" and threatened her, and then ranaway.Subbana merely says that they ran away.Narsabai saysthat they disclosed the names of the assailants at thattime.From here we go to the Police Patel who lives in aneighbouring village one mile away.He is Mahadappa (P.W.9).He says that he was standing outside his house in hisown village when the sun was setting and saw Krishnabai, themother-in-law of the deceased, crying as she passed byoutside his house.lants are concerned; at best it could only have helpedTukaram and Nilia who have not appealed.The Inquest Report shows eight injuries.J. B. Dadachanji and Rajinder Narain, for the appellant.(In Criminal Appeal No. 91 of 1954).N. C. Chakravarty, for the appellants.(In CriminalAppeals Nos. 92 and 93 of 1954).P. A. Mehta and P. G. Gokhale, for the respondent.The Judgment of the Court was delivered byBOSE J.-Five persons including the three appellants, wereprosecuted for the murder of one Ram-chander Shelke.Eachwas convicted and each was1085sentenced to death under section 302 of the Indian PenalCode.The appeals and the confirmation proceedings in the HighCourt were heard by M. S. Ali Khan and V. R. Deshpande, JJ.They differed.The former considered that the convictionsshould be maintained but was of opinion that the sentence ineach case should be commuted to imprisonment for life.Thelatter favoured an acquittal in all five cases.On the question ofsentence he considered that the death sentences on the threeappellants, Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia, should bemaintained and that those of the other two should becommuted to transportation for life.It seems that the opinion of the third Judge was accepted asthe decision of the Court and so the sentences suggested byhim were maintained as well as the convictions.All five convicts then applied to the High Court for leaveto appeal.The petition was heard by Ali Khan and Reddy,JJ.and they made the following order:"The circumstances of the crime in this case were such thata brutal murder had been committed and sentence of death wasthe only one legally possible for the Sessions Judge to havepassed and it was confirmed by the High Court".Leave to appeal was refused.Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia, who were sentenced to death,applied here for special leave to appeal.Their petitionwas granted.The other two have not appealed.The prosecution case is this.On 7-12-1950, about 3 o'clockin the afternoon,, Ramchander Shelke (the deceased) went tohis field known as "Bhavara" with his wife's sister RasikaBai (P.W.1) and his servant Subhana Rao (P.W.7).Rasika Baistarted to pick chillies in the field while Ramehander wentto another field "Vaniya-che-seth" which is about a furlongaway.Anyway, Rasika Bai heard shouts from thatdirection, so she ran to the river bank with Subhana andthey both say that they saw all five accused attackingRamchander with axes and sticks.Two other persons, Laxman (P.W.6) and Elba (P.W.5), who werein the neighbourhood, also heard the cries and ran to thespot.They also say they witnessed the assault and name allfive accused.The former has a field near by and wasworking in it; the latter was a passer-by.Rasika Bai shouted out to the assailants not to beatRamchander but they threatened her and then ran away.Ramehander died on the spot almost immediately.There are four eye-witnesses, and the main question we haveto consider is whether they can be believed.Ordinarily, wewould not have enquired into questions of fact but as threepersons have been sentenced to death on the opinion of thethird Judge, despite the opinion of one that the deathsentence should not be imposed and of the other that theappellants are not guilty and so should be acquitted, wehave deemed it advisable to examine the evidence.Two of the eye-witnesses were considered unreliable byReddy, J. in the High Court, so we will omit them fromconsideration and concentrate on the other two, Rasika Bai(P.W.1) and Subhana (P.W.7).They say they saw all five accused strikinghim, the three appellants Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia withaxes, the other two, who have not appealed, with sticks.Itis said that there is some discrepancy between Rasika Bai'sstatement in the Sessions Court and in the Committal Courtabout the order in which the blows were given and theirnumber.Ali Khan, J. and Reddy, J. considered thisunimportant and so do we.The important thing is that bothwitnesses are agreed on the following points-(1) that Tukia struck Ramchander on his cheek;After this all the accused absconded.They were arrested ondifferent dates and were committed to trial separately.Thedates of arrest and committal respectively in the case of each are as follows:-Bhilia 9-1 -1951 and 14-6-1951 Tukia 13-10-1951 and 10-1-1952 Pandurang 31-8 -1951 and 10-1-1952 Tukaram 13-4 -1951 and 29-9-1951 Nilia 13-10-1951 and 10-1-1952The main attack on this evidence was directed to the factthat neither the accused nor the eye-witnesses are named inthe First Information Report.According to the prosecution,the report was made in the following circumstances.Rasika and Subbana say that after the assault they went backto the village and told Rasika's sister Narsabai, P.W. 2(the deceased's widow) what they had seen.He asked her what was wrong and she toldhim that her sonin-law had been killed.On hearing this hewrote out1088a report, Ex. No. 4, and sent it to the Police Station atUdgir which is about six miles from the scene of the murder.The First Information Report was recorded on the basis ofthis report at 10 o'clock the next morning.Now nobody tells us who carried the report to the PoliceStation.It is written on a printed form and is signed bythe Police Patel.Opposite the column headed "Name andaddress of the-complainant or informant" is entered "Tukarams/o Panda Sheolka".The Sub-Inspector, who wrote out thefirst information report on the basis of this report,entered the following in it:"I am to submit that today a report dated 7-12-1950 from thePolice Patel, Neemgaon village, has been received statingthat (1) Tukaram, s/o Panda Sheolka, r/o Neemgaon village,came and stated that on 7-12-1950 Ramchander, s/o GovindReddy was murdered, etc".The Police Patel tells us that this Tukaram is a cousin ofthe deceased.He also says that-"Tukaram, whose name is entered in column No. 2, is not theinformant but is the complainant in this case.Tukaram hadnot given any written complaint to me.He had not givenoral information to me.When I saw Krishnabai weeping andgoing, I did not know where Tukaram was.I do not knowwhether Tukaram was present in the village on that day ornot".This does shroud the matter in mystery but the fact that thereport was made is, we think, beyond dispute, also that itwas made about 10 o'clock the following morning.It is tobe noted that the SubInspector does not say that Tukarambrought the report to him but that Ex. 4 (the reportreceived from the Police Patel) states that Tukaram gave thePolice Patel the information.In that he is not right(though the mistake is natural enough), because Ex. 4 merelyplaces Tukaram's name opposite the printed column headed"complainant or informant".That leaves the matterequivocal but in view of what the Police Patel tells us, wethink that he did mean to convey that 1089Tukaram was the complainant, probably because he did notwant to enter a woman's name and so picked on the nearestmale relative.We see no reason to doubt his statement.Hesays he did not know any names at that time; and that isevident from the report.But what the learned counsel forthe appellants says is that he saw Narsabai on the eveningof the murder and as she did not give him any names it isevident that no one knew who the assailants were and thattherefore the accusation made against the accused was asubsequent concoction and that it was for that reason thatthey waited till the next morning before reporting thematter to the police.The Police Patel Mahadappa admits that he went to the sceneof the occurrence the same night and that he stayed therethe whole night.He also admits that he saw Narsabai therebut says he did not speak to her.We have no doubt that helearned the names of the assailants when he went there butthis was after he had sent his report.There is somemystery about the report.It did not reach the PoliceStation till 10 A.M. the next day though it was writtenabout sunset the evening before, but as we do not know whotook it and why he delayed it is idle to speculate.What iscertain is that there was no point in sending off a reportwithout names the next morning if the idea of delay was toconcoct a story and implicate innocent persons.They wouldeither have hit on the names by then or would have waited alittle longer until they made up their minds about the storythey intended to tell.The haphazard way in which thereport was written and dispatched indicates rusticsimplicity rather than clever and well planned deceit.Ithas to be remembered that the deceased left no malerelatives except this cousin Tukaram, about whom the PolicePatel speaks, and his father Pandu, and though cause forenmity between Ramchander and three of the appellants isdisclosed, there is nothing to connect this Tukaram or hisfather Pandu with the quarrel; and no one suggests thatanybody else bore them a grudge.We think it unlikely thatthese three women, Rasikabai, Narsa-bai and Krishnabai, would have been capable of concoctingthis elaborate story and of influencing the Police Patel tostay his hand till they bad thought of a suitable tale andfound likely victims for their plot.Moreover, the wholevillage probably turned out as soon as the news spread; inany case the witnesses are agreed that there was a largecrowd there.We think it would have been easy to find manypersons to say that though they asked Rasikabai and Subhanaand Narsabai and others present to tell them what hadhappened, nobody could because no one knew.It would beridiculous to suppose that the whole village bore theaccused a grudge and joined in an elaborate conspiracyagainst them.In the circumstances, we think Mahadappa toldthe truth.All the witnesses who speak about this are agreed on thatpoint.The first four areincised wounds and tally with the evidence given by thewitnesses.The remaiding four are described as "blue andblack marks".The postmortem mentions the first four butnot the others.The doctor was recalled by the High Courtand be gives some sort of explanation about postmortemstains on the body which we do not think is satisfactory,but the utmost this shows is that no stick blows- were foundon the body and that we are prepared to accept.Tukaram and Nilia had sticks in their bands".
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,912,314 |
Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 10/1/08 at about 4 p.m., at Jamanya Nala, respondents forcibly took the prosecutrix away from the company of her relatives Rukmi Bai, Sonay Bai, Samay Bai and Jaya and kept her in a Jungle for three days, where respondent Nand Kishore subjected her to rape.Thereafter, they took her to Makda Jungle and kept her there in a hut for a week, and during that period also, respondent Nand Kishore persistently subjected her to sexual assault.Crime No.11/08 was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.As per the prosecution version, prosecutrix was taken in presence of her relatives Rukmi Bai, Sonay bai, Samay Bai and Jaya Bai, whereas Narendra Patan (PW6) who recorded the missing person report at the instance of her father Chhotelal (PW1), deposed that Chhotelal while stating the age of the prosecutrix to be 17 years, had not informed as to who had taken her.Dr. Sandhya Rangari (PW20), who had examined the prosecutrix and prepared report (Ex.P/15), did not notice any injury on her body or private part.According to her, the hymen was old ruptured and prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.There is material inconsistency in the prosecution version and the Roznamacha Sanha (Ex.D/2) recorded at the instance of father of the prosecutrix, wherein it is mentioned that prosecutrix while talking with the sons of Kumbhi, had gone with them.Prosecution could not explain that when it was well within the knowledge of Chhotelal through his relatives present on the spot that prosecutrix had been forcibly taken by the respondents, then why such a report was lodged that prosecutrix had gone somewhere without informing.Accordingly, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,915,989 |
The petitioner/M.Mariyappan has filed the present writ petition,seeking issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to considerhis representation dated 21.07.2014, wherein he sought for regularisation ofhis services as per G.O.Ms.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitionerwho was appointed as a Non-muster roll worker on daily wage basis in the 2ndrespondent/Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli on 06.02.1996, was falselyimplicated in a criminal case for the offences under Sections 395 r/w 120(b)IPC by the Inspector of Police, Railway Police Station, Tirunelveli, andthough the criminal case registered against the petitioner was ended inconviction in S.C.No.212/2005 on the file of the I Additional Assistant andSessions Judge, Tirunelveli, on appeal in Crl.A.No.217/2007 on the file ofthis Court, he was acquitted on benefit of doubt.A.No.217/2007 wasallowed, the petitioner made a representation to the 2nd respondent on22.10.2010 seeking to appoint him as an unskilled labour as perG.O.Ms.A.No.217/2007 dated 22.10.2010, which is given as under:- "46.I see some force in the arguments advanced by the learned counselfor the appellants.Mere recovery alone is not enough to implicate theappellants in this Indian Version of 'Train robbery'.The explanation by wayof defence was not considered by the trail court.Therefore, for the reasonsstated above, the benefit of doubt is granted in favour of the appellants.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned I Assistant SessionsJudge, Tirunelveli is set aside and all the appellants are acquitted of thecharges against them and all the appeals are allowed.2) The Commissioner, Tirunelveli Corporation, Tirunelveli-627 001.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,929,159 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station and Crime No.Sections of Law1S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.1503/2012379 IPC2S-15, Selaiyur Police Station,Crime No.681/2013379 IPC3S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.590/2013379 IPC4S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station,Crime No.869/2013379 IPC5S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.787/2013379 IPC6S-5, Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.1021/2013379 IPC7S-9, Pazhavanthangal Police Station, Crime No.694/2013379 IPC8 S-15, Selaiyur Police Station, Crime No.1388/2013379 IPC9E-1, Mylapore Police Station,Crime No.1537/2013379 IPC10S-12, Chitlapakkam Police Station, Crime No.1296/2013379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, S-5, Pallavaram Police Station in Crime No.1221/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 336, 427 & 506(ii) IPC.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents.Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.We have heard Mr.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,932,868 |
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending her arrest in connection with Crime No.36/2020 registered at Police Station-Kaimor, Distt.-Katni (MP) for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354-A, 342, 294, 323 & 506/34 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that main accused is Inzmamul Haque, who committed offence with the prosecutrix punishable under Sections 376, 354, 354-A, 342, 294, 323 & 506/34 of I.P.C. It is also submitted that she is mother of main accused.She is apprehending her arrest in the same crime.C. No.12444/2020, therefore, applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.Learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the Digitally signed by RAJESH KUMAR JYOTISHI Date: 15/06/2020 16:18:59 2 MCRC-16844-2020 aforesaid contentions.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the f a c t t ha t co-accused persons namely Asif and Najharul Haque have already been enlarged on bail and also that she has no criminal record, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case to allow the anticipatory bail of the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant namely- Bilkis Begam by the Police in the aforesaid crime, she shall be released on b a i l on her furnishing perso nal b o n d i n t h e s u m of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction o f the Arresting officer (Investigating Officer) for her regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.It is directed that the applicant shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) o f Cr.P.C. It is m a d e c le a r t ha t t h e applicant s ha ll appear bef o re the Investigating Officer a s a nd when s he i s s o directed and cooperate with the investigation and she shall also appear before the trial Court, failing which her bail shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Court.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,939,478 |
To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment (Total Fine amount Rs.4000/-) A4 & A5 120(b) IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 167 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 409 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 468 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 471 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 477(A) IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 2 counts year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 13(1)(C) To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to r/w.13(2) year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment each simple imprisonment each (Total Fine :Rs.9000/-) A6 120(b)IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 167 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 408 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 468 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 471 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment each one month simple imprisonment 477(A) IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in 2 counts year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment each one month simple imprisonment 13(1)(c)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment (Total Fine amount Rs.4000/-) A7 120(b)IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 408 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 468 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 471 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment each one month simple imprisonment 477(A) IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in 2 counts year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment each one month simple imprisonment eachhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 13(1)(c)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment (Total Fine amount Rs.4000/-) A8 120(b)IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 409 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 468 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 471 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 477(A)IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in 2ounts year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment each one month simple imprisonment each 13(1)(c)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment (Total Fine amount Rs.4000/-) A10 120(b)IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 468 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonment 471 IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to year Rigorous under to one month Imprisonment simple imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 406IPC To undergo One Rs.500/- each in year Rigorous default to under to Imprisonment one month simple imprisonment 13(1)(c)r/w.5.A3 is the Accountant in Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing and Development Corporation (hereinafter called as “TAHDCO”), Tirunelveli, A4 is the then Secretary of Agricultural Co-operative Bank, Sennikulam (hereinafter called as “Co-operative Bank”).A5 is the then Supervisor of Tirunelveli District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd (hereinafter called as “Central Co-operative Bank”), Karivalamvanthanallur.A6 is the then Field Manager, TDCC Bank, Sankarankovil.A7 is the then Assistant, Office of the District Manager, TAHDCO, Tirunelveli.A8 is the thenhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 Special Officer, TNSPL 99 Sennikulam Agricultural Primary Co-operative Bank.A10 is the private individual in Sennikulam Village.6.The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: 6.1.This case was related to misappropriation of Government funds entrusted with the District Manager, TAHDCO, for the grant of subsidy to the loan applicants belonging to Adi-Dravida Community, living below poverty line.For the commission of above said criminal misappropriation, during the period between October 1992 and November 1993, A1 to A11 and one Raja, Veterinary Assistant Surgeon (since deceased) entered into a criminal conspiracy at Tirunelveli, Sankarankovil, Karivalamvanthanallur and Sennikulam with the common object of the commission of misappropriation of Government funds, sanctioned for grant and release of subsidy to the Adi-Dravida Community people residing in and around Sennikulam Village.The first set of officers are the Co-operative 15 Society officials.The second set of officers are the TAHDCO officials and the third set of officers are the officials of Central Co-operative bank.Subramanian was the Joint Registrate of Co- operative Societies, Tirunelveli.P.W.2 Tr.Balamurugan was the Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Adi Dravidar Housing Development Corporation Limited.P.W.3 Tr.Duraipandian was the Special Officer/Copoperative Development Officer, Tirunelveli.P.Ws.1 to 3 are the sanctioning authorities to sanction prosection against the accused persons and they have powers to remove the accused persons as per Section 19(1)(c) of Act. P.W.4 Tr.Packiaraj was the Assistant Manager of TAHDCO.P.Ws.5 to 17, 22, 23, 32 and 33 are the alleged beneficiaries.P.W.18 Tr.A3 and A9 sanctioned the amount, signed the cheque and forwarded the same to the Central Co-Operative Bank .However, the date of endorsement of TAHDCO officials shown as 03.04.1992 and in the said 20 applications, office seal is available without any signature.The evidence of PW.18 futher reveals that he is the competent person to receive the applications at the relevant point of time and without his signature, all the applications were received and processed without his knowledge.Further, he deposed in his evidence that the applications along with his specimen signature were forwarded to the expert's opinion.24.On perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.5 to 17, 22, 23, 32, 33 and 34, who are beneficiaries, forged records were created to get the benefit of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in scheme to the above said persons.However, all the witnesses have 20 clearly deposed that A4 and A10 approached them and obtained the signature and thereafter, in the year 1995 they were paid only Rs.2,000/- and A4 and A10 informed them that they will take care of the repayment of the loan amount.It is not in dispute that some of the witnesses have turned hostile.However, they confirmed the earlier version, as if they received only Rs.2,000/-.Prayer in Crl.A.(MD)No.144 of 2013 : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records relating to the judgment, dated 29.04.2013 made in Special Case No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court-Special Court, Tirunelveli and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant/accused-8 and allow the above appeal by acquitting the accused.For Appellant in Crl.A.(MD) No.144 of 2013 : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel For Respondent in Crl.A.(MD) No.144 of 2013 : Mr. K.K.Ramakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutorhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 COMMON JUDGMENT All the appeals are arising out of the common judgment, dated 29.04.2013 passed in S.C.No.2 of 2005 and therefore, they are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common judgment.2.These appeals are directed against the judgment in Special Case No.2 of 2005, on the file of the learned Chief Judicial MagistrateThe trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced them, as detailed below:13(1)(c)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one monthhttp://www.judis.nic.in Act Imprisonment simple imprisonment 3 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act r/w.Imprisonment simple imprisonment 109IPC 13(1)(d)r/w.To undergo One Rs.500/- in default to 13(2) PC year Rigorous under to one month Act r/w.109 Imprisonment simple imprisonment IPC (Total Fine amount Rs.3000/-)3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rank in the trial Court.4.Since the ninth accused, who is the appellant in Crl.154 of 2013, died during the pendency of the appeal, the charge against him stand abated.The above said criminal conspiracy was hatched by A1 to A11, after making false documents, using the same as genuine and by falsifying the accounts of the Sennikulam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Bank and also the accounts of the office of the District Manager, TAHDCO, committed criminal misappropriation of Government funds to the tune of Rs.90,000/- from the subsidy amount entrusted with the District Manager, TAHDCO fraudulently.In the course of the same, transaction, A1 to A11 committed misappropriation of Rs.1,35,000/-, as if it washttp://www.judis.nic.in disbursed to the alleged 18 loan applicants.6.3.TAHDCO is incorporated for the welfare of Adi Dravidar Community People, living below the poverty line and in order to develop the Adi Dravidar Community, the Government decided to grant subsidy.Accordingly, they invited applications from the persons, who are living below the poverty line.Accordingly, applications were created as if the same were collected from the innocent Adi Dravidars and forwarded the same to TAHDCO, without assigning any Serial Number maintained by the TAHDCO with the connivance of A3, A7 and A9, as if the applications were presented before TAHDCO and granted sanction.A1 to A11 committed offence as if they have given loan to the beneficiaries for a sum of Rs.1,35,000/0- and accordingly, misappropriated a sum of Rs.90,000/- and created forged documents as if the same was disbursed to the loan applicants.The alleged applicants only applied for the loan and they did not sign in the application form and the applicants never obtained any subsidy amount and and the accused persons have also created false records as if 12 bullock carts were purchasedhttp://www.judis.nic.in @ Rs.13,000/- each.Similarly, the accused persons have 9 created bills and vouchers to the effect that 12 bullocks were purchased @ Rs.5,000/- each.However, none of the beneficiaries received the bullock carts as well as bullocks.Likewise, the bills of groceries, firewood and cycles were falsely created as if they were supplied to the beneficiaries, however, the beneficiaries never applied for the same.Further, bullock carts were purchased from one Balu Asari, Sankarankovil and one Velsamy and Paramasivam, who supplied the bullocks, and Natarajan supplied fire woods and Pachayappan supplied cycles, but, on verification, it is found that they never supplied any articles and disbursed the same.Pursuant to which, the accused persons made false entries, as if the applicants repaid the loan amount.Accordingly, A1 to A10 along with A11 misappropriated a sum of Rs. 90,000/-, by creating bogus receipts and forging the signature of 20 applicants of Sennikulam Village through TDCC bank and TAHDCO.6.5.The gist of the charges framed on the appellant/A8 is as follows:7.To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to P.Ws.44 and marked exhibits Exs.To disprove the prosecution case, none of the witnesses were examined, however, three documents were marked as Exs.8.While the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in the light of evidence, the accused pleaded innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in this case.9.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate-Special Judge, Tirunelveli, by judgment dated 29.04.2013, made in Special Case No.2 of 2005, rejected the defence case and found the accused guilty and convicted them for the offences as stated supra.However, the trial Court arrived at a conclusion that no materials are available to implicate A2 and A11, and acquitted them.10.Assailing the said judgment, these appeals are filed by the accused before this Court.Except preparing cheques, he did not have any involvement in the above said process.He is only an Accountant [handed over the same to P.W.28/Record Clerk].Thereafter, P.W.28 forwarded the cheques to the Central Bank, in which, he did not commit any offence and he discharged his duty as per the direction of the Superior Officer, based on the sanction order.Accordingly, he prayed for acquittal.Since A10 was the President of the said Society, he has been unnecessarily implicated in the said case and neither any document nor evidence was produced to prove that he had committed offence.He has further submitted that as per the case of the prosecution, the beneficiaries received the amount and they paid the entire amount and as per case of the prosecution, P.W.5 to P.W.17, are the beneficiaries.They clearly deposed in their evidence that they received the amount and re-paid the loan amount to the bank and hence, there is no loss to the Bank.Accordingly, he prayed for acquittal.A.Uthayakumar, learned counsel appearing for A5 and Mr.N.Mohideen Basha learned counsel appearing for A6 would submit that A5 is the Supervisor and A6 is the Field Manager.Whatever the applications received from TAHDCO, they genuinely believe that the applications are genuine and accordingly, they process the applications and sanction the loan in favour of the beneficiaries, for which, they are not liable and therefore implicating them in the said crime is unsustainable one and no documents or records were available to implicate them in this case.Hence, they prayed for acquittal.P.Chellapandian, learned counsel appearing for the seventh accused would submit that A7 is the Assistant in the TAHDCO, and he has no role to play, either to prepare the applications or to sanctionhttp://www.judis.nic.in loan to them.As per the direction of the Superior Officer 13 namely A9, he processed the applications and handed over the same for further process and he discharged official duty and hence, implicating him in the said case is erroneous and unsustainable one and therefore, he prayed for acquittal.M.Ajmal Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the eighth accused would submit that A8 is the Special Officer at the relevant point of time.A8 is working in a temporarily occupied post from July 1992 to 31.05.1993 and during his period, he did not process any application.All those applications were prepared and forwarded by the Special Officer/A1 and for the applications already filed directly before TAHDCO prior to joining of A8, he is not responsible and the alleged misappropriated amount was said to be paid only after his retirement, wherein, A1 is acted as a Special Officer and signed the cheque and disbursed the amount in favour of beneficiaries, in which, he is not responsible and he did not gain anything on the misappropriation and no document was produced before the Court to prove his involvement in the commission of offence.Hence the learned Senior Counsel prayed for acquittal.17.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the Government entrusted the petitions to grant subsidyhttp://www.judis.nic.in and accordingly, they invited applications from the persons living 14 below poverty line, residing in the locality.A4, A8 and A10 collected the applications from the innocent Adi Dravidars without assigning any serial number maintained by TAHDCO with the connivance of A3, A7 and A9, as if the applications were presented before TAHDCO and granted sanction and thereafter, the same were forwarded to A5 and A6, who were working in Central Bank and in furtherance of recommendation, A1,A2, A4 and A8 prepared a beneficiary list and passed a resolution in favour of the fictitious persons and forwarded the same to TAHDCO, for processing and sanctioning loan, thereby, they misappropriated the subsidy amount entrusted with A9 and A1 to A11 to the tune of Rs.90,000/- and committed temporary misappropriation of Rs. 1,35,000/- as if they disbursed it to the eighteen loan applicants.In the light of the above submissions ,now it has to be analysed that,(a) whether the conviction of the accused persons for the offences under Sections as stated supra, based on the evidence of PWs.4,8,18 and 19 is sustainable or not?b) Whether the applications processed by A3, 5, 7 and 9 are genuine one ?c) whether the beneficiaries received the benefits or not?P.W.19 has denied his signature and photo affixed in the loan application form, which belongs to some other person.P.W.20 Varadharajan was the Revenue Inspector of Taluk Office, Sankarankovil and he denied the fact that the Balu Aasari supplied Bullock Cart to the beneficiaries.P.W.21, Tr.P.W.24 and 37 had introduced persons for opening of account in Indian Overseas Bank at Sankarankovil.P.W.25, Tr.Jegannathan was the Village Administrative Officer, Sethur Village and he confirmed the fact that some of the beneficiaries were not residing in that locality. P.Ws.30 and 31 have deposed that they did not sell any cycles and spare parts and also bullocks.The receipt Ex.P33 is obtained by A4 Gopalchamy and P.W.35, Office Assistant of Chennikulam Primary Agriculture Co-operative Bank confirmed the signature of A4 Gopalchamy.P.W.40, Tr.Natarajan, Junior Assistant of Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli sent for the documents for expert opinion.The expert opinion is marked as Ex.In order to prove the said certificate, the Scientific Officer was examined as P.W.41 and he opined that the specimen signatures of the beneficiaries are not tallied with the signatures found in the loan application forms.A perusal of evidence of PW4 narrates the process for disbursing loans to the poor Adi Dravidars.The persons below poverty line belonging to Adi Dravidar community, have directly made applications to TAHDCO.Thereafer, the TAHDCO have to assign serial number and based on the serial numbers, the applications would be forwarded to Selection Committee consisting of District Manager, TAHDCO and District Employment Officer , General Manager District Industrialhttp://www.judis.nic.in Centre and Lead Bank Manager.Thereafter, the Selection 17 Committee, has to consider the applications and after sanctioning of the selection committee, the said applications shall be forwarded to TAHDCO officials and the TAHDCO have to process and sanction the subsidy amount as well as loan amount to the concerned Bank for disbursement of the amount in favour of the beneficiaries.His evidence would further reveal that the applications of one Mariappan S/o.Shanmugiah and 19 others belonging to Chenikulam, were not assigned any serial number by TAHDCO office and all the applications were assigned one Single Serial number as S.I.No.15, However, the procedure is that each and every application should be assigned with a separate number.Initially, TAHDCO prepared a beneficiary list on 18.12.1992, which was signed by one George, District Manager, however, the names of the present beneficiaries Mariappan and 19 members were not found in the above said original list.However, in the letter, dated 04.08.1992, their names were mentioned with endorsements of TAHDCO Manager.No officials were examined and none of the revenue officials was verified to confirm the genuniess of the Community Certificate, Income Certificate.http://www.judis.nic.in However, mere non-examination of any of the revenue 19 officials will not vitiate the prosecution case.The case of the prosecution is that without proper applications and without following the procedures, they assigned bogus serial numbers and without the knowledge of the superior officers namely A3, 7 and 9, they have processed the applications.A9, who was the Divisional Manager, with the help of A7 and A3 prepared cheques and forwarded the same to Central Co- operative Society for the disbursal of loan amount to the beneficiaries.22.Though A5 and A6 are working as Supervisor and Field Manager respectively, immediately after the reciept of applications from TAHDCO it is duty cast upon them to verify the genuinesses of the same as to whether these beneficaries are available in the said locality.Both were confirmed by P.Ws. 8 and 19 and they had clearly deposed that A4 and A10 not even obtained any single paise from the any of the beneficiaries.However, during the cross examination, P.W.8 and P.W.19 turned hostile and they deposed that the amount was repaid by them and it further reveals that the procedure for securing benefits from the TAHDCO has completely violated by the Co- operative Society Bank.Thereafter, with the help of Central Co-operative Bank officials viz., A5 and A6 sanctioned the amount and the entire subsidy amount was taken by them without paying it to the beneficiaries and the loan amount was enjoyed by these officials.Thereafter they repaid the amount.Merely because the accused persons repaid the amount, they would not be eliminated from the commission of offence.The Government's subsidy granted in favour of innocent poor persons, who belong to down trodden community, are completely deprived of and the officials colluded with the Officials of the Co-operativehttp://www.judis.nic.in Bank, TAHDCO and Central Co-operative Bank enjoyed the 21 entire benefits meant for poor Adi Dravidar Community.Hence the above evidence clearly established the prosecution case and therefore, I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court.The bail bonds, if any, executed by the appellants/accused shall stand cancelled.However, liberty is granted to the accused to surrender before the trial Court, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.1.The Chief Judicial Magistrate/Special Judge, Tirunelveli.The Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Tirunelveli.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 22 M.DHANDAPANI,J.aav/ls Crl.A.(MD)Nos.144, 148, 149, 152 to 156 of 2013 01.03.2019 .A.(MD) No.104 of 2014 To The Honourable Mr.Justice M.DHANDAPANI Most respectfully submitted (V.S.ARUL RAJAN) Private Secretary to Hon'ble Judgeshttp://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,778,024 |
2 The prosecution case can briefly be stated as under:Deceased Kalpana @ Papabai Balaji Mane was the wife of the appellant.They were married 20 years prior to the incident.They had four children i.e. three sons and one daughter.The appellant along with his wife and their children used to reside at Gautam Nagar, Panjrapole, Mumbai.The appellant was addicted to liquor.On 12.6.2006, there was a function in the house of the appellant in relation to his daughter Pooja.At about 3.30 p.m., Kalpana was inside the house.Her children at that time were sitting outside the house.At that time the appellant came in an intoxicated condition.He abused Kalpana and stated beating her.Thereafter the appellant poured kerosene on Kalpana and set her on fire.Oral Judgment (Per Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.):1 The appellant original accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th November 2008 passed by ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 ::: 2 Apeal-263-2009.sxw the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in S.C.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 :::By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for one year.PW-1 Nagesh and his friend Ramesh pushed open the door.They extinguished the fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 :::Apeal-263-2009.sxw Thereafter they took Kalpana to Sion hospital.In the hospital Kalpana gave two dying declarations.The first dying declaration was recorded by PW-3 SEO Mrs. Nirmala Singh.The second dying declaration was recorded by PW-8 API Ms. Nagin Kale.In both dying declarations Kalpana stated that her husband poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.PW-1 Nagesh lodged F.I.R. Thereafter the investigation commenced.Kalpana expired on 13.6.2006 at about 7 a.m. Thereafter the said offence was converted into Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.After completion of investigation, the chargesheet came to be filed.3 Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.The defence of the appellant is that his wife Kalpana accidentally caught fire due to which she died.After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para-1 above.Hence, this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 :::Apeal-263-2009.sxw 4 We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for the State.We have carefully considered their submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence in this case.After carefully considering the matter, for the below mentioned reasons we are of the opinion that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife Kalpana and set her on fire.5 At the outset, it may be stated that PW-1 Nagesh who is the first informant in the present case and who is the son of the appellant and deceased Kalpana, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution.So also PW-4 Nagubai Pawar and PW-7 Ramesh who were relatives of the appellant have not supported the prosecution.PW-5 Kausalya who is the neighbour of the appellant and deceased Kalpana has also not supported the prosecution.In order to prove that the appellant poured kerosene on his wife Kalpana and set her on fire, the prosecution is mainly relying on the evidence of PW-3 SEO Mrs. Nirmala and PW-8 API Kale.Both of them recorded the dying declarations of Kalpana in Sion hospital.In ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 ::: 5 Apeal-263-2009.sxw both the dying declarations Kapana has stated that her husband i.e. appellant has poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 :::On 12.6.2006, she received telephone call from Trombay police station at about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. informing her that one lady with burn injuries was admitted in Sion hospital and she should go there for recording the statement of that lady.Mrs. Nirmala stated that accordingly she went to Sion hospital.She asked Medical Officer whether the said patient is in a position to give statement.The Medical Officer stated that the patient was in a position to give a statement.Mrs. Nirmala then asked the patient her name.The patient gave her name as Papabai @ Kalpana Balaji Mane.On enquiry, the patient gave her age as 40 years.On further enquiry the patient stated that she had got married about 20 years prior to the incident.Thereafter Mrs. Nirmala Singh asked the patient how many children she had.Thereupon Kalpana stated she had four issues and she resides at Panjarapole.On enquiry about how she sustained burn ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 ::: 6 Apeal-263-2009.sxw injuries, Kalpana stated to Mrs. Singh that there used to be frequent quarrel between herself and her husband on money matters.Kalpana further stated her that on the date of incident also there was a quarrel and her husband poured kerosene on her person from the kerosene container which was lying in the house and set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:54 :::Nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of this witness which would cause us to disbelieve the testimony of SEO Mrs. Singh.Hence, we have no hesitation in relying on the same.7 The second dying declaration was recorded by PW-8 API Kale.API Kale has stated that while she was on mobile vehicle, she received telephone call from the police station that one lady had sustained burn injuries and she should go to the hospital.Accordingly, she went to Sion hospital.She located the said patient.She saw the patient was under the examination of the doctor.She asked the patient how the incident had occurred.The patient stated to her that when she was inside the house, her husband on account of some quarrel poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::Apeal-263-2009.sxw PSI Kale has stated that she recorded the dying declaration in the presence of Medical Officer and she asked the Medical Officer whether the patient was in proper condition to make a statement and pursuant thereto the Medical Officer gave endorsement on the statement.The endorsement on the statement shows that the patient was in the condition to give a statement.This dying declaration is at Exhibit 19 and the endorsement of PW-9 Dr. Jadhav on the dying declaration is at Exhibit 19(A).Dr. Jadhav has stated that the patient was admitted in the hospital at about 6.45 p.m.. At the time of admission, the patient gave history of homicidal burns at 3.30 p.m. Dr. Jadhav has further stated that police made enquiry with him whether the patient was in a position to speak.Accordingly he gave endorsement 19A which shows that the patient was in a position to speak.8 Thus it is seen that two dying declarations of Kalpana were recorded i.e. the first dying declaration was recorded by PW-3 SEO Mrs. Singh and second dying declaration was recorded by PW-8 API Kale.Both the dying declarations are consistent.In both the dying ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 ::: 8 Apeal-263-2009.sxw declarations, Kalpana has stated that her husband poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::9 It is the prosecution case that the appellant poured kerosene on Kalpana and set her on fire.This is supported by the medical evidence and report of the Chemical Analyzer.PW-6 Dr. Pathak conducted postmortem on the dead body of Kalpana.He has stated that he found total 85% burns and cause of death was shock due to 85% dermoepidermal burns.As stated earlier, the defence of the appellant is that Kalpana had accidentally sustained burns.However, the C.A. report shows that the clothes of Kalpana tested positive for kerosene residues.If it was a case of accidental burns on account of over flaming of stove, there would not be kerosene residues on the clothes of deceased Kalpana.The alternate defence put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Kalpana sustained burn injuries due to bursting of stove.The spot panchanama does not show any presence of stove which had burst.Thus we find no substance in this defence.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::Apeal-263-2009.sxw 10 Thereafter the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that even if it is accepted that the act of the appellant of setting his wife Kalpana on fire resulted in her death, the case would not fall under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but it would fall under Section 304-Part-II or at the most Section 304 Part-I of IPC.She pointed out that the evidence on record shows that a quarrel was going on in between the appellant and his wife Kalpana which has been deposed by PW-3 SEO Mrs. Nirmala Singh and PW-8 API Kale.She has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-3 SEO Mrs. Nirmala Singh who has stated that she asked Kalpana how she sustained burn injuries.Thereupon Kalpana told her that there used to be frequent quarrels between herself and her husband.Kalpana further told her that on the day of the incident there was such quarrel.Her husband then poured kerosene on her person from the kerosene container which was lying there and set her on fire.Thereafter, Ms.Ayubi has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-8 API Kale.API Kale has stated that she asked Kalpana how the incident occurred, whereupon Kalpana stated her that on account of some quarrel her husband poured kerosene on her person from the ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 ::: 10 Apeal-263-2009.sxw kerosene container and set her on fire.Ms. Ayubi submitted that the evidence on record shows that the act of the appellant was not pre-::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::We say so on the basis of the act of the appellant and the extent of the burn injuries sustained by Kalpana.The injuries as seen from the ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 ::: 11 Apeal-263-2009.sxw evidence of PW-6 Dr. Pathak are extensive in nature.Looking to all these facts, we are of the considered opinion that the case cannot fall under Section 304 Part-II of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::12 We have already stated earlier that we are of the view that Exception 4 to Section 300 applies to the facts of this case.14 Office to communicate this order to the appellant who is in jail.(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 ::: 12 Apeal-263-2009.sxw CERTIFICATE I certify that this judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed judgment.::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::::: Uploaded on - 03/09/2015 ::: Downloaded on - 06/09/2015 23:06:55 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,782,306 |
We have heard the submissions of the learned Advocates for the petitioners and for the State.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,784,989 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Applicant is the Head of Department, Department of ENT, LLRM Medical College at Meerut; complainant is a girl student, who alleged that she was molested and her modesty was outraged in the house of the applicant.Learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. have vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the submission advanced, the nature and gravity of the accusation, I find no good ground for grant of bail to the applicant-Kapil Kumar Singh, involved in Case Crime No. 819 of 2019, under Sections 354A, 354B, 506 IPC, P.S. Medical College, District Meerut.Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected.Order Date :- 4.2.2020 Mukesh Kr.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,785,161 |
(i) In the event of their arrest in connection with C.R. No.I-265/2018 registered at Panchavati Police Station, Nashik, the Applicants in ABA No.772/2019 and in ABA No.773/2019 are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two sureties each in the like amount.(ii) Applications stand disposed of accordingly.(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 23:17:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 23:17:53 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,788,033 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.The present 482 Cr.P.C., application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 28.11.2014 in Case Crime No.267/2014, under Sections 354Kha, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)X S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar (State Vs.Issue notice to the opposite party no.2 returnable within a period of four weeks.Steps be taken within a week.Learned A.G.A. prays for and is granted four weeks' time for filing counter affidavit.Opposite party no.2 may also file counter affidavit within the same period.Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.Order Date :- 16.12.2016 Dev/-
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
117,788,767 |
This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking setting aside of the order dated 29.9.2008, whereby the learned ACMM directed further investigation in respect of an Agreement-cum-Receipt dated 20.4.2000, alleged to have been signed by the complainant and also directed the Investigating Agency to ascertain, whether the complainant had prior knowledge Crl.M.C. 273/2009 Page 1 of 15 of property No.10/1, DLF Industrial Area, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi, being mortgaged with Union Bank of India.M.C. 273/2009 Page 1 of 15The respondents No.2 and 3 have been chargesheeted under Section 420/120B of IPC on the allegations that respondent No.2 on behalf of respondent No.3, who is his wife, entered into an Agreement dated 4.4.2000 with the petitioner - Arun Kathuria and his father-in-law late Shri O.P.Khanna, to sell to them, built up property No.10/1, DLF Industrial Area, Nazafgarh Road, New Delhi, and received the entire sale consideration of Rs.5 lakhs from them.They were also put into physical possession of the property.On 29.5.2000, a sale deed was also executed in favour of Shri O.P.Khanna in respect of half undivided portion of the aforesaid property.The sale deed in respect of remaining half portion of the property, however, was not executed, despite demand from the complainant.While executing the sale deed dated 29.5.2000, respondent No.3 specifically averred that the property was free from all encumbrances such as sale, mortgage etc.Since, while seeking bail, the private respondents had claimed that the deal for sale of property in question was struck for a sum of Rs.51 lakhs and they relied upon a document purporting to be a receipt executed by the complainant and late Shri O.P. Khanna for the aforesaid amount, the Investigating Officer sent notice to Crl.M.C. 273/2009 Page 2 of 15 respondent No.2 requiring him to produce the receipt relied upon by him.He, however, claimed that the receipt had got misplaced.According to the petitioner, in a criminal complaint filed against respondent No.2 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant sought comparison of the signature on the aforesaid receipt with the signature of the petitioner.PC was filed by the complainant before the High Court pointing out lapses on the part of the investigating agency and seeking further investigation in the case.The High Court took the view that he was at liberty to file appropriate petition before the Metropolitan Magistrate, incorporating his grievances and the Magistrate was entitled to invoke power under section 173 (8) of Cr.PC to direct further investigation into the matter.Pursuant thereto the Magistrate passed an order for further investigation which was challenged by accused No.2 before the High Court.The petition filed by accused No.2 having been allowed, the complainant came by way of appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.M.C. 273/2009 Page 14 of 15For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs the impugned order dated 23rd October, 2009 is hereby set aside.The learned ACMM is directed to proceed further with the trial of the case in accordance with the scheme prescribed by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
|
['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.
