id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
366,951 |
JUDGMENT D.K. Trivedi, J.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17-5-1982 passed by the IInd Addl.Sessions Judge, Barabanki.Appellant Smt. Perbata was convicted under section 436 IPC and setenced to 2 years' R. I.The prosecution case in brief was that on 11-5-80 at about 9.00 a.m. the accused happened to pass over the Sehan of the complaint and she received some injury from the pegs lying on the Sehan.It is said that she (accused) set fire to the Tatia of the Marha and caused a loss of Rs. 400/-.An FIR was lodged by P. W. 1 Ram Chandra on the same day at about 12.20 in the noon at police station Masauli.The investigation was conducted by Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey P. W. 3, S. O. Masauli.In support of its case, the prosecution examined two witnesses namely P: W. 1 Ram Chandra and P. W. 2 Sohan Lal as eye witness.P. W. 3 Sri Radhey Shyam Pandey is the Investigating Officer.On the other hand, the appellant accused denied the prosecution case and she examined Banshi Lal D. W. 1 who stated that the Marha of Satgur was burnt by the complainant.The learned trial judge after considering the evidence on record believed the statements of P. W. 1 and P. W. 2 and convicted the appellant under Section 436 IPC.Aggrieved by the said judgment and order the appellant filed the present appeal in this court.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Advocate.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,699,417 |
As per the prosecution case, in pursuance of criminal conspiracy hatched between applicant Madhav Bairagi and co-accused Narendra Prajapati and Rajesh Chutani, who was posted as Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank Branch, Marwari Road, Bhopal by misusing his official position, opened a CC limit account on 01/07/2014 in the name of applicant Madhav Bairagi (proprietor of M/s Swastik Enterprises) and sanctioned CC limit of Rs.400 lac to him on the same day.The loan was to be used in the business related to Coal Trading.Applicant Madhav Bairagi who was proprietor of the firm M/s Swastik Enterprises had hypotheticed the coal purchased from the loan amount as primary security with the Bank.Co-accused Narendra Prajapati and his relatives are the guarantor of that loan.For the security of loan guarantor co- accused Narendra Prajapati, Suresh Prajapati had mortgaged a land admeasuring 0.556 hectare which was part of Khasra No.143, 144 and part of Khasra No.154, 157 located at Village Jamunia Cheer as a collateral security in favour of the Bank.At the time of sanction of loan, the value of the collateral security was shown on higher side which also significantly decreased as per current valuation.The coal stock hypothecated as primary security was inspected from time to time by the Bank officials.In this process, which this unit (coal yard) at Mendiya, Near Devdharm Mandir, Gram Mandla, Indore Road, Ujjain of borrower applicant Madhav Bairagi was inspected on 25.06.2015, it came to the notice that applicant Madhav Bairagi had misappropriated coal stock financed by the Bank and hypothecated to the Bank without any intimation to the Bank and did not deposit sale proceeds with the Bank and also closed the business without intimation to the Bank.By diverting the funds i.e., selling the coal stock and not depositing their proceeds in the Bank, the borrower applicant Madhav Bairagi and guarantor Narendra Prajapati and Suresh Prajapati cheated the Bank and embezzled the public money and caused loss of Rs.532,19,818.74 to the bank.Case diary perused.This is second application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Applicant Madhav Bairagi was arrested on 27/01/2020 in Crime No.The earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit by this Court vide order dated 03/03/2020 passed in M.Cr.On that CBI registered Crime No.RC0082018A0010 for the offence punishable under Sections 120B r/w 420 & 471 of IPC and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and investigated the matter.After investigation, CBI filed charge-sheet against the applicant Madhav Bairagi and co-accused Rajesh Chutani, Narendra Prajapati, Suresh Prajapati, Sanjay Agrawal and other co-accused persons before the Special Judge, CBI, Bhopal.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and has falsely been implicated in the offence.The applicant was the servant of co-accused Narendra Prajapati and worked with him only for a period of three months.At that time co- accused Narendra Prajapati took applicants photo and identity card i.e. Aadhar Card and Passport and thereafter co-accused Narendra Prajapati by misusing those documents get C.C. limit of Rs.400 lacs sanctioned from the Bank in the name of M/s Swastik Enterprises, which was operated by co-accused Narendra Prajapati and there is no evidence on record to show that applicant used any amount from the loan Signature Not Verified SAN sanctioned by the co-accused Rajesh Chutani to the M/s Swastik Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.10.05 17:46:17 IST 3 MCRC-17265-2020 Enterprises.The said loan amount was transferred from the firms account to the accounts of relatives of co-accused Narendra Prajapati, which clearly shows that co-accused Narendra Prajapati in connivance with co-accused Rajesh Chutani the then Chief Manager of PNB Bank get loan sanctioned from the bank and embezzled that amount.Police falsely implicated the applicant in the crime.Learned counsel further submitted that although earlier bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merit, but thereafter Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17150/2020 granted bail to the similarly placed co-accused Abhijeet Singh in another crime.Handwriting Expert's report has also been received.In that report it is not mentioned that the questioned document was signed by the applicant.He further submitted that in the charge-sheet filed by the CBI itself it is mentioned that the entire loan amount has been diverted into the accounts of other firms, which were associated with co-accused Narendra Prajapati and his relatives.Co- accused Narendra Prajpati is the main conspirator, who was behind the whole process of availing Rs.400 lakh of C.C. limit.It is also revealed that the loan was got processed by co-accused Narendra Prajapati on behalf of applicant Madhav Bairagi.The charge-sheet has been filed and the conclusion of trial will take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/CBI opposed the prayer and the earlier bail application filed by the applicant was dismissed on merit and thereafter there is no change in circumstance.From the evidence collected by the C.B.I., it is clear that it was the applicant who filed an application before the Bank for getting C.C. limit of Rs.400 lacs and in Signature Not Verified SAN connivance with co-accused Rajesh Chutani got the CC limit of Rs.400 Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2020.10.05 17:46:17 IST 4 MCRC-17265-2020 lacs sanctioned.Thereafter, the applicant and co-accused embezzled that amount.The applicant is a literate person, so it cannot be said that the applicant gave blank cheques to co-accused Narendra Prajapati without any reason, so he should not be released on bail.Although, earlier bail application filed by the applicant was rejected on merit, but thereafter Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18/08/2020 passed in M.Cr.C.No.17150/2020 granted bail to the similarly placed co-accused Abhijeet Singh in another crime.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', '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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
36,717,856 |
Heard, Case-diary perused.This is an application under Section 439, Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.379/2018, registered at police station-Sarangpur, District-Rajgarh, concerning offence under Sections 186, 353, 332, 147, 148, 149, 333 of IPC.As per prosecution story, on 04/08/2018, police got information that some persons (Kanjar) were cutting truck, therefore the police force reached the spot and found eight persons there.On seeing police force, they pelted stones due to which driver Gajendra and Sumersingh got injured.Due to the incident, police vehicle got damaged and some police personnel were injured.Jav Singh Parmar, Head Constable Sumer Singh and Constable Gajendra Singh have been examined before the trial Court, however, they have not identified the applicant as culprit in their statement.Investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.Conclusion of trial will take considerable time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.C. No.11875/2019 2This order shall be effective till the end of the trial, however, in case of bail jump, it shall become ineffective.Certified copy as per rules.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE sumathi Digitally signed by Sumati Jagadeesan Date: 2019.03.27 17:28:33 +05'30'
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,582,356 |
Allowed md.CRM No. 5347 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.7.2018 in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1681/15 dated 29.11.2015 under sections 468/471/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code (corresponding to G.R. Case No.4918 of 2015);And In Re:-Anil Kumar Agarwala ... Petitioner Mr.Kalyan Banerjee, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajdeep Mazumdar, Advocate Mr. Moyukh Mukherjee, Advocate Miss Kriti Mehrotra, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.Mr. Debajyoti Deb, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Bhaktinagar Police Station Case No. 1681/15 dated 29.11.2015 under sections 468/471/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code(corresponding to G.R. Case No.4918 of 2015).According to the petitioner, the registering authority has declined to register the property in favour of the petitioner on the de facto complainant's complaint that the alleged title deeds submitted on behalf of the petitioner were forged.The 1 2 petitioner claims to have filed a title suit in the appropriate civil court.In the reported case, certain documents were said to have been fabricated pertaining to a business entity and there was a civil suit pending between the parties for the control of such business entity.In the present case, if the allegations against the petitioner are correct, the petitioner then would have been found to have attempted to grab another's property by forging the documents.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. ) 3
|
['Section 409 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 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
475,907 |
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.This is an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'CrPC') requesting the court to initiate an inquiry into the forgery of an alleged will dated 13.09.1987 alleged to have been executed by the Testator (Late Lt. General Sailendra Nath Chatterjee).This will was produced by the petitioner (Saraswati Chatterjee) in the probate proceedings.This court had directed issuance of notice on this application only to Mrs Saraswati Chatterjee and Mr Solil Chatterjee.No notice was issued to Mr Komoneya Chatterjee.Before the rival contentions of the parties are taken up for consideration, it would be necessary to give a brief resume of facts.There is also no dispute that his wife had pre-deceased him and that he left behind only two sons as his legal heirs, namely, Solil Chatterjee and Sanjoy Chatterjee.There is also no dispute that sometime in 1993, Solil Chatterjee filed a partition suit being Suit No.334/1993 in this very court claiming partition of the property left behind by Late Lt. General Sailendra Nath Chatterjee.In the partition suit, it was clearly and categorically stated that Late Lt. General Sailendra Chatterjee died intestate.On 04.03.1994, it appears that a preliminary decree was passed in that partition suit wherein the shares of the two sons, i.e., Solil Chatterjee and Sanjoy Chatterjee were recognised as being 50% and 50%.Thereafter, sometime in 1995, during the pendency of the proceedings in the said suit No.334/1993, a will said to have been left by Late Lt. General Sailendra Chatterjee and purportedly executed on 13.09.1987 was produced by the petitioner (Mrs Saraswati Chatterjee) in the present probate proceedings.In terms of the purported will, the property was to devolve differently.Solil Chatterjee and Sanjoy Chatterjee each were to get 1/3 share in the property, whereas the balance 1/3rd of the property was to be left to one Basudev Chatterjee, who was the Late Lt. General's brother's son.Thereafter, the proceedings in the partition suit came to be stalled inasmuch as a view was taken that the probate matter be decided first before deciding the partition suit.In the partition suit, however, on interim application, the court had passed an injunction against Sanjoy Chatterjee from entering the property, namely, D-8/5, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi or from alienating his share therein during the pendency of the proceedings.Subsequently, an application was filed on behalf of Sanjoy Chatterjee against this interim order.Being aggrieved, the said Sanjoy Chatterjee filed an appeal there from before a Division Bench of this court.The same was contested on the ground that the will was a forged one.
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,595,750 |
Allowed md.And In Re:-The petitioner claims that the incident happened over a dispute with the de facto complainant and his brother upon a disagreement relating to a property.1 2 The State and the de facto complainant refer to the nature of the injuries and the attack launched by the petitioner.The charge-sheet has been filed.Considering the material on record, it may not be advisable to let the petitioner enter the same village even if the petitioner is granted anticipatory bail.In addition, the petitioner will also attend the trial on a regular basis on the date fixed.2 3 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. ) 3
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,598,855 |
The factory is engaged in production of herbal extracts.For this purpose various solvents like methanol, acetone, ethyl acetate petroleum etc. were stored in the premises of the factory.(Passed on 10/08/2016) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashment of proceedings in Criminal Case No.2900/2004 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore.According to the applicant, he is facing prosecution in a case arising out of Crime No.254/2004 under Sections 285, 287, 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.The present applicant is a Manager of factory of private company Amsar Pvt. Ltd. On 07.04.2004, a fire broke out in the factory.At the time of incident, 8 workmen were working in that factory sustained injuries in the incident.The employee Shri Rajendra Giri succumbed to the burnt injuries, he sustained in the incident.Other 7 employees sustained injuries of various nature.Subsequently, the spot of the incident was inspected by factory inspector and a complaint was filed under the relevant provisions of Factories Act and rules.Also the intimation was given to the concerning Police Station on which the aforesaid crime was registered against the present applicant and charge-sheet was filed.The present applicant is facing trial, both in the case filed by the concerning Police Station and also a complaint case filed by the factory inspector.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.
|
['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.
|
47,601,945 |
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of F.I.R. No.314 of 2006 registered at Police Station Bhajanpura against the petitioner under Sections 376/493 IPC.The allegations made by the prosecutrix in her complaint to the police are as under :-"Opposite to our house in Bhajanpura, there was house of Sh.Ramdhan and I and my family used to visit house of Sh.Ramdhan as a neighbourer.Accused Harish also used to visit house of Sh.Ramdhan since he was a cousin of Sh.Harish started expressing his love for me but I did not give positive response.However, after sometime, I fell in love with Harish and Harish started assuring me that he would marry me.About four years back (from the date of filing complaint), Harish was alone at Sh.Ramdhan's house and I was also there when Harish put vermillion in my hair and assured me that Crl.M.C. No.3877/2009 Page No.1 of 2 when time comes, he would marry me and thereafter, he started having intercourse with me.This continued for about four years.I did not tell anybody at my home about this relationship.For the last one month, I was telling Harish that he should tell his relatives about the marriage so that we could live together.Since then Harish neither talks to me nor he want to live with me.Harish had been having intercourse with me on the promise of marriage.Action should be taken against Harish as per law."M.C. No.3877/2009 Page No.1 of 2On the basis of above statement of prosecutrix, a case under section 376/493 IPC was registered against the accused.The statement makes it apparent that the prosecutrix was aware that she was not married to Harish and marriage between her and Harish was yet to take place.She had developed intimacy and she herself was in love with Harish and she and Harish with consent of each other were enjoying each other's body and having sexual relationship.Since it is a case of obvious consent of the prosecutrix, who was aware that no marriage had taken place and marriage between parties was yet to take place, no case either under Section 376 or 493 IPC is made out.The F.I.R. registered against the accused is a gross misuse of powers by the police and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed of.SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA [JUDGE] JULY 29, 2010 'AA' Crl.M.C. No.3877/2009 Page No.2 of 2M.C. No.3877/2009 Page No.2 of 2
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,603,447 |
DATED: OCTOBER 31, 2018P.C.:1. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.By consent of the parties,the Petition is heard finally and disposed of at the stage of admission.This Petition is directed against the order dated 16 th May, 2016passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil andSessions Court, Gr.Bombay thereby dismissing Criminal RevisionApplication No. 105 of 2016 and confirming the order dated 9 th May,2013 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court,Esplanade, Mumbai.Trupti Page 1 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 01:06:49 :::Trupti Page 1 of 2::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 01:06:49 :::The offence was registered under Section 324 ofthe Indian Penal Code.The learned counsel for the petitioners and thelearned APP are not in a position to tell the date of filing of thechargesheet.However, Criminal Case No. 181/P/2005 had beenregistered.It shows that there is a delay in filing the chargesheet.However, an application for further investigation under Section 173 (8)of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by public prosecutor.Exfacie, as the application for further investigation was filed by either ofthe prosecution or by the applicant after 15 years, it should have beensummarily dismissed by the trial Court.No illegalityis seen.Hence, no interference is required in the order dated 16 th May,2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil andSessions Court, Gr.Writ Petition is dismissed.(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)Trupti Page 2 of 2 ::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 01:06:49 :::Trupti Page 2 of 2::: Uploaded on - 02/11/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2018 01:06:49 :::
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,603,868 |
(19.06.2012) The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 6.10.1995 passed by the 3 rd Additional Session Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal no.9/93, by which the respondents were acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and also the respondent Gulab Bai was acquitted from the charge of offence under Section 506-B of IPC.After six months of her marriage, a Gouna took place.In the custom of Chauk, a demand was made by the respondents for sum of Rs.10,000/-.Shambu Dayal (PW-2), father of the victim Ramkumari gave a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the respondent No.1 but 2 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 he was not happy, because he could not get the entire amount of Rs.10,000/- The victim Ramkumari was kept in the house of the respondents in a bad condition and she was being harassed for recovery of the amount.She was beaten by the respondents and therefore, she wrote so many letters to her parents.Some of the letters (Ex.P/2 to P/5) were submitted in the Court.On 19.5.1987, the respondent Gulab Bai assaulted the victim Ramkumari and she used a force to get the signature of the victim Ramkumari on some blank stamp papers.Ultimately, the victim Ramkumari was thrown out from the house of the respondents.She met with her cousin Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) and thereafter, she had lodged an FIR before the Police Station Kotwali, Damoh.Thereafter, Kanhaiyalal dropped her in the house of her father.A written report was also submitted by Shambu Dayal on 24.5.1987, in which it was claimed that the victim Ramkumari was being harassed for recovery of dowry amount and life of the victim is in danger.Police, Kotwali registered a case.After due investigation, charge sheet was filed.The respondents abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea but they had stated that they were falsely implicated in the matter because there was some gynecological problem to the victim Ramkumari and therefore, she was not ready to get her examination before the doctor.Learned J.M.F.C. Damoh vide judgment dated 19.5.1993 convicted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced them for one year R.I. with fine of Rs.500/-.He also convicted the respondents for the offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and imposed one year R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- for that crime on each of them.The respondent Gulab Bai was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506-B of IPC and inflicted three months S.I. In criminal appeal no.9/93, learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh vide judgment dated 6.10.1995 allowed the appeal and acquitted the respondents from the all charges levelled against them.During pendency of this appeal, the respondent No.2 expired.I have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length.For assessment of prosecution evidence, the alleged incident may be considered in two parts.Firstly, the incident relating to taking signature on a blank stamp papers, which was held on 19.5.1987 and secondly, the incident took place prior to that incident.The prosecution has examined Ramkumari (PW-3) and Kanhaiyalal (PW-1) in support of the incident, which was 4 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 related to the blank stamp.There is a lot of contradiction in the statements given by these two witnesses about the place of the incident.In the FIR (Ex.P/1), there is a small description given about the incident that with the help of Sharad and Purshottam, the respondent Gulab Bai was trying to get the signature of the victim Ramkumari on the blank stamp papers and when the victim Ramkumari refused to put her sign, then she was beaten by the respondent Gulab Bai and thrown out of the house.It is mentioned in the FIR that Kanhaiyalal, nephew of the victim Ramkumari met her in a way, who took her to the Police Station where she has lodged an FIR.It is strange that father of the victim Ramkumari lodged a written report (Ex.P/1) after five days of the incident and he had hidden the facts that the victim Ramkumari was taken to the Police Station and she has lodged an FIR.Ultimately, that FIR (Ex.D/4) was brought before the Court.In this connection, if evidence of the witness Munnalal (PW-8) is perused, then it would be apparent that the victim Ramkumari herself requested him to bring a stamp of Rs.5/- but on that date, he could not provide the stamp and therefore, he purchased the stamp of Rs.7/- on 19.5.1987 and provided to Ramkumari.Munnalal is a prosecution witness, who was not declared hostile and therefore, his statements are binding to the prosecution.His such statement was duly corroborated by Dhruv Agrawal (PW-9), who was the stamp vendor.He has stated before the trial Court 5 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 that he gave a non-judicial stamp to Munnalal in the name of Ramkumari, wife of Sevaram.It is a case of prosecution that the respondent Gulab Bai had a stamp in her hand and she was creating force upon the victim Ramkumari to put her signature on the stamp but looking to the evidence, given by Munnalal and Dhruv Agrawal, it would be clear that the respondent Gulab Bai did not ask for stamp but it was Ramkumari herself, who purchased the stamp of Rs.5/- or Rs.7/- with the help of Munnalal.What was the object of purchasing a blank stamp by Ramkumari? In this connection, evidence given by Munnalal in para 2 may be perused.He has stated that on 18th and 19th May 1987, there was nobody in the house of Sevaram except the victim Ramkumari.Looking to the statement given by Munnalal, it appears that the victim Ramkumari was sent by her father and other relatives to create a drama that the respondents threatened her to get her signature on the blank stamp papers, otherwise there was no need to the victim Ramkumari to get a stamp purchased with the help of Munnalal.Similarly, first FIR (Ex.D/4) is perused, then it would be clear that the victim Ramkumari could not lodge an FIR in a proper manner, whereas it was written on Rojnamchasanah and therefore, that FIR was 6 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 hidden by the police.Shambu Dayal, father of the victim drafted a fresh FIR after due consultation with the relatives and filed before the concerned Police Station.Under such circumstances, it would be clear that no such incident took place, in which the respondent No.3 threatened the victim Ramkumari to put her signatures on the stamp papers.On the contrary, stamp was purchased by the victim Ramkumari herself with the help of Munnalal to create a false allegation and therefore, an FIR was lodged by the Ramkumari, which was hidden by the police.During the trial, that FIR (Copy of Rojnamcha) was not submitted with the challan papers but it was brought in the defence.Under such circumstances, first part of allegations appears to be fake.It is alleged by the parents and relatives of the victim Ramkumari that a sum of Rs.10,000/- was demanded by Sevaram and Rs.3,000/- was only given to him and therefore, the victim Ramkumari was being assaulted by the respondents.In the cross- examination of these witnesses, this fact came to the record that Sevaram was working at Nagod and he was visiting sometime at Damoh.There is no allegation against the respondent Sevaram that he ever assaulted the victim Ramkumari.On the contrary, it appears that the allegations were made against the respondent Gulab Bai only.In cross-examination of Shambu Dayal and Gauri Shankar, they could not say positively that in whose hands, they had given a sum of Rs.3,000/- at the time of Chauk.The victim Ramkumari says that within 15 days of the Chauk, she was being harassed and therefore, she was writing letters to her father and relatives.Some letters are submitted as Exs.Why she had not written any letter to her father in the period of October 1986 to January 1987? Nobody has given the answer of this question.Out of those letters (Exs.P/2 to P/5), only one letter is postcard, whereas remaining letters are the letters given to various relatives by hand.It is strange that some letters were the photocopy from original one and thereafter, it was mentioned by ink, to whom that letter was given.Such type of details are given in the letters (Ex.P/3, P/4 and P/5).Under such circumstances, it is possible that such letters were prepared by the victim Ramkumari and her parents at the time of filing of the FIR, in ante time and ante date, therefore, there is no evidentiary value of such letters.A letter dated 8.5.1987 is a postcard sent to one Gauri Shankar.In this connection, the evidence of witness Munnalal may be considered again that there was no prohibition upon the victim Ramkumari to visit her parents'house and to come back.It 8 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 is apparent from his evidence that the victim Ramkumari came from Amanganj to Damoh on or about 14.5.1987 and when she came to the house at Damoh, there was nobody in the house to prohibit the victim Ramkumari for doing anything.Under such circumstances, though Ex.P/2 was a postcard in the month of May 1987 but it could be a cooked document prepared by the victim Ramkumari on the direction given by her father and relatives.By such letters, no evidence is created against the respondents.If a demand of Rs.10,000/- was made at the time of Chauk then why Shambu Dayal and other relatives did not lodge an FIR against that incident.Shambu Dayal has accepted that after receiving some letters, he went to Jabalpur to see ailing Revaram and at that time, Gulab Bai was staying at Jabalpur.He did not talk about the demand.It would be apparent from the evidence given by the prosecution that when ailing Revaram was staying for his treatment and his wife was also there, whereas Sevaram was working at Nagod, there was nobody at the house at Damoh except the victim Ramkumari, who was visiting to her parents' house by her wishes so that she could lodge an FIR in the Police Station before such incident of stamp papers.It is already stated that no such incident of stamp papers took place with the victim Ramkumari.On the contrary, she herself prepared a drama 9 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996 to that extent.Under such circumstances, looking to the conduct of the victim Ramkumari, her parents and relatives, it appears that the victim Ramkumari herself retained in the house of her parents from time to time and a false case was created against the respondents.Looking to the entire preparation of evidence, it appears that no harassment was committed with the victim Ramkumari by any of the respondents.If she was being harassed for demanding of Rs.10,000/- then why it was not mentioned by the victim Ramkumari in FIR (Ex.D/4).Under such circumstances, the demand of Rs.10,000/- was nothing, but a concocted story prepared by the complainant.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh has rightly acquitted the respondents from the charges levelled against them.Evidence was fabricated by the prosecution to implicate the respondents unnecessarily.They tried to get a false report lodged by the victim Ramkumari and when that FIR was not found sufficient, then a concocted FIR (Ex.P/1) was lodged after 4-5 days of the alleged incident.Under such circumstances, testimony of the victim Ramkumari and other witnesses cannot be relied upon.The respondents cannot be convicted for any offence as mentioned in the memo of charges appended by the trial Court.Consequently, the State appeal against the judgment of acquittal cannot be accepted.10 Criminal Appeal No.1092/1996Consequently, the State appeal directed against the judgment passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh in criminal appeal No.9/93 is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
476,056 |
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that in consequence of information received by the Customs authorities at Delhi, look out was kept by Y.R. Sachdev (PW-5), Preventive Superintendent, Customs and party for B.O.A.C. Flight No. 936 scheduled to arrive from London via Zurich-Cairo-Tehran at 5.25 A.M. on June 27, 1962 at Palam Airport, New Delhi.Members of the crew were subjected to interrogation after obtaining the usual declaration in the Crew Baggage Declaration Form.Charles Maloney (PW31), Flight Engineer of the aircraft made a declaration, copy whereof is Ex. PW3/A. Thereafter, he was subjected to a search by Narsingh Dass (PW19), Deputy Superintendent, Customs, in the presence of public witnesses, K.L. Sikka (PW4) and G.N. Mehra (PW 8), and others.He was found to carry 15 bars of gold bullion weighing 15 kilograms valued at about Rs. 1,80,000 concealed in a specially prepared jacket which he was wearing.Each bar was wrapped with a paper slip bearing the name 'Noora'.On being questioned if he had obtained the requisite permission of the Reserve Bank of India to import gold into India, Charles Maloney answered in the negative.The search of the brief case of Charles Maloney yielded incriminating documents, inter alia, a slip, copy whereof is Ex. PW 3/H, bearing names, Latif Hoory, Rasik Lal Shah and Harbans Lal Bansi Dhar Sharaf and particulars including telephone numbers.The gold and the documents were seized and a memo, copy whereof is Ex. PW3/B, was prepared by R.N. Chopra (PW12), Inspector, Preventive Customs, and attested by witnesses.Charles Maloney, on being questioned in regard to these writings, stated that he had been given the bars of gold at Rome by Latif Hoory, a resident of Beirut, for being delivered to Rasik Lal G. Shah or Harbans Lal Sharaf at Delhi.He also disclosed that Rasik Lal G. Shah was the clerk of Shanti Lal Laxmichand Modi (shortly S.L. Modi) of Bombay and he had carried gold on earlier occasions for S.L. Modi from Latif Hoory.He further disclosed that Rasik Lal G. Shah would be found in Hotel Airlines and he was to meet him (Charles Maloney) in Ashoka Hotel, New Delhi.In the course of further enquiries room No. 115 occupied by Rasik Lal G. Shah was searched by A.K. Malhotra (PW14), Inspector Preventive, and Intelligence, in the presence of Pahalaj Rai N. Hupani (PW27), Assistant Manager, Hotel Airlines and Panna Lal (PW15).The person of Rasik Lal G. Shah was searched and documents, copies whereof are Ex. PW13/B to Ex. PW 13/G and Ex. PW13/G-1, were seized vide memo dated June 27, 1962 Ex. PW13/A. A.K. Malhotra recorded a statement, copy whereof is Ex. PW14/B, on that day.On the following day, he recorded a further statement, copy whereof is Ex. PW14/C.B.D. Nayyar (PW12), Inspector, Customs, conducted search of the premises F-73, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk, Delhi and took into possession a number of documents vide memo dated June 27, 1962, copy whereof is Ex. PW11/A, in the presence of Krishan Lal Chadha (PW11) and Dev Raj Vij (PW16).On the following day, statement of the respondent was recorded by B.K. Kalia (PW9), Deputy Superintendent, Customs in the presence of Y.R. Sachdev and public witnesses, Piare Lal (PW6) and A.S. Sawhney (PW 10).Simultaneously, the residential premises of S.L. Modi and J.L. Modi at Bombay were searched and documents were seized.Their statements were also recorded.He goes on to tell that on the second occasion S.L. Modi asked him to tell Hoory to purchase a gold watch and he mentioned the particulars in his diary, copy whereof is Ex. PW3/E3 in his hand.The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate ought to have analysed this piece of evidence on its own without having allowed his mind to be swayed by considerations which are altogether conjectural.The search was effected by a team of officers who had joined two public witnesses.to Hotel Airlines and he went there and found a foreigner sitting.He also stated that smuggled gold weighing 14 kilograms was offered to him.He also stated that Shah gave a bundle of foreign currency notes in sterling and dollars in his presence and after the foreigner had left, he came back with Shah who had a thela in his hand and left him in Chandni Chowk, Delhi.Before doing so, Shri K. Saravanai procured authorisation under Section 187A of the Act from Shri K. Narasimhan, Chief Customs Officer, Customs Aerodrome, Delhi (Palam) and sanction of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi under Section 196 of the Criminal Procedure Code in regard to the offence under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act. It may bear mention here that prior to the filing of this complaint, separate proceedings were taken against Charles Maloney who pleaded guilty to the charge under Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and Section 167(81) of the Act and was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months.On the basis of the material that was collected in the course of the enquiry which preceded the filing of the complaint, it was alleged that there was a continuing conspiracy to smuggle large quantities of gold into India during the period from August, 1961 to June, 1962, to dispose of gold in India and to smuggle out of India rupee currency notes and foreign exchange in sterling and U.S. dollars.It was also alleged, inter alia, that on May 29, 1962, 14 kilograms of contraband gold valued at Rs. 1,68,000 was carried by Charles Maloney from Beirut to Delhi and kept or concealed or otherwise dealt with at Delhi and foreign exchange comprising of 2999 and US $ 9177 was sent from Delhi to Beirut through Charles Maloney towards sale proceeds of the gold and that on June 27, 1962, 15 kilograms of contraband gold valued at Rs. 1,80,000 was carried from Rome to Delhi and kept concealed or otherwise dealt with, etc. It was also alleged that these activities were undertaken knowingly and with intent to defraud the Government of duty payable thereon and to evade the prohibition and restrictions for the time being in force issued under Section 8(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 and deemed to have been issued under Section 19 of the Act by virtue of Section 23A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 in relation to gold and that the accused persons acquired possession of the said gold and were concerned in concealing, carrying, removing or dealing with the said gold chargeable to duty which had not been paid and with respect to the importation of which there was a prohibition and restriction, namely, Notification No. 12(11) F. 1/48 dated August 25, 1948, as amended.Hardly two witnesses for the prosecution were examined when the respondent absconded and could not be found for a period of three years.Accordingly, the trial Magistrate separated the case of the respondent vide his order dated April 11, 1967 and proceeded against the other accused persons.Vide his judgment dated June 26, 1968, S.L. Modi and Rasik Lal G. Shah were convicted under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 167(81) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.S.L. Modi and Rasik Lal G. Shah went up in appeal which came up for hearing before an Additional Sessions Judge who accepted the same and acquitted them of the charges.The Assistant Collector of Customs preferred an appeal before this Court.Hardayal Hardy and M.R.A. Ansari, JJ., accepted the appeal vide their judgment dated May 28, 1971 (now reported as 1971 2nd Del 584) holding that the first appellate Court was wrong in rejecting the evidence of Charles Maloney as not being worthy of credence and in holding that circumstantial evidence produced to corroborate the evidence of the accomplice was capable of being construed both in favor of as well as against the accused persons.As a result, S.L. Modi was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 167(81) of the Act and Rasik Lal G. Shah was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 167(81) of the Act.As the respondent became available, Shri.K.P. Hati, who had succeeded Shri.K. Saravanai on his retirement, moved an application for resumption of proceedings.The request being allowed, the trial proceeded.The version of the respondent during the trial was one of total denial.He even denied having any concern with the premises from where incriminating documents were stated to have been recovered.He also denied having any association with Charles Maloney, S.L. Modi or Rasik Lal G. Shah.He also took the view that letters in Gujarati Ex. PW 13/B and Ex. PW 13/C make mention of one Punjabi Seth who was stated to be an alias of the respondent, but the wedding card Ex. PW 13/G-1 which was seized during the personal search of Rasik Lal G. Shah did not serve as a convincing link to establish the identity.He also took the view that there was nothing in the statement of the respondent before the Superintendent of Customs that he was a member of the criminal conspiracy for which he had been charged.As a result, the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.Shri Harjinder Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised preliminary objections in regard to the maintainability of the appeal and the revision petition.What happened thereafter was that the respondent absconded and this led to the separation of his case.Shri Hati had described himself in his application as successor-in-office to Shri K. Saravanai.Thereafter, in late May, 1962, Hoory gave him 14 kilograms of gold and the gold watch for being smuggled into India.On arrival at Delhi, he went to Ashoka Hotel and met Rasik Lal G. Shah.From there they proceeded to Hotel Airlines in separate taxis.Rasik Lal G. Shah went in first.He came out after some time along with the respondent.While in the Hotel, Charles Maloney made over the gold watch and the gold to Rasik Lal G. Shah who in turn handed over the same to the repondent.The respondent gave a bundle of currency notes and traveller's cheques to Rasik Lal G. Shah who made over the same to Charles Maloney.He also gave him two names and telephone numbers and instructed him that in the event of Rasik Lal G. Shah not turning up, he should ring up the respondent and deliver the gold to him.He made two statements, one on June 27 and the other on June 30, 1962 and gave explanation Ex. PW7/1 in regard to entries in the diary.The slip bears the name "Hoory c/o.MIRELIS GENEVA" at the top and the name "Rasik Lal Shah" with the address "Hotel Airlines and numbers 45861 and 46862" and the name "Harbans Lal" with the address "73-F, Moti Bazar, Chandni Chowk", and No. "220394".
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,613 |
JUDGMENT Jagdish Chandra, J.(1) This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.1973 (in short 'the Code') has been filed by the petitioner Chander Mohan Chawla assailing the order dated 11th October, 1985 passed by Smt. Pratibha Rani, Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, as also the order dated 2nd May, 1985 passed by Shri V S. Aggarwal, Addl.Sessions Judge, Delhi.That complainant was fixed for hearing on 21st May, 1985 when neither the complaint nor his counsel was present and so the learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint and consequently discharged the petitioner and respondent No. 2 (3) COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENT No. 1 Babu Lal moved an application on 1st July, 19S5 for fie restoration of his complaint before learned Magistrate who vide impugned order dated 11th October, 1985 allowed the same and restored the complaint.(4) The petitioner, feeling aggrieved with the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, went up in revision under section 397 read with section 392 of the Code, which was heard by Shri V.S. Aggarwal, Addl.Sessions Judge who dismissed the revision.(5) The petitioner felt dissatisfied with both the aforesaid orders and has now invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under section 482 of the Code for the quashing of both these orders.(6) The impugned order dated 21st May, 1985 of the learned Magistrate shows that she bad dismissed the complaint under section 249 of the Code and both the accused persons were discharged.The learned Magistrate in her impugned order was of the opinion that the order of dismissal of the complaint in default ofthe complainant was not a final order and so the trial court was empowered to review that order and for coming to this conclusion relied upon two judgments of this Court.(7) In the impugned order passed by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge.the learned Addl.(9) The learned Addl.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,398,684 |
Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.This Petition is filed with the following prayer :-"To quash and set aside the FIR at Exhibit "A" and further proceedings in CR 119/2016 with Chopda Police Station, Tq.Chopda Jalgaon under section 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507 of Indian Penal Code dated 21.07.2016 and for that purpose issue necessary orders."The learned counsel appearing for the ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 ::: 1105.16WP -3- petitioners submits that, petitioner nos.2 and 3 are old aged persons.He invites our attention to the medical certificates and submits that, those certificates would clearly show that, both petitioner nos.2 and 3 are bedridden and under treatment of the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jalgaon.He further submits that, even if the entire allegations in the first information report are taken at its face value and read in its entirety, the alleged offences are not disclosed as against petitioner nos. 2 and 3, and therefore, the First Information Report deserves to be quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 invites our attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent no.2 and also allegations in the first information report, and submits that, the specific overt acts are attributed to petitioner ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 ::: 1105.16WP -4- nos.2 and 3 and the specific role is also assigned to them.It is submitted that, there was illtreatment and harassment at the hands of the petitioners and their role cannot be segregated/separated.It is submitted that, if the allegations in the first information report are carefully perused, the ingredients of the alleged offences have been disclosed.Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 submits that the Petition may be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::Upon careful perusal of the copies of the medical certificates ::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 ::: 1105.16WP -5- produced on record, it clearly appears that petitioner nos.2 and 3 are senior citizens and they are under treatment of the Medical Officer, General Hospital, Jalgaon.It further appears that, they are advised to take complete bed rest.::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::There has been an outburst of matrimonial disputes in recent times.::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::The Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana V/s Bhajan Lal3" held that, in following categories the Court would be able to quash the F.I.R.In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.Where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if 3 AIR 1992 SC 604::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 ::: 1105.16WP -8- they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:26 :::Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.In the result, we pass the following order:-(i) The Petition is partly allowed.The F.I.R. bearing C.R. No.119/2016 registered with Chopda Police Station, Tq.Chopda, Dist.Jalgaon under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 507 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside qua petitioner no.2 - Shakuntala Tukaram Chaudhari and petitioner no. 3 - Tukaram Yadav Chaudhari.(ii) The Petition is disposed of accordingly.(K.K. SONAWANE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.) ...::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:26 :::SGA::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:26 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 00:57:26 :::
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,974,021 |
The brief facts, leading to the conviction of the appellant, are as follows:"(a) P.W.1 Soundararajan, had contested the election for the post of President of the Oorkudi village Panchayat, as an independent candidate.On 14.10.2001, P.W.2 Arumugam, P.W.3 Anbazhagan, the deceased Vedayan and others were canvassing in support of P.W.1 Soundararajan.(b) At about 7.00 p.m., when P.W.1, the deceased and others were canvassing in the village, the accused, who belong to the Left Community Party, came in front of the witnesses and the deceased and heckled the deceased as to why he had to canvass for a candidate, who is going to be defeated in the election.Then, a wordy quarrel ensued between the deceased and the accused and they both were beating each other with the hands.P.W.1 Soundararajan, who was then going ahead of them, on hearing the sound, came back and pacified them.Unfortunately, the stab, aimed at P.W.1, fell on the right chest of the deceased and the deceased fell down.The crowd gathered there cried and the accused thereafter, ran away from the scene.(c) P.W.1 took the deceased, in a taxi, to Thiruvarur Hospital.P.W.9 Doctor declared the deceased dead and issued Ex.P.6 Accident Register.He also sent death intimation to the Police.(d) P.W.1, then went to the Police Station, gave the complaint-Ex.P.1 to P.W.11, Head Constable.The same was registered by P.W.11 at about 11.30 p.m. in Cr. No. 348/2001, for the offence under Section 302 IPC.He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 and rough sketch Ex.He recovered bloodstained earth and controlled earth.At about 7.00 a.m., P.W.14 went to the Hospital and conducted inquest.P.16 is the inquest report.Thereafter, a requisition was given to the Doctor for conducting Post-Mortem.(f) P.W.13 Doctor conducted Post-Mortem and issued Ex.P.14 Post-Mortem Certificate.He gave opinion that 'the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage and shock following injury to vital organs namely heart and lung 14-15 hours prior to Post-Mortem.'(g) Then, on the same day, the accused was arrested and M.O.1 knife, which was concealed in his hip was recovered.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Nagaraj, the appellant herein, has been convicted for the offence under Section 301 read with 302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/= in default to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year.Challenging the same, he has filed this Appeal.Thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand.(h) P.W.14 conducted the investigation by examining all the other witnesses.The material objects were sent for chemical examination.After completion of investigation, he filed the charge-sheet for the offence, referred to above.(i) During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.17 were filed and M.Os.1 to 5 were marked.(j) The plea of the accused, when he was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., is one of total denial.(k) The trial Court, after analysing the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 301 read with 302 IPC.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed."Mr. R.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, while assailing the judgment of conviction, by pointing out various portions of the judgment, would contend that the evidence adduced by the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 3, is not reliable, especially when there is unexplained delay in lodging the complaint.It is also pointed out that when P.W.1 was surrounded by P.Ws.2 and 3 along with ten others, who are the supporters of P.W.1, it could not be said that the deceased would have attacked with the knife, without any provocation.Further, a suggestion has been put to all the eye-witnesses that since the accused was beaten by the witnesses and others who are supporting P.W.1, the accused, in exercise of his self-defence, had attacked the deceased and as such, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 301 read with 302 IPC.and at the most, he could be convicted for the offence under Section 304(I) or 304(II) IPC.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on these aspects.We have considered the contentions urged by the counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.According to the prosecution, on 14.10.2001, at 7.00 p.m., P.W.1 Soundararajn, deceased Vedayan, P.W.2 Arumugam and P.W.3 Anbazhagan along with other supporters of P.W.1 were going round the roads of the village for the purpose of canvassing.At that time, the accused, who belongs to the opposite political party, teased and heckled the deceased stating that P.W.1 is a losing candidate and therefore, canvassing for him would be a waste.In that connection, there was a wordy quarrel and both the deceased and the accused were beating each other.When P.W.1 came to pacify them, the accused took out a knife, proclaiming that he expected P.W.1 only, and so saying, he attempted to attack P.W.1 and when the deceased pushed P.W.1 down, in order to save him, unfortunately, the stab fell on the chest of the deceased.When the deceased was taken to the hospital, P.W.9 Doctor declared him dead.To prove the occurrence, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 3-eye witnesses.On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, we do not find anything to conclude that the testimony tendered by P.Ws.1 to 3 is unreliable.On the other hand, their evidence is cogent and consistent and the same is corroborated by the evidence of both P.W.9 Doctor, who declared the deceased dead and P.W.13 Doctor, who conducted the Post-Mortem.The main point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there is delay in lodging the complaint, which has not been explained.This contention, in our view, is not tenable for the reason that the occurrence took place at 7.00 p.m., the victim was taken to the hospital at 8.00 p.m. and at that time, it was raining and therefore, P.W.1 went to the Police Station at 11.30 p.m and lodged the complaint.P.W.11 registered the case for the offence under Section 302 IPC, at about 11.30 p.m. and sent the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate, who received the same at 3.00 a.m. on the same night.When P.W.1 and the deceased were there along with their supporters, more than ten persons, and when the accused was attacked by P.W.1 and others, by way of exercising his private defence, he attacked the deceased.If there are materials, culled out from the cross-examination to indicate that the occurrence had taken place, while exercising the self-defence, then, this Court can conclude that it is a case of private defence, in order to decide about the nature of the offence committed by the accused.But, in this case, except the suggestion made to the witnesses, there is no material available on record to indicate that the accused had attacked the deceased, in exercise of his self-defence.in around pericardium.(4) Right atrium injured 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.x wall thickness.(5) Interventricular septum injured 3 x 1/2 x wall thickness leading to left atrium.(6) Lungs - Right upper lobe injured and collapsed."The opinion given by the Doctor, on the basis of the above injuries, is that 'the deceased would appear to have died due to haemorrhage and shock following injury to vital organs namely heart and lung 14-15 hours prior to Post-Mortem'.From these injuries and the weapon, which is a knife, which has been recovered in this case as M.O.1, it is clear that the accused had the intention to kill the deceased.Section 301 IPC reads thus:"If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause."In the result, this Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Sessions Case No. 175 of 2002, dated 21.10.2002, is confirmed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,403,279 |
The lawyers are abstaining from work on the basis of resolution passed by the State Bar Council.The present case alongwith Cri.Appeal No.101/14 has come up and placed before this court upon PUD dated 27/5/16 due to contradiction arising out of order passed on 6/7/2015 in instant Cri.Appeal and the order dated 26/5/16 in Cri.The instant Cri.Appeal has been preferred by the State against various respondents including one respondent No.3-Cheeku @ Sohan Singh (appellant in Cri.Appeal No. 101/14) against his acquittal of charge u/Ss.307/149 of I.P.C. and section 25/27 of the Arms Act whereas Cri.Appeal No. 101/14 has been preferred by Cheeku @ Sohan Singh (Respondent No.3 herein) against his conviction under Sections 302/149 and 326/149 of I.P.C. in which an order of temporary suspension of sentence was passed on 26/5/2016 for a period of 13 days to enable him to attend 13 th day ceremony occasioned due to death of his father.However, the above said temporary suspension order dated 26/5/16 passed in Cri.Appeal No. 101/14 could not be given effect to on account of the prohibitory order dated 6/7/2015 passed in the present appeal, relevant extract of which is as under:-"After marking the presence of aforesaid respondents on record, they are directed to be sent back to jail with the same squad with a direction that their presence is not required in future as they are represented through their duly engaged counsel.While sending back the aforesaid respondents to Central Jail Gwalior, concerned jail authorities be directed not to release such respondents from jail even after passing release order in certain cases unless the order of this court in the present matter. "Comparative assessment of the said order dated 26/5/16 passed in Cri.Appeal No. 101/14 and the order dated 6/7/2015 2 Cra.122/14 passed in the present Cri.Appeal, it is apparent that the object of releasing the appellant Cheeku @ Sohan Singh in the instant Criminal appeal on temporary basis is frustrated and defeated by the order dated 6/7/2015 in the present Cri.Accordingly, the interlocutory order dated 6/7/15 passed in the present Cri.Appeal is modified to the extent that the same shall not come in the way of the interlocutory order dated 26/5/16 passed in Cri.Appeal No. 101/14 directing suspension of sentence of the appellant for a temporary period of 13 days so as to enable the respondent No.3 to attend the 13th days ceremony occasioned by death of his father.as per rules.
|
['Section 149 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.
|
197,404,316 |
However, learned counsel for the applicant supplied copy of charge-sheet to the counsel for the respondent/State, on the basis of which, arguments heard.According to the prosecution story, the present applicant is living in front of the house of prosecutrix.It is alleged that the present applicant took the prosecutrix to nearby room where he committed rape on her.Subsequently, matter was reported to the police by relative of the prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the application.This application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. is allowed.Accordingly, it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy, as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge Chitranjan
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,417,964 |
The informant PW-2 Avubai Mahadeo Patil is a resident of village Vadange Padali in Karveer Taluka.Her husband Mahadeo Patil has two brothers, viz., Dinkar and Sadashiv.Accused No.1 Sadashiv also resides in the same village alongwith his sons Sambhaji (accused No.2) and Shivaji (accused No.3).Accused No.1 had dispute with Mahadeo on account of agricultural land known as 'Dongarakadche Shet'.Because of the dispute, Mahadeo and Sadashiv were not on talking terms since last more than one year, before the date of incident.PW-3 Sampatti, daughter of Avubai and Mahadeo, is married in the same village to Shahaji Varambale and she was helping her mother in her agricultural and household work by going to her maternal home every day.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::On 30th March, 1993, at about 10.00 p.m., PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti had served the meals to deceased Mahadeo, who was sitting in the Sopa (front portion/Vharanda) and they were having dinner inside the house.At that time, all the three accused persons entered the informant's house and started giving abuses to Mahadeo in filthy language and they lifted Mahadeo, took him out of the house and after some time they brought him back.At that time, Mahadeo had bleeding from his nose.His clothes were bloodstained and his condition was serious.All the accused left him on the cot and ran away.PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti sprinkled water on Mahadeo's face and they gave him two tea-spoonful of water and Coffee.Thereafter, they took him to hospital, however Mahadeo had expired.PW-1 Balechand Miraso Momin is the panch witness of seizure of clothes of the accused (Exhibit 20).PW-2 Avubai, the wife of deceased, who is the informant and PW-3 Sampatti, the daughter of the deceased are the eyewitnesses.PW-4 Bajirao Gaikwad and PW-5 Ramesh Patil are the panch witnesses of house search of the accused, have turned hostile.PW-6 Rajekhan Mullani and PW-7 Govind Sankpal are the eyewitnesses, but they have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile.PW-8 P.S.I. Ananda Gurav is an Investigating Officer and PW-9 P.C. Satish Bhosale is the carrier of articles to the Chemical Analyser.If we consider the evidence of the eyewitnesses, PW-2 Avubai, who is the wife of deceased, has stated in her evidence that there was dispute between deceased and the accused persons on account of agricultural land, known as 'Dongarkadchi Jamin' and Mugdha 5 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 6 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt they were not on talking terms.She herself, her husband and daughter Sampatti were looking after the agricultural land and daily Sampatti was coming to her for work in the agricultural field and in the evening she used to go to her house.The incident took place about 3 years before, it was about 9.30 p.m. After the meal was served to Mahadeo on the cot, in Sopa, Sampatti and Avubai were taking meals in the middle room.At that time, all the three accused persons came to Mahadeo and started abusing.Avubai and Sampatti went there and asked the accused, reason for the abuses.Accused Shivaji threatened Sampatti that she should not give abuses otherwise he will make her teeth fall.Then, all the accused lifted Mahadeo and took him out.Avubai was standing on the threshold of the house.Half an hour later, all the accused brought Mahadeo back and left him on the cot in the Sopa.Mahadeo's nose was bleeding and his shirt was bloodstained.On asking by Sampatti, Mahadeo said, 'Bal Ghat Jhala', 'Tighani Mala Marale'.Avubai poured one tea-spoonful of water in the mouth of Mahadeo and Sampatti went to bring the doctor.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::learned trial court in Sessions Case No.169 of 1993, dated 29 th March, 1997, for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), is impugned in the present criminal appeal.The prosecution case can be summarised as follows :-PW-2 Avubai, wife of deceased Mahadeo, gave information to Karveer Police Station, which was registered at C.R. No.84 of 1993, under section 302 of the IPC.After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Sessions Court.The learned trial court framed charge against accused persons under sections 302, 452 r/w. 34 of the IPC.The accused Mugdha 3 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 4 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt pleaded not guilty.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::The prosecution in support of its case, examined 9 witnesses.The learned trial court found all the accused guilty and convicted them for murder and imposed sentence of life imprisonment and fine.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants- original accused and the learned APP for the State.Perused the original record and the notes of evidence and the relevant Mugdha 4 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 5 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt documents, with the assistance of the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned APP.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::The prosecution has failed to examine the medical officer, who conducted the post-mortem.Post-mortem report was brought on record in the evidence of investigating officer.Apart from this injury, there were abrasions over great toe, middle and second finger of left leg of deceased Mahadeo.Contusion and haematoma over right upper and lower eye-lid and over the cheek was also found.Taking into consideration the cause of death, the dislocation of C-1 and C-2 is also possible by fall.The prosecution needs to prove that the said dislocation was homicidal and the accused persons are responsible for the said dislocation.The doctor came and declared Mahadeo dead.Thereafter, Avubai went and lodged the First Information Report.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::PW-2 Avubai admitted in her Examination-in-Chief itself that she did not mention her husband saying, 'Bal Ghat Jhala', 'Tighani Mala Marale' in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C., as she claims to be frightened and in disturbed state of mind.In the cross-examination, this witness admitted that all the brothers of husband are cultivating their land separately and still the land is in the name of her father-in-law.She claimed ignorance as to whether some days after the incident, a declaration was made in the village by Police Patil, by beat of drums informing that if anybody was knowing about the incident of her husband's murder, the same be informed to the police.She denied having acquaintance with Sambhaji Ishwara Patil of Vadange, but admitted to know him by name.In the next breath, she stated that for last 10 years, he is looking after their agricultural land as a partner in cultivation.She further admits that two days after the incident, police had shown her an application given by deceased Mahadeo.She has further admitted that Sampatti's husband Shahaji had performed a second marriage.She has stated that at the time when accused persons entered the house, her husband was taking meals and half Bhakri was yet to be eaten.She or Sampatti did not abuse the Mugdha 7 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 8 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt accused persons.Her husband was lifted by the accused in the sitting position itself.Some of the food in the plate, had fallen down.Her husband tried to hold the cot restraining the accused from taking him out.However, her husband did not raise any shouts.She did not try to restrain the accused from taking her husband out.The accused were in their house for about 5-10 minutes and the accused were abusing her husband in loud voice.Nobody in the locality had gathered.She did not feel that there was danger to the life of her husband and that she should raise shouts and collect the villagers.Even after her husband was taken out, she was not shouting.Her daughter Sampatti did not try to restrain the accused and they were watching the incident helplessly.She or Sampatti did not feel it necessary even after the deceased was brought back, to tell the neighbours, though they saw bloodstains on the shirt of the deceased.She did not raise any hue and cry, even after seeing Mahadeo in bleeding condition.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::Material omissions are brought on record in the evidence of PW-2 Avubai.She did not state before the police that accused Shivaji threatened her daughter saying that he would fell her teeth.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::She did not mention in her statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. that half an hour after the incident, her husband was brought back, her husband said that there was treachery.He was telling the names of all the accused in vernacular.She also did not state the utterances by deceased Mahadeo, viz., 'Bal Ghat Jhala', 'Tighani Mala Marale'.She also did not disclose in her statement that her daughter went to the doctor, the doctor came there and said that her husband had expired.She could not assign any reason as to why the said statements are absent in her statement before the police.PW-3 Sampatti, daughter of the deceased echoed the same version as like PW-2 Avubai.She has improved her version stating that after her father was brought back by the accused, he told that 'Ya Tighani Ghat Kela', the accused had taken him to the temple of Bhairoba, beat him by kicks and blows and they gave blows on his nose and twisted his head and that he was also beaten by sticks.In the cross-examination, this witness was shown the application given by deceased Mahadeo.She admitted that inquiry was made by the police about the application with her.She denied Mugdha 9 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 10 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt that her father had given a complaint application saying that he had danger to his life from her.However, she admitted that there was an application by her father to the police stating that his life was in danger at the instance of his daughter.She also denied to know Sambhaji Ishwara Patil.She went to the extent of saying that she had not seen him.She denied that her husband is not staying with her.She further stated that since her father's death, her husband, in- laws and her brother-in-law alongwith his family, are staying at her maternal home.She denied that her husband had married second wife.She admits that accused persons were not on talking terms with them since last more than one year.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::She did not ask the accused persons as to why they were giving abuses.Her son was also taking meals with her father.After seeing the accused abusing grandfather, her children stopped taking meals and stood up.However, they did not raise any shouts or cries, so also, this witness and her mother did not raise any shouts.The meal plate had overturned.Her father did not resist when the accused lifted him.He only said 'leave him'.None of her children tried to embrace their grandfather.Though, Sampatti tried to restrain the accused, accused Shivaji gave her a jerk with his Mugdha 10 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 11 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt elbow, due to which she fell down.That time, she screamed, however none of her children came ahead and they were standing still.She did not sustain any scratches or abrasions due to fall.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::Vital omissions are brought on record in the evidence of this witness.This witness did not state in her police statement that accused Shivaji gave a jerk by his elbow joint.She did not state that she was standing on the threshold.She also did not state that 10 to 15 minutes thereafter her father was brought back and when her father was brought back he had become motionless, that her mother filled coffee into mouth of her father, that her father told her that 'Tighani Ghat Kela' 'Lathani Marahan Keli' 'Man Pirangali', 'Kathine Manewar Marahan Keli'.She had no explanation to offer for these material improvements in her evidence.After careful analysis of the evidence of these two eyewitnesses, it is clear that they have made improvements in their version and they are not telling truth before the court.There are material omissions in their evidence, which go to the root of the matter.Their conduct appears to be unnatural.These witnesses so Mugdha 11 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 12 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt also children allegedly present on the spot also did not raise any hue and cry, nor did they try to embrace their grandfather, who was being lifted and carried away.These eyewitnesses have gone to the extent of denying the application made by deceased Mahadeo expressing danger to his life from Avubai, Sampatti and Sambhaji Patil.All the omissions and contradictions from the evidence of these eyewitnesses are duly proved from PW-8 Ananda Gurav, Investigating Officer.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::PW-8 Ananda Gurav, Investigating Officer has admitted in his cross-examination that on 31 st March, 1993 the Police Patil of Village Padali by beat of drums made an appeal to the villagers that if any person had seen the incident or the persons carrying Mahadeo, they should give information to the police.Admittedly, nobody has turned up to give information to the police.Though, PW- 8 Investigation Officer feigned ignorance about the application dated 29th March, 1993 given by deceased Mahadeo in the Police Station, however, after he was confronted with the photo copy of the complaint register maintained by their Police Station, he stated that it is regarding complaint application given by Mahadeo Patil of Mugdha 12 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 13 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt Padali.He gave the complaint against Sambhaji Ishwara Patil and three other residents of Padali.Though, he denied the suggestion that the prosecution has deliberately suppressed the said complaint application as the same was not supported to the prosecution case, fact remains that just two days prior to the incident deceased Mahadeo gave an application expressing threat to his life from his wife, daughter and Sambhaji Ishwara Patil.This renders the entire prosecution case doubtful and it appears from the evidence laid by the prosecution that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the crime.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::The denial of acquaintance with Sambhaji Ishwara Patil and thereafter acceptance of the same also raise serious doubt about the version given by the eyewitnesses in the court.PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti also contradict each other on certain aspects like second marriage of husband of PW-3, the oral dying declaration of deceased Mahadeo, which does not find place in the FIR.PW-3 Sampatti stated that her father disclosed that he was taken by the accused persons to Bhairoba temple, beaten there with kicks and blows and he received blows on his nose, his head was Mugdha 13 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 14 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt twisted and that he was also beaten by sticks.This fact is absent in the FIR as well as in the evidence of PW-2 Avubai.PW-3 Sampatti also deposed that she fell on the person of her father after the doctor declared him dead and her saree was stained with the blood of her father.However, she did not show the saree to the police.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::In the house/spot panchanama, nothing was found which would corroborate the version of PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti, that the incident had taken place in the house of the deceased, no food was found lying on the cot or in the Sopa on the spot of incident, so also in the panchanama near Bhairoba temple, nothing was found.There is no evidence of dispute between the accused and the deceased.The CA reports are inconclusive and no bloodstains are found on the clothes of the accused persons, so also on the sticks.There are no injuries of assault by stick on the neck of deceased Mahadeo.Hence, medical evidence also does not support the version of PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti.PW-4 Bajirao and PW-5 Ramesh, who are the panch witnesses of the house search of the accused, have turned hostile Mugdha 14 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 15 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt and their evidence is of no help to the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::PW-7 Govind, who was eyewitness, has also turned hostile and was cross-examined at length by the prosecution.However, nothing material could be elicited from this witness.In his cross-examination by defence, this witness has admitted that deceased was addicted to liquor and there used to be frequent quarrels between the deceased and his wife and daughter.He has further stated that some times the wife and daughter used to beat deceased Mahadeo.He also accepted the fact that some days before the incident, Mahadeo had given a complaint to the police that he had danger to his life from his wife and daughter.His evidence casts a shadow of doubt on the prosecution case.Admittedly, the accused and deceased Mahadeo's family were not on talking terms, since last more than one year.No incident has taken place prior to this incident, which prompted accused persons to come and assault deceased Mahadeo.There is no material on record to show that the accused had any motive and/ or reason to assault Mahadeo.On the contrary, the evidence on Mugdha 15 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 16 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt record suggests that PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti probably had the reason to eliminate Mahadeo.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::It can convict or acquit the accused on the deposition of a single witness if it is found to be fully reliable.In the second category also there is no difficulty in arriving at an appropriate conclusion for there is no question of placing any reliance upon the Mugdha 16 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 17 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt deposition of a wholly unreliable witness.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::There is no explanation from these two witnesses as to why they were silent when Mahadeo was taken away by the accused persons and even when he was brought back in injured condition.One fails to understand as to what prevented these witnesses from raising hue and cry on both the occasions.Similarly, the children who were present also did not cry or try to embrace their grandfather.The conduct of these two witnesses during the incident is totally contrary to the natural human conduct, which in our opinion, renders their evidence doubtful.They are not telling truth before the court and these witnesses are unworthy of credit.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::In the light of above discussion, we are unable to place reliance on the version of PW-2 Avubai and PW-3 Sampatti.There is no corroboration to their evidence.According to us, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is unsustainable.In the result, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed.Hence, the following order :-(i) Criminal Appeal No.284 of 1997 is allowed.(ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.169 of 1993, dated 29th March, 1997, thereby convicting the appellants-original accused for offence punishable under section 302 of the IPC, is quashed and set aside.(iii) The appellants-original accused are acquitted of all the charges.(iv) The appellants-original accused shall furnish bail of Mugdha 18 of 19::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 ::: 19 Judg-APEAL 284-97.odt Rs.15,000/- each, with one surety in the like amount, in terms of section 437-A of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 29/11/2019 02:53:52 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,417,991 |
It is made clear that we leave it open for the High Powered Committee to determine the category of prisoners who should be released as aforesaid, depending upon the nature of offence, the number of years to which he or she has been sentenced or the severity of the offence with which he/she is charged with and is facing trial or any other relevant factor, which the Committee may consider appropriate."Chief Judicial Magistrate shall ensure that after furnishing bail, the bail papers are sent to the Court concerned.In view of COVID-19 pandemic, the jail authorities are directed that before releasing the applicant, his Corona Virus test shall be conducted and if he is found negative, then the concerned local administration shall make necessary arrangements for sending the applicant to his house, and if he is found positive then the applicant shall be immediately sent to concerning hospital for his treatment as per medical norms.If the applicant is fit for release and if he is in a position to make his personal arrangements, then he shall be released only after taking due travel permission from local administration.If it is found that the applicant has violated any of the instructions (whether general or specific) issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local Administration, then this order shall automatically lose its effect, and 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13755/2020 (Akhilesh alias Chhotu Vs.State of M.P.) the Local Administration/Police Authorities shall immediately take him in custody and would sent him to the same jail from where he was released.1.The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;Matter is heard through video conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application under section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 7.3.2020 by Police Station Badoni, District Datia (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.114/2018 registered for offence under Sections 307,323, 294, 506, 34 of IPC read with sections 25, 27 of Arms Act.There was quarrel between the neighbours and section 307 of IPC has been enhanced only on the false grounds.There is no gun shot injury.Now parties have arrived at compromise and the document executed for the compromise is Annexure II, as the applicant and complainant are neighbours.Investigation and trial will take its own time.He further undertakes to abide by all the terms and conditions of guidance, circulars and directions issued by Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration regarding measures in respect of COVID-19 Pandemic and maintain hygiene in the 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13755/2020 (Akhilesh alias Chhotu Vs.State of M.P.) vicinity while keeping physical distancing.Therefore, prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer and has submitted that there were several criminal antecedents against the present applicant.In case of grant of bail the applicant will not cooperate in the investigation and will adversely affect the prosecution evidence.Hence, prayed to reject the bail application of the applicant.Hence, prays for grant of bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them and perused the case diary.The Supreme Court by order dated 23-3-2020 passed in the case of IN RE : CONTAGION OF COVID 19 VIRUS IN PRISONS in SUO MOTU W.P. (C) No. 1/2020 has directed all the States to constitute a High Level Committee to consider the release of 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.13755/2020 (Akhilesh alias Chhotu Vs.For instance, the State/Union Territory could consider the release of prisoners who have been convicted or are under trial for offences for which prescribed punishment is up to 7 years or less, with or without fine and the prisoner has been convicted for a lesser number of years than the maximum.The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit any offence punishable under Sections of IPC;The applicant will not move in the vicinity of complainant party and applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be; andThe applicant will inform the SHO of concerned police station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station for information.The applicant shall enroll himself with the District Magistrate, Datia as "COVID-19 Warriors" by entering his name 6 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.Registry is directed to communicate this order through e-mail to the concerned District Magistrate for compliance.The District Magistrate concerned is directed to intimate this Court in case condition No.8 is not complied with and on receipt of any such intimation, Registry is directed to list the matter before appropriate Bench as PUD.Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible for the office of this Court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,742,854 |
This petition has been filed seeking to call for the records FIR in Crime No.134 of 2017, dted 07.06.2017 and altered report dated 09.06.2017 under Section 306 of IPC, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Edakkal Police Station, Villupuram and quash the same.Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.134 of 2017 for the offence under Section 306 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2017, the the respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.134 of 2017 and file a final report within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.06.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order ub 6/8http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.18477 of 20171.The Inspector of Police, Edakkal Police Station, Villupuram.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P.No.18477 of 2017 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.ub CRL.O.P.No.18477 of 2017 03.06.2020 8/8http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,428,824 |
(14.01.2020) The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.p.C. for qushment of FIR dated 31.01.2016 bearing crime No.14/2016 registered at Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (N), 313, 294 and 420 of I.P.C. and consequential proceedings of Session Trial No.219 pending before the Court of 5th Additional Session Judge, Indore.(2).The prosecution story in short is that the prosecutrix got herself registered at second marriage.com for performing second marriage as her first marriage was going to be dissolved in a divorce case.She came to know about the profile of Arjun Malik and it was told that he is a Professor in Jaipur and he had also divorce with his wife.The applicant called the prosecutrix to Jaipur, where she met with the applicant, who established physical relationship with her on the pretext of marriage due to which she became pregnant The pregnancy was terminated by the applicant by giving medicine in cold drink.Later on the prosecutrix came to know that the applicant has made a fake profile in the website of second marriage.com in the name of Arjun Malik whereas he is Akhlaq Hussain.She asked the applicant regarding 2 aforesaid fact then he abused her and threatened to kill her.He also threatened to upload the video of prosecutrix on whatsapp and internet.Then prosecutrix lodged the report at Police Station Mahila Thana Indore against the applicant, on the basis of which FIR bearing crime No.14/2016 was registered at Mahila Thana, Indore for the offence punishable under Section 376 (2) (N), 313, 294 and 420 of I.P.C. (3).Learned counsel for the applicant has fairly accepted that the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses have already been recorded before the trial court and trial is in advance stage.Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to examine the material available on record to find out that there is no iota of evidence is available to prosecute the applicant for the commission of offence as charged against him and the prosecution of the applicant is improper and unjust.Therefore, the present petition is dismissed with granting liberty to the applicant to raise all objections as raised in the present petition before the trial court at the time of final argument.(4).With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,431,846 |
I.A. No.6993/2015 filed on behalf of complainant under Section 301 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for assisting the Public Prosecutor, is considered and allowed.Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate is permitted to assist the Public Prosecutor.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with offences punishable u/Ss.384/34 IPC registered as Crime No.450/2015 at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.Reading of the FIR bearing Crime No.450/2015 (Annexure A/2) reveals that the applicant has threatened the complainant by pointing a gun towards him.Pointing of the gun by the applicant towards the complainant clearly indicates his intention to put the complainant in fear of death or grievous hurt.Though the firearm has not been used, but pointing of gun towards the complainant prima-facie reveals criminal intent on the part of the applicant to commit an offence under Section 386 of IPC.Though the FIR in question mentions the offence punishable u/S.384 r/w 34 IPC, but going by the allegations contained therein, prima-facie existence of ingredients of offence punishable u/S.386 IPC appear to be made out.