|
345,465 |
JUDGMENT M.F. Saldanha, J.The accused in this case who was the driver of motor truck No. MYJ 3915 stands convicted for having committed offences punishable under sections 304-A, 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner-accused was found guilty by the trial Court and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a term of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for three months for the offence punishable under section 304-A, I.P.C. He was also found guilty of the offences punishable under sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for both the counts.He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under section 89 read with section 112 of the Motor Vehicles Act.Against his conviction the accused filed an appeal to the Sessions Judge, Sangli.The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal and maintained the sentences and fine imposed on the accused.I have heard Shri Pradhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-accused as also Shri patil, the learned Public Prosecutor.The trial Court as also the Appeal Court have taken into consideration all the relevant aspects of the case and in particular the panchnama of the scene of offence.The trial Judge has also mentioned in the judgement that he had visited the scene of offence and noticed the extensive damage that was caused to the road where the guard stone was uprooted as also the Babul tree, two in number, which had been extensively damaged.On a consideration of the material before me, it is evident that the manner in which the truck was being driven the petitioner-accused itself would constitute rash and negligent driving and having regard to the fact that the death of a young woman was resulted, it would not be possible to uphold the contention advanced by Shri Pradhan to the effect that the petitioner-accused had exercised due care and caution.Having regard to the fact that the accused was driving a truck, he was certainly under the obligation to manoeuvre the vehicle in such a manner as would be in consonance with its moving safely on a public road.The fact that the truck skidded off the road, that it uprooted the guard stone, that it extensively damaged the trees near the road, are all circumstances sufficient to indicate that it was moving at a relatively high speed and the accused was not in a position to control its movement.It has also come in evidence that it was raining, the road was slippery and that the incident took place around a turn.The accused was obliged, under the conditions to observe additional caution, more so when he was operating a truck in which he was wrongly carrying the deceased and others.In having displayed callous disregard for safety, the accused has acted both rashly and negligently.Under these circumstances, the conviction of the accused-petitioner by the lower courts will have to be upheld.If he were to be sent to jail, it would also possibly result in grave and great hardship to himself and his family.Modern thinking in the filed of Criminal Jurisprudence has indicated that a criminal should as far as possible be made to pay back to society for damage caused and atone for his wrongful acts.The trial Court will accordingly report back to this Court within a period of not more than six months as to the manner in which the directions contained in this judgement have been complied with.I, therefore, direct that the sentence of nine months' R.I. imposed on the accused-petitioner be set aside and that the fine of Rs. 300/- imposed on the accused-petitioner for the offence under section 304-A, I.P.C. be enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-.The fine of Rs. 300/- imposed on him for the offences under sections 279 and 338, I.P.C. is, however, maintained.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,546,712 |
As the said question needs consideration, counter and rejoinder affidavit were called and interim order was passed.It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants no.1 and 2 are partner of M/s i-Valuebridge Software & Solutions LLP (a limited liability partnership firm) duly registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act having its registered office at 408 to 413, Signer Corner, Balewadiphata, Baner Road, Pune and is engaged in business of software development and manufacture; that between son of complainant, opposite party no. 2, namely, Aditya Watal and applicants no.1 and 2, with an understanding, entered into an agreement, whereby both the parties agreed to develop together a software by the name of Guzool Product, in which the applicants were to invest money amounting Rs. Two Crors for development of the software by engaging Programmers, System Analyst and Consultants and was to provide infrastructure for development of software; that the son of opposite party no.2 agreed that the applicants will make the product robust and commercially viable; that the software, after being completed, was ready for uploading on the server and both, the applicants and son of complainant had assisted for uploading the software on the server named as Codero; that thereafter son of complainant started taking steps for forming separate legal entity in the name of style of Atomic Labs Private Limited with an ulterior motive to launch the Guzool product commercially without the applicants' permission or without compensating the applicants for the service rendered for the development of the said product; that the image on record would go to show that the son of opposite party no.2 never had any intention to enter into an agreement with the applicants; that on 4th June, 2011 it came to the knowledge of the applicants that access to the Codero survey of the applicants was removed and the password of the project including data on future product released in favour of one of the employee of the applicants, was also changed giving ownership to the son of complainant, without permission of the applicants; that with a view to restore access and to reset the password, same was reset/restored on 10thJune, 2011 by the applicants and backup of all its data on the server including the Guzool Software, Projects, Customer Data and applicants' own data was taken; that the applicants also sent legal notice to the son of complainant on 20th June, 2011 and when said notice was unresponded, the applicants filed suit being R.C.S. No. 1321 of 2011, which is stated to be pending at Pune; that during the pendency of the said suit, the complainant and his son, as a counter blast, filed suit no. 43 of 2011 at civil court, Allahabad, in which ex-parte injunction was granted in favour of son of complainant ; that thereafter the opposite party no.2 lodged first information report on 7.9.2011 in case crime no. 385 of 2011 under Section 379, 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C. and Section 65/66 of I.T. Act, 2000, in which charge-sheet has been filed, which is impugned in the present application; that the applicants had filed criminal misc.It is argued on behalf of the opposite party no.2 that the charge-sheet was challenged by way of filing criminal 482, Cr.P.C. application no. 15135 of 2013, which was finally disposed of vide judgment and order dated 13.05.2013 granting liberty to the applicants to prefer application for discharge at the appropriate stage and further to appear and surrender before the court below within 30 days and to apply for bail, copy of which order has been filed as annexure-7 to the affidavit accompanying the present application.It is contended that opposite party filed objection to the aforesaid application, copy of which has been filed as annexure-14 to the affidavit, stating therein that the applicants, in collusion with the Investigating Officer, filed an application for further investigation and the second investigation has been made without taking into consideration the documents of the private opposite party and without recording the statement of opposite party and without looking into the relevant issues provided by the private opposite party whether the entire occurrence took place at Pune (Maharashtra).No order as to costs.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,559,414 |
Mr. Purnedu Maity ...for the petitioner Ms. Ujjaini Chatterjee ....for the opposite party This is an application for quashing of an investigational proceeding under Sections 406, 420, 506 read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits as follows.The case pertains to a dispute between a goldsmith and a jeweller over work done and materials supplied.No notice under Section 41A of the Code was given to the petitioner.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defacto complainant submits that a copy of the application be served upon her.Let the petitioner serve a copy of this application upon the State through the Public Prosecutor and upon the learned Advocate on record of the private opposite party, within a week.An affidavit of service to that effect shall be filed on the next date of hearing.The petitioner shall be at liberty to pray for stay of 2 the proceeding after service of notice upon the other side.The State is directed to produce the case diary on the next date of hearing.Urgent photostat certified copies of this order may be delivered to the learned Advocates for the parties, if applied for, upon compliance of all formalities.(Jay Sengupta, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,559,929 |
This is the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.The applicant are apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.05/2015, registered at P.S. Dursada District Datia for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 294, 506-B IPC read with 34 of IPC.As per prosecution story the marriage of the complainant was solemnized on 29.4.2004 with the son of applicants.On 03.2.2005 complainant gave birth to a female child, on account of it, father-in-law and mother- in-law along with other family members beaten the complainant saying that they wanted a male child but she gave birth to female child.They also demanded Rs. 2,00,000/- in dowry.On 14.2.2004 at about 4-5 PM father-in-law, mother-in-law, and two sisters came to (2) M.Cr.C. No. 5924/2015 village Mavai and starting beating to the complainant and also told that they will take home back when they received Rs.2,00,000/- and four wheeler in dowry.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant have not committed any offence.They have been falsely implicated in the case.Therefore, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned counsel for the State opposed the application.Taken into consideration that the marriage of the complainant took place about 11 years back with the son of the applicants and since 2005 no complaint has been made.It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be enlarged on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each with a surety bond each in the like (3) M.Cr.The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by Police Officer concerned as and when required and they will cooperate in the investigation.They shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in Sub- section(2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge dcs/-
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,564,556 |
This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 25.01.2012 made in Crl.A.No.39 of 2009 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment dated 31.03.2010 made in C.C.No.87 of 2009 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam.The case of the prosecution is that A1 has created a power of attorney by forging the signature of original land owners viz., V.Krishnaveni, V.Amirthalingam and P.Kalyani in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 1306 cents in T.S.No.599/2 situated in the Nagore Sub Registrar Jurisdiction by giving false address and sold the above property to the Government for rehabilitation in Tsunami attack for a sum of Rs.11,24,880/- and obtained Rs.10,01,143/- after deducting tax of Rs.1,23,737/-.A2 and A3 were cited as attesting witnesses in the said power of attorney.A4 and A5 have signed as attesting witnesses in sale deed and A6 has been charged for conspiracy.A case in Crime No.10 of 2006 was registered by the respondent for the offence under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471 r/w 120(b) IPC against the accused persons.After framing of charge, all the accused pleaded guilty.Considering the nature of the offence and the involvement of the accusedhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 persons, the learned Magistrate, by judgment dated 31.03.2010 acquitted A3 to A6 by invoking the Probation of Offenders Act and convicted A1 and A2 and sentenced them as follows:-Accused Offences Sentence 419 IPC One year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment 420 IPC 3 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 465 IPC 2 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.2,000/- in default 3 A1 months Simple Imprisonment 468 IPC 3 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.3,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 471 IPC 2 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.2,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 120(b) IPC 3 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 465 IPC 2 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.2,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 468 IPC 3 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.3,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment A2 471 IPC 2 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine Rs.2,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonment 120(b) IPC 2 Years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default 3 months Simple Imprisonmenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 Challenging the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court, Nagapattinam in Crl.The learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire materials and also the plea of guilty made by the accused, confirmed the conviction as against the first accused for the offence under Sections 419, 465, 471 IPC and as against the second accused for the offence under Sections 465, 471 & 120(B) IPC and reduced the sentence from 3 years Simple Imprisonment to 2 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 420, 468 & 120B IPC as against the first accused and also reduced the sentence from 3 years Simple Imprisonment to 2 years Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 468 IPC as against the second accused.There against, the accused persons preferred the present revision before this Court.Though the revision petitioners filed an appeal before the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge also failed to consider the same and modified the sentence only, which warrants interference.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that A1 has created the documents and A2 was the person, who induced A1 to do the same.Both the revision petitioners are the main accused in this case and the A3 to A6 are only witnesses to the saidhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 documents.Considering the antecedent and good conduct of A3 to A6, the learned Magistrate extended the benefit to them.Since there is no merit in this revision, the same is liable to be dismissed.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.19.06.2019 Index: Yes/No Speaking / Non Speaking Order KMI To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagapattinam.2.The District & Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.3.The Sub-Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagapattinam.http://www.judis.nic.in 7 P.VELMURUGAN, J KMI Crl.R.C.No. 698 of 2012 19.06.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,577,231 |
The applicants Desh Deepak Dwivedi and three others, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., have invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash order dated 28.7.2020 passed by the Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, in Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2020, Kumkum Dwivedi Vs.Desh Deepak Dwivedi and others, arising out of order dated 17.3.2020 passed by C.J.M., Maharajganj, in Criminal Complaint Case No. 379 of 2019, Kumkum Dwivedi Vs.Desh Deepak Dwivedi and others, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D. P. Act, P.S. Paniyara, district Maharajganj.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned AGA.Perused the record.This was by way of an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate took cognizance over it and registered it as a complaint case.An enquiry u/s 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. was made by C.J.M., Maharajganj, and then after complaint was dismissed u/s 203 Cr.P.C. with finding that there was no prima-facie case for summoning.Rather this complaint was with a view to harass the husband and in-laws by complainant.This order was challenged before revisional court of learned Sessions Judge, Maharajganj, wherein the then learned Sessions Judge allowed the revision, thereby quashed the order of Magistrate and remanded the file back for fresh consideration of same.Hence this application with above prayer.Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the application.But this legal proposition and observation of learned Sessions Judge was not taken into consideration by learned C.J.M., Maharajganj, in the impugned order, which was challenged in subsequent Criminal Revision No. 44 of 2020 and learned Sessions Judge has set aside the order of the learned C.J.M.From the very perusal of factual matrix, it is undisputed that complainant Smt. Kumkum Dwivedi is legally married wife of Desh Deepak Dwivedi.There are strained relations in between.Desh Deepak Dwivedi has filed a suit for dissolution of marriage before Family Court and the same is pending.Then after this complaint was filed.Meaning thereby the complainant being legally wedded wife of Desh Deepak Dwivedi is an undisputed fact.Subhash Chandra Dwivedi, Shashi Kala Dwivedi and Neha Dwivedi are the closed blood relatives of Desh Deepak Dwivedi is also not disputed.Demand of dowry coupled with cruelty is very well there against these in-laws.A complaint was earlier made and an attempt for family settlement was there, but it could not be successful.Divorce petition has been filed by Desh Deepak Dwivedi with allegations and this complaint has been filed with above contention of demand of dowry, cruelty with regard to it, ill-treatment as well as assault, abuse and intimidation.This contention of complainant was very well reiterated in the statement u/s 200 Cr.P.C. and this was further corroborated by two witnesses in their statements recorded u/s 202 Cr.P.C. Moreso, an enquiry u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. by a Gazetted Police Officer was got conducted by Magistrate and report of Gazetted Police Officer i.e. Dy.S.P. is also of fact that there had been a complaint regarding demand of dowry, cruelty with regard to it and ill-treatment of Kumkum Dwivedi by her husband and in-laws was filed before District Magistrate, Gorakhpur, it was taken under consideration and an attempt for its disposal by way of mediation by District Probation Officer was made, but was unsuccessful.Accordingly, this application merits its dismissal.Dismissed as such.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
34,579,325 |
(16.02.2017) This criminal revision has been preferred by the applicants under Sections 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the order dated 08.07.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in S.T.No.214/2015, whereby the charge under Sections 326, 326/34, 325, 325/34 & 323, 323/34 of Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') has been framed.Brief facts of the case are that complainant Sultan Baghel has made a complaint at Police Station Raun, District Bhind on 13.01.2015 to the effect that when the votes were being casted by people in Panchayat Election at 10:00 AM, the wife of the complainant namely Shrikunwar who was the candidate of Sarpanch alongwith complainant was returning from the polling Centre No.29 after casting their votes, at theWhen the complainant reached there then Prakash Sharma and his son & Ramadhar Master started throwing the bricks and stones, as a result of which Mahadev has sustained injury on his left eye and Munni Singh has also sustained injuries on his head and hand.The police party reached on the spot and made firing, the accused persons ran away from the spot.On the basis of aforesaid allegations, a criminal case against the applicants was registered under Sections 294, 323, 336 & 506-B read with Section 34 of IPC.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed.Learned Sessions Judge has framed the charges against the applicants/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 326 in alternative 326/34, 325 in alternative 325/34, 323 in alternative 323/34 of IPC.Being aggrieved with the charges framed against the applicants, this revision application has been filed.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Mahadev has sustained one lacerated wound on upper eye lid and Munni Singh has also sustained one sharp edged cut on his head and blunt weapon injury on the left hand and for determining the nature of injuries sustained by both the injured persons, X-ray examination was advised, but in the X-ray report no bony injuries-( 3 )- CRR.No.774/2015 were found.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,458,124 |
Heard on I.A.No.14736/2018, I.A.No.13396/2018 & I.A.No.13492/2018, applications for suspension of sentence of Pawan Verma, Gourav alias Pappu and Ashif @ Raja respectively, who have been convicted for offence punishable under Sections 364 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for brevity) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years with default stipulation, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with default stipulation and under Section 201 of IPC, they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with default stipulation, respectively.List I.A.No.14736/2018 for consideration, after two weeks.In respect of appellant-Gourav alias Pappu (I.A.No.13396/2018), there is no evidence of last seen and on due consideration of material evidence available on record so also the fact that he was not seen along with deceased Rinku, therefore, we are inclined to allow I.A.No.13396/2018, filed on behalf of appellant- Gourav alias Pappu.As per statement of Ganesh Prasad (PW/16), appellant-Ashif @ Raja (I.A.No.13492/2018), one of the suspect, against him also there is no prima facie material available.Blood stained handkerchief of deceased was recovered from him.Main link of circumstantial evidence is missing against them.The main allegation is against Nitin.On due consideration of the statements of prosecution witnesses, so also the fact that there was no material that deceased was last seen along with appellants-Gourav @ Pappu and Ashif @ Raja and the role attributed to them and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A.No.13396/2018 and I.A.No.13492/2018 are allowed and it is directed that execution of jail sentence awarded to appellants-Gourav @ Pappu and Ashif @ Raja, shall remain suspended subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited and upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) each, with one surety each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 08.07.2019 and on such other dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['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.
|
113,322,527 |
a State.hy Heard on the question of admission.M Heard on I.A.No.19122/2017 an application for suspension of of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appellant No.1 Mohd. Sahid stands convicted for rt commission of offence punishable under Sections 420 and 468 of ou IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of C Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally he h is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months, for Section 420 r/w ig Sec.120-B & Sec. 468 r/w Section 120-B of IPC, appellants No. H 2 Ku.Anjali Saxena and appellant No.3 Sunil Chopdad have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years, with fine of Rs.1500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additionally they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 months.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants were on bail during trial.c04, cn=ASHWANI PRAJAPATI ig Date: 2017.10.13 12:12:04 +05'30' H
|
['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.
|
113,341,755 |
He picked up a quarrel with her and thereafter poured kerosene on her person.He then set her on fire.Dhrupada was then removed to the hospital by her neighbours.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::The Appellant in the present appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 challenges his conviction for having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.By the Judgment dated 7th July, 2011 in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2010, he has been sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for Life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-.The appellant had two children.The appellant, however, used to doubt the character of his wife and used to harass her.On 19th November, 2009 at about 5.00 p.m., when the appellant returned home, he enquired with his wife as to what she was doing for the entire day.Initially, an offence punishable under Section 307 of the Penal Code came to be recorded.However, on 25th November, 2009, said Dhrupada expired on account of burn injuries.The appellant was accordingly charged for having committed the offences punishable ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 3 under Sections 302 and 498-A, Indian Penal Code.After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the appellant did not plead guilty.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::He was accordingly tried and at the conclusion of the trial, the appellant was sentenced in the manner stated herein above.Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.Ms. Sonali Saware, the learned counsel [appointed] to represent the appellant, submitted that the evidence on record was not sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellant.According to her, though there were two Dying Declarations at Exhs.44 and 36 on record, there were various inconsistencies therein and same could not be relied upon.Though PW 6 and PW 8 had referred to the statements made by Dhrupada to them, their depositions also did not warrant acceptance in view of inconsistencies therein.Both the said witnesses were related with the deceased.The mental and physical health of Dhrupada, while recording the Dying Declarations, had not been brought on record and, therefore, a doubt was created in that regard.It was, therefore, submitted that the conviction of the appellant was liable to be set aside.Shri V. A. Thakre, the learned Addl.Public Prosecutor for the ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 4 State, on the other hand, supported the conviction of the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::He submitted that both the Dying Declarations had been recorded after following the prescribed procedure and when the deponent was in a fit state of mental and physical health.The depositions of PW 6 and PW 8 corroborated the earlier Dying Declarations and the version of said witnesses was consistent.Inconsistencies, if any, were trivial and it count.was not necessary to discard the case of the prosecution on said Hence it was submitted that the appeeal had no merit and was liable to be dismissed.We have heard the respective counsel for the parties at length and we have also perused the records of the case.The victim Dhrupada died on account of septicemic shock due to multiple burns.This is evident from the Post-mortem Report at Exh.39, which indicates that her death was homicidal.Since it is the case of the prosecution that there were two Dying Declarations on record, it would be necessary to consider the same first.The same has been recorded by one ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 5 Ghanshyam Khobragade, who was the Asstt.Sub-Inspector attached to Police Station, Gadchiroli.According to him, on the basis of Intimation Letter at Exh.43, he had been to Govt.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::Hospital to record the statement of Dhrupada.According to him, Dr. Vinod Chaudhari [PW 13] was present when he recorded the statement of Dhrupada.Perusal of Exh.44 indicates that the same does not bear the time when the recording of said Dying Declaration had commenced.There is no endorsement of the Doctor at the commencement of such recording, that the deponent was in a fit mental and physical state to give her statement.At the end of said statement, the same is shown to have been signed by Dr. Chaudhari at 11.50 p.m.. The Doctor has stated that the statement was recorded in his presence.In absence of the endorsement that the patient was in a fit state of mind after the statement was recorded, the state of her health while the statement was recorded has not come on record.In his cross-examination at Exh.47, it was admitted by the Doctor that he had not noted anywhere that at about 11.30 p.m., on 19th November, 2009, the patient was physically and mentally fit to give her statement.He further admitted that when the patient was admitted, her general condition was poor.Similarly, PW 12, who recorded said statement, admitted that he had ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 6 not taken any endorsement from the Doctor, that the patient was fit and was able to give her statement.He also admitted that at that point of time, medical treatment of the patient was going on.Thus, in absence of any evidence or endorsement showing the mental and physical state of health of Dhrupada, it would not be safe to rely upon the Dying Declaration [Exh.44].The same does not inspire confidence for its acceptance.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::In his deposition at Exh.35, he has stated that the Doctor had examined Dhrupada and had found her fit for the statement to be recorded.Perusal of this Dying Declaration at Exh.36 indicates the following statement written by PW 13 - Dr. Vinod Choudhary:-"Pt.Is conscious and able to give statement to PC on duty."In his cross-examination, the Naib Tahsildar admitted that there was such endorsement on the Dying Declaration and that he did not tell the Medical Officer that such remark was wrong.He denied the suggestion that as the printed form was sent through the Police ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 7 Constable on duty, the Doctor had endorsed the words "To PC." He further admitted that on the Dying Declaration, there was no endorsement about the presence of the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::PW 13 - Dr. Vinod Choudhary was also cross-examined on this aspect.He stated that along with the Executive Magistrate, the Police Constable was there as usual and, therefore, he had mentioned "PC on duty."As noted herein above, the Naib Tahsildar in his deposition had categorically denied that the printed form was sent through any Police Constable.The fact that this Dying Declaration at Exh.36 was recorded by the Naib Tahsildar and presence of any Police Constable was denied by him.There is no explanation brought on record by the prosecution as to the endorsement by PW 13 that the patient was fit to give statement to the police constable on duty.On account of absence of any explanation and as there is no endorsement with regard to the state of mental and physical condition of Dhrupada after this statement was recorded, it would not be appropriate to rely upon this Dying Declaration for sustaining the conviction of the appellant.She has ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 8 stated that when Dhrupada was brought to the hospital, she was in a semi-conscious state.Her condition was not satisfactory.Considering this evidence about the state of health of Dhrupada, it was necessary for the prosecution to have brought sufficient evidence on record with regard to the mental and physical condition of Dhrupada when the Dying Declarations were recorded.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::In his deposition, he has stated below Exh.26 that after the incident when he met his sister in the hospital, she told him that the appellant had come in a drunken state and had asked her to provide him meals.As the food was not ready, he started beating Dhrupada with a stick.In her deposition at Exh.32, she has stated that Dhrupada told her that the appellant was doubting her character and thereafter he poured kerosene on her.From the depositions of these two witnesses, there is inconsistency as to the reasons attributed to the appellant to have set Dhrupada on fire.While PW 6 refers to meals not being kept ready, ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 9 PW 8 does not refer to meals not being ready, but has stated that the appellant was doubting her character.Considering the fact that both these witnesses were the brother and sister of the deceased, their depositions have to be considered with some caution.Considering the aforesaid inconsistency in their version, it would not be safe to rely upon their statements to hold against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::Thus, from the aforesaid material on record, it is found that the Dying Declarations at Exhs.44 and 36 would have to be discarded on account of defects in recording the same.Similarly, the depositions of PW 6 and PW 8 also do not warrant acceptance considering the inconsistencies therein.Except aforesaid evidence, there is no other evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the appellant.In this situation, the appellant would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.In view aforesaid, the following order is inevitable:-ORDER [a] The Appellant-accused is given benefit of doubt.Accordingly, Judgment of conviction dated 07th July, 2011 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 10 Chandrapur, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 2010, is quashed and set aside, and he is acquitted of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order.Uploaded by : R.B. Hedau, Uploaded on : 22nd Sept. 2016 Pvt. Secretary.-0-0-0-0-::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::apeal35.15 11 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 ::: apeal35.15 12 ::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 23/09/2016 00:51:03 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,133,438 |
JUDGMENT Rengasamy, J.This revision is against the order of conviction passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A. No. 180 of 1991 for the of fence under Section 376, Indian Penal Code, confirming the conviction imposed by the Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. No. 155 of 1989 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.The accused and the victim girl belong to the same village living at a short distance.The evidence of PW1 is that the revision petitioner expressed that he liked her very much, that he would marry only her and taking her to his garden land, he had sexual intercourse with her.It is also evidence that on the promise of marrying her, the revision petitioner was having sexual intercourse with her once in 3 days for about six months and as she became pregnant, three days before 14.12.1988, she told him that she had conceived and has become pregnant and that he should arrange for marriage, but he refused to marry her.The further evidence of PW 1 is that immediately she told this to her mother PW 2, who informed to the local villagers and thereafter took her to Thisaiyanvilai Police Station where a complaint was lodged on the basis of which the investigation was started.PW 3, the Doctor, who examined PW 1 on 15.12.1988, has stated that on her examination of the abdomen, she found PW 1 carrying 24 weeks' child.Both Courts below, accepting the evidence of PW 1, have found that this revision petitioner is the father of the child in the womb of PW 1, though the defence version is that she had illicit intimacy with someone while working in the rice mill, where she used to attend the night work.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,350,764 |
the consent of the respective parties and taken up for final disposal at admission stage.The petitioner is praying for quashment of the First Information Report bearing Crime No. I-14/2017, registered at Parner Police Station, Dist.It is alleged in the FIR that, the petitioner has entered into a transaction of money lending on 20.04.2009 by way of executing a document which is claimed to be a money lending transaction.It would not be necessary to record the factual details since, it is not a matter of dispute that the transaction of 2009 which is claimed to be the basis, is the only isolated transaction which is claimed to be a money lending transaction.::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::Reference needs to be made to a report of Assistant Registrar, who has investigated into the matter and has also reported that there is only one transaction involving the petitioner, which is alleged to be a money lending transaction and the same is instant one.Reference can be made to a judgment in the matter of Ka Icilda Wallang and others....Versus...U. Lokendra Suiam (dead) by Lrs., reported in AIR 1987 SC 2047, wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::The High Court observed that a few disconnected and isolated transactions would not make the plaintiff a person engaged regularly in money lending business.The approach of the High Court to the question was correct. ...."(Criminal Writ Petition No. 627/2015) decided on 22.09.2015, has also concluded that for constituting a business of money lending "there has to be a continuous and systematic activity by application of labour or skill with a view of earning income and then and then it ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 ::: 5 WP343.2017 could be called "business".In order to do business of money lending, it would be necessary for the State to point out multiple activities of money lending done by the petitioner.Merely referring to one isolated transaction claimed to be a loan transaction or money lending would not be enough to attract the provisions of the Act and to brand the petitioner to be a person involved in business of money lending without having any license."::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::Thus, the isolated transaction allegedly entered into by the petitioner with the complainant cannot bring him within the framework of Section 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, to brand him as a person carrying on business of money lending.Since the petitioner cannot be branded as a person carrying on the business of money lending, the provisions relating to imposition of penalty contained in Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, are not attracted.Even assuming Section 34 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1948 provides for penalty of simple imprisonment for a period of one year in the event of finding of guilt of accused for contravention of provisions of the Act, Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides bar for taking cognizance after lapse of the period ::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 ::: 6 WP343.2017 of limitation.Sub-section 2(b) of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. provides for the period of limitation of one year for taking cognizance of the offence if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.Even in the instant matter, the offence is allegedly committed in the year 2009 whereas; FIR is lodged in the year 2017, which is clearly beyond the prescribed period provided u/s 468 of the Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::The respondent has already initiated civil proceedings in the shape of Regular Civil Suit No. 356 of 2014, which is stated to be pending.In the suit presented by the respondent, it has not been alleged that the petitioner has entered into money lending transaction.Even otherwise, we do not find sufficient material to brand the petitioner as a person conducting the business of money lending.For the reasons recorded above, the petition deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed.The FIR bearing Crime No. I-14/2017, registered with Parner Police Station, Dist.Ahmednagar, on 19.01.2017, for offences punishable u/s 420 and Section 39 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, stands quashed.::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/07/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:35:47 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,352 |
Briefly the prosecution's case is that on 2nd April, 2000 at about 9.00 p.m. at Purana Najafgarh Road, Harizan Basti, Palam Village, New Delhi a public way.The accused was driving Bus No. DL1PA-0003 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and safety.As he was frightened he took his scooter down on footpath and parked there to see the offending vehicle.One more scooter which was being driven by one Satish was also going ahead of the bus in the same direction.He saw that the said bus bearing no. DL-1PA-0003 hit the scooter from its left side.By the present Revision Petition, the Petitioner seeks setting aside of the judgment dated 28th February, 2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.By the impugned judgment learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the judgment Crl.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 1 of 8 dated 17th August, 2011 passed by the learned ACMM convicting the Petitioner and order on sentence dated 20th August, 2010 whereby the Petitioner was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offences punishable under Section 304A IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence punishable under Section 279 IPC, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 1 of 8While driving the said vehicle he struck against one scooter bearing No.DL 1S-5532 resulting in the death of Satish.The Petitioner was arrested and after the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 279/304-A IPC.After recording the prosecution evidence and the statement of the Petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the Learned Trial Court held that the Petitioner was driving the truck in a rash and negligent Crl.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 2 of 8 manner which caused death of Satish.The two judgments i.e. passed by the Learned ACMM and Learned Additional Sessions Judge are impugned in the present petition.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 2 of 8The alleged eye witnesses to the incident that is PW1 Sat Pal Singh and PW5 Balbir Singh are not the eye witnesses and are planted by the prosecution.PW1 has not identified the Petitioner as he was not related to the deceased in any manner.The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the alleged spot of incident was a dark place and it was not possible to see the Petitioner, as there was no independent source of light or street light.No TIP was conducted as the Petitioner was shown to the witnesses in the Police Station and this version has been admitted by PW 10 in his cross-examination.The testimony of PW5 is full of improvements and embellishment and is liable to be dismissed.It is further contended that the investigating officer was not competent to prove the notice under Section Crl.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 3 of 8 133 Motor Vehicle Act. Thus the legal requirement of proving the notice has not been complied with.The present case is a case of false implication, thus his conviction is liable to be set aside.In the alternative it is prayed that the Petitioner has no previous involvement in any case and has faced trial for ten years, thus, he be released on probation.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 3 of 84. Learned APP on the other hand vehemently opposed the petition.The testimony of the eye-witnesses is clear and cogent, PW1 has deposed that on 2nd April, 2000 the bus bearing No. DL-1PA-0003 overtook him and it was driven speedily and after overtaking he heard a loud noise.When he reached the spot he saw a man lying in a pool of blood.PW10 the Investigating Officer has also corroborated the version of PW1 that on the spot he found a dead body lying in a pool of blood.Thus, there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the guilt of the accused/Petitioner.Hence the present petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.PW5 Shri Balbir Sharma has deposed that on the date of incident when he reached Pusa Road, Harijan Basti, Palam Gaon near Johar he saw that a bus Crl.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 4 of 8 was coming in a zig zag way on a very fast speed form Palam Gaon side.The said scooter rider came under the wheel of the bus and the bus ran over him.The driver of the bus present in the court stopped the bus 50-100 steps ahead.He has further stated that he could recognize the driver in the natural light as well as in the light of the vehicle passing through the said route.The helmet of the scooter was also crushed.In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the front left of the bus struck against the front as well as the back of the scooterist.The scooter fell down itself underneath the front wheel of the bus.PW1 Shri Satpal Singh had also deposed about the manner in which the bus was being driven.He has stated that the driver of the bus was driving the bus speedily and after the bus overtook him he heard a loud noise under the bus and the bus jumped that time.He was approximately 30-40 meters behind the bus when he reached the spot where the bus had jumped.He saw a scooter and a man lying in a pool of blood.The head of the man was crushed under the bus.The deposition of PW5 that the bus was coming in a zig zag manner on a very high speed frightening him to the extent that he took his scooter down on the footpath and PW1 deposing that the bus was being driven speedily which overtook him and then he heard a loud noise and the bus jumped proves the rash and negligent manner in which the Appellant was driving the vehicle.Therefore, there is sufficient evidence placed on record to prove that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently on a public way endangering human life likely to cause hurt or injury to any person not amounting to culpable homicide.Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 4 of 8Rev. P. No.213/2011 Page 5 of 8The contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Investigating Officer was not competent to prove the notice under Section 133 Motor Vehicle Act is liable to be dismissed as the Section contemplates that any police officer authorized by the State Government is competent to serve the notice to the owner of a motor vehicle, the driver or conductor of Crl.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,352,191 |
This is second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 09.01.2017 in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested in Crime No.849/2016 registered at Police Station Morar Gwalior for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC and under Section of POCSO Act.According to prosecution case, the complainant was residing as a tenant in the house of the applicant.Two days prior to Deepawali, when she was alone Balveer entered in her room and caught hold her.When she raised alarm, he threatened an committed rape on her.He also threatened to kill her family members if she discloses the incident to anybody.After two days of the incident, room of the applicant was vacated.On 9.12.2016 at about 6-00 PM, the applicant came in the house and was calling her to his house for committing sexual intercourse with her.When she refused, he started abusing then her uncle and aunty asked why he is abusing then she narrated the incident.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The victim is a major girl.victim has categorically stated that applicant has made physical relation with her consent.Hence, prayed for grant of bail.The prayer is opposed by learned PP for the respondent/State by submitting that the victim is minor.Case-diary perused.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,358,528 |
"Deceased Shafiqan was a widow and had been residing at 231, Chatta Lal Mian near Bari Masjid alongwith her family.She has six daughters and three sons.PW- Sahana one of her daughter was married to the accused Mehboob Khan @Babu, who was the resident of Shastri Park, Seelampur, Delhi.Sahana was not happy at her matrimonial home.She was allegedly mal-treated by her husband Mehboob Khan.She was turned out from her house on 18.07.1994 by the accused Mehboob Khan after giving beating to her.She had come back to her mother's house after she was turned out by her husband.On 19.07.1994 at about 6:30pm deceased Shafiqan was present in her house alongwith her daughters Sahana and Sabana.Her another daughter Nagma, who was married in Meerut had also come to her mother's house about 15 days back and she was also present in the house of her mother at that time.Accused Mehboob Khan had then come to the house of her mother-in-law and had allegedly beaten his wife and when he was asked not to do so, he had left the house by extending threat to Safiqan and Sahana that he will teach them a lesson.It is also the case of the prosecution that at about 8.30 p.m. when deceased shafiqan was sitting in her house along with her daughters Nagma, Sahana and Sabana, accused Kazma Begum and her daughters Nazma the mother and sister of accused Meboob Khan had come to the house of deceased Safiqan and had started hurling abuses at Safiqan and her daughter Sahana.Accused mehboob Khan had followed his mother who had also come to the house of his mother-in-law accompanied by accused Safiq Ahmed, who was his friend and neighbour.Accused Mehboob Khan also hurled filthy abuse at his mother-in-law and his wife Sahana.To butterss her contention, learned APP pointed out that the appellant had first visited the house of his in-laws on 19.07.1994 at 6.30 p.m. and started beating his wife with fists and slaps and when he was dissuaded to do so by his sister-in-law and mother-in-law then he left the place with the threats to teach lesson to his wife and mother-in-law.On the same day, he returned back at 8.30 p.m. along with his mother- Kazima Khatoon, sister- Nazima Begum and neighbour- Mohd. Safiq Ahmed and started hurling filthy abuses and when Nagma had intervened to dissuade him from hurling such abuses he took out a knife from his right pocket and hit Nagma in her right hand and when his mother-in-law had intervened to save Nagma, he had inflicted two stab wounds in the abdomen of his mother-in-law due to which she had immediately fallen down.The contention raised by the learned APP for the State was that there was a clear motive and premeditation on the part of the appellant otherwise there could not have been any reason for him to have come prepared by carrying a knife in his right pocket and also the fact that he Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 7 of 33 indiscriminately started inflicting stab blows first in the right hand of Nagma and then two stab blows in the abdomen of his mother-in-law which led to her immediate collapse.Learned APP also argued that as per the post mortem report, injury Nos. 4 and 5 were held to be sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature singly or collectively.Learned APP also submitted that on internal examination, the doctor found that injury No.4 led to cutting of small intestine and large intestine at three places.The contention raised by the learned APP for the State was that the nature of the said two injuries clearly reflects that with brute force the appellant had inflicted the said injuries and therefore, he had acted in a most cruel and unusual manner without there being any kind of provocation to cause such kind of serious injuries.Learned APP also submitted that no sudden fight or quarrel had taken place between the appellant and the deceased and it was the appellant who had been hurling filthy abuses at his wife and mother-in-law and all of sudden he took out a knife from his pocket and hit his sister-in-law and then mother-in-law.The case of the prosecution is based on the testimonies of three important eye witnesses and one amongst them was an injured eye witness PW-3 Nagma.The incident in question had taken place at the parental house of the wife of the accused/appellant and therefore, the presence of all the said three eye witnesses at the spot of the crime was quite natural.As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant had turned his wife out of the matrimonial house just one day prior to the incident and on the next day he reached the house of his mother-in-law.First, he came alone at 6.30 p.m. when he was alleged to Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 17 of 33 have beaten his wife and when asked not to do so he left the house by extending threat to deceased Safiqan and his wife Sahana that he will teach them a lesson.It is also quite apparent that the appellant had never directed attack towards his mother-in-law as the appellant had Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 18 of 33 taken out the knife to hit his sister-in-law when she had interjected to dissuade him not to hurl abuses on her mother and sister.There was some kind of quarrel or fight between the appellant and his family members and the members of his in-laws' family and it appears to us that this fight between the two families must have angered the appellant to first hit his sister-in-law and then his mother-in-law with two stabs blows.PW7- Sahana, the wife of the appellant in her cross-examination deposed that her husband Mehboob Khan @ Babu had divorced her on the very same day of incident when he first come at about 3.30 p.m. and then later at 6.00 p.m. and finally at 8.00 p.m. It is therefore, quite manifest that the relations between the husband and wife became very acrimony and embittered. PW7- Sahana was turned out from the matrimonial house by the appellant on 18.7.1994 and then on the very next day appellant paid at least three visits at his mother-in-law's house as per the deposition of PW7 and two visits as per the statement of the complainant.Upper outer angle is sharp and the lower inner angle is rounded.Dr. Anil Aggarwal found the following internal injuries:"On Internal Examination: There was a thick layer of foil smelling pus over the peritoneum.The small intestine contained semi liquid material and gases.Large intestines contained gases and faeces.The liver showed fatty changes.Both kidneys were pale, gall bladder was adherent to the under surface of liver.It showed a cut at the fundus 1.5 cm long which was stitched.Both lungs were consolidated; the brain was swollen and congested.There was thin layer of pushover the brain."KAILASH GAMBHIR, JChallenge in the present appeal is to the impugned judgment dated 18.07.1998 and order on sentence dated 23.07.1998 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge had convicted the appellant for committing an offence punishable under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced him to imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- under section 302 IPC and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months, and so far as the offence Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 1 of 33 under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the appellant has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months.A. No. 455/1998 Page 1 of 33This could not be tolerated by PW Nagma who asked accused Mehboob Khan not to hurl abuses on his mother and sister but this interference was not liked by accused Mehboob Khan, he had allegedly taken out a knife from the right side pocket of his pant and had stabbed PW Nagma on her right hand, as a result of which, she had started bleeding.When the deceased Safiqan came forward to rescue her daughter, accused Mehboob Khan had allegedly stabbed her twice in Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 2 of 33 her abdomen.Safiqan on receiving the said stab injuries had fallen down on the ground.All the three sisters had then made noise but accused Mehboob Khan, his mother Kazma Begum and his sister Nagma and his neighbour Shafiq Ahmed had meanwhile escaped from the house.PW Sabana had then informed the police, meanwhile, Abdul Sattar, the brother of Sabana had reached the house.He had allegedly removed his mother Safiqan Begum and his sister Nagma to JPN Hospital."A. No. 455/1998 Page 2 of 33To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 26 witnesses.The statement of the appellant along with other accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused was confronted with the entire incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and in response to various questions put to him, the accused pleaded his innocence and false implication.Along with the appellant, accused Mohd. Safiq Ahmed, Najma and Kazima Khatoon were also charged for committing the offence punishable under Sections 302/324 IPC read with Section 34 IPC.Accused Mohd. Safiq and Najma were acquitted by the learned trial court after giving them the benefit of doubt and accused Kazima Khatoon died during the pendency of trial.At the outset, Mr. Mukesh Kalia, learned counsel for the appellant, very fairly conceded to the findings of the learned trial court convicting the appellant for committing an offence of culpable homicide.Learned counsel for the appellant, however, laid serious challenge to the Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 3 of 33 conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC which as per the learned counsel should have been under Section 304 IPC as the facts of the case would clearly attract Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.A. No. 455/1998 Page 3 of 33Learned counsel further submitted that had there been any such kind of criminal intention on the part of the appellant then at least he would not have taken along his mother, sister and his neighbour Mohd. Safiq Ahmed to the house of his in-laws.Learned also submitted that even as per the case of the prosecution, the genesis of which was the first statement made by Nagma, sister of appellant's wife, based on which the FIR was registered, a sudden quarrel had taken place between the family members of both the sides and there was exchange of abuses, when in the heat of passion and charged atmosphere the appellant took out a knife from right pocket of his trouser and hit on the right hand of Nagma resulting into simple Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 4 of 33 injuries and when his mother-in-law intervened then the appellant inflicted two stab wounds in her abdomen.Learned counsel thus submitted that all the ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC are fully satisfied in the facts of the present case because of there being no motive or premeditation on the part of the appellant or any kind of other enmity between the appellant and the deceased who happened to be his mother-in-law and the said stab injuries caused to the deceased were not directed towards her but in a sudden fight when his sister-in-law Nagma had intervened during the exchange of the hot words between him and his wife and mother-in-law, the said incident took place.A. No. 455/1998 Page 4 of 33Learned counsel further argued that deceased Safiqan was admitted in hospital on 19.07.1994 at about 9.00 p.m. and she had died on 02.08.1994, i.e., after a gap of 14 days and cause of death of the deceased as was opined by the doctor who had conducted the post mortem was as a Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 5 of 33 result of toxaemia and septicaemia and not because of the said two stab injuries inflicted by the appellant.A. No. 455/1998 Page 5 of 33Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the facts of the case clearly attracts Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC and therefore, the conviction of the appellant by the learned trial court under Section 302 IPC is illegal and perverse and the same may be converted from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 IPC.Learned counsel also brought to our attention that the appellant has already undergone 8 years (including remission earned) period of his sentence and his jail conduct was found most satisfactory and even after his release on bail he is leading an orderly and respectable life without being involved in any kind of criminal activities.Learned APP also argued that mere fact that the deceased had succumbed to the injuries after a gap of 14 days due to toxaemia and septicaemia can be of no help to the appellant as the death Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 8 of 33 of the deceased had taken place due to the said two stab injuries inflicted by the appellant on a vital part of the body of the deceased.Learned APP also argued that even the dagger used by the appellant was of a large size with its blade of the size of 6.8 cm and the size of this knife itself reflects the criminal intent of the appellant to carry out the murder of his mother- in-law.A. No. 455/1998 Page 7 of 33A. No. 455/1998 Page 8 of 33This is an unfortunate case where mother-in-law, Safiqan was murdered by her own son-in-law, the appellant herein when she had intervened to save her other daughter who was inflicted with a knife on her right hand simply because she wanted to dissuade her brother-in-law not to hurl filthy abuses at his wife and mother-in-law.On 19.07.1994 at about 6.30 p.m. the appellant Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 9 of 33 came to the house of his mother-in-law and had allegedly beaten his wife and when he was asked not to do so he left the house by extending threat to his mother-in-law Safiqan and his wife Sahana to teach them a lesson.Just after a gap of two hours he returned back along with his mother, sister and a neighbour and then the incident in question took place and mother-in-law became the ultimate victim at the hands of her own son-in- law, the appellant herein.A. No. 455/1998 Page 9 of 33After having analysed the evidence of all the three eye witnesses, the learned trial court found that the evidence of all the three eye witnesses showing the involvement of the appellant/Mehboob Khan@ Babu was quite, clear, consistent and direct with the commission of the offence and nothing on record was brought to suggest that all the three sisters were inspired by any ulterior motive or design to falsely implicate the accused and to save the actual culprit of the crime.The Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 10 of 33 learned trial court also observed that the credit worthiness of these eye witnesses could not be impeached by the defence as per their prolonged cross-examination.The learned trial court also found that the evidence of the said eye witnesses was in complete consonance with the medical evidence proved on record by the prosecution.A. No. 455/1998 Page 10 of 33The weapon of offence was got recovered by the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement.PW16- Dr. Anil Aggarwal who had conducted the post mortem examination had confirmed in his post mortem report Ex.PW16/A that injury Nos. 4 and 5 found on the person of the deceased could be possible with the said dagger/chhuri (Ex. P4).PW16- Dr. Anil Aggarwal was not cross-examined by the defence and not even a single question was put to him either to dispute his report or to dispute his opinion with regard to the possibility of infliction of stab injuries with the said dagger produced before him.The learned trial court is right in observing that since the report of the doctor was not challenged and disputed by the accused, therefore, it stands proved by the prosecution that it was the accused who was instrumental in causing abdominal injuries on the person of deceased Safiqan.A. No. 455/1998 Page 11 of 33A. No. 455/1998 Page 11 of 33The Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 16 of 33 appellant in the present case had inflicted two knife blows on the abdomen of his mother-in-law, the deceased herein and the said two injuries caused by the appellant were found sufficient to cause death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature singly or collectively as per the opinion given by the post mortem doctor.Taking into account the said two stab injuries caused by the appellant on the vital part of the body of the deceased it becomes quite apparent that the appellant had requisite intention to cause bodily injuries of such a nature which in the ordinary course of nature were sufficient to cause death of the victim, and therefore, Section 300 (thirdly) IPC will be clearly applicable to the facts of the present case.A. No. 455/1998 Page 16 of 33The appellant had inflicted a knife blow on the right hand of his sister-in-law PW-3 and not any vital part of her body and it is later when his mother-in-law had intervened to save her daughter, the appellant had inflicted two stab injuries in her abdomen.It thus, appears to us, with enough clarity that the appellant did not visit the house of his in-laws to carry out the murder of his mother-in-law and his mother-in-law became a victim after she had intervened to save her daughter from any further attack from the side of the appellant/accused.A. No. 455/1998 Page 17 of 33A. No. 455/1998 Page 18 of 33The first visit by the husband and the second visit when husband has accompanied by mother, sister and a neighbour certainly gives an impression that there was some kind of tussle between the appellant and his wife and one of Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 20 of 33 the possible reason could be that the appellant wanted his wife to return back or his wife was reluctant to return back or may be because of the alleged divorce given by the appellant to his wife.Whatever may be genesis of dispute , there remains no doubt that the present appellant caused injuries on the forearm of his sister-in-law Nagma and two stab injuries on the abdomen of his mother-in-law and these injuries were caused in a sudden fight and in the heat of passion without there being any motive or premeditation.A. No. 455/1998 Page 19 of 33A. No. 455/1998 Page 20 of 33Learned APP for the State also raised a contention that the appellant extended threat to teach a lesson to his wife Sahana and his mother-in-law when he came at about 6-6.30 p.m. on the date of incident and to accomplish the same he returned back with a knife in his pocket and then killed his mother-in-law.We have already discussed that the appellant had no motive or any kind of premeditation to murder his mother-in-law and merely because he had left the house of his mother-in-law at 6.30 p.m. with the alleged Crl.A. No. 455/1998 Page 21 of 33 threat that he would teach a lesson to his wife and mother-in-law cannot lead us to believe that he in fact developed the intention of carrying out the murder of his mother-in-law.We cannot lose sight of the fact that the same threat was extended to his wife as well but nothing happened to her.So far as the argument that the appellant had acted in a cruel and unusual manner, let us first examine as to what injuries deceased had sustained as per her post mortem report.PW-16 Dr. Anil Aggarwal conducted the post mortem of the deceased and he found following external injuries on her body:-A. No. 455/1998 Page 21 of 33Stitched operated wound 20 cm in length vertically placed over mid front of abdomen, 11 cm above the umbilicus and 9 cm below it.The wound is re-enforced by a plastic pipe.Two drainage tube wounds each 2 cm long over right side of abdomen.5 cm below and to the left of the umbilicus.This wound corresponds to injury No.1 mentioned in the MLC.Infected stab wound 4. 2 cm x abdominal cavity deep over right side of abdomen 9 cm above and to the right of umbilicus.One angle acute, the other rounded.This injury corresponds to injury No.2 mentioned in the MLC."A. No. 455/1998 Page 22 of 33And on internal examination of the body of the deceased, PW16-A. No. 455/1998 Page 32 of 33A. No. 455/1998 Page 32 of 33