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,435,613 |
(A) Prosecutrix has stated that on the relevant evening in her sister's village Pithoriya at 6:00 p.m. she was going towards agriculture fields, near culvert Golu appeared and informed her that mother is calling her at village Khurai, but, she refused.At this juncture, prosecutrix has stated that Golu forceably caught her hand, gagged her mouth and also threatened to kill.She has further stated that firstly, Golu took her village Gadhpera and kept her in deserted fort and committed rape on her twice in the night against her will.(B) Secondly, in morning Golu took her to Surkhi by Bus via Sagar and kept there for 2-3 days and committed rape on her.(C) Thirdly, from Surkhi Golu took her to village Chanatoriya and committed rape on her.It can be well presumed that during the night hours nobody will hear hue and cry if raised or raised alarm by anybody or the prosecutrix, in deserted fort.Shri Arun Choubey, Advocate for the appellant.Shri Akshay Namdeo, Panel Lawyer for the respondent /StateJudgment reserved on : 20.06.2013 Judgment delivered on : 22.07.2013 (J U D G M E N T) By means of filing the present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant Golu Adiwasi has assailed the order of conviction dated 29.12.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Tahsil Khurai, District Sagar in Session Trial No. 141 of 2006 (State of M.P. through P.S. Bandri vs Golu Adiwasi).By the judgment under challenge, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced appellant Golu Adiwasi as follows:-2 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007The information also disclosed that the prosecutrix went out from her sister's house in village Pithoriya at about 06:00 PM to go to agricultural field but, did not come back.Missing person report No. 02 of 2006 was registered, thus, inquiry started.When the prosecutrix recovered, she made a statement that accused Golu Adiwasi kidnapped her for the purpose of performing marriage and for committing sexual intercourse with her.This kidnapping of prosecutrix was also from the lawful guardianship of her father Kammod Adiwasi, therefore, an FIR was registered.The prosecutrix was medically examined, appellant was arrested, statements of prosecutrix as well as her father Kammod Adiwasi and others were recorded.After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed.Since the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions the learned Magistrate after taking cognizance committed the case to the Court of Sessions 3 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007 Judge Sagar, lastly after transfer the learned trial Court tried the case.3 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007The learned trial Court framed the charges against appellant for commission of offence punishable under under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506- B of IPC.Appellant pleaded not guilty therefore, he was put to trial.Defence did not examine any witness.On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offence and imposed the sentence as referred to hereinabove, hence, this appeal.Shri Arun Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is no judgment under law, as he had ignored the basic and fundamental principle governing the law of criminal jurisprudence.He further submitting that the guilt of the appellant has not been proved if the prosecution evidence considered in proper perspective because, necessary ingredients in order to prove allegations were totally missing, thus this appeal deserves to be allowed.Shri Akshay Namdeo, learned Panel Lawyer for the State has opposed the appeal vehemently contending that the appellant has rightly been convicted believing the testimony of the prosecutrix.The finding so recorded by the learned trial Court does not warrant any interference, thus, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.4 Cr.A. No.497 of 20074 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and available entire record.(A) The first essential, to be established for the offence under Section 366 of the I.P.C. is that the accused kidnapped or abducted a woman.Further, to constitute the offence of kidnapping, it must be proved that the girl kidnapped is under 16 years of age and the burden remains on the prosecution to prove it.(B) In a case under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC, age of the prosecutrix plays a vital role.Again, in order to prove the age of the prosecutrix, and to demonstrate that she was below 16 years burden is on prosecution only.To shift the burden, the prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of Dr. Vishnulata Uikey (PW/9) and Dr. Jignesh Diwakar (PW-12) to prove age of the prosecutrix.It was Dr. Vishnulata Uikey (PW/9) who referred the prosecutrix to Radiology Department District Hospital, Sagar to ascertain her age.Dr. Jinesh Diwakar (PW/2) on basis of X-ray plates Ex.P-14, 15 vide his Report Ex.P-13 has given the opinion that the age of prosecutrix was above 16 and below 17 years of age.He also admitted this fact that there may be variation of 6 months (+) (-) in case of determination of age by ossification test.This way the prosecution fails to discharge his duties by medical evidence.(A) Apart from above evidence of Radiologist, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses is also available on record.5 Cr.A. No.497 of 20075 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007(B) Dr. Uikey (PW/9) admitted that on MLC report Ex.P-11 she mentioned age of the prosecutrix 17 years as per information given by his father Kammod.(C) Prosecutrix in her evidence dated 22.09.2006 did not stated what was her age at the time of incident, whereas her apparent age were written by the learned trial Court is 16 years.Kammod (PW/3) and Kashibai (PW/2) admitted that their eldest son is having age of 35 years and difference of birth between their children is one to one and half year.In this manner, if the age of the prosecutrix be calculated, the age of the prosecutrix would come out more than 28 years on the date of her missing.Even for the sake of argument, if it is presumed, that Dhanbai (PW/5) was 20 years of age on dated 22.09.2006 it means on 13.02.2006 the date of missing of prosecutrix the age of prosecutrix was more than 18 years and 3 months, in light of her specific admission of this fact that prosecutrix is 1 years younger to her.(F) Right from missing person report Ex.P-3, medical examination memo Ex.P-6 and in many more documents the age of the prosecutrix is mentioned 17 years.In light of above facts and circumstances whichever evidence is available on record, it is 6 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007 proved beyond doubt that age of the prosecutrix on her missing dated 13.02.2006 she was more than 18 years.6 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007(G) The learned trial Judge virtually ignored above mentioned evidence which was available on the record.Probably this was the reason prosecution did not produce the best available evidence in form of educational certificates of prosecutrix.The prosecution did not produce this material evidence by which age of prosecutrix can be easily determined.This evidence was school certificate of the prosecutrix as she admitted during the cross examination that she studied upto class 5 th .Why prosecution did not file the school record with regard to birth date of the prosecutrix? is creating fatal doubt.So far as conviction of appellant under Section 376 of IPC is concerned, suffice it to say that it is well settled in law that no corroboration is needed and the evidence of prosecutrix alone is to be considered if it is found to be trustworthy.I have carefully gone through the evidence of the prosecutrix judging it on the ground of probability that whether above 18 years old prosecutrix was subjected to sexual exploitation against her will or she was consenting party?The prosecutrix was missing on 13.02.2006, missing report Ex.P-3 dated 15.02.2006 registered by H.C. Lalmani Verma (PW/11) on information of her father Kammod (PW/3).The prosecutrix was recovered on 20.02.2006, FIR Ex.P-7 was lodged by S.I., Niranjan Sharma (PW/7).7 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007Whether, learned trial Court appreciate these facts that during missing period i.e. 13.02.2006 to 20.02.2006 of 7 days what was behavior, conduct of above 18 years of aged prosecutrix?But, at this juncture her afterward behavior, conduct is important.During cross examination she admitted that in the morning she boarded the Bus but, she did not narrate about what happened with her in the night at fort to any passenger though, she admits that many passengers were present in the Bus.If she would not have been a consenting party, her natural conduct at this first instance would have been to inform any of the passengers of the Bus that she is being kidnapped, 8 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007 abducted and were subject to rape by the appellant.Non complaint of incident to easy available person is creating doubt.8 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007Prosecutrix also admitted that at Surkhi, they lived with the relative of appellant, which was his Bhabhi for 2- 3 days.If the prosecutrix would not have been a consenting party, her natural conduct would have been to complaint to the Bhabhi and other inhabitants of that house.During these 2-3 days, prosecutrix as well as appellant must have slept, gone outside from the house at least to attend the call of nature.On all these occasions at any such moment, the prosecutrix could have raised the cry, run away or escape but, no such attempt was made by her.This also suggest that the prosecutrix was with the appellant, with her own consent.As per version of prosecutrix from Surkhi, the appellant took her to village Chanatoriya where Lallu, brother of appellant meet them.If the prosecutrix really wanted to escape from the clutches of the appellant, she could have requested Lallu itself to rescue her, but she did not.Prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Vishnulata Uikey (PW/9) who did not find any injury mark on the person of the prosecutrix.She reported that no definite opinion can be given regarding rape on the prosecutrix.Therefore, it is clear that the medical evidence is also not supporting the version of the prosecutrix.Lady Doctor collected vaginal smear, packed and sealed and packet was handed over to the concerned police officer.H.C. 9 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007 Rakesh Kumar (PW/10) seized that packets as per seizure memo Ex.9 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007After medical examination of the appellant, his clothes were seized, packed and the packet was sent to the police station which was seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-5 by ASI Shri Prakash Tiwari (PW/6) in presence of Constable Sunil Kumar Tiwari (PW/8).As it has been held hereinabove, that the prosecution utterly failed to prove that the age of the prosecutrix was below 16 years on the date of the incident.She went with the appellant on her own accord and out of her own free will, therefore, she did not seek any help from passengers of the Bus in which she travelled from Gadhpera to Surkhi via Sagar or from the Bhabhi or the inhabitants of the house of Bhabhi at Surkhi where she was kept for 2-3 days, or from Lallu.During these 7 days she did not struggle or raised any alarm, therefore, irresistible conclusion would be that she got a willing party and her evidence to the contrary cannot be said to be reliable.From the conduct of the prosecutrix, it appears that she left the village of her sister willfully, went along with the appellant of her own accord and out of her own free will.There is also no proof of criminal intimidation or promise, persuasion, inducement or allurement from the appellant.If the entire factual scenario is tested on the anvil of the evidence of the prosecution and after considering the evidence in a proper perspective manner, it would reveal that no offence is made out against the appellant.Above 18 years aged prosecutrix not appearing to be witness of sterling quality on whose sole testimony conviction of appellant can be based.10 Cr.A. No.497 of 2007On the basis of aforesaid premised reasons, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant under Section 363, 366, 376 and 506 B of the IPC.In the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed, the conviction of the appellant is hereby set- aside.The appellant Golu Adiwasi is on bail, his bail bond stands discharged.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,437,101 |
The applicant is in custody since 10.06.2015 in connection with Crime No.227/15 registered at Police Station Gole Ka Mandir, district Gwalior (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 376, 506-B of IPC.It is alleged that the prosecutrix lodged a report on 9.6.2015 and it is alleged that 10 years back the applicant has committed sexual intercourse with her.Because of his threats she could not report the case.C.No.7266/2015 grant bail to the applicant.Accordingly, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.2 M.Cr.Applicant will not indulge in any similar offence during the course of Trial.If at all the applicant is found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
197,449,303 |
An application was filed by the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. contending inter alia that the respondent was married to the applicant on 23.06.2003 and two girl baby were born out of the wedlock.4 M.Cr.Immediately after the birth of the children the applicant started harassing the respondent for demand of Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle.In the month of October, 2007 when the applicant along with her children went to her matrimonial house then she was not allowed to stay in the house because the father of the respondent was not in a position to pay Rs. 50,000/- and a motorcycle as per the demand of 2 M.Cr.C. No. 7290 of 2012 the applicant.It was further alleged that a criminal case under Sections 498-A, 506-B of IPC is pending against the applicant and his parents.The applicant is getting the salary of Rs. 15,000/- per month and is earning Rs. 20,000/- per month from his agricultural fields and house situated at Kailaras.Accordingly the prayer for payment of maintenance @ Rs. 3,000/- and 1,000/- each for the two girl babies was made.2 M.Cr.C. No. 7290 of 2012The applicant although admitted the factum of marriage but denied the allegation that he had ever demanded any dowry or had maltreated the respondent.It was further denied that the applicant is working in Gujarat.It was further denied that the respondent was ever ousted from the house.It was alleged that the respondent is working as a laborer and is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month.As a false case for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 506-B of IPC was got registered, therefore, the court of JMFC Jaura has already returned the case for presentation of the same before the court of competent jurisdiction.It was alleged that since the respondent herself is earning Rs. 1,500/- per month and she is not residing with the applicant without any reasonable reason, therefore, she is not entitled for maintenance.It was further held by the trial court that as the 3 M.Cr.C. No. 7290 of 2012 respondent has not produced any documents to show that the applicant has any agricultural land or house in the village, therefore, it cannot be held that the applicant is having any income from his house or agricultural land.As regards the contention of the respondent that the applicant is working in Gujarat is concerned, although this fact was denied by the applicant in his reply to the application but it was apparent from the application filed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant, that he himself had admitted that he is working as work-helper in Vermanagar G.B. Plot, Gujarat.Therefore, it was held that the applicant is a major person and working on the post of work helper and thus he must be getting Rs. 6000/- to 7000/- per month by way of salary.The application was accordingly allowed and a sum of Rs. 1000/- was awarded to the respondent and a sum of Rs. 600-600/- each for the baby girls.3 M.Cr.C. No. 7290 of 2012It is the order of the revisional court which is under challenge before this Court.The applicant has not denied the factum of marriage.The applicant has also not denied that a police report for offence punishable under Section 498-A was lodged by the respondent.Thus, it is clear that the respondent is residing separately from the applicant because of some harassment and cruelty.Therefore, it is held that the respondent is residing separately from the applicant because of reasonable reasons.Even otherwise, the applicant has not pointed out that what is his monthly 4 M.Cr.C. No. 7290 of 2012 income.If he was aggrieved by the monthly income calculated by the trial court then he could have filed his salary slip to show that his income is much less than what has been assessed by the trial court.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,919,830 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is the repeat bail application of the applicant, whereas his previous bail application was dismissed on 16.2.2015 being withdrawn.The applicant has an apprehension of his arrest relating to crime No.1334/2013 registered at Police Station Waidhan, District Singrauli for offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 294, 307, 435, 440, 427/34 of IPC and 3/4 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.The alleged riot took place on the date of incident in the crowd of 300-400 pesons, who surrounded the police vehicle driven by Har Baksh and thereafter, they tried to burn the vehicle and assaulted the victim Har Baksh.The victim as well as police officers could not identify the actual culprit out of those 300-400 persons.The names of known persons were mentioned in the FIR.Though a named FIR has been lodged against some persons M.Cr.C.No.3589/2015 but, name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR.There is no allegation against the applicant that he assaulted the victim by any weapon.No common intention or object can be presumed with other persons of the crowd.No alleged offence is made out against the applicant either directly or with help of Sections 34 or 149 of IPC.Police is unnecessarily harassing the applicant.Under such circumstances, the applicant prays for bail of anticipatory nature.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposes the application.After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.This order shall remain in force for a period of 60 days and in the meanwhile, if the applicant so desires, may move an application for regular bail before the competent Court.Bail under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. is given for a limited period, so that the evidence received against the applicant during further investigation may be considered by the concerned Court, who shall consider his application under Section 437 or 439 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,920,273 |
Item No. 22And In the matter of: Satya Charan Pramanik & Ors.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal Md. Bani Israil For the Petitioners Mr. Mirza Firoj Ahmed Beg For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Tehatta Police Station Case No. 662 of 2014 dated 05.09.2014 under Sections 447/323/354/379/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that the Petitioners have been implicated in this case on false allegation due to previous civil dispute between the parties.We have heard the learned Counsel for the State and perused the materials available in the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Harish Tandon, J.) (R. K. Bag, J.)
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,923,642 |
Applicant Applicant Name Offences under Sections No.1 Nandu 389 in alternate 389/34 and 306 of IPC. 2 Bablu Banjara 389 in alternate 389/34 and 306, 392/34 and 506(II) of IPC.3 Smt. Heerabai 389 in alternate 389/34 and 306 of IPC.This revision petition preferred under Section 397/401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') is directed against order dated 21/07/2017 passed by District and Sessions Judge, Ratlam, District Ratlam in S.T. No.122/2017, whereby charges have been framed against the petitioners in the following manner:4 Smt. Leelabai 389 in alternate 389/34 and 306 of IPC.5 Shankarlal 389 in alternate 389/34 and 306, 392/34 and 506(II) of IPC.At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press the prayer for quashment of charge with regard to petitioner No.1-Nandu, petitioner No.2-Bablu Banjara and petitioner No.5-Shankarlal and would like to challenge the impugned order only in respect of petitioner No.3-Heerabai and Cr.R. No.1006/2017 2 petitioner No.4-Leelabai against whom charges for offences under Sections 389 in alternate 389/34, 306, 392/34 and 506(II) of IPC have been framed.Cr.R. No.1006/2017 2Accordingly this petition, to the extent it relates to petitioner No.1-Nandu, petitioner No.2-Bablu Banjara and petitioner No.5-Shankarlal, is dismissed as not pressed.As per prosecution, petitioner No.1-Nandu owed Rs.5,000/- to deceased Ajay Ojha.Further allegation is that petitioner No.1-Nandu telephoned deceased-Ajay Ojha that he intends to repay Rs.5,000/- to him and that he may come near agricultural land situated between Rawdiya and Omardana.Allegedly, deceased-Ajay Ojha went there and found four persons namely, Shyamlal Tomar, Monu Banjara, Babloo Banjara and Shankarlal present over there.Further allegation is that a woman was also present there and these persons threatened him to implicate him in a false case with regard to the lady unless he pays Rs. 5.00lakhs to them.As per prosecution, under the pressure exerted by these persons, deceased-Ajay Kumar Ojha agreed to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs to them.Thereafter, four days after this incident, the accused persons again called the deceased on telephone and demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs from him and also forced him to give a cheque for Rs.4.50lakhs.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the dying declaration of the deceased, there is reference with regard to one lady, however, there is no Cr.R. No.1006/2017 3 specific reference with regard to petitioner No.3 Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai.It is further submitted that though two disclosure statements, said to have been made by petitioner No.3-Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai are there on record, however, no discovery, as such, has been made on the basis of these disclosure statements, therefore, the same cannot be treated as legal evidence against the petitioner.The contention is that in view of the fact that there is no legal evidence against petitioner No.3- Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai, they deserve to be discharged for the charges framed against them, however, learned trial Court, without considering the aforesaid factual and legal aspects, has framed charges against the petitioner No.3 and 4, therefore the impugned order, to the extent it relates to framing of charges against petitioner No.3- Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai, deserves to be set aside and the charges framed against them deserve to be quashed.Cr.R. No.1006/2017 3The learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that the only material against petitioner No.3- Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai is the disclosure statements, said to have been made by them during interrogation.Cr.R. No.1006/2017 4The learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the aforesaid legal and factual position, therefore the charges framed against petitioner No.3-Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai being not sustainable are liable to be quashed.Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed and the impugned order, to the extent it relates to framing of charges against petitioner No.3-Heerabai and petitioner No.4-Leelabai, is hereby set aside and the charges framed against the petitioner No.3-Heerabai and petitioner NO.4- Leelabai for offences under Sections 389 in alternate 389/34, 306, 392/34 and 506(II) of IPC are hereby quashed.Certified copy as per rules.(Ved Prakash Sharma) Judge sumathi
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,009,272 |
Piara Singh and the deceased used to reside in a Dera in their fields, where they had installed a tubewell.Accused Karnail Singh and Nirmal Singh belong to their village.They also used to reside in a Dera close to the Dera of Piara Singh and deceased.As deceased was having illicit relationship with Sito, wife of accused Karnail Singh, there was enmity between the accused persons and the deceased.On 26.1.92 in the night Piara Singh and deceased were taking rest at the Dera after taking meals.Their brother Swaran Singh also came there in order to irrigate his fields by using their tubewell.At about 11.00 p.m., Swaran Singh asked deceased to have a round and to check up if the fields were properly irrigated.J U D G M E N TARIJIT PASAYAT, J.State of Punjab is in appeal questioning the legality of judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court directing acquittal of the respondents Karnail Singh and Nirmal Singh.Learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, had found both the accused persons to be guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').Life sentence was imposed on each, with fine of Rs.1,000/-.Additionally, accused Karnail Singh was convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC while accused Nirmal Singh was convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 IPC.Each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each.During pendency of appeal before this Court, accused-appellant Nirmal Singh expired.Since no application in terms of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Cr.P.C.') has been filed, the appeal abates so far he is concerned.In a nutshell the prosecution version is as follows:Gurdial Singh @ Kala (hereinafter referred as 'the deceased') had five brothers, namely, Piara Singh, Swaran Singh, Charan Singh, Dev Singh and Kewal Singh.Deceased went out to check up the fields.After some time, Piara Singh and Swaran Singh (PWs. 1 and 2 respectively) heard the cry for help made by the deceased.Immediately they went out and saw both accused persons armed with weapons dragging the deceased towards their Dera.At that time there was an electric bulb lighting their Dera.When they tried to help the deceased, Nirmal Singh fired at the deceased with his gun, as a result of which he fell down on the ground while accused Karnail Singh was assaulting the deceased with the Kirpan.When Piara Singh (PW1) raised alarm pleading that the deceased should not be assaulted, the accused persons threatened them.Being frightened they ran away to their village.On the following morning, they told about the incident to Gurdip Singh, Sarpanch.They went to the place of occurrence, and found the headless body of the deceased with injury on the right side of the chest lying in the field near the Dera of accused Karnail Singh.They searched for the head of the deceased and found the same lying in the tubewell at the Dera of accused Karnal Singh.Piara Singh left Swaran Singh (PW 2) and Kewal Singh to guard the dead body and lodged the information at the police station.Investigation was undertaken and on completion charge sheet was placed.Accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication.Learned Trial Judge found the prosecution version to be credible and placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 convicted the accused persons and sentenced them as above stated.The judgment of conviction and sentence was assailed before the High Court.Main challenge before the High Court was that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and dispatch of the same to the concerned Magistrate.It was also submitted that the conduct of the witnesses who were brothers of the deceased was unusual and instead of coming to his rescue they claimed to have fled away.The five brothers of the deceased did not take any step in the night and remained content.They informed the Sarpanch on the next day, and though they claimed to have told the Lambardar in the night itself, there was no evidence adduced during trial to that effect.Accepting the contentions of the accused the High Court directed acquittal as aforenoted.The High Court also noted that the presence of PWs 1 and 2 was extremely doubtful and a false case after due deliberation was cooked up and FIR was prepared at about 2.00 p.m. and that being the position, the accused persons were entitled to acquittal.In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the time of occurrence was around 11.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged next day around 9.35 a.m. First the information was given at the police chowk around 8.00 a.m., and the FIR was registered at the Police Station at about 9.35 a.m. The FIR reached the Magistrate around 3.00 p.m. Undisputedly the police chowk was at a distance of 3 kilometers from the place of occurrence, while the police station was at a distance of 7 kilometers, and the distance of the court from the police station was 10 kilometers.Considering the distance there was no reason to discard the prosecution version.Further the conclusion of the High Court that there was unusual conduct in not informing the police or co-villagers at the night does not appear to be correct.Factual position as noted by the Trial Court is that that area was a terrorist infected area and terrorism was at its peak during the period.The post-mortem was conducted at 3.15 p.m. There was no explanation as to how the dead body was found in the field of the accused Karnail Singh and the severed head was found near his tubewell.Acting on mere surmises, credible prosecution evidence has been discarded.Per contra, learned counsel for the accused Karnail Singh submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish its accusations, and the High Court has noted the infirmities in details and no interference is called for considering the limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal.The PWs 1 and 2 are close relatives of the deceased and, therefore, their evidence should not have been acted upon.Their evidence is also not consistent with regard to motive for the crime.There is no embargo on the appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based.Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal.The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.It proceeded on an erroneous impression that the FIR was lodged at 2.00 p.m. after deliberations and discussions.No material has been indicted for coming to this conclusion.Accused Karnail Singh is directed to surrender to custody to serve the balance of the imprisonment as ordered by the Trial Court.The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,928,489 |
This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant Zamaludeen, who is involved in Case Crime No.308 of 2014, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 328, 379 and 3/4 PASCO Act, 2012 I.P.C., Police Station Jalalpur District Ambedkar Nagar.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel.Order Date :- 23.6.2014 Shahnaz
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,933,508 |
Charge-sheet has of been filed and conclusion of trial will take long time.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicants prays ou for grant of bail to the applicants.C Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application.Certified copy as per rules.(H.P. SINGH) JUDGE GT Digitally signed by sh GAUTAM TECKCHANDANI Date: 2018.02.15 17:21:06 e +05'30' ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,940,944 |
The allegation made in the FIR is that Sh.Dharamvir Khattar entered into a criminal conspiracy with S/Sh.The following construction upto second floor was falsely proposed Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 2 as neither the construction nor the use of the allotted land/plot was done as per the aforesaid declarations:-Managers Room, one Store, one Kitchen, one Sitting Room, 7 toilets, lift and staircase.3) Mezzanine floor having 4 store rooms and staircase.4) First floor having one library room, one dispensary, one reading room, one Doctors/waiting room, one yoga room each for ladies and gents, 4 bathrooms, 3 toilets and one store.5) The second floor having one prayer hall, 3 store rooms, one meditation room each for ladies and gents, 2 toilets, one pantry and one lift.Investigation has revealed that the construction was got carried out by Sh.Dharamvir Khattar in blatant violation of the aforesaid approved plan.On 08.07.1988 Sh.Dharamvir Khattar applied to DDA for issue of completion certificate.The inspection of the premises was referred/ marked to Sh.K.M. Johri, JE, Building Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi as Prasad Nagar area was under his jurisdiction.As JE (Building), he was required to inspect and correctly submit a report about the site regarding unauthorised construction on the land allotted by the DDA.However, Sh.K.M. Johri entered into criminal conspiracy with Sh.Dharamvir Khattar and in pursuance thereof inspected the premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti and submitted dishonestely a false NOC report on 16.08.1988 to the effect that the building had been constructed upto second floor only i.e. as per sanctioned building plan.The inspection of the said building was not allowed and as observed from outside Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 3 a basement, ground floor and 4 floors were existing at that time.Investigation further revealed that in violation of sanctioned building plan, Sh.Dharamvir Khattar constructed the said building upto 4th floor including basement and store and a toilet on terrace floor.The set back were also covered unauthorisedly.Even in the year 1997, the misuse of the premises and unauthorised construction continued unhindered due to complicity of Sh.Dharamvir Khattar with Sh.M.K. Sharma, JE as revealed during investigation.It transpired that as required, on reference of DDA vigilance, Sh.M.K. Sharma being JE, Institutional Land (having jurisdiction over Prasad Nagar area), DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi gave dishonestly false report on 01.05.1997 that there was no misuse of the said premises and again on 09.06.1998 on another reference from DDA, Vigilance said M.K. Sharma was required to inspect and correctly submit a report about the alleged misuse of the aforesaid land allotted by DDA in Prasad Nagar area as he was posed as JE, Institutional Land Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.However, Sh.and the said building was to be constructed upto second floor only as per the sanctioned building plan.During investigation, searches were conducted at the office of Bhairon Mandir Samiti, Plot No. 1, Prasad Nagar Institutional Area, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi in March, 2003 in connection with another case i.e. RC AC-3/2003-A-0002 against Sh.Dharamvir Khattar and during searches one bill book for the period 01.04.2002 to 26.02.2003 and photocopy of current visitor book was seized which revealed the booking details by travel agency.During 2002-03, a travel agency by name and style "Supreme Universal International", Bangalore and "M/s City Heart Travel, Old Golf Compound, Delhi were arranging accommodation for tourists at the premises which was known as BMS (Bharion Mandir Samiti) Hotel.M/s. Supreme Universal International, Bangalore had Crl.According to him, investigation disclosed that on 17.1.1986 an area of 600 sq. mtr. was allotted by DDA to Bhairon Mandir Samiti for religious purposes through Sh.Dharamvir Khattar near Kalinki College, East Patel Nagar, Institutional Area, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi.He stated that as per the building plan for the said plot, the basement was for storage purpose, ground floor was for Account Room, Managers Room, one store, one kitchen, one sitting room, seven toilets, lifts and staircase; first floor was for library room, one dispensary, one reading room, one doctors/waiting room, one yoga room each for ladies and gents, four bathrooms, three toilets and one store room and the second floor was for one prayer hall, three store rooms, one meditation room each for ladies and gents, two toilets, one pantry and one lift.According to Mr. Kumar, Sh.Dharamvir Khattar got the plan sanctioned for construction of building having two floors, however, in violation of this sanctioned plan he constructed a building having basement, ground floor plus four floors.After construction of the building Dharamvir Khattar applied to DDA on 8.7.88 for issue of completion certificate.He stated that Sh.Dharamvir Khattar had straightaway raised a building having five floors in 1988-89 and was running one Hotel Atithi as established during the investigation.According to him, Dharamvir Khattar got institutional land allotted only for religious purpose, however, his intention was to use this land for constructing a hotel, which he did after the allotment of land.Therefore, according to him, Dharamvir Khatar committed offence U/s 420 IPC.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 20He further stated that the inspection of the premises was done by Shri K.M. Johri, JE, Building Branch, DDA, Vikas Sadan.He further alleged that Shri K.M. Johri had furnished a false NOC Report on 16.8.88 in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy with Sh.Dharamvir Khattar, stating that the above building had been constructed upto second floor only i.e. as per sanctioned building plan which was contrary to the facts as instead of two floors Shri Dharamvir Khattar had constructed basement, ground floor plus four more floors on the said land.According to him, investigation had further revealed that on reference by DDA, Vigilance, another inspection was conducted by Sh.M.K. Sharma, JE, DDA (Institutional Land Branch).However, on 11.6.98, the CVO(DDA) inspected the premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti and found that in fact a hotel having 35 rooms with facility of AC, TV was being run by Sh.Dharamvir Khattar at the said site.Mr. Kumar referred to the order framing Charges and handed over a chart indicating different Sections under which the petitioners have been charged and the basis for leveling of charges against the petitioners.The said chart is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-Bhairon Mandir Section 13(2) and purpose and unauthorized Samiti Section 13(1)(d) of construction and non-Manish Garg, Deputy Director, WITNESS Institution Land Branch, DDA proved that the plot above was allotted for religious purposes and premises.All the rooms are very well furnished containing TV, ACs etc. and there was no sign of any religious activity going on in that building.PROSECUTION D-19 is perpetual lease deed dated 17.01.86 DOCUMENTS showing allotment of plot in question to BMS through Dharamvir s/o late Hari Chand on lease basis for religious purposes.GIST OF ALLEGATION Obtaining sanction of the building plan in the form of proposed sanction building plan, which contained false declarations/ dimensions of the building.PROSECUTION PW Tapan Mandal, Joint Director (Building) WITNESS sanction building plan on Bharion Mandir Samiti of proposed under the signature of Sh.There was an inducement to DDA to allot the institution land year marked for religious purpose on which a Hotel was to be run.GIST OF ALLEGATION Using the plot and constructed premises for Hotel for commercial purposes instead of religious purposes.PROSECUTION PW-2 S. Tangraj, Lecturer, Bishop Cotton WITNESS Women Christian College proved that in the year 2002 he along with his students stayed in the Bhairon Mandir Samiti Hotel as tourists as part of the adventure club and made relevant entries in the register maintained therein.PW-12 Sh.Hari Kishan, Assistant Divisional Officer, Delhi, Fire Service proved that in March, 1992 on a reference from DCP Licensing the above premises was inspected and it was found that it contained four floors and each floor containing eight guest rooms Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 25 and terrace floor having kitchen, lift room etc. He also proved that the premises was being used as a Hotel.PW-13 Rajender Prasad, Head Constable, DCP Licensing proved that Sh.D-23 is application dated 17.11.1999 signed by Dharamvir Khattar showing construction upto 4th floor and each floor containing eight rooms.D-25 is the brochure of BMS showing unauthorized construction and luxurious structure.D-26 is the letter dated 11.12.2003 of Accounts Officer of DDA addressed to SP CBI showing non-payment of ground rent in respect of BMS.D-27 is the pending ground rent including interest.D-28 dated 14.06.2003 is the video graphy memo showing that basement in BMS was used for marriage function and consisted of 4 floor and each containing 8 rooms and also that all the rooms are furnished in fantastic manner with double bed CTV and AC (which have already been removed).The construction of the building was not constructed in parts and the same was constructed in one time and started to be used as Hotel since then.He also proved that about 15 years back he attended the marriage function of his friend in the basement of the said building and that no religious activities were ever noticed by him in the premises.MANMOHAN, JThe present three criminal revision petitions have been filed under Sections 397,401 and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) seeking quashing of the order framing Charges dated 23rd September, 2006 passed by Mr. G.P. Mittal, learned Special Judge, CBI, Delhi.Since the impugned order is common to all the three revision petitions which arise out of one charge sheet, all the three petitions are being disposed of by a common order.The details of the Charges mentioned in the Charge Sheet filed by the respondent is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-"This case was registered on the basis of source information.S.K. Mittal and P.L. Garg, both JEs of DDA and other unknown DDA officials and in furtherance of the said conspiracy attempted to cheat and cause pecuniary loss to Gov. exchequer by using the premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti and Hari Chand Prakash Wanti Trust as hotel as against the agreed religious purposes and the said DDA officials facilitated the same.Investigation has revealed that on 17.01.1986, an area of 600 sq. meters was allotted to Bhairon Mandir Samiti for religious purposes, through Sh.Dharamvir Khattar at Plot No. 1 near Kalindi College, East Patel Nagar Institutional Area, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi.The said allotment for religious purposes was apparently made on the basis of false declarations by Sh.Dharamvir Khattar and even the building plan was got sanctioned on the basis of false declarations in the form of proposed building plan.Investigation revealed that during the relevant period the said building was unauthorizedly constructed upto 4th floor on Plot No. 1, Prasad Nagar and thus Sh.K.M. Johri dishonestly allowed Sh.Dharamvir Khattar to utilize the unauthorised construction in the premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti, unhindered.On the basis of said false inspection report, the completion/ occupancy certificate was issued by DDA.It has also came to light during investigation that from 1989 onwards, Sh.Dharamvir Khattar started misusing the aforesaid unauthorisedly constructed premises as a restaurant named Atithi.Investigation has revealed that during 1992- April, 1993 Delhi Fire Service and MCD during their inspection found that the aforesaid building was named as "Atithi Guest House" and not "Bhairon Mandir Samiti".The Delhi Fire Service also found that the premises consisted of 4 floors with 8 Guest Rooms all very well furnished.A restaurant, reception office, Kitchen was also situated in the ground floor.The premises was named as "Atithi Guest House" and not "Bhairon Mandir Samiti".Investigation has also revealed that Sh.S. Phogat, JE also inspected the site on 17.08.1993 and reported that a hotel in the name of Basera was running on Plot No. 1, Prasad Nagar, New Delhi allotted to Bhairon Mandir Samiti.M.K. Sharma dishonestly suggested in his inspection reports that the said premises was not being misused.However, on 11.06.1998, the CVO, DDA alongwith other officials of DDA inspected the premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti and found that in fact a Hotel having 35 rooms with facility of AC, TV was being run by Sh.Dharamvir Khattar at the above site/ building.It has also found during investigation that in the year 1999 Sh.Dharamvir Khattar applied in the office of DCP(Lic) for grant of license under Entertainment Regulation Act, under the grab of "Atithi Dharmshala".In that application he admitted in his own hand that 8 guests rooms exists on Ist, second and third floor and total floor area utilized for the guest house was 934.50 sq. mtrs.Whereas the approved area was 599.181 sq. mtrs.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 4 issued a bank draft in favour of BMS Hotel towards the payment of stay of tourists arranged by them and the said demand draft was deposited in the A/c No. 7264 at Canara Bank, Pahar Ganj standing in the name of Sh.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 19Mr. Ashiesh Kumar, learned standing counsel appearing for respondent Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI) stated that the Case No. RC 39(A)/03-DLI was registered on 11.7.03 on the basis of source information.Shri M.K.Sharma also submitted false report on 1.5.97 in pursuance to a criminal conspiracy with Dharamvir Khattar stating that there was no misuse of the said premises.Thereafter on receipt of another reference from DDA, Vigilance, Shri M.K.Sadan, New Delhi 13(2) and 13(1)(d) BMS being up to 2nd floor of PC Act, 1988 but the premises was upto 4th floor.Mr. Kumar also referred to an evidentiary chart giving the gist of allegation, the witnesses and the documents relied upon for leveling such Charges by the CBI.The evidentiary chart filed by the CBI counsel against the three petitioners is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-EVIDENTIARY CHART IN CASE OF SH.DHARAMVIR KHATTAR GIST OF Obtaining allotment of plot no. 1, Prasad Nagar, ALLEGATION Rajender Nagar, New Delhi on 17.01.96 having an area of 600 sq. mtr.for religious purposes in the name of Bhairon Mandir Samiti on false declaration.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 22 PROSECUTION PW-9 Sh.The construction of the building was not constructed in parts and the same was constructed in one time and started to be used as Hotel since then.He also proved that about 15 years back he attended the marriage function of his friend in the basement of the said building and that no religious activities were ever noticed by him in the premises.PW-1 K.K.Gupta, R/o Prasad Nagar and a retired Air Force Officer proved that he conducted marriage of his daughter in the basement of the said premises and also that Hotel was in existence since 1980s or early 1990s.PW-14 Sh.R.S. Yadav proved that on the asking of Dharamvir Khattar he prepared a site plan as per the actual structure about four storey of the said premises, he also proved that during physical inspection in 1991 by him he found that the premises was a Hotel with a restaurant running at ground floor.Dharamvir Khattar and his Architect and the same was sanctioned on 11.03.86 for construction upto second floor.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 23 PW-16 Sh.PROSECUTION D-20 dated 25.08.88 is the occupancy DOCUMENTS certificate issued by Sh.Avdesh Kumar regarding construction upto 2nd floor.D-22 dated 16.8.88 is the NOC report of K.M.Johri regarding construction upto 2nd floor only.CONCLUSION Statement of the above witness coupled with the fact straight away a five storied building with different dimensions which could be used as a Hotel was constructed instead of a different set up as was mentioned in the building sanction plan clearly established accused Dharamvir Khattar had an intention to run a Hotel instead of using the building for religious activity.The accused Dharamvir Khattar got allotted an institutional land for religious purpose with an intention to use it for Hotel and thus, he has committed the offence of cheating U/s 420 IPC.PW-5 Sayyad Abdul Azim, Proprietor, Supreme Universe International, Bangalore, proved that he had several time arranged stay of tourists in Hotel Bhairon Mandir Samiti and even to Hotel Hari Prakash.He also stated that co-accused H.C.Sharma, Manager of the Hotel boosted of his close relations with Dharamvir Khattar and Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 24 Devraj Khattar.PW-6 Sh.Brijender Rai, Chief Vigilance Officer of DDA proved that in June 1988 he acted on an information that Dharamvir Khattar using the above premises as Hotel instead of religious purposes for which the land allotted by DDA to Khattar and also that unauthorized construction took place on the plot.Firstly, he personally verified the information and found it to be true and on a specific query the staff of the Hotel assured him he would get anything in the Hotel food, whisky and women for a price.He also observed unauthorized construction in the premises.PW-7 Sh.P.S. Utarvar, Deputy Director, DDA, Vikas Sadan proved that in August 1993, the unauthorized construction and use of the premises as Hotel was detected by Sh.S.Phogat, JE and Sh.Ripin Prakash, AE.PW-8 Sh.Sukhbir Phogat, JE proved that on inspection he found the premises having unauthorized construction containing basement, ground floor, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor and a Hotel was running in the premises namely Basera.PW-10 R.P. Gola, Zonal Inspector, Special Cell, MCD, Karol Bagh that in March 1992 MCD found that the above property consisted of basement, first floor, second floor, third floor and fourth floor and there was Hotel Athithi being run in it.He also stated that on 13.03.96 President Bhairon Mandir Samiti wrote to MCD that the premises was not open to public which was complete lie as in 1998 itself it was found that it was used as Hotel.Since, the Assistant of the Hotel had been confirmed the ratable value of the premises was fixed as applicable on commercial premises at Rs.Even in October, 2001 it was found by the MCD that there was one small room which was being used as Mandir and that the premises had a five star building and owner was running as a Hotel.Dharamvir Khattar vide his application dated 17.11.99 in the office of DCP Licensing admitted that the said premises was construced upto the fourth floor, each floor consisted of eight rooms.No license was granted to Bhairon Mandir Samiti for running a Guest House/Dharamshala.PW-15 Sh.Akhilesh Kumar Barnawal, Addl.Commissioner (Admn.) Meerut Division, Meerut.PW-16 Sh.PW-17 Sh.Amar Chatterjee, Deputy Director, IL, DDA proved that accused M.K. Sharma, JE in his report suggested that there was neither unauthorized construction nor any misuse of premises as Hotel (BMS) and that DDA Vigilance on 11.06.1998 found that premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti was being used as Hotel and unauthorized as Hotel and the construction therein was unauthroised.He also proved report submitted by M.K. Sharma was false which allows Dharamvir Khattar to utilise unauthorized construction.PW-18 Sh.J.B. Sharma, Photographer, DDA proved that he took photograph of Bhairon Mandir Samiti on 5.11.93 along with Sh.Phogat, JE and found that the said premises was being used as a Hotel and the building was palatial and luxurious and that he did not see religious working.PROSECUTION D-14 is the rough sketch showing DOCUMENTS unauthorized construction at D-15 is the report of S. Phogat regarding pasting of show cause notice.D-19 is perpetual lease deed dated 17.01.1986 showing allotment of plot in question to BMS Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 26 through Dharamvir S/o late Hari Chand on lease basis for religious purposes.D-32 dated 08.08.2001 is the inspection report of Delhi Fire Service.CONCLUSION The above evidences clearly established that after taking control of land from the DDA with dishonest intention and in furtherance of conspiracy, accused Dharamvir Khattar not only continued to use the premises for Hotel against declared religious purposes but also did not pay the ground rend and put the DDA to a wrongful loss of Rs. 2,67,810/-.EVIDENTIARY CHART IN CASE OF SH.PW-1 K.K. Gupta R/o Prasad Nagar and a retired Air Force Officer proved that he conducted marriage of his daughter in the basement of the said premises and also that Hotel was in existence since 1980s or early 1990s.PROSECUTION D-22 is the NOC report shows construction of two store DOCUMENTS rooms, 6 rooms, 1 kitchen, 7 toilets, 1 lift, and one stair case on the first floor, one hall, two rooms, 2 stores, 1 pantry, 2 toilets, 1 lift and 1 stair case on the second floor and a mezzanine floor consisting of just 4 rooms and a stair case.CONCLUSION The above evidences clearly established the criminal misconduct on the part of Sh.K.M. Johri as he has prepared the false inspection report so that unauthorized construction may not come to the notice of the DDA and the building could be illegally used by accused Sh.Dharamvir Khattar and in this way accommodated the third party i.e. accused Dharamvir Khattar causing loss to the Government.EVIDENTIARY CHART IN CASE OF SH.M.K. SHARMA GIST OF ALLEGATION Accused M.K. Sharma prepared false inspection reports so that the unauthorized construction and misuse of premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti continues in connivance with accused Dharamvir Khattar.PROSECUTION PW-6 Sh.Brijender Rai, Chief Vigilance Officer of WITNESS DDA proved that in June 1988 he acted on an information that Dharamvir Khattar using the above premises as Hotel instead of religious purposes for which the land allotted by DDA to Khattar and also Crl.R.P. Nos. 930/2006, 6/2007, 891/2006 Page 28 that unauthorized construction took place on the plot.Firstly, he personally verified the information and found it to be true and on a specific query the staff on the Hotel assured him he would get anything in the Hotel food, whisky and women for a price.PW-17 Sh.Amar Chatterjee, Deputy Director, IL, DDA proved that accused M.K. Sharma, JE in his report suggested that there was neither authorized construction nor any misuse of premises as Hotel (BMS) and that DDA Vigilance on 11.06.1998 found that premises of Bhairon Mandir Samiti was being used as Hotel and unauthorized as Hotel and the construction therein was unauthorized.He also proved report submitted by M.K. Sharma was false which allows Dharamvir Khattar to utilize unauthorized construction.D-25 is the brochure of BMS showing unauthorized construction and luxurious structure.D-28 dated 14.06.2003 is the video graphy memo showing that basement in BMS was used for marriage function and consisted of 4 floors and each containing 8 rooms and also that all the rooms are furnished in fantastic manner with double bed CTV and AC (which have already been removed).In his report dated 09.06.1998 accused M.K. Sharma made an invention of occupancy certificate, rather he enclosed a copy of occupancy certificate which was sufficient to show that as per occupancy certificate there was construction of basement, ground floor, first floor had mezzanine floor as against this there was actual construction of basement, ground floor, second, third, fourth floor.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,941,311 |
This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicant has been arrested on 10.6.2015 in connection with Crime No.118/2015 registered at Police Station Teonda, District Vidisha for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (D), 506 of IPC.It is alleged that the prosecutrix has lodged a report that whenever she was alone at her home, the accused use to visit at her home and by threatening her he committed sexual intercourse with her several times, due to which she conceived.The applicant also got her aborted.In her statement recorded under Section 164 (5) of Cr.P.C, the prosecutrix said that if the applicant marry with her, she will ready to live with him.On behalf of the applicant, it is stated that the prosecutrix is not a minor.There has been relationship between them.Therefore, applicant be given the benefit of ( 2) M.Cr.C No. 5784/2015 regular bail.On behalf of the State, application is opposed.. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant:-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;( 3) M.Cr.C No. 5784/2015
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,942,938 |
RANI MUKHERJEE VS.STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND MRS.APARNA CHANDRA For the Opposite Party No. 2. : Mr. Ayan Bhattacharya.23.3.2009 passed by this Court, I have heard the argument advanced by the learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party No. 2 herein and gone through the materials on record.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 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.