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,358,899 |
M.C. 3825/2019 Page 3 of 3(ORAL) Quashing of FIR No. 1126/2015, under Sections 354-A/323/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi is sought on the basis of affidavits of respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and on the ground that the misunderstanding which led to registration of the FIR in question, now stands cleared between the parties.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.M.C. 3825/2019 Page 2 of 3 question, now stands cleared amongst the parties.M.C. 3825/2019 Page 2 of 3Consequentially, this petition is allowed subject to costs of 10,000/- to be deposited by petitioner with Prime Minister's National Relief Fund within a week from today.Upon placing on record the proof of deposit of costs within a week thereafter and handing over its copy to the Investigating Officer, FIR No. 1126/2015, under Sections 354- A/323/506 of IPC, registered at Police Station Jamia Nagar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom shall stand quashed qua petitioner.This petition and application are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE AUGUST 05, 2019 p'ma Crl.M.C. 3825/2019 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,360,838 |
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the case registered inCrime No.76 of 2015 on the file of the 1st respondent police, pursuant to theamicable settlement effected between the parties.The counsel appearing on either side filed a joint memo ofcompromise dated 24.02.2016, duly stating that since the parties have arrivedat an amicable settlement by way of compromise among themselves, the second respondent has agreed to withdraw the above case in Crime No.76 of 2015pending on the file of the first respondent.When such a situation arose in similarly placed matters inCrl.O.P.(MD) Nos.406, 530 and 864 of 2016 (Prabu and others vs. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police and others), decided on 28.01.2016, this Courtconsidered the various decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court inthis regard in several cases, namely, Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab andanother [(2012) 10 SCC 303], B.S.Joshi vs. State of Haryana [(2003) 4 SCC675], Nikhil Merchant vs. CBI [(2008) 9 SCC 677], Narinder Singh and othersvs.If the compromise isentertained mechanically by the Court, the accused will have the upper hand.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to be exploited by theaccused, who can well afford to wait for a logical conclusion.Theantecedents of the accused have also to be taken into consideration beforeaccepting the memo of compromise and the accused, by means of compromise, cannot try to escape from the clutches of law.Taking note of the judgments referred to supra, considering thenature of allegations and in view of joint memo of compromise dated24.02.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no useful purpose would beserved in keeping the matters pending.Therefore, the entire proceedings inCrime No.76 of 2015 on the file of the first respondent in respect of thepetitioners/accused alone, are hereby quashed.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the basis ofthe compromise entered into between the parties.The joint compromise memos dated 24.02.2016 shall form part of this order.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Usilampatti, Madurai District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,852,915 |
No.143 akd [Rejected] C. R. M. 6608 of 2018 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.08.2018 in connection with Murarai Police Station Case No. 318 of 2017 dated 28.09.2017 under Sections 302/201/120B/3434 of the Indian Penal Code.(G.R. Case No. 1031 of 2017) And In Re: Ashikul Sk. & Anr.... ... Petitioners Mr. Deep Chaim Kabir .. Advocate Mr. Moniruzzaman .. Advocate Mr. Mazhar Hossain Chowdhury .. Advocate ... ... for the petitioners Mr. Kamal Jahiruzzaman .. Advocate ... ... for the de-facto complainant Mr. Neguive Ahmed .. Ld.Public Prosecutor Ms. Zareen N. Khan .. Advocate ... ... for the State Medical report is placed on record wherefrom it appears that the petitioner no.2 is suffering from 'Acid Peptic Disorder' and has been extended medical assistance.Having considered the materials on record prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioners in the alleged murder of the victim, we are not inclined in granting bail to the petitioners at this stage.The application for bail is thus rejected.The court below, however, is directed to ensure appropriate medical attention to the petitioner no.2 as and when necessary.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
40,861,079 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that due to previous animosityon 03.05.2009 at about 07.40 p.m., in Nehru Nagar, Vilangudi in front of thehouse of one Periyasamy, the second accused has abetted the first accused to murder the deceased by name Karuppasamy.The first accused has tried to attack the deceased Karuppasamy and at that time one Muthu has tried to deterhim, but the second accused has caught hold of him.The first accused hasattacked one Bhuvaneswari and thereby caused injury on her person.Duringthe course of occurrence, the third accused has caught hold of Bhuvaneswari.both Crl.As./Complainant Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973, against the Judgment dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and SessionsCourt, Madurai.These Criminal Appeals have been directed against the convictionsand sentences dated 29.10.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 by the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.The first accused has indiscriminately attacked the deceased and due to hisovertacts, he passed away.3.On receipt of the complaint, Investigating Officer (P.W.17) hastaken up investigation, examined connected witnesses and also made arrangements for conducting autopsy on the body of the deceased and accordingly Dr.Natarajan, viz., P.W.12 has conducted autopsy on the body ofthe deceased and he found the following external and internal injuries:?1)An oblique stab injury 2 cms x 0.5 cm x pleural cavity deep noted onthe front of left side of chest, 4 cms above and lateral to left nipple.On dissection the wound passes obliquely backwards and downwards, piercing the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves in the 3rd intercostalsspace piercing the underlying pleura and upper lobe of left lung measuring1.0 cm x 0.5 cm x 1 cm and ends as a point.Left pleural cavity contains 200ml of blood with clots.Right pleural cavity empty.2)An oblique stab injury 1 cm x p.5 cm x 1 cm along with the muscleplane noted on the front of upper part of right side of chest.3)Incised wound 6 cms x linear x skin deep noted on the inner aspect ofupper 3rd of left forearm.All the stab injuries are having regular margins and both ends arepointed.OTHER FINDINGS:Peritoneal cavity empty.Pleural cavities described.Pericardiumcontains 15 ml of straw colour fluid.Heart both chambers empty.Lungs leftlung described in injury column, cut section pale.Right lung cut sectionpale.Larynx & trachea normal.Hyoid bone intact.Stomach contains 200 gmsof partly digested semi solid cooked food materials, nil specific smell,mucosa pale.Liver, spleen & kidneys ? cut section pale; Small intestinecontains 20 ml of bile stained fluid.Nil specific smell, mucosa pale;Bladder ? empty; Brain surface vessels pale, cut section pale?.The Postmortem Certificate has been marked as Ex.4.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai after considering thefact that the offences alleged to have been committed by the accused aretriable by Sessions Court, has committed the case to the Court of Sessions,Madurai Division and taken on file in Sessions Case No.18 of 2010 andsubsequently made over to the Trial Court.5.The Trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and uponperusing the relevant records, has framed first charge against the secondaccused under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against him under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, third chargeagainst the first accused under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, fourthcharge against the third accused under Sections 307 read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and fifth charge against first accused under Section 302 ofthe Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over and explained to them.The accused have denied the charges and claimed to be tried.6.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.19 have beenexamined and Ex.P.1 to P.19 and M.O.1 to M.O.6 have been marked.7.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materialsavailable in evidence against them, they denied their complicity in thecrime.No oral and documentary evidence have been let in on the side of theaccused.8.The Trial Court, after hearing arguments of both sides and uponperusing the relevant evidence available on record, has found the firstaccused guilty under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine ofRs.1,000/- with usual default clause.Further he has been found guilty underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause.The Trial Court has found the second accused guilty under Section 341 of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with usual default clause.Further hehas been found guilty under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also imposed a fineof Rs.1,000/- with usual default clause.The third accused has been foundguilty under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencedto undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed a fine ofRs.1,000/- with usual default clause.Likewise, against the convictions andsentences passed by the Trial Court, Criminal Appeal(MD)No.65 of 2014 has been preferred by the first accused.The second accused has deterred one Muthu.The first accused has attacked the de facto complainant by using a knife.Likewise he attacked the deceased indiscriminately by using the very sameknife and due to his overtacts, the deceased has passed away.Further duringthe course of occurrence the second accused has caught hold of the de factocomplainant viz., Bhuvaneswari at the time of attack made by the firstaccused.The doctor who conducted necropsy has been examined as P.W.12 and he marked Ex.The doctor who has first seen both P.W.1 and deceased has been examined as P.W.14 and he marked Ex.12.The Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by thewitnesses mentioned supra coupled with relevant documents has invitedconvictions and sentences against all the accused as mentioned in theJudgment.13.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused hasraised the following points so as to set aside the convictions and sentencespassed by the Trial Court against the appellants/ accused:(i)The specific case of the prosecution is that the entireoccurrence has takenplace in front of the house of one Periyasamy.But forthe reasons best known to the prosecution he has not been examined and non- examination of the said Periyasamy is fatal to prosecution case.(ii)The specific case of the prosecution is that at the time ofoccurrence, the second accused has instigated the first accused by way ofsaying to stab the deceased, but second accused is not aware of the fact thatthe first accused is having a knife at the time of occurrence.(iii)No specific charge has been framed against the third accusedso as to attract Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andfurther the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution is that duringthe course of occurrence the third accused has caught hold of one Kalimuthu(P.W.3).14.To controvert the contentions putforth on the side of theappellants/accused, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contendedthat even though the occurrence has takenplace in front of the house of onePeriyasamy, since he has not seen the occurrence, he has not been examined and his mere non-examination would not create any suspicion in the case ofthe prosecution.Further only at the instigation alleged to have been madeby second accused, the first accused has attacked the deceased by using a knife indiscriminately and to that effect the prosecution has adduced repleteevidence and therefore the convictions and sentences passed by the TrialCourt do not warrant interference.15.For considering the rival submissions made on either side, theCourt has to analyze each and every charge.16.The first and foremost charge framed against the secondaccused is that at the time of occurrence, the second accused has instigatedthe first accused by way of saying to stab the deceased.Under the saidcircumstances the second accused has faced a charge under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code.The other eye witnesses have been examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and all of them have consistently stated in theirevidence that in the place of occurrence, the second accused has instigatedthe first accused to stab the deceased.18.The contention putforth on the side of the appellants/accusedis that the second accused has not known the fact that first accused ishaving knife at the time of occurrence.Since on the side of the prosecutiontrustworthy evidence is available for the purpose of proving that secondaccused has instigated first accused, the contention putforth on the side ofthe appellants/accused to the effect that second accused has not known thefact that first accused is having knife at the time of occurrence cannot beaccepted and further to attract Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, merelyuttering words would be sufficient.Therefore the first charge framedagainst second accused under Sections 302 read with 109 of the Indian PenalCode has been clearly established on the side of the prosecution.Under thesaid circumstances, the second contention putforth on the side of theappellants/accused cannot be accepted.19.The second charge framed against the second accused is that during the course of occurrence the first accused has tried to attack thedeceased and the same has been deterred by one Muthu, but the second accused has caught hold of him.Therefore, the second charge framed against the second accused has also been proved on the side of the prosecution.20.The third charge framed against the first accused is that atthe time of occurrence, the first accused has tried to murder the de factocomplainant by name Bhuvaneswari and thereby caused an injury.Under the said circumstances he is said to have committed an offence punishable underSection 307 of the Indian Penal Code.21.It is seen from Ex.P.11 that P.W.1, the de facto complainanthas sustained only a simple injury on her left little finger.Consideringthe place on which P.W.1 has sustained injury and also its nature, this Courtis of the view that first accused can be punished only under Section 324instead of 307 of the Indian Penal Code.22.The fourth charge framed against the third accused is that attime of occurrence the third accused has caught hold of the de factocomplainant viz., P.W.1 and therefore she is said to have committed anoffence under Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Forproving the fourth charge framed against the third accused under the saidSections, absolutely there is no evidence on the side of the prosecution.But on the other hand, the prosecution witnesses (eye witnesses) have clearlystated to the effect that the third accused has caught hold of P.W.3,Kalimuthu.But to that effect, no charge has been framed.Under the saidcircumstances, the third accused cannot be mulcted with the liability underSections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore the thirdaccuse is entitled to get acquittal of the charge framed against her.23.The fifth charge framed against the first accused is that atthe time of occurrence the first accused has indiscriminately attacked thedeceased viz., Karuppasamy and due to his overtacts he passed away.For the purpose of proving the said charge, the eye witnesses namely P.W.1 to P.W.3 have given clear/trustworthy evidence.Further the evidence given by P.W.1 toP.W.3 are clearly corroborated by medical evidence by way of examining thedoctor, who conducted autopsy (P.W.12) coupled with Ex.P.6, Postmortem Certificate.Therefore the fifth charge framed against the first accused hasbeen clearly proved on the side of the prosecution.24.The first and foremost contention putforth on the side of theappellants/accused is that even though the specific case of the prosecutionis that the occurrence has takenplace in front of the house of onePeriyasamy, but he has not been examined.As rightly pointed out on the sideof the prosecution, absolutely there is no evidence that the said Periyasamyhas witnessed the occurrence and therefore he need not be examined.Therefore the first contention putforth on the side of the appellants/accusedgoes out without merit.25.It has already been pointed out that the charges framedagainst the second accused under Sections 302 read with 109 and 341 of theIndian Penal Code have been clearly established on the side of theprosecution.The charge framed against the first accused under Section 307of the Indian Penal Code can be converted into Section 324 of the IndianPenal Code.Further the charge framed against him under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code has been clearly established on the side of theprosecution.The charge framed against the third accused has not at all beenestablished nor proved on the side of the prosecution and therefore the thirdaccused is entitled to get acquittal.With the above modifications, theseCriminal Appeals are liable to be allowed in part as stated infra.26.In fine, (i)Criminal Appeal(MD)No.46 of 2014 is allowed inpart and the convictions and sentences passed against the second accused under Sections 302 read with 109 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code by theTrial Court are confirmed and the Trial Court is directed to take appropriatesteps so as to imprison the second accused to serve out the remaining periodof sentence.The conviction and sentence passed against the third accusedunder Sections 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Courtare set aside and third accused is acquitted.Bail bonds if any executed byher shall stand cancelled and fine amount if any paid by her is ordered to berefunded forthwith.(ii)Criminal Appeal(MD)No.65 of 2014 is allowed in part and theconviction and sentence passed against the appellant/first accused underSection 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Trial Court are confirmed.Theconviction and sentence passed against him by the Trial Court under Section307 of the Indian Penal Code is converted into Section 324 of the IndianPenal Code and sentenced to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment.No modification in respect of fine amount.1.The First Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai.2.The Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,865,480 |
Present applicant was the driver of the vehicle and he was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, due to which the vehicle hit a Acacia (babool) tree and turned turtle Cr.R. No.460/2020 2 near Hanuman Temple at village Jirvi situated in between Rangaon and Tangaon.As a result of which Akhil Khan got injuries in his muscle and left thigh, Bilkisbi got injured in left hand, Shanu got injuries in her hip, hands and leg, Ayub Khan got injured in his rib, left leg and head, applicant got injured in his leg and hand.(12 / 05 /2020) This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of 'the code' is against the judgment dated 22/01/2020 passed in Cri.Appeal No.24/2017, by Additional Sessions Judge, Dharampuri, District-Dhar, wherein the Sessions Judge partly allowed the appeal by acquitting the applicant from offence under Sections 337, 338(2 counts) of IPC, 1860 and affirmed the conviction and sentence of offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of IPC, 1860 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri, District Dhar vide judgment dated 02/03/2017 in Criminal Case No.52/2011, against the applicant.Relevant facts, briefly stated are that on 01/11/2011, Akhil Khan, his wife Shanu @ Shahina, his sister Bilkisbi and cousin Ayub Khan were returning from Indore to Manavar, in Mazid Khan's Maruti Van bearing Registration No.MP 09 BC 0276 after getting medical treatment of his wife Shanu.The injured persons were taken to hospital at Dhamnod for treatment, however, Ayub khan succumbed to injures on the way to hospital.The alleged incident and the death of Ayub Khan was intimated by concerned doctor of the hospital to Police Station Dhamnod.Driving license and other relevant documents of the vehicle were seized and the applicant-Aklim Khan was arrested.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharampuri, District Dhar.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, applicant filed an appeal before the Court of Sessions.R. No.460/2020 3If the applicant fails to pay the said amount within the stipulated period, the same Cr.R. No.460/2020 6 shall be recovered as per the procedure under Section 431 of Cr.P.C and be paid to the wife of Ayub Khan.R. No.460/2020 6Certified copy as per Rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Sumati Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=c924c30fdbbbe5bd3576e03ddd1b95d94f157e 8aec842e0acdbeed50df87856b, Jagadeesan serialNumber=a941c80e7b140fcb4479fb146bdc59eb17 3982223abb9973b39d8eed47abe98c, cn=Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2020.05.12 14:38:58 -12'00'
|
['Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,870,454 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.The applicant has no criminal history.The co-accused namely Alok Kumar Patel and Shiv Kumar Patel have been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 19.06.2020 passed in Criminal Misc.Learned A.G.A., however, opposed the prayer for bail.(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through their counsel.In case of their absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against them under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code;(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure their presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and(v) 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 applicants 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 them in accordance with law.Order Date :- 24.8.2020 Himanshu
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,875,910 |
(Passed on 29th day of October, 2013) The applicants have prosecuted the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the registration of a private complaint No.225/2011 registered by the J.M.F.C. Maihar, District Satna for the offences punishable under Sections 294, 452, 427 and 323/34 of IPC.The facts of the case, in short are that, the respondent nos.1-A and 1-B had submitted a complaint against the applicants.According to the complaint, the respondent no.1-A was running a Lime and Chemical Company and the respondent no.1-B was in- charge of a crasher plant situated at village Noagwan, Tahsil Maiher, District Satna.It is alleged in the complaint that a suit for declaration and injunction was prosecuted by the complainants 2 M.C r.C. No.5381/2011 before the Additional District Judge Maihar, which was dismissed and it was directed that the complainant may not be dispossessed without adopting any legal method.The First Appeal No.444/06 was filed before the High Court and vide order dated 19.7.2006, it was directed by the High Court that the complainant may not be dispossessed from the land.On 8.9.2010, the applicants alongwith many persons went to the spot and forcefully entered the crasher plant.They threatened to destroy the plant and thereafter, various machinery etc., were destroyed and motors, conveyer belts etc., were taken away by the applicants.The complainant Ajay Mishra was also assaulted with kicks and fists by the applicants and other persons and the generator room was also destroyed by the JCB machine.The complainants described their allegations in the complaint.C. No.5381/2011 committed by the respondent Nos.1-A and 1-B. Copy of POR and other documents are also annexed with the petition.Learned counsel for the applicants has invited attention of this Court to the documents like seizure memos and the reports relating to the registration of crime.The statement given by the respondent No.1-B cannot be brushed aside at this stage that he was assaulted.The applicants had no authority to enter into the premises in a forceful manner.Therefore, the trial Court had rightly registered a complaint against the applicants.After perusal of the complaint filed by the complainants and the revenue document 5 M.C r.C. No.5381/2011 (Annexure-P/3), which is a report was given by the Nayab Tahsildar Badera, Tahsil Maihar in which it was shown that the land bearing survey no.5/01 was registered as a Reserve Forest and it was of the Forest Department, whereas the land bearing survey no.5/02 in the same village Naogawan was of the State of Madhya Pradesh, it would be apparent that if any encroachment was found on the land survey no.5/02 then, no cause of action arose to the applicants to dispossess the complainants from that land.They could get an initiation for the land bearing survey no.5/01 of village Noagwan, which was a forest land.The notice was given soon after the incident of the forest crime.The Forest Department was the party in the civil suit as well as in the appeal therefore, the officers of the Forest Department had knowledge of the stay order passed by the Single Bench of this Court and hence, they could not dispossess the complainants from the land.It was for the applicants to register a forest crime but in doing so, they 6 M.C r.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,878,615 |
This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Similarly place co-accused namely Sunil Datt Pathak and Chandraprakash have already been released on bail.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application and has submitted that still the chalan has not been filed.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
|
['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.
|
40,879,304 |
C.R.M. No.5953 of 2017 p.d.In re:- Sanjoy Ram @ Suku .... Petitioner.Re: An application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. affirmed on 21.6.2017 in connection with Burdwan Police Station Case No.118/2016 dated 1.2.2016 under Sections 395/397/326/307/412 of the Indian Penal Code and read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act.On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in one single night, this petitioner committed dacoity at five places and similar other cases of dacoity are also pending against him, the details whereof are as follows:-"" (i ) Singur PS case No.36/16 dt.1.2.16 u/s. 395/396 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act, adding sec.396 IPC (SC No.81/16, ST No.17/17), (ii) Jamalpur PS case No.23/16 dated 1/2/16 u/s.395/397 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act, (iii) Dankuni PS case No.492/15 dt.6.12.15 u/s.395/397 IPC & 2 25/27 Arms Act (ST No.15(8)/16), (iv) Suri PS case No.16/16 dt. 11.1.16 u/s.395/397 IPC, 25(ii)(a) Arms Act, (v) Durgapur PS case No.48/16 dt.24.1.16 u/s.395/397 IPC, 25/27 Arms Act etc. (vi) Andal PS case No.116/16 dt.11.05.16 u/s.413/414 IPC & 25 (ii)(B)/27 Arms Act.""It is further submitted that in this case, not only the petitioner was identified in the T.I.Parade and the stolen articles were recovered from his possession but the police also took the chance fingers print from the place of occurrence and that have been matched with the specimen fingers print of this petitioner.We have gone through the case diary and find that the T.I. Parade Sheet is at page-626 of the case diary and the petitioner has been identified in the T.I.Parade and there is recovery of Mobile Phone of one of the injured persons and the Fingers Print Report is at page-758 thereof.Accordingly, the application for bail stands rejected.However, the trial be expedited.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Amitabha Chatterjee, J. )
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,882 |
This is an application under Section 482Cr.P.C. for the quashment of theproceedings of case no. 172 of 2009, arising out of case crime no.50 of 2008relating to the PS Sambhal, District Moradabad for the offences underSections 498A, 323,504,506 IPC.It has further been prayed that in themeantime the proceedings of the said case may be stayed.FIR was lodged by Smt.Sarda for harassment and ill treatment on account ofdemand of dowry.After filing of the charge sheet husband Neeraj and othershad moved an application no. 2699 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C.inwhich notices were issued to Smt.Learned counsel for the applicant states at the Bar that in that applicationunder Section 482 Cr.P.C. Smt.Sharda appeared and both the husband andwife are living together and the court has fixed a date in the month of March,2010 to take stock of the situation as to whether they are living happily or not.The present applicant is the sister of the husband Neeraj and is a juvenile.I have considered over the abovenoted facts.The application is admitted.Issue notice to opposite party no.2 Smt.Sharda returnable within four weeks.The applicant is directed to take steps for service of the notice on the oppositeparty no.2 by registered post AD within a week from today.The oppositeparty no.2 shall file counter affidavit, if any, within three weeks after serviceof the notice.The AGA has already received copy of the application and hemay file counter affidavit within the intervening period.The present application is directed to be listed before the appropriate Benchafter the service of the notice.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
40,883,306 |
2 Version of the prosecution is that all the aforenoted accused persons were beat constables posted at police station Badarpur.Mohd. Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 2 of 54 Sattar (PW-3) was the complainant; he was selling bags from a rehri in front of police station Badarpur since the last three months; all rehris and squatters had been removed by police officials but thereafter they had re-encroached upon this land.PW-3 had also started squatting by putting his rehri there.Accused person asked him to remove his rehri; he stated that since other persons were allowed to place their reharis he should not be discriminated and should also be permitted to place his rehri at the said place.The accused persons told him that he will have to pay Rs.300/- per month besides another sum of Rs.20/- on every Sunday for the aforesaid privilege.Since PW-3 was poor and had been unemployed for sometime he told them that because of financial stringency he would not be able to honour this demand.He was threatened and abused by them.On 26.9.1998 the aforenoted accused persons again told him to remove his rehri or in the alternate to pay them the bribe money.Since PW-3 could not pay up this amount he was threatened by accused Pramod and Mhod.On 27.9.1998 a demand was made by Mohd. Taufiq and Pramod for money but since PW-3 could not fulfill the demand he prayed for time up to 28.8.1998; Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 3 of 54 he was threatened that if the money was not paid up he would be implicated in a false case.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 2 of 54A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 3 of 54In the pre-trap proceedings Om Prakash Khatri (PW-5) a panchwitness was asked to join.PW-5 had been directed to give appointed signal after the money had been received by the accused.PW-3 approached the accused persons where they were standing; demand was made by Pramod; Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 4 of 54 money was handed over to Mohd. Taufiq; he gestured towards Prem Chand and the money was thereafter accepted by Prem Chand in his right hand and he put into his right pant pocket.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 4 of 544 Rati Ram (PW-1) and constable Mahinder Singh (PW-2 ), the then MHCM were witnesses to the link evidence i.e. the deposit of the exhibits which had been taken at the time of the raid i.e. the right hand wash and right pant pocket wash of Prem Chand.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 7 of 54A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 8 of 54It reads as:-It was thereafter that the seal of PSP was affixed on these exhibits.Not only the custodian of these exhibits (from 28.9.1998 up to 02.11.1998) i.e. PW-1 have categorically deposed that these exhibits were kept in an intact position in his almirah and on 02.11.1998 they were handed over to PW-12 who through PW-13 had sent them to CFSL Chandigarh.PW-13 has also categorically stated that when the parcels were handed over to him on 02.11.1998 and till the time of their delivery in the CFSL Chandigarh on 03.11.1998 there was no tampering of the exhibits which were in his custody.As noted supra this witness was not cross-examined at all.36 Ex.There is no notified malkhana in the Anti Corruption Branch and the malkhana of police station Civil Lines had been used.This is clarified in the version of PW-11 who had stated that after the accused persons had been arrested they were put in the lock up of police station Civil Lines.There is also no separate lock-up in the Anti Corruption Branch.The Anti Corruption Branch is in fact a part of police station Civil Lines.Since the Anti Corruption Branch did not have a notified malkahana, that is Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 37 of 54 why the two bottles i.e. RHW-1 and RPPW-I along with sample seal had been kept by PW-1 in his locked office till the time of their deposit in the CFSL.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 36 of 54A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 37 of 5439 Learned public prosecutor under instruction from Inspector Manoj Kumar, Anti Corruption Branch has in fact made a clarification which is to the effect that up to 1999 there was admittedly no separate malkhana in the Anti Corruption Branch; the Anti Corruption Branch was using the malkhana of police station Civil Lines where the Anti Corruption Branch was in fact housed.1 The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17.12.2005 and 19.12.2005 wherein they had been convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for one months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act; for the offence under Section 7 of the Said Act read with Section 34 of the IPC they had been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.Both the sentences were to run concurrently.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. was accorded to the appellant.PW-2 had deposited these exhibits in the Malkhana and they were sent through inspector Kamal Sapra (PW-13) to the CFSL Chandigarh.The CFSL vide its report Ex.PW-12/D had opined these exhibits as positive for phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate.5 Sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Said Act was obtained vide Ex.PW-6/A and proved in the version of DCP Vivek Gogia (PW-6).6 In the statement of the accused persons recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. they all pleaded innocence stating that they have been falsely implicated in a false case.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 5 of 54A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 5 of 54Defence sought to be set up was that the complainant had a grudge against the accused persons as he was encroaching on public land and on reprimand he has built up this false case to implicate the accused persons.In defence one witness was produced.Submission in defence was that an FIR under Section 354 IPC had been registered against PW-3 and was being investigated by the police station Badarpur; this was an additional cause of grievance of PW-3 against the accused persons.7 On behalf of the appellant arguments have been addressed by Senior Counsel Mr.Hariharan.His first argument is bordered on the link evidence.Submission being that as per the version of the prosecution there were four phials which had been taken at the time of raid; two of which comprised of the right hand wash of Prem Chand and two comprised of the right pant pocket of Prem Chand marked as RHW-I, RHW-II, RPPW-I and RPPW-II respectively.They were Crl.Attention has also been drawn to the cross-examination of PW-1 wherein he has stated that no Register No.19 was maintained in the Anti Corruption Branch.Submission on this count being that PW-1 and PW-2 have given contrary versions as to whether there was a Register No.19 being maintained in the Anti Corruption Branch or not.Further submission on this count being that PW-1 had testified that the articles were sealed with seal of PSP whereas PW-2 has testified the seal was of PHP.Prosecution version otherwise is that the bottles had been sealed with the seal of PSP and CFSL report Ex.PW- 12/DA also speaks that bottles marked RHW-I and RPPW-I had been received in the office of the CFSL at Chandigarh with the seal of PSP intact.Submission on this score being that what had been kept in the almirah of PW-1 was two sealed bottles having seal of PHP and those had been sent to CFSL through PW-13; what was received in the office of CFSL having the seal of PSP.This discrepancy remained Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 7 of 54 unexplained.Attention has also been drawn to the testimony of PW-5 wherein in his examination-in-chief he stated that the hand wash of PW-5 was kept in bottles; these were kept in the bag.Submission being that the possibility of this same hand wash having been sent to the CFSL to falsely implicate the accused cannot be ruled out; it was incumbent upon PW-5 or the investigating team to have testified that this hand wash which was demonstrated in the pre-trap proceedings had been thrown away.This hand wash having been kept in the investigating officers bag clearly throws a doubt on the veracity on the prosecution evidence.The link evidence is also not complete.PW-12/D was prepared by a Senior Scientific Officer who is neither in the rank of an Assistant Director and nor a Deputy Director.This Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 8 of 54 report has been prepared by a Senior Scientific Officer and is thus per se inadmissible.Second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is posed on the versions of PW-3 and PW-5; submission being that PW- 3 stated that the raid proceedings had started between 4:00- 4:30 p.m.; PW-5 had given time of 5:00-6:00 p.m.; PW-10 had given time of 5:00 p.m. These testimonies are irreconcilable.Third submission being that PW-3 had stated that the demonstration of the tainted money changing colour was conducted upon PW-5 whereas PW-3 has stated that the demonstration was given upon him; version of the prosecution as is clear from the testimony of PW-11 being that the amount was carried out upon PW-5 alone.There is also no explanation as to why the accused persons have not been specifically identified by the witnesses in the dock.The questions put to the accused persons in their statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. shows a complete non-application of mind as question no.16 and 17 are wholly irrelevant.Attention has been drawn to the charge which has been framed against the accused; submission being that where the ingredients of the charge are different from what is sought to be established by the prosecution it is a clear case of prejudice having been suffered by the public servant for which he Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 9 of 54 would be entitled for benefit of doubt and a consequent acquittal.The defence of the accused is plausible.The motive for falsely implicating the accused primarily was for the reason that there was a notification issued by Lt. Governor dated 11.8.1998 making it incumbent upon the police officials to remove all encroachment; it was pursuant to this directions that all the rehris were removed; this was the cause of grudge of the complainant (PW-3); this was the reason for this false implication.Further submission being that PW-3 had in one part of his version admitted that he was carrying a piece of paper in which some name had been mentioned; meaning thereby he was deposing at the Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 10 of 54 behest of someone else and not as per his own memory; he was tutored; on all counts the accused was entitled to a benefit of doubt and a consequent acquittal.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 6 of 54He was the Deputy Commissioner of Police.He has deposed that after having perused the entire material on record and considering the matter carefully he had accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellants.The sanction order has been proved as Ex.PW-6/A. A perusal of this order shows that there has been a proper application of mind.The history and narration of the incident has been noted in the sanction order.PW-6/A to Ex.23 Charge had been framed against each of the accused persons on Crl.The charge reads herein under as follows:Shadi Ram R/o Gaon Gandhi Chana, P.S. Behrod District Alwar, Rajasthan as under:"Firstly, that you being a public servant employed as Constable No.1709/SD of Delhi police on 26.9.98 demanded Rs.300/- as monthly plus Rs.20/- for each Sunday along with co- accused Constable Pramod Kumar No.1003/SD and Constable Mohd. Toufiq No.980/SD from complainant Sh.Sattar s/o Sh.Seikh Abdul Rayak r/o A-189 Tajpur Pahari, Badarpur, Delhi in consideration for allowing him to run a business upon a pavement on Mathura Road, Opposite P.S. Badarpur, Delhi and again on 28.9.98 you again demanded Rs.300/- from the said complainant for the said consideration along with Const.And I hereby direct you to be tried by this Court on the aforesaid charges.sd Special Judge Charges framed against accused today are read over and explained to the accused and he is questioned as follows:Q. Do you plead guilty to the charges or not? Ans.I plead not guilty.Q. Do you want to contest the case or not? Ans .I claim trial of the case."(ii) I, S.S.Bal, Special Judge, Delhi do hereby charge you Constable Mohd. Taufiq No.980/SD S/o Sh.Babu Khan R/o A-8, P.S. Ambeadkar Nagar, Delhi as under:Firstly, that you being a public servant employed as Constable No.980/SD of Delhi Police on 26.9.98 demanded Rs.300/- as monthly plus Rs.20/- for each Sunday along with co- accused Const.Prem Chand and Const.Pramod KUmar from complainant Sh.Sattar s/o Sh.Seikh Abdul Rayak r/o A-189 Tajpur Pahari, Badarpur, Delhi in consideration for allowing him to run a business upon a pavement on Mathura Road, Opposite Crl.Q. Do you plead guilty to the charges or not? Ans.I plead not guilty.Q. Do you want to contest the case or not?Budhi Parkash R/o A3/3 P.S. Defence Colony, Delhi as under: "Firstly, that you being a public servant employed as Constable No.1003/SD of Delhi police on 26.9.98 demanded Rs.300/- as monthly plus Rs.20/- for each Sunday along with co- accused Const.Prem Chand and Const, Mohd. Toufiq from complainant Sh.PW-3/D. The investigating officer was PW-11 (Inspector Y.S. Negi).He has deposed that on reaching the spot at about 7:00 p.m., after the statement of witnesses were recorded; the exhibits RHW-I and RPPW-I and a copy of the sample seal was deposited with ACP Rati Ram (PW-1).He deposed that on 28.9.1998 when he was posted in the Anti Corruption Branch PW-11 had deposited two bottles i.e. RHW-I and RPPW-1 which were sealed with the seal of PHP along with a sample seal which he had kept in an intact condition in his almirah which was locked by him; the key was kept by him.PW-1 has further deposed that on 02.11.1998 the investigating officer Inspector Y.S. Negi (PW-11) had come to the Anti Corruption Branch and he was handed over the two bottles i.e. RPW-I and RPW-II along Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 30 of 54 with sample seal for deposit in the CFSL, Chandigarh which exhibits had been sent through Inspector Kamal Sapra (PW-13).He has on oath deposed that on 02.11.1998 he had taken the Exs.This could be nothing but a typographical error; the middle alphabet of S having been typed as Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 31 of 54 H. This is clear from the fact that all the aforenoted witnesses in their oral depositions have stated that these exhibits were labeled and then sealed with the seal of PSP.The labels pasted on these exhibits were signed by the complainant and the panchwitness.That apart the CFSL in its report Ex. PW-12/D has also specifically noted that the seals of these exhibits were intact and had been compared with the specimen seal which had been sent along with the forwarding letter.33 Ex.PW-12/D inculpating Prem Chand was rightly read in evidence.37 PW-1 the ACP in the Anti Corruption Branch in his cross- examination admitted that Register No.19 is not maintained in the Anti Corruption Branch and it does not have a notified malkhana.PW-2 on Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 36 of 54 the other hand had deposed that the deposit of three GC notes and two bottles (RHW-II and RPPW-II) and a pant pullanda were entered in Register No.19 and these entries were proved as Ex.PW-2/A. A perusal of these entries show that these entries relate to P.S.Civil Lines.38 Testimony of PW-11 is also relevant.He has deposed that after completion of the investigation at the spot he had returned to the Anti Corruption Branch; the accused persons were put in the lock up in the Civil Lines police station.The case property exhibits RHW-II, RPPW-II, pant pullanda and GC notes were deposited in the malkhana; this was not in the malkhana of Anti Corruption Branch but the malkhana of P.S. Version of PW-1 is correct.40 Thus this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is a discrepancy in the version of PW-1 and PW-11 as to whether there was any Register No.19 in the Anti Corruption Branch or not is an argument bereft of force.41 PW-3 the complainant was the star witness of the prosecution.He had given his complaint to the CBI on 28.9.1999 duly signed by him.This has been proved as Ex. PW-3/A. In this complaint, it was categorically stated that PW-3 was running a rehri on the pavement along with other persons; the aforenoted three constables i.e. constable Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 38 of 54 Prem Chand, constable Mohd.Taufiq and constable Pramod Kumar had asked him to remove his rehri.He had in fact removed it but thereafter had started putting the rehri again as other vendors were using the payment for carrying out the similar business and he felt that he was being discriminated.He was threatened by the accused persons to remove his rehri or else he would have to pay Rs.300/- as monthly charges besides Rs.20/- on every Sunday.Since he was unable to pay the amount he had made a complaint to the CBI.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 38 of 5442 In his deposition on oath in court PW-3 has reiterated all these averments.He has reiterated that on 26.9.1998 all the aforenoted accused told him pay Rs.300/- per month and Rs.20/- on every Sunday to run his business.He made a complaint to the CBI.43 There is no doubt that in this deposition there is no mention of a date of 27.9.1998 but this is not such a material omission which would be sufficient to throw a doubt on his creditability.He has reiterated that he was carrying out this work for the last 6 to 7 years; about 2 or 3 months ago he was asked to remove his rehri but he had started putting it back as he felt that he was being discriminated as other persons were also plying their rehris there.On query he had been told to pay bribe amount.44 The pre-raid proceedings have also been described by this witness.He has deposed that in the pre-raid proceedings powder was applied on the three GC notes of Rs.100/-; thereafter he was asked to touch the notes and when his hand was washed in a solution it turned pink.These notes were returned back to him which he had wrapped in a paper and kept them in his front shirt pocket.In the pre-raid proceedings it was explained to him that he had to hand over the money to the police official only on demand.Panchwitness Om Prakash (PW-5) was also a witness to the proceedings.45 Thereafter the raid proceeding had been described.PW-3 has deposed that he had reached the spot at about 4:20 p.m. PW-5 was having tea with him.Taufiq first made a demand but he was told that PW-3 had a guest with him; thereupon Mohd.Taufiq followed Pramod and Prem Chand who were standing at a distance.The witness Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 40 of 54 has nowhere given the measurement of this distance as has been vehemently argued by the learned defence counsel stating that it was 50- 60 yards.Thus the argument that the conversation between the co- accused could not be heard by the witness also belied.Version of the witness is that the other co-accused were standing at some distance.PW-3 has further deposed that Pramod asked Mohd. Taufiq if the money had been received to which he was informed that the money had not yet been paid.From his shirt pocket he handed over the money to Pramod who told him to hand over the money to Mohd.Taufiq but on handing over the money to Mohd.Taufiq he was asked to pay the money to Prem Chand who accepted it in his right hand and kept it in his right pant pocket.The common concert of all the three accused in the demand of the bribe money and thereafter its acceptance which was physically accepted by Prem Chand is evident.The appointed signal was then given by PW-5 and the raiding party reached the spot.In his cross-examination PW-3 has admitted that he is still plying the rehri at the same place.He admitted that he had written something on his left palm on a piece of paper which he brought to the court to refresh his memory; the initials of the seal PSP had been noted on the paper the name of the witness Om Prakash was written.He further stated that Mohd. Taufiq had arrived at the spot first and made a demand and on the second occasion he did not accept the money in his hand.In a further part of his cross-examination PW-1 admitted that Prem Chand did not demand any money either on the first occasion or on the second occasion.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 40 of 54A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 41 of 5447 Efforts had also been made by the learned defence counsel to confront PW-1 with his earlier statement Ex. PW-3/DA but nothing material has been elicited to point out any improvements in his version.48 The version of PW-3 is fully corroborative of his complaint Ex. PW-3/A. On oath it has been reiterated that the demand for the first time surfaced from the aforenoted three beat constable i.e. on 26.9.1998 and it was reiterated on 28.9.1998; PW-3 had sought time on 26.9.1998 to arrange for the money.Demonstration was shown to PW-3 as to how on touching the tainted GC notes the solution turns pink.PW-5 was also present there at that time.At the time of the raid i.e. on 28.9.1998, at about 4:30 p.m. Mohd.Taufiq had first made a demand; PW-3 informed him that he had a guest thereupon Mohd. Taufiq joined his co-accused i.e. constable Pramod Kumar and Prem Chand who were at some distance; it is evident from the gist of this version that they were within a hearing distance.PW-3 had further deposed that when constable Pramod Kumar learnt that no money had been paid to Mohd. Taufiq he became furious.PW-3 reached there and offered money to Mohd. Taufiq who told him to give it to Pramod Kumar and Pramod asked him to pay the money to Prem Chand which was finally received by Prem Chand and kept by him in his right pant pocket.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 42 of 5449 In the pre-raid proceedings which were conducted in the morning of 28.9.1998 PW-3 stated that he had wrapped the tainted money (which had been coated with phenolphthalein powder) in a piece of paper and put the same in his right shirt pocket.This was obviously with the intent to let powder remain intact and to protect it from getting wasted.This Crl.In order to constitute a criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) the action of a public servant deriving pecuniary advantage need not necessarily be connected with the performance of his official duty; this is the distinction from Section 7 of the said Act. Crl.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 52 of 54 65 Section 34 of the IPC presupposes an active concert and common intent of the minds of the accused persons to convict the accused.All the accused were beat constables in the area; they had with a common purpose asked the complainant to pay the bribe money in order to run his business on the pavement.A. Nos.16/2006, 33/2006 & 46/2006 Page 52 of 5466 The prosecution has been able to prove its case to the hilt.All ingredients stand proved.On no count does the impugned judgment call for any interference.The appellants have already been granted minimum sentence.68 The appellants in their capacity as public servants i.e. as constables who were enjoined the duty to enforce the law had in fact abused the process of law by demanding a bribe from the complainant; the reason was to satiate their greed.They be sent to jail to suffer the remaining sentence.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,012,565 |
/353/326/307/302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act.The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner was earlier granted bail in connection with concerned criminal case and on account of failure to appear before the learned trial court on a particular date due to unavoidable circumstances warrant of arrest was issued and the petitioner was rearrested and since then the petitioner is in custody for 105 days.The learned Advocate of the petitioner further submits that charge sheet has already been submitted.The learned Advocate for the State does not dispute the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.The application for bail, thus, stands disposed of.Leave is granted to the petitioner to add the left out section in the cause title of the bail application.