|
100,944,064 |
Arguments heard.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail.The present applicant was arrested by the Police Station-Sardarpur, district Dhar in Crime No.531/2016 under Sections 450,376(1),506-B of IPC.According to the prosecution story the prosecutrix who was 24 years of age was alone in her house and her husband went out to relatives place.It is stated that during the night, the present applicant entered into the house of the prosecutrix and committed rape on her.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no injury mark on the body of the prosecutrix.The present applicant infact was falsely implicated.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
|
['Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,009,461 |
(3) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Public Witness 4 Lalla and his maternal uncle Maruf Public Witness 5 were working in a factory at New Seelampur at the relevant time.Ujjair, since deceased, was Maruf's brother's wife's brother.He had come from his village for sight seeing to Delhi on April 4, 1984 and he stayed with Public Witness 5 Maruf.On April 6, 1984, all of them at about 6.45 P.M. had boarded a bus of Route No.241 from Seelampur Bus Stand and Ujjair and Lalla had taken their seats on a berth in that bus whereas Maruf sat immediately on the back seat.The bus had reached Welcome bus stand where certain passengers boarded the bus.Out of them three were stated to be young boys of medium height and medium built who stood near the said berth where Ujjair and Lalla were sitting.One of the said boys required Ujjair to vacate the seat so that he could sit therein.But Lalla and Ujjair did not respond and the second boy remarked as to whether they had not heard the direction of the other boy that Ujjair should vacate the seat whereupon Ujjair retorted that he would not vacate the seat.The third boy then raised his voice and proclaimed that they would get the seat vacated then and there and he instigated his companion by uttering the words 'Is sale ko bata do'.On this the second boy whipped out a dagger from the right dub of his belt and stuck a blow on the left side chest of Ujjair as a result of which Ujjair started bleeding.An alarm was raised.Lalla and Ujjair gave support to Ujjair and required the driver to stop the bus but the moment the bus slowed down, the three assailants jumped from the running bus and made their escape.The bus stopped at Shahdara Chowk.Lalla and Maruf removed Ujjair in a rickshaw to a hospital where the doctor declared Ujjair as brought dead.(4) From the hospital an information was given to Police Station Shahdara which was recorded at Daily Diary No.75A at about 8.45 P.M, copy of which is Public Witness 20/A mentioning that Ujjair having knife injuries had been got admitted in the hospital by his relatives and he had died.He found one incised stab wound spindle shaped 2.5cm x 1cm.x ? placed horizontally on the left side front of the chest at the level of nipples 4cm medial of the left nipple.Margins were regular and both ends were equally tapering.The injury further continued on the left ventricle through and through its interior wall, chamber and posterior wall.The cut on the posterior wall of the ventricle was 3 mm.long and posterior wall of the pericardium showed a small nick.The total depth of this injury was 10 cm.from the body surface.JUDGMENT P.K. Bahri, J.(1) Appellant, Virender Kumar @ Bittoo S/o Sh.Hari Shanker r/o Village Maujpur has been convicted of an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated April 20, 1989 of an Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years.(2) He has filed this appeal challenging his conviction and the sentence.As a matter of fact, along with the appellant, Joginder Singh, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh were also tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code While Joginder Singh has been acquitted, Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each.Jaswant Singh and Ramesh Singh have not, it appears, filed any appeal against their conviction and sentences.S.I.Om Prakash along with Constable Ram Kishan proceeded to the hospital and after obtaining the M.L.C, Ex.PW11/A recorded the statement of Public Witness 4 Lalla, Ex.PW4/C and had sent the same vide his endorsement, Ex.PW10/B through Constable Ram Kishan on the basis of which the F.I.R. was registered, copy of which is Ex.PW10/C.(5) The post-mortem on the dead body of Ujjair was performed by Dr.The said injury on internal examination was found to communicate with the left chest cavity through fourth inter coastal space and after cutting the interior margin of the left lung upper lobe, the injury continued on the pericardium of the heart.The cut on the pericardium was 2 cm.The doctor had opined vide his report Ex.PW18/A that the injury was ante mortem and was caused by sharp edged weapon which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The death was due to haemorrhage and shock resulting from the said injury.(6) PW20 S.I.Om Prakash Kaushik had investigated the case.He had seized the bus in question i.e. Dhp 2858 vide Seizure Memo Ex.The conductor of the bus Khem Singh had handed a bag containing certain papers but we need not refer to the said evidence because the same has not been linked with the appellant.As long as the investigation remained with him up to 23rd April 1984, he could not trace out the culprits.On the basis of some secret information, on the same day, he is stated to have arrested accused Virender, appellant, and accused Jaswant.On the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant, it was discovered that the weapon of offence had been given to Jaswant and Jaswant had got recovered this dagger, Ex.P2 from near Ganda Nallah which stood buried under the earth and which was converted into a sealed parcel vide memo Ex.Accused Ramesh was also arrested on the same day from his house.(8) The case property was sent to C.F.S.L. and C.F.S.L. reports were received but they are of no help to the prosecution as no blood was detected on the dagger and also on the clothes of the appellant.The accused were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on 5th May 1984 in muffled faces along with application Ex.PW22/A and Magistrate Public Witness 19 had made an order on the same day fixing 11th May 1984 as the date for holding Test Identification Parade and he had directed the accused to keep themselves in muffled faces.On 11th May 1984 at the time of holding of test identification parade, all the accused declined to participate in the test identification parade stating that they have been shown to the witnesses earlier and even their photographs had been shown.The Magistrate had recorded the proceedings, Ex.PW19/B to Public Witness 19/G in that connection and had administered due warning to the accused including the appellant that their refusal to participate in the test identification parade can be used against them during the trial.Thereafter the supplementary statements of the eye witnesses were recorded who identified the said accused as the said culprits.(9) There was no fourth culprit mentioned in the F.I.R. but in supplementary statements, it came out that Joginder Singh was also present in that bus and had exhorted the assailants to escape from the spot and one piece of his shirt in grappling came into possession of Maruf.We need not refer in detail the evidence which appeared against the accused Joginder Singh and other two accused.We will be confining our judgment only to the question whether offence had been brought home to the appellant in the present case or not beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.(10) The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5, who are the relations of the deceased, have not explained as to how they came to identify the appellant as one of the culprits.In the present case, what we find is that no question has been put to Public Witness 4 Lalla and Public Witness 5 Maruf in order to elicit the facts as to how they identified the appellant as the person who actually stabbed Ujjair.The facts that the occurrence had taken place in the manner stated by these two witnesses are not disputed.Obviously, when Lalla had made the statement to the police, which is the basis of the F.I.R, the names of the culprits were not known and he had narrated the incident in the manner it occurred and there is no reason to doubt the statements of Public Witness 4 and Public Witness 5 that the occurrence had taken place in the manner stated by them which stands duly corroborated from the contents of the F.I.R. The fact that Ujjair had met homicidal death in the manner stated by these two witnesses duly corroborated from the post mortem report is also not under challenge and stands proved beyond any shadow of reasonable doubt.(11) PW4 Lalla had categorically stated in Court that it was Virender, appellant, who had taken out the dagger from dub of his pant and stuck the vital blow on the chest of Ujjair.Nothing substantial was brought out from the cross-examination that this witness Lalla had any reason to falsely implicate the appellant.The fact that they were produced in muffled faces before the Magistrate indeed was not even disputed by the accused while cross-examining the Magistrate in that connection.The Magistrate had given directions in writing that the accused including the appellant should keep themselves in muffled faces.There was no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter.The statement of Public Witness 19 Sh.P.C.Ranga, Metropolitan Magistrate, remained unchallenged.So, it is not possible to countenance the plea that appellant or any other accused had been shown to the witness Lalla at any time prior to the fixation of the date for holding test identification parade.(13) In cross-examination of Lalla, it was brought out that he had been called to Police Station for the Test Identification Parade along with Maruf and bus conductor but it was not elicited from him that as to on what date they were called.The witness has categorically stated that they had been called as the date for holding test identification parade had been fixed.If that is so, it cannot be said that they had come to the police station at any time for seeing the appellant and other accused.The testimony of Lalla suffers from no infirmities.He has no reason to falsely implicate the appellant and allow the real culprit of his uncle's murder to go scot free.(14) It is significant to mention that the witness has not been confronted with any material portions of his statement vis-a-vis his statement recorded in the F.I.R. or the supplementary statement recorded.It is true that the witness had brought in the role of Joginder Singh for the first time in supplementary statement but it would not mean that mere fact that Joginder Singh had been acquitted, the statement of the witness is not to be accepted with regard to the role of the appellant.Joginder's acquittal was due to the fact that in the F.I.R. only three culprits were mentioned and the Court thought it fit to give the benefit of doubt to Joginder.(15) Similarly, the statement of Public Witness 5, Maruf, is also credible.He had narrated the facts as they occurred on the day of the occurrence and he denied the suggestion that accused had been shown to him in the police station.It is pertinent to mention that no specific suggestion was given as to on what particular date the accused had been shown to this witness in the police station.This witness had deposed that he had gone to the police station on the day the bus was taken into possession but that was a day when none of the accused had been arrested.In one sentence, the witness mentioned that he had come to know that accused had been arrested by the police on 11th April 1984 but obviously this date is not correct because it is not the case of the appellant or other accused that they were arrested on 11th April 1984 or prior to that date.May be this mistake occurred on account of some error in typing.(16) It is true that the conductor of the bus Public Witness 9 Khem Singh, wrongly typed as Prem Singh, had turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case as he had deposed that he had not seen the person being stabbed in the bus and he had only come to know from the passengers that a person had been stabbed.He was duly confronted with his police statement but he denied having stated to the police that he had seen the culprits getting away from the bus and escaping after stabbing a person in the bus.He even disowned that he had handed over a bag containing the documents to the police vide recovery memo Ex.PW9/A. He, however, admitted his signatures on the said recovery memo.So, it is evident that this witness is not a truthful witness.He had, in cross-examination, stated that he was called to the police station on May 3,1984 and at that time he, Maruf and Lalla had seen all the four accused present in the police station.It is quite clear that he had given this statement in order to give some defense to the accused.We are of the considered view that Additional Sessions Judge was right in discarding this statement of Public Witness 9 from consideration.(17) The other evidence, as discussed above, clearly indicated that there was no occasion for the witnesses to have seen the accused prior to the date fixed for holding test identification parade.Her husband Lachmandas was also charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code.A point was raised before the Supreme Court that there was no independent charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code either against the husband or against the wife and it was pleaded that the husband having been acquitted, there being no independent charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the wife, she could not be convicted for the said offence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,952,333 |
Heard on the question of admission.Also heard on I.A. No.4503/2018, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.The appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court as under:default of payment of fine, further RI for one month u/s 332 of IPC 2 years' RI and fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months u/s 452 of IPC 2 years' RI and fine Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for two months u/s 307 of IPC 4 years' RI and fine Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, further RI for four months Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he never misused the liberty so granted to him.He further submits that the appellant is in jail since 08/03/2018 and the appeal would take considerable time to be disposed of finally, therefore, he prays for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.Thus, it is directed that the execution of jail sentence of appellant-Kesar Singh shall remain suspended and he shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with a surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 17.09.2018 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time.Certified copy as per rules.(Subodh Abhyankar) Judge DV Digitally signed by DINESH VERMA Date: 2018.05.10 13:13:21 +05'30'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
100,955,857 |
The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,335,710 |
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for adjournment.Considering the fact that this case is pending for hearing on admission and has been getting adjourned despite repeated prayers made by the petitioner for hearing this case on urgent basis, the prayer for adjournment is rejected.Inherent powers of this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are invoked to assail the FIR bearing crime number 92/13 dated 06.03.2013 alleging offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(ii), 3(1)(iii), 3(1)(viii), 3(1)(ix) and 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 along with the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 336, 384, 388, 389, 504 and 506B of IPC.The allegations have been made against the petitioner as well as six other co-accused who are stated to be members of the family of the petitioner.The impugned FIR has been filed after an investigation conducted by the police authorities pursuant to the directions passed by the learned Magistrate under 2 Mcrc.6987.2015 Dharmendra Kumar Verma Vs.State of M.P.Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. on the basis of complaint dated 17.10.2012 filed by the complainant Smt. Manjulata.As such, the scrutiny to be made under the inherent powers of this Court herein should be limited to the above- said offences in regard to which cognizance has been taken.It is alleged that in the intervening night of 8th-9th October, 2012 at about 11:30 pm all the petitioners came to the house of the complainant by forming an unlawful assembly and threatened her for changing her stand in the criminal prosecution launched by her against the petitioners.Abusive words were used.Criminal intimidation of dire consequences of killing the complainant were made.The complainant who belongs to the SC/ST community was subjected to humiliation and intimidation by calling her by the caste to which she belongs in a derogatory manner.From bare reading of the allegations contained in 3 Mcrc.6987.2015 Dharmendra Kumar Verma Vs.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,337,952 |
P.C for quashing of the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 161/01 registered at R.K.Puram, P.S. for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC.The payment was to be made through cheque.As respondent No.2 was not carrying the cheque, he went home to collect the same.On reaching home, the respondent no.2 received a telephone call from one Mr. Rajesh who lured him to settle the card for Rs. 22,000/-, i.e., Rs.20,000/- + Rs.2,000/- as service charges as against Rs.27,500/- as offered by Mr. Deep Pal Singh provided it was paid in cash.He was also informed that the said Mr. Rajesh worked with Mr. Deep Pal Singh.He (the respondent No.2) was asked to be ready with the cash which was to be given to Mr. Kaushal on the following day and the latter would hand over to him the settlement paper and cash receipt.On the following day, i.e., on 17.02.2001, in the evening, Mr. Kaushal came to the respondent No.2's house, and the respondent No.2 after verifying that his identity card was duly endorsed by the Standard Chartered Bank handed him the sum of Rs.22,000/- in cash.Mr. Kaushal then handed over the settlement of account letter and receipt dated 17.02.2001 for Rs.20,000/-.It was only after a week that he came to know that he had been cheated when the bank called him to immediately deposit Rs. 35,043/- being an overdue demand.On CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 Page No. 2 of 5 verification the Bank Manager confirmed that the signature on the settlement letter was not that of Mr. Deep Pal Singh nor the receipt for Rs.20,000/- was issued by any bank personnel, and that both the documents were forged and the respondent No.2 had been duped of Rs.22,000/- in connivance with the bank employees.CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 Page No. 1 of 5CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 Page No. 2 of 5The respondent no.2 thereupon lodged an FIR on 15.03.09 and on the same day the petitioners were arrested and send to judicial custody, but were granted bail by the Ld.Additional Sessions Judge with the direction to pay the alleged cheated amount of Rs. 22,000/-, which counsel for the parties affirm has since been paid by the petitioners.Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent No.2 has since then entered into a compromise with the petitioners and has given an affidavit stating his willingness to cooperate in the quashing of the FIR, keeping in view of the future prospects of the petitioners.This is affirmed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Counsel for the petitioners referred to the following judgments of this court wherein FIRs alleging offences which under the scheme of the Code are non-compoundable were quashed by this Court in the light of a compromise between the parties:Accordingly, FIR No. 161/01 registered at Police Station CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 Page No. 4 of 5 R.K.Puram against the petitioners for the alleged offences under Sections 406, 420, 468, 471 of IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed.CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 Page No. 4 of 5CRL.M.C. 2590/2007 and Crl.M.A. 9171/2007 stand disposed of accordingly.REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,338,784 |
The application is hereby allowed.In the event of the arrest of the applicant no.1] JAGDEO DEOCHAND WAGHODE 2] SUSHILABAI JAGDEO WAGHODE and applicant no.3] SONALI GOWARDHAN WAGHODE in connection with Crime No.198 of 2019 registered with Muktainagar Police Station, District Jalgaon for the offences punishable under sections 306, 34 of Indian Penal Code, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/-(Rs.Fifteen Thousand) EACH, with one surety of the like amount by each of them, on the following aaa/-::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 05:20:49 :::b] Applicant no.1-Jagdeo Deochand Waghode shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 8.00 am to 11.00 am till filing of the charge sheet.c] The applicant no.2-Sushilabai Waghode and 3-Sonali Waghode shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigating officer for carrying out further investigation into the crime, if any.Application is accordingly disposed off.( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 20/08/2019 05:20:49 :::
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,340,975 |
The milk tanker also had the same registration number.At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to deposition of Suleman (PW-17), who has stated that he was a mechanic, who was doing welding work.He used to manufacture dalas for Tata-407 vehicles and on asking of Ash Mohd. about 10-12 months back had prepared a dala and had charged Rs.2,200/-.On being cross-examined by the public prosecutor, he could not remember the number of the said truck but corrected himself that he had worked 1 years back.In the cross-examination, he CRL.A. 484/2011 Page 23 of 25 clarified that dala is fabricated to ensure that the goods loaded in the vehicle do not fall down.To this extent, the appellant is right but we do have depositions of the police officers PW-20, 25, 26 and 28, who had the occasion to see the contents in the truck and have uniformly deposed that cow meat was loaded in the offending vehicle.Trial court has rightly observed that the assertions by the said witnesses remained unchallenged.PW-26 Constable Dharmender had specifically stated in the cross-examination that there were three heads of slaughted cows in the said truck.Photographs Exhibit PW-32/1 to 18 show cow heads were there in the truck.CRL.A. 484/2011 Page 24 of 25Thus, in our opinion, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 12 of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act.In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the present appeal and set aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC for having committed murder of Head Constable Naresh and having attempted to cause death of ASI Jagpal.The appellant-Mohd.Saleem is convicted under Section 304A read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years.He shall also pay fine of CRL.A. 484/2011 Page 24 of 25 Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine undergo Simple Imprisonment for five months.The appellants conviction and sentence under Section 12 of the Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act are maintained.Similarly conviction and sentence under Section 427 IPC is maintained.As per the nominal roll, it appears that the appellant has already undergone the said sentence including sentence for default in payment of fine.If it is correct, the appellant will be released forthwith unless he is required to be detained in any other case in accordance with law.The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,343,544 |
(c) Accused Nos.1) Harishchandra Madhavrao Patil, 2) Yogesh Madhavrao Patil, 8) Sharad Vishwas Patil, 14) Dipak alias Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and 15) Dipak Himmatrao Patil are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, vide Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000 each in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for further six months each.(d) On depositing fine amount by the accused, ₹30,000 (rupees thirty thousand only) be given to the informant Jitendra Gulabrao Patil (PW-1) as compensation, after expiry of appeal period.(e) Accused Nos.1) Harishchandra Madhavrao Patil, 2) Yogesh Madhavrao alias Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and 8) Sharad Vishwas Patil, 14) Dipak alias Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and 15) Dipak Himmatrao Patil are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 395, 354, 506, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, vide section::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.(k) Seized property i.e. MLC register be returned to the Chief Medical Officer, Cottage Hospital, Parola, Tal.The learned APP has opposed these applications.With the assistance of the counsel, we have gone through the record available.The applicants before us, seeking suspension of sentence and bail, are as under:-Accused No.1 - Harishchandra Madhavrao Patil -(Police Sub Inspector- in-service), Accused No.2 - Yogesh Madhavrao Patil, Accused No.8 - Sharad Vishwas Patil, Accused No.14 - Dipak @ Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and Accused No.15 - Dipak Himmatrao Patil.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.6 of 18The prosecution has succeeded in acquiring conviction for the above accused persons, under the following factors of the case:-(a) On 30/01/2018 at about 10.00 p.m. the informant Jitendra was proceeding on his motorcycle towards his house.(b) On his way near Lahan Maruti temple (small temple), the accused persons were present.(c) The accused No.1, intercepted the informant's motorcycle and gave a blow with an axe on the informant's forehead.The informant fell down from his motorcycle with a bleeding injury.(d) Thereafter, rest of the accused encircled him and questioned him as to why he had lodged a complaint with the police against them.(e) They gave him blows with sticks on his hands, legs, back and abdomen.(f) After raised cries, few villagers, his wife and mother came running.(g) The informant's wife lay herself over her husband to shield him and begged the accused persons not to beat him.(l) The informant had sustained multiple injuries, some of them turned out to be fractures.(m) The Informant was taken to Parola Police Station, Cottage Hospital, then to Parola Rural Hospital and then referred to Seva Hospital, Dhule where he was operated for his injuries.(n) The accused No.1 is a serving sub inspector of Police.Accused Nos. 4, 6, 7, 10, 12 to 14 were arrested during the course of investigation and they were released on bail.Some of the accused were released on anticipatory bail.Consequentially, Criminal Application No.1286 of 2020 is partly rejected to the extent of accused No.1 Harishchandra and is partly allowed to the extent of accused No.2 Yogesh Madhavrao Patil and Criminal Applications filed by Accused No.8 - Sharad Vishwas Patil, Accused No.14 - Dipak @ Shashaikant Adhikrao Patil and Accused No.15 - Dipak Himmatrao Patil are allowed on the following conditions:-(A) The sentence to the extent of these convicts shall stand suspended until the decision in the appeal.Dated: October 14, 2020 ...PER COURT :-The applicants pray for suspension of sentence and for bail during the pendency of their appeals filed against their conviction.The operative part of the order of conviction reads as under:-"(a) Accused Nos.1) Harishchandra Madhavrao Patil, 2) Yogesh Madhavrao Patil, 8) Sharad Vishwas Patil, 14) Dipak alias Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and 15) Dipak Himmatrao Patil are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code, vide Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced under Section 148 of Indian Penal Code to suffer simple imprisonment for one year each.(b) Accused Nos.1) Harishchandra Madhavrao Patil, 2) Yogesh Madhavrao Patil, 8) Sharad Vishwas Patil, 14) Dipak::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::3 of 18 alias Shashikant Adhikrao Patil and 15) Dipak Himmatrao Patil are hereby convicted for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, vide Section 235(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of ₹5,000 each in default of payment of fine amount, to suffer simple imprisonment for further six months each.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::4 of 18 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.(f) Accused Nos.3) Madhavrao Ganpat Patil, 4) Dhanraj Fakira Patil, 5) Gajanan alias Harishchandra Dhanraj Patil, 6) Gorakh Dhanraj Patil, 7) Vishwas Fakira Patil, 9) Baba alias Vinod Vishwas Patil, 10) Sunil Gulabrao Patil, 11) Gulab Fakira Patil, 12) Dhanraj Gaindhal Patil and 13) Kanhaiyalal Gaindhal Patil are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 326, 395, 354, 506, 504 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, vide section 235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure.(g) The substantive sentences shall run concurrently.(h) Set off be given to the convicted accused, for the period, if any, undergone by them, in jail, vide section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure.(i) The convicted accused persons to surrender to their bail bonds.(j) The acquitted accused persons to comply with the provision of Sec.437A of Code of Criminal Procedure.Parola, District Jalgaon, after expiry of appeal period.(l) Seized property i.e. soil samples, informant's clothes, two wooden sticks, being worthless be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.5 of 18(m) Copy of the judgment be supplied to the convicted accused, free of costs, immediately as per Section 363(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure."The State has also preferred an application for seeking leave to file an appeal for assailing the acquittal of ten persons, for assailing the acquittal of the convicted persons under particular charges and for enhancement of sentence with regard to the five convicted persons.The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants have advanced extensive submissions and have practically read out the testimonies of the witnesses, threadbare.(h) One of the accused called her 'रांड' (prostitute) and asked her to touch his feet, another accused pulled her by::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::7 of 18 holding her hand.They beat her as well.(i) After a few minutes, the accused persons fled away.(j) Before they left, they stole valuables from the informant's person such as a gold ring, gold bracelet and a wrist watch.They also stole cash ₹50,000 from his pocket.(k) The informant was attacked because he had filed various proceedings in courts against the accused persons.(o) Bail applications of accused No.1 were rejected by the Sessions Court as well as this Court.(p) Accused No.1 had preferred the bail application before::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::8 of 18 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was withdrawn subsequently.(q) Since the date of arrest, accused No.1 is behind the bars.As sections 395 and 307 are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case for trial before this Court.(s) Charge Exh.68 was framed.It was read over and explained to the accused.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.(t) Their defence is of total denial and false implication due to previous enmity and village politics.Those persons broke open the door of the house and forced an entry.They were armed with sticks.They injured accused No.1 Harishchandra and accused No.12 Dhanraj.They took away ₹34,000 from Harishchandra.Those persons also took away with them a bag containing various complaints which were made by accused Madhavrao against informant Jitendra.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::the offences punishable under sections 395, 324, 427, 452, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code.As a subterfuge to the report lodged by accused No.1 against the informant and others, this false case is registered against the accused.This C.R.No.It was tried simultaneously with this case.When they were released on bail during trial, there should be no impediment for granting them bail.They assure compliance of all bail conditions as may be imposed upon them by this Court and would not commit any such act, which would amount::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::10 of 18 to an offence, till the appeals are decided.Besides the above, the learned Advocates representing the applicants/convicts, have relied upon the testimonies of the prosecution and defense witnesses, recorded before the trial Court.in depth was said to have been caused on account of a heavy blunt weapon.PW 1 has actually suffered a road accident as his motor-cycle had slipped and he had fallen on the road, due to which, there was a lacerated wound.It is canvassed that the informant approached the Seva Superspeciality Hospital, Dhule and it was he who chose to avail of treatment at a private hospital.Therefore, the deposition of PW 12 Dr. Shrikant Nagorao Brahmane will have to be discarded.His description of the injuries as being an incise wound on the right frontal scalp with 4 cms.in length, 2 cms.width and 1 cm.deep is against the medical record of the Cottage Hospital and the Rural Hospital.The learned Advocates them submitted that PW 1 Jitendra had submitted a supplementary statement on 15.3.2018, which is after about 45 days from the date of the incident.PW 4 Chhayabai w/o Jitendra Patil had recorded her statement on 5.2.2018, which is after five days of the incident.PW 2 and PW 4 are purportedly eye-witnesses along with PW 1 and the possibility of tutoring them in order to make a corroborative statement after five days of the incident, cannot be ruled out.It is then canvassed that many of the witnesses are manufactured witnesses and their testimonies are not credible.The learned APP and the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 Jitendra, have submitted that accused::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::12 of 18 No.1 Harishchandra is an in-service Sub Inspector.He has exerted influence upon the investigating machinery and was successful in hiding the axe.Because of his influence, the investigating machinery may not have taken the efforts of recovering the axe.In so far as the contention of Jitendra having suffered a road accident is concerned, it is submitted that since Jitendra was riding a motor-cycle when the sudden attack took place near the Lahan Maruti Mandir, the medical reports at the Cottage Hospital and the Rural Hospital may have mentioned that it was a road accident.After he had recorded his statement with the police, that the case of a murderous attack by Harishchandra along with his accomplices, saw the light of the day.Jitendra has specifically deposed that Harishchandra was holding an axe and he inflicted a blow above the right eye of his forehead, after obstructing PW 1 near the Lahan Maruti Mandir.As PW 1 fell down in view of the vicious blow, the other accused surrounded him and pounced upon him with wooden sticks.They beat Jitendra practically on every part of his body.Since he started shouting loudly, some of the villagers inclusive of the wife and mother of Jitendra, rushed to save him.In the meanwhile, the accused stole the wrist watch, a gold ring and a gold bracelet.Chayabai, wife of Jitendra along with the mother of Jitendra tried to rescue him by practically laying their bodies upon him.Accused No.14 Dipak @ Shashikant, assaulted Chayabai and pulled her away::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::13 of 18 so as to expose Jitendra to further beating.The testimony of Chayabai and Madhukar have been referred to, to indicate as regards the manner in which Jitendra was attacked, beaten up and the accused abused the ladies with foul and filthy language.We found from the medical report of the Seva Superspeciality Hospital that Jitendra had suffered an incise wound as narrated above.A CT Scan of his brain was conducted to assess the gravity of the injury.There was a fracture of orbitral rim of the frontal bone.He suffered a fracture of the right lamina papyracea (base of the nose) and fracture of the posterior wall of the right frontal sinus.He also suffered undisplaced fracture of squamous part of the right temporal bone.There was significant right frontal pneumocephalus (Pneumocephalus is the presence of air or gas within the cranial cavity.It is usually associated with disruption of the skull: after head and facial trauma, tumors of the skull base, after neurosurgery or otorhinolaryngology, and rarely, spontaneously.) The incise wounds had to be sutured and in view of the multiple bone fractures, the opinion of a specialized Orthopedic Surgeon had to be taken.Dr. Brahmane PW 12 identified the two CT Scan films Exhibits 163 and 164 and stated before the Court that the injuries suffered by::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::14 of 18 Jitendra were caused due to a sharp and heavy object.He further voiced his opinion that the said injuries would result in deficit in smell sensation, either temporarily or permanently.The patient also suffered from seizure due to pneumocephalus with secondary serefral edima.These injuries were life threatening.The State relied upon the further portions of the cross- examination of Dr. Brahmane and stated that today, Jitendra has lost his sense of smell and taste.His condition has not improved in the last two years and four months.Having considered the submissions of the learned Advocates and having gone through the testimony of 14 witnesses on behalf of the prosecution and the two witnesses examined on behalf of the defense, it appears that the cause of the attack on Jitendra was on account of a police complaint made by Jitendra against Harishchandra.Before the convicts started assaulting Jitendra, who had fallen down owing to the blow of the axe, it was said that, "आमचया ववरद पोलीस सटेशनला जाऊन वफयारद देतो काय? आज आमही तुला पाहतो." After Dipak / Accused No.14 pulled away Chayabai, one of the accused declared, " आता पपटा मेला. तयाला शेवटची शदांजली महणून एक एक दा." It was also said, "याला मारन टाका.याला सोडू नका."We are of the view that when the case was under investigation::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::15 of 18 and trial, this Court had granted anticipatory bail to practically all the accused, except Harishchandra, who is still behind bars and Dipak @ Shashikant, who was granted regular bail.Harishchandra was refused bail upto the Honourable Supreme Court.He had wielded the axe and it was he who delivered the first blow of the axe on the frontal side of the skull of Jitendra above his right eye.It appears that Jitendra had survived on account of the extensive treatment that he received from a private Superspeciality hospital.The Parola Rural Hospital had specifically referred him to a specialized Doctor, probably realizing that he would not survive if he was treated at the Rural Hospital.The antipathy borne by Harishchandra against Jitendra, is writ large on the face of record.Jitendra had earlier approached the Police Station and had lodged a complaint against Harishchandra, who is himself a Police Officer.It is appalling and would be disastrous for the society at large if Police Officers indulge in acts which are likely to kill a defenseless victim.It cannot be ruled out that Harishchandra, if granted bail, would use his influence and may commit such an act which might endanger Jitendra or those who have testified against him.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.16 of 18We have perused Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, in the light of the vicious attack masterminded by Harishchandra and all attending circumstances.The State has preferred an appeal seeking enhancement of sentence.(B) Accused No.2 Yogesh Madhavrao Patil, Accused No.8 - Sharad Vishwas Patil, Accused No.14 - Dipak @ Shashaikant Adhikrao Patil and Accused No.15 - Dipak Himmatrao Patil, shall be released on bail upon tendering a personal surety of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only/-) by each of them and a::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::17 of 18 solvent surety of the like amount by each of them.(C) These convicts shall not attempt to contact any of the witnesses or their relatives by whatsoever means, directly or indirectly, until the decision in their appeals.(D) Each of these convicts shall report at the Parola Police Station on every Sunday in between 11.00 am to 1.00 pm and their attendance would be marked by the S.H.O. by obtaining their signatures in the Station Diary.(E) Each of them shall tender their Election Commission's Voter id Card and the Aadhar Card before the S.H.O. while obtaining bail.(F) Violation of any of the above conditions shall be a good ground for cancellation of bail.Appeal No. 409 of 2020 is admitted.The State and appellant - Jitendra waive service of notice in the appeals filed by the convicts against the impugned judgment.The::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 ::: CRI APPLN/1283/2020 & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::The learned Advocates for the respective parties suggest that the R & P be returned to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Amalner for preparation of paper book.As such, the Registry shall return the R & P to the said Court with a request to call for a paper book along with the original R & P, within a period of 12 weeks from today.( B. U. DEBADWAR, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. ) ...A.K.Losarwar, PS::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2020 23:42:10 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,353,412 |
This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A (2) of the S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the impugned order dated 12.4.2017 passed by the Special Judge under S.C./S.T (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Balaghat in Special Sessions Case No.25/17 whereby the court-below has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.The appellant is in custody since 24.2.2017 for the offences under Sections 294, 323, 506-B, 302 of IPC and under Section 3 (2) 5 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No. 75/17 registered by Police Station Lalbarra, District- Balaghat (M.P.).According to the prosecution story, the allegation against the appellant is that he committed murder of one Krishna Kumar.Charge-sheet has been filed.The trial will take considerable time in disposal of the case.It is further submitted that the evidence of so called eye witnesses are not reliable as their statements have been recorded after long time of the incident.In view of the aforesaid circumstances, prayer is made to set-aside the impugned order and enlarge the appellant /accused on bail.Learned PL for the respondent/State has opposed the bail and prayed for rejection for the same.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, prima facie it is found that the injury resulting into the death of the deceased was caused by the appellant / accused.In the aforesaid circumstances, in view of the nature of the offence, the appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.Hence, learned lower court has not committed any error in rejecting the application of the appellant.Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.CC as per rules.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE JP
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 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.