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,019,495 |
(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/-, with one or two sureties in the like amount.(ii) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station on 13th, 14th and 15th June, 2019 from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon.(iii) The applicant shall inform his latest addresses and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time, to the concerned Police station, in writing.(iv) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence/contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case;(v) The applicant shall cooperate in the conduct of the trial.3 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 01:06:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 01:06:09 :::The Application is disposed of on above terms.It is made clear, that the observations made herein are primafacie and are confined to this application.All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.( REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) 4 of 4 ::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 01:06:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/06/2019 01:06:09 :::
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
210,206 |
The petition filed by the respondents/accused 1 to 3 for dischargingthem from the case in brief is as follows:1.(a) The petitioners 1 to 3 are the accused 1 to 3, were working asExecutive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer and Junior Engineerrespectively in the Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation during the relevantperiod to this case and one Tr.R.Raghunathan, who was working as City Engineerin the said Corporation who is in superior rank to the Executive Engineer andhis subordinates in the Said Corporation, He is the head of the EngineeringSection in the said Corporation.1.(b) In the police report filed under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., theInspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti-Corruption, Tirunelveli had levelledcharges for the offences under Section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 I.P.C. againstall the eight accused and a charge for the offence punishable under section13(2) r/w Sec.13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against A1 to A3,that All the charges levelled are found to have been based merely on surmisesand conjectures and are found to be absolutely groundless, that even if theallegations in the police report are taken at their face value, they do not makeout the ingredients of the offences for which charges have been levelledtherein, that the charges under Section 468 and 471 I.P.C.,are found to be theoutcome of gross misconception of law and facts and that neither the allegationscontained in the police report nor in the statement of witnesses nor in theother documents relied on by the prosecution make out the ingredients of theoffence of forgery as defined under Section 463 and 464 I.P.C.,which is a sinequa non for attracting Sec.468 I.P.C.1.(c) There is absolutely no scope for a charge for the offence of"forgery for purpose of cheating" punishable u/s 468 I.P.C which is just anaggravated form of forgery, that even if all the mens rea and overt acts for theoffence punishable u/s 468 I.P.C are presumed to be true, they do not make outthe ingredients of the said offence and that the charge u/s 468 and 478 I.P.Care found to have been levelled not only without any basis but also quitecontrary to the facts ex-facie available in the documents relied upon theprosecution.1.(d) The fundamental allegation upon which the prosecution has found itsentire case is that A6 and A7 recorded false measurements in the MeasurementBooks as if earth and gravel had been filled in layers of 15 cm thick (eachlayer 15 cm thick) watered and consolidated layer by layer but without actuallydoing this work as found in the Measurement Books, that this fundamentalallegation itself stands disproved by Sec.161(3) Cr.P.C statement ofMr.R.Regunathan, formerly City Engineer, Tirunelveli City Municipal Corporation,who found to have stated that he supervised the Tirunelveli New Bus-Stand worksfrom 15.10.2001 onwards, that in the same statement he further stated asfollows: "nkw;go xg;ge;jf;fhuu; xt;bthU 15 br.kPl;lUf;Fk; gtu; nuhyiugad;gLj;jp/ jz;zPu; moj;J/ ,Wf;fk; bra;Jjhd; nkw;go gs;sk; epug;g[k; ntiyiabra;jhu;." This situation of facts unmistakably reveals that themeasurements/entries recorded by A6 and A7 are not false one.1.(e) The technical report dated 2.8.2004 of witness No.22 Mr.A.RampalSingh does not improve in any manner the above said position of the prosecutioncase, that this report is nothing but a self-serving evidence generated for thepurpose, that the Technical Report, being hit by sec.162 Cr.P.C., would betotally inadmissible in evidence during trial.752 (Madras High Court)]iv.After hearing both sides, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Tirunelveli has allowed both the applications, discharging the petitioners andalso the accused who had not filed discharge petition, from the case.Hence,the State has preferred these revisions.5. Point for Consideration:The following are the gist of the charge against the accused:6. Point:They are further alleged to have entered into a criminal conspiracy,fraudulently and dishonestly to cause wrongful loss to Tirunelveli MunicipalCorporation, A6 and A7 recorded false measurement/entries in the MeasurementBook as if the earth and gravel had been filled in layer of 15 cm thick (eachlayer) watered and consolidated layer by layer but without actually doing thework as found in the Measurement Book.By making false entries in theMeasurement Books, they have caused a pecuniary loss of Rs.7,24,574/- to thesaid Corporation and thereby they are liable to be punished for the offences ofcheating and forgery punishable under Section 420 and 468 I.P.C. respectively.In the course of the same transaction, A1 to A8 with the dishonestintention, used forged Measurement Books and the bills and caused the bills forRs.7,24,574/- sanctioned and hence they are punishable under Section 471 I.P.C.It is the first and foremost contention of the revision petitionerthat the work was not done as per the specification contained in the contractthat when the earth was filled in the site for every 15 cm, the layer should beas per the percentage of compaction, that without carrying out the contract byactually performing the work, all the accused conspired together, made falseentries into the measurement books and got the bills sanctioned forRs.7,24,574/- and hence they have caused monetary loss to the TirunelveliMunicipal Corporation.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution placed much relianceupon the Super Check Report of one A.Rampal Singh, who was examined underSection 161(3) Cr.P.C. as 22nd witness in this case.Apart from physical verification of number oflayers available in the site the witnesses also tested the quality of thecompaction by utilising the fingers.Certainly, there could be a scientifictest for ascertaining the quality of the components or materials used forfilling up the earth.The said opinionappears to be reasonable.Witness No.21 is one R.Regunathan who was working as SuperintendingEngineer in the office of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chennai.He had to inspect the workswhich would cost more than Rs.10 lakhs.These revision petitionssuffer dismissal.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,022,620 |
The is- sue herein only related to a tenancy and subletting.There was no lis relating to the ownership of the land on which the superstructure or the demised premises had been con- structed.M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 61 of 118 the High Court of Delhi.Neither the accused nor the complainant or in- formant are entitled to choose their own investigating agency to investigate a crime in which they may be inter- ested.The object and purpose of holding an inquiry/investigation under Section 202 of the Code is to find out whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused or not.66) However, where the commission of offence is disclosed based on the documents under various Statutes, such as Companies Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, or where the filing of a complaint in writing has been made as a pre-requisite in various Statutes, or where the offence is purely of private or personal nature and not against the State then the inquiry by Crl.M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 97 of 118 the Magistrate shall be based on the Statement on oath of the complainant and on careful scrutiny of the documents relied upon by the complainant and evidence of the witnesses on oath examined by the complainant and not beyond that, while in other offences, based on the oral testimony, the Magistrate may direct investigation through the police or by some other person, as he deems it fit.M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 97 of 11868) In the present case, in the complaint of defamation filed by the Crl.M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 98 of 118 respondent no.2 under Sections 500/109/34 IPC, he has impleaded 16 Directors of M/s Jindal Steel & Power Ltd., and one accused holding the post of Company Secretary of the said company.The respondent no.2/complainant has premised his complaint based on two separate cause of actions.As per the complainant, the accused persons with a common intention made a false complaint to the Police on 2.10.2012 alleging that earlier when the respondent no.2 was the CEO of Live India T.V., they had carried out a fake sting operation for which they were banned for doctoring the story and seemingly impressed with his capabilities, Mr. Subhash Chandra had taken the aforesaid complainant on the Board of their company for extorting money for his channel and used him for this malicious campaign and nefarious designs.M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 99 of 118 Editors Association including removal of the complainant from the post of treasurer.The complaint clearly states that the press conference was presided over by the accused Naveen Jindal, Ravi Uppal, Vikrant Gujral and Anand Goel, who were senior members of the said company.Against the other co-accused persons the complainant has averred that they all were hand in glove and they very well knew that the false statements are being made in the press conference and they abetted to make such false Statements with the common intention to malign the image of the complainant.The al- legations in the complaint merely show that the appellants have given their brand name to "Residency Foods and Bev- erages Ltd." for bottling the beverage "Lehar Papsi '.There is no averment as to how the com- plainant could say so and also if the appellants manufac- tured the alleged bottle or its contents.The licence number of manufacturer shall also be exhibited prominently on the side label on such bot- tle [Clause (8) (1) (b) ].M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 106 of 118 offending beverage and if, as noted above, the first appellant was the manufacturer thereof."M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 104 of 118M.C. No. 292/2013 Page 117 of 118The present petition filed by the petitioner is thus maintainable in the eyes of law.The order passed by the Ld.Magistrate is grossly illegal, perverse, and if allowed to stand, the same will result in causing mis-carriage of justice and serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioners.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,025,936 |
Rishi Sethi (PW-22), the victim, has deposed that he was kidnapped at about 07:00 p.m. on 12th September, 1995, when he was sitting on the drivers seat in his car, which was parked near the residence of the Director of All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS).Three-four persons had CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 2 of 23 confronted and pushed him to the front side seat of his car.He was forced to put his face down.He was beaten and they tried to strangulate him.A bandage was forcibly wrapped around his eyes.He became unconscious.When he regained consciousness, he was still in the car.He could not see as he was blindfolded throughout.Subsequently, he was taken to a room and confined there.There again, he suffered loss of consciousness because of the pain due to the injuries caused.On 16th September, 1995, he regained consciousness and found himself in his house.PW-22 claimed that he did not know how he reached his house.In his examination-in-chief, PW-22 could not identify the three-four perpetrators who had kidnapped, beaten and confined him in a room.He could not recollect anything about the place/location where he was.He, however, identified the car in which he was kidnapped as bearing No.PW-22 was unable to recognise the appellant Rahul Rana as well as the co-accused, Amit Yadav.On being cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor, he maintained his stance and denied as incorrect that Rahul Rana present in the court had dragged him to the rear seat or had given fist blows on his face.He denied the suggestion that while he was confined to a room, the appellant Rahul Rana had asked him to give telephone numbers of his near relatives which he was forced to furnish.He identified the hair brush, pen, shoes, purse, driving license, etc. and other articles which were there in his car when he was kidnapped.He also identified the car.After some initial hesitation, he identified the pistol (Ex.P-1) which was used to threaten him.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 2 of 23The deposition of PW-22 would establish and prove that he was kidnapped, the manner in which he was kidnapped, and that he was rescued.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 3 of 23Surinder Kapoor (PW-44) are relevant.R.K. Rathi (PW-10) has deposed that he had joined investigation with other police staff and had gone to Hotel Mayur, Meerut with the family members of Rishi Sethi, the victim, with ransom money.The said money was kept in room No.221 by the receptionist Sanjay Abraham (PW-42).The room was booked in the name of Sandeep Jain.PW-10 along with other members of the raiding party kept a watch.At about 11:00 a.m., one Ambassador car bearing No.UMT-3314 arrived and the driver came in and spoke to the receptionist.The driver brought back the bag after about 10-15 minutes and kept it on the rear seat of the car.The police team, which was keeping a watch, followed the car.The said car stopped near Vardhman Market, Meerut.At about 5:00 p.m. Amit Yadav, the co- accused came and sat in the car.He checked the bag and kept it on his lap.The police raiding team immediately swung into action and apprehended Amit Yadav.The bag with the ransom amount was recovered.Amit Yadav was arrested and made a disclosure statement (Ex.PW-10/A).Thereafter, Amit Yadav led the police party to house No.R-63, Raj Kunj, Raj Nagar, CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 4 of 23 Ghaziabad.The house was opened using the keys recovered from Amit Yadav, and the victim Rishi Sethi was found locked and chained in the store room.Photographs were taken and incriminating evidence like lock, key, T- shirt, bandages, etc. recovered were seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW10/B. Rishi Sethi, thereafter, was taken to the Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital and was medically examined by Dr. R.K. Gupta (PW-45) vide MLC, Ex.PW- 45/A.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 4 of 23R.K. Ojha (PW-11), who was also a part of the raiding team, has similarly deposed regarding ransom money being kept in room No.221 of Hotel Mayur, Meerut, booked in the name of Sandeep Jain; how on 16th September, 1995, driver of car No.UMT-3314 collected the amount; apprehension of Amit Yadav at 05:00 PM with the ransom money; and the subsequent rescue of Rishi Sethi.Surender Kapoor (PW-44), SHO, police station Anand Parbat was leading the police team.He has identically testified and proved the arrest of Amit Yadav; how the entire operation was conducted on 15th September, 1995 and 16th September, 1995; and Rishi Sethi was saved.At this stage, it may be relevant to refer to the testimony of Sanjay Abraham (PW-42), receptionist of Hotel Mayur, Meerut and Rakesh Kumar Sharma (PW-14), driver of car bearing No.Sanjay Abraham (PW-42) has deposed that he was working as a manager and on 15-16th September, a room was booked in the name of Sandeep Jain on advance payment of Rs.600/-.He had issued a receipt and had made relevant entries in the register, which were marked Ex.PW42/A to Ex.PW42/C. However, he could not identify the person who had made the said booking.He CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 5 of 23 accepted that he was given an envelope by the person who had booked the room and given instructions.At about 7:30 or 8:00 p.m. while he was on duty, a person who called himself Mr. Sethi had spoken to him and desired to know about Sandeep Jain.He handed over an envelope to Mr. Sethi, who in turn gave him a bag.Next day, at about 10:00-10:30 a.m., he received a call from Sandeep Jain stating that he would be sending his driver along with a receipt to collect the bag and settle the account.After sometime, a person came and made balance payment of Rs.100 and the bag was handed over to the said person.After 5-6 days, police came and his statement was recorded.As per the prosecution evidence, the said room was booked by Amit Yadav, impersonating himself as Sandeep Jain.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 5 of 23Rakesh Sharma (PW-14), in his court deposition, asserted that he was working as a taxi driver and on 16th September, 1995, one person had booked the taxi No.UMT-3314 at the Union Counter at Meerut.He could not identify the passenger/person who had booked the taxi.He claimed that on reaching Abu Lane, Meerut, the passenger alighted and went to the market.At about 5.00 p.m., the passenger returned and he brought the taxi to the stand.Thereupon, arrival entry was made.Subsequently, 5-6 police officials wearing plain clothes pounced upon him and he was brought to the police station, Patel Nagar.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 6 of 23Sunil Dutt Sharma (PW-16) had deposed to the effect that he was the counter in-charge of the taxi stand and on 16.09.1995, taxi No.UMT-3314 was booked by a person who called himself Mukesh Jain but the said person was not known to him personally.The taxi was hired at about 11:00 a.m. and came back after dropping at about 4:00 p.m. Thereafter, some police persons in plain clothes had picked up the taxi driver, Rakesh Sharma (PW-17) that Rahul Rana had purchased the toy pistol.Neeraj Bhatnagar (PW-41) had deposed that he used to run a travel agency Megha Travels during the period 1990-1995 from his office situated at Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.He knew the appellant Rahul Rana and Amit Yadav as they were his regular customers.On 16th September, 1995, the two had come to his office and booked a taxi for going to Meerut.A Maruti Van with driver Naresh was hired by them.Relevant entry was made in the booking and payment register.In the evening, the driver had brought back the vehicle.After 3 days, on 19th September, 1995, a police team visited his office and checked out the entries but at that time neither Rahul Rana nor Amit Yadav was with them.Thereafter, he came to the taxi stand at Ghaziabad.After 2-3 days, police came to the taxi stand along with a man in their CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 16 of 23 custody.He did not know who the said man was.Police also inquired from Neeraj (PW-41) about the said man.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 20 of 23Before we end, we must also take into account an assertion made on behalf of the prosecution, which is not recorded in the aforesaid paragraphs of the impugned judgment.As per the police version, the appellant had made a disclosure statement marked Ex.By order on sentence dated 25th August, 1999, the appellant Rahul Rana has been sentenced as under:-CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 1 of 23Separate sentences have not been awarded for the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC, observing that these were minor offences and the ingredients of these two offences were covered under Section 364A, IPC.The sentences are to run concurrently and benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C., for short) has been granted.The impugned judgment also convicts co-accused Amit Yadav.The said Amit Yadav had filed Crl.A. No.569/1999 against the said conviction and was granted interim bail.He absconded.Amit Yadav has been declared a proclaimed offender and his appeal has been consigned to record room.We have heard the counsel for the appellant and the State, and have perused the trial court record.We proceed to examine the evidence and the contentions raised.He hesitated and could not identify and affirm whether the appellant Rahul Rana was one of the perpetrators.On the question of Rahul Ranas involvement, the prosecution, therefore, must rely on other evidence.On the question of rescue operation, testimonies of police witnesses, namely, Insp.PW-14 was declared hostile and was cross- examined by the Additional Public Prosecutor.He admitted having signed CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 6 of 23 certain papers but denied that he had given any statement to the police.He denied several other suggestions given to him by the Additional Public Prosecutor including the factum that he had gone to Hotel Mayur, Meerut and taken the money, etc. PW-14s testimony, we observe, as per the prosecution version is not relevant and was not recorded for directly implicating and to establish the appellant Rahul Ranas participation in the kidnapping of Rishi Sethi.14).He had informed the local police station and the SSP, Meerut as he was under the impression that Rakesh Sharma (PW-14) had been kidnapped.Later on, from the office of the SSP, Meerut, they came to know that the said persons were police officers from the Police Station Patel Nagar, Delhi.PW-16 was declared hostile and the Public Prosecutor cross-examined him.After examining the booking slip, PW-16 accepted that the taxi was booked in the name of Sandeep Jain and the booking slips were marked Ex.PW- 16/A and Ex.PW-16/B.Ombir Singh (PW-29) was the president of the taxi union and had deposed about the presence of Delhi Police at the union office.He accepted that taxi No.However, as he turned hostile, the Public CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 7 of 23 Prosecutor had cross-examined him.In his cross-examination, PW-29 accepted having signed memo, Ex.PW-16/A with regard to the booking slip seized by the police.However, PW-29 refused to identify Amit Yadav as the person who hired the taxi and also refused to accept the fact that when the police came at the taxi stand, Amit Yadav was in their custody.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 7 of 23Testimony of Sohraj Singh (PW-12), finger print expert should be noted.Rahul Rana was not arrested from the spot or from the taxi when the ransom money was seized or from the premises where Rishi Sethi was rescued.He had not been seen in the hotel.He was not recognised or identified by Rakesh Sharma (PW-14), Sunil Dutt Sharma (PW-16) and Ombir Singh (PW-29).In fact, it is not the prosecution case that the said witnesses had seen or interacted with the appellant Rahul Rana.He was not apprehended by the police.Prosecution case against the appellant Rahul Rana rests upon the testimony of Kailash (PW-17), Neeraj Bhatnagar (PW-41), Naresh Kumar CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 8 of 23 (PW-28) and recovery of clothes pursuant to the purported disclosure statement dated 01.10.1995 made by appellant Rahul Rana (Ex.PW32/B).The clothes were seized vide Ex.PW32/C allegedly from first floor of premises No.R-63, Raj Kunj, Ghaziabad, U.P. In order to properly appreciate the said testimonies, we would like to reproduce the findings recorded by the trial court on the question of conspiracy and involvement of the appellant Rahul Rana as a co-conspirator.Trial court in this regard has observed:-CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 8 of 23Till 16.9.95 the police was not aware of the involvement of any person in the offence of abduction of Rishi Sethi.It was only after the apprehension of the accused Amit Yadav on 16.9.95 at about 5 PM who was apprehended with the ransom money in the car used by him and driven by PW-14 Rakesh Sharma.After the recovery of ransom disclosure statement of accused Amit Yadav was recorded and it was during his statement Ex.PW10/A where accused Amit Yadav has mentioned the name of accused Rahul Rana involved with him for the abduction of Rishi Sethi and in that statement EX.PW10/A, he had also disclosed the place where Rishi Sethi was confined.Involvement of accused Rahul Rana as well as the place where Rishi Sethi was confined are the facts which were not in the knowledge of the police prior to the apprehension of the accused Amit Yadav and since recovery of Rishi Sethi has been effected in pursuance of the information disclosed by the accused recorded vide memo EX.PW10/A; disclosure statement to that effect is admissible and therefrom the involvement of accused Rahul Rana has come on record.Detailed disclosure statement made by accused Amit Yadav at R-63 Raj Kunj, Raj Nager, Ghaziabad, which is EX.P10/C discloses the detailed facts how the offence was planned and executed by him with the help of accused Rahul Rana.However, the disclosure statement is not sufficient to rely the involvement of accused Rahul Rana for the purpose of his involvement, unless same is corroborated on some account by other evidence on record.PW17 Sh.Kailash who was running a toy shop at 38, Hauz Khas, Arvindo Palace, New Delhi states that he knew accused Rahul Rana present in court.In his statement he states that about 2 years back in the month of September, accused Rahul Rana purchased a toy pistol from his shop for Rs.60/- and that toy pistol has been used for threatening the victim Rishi Sethi.He identified the toy pistol EX.P.1 which was purchased CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 9 of 23 from his shop.. PW22 Rishi Sethi on cross--examination seen the toy pistol EX.P1 states that it was the same which was used for threatening him.Not only this, PW41 Neeraj Bhatnagar, R/o.R-6/151, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad states that he is running a travel agency with the name of Meghna Travels situated at R-10/114, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP during the period of September,1995 and he was knowing accused Amit Yadav and Rahul Rana since they were his regular customers.On 16.9.95 both accused persons came to his office and booked the Maruti Van no.DL-4C-D-7349 for Meerut and this Maruti Van has been driven by Naresh on 16.9.95 and duty slip for that purpose was also handedover to him.Ho had identified both accused persons who came for booking the said Maruti Van and he has also made entry in the booking register as well as the payment register.PW28 Naresh Kumar who was driver with Meghna Travels Agency, situated R-10/114, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP states that in the month of September, 1995 he was on duty on Maruti Van no.On 16.9.95 his Maruti Van was booked by his owner for Meerut.As per prosecution case, this van has been used to carry both these accused persons to Meerut.However he has proved his signatures on the documents EX PW28/A pointing--out memo prepared by the police for pointing-out the place wherefrom the said taxi was booked.So from booking of the van by both accused persons on 16.9.95 in the morning and at the same time purchase of the toy pistol EX.P1 by accused Rahul Rana used for threatening victim Rishi Sethi on 12.9.95 at the time of abduction, as stated by PW41 Neeraj Bhatnagar and PW17 Kailash both public witnesses, respectively, I. find that prosecution has proved the overt act committed by accused Rahul Rana in agreement with accused Amit Yadav for the commission of crime u/s 364A, 394, 323, 506 IPC and accordingly, I find that prosecution has proved the reasonable ground for the Court to believe that two or more persons i.e. Amit Yadav and Rahul Rana were the members of the conspiracy to commit the crime and accordingly the first condition stands proved by the prosecution and contemplated by the Honble Supreme Court in the aforesaid- judgment.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 9 of 23Accordingly, in view of this requirement, whatever is done by accused Amit Yadav in order to commit the offences punishable u/s 364A, 394, 323, 506 IPC is the evidence against the accused Rahul Rana also.Third ingredient is that anything said, done written by him should have been said done or written by him after the intention was formed CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 10 of 23 by any one of them.Toy pistol EX.P1 has been purchased before the commission of the crime and that has been used to threaten Rishi Sethi on 12.9.95 and that proves the concert of accused Rahul Rana with accused Amit Yadav and thereafter the concert has been proved when both of them have booked the van on 16.9.95 to go to Meerut.Accordingly, requirement of this ingredient has also been proved by the prosecution.Fifth ingredient as per the aforesaid judgment of the Honble Supreme Court that it can only be used against the co-conspirator and not in his favour in accordance with requirement whatever evidence have produced by the prosecution against Amit Yadav has to be used against Rahul Rana and not in hiv favour.Accordingly, prosecution has proved by reliable evidence on record that Rahul Rana-accused was party to the criminal conspiracy with accused Amit Yadav for committing the offence punishable u/s 364A, 394, 323 and 506 IPC.If accused Amit Yadav have not disclosed the name of other persons who may have also participated with him, it was difficult-for the police to take cognizance against those persons and it appears that other persons have been saved by accused Amit Yadav, if there were 3/4 persons to abduct Rishi Sethi from AIMS as stated by him.Discrepancies are bound to occur what-so- ever intelligent or expert person he may be but discrepancies on minor facts are bound to occur in the statement of any witness because no person can make the statement on two occasions at a different of 2/3 years in the same words, in the same expression and in the-same manner because the potentialities of the senses of perception, reception, retention memory and expression differ from mind to mind and many men and many minds and no two minds can be the same.Accordingly by natural consequences the contradictions are bound to occur, but unless the malafides are proved for false implication against such witnesses, their testimony cannot be thrown away, as untrustworthy merely on such minor contradictions.However, the chain of the circumstances of the prosecution case to be considered with reliable and documentary evidence on record while dealing with the other contentions raised by ld. counsels for the both accused persons.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 11 of 23Counsel for accused Rahul Rana contended that identity of the accused Rahul Rana not been established and refusal of the TIP was justified and that his identity was not established by any other witness.I have given thoughtful consideration to this contention raised by Id. counsel for accused Rahul Rana and gone through the evidence on record, Since the role of accused Rahul Rana has already been discussed in respect of purchasing the toy pistol and ,accompanying the accused Amit Yadav in order to hire the van on 16.9.95 and CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 12 of 23 identified positively by PW17 Kailash and PW41 Neeraj Bhatnagar, so I found that this contention has no merit at all.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 12 of 23I have given thoughtful considerations to this contention and f y , gone through the evidence on record and find that this contention has no substance or merit at all, since the hostility of PW Rishi Sethi on certain points cannot be sufficient to throw away his entire statement on record, which is found reliable and it does not effect the other positive evidence on record, which supports the charges against the accused Rahul Rana.PW Rishi Sethi has specifically stated that before getting his writing on the letter Ex.There is no challenge on the factum of inflicting injury on the person of Rishi Sethi on 15.9.95 that letter was got written during the course of his confinement or detention at R-63, Raj Kunj, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, UP.He has also specifically stated the circumstances under which he we was compelled to write that letter and that letter PW6/A was used to encash rupees ten lacs.Therefore, giving beatings and inflicting injury on the person of Rishi Sethi while under detention, have been corroborated by the medical evidence on record i.e. the testimony of PW45, Dr. R.K. Gupta, I find that whatever offence has been committed and whatever evidence has been produced to prove such offences eve against the accused Amit Yadav, the same shall be used against the accused Rahul Rana, since it has-already been found that he was the party to the criminal conspiracy as-has already been discussed while dealing with charge u/S 120B IPC- read with section 10 of the Evidence Act. So all :the evidences proving the charge or evidence against accused Amit Yadav, shall be used as evidence against Rahul Rana, as held by Honble Supreme Court in case titled as CBI V/s.V.C. Shukla &, others (supra).So this contention has no merit or substances at all.Counsel for the accused Rahul Rana further contended that there is no evidence against the accused Rahul Rana; that he never threatened or caused hurt for the purpose of ransom, hence Section 364A IPC is not attracted at all.In view of the detailed discussion CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 13 of 23 already undertaken while considering the ingredients of Section 364A IPC and the relevant and reliable evidence to prove the charge against the accused and the discussion, detailed above, in respect of the Section 10 of the Evidence Act, the entire evidence used to prove the evidence against the accused Amit Yadav has to be taken as evidence against the accused Rahul Rana.Hence this contention has also no substance or merit, at all.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 13 of 23Kailash (PW-17) elucidated that he was having a toy shop in Aurobindo Place, New Delhi and two and a half years back on 18 th September, the appellant Rahul Rana had purchased a toy pistol from him for Rs.60/-.After 10-15 days, police came with Amit Yadav to confirm the purchase of toy pistol.17), after two and a half years, that Rahul Rana had come to his shop and that a toy gun was purchased by Rahul Rana from him.There is, thus, merit in the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant Rahul Rana, that Kailash (PW-17) was trying to save and rather protect the co-accused Amit CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 15 of 23 Yadav by blaming or implicating the appellant Rahul Rana.He identified his signature on photocopies of seized documents, i.e. booking register and payment register.The originals were not traceable.In his cross-examination, PW-41 accepted that taxi had come back in the evening and he did not know the addresses of Amit Yadav and Rahul Rana.PW-41 had employed 20 drivers in all and he was not aware whether two ladies, a child and an old man were taken from 2/34, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad to Shastri Nagar, Meerut.He testified that on 16th September, 1995, a Maruti van bearing No. DL4CD- 7349 at about 8.30 a.m. was driven by him to 2/34, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad and from there, two ladies, one child and an old man were driven by him to Shastri Nagar, Meerut.PW-44/F on the same date.He had then given his residential address as 586, Civil Lines, Bulandshahar, U.P. and as per the police version, he had revealed that his blood stained clothes were kept at Bulandshahar.No recoveries were made pursuant to the said disclosure statement.Prosecutor relies upon the second disclosure statement marked Ex.Mohinder Singh (PW-32) had taken up investigation of the case on 1st October, 1995, and had gone to Meerut with appellant Rahul Rana.Later on the same day, the appellant had made disclosure statement at Bulandshahar marked Ex.PW-32/B and led them to R-63, Rajkunj, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 21 of 23In a room on the first floor from an almirah, the appellant Rahul Rana had produced one pant and shirt having blood stains.These were seized and sealed vide Ex.PW-32/C. In his cross-examination, Insp.Mohinder Singh (PW-32) deposed that mother of Amit Yadav was present in the property No.R-63, Rajkunj, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.They had gone up to the first floor of the house.No person had joined in the recovery proceedings as a witness.The almirah from where the clothes were recovered was closed but was not locked.Before the trial court, as well as before us, it has been accepted that R-63 Raj Kunj, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. was the house of Amit Yadav.The said house was not as such directly linked with or residence of the appellant Rahul Rana.Surender Kapur (PW-44) had deposed that on 16th September, 1995, they had rushed to R-63 Raj Kunj, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad, U.P. and rescued the victim Rishi Sethi.At that time also, they had recovered and seized various blood stained clothes, etc. Alleged recovery of the aforesaid clothes, therefore, on 1st October, 1995, i.e. nearly 14 days after the place had already been searched and explored, is highly debatable and importunate.In these circumstances, reliance placed on the CFSL report (Ex.PW-48/A) that human blood of Group A was found on the clothes and the same matches the blood group of the deceased loses significance and importance.When we examine the entire evidence proved and established by the prosecution, it is apparent that it would not meet the test and parameter to secure conviction in a case based upon circumstantial evidence.Two ladies, a child and an old man were, thereafter, driven and dropped at Shastri Nagar in Meerut, U.P. This evidence is not even remotely a manifestation of conspiracy to kidnap Rishi Sethi.The said fact is not sufficient to hold and draw an irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the appellant-Rahul Rana.CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 22 of 23In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present appeal and the conviction and sentence of the appellant-Rahul Rana is set aside.The bail bond given by the appellant will be cancelled.The trial court records will be sent back.(SANJIV KHANNA)(ASHUTOSH KUMAR) Judge APRIL 13, 2015 ab/NA/kkb CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 23 of 23CRL.A. 491/1999 Page 23 of 23
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,029,414 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5204 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 23.7.2018 in connection with Entally Police Station Case No. 138 of 2018 dated 06.04.2018 under Sections 354/509/341/323 of the Indian Penal Code ;And In Re:-The petitioner claims to be an employee at the N.R.S. Medical College and Hospital.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
210,296 |
The prosecution case is as follows:Sheo Karan and deceased Sardara were real brothers.Their father Har Lal used to live with deceased Sardara and in consideration of the services rendered to him by Sardara's sons, Har Lal parted with his land in favour of his grand sons namely the sons of Sardara.On 18th July, 1978, Har Lal, Sardara and Pat Ram (son of Sardara) aged about 11 years were lying on cots in a room of the house of Har Lal.It is alleged that Sheo Karan armed with a wooden stick and his wife Tripta armed with a gandasa proceeded to the room where Har Lal, Sardara and Pat Ram were lying.PW 14 wife of Sardara and her son PW 15 seeing these accused going towards the room they also followed.The accused Sheo Karan having entered the room questioned Har Lal as to why he had transferred his land in favour of the sons of Sardara to which Har Lal replied as they were serving him so he parted the land in their favour.This provoked Sheo Karan and in a fit of anger he gave two stick blows on the head of Har Lal, who fell down.Sardara and Pat Ram tried to intervene and helped Har Lal by raising an alarm.At this juncture, it is alleged that the appellant gave a blow with a gandasa on the left side of the face of Sardara and Sheo Karan gave two blows with the wooden stick on his hand and he caught hold of Pat Ram from the neck and also gave him a stick blow on his head.He fell down and became unconscious, The people gathered at the scene of occurrence and the appellant ran away.The injured persons, namely, Har Lal, Sardara and Put Ram were removed in a tractor trolly to the Primary Health center.Smt. Tripta w/o Sheo Karan is the appellant before us.Both the wife and the husband were tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul.The appeal filed by them was dismissed by the High Court.The special leave petition was dismissed as against Sheo Karan.Leave was granted in respect of the appellant and she was released on bail.Sheo Karan was aggrieved with this conduct of Har Lal and Sardara.A Civil Suit was also filed and compromise was arrived at.Pat Ram succumbed to the injuries on the way.Har Lal and deceased Sardara were treated for the injuries.On Sardara the doctor found an incised wound from left angle of the mouth and two lacerated wounds on the scalp.On Har Lal he found a. 'V shaped lacerated wound above the occipital protuberance slightly on the right side.After fifteen days, i.e. on 2-8-75 (2-8-78) Sardara died.The doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Pat Ram, found.a lacerated wound on the left side of scalp and there was fracture of left parietal and occipital bones.He opined that ante-mortem injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause the death.The post-mortem was conducted on 2-8-78 on the dead body of Sardara.Doctor found two healed wounds. 'The first wound was irregular in shape and situated on the left side of mandible.On dissection there was comminuted fracture of the left side of mandible.The doctor also found a healed wound on the head of the deceased and on an internal examination there was a fracture.On further dissection a brownish coloured haematoma was found at the site of the injury and he opined that the death was the result of tularemia and the ante-mortem spinal injuries which were sufficient in the ordinary course of the nature to cause the death.The prosecution examined PWs 14 and 15 who were the wife and other son of the deceased Sardara as eye-witnesses.Both the Courts held that the case of murder is proved against Sheo Karan as well as the appellant.So far as Sheo Karan is concerned, it can be seen that he was responsible for causing the death of Sardara as well as his son Pat Ram and his petition was dismissed as mentioned above.Now coming to the appellant the question that falls for consideration is whether she can be convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. The prosecution must establish that there was an intention to kill the deceased and it was shared by both the accused.The facts mentioned would show that Sheo Karan and his wife, the appellant went to Har Lal's room to question him as to why he has transferred his lands in favour of the sons of Sardara to which he replied that it was his will and pleasure since they have served him so he parted the land in their favour.This caused provocation to Sheo Karan and he started beating Har Lal till then no part was attributed to the appellant.At this juncture according to the eye-witnesses the deceased and his sons and the other people intervened and Sheo Karan dealt blows on the head of the deceased and it is alleged that the appellant also caused one injury on the left side of the face of Sardara.The doctor has found that it is the head injury that proved fatal and it must also be remembered that Sardara died after fifteen days.So far as the other deceased Pat Ram is concerned no role is attributed to the appellant.She did not participate in the attack on Har Lal.It can thus be seen that the only part attributed to the appellant was that when Sardara intervened Sheo Karan dealt blows on the head and the appellant dealt one blow on the mandible.It can thus be seen that there was no common intention on the part of the appellant to kill Sardara.The prosecution version is that their intention was only to question Har Lal as to why he parted his lands to the sons of Sardara instead of giving equally to both the sons.Because of his reply Sheo Karan enraged it is only at that stage Sardara entered into the picture and the attack on him took place.Viewed from this angle we find it difficult to hold that the appellant had intention to cause the death of the deceased or that she shared the same with her husband Sheo Karan.Both have to be held responsible for their individual acts.In that view of the matter the offence committed by the appellant would be one punishable under Section 326, I.P.C. as simpliciter.Consequently her conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. be set aside and she is convicted under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced to five years' Rigorous Imprisonment.Bail bonds of the appellant shall stand cancelled.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,030,881 |
Except paying lip service to the savant from time to time in public platforms, we are steadily moving far away from the moral and ethical standards set by him.The deceased Bose @ Periya Bose (D1), Kanagaraj (D2) and the appellant hailed from Keezharamanathi village in Kamuthi taluk of Ramanathapuram District.The appellant had borrowed monies from Bose (D1) from time to time, which aggregated to Rs.40,000/-.Due to matrimonial discord, the appellant left the village and went to Chennai and got employment in a hotel.Since there was no news of the appellant, Bose (D1) went to Chennai and traced the appellant and demanded return of the loan.It is alleged that Bose (D1) had quarrelled with the appellant in the work place and thus, affronted him.The appellant felt hurt and wanted to avenge this insult.It is alleged that on 05.10.2012, around 12.00 noon, the appellant came to thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 house of Bose (D1) and gave a quarter bottle of 'Black Magic' brand brandy mixed with cyanide as gift from Chennai.Bose (D1) accepted the gift gleefully and after the appellant left, he went to the house of his neighbour Kanagaraj (D2), around 12.30 in the noon, for a booze rendezvous.The duo cheerfully sipped the liquor and soon they swooned.Arundevi (PW1), W/o.Kanagaraj (D2) raised alarm, hearing which, relatives of both men assembled and carried them to the Government Hospital, Kamuthi.Chandramouli (PW21) examined Bose (D1) at 1.00 p.m. on 05.10.2012 and found that he was unconscious, pulse not palpable, pupils not reacting to light and heart sound was faint.He made necessary entries in the Accident Register a copy of which was marked as Ex.Thereafter, Dr.Chandramouli (PW21) examined Kanagaraj (D2) and noticed similar symptoms.The copy of the Accident Register qua Kanagaraj (D2) was marked as Ex.Within a short while, both of them died and their bodies were sent to the mortuary.On the written complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by Arundevi (PW1), W/o.Kanagaraj (D2), Premanand (PW27), Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in crime No.317 of 2012 at 03.45 p.m. under Section 174 Cr.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P15).Investigation of the case was taken over by Ramachandran (PW28), Inspector of Police, who went to the Government Hospital mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of Kanagaraj (D2) and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P16).On the request of the Investigating Officer, Dr.Chandramouli (PW21) conducted autopsy on the body of Bose (D1)http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and did not find any external injury on the body.He sent the Viscera samples of the stomach, intestine and kidneys to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department for analysis.The Viscera Report (Ex.P13) disclosed the presence of cyanide and traces of ethyl alchocol.After receiving the Viscera Report, Dr.Chandramouli (PW21) issued the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P10) qua Bose (D1), wherein, he has opined as follows :"Final report :- The person died of cyanide poisoning 3-6 hours prior to post-mortem."Thereafter, Dr.Chandramouli (PW21) performed autopsy on the body of Kanagaraj (D2) and did not find any external injuries.He sent the visceral samples to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory and the report (Ex.P14) showed that cyanide and traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the stomach contents, intestine contents, liver and kidney.After receiving the Viscera Report (Ex.P14),Dr.Chandramouli (PW21) issued the Post-mortem Certificate (Ex.P11) qua Kanagaraj (D2), wherein, he has opined as follows:“Final report: The above mentioned person died of cyanide poisoning 3-6 hours prior to post-mortem.” While the autopsies were going on, the Investigating Officer proceeded with the investigation and from the house of Kanagaraj (D2), a brandy bottle (MO.1) with the label 'Black Magic' containing around 2 ml brandy was recovered under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P5).1.A synthetic bottle containing a glass Detected M.O.1 bottle labelled " ... BLACK MAGIC Cyanide BRANDY ... 180 ml ..." and containing 2 ml of brown colour liquid2.A synthetic bottle containing a synthetic Detected M.O.3 syringe (6 ml) Cyanide3.A synthetic bottle containing a synthetic Detected M.O.4 syringe (6 ml) with bended Cyanide needle with cap4.A synthetic bottle containing a green Detected M.O.12 colour stained polythene cover with few Cyanide crystals5.A synthetic bottle containing a polythene Detected M.O.6 cover with 5 gm of white colour crystals CyanideThe appellant was arrested at 03.30 p.m. on 06.10.2012 and his confession statement was recorded.Based on the disclosure of the appellant, the Investigating Officer seized the following items from the residence of the appellant on 06.10.2012 at 15.30 hours under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P6), in the presence of witnesses Gurumoorthy (PW14) and Meenatchi Sundaram (not examined).A tricoloured cell phone carton marked as GLX U-20 measuring about 12.5 cms in breadth, 6.5 cms in height and 11 cms in length inside containing four thick khaki cardboards measuring about 14 x 12 cms – M.O.2A 5 ml DISPOVAN syringe without needle – M.O.3A 5 ml DISPOVAN syringe with a bent needle – M.O.4Ribbon pack DISPOVAN single use 5 ml syringe cover-M.O.5A polythene cover measuring 8.5 x 7.5 cms with a green colour substance inside - M.O.12A polythene cover measuring 7 x 7 cms with another polythene cover inside containing cement coloured powderThe items that were seized from the house of the appellant and from the house of Kanagaraj (D2) were sent to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory through Court for analysis.Vairamuthu (PW22), Junior Scientific Officer, Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory, in his evidence as well in his report Ex.P12, has stated that Cyanide was detected in the following items :6.A synthetic bottle containing a synthetic Detected M.O.7 small tube with synthetic lid with printed Cyanide letters 'BUBBLE Kidz' and containing 3 ml of colourless liquid After examining various witnesses and collecting the reports of the experts, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed Final Report in P.R.C.No.12 of 2013 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) against the appellant.On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.1 of 2013 and was made over to the Additional Sessions Court, FTC, Paramakudi for trial.The trial Court framed charges under Section 328 IPC (2 counts) and 302 IPC (2 counts) against the appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded ‘not guilty’.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses and marked 18 Exhibits and 12 Material Objects.When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant and no document was marked.After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court, by judgment dated 22.10.2016 in S.C.No.131 of 2013, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :Provision of law under Sentence which convicted Section 328 IPC Ten years rigorous imprisonment and to (2 counts) pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for each count.Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of (2 counts) Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years for each count.http://www.judis.nic.in 8 The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence slapped by the trial Court, the appellant has filed the present appeal.Heard Mr.J.William Christopher, learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Though the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses, the case rests on the evidence of the widows of the deceased and the experts.Chinnammal (PW4) and Soundram (PW5) are sisters.Bose (D1) married Chinnammal (PW4) and thereafter, he took her younger sister Soundram (PW5) as his second wife.Through both wives, he has children.All of them were living under one roof.Chinnammal (PW4) and Soundram (PW5) have stated that, they knew the appellant; he had borrowed Rs.40,000/- from their husband Bose (D1); their husband Bose (D1) went to Chennai and found that the appellant was working in a hotel and upbraided him for not properly repaying the debt; on 05.10.2012, around 12.00 noon, the appellant came to their house and when their husband Bose (D1) asked him as to whether he has brought money, he (appellant) gave him (Bose/D1) a liquor bottle and assured that he will come around 3'o clock in the evening and settle everything; after thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 appellant left, their husband went to the house of their neighbour Kanagaraj (D2), soon thereafter, they heard commotion near Kanagaraj's house and when they went there, they found both men lying unconscious; both of them were rushed to the hospital where they died.In the cross-examination of Chinnammal (PW4), she has stated that sometimes her husband would take pro-note and at times, he would lend money on good faith.She has further stated that she chided her husband for accepting the liquor bottle from the appellant instead of getting payment and that, he ignored her protest and accepted the liquor bottle.Thus, from the evidence of Chinnammal (PW4) and Soundram (PW5), the prosecution has proved beyond cavil that the appellant came to their house on 05.10.2012 and gave a bottle of brandy to Bose (D1).Arundevi (PW1), W/o.Kanagaraj (D2) in her evidence, has stated that, on 05.10.2012 around 12.30 p.m., her neighbour Bose (D1) came to her house and asked her husband Kanagaraj (D2) to join him for boozing; Bose (D1) told her husband Kanagaraj (D2) that the appellant had gifted the brandy bottle; Kanagaraj (D2) took two tumblers and water from inside and both of them sat on the pial of the house and drank; soon, Bose (D1) fell unconscious followed by her husband Kanagaraj (D2); on seeing this, she raised a hue and cry and everyone including Bose's wives gathered; Bose's son Selvaraj brought an auto, by which, both of them were taken to the Government Hospital,http://www.judis.nic.in 10 Kamuthi, where they died; thereafter, she gave the complaint (Ex.P1).In the cross-examination, Arundevi (PW1) admitted that her husband used to drink at times.She has categorically stated that her husband Kanagaraj (D2) and Bose (D1) drank in her house and denied the suggestion that she was not present, when they drank liquor.Be that as it may, the Police have seized the "Black Magic” labelled brandy bottle (MO.1) with remnants from the house of Arundevi (PW1) on 05.10.2012 at 16.00 hours under mahazar (Ex.P5), in the presence of Gurumoorthy (PW14) and Meenatchi Sundaram (not examined).As stated above, the brandy bottle was sent through the Court to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for examination and Vairamuthu (PW22), Junior Scientific Officer, in his evidence, as well in the report (Ex.P12), has stated that cyanide was detected in the brandy.Chandramouli (PW21) and Vairamuthu (PW22).He was only questioned as to whether the cyanide detected in the liquor bottle was pure orhttp://www.judis.nic.in 12 adulterated, for which, he stated he has not given any opinion on that aspect.However, the appellant had the intention to cause the death of Bose (D1) when he mixed cyanide in the brandy and gave it as a gift to Bose (D1).Registry is directed to send the original records to the trial Court forthwith.Connected Crl.2.The Inspector of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 P.N.PRAKASH, J.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,030,952 |