|
110,356,524 |
1. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 (A1 & A2) are the General Manager and Fund Manager of Canara Bank Mutual Fund Mumbai (CBMF Mumbai) which is a ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 2 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT wholly owned subsidiary company of Canara Bank, a nationalized bank.Accused Nos. 5,6 and 7 (A5, A6 & A7) are the Executive Vice President and Assistant Vice Presidents of one "Canbank Financial Services Ltd., Bangalore (Canfina, Bangalore), which is also a wholly owned subsidiary of Canara Bank.A1 is also charged with falsifying the accounts of CBMF, Mumbai showing an ostensible call-money transaction which CBMF, Mumbai which A1 had no authority to enter into.A1 is also charged with dishonestly and fraudulently receiving and misappropriating 10000 shares of Hindalco.A2 is charged with abetting A1 in preparing false documents more specially a bank voucher, inter bank advice (IBA) and call-money deal slip.Consequently these charges are under Section 409 and 411 respectively of the IPC.A1 and A2 are charged with preparing false documents which are false to their knowledge and using them as genuine.A5, A6 and A7 are charged with preparing false documents at their end in Canfina, Bangalore.Consequently A1 and A2 do not have authority to enter into the call-money transactions also for lending purpose.The transaction shown to have been entered into by them for call-money is for lending purpose.The transaction is of 6.93 Crores.(c ) 2.1 L shares are delivered by CMac to the office of the counter part of CBMF, Mumbai in Calcutta, CBMF, Calcutta.The office of CBMF, Calcutta is a one-man show.A1 initially directed the shares to be retained by CBMF Calcutta.These were in installments of 10000 and 50000 shares out of 2.1L shares.The remaining 1.5 L shares were again sold to CMac.The value of the purchase and the sale is different resulting in a profit at the time of sale.60000 shares received by A1 would have to be accounted for.10000 shares have not been accounted for.These are the shares stated to have been missing.The prosecution has charged A1 with having siphoned off and misappropriated such funds of CBMF, ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 5 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT Mumbai,.The prosecution has led evidence specifically of the purchase, the delivery, the receipt and the loss of these 10000 shares through various witnesses of these establishments essentially upon documents.50000 shares out of the aforesaid 60000 shares are stated to have been verified and accounted for.The call-money transaction is of ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 6 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT Rs.6.93 Crores plus interest amounting to 6.95 Crores The transaction of purchase of 14% NCD Bonds is for Rs.7 Crores.The sale of 9% SCICI bonds is for Rs.7.5 Crores.The sale transaction bears the reference to "MFund".entered into a criminal conspiracy to siphon off and misappropriate the funds of CBMF, Mumbai and Canfina.2 Whether A1 committed criminal breach of trust by entering into the transaction of purchase of 2.1 L shares of Hindalco from CMac for Rs.6.93 Cr which he was Yes - proved not authorised to transact and dishonestly disposed off such property by showing it to be an ostensible call-money transaction of Rs.6.93 Cr at 17.5% interest.3 Whether A1 received 10000 shares of Hindalco from out of 2.1L shares from Yes - proved CMac, which he dishonestly misappropriated to his own use.It is material to see the link between these transactions and the role of the accused therein.12. 2.1 lakh shares are stated to have been purchased by A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai in one of their Mutual Fund Schemes called "Canbonus" scheme from one CMac in Calcutta.The shares were received in the office of CBMF, Calcutta from the office of CMac in Calcutta.The purpose is shown to be towards purchase of shares ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 11 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT from Cmac.This letter remained with Canara Bank, Tamarind Road Branch, Mumbai.It shows the remittance of purchase of shares; not a call money transaction.12/09/91 11 Deal slip - call money The date 19/9/91 is shown No.1774 for Rs.6.93 Crores to be interpolated and showing investment in corrected to claim that it Canfina @ 17.5% interest.(Evi.PW1, Para.3 and PW2 Para.6).A2 was not present on 12/9/91 which is stated to be holiday.12/09/91 12 Voucher for investment of Voucher prepared as per Rs.6.93 Crores in call the instructions of A2 (Ev.money prepared by P.W.1 of PW1 Para.3).words Canfina, (Calcutta).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::prepared and initialed by PW3 clerk in Canara Bank, Tamarind Road branch, Mumbai Prepared to give credit to N.S. Road Branch, Calcutta.12/09/91 32 IBA No.21551 of Canara Prepared and initialled by Bank for Rs.6.93 Crores.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::12/09/91 84 Credit Slip of Canara Bank, Prepared by Canara Bank, NS Road branch, Calcutta NS Road Branch, Calcutta.12/09/91 91 Debit Slip of Canara Bank This is analogous to for Rs.6.93 Crores towards Exh.84, the Credit Slip.IBA No.21551 dated 12/9/91 on account of purchase of shares.crores and for crediting the Current Account of CMac PW8 was the Junior most in Canara Bank on account clerk and took the of purchase of shares.instructions on phone because no one was available to take the call (Ev.PW8 Para.2).12/09/91 90 Note of PW17 Chief PW 17 passed on the note Manager of Canara Bank, to the concerned officer Mr. Calcutta.Taken down in Ghosal who was incharge the handwriting of P.W.17 of Current Account ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 ::: 14 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT upon the telephonic department (Ev.P.W. 17 conversation with A1 from Para 2).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::Canfina local office (Calcutta) to credit CMac with Rs.6.93 Crores for purchase of shares as per the instructions of Mumbai.12/09/91 93 HO responding summary The statement prepared at showing Rs.6.93 Cr.and reconciled.92 Account of CMac in the The culmination of the books of Canara Bank transaction for purchase of shares from CMac.12/09/91 92A Credit Entry of CMac for The culmination of the Rs.6.93 Cr. transaction for purchase of shares from CMac.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::of Canara Bank showing end of each day showing Head office responding credits and debits recorded summary.and reconciled.12/09/91 93A Debit entry of CBMF Rs.6.93 debited to (Mumbai) of Rs.6.93 Cr.Tamarind Road Branch (CBMF Mumbai) under IBA No.21551 (Ev.9).120 Attendance signing register Showing transfer to N.S.of CBMF for Canbonus Road Calcutta branch Scheme in Canara Bank (CBMF, Calcutta, N.S. Road showing debit entry of Branch) showing the A2 Rs.6.93 Cr. was not present on 12/9/91 which is stated to be a holiday.12/09/91 23 Bank statement of CBMF Showing transfer to N.S.for Canbonus Scheme in Calcutta (CBMF Calcutta, Canara Bank showing N.S. Road Branch).debit entry of Rs.6.93 Cr.14/9/91 15 Letter signed by A2 Showing transfer to N.S.enclosing IBA 21551 dated Calcutta (CBMF Calcutta, 12/9/91 for Rs.6.93 Crores N.S. Road Branch).drawn on NS road, Calcutta for payment to be Prepared on 19/9/91 on made to Canfina, Calcutta.A2 (Ev. of PW1, Para.4).Initialed by A2 as the Fund Manager and signed by A1 as the dealer.written by A2 and lower 14B part by A1 (Evi.PW1 Para.5).The upper part shows Rs.6.93 Crores + interest Rs.232582.20 making total of 69532582.20 which are the particulars entered by PW1 in the deal slip Exh.13 except its number.It shows amount recalled from Canfina, Calcutta @ 17.5%.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::The voucher is prepared by PW1 initialed by PW1 on instructions of A2 and checked and initialed by A2 for recalling the call money amount.(Evi.PW1 Para.7).19/9/91 17 Voucher No.254 of CBMF The lower portion of the showing account "banker voucher shows Sundry Tamarind Lane for the Creditors for the same amount of Rs.467417.80 amount.received from Canfina, Calcutta.The remarks show that the excess amount was received from Canfina, Calcutta.amount remitted by (Evi.PW1 Para.9) Canfina.19/9/91 107 IBA No.31087 of Canara The IBA is issued for credit Bank, Cunningam Road, of CBMF remitted by Bangalore on Tamarind Canfina.Road branch, Mumbai for Canfina gives IBA Number Rs.7 Crores .after the deal goes through.PW21 received the original IBA in the regular course of his work from Canara Bank which he sent to Mumbai.(Evi.Calcutta giving delivery of CBMF, Calcutta received 2.1L shares of Hindalco this letter with annextures.for Rs.6.93 Crores and Initially PW6 refused to requesting accept the letter.He was told to shares.accept it and asked to wait for further instructions.He accepted it (Evi.PW6 Para.4) and then made entry of the receipt of shares in the Stock register Exh.43/43A.41 List of 2.1 L shares Sent by CMac to PW6 delivered by CMac.Pg. 196 is the list of 10,000 shares.Rs.6.93 Crores.09/09/91 78 Contract note of CMac.instructions of Calcutta office of CMac.The reason for the admitted execution of the cheque Exh.9 by A1 would have to be seen.The aforesaid documents would show the initial reason to be the purchase of 2.1L shares of Hindalco by CBMF of which A1 was the chief dealer being the General Manager of CBMF, Mumbai.Similarly, the instructions of A1 taken down by PW17 in his handwriting on the chit Exhibit-90 shows the purchase of shares from CMac.A1 has, for some ulterior reason, which shall be seen presently, sought to show the transaction as call money transaction which he had no authority to enter into.CBMF has sought to lend money under the call money transaction to Canfina, Calcutta on 17.5% interest.CBMF had no authority to lend money to Canfina to that extent.Canfina Bangalore had no authority to borrow money thus.It may be mentioned that the transaction for the sale of shares would be reflected in the equity transaction listing of CBMF, Mumbai.The equity transaction listing for the period of 1st September, 1991 to 30th September, 1991 Exh.24 produced by PW2, he having maintained it in the regular course of his business in the computerised form for the Canbonus scheme, does not show the transaction of purchase of 2.1L shares of Hindalco.The stock register maintained by PW6 in normal course of his business as Secretarial staff of CBMF, Calcutta, Exh.43 shows the entry of 24th September, 1991 for 2.1 L shares of Hindalco received by CMac and sent to Bombay as per instructions over the telephone from Bombay given by A1, the General Manager.Similarly the account of CMac maintained by Canara Bank showing it to be a firm of share brokers, Exh.92 shows the entry of 12th September, 1991 for transaction of shares worth Rs.6.93 Crores, Exh.92A kept in the normal course of the business of Canara Bank and certified to be true.The shares were received by P.W 6 in the office of CBMF, Calcutta where he served as the secretarial staff.He was the only staff of CBMF Calcutta because CBMF Calcutta did not have separate office and shared the office with Can Bank Financial Services (Canfina) Calcutta.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::23. P.W.6 received 2.1L shares including the hitherto missing 10,000 shares specified in the list of shares and the original share certificates Exhibit-41 from CMac as has been set out in the above columnar statement.He did not know and had no instructions for the receipt.He has deposed that hence he refused the receipt.Thereafter he contacted his head office in Mumbai, CBMF, Mumbai.He spoke to A1 who was the General Manger, in charge of purchase of shares and securities.A1 told him to accept the receipt and await further instructions.How these shares have been dealt with would be important to see.This is reflected essentially in the evidence of P.W.6 who received instructions from accused No.1 for sending/delivering groups of these 2.1 lakh shares.These transactions are best seen from another similar columnar statement thus:::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::written by P.W 6 to CBMF written by P.W6 as per the Mumbai enclosing 10000 telephonic instructions of shares of Hindalco.He received a message from A1 to send 10000 shares out of 2.1lakh shares.P.W.6 sent it under consignment note ig of Rex courier.10/03/92 35 Original and cc of P.W.4, the inward and consignment notes of Rex outward dispatch Clerk, courier.received the original consignment and has produced it.P.W.6 has identified the note.11/03/92 34 Share Inward register Shows letters/parcels maintained by CBMF, received.Various entries show parcels sent to / received by "custody" department.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::P.W.4 received CBMF, Mumbai from Rex the packet sent by CBMF, courier.Calcutta through Rex courier and forwarded it to A1 as the addressee.He would not know the contents.This packet is not shown to have been sent to / received by "custody"The Calcutta.entries are made by him.The amount having been paid on 24/03/92, the parcel was received on 25/03/92 in CBMF, Mumbai.The courier has acknowledged the packet (through A1 has not acknowledged).(Ev.Mumbai showing the Custody Department.packet containing the (Ev.: P.W.4 para 4).letter dated 25/03/92 and the details of shares This was received through enclosed received by Airfreight on the specific P.W.4 in CBMF, Mumbai.instructions of A1 given to P.W. 6 through Rex courier was the normal courier.(Ev.: P.W. 4 para 4 through).25/03/92 36 Carbon copy of the The parcels under the receipt of Airfreight Courier receipts were courier received by P.W.4 forwarded to the from CBMF, Cal.addressee (P.W.4 para 7).Citibank NA prepared by wise.There has been a transaction of 19000 shares consisting of 9900 and 9100 shares through the broker A3 under the Canshare Scheme of CBMF.This constitutes the first lot of 9900 shares and shows part delivery prior to advance payment made.3 blanks are filled in the letter in a very different ink.The challan is prepared based upon the delivery endorsement (Evi: P.W.10 para 3).03/02/92 67 Outward delivery challan It is prepared when shares for 9900 shares of are sent out to the Hindalco in "Canshare company by the custody Scheme signed by Papa department of CBMF (Evi:26/03/92 68 Pre-printed letter of CBMF An endorsement in blue Mumbai addressed to the ink shows 606 -(which is the Hindalco Ltd. for registering date on which the 9100 shares in the name of company effected the CBMF with a request to send transfer under 182 the shares to it.transfer deeds).The annexure to this letter is Exh-138, the list of 9100 shares.It is prepared shares.when the shares are sent out of the company for registration (Evi: P.W. 11 para 6).para 6).07/04/92 70 Acknowledgment receipt of Shows the 9100 shares Hindalco for 9100 shares registered with Hindalco.received from CBMF.Thus one purported transaction of 19000 shares is divided into 2 parts of 9900 shares and 9100 shares.Which are those shares would be important to see.9900 shares are clear; they are separate and distinct.9100 shares are not clear - separate and distinct, but the same 10000 shares sold by CMac to CBMF, Mumbai received by P.W. 6 in CBMF Calcutta and sent to A1 in CBMF Mumbai as shown above and as shall be clarified below.The dealing of 9100 shares is duplicated The consideration is paid by CBMF, Mumbai twice -Such is the loss to CBMF, Mumbai in the transaction for purchase of shares engineered by A1 and in which A3 partook.Now if the aforesaid columnar statement is seen and collated with the earlier columnar statement showing the letters of P.W. 6 of the various separate bundles of shares received from CMac and sent to A1 by P.W. 6 the last piece of the puzzle falls into place.P.W. 6 was to send only 10000 shares out of 2.1L shares received by him from CMac.(iv) The letter of CBMF, Mumbai shows these 9100 shares "accepted".(v) These together would form 19000 shares sought to be registered in the name of CBMF, Mumbai in the books of the Company Hindalco.36. 10,000 shares were stated to be missing.These are 10,000 out of 2.1L shares initially sold by CMac to CBMF, Mumbai.CBMF had purchased 2.1 L shares from CMac in Calcutta.1.50L shares were resold to CMac.(This sale is not disputed although the exact date is not shown).50,000 physical shares were available in CBMF.That was personally verified by him / his firm.CBMF did not maintain any record of the distinctive numbers or the certificate numbers of the shares.Hence it was not possible to identify from their record which shares were missing.PW18 asked CMac for details of the shares sold to CBMF.The physical shares were in fact sent by CMac to CBMF, Calcutta under its letter dated 21/9/91 Exhibit-40 showing the distinctive and registration numbers of 2.1L shares, Exhibit-41 - page 196 of which is the list of 10000 shares.PW6 from CBMF, Calcutta had called for instructions from CBMF, Mumbai.A1 had given specific instructions telephonically.A1 had asked for 10,000 shares initially.They were sent through Rex Courier.They were sent through Airfreight Courier.Since CBMF could not provide the information of the distinctive numbers and certificate numbers of those shares, PW18 enquired from CMac how CMac had acquired those shares which CMac had sold to CBMF.CMac had purchased those shares from different brokers in different lots.The brokers had sent shares under their respective covering letters with details of the distinctive certificate numbers.PW18 got details of 1,82,400 shares.The CBMF, Calcutta under the instructions of A1 from CBMF Mumbai had sold back 1.5 L shares to CMac.Those shares never came to Mumbai.They were in the CBMF, Calcutta office.PW18 matched those 50,000 shares and found that they were out of 1,92,400 shares of which CMac had the distinctive and certificate numbers having purchased them from one broker, who in turn purchased them from various brokers.One broker had sold 37,000 shares.PW18 could trace 20,000 shares out of the 50,000 shares of CBMF.Those are the very shares sent by CBMF Mumbai under its pre-The ultimate instructions were segregation of 10,000 shares from 2.1L shares.Indeed the amount of 2.1L shares itself is rather peculiar.A mutual fund has sought to purchase 2.1L shares.It is his statement that only accused No.1 would take care of the call money transactions in the Corporate office.Accused No.1 signed the call-money deal slip and accordingly the books of CBMF Mumbai were closed.Accused No.2 has stated that he has no investment decision making power and that he looks after only accounting work.65. A3 has answered in his 313 statement that he had sold 19,000 shares of Hindalco to CBMF and delivered the shares against payment.He had delivered 9900 shares under his covering letter acknowledged by CBMF.If the shares were registered in the name of UTI he could not have delivered those shares.This leaves 1.5 lakh shares of Hindalco.These 1.5 lakh shares are sold in March 92 in two installments of 1 lakh shares and 50000 shares back to the CMac the broker.These are received by his representative in the office of CBMF Calcutta.The transaction of purchase of 2.1 lakh shares for Rs.6.93 crores by CBMF has found its way into the accounts of Canfina Bangalore.It is the prosecution case that the call money transaction shown by accused No.1 was not reflected in the records of Canfina Bangalore because the Canfina Bangalore falsified its record to show the purchase of 14% NCD bonds instead.This has been the deposition of the Investigating Officer P.W. 28 in para 40 thereof.This is reflected in the receipt of Rs. 7 crores under IBA No.31085 from Canfina Bangalore.purchase of 14% NCD of No.31087 on "T Lane""Mfund"(CBMF) for Rs. 7 (Tamarind Lane) Bombay Crores.(CBMF office in Bombay).Lower portion of the deal pad showing Internal Branch Advice (IBA) number and address is in the handwriting of A6 (Evid: P.W. 21 para 2) Cheque No.9050 is in the handwriting of M. Dhiren, ig since deceased.Canara Bank, Cunningham from the bank and sent Road Branch, Bangalore upon them to the branches."T lane" Bombay (CBMF Mumbai) It is received in the normal course of the business of P.W.21 who sent it to Bombay (Evi: P.W. 21Para7).Canfina gives IBA numbers after the deal goes through.Original IBA is issued upon ig the transaction entered into in the IBA Issued Register (Evi: P.W.21 para 8).19/9/91 108 Entry in IBA issued register Written by A 6 (Evi: P.W. 21 under IBA No.31087 showing para 6).14% NCD Bonds maintained by Canfina Bangalore.Made at the end of each day.Any market, purchase register related to 9% SCICI showing entries as of 31/3/92 would be entered in this register.30/3/92 116 Physical register recording Shows as securities sold the market, sale and 9% SCICI Bonds to Rahul purchase.The shares have indeed being sold by CMac and received by the office of CBMF, Calcutta.The remaining 1.5 lakh shares are unaccounted for atleast to the extent of how they were sent from the office of CBMF, Calcutta to CBMF, Mumbai.He misappropriated to his own use the remaining 10000 shares which were found missing.He must make good the loss to CBMF, Mumbai with the usual commercial rate of interest to CBMF, Mumbai under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C with all accrued interest thereon until payment / realisation.It must signal the deprecation of the wrong done to the society as also the public institutions.However, crimes of the economic nature lend themselves to punishment by compensation more arithmetically accurately than crimes against human body, public health, safety, convenience, decency, morals, religion or public justice.Accused Nos. 3 and 4 (A3 & A4)are independent brokers.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::Consequently these charges are under Sections 468, 471 and 477A of the IPC.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::A case against A1, A2, A5, A6 and A7, who are public servants, is further of having received pecuniary advantage upon the aforesaid illegal means and acts of themselves.Consequently these charges are under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d) r.w.The prosecution case can be summarised thus:(a) A1, and A2 under instructions of A1, the General Manager of CBMF, Mumbai entered into a transaction of purchase of 2.1 L shares of Hindustan Aliminium Company Limited (Hindalco) from a broker's firm C. Meckertech Calcutta (CMac).They executed various documents for the transaction.They showed the transaction camouflaged as a call money transaction.A1 was authorized to enter into a transaction for purchase and sale of shares and securities on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai to the extent of Rs.25 lakhs.The transaction ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 4 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT that he entered into was of a far larger value.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::(b) CBMF, Mumbai could have entered into call-money transactions only for borrowing money under the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) guidelines.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::A3 is a broker who is shown to have brokered the transaction of further 19000 shares of Hindalco in two installments of 9900 and 9100 shares.9100 shares are stated to be bearing the same distinctive and same certificate numbers of the 10000 shares out of 2.1 L shares sold and delivered by CMac to CBMF, Mumbai and received by accused No.1 personally.800 further shares out of those 10000 shares are similarly stated to have been traced to A4 through the transfer deeds of those shares.These recordings show a purported purchase of 14% NCD bonds by Canfina, Bangalore without mentioning the names of the companies and a consequent sale of 9% bonds of SCICI bonds to one M/s Rahul & Company which is the sister concern of CMac.This transaction is shown to have been entered into for covering up the purported call-money transaction.The entry of sale bears a reference to "Shares".The prosecution has sought to link the actual transaction of purchase and sale of shares purported to be a call-::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.The prosecution has led oral evidence of 28 witnesses.The prosecution has produced a plethora of documentary evidence.The transactions actually entered into by A1 and A2 and the transactions purportedly entered into by A1, A2, A5, A6 and A7 as also the transactions purportedly shown to be separate and independent transactions entered into by A1 with A3 are all shown and sought to be proved by the prosecution essentially through documentary evidence.The witnesses have produced the documents and led direct oral evidence to prove the documents.Once proved, these documents are essentially to be considered for seeing the bonafides or otherwise of the transactions.The oral evidence, if any, would be excluded by such documentary evidence.Hence the following points of determination arise and are answered as follows:::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::distinctive numbers as from amongst the 2.1L shares sold by CMac to CBMF Mumbai and thus aided and abetted A1 in committing criminal breach of trust and received stolen property.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::preparing false documents such as the No - not proved vouchers, IBAs, call-money deal slip and such other documents for the aforesaid transaction knowing them to be false.7 Whether A5, A6 and A7 prepared false documents to camouflage the transaction of the purchase of shares as a transaction No - Not proved for purchase of 14% NCD bonds from CBMF, Mumbai and the later sale of 9% SCICI bonds to Rahul & Co., the sister concern of CMac.10000 shares without any public interest.interest in purchasing 2.1L shares of Hindalco and not accounting for 10,000 shares.10 Whether A5, A6 and A7 derived any pecuniary advantage without any public No - not proved interest in recording fraudulent transaction of purchase of 14% NCD bonds and sale of 9% SCICI bonds.The aforesaid points of determination would require to be considered essentially upon the documentary evidence which would naturally be used for such financial transactions produced by witnesses who have led the necessary direct oral evidence to prove the documents and to state the ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 9 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT circumstances in which the documents came to be executed.It is best demonstrated by columnar statements.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::The documents relied upon by the prosecution would conveniently be seen in 4 parts; a group of documents showing the purchase of 2.1L shares from CMac by CBMF, Mumbai, a group of documents showing the delivery of 10000 and 50000 shares from CBMF, Calcutta to CBMF, Mumbai, a separate group of documents to show the purchase of 19000 shares of Hindalco from accused No.3 by CBMF, Mumbai and another group of documents show the purported transaction of purchase of 14% NCD bonds of sale of 9% SCICI bonds of Canfina, Bangalore.Canara Bank as 'Yourself' Secretary Grade 1 in ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 ::: 10 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT for Rs.6.93 Crores towards Canbonus scheme of CBMF purchase of 2.1L shares.on the instructions of A1 and signed by A1 (Ev.PW1 Para.1) This was a normal cheque -::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::not RBI cheque - because it was not and could not be a call money transfer.12/09/91 10 Letter giving instructions The letter is written by for transfer of Rs.6.93 PW1 on instructions of A1 Crores to Canara Bank.(Ev.P.W. 1 Para.2).The beneficiary is Canfina, Calcutta, Overseas Branch.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:34 :::On the basis of this entry a daily summary and thereafter a consolidated summary is prepared.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::PW21 Para.7)25/9/91 19 Letter of CBMF, Mumbai IBA is drawn by Canfina enclosing IBA No.31087 Bangalore on Canara Bank, dated 19/7/91 for Rs.7 Tamarind Lane branch for Crores.the payment received from Canfina, Calcutta.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::prepared and signed by the Executive of CMac P.W.14 for 2.1L shares of Hindalco.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::share certificates and the bill of CMac.24/9/91 43 Stock register showing P.W. 6 made the necessary entries of all shares entry in the stock register received.upon receipt (after his initial refusal).29/2/92 53 Letter of P.W.7 to CBMF, Prepared by P.W. 7 on Mumbai asking for instructions of Calcutta instructions regarding 2.1L office of CMac as shares-whether to be sent instructions had not been to CBMF, Mumbai.received from A1 until then.26/3/92 80 Contract Note of CMac Prepared by P.W. 14 on addressed to Citibank NA.The letter of CMac Exh.40 annexing the list of shares Exh.41 and its bill Exh.42 along with ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 ::: 21 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT the contract note Exh.78 and the letter of CMac Exh.79 unmistakably show the transactions for purchase of shares by A1 in CBMF, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::Similarly the voucher No.253 Exh.16 shows the break up of the amount of call money and the return with interest.The voucher No.254 Exh.17 shows the excess received from Canfina, Calcutta.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::It is seen that thus far even the documents relating to call money transactions do not show any transaction of Rs.7 Crores which first finds its place in the letter dated 19 th September, 1991 Exh.18 making a reference to IBA No.31087 written by A1 in the lower portion of the chit Exh.14B for the first time and the later letter dated 25 th September, 1991 for Rs.7 Crores.A1 was the final decision maker in respect of equity transactions of CBMF, Mumbai (Evi.PW2 Para 5).The statement of the current account of Canfina in Canara Bank A/c.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::All the entries in the register are made for transactions only through Rex courier.letter dated 10/03/92 with the details of 10000 shares sent through Rex courier.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::27 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT23/03/92 46 Carbon copy of letter These were sent by P.W. 6 written by P.W.6 to CBMF, upon the specific Mumbai for delivery of instruction of A1 to be 50000 shares of Hindalco sent by DHL or with the details enclosed.Airfreight couriers.: P.W. 6 para 18).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::06/03/92 101 Two contract notes of Admitted to be issued by CMac identified by its CMac and signed by proprietor P.W.19 for Santosh Mukherjee of 50000 shares of Hindalco CMac.brought for CBMF.Hindalco to CMac, (Evi.P.W.6 para 13) Calcutta and requesting payment to Canfina, Bangalore upon delivery of the shares.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::29 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT24/03/92 48A Endorsement of receipt The endorsement was of 1 lakh shares of made in the office of Hindalco by the CBMF Calcutta in the representative of CMac.(Ev.: P.W. 6 para 13).26/03/92 49 Carbon copy of letter Letter sent under the addressed by P.W.6 to instructions of A1 to send CMac Calcutta returning further 50000 shares to total 50000 shares and CMac.requesting payment to (Evi.P.W.6 para 14) Canfina upon delivery of the shares.CMac showing the break- (Ev.: P.W. 6 para 14).up of shares.1.5L Hindalco shares @ Rs.600 per share including brokerage of CMac.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::30 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT26/03/92 86 Deal slip No.508 of Deal slips are filed day-This deal slip is the dealer Citibank, produced by P.W.16 who Mumbai for purchase of served in Citibank as shares initialled by the Assistant Vice President in dealer.1999 from the bank records kept in the normal course of the business of the bank for securities transactions and given to the CBI.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::referring to letter of CBMF Calcutta to CMac CBMF Calcutta dated in March 92 the payment 18/03/93 confirming is confirmed to have been payment of 7.5 crores to made in March, 93 to Canfina through Canfina.American Express Bank Ltd. Calcutta on Canfina (Bangalore) was 28/03/92 for 1.5 lakhs otherwise not concerned shares of Hindalco.with this transaction at all.This is an admitted transaction and stated by accused No.3 to be a separate distinct transaction for sale of shares upon its market price made under his two separate covering letters duly acknowledged by CBMF.This transaction is evidenced by the following documents which may be also seen best in a columnar statement.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::Documents of transfer of 9900 shares:27/11/91 D2 Preprinted letter of CBMF The letter shows an produced by A3 without endorsement of annexure showing the list "Canshare".of 9900 shares addressed The letter is signed by to the Company Secretary PW.27 and is the covering of Hindalco Industries Ltd letter showing the shares enclosing 9900 shares with sent for registration.their completed transfer deeds for registering the It is sent along with transfer.The blanks filled in show 9900(shares) and 198 (transfer forms).These blanks are in the same ink as the endorsement Exh.-60A on the contract note Exh.60 (See below).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::CBMF for 19000 Hindalco contract note and entered Company shares @ the details of the cheque Rs.3.20 per share showing and the voucher showing advance paid Rs.60.80 the amount paid by CBMF.The first transaction of purchase of 2.1L shares was @ Rs.3.30 per share.made on a later date than the date of the contract note given the dates in the endorsement.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::02/12/91 63 Inward delivery challan The broker gets this for 9900 shares of CBMF prepared by the Fund counter signed by P.W.10 Manager or his staff and after delivery of shares brings shares along with and verification of script the voucher to the and number of shares.Custody Department.P.W.11 Para 4).2. Documents of transfer of 9100 shares:::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::36 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT12/03/92 64 Inward delivery challan for Verified and counter 9100 shares showing A3 as signed by P.W.10 who the broker.served as officer in the custody department of CBMF Mumbai.It is prepared after the shares duly registered with the company come back from the company showing CBMF as the owner of the shares (Evi:P.W.10 para 6).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::The endorsement is made in a different ink.It is made by the same pen and in the same handwriting as the additions in the letter produced by A3 - Exhibit-12/03/92 61 Letter of CBMF to custody Prepared to inward the department showing the shares when the shares particulars of 9100 shares are received (Evi: P.W. 9 "accepted"signed by P.W.9 on para 6).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::department of CBMF for sending to the company 9100 shares in this list along with the covering letter bear the same distinctive for registering the transfer.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::The consideration for the shares was paid on 12th September, 1991 from Canbonus Scheme to CMac.CMac delivered 2.1 lakh shares on 24th September, 1991 to CBMF Calcutta.That evidence is corroborated by the various documents showing delivery through Rex Courier.The two groups of documents show the purchase of shares of CBMF for consideration paid by CBMF, Mumbai to the broker A3, accepted and admitted by A3 and the sale made by A3 upon receiving payment for 19000 shares shown in two lots of 9100 shares and 9900 shares.CBMF was entitled to purchase shares for consideration and the shares are shown to have been sent for registration and registered in the name of CBMF under unit "Canshare".It is tried to be shown by A3 in his 313 statement that CBMF is not shown to have made a loss in these two transactions.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::In fact 9100 shares are seen to be a part of 10000 shares already purchased by CBMF, Mumbai from CMac and for which Rs.6.93 Crores was already paid.This would constitute double payment for the same shares.This would not be anything but a loss to CBMF, Mumbai engineered by its General manager, A1, as shall be presently made clear.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::It is interesting to see that 2.1L shares are shown in the list of shares received and produced by P.W.6, Exhibit-41 which runs from page 164 to page 218 of the chargesheet.Page 196 amonst these pages shows 9100 shares.(These would soon be found missing and would be traced in a unique but scientific manner by a chartered accountant as shall be shown presently).The 1st 10 entries in the list of 10000 shares on page 196 are totalling to 9100 shares.The payment is made by and under the directions of none other than A1 as specifically deposed by all the concerned witnesses.A1, being the General Manager and dealer, would alone have the necessary authority to decide the purchase of shares by CBMF, Mumbai.Upon appreciating this position of A1 and the contact of A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai with A3 and CMac, it would be material to appreciate ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 ::: 42 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT the documents leading to the 2 separate transactions of 9900 + 9100 shares and not a single transaction of 19000 shares from the aforesaid columnar statement.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::(i) The first letter dated 27th November, 1991 for registering the transfers is for the clear 9900 shares.(ii) The contract note is prepared for 19000 shares and not 9900 shares, on the very next day.(iii) The voucher prepared 3 days thereafter in the office of CBMF, Mumbai is for purchase of not 9900 shares, but 19000 shares.(iv) The consideration paid and admitted to be received is for 19000 shares, not 9900 shares.(vi) The initial inward and outward delivery challans are also for 9900 shares and not 19000 shares.(vii) Only after March, 92 similar documents for 9100 shares are prepared.(ix) The list of 9100 shares annexed to the letter sent to the company for effecting transfer shows the same shares initially purchased from CMac and being the bunch of 10000 shares (Pg.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::(x) Hence the dealing of 9900 shares is clear;(This has taken place more than 3 months after the contract note, ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 ::: 44 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT Exhibit-60 was executed and a day after these shares were received by CBMF, Mumbai from CBMF, Calcutta.)::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::PW18 concluded that out of the 37,000 shares sold by one broker to CMac 10,000 shares were missing.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::PW 18 verified the registry of Hindalco.PW18 found out that out of those 10,000 shares 9100 shares were sent for registration immediately after they were supposed to have been received by CBMF, Mumbai but were missing or not accounted for.Those shares were the shares ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 ::: 46 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT admittedly sold by A3 to A1 on behalf of CBMF as the 2 nd installment of sale endorsed in this contract note.The endorsement shows the sale the next day after the shares were sent by P.W. 6 to A1; the shares being sent on 10/3/91 by P.W.6 received on 11/3/91 by A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai and sold on 12/3/91 by A3 ! PW18 saw the inward register of CBMF, Mumbai which shows 10,000 shares received from CBMF, Calcutta entered as received and also entered as handed over to the GM, CBMF, Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:35 :::P.W. 18 prepared a list of 10,000 shares that he thus found.He titled that list in his handwriting.He identified his handwriting on the top of the list.PW 18 concluded that 10000 missing shares were amongst the shares received by the Calcutta office of the CBMF from CMac, and handed over to GM of CBMF, Mumbai.They were forwarded by CBMF, Mumbai to the company for registration in the name of CBMF.It must be worth remembering the 2.1L shares were received from ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 47 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT CMac by CBMF, Calcutta.PW6 did not know about the transaction and did not know what to do.He refused to accept the delivery initially.A1 told PW6 to await instructions when PW6 enquired as to what to do with the parcel received.Out of those only 10,000 shares were initially called for and went missing.Out of the remaining 2L, 1.5 L shares were resold to CMac and 50,000 remained for CBMF, Mumbai which were received in the 2nd installment by Airfreight Courier upon the specific instructions of A1 not to send through Rex Courier though the inward register would show entries only of Rex Courier who was their normal courier.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The number of the purchase of shares as also specific instructions of A1 as deposed by PW6 shows the peculiarity of the transaction.The evidence of PW6 is clear and concise.He has supported his oral evidence by all documentary evidence.The documentary evidence does show segregation of 10,000 shares from the inception.10000 shares were sent by P.W. 6 from CBMF, Calcutta on 10th March, 1992 and received by accused No.1 in CBMF, Mumbai being handed over to accused No.1 by the forwarding Clerk on 11th March, 1992 and the transaction for 9100 shares having taken place on the very next day being 12 th March, 1992 for which payment is made as per the initial document dated 28 th November, 1991 from when the transaction with accused No.3 had commenced.Those were the shares that went missing.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::They were sent for registration and registered in the name of CBMF.In his further cross examination by A3 PW18 has deposed that he has seen the transfer deeds of those 10000 shares including 9100 shares.He did not recollect whether he saw or did not see the stamp of the A3 on the transfer deeds.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::9900 shares are clear and different; 9100 shares which came into CBMF, Mumbai and forwarded to A1 are no different from 10000 shares that A1 received from CMac through CBMF, Calcutta as per his instructions and sent by Rex Courier.Accepting that the evidence would have to be "scanned" in that behalf, A3 has contended that there is no attempt of the prosecution to get the identity of the shares established - which is belied by a look at Exhibits 41 and 138 itself.It does not matter whether P.W.6 did not show which shares by their distinctive and certificate numbers were sent.Similarly the reliance upon the documents Exhibits 59, 60, 60A, D2, 63, 64, 65, 66 & 67 reflecting meticulous records of the transaction dated 28/11/91 for 9900 shares misses the total absence of such meticulousness in the second transaction of 9100 shares.It is conspicuous by its absence.The difference is apparent.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::It is for A1 and A3 to explain the 2 lists as enjoined in the criminal jurisprudence with regard to the accused having to explain the incriminating circumstances proved by the prosecution (See State of Maharashtra Vs.Laxman Narsinhrao Ganti 2013 All MR (Cri.) 456).Neither has done so even remotely as shall be seen presently.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::50. 900 shares would remain if the prosecution case has to be accepted in respect thereof also.It would have to be proved similarly by showing the distinctive and certificate numbers of these 900 shares to be a part of Exhibit-41. 800 shares out of those 900 shares are claimed by prosecution to have been sold by A4 to CBMC, Mumbai.The remaining 100 shares are stated to be sold by PW25, one Ketan Parekh to CBMF, Mumbai.A4 has accepted his stamp as broker on the reverse of some of the share transfer forms showing transfer to Canfina Financial Services Ltd. though he would not remember them out of lacs of shares that he stated his office dealt with daily in his 313 statement.The arithmetical calculation of 10,000 shares would be 9100+800+100 shares.The remaining entries after the 1 st 10 entries show 900 shares in lots of 50 shares each.Accused No.1 must specifically account for the shares received by the office of CBMF Mumbai where he held the position of General Manager and dealer and which were handed over to him as the addressee, they ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 52 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT having been received upon his specific telephonic instructions.This would show the initial transaction which is the bed-rock of the prosecution case.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::That however is no answer to the specific case of P.W. 6 of having sent bundles of shares from out of 2.1 lakh shares received from CMac as per specific instructions of accused No.1 and the evidence of P.W. 1 and 2 that accused No.1 alone could have given such instructions.Incidentally accused No.1 has accepted in reply to question No.58 that P.W.15 who served with CMac to maintain accounts used to sometimes come to CBMF Mumbai where accused No.1 was the General Manager.His refrain was similar and devoid of any explanation.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The act of A1, in segregating the initial 10000 shares by specifically informing P.W.6 to send only those shares from CBMF Calcutta to CBMF Mumbai and in later purchasing 9100 shares out of 19000 shares from A3 containing the same certificate and distinctive numbers as the 10000 shares set out in Exhibits 41 and 138 and for which he duplicated the payment by himself as General Manager and dealer of CBMF Mumbai thus misappropriating the said 10000 shares and the consideration paid therefor to his own use having dominion over such property, must be taken to have committed criminal breach of trust and further to have obtained pecuniary advantage by misappropriating them to the said extent as a public servant.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::It is argued on behalf of A1 that no incriminating documents are produced by the prosecution against him.This is wonderous in view of the pleathora of documentary evidence, several of them admitted by A1 himself and all proved by direct oral evidence of witnesses of CBMF, Mumbai who worked under him.The argument that the prosecution failed to establish the physical delivery of the alleged parcel would be set at naught by the oral evidence of P.W.4 showing the entry 34A in the Shares Inward Register Exhibit-34 made by him showing the packet of 10000 shares handed over to A1 as the addressee of the parcel as per his specific ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 55 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT instructions to P.W.6 who sent the parcel addressed to A1 and not by "custody" department of CBMF, Mumbai as was the usual practice.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::P.C is not required to be obtained for the offence of criminal breach of trust by a public servant.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The sanction to prosecute him was, therefore, not required.Indeed upon the criminal breach of trust having been detected, A1 was dismissed from service.He has claimed that on 12th September, 1991 when the transaction took place he was sent for training and was accordingly absent in the office.He was given call-money deal slip on 13th September, 1991 when he resumed.He has explained in his 313 statement how the transaction took place in his absence upon the instructions of accused No.1 through his covering letter under the IBA from Canara Bank where the beneficiary was shown to be Canfina Calcutta.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::57 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT When he resumed, the Clerk in CBMF Mumbai told him to make a remittance of Rs.6.93 Crores to Calcutta for which he signed the deal slip and accordingly passed the call-money entry.He has stated that he followed up to get the call-money with interest returned to Canbonus Fund.He has stated that on 19 th January, 1991 accused No.1 wrote the IBA number on his slip showing the calculation of entries and asked him to take that amount as credit and close the account.He has further stated that inward delivery ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 58 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT challan of CBMF Exh.64 confirms the delivery of 9100 shares under contract No.881 making a total of 19,000 shares.The delivery was under his covering letter acknowledged by CBMF.A3 has stated that the shares were received by the officers (witnesses) of CBMF, Mumbai "from my office".He emphasized that he had delivered his 19,000 shares independent of any other shares by Hindalco to CBMF, Mumbai as reflected in the inward delivery challan Exh. Nos.63, 64 & 65 and outward delivery challan Exh.These documents do not show the distinctive and certificate number of the shares transacted thereunder.He disputed the research of P.W.18 showing the missing 10000 shares on the ground that A3 was not referred to by P.W.18 only commented on "unilateral documents prepared by parties" and "not produced the records of CBMF" and relied upon "non-confirmed ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 59 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT records of CMac".::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::A3 once again shrugged knowing anything of the transaction between CMac and CBMF, Mumbai and insisted that his transaction of 9100 shares was apart.He was again asked about his letter delivering the shares to A1 on behalf of CBMF and the acknowledgment of receipt as per his earlier 313 statement.Hence he delivered some other 9100 shares.He has, of course, not given particulars of those shares.Which other shares were delivered is, therefore, not known.The shares were sent to UTI for registration.The rectification of the register of members to specify the name of the new registered holder of the shares would take such time.The mention of the time period of the UTI shares registered with Hindalco is of no consequence .It wholly ignores the factual market position that prevailed in 1991-92 under Section 108 of the Companies Act 1956 and the rules made thereunder for transfer of shares of limited companies listed on registered stock exchanges prior to the age of dematerialisation of shares.The shares would continue in the name of UTI until it is registered in the name of another holder who presents the share transfer forms duly signed by UTI in its / her/ his favour.That is precisely why and how stock brokers would be involved in the transaction.The reference to the time period mentioned in the letter, Exhibit-73 of Hindalco Industries Ltd., is therefore, both misconceived and mischievous.The reply of A3 to the specific case of the prosecution under the list of shares, Exhibit-168 which is the same as a part of the shares under Exhibit-41 and the list of 10,000 shares, Exhibit- 98 is, therefore, not satisfactory or acceptable.