Shri Prakash Gupta, Panel Lawyer for the respondent no.2/State.A report has been received on the warrant issued against the respondent no.1 that due to mental disturbance, he left his house and he is residing in the forest and his address is not known to anybody.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The respondent no.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 334 of I.P.C and sentenced for the period which he has already undergone in custody vide judgment dated 22.10.2001 in Criminal Case No.360/2000 by the learned JMFC, Udyapura, District Raisen.Being aggrieved with the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Udyapura the applicant has preferred the present revision.The facts of the case are that on 27.2.2000 the complainant/victim Halke Veer had lodged an FIR that on the same day at about 10.00 a.m, he went to Village Binjha to look after the crops.He found that applicant no.1 Shankarlal and his daughter were removing some crops of the complainant.A quarrel took place and the respondent no.1 Shankarlal assaulted him by a sickle causing him a simple injury on his head.After lodging of FIR, the victim was sent to the hospital for his medico legal examination and treatment.A charge sheet was filed The respondent no.1 abjured his guilt.He did not take any specific plea and no defence evidence was adduced.The learned JMFC, Udaypura after considering the prosecution's evidence acquitted the respondent no.1 from the charge of offence punishable under Section 324 and 506-B of I.P.C but convicted him for offence punishable under Section 334 of I.P.C and sentenced as mentioned above.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the trial Court has relied upon the evidence of Bhagwan Singh (PW5).It was found proved beyond doubt by the trial Court that the respondent no.1 assaulted the applicant by a sickle causing him a simple injury and it was held by the learned JMFC that such assault was not caused voluntarily but it was caused under sudden and grave provocation.If evidence of Bhagwan Singh (PW5) is perused then it would be apparent that the applicant gave a sudden and grave provocation to the respondent no.1 and therefore, the trial Court has rightly convicted the respondent no.1 for offence punishable under section 334 of I.P.C. The witness Bhagwan Singh was not declared hostile and therefore, his testimony could not be separated.It appears that the applicant and his other witnesses were suppressing the actual facts of the case.Hence there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Udaypura whereby the respondent no.1 was convicted for offence punishable under Section 334 of I.P.C. So far as the sentence is concerned the applicant sustained a small injury and the respondent no.1 did not assault for second time whereas, he was the first offender, who remained in the custody for more than seven days.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,046,052 |
(28/03/2019) This criminal appeal has been filed on 17/03/2010 under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22/02/2010 passed in Sessions trial No. 169/2009 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Betul by which the learned Lower Court convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each with default stipulation.As per prosecution case, on 19/05/2009 in the morning, complainant Narbadibai had gone to the house of her daughter Sumratibai and in the night at about 9 p.m., appellants came to the house of her son-in-law () namely Narendra and asked him that he is residing in their agriculture field and insisted him to get partitioned the agriculture land so that they shall also reside in it, on this point, they started to commit marpeet and it is alleged that appellants assaulted Narendra by means of lathi and danda on his head and waist.Thereafter, he became unconscious.Complainant Narbadibai intervened and sustained injury on her right hand and her daughter Sumratibai also received injury on her left shoulder and left hand.Narbadibai thereafter called her son Kamal and Lalsingh.The aforesaid incident was seen by other villagers.Due to marpeet, Narendra become dead and on 20/05/2009 at about 7:00 p.m., Rojnamcha report was made by Sarpanch in police station Bhounra and at about 7:50 p.m., a marg intimation was given by Narbadibai in police station Shahpur.Thereafter, the police prepared Panchnama and sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem and also referred injured Narbadibai and Sugratibai for M.L.C. in C.H.C. Shahpur.The police prepared mouka naksha, recorded the statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and seized blood stained and simple soil.Thereafter, on completion of investigation, the police filed challan paper before the J.M.F.C. Betul under the aforesaid provision.On committal of aforesaid case, the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Betul in S.T. No. 169/2009 framed charges under Section 302 of I.P.C. against the appellants and accordingly held the appellants guilty under the aforesaid provisions and by judgment dated 22/02/2010 convicted and sentenced the appellants.4. PW-2 Narbadibai is the mother-in-law of the deceased.As per the statement of this witness, she had gone to the house of her daughter and her daughter was sitting with her children at about 9:00 P.M. Son- in-law Narendra was sitting on the cot.At that time, the appellants came and began to pluck the plants that were planted in the well.The land on which the plants were planted belonged to Narendra.At that time, he did not say anything.Thereafter, the appellants assaulted Narendra on his head.As a result, blood was oozing from his head and he fell down.Thereafter, the appellants ran away and Narendra died on the spot.According to the statement of this witness, there was some dispute with regard to agriculture land between the appellants and her son-in-law Narendra.5. PW-3 Sumratibai is the wife of the deceased.As per the statement of this witness, she was sitting with her children in her house and her husband was sitting on the cot outside the house.At about 8:00 to 9:00 P.M., the appellants came there and began to pluck the trees of jack-fruit and mango and they were screaming her husband to come out from the house.At that time, her mother was sleeping in the 4 house.She wake up her mother and she came out from the house.The land on which the trees were planted belonged to her husband.Thereafter, the appellants assaulted her husband, due to which, the injuries were caused on his head.The appellants also beat her and her mother when they defended and interfered in the incident.Thereafter, the appellants ran away and her husband died on the spot.Learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellants submitted that the trial Court committed the mistake by holding the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. There was no such motive or criminal intention of the appellants to cause murder of the deceased.He further submits that the trial Court did not appreciate the entire evidence and the accused was liable to be acquitted because the prosecution was unsuccessful to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The trial Court also ignored the omissions and contradictions found in the statements of various witnesses.Therefore, the conviction is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted from the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.On the other side, the State strongly opposed the appeal.He has deposed that there was a fracture with subdural haematoma on the left frontal and right parietal bones.The post-mortem was conducted within 24 hours of the death.The following injuries were found on the body of the deceased :-**pksV dzekad&1 [kskiM+h ds cka;s QzaVy Hkkx esa 12x4 ls-eh- vkdkj dk ,d daVwtu Fkk A pksV dzekad&2 cka;s xky vkSj cka;h vka[k ij 10x4 ls-eh- ,d daV;wtu Fkk A pksV dzekad&3 cka;s vka[k dh Hkksa ij 3 ls-eh-x 2 ls-eh- x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd ,d QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk A pksV dzeka&4 [kskiM+h ds nkfgus iSjk;Vy Hkkx esa 10 ls-eh- x 3 ls-eh- x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk A pksV dzekaad&5 nkfgusa dku ds ihNs 3 ls-eh- x 1 ls-eh- x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd dk ,d QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk A pksV dzekad&6 [ksiM+h ds nkfgus vkDlhihVy Hkkx esa 5 ls-eh- x 2eh- x gM~Mh dh xbjkbZ rd QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk A pskV dzekad&7 nkfguh dku ds fiUuk vkSj esLVkbZy ij 10x3x ls-eh-x gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd QVk gqvk ?kko Fkk A *The defence draws our attention towards the case of Amol Singh Vs.State of M.P., judgment dated 15.05.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cr.A. No. 898/2008, Ravindra Shalik Naik and Ors.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,051,559 |
Heard learned Counsel for the appellant appointed throughLegal Aid.The first informant and P.W.1-Sharubai Ananda Sutar lodged areport against the respondents alleging that on 13 th February, 2012 when theinformant and other persons were at home and their cow was tied with arope to a tree in front of the house, the respondents namely Malubai, Vishnuand Ashwini asked as to why the cow was tied over there and startedquarreling with the informant.Thereafter, rest of the respondents came over there who usedabusive language and started fighting with the informant.RespondentsDhanaji Vishnu Sutar and Vishnu Appa Sutar came there armed with sticks 2/5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 ::: apeal-436-2019.docby which they started hitting the informant and her daughter due to whichthe informant sustained injury on her left hand middle finger resulting intobleeding and swelling.::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::After the investigation, the charge-sheet has been filed.Thelearned Magistrate, after recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses,by the impugned judgment acquitted all the respondents.P.W.1-Sharubai Ananda Sutar was aged about 60 years.Itseems from her evidence that the respondent Malubai pulled her hairwhereas Vishnu and Ashwini were throwing plastic material before the cow.Malubai and Ashwini assaulted P.W.2 Lakshmi.Dhanaji had a knife in hispocket.He tried to twist the arm of P.W.1 Sharubai.The matter wasimmediately reported to the Police Patil of the Village.The Police tookinformant and P.W.2-Laxmi first to the Government Hospital of Gadhinglajand thereafter to the Government Hospital Kolhapur where both wereindoor patients.6. P.W.1-1 Sharubai testified that without reading the contents ofher statement, Police had obtained her thumb impression.She testified thatthe sticks which were shown to her during the trial were not the one usedby the respondents while assaulting them.There is no effective cross ofSharubai whose evidence is corroborated materially by her daughter Laxmi.3/5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::apeal-436-2019.docShe too spoke in tune with her mother while stating about assault by therespondents and also the fact that the sticks shown to them were not the oneused by the respondents.Even, in the cross, it is reiterated that respondents Malubai andAshwini were throwing plastic papers before the cow and then Dhanaji tookout a knife from his pocket and assaulted Sharubai due to which her middlefinger had been amputated.Though this may be an omission yet there is noreason to disbelieve testimony of this witness on oath which cannot berebutted in the cross-examination.It is suggested to the witness that therewas some enmity between the witnesses and the respondents on account ofcow shed.However, it has been denied by the witnesses.The learned J.M.F.C erred in disbelieving the evidence of theinjured witnesses only on the ground that neither the prosecution couldprove the Panchanama nor the Investigating Officer was examined.Thatitself is not sufficient to come to a conclusion to acquit the respondentsagainst whom there is good evidence in the form of injured witnesses.As such, the appeal preferred by the victim as defined insection 2 (wa) is tenable under section 372 of Cr.P.C. The appeal isadmitted.4/5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::Call for the Record and Proceeding from the trial Court.Thelearned J.M.F.C, Ajara is directed to take action against the respondentsunder section 390 of the Cr. P.C and report compliance.[PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.] 5/5 ::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/02/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 15:37:52 :::
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
21,056,244 |
The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan, first information report (FIR) no.1307/2015 having been registered on 19.09.2015 by police station Hari Nagar on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against her husband (first petitioner), his father (second petitioner), his mother (third petitioner), his uncle (fourth petitioner), and wife of the said uncle (fifth petitioner).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed report under Section 173 Crl.M.C. No.628/2019 Page 1 of 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.The second respondent has filed affidavit sworn by her on 15.07.2019 confirming that she has rejoined the first petitioner and is living happily with him in the matrimonial home under one roof, the other cases having since been withdrawn.The parties are constrained to move this court Crl.Dasti to both sides.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,085,826 |
In an unreported decision in K. Ram Prasad v. State of Tamil Nadu W.P. No. 21671 of 2005 and W.A. No. 1963 of 2005 decided on 06.12.2005, a Division Bench of this Court to which, two of us, viz., The Chief Justice and Justice F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, were parties held as follows:As seen from G.O.Ms.In vain, have we searched through the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the other record for any observation relating to the information conveyed by the respondent on 15.11.1995 and whether that application could not be treated as curing the defect which had occurred in the Form.We are not told as to how that communication was disposed of either.Did the competent authority ever have a look at it, before passing the order of cancellation of candidature? The cancellation of the candidature under the circumstances was without any proper application of mind and without taking into consideration all relevant material.The Tribunal, therefore, rightly set it aside.We uphold the order of the Tribunal, though for slightly different reasons, as mentioned above.In order to appreciate the factual position in these individual cases, the following tabular form would be of use:From the above table, it is seen that the petitioners in all these writ petitions were involved in criminal cases for offences under the Indian Penal Code and that they have been acquitted after the selection process commenced.In one case, viz., W.P. No. 21953 of 2007, the charge sheet was quashed by this Court.However, on the date, on which, the petitioners made applications for appointment, the petitioners were facing trial of a criminal case.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,096,553 |
Respondent no.4 is directed to produce the petitioner in Court.The deponent and respondent no.5 shall also remain present in Court.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.(Per Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent no.4 to produce the petitioner detenue before this Court.The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned order dated 25.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Room No.1, Sultanpur.On 13.11.2017 this Court passed the following order:-The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus directing respondent no.4 to produce the detenue in Court and after taking statement set free the detenue at her liberty.The petition also seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned order dated 25.10.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge Room No.1, Sultanpur.3. Let respondent no.5 be served through S.H.O. Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.The Investigating Officer of Case Crime No.656 of 2017 under Section 363, 366, 354A, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur shall file his affidavit.7. List on 29.11.2017. ?In deference to above extracted order, the petitioner has been produced in court.We have questioned the petitioner.Short counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State by Umakant Shukla, Sub-Inspector, Investigating Officer of the Case Crime No.656 of 2017, under Sections 363, 366, 354A, 504,506 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Sultanpur.In the affidavit filed by the Investigating Officer, the statement of the detenue recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has been quoted wherein she says that she has been in touch with Mubarak Ali who is her neighbour for the last two years and on 13.09.2017 they ran away from their homes and reached Raebareli where they started living on a rented house.She has further said that they have performed Nikah and her father got her age mentioned in the school record two year less than her actual age.The Investigating Officer in his statement says that the investigation of the case is yet to be concluded.The detenue in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has been specific and categorical about her relationship with Mubarak and made her statement as under :-"My name is Noor Bano.My father's name is Naseebdar.I am 21 years old.I am high school passed.I have been knowing Mubarak for last four years.I am in love with Mubarak.I want to live with Mubarak."On an application given by the complainant, respondent no.5, father of the detenue claiming the custody of his daughter/detenue, the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge observing that the detenue is minor on the basis of the educational certificates and further taking note of the fact that she does not want to go with her father vide order dated 25.10.2017 directed the Investigating Officer to produce the detenue before the Child Welfare Committee.Child Welfare Committee considering the date of birth of the detenue is 15.12.2000 on the basis of the educational certificates, finding her to be minor directed her to be sent to Rajkeeya Mahila Sharanalaya, Ayodhya.Presently she is housed in the aforesaid Rajkeeya Mahila Sharanalaya, Ayodhya, Faizabad.This petition as mentioned above has been filed by the detenue through her husband with prayers made hereinabove.The question, in the facts and circumstances of the case, which arises for consideration in the case is whether it be just, proper and reasonable and in the interest of justice as well as the fundamental rights of the detenue to keep her in the Rajkeeya Mahila Sharanalaya, Ayodhya in pursuance of the order dated 25.10.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge on the ground that as per the school record her date of birth is 15.12.2000 and therefore, she is a minor.We are of the view that while deciding the custody and the freedom of the detenue, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and the right to life and liberty of the detenue if she is of the age where she can reasonably exercise her discretion.As per the medical report she has been found to be around 17 years.With the margins of 2-3 years on higher side she would be 19-20 years of age.While interacting with her, we have found her to be mature enough to exercise her discretion reasonably.The Supreme Court in several Judgments including in the Case of Birad Mal Singhvi Vs.Anand Purohit reported in 1988 (Supp) Supreme Court Cases 604 has considered the question of probative value of an entry regarding the date of birth made in the scholar?s register and in school certificate in election cases and has consistently held that the date of birth mentioned in the scholar?s register or secondary school certificate has no probative value unless either the parents are examined or the person on whose information the entry may have been made, is examined.At this stage when the medical certificate of the detenue is to the effect that she is aged around 17 years, only on the basis of the school testimonials, it would not be proper to keep her in the Women Protection Home.There is disparity with respect to the age of detenue in the school certificate and the medical certificate.Therefore, in absence of conclusive proof that the age which is mentioned in the school certificate was based on some legally admissible evidence, the credence has to be given to the medical certificate and not to the school certificate.?The petitioner herein is alleged to have married another person of her age and the 5th respondent herein, the father of the petitioner, objected to the said marriage.It seems that the petitioner had eloped with that person and the father of the petitioner, the 5th respondent, has filed a complaint and the petitioner was produced before the CJM, Patna.The petitioner claims that she was a major and voluntarily left with her husband.The father of the petitioner alleged that the petitioner was a minor and the question of age was referred to a Medical Board.The Medical Board opined that as on 17-5-2003, the petitioner must have been aged between 16 and 17 years.However, the father of the petitioner produced two certificates before the Revisional Court and contended that her date of birth is 12-10-1985 and she has not attained majority.Having regard to these facts, we are of the view that she must have attained majority and her stay at the remand home would not be in the interest of justice and we think that her continued stay at the remand home would be detrimental and she would be in a better environment by living with the person whom she had allegedly married.?The Division Bench of this Court has passed the judgement in the case of Smt. Poonam Through her Husband Sri Bauwa @ Suneel Kr.Singh Vs.29- While considering a petition filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Habeas Corpus, the writ court is not required to go into the complexities of law, once it is made evident to the Court that personal liberty of a citizen has been curtailed.A writ court cannot contemplate any limitation on its power to deliver substantial justice.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,101,582 |
The facts of the case, as per the case of the prosecution, in a nutshell are that on 06.11.1996 an intimation was received vide DD No.43 at 10.20 P.M. through wireless that near house no.204/a, Chota Bazar, Gudia Mohalla, Circular Road, Shahdara, Delhi a women had set herself ablaze and had been removed to JPN Hospital at 10.55 P.M. She died on the next day.Madvi, PW-10 Const.Jitender Kumar, PW-14 Const.Sanjay Kumar, PW-15 Deepak Virmani, PW-16 Const.Rajbir Singh, PW-16 Doctor Shyambir Singh, PW-17 Lady Const.Shahsi, PW-18 Sh.She deposed that after the marriage of her daughter, her daughter used to make complaints against her husband and mother-in-law that they used to demand dowry i.e. Rs.20,000/-, colour TV, Mixi and fridge.However, in the marriage, she had given whatever she could afford.She deposed that her daughter used to tell her that the accused persons used to harass her and also gave beatings to her.PW-3 is Prithvi Raj, who is the brother of the deceased.He deposed that his sister got married on 01.12.1995 with the appellant No.1 according to hindu rites and ceremonies and a sum of Rs.35,000/- was spent on their marriage.He deposed that after 2-3 months of their marriage, when his sister came to her parental house, she told that appellant No.1 was demanding Rs.20,000/-.He also deposed that his sister used to tell him that her mother- in-law used to harass her.At the time of Diwali, which was on 06.11.1996, his sister received burn injuries and this information was given to him by the mediator/middleman Musadi Lal.He deposed that he went to the hospital on receipt of this information along with his mother, wife, brother Jai Kumar and cousin brother where he found his sister lying in an ambulance.He further deposed that Rakesh had become unconscious while trying to extinguish the fire and Rakesh had also sustained burn injuries while extinguishing the fire.He deposed that on enquiry, the deceased told him that she had set herself on fire because she remained sick.PW-16 is Doctor Shyambir Singh.He deposed that he had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased at 11 AM.He opined that the death in the instant case is due to burn shock consequent upon 98% burn injuries of the total body surface area.The prosecution has produced PW1, PW3 & PW4 to prove these ingredients.PW1 happened to be the mother of the deceased, PW3 and PW4 happened to be the brothers of the deceased.The present appeal has been filed under Section 382 Cr.P.C. against judgment and order on sentence dated 25.07.2001 whereby the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each for the offence under Section 304B IPC and to undergo RI for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo SI two months for the offence under Section 498A IPC.Appeal No.614/2001 Page1 of 16Post mortem was conducted and the SDM recorded the statement of the brother of the deceased and ordered the registration of a case under Section 304B and 498A of IPC.After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against appellant No.1/Rakesh (husband of the deceased) and appellant No.2/Kamla (Mother-in-law of the deceased).The case was later committed to the court of sessions.Vide order 13.05.1998, charge under Sections 304B/34 IPC & 498A/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In support of its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses in all.PW-1 Smt.Shanti Devi, PW-2 Musadi Lal, PW-Appeal No.614/2001 Page2 of 16 3 Prithvi Raj, PW-4 Jai Kumar, PW-5 Maden Sen, PW-6 HC Chaman Singh, PW-7 Trilok Chand, PW-8 Shiv Kumar, PW-9 Const.Sita Ram, P-11 HC Suresh Kumar, PW-12 Const.Mitender Kumar, PW-13 Const.Ajay Garg, PW-19 P.S.Bhandari, PW-20 HC Jagdish Chander, PW-21 ASI Gajender Singh and PW-22 Dr.After conclusion of recording of evidence, statement of accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C.were recorded.Vide the impugned judgment and order on sentence dated 25.07.2001, appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A and 304B and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years each for the offence under Section 304B IPC and to undergo RI for six months each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo SI two months for the offence under Section 498A IPC.Hence the present appeal.Appeal No.614/2001 Page3 of 16In support of the appeal, the appellants/accused have taken the grounds that the Trial Court has erred in law as the appellants have been convicted without appreciation of reliable evidence in the form of testimonies of the prosecution witneses; that PW-2 has denied any knowledge of any harassment and ill- treatment meted out to the deceased; that the learned Trial Court could not appreciate the evidence of dying declaration recorded by the attending doctor; that the dying declaration made by the deceased was not put before the appellants in their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.; that the delay of a day in lodging the FIR casts a shadow of doubt at the entire prosecution story; that the Trial Court also did not consider the MLC of the appellant No.1 which shows that the appellant No.1 received 25% of burn injuries in the course of saving the deceased.On the contrary, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page4 of 16 irregularity or illegalities and is passed with a reasoned order, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with.9. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State were heard.PW-1 Shanti Devi is the mother of the deceased.He deposed that after 2-3 months, Rakesh himself Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page5 of 16 came to his house and demanded Rs.20,000/- again.However, he showed his inability to pay the money, but regular demands of colour TV, fridge, mixi and gas were made.Subsequent thereto, both the appellants started giving beatings to his sister.They remained at the hospital throughout the night and on the next day, his sister Saroj expired in the noon.In his cross examination, he denied that his sister was suffering from menstrual disorders.PW-4 Jai Kumar is another brother of the deceased.He deposed that after seven months of the marriage, appellant No.1 started harassing his sister and used to give beatings to her.As to the demand of dowry, he testified on the same lines as was Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page6 of 16 done by PW-3 Prithvi Raj.13. PW-6 is HC Chaman Singh.He deposed that on 06.11.1996 at about 10.30 P.M. he received DD No.43 with regard to the fact that a lady had put herself on fire at house no.204/1, Gudai Mohalla, Shahdara.On receipt of the said DD, he along with Const.Sanjay went to the spot where he came to know that the injured had already gone to an unknown place and no witness of the incident appeared in the meantime.He deposed that DD No.50 was handed over to him by Const.Surat with regard to the fact that the injured had been admitted in JPN hospital.He deposed that he collected the MLC of appellant No.1/Rakesh and deceased Saroj; inspected the spot along with ASI Gajender at the instance of PW-2/Musadi Lal; prepared the site plan; took into possession one cot which was in burnt condition and one plastic can with some kerosene oil in it vide ExPW6/B; He also deposed that he took possession of one bag, another can with some burnt clothes & one matchbox with some match sticks vide ExPW6/D.14. PW-8 is Shiv Kumar.He deposed that near Diwali at Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page7 of 16 about 10 P.M. when he was present at his house, his neighbor knocked his door and told him that a room has been set on fire and appellant No.1/Rakesh and the deceased/Saroj were inside the room.He deposed that he along with other persons opened the door where they saw that Saroj had caught fire and he immediately took her to General Hospital.In cross- examination, he deposed that he had extinguished the fire on entering inside the room where she had caught fire.He also deposed that all the injuries were ante mortem and recent in duration.All the injuries were Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page8 of 16 caused by burns due to fire.PW-16 is ASI Gajender Singh.He deposed that on the directions of the SHO Sh.Rishi Pal Singh, he went to JPN hospital where HC Chaman Singh and Const.Sanjay met him in the hospital where he met mother and brother of the deceased who told him that they would make the statement before the SDM.On 07.11.1996, the mother and brother of the deceased made their statement in the office of SDM.In the cross- examination, he deposed that he did not see any blood stain or blood clot at the place of occurrence.He further deposed that none of the neighbours of the accused told him that there was any difference on account of demand of dowry between the appellant No.1/accused and the deceased.He also deposed that the deceased party did not produce any list of dowry articles to him during investigation.PW-22 is Dr. Usha who deposed that the deceased had 100% burn injuries and smell of kerosene was present on her body.In her cross-examination, she deposed that the deceased had given alleged history mentioned in the MLC and the history Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page9 of 16 had been given by the deceased herself where she said that she had poured kerosene on herself due to irritation of prolonged illness of self and then set herself ablaze.From the testimony of PW1, PW3 & PW4, it is amply clear that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.In their testimony, these witnesses have deposed that after the marriage of the deceased with the appellant Rakesh, she was harassed and beaten up by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.They have stated that the appellants used to demand Rs.20,000/-, colour TV, mixi and fridge from the deceased and for the same, they used to harass her and give beatings to her.Thus, from the testimony of above witnesses, there is enough evidence on record from which it has been established that the deceased was being harassed by the appellants for or in connection with demand of dowry.Appeal No.614/2001 Page10 of 16It was held that statement of a witness for the said purpose must be read in its entirety.It is not necessary for a witness to make a statement in consonance with the wording of Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page11 of 16 the section of a statute.What is needed is to find out whether the evidences brought on record satisfy the ingredients thereof.Necessary ingredients of dowry death as provided under Section 304B of IPC are :(i)Deceased was the subject matter of cruelty on account of dowry and culminates into guilt of accused under Section 498A IPC;(ii)The death should have taken place due to bodily injuries other than normal circumstances; and(iii)Such death was the subject matter of cruelty soon before death.As far as death of the deceased Saroj is concerned, it is not in dispute that she died due to 100 per cent burn injuries which shows that the death of the deceased was not under normal circumstances which fulfils the first ingredient for the commission of offence under Section 304B IPC.The second ingredient that death of the deceased had taken place within seven years of her marriage with the appellant Rakesh is established from the evidence, as marriage Crl.Appeal No.614/2001 Page12 of 16 had taken place on 01.12.1995 and her death took place on 07.11.1996 i.e. within a year of her marriage.The next and the most important ingredient required to be proved from the evidence is that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry by her husband or any relative of her husband and that was done soon before death.The detailed discussion of their testimony has already been made.The last ingredient is based upon the commission of offence under Section 498A IPC and while committing the offence under Section 498A IPC, if it connects with the death, then it would be an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC.It has been brought on record that the appellants remained behind the bar during trial from 08.11.1996 to 06.03.1997 and post conviction from 25.07.2001 to 12.07.2004, the date when their sentence was suspended by this court.However, the judgment of conviction and order on sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 304B read with Section 34 IPC is set aside.Apparently, the death of the deceased had taken place on 07.11.1996; the charge was framed on 13.05.1998; judgment of conviction and order on sentence was passed on 25.07.2001; the appellants have faced the agony of protracted trial for about 21 years and since there is no minimum sentence provided under Section 498A IPC, the interest of justice would be met if the sentence of the appellants is modified to the period already undergone by them.The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,110,709 |
This revision takes exception to the order dated 09.03.2017 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No. 500249/2016 whereby the charges under Sections 148 and 307/149 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') has been framed against the applicant.2- The facts leading to filing the present case are that on 27.08.2016 at around 10:30am, Awadh Bohare was sitting in the Barber shop to shave his beard.At that time, accused Shera Tiwari, Banti Tiwari, Jitu Tiwari and Bhura Tiwari came there with country made pistol and fired on him with intention to kill him.Due to which Awadh Bohare sustained fire arm injury on back side of his neck and on the right arm.When he ran to save his life, then Sitaram Tiwari, Banwari Tiwari, Murari Tiwari, Brajesh Tiwari, Gopal Tiwari (present applicant), Bharat Singh Sikarwar, Rejeev Pandy, Majhar Khan & Mukhtyar Khan restrained him and they said that kill him, at the same time Vijay Bohare and Amit Bohare came and rescued him.The matter was reported to the Police Station Rannod, District Shivpuri and an FIR for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148 & 149 of IPC was registered against the present applicant.3- The charge-sheet was filed and the trial Court while passing the impugned order framed the charges 2 punishable under Sections 148 and Section 307/149 of IPC against the present applicant.The order of framing the charge under Section 307/149 of IPC is under challenge in the present revision application.4- Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant was not present at the time of incident and he has been falsely implicate in the present case.The applicant neither caused any injury to the complainant nor assaulted him.The eye witness of the incident Kalla @ Arun has not made any allegation against the applicant, which confirms that applicant was not present on the spot at the time of incident.The material available on record shows the innocency of applicant.In these circumstances, he prays that this revision deserves to be allowed.5- To the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent/State submits that the impugned order is based on the material placed on record with the charge- sheet, thus, no interference is called for.6- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.It was alleged that applicant along with co-accused person constituted an unlawful assembly and in pursuance of common object of the said assembly the co-accused persons Shera Tiwari, Banti Tiwari, Jitu Tiwari and Bhura Tiwari fired on the complainant with intent to kill him and due to which he received gunshot injuries.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
166,119,050 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Sr.Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.Deevattipatti Police Station,Crime No.185/2010394 r/w 397 IPC2.Annadhanapatty Police Station, Crime No.588/2011 3793.Annadhanapatty Police Station,Crime No.589/2011 379 IPC4.Annadhanapatty Police Station, Crime No.590/2011 379 IPC5.Annadhanapatty Police Station, Crime No.595/2011 379 IPC6.Namakkal Police Station, Crime No.451/2012 384, 506(ii)7.Deevattipatti Police Station, Crime No.32/2013 Man missing @ 342, 364 (A), 392 r/w 397 and 120(B) IPCThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.08.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, Deevattipatti Police Station in Crime No.388 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 392, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.7.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Mani @ Manikandan, S/o.Kumar, made in C.M.P.No.22/GOONDA/C2/2013 dated 22.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Salem District, Salem.V.DHANAPALAN, J.and G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,116,776 |
Heard and perused the case diary.This first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.230/2019 registered at Police Station Raipur Karchuliyan, District Rewa under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, on 24.06.2019 at about 10:00 pm when complainant Sudhir Shukla was going on his motorcycle along with his father Suresh Shukla and brother Sujeet Shukla towards the house of Chavilal Dwivedi.As soon as they reached near the house of Balendra Dwivedi at that time applicant and co-accused persons Piyush Dwivedi, Rinshu Shukla, Pintu Dwivedi, and Preetam Dwivedi came on motorcycles, armed with wooden sticks, knives, pistols, etc. assaulted the complainant and his father and brother.They have also damaged the car and 2 motorcycle standing there.The complainant has lodged the FIR, on that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered and the applicants have been taken into custody.In view of the aforesaid, prayer has been made to enlarge the applicant on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State on the other hand has opposed the bail application and submitted that the applicant has been found involved in serious offence; hence, prays for rejection of the bail application.Consequently, these first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant, is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- 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.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE SKM Digitally signed by SANTOSH MASSEY Date: 13/09/2019 05:32:49
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,511,715 |
The facts of the prosecution case are that on 3.1.1997 at about 8.50 a.m. an information was received at Police Station Kapashera that a headless body was lying near Tandon Farm/Geeta Farm.On basis of this information, Daily Diary No. 11 was recorded at Police Station Kapashera.Copy was given to Sub-Inspector Lalit Mohan, who Along with certain members of police force went to the spot.Inspector Hanuman Dhan, the then Station House Officer of Police Station Nazafgarh also reached the scene.The dead body was found lying amongst bushes.It was of a female.The age of the deceased was assessed at 25-30 years, dark colour and slim body.The dead body was wearing chain of yellow metal and a black threat, besides a ring of yellow metal.There was one ear ring of yellow metal lying near the body on the ground.It appeared that the head of the dead body had been severed with the help of a sharp edged weapon.Four bangles of plastic, red in colour and two glass bangles of yellow colour, though in broken condition, had been lying around the body.When the area was searched, a white blue printed saree, blue blouse, white sweater, dark scarf and blue petticoat in torn condition, dark green shawl, one pair of footwear made of cloth were found lying.All these articles and footwears were converted into a parcel and were sealed.The clothes were blood stained.The area around the place was searched.At that time, the drain was full of water, The S.H.O. had called for a pump to drain out the water.The body of deceased could not immediately be identified.A Rukka was prepared on basis of which formal First Information Report was recorded.The scene of incident was photographed.Rough site plan was prepared and blood was lifted from the earth, They were converted in to separate parcels and sealed and then taken into possession.The dead body was removed to the mortuary and was directed to be preserved.The water level in drain had gone down.On 4.1.1997 the severed head was found.The said scene of incident was again photographed.The identity of the deceased was established to be Renu Singh wife of Hari Mohan.It was identified by Shiv Nath Singh, who was Manager in Garment Exports firm.Renu Singh was stated to be working there.The dead body was also identified by Ram Narain Singh (father) and Umesh Kumar (brother-in-law) of the deceased.The dead body and the severed head were subjected to post-mortem.The cause of death was found to be asphyxia and that the head was decapitated just after the death.It was confirmed that the head and the dead body were of the same individual.It is the prosecution case that Chander Shekhar had gone to leave Renu at her residence when he met Krishan Gupta and Mintoo Shah.Sunder Lal, the landlord where the deceased was staying also found that both the accused were last seen with her.The house of Mintoo Shah was raided.Krishna Gupta was also found present.Both were arrested.They were interrogated.Disclosure statement was made and in pursuance thereto, a suit case with the name of Renu Singh on a sticker pasted inside containing her clothes was recovered.Mintoo Shah also got recovered one trouser and one printed shirt and a pair of hawai chappal.JUDGMENT V.S. Aggarwal, J.By this common judgment, both the appeals (Crl.A. No. 607/2001 and Crl.A. No. 733/2001) can conveniently be disposed together.Both the appeal are directed against the common judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi and the order of sentence dated 3.1.2001 and 4.1.2001 respectively.The learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, IP.C and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years with fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under Section 201/34, IPC In case of default of payment of fine, they have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count.Appellant Krishan Gupta led the police party to a place 60-70 yards from the temple under construction in the area of jungle of Gram Sabha Kapashera and got recovered a knife with blade of 24.5 cm.The knife was converted into a sealed parcel and taken into possession vide a recovery memo.He also got recovered a pair pf glass with plastic frame.Dr. Sharma had opined that the decapitation injury on the person of the deceased could he caused by the knife.The learned Trial Court had framed charges against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34, IPC, to which both the appellants had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution had in all examined twenty one witnesses.It was the case of the prosecution that appellant Krishan Gupta was working as a watchman in Vindyachal Farm, Kapashera.In August, 1996 Hari Mohan, younger brother of Shyam Bihar Singh had come and started living with his wife Renu Singh, deceased.The deceased had become friendly with Krishan Gupta, After 15 days, Hari Mohan shifted his wife to village Kapashera and started working as a watchman in the area of Vasant Kunj.Appellant Krishan Gupta used to secretly meet Renu Singh.Hari Mohan had fallen sick and returned to his native village but deceased did not go back with him.He got a tenanted accommodation for her in the house of Vijay Pal where both would meet.Later on, the landlord also got involved in the same relations with Renu Singh and he took another tenanted room in the house of Jai Lal, Krishan Gupta wanted to marry her with the result that Renu Singh deceased sent her daughter to native village.In other words, it is the prosecution case that she was a woman of easy virtues and did not change her habit of keeping relations with others despite objections of Krishan Gupta, which promoted him to commit the offence.The learned Trial Court had considered the evidence and believed the evidence that deceased was last seen with, both the appellants and they got recovered the belongings of deceased besides the weapon with each.The head of deceased was decapatitated and concluded, and that prosecution had proved the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubts.With, these findings, the above said conclusions were arrived, at.Hence the present appeals.Learned Counsel for the appellant urged vehemently that the case of the prosecution rested totally on circumstantial evidence and the facts/circumstances to bring home the guilt have not at all been proved.The prosecution had examined Chander Shekhar PW 10 to establish the said fact.During his statement on oath he took a complete somersault from his earlier statement recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and deposed that he knows nothing about this matter.When cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor he added that he does not know anything and his statement even had not been recorded.He stated that he did not know the deceased.He again resoled that he had told the police that on 1.1.1997 he was returning to his house and met Renu Singh on the way and that appellants were also seen by him.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,171,805 |