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The very lists of shares would rubbish his enthusiastic claim of no loss or no duplication.600 out of these shares are stated to ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 62 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT have been transferred.These 900 shares are not shown to be got registered in the name of CBMF, Mumbai together with the aforesaid 9900 + 9100 shares.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The prosecution has not produced any evidence, oral or documentary showing the sale of 800 shares alleged to have been sold by A4 to A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai as its General Manager and dealer from out of 10000 shares purchased from CMac under similar documents being his contract note and vouchers.Hence the role of A4 as the broker of those shares is not satisfactorily shown.It is seen how initially 10000 shares are called by A1 from CBMF Calcutta to CBMF Mumbai sent through Rex courier.Thereafter further 50000 shares are called by A1 from CBMF Calcutta specifically through Airfreight courier and not entered in the register maintained by CBMF Calcutta but shown as received in the inward register maintained by CBMF Mumbai.The payment for 50000 shares was directed to be made to Canfina, but not specifying Bangalore.However, the contract note for this transaction shows the face value of all the 1.5 lakh shares @ Rs.600/- which would total to Rs.9 Crores.The deal slip of Citibank is for Rs.9 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 63 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT Crores and shows SCICI as the client for the face value of 1.5 lakh shares at the net price of Rs.600 per share.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The link for the payment of these shares to Canfina Bangalore and the link to Citibank NA which issued the deal-slip in favour of the client SCICI is, therefore, required to be seen.It is upon this link that the prosecution has sought to make out a case of criminal conspiracy between A1 & A2 on the one hand in CBMF, Mumbai and A5, A6 and A7 on the other in Canfina, Bangalore.How this transaction was recorded will have to be similarly seen.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::The cheque number is of the cheque issued of this transaction.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::against cheque No.50 (9050).After all the deals take place during the day, P.W.21 issues cheques upon Canara Bank, Bombay for issue of IBA on the respective branches (Evi:P.W.21 para 10).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::& B (SOS) of Canfina Bangalore entry of 14% NCDs showing Most of the entries in this the entry of 7 Crores against register are in his "M fund" (CBMF).The register shows entries of market, purchase and sales as also allocation.The entry of 19/9/91 shows purchase by the Mutual Fund of 14% NCD for Rs. 7 Crores.19/9/91 111 A Physical register of Canfina, Entries are based on the Bangalore showing deal pad.(Evi: P.W. 21 para 14).The entry dated 19/9/91 is made by Satish Shetty for purchase of NCD of 7 Crores from CBMF (110A).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::Canfina, Bangalore Canara Book Evidence Act as bank, Bangalore for correct.19/9/91 113A Entry of 7 Crores debited to Canfina.(Evi.PW1 Para.9) 25/9/91 19 Letter of CBMF, Mumbai IBA is drawn by Canfina, enclosing IBA No.31087 Bangalore on Canara Bank, dated 19/7/91 for Rs.7 Tamarind Lane branch for Crores.the payment received from Canfina, Calcutta.Thus there was a transaction between CBMF and Canfina Bangalore for Rs.7 Crores reflected in the deal pad prepared by the dealers in Canfina showing it to be purchase of 14% NCD bonds of CBMF for Rs. 7 crores for which an IBA came to be issued and entered into IBA issued register and the cheque issued register for the cheque that was issued in respect of the transaction.The transaction was entered in the register of stocks and securities and the physical ledger of NCD securities and came to be debited in the statement of account of Canfina in Canara Bank.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::It would have to be seen whether this transaction of Rs.7.5 Crores of 30/3/92 entered into by A5, A6 and A7 bears any link with the sale of 1.5 L shares by CBMF, Mumbai to CMac and what would be the financial loss to CBMF Mumbai, or Canfina Bangalore by the acts of A1, A2, A5, A6 and A7, if any.This further transaction comes close on the heels of such correspondence on 30/3/92 ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 70 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT and is evidenced by further documents thus :::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::Rs.7.50 Crores shown received by the Clearing against Clearing Section, Section of Calcutta from Calcutta.Act as true.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::& Company for Rs.7.5 Crores.section, Calcutta for Rs.7.5 Crores in favour of Rahul & Co.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::(Evi: P.W.21 para out of Stock of Securities 43).the entry of 7.5 crores of accused No.6 in the received from Rahul & cross examination of Company and 9% SCICI P.W.28 the Investigating bonds allocated to Rahul & Officer.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::referring to letter of CBMF CBMF Calcutta to CMac in Calcutta dated 18/03/93 March 92 the payment is confirming payment of 7.5 confirmed to have been crores to Canfina through made in March 92 and American Express Bank confirmed in in March, 93 Ltd. Calcutta on 28/03/92 to Canfina.Canfina (Bangalore) was otherwise not concerned with this transaction at all.Hence is the prosecution case of criminal conspiracy between A1, A2, A5, A6 and A7 CMac has confirmed payment of Rs.7.5 Crores made to Canfina Bangalore which is proved by the aforesaid letters Exhibit-50 and Exhibit-51 not challenged by A5, A6 or A7 in the evidence of the proprietor or other employees.The entry of 7.5 crores in favour of Rahul & Company, the sister concern of CMac, is made in respect of SCICI bonds by Canfina, Calcutta.Though 7.5 crores is credited in the account of Canfina, Bangalore upon IBA No.12678 received from Clearing Section Calcutta in respect of SCICI bonds, the physical register of SCICI does not show this ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 74 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT entry.Yet computer print out shows 9% SCICI sold to Rahul & Company on 31st March, 1992 of Rs.7.5 crores.Since this entry was shown to be wrongfully effected, a reversal entry is shown on 20 th July, 1992 of Rs.7.3 Crores.The entry of 7.5 Crores under IBA No. 12678 is entered in the deal pad register.Just as there is no apparent reason for crediting Canfina Bangalore with Rs.7.5 Crores by Cmac on 28/3/92, there is no apparent reason for crediting the sister concern of CMac, Rahul & Co., 2 days thereafter by Canfina, Bangalore.The transaction accepted and affirmed by A5, A6 and A7 is left wholly unexplained with regard to the receipt on 28/3/92 of Rs.7.5 Crores and the corresponding payment of Rs.7.5 Crores on 30/3/92 by Canfina Bangalore.The explanation sought to be given by A5, A6 and A7 is that the purpose of 14 NCD of Rs. 7 Crores has culminated in the sale of SCICI bonds to Rahul & Co.,::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::It has to be seen whether the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Mumbai acted in conspiracy with A5, A6 and A7 in Bangalore for a single transaction shown in the aforesaid documents is correct and what that transaction was.The initial transaction was of purchase of shares.It was shown as Call Money Transaction.(CM transaction) Such a transaction could not have been entered into by CBMF, Mumbai or by accused No.1 on behalf of CBMF Mumbai for total lack of authority.The ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 ::: 75 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT link sought to be established with the office of Canfina, Calcutta is upon the case that the call money transaction was with Canfina, Bangalore but was shown as purchase for NCD Bonds hence leaving no record of call money transaction in Canfina, Bangalore.It could not have been entered into by Canfina, Bangalore.Having shown the transaction as purchase of 14% NCD the sale of that NCD is shown in respect of 9% SCICI bonds.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::CBMF record does not show any CM transaction other than this transaction with Canfina.This is in consonance with the RBI circular, Exh-::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::Further this transaction was under a normal banker's cheque Exh.-9 which could not have been used for CM transaction and which can only be inter-bank transaction or inter mutual fund transactions done only through RBI cheques.Hence though the books of CBMF Mumbai show this as a CM transaction, it could not have been so.Yet the link in the unlawful acts of A1 & A2 on the one hand and A5, A6 & A7 to the other in a single transaction is not clearly established despite reference to the word "Shares" in the deal pad or reference to "M Fund" (CBMF Mumbai) in the SOS register.This is how A5, A6 and A7 in Canfina, Bangalore are stated to be involved in the transaction for purchase of shares by CBMF Mumbai from CMac.The involvement of A5, A6 and A7 in the transaction is sought to be shown by the prosecution only through the payment made to Canfina Bangalore for no apparent reason.The prosecution case of criminal conspiracy between accused Nos.1 and 2 in CBMF Mumbai and A5, A6 and A7 in Canfina Bangalore is sought to be shown essentially from the letters dated 24/3/1992 and 26/3/1992 of P.W. 6 to CMac and the letter dated 19/3/1993 of CMac to CBMF referring to the letter of CBMF Calcutta of 18/3/1993 confirming payment of Rs.7.5 Cr.Indeed the transaction of sale of shares having been shown as call-money transaction has been linked with Canfina Bangalore and has been shown as purchase of 14% NCD Bonds by Canfina Bangalore, which is not for the exact amount of the transaction.That transaction is for 7 Crores instead of R.6.93 Crores and is shown to have culminated in the later transaction of 7.5 Crores of Rahul & Company, the sister concern of CMac.The explanation of A5, A6 and A7 of Canfina Bangalore to de-link the two transactions accounting for the registration and stamp duty required to be paid thereon is indeed not satisfactory.However a clear link of A5, A6 and A7 with A1 and A2 in a single transaction in which shares came to be siphoned off or its consideration came to be appropriated has not been brought out by the prosecution to make out a case of criminal conspiracy as per the parameters shown in the case of Navjot Sandhu Vs.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:36 :::What the prosecution has clearly established beyond reasonable doubt is the actual loss to CBMF Mumbai of 10000 shares of Hindalco which were purchased @ Rs.330 per share by A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai.A1 having admittedly signed documents Exhibits 9 to 13 except Exhibit 12 is shown to be fully accountable for the loss caused to CBMF Mumbai to the extent of Rs.33 lakhs.The misappropriation of these shares is shown by 9100 shares out of 10000 shares bearing the same distinctive and registration numbers being again sold by A3 to A1 on behalf of CBMF, ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 ::: 78 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT Mumbai.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::The prosecution has hence established the case of A1 committing criminal breach of trust as the General Manager of CBMF, Mumbai by siphoning off 10000 shares out of 2.1 lakh shares purchased by CBMF Mumbai and left unaccounted by deceiving CBMF Mumbai to the extent of the value of those 10000 shares being Rs.33 lakhs @ Rs.330 per share purchased by CBMF Mumbai by not accounting for the same in the books of CBMF Mumbai which caused damage and harm to CBMF Mumbai to the extent of value of the shares and by fraudulently and dishonestly entering into a transaction for purchase and sale of 9100 of the same 10000 shares out of 2.1 lakh shares and thus committing the offence defined under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and punishable under Section 409 thereof.The prosecution has also made out a clear case of A1 having committed the offence of dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriating the property of CBMF, Mumbai by him as a public servant, being the General Manager of CBMF, Mumbai and of obtaining for himself the valuable thing contained in 10000 shares of CBMF, Mumbai and the consequent pecuniary advantage to the extent of the value of those 10000 shares which aggregates to Rs.33 lakhs @ Rs.330 per share.Following as a corollary therefrom, the prosecution has made out a clear case of the criminal misconduct of A1 as a public servant, for the aforesaid offences of which are punishable under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , (PCA).::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::The prosecution has not made out a specific case of A1 having committed other offences including entering into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused with which also A1 is charged.The prosecution has made out a clear case beyond reasonable doubt of A3 aiding and abetting A1 to commit criminal breach of trust by showing the sale of 9100 shares of Hindalco out of the 10000 shares already purchased by A1 on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai from CMac @ Rs.320 per share which were shown to be sold from amongst 19000 shares of Hindalco under his contract note, Exhibit-60 for Rs.60.80 lakhs and thus causing pecuniary loss to the extent of the sale prices / purchase price of these 9100 shares already purchased @ Rs.330 per share and later purchased @ Rs.320 per share and thus having committed the offence of receiving stolen property being the payment @ Rs.320 per share for 9100 shares of Hindalco which were already sold by CMac to CBMF, Mumbai for consideration under his contract note Exhibit-60 punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.The prosecution has not made out a specific case of A3 having committed other offences including entering into criminal conspiracy with ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 ::: 80 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT the other accused beyond reasonable doubt.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::The prosecution has not made out any case of A4 having entered into any criminal conspiracy with accused No.1 in respect of the sale of 800 out of 19000 shares sold by A3 to CBMF Mumbai or of receiving stolen property punishable under Sections 120B or 411 of IPC.The prosecution has not clearly made out the case beyond reasonable doubt against accused Nos. 5, 6 and 7 of having entered into any criminal conspiracy with A1 in respect of the purchase of 2.1 lakh shares of Hindalco or having forged documents or having misappropriated those shares or having obtained any pecuniary advantage therefrom as public servants by corrupt means and thereby having committed the offence of criminal misconduct.Since the prosecution has not clearly made out the case of conspiracy between accused No.1 and A5, A6 and A7 of misappropriating the funds of CBMF, Mumbai and showing that those funds went into Canfina, Bangalore camouflaged and shown as purchase of 14% NCD bonds and the consequent sale of 9% SCICI bonds to Rahul and company, the sister concern of CMac despite the words "M fund" and "Shares" in the documents executed by them, A5, A6 and A7 would require to be given ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 ::: 81 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT benefit of doubt in respect of the various charges shown by the prosecution against them.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::This case is an economic offence.It involves pecuniary loss.Hence A1 is convicted of dishonestly and fraudulently receiving 10000 shares of Hindalco from out of 2.1 lakhs shares for which consideration of Rs.6.93 crores was paid by CBMF, Mumbai and consequently became the property of CBMF, Mumbai and which was dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated and converted to his own use by him being entrusted with the property of CBMF, Mumbai and having dominion over it in violation of the RBI directions in such investment for which he had no authority to transact and by which CBMF suffered loss to the extent of the purchase value/sale value of 10000 shares @ of Rs.330 per share and thus committing offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant punishable under Section 409 of the IPC.99. A1 is also convicted of abusing his position as a public servant as General Manager/Dealer of CBMF, Mumbai to obtain undue pecuniary advantage for the price of 10000 shares of Hindalco fraudulently misappropriated by him thus constituting criminal misconduct punishable ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 ::: 82 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT under Sections 13(1)(c ), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PCA.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::A1 is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the other charges.A2 is acquitted of the charge of entering into any conspiracy with A1 or aiding and abetting accused No.1 in the commission of offence of preparation of false documents and entering into transaction which he was not authorized to transact and committing any breach of trust by misappropriation of 10000 shares of Hindalco received from CMac, Calcutta or of forgery or fabrication of documents, or of obtaining any pecuniary advantage or of criminal misconduct as he had acted under the directions of A1 being subordinate to A1 as Fund Manager of CBMF, Mumbai.A3 is convicted of the offence of aiding and abetting A1 to commit criminal breach of trust by showing the sale of 9100 shares @ Rs.320 per share out of 10000 shares already sold by CMac to CBMF, Mumbai and produced by CBMF, Mumbai for consideration @ Rs.330 per share and bearing the same distinctive and certificate numbers in respect of which criminal breach of trust was committed by A1 and thus causing pecuniary loss to the extent of the sale price / purchase price of those 9100 shares knowing and having reason to believe that it was stolen property and thus committing the offence of receiving stolen property punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.A3 is given benefit of doubt and acquitted of other charges.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::A4 is acquitted of the charge of receiving stolen property as none of the shares purchased by CBMF, Mumbai from CMac, stated to be sold by A4 to CBMF, Mumbai are shown to be sold by him.A5, A6 and A7 are given benefit of doubt and thereby acquitted of the charge of entering into criminal conspiracy with A1 by completing the transaction of purchase of shares as call-money transaction and of falsifying accounts and documents and committing forgery and using forged documents as genuine in their capacity as public servants.Upon the conviction of A1 the question of compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.A1 caused loss to CBMF, Mumbai and to the public treasury by issuing cheque for purchase of 2.1L shares of Hindalco, but accounted for only 2L shares by way of receiving, registering and / or the consequent sale.This shall be entitled to be recovered by the CBI on behalf of CBMF, Mumbai as arrears of land revenue to effectuate the purport and intent of the judgment.A3 was given and took those very shares and purported to sell (re-::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::84 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT sell) them to CBMF, Mumbai though they were not his shares and accordingly received stolen property and made a profit / undue gain therefrom knowing it to be the same shares purchased by CBMF, Mumbai earlier and received by A1 on its behalf but a day before.He must also make good the sale price of 9100 shares received by him to the public Treasury under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. with the usual commercial rate of interest.The sale price of the shares with interest until payment / realisation shall be forfeited to the State and shall be entitled to be recovered by the CBI as arrears of land revenue to effectuate the purport and intent of the judgment.A1 to A3 are asked on the point of sentence.Accused No.1 stated that he is the only earning member of his family, his son is visually impaired, he has high BP, sugar problem as also heart ailment.Accused No.3 stated that he has already been sentenced to suffer imprisonment of 5 years, which he is undergoing.He, therefore, stated that the sentence be not harsh.Advocate on behalf of accused No.3 requested to address the Court.He was allowed to do so.He stated that accused No.3 had already surrendered bail and was undergoing imprisonment.The ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 ::: 85 SPSC.NO.3/2001-JUDGMENT custodian has taken charge of his properties, both movable and immovable.Some of the properties have been sold and some are going to be sold.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::However upon the mathematical calculation of the loss caused by both the accused to the public exchequer, the sentence of imprisonment would certainly required to be tempered.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::Hence the .following order:1. A1 is found guilty and convicted of committing the offence of criminal breach of trust by public servant punishable under Section 409 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) year and to fine in a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and i/d to suffer further R.I for a period of 3 months.2. A1 is also found guilty and convicted of committing the offence of abusing his position as public servant being General manager/Dealer of CBMF, Mumbai by obtaining undue pecuniary advantage for the purchase of 10000 shares of Hindalco dishonestly and fraudulently misappropriated by him from CBMF Calcutta punishable under Sections 13(1)(C), 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for a term of 1 (one) year.A1 shall pay further interest @ 18% pa from the date of this judgment till payment/reaslisation.The presecution shall be entitled to recover receive the compensation as arrears of land revenue.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::5. A1 is found not guilty and given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all other charges.A2 is found not guilty and acquitted of the charge of entering into any conspiracy with A1 or aiding and abetting accused No.1 in the commission of offence of preparation of false documents and entering into transaction which he was not authorized to transact and committing any breach of trust by misappropriation of 10000 shares of Hindalco received from CMac as he had acted under the directions of A1 being subordinate to A1 as Fund Manager of CBMF, Mumbai.A3 is found guilty and convicted of committing an offence of receiving stolen property being 9100 shares of Hindalco knowing and having reason to believe that in respect of those shares A1 has committed criminal breach of trust and thus it was stolen property punishable under Section 411 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for a term of 1 (one) year and to pay fine of Rs.1 lakh and i/d to suffer further RI for a period of 3 months.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::8. A3 shall pay compensation of Rs.32,00,000/-(Rupees thirty-two lakhs only) being the sale value of 9100 shares received as stolen property by A3 for which consideration was paid by CBMF, Mumbai @ Rs.320 per share aggregating to Rs.29.12 lakhs with interest thereon @ 18% pa from the date of the transaction of the purchase of those shares being 12th March, 1992 till the date of this judgment.A3 shall pay further interest @ 18% p.a from the date of this judgment till payment / realisation.The prosecution shall recover the compensation as arrears of land revenue.9. A3 is found not guilty and given benefit of doubt and acquitted of all other charges.Accused No.4 is found not guilty and acquitted of the offence of receiving 800 shares of Hindalco from out of the 10000 shares of Hindalco being the property of CBMF, Mumbai knowing and having reason to believe that in respect of those shares A1 has committed criminal breach of trust and is thus stolen property.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::relevant prison shall be given a copy of this judgment by the prosecution for computing his term of imprisonment in this case.The bail bonds of A2, A4, A5, A6 and A7 are discharged.This direction is specifically passed to prevent abuse and misuse of the legal aid facility provided to the accused who insist upon obtaining the services not needed or required by them as in the case of A6 who was fully abreast of his case and very efficiently represented it himself despite the appointment of his Advocate.::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::The Court records its satisfaction and appreciation of the diligence, sincerity and commitment of the young, learned Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Limosin in conducting the trial.(ROSHAN DALVI, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::::: Downloaded on - 06/01/2015 23:46:37 :::
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
110,358,494 |
The applicant is in jail since 05/09/2017 and early conclusion of the trial is bleak possibility and prolonged pre-trial detention is an anathema to the concept of liberty.Shri P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the complainant.I.A No. 21876/2017, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned Public Prosecutor for the State is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor for the State during final hearing.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this second application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first bail application of the applicant was dismissed on merits vide order dated 10/10/2017 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Cantt., District Guna in connection with Crime No. 549/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 304, 452, 34 of IPC.Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with co-accused Manoj Raghuvanshi and Batan alias Shivendra Raghuvanshi while chasing Bablu alias Pahalwan Singh Raghuvanshi, 2 M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017 son of the deceased entered into her house and pushed her.They also opened fire and the deceased getting terrified, died due to cardiac arrest.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated owing to previous enmity.According to him, a cross-case has been registered against the complainant party for the offence punishable under section 307 of the IPC and the instant FIR is nothing but a counter-blast to the same.It is submitted that there was no intention of the applicant to cause death of the deceased and the deceased died due to cardiac arrest, which was not the fault of the applicant.It is further submitted that the date of incident is 16/12/2016 and the FIR was lodged on 29/08/2017 with delay of eight months and the prosecution has not given sufficient explanation for the same.The applicant is a permanent resident of Village Pipariya, P.S. Cantt, District Guna and there is no possibility of his absconsion if released on bail.Under these grounds, applicant prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the application on the ground that the applicant is directly involved in the offence alleged and he has criminal antecedents and no definite conclusion can be drawn at this stage and prayed for its rejection by 3 M.Cr.C. No. 20971/2017 contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.After hearing aforesaid arguments and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed, but with certain stringent condition in view of nature of offence and criminal antecedents of the applicant and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lakh only) with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.C. No. 20971/2017A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Durgekar* SANJAY N. Digitally signed by SANJAY N.DURGEKAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF M.P.BENCH GWALIOR, ou=P. S., DURGEKA postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c022ff R c277608ce55ba67f3594a641181b9ae8 448e58, cn=SANJAY N. DURGEKAR Date: 2017.11.16 17:52:09 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,224,102 |
consent, heard both the sides for final disposal.2) The first proceeding is filed for the relief of quashing of F.I.R. No.131/2018 registered with Ambad Police Station, District Jalna for offences punishable under sections 315, 420, 467, 494, 34 etc. of the Indian Penal Code.Relief is also claimed for quashing of the charge sheet filed in that crime for the similar offences.He has made allegations mainly against petitioner No.1 that she deceived him.It appears that she was deserted by her husband then the informant came in contact with her.They started living as husband and wife.Then there was some dispute as the informant felt that petitioner No.1 had suffered abortion and his consent was not obtained.Prior to giving of the present report, petitioner No.1 gave report against respondent No.2 and on that basis crime was registered for offence punishable under section 376 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent of the first proceeding and 4 other persons.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:11:51 :::3) In the second proceeding relief is claimed for quashing of F.I.R. No.148/2018 registered in Pundliknagar Police Station for offence punishable under sections 376 and other offences.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:11:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:11:51 :::informants from both the proceedings submitted that the parties have settled the dispute and they do not want to give evidence against each other.Respondent No.2 from the second proceeding has given no objection for quashing of the entire first information report.Proceeding is filed by only two persons like Prakash and his wife but in the F.I.R. more persons are mentioned as accused by the respondent No.2 of that proceeding.5) Considering the nature of the dispute and the circumstances that they have settled the dispute, this Court holds that relief needs to be given.However the circumstances mentioned above show that they consumed time of everybody including the court and police.In view of the nature of the conduct of the two informants this Court holds that both the informants need to be made to pay Rs.25,000/- each for getting the relief.6) So, both the proceedings are allowed.Rule is made absolute in both the proceedings in those terms.::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:11:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 13/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2020 13:11:51 :::
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,224,120 |
As per prosecution case, on 03-09-2018, there was celebration of "Gokulasthmi Festival" in the Nandurbar town.The events of "Dahihandi" was arranged in the area of "Andhare Chowk" and the first informant Shri Pintu Narendra Maske and his associates had been to Andhare Chowk for participation in the celebration.JUDGMENT :-1. Heard.Both the appeals are taken up for final hearing on merit with the consent of both parties to appeals.Both these appeals are arising from one and the same Crime No. 292 of 2018 and rests on the identical issue of anticipatory bail in the offence of the Act of 1989, therefore, these allied appeals are dealt with simultaneously for its adjudication on merit by this common Judgment.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::3 Cri Al-847-18-JWhen the first informant Shri Pintu Maske and his associates were prepared to participate in the event to break the pot, that time the appellants and their 10/15 accomplices picked up the quarrel with them.They hurled castiest abuses to the first informant and his associates by saying that they have no right or eligible to participate in the event to break the pot of 'Dahihandi festival'.The appellants and their accomplices advised them in sarcastic manner that they only use to celebrate Ambedkar Anniversary.The appellants and their 10/15 accomplices started assaulting them with kicks and fists.They also forcibly snatched away the golden chain of first informant worth Rs.30,000/-.Pursuant to First Information Report (for short "FIR") filed by one Pintu Narendra Mhaske, the Police of Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar, District Nandurbar registered the Crime No. 292 of 2018 and set the Penal law in motion against the appellants and others.I.O. arrested one co-accused Shri Sachin Pardeshi in this crime and obtained his police custody remand for investigation.The present appellants have an apprehension that they may be arrested in this crime.Therefore,::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 ::: 4 Cri Al-847-18-J apprehending their arrest at the hands of police, the appellants rushed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar and filed the applications bearing Bail Applications No. 208 and 209 of 2018 for the relief of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. However, learned Sessions Judge found reluctant to grant relief of pre-arrest bail to these appellants and rejected the applications filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order of learned Additional Sessions Judge is challenged in these appeals.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::The learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contends that the appellants are innocent of the charges levelled against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case on account of political rivalry.The learned counsel drawn the attention of this Court towards the documents of FIR of Crime No. 288 of 2018 and submits that there was another FIR by one Ajay S/o Rajesh Tamyachekar, the associate of the appellants for assault and robbery by the first informant Pintu Mhaske of the present crime.The appellants Yuvraj was the eye-witness of the incident.Therefore, the first informant Pintu Maske in order to give counter-blow to the earlier complaint vide Crime No. 288 of 2018, filed the present false FIR after two days of the incident.The appellants are resident of Nandurbar town.There is no possibility::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 ::: 5 Cri Al-847-18-J of absconding the accused.They are ready to abide the conditions, if any, imposed on them.Their custodial interrogation is not necessary in this case.Hence, he requested to nod in favour of appellants for relief of anticipatory bail.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::6. Learned APP for respondents raised objection and submits that the section 18-A of the Act of 1989 put embargo on the Court for exercising powers under section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The appellants abused the complainant on his caste within public view.Therefore, application for anticipatory bail of the appellants cannot be entertained.The learned APP produced on record the relevant documents of investigation of the crime for perusal.The learned counsel for respondent No.2 also filed affidavit-in-reply on record.When the Court is held competent to enter into scrutiny of the allegations to determine whether the person can be treated as accused of commission of offence under the Act of 1989, then question would arise as to what extent the Court would be justified to examine material to determine the prima facie case against him.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::xx xx xx xx xx xx xxIn the instant appeals, the prosecution applied the provisions of section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 against the present appellants which reads as under :Punishments for offences of atrocities :-(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe :-There are sweeping and omnibus allegation and no specific aspersion against each of the present appellants in regard to their overt-act or castiest abuses flung towards complainant.At this juncture, it would be profitable to make reference to the observations of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Shashikant Ramhari Tambe and others Vs.State of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All MR (Cri)2132, in which it has been observed in paragraph No. 5 that:::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::Looking to the above facts, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants."It is also essential to take into consideration that in the present crime the FIR came to be filed at a belated stage after about two days of the incident.There was another Crime::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 ::: 9 Cri Al-847-18-J No. 288 of 2018 registered against first informant of the present crime, namely, Pintu Mhaske and the present appellants - Yuvraj was shown as one of the eye-witnesses of the incident in the said FIR.These circumstances are, prima facie, sufficient to create flaw in the veracity of allegations nurtured against the appellants.In regard to charges of rioting and dacoity under Section 395 of the IPC, there are no incriminating circumstances prima facie on record to show the involvement and participation of appellants for committing crime of dacoity.The I.O. has also availed custodial interrogation of one of the co-accused in this case.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::There is also no possibility of absconding of the accused in this crime.So far as the apprehension of tampering with the evidence of prosecution is concerned, the requisite conditions would be imposed on the appellants.Therefore, there is no impediment to allow the::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 ::: 10 Cri Al-847-18-J present appeals for the relief of anticipatory bail as prayed in the present appeals.::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::In sequel, the appeals stand allowed.The impugned orders dated 28-09-2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar, in Bail Applications No. 208 and 209 of 2018 are hereby quashed and set-aside.The applications of the appellants filed under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned trial Court are hereby allowed.The appellants- (1) Yuvraj S/o Mohansingh Pardeshi and (2) Sudarshan S/o Krishnasingh Pardeshi, in Criminal Appeal No. 847 of 2018 and appellants- Ketan S/o Dilipsingh Raghuvanshi (Pardeshi), in Criminal Appeal No. 848 of 2018 be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2018 registered at Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 395, 504 read with section 149 of the IPC as well as section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants- applicants shall not indulge, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of prosecution witness.The appellants/applicants shall attend the Nandurbar City Police Station, District Nandurbar, on every Sunday in between 11.00 a.m. to 3.00 p.m. till filing of the charge-sheet and shall co-::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer accordingly.The present Criminal Appeals stand disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK.***::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 27/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/03/2019 22:21:23 :::
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,224,395 |
P.W.1-Kaliammal, is the mother of the victim girl.At the time of occurrence, the victim girl was aged about 15 years.On 12.04.2010, after knowing the missing of the victim girl, she lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 before the Kinathukadavu Police Station, for which, the police has not taken any action.In the complaint, she has stated that her daughter was having love affair with the accused.After some time from the date of occurrence, the victim girl got returned with the accused and thereafter, the police official sent the victim girl for medical examination.When at the time of occurrence, P.W.10, the victim girl was studying 9th standard in the Government School.On 12.04.2010, at about 11.00a.m., happens to be a Monday, she along with the accused went to Palani and in Palani Adivaram, the accused tied yellow thread and he has taken the victim to a house belongs to one Chinnan, the friend 3/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 of the accused.On the very same day, the accused inserted his male organ into the vagina of the victim and out of her will, she was sexually exploited.Further, 3 times, the accused had sexual contact with the victim and after one month i.e. on 13.05.2010, the accused brought the victim to Kinathukadavu wherein the police arrested the accused and secured the victim girl.On receipt of the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.9- Palanisamy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on 23.04.2010, at about 5.00p.m., registered a case in Crime No.370 of 2010 for an offence under Section 363 of IPC.The printed F.I.R. was marked as Ex.After registration of the case, he has sent the F.I.R. to P.W.11 for further investigation.P.W.11, the then Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, on receipt of the F.I.R. visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.5-Gnanasekaran, he prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P.2 and drawn rough sketch under Ex.He has taken steps to send the victim girl and the accused for medical examination and thereafter also made arrangements for sending the victim girl to Juvenile Home.In the meanwhile, after receiving the requisition from P.W.11, P.W.6-Dr.Thilagavathi examined the victim girl and found no external injuries over her body.On the date of examination, as the victim was having menses, the pubic hair and vaginal smear have been collected and sent for chemical test.In this regard, she issued accident register copy under Ex.Similarly, P.W.8-Dr.Prasannakumar, examined the accused in connection with the potency of the accused and on examination, nothing was available to infer that the accused is an impotent.His report in this regard was marked as Ex.In turn, P.W.7-Dr.Parthasarathy, a Scientific Assistant from Forensic Department, Coimbatore, received the vaginal smear and public hair collected from the private part of the victim girl and could not detect any semen.In this regard, he issued the report under Ex.In continuation of investigation, P.W.11 sent requisition to the Headmistress of the Government Higher Secondary School, Kinathukadavu, for issuing the age certificate to the victim girl and after receiving the same, P.W.12-Loganayaki, Headmistress has given Ex.P.9, the true extract from the school records where the victim girl studied.Further, she had issued a xerox copy of the Transfer Certificate of the victim girl under Ex.In order to prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and 10 documents were exhibited as Exs.P.1 to Ex.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1-Kaliammal is the mother of the victim girl, she speaks about the missing of her daughter and about the lodging of the complaint before Kinathukadavu Police Station.According to her, before the occurrence, the accused and her daughter fell in love with each other.- A man is said to commit “rape” if he -The appellant herein is the sole accused in the above referred case.He stood charged for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC.By a judgment dated 01.03.2014, the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, convicted the appellant under Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six(6) months.Further, he was convicted under Section 376(1) of IPC and sentenced to undergo ten (10) years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, further ordered to give the said amount to the victim girl under Section 357 Cr.P.C. The trial Court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently.2/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court, by way of filing the present Criminal Appeal.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.During investigation, on 13.05.2010, P.W.11 arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody.On receipt of the same, P.W.11 examined the Doctors, who have examined the victim and the accused and also the forensic department officials.Thereafter, he handed over the case records to his successor for further investigation.P.W.13-Ravikumar, the then Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, made further investigation and after completion of the investigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC.6/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges under Sections 366 and 376(1) of IPC and the accused denied the same.P.W.3-Manivannan and P.W.4-Manickam are the residents of the same locality, in which, the alleged occurrence had happened.They had stated about the missing of the victim girl.7/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014P.W.5-Gnanasekaran, is the witness to the observation mahazar.Thilagavathi deposed that as per the requisition given by P.W.11, she examined the victim girl and found no external injuries over her body.Further, she collected the pubic hair and vaginal smear and sent it for chemical test.11. P.W.7-Dr.Parthasarathy, a Scientific Assistant from Forensic Department, Coimbatore, has stated about the examination of vaginal smear.According to him, the vaginal smear collected from the victim girl did not have any semen.12. P.W.8-Dr.Prasannakumar, speaks about the examination of the accused in connection with the potency of the accused.P.W.9-Palanisamy, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station, has stated about receiving of the 8/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.P.W.10, the victim girl gave evidence before the trial Court as on 12.04.2010, at about 11.00a.m., she went along with the accused to Palani and in Palani Adivaram, the accused herein tied a yellow thread and on the same day, in the house belongs to one Chinnan, the accused committed sexual intercourse with her.P.W.12-Loganayaki, working as Headmistress, speaks about the issuing of school records relates to the victim girl.P.W.11 and P.W.13 are the police officers stated about the preparation of the observation mahazar, rough sketch, examination of the witnesses, securing the accused and the victim girl and about the filing of the final report, after concluding the investigation.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false.9/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 However, he did not choose to examine any witness nor did he mark any documents on his side.The learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethimandram (Mahila Court), Coimbatore, after perusing all the above materials and on considering the arguments advanced by either side, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra.Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.I have heard Mr.B.Thirumalai, representing for Mr.S.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.I have also perused the records carefully.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are having lot of contradictions, the evidence put forth by the victim girl is clear that the alleged occurrence had happened only after getting consent from her.He prayed to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent police would submit that the evidence given by P.W.12 and Ex.P.9, Ex.P.10, the copy of the transfer certificate pertains to the victim girl proves the fact that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl has not attained majority.Therefore, though the victim girl has given consent, the same was immaterial for considering the offence committed by the accused.According to him, interference of this Court is not necessary in the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and accordingly, he prayed for dismissing the appeal.I have considered the rival submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.Initially, in respect to the alleged marriage, which was solemnised in Palani, P.W.10, who is the victim girl has stated before the 11/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 trial Court as on the date of occurrence, both herself and the accused ran away from there Village and after reaching Palani, in Palani Adivaram, the accused tied thali to her.He would further contend that since the alleged marriage had happened to the victim was at the age of 15 years and 10 months, the said marriage is not legally valid and also the same has not been solemnised as per Hindu rites and customs.In this regard to prove the age of the victim girl, the birth certificate of the said girl has not been produced before the trial Court, only the certificate issued by the school authorities were marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex.Though the entries made in the school certificate is not a conclusive proof in respect to the age, P.W.1, the mother of the victim girl, who is the competent person to speak about the age of the girl has stated that at the time of occurrence, the victim girl was aged about 15 years.In this regard, the said evidence given by P.W.1 in respect to the age of the victim girl is corresponding to the entires made in the certificate issued by the school authorities.Therefore, as per the entries made in the certificate at the time of occurrence, the victim girl has completed the age of 15 years and 10 months.In our country, the essential condition for the validity of any marriage is solemnization of the religious ceremonies prescribed by the religion to which the parties belong.Thus saptpadi for Hindus is the necessary requirement, which if completed make a marriage valid in the eyes of law provided the parties are of sound mind and don’t fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship with each other.15/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014Here, it is a case, though the accused and the victim girl belongs to the same community, necessary religious ceremonies prescribed by the religion is not fulfilled in the marriage alleged to be performed between the victim girl and the accused.Further, at the time of marriage, the victim girl not completed the age of 16 years.Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the marriage performed between the victim girl with the accused is void one.Secondly, in respect to the offence under Section 376(1) IPC, when at the time of giving evidence as P.W.10, the victim girl has stated before the trial Court as on the date of marriage, the accused forcibly made sexual intercourse with her.On the other hand, the said statement has not been stated before the Investigating Officer at the time of investigation.More than that, after the alleged incident, both the accused and the victim girl stayed in a house, which belongs to one Chinnan for a considerable period.In the meantime, the victim girl has not taken any effort to seek help from others or even trying to ran away 16/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 from the said house.(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-- Against her will.Secondly - Without her consent.17/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 Thirdly.- With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.- When she is unable to communicate consent."Therefore, as per the definition, since the victim girl has not completed the age of 18 years at the time of occurrence, according to 6th description, we have to conclude that the accused herein committed an offence of rape, since it was already held that the marriage between the 18/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 victim girl and the accused is void one and therefore, at the time of occurrence, the victim girl is not a legally wedded wife of the accused.Hence, the offences arrived at by the trial Court under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC are within four corners of law and there is no infirmity found in the said findings.Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that during the relevant point of time, the accused herein committed the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC.Coming to the quantum of sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that for the past several years, the present appellant facing this case and thereby, he prays to show some leniency in the matter of sentence.According to him, as of now, both the victim girl and the accused married themselves and got separated along with respective spouses.Hence, considering the above submission with the relevant records, it is true after the alleged occurrence from the year of 2014, the appellant faces the trial and appeal in this case.Therefore, on considering the same, this Court modified the sentence as 5 years instead of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 19/22http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.No.334 of 2014 366 of IPC.In respect of offence under Section 376(1) IPC, this Court modified the sentence as 7 years instead of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.Since the appellant / accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused to commit him to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.It is ordered to run the sentences concurrently.Fine amount, if any paid is directed to be adjusted.Further, the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant / accused shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