Prosecution case is that there was a dispute over agricultural land between deceased and accused.On 20.05.2008 at about 09.30 a.m., while the accused was ploughing his land with a tractor driven by one Sundaram, the deceased asked the said Sundaram not to carry out ploughing work near his canal.Angered thereby, accused pushed the deceased forcibly owing to which the deceased fell down and died instantaneously.A case was registered in Crime No.599 of 2008 on the file of respondent for offence u/s.302 IPC.3.1. PW-1, grand son of deceased, an eye witness to the occurrence, spoke to the occurrence, accuseds action resulting in the death of deceased and preference of Ex.P1, complaint.PWs.2 and 3, wife and daughter of deceased, eye witnesses to the occurrence, have also spoken on the same lines.PW-4, driver of the tractor, spoke to carrying out ploughing work using his tractor, on rent basis, in the accused's land and that he stopped such work since the same was prevented by deceased.PW-4 has deposed to knowing both prosecution witnesses and the accused prior to the occurrence.3.3. PW-5, who went to deceaseds brickyard to purchase bricks spoke to having witnessed the occurrence.3.4. PW-6, a worker under the deceased, spoke about the occurrence and of attesting Ex.P2, observation mahazar.3.5. PW-7, Doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased, has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and myocardial failure.3.6. PW-8, Village Administrative Officer, spoke to visiting the place of occurrence along with Inspector of Police and of issuing a certificate informing that the water canal belongs to both deceased and accused.P5 is the Certificate issued by PW-8 in respect of Survey3.7. PW-9, Head Constable, spoke to submitting Ex.Upon completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed before learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and on committal, the case was tried in S.C.N.55 of 2008 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 1 material object.None were examined on the side of defence nor were any exhibits marked.P6, First Information Report, in Court and of forwarding copies of the same to higher officials.3.8. PW-10, Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation in the case, spoke to registration of case in Crime No.591 of 2008 on the file of respondent for offence u/s.302 IPC, visiting the place of occurrence, preparation of mahazars, examination of witnesses, arrest of accused and of obtaining various reports.PW-10 also deposed that on completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC before learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 10.07.2009, convicted accused for offence u/s.304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced him to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- i/d 6 months S.I. Against such finding, the present appeal has been filed.Heard learned counsel for appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.6. PW-1 is the grand son of deceased.His grand father, the deceased, had asked him to make sure that the canal to the deceased's land was not damaged.PW-1 advised the accused against causing damage.Accused retorted that he knew his business.On PW-1 informing deceased, he came to the field along with his family members.Deceased required PW-4 to stop ploughing, who obliged and left.PW-1 has deposed to an argument breaking out between family members of deceased and appellant/accused.PW-1 further has deposed to appellant/accused pushing down deceased whereupon he died.A case has been registered on the complaint of PW-1 and the First Information Report is in keeping with his deposition.PWs.2 and 3, wife and daughter of deceased, also have spoken to appellant/accused pushing the deceased down.PW-7, Doctor, who conducted post-mortem, has informed that the body of the deceased revealed no internal or external injuries.He has further stated that both heart and brain of the deceased were swollen and that such position could have been the result of the deceased having suffered from high blood pressure.He has informed the possibility of the deceased having met death owing to sufferance of a heart attack.He has further stated that there were absolutely no indication of the deceased having suffered any fall.Both PW-1, grand son of the deceased as also PW-4, an independent witness, have deposed to the deceased, aged 75 years, being given to ill-health, of frequenting hospital and of being under medication.P3, post-mortem report, marked through Doctor, PW-7, informs thus:In the absence of the cause of death due to absence of any poison in visceras or any other external and internal injuries the deceased would appear to have died of cardio-respiratory arrest due to shock and myocardial failure.In the aforesaid scenario, the possibility of deceased having suffered a heart attack in an agitated frame of mind and falling down dead cannot be ruled out.We may also test if the offence u/s.304 IPC would stand attracted even if the prosecution case is to be accepted.Section 304 IPC reads as follows:304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death;or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Unless it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused was aware of the health complications suffered by the deceased, which it is not, appellant/accused, in pushing the deceased down, could not be presumed to have intended to cause death or such bodily injury as would cause death or for that matter knowledge that death would be the result of his action.The Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed.The judgment of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, passed in S.C.No.55 of 2008 on 10.07.2009, shall stand set aside.12.07.2017Index : Yes/NoInternet : Yesgm ToThe Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.C.T.SELVAM, JgmCriminal Appeal No.431 of 2009
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,172,153 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties on merit.Previous application was dismissed being withdrawn vide order dated 18-12-2015 with liberty that if he surrenders before the concerning Court then the application for regular bail shall be considered as early as possible.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest in connection with Crime No.513/15 registered at Police Station Dabra District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 120-Bof IPC.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,172,763 |
"On 30.05.2007, on receipt of DD No.24, ASI Harpal Singh reached PS Pashchim Vihar, where HC Ranjeet Singh Ct.Satish Kumar PP Madipur met him.ASI Joginder Singh produced Prosecutrix aged 11 years, the daughter of the accused.Only those that are relevant to the episode of assault (findings such as fresh tears, bleeding, oedema etc.) are to be documented."Counsel for the appellant also dealt with many other contradictions and serious inconsistencies in various statements of the prosecutrix Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 6 of 72 especially like in her court deposition wherein she deposed that as far as she remembers she had told this fact to her mother in the month of January, 2007 whereas in her statement made before the Magistrate under section 164 Cr.P.C she stated that she told this fact to her mother on 29.05.2007; similarly she stated that she did not remember the month when she had made a complaint to the police whereas in her statement made before the Police under section 161 Cr.Counsel for the appellant also argued that prosecutrix was totally under the influence of her mother and due to this reason she had acted at the dictate and tutoring of her mother and has lodged the said false complaint.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 8 of 72 1/A & DW-1/B, the prosecutrix had attended the school with the attendance of 44 out of 48 in the month of November and 38 out of 38 in the month of December.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that had there been rape of the prosecutrix in the months of November-December, she could not have been able to attend her school regularly because such a girl would suffer great physical and mental trauma.Counsel also pointed out that there was visible improvement in the academic performance of Prosecutrix, as she had secured 26.7% in the 1st Term Examination whereas in her 2nd Term Examination, which was held in the month of December, she had secured 41.5%, which again showed that the prosecutrix was absolutely normal and under no trauma of any kind.The prosecutrix here is none else but her own daughter of the appellant.The appellant got married to PW-4 Ms. Geeta on 29th July, 1995 at Delhi according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.This marriage was as a result of love affair between them.As per deposition of the appellant, he got married to PW4 against the wishes of his parents and, therefore, the marriage was not accepted by his parents and immediately after the marriage for few days they had to live at his auntys place and thereafter on rent in Madipur, Delhi.Out of wedlock of the appellant and PW4, two children were born.The husband and wife could not pull off together and often they used to fight.Marital discord between them resulted into filing of cris- cross cases by both of them.PW4 filed a complaint with the Crime against Women Cells under Section 498A/506 IPC in which she had also roped the parents of the appellant.The following details of the cases filed by both the parties against each other are as under:-A. No. 1340/2010 Page 26 of 72"Cases filed by appellant against Geeta Anand (PW4):Divorce Petition seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty which later on converted into Mutual consent.Kidnapping case by filling a complaint under Section 190 Cr.P.C. before the concerned MM against Geeta Anand and her father, brother and sister.2. Present FIR."It will also be necessary here to give a gist of the places where the parties and the children had resided till they finally parted with them in the company of each other.On 23.07.1996, Prosecutrix (PW-3) was born and on 17.09.1999 Yash (PW5) was born.In may-june 2003, PW-4 left the house along with prosecutrix and PW- 5in July 2003 appellant brought back PW-4 along with PW--3 and PW-5 to his house.On 26.12.2005 PW-4 handed over both the children to the accused in the house of accuseds father.In April 2006, PW-4 left for South Korea for learning Korean language.In September 2006, PW-4 came back from South Korea.In her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Ms. Geeta stated that in the presence of her parents-in-law the prosecutrix told her that in November- December, 2006 the appellant had maintained physical relationship with her despite her refusal and he also told the prosecutrix that if she dared to disclose anything, he will physically eliminate her.After learning this, the mother of the prosecutrix immediately reported to the police and ASI Joginder Singh from PS Paschim Vihar rushed to the said residence of the grandparents of the prosecutrix.The police official from PS Madipur also reached there.First and foremost circumstances which goes in favour of the appellant is that his parents who entered into the witness box as PW-1 and PW-2 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.Undeniably, these two witnesses had admitted that prosecutrix was present at their house on the night of 29th May 2007 and also that the mother of the prosecutrix also reached there but at the same time, we cannot lose our sight from the hostile relationship between the appellant and his father.He also deposed that due to this reason there were quarrels between his grandfather and father and because of such quarrels, his father had left his house and did not return for a year.He also deposed that he was brought up by his dadaji, dadiji, chachaji, chachiji and bua.He further deposed that his fathers behaviour was bad towards him and his grandfather arranged for a separate house for his stay i.e. Property No.E-650, Madipur, Delhi.This is the same property which was later on willed by his grandfather in his favour.It is because of this Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 39 of 72 hostility in the relationship between the father and son, the father of the appellant had connived with the ex wife of the appellant - Geeta in falsely implicating him in the said rape case.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 39 of 72Also DW-13,Vijay Singh Yadav, who is real uncle of the appellant and real brother of PW-2 in his unrebutted testimony before the court, deposed that he asked PW2 as to why he was letting this happen to his own son and to this, PW2 replied that until he get the possession of Plot No.E-650, Madipur Colony, New Delhi from the accused, he would neither take rest nor he would help him in any manner.Smt. Sharda Yadav (DW-15), who is aunt of the appellant, has also deposed in her unrebutted examination-in-chief to the same effect that her brother, PW2 has demanded the possession of House No.E-650, Madipur, New Delhi from appellant and also told that it is after taking the Crl.Let us now deal with the evidence of Ms. Geeta (PW-4), who as per the appellant is a master mind behind his false implication.The evidence of PW-4 and her alleged involvement in getting present case registered through her own daughter of 11 years of age cannot be properly appreciated without evaluating the other attending circumstances surrounding her.Indisputably, there is a marital discord between the appellant and PW4 and matrimonial relationship between them got Crl.PW4 was quite concerned with her career as despite being mother of two small children, in the year 2006, she went to Korea on scholarship for higher Studies.As per the deposition of appellant DW-18, she had also undertaken classes in Korean language and the appellant had not raised any objection to her pursuing the advancement of her career.In the year 2005, because of the strained relationship, PW4 had taken away both the children to Bangalore with her, but there also they had to stay with their aunt (Mausi).From Bangalore, the children were brought back to Delhi at the residence of PW-2 and from the house of PW-2, the children were taken away by the accused alongwith him.In April 2006, Ms. Geeta left for Korea with her teacher Mr. Verma.By that time the appellant had already filed a guardianship case and PW4 had also filed an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and a complaint with Crime against Women Cell under Section 498A/506 of IPC.The appellant had also filed a complaint case under Section 190 of Cr.P.C against Geeta, Geetas father, her brother and her sister seeking their prosecution under Section 363 IPC.The appellant had also filed another case under Section 138 of Negotiable Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 42 of 72 Instruments Act, 1881 against Ms. Madhvi Sabharwal, sister of Ms. Geeta.The appellant had also separately filed a divorce case to seek dissolution of his marriage on the ground of cruelty.Ms. Geeta, perhaps could not sustain the pressure of the litigation launched by the appellant and ultimately in the month of December 2006 she had agreed for a mutual divorce and also for legally handing over the custody of children in favour of the appellant.PW4 had also agreed to accept the paltry amount of Rs. 1 Lac in full and final settlement of all material claims from the appellant and for withdrawal of all the cases filed by both the parties.The falseness on the part of Ms.Geeta gets fully exposed from the following:a) PW-4 in her examination-in-chief stated that on the evening of 29th May 2007, she was told by her daughter that she was now having periods and at such revelation she became perplexed as by that time her daughter was only 9 years old.On her asking, the daughter told her that after the accused had sexual intercourse with her, she had periods after some days.In her cross-examination she completely contradicted herself by stating that when she came back from Korea to admit the children, she had discussed about the condition of Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 44 of 72 prosecutrix with the appellant and even asked the appellant to take special care of prosecutrix during her menstruation period and at that appellant told that he has already consulted with some lady and he is already taking care of prosecutrix.Thus, her claim that she came to know from the prosecutrix that she started menstruating only after the sexual act committed by accused in November - December 2006 is palpably false.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 44 of 72b) Another false statement given by PW-4 was when she stated that she went to Korea for scholarship in March 2006 for higher studies and when she came back in September she went to meet her children in school.She was shocked to see her daughter as she appeared dark, fat and grown up during that period of six months.The accused had asked her not to meet the children.That falseness of PW-4 is apparent from the fact that in September 2006, the appellant was not married with Ms. Poonam and therefore there was no question of appellant telling his wife that he has now married.Secondly, the marriage between the appellant and Geeta was also not dissolved by that time and therefore there was no question of appellant getting re-married with Ms. Poonam.Thirdly, the falseness in the said deposition of PW-4 gets exposed from the deposition of prosecutrix (PW-3) who in her cross- examination stated that her mother visited her in Madipur in the presence of her father, a number of times and once she came to meet her in the school.She also stated that she cannot tell the date, month and the year when her mother came to meet her in the school, but at that time she was in V standard.It is an admitted case of the prosecution that the children were with the appellant during the time when Ms. Geeta was away to Korea and they continued to stay with appellant even after the appellant had returned back from Korea.During that period, the prosecutrix was in V standard as per her school records placed on record and therefore PW- 4 must have visited the prosecutrix only after she had returned back from Korea in September 2006 when the prosecutrix was in V standard.c) Ms. Geeta, PW-4 in her examination-in-chief had stated that Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 46 of 72 her daughter started revealing the fact slowly and slowly that her father used to have sexual intercourse and also from her backside and due to that she could not sit in latrine for some days as she was feeling severe pain and she told this fact to her brother and asked what she should do? All these facts were stated by PW-4 neither in her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. nor this was stated by the prosecutrix in her first statement to the police on the basis of which FIR was registered or in her statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or even in her court deposition.This is also not supported by the MLC of the prosecutrix.The prosecutrix also nowhere stated that she had told any such fact to her brother in any of her statements.e) PW4 in her deposition stated that on being told by her daughter that the accused had sexual intercourse with her and she had periods thereafter and when asked again to reveal more the daughter started crying.PW4 further deposed that she got aggressive to know this fact and she started giving slaps to her daughter and raised an alarm.This deposition of PW4, does not find any support from the prosecutrix or her parents-in-law, PW1 and PW2 or her son PW5, respectively.From the aforesaid material contradictions and inconsistencies and improvements made by PW4, we are not able to persuade ourselves to believe that her testimony inspires any confidence especially in the background of the facts, which have already been discussed herein above.Let us now deal with the most pivotal evidence of the prosecutrix herself.The prosecutrix in her Court deposition stated that she was raped at night by her father first time when her grandparents came to the residence of the appellant.In her first statement (rukka) PW3 nowhere stated that she was for the first time raped by her father when her grandfather had visited him and so far as her statement under Section 164 Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 48 of 72 Cr.P.C. is concerned her version is different as there she stated that when her grandfather had visited the residence of appellant son somewhere in the month of November, but not knowing the exact date, at that time she was sleeping and her father had teased her and after her grandfather had left thereafter against her wishes her father had established physical relationship with her for 10-15 times.It would be thus seen that in all the three statements of prosecutrix, she had given different versions.The age of the prosecutrix as stated in the MLC as on date of her examination was 11 years.The prosecutrix was also accompanied by HC Ranjit, from Police Station Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi.However, Dr.The child walks with difficulty due to pain.The absence of marks of violence on the genitals of the child, when an early examination is made is strong evidence that rape has not been committed."A. No. 1340/2010 Page 55 of 72The prosecutrix in the facts of the present case, has alleged her being repeatedly raped by her father during the period of November - December 2006 and complaint to this effect was lodged with the police on the morning of 30th May 2007 i.e. after a gap of 6 months.The deposition of DW-18 stated that in September 2006, Geeta came back from South Korea and thereafter she met the children 3-4 times in school and also that both the children on the weekends used to stay in his fathers house and his father used to make them speak on phone to Geeta and also that Geeta came to meet my children in my house in my presence about 5 times after his re-marriage and before filing of this case, remained unrebutted.There is also no cross-examination of DW-18 testifying that on 14th February 2007, he got married with Ms. Poonam and 4-5 days after the marriage, Geeta came to meet the children and after seeing that the Crl.e) On 29.12.2006, during winter vacations, the appellant with both the children and Poonam went on a trip to Bombay and Shirdi.The photographs proved on record as Ex.DW-18/A1 to DW18/A18 show them in a happy and joyful mood.In order to take revenge he does not even mind doing gravest of act.An avenger may use various means to take revenge.In this case the mother of the Prosecutrix, driven by the feeling of revenge, has gone to the extent of falsely implicating her husband for the rape of their daughter, being completely ignorant of the shame she has brought to her entire family including herself, her daughter and her husband by her such derogatory, disgraceful, intolerable and unacceptable conduct.At the Crl.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.By this appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C) the appellant seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 20.09.2010 and 23.09.2010 respectively passed by the Court of Ld.Additional Sessions Judge, West Distt., Delhi, thereby convicting the appellant for committing an offence under Section 376(2) (f) of India Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 1 of 72 together with fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default thereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 1 of 72Prosecutrix along with her mother Geeta Anand were taken to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital (hereinafter SGM Hospital) where she was medically examined.The IO recorded the statement of Prosecutrix.The case was registered and after due investigation challan was filed under sections 376 (2) (f) / 506 IPC against the accused."After supplying the copies of the charge sheet to the accused as per law, case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Arguments on the point of charge were heard and charges under sections 376 (2) (f) / 506 IPC were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution tendered 17 witnesses in support of their case.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 2 of 72 The statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he denied the incriminating evidences produced by the prosecution against him.In his defense accused had examined 18 witnesses.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 2 of 72Addressing arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate contended that mother of the accused, PW-1 and father of the accused PW-2 had did not support the case of the prosecution.Counsel also pointed out that PW-2 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he had handed over the children to their mother on the very next day of taking the prosecutrix on superdari.Dealing with various statements made by the prosecutrix who had entered into witness box as PW-3, counsel for the appellant pointed out that her version that her father used to commit rape upon her regularly, is contrary to in the MLC report of the of the Prosecutrix (Ex.PW5/A), wherein the gyne doctor who examined the prosecutrix had opined that Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 3 of 72 introituses admits two fingers with difficulty.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 3 of 72P.C she stated that my mother made a complaint to the Police on 30th May 2007; further she states that her statement was recorded several times although prior to court deposition there were only two statements, i.e., one rukka and other under Section 164 Cr.P.C.; and also that she used to visit her school only 3-4 days in a month whereas her school documents show to the contrary.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 6 of 72Counsel also pointed out that the appellant was taking due care of the prosecutrix as his second wife Ms. Poonam used to give tuition to her and in the process the appellant wanted the prosecutrix to come closer with her new mother for better understanding and strengthening of their relationship.Counsel also pointed out that the appellant got the prosecutrix admitted in a day boarding school and he himself used to drop her at the school and then pick her up and this again Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 9 of 72 showed dedication and devotion of a father towards his child.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 8 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 9 of 72With regard to the testimony of PW-4 Geeta Anand, counsel for the appellant argued that her testimony is full of concoctions, falsehood and contradictions with material improvements from her previous statements and therefore, the same cannot inspire confidence to nail the accused.Counsel also argued that in her deposition PW-4 deposed that the accused used to watch blue movies in the house and on one occasion, when she came back from her paternal house, her daughter told her that the accused was watching blue movies and one lady came to the house and at that time some friends of the accused also came in the house and they were doing some obscene activities.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that with such kind of character of the accused, the mother could not have given the custody of the children to a person of such a low character.Counsel also pointed out that such deposition of PW-4 is false on the face of it as no such allegation has been levelled by the prosecutrix in her various statements.Counsel further pointed out that from the deposition of PW-4 it also becomes apparent that she was in regular touch with the father of the accused.Counsel also pointed out to Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 10 of 72 the deposition of PW-4 wherein she stated that her father-in-law (PW-2) used to tell her that the accused did not allow them to meet with the children and this testimony clearly showed that the relationship between PW-2 and accused was not cordial.Counsel also pointed out that in her deposition PW-4 deposed that she went to Korea on Scholarship in the month of May, 2006 for higher studies and she came back in September and thereafter had gone to meet her children in school, where she was shocked to see her daughter being dark, fatty and grown up during the past period of six months and with such statement PW-4 tried to give indication that because of rape and consequent starting of menarche she found her daughter in such a condition.Counsel also pointed out to the testimony of PW-4 where she said that the accused telephoned her and asked her not to meet the children since he was married and the step mother of the Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 11 of 72 children does not approve her meeting with the children.Referring to this part of testimony of PW-4, counsel for the appellant submitted that firstly as per the evidence on record, the accused had married to Ms. Poonam on 14th February, 2007 and thus claim of the witnesses that she found the prosecutrix dark, fatty etc. in September, 2006 loses its basis and secondly if the accused was already married, then his wife would have been living with him in the house and the alleged commission of rape would have taken place in the presence of the second wife of the accused but that is not a case set up by the prosecutrix.Counsel also pointed out that PW-4 in her deposition candidly admitted that she was told by her daughter that second wife of her husband used to treat her well.Another contradiction pointed out by the counsel for the appellant was that PW-4 was told by her daughter that she started having menarche only after the accused had intercourse with her and this is contrary to her own testimony where she said that when she came back from Korea and met with the children then she discussed about the condition of prosecutrix with the accused and also asked accused to take special care of Prosecutrix during her menstruation period.Counsel further pointed out Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 12 of 72 that this discussion took place in the month of September, 2006, which shows that PW-4 was already aware about the menstruation of the prosecutrix but yet she made a false statement before the Court that the menstruation period of the prosecutrix started after rape.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 10 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 11 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 12 of 72Counsel also argued that PW-4 made material improvements in her court deposition wherein she deposed that her daughter started revealing the facts slowly and slowly and told her that her father used to have sexual intercourse with her and also from her back side and due to that she could not sit in latrine for some days.Further even in the MLC of the prosecutrix no such fact has been stated.Even PW5 being brother of the prosecutrix did not state any such fact in his court deposition.Counsel also argued that PW-4 in her deposition stated that she started giving slaps to prosecutrix after she admitted the fact that she had been raped by her father but in the MLC no abrasions were found on the cheeks of the prosecutrix.Counsel also pointed out that in her cross- examination PW-4 failed to disclose the date when the prosecutrix had Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 13 of 72 informed her about the incident and this fact again put the witness in dark as she did not even remember such a crucial date, when her daughter disclosed her about the various acts of rape committed upon her by her father.Counsel also pointed out that PW4 clearly admitted that she had lodged a complaint against the accused and her in-laws under Section 498A IPC, as they used to demand the children from her.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that PW-4 wanted to take revenge from the accused as her sole objective was to take back the lawful custody of the children from the accused.Counsel also pointed out that PW-4 admitted that she had met the children alone once in the year 2006 when she returned back from Korea and at that time nothing of this sort was disclosed to her by the prosecutrix.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 13 of 72Counsel also argued that PW-4 in her deposition admitted the fact that the prosecutrix used to drive cycle when she was around 4-5 years Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 14 of 72 and she used to do swimming also.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that in the MLC of the prosecutrix the hymen was found torn and PW-8, Dr. Deepti Goel, in her cross-examination clearly stated that hymen can be torn on account of many reasons like injuries during cycling or sports and in the background of sports activities, tearing of the hymen of the prosecutrix could be as a result of the same and not necessarily on account of alleged rape.Counsel also submitted that PW- 4 has twice gone to meet the accused in jail with a view to blackmail him otherwise in the background of such a treacherous conduct of the accused, how she could pay visit to the jail to meet him.Counsel also pointed out that PW-4 in her cross-examination admitted that she also met the accused in the court and had assured him to give necessary help which again shows that PW-4 was fully conscious of the falseness of the present case.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 14 of 72Dealing with the evidence of PW-5 Yash Yadav who is the brother of the prosecutrix, counsel for the appellant pointed out that in his deposition PW-5 clearly admitted that whenever he and his sister had to go out, the accused allowed them and this fact would clearly show that Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 15 of 72 the prosecutrix was free to roam around without any restriction from the side of the father.Counsel also pointed out that, during his cross- examination PW-5 clearly stated that his sister did not tell about the wrong act.Counsel also pointed out that PW-5 in his testimony also admitted that there were other children in tuition classes which shows that the prosecutrix had ample opportunity to interact with other children.Counsel also argued that PW-7 Ms. Mahinder Pal Kaur, Principal, Shiv Modern School in her cross-examination deposed that the appellant had moved an application dated 21st April, 2007 with the instructions that the prosecutrix may not be allowed to meet or go with her mother and her custody may not be given to the mother or anybody else on her behalf.The contention raised by the counsel for the appellant was that this act of the accused also instigated his ex-wife PW4 to falsely implicate him in the present case.Counsel also referred to the cross-examination of PW- 11 ASI Joginder Singh wherein he categorically admitted the fact that the prosecutrix did not make any statement before him regarding rape but she stated that a wrongful act has been committed with her by her father.The contention of the appellant was that at that time PW-4, Geeta did not Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 16 of 72 make up her mind and due to this reason alone the said police officer was informed about some wrong act committed by the accused with the prosecutrix.Counsel also submitted that the appellant himself has been examined as DW-18 and his testimony is at par with the victim in terms of Section 315 Cr.P.C. but yet the learned Trial Court failed to give any weightage whatsoever to his testimony.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 15 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 16 of 72Counsel for the appellant also referred to the evidence adduced by the defence witnesses, who, as per counsel for the appellant, succeeded in proving the innocence of the appellant and his false implication by his ex- wife Geeta in collusion with her parents-in-law.Based on the above submissions, counsel for the appellant with all vehemence urged that the appellant was falsely implicated in the present case at the instance of his ex-wife Geeta and his hostile parents and to achieve their sinister designs, they succeeded in making their own daughter, as a tool to take revenge.Counsel also urged that the appellant always took due care of his children and this fact could alone be established by the fact that he was always insisting for the custody of his children which ultimately was agreed upon by his ex-wife in the joint Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 17 of 72 petition for mutual divorce.Counsel also urged that the learned Trial court also failed to appreciate that since the time of the birth of the appellant, his father Om Prakash has not accepted him as a son and because of this fact the appellant was raised by his grandparents, uncle (chacha) and aunty (bhua).Counsel also submitted that due to this fact the grandfather of the appellant had bequeathed the property bearing No.Counsel thus submitted that his father was quite inimical and jealous of him because of the said property coming in his hands which in normal course would have gone to him and due to this reason the father had joined Geeta in getting the said false case registered against him.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 17 of 72Lillu @ Rajesh and Anr.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 18 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 18 of 72Virender vs. State of NCT of Delhi, , reported in 2010 III AD (DELHI) 342Shaikh Sheru vs. State of Maharashtra criminal appeal no.Repudiating the submissions of the counsel for the appellant, Ms. Richa Kapoor, APP for the state, strenuously contended that the learned Trial Court has passed well reasoned judgment on conviction and sentenced the appellant for life imprisonment after having carefully evaluating the entire material on record.Learned APP further argued that the appellant has committed most sinful act of raping his own daughter of 11 years of age and he cannot hide his sin under the facade of alleged minor discrepancies and contradictions in the testimonies of material witnesses.Learned APP also argued that the counsel for the appellant has made a futile attempt to find fault in the testimonies of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 but the truth remains that their testimonies remained unrebutted and uncontroverted on material facts leaving no room to disbelieve them.Learned APP also argued that the medical evidence proved on record through the MLC of the appellant and the MLC of the prosecutrix further corroborates and strengthens the oral testimonies of the prosecutrix and other material witnesses.Learned APP also argued that such a small child would not falsely implicate her father and that too in a crime of such a nature as serious as rape.Counsel also argued that the testimony of the prosecutrix was supported by her younger brother PW-5 who in his deposition stated that he was told by his sister that the appellant used to commit wrong acts with her.He also deposed that the appellant used to take his sister downstairs during the night after bolting the room from outside.Learned APP also argued that the parents of the accused although has turned hostile but they remained consistent in their stand that on 29th May, 2007 mother of the children Geeta PW-4 was present at their house and also that the prosecutrix was also present in that house on the same day.Learned APP also pointed out that the case was reported to the police vide DD No.8A proved on record as Ex.PW-9/A from the telephone Nos. 65108074 and 9313653793 and father of the accused was the subscriber of the said phone nos.. Learned APP further argued that the Crl. A. No. 1340/2010 Page 20 of 72 learned Trial Court has rightly ignored a portion of the testimony of PW- 3 where she had deposed having told her mother about rape in January, 2007, as a mere slip of tongue.The contention raised by the learned APP for the State was that the statement of the prosecutrix is to be read as a whole and not piecemeal.In her same statement, the prosecutrix deposed that she did not remember the month of her making complaint to the police and yet further in her same deposition she stated that "I have stated to the police that I did not remember the exact date but the incident took place about six months back." Learned APP thus submitted that the said six months period if calculated in reverse from the date of complaint lodged on 30th May, 2007 it will be November-December, 2006 and this is the period which the prosecutrix had stated in her complaint as well as in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and in her court deposition.Learned APP thus submitted that the testimonies of the prosecutrix as a whole are totally believable, truthful, clear, cogent and convincing.Learned APP also submitted that the prosecutrix could not inform her mother PW-4 about the said shameful acts of her father as he did not allow PW-4 to meet the children.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 19 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 20 of 72Learned APP also argued that the testimony of the accused who entered into witness box as DW-18 is totally unreliable and he failed to advance any convincing reason for his implication by his own daughter and his parents that too in a crime of such a serious nature.Learned APP thus submitted that the case in hand is an open and shut case and the Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 22 of 72 learned Trial Court dealt with each and every aspect of the defence raised by the appellant meticulously and based on sound reason.The case in hand has its own peculiarity of facts wherein on the one hand, the serious allegations of rape were levelled by a minor daughter of 11 years of age, against her father supported by deposition of her mother, her three years younger brother and initially even the grandparents of the girl, and on the other hand, as per the accused father, the entire case is an outcome of well planned conspiracy between his ex- wife supported by his hostile parents, who had used her daughter as a tool for settling their scores and for taking back the custody of the children, which was granted in favour of appellant under the mutual settlement arrived at between the parties.A criminal trial is meant for doing justice to all, the victim, the accused and also the society.During the course of the trial, the learned Presiding Judge is expected to work objectively and in a correct perspective.Where the prosecution attempts to misdirect the trial on the basis of a perfunctory, motivated or designedly defective investigation, there the Court is to be deeply cautious and ensure that despite such an attempt, the determinative process is not sub-served.In arriving at the conclusion about the guilt of Crl.The appellant, on the other hand, filed Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 26 of 72 a divorce petition on the ground of cruelty against the respondent.Ms. Geeta also filed a complaint under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against the appellant to seek grant of maintenance.The appellant also filed a petition under Section 12 of the Guardianship Act to claim the custody of the children from his wife.In the criminal case filed by his wife, the appellant got an anticipatory bail for himself and for his parents.Petition under Guardianship & Wards Act in the Court of Ms. Anju Bajaj Chandana.Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the sister of Geeta Anand.Complaint with the Passport Authorities for the material concealment of facts by Geeta Anand.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 27 of 72On 3rd February 2007 accused and PW-4 got divorced by mutual consent and custody of both the children remain with the accused and PW-4 had visitation rights as per her convenience."While analysing and evaluating the facts of the present case, we have to keep in our mind the aforesaid background of litigation and embittered relationship between the parties.We may also mention here Crl.It will also be useful to mention here that the present appellant had immediately married to Ms. Poonam on 14.02.2007 with whom he had an affair even before his first marriage was dissolved.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 28 of 72As per the case set up by the prosecution, on 29.05.2007 the prosecutrix and her brother were staying with their grandparents at Shiva Enclave, Paschim Vihar where their mother also came to meet them.The prosecutrix along with her mother was taken to Sanjay Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 29 of 72 Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Delhi where the prosecutrix was medically examined.The IO recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and thereafter FIR No. 389/2007 was registered against the appellant under Section 376 (2) (f)/506 IPC.In the MLC of the prosecutrix which was proved on record as Ex. PW-5/A Dr. Deepti Goel (PW8), it was opined that on medical examination of prosecutrix, her hymen was found to be torn.The appellant had produced a Will which was left by his grandfather bequeathing the said property in his favour thereby divesting the right of PW-1 to have a claim over the said property being one of the legal heirs amongst his brothers.The said Will was proved on record as Ex.DW- 13/A.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 38 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 38 of 72Appellant in his un-rebutted deposition in examination- in-chief also stated that right from the date of his birth, for certain unknown reasons, his father Om Prakash Yadav had refused to accept and acknowledge him as his son.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 40 of 72 possession of the said house, he would pressurize Geeta to withdraw the said false case against the appellant.On the other hand, Ms. Geeta (PW-A. No. 1340/2010 Page 40 of 724) in her cross-examination admitted the fact that she was on visiting terms at the house of PW2 despite the fact that she had lodged a complaint against them under Section 406/498A of IPC.The aforesaid hostility on the part of PW-1 and PW-2 and their continuous relationships with PW4 have not been carefully noticed by the learned trial court and it is due to this hostility, the parents of the appellant had colluded with Ms. Geeta in falsely implicating the appellant in a rape case.It appears that wiser sense devolved upon them when they appeared in court and did not support the prosecution case.Both the said children were already under the custody of the appellant for the past one year and their custody got legitimacy by the said judgment and decree Crl.Thereafter the appellant, who was already having an affair with another lady named Ms. Poonam, got immediately re-married on 14th February 2007 i.e. after a gap of 11 days.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 41 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 42 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 43 of 72Accused further told her that he has now re-married and the step mother of the children does not approve of her meeting with the children.At this PW4 even went to accused and asked him to atleast allow her to talk to her children on phone but the accused did not allowed this.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 45 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 46 of 72d) In her examination-in-chief PW-4 deposed that accused used to watch blue movies in the house and when she came back to her house after visiting her father she was told by her daughter that accused used to watch blue movies, one lady came in the house and they were doing obscene activities and when confronted with this statement, the accused started fighting her.In her cross-examination when PW4 was asked whether you stated any such allegation in your statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to police?, she stated yes.However, when PW4 was confronted with the statement made to the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 47 of 72 nothing of this sought was stated by her to the police.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 47 of 72In her first statement (rukka) she nowhere disclosed the visit of her grandfather and in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. she deposed for being teased by her father at the time of visit of her grandfather and in her Court deposition she took entirely different stand of being raped at night when her grandparents had visited the residence of the appellant.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 48 of 72Another vital contradiction on the part of the prosecutrix is that in her cross-examination she deposed that she attended the school only 3-4 days in a month and this false deposition on the part of the prosecutrix gets clearly exposed from the daily attendance register proved on record as Exs.DW-1/D, DW-1/A & DW-1/B, respectively, which clearly reveals that prosecutrix had been regularly attending the school i.e. 44 attendance Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 49 of 72 out of 48 in the month of November and 38 attendance out of 38 in the month of December.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 49 of 72The prosecutrix in none of her statements endorsed the stand of her mother PW4 that her menstruation started after she was raped by her father.The prosecutrix also did not support the stand of her mother PW4 that her father used to have sex with her from her back side and due to this she could not sit in the latrine for some days and that she was feeling severe pain and she told this fact to her brother also to ask what she should do?.Before we further analyze the entire set of circumstances under which the said complaint had been lodged by the prosecutrix implicating her own father in such a serious offence, let us first refer to the MLC of the prosecutrix which was proved on record as Ex.5/A. As per the MLC report, her mother (PW4) accompanied prosecutrix to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, Mangol Puri, Delhi on 30th May 2007 at 1.10 PM.In the hospital, the Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 50 of 72 prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Vinay Kumar to whom the prosecutrix and her mother disclosed the alleged history of sexual assault by her father.The prosecutrix was referred to gyne department and from gyne department the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Monika.On medical examination, the hymen of the prosecutrix was found torn and as per vaginal examination, the doctor opined that introituses, admits two fingers with difficulty".The said MLC also records status of menarche as one year back.Exact uterus size could not be assessed.Doctor had also collected the vaginal swab samples and undergarments of the prosecutrix, which were sealed and referred for forensic opinion.The gyne opinion given by Dr. Monika in the said MLC report Ex.5/A was proved in the testimony of Dr. Deepti Goel (PW-8), Medical Officer, Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital.PW-8 in her deposition stated that Dr. Monica had left the hospital and her whereabouts are not known and since she has seen Dr. Monica signing and writing, therefore she was in a position to identify her signatures at the said MLC report and was competent to depose about the said MLC report.In her cross- examination, she stated as under:-A. No. 1340/2010 Page 50 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 51 of 72The hymen may be Crl.There may be mucopurulent discharge from the vagina.Any attempt to separate the thighs for examination causes great pain, because of the local inflammation.With such a wide gap, there could not have been any fresh evidence of commission of the rape through medical examination of both the prosecutrix and the accused as well as through other evidences including undergarments of both of them and therefore, the only evidence available is the said MLC Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 56 of 72 of the prosecutrix (Ex.5/A) and MLC of the appellant (Ex.5/B).In the MLC of the prosecutrix, no injuries on the private part or any kind of inflammation were found.As per the Modis jurisprudence, frequent intercourse and parturition completely destroy the hymen, which is represented by several small tags of tissues, which are called carunculae hymenealis or myrtiformes.However no such small tags were detected even on a gynaecological examination of the prosecutrix.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 56 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 57 of 72 suffer some injury on her private part or there may occur some kind of tear in the vaginal canal which is usually quite narrow in the case of minor child or at least suffering of a severe pain by such a minor child, but nothing of this kind had happened to the prosecutrix.The PW-4 in her cross-examination admitted the fact that her daughter P was around 4-5 years when she started cycling and she used to do swimming as well.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 58 of 72 reproduced as under:-A. No. 1340/2010 Page 57 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 58 of 72The doctor has to opine as to whether the hymen stood ruptured much earlier or carried an old tear.The factum of admission of two fingers could not be held adverse to the prosecutrix, as it would also depend upon the size of the fingers inserted.The doctor must give his clear opinion as to whether it was painful and bleeding on touch, for the reason that such conditions obviously relate to the hymen."A. No. 1340/2010 Page 59 of 72 appears from the cross-examination of PW5 that his father was too caring as he used to drop both the children to school and himself pick them up daily.His father used to drop both of them to tuition centre and then personally used to pick them up and whenever he was not available for any reason, he used to send someone for picking up the children.He has also deposed that his sister used to visit all their relatives, who live nearby and his friends also used to come to their house.The cross-examination of PW-5, gives a clear indication that there was no restriction on the children and had there been any sexual assault upon the daughter by the father then she had ample opportunities to have disclose this fact to her mother, grandparents or near relatives.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 59 of 72DW-12 who is husband of friend of PW-4 in his examination-in-chief stated that he was also threatened by PW4 to be implicated in a false rape case when he had visited her parental house to demand his money back.This testimony of DW-12 remain unrebutted Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 60 of 72 and the said unrebutted testimony of this witness shows that the mother of the prosecutrix had gone to the extent of threatening him to falsely implicate him in a rape case just when he had gone to demand for the return of his own money.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 60 of 72DW-13 Vijay Singh is the uncle of the appellant who in his examination-in-chief deposed that he met Smt. Geeta (PW-4) and inquired her as to why she had falsely implicated the accused and in response, she told him that she had got nothing from the appellant while he had got custody of the children and divorce with the order of the court as well as he got re-married and is leading a comfortable life.He further deposed that PW-4 had told him that she would take revenge by taking recourse to law and she also demanded Rs. 5 lacs and custody of the children for withdrawing the said complaint.This testimony of DW-13 also remained unrebutted.Ms. Sharda Yadav, DW-15 is the aunt of appellant and she also deposed on the same lines as per the deposition of DW-13, i.e. of PW-4 Geeta demanding Rs. 5 lacs and her showing complete frustration because of the appellant getting custody of the children and having Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 61 of 72 divorced her.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 61 of 7268. DW-18, the appellant himself has given a detailed account as to how he had married Ms. Geeta and why his father was inimical towards him and also the detailed reasons for his false implication by Geeta by tutoring and instigating her own daughter and making her an instrument to take revenge from him and to get the legal custody of the children and also to demand an amount of Rs.5 lac.The examination-in-chief of DW- 18 on material aspects also remained unrebutted.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 62 of 72 accused got re-married with Poonam, she became angry and created a scene and started crying.Besides all, DW-18 stated that in September 2007, PW2 and PW4 came to jail to meet him alongwith his aunt (bua) and told him to comply with their condition for settlement to which he had refused and again in February 2008, PW4 came with an agreement suggesting that the legal custody of both the children would remain with Geeta and the accused will have to pay Rs.5 lacs as one-time payment with no visitation rights.This fact has been admitted by Geeta in her cross-examination and the reason given by her to meet the appellant in jail was that she had gone to see the condition of the accused as she had come to know that the accused was beaten in the jail.This reason given by Geeta Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 64 of 72 does not appear to us, to have any basis, had the accused been real perpetrator of such a serious crime of committing rape of his daughter.The visit of the Geeta to jail rather proves the defence version that she was trying to create pressure on accused to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs and to agree for restoring back the legal custody of the children.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 64 of 72b) In the cross-examination of PW4, she had admitted that she had met the accused in the court and assured him of help.Again, she told that she had shown sympathy to him as on one side is her daughter and on the other side is her husband.I still regard accused as my husband.This deposition of the prosecutrix in her cross-examination is also not fathomable as to how she could regard the accused as her husband after being divorced and after he was allegedly found involved in committing rape of her own daughter of 11 years of age.In this background, where the accused was also in relation with another female to whom he was to marry, it was highly improbable for such a person to indulge into sex with his own daughter, as normally only sex deprived persons satisfy the urge for sex unmindful of their Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 65 of 72 relationship with the victim of sex.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 65 of 72Undoubtedly, wallowing in the heartburn drove her to unimaginable lengths, in the lifelong shadow of which the man has to live.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 69 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 70 of 72A. No. 1340/2010 Page 71 of 72A copy of this order be sent to Jail Superintendant for necessary compliance.KAILASH GAMBHIR, J INDERMEET KAUR, J OCTOBER 29, 2013 pkb Crl.A. No. 1340/2010 Page 72 of 72