161,225,506 |
Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Let record of the Courts below be called for.Also heard on IA No.7997/2017 which is an application filed by the appellant under-Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.It is submitted that learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant.The learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence.The disposal of appeal will take time, hence prayed for suspension of execution of jail sentence of sole appellant.The prayer is opposed by learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.Taking into consideration that the appellant was on bail and he has not misused the liberty, the disposal of appeal will take a long time, subject to depositing the fine amount, the application is allowed.It is directed that the jail sentence of the appellant shall remain suspended and he be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant is directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 04.10.2017 and on other subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf.Accordingly, the IA No.7997/2017 stands disposed of.List this appeal for final hearing in due course.Certified copy, as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA)
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,123,107 |
She is married to Ataur Rahaman and is not willing to continue with her matrimonial life.of the Indian Penal Code... for the Petitioner Mr.S.s.She has been falsely implicated only for the reason aforesaid.The prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 3 4
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,235,287 |
PWs.1 and 2 are brothers.PWs.1 to 3 and 7 are the sons, daughter-in-law and brother of the deceased Chinnathambikallan respectively.Father of the first accused as well as the deceased were related to each other and they own lands adjacent to each other and there was prior enmity in respect of said lands.On 11.01.2002, in the morning hours, PW1 was cleaning the lands and at that time, the second accused beat him with broom stick and also threatened him with dire consequences.On the next day i.e., on 12.01.2002 at about 1.30 p.m., the father of PW1 and the deceased were standing in front of his house and the second accused came there and picked up quarrel with him and PW3, wife of PW1 reached the spot and during the course of wordy quarrel, the first accused armed with Velkambi/M.O.2 and the second accused armed with Crowbar/M.O.1, started attacking the deceased and the second accused attacked him with a Crowbar on his chest and the first accused attacked him with M.O.2 on his head stating that he will be finished of.PW1 tried to intervene and the first accused caught hold of him and the second accused attacked on his left wrist, left thigh and on the rear side and cause him injuries and on seeing that her husband was attacked, PW3 tried to intervene and the first accused kicked her on her stomach and on hearing commotion, PWs.2, 5, 6 and 10 rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence along with other persons, namely Nallikannu and Thoppooran @ Sankar.Due to the said attack, the deceased fallen down with profusely bleeding on his head.Accused 1 and 2, on seeing other persons coming to the spot, fled away from the scene of occurrence along with the weapons.The deceased died on the spot due to the effect of injuries sustained.PW11 made arrangements for transportation of injured PWs.1 and 3 to Namakkal Government Hospital.PW8, Casualty Medical Officer attached to Namakkal Government Hospital, examined PWs.1 and 3 at about 3.40 p.m. on 12.01.2002 and informed that they had sustained injuries during the course of assault at Vadakkumedu, Varadharajapuram and PW8, on examining them, found that PWs.1 and 3 sustained simple injuries and issued Wound Certificates under Exs.PW17 was the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Erumapatty Police Station and on receipt of information from Namakkal Police Station about the occurrence, went to Namakkal Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 under Ex.The printed F.I.R was marked as Ex.PW17 dispatched the original copy of the F.I.R to the jurisdictional Magistrate and marked copy to higher officials, through PW14, Head Constable.PW18, Inspector of Police attached to Namakkal Police Station, in-charge of Erumapatty Police Station, on receipt of the F.I.R., commenced the investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached the spot at about 7.00 p.m. and also requisitioned the services of PW12/Village Administrative Officer of Muuanchetti Village and PW13, his menial, to arrive at the scene of occurrence.PW18 prepared Observation Mahazar/Ex.P8 and Rough Sketch/Ex.P23 in the presence of the said witnesses and obtained the signature of PW13 in Ex.PW18 also summoned the services of photographer and took up the photographs and also held inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared Inquest Report under Ex.PW8 sent the body of the deceased for conducting postmortem along with Ex.Smoth partially digested food .... about 300 ml.Kidney Pale.Bladder empty.PW16, after completion of postmortem, has given a certificate under Ex.P12 opining that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage due to poly trauma 18-24 hours before the postmortem examination and after the completion of postmortem, the deceased body was handed over to PW15, who after removing M.O.5 Black and Yellow colour lungi and M.O.6-Black waist card owned by the deceased.PW18 effected the arrest of the accused 1 and 2 at 11.00 a.m. on 13.01.2002 and in the presence of PWs.12 and 13, confession statements were recorded.P25 and P26 are the admissible portion of the confession given by the accused 1 and 2, based on which M.O.1-Velkambi and M.O.2Blood stained crow bar from the place of occurrence were seized under Mahazar/Exs.P27 and P28 and the signatures of PWs.12, 16 and 17 were also obtained and thereafter the accused were sent for judicial custody.The case properties were sent to the jurisdictional Magistrate by PW18 under From-95 and the statements of PWs.12 and 13 were also recorded.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The appellants are arrayed as accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.132 of 2003 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and vide judgment dated 13.07.2012, they stood tried and convicted as follows:AccusedConviction under SectionSentenceA1302 IPCImprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment AccusedConviction under SectionSentenceA2302 IPCImprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.50,000/- in default to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment324 IPCImprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one year imprisonment323 IPCImprisonment for 1 year with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months imprisonmentBoth the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and set off under Section 428 CrPC was also granted.The trial Court though framed charge under Sections 307 and 323 IPC against the second accused, convicted him for the offences under Sections 302, 323 and 324 IPC and sentenced him as stated above.Insofar as the first accused is concerned, though charges framed under Sections 302 r/w. 34 IPC and 307 r/w. 109 IPC for having caught hold of PW1 at the time of assault by the second accused, the trial Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC and awarded sentence as stated above.Both the accused, aggrieved by the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court as stated above, had filed this appeal.The injured witness, namely PW1 filed a revision in Crl.R.C.No.229 of 2005 on the file of this Court and vide judgment dated 08.02.2011, this Court has set aside the said judgment and remanded the matter to the trial Court to dispose of the same in accordance with law.Thereafter, re-trial was held and both of them were convicted and sentenced as stated above.P20, the requisition through PW15, constable attached to Erumapatty Police Station and also seized M.O.3- Blood stained earth, M.O.4-sample earth under Ex.PW18 recorded the statement of PW1 and other witnesses.PW16, Medical Officer attached to Namakkal Government Hospital, on receipt of the body through PW15 along with the requisition, commenced the postmortem at 10.30 a.m. on 13.01.2002 and noted the following features:External Injuries:1.A lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the occipital region.2.A lacerated wound of 7 x 38cm x 1 cm over parietal region.3.A diffused contusion in front of the chest estenly from right nipple to left nipple4.A diffuse contusion over right side of the abdomen.5.A diffuse contusion over right knee.Internal Examination:Skull: Fracture of frontal right temporal bone.Fracture of the base of the skull... fluid covering right hemisphere of the brain.Thorax: Fracture sternum and ribs right 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and left side 4, 5, 6 and 7 ribs.. Homeothroax: Both the lungs lacerated.Heart: partially filled with blood and lacerated.Abdomen: Pale, Spleen Pale.PW18 submitted a requisition under Ex.P14 for sending the case properties for chemical analysis under Ex.P5/covering letter and received Exs.P6 and P7, Biological and Serology report respectively.PW18 also obtained copy of the plaint in O.S.No.397 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal filed by the deceased against Ponnusamy, Thambikalan and another Chinnathambikallanm, marked as Ex.PW18, after completion of investigation, filed final report before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Namakkal, charging the accused for the commission of offences under Sections 302 r/w. 34, 307, 307 r/w.109 and 323 IPC.A counter case was also registered in Crime No.26 of 2002 on the basis of the complaint given by the first accused against PW1 and after investigation, it was referred as Mistake of Fact, marked as Ex.The Judicial Magistrate No.The trial Court, on appearance of the accused, framed charges against the accused for the offences as stated above and questioned them and they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them.The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, examined PWs.1 to 18, marked Exs.Both the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false.On behalf of the accused, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.The trial Court, originally, vide judgment dated 14.09.2004 has acquitted both of them and Crl.No.229 of 2005 filed by PW1 was allowed, remanding the matter for fresh trial.After remand, the prosecution did not examine any additional witness or any document was marked apart from documents already marked.However, on behalf of the accused, the judgment and decree in O.S.No.185 of 1992 was marked as Exs.D1 and D2, the plaint copy in O.S.No.397 of 2001 was marked as Ex.D2 and Judgment copy in AS.No.213 of 1997 was marked as Ex.Prior to the marking of defence side exhibits, the accused were once again questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC and they denied it as false.The trial Court, after remand, has conducted a full fledged trial and found both the accused guilty of the charges and convicted and sentenced them as stated above and hence, this appeal.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:(iv) PWs.1 to 3 did not lodge any complaint immediately after the occurrence to the nearest police station, namely Erumapatty Police Station.(v) Admittedly the first accused has sustained injuries on account of PW1, which resulted in registration of counter case in Crime No.26/2002 (Ex.D1- Old) and the said case has not been properly investigated and closed as mistake of fact and the prosecution has not properly explained as to how the first accused had sustained injuries.(vi) As per the testimony of PW17, who registered the F.I.R., he received an information from Namakkal Police Station, based on which he went to Namakkal Government Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and thereafter registered the case and no investigation has been done on the first information given to PW17 and admittedly the said first information has been burked to suit the case of the prosecution.(vii) PW1, in the course of his testimony, made inconsistent version about the subscribing of signature in Ex.(xii) The prosecution has not examined any independent witness and admittedly, none of the occupants referred to in Ex.P23/Rough Sketch have not been examined by the police.(xiii) The prosecution belatedly dispatched the statements of PWs.1 to 3, 5, 6 and 10 and no plausible explanation has been offered as to the belated dispatch of those vital documents.In sum and substance, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that since the case of the prosecution bristled with very many infirmities and inconsistencies and there are very many loose ends, the trial Court ought to have awarded benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant/accused and prays for setting aside the impugned judgment and Hon'ble Acquittal of both the accused.Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that this Court having found that on earlier occasion, no proper reason have been given for acquitting the accused, have remanded the matter and after remand, the evidence of the witnesses were once gain recorded and due to passage of time, some discrepancies bound to occur and the inconsistencies pointed out by the defence in the testimonies of eye witnesses did not affect the case of the prosecution for the reason that they are minor and trivial in nature and the testimonies of the injured witnesses, namely PWs.3 and 4 carry a great weight and the trial Court, based on their testimonies coupled with other materials such as Accident Register and Postmortem Certificate, has rightly reached the conclusion and though the witnesses to Seizure Mahazar and Recovery had turned hostile, they did not affect the core of the prosecution and prays for confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court and dismissal of this appeal.This Court paid its best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the oral and documentary evidence as well as the original documents.away and they reached Namakkal via Erumapatty Police Station only and when he reached the Namakkal Government Hospital between 3.00 and 3.45 p.m., he did not know the person who accompanied him and he was in an unconscious state of mind.PW1 would further depose in the cross examination that immediately after the occurrence, Village Munsif came there at 4.00 p.m. and he examined all of them, but he did not obtain his signature and he did not lodge any complaint to Erumapatty Police Station and was not aware as to any whether other person has lodged complaint and the police came to the spot at about 4.00 p.m and he was examined by Namakkal Police and also lodged a complaint to them and he did not know who prepared the report and when he was asked to put his signature, he put his signature in English.Attention of the witness/PW1 was drawn to Ex.P1 and though he would state that he only put his signature, later on stated that he did not subscribe his signature and on going through Ex.P1, once again has admitted that he subscribed his signature in the police station and when he was examined by police, Doctor was also present.PW1, in the cross examination, with regard to counter case, marked as Ex.D1 (old), has denied the suggestion that they only started attacking the accused and prior to attack, there was a wordy altercation between his father and the accused for 5 minutes and thereafter, his father was attacked by the accused and on hearing the commotion only, he came to the spot and even prior to that, the second accused was present.PW1 denied the suggestion that on account of accidental fall only, his father sustained injuries.PW2 is the brother of PW1 and son of the deceased and he also spoke about the occurrence and he was conversing at the time of occurrence with PW10 and was about 60 feet away from the occurrence and he did not know where his brother was and PW4 and other witnesses were at about 500 feet away, cutting trees and police came to the spot at about 6.00 p.m. and he informed the police through telephone at about 2.00 p.m. and police came to the spot at about 6.00 p.m. He would further depose that on the date of occurrence on 12.01.2002, at about 5.00 p.m. the accused were caught by the police.It is to be noted at this juncture that the presence of PW17 was not spoken to by PW11 even in Ex.P1/complaint as well as in his evidence.It is very pertinent to point out at this juncture that according to PW17, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Erumapatty Police Station at about 4.00 p.m. he received an information from Namakkal Police Station, based on which he went to Namakkal Government Hospital and examined and recorded the statement of PW1 under Ex.P1 and thereafter, registered the F.I.R. The presence of PW2 at the time of occurrence was doubtful for the above said reason and it is his evidence that he only lodged the complaint to Namakkal Police Station through telephone at about 2.00 p.m. and during the occurrence, police came to the spot at about 6.00 p.m.PW17, the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered the F.I.R, would admit with regard to receipt of information by Namakkal Police Station that he did not note it in the Station Diary as well as in other records and he cannot give any reason.PW18/Investigating Officer, in the cross examination, would admit that even in the F.I.R., the intimation received from Namakkal Police Station found place and he did not investigate the said aspect.As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that even prior to Ex.P1/complaint recorded by PW17, there was an anterior information as to the commission of offences received by Namakkal Police Station and the said information has been burked and it also assumes importance for the reason that it is the evidence of PW2 that he only lodged a complaint at about 2.00 p.m. on the fateful day and police came to the spot at about 6.00 p.m. There is also discrepancies in the testimonies of PWs.1 and 2 as to the presence of police in the scene for the reason that according to PW1, Village Munsif came to the spot at about 4.00 p.m. and he examined all the witnesses and it also substantiate the defence projected by the accused that there was a prior information.In the considered opinion of the Court, the said prior information has been burked by the prosecution for the reasons best known to them.It is to be noted at this juncture that PW1 was also inconsistent as to his signature in Ex.P1 for the reason that he was not very categorical as to his signature in Ex.PW3 is the wife of PW1 and he has spoken about the overt act on the part of the accused and she would say that the occurrence was witnessed by PW5 and three others.In the cross examination, PW3 would depose that after hearing the commotion, she came out after two minutes and when she prevented the accused from attacking her husband, she was also beaten and when the police came to the hospital at about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m., she did not know as to the person who lodged the complaint and they(PWs.1 and 3) did not lodge any complaint as they were unconscious and three days after only she was examined by police and she was unconscious for two days.Therefore, according to PW3, her husband, PW1 or himself did not lodge any complaint as they were unconscious and they were admitted by Duraisamy, Pennatchiammal, Sivakumar (witnesses not examined).PW5 was the another eye-witness and he knows both PWs.1 and 3 and on hearing the sound, he saw the attack inflicted by the accused and in the cross examination, he would depose that he witnessed the occurrence at about 10 to 15 feet away and there was a blood stain in the cloth wore by PW1 and the police came to the spot at about 5.00 or 6.00 p.m. and he did not know other persons, who might have witnessed the occurrence.PW6 was cited as another eye-witness, but he turned hostile.PW7 was the elder brother of the deceased and in the cross examination, he would depose that police came to the spot at about 4.00 p.m. and only after their arrival only, PW1 was taken to the hospital and the police did not examine anybody.The testimony of PW7 is quite contradictory to the testimony of PWs.1 and 3 as to their admission in the hospital as well as time and arrival of the police.PW8 was the Casualty Medical Officer, who treated both PWs.1 and 3 and in the cross examination, he would depose that the said witnesses did not speak anything about the number of persons attacked them and they came on their own to the hospital.It is to be pointed out at this juncture that as per the testimony of PWs.1 and 3, they were taken to hospital by somebody, whereas the testimony of PW8 is otherwise.PW10 was also cited as an eye witness and he speaks about the overt act of three accused, namely Ponnusamy, Sivakumar and Udayakumar and he was cross examined with regard to his presence in the scene of occurrence and he would state that for the purpose of paying electricity bill, he went to that place and he has also spoken about the presence of PW2 and further deposed that PW11 had contacted the police and police only took PWs.1 and 3 to the hospital.It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the date on which the occurrence took place is a 2nd Saturday where no Electricity Office would function and therefore, his presence was highly doubtful.Even otherwise, the testimonies of PWs.7 and 9 disclosed that the appellant came to the spot much earlier and they only took PWs.1 and 3 to the hospital for treatment and if it is so, there was an earlier information as to the commission of offences and as already pointed out in the earlier paragraphs, the said information has been totally suppressed and burked by the prosecution and PW8 did not come out with any plausible explanation as to the complaint, which came into existence at the earliest point of time.PW11, according to the prosecution, took PW1 for treatment to the Government Hospital at Namakkal and in the cross examination, he would depose that within ten minutes, he went to the scene of occurrence and found that PWs.1 and 3 were lying with injuries and also the body of Chinnathambikallan/deceased and he contacted Erumapatty Police Station and admitted them in the hospital between 01.30 and 02.00 p.m. and police came to the spot at about 04.30 p.m. and when he reached the spot, he found that Village Munsif was present and crowd was also assembled.The testimonies of PW10 is contradictory to the evidence of PWs.3 and 7 as to the lodging of the complaint as well as the presence of police.It is also to be noted that Village Munsif was present even at that time.However, the appellants are entitled to succeed for the reason that a grave doubt has been created as to the first information, based on which the case has been registered.This Court, on analyzing and scrutinizing the testimonies of the above said witnesses, has expressed opinion that even prior to Ex.P1, Namakkal Police Station has received the first information which was passed on to Erumapatty Police Station and thereafter, PW17 went to Namakkal Government Hospital to record the statement/Ex.P1 from PW1 and registered the F.I.R under Ex.P22 and it was also admitted by PW17 with regard to receipt of information from Namakkal Police Station and he did not record the same either in his diary or station diary and the availability of earlier information is also fortified by the fact that according to PWs.7 and 9, police were present and they only took PWs.1 and 3 to the hospital and whereas the oral testimony of PW17 is even otherwise.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,235,365 |
Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Amitabha Chatterjee, J. ) 2
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
161,239,954 |
not supported by any corroborative evidence from the side of the Petitioner.On the other hand, the ledger book maintained by the Respondent and settled by the Petitioner had been produced on behalf of the Respondent in order to prove the transactions in respect of which the cheque in question had been issued by the Petitioner.In our view, the defence raised by the Petitioner does not make out any triable issue and the High Court, has dealt with the matter correctly and has justifiably rejected the Petitioner's application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 C.P.C. and the same does not call for interference by this Court.The Special Leave Petition is, therefore, dismissed, but without any order as to costs."As per the plaint, the plaintiff approached defendant in the month of September, 2008, with regard to certain schemes of business being run by the defendant in the name of M/s Money Mantra of which defendant was the sole proprietor.The defendant assured the plaintiff of lucrative returns on the investment.Believing the assurances made by the defendant to the plaintiff, plaintiff invested Rs.38,85,000/- with the defendant out of which Rs.37,00,000/- was paid by cheque and the remaining amount was paid in cash.Defendant issued a receipt dated 29.9.2008 to the plaintiff acknowledging receipt of Rs.38,85,000/-.A post-dated cheque dated 22.9.2009 was issued by CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 8 of 12 the defendant to the plaintiff towards the principal amount and defendant also assured the plaintiff that the said cheque would be encashed on presentation.The said cheque when presented by the plaintiff was dishonoured with the remark Account closed.Plaintiff came to know that defendant has been arrested in case FIR No.109/2009 with the allegation of cheating.Plaintiff thereafter sent a legal notice dated 3.10.2009 to the defendant at the office of the defendant and also through Jail Superintendent, however, the amount has not been returned by the defendant to the plaintiff, which forced the plaintiff to file the present suit.CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 8 of 12The defence, sought to be raised by the defendant, in this leave to defend application is that he is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and the defendant was in judicial custody when the blank signed cheque was stolen from the premises of the defendant.Another defence, sought to be raised by the defendant, is that as per the plaintiff herself the defendant had issued a post-dated cheques on 22.9.2009 and the present suit cannot be based on a post-dated cheque.In order to succeed in an application for leave to defend, defendant must disclose a triable issue or at least a plausible defence.In case, defence of the defendant is frivolous or vexatious no leave is to be granted to the defendant.The stand taken by the defendant that a blank cheque was stolen from his house during the period he was in jail is frivolous and unacceptable.Even otherwise, there is nothing on record which suggests that any family member of the defendant lodged any FIR with regard to theft of cheque of the defendant or that the plaintiff has stolen the cheque in question from the house of the defendant.Another defence, which has been raised is that the plaintiff has not been able to establish her sources of amounts deposited with the defendant.I have also carefully perused the cross-examination of the plaintiff in the proceedings filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, a copy of which has been placed on record.Cross- examination of the plaintiff would show that plaintiff is a housewife and she is residing with her family.Plaintiff has disclosed that she has no source of income, however, the said cheque was issued to the defendant after her husband had sold a property.The plaintiff has also stated that she had paid a sum of Rs.38,58,000/- to the defendant, which was from her past savings and out of the property sold by her husband.She also goes on to state that this amount was CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 10 of 12 given by her son and she is unable to disclose the particulars of the property sold.CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 10 of 12The cross-examination of the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff has been able to satisfactorily establish the source of her money.Even otherwise, it is not necessary for the plaintiff to establish the source of income.What is relevant is that this amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, which is evident from the receipt duly given by the defendant and the presumption, which is to be drawn in favour of the plaintiff on account of the post dated cheque having been issued by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.While plaintiff has been able to place cogent evidence on record there is only an oral denial, which is not supported by any corroborative evidence from the side of the defendant.The defendant has not been able to make out any triable issue.Having regard to the fact that plaintiff is a housewife, it is not expected for her to give answers, which are meticulous in nature, however, she has categorically stated that this amount was paid to the defendant out of the savings and out of the proceedings received from sale of the property.The contention raised by counsel for the defendant with regard to address mentioned by the plaintiff in the Memo of Parties filed in the present suit is of Gupta Colony, however, she has stated in her cross-examination that she is residing in Gulabi Bagh, is not a triable issue and cannot be a ground for granting leave to defend.Accordingly, present application is without any merit and the same stands dismissed.CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 11 of 12In view of above present suit is decreed in the sum of Rs.38,85,000/-with interest at the rate of 8%, per annum, from the date of filing of the suit till realisation.G.S.SISTANI,J DECEMBER 02, 2011 msr [PDF] CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 12 of 12CS(OS) 199/2010 Page 12 of 12
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,059,773 |
Heard Mr. Ram Krishna Dubey, learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer for quashing the charge-sheet dated 19th January, 2019 submitted in the N.C.R. No. 247 of 2018 under Sections 323 and 504 I.P.C., Police Station-Gopiganj, District-Bhadohi, cognizance taking order dated 22nd July, 2019 as well as entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2019 of 2019 (State Vs.Triveni Prasad & Others) registered against the applicants pursuant tot he submission of the aforementioned charge-sheet, which is pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi Gyanpur.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the opposite party no.2 filed a non-cognizable report on 27th July, 2018 at Police Staiton-Gopiganj, District-Bhadohi against the applicants on the basis of which N.C.R. No. 247 of 2018 under Sections 323 and 504 has been registered.The opposite party no.2 moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi Gyanpur under Section 155 (2) Cr.P.C. with a prayer that the concerned Police Station be directed to investigate the matter.Pursuant to the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 5th November, 2018 on the aforesaid application, the matter was investigated and the Police submitted a charge-sheet against the applicants under Section 323 and 504 I.P.C. in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhadohi Gyanpur, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 2019 of 2019 (State Vs.Triveni Prasad & Others) against the applicants.In view of the said explanation, report of the Police Officer, after investigation, disclosing commission of non-cognizable offence is to be deemed to be a complaint and the Police Officer, who submitted the report has to be deemed to be a complainant.In other words, the charge sheet submitted by the Police in a non-cognizable offence shall be treated to be a complaint and the procedure prescribed for hearing of the complaint case shall be applicable to that case.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,067,618 |
Default stipulations have also imposed by the trial Court.A s per prosecution case, complainant-Bhagwatdeen Yadav has filed a missing complaint of his daughter (prosecutrix) aged about 15 years stating therein that on 28.11.2016, he alongwith his wife went to Rajpura and they left prosecutrix in the house.On 29.11.2016, when they returned back to home, they did not find the prosecutrix.On searching, they came to know that one Mahesh (person of village) was also not in home.Mahesh used to meet their daughter.The complainant expressed his suspicion over the Mahesh.The police registered the FIR under Sections 363 and 366 of IPC and investigated the matter.On 09.12.2016, statement of prosecutrix under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded by police wherein she stated that the appellant abducted the prosecutrix on account of false pretext of marriage, took her into forest and committed sexual intercourse with her continuously.The appellant is in jail since 10.12.2016 and has suffered about 4 years of jail sentence.Record of the court below has been received.Heard on the question of admission.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Al s o , heard on I.A.No.2985/2020, which is repeat (second) application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant/accused.She further stated that one Ganeshi and Mahesh Prajapati were also with her.They took the prosecutrix to Delhi where father of Mahesh reached and brought them to Khajuraho.Thereafter, in statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. dated 09.12.2016 and supplementary statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. dated 26.12.2016, the prosecutrix made some allegations against the co-accused Ram Milan.The police has exonerated the Mahesh against whom initially FIR was registered and filed the charge-sheet against the appellant and co- accused Ram Milan.366, 376 (2) (<) of IPC as well as Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act. The learned trial Court has found the appellant guilty and convicted him as aforesaid.As per school admission register, date of birth of prosecutrix is 12.04.2001 meaning thereby on the day of incident, the prosecutrix was aged about 15 years and 7 months but the learned trial Court itself disbelieved the school certificate and held that prosecutrix was about 17 years of age at the time of incident.He further submits that prosecutrix herself stated in her evidence that she is unable to read and write and in her cross- examination she admitted that she did not go to school.Father (PW-2) and mother (PW-4) of prosecutrix have also failed to deposed date of birth of the prosecutrix.He also pointed out the statement of Dashrath Singh (PW-7) wherein he was unable to state that on which basis, date of birth of prosecutrix is registered in school record.He also admitted that 3 CRA-3273-2019 on those day, on the basis of physical assessment, date of birth used to register in school record.Therefore, the learned trial Court erred in holding the prosecutrix as minor at the time of incident.It is further submitted that at the time of incident, prosecutrix was above 18 years of her age and also a consenting party.Initially, on the suspicion of father of prosecutrix, police has registered the case against one Mahesh of the same village with whom the prosecutrix must have eloped but the police has exonerated him.He further submits that the learned trial Court has also failed to consider the defence of appellant/accused wherein it was stated that there was some enmity between the parties.The prosecutrix has also performed marriage with another person.Besides the above, he submits that the appellant is in jail since 10.12.2016 and has suffered about 4 years of jail sentence.His family is suffering from great hardship.Therefore, he prays for bail should not be granted to the appellant.Heard and perused the record.4 CRA-3273-2019 On perusal, as per school certificate, date of birth of prosecutrix is 12.04.2001 and on the date of incident i.e. 28.11.2016, she was below 16 years of her age but the learned trial Court held the prosecutrix as minor considering her estimated age about 17 years on the basis of medical evidence.The learned counsel for the appellant stated that prosecutrix was above 18 years at the time of incident and was a consenting party too.The counsel for the appellant also pointed out the evidence of medical examiner Dr. Surbhi Khare (PW-10) who examined the X-ray report of prosecutrix and opined her age about 17 to 18 years at the time of incident.List this matter for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp Digitally signed by SAVITRI PATEL Date: 2020.09.30 17:14:59 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,077,227 |
By consent of both sides, this writ petition itself is taken up forfinal disposal.2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learnedAdditional Government Pleader, who takes notice for the respondents.C.C.No.44/2014 by the learned Chief JudicialMagistrate, Srivilliputhur, dated 16.05.2017, an appeal has been preferredbefore this Court in Crl.Pending appeal, this Courthas suspended the sentence imposed on the petitioner on 09.06.2017 in Crl.Therefore, the petitioner has given anapplication on 17.06.2017 to the respondents to review the order ofsuspension.Till date, the said application to review the order of suspensionhas not been considered.Hence, a direction may be issued, he pleaded.5.But, this Court is unable to find any merits in this petition.Thereason is that the petitioner, who is arrayed as A4 in Special C.C. No.44 of2014 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputhur forvarious offences suffered conviction and sentenced with a fine ofRs.1,21,000/- and though the said sentence has been suspended, this Court isnot inclined to entertain the writ petition.Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.ToThe District Collector,Virdhunagar District,Virdhunagar.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,780,786 |
Accused 1 P. J. Sunder Rajan and 2, V. Dasaseelan are office assistants in Unit Trust of India, 45, Second Line Beach, Madras.Approver A. Kalaimani is peon in the same office.A1 P. J. Sunder Rajan, A2 Dasaseelan and approver Kalaimani are respectively, Secretary, Vice President and Assistant Secretary of Madras Branch of Unit Trust of India Employees Association, comprising Class III and Class IV employees, Shri K. G. Vasal is the Chief General Manager of U.T.I Head Office at Bombay.During October, 1987, the members of the Unit Trust Employees Association were agitating for payment of overtime allowance to Class III and Class IV employees as they wanted to remain in office after working hours since the higher officers were also remaining in office after working hours and attending to official work.Some of the office bearers of the U.T.E.A. resorted to physically preventing the officers from discharging their duties after office hours as a result of which the Management placed under suspension on 28th October, 1987 the agitating Association leaders including A1 P. J. Sunder Rajan, A2 V. Dasaseelan and approver A. Kalaimani and initiated departmental action.A1, A2 and approver along with 3 others tendered unconditional apology to the Management, undertaking not to repeat such things/acts in future and therefore the Management reinstated them in service.Hence A1, A2 and the approver harboured a grudge against Shri K. G. Vasal who was instrumental for breaking the agitation of the U.T.E. Association.A bunch of spoilt and skipped blank cheque form received by the Claims Section during the month of December, 1988 and February, 1989 were kept in a cloth lined cover in the table drawer of Staff Officer Padmavathi for safe custody.On 7th February, 1989, A1, A2 and the approver met at the office of U.T.I. Madras at about 19.50 hrs after attending the felicitation function organised for Tr.W. R. Varadharajan, M.L.A., and were preparing the charter of demands for the All India Unit Trust Employees Association conference at Bombay.Between 7th February, 1989, 20.30 hrs and 8th February, 1989 at the office of U.T.I. Madras, A1 and A2 along with approver A. Kalaimani were parties to a criminal conspiracy, having agreed to do or cause to be done illegal acts to wit, to commit theft of the cover containing the spoilt and skipped blank cheques by inserting names and addresses of V.I.Ps, and others with imaginary amounts and to despatch them to the said addresses intending to harm the reputation of the individuals concerned as well as the Unit Trust of India and the said acts which are offences were committed by A1 and A2 along with the approver and thereby A1 and A2 committed an offence punishable u/s 120B r/w 381, 467 and 469 I.P.C. In pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction on 7th February, 1989 at the office of the UTI Madras, A1 and A2 along with the approver committed theft of the cloth lined cover containing a bunch of spoilt and skipped blank cheque forms from Claims Section and other records from ULIP Section by dishonestly removing them from the safe custody of the concerned officers of the Unit Trust of India and thereby A1 and A2 committed an offence punishable u/s 381 I.P.C.In pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction on 7th February, 1989 at about 2.15 hrs at the office of U.T.I. Madras, A2 V. Dasaseelan forged four blank cheques contained in the cloth lined cover, typing thereon the names of Shri V. P. Singh, Parliament of India, New Delhi, Shri S. B. Chavan, Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Bombay, Shri B. Varahamoorthy, Kakrapad Atomic Power Project, Surat District-3 and Major B. S. Prasanna, No. 57, VII Cross, Wilson Garden, Bangalore 560027 with amounts of Rs. 99,900/-, Rs. 1,35,000/-, Rs. 13,800/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively, intending that the said documents which purported to be valuable securities shall harm the reputation of the addressees as well as the Management of the U.T.I. and thereby A2 committed offences punishable u/s 467 and 469 I.P.C.In a similar manner, you asked Shri Dasaseelan to type a cheque in the name of Shri S. B. Chavan giving his address as Chief Minister of Maharashtra, Bombay, explaining to Shri Dasaseelan's query that 'Mumbay' is a North Indian word, you told Shri Dasaseelan that the remaining two cheques should be sent to Unit Trust of India's agents known to him.You then asked Shri Kalaimani to bring the CGGF or ULIP register.Thereafter you took unit certificates for Shri Dasaseelan to type them one by one.You along with Shri Dasaseelan told Kalaimani, 'Don't tell anyone including President, Kalaimani, there is no connection between this and you.Don't worry about anything.We will take care of everything.' You used threatening language to Shri Kalaimani to prevent him from telling the trust to the authorities.When Shri Kalaimani told you that he had confessed to the police, you asked 'Does not matter if you have told the police the facts.You have three daughters.Then that very night, you along with Shri Dasaseelan compelled Shri Kalaimani to accompany you to your Advocate's house and thereafter forcibly confined him in Arun Lodge near Central for that night.On the next day i.e. 22 March, 1989 you along with Shri Dasaseelan forced Shri Kalaimani to write a false leave application stating that he had been severely beaten by the Police.You had also vide your leave application dated 22nd March, 1989 applied for casual leave stating falsely that it was for admitting Kalaimani to hospital.In the aforesaid circumstances, you along with Shri Dasaseelan and forcibly involving Shri Kalaimani hatched a conspiracy to commit theft and forgery with the sole purpose, intention and motive of tarnishing the image of the Trust in the eyes of the public at large and in the process also to cause financial loss to the Trust.Thereafter, you along with Shri Dasaseelan by forcing, pressurizing and threatening, prevented Shri Kalaimani from giving out the truth to the Management.ORDER Nainar Sundaram, J.A copy of the charge-sheet, which is common to both the petitioners, in the criminal proceedings shall stand annexed as Annexure "A" to this order.No. 3/89 U/s 120B, 381.467, 469 and 109In pursuance of the said agreement and conspiracy and in the course of the same transaction at the time and place mentioned above, A1 P. J. Sunder Rajan abetted the commission of the offence punishable u/s 467 and 469 I.P.C., by A2 by A1 instigating A2 to type out on the blank cheque forms the four names and the amounts mentioned above for the purpose of harming the reputation of the said addressees as well as the Management of the U.T.I. and thereby A1 committed offences punishable u/s 467 and 469 r/w 109 I.P.C.Hence the charge, (Sd.) 11-5 (R Sankaramoorthy) Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hqrs.Shri P. J. Sunder Rajan Assistant (Under Suspension) Unit Trust of India, Madras.Dear Sir, Staff - Discipline - Charge sheet In continuation of our letter No. UT(M) 360/4C(Spl)/88-89 dated 5th April, 1989, placing you under suspension with immediate effect, we have to inform you that further and more circumstances appearing against you are as under :(1) On 7th February, 1989 after office hours, you alone with Shri V. Dasaseelan, Assistant and Shri.What transpired on the 7th February, 1989 and the days following thereafter, by and between the three of you in collusion, both by way of action and words is as under and to the following effect.(2) Shri Kalaimani, Peon, unauthorisedly removed a file-size cover containing spoilt/cancelled/unused cheques/warrants from the open drawer of the Staff Officer (Repurchase Claims Section) and handed it over to you saying, 'see what work the Staff Officer (Claims) has done and left, report this to the Manager'.You took out the contents from the cover and said 'Kalaimani, if we give these to the Manager, he will fire only the concerned Staff Officer, but I am going to get firing for the Manager himself.By typing these we should take revenge on Chief General Manager Vasal who took revenge on our President and us.This is the correct time'.To the suggestion of Shri Dasaseelan that one cheque could be given to Shri Vassal and another to Chairman, you said 'If sent to these people they will fire only the Madras Office.If sent to Shri V. P. Singh he will shake everyone'.You then asked Shri Kalaimani to bring the typing machine.You asked Shri Dasaseelan to type the cheques.You thus not only conspired to commit theft of the said cheques but also to commit forgery along with Shri Dasaseelan by typing the name of Shri V. P. Singh on one of the unused cheques.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,079,064 |
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings inC.C.No.186 of 2014 pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District, pursuant to the amicable settlementeffected between the parties.The jurisdiction of this Court may not be allowed to beexploited by the accused, who can well afford to wait for a logicalconclusion.The antecedents of the accused have also to be taken intoconsideration before accepting 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, this Court isof the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the matterspending.Therefore, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.186 of 2014 pending onthe file of the Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District inrespect of the petitioner/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 shall form part of this order.The Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.The Inspector of Police, Veeravanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 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.