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,182,724 |
When the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, it was returned to the police with the direction that offences u/S 392 of IPC and Section 11/13 of MPDVPK Act are made out, thereafter the charge-sheet is to be filed before the Special Court of MPDVPK Act. Hence the applicants/accused are apprehending their arrest again in the aforesaid offences.Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submission made on behalf of the applicant has prayed for rejection of the bail application.C. No. 8700/ 2 0 1 4C.C. as per rules.(M. K. Mudgal) Judge neetu
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,183,053 |
On the basis of report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) submitted on conclusion of investigation into FIR No. 219/2014 of police station Amar Colony involving offences punishable under Sections 420/467/468/471/120B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the second respondent (accused) is facing trial in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, the gravamen whereof in a nutshell is that he had purportedly sold to the petitioner (the complainant of the case) certain parcel of land, for consideration, receiving in the process Rs. 2.10 Crl.M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 1 of 5 crore directly or indirectly, the later revelations showing the land did not vest in him, it rather belonging to Delhi Development Authority (DDA).M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 1 of 5It appears that the second respondent (accused) had earlier been arrested and was released on interim bail.He, however, jumped bail and eventually came to be declared a proclaimed offender after publication under Section 82 Cr.P.C. After his presence had been secured, a supplementary charge-sheet was laid in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate leading to the trial.He had earlier applied for bail before this Court by moving bail application no. 919/2016, which was however, withdrawn and dismissed accordingly by order dated 19.07.2016, he having taken the liberty to approach the trial court/Sessions Court instead.He then moved the court of Sessions by bail application (CF 1399/2016) which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated 18.04.2016 taking note, inter alia, of the dismissal of the earlier bail application and the past conduct.After the dismissal of his bail application by the court of Sessions he moved yet another application before the same Magistrate.This fresh application was allowed by a very cryptic order dated 11.08.2016:-"11.08.2016 Bail Application moved on behalf of accused Dheeraj Prasad.M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 2 of 5Arguments on the bail application already heard.Arguments on behalf of the complainant were heard on last date of hearing.All the other accused persons have already been granted bail.Considering that accused has not engaged any counsel and is fighting his own case, in order to afford him an opportunity of a fair trial so that he may be able to gather evidence in his defence and also considering the grounds on parity, this court deems it fit to grant bail to the accused on furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in like amount.However, he is to appear in court on each and every date of hearing and no exemption shall be entertained on his behalf till the conclusion of trial in the present case.Copy of the order be sent to Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail for intimation to the inmate/accused Dheeraj Prasad".Challenging the above mentioned order and seeking cancellation of the bail, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the complainant of the case has approached this court by the petition at hand.It has been, inter alia, pointed out that the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 not only suffers from the vice of it being cryptic but also that it omits reference to any of the incriminating facts nor takes note of the gravity of the offences involved, failing conspicuously to take into account the objection of the State that the petitioner is involved in a series of such crimes, his role having come to light (by then) in at least three other such cases, their particulars (as given in the status report dated 07.10.2016) being Crl.M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 3 of 5 case FIR No. 146/12 under Sections 420/465/468/471/474 IPC, PS Pandav Nagar, Delhi; case FIR No. 20/14, under Sections 406/420/506 IPC, PS Kotwali Nai Mandi, Mujaffarnagar, UP; and case FIR No. 87/15 under Sections 420/468/471/120-B IPC, PS C.R. Park, New Delhi.The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is yet another case in which the accused is involved it being FIR 3/2017 police station EOW involving offences under Sections 406/120B/34/420 IPC.M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 3 of 5After some hearing, the learned counsel for the second respondent, on instructions from the second respondent, who is present in person, submitted that he fairly concedes that the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 is deficient in above aspects, it not having been passed by taking comprehensive note of the facts and circumstances.He submitted that the second respondent is ready and willing to forgo and forfeit the benefit of the impugned order dated 11.08.2016 which, he concedes, may be cancelled under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. though he seeks liberty to apply afresh to the Court of Sessions or this Court, if need be thereafter, for release on regular bail.Binding the second respondent with this undertaking and setting aside the impugned order dated 11.08.2016, the petition is disposed of.M.C. No. 3544/2016 Page 4 of 5Copy of the order be given dasti to all sides.R.K.GAUBA, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,186,747 |
CC as per rules.e sh ad (J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2017.11.20 12:16:43 Pr a +05'30' hy ad JP M of rt ou C h ig Ha Heard.hy This appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 ad (2) of Cr.P.C being aggrieved by impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2009 passed by the 6th M Additional Sessions Judge, Sagar in S.T. No.254/2009 whereby of the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 347 and 386 r/w.Section 34 of the I.P.C and sentenced to rt ou undergo R.I for 2 years with fine of Rs.500/- and RI for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/- respectively, with default stipulation as C mentioned in the impugned judgment.Both the sentences are h ordered to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the State has argued in support of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by sh the trial court.e I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length ad and gone through the judgment passed by the trial Court.Since, Pr the appellant has not challenged the finding of conviction recorded against him by the trial court under Section 347 and 386 a hy r/w.Sec. 34 of IPC, the same is hereby affirmed as the conviction is well founded.However, looking to all circumstances of the ad case, no useful purpose would be served by again sending the M appellant to the jail.The appellant has suffered the jail sentence of for more than two years.In these circumstances, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if the appellant is sentenced rt under Section 386 r/w.Sec. 34 of IPC to the period already ou undergone by him in jail i.e. RI for more than two years along C with fine amount.h Consequently, the criminal appeal is partly allowed.The ig conviction of the appellant - Makhan Lodhi recorded by the Trial H Court under Sections 347 and 386 r/w.Sec. 34 of IPC is hereby affirmed.However, the sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial Court is hereby set-aside and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail i.e. for more than two years along with fine amount as imposed by the trial Court.The appellant is on bail.His bail bonds shall stand discharged subject to deposit of the fine amount, if not already deposited.Record of the trial court be sent back immediately along with the copy of this order for compliance and necessary action.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,511,910 |
No. TN-20-AA-5581, wrongfully restrained him.When he questioned the same, one among them threatened the complainant by showing a knife and took away a sum of Rs.480/- from his pocket and another person snatched his wrist watch and gold ring.(Order of this Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, who is the father of the detenu, Suresh, who was incarcerated by order dated 25.1.2007 of the first respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, has preferred this petition for issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the first respondent dated 25.1.2007 in Memo.No.26/BDFGISSV/2007 against the petitioner's son, Suresh, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.The order of detention dated 25.1.2007 came to be passed based on the ground case said to have taken place on 2.1.2007 during morning hours, on the basis of the complaint lodged by one Tharanipathi before the Sub Inspector of Police, T2 Ambattur Estate Police Station.According to the complainant, when he was proceeding in his motor cycle towards Ambattur, two persons came in a motor cycle bearing Regn.No. TN-20-AV-8095 and other two persons came in another motor cycle bearing Regn.One of among them also fisted the complainant.Out of fear, the complainant left his motor cycle at the spot and ran towards bus stand.When the people who were nearby came for his rescue, they were threatened by showing knives.Enquiry revealed that the persons were the detenu herein and three others.In this regard, a case was registered in Crime No.3/2007 on the file of T2 Ambattur Estate Police Station under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.The first respondent, taking note of this case as a ground case and finding that there are two adverse cases pending against the detenu for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC in Crime No.412/2006 and 314, 307 and 302 IPC in Crime No.1/2007 on the file of T-2 Ambattur Police Station, having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a Goonda.The detenu along with three others filed an affidavit to that effect (page 95 of the booklet) and the said Judicial Magistrate passed an order remanding the accused till 12.1.2007 (page 97 of the booklet).Accordingly, the non-application of mind of the detaining authority to the above facts vitiates the order of detention.We have perused the entire materials placed before us and we are satisfied that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, which would go to show that the detaining authority had not applied their mind before passing the order of detention.In view of the above, the impugned order of detention dated 25.1.2007 is set aside.The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,511,966 |
a) The deceased Ponnusamy Gounder was the husband of P.W.1Muthulakshmi and father of P.W.2 Perumalsamy and P.W.5 Solaiperumal.Thedeceased was running a tea stall at K.Duraisamipuram.The first accused isthe son of the second accused, while the accused Nos.3 and 4 were their closeassociates.They were all belonged to the same village.b) On 15.1.1991 at about 9.00 p.m. Etturaj, the brother of P.W.1 andMurugan, the brother-in-law of P.W.1, PW2 and the first accused were talkingnear the tea stall of the deceased.P.W.1 asked them as to what they weretalking.They informed her that they were going to Nagalapuram to see secondshow cinema.P.W.1 asked them not to go to cinema and to go and sleep intheir home.The next day morning at about 8 .00 a.m., Etturaj, Murugan andPW2 went to their fields.At about 9.0 0 a.m., the first accused came to thesaid tea stall and informed the deceased that he was having Rs.100/- in histrouser pocket and the same was missing.He asked the deceased to enquire thesaid three persons as to whether they took the same.When the deceasedenquired them, they informed that they never took the same.Again the firstaccused came and asked the deceased whether he enquired the above saidpersons.The deceased informed him that he enquired the said persons and theytold him that they have not taken the same.Immediately, the first accusedinformed the deceased that the deceased was responsible for the same.c) On 18.1.1991 at about 11.00 a.m. all the accused came to the teastall of Ponnusamy Gounder.The first accused asked Ponnusamy Gounder as towhat happened to the said amount.Then Ponnusamy Gounder came out from thetea stall.Immediately, the first accused attacked the deceased on his leftside head with Pannai Aruval M.O.2 stating that he was responsible for thesame.Accused Nos.2 to 4 took velikaruva sticks that were kept near the teastall and indiscriminately beat Ponnusamy Gounder.When they raised alarm, all the accused fled away from the scene ofoccurrence.d) The deceased was taken to Vilathikulam Government Hospital in abullock cart.On 18.1.1991 at about 11 a.m., P.W.13 Paramasivam, the then SubInspector of Pudur Police Station, on receipt of information from the hospitalwent to the Hospital.Since Ponnusamy Gounder was unconscious, P.W.13recorded the statement of P.W.1, which was marked as Ex.The deceased wastreated by P.W.11 Dr. Paulsamy attached to the Government Hospital,Vilathikulam.Ex.P.14 is the wound certificate.On the strength of Ex.P.17 Express F.I.R. Ex. P.17 was despatched to the concerned JudicialMagistrate court.On 18.1.1991, P.W.13 took up further investigation.Heproceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Ex.P.2observation mahazar in the presence of the witnesses and Ex.P.18 rough sketch.In the presence of the witnesses on the same day, he recovered MO4 Seriesblood stained sample earth and MO5 series sample earth under Ex.When hecame to the Vilathikulam Government Hospital, he was informed that thedeceased was taken to Government Hospital, Tuticorin for further treatment.P.W.13 went to the said Hospital and examined P.Ws.1,2 and 5 and otherwitnesses and recorded their statements.e) On 18.1.1991 at about 10.15 p.m., P.W.10 Sattanathan the then HeadConstable attached to Tuticorin South Police Station received intimationEx.On receipt of the information, P.W.14 Ramachandran,the Inspector of Police altered the Section 307 IPC into Section 302 IPC andprepared express report Ex.P.19 and sent the same to the concerned JudicialMagistrate Court.P.W.14 held inquest on the dead body of Ponnusamy Gounderon 19.1.1991 in the presence of the Panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.20 inquestreport.On his request, autopsy was conducted on the dead body by P.W.12 Dr.Ramasamy attached to Government hospital, Tuticorin.7) Abrasion over right wrist clotted blood in left ear.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.The appellants herein/accused Nos.1 to 4, who stood charged, tried bythe Court of Sessions, Tuticorin for the offences under Section 302 IPC for A1and 302 r/w 34 for accused Nos.2 to 4, and A1 was found guilty under Section304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for 9 years and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- in default to undergo RI for 3 months and accused Nos.2 to 4 werefound guilty under Section 304(1) r/ w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I for5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- each in default to undergo RI for 2months, have brought forth this appeal.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated thus:He issued Ex.P.16Post-mortem certificate and the following injuries were found on the deadbody:1) A swelling of size 7 cm x 4 cm at the right side of forehead involvingright upper eyelid black in colour.Right upper eyelid swollen.2) A suture wound in the left side of scalp above the left ear (4 fingersabove)3) Swelling of size 5 cm x 4 cm over left cheek.4) A linear abrasion of size 8 cm x < cm skin deep in left side of chestextending downwards and anteriorly.5) Swelling over right upper arm6) Abrasion over medial aspect of left legTheclothes worn by the deceased were recovered from the hospital.The articlesrecovered were sent for chemical examination.The Investigating Officerexamined the Doctor and completed investigation.He filed a charge sheetagainst the accused.In order to prove the charges levelled against appellants/accused, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits and 7M.Os.After completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which theyflatly denied as false.Only one document has been marked on the side of thedefence.The trial court, on consideration of the rival submissions made andscrutiny of the materials available, found A1 guilty under Section 304(1) IPC,while A2 to A4 were found guilty under Section 304(1) r/w 34 IPC and sentencedthem to undergo imprisonment as stated above.Aggrieved appellants havebrought forth this appeal.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learnedcounsel made the following submissions:The prosecution relied on the evidence of Pws.1 and 5, who were thewife and son of the deceased.Their evidence is not free from doubts and discrepancies, andhence, the trial court should not have relied on their evidence.Even fromthe available evidence of P.W.1, it would be clear that there was a quarrelbetween the deceased on the one side and the accused No.1 on the other sidefor a period of half an hour.According to her, A1 attacked the deceased withPannai Aruval on his left side head, while A2 to A4, who remained unarmed atthat time, on a commotion took the sticks, which were available outside thetea stall, and attacked the deceased.Even from the medical evidence it wouldbe clear that the incised injury on the head of the deceased was a fatal one,and all other injuries are simple and superficial.It is pertinent to notethat there was an incised wound on the head of A1 and no explanation wastendered by the prosecution in that regard.In view of all the above, therewas no case for the prosecution.The judgment of the trial court has got tobe set aside and the accused are entitled for an acquittal by this Court.Since the prosecution has provedthe culpable homicide by A1, for which A2 to A4 were directly liable, thetrial court was perfectly correct in recording a finding against the accused.Hence, the judgment of the trial court has got to be sustained.This court paid its full attention on the rival submissions madeand had a close scrutiny of the materials available.Admittedly, Ponnusamy Gounder, the deceased met his death due tothe attack made by the accused.The specific case of the prosecution asstated above was that A1 informed the deceased that he was having Rs.100/- inhis trouser pocket and the same was missing, while he was in the shop ofPonnusamy Gounder, and hence, he was responsible to answer for the same.Onthe day of occurrence, when Ponnusamy Gounder came out from his shop at about11.00 a.m., the accused made the same demand and he received the same replyfrom the deceased.Immediately, the first accused attacked the deceased onhis left side head with Pannai Aruval M.O.2 stating that he was responsiblefor the same.A2 to A4, who were present at that time, also took the sticksthat were available there and assaulted the deceased and caused injuries.Theinjured was taken to Vilathkulam Government Hospital, where he was examined byP.W.11 and P.w.11 issued wound certificate.On intimation, P.W.13 rushed tothe hospital and found the deceased unconscious.On the strength of which, a case was registered.All the four namesof the accused have been mentioned in Ex.It is also mentioned that A1attacked the deceased with Pannai Aruval, while the other accused haveattacked the deceased with sticks.Subsequently, the deceased was taken toGovernment Hospital, Tuticorin for further treatment, where he succumbed toinjuries.The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 is cogent and acceptable and theirevidence inspired the confidence of the Court.At the time of investigation, after conducting inquest, theInvestigating Officer has given a request to the Government Hospital,Tuticorin for conducting post-mortem.P.W.12 has conducted post-mortem on thedead body and given post-mortem under Ex.He opined that the injury No.2found on the head of the deceased was fatal and that would have caused hisdead and all other injuries were simple.Under the stated circumstances, itwould be futile to contend that the medical evidence was not in support of theprosecution case.The medical evidence has fully corroborated the ocularevidence.Hence, those contentions put forth by the appellants' side cannotbe accepted.The next contention raised by the appellants' side that the therewas an incised wound on the head of A1, but the same was not explained by theprosecution.This Court is able to see from the evidence of P.W.1 that at thetime of occurrence, on seeing the deceased being attacked by the accused,P.W.1 and P.W.5 took the sticks and threw the same on the accused.In view of the evidence available, this Court is able to seethat the attack made by A1 on the deceased at that time and place wasresponsible for his death.At that time, the other three accused were presentand have attacked the deceased, which caused grievous injury.P.W.1 hascategorically deposed that before the occurrence there was a wordy quarrel forhalf an hour.Insofar as A2 to A4 are concerned, there is nothing to inferthat they acted in furtherance of common intention of causing death, but, theycaused only simple injuries on the deceased, and hence, they are liable to bepunished under Section 324 IPC.Coming to the question of punishment, the Court is of the viewthat the sentence awarded by the trial court under Section 304(1) IPC inrespect of A1 and the sentence awarded to A2 to A4 under Section 3 04(1) r/w34 IPC have got to be set aside.A1 isconvicted under Section 304(2) IPC and he is sentenced to undergo RI for aperiod of five years with a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo RI forthree months.The Accused Nos.2 to 4 are convicted under Section 324 IPC andthey are sentenced to undergo RI for a period of two years and to pay a fineof Rs.300/- each in default to undergo RI for two months.With the abovemodification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.The Sessions Judge shalltake steps to commit the accused Nos.1 to 4 to prison, if they are on bail, toundergo the remaining period of sentence.The Judicial Magistrate, Vilathikulam
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,199,542 |
"(a) The deceased Chokku @ Muniyandi had given a loan of Rs.1000/- to the first accused.When the deceased demanded for repayment of the said loan amount, the first accused refused to make the payment.Therefore, quarrel ensued between them and in that process, the deceased beat the first accused.On being beaten, the first accused warned the deceased that he would take revenge.In order to accomplish the task of revenge on the deceased, the first accused hatched a conspiracy with the accused 2 and 3, his brothers, and fourth accused, his friend, to put an end to the life of the deceased.In pursuance of the conspiracy, accused 1 to 3 asked the fourth accused to go and bring the deceased to the forest area on the pretext of hunting Monitor Lizard (cLk;g[).(b) Accordingly on 31.03.1997 at about 8.00 A.M. the fourth accused Seeni asked the deceased to come along with him for hunting in the reserve forest.At that time, P.W.1-Thangam, the cousin of the deceased, was also present.At the request of the deceased, P.W.1 also accompanied the deceased and the fourth accused to the reserve forest for hunting.They took their dogs also with them.When they were nearing the river-bed they wanted to take their food carried with them in Tiffin carriers (Thookku Satties).Therefore, they took rest on a rock in the forest area and had taken food.After finishing their food (breakfast), they were talking with each other.(c) At that point of time, the accused 1 to 3 suddenly appeared in the scene.The first accused abused the deceased and cut with an aruval on the front and right side of the neck of the deceased.The second accused cut the deceased with aruval on the left side of his neck.At that juncture, the fourth accused directed the other accused to attack P.W.1-Thangam.When the accused came near and threw stones on P.W.1, he began to run from the scene of occurrence.However, P.W.1 managed and escaped from the scene of occurrence and came to the field, where P.W.2-Pethammal, sister of the deceased and other persons were working.He informed about the incident to them.Thereafter, all of them went to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased lying dead.Thereafter, the body of the deceased was brought in a cradle by P.W.2 to the village and kept in the field at about 10.30 A.M.(e) P.W.1 went to Sivagiri Police Station and gave a complaint Ex.P.W.11, Head Constable, who was present in the Station, received the complaint and registered a case against the accused under Sections 302 and 336 I.P.C. First Information Report is Ex.He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P.21.He recovered M.O.2 blood stained earth, M.O.6 sample earth, M.O.5 match box, M.O.3 Citizen watch, M.O.4 bundle with three beedies and M.O.13 garlic pickle cover under Ex.P.3 mahazar in the presence of the attesting witnesses.At about 4.45 P.M., he came to the field where the body of the deceased was kept and prepared another observation mahazar Ex.He also prepared a sketch Ex.He conducted inquest on the dead body from 5.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. and examined P.W.2 and others.P.23 is the inquest report.The dead body was then sent for postmortem.Thus, as seen from the evidence of P.W.2, when the fourth accused came and took the deceased to the forest area, P.W.1 was not present.(ii) It is the evidence of P.W.1 that when they went to the forest area, both of them were carrying a tiffin carriers (Thooku Satties) containing food.It is admitted by P.W.1 in the cross-examination that when the occurrence had taken place, the eversilver tiffin carriers were found in the scene of occurrence and when he ran away from the scene of occurrence, he left the tiffin carriers.From Ex.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.21 rough sketch, it is seen that the said silver tiffin carriers were not found in the scene of occurrence.Further, P.W.1 would state that when they were conversing with each other after finishing their morning food, the accused came and surrounded them and attacked the deceased.According to P.W.1, the entire area was encircled with bush.But, this evidence has been falsified, since there was no bush in the scene of occurrence as per Ex.This has not been done.On the other hand, she tried to lift the body and also asked others to lift the body of the deceased and when others were reluctant to lift the body, she herself lifted the body of the deceased and put it in the cradle and brought to the village.It is equally improbable to say that thereafter she took bath in a well and washed her blood stained clothes also and thereupon, she chose to go to the house of the Village President to intimate the occurrence.The evidence of P.W.2 on this aspect is so artificial, since the normal human conduct would be, that too, as a sister of the deceased, she would have first reported the matter to the village elders or to the police and the police authorities would have come to the place of occurrence and take further action.(v) It is the case of the prosecution that the fourth accused was sent by the accused 1 to 3 in pursuance of a conspiracy to entice the deceased to go to the forest area, where they had planned to kill the deceased.As a matter of fact, as indicated above, P.W.1 along with the deceased took their dogs also to the scene of occurrence.If there was a conspiracy for murder, the fourth accused would not have allowed either the dogs or P.W.1 to accompany them to the forest area.(vi) It is the evidence of P.W.2 that she went to the house of the Village President-Paramasiva Devar and informed the incident in which her brother was done to death.The Village President then phoned up to the police and on receipt of the message, the police came and by that time P.W.1 and his brother-in-law--Thavidan came to the scene.If it is so, there was no necessity for P.W.1 to go to the Police Station, which is situated at a distance of eight kilo metres from the scene village.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 in S.C.No.468 of 1997 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.In and by a judgment dated 28-10-1999 in the aforesaid sessions case, accused 1 to 3 were convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34 and 323 I.P.C. and the fourth accused was convicted for the offences under Sections 120-B, 302 read with 34, 323 read with 34 and 364 I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the above appeal has been filed by all the accused.The third accused cut the deceased with aruval on the centre of his head.On receipt of the injuries, the deceased fell down on the spot.(d) On seeing the occurrence, P.W.1, who was standing behind the accused, was crying.P.W.14 Doctor issued wound certificate Ex.(h) P.W.10 Doctor conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 1.4.1997 at about 11.00 A.M and found seven cut injuries and three abrasions on the body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.16 Postmortem certificate.The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries.(i) P.W.15 arranged to send the Material Objects for chemical examination through the Court.(j) On 2.4.1997, he arrested the fourth accused.He came to know that the first accused surrendered before the Court on 7.4.1997 and he obtained police custody for the first accused and recorded his confession.In pursuance of the confession statement given by the first accused, M.O.1 series, three aruvals, were recovered under Ex.P.8 mahazar.On 17.04.1997, he arranged for identification parade to enable P.W.1 and P.W.3 to identify the third accused as his name was mentioned in the complaint.P.W.7 Judicial Magistrate conducted the identification parade and issued Identification Parade Report Ex.(k) P.W.15 after examining the other witnesses completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against all the accused."During the course of trial, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined.P.1 P.23 were filed and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they simply denied their participation in the crime in question.On appreciation of the materials available on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the accused are liable to be convicted for the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them thereunder.Hence, this appeal has been filed by the appellants/accused.The prosecution mainly relies upon the evidence of P.W.1, who speaks about the occurrence, and P.W.3, who saw the accused going towards the place of occurrence prior to the occurrence and then coming out of the scene with the weapons.In regard to the evidence of P.W.3, it has to be pointed out that P.W.3 identified the third accused in the identification parade conducted by P.W.7-Judicial Magistrate.However, it has to be noted that P.W.3 during the course of cross-examination implicated the first accused alone and stating that when the accused came out of the scene of occurrence, he was able to identify the first accused alone.We are not able to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.3 for the reason that he did not specify the place at which the accused were seen at or about the scene of occurrence, besides the fact that he was implicating only the first accused and as such, the evidence of P.W.3 would not help the prosecution case.The remaining material evidence available is only the evidence of P.W.1-Thangam.On going through the entire records, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, the sole eye witness.The reasons for the above conclusion could be summarised as follows:(i) According to P.W.1, on the day of occurrence at about 8.00 A.M., he was talking with the deceased in front of the house of the deceased.At that point of time, the fourth accused-Seeni came and asked the deceased to come along with him to go ahead to the forest area for haunting.As requested by the deceased, P.W.1 also accompanied with them for hunting.But, the evidence of P.W.2, the sister of the deceased is that when the fourth accused came to the house of the deceased and asked him to come for hunting, his mother objected to for the same, but after they left for field, both the deceased and the fourth accused went for hunting.P.2 observation mahazar and Ex.P.21 the rough sketch.(iii) P.W.10, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased, issued the postmortem certificate Ex.During postmortem, the Doctor found partial digested food in the stomach of the deceased.(iv) P.W.1 would state that he ran away from the scene of occurrence for about one kilo metre and informed the incident to P.W.2, the sister and the mother of the deceased and other villagers.On hearing the incident, all the people came to the scene of occurrence and P.W.2 with the help of others took the body in a cradle and brought the same to the village.According to P.W.2, she then went and took bath and washed her blood stained clothes and thereafter went to the house of the Village President-Paramasiva Devar and informed about the incident.It is highly improbable that P.W.1 informed P.W.2 about the incident and that P.W.2 came to the scene of occurrence and found the deceased dead.If really P.W.2 went and saw the dead body of the deceased on the day of occurrence, she would have made arrangements to intimate the incident immediately to the Village President.According to P.W.1, he left the village in a bicycle driven by his brother-in-law and reached the Police Station at about 2.45 P.M. and gave the complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.11-Head Constable, who registered the case.As per the evidence of P.W.12-Constable, he received the copy of the First Information Report at 4.15 P.M. and delivered to the Magistrate at 6.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence.On the other hand P.W.15-Inspector of Police would state that he received the First Information Report from P.W.12 at about 6.30 P.M. Strangely, the Inspector of Police P.W.15 came to the scene of occurrence at 2.00 P.M. itself.P.W.4 who is the attesting witness of the Observation Mahazar Ex.According to P.W.15, only after receipt of the First Information Report on the complaint given by P.W.1, he came to the spot at 4.00 P.M. When P.W.1 was available in the Police Station at the relevant time, there is no reason as to why P.W.15 Inspector of Police approached P.W.4 to identify the place of occurrence.Admittedly, P.W.4 had not seen the occurrence earlier.(vii) It is the evidence of P.W.1 that from the Police Station he was taken to the hospital where he was given treatment by P.W.14-Doctor.As per the evidence of P.W.14, P.W.1 approached the Doctor at 4.20 A.M. on 1.4.1997 and he was given treatment as outpatient and wound certificate Ex.P.20 was issued.According to P.W.14, P.W.1 sustained some contusion on his body.It is not the case of P.W.1 that he came back to the scene of occurrence subsequently after registration of the case.P.W.1 would specifically state that after giving the complaint, he was taken to the hospital, where he was given treatment as outpatient.(viii) It is the evidence of P.W.15 that he went to the forest at 4.00 P.M. and asked P.W.4 to show the place of occurrence and after reaching the spot, he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and rough sketch Ex.P.21 and thereafter, they came to the field where the dead body was kept and prepared another observation mahazar Ex.P.4 and rough sketch Ex.P.W.4 is the attesting witness for both Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.4 magazars.P.W.15 then conducted inquest from 5.00 P.M. to 8.00 P.M. and thereafter he examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and other witnesses.But, it is the case of P.W.1 that he was taken to the hospital where he was given treatment at 4.20 A.M. on 1.4.1997 i.e., on the next day of occurrence.This would indicate that the Inspector of Police-P.W.15 must have come to the spot at 2.00 P.M. on the date of occurrence itself, as indicated in the evidence of P.W.4, on the basis of some other information.It is the clear statement of P.W.12 that he received the First Information Report at 4.15 P.M. only.The Inspector of Police, P.W.15 would have come to the spot at 2.00 P.M. on the basis of information given by P.W.2 to the Police Station over phone by the Village President or on the basis of some other information.It is the clear admission of P.W.2 that only after the President called the Police, the police came to the spot and examined the witnesses and then, took the wife of the deceased to the police station.According to P.W.1, he reached the police station at 2.45 P.M. The distance between the scene village and the police station is only eight kilo metres and he went in a bicycle driven by his brother-in-law Thavedan.If he had gone immediately in a bicycle from the village after the occurrence, there would have been no delay in reaching the police station, but P.W.1 had reached the Police station at 2.45 P.M.(x) The motive in this case is that the deceased had given a loan of Rs.1000/- to the first accused and when the first accused was demanded for repayment of the same, he refused to pay and therefore, the deceased beat him.Though this fact was mentioned in Ex.P.1, P.W.1 in his evidence would state that the first accused only had given the amount to the deceased and when the same was demanded, there was a quarrel and in that process, the deceased beat the first accused.The said motive, in our view, appears to be so flimsy.(xi) When the accused 1 to 3 in pursuance of a conspiracy came to the scene of occurrence to attack the deceased with the help of the fourth accused, who took the deceased to the scene place, they would not have spared P.W.1 to escape from the scene so as to enable him to go and report the matter to the authorities.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,203,063 |
in all Crl.O.P's.COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Original Petitions filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying to call for the records pending on the file of the 1st respondent police namely the Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police Station, Krishnagiri District in Crime Nos.417, 851 and 860 of 2017 and quash the criminal proceeding.For Petitioners : Mr.E.Kannadasan For Respondents : Mr.S.Karthikeyan Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 Mr.T.Dhanasekaran for R2 COMMON ORDER1.(a).The Criminal Original Petition No.1738 of 2020 has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.417 of 2017 registered by the first 2/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.1738, 1754 and 1762 of 2020 respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 354 and 506 (ii) of IPC, as against the petitioners.(b)The Criminal Original Petition No.1754 of 2020 been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.851 of 2017 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 465, 447, 294(b) and 323 of IPC, as against the petitioners.(c)The Criminal Original Petition No.1762 of 2020 has been filed to quash the F.I.R. in Crime No.860 of 2017 registered by the first respondent police for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of IPC, as against the petitioners.Without any base, the third respondent police registered a case in Crime Nos.417, 851 and 860 of 2017, as against the petitioners.Hence he prayed to quash the same.http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.1738, 1754 and 1762 of 2020The 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, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 7/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.OP.Nos.1738, 1754 and 1762 of 2020 2017, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime Nos.417, 851 and 860 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.Jer 04.08.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To1.The Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam Police Station Krishnagiri District.2.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,204,793 |
Heard on admission.The applicant has also challenged the order dated 21.6.2014 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in criminal revision No.71/2014, whereby the revision filed by the applicant was dismissed.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the applicant gave stitches in the lower portion of the deceased at the time when she delivered a son and thereafter, it was found that the deceased died.At the stage of framing of charges, meticulous appreciation of evidence cannot be done.C.No.10146/2014 A of IPC is made out against the applicant.Consequently, petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant Smt.Jyotshna Bai is hereby dismissed at motion stage.Copy of the order be sent to the Courts below for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,207,573 |
HON'BLE MS.Through: Mr. Manoj Ohri, APP for State.A complaint was filed by the District Excise Officer on 5th December, 1995 on which case FIR No. 492/1995 was registered at PS IP Estate, Delhi.The allegations in the complaint are that M/s Karam Chand Thapar and Brothers (C.S.) Ltd., Distillery Division, Unnao (UP) had applied for renewal of L-1 License in the NCT of Delhi in respect of two brands of whisky namely Bonds Street Whisky and Lord Jin Whisky and one brand of Marco Polo XXX Rum which were being manufactured at their distillery.According to the complaint the sales figure of the IMFL brands for the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 produced by the attorney of the firm showed a sale of more than 60,000 cases for whisky and 25,000 cases for Rum throughout India excluding Delhi.On further verification of the Crl.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 1 of 7 sales figure it was found that no sale of the abovementioned brands was effected during the years 1993-94 and 1994-95 excluding Delhi.Thus the firm and its attorney committed an offence of forgery by submitting forged documents including affidavits in support of their claim, thereby causing unlawful gain to the firm and unlawful loss to the government exchequer.On investigation a charge sheet was filed.Vide order dated 29 th September, 2007 the learned Metropolitan Magistrate directed framing of charge under Sections 420/468/471/120B/199/200 IPC against the Petitioner herein who was the attorney of the firm.Thus in the present petition the orders dated 29th September, 2007 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and 8 th October, 2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are impugned.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 1 of 7Further the Petitioner cannot be prosecuted for offences under Sections 420/468/471/120B IPC.Thus while granting license the affidavits were not taken into consideration.Hence there being no misrepresentation at the time of grant of license no forgery Crl.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 2 of 7 can be said to have been committed by the Petitioner.Thus he cannot be tried for the offences charged.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 2 of 7After the receipt of L-1 license, the firm was also liable to pay the brand fee and only thereafter they were entitled to use the license.In the present case the brand fee was not paid hence the license was never used.Further the Petitioner was appointed only on 28 th April, 1995 when as an attorney he was made to sign the affidavits.The Petitioner had no personal knowledge of the accounts and the affidavits were based on the figures supplied by the General Manager of the Excise Factory to the Chartered Accountant who in turn certified the same and provided it to the Petitioner.The summon qua the Chartered Accountant has already been quashed by this Court.Further the affidavits filed by the Petitioner state that they are based on his personal knowledge.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 3 of 7I have heard learned counsel for the parties.The order dated 16th November, 1995 passed by the Commissioner of Excise is a finding of fact in favour of the department.The finding of fact by the department in its favour cannot be used as estoppel against the Petitioner.The contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner had joined the company only on 28 th April, 1995 as its attorney and thus he would have no personal knowledge of the sales figure making him not liable for prosecution is wholly untenable.I do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the brand fee had not been deposited, the license issued could not be used, hence no forgery has been committed.Section 463 IPC defines forgery as making any false document or part of a document, with intent to cause damage or injury or to support any claim or title, with intent to commit fraud.From the facts on record it is prima facie evident that the Petitioner filed false affidavits to support the claim.Hence prima facie the offence of forgery can be said to have been committed in the facts of the case.The Petitioner had applied for renewal of the license.M.C. NO. 3890/2010 Page 5 of 7 considering the affidavits.The prosecution is entitled to a trial to prove its allegation of forgery.
|
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,211,009 |
(i) That, the complainant Vandanabai w/o Satyanarayan Thakur is the resident of Gadipura, Renuka Mandir, Nanded.Vandana has two sons namely Dhanraj and Dhanprakash.She has one daughter by name Rajkumari.Vandana's husband ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 3 Satyanarayan is electrician by profession and does the work of repair of fans and electric motors.Satyanarayan has two married sisters namely Vimalbai and Karunabai.(ii) Accused and complainant Vandana at the relevant time were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura.Accused No.1 has two brothers namely Ravindrasingh and Madansingh.Complainant's husband Satyanarayan is the nephew of accused No.1 Pratapsingh.At the relevant time, the family of complainant and that of the accused and two brothers of Pratapsingh were residing in the same Wada situated at Gadipura.(iii) On 04.09.1992 at about 9 a.m., accused assaulted and beat complainant's husband ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 4 Satyanarayan.It was the say of accused that, Satyanarayan and his family are residing in the house of accused.Often, there use to take place quarrel between the complainant and accused on the cause of partition of the house property and during such quarrel accused often used to beat complainant's husband.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::After morning incident on 04.09.1992 Satyanarayan did not go in the police station and report the incident.After the incident Satyanarayan left the house and went for the work.Satyanarayan while going to his shop reported the incident to his wife's brother Bhagatsingh.When Satyanarayan left his house, accused no.1 extended threats.(iv) After Satyanarayan left the house, Sunita the sister of Vandana had come to the house of complainant.Complainant reported the morning incident to Sunita.After waiting for some time, Sunita left the house of the complainant.The complainant's son Dhanraj reported to Sunita that, accused were ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 5 beating his father Satyanarayan and on hearing report from Dhanraj, Sunita had been to the house of complainant as aforesaid.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::(v) After Sunita left the house of complainant Vandana, Vandana started cooking.On seeing that the kerosene in the stove was over, Vandana started filling kerosene in the stove.Kerosene was stored in "Tambya".It was about 1 p.m. when Vandana started filling kerosene in the stove, accused no.1 Pratapsingh entered in the house of Vandana and asked Vandana as to why she had reported the morning incident to her sister Sunita.Accused no.1 asked Tunna to bring match box.Immediately Tunna brought match box.- Darshansingh, accused no.5 Rajsingh and Juvenile offenders Vinodsingh and Tunna caught hold of Vandana.Thereafter, accused Pratapsingh lighted stick from the match box and set on fire the complainant.On seeing that complainant was set on fire she shouted loudly.Some persons poured water on the person of the complainant in order to extinguish the fire.Complainant had received burn injuries on her person on both hands, face, throat, chest, back and left leg.(vi) At the time of incident Rajkumari was inside the house.After fire on the person of complainant was extinguished, Rajkumari went running to the house of Sunita and reported her the incident.On hearing incident from Rajkumari, Sunita rushed to the house of complainant.So also Godavaribai and Chandanbai the neighbourers of the complainant.Complainant reported the incident to the aforesaid ladies.(vii) Thereafter, the message was sent to ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 7 Satyanarayan, the husband of the complainant.Complainant was taken to the Civil Hospital by Chandanabai and Godavaribai by wrapping her body in the sari.Accordingly, Vandana was admitted in the civil hospital.After Vandana was admitted in the hospital, her admission was reported in the police chowki located in premises of the Civil Hospital.The scene of offence panchanama as per Exhibit - 27 was drawn.At the time of scene of offence Panchanama investigating Officer seized Tambya made of steel, pieces of sari, pieces of blouse, which were partly burnt, smelling of kerosene.Investigating Officer has also seized match sticks, pieces of petticoat, smelling of kerosene from the spot of offence.(xi) The property seized from the spot of offence was sent to C.A. Aurangabad for analysis.An immediate cause according to the prosecution for the incident was that, the morning incident of quarrel between Satyanarayan and accused was narrated by Vandanabai to her sister namely Suntia, who was residing in the same mansion.There are also different versions stated by the complainant and Satyanarayan pointing alleged incident which had taken place during morning hours.It is the case of the prosecution that, on 04.09.1992 i.e. the date of incident at about 8 to 8.30 a.m. the accused persons had assaulted and beaten complainant's husband Satyanarayan.RESERVED ON : December 11, 2014 PRONOUNCED ON : December 19, 2014 ...JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE,J):-This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra, aggrieved by judgment and order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 30th August, 1995, thereby acquitting the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.At the time of incident, Vandana was residing with her husband and children in the house in Gadipura area.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Thereafter, accused no.1 snatched Tambya containing kerosene from the hands of the complainant and poured the same on the person of the complainant.Accused No.2 Jairajsingh, accused no.6 Santoshsingh, accused No.4 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 6::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Accordingly, Head Constable Wadje, who was on duty in the police Chowki located in the premises of civil hospital rushed to Vandana and recorded her statement as per Exhibit- 29 and obtained thumb mark of Vandana on such statement.Thereafter, letter was given by Head Constable Wadje to the Special Judicial Magistrate for recording dying declaration of Vandana.Accordingly, Special Judicial Magistrate, who was present in the hospital in connection with some other work, recorded dying declaration of Vandana as per Exhibit - 39 after observing formalities for recording dying declaration.During the time, the dying declaration of Vandana was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate-Ashok Patil, ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 8 she was conscious and able to give statement.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::(viii) Dr. Nandkumar Patil examined Vandana and found following injuries present on the person of Vandana :-(vii) Burn on right upper extremity 7% Total 64% Thus, Dr. Patil noticed 64% burns present on the person of Vandana.(ix) Satyarayan on recording report about the incident visited Vandana in the civil hospital.Vandana disclosed incident to Satyanarayan as it had happened.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::registered at Vazirabad Police Station as the offence took place within the limits of Itwara Police Station, on transfer the case papers were sent to Itwara Police Station where C.R. No. 161/92 was registered under section 307 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.C.A. Report states that, kerosene residues were found present on the articles ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 10 received by C.A. for analysis.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::(xii) During the course of investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded.Accused at trial attempted to commit murder of the complainant Vandana by pouring kerosene oil on her person and on setting her on fire in furtherance of their common intention.After due investigation accused were charge-As the accused were released on anticipatory bail and, hence they could not be arrested during the course of investigation.(xiii) On committal, the trial Court framed charges and after full fledged trial, the accused are acquitted.Hence this Appeal by the State of Maharashtra against the order of acquittal.During pendency of this appeal, Respondent No.1 is reported to be dead.Therefore, this ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 11 Court in its order dated 5th August, 2014 observed that, the appeal stands abated as against Respondent No.1 -::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Pratapsingh Kalyansingh.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the evidence of Vandanabai.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that, the statement of Vandanabai was recorded on 4th September, 1992 at Exhibit - 29 by Police Head Constable, Police Chowki of Civil Hospital, Nanded and also her Dying Declaration was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Nanded.It is submitted that, Vandanabai in her statement, in Dying Declaration and also the evidence before the Court have clearly implicated the accused and also specific overt act is attributed, and therefore, the trial Court was not correct in acquitting the accused.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor also invited our attention to the Medical evidence and the fact that, Vandanabai sustained 64% burn injuries.The learned Additional ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 12 Public Prosecutor also invited our attention to the evidence of daughter of Vandanabai namely Rajkumari and submits that, the version of Vandanabai gets corroborated by the version of her daughter Rajkumari.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::The learned Additional Public Prosecutor invited our attention to the evidence of other witnesses, spot panchanama, inquest panchanama and C.A. Report and submits that, the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and wrongly acquitted the accused, therefore, he prays that, the appeal may be allowed.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the accused submits that, so far accused no.1 Pratapsingh Kalyansingh is concerned, to whom specific overt act is attributed has died during pendency of the appeal, therefore, other co-accused are entitled for benefit of doubt.It is submitted that, the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses contradicts with each others, suffers from omissions, ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 13 improvements, and therefore, the trial Court has rightly granted benefit of doubts to the respondents.It is submitted that, the prosecution failed to establish the motive or intention for commission of the alleged offence against the respondents.It is submitted that, 100 persons are residing in a mansion, wherein the complainant and her family is residing.It is submitted that, Medical Officer has not expressed the definite opinion that, whether the injuries sustained are homicidal or accidental.Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondents.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents invited our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses so as to bring to the notice the material contradictions, omissions and improvements in their evidence.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents at length.Perused the entire evidence placed on record.Certain ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 14 undisputed facts have come on record before the Trial Court which need to be mentioned at this juncture, which are as follows :-::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::It is undisputed fact that, at the relevant time family of the complainant and family of accused persons were residing in one Wada situated at Gadipura.Their houses were adjacent to each other.It is also undisputed fact that, water tap and latrine, both were common in the house of both the families.The relations between the parties is also admitted.It is undisputed fact in the present prosecution that, accused no.1 was cousin father-in-law of the complainant.According to the prosecution case, there use to be quarrel between the complainant's family and the accused on the ground that, the accused wanted Satyanarayan i.e. husband of Vandanabai, and his family should vacate the residential house from ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 15 mansion.However, admittedly no previous complaint was lodged by Satyanarayan husband of the complainant about such alleged dispute between the parties.It has also come on record in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that, partition had taken place 10 years prior to the date of incident.The prosecution has not brought anything on record so as to convincingly establish that, there was dispute between the parties and accused used to ask Satyanarayan to vacate the residential house.It is true that, the motive has no importance wherein the complainant herself has stated in her statement that, the accused persons poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.However, there should be some reason for such sudden quarrel in the morning on the date of incident, and taking extreme steps in the afternoon by the accused to set Vandanabai on fire.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Upon considering the evidence in its entirety and also admission of the prosecution witnesses and in particular Malanbai in her cross-examination stated ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 16 that, the partition had taken place before 10 years prior to date of incident, the trial Court has rightly held that, the prosecution has not proved any motive for commission of alleged act of pouring kerosene on the person of Vandanabai and setting her ablaze.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::About the said incident in the morning, Satyanarayan in his deposition before the Court stated that, on the day of incident at about 7 to 8 ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 17 a.m. he went to fetch water, accused Pratapsingh removed the pipe inserted by Satyanarayan in the tap and therefore, Satyanarayan questioned Pratapsingh as to why he was taking water and in said cause Pratapsingh and his sons beat him.However, on perusal of the evidence of Vandanabai she stated that, as usual for vacating the residential house, the accused persons quarreled with her husband and beaten him.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::There is material contradictions in the version of Satyanarayan and Vandanabai about the cause of alleged incident happened during morning hours.About the said incident either Satyanarayan or Vandanabai did not lodge any complaint in the Police Station.An immediate cause for incident of afternoon according to the prosecution case was narration of morning incident by Vandanabai to Sunita.Accused persons were annoyed because of narrating the incident by Vandanabai to her sister Sunita.In fact ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 18 the prosecution has not proved by bringing convincing evidence on record to establish the said cause for incident in the afternoon.In fact, it has come on record that, Sunita was residing in the said mansion and also prosecution claimed that, in the morning hours Sunita was in the house of Vandanabai and then she left the house at 9 a.m., in that case, why accused would wait till the afternoon and go to the complainant to ask and abuse her about, why she has narrated the incident taken place during morning hours to her sister Sunita.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Prosecution has not brought anything on record to explain more than three hours time gap between the morning incident and incident which had taken place in the afternoon.Therefore, the prosecution has not brought anything on record to establish that, the alleged incident of setting Vandanabai on fire had taken place due to annoyance of the accused because of narrating incident taken place during morning hours by the complainant to her sister Sunita.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::If the statement of Vandana at Exhibit - 29 is perused, she stated that, when she was cooking food on Stove at about 1 p.m. accused Pratapsingh entered in house and asked the complainant why she narrated the morning incident of abusing her by the accused to her sister Sunita.Then Pratapsingh's sister Tunnabai followed him.Pratapsingh told Tunnabai to bring match box from their house and accordingly Tunnabai brought the match box from their house.One pot containing the kerosene, which was to be filled in the stove was poured by the accused Pratapsingh on her person.Other accused Jairam, Santosh, Darshan, Raj, Vinod, Tunnabai caught hold of her and Pratapsingh set ablaze the complainant.She shouted and neighbourers arrived at the spot and tried to extinguish the fire.It is also stated that, accused persons wanted that, the complainant's family should vacate their house and on that count always used to quarrel with the family of the complainant.In her statement before the Special Judicial Magistrate ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 20 recorded on 04.09.1992 at about 15.30 p.m., while replying the question no.5 the following reply was given by the complainant Vandanabai:::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::vki dSls vkSj dc tyh \ tckc% vkt lcsjs esjs ekfyd izrkiflax Bkdqj ds lkFk >xMk djds nqdkuij pys x;s Fks A nksigj ds 12 ;k ,d cts eS [kkuk idkus ds fy;s LVks es X;klrsy Hkjus ds fy;s yksVs es X;klrsy fy;k FkkA vl oDr izrkiflax vkSj mlds csVs esjs ?kjes ?kql vk;s A mUgksUgs og X;klrsy dk yksVk esjs gkFk esls fy;k vkSj esjs vaxij Mky fn;k] esjs gkFk mUgksUgs idM j[ks Fks A ¿ cknes esjs cnu dks vaxkj dkSu yxk;k ;g eq>s irk ugh pykA À esjk LVks pkyw ugh Fkk A eS tyus yxh os lc ogkW ls Hkkx x;s A nqljs yksx Hkkxdj vk;s mUgksus ik.kh Mkydj vkx cq>k;h A esjk eqag] Nkrh] dej] ihB] nksuks iSj] gkr ty x;s A cknes eq>s bZykt ds fy;s nok[kkuk es yk;kA"Upon careful perusal of the statement of Vandanabai, which was recorded by the Police Head Constable, Police Chowki near Hospital premises at Exhibit - 29, Vandanabai stated that, Pratapsingh poured the kerosene and his son and daughters caught ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 21 hold her, daughter brought the match box from her house.However, in her statement which was immediately recorded on the very same day by the Special Judicial Magistrate, she has not attributed any specific role to Pratapsingh or the other accused.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Therefore, there is variance in her statements recorded.It has come on record that, the size of room was 8.5 ft.X 8.5 ft.and therefore, it is also difficult to believe that, in such a small place where other household articles were also there, in the said room, four sons of Pratapsingh caught hold Vandanabai and daughter of Pratapsingh was also there and then Pratapsingh poured kerosene and set her on fire.Upon careful perusal of the evidence of Vandanabai before the Court coupled with statement Exhibit- 29 and Exhibit - 30, there are material contradictions, and the trial Court keeping in view contradictions in her statement at Exhibit - 29, Exhibit - 30, and evidence before the Court, has granted benefit of doubt to the accused.As already observed, the main accused Pratapsingh, to ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 22 whom role of pouring kerosene and setting complainant ablaze was attributed, died during the pendency of the present appeal.So far four sons are concerned, no specific role is attributed by the complainant to each of them.Even the prosecution has not proved that, match box was not available at the spot though according to the prosecution case complainant was cooking food and therefore, complainant's statement that, Pratapsingh asked his daughter Tunnabai to bring match box from their house also appears to be doubtful.Therefore, prosecution has not convincingly proved through the recovery of Articles from the spot that, the complainant was actually in process of cooking food at the time of incident.There is also contradiction in the version of complainant about the entry of the accused in the house and also actually whether she was cooking food as the kerosene in the stove was over.Therefore, upon appreciation of statement of the complainant and her evidence before the Court, the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the accused persons.Upon reappreciating ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 23 the evidence of complainant, we find that, the findings recorded by the trial Court are in consonance with the evidence brought on record.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Her evidence is hearsay evidence, in as much as the complainant narrated her about the incident happened during the morning hours and also the incident in the afternoon.She came to know about the said incident of afternoon from daughter of Vandana.She stated that, the daughter of Vandana came to her weeping and informed her that, her mother was set on fire by Pratapsingh.Therefore, at the most according to hearsay evidence of this witness, as the cousin father-in-law Pratapsingh set Vandana on fire.However, she has not heard from daughter of Vandana that other accused had played any specific role in the commission of offence.As already observed, the main accused Pratapsingh died during pendency of appeal.When this ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 24 witness accompanied Vandana i.e. complainant to hospital by autorickshaw, the complainant informed her that, accused Pratapsingh by pouring kerosene oil on her person set her on fire and at that time, four to five persons were holding her.However, no specific role to other accused than Pratapsingh is stated except that all five persons were holding her.Since the evidence of PW-7 Sunita is hearsay evidence, no much importance can be given to her evidence.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Her evidence is also hearsay evidence, in as much as Vandana disclosed her that, her uncle Pratapsingh set her on fire and sons of Pratapsingh caught hold of her.However, in her cross-examination she admitted that, house property was partitioned between Satyanarayan and Pratapsingh since beginning.This admission of PW-8 unequivocally indicates that, already there was partition of the house property.In his deposition before the Court, ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 25 he stated that, incident took place at about 11 to 11.30 a.m. At that time, he was taking rest in his house.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Upon hearing shouts he went outside his house.He saw children pouring water on the person of the complainant.In his cross-examination, he has given vital admission which would unequivocally show that, nobody entered in the house of Vandana either prior to the incident or after the incident.In his cross examination he stated thus :-"I have not seen any one else coming and going outside and inside the house of Vandana prior or after the incident.Rajkumari the daughter of Vandana was also not present there.I have not seen Rajkumari in the Wada on that day.I have not seen accused Darshansingh in the Wada since morning, so also other accused.After about half an hour after incident, relatives of Vandana came to the spot.After extinguishing fire I did not say anything to Vandana.Other woman in the Wada had talk with Vandana."This witness has further stated that, the partition was already taken place between Pratpsingh, Ranjitsingh and Satyanarayan.There was no dispute on the cause of partition of property.He further stated ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 26 that, on the date of incident during morning hours he was present in the house.There did not take place any dispute between Satyanarayan and Pratapsingh.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Accused goes for work in the morning.They were not present at Wada at the time of incident.Therefore, the cross-examination of PW-10 Subhashsingh completely demolishes the prosecution case that, the accused were involved in the alleged commission of offence.Already it has come on record that, about 100 persons were residing in the said Wada [mansion] in which the house of the complainant is situated.Therefore, it was possible for the prosecution to examine other independent witness.However, the said exercise has not been done.If the evidence of Medical Officer-Nandkumar Chandrabhan Patil (PW-3) is carefully perused, in his examination-in-chief he stated that, he cannot say whether the injuries present on the person ::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 ::: Criappeal331.95 27 of the patient were homicidal or accidental.Though the prosecution has brought on record the C.A. Report showing kerosene residues on the articles received from the spot, that C.A. Report alone is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:53 :::Therefore, upon considering the evidence available on record in its entirety, in our opinion, the view taken by the trial Court giving benefit of doubt to the respondents/accused is possible, and deserves no interference.The Supreme Court in the case of Nepal Singh V/s State of Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. 383 of 2002 decided on 24.04.2009 held that, in case of acquittal, there is a double presumption in favour of the accused- firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him-secondly, the accused having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:54 :::Hence appeal stands dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 19/12/2014 23:46:54 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,217,250 |
(Passed on the 6th day of December, 2013) Vide judgment dated 23.9.1999 passed by the JMFC Udaypura District Raisen (Shri K.N.Khan) in Criminal Case No.79/1998 the applicants were convicted for the offence under Sections 326 or 326/34, 452, 323 or 323/34 of IPC and sentenced with three years' RI with fine of Rs.3000/-, three years' SI with fine of Rs.500/- and one year's.In Criminal Appeal No.30/1999 the learned Sessions Judge, Raisen vide judgment dated 23.9.1999 dismissed the appeal in toto.Being aggrieved with the judgments of both the Courts below, this criminal revision is preferred by the applicants.The prosecution case, in short, is that on 2.1.1998 at about 12:00 in the noon a quarrel took place between the applicants and nephews of the complainant Kalyan Singh, and therefore the applicants went to the 2 house of the complainant situated at Village Patai (Police Station Devri District Raisen) and assaulted him by various weapons.The applicant Ganesh Prasad assaulted him by an axe on his head, whereas the other applicants assaulted him by danda and lathi (stick).After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate.The applicants-accused abjured their guilt before the trial Court, but no defence evidence was adduced.The learned JMFC after considering the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above.The appeal filed by the applicants was dismissed in toto.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, if the evidence adduced by the prosecution is considered, then it would be apparent that the complainant Kalyan Singh (PW-1) has accepted that when the applicants assaulted him, he was out of his house and he was giving some feed to his buffaloes in the compound.The learned JMFC as well as the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the applicants for the offence under Section 452 of IPC.If the evidence given by Kalyan Singh (PW-1), Lakku (PW-2), Chhotevir (PW-3), Vrindavan (PW-4), Sisupal (PW-5) and other eye-witnesses, timely lodged FIR Ex.P-1, the medical report of the victim Kalyan Singh Ex.P-4, which was duly proved by Dr. Dinesh Saxena (PW-8) and the evidence given by Dr. D.K.Bhargav (PW-15), it would be apparent that the victim Kalyan Singh sustained a grave injury below incised wound caused on his head along with other injuries.No defence document has been proved by the applicants before the trial Court, and therefore the document relating to the counter case could not be brought on the record.It cannot be said that the applicants had assaulted the victim under right of private defence or under sudden or grave provocation.Also the applicants went to assault the victim due to quarrel took place between them and the nephews of the victim.Under such circumstances, the common intention of the remaining applicants cannot be presumed with the accused Ganesh Prasad.The contention of the learned counsel for the applicants can be accepted, because the remaining applicants were not aware that the applicant Ganesh Prasad would assault in such a forceful manner, and therefore it cannot be said that they had any common intention with the accused Ganesh at that time, and therefore the remaining applicants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 326/34 of IPC.If the remaining applicants assaulted the victim, then certainly the applicant Ganesh Prasad was also intended to assault the victim, and therefore he had a common intention with other applicants to voluntarily cause hurt to the victim Kalyan Singh, and therefore applicant Ganesh Prasad was rightly convicted for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the remaining applicants cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 326/34 of IPC otherwise the remaining conviction directed by both the courts below would be 5 maintained.The applicants went to the house of the complainant soon after the quarrel done by his nephews.Out of the applicants, applicants Ganesh Prasad, Dharam Singh alias Dharmu and Guddu were below 26 years of age at the time of incident.No criminal past has been shown against the applicants.They have faced the trial, appeal and revision for last 15-16 years.The applicants Ganesh Prasad remained in the custody for 34 days during the pendency of trial, appeal and revision.Under such circumstances, it would be proper to reduce the sentence of the applicants to the period for which they remained in the custody by enhancement of some fine amount.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed.The conviction and sentence of the applicants for the offence under Section 452 of IPC are hereby set aside, whereas the conviction and sentence of the offence under Section 326/34 of IPC are hereby set aside for the applicants Ram Sewak, Dharam Singh and Guddu.The sentence is reduced against the applicants to the period for which they remained in the custody during the trial, appeal and revision.However, the fine of Rs.3,000/- is 6 enhanced to a sum of Rs.5,000/- for the applicant Ganesh Prasad for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC, wheres a fine of Rs.500/- is imposed for the offence under Section 323/34 against the applicant Ganesh Prasad.A fine of Rs.500/- is imposed on each of the applicants for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.The applicants are directed to deposit the remaining fine amount before the trial Court within two months from today, failing which each of them shall undergo RI for three months as default sentence for the offence under Section 323/34 of IPC and the applicant Ganesh Prasad shall suffer a default sentence of six months' RI in lieu of depositing the remaining fine amount for offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC.If fine is deposited, then a sum of Rs.4,000/- be given to the victim Kalyan Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh resident of Village Patai, Police Station Devri Tahsil Udaypura District Raisen by way of compensation.A copy of this order be sent to both the courts below along with their records for information and compliance.(N.K.Gupta) Judge 06/12/2013 7
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,217,969 |
Appellant was prosecuted for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.The deceased was real brother of the appellant-accused.As per prosecution story on the date of the incident at around 5.00 O'clock in the evening Sotiya was digging pit out side of his house.Appellant who is real brother of the deceased asked from the deceased what he was doing, the deceased asked the appellant to give his share, on this the appellant asked the 2 deceased to convene a Panchayat and take his share.He also tried to take away spade of the deceased.There was a dispute between them in regard to partition of property and thereafter the deceased had jumped in the Well.The wife of the deceased leveled allegation against the appellant that he had inflicted a blow of fist to the deceased.He had beaten him and thereafter pushed him in the Well, due to which he was died.It is a fact that the deceased was real brother of the appellant.Another brother of the appellant Samharu @ Daddi P.W.1 deposed that on 15.4.2000 the date of incident at around 5.00 O'clock in the evening my brother Sotiya was digging a pit at the out side of the house.I went near the accused, who is my brother.The appellant-accused asked from the deceased that what you were doing.He told him please give me my share.Appellant replied that call Panchayat of four persons and take his share.Accused-appellant tried to snatch spade of the deceased.Thereafter, there were hot talks between them.Appellant snatched spade of the deceased, then the deceased replied you will see magic and jumped in the Well.I lodged the merg intimation Ex.P.1 and signed the same.Shambhu P. W.2 deposed that I had taken out the dead body of the deceased from the Well.Naksha-panchayatnama is Ex.I signed the same.Ramlal Kewat P. W.3 deposed that I came to know that the deceased was drowned in the Well.Thereafter, I reached at the spot and came to know from Daddi P.W.1 that appellant had snatched spade of the deceased.Hence, the deceased jumped in the Well.Kusumkali P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased.She deposed that at around 5.00 O'clock in the evening the deceased came back from his duty and he was digging a pit out side of the 4 house, appellant came there.(Delivered on 03.04.2018) As per S.K. Gangele, J:Trial Court held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded the sentence of life imprisonment.Report of the incident was lodged at the police station.The police conducted investigation and filed charge sheet.Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.Shri Sharad Singh Baghel, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no evidence that appellant had killed the deceased.The deceased himself jumped in the Well, due to which he was died.Hence, the trial Court has committed error in holding appellant guilty for commission of offence of murder.In alternate he has submitted that offence committed by the appellant would fall under Section 306 of IPC.Shri Vijay Soni, learned G. A for the respondent-State has submitted that the deceased was pushed by the appellant.Hence, the trial Court has rightly held appellant guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarded proper sentence.Police came there and arrested the appellant, arrest memo is Ex.P.2, I signed the same.He catch hold the deceased and inflicted a blow of fist on his chest.The deceased fell down and appellant pushed him into the Well.I cried, appellant had taken out dead body of the deceased from Well.She denied the fact that her statement was recorded by the police after 22-23 days.Dr. Mahesh Singh P. W.8 performed postmortem of the deceased.He deposed that I noticed following injuries on the body of the person of the deceased:Superficial abrasion on right parietal side of the head.Superficial abrasion on posterior of left elbow joint.Superficial abrasion on posterior of right fore arm and arm.Abrasion near the toe of right leg.Lacerated wound transversely placed on occipital of scalp 3" x " bone deep.Fracture of occipital bone and blood comes out.He further deposed that deceased died due to downing.Anil Kumar Shukla P. W.9 Investigation officer deposed that I registered Merg Ex. P.5 on the information given by Daddi Singh.I signed the same.Thereafter, I arrested the accused by arrest memo Ex.I prepared spot map Ex.P.9 and signed the same.There are two important witnesses.P. W.1 who is real brother of the deceased, who lodged the report and P. W.4, who is wife of the deceased.As regards the incident of murder of the deceased, the prosecution has produced six eye- witnesses to the same.However, Ganesh Bhavan Patel Vs.State Of Maharashtra, (1978) 4 SCC 371, is an authority for the proposition that delay in reing of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C., although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when 6 the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,838,826 |
Shri Manish Tiwari, counsel for the Objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 5.5.2015 relating to Crime No.109/2015 registered at Police Station Sanodha, District Sagar for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 17, 148, 149, 302 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the co-accused Ram Singh that he assaulted the deceased Raghvendra with a sword causing a fatal injury.Thereafter, the deceased Raghvendra had died.It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant Rama Singh had a stick and he was not aware that the co-accused would assault in such a manner.No common intention of the applicant can be presumed with the co-accused Ram Singh and therefore, prima facie no offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C is made out against the applicant either directly or with the help of Section 34 or 149 of I.P.C. The co-accused Lallu Lodhi has been released on bail vide order dated 6.7.2015 in MCRC No.19966/2015 in similar circumstances.Under these circumstances, applicants prays for bail on the ground of parity.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the application.This order shall be effective till the end of trial but in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. GUPTA)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,843,419 |
This is third bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.552/2015, registered at Police Station-Kotwali, District Vidisha (M.P.) for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 392, 506-B of IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act.Earlier two bail applications filed by the applicant/accused under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. were dismissed vide order dated 01.02.2016 and 09.03.2016 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos.9885/2015 & 2610/2016 with a direction that the application of the applicant/accused shall be considered on merits after recording the statement of the complainant/victim-Smt.Usha Shukla before the trial Court.Copy of M.Cr.C. No.4019/2016 (Neeraj Jain Vs.the State of M.P.) the statement is available for perusal.On perusal of it, it transpires that Smt. Usha Shukla has corroborated the prosecution story in toto.Therefore, the application is hereby dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
368,470 |
A case was registered against aforesaid two appellants and the co- accused, namely, Raj Kumar & Rajinder @ Chutki vide FIR No.1/1999 (Ex. PW15/1) in Police Station Delhi Cantt on the statement Ex. PW1/1 of complainant Jagdish (PW.1) wherein he had alleged that on 31st December, 1998 at about 11.30 pm, appellants Vinod, Rakesh and their friends were quarreling with a boy, namely, Jeet PW-4 near the shop of Randhir.He and his brother Sanjay i.e deceased had intervened and the quarrel was brought to an end.In that process, some altercation and CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 2 of 17 exchange of slaps had taken place.The appellants and their friends left by saying that they would be back within no time.After sometime when Jagdish (PW-1) and deceased Sanjay were standing near the shop of Randhir, four persons i.e both the appellants and co-accused persons Rakesh and Raj Kumar came again.Appellant Vinod was having a cricket bat in his hand, Raj Kumar was holding a wicket, Rakesh was having a wicket in his hand and another co-accused was having a lathi.They then assaulted him and when the deceased Sanjay tried to save him, appellant Vinod had hit the head of deceased Sanjay with a cricket bat and his associates had also started giving beatings to Sanjay.When he raised an alarm, they all ran away.Initially, this case was registered under section 307/34 IPC and when the injured Sanjay died on 1st January, 1999, an offence u/s 302 IPC was also added.Investigation was handed over to Inspector Anand Sagar (PW 18).On that day, I.O. PW-18 made search for accused persons but could not locate them.A report u/s 174 Cr.P.C. was prepared and statements of father (PW 7) and Sh.Rati Ram (PW 3), uncle of deceased were recorded in the proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. On 01.01.1999, statements of Raju (PW 2), Jeet Singh (PW 4) and Jagdish (PW 1) were recorded.Postmortem examination of deceased was got done.The co-accused Raj Kumar was arrested on 03.01.1999, CRL.The appellants and the co-accused had made their respective disclosure statements to I.O. (PW-18) i.e. Ex. PW2/2, Ex. PW18/4 and Ex. PW18/5 respectively.Appellant Vinod got recovered a cricket bat (Ex P1) from his house which was lying under the cot inside the room.Appellant Rakesh got recovered a wicket (Ex.P2) from the roof of first floor of his house.The same were seized by preparing necessary memos.After completion of necessary investigation, a challan was filed against the accused persons i.e Vinod, Rakesh and Raj Kumar.In the said challan, accused Rajinder @ Chutki was shown as a proclaimed offender.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 2 of 17Rati Ram PW 3, uncle of the deceased Sanjay, had identified the dead body of Sanjay.Daya Chand, PW.7, father of deceased Sanjay had handed over the blood stained jacket Ex.P3 of deceased Sanjay which he was wearing CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 4 of 17 at the time of the incident to the police and the same was seized vide memo Ex.It is contended that there were two separate incidents on the day of occurrence.Immediately they had CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 7 of 17 come back armed with weapons in their hands.As per prosecution, Jagdish PW 1 is the brother of deceased Sanjay and he had also sustained injuries at the time of alleged incident.Jagdish (PW 1) has categorically deposed that on 31st December, 1998 at about 11.30 pm, he along with his three brothers namely Sanjay, Rakesh and Shyam were standing in front of his house no.T-101, Old Nangal Village, Delhi Cantt.The complainant Jagdish (PW 1) along with his brothers went to the shop of Randhir and had intervened.Thereafter, accused persons went CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 8 of 17 towards their houses by saying that they would be back within no time.Thereafter, when deceased Sanjay was taking Jeet (PW 4) towards his house, he saw the appellants and Chutki coming back and started beating the deceased Sanjay.Appellant-Vinod had a cricket bat (Ex. P1) in his hand, Appellant-Rakesh had a wicket (Ex. P2) in his hand while Chutki had a lathi in his hand.He had also identified appellants before the court.He has also deposed that they had attacked Sanjay with the respective weapons they had in their hands.They had also caused injuries to him and he fell down.After beating them, they ran away and PCR Van came and removed Sanjay to hospital.As noticed earlier, the occurrence took place when Sukhbir Singh got mud splashes on account of sweeping of the street by Ram Niwas and a quarrel ensued.CRL.A. 785/2002 RAKESH ... Appellant versus THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellant: Mr Ajay Verma along with Mr Gaurav Bhattacharya, Ms Maria Riba and Mr Anirudh Wadhwa, Advocates Ms Aashaa Tiwari for appellant-Rakesh in Crl.A.785/2002 For the Respondent: Ms Richa Kapur, Addl.2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? Yes CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 1 of 17 VEENA BIRBAL, JA. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 1 of 17Both the appeals are directed against the judgment dated 14.08.2002 passed in Sessions Case No.40/1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi, arising out of FIR No.1/99 registered at Police Station Delhi Cantt.wherein both the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC and u/s 323/34 IPC for having committed the murder of one Sanjay and having caused simple hurt to Jagdish.The appeals are also directed against the order of sentence dated 2.9.2002, whereby both the appellants are directed to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each and in default thereby to further undergo R.I for seven days.Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of appeal are as under:-The charges were framed against the appellants and co-accused Raj Kumar vide orders dated 13th August, 1999, for having committed the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC and u/s 307/34 IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution, in all, had examined 20 witnesses before the Ld. Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi, out of which, Jagdish PW 1, Raju PW 2 and Jeet PW 4, are the alleged eye witnesses to the occurrence.He had also identified the dead body of Sanjay.Remaining witnesses relate to police and medical evidence.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 4 of 17In the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C, the appellants had denied the incriminating evidence against them.The appellant Vinod had stated that he was friendly with a girl Seema, daughter of Jai Om and had eloped with her.The family of Jai Om had falsely implicated him in a case of rape wherein he was ultimately acquitted.Thereafter, Jai Om and his family became inimical to him and had falsely implicated him in the case.The appellant Rakesh had stated that he had helped Vinod in fighting the aforesaid rape case and due to that reason he was also falsely implicated in the present case.No evidence in defence was led by the appellants.After considering the evidence on record, the learned ASJ had convicted both the appellants, that is, Vinod and Rakesh under Sections 302/34 IPC and 323/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life whereas co-accused Raj Kumar was acquitted in respect of both the charges as it was held that there was no evidence on record to connect him with the alleged occurrence.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 5 of 17A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 5 of 17Appellants have challenged the impugned judgment of conviction as well as order of sentence by filing the separate appeals, which are being taken up together for disposal.At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant Vinod has submitted that he has instructions from the appellant to submit that appellant is admitting the alleged occurrence.It is contended that in any event, appellant could not have been held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 IPC.Learned counsel has submitted that occurrence took place in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.9. Learned counsel for the appellant Rakesh has contended that the role assigned to the appellant Rakesh is that he had given a single blow of wicket to deceased Sanjay.There is no evidence on record to show that the Rakesh had common intention with the remaining the accused persons to commit the occurrence.It is contended that there is nothing on record to show that which of the accused had caused fatal blow to deceased Sanjay which resulted in his death.It is contended that at the most, appellant Rakesh can be convicted only for the offence u/s 325 IPC.It is contended that Vinod was armed with a cricket bat, Rakesh was having a wicket in his hand while their associate was having a lathi.It is contended that they had come to the spot again with premeditation.It is contended that second fight was not a sudden fight, as such the occurrence does not fall under exception 4 to section 300 IPC and appellant has been rightly convicted under section 302/34 IPC.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 7 of 17We have considered the submissions made and perused the entire material on record.Later on he was also taken to hospital.He had been cross-examined at length but his material deposition as regards presence of Vinod and Rakesh at the spot and having caused injuries to him and deceased Sanjay was not shaken in cross-examination.PW 1/1 on the basis of which FIR No.561/98 (Ex.PW.15/DB) was registered.The other eye witnesses, i.e., Raju (PWA. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 8 of 172) and Jeet (PW 4) have also supported the case of prosecution as regards the presence of appellants Vinod and Rakesh at the spot and having caused injuries to deceased Sanjay and complainant Jagdish (PW.1) at the incident.These material witnesses were cross-examined at length and CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 9 of 17 their material deposition as regards presence of Vinod and Rakesh having caused injuries to Sanjay and Jagdish (PW 1) was not shaken in cross-examination.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 9 of 17Reading the entire evidence, it cannot be said that the appellants were not present at the spot and that they did not cause injuries to deceased Sanjay and Jagdish (PW 1).The evidence of material witnesses of the prosecution also stand corroborated by the MLC Ex PW 6/1 of the deceased Sanjay which shows Contused Lacerated Wound (CLW) on left parietal region and left frontal region.The MLC Ex.PW 6/1 of deceased Sanjay is proved on record by Dr. Rajiv Sharma (PW 6).The said doctor has also opined that the said injuries can be caused by a blunt object.The MLC of Jagdish (PW 1) shows that injuries are simple in nature having been caused by blunt object.The evidence of eye witnesses also finds corroboration from postmortem report (Ex. PW5/1).The aforesaid report is proved by Dr. Alexander F. Khakha (PW 5) and the same shows the following external injuries:-A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 10 of 17Internal examination of Head revealed that "there was extra vassation of blood under the scalp on the left fronto- tempero-parietal region of the head.Skull vault showed a fissure fracture of the left tempo-parietal occipital bones extending to the base of skull at middle craneal fossa bilaterally.Sub-dural and sub-arachnoid haemorrhage present on the left fronto tempero parietal lobes of cerebrum.Brain was grossly sedamatous.Intra-ventricular bleeding was present.The post mortem report Ex. PW 5/1 shows that death was due to cranio cerebral injuries caused by blunt force impact with hard and blunt object/weapon.The said doctor has also opined that injury no.2, 3 & 4 could be caused by cricket bat Ex.Alexander PW.5 has also opined that injury no.4 and its corresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause death.The appellants had not led any evidence in defence to substantiate the alleged inimical relations.Not even copy of alleged FIR was placed by them on record.Under these circumstances, the stand taken by them was disbelieved by the learned ASJ.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 11 of 17A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 11 of 17After some time, appellant with his associates came to the spot carrying weapons.Appellant gave two thrust blows with his bhala on the upper right portion of the chest.As per allegations, his associates had also attacked.The appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC by the trial court.The conviction was also upheld CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 12 of 17 by the High Court.The Supreme Court had set aside the conviction of the appellant u/s 302 IPC and held him guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304 (part I) of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years.The deceased gave slaps to the appellant for no fault of his.The quarrel appeared to be sudden, on CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 13 of 17 account of heat of passion.The accused went home and came armed in the company of others though without telling them his intention to commit the ultimate crime of murder.The time gap between the quarrel and the fight is stated to be a few minutes only.According to Gulab Singh (PW 10) when Sukhbir Singh was passing in the street and some mud got splashed on his clothes, he abused Ram Niwas.They both grappled with each other whereupon Lachhman (deceased) intervened and separated them.Accused Sukhbir had abused Lachhman who gave him two slaps.The said accused thereafter went to his home after stating that he would teach him a lesson for the slaps which had been given to him.After some time he, along with other accused persons, came at the spot and the fight took place.His own house is at a different place.There is a street in between his house and the house of Lachhman (deceased).On the northern side of his house, the house of the appellant is situated.Similarly Ram Niwas (PW 11) has stated that after the quarrel the accused went towards his house and within a few minutes he came back with other accused persons.It is, therefore, probable that there was no sufficient lapse of time between the quarrel and the fight which means that the occurrence was "sudden" within the meaning of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC."A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 13 of 17In the instant case, the evidence on record shows that there was no enmity between the deceased or his brother Jagdish (PW 1) and the appellants.The evidence on record shows that there was a sudden fight between Jeet (PW 4) and the accused persons and deceased Sanjay along with brother Jagdish (PW 1) standing near his house had intervened.Immediately thereafter accused persons had left the spot and came back within no time armed with cricket bat, wicket and lathi as is discussed in CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 14 of 17 the evidence.It is not the case of the prosecution that they had given repeated blows on the head of the deceased.Evidence on record also shows that there was hardly any time gap when they had left the spot and returned armed with aforesaid weapons.It cannot be said that there was premeditation for committing the occurrence.Evidence of all the eye witnesses shows that the accused persons had come back armed with bat and wicket within no time of leaving after the first occurrence.There is nothing on record to show that accused persons had taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.There is nothing on record to show that repeated blows were given with Ex.P1 & Ex.P2 to the deceased Sanjay.It is not the case of prosecution that the pointed end of the wicket was used to cause the death of the deceased.The incident happened all of a sudden.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 14 of 17We have also examined the contention of learned counsel for the appellant Rakesh that the said appellant had no common intention with the other accused person to commit the occurrence and no fatal blow was given by him and at the most he can be convicted under Section 325 IPC.The evidence of eye witnesses shows that he was present at the time of initial incident.Thereafter the said appellant had left the spot with others and within no time he had come again to the spot armed with wicket CRL.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 15 of 17 Ex.P2 with other co-accused and had given a beating to deceased Sanjay and Jagdish (PW1) along with appellant Vinod.The same establishes that appellant shared the common intention with others.It is well settled that common intention to commit the crime can be framed at the spur of moment.It has also come in the evidence of Dr Alexandar F. Khakha (PW 5) who has conducted the post mortem of deceased Sanjay vide report Ex. PW5/1 that injury No. 2, 3 and 4 could be caused by cricket bat Ex. P1 as well as wicket Ex. P2 and injury No.4 and its corresponding internal injuries were sufficient to cause death.Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that blow given by him was not the fatal blow.The contention raised by learned counsel for appellant Rakesh is rejected.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 15 of 17Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that on the basis of evidence on record it is proved that appellants have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and their case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC.A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 16 of 17A. Nos. 789/2002 & 785/2002 Page 16 of 17If he has not undergone 7 years of rigorous imprisonment, he shall surrender forthwith and shall undergo the remaining sentence.On his surrender, the bail bond furnished by him will stand cancelled and the surety will also be discharged.Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. be given to both the appellants.The appeals are partly allowed, as above.VEENA BIRBAL, J BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J May 10th, 2011 ssb CRL.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,850,351 |
1 9.2018 0 b.And In Re:- Dilip Ghosh & Ors.The petitioners are the relatives of the husband of the victim.The husband remains arrested.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statements of some of the neighbours.There are general allegations of these petitioners inflicting 1 2 torture on the victim.However, the victim was found hanging and the post-The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,851,372 |
Mr.R.S.Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.Mr.S.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the State.Heard on I.A.No.22721/2016, which is an application for grant of bail on behalf of appellant.The appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 304 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to 7 years RI and a fine of Rs.5000/- and under section 506-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/-.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant along with the deceased and others were sitting and consuming alcohol and during the course of the sessions, there was an altercation and the appellant is stated to have spontaneously picked up a stone lying there and struck the deceased on the neck on account of which there was a fracture of the sixth vertebra and subsequently the deceased died pursuant to treatment.P.W.1 Baliram and P.W.2 Daduram are eyewitnesses in this incident who also testified to the sequence of events as stated hereinabove.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
368,531 |
In the morning of 29.5.2001 the petitioner No. 3 gave a call to Piyali and told her to return to her matrimonial home and Piyali immediately returned to her matrimonial home and around 11 P.M., of the same day, i.e., 29.5.2001, the defacto complainant received a phone call whereby he was informed about the death of his daughter.The defacto complainant thereafter lodged written complaint alleging therein that due to torture, both mental and physical, committed by the petitioners, his daughter Piyali died.This is an application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner namely, Jayanta Majhi, Sanatan Majhi and Chabi Rani Majhi praying for their release on ball, as they were arrested in connection with Chandltala P.S. Case No. 59 dated 30.5.2001 under section 498A/306 of the Indian Penal Code, arising out of G.R. Case No. 466/2000 pending before the learned sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Serampore.The prosecution story as revealed from the first Information report is as follows: -The petitioner No. 1 Jayanta Majhi was married to Piyali in the month of Ashar, 1406 B.S. according Hindu Rites and Customs and at the time of marriage articles were given as per the demands of the petitioners.It has further been alleged that while the deceased Piyali was staying in her matrimonial Home, she was subjected to torture by the petitioners both mentally and physically, and the petitioners also made demands of cash of Rs. 50,000/- from the defacto complainant, but the defacto complainant was unable to satisfy their demand.Subsequently, petitioner No. 1 brought Piyall to her paternal home on 27.05.2001 for attending the 'Jamal Sasthi'.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,873,381 |
I.A. No.19471/2020, an application filed under Section 301(2) for assisting the Public Prosecutor.For the reason mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.Shri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for the complainant is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor during hearing of the matter.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsels through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/ physical distancing in letter and spirit.Applicant has been arrested on 13.05.2020 by Police Station Utila, Gwalior, District Gwalior (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.45/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 354, 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-40453-2020 (PRADEEP PARIHAR Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS) 376, 376(d) of IPC and Sec. 3/4 POCSO Act.It is submitted that earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet.It is argued that the missing report was lodged on 25.03.2020 levelling the allegations against co- accused Pawan Bhagel who is said to have taken away the prosecutrix.She was recovered after five days and her first statement was recorded on 30.03.2020 wherein there is allegation against co-accused Pawan Bhagel with respect to commission of offence under Section 376 of IPC.It is submitted that thereafter on 06.05.2020 another statement was got recorded u/S 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein she has changed her version and has stated that co-accused Pawan along with two-three persons came there and Pawan and Pradeep have committed rape with her and another co-accused Salman has molested her.The forth accused-Sonu used to send food to them.It is argued that the aforesaid statement was recorded after 36 days of recording of the first statement.There was no allegation against the present applicant even of the accompanying with the complainant and co-accused Pawan.But when the statement taken before the Magistrate she has categorically stated regarding commission of rape by the present applicant.Even in her majeet kathan, she has stated the same.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,692,788 |
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment passed in C.A.No.54 of 2011 dated 03.02.2012 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court, No.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.The case of the prosecution is that the revision petitioner/accused maintained a close affinity with the victim/P.W1/ de facto complainant for more than a year under false promise to marry her.In view of the said false promise to marry her, he had carnal copulation with the victim/P.W.1 and due to which the victim/P.W.1 conceived.While so, the revision petitioner/accused has suppressed the fact that he has already married another women andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 also has two children.When the victim/P.W.1 informed the revision petitioner that she has become pregnant, the revision petitioner/accused advised the victim/P.W.1 to abort the foetus and also instructed her not to inform anyone regarding the same.The revision petitioner/accused took the victim/P.W.1 to Selene Hospital, near Palayankottai market and instructed her to abort the foetus and also advised her not to reveal the identity of him to the doctor while performing abortion.Since the victim/P.W.1 did not wanted to abort the foetus, she returned to her home and informed her mother regarding her pregnancy and also disclosed the identity of the father of the foetus as the revision petitioner.Thereafter, the mother of the victim/ P.W.1 alongwith one Velumayil, Puspanathan, Manthiramoorthi and Murugan went and met the revision petitioner and asked him to marry the victim for which he refused to marry the victim/P.W.1 by stating that he has already married another women and also has two children.Aggrieved over the same, the mother of the victim/P.W.1 approached the Pudukottai All Women Police Station on 02.02.2007 and gave a complaint against the revision petitioner/accused, during which the revision petitioner agreed to marry the victim/P.W.1 beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 the police officials.Later on 24.02.2007, when P.W.1/victim was alone at her home, the mother-in-law and wife of the revision petitioner came to the house of the victim/P.W.1 and assaulted her physically.Later, a female child was born to the victim/P.W.1 at Miyampuli Hospital and presently, the child is two and a half years old.Based on the complaint given by the victim/P.W.1, lodged a complaint against the revision petitioner/accused before the Pudukottai All Women Police Station.The respondent police after completing the investigation laid a charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 417 of I.P.C. After full fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Srivaikundam has convicted the revision petitioner/accused under Section 417 IPC in C.C.No.209 of 2008 dated 29.09.2011 and sentenced the accused/revision petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, one month Simple Imprisonment.The revision petitioner preferred an Appeal before the learned Additional Session Judge cum Fast tract Court, No-I, Thoothukudi in C.A.No.54 of 2011 dated 03.02.2012, wherein the judgment passed by thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 lower Court was confirmed by the Appellate Court.Aggrieved over the decisions made by the lower appellate Court, the revision petitioner / accused has approached this Court with the present criminal revision case.The Courts below, ought to have seen prior to Ex.P.W.1 also lodged a complaint before the respondent police that was suppressed.Therefore, the present complaint is not at all considered to be the earliest complaint.He would further submit that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the revision petitioner/accused is a married person and is also having two children.Having fully aware that the revision petitioner / accused is a married man and the victim was having intimacy with him, the misconception of fact does not attract the provision of Section 417 of IPC.The specific contention of the victim/P.W.1 is that only due to the physical relationship with the revision petitioner/accused she begotten a female child by name MUTHUSELVI, considering the evidence let in by the Doctor / P.W.12 and the DNA report which prove that P.W.1 is the mother of the illegitimate child born through the revision petitioner due to illegal intimacy between them.The revision petitioner admitted the birth of MUTHUSELVI.
|
['Section 417 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.