|
17,808,695 |
A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 2 of 13 Waziro Bai (mother of Chillu and Ashu) and thereafter dumping the dead body in order to conceal the murder.The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 28th May 2013 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with the further direction that the convict should not be released from the prison for the rest of her life along with fine of Rs. 20,000 for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC; RI for ten years along with fine of Rs. 8,000 and, in default, to undergo RI for five months for the offence under Section 364/34 IPC; and to undergo RI for five years with fine of Rs. 5,000 and, in default, to undergo RI for three months for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 2 of 13The background to the present case is that at the instance of PW-22, the daughter of the deceased Waziro, FIR No.550/2004 was registered at PS Pahar Ganj in which both the present Appellant and the co-accused Kanhaiya Lal Seth (A-1) were named as accused.It appears that while he was lodged in Central Jail, Tihar as a result of the above conviction, A-1 filed an application in January 2007 under the RTI Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 3 of 13 Act 2005 enquiring about a dead body found in the area of Kashmere Gate and on the forearm of which 'Waziro' was tattooed.Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-44) related the said application under the RTI Act with FIR No.234/2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate regarding Waziro and her two sons (brothers of PW-22) having gone missing.PW-44 then traced PW-22 and got identified the dead bodies through photographs and connected the two accused, i.e. the present Appellant and A-1, to the present cases with the help of crime dossier and finger prints.Thus, a breakthrough was achieved in the present cases which, up until then, were being treated as blind murders.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 3 of 13FIR 147 of 2004On 19th April 2004, at around 10.30 am, Inspector Netra Pal (PW-43) an Additional SHO, PS NDRS along with Sub Inspector (SI) Brijesh Malik (PW-45) were doing routine check at the NDRS.When they reached the mini passenger hall they found that the public had gathered near the central bridge escalator.Head Constable (HC) Jitender (PW-30) was present in the passenger hall and informed them about a carton lying near the stairs of the escalator on which some letters/figures were written.Foul smell was emanating from the said carton.PW-43 partially opened the carton and found a dead body.The senior officers were informed and the finger print expert as well as crime team were called.SI Hira Lal (PW-28), Crime Team In-charge, and SI N.K. Sharma (PW-21), Finger Print Bureau ('FPB'), opened the carton.They found that it contained one mat, some clothes, one dirty pillow, tailoring clothes and grey Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 4 of 13 colour polythene bag in which two dead bodies of male children aged seven to eight and nine to ten years were found.Both of them had red coloured marks around their necks and their tongue and eyes were out.PW-21 noticed chance prints on the tape on the carton.The crime team photographer took photographs of the dead bodies and the spot.The rukka was sent through Ct.Ravinder Malik (PW-36) for registration of the FIR.Site plan was prepared, and the carton and the articles recovered therefrom were seized.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 4 of 13The post-mortem of both dead bodies confirmed that the cause was due to asphyxia consequent to manual strangulation.Despite the best efforts being made, both children could not be identified.They were cremated on 27th April 2004 as unclaimed.Sanjay (PW-25), who used to work at the escalator, and Shiv Ram Meena (PW-31), who was a coolie, stated that on 18th April 2004, one male and one female had left the carton at the spot and they could identify those persons if they were shown to them.Dead body was taken out form the box.The female was about 45 years old and wearing orange colour printed kameez and orange colour plain salwar.A green colour chunni was lying near her head.On the left arm, the name Waziro was tattooed.On her right arm, a picture of a peacock was tattooed.She was wearing two ear rings of yellow metal, kaddas of yellow metal in her both arms and two chutki each on a toe of either foot.Body was in a decomposed state.Injury marks were visible on her face and ligature was found around her neck.The ligature had embedded in the skin around the neck.Blood/liquid was oozing out of her mouth and the blood was lying inside the box also.FIR was registered under Section 302/201 IPC.The post-mortem confirmed that the death is due to asphyxia consequent to ligature constriction of neck.The time since death was determined as one week.After the post-mortem examination, the dead body was cremated as unclaimed.The FSL gave a positive result for the blood tests as far as the blood samples were concerned, and the rest of the exhibits were found inconclusive for group test although some of them contained human blood.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 6 of 13In the toxicology report the viscera was found negative for common poisons.She first indentified dead body as that of Waziro.The parental aunt (Bua) of PW-22 namely, Kanta (PW-14) also correctly identified the dead body as being that of Waziro.When PW-22 was examined, she narrated that after the holi festival of 2004, she along with Waziro and her two younger brothers had gone to visit Bangla Sahib Gurudwara at New Delhi.A-1 and his wife, the present Appellant (A-2), met them at the Gurudwara.A-1 promised to provide government job to Waziro and they gave their address and noted their address.A letter was written by A-1 and the thumb impression of Waziro was taken thereon.After a few days, Appellant and Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 7 of 13 A-1 came to their house and took all of them, i.e. PW-22 and her two younger brothers and Waziro, with them in a car driven by A-1 on the promise of providing a government job to Waziro.It is stated by PW-22 that A-1 took all of them to his flat at Motia Khan, Paharganj, Delhi.The Appellant offered tea to all of them.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 7 of 13According to PW-22, after taking the tea, she became unconscious.When she gained consciousness, she found herself having been sexually assaulted and her salwar was blood stained.Waziro was unconscious and her two younger brothers were found missing from the flat.According to PW-22, Waziro remained in a drowsy state for a few days and she was kept in a separate room.According to PW-22, after a few days, she found her mother, Waziro also missing from the flat.PW-22 was confined, threatened and subjected to repeated sexual assault by A-1 and his known persons.She claims to have been taken out by A-1 and the Appellant on two-wheeler scooter and she was offered for prostitution by them.When she first went to their rented house where she and her family were staying at Mauz Pur, she found the house was locked and that her mother and brothers had not returned.Thereafter, she went to her paternal aunt (PW-14) and narrated the entire incident to her.PW-14 then took her to the PS Pahar Ganj and a rape case in FIR No. 550 of 2004 was registered.On 14th May 2008 the investigation of FIR No. 234 of 2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate was handed over to Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-44).Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 8 of 13He found that there was sufficient evidence to arrest both the accused.On 22nd May 2008, PW-44 moved an application in the concerned court for issuance of production warrants against both the accused who were lodged at that time in Central Jail.% Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.:These two appeals have been filed by the same Appellant, Usha Rani.Criminal Appeal No. 1057 of 2017 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30th March 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Sessions Case No.25/10/08 arising out of FIR No.147/2004 registered at Police Station ('PS') New Delhi Railway Station ('NDRS') convicting the Appellant (who was Accused No. 2: A-2) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and 201/34 IPC for committing the murder of two children, both brothers, Chillu and Ashu, and also dumping their dead bodies.The appeal is also against the order on sentence dated 28th May 2013 whereby for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC, she was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with the further direction that the convict should not be released from the prison for the rest of her life and with a fine of Rs. 20,000; and for the offence under Section 201/34 IPC, with rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default, to undergo RI for three months.Criminal Appeal No. 1058 of 2017 is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30th March 2013 passed by the same learned ASJ in Sessions Case No.33/10/2008 arising out of FIR No.234/2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate convicting the Appellant for the offences punishable under Section 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC for committing the murder of Crl.On 1st June 2005, since no progress was made in the investigation, the case was closed as untraced.This was as far as FIR No.147/2004 registered at PS NDRS.FIR 234 of 2004Now coming to FIR No.234/2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate, the background is that on 13th May 2004, a telephonic call was received at PS Kashmere Gate from Puran Chand Rathore (PW-2) working in Telegraph Officer near GPO, Kashmere Gate at 8.35 am that an iron box (unclaimed) was lying at the gate of the Telegraph Office.On receipt of the said call, SI Ved Prakash (PW-35) along with Ct.Dungar Singh (now HC) (PW-15) as Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 5 of 13 well as Inspector Sushil Kumar Tyagi (PW-46), Additional Station House Office, PS Kashmere Gate and other officers also reached at the spot.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 5 of 13The iron box was lying on the right side of the main gate of Telegraph Office and was found locked.A foul smell was emanating from it.The box was opened by removing the hinge of the box.Dead body of a female was recovered.Despite the photographs of the deceased being published in the newspapers, she could not be identified.As already noticed, as a result of the RTI application filed by A-1, the investigation of the case was reopened.A-1 claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the rape case.He wanted a copy of the photograph of the dead body and the FIR concerning the 45 years old woman for submitting his defence in the trial of the rape case.That is what led Inspector Randhir Singh (PW-44) to meet PW-22, who was settled in District Karnal, Haryana after marriage.On 1st February 2007, she came to PS Kashmere Gate with her relatives.Both of them then appeared in the Court on 26 th May 2008 and were interrogated and arrested with the permission of the Court.Two days' police custody remand was also taken.During the investigation in FIR No.147/2004, both the Appellant and A-1 purportedly confessed on 8th June 2008 that after murdering the two children, their dead bodies were stuffed into a carton and dumped at the NDRS.From the letters recovered from the flat of A-1, the police were able to compare the handwriting with the handwriting in the RTI application.A-1 admitted in some of the letters that the Appellant herein was his wife.The police discovered that A-1 had a large number of criminal cases pending.Neither he nor the Appellant agreed to participate in the TIP.On 25th February 2009, the ASJ passed an order stating that Sessions Case No. 25/10 (arising out of FIR No. 147 of 2004 registered at PS NDRS) and Sessions Case No. 33/10 (arising out of FIR No. 234 of 2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate) are overlapping and material witnesses are common and therefore, a joint trial was ordered.FIR No. 234 of 2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate was treated as the main case.On 26th October 2010, the SHO of the PS NDRS appeared before the Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 9 of 13 trial Court and stated that the case property could not be traced.On 15th February 2011, after a detailed enquiry, Inspector Suran Bhan, SHO, PS NDRS informed the trial Court that the carton box is not traceable.Even the iron box was stated to be untraced.In each of the trials, 46 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.There were some common witnesses in both the cases.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 9 of 13In their statements under Section 313 Cr PC, A-1 states that the Appellant is not his wife at all and that she used to work as a maid in his house.Neither of the accused preferred to lead any evidence.The trial Court traced the motive as sexual exploitation of PW-22 by the accused persons who were worried about her mother and brothers spilling the beans and therefore, decided to eliminate them.PW-31 (coolie) was able to correctly identify the accused as the persons who kept the carton outside the mini passenger hall.Non-production of the case property was said to be not fatal to the case of the prosecution.It was held that the chain Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 10 of 13 of circumstances in each of the cases had been completely proved.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 10 of 13The present two appeals are only by A-2, Usha Rani and therefore, the Court is concerned only with the question of her culpability for the offences in question.Role of Appellant in the crimesAs far as the death of Waziro is concerned, the dead body was found in an iron box nearly a month after the discovery of the dead bodies of children.While they were placed in a carton, her dead body was placed inside an iron trunk.While their dead bodies were placed outside the mini passenger hall near the escalator of NDRS, the dead body of Waziro was found in an iron trunk near the GPO in a different location.As far as the two young children Chillu and Ashu are concerned, her presence with A-1 was spoken to by the coolie (PW-31) and the person near the escalator at the NDRS.Both these appeared to be natural witnesses.Crl.A. 1057/2017 & 1058/2017 Page 11 of 13However, as far as the recovery of the dead body of Waziro near the GPO was concerned, there was nothing whatsoever to show the present Appellant was at any time found near the dead body.As a result, the Appellant is acquitted of the offence under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 IPC insofar as FIR No. 234/2004 registered at PS Kashmere Gate is concerned.As far as FIR No. 147 of 2004 registered at PS NDRS from which Sessions Case No. 25/10/08 arises, the conviction of the Appellant for the Crl.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,094,211 |
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, considering the nature of accusation and the fact that he has no criminal antecedent, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,096,744 |
These allegations have been leveled in the application said to have been submitted by wife of the petitioner to the Senior Superintendent of Police, as well.In the instructions submitted by the S.H.O., P.S. Aminabad, Lucknow to the Office of the learned Government Advocate it has been stated that some information as mentioned in Para 6 of the petition, was given by some one in the house of the petitioner at Dial 112 in the intervening night of 19-20.12.2019, however, no specific information was furnished.Hon'ble Virendra Kumar Srivastava,J.Heard Sri Atul Banjamin Solomon, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P.Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate.By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed the following main relief:-" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Habeas Corpus commanding the opposite parties to produce the petitioner and set him on liberty."Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the petitioner has been released on bail, so the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted in the instant writ petition.Learned counsel for the petitioner while opposing the arguments raised by learned Additional Government Advocate, submits that this Court on 21.12.2019 has passed the order which reads as under:-Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner is taken on record.Petitioner is a lawyer and has filed this writ petition through his next friend, Shri Gaurav Kumar Kashyap who is also an Advocate.It has further been averred in the petition that on 18.12.2019 the petitioner was served with an order passed by the Station House Officer, Police Station- Aminabad under Section 149 Cr.P.C. prohibiting him that he shall neither organize nor participate in any agitation or procession which may violate Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. which had been promulgated.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated that in the intervening night of 19-20.12.2019 at 00:00 hours certain police personnel took the petitioner out of his house and since then his whereabouts are not known.Today, supplementary affidavit has been filed, wherein, an application dated 20.12.2019 by wife of the petitioner has been annexed which is addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police.Through said application wife of the petitioner had inquired as to whereabouts of her husband.In the application it has also been stated by the petitioner's wife that the petitioner was kept under house arrest since 5.30 p.m. on 18.12.2019 and that the police had taken him out of his residence at around 11.45 p.m. in the night informing the petitioner that he had been summoned by the Circle Officer, however, from the said point of time whereabouts of the petitioner are not known.In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that detention of the petitioner by the police is unlawful and as such this Court may pass appropriate orders issuing a writ of habeas corpus setting the petitioner free.He has further stated that said First Information Report was lodged in relation to an incident which had occurred on 19.12.2019 at 13.15 p.m. and said incident potentially created lawlessness.Learned Additional Government Advocate has further stated that various persons indulged in violent agitation which led to disruption of public order.Refuting the submissions made by the learned A.G.A., it has been stated by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as a matter of fact petitioner was not part of the agitation or the incident in respect of which the First Information Report was lodged at Police Station Hazratganj on 19.12.2019 and further that by posting a police picket in front of the house of the petitioner, he was virtually arrested in his house.Instructions contained in the letter of S.H.O., P.S.- Aminabad, dated 21.12.2019 are taken on record.Learned Additional Government Advocate has also submitted that on being arrested on 20.12.2019 petitioner was produced before the Magistrate who has remanded him to Judicial Custody and pursuant thereto he is lodged in Jail.The extract of the General Diary, P.S. Hazraganj recorded at 10.14 a.m. on 20.12.2019 states that after arresting the petitioner, he was sent for his medical examination to Civil Hospital.In the aforesaid circumstances, we call upon the learned A.G.A. to file a comprehensive affidavit in reply to the averments made in the petition as also to the facts mentioned in this order.Since this is a habeas corpus petition and life and liberty of the petitioner is at stake, it is expected that the A.G.A. will be fully prepared on this issue."Accordingly, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter may be decided in the light of subsequent developments.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.From perusal of pleadings as well as the relief claimed by the petitioner in the writ petition, the undisputed position which emerge out is that by means of instant writ petition petitioner has prayed for writ of Habeas Carpus for release of petitioner/ Mohd. Shoaib Further, on the basis of arguments raised by the parties the petitioner was taken remand and subsequently, on an application moved by the petitioner, he was granted bail.
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,098,969 |
She has further alleged that the other accused named in the FIR were aware of these facts and had actively abetted Siva.She has further alleged that Siva's true name is Sivagnanam and in the name of Sivagnanam, he has got married to Sumangali geetha and suppressing that he styled himself as Siva and got married to Ambika.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,114,035 |
sm c.no.29 CRR No.1405 of 2018 In the matter of:- Tusar Kanti Kar & Anr. . ... Petitioners.Jayanta Kumar Chatterjee Mr.Apalak Basu Mr.Tirthankar Dey .. for the petitioners.This is an application for quashing of an investigational proceeding in A.G.R.No.2055 of 2017 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, South 24-Parganas arising out of Netaji Nagar Police Station Case No.134 of 2017 dated 26.04.2017 under Sections 498A/325/ 506/509./34 of the Penal Code and added Section 406 of the Penal Code.He further submits that within 8 days of marriage, the husband left for England and, thereafter, Visa for the wife was refused.He submits that on 13.05.2015, the opposite party no.2 left the house of the petitioners giving a declaration.He submits that the husband filed a divorce suit in England, which the 2 wife decided to contest.Let the matter come up as a Contested Application four (4) weeks hence.Urgent photostat copy of this order, if applied for, is to be given to the parties on usual undertaking.(Jay Sengupta, J.) 3
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,411,489 |
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.Shri A.K. Bansal, Advocate for the complainant.Case Diary is perused.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested by Police Station Kailaras, District Morena in connection with Crime No. 135/2015 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 323 of IPC and section 25/27 of Arms Act.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State and victim opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Considering the fact that applicant is in custody since 04/05/2015 and the charge sheet has since been filed, where allegation against the applicant along with other co-accused is of murder and attempt to murder after forming unlawful assembly along with using unparliamentary language and causing minor injuries.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rs. One lakh only) with two solvent sureties, each of Rs. 50,000/-, to the satisfaction of the concerned Trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,419,273 |
Heard on admission.Record of the Court below i.e. Special Case No.10/2018 has been received.The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 4 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- and under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation respectively.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, this appeal is having an arguable point.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.22458/2018, an application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant Durgesh.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecutrix was a consenting party and at the time of the incident, she was more than 16 years.Her Age before the trial Court was wrongly been calculated.The appeal would take considerable time to dispose of finally; therefore, it is prayed that jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses, I.A. No.22458/2018 is hereby allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the trial Court on 24.04.2019 and all other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Court in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stand suspended and he shall be released on bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Criminal Appeal No.9923/2018 (Durgesh Vs.List the matter for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge pnm Digitally signed by POONAM LONDHE Date: 2019.03.26 14:33:37 +05'30'
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,774,206 |
When they reached on Byen Bridge in village Kukar Pind, they saw a person coming on foot.On seeing the police party he tried to run away but he was apprehended after a chase and on inquiry he disclosed his name as Harpal Singh (appellant in this appeal).On his personal search explosive powder wrapped in a glazed paper was recovered from the "jhola" (bag) which he was having in his right hand.The bag contained one kilogram explosive powder which was taken into possession.In the charge-sheet there was no reference to any case under TADA or under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 against the appellant.Thereafter he went away to USA and applied for political asylum.Thereafter the police submitted supplementary charge-sheet against the appellant on 29.5.2006 for his prosecution under TADA and the Explosive Substances Act. The Designated Court thereafter tried the appellant for offences under TADA besides Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosives Act and also under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive SubstancesA ruka was sent to the police station on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellant.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,422,725 |
As far as offence 342 IPC is concerned there is no evidence which shows that the appellant has committed the same.As per spot map there is no other way for the complainant to escape.Apart from that appellant is government servant and due to this he has been removed from his service.Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person."Now, I revert back to the fact of the case it appears from the record that the FIR was registered by the complainant Bharti Sharma-wife of accused on 03.10.1996 alleging that appellant caused hurt by kick and fists to her.He has also assaulted her mother while intervention.Thereafter, when the complainant and her mother entered in house the appellant locked the same and connected the cable of electricity with roof and door as same were made up of iron.Medical examination of complainant as well as Ramkumari (mother of complainant) has also been conducted and according to it no mark of injury seen over the body of both.In trial, statements of 9 prosecution witnesses have also been examined by the trial court whereas statement of 4 defence witnesses is also recorded by the trial court.On reading of statement of complainant- 5 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 Bharti Sharma, it appears that she has narrated the same incident as narrated in FIR.In her cross-examination, she stated that there was some dispute between her and accused and he has also given notice to him.She further contended that on 24.07.1996 accused had performed second marriage.Thereafter, when she returned back to house he found lock and the accused lived at Jahangirabad.She further contended that she broke the lock.She had been started living in the house situated at Ban Ganga on saying of father and brother of appellant- accused.PW-2 Ramkumari Bhardwaj has stated that on 03.10.1996, accused causing voluntarily hurt to the complainant Bharti, thereafter, he locked them into house and threw the electric cable upon the roof.Thereafter, police came there and escaped them from house.Post it for : 16/08/2019 (Rajendra Kumar Srivastava) Judge (14/08/2019) 2 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABAPLUR S.B.-Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Kumar Srivastava Cr.A. No.-1418/1999 Vinod Sharma Vs.2 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999State of M.P.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri Shantanu Ayachi, learned Amicus-curiae for the appellant.Shri Mohd. Siddiqque, learned P.L. for the respondent-State.JUDGEMENT (16.08.2019) This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment dated 31.03.1999 in S.T. No. 53/15 passed by III Additional Session Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bhopal whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 323 and 342 IPC and sentenced him with fine of Rs. 200/- and Rs. 1000/-, respectively with default stipulation.According to case, on the day of incident i.e. 03.10.1996, Smt. Bharti Sharma (PW-1), wife of accused/appellant was in the house of appellant alongwith her mother and daughter.Further, at about 4.30 P.M. accused came to house and told her wife (Bharti Sharma) to go out from the house.On refusal, he had started beating her by kick and fists and on intervention of her mother, accused had also committed marpeet with her.Thereafter, accused locked the 3 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 house and he spread electric current in house.The roof and door of house was constructed with iron.3 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999On information given by his wife, police has registered the case in crime No. 702/1996 for the offence punishable under sections 342,323 and 307 IPC.In trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses whereas 4 defence witnesses have been been examined by the accused/appellant.Statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C has also been recorded by the trial court.After considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under sections 342 & 323 of IPC and sentenced him, as aforesaid.The trial court has acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 307 IPC.In appeal, the learned amicus curiae for appellant submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial court is contrary to fact and law and deserves to be set aside.With the aforesaid he prays for allowing this appeal.On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the submission of learned amicus curiae and stated that the prosecution has duly proved its case and the trial court has passed sentence in lesser side.Therefore, 4 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 no interference is warranted in the appeal.With the aforesaid he prays for dismissal of this appeal.4 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999Heard and perused the record.In her cross-examination, she has accepted the fact of dispute between complainant and appellant.She has also narrated the fact of second marriage of accused-appellant.5 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999Mukhtar Ahmed PW-3 has turned hostile and does not support the case of prosecution whereas Chetnarayan Sharma, PW-4 has supported the prosecution case and have stated that the quarrel was took place between the complainant and accused thereafter, accused took them into room of house and locked the door, thereafter, police came there and after disconnecting the electric cable they had released the complainant and her mother.The trial court has also examined Dr. Smt. Vandana Sharma, as PW-5 who stated that while medical examination she did not find any injury on their body.PW-6 Bhagwan Das Mangele-Junior Engineer posted at M.P.E.B., Bhopal stated that on receiving complaint, he reached on the spot and disconnecting the electric cable.In his cross-examination, he stated that the roof and other articles of house were made by iron thus the electric may pass through it and on 6 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 touching death of person may be caused.PW-9 S.I. Mamta Singh deposed that on receipt of information, she reached on the spot and in the presence of Assistant Engineer MPEB, electric current was discontinued thereafter after breaking lock of door complainant and her daughter and mother escaped from the house.In her cross-examination, she has accepted that a case under Section 498-A was on existence between the complainant and she inquired the matter.Shankarlal DW-1 has accepted the presence of complainant and her daughter and mother in the house on the day of incident.Accused also took the defence that he was in government service and on the day of incident, he was on duty and in this regard, Rajendra Singh, DW-3 has stated that in attendance register, the presence of accused has been marked.6 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999It is also necessary to be noted that vide order sheet dated 10.01.1998, the learned trial Judge found that the appellant-accused had lost his mental balance and there is requirement of medical examination through Psychiatrist.Thereafter, it was mentioned by the trial judge that in view of the report received from psychiatrist, further trial of the accused is not possible, thus, by holding up the trial the accused was sent to Mental Hospital, Gwalior for treatment.Thereafter, vide order dated 15.07.2018, the trial judge has again proceeded with trial and passed the final judgment of conviction.In the light of abovesaid facts, this court shall examine the issue whether the conviction under Section 323 of IPC is correct or not? According to prosecution, accused caused voluntary hurt to complainant Bharti and her mother Ramkumari and while examination mother of complainant Ramkumari has expressed her body pain to medical officer but Dr. Smt. Vandana Sharma PW-5, who performed medical examination of the complainant and Ramkumari 7 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 does not found any injury on the their body.Other witnesses of the case namely Chetnarayan Sharma PW-4 & Ashok Mandal PW-8 have stated that there was quarrel took place between the appellant and complainant and appellant and accused was beating complainant on the day of incident.Though, PW-8 Ashok Mandal has declared as hostile witness.Thus, looking to the principle that injury is not essential ingredient to constitute the offence under Section 323, this court is of the view that the conviction passed by trial court with regard to Section 323 IPC for causing voluntarily hurt to complainant Bharti Sharma is found correct.7 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999As far as Section 342 IPC is concerned, the complainant alleged that when she did not came out from house, accused locked the door from outside.This version of complainant is supported by her mother PW-2 Ramkumari.PW- 4 Chetnarayan has also stated that the accused locked them into house.Hostile wintess PW-8 Ashok Mandal has also supported the prosecution case to this extent.PW-9 Manta Singh Investigating Officer of the case has stated that they has escaped complainant, her mother and daughter after breaking door.The evidence which adduced by the prosecution in this regard are sufficient to fulfill the ingredients of Section 340 IPC 'wrongful confinement'.On reading of provision of Section 323 & 342 IPC, it reflects that the offence of Section 323 is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both.As far as offence 342 IPC is concerned, same is punishable with 8 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999 imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year with fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or with both.In the present case, the appellant has been sentenced with fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence of Section 323 IPC and Rs. 500/- (two counts) for the offence punishable under Section 342 IPC, which also found justifiable, as the circumtances of the case.The learned amicus curiae of the appellants submits that on perusal of of record it reflects that the appellant was in government service and during trial he was suffering from insanity, thus, liberal approach to be adopted in favour of the appellant looking to his future prospect with regard to his service benefit.He prays to give the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellant.Section 3 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 is quoted hereinunder:-8 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999The appellant was in government service when the incident was occurred.9 Cr.A. No. 1418/1999
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,425,854 |
DATED : 22nd AUGUST, 2019 PER COURT:-1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cause of death is asphyxia due to hanging.On perusal of the investigation papers, particularly the postmortem report, I find that there are no external injuries on the person of the deceased and column no. 17 only speaks about ligature marks which are running upward and backward on both sides of neck.It appears that at the request of the Investigation Officer, Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC alongwith Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 came to be added.The applicant is a woman.She is a married sister-in-law residing with her family members.It is also informed that the co-accused husband and the brother of husband came to::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 06:09:29 ::: 2-ABA-1043-2019 -2- be arrested in connection with the present crime and they are in jail.Learned APP seeks time to take instructions from the Investigating Officer as to whether Section 302 has been deleted.::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 06:09:29 :::Meanwhile, the applicant needs to be protected.Hence, until further orders, in the event of arrest of the applicant, namely, TABASSUM BASHEER KHAN @ SHAIKH TABASSUM SHAIKH SAMAD in connection with crime no. 266 of 2019 registered with Satara Police Station, Aurangabad for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 306, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, she be released on bail on furnishing P.B. of Rs.15,000/- with one surety of the like amount, on the following conditions :a. The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.b. The applicant shall attend the concerned police station once in a week i.e. on every Sunday between 08.00 am to 11.00 till further orders.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) vre/::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 06:09:29 :::::: Uploaded on - 22/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2019 06:09:29 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,433,257 |
The case of the prosecution is that the accused 1 to 3 were obtained a Housing loan on 10.04.2000 and also 28.4.2000 to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- in two instalments and on 1.12.2001 onwards, the accused failed to repay the said loan amount.Hence, on 30.11.2004, the LIC Housing Finance Company issued show cause notice to the accused.After receipt of the show-cause notice, the accused have not repaid the loan amount.Hence, the authorities of the LIC Housing Finance Limited initiated action against the property of the second accused through SARFAESI Act and on 28.03.2005, the District Collector, Erode ordered to take possession of the house properties of the accused.The house stands in the name of second accused Muthuraj.RC.No.1172 of 2012 the door.The second accused on 28.04.2005 filed a writ petition before this Court in WP.Nos.14619/2005 and 14620/2005 and this Court ordered to pay the loan amount by two instalments on 10.8.2005 and 10.9.2005 to the LIC Housing Finance Limited.But, the accused failed to pay the instalments to the concerned company.This Criminal Revision has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 18.07.2012 passed in Crl.On 15.07.2006, PW-1 went to inspect the house, which was already taken possession by the LIC Housing Finance Limited, Coimbatore and he found that the accused 1 to 3 were break open the lock and they were residing in the house and hence, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police.A case in Crime No.152 of 2006 for the offence under Section 188, 448 and 451 of IPC against the accused.After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 188, 448 and 451 of IPC and sentenced them as follows:-451 of IPC Imprisonment for the offence u/s 188 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/- in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 of IPC.451 of IPC Imprisonment for the offence u/s 188 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/- in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 of IPC.A3 188, 488 and Fine of Rs.200/-, in default, one week Simple 451 of IPC Imprisonment for the offence u/s 188 of IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 of IPC and 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.300/- in default, one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 451 of IPC.Challenging the said order, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.99 of 2011 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode.After taking the appeal on file, the learned Sessions Judge made over the case to the learned Second Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode for disposal.Against the said judgment, the accused preferred the present revision before this Court.4/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.1172 of 2012 5/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.1172 of 2012The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners 1 & 2 would submit that the possession was taken on 20.04.2005, subsequently, the revision petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court.Since this Court passed the conditional order in the said writ petitions, the petitioners/accused have not complied with the conditions.In the absence of any independent witness, the prosecution can not prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.PW-4-Village Administrative 6/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.Both the Courts below failed to consider that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.Hence, the judgments of the Courts below warrants interference.5. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent and also perused the entire materials available on record.Admittedly, the revision petitioners filed writ petitions before this Court for recovery of possession of the property and in the said petitions, conditional 7/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.1172 of 2012 order was passed by this Court and the condition imposed by this Court was not complied with, subsequently, the revision petitioners were found in the possession of the locked house.In the circumstances, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts.Both the Courts below rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.The Second Additional District/Sessions Court, Erode.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.The Inspector of Police, Vellode Police Station, Erode District.8/9http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.RC.No.1172 of 2012 P.VELMURUGAN, J KMI Crl.R.C.No.1172 of 2012 23.07.2019 9/9http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,778,034 |
JUDGMENT J.K. Mehra, J.(1) I have heard tile parties.The complainant was driving the scooter and his friend Ashok Kumar Was sitting on pillion.At about 5.36 p.m. when they turned towards Mori Gate after creasing the Mori Gate round about, one bus bearing No. Def 2927 which was driven by the petitioner in rash and negligent manner at fast speed, hit the scooter from behind.The front side of the bus hit the scooter.As a consequence of impact, the complainant and the scooter fell down on the left side and Ashok Kumar fell down on the right side.Left front wheel of the bus passed over the head of Ashok Kumar and as the driver did not stop the bus intanuy, the left rear wheel of the bus passed over his neck.The case of the prosecution in nut-shell is that on 26.5.84 at about 5.30 p.m., the petitioner while driving the bus No. Dep 2927 rashly and negligently hit the scooter bearing No. Dem 5929 driven by Harish Anand, the complainant near Mori Gate Chambary and this caused simple injuries to the complainant and caused death of Ashok Kumar and he is guilty of committing an offence punishable under Sections 279/337/304-A, IPC.(2) The Trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence under Section 304 and sentenced him to one year rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3,000.00 in default of fine further simple imprisonment for one month.The proceeding in this connection have gone on for more than 12 years.The petitioner, who at the time of incident was 23 years old, is now 35 years old and has faced the trial, which had been going for such a long period.(3) Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order of conviction as well as sentence was announced on the same date which has been held to be contrary to the letter and spirit of law.However, after some arguments.Counsel for the petitioner submits that he prays for leniency and will not press this preliminary objection.(4) Keeping the entire record, the facts of the case and the young age of the petitioner in view and also bearing in mind that he will have to rehabilitate himself in life again, I think that the ends of justice would be served if the petitioner is released under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and instead of upholding the sentence or sentencing him, it is directed that he be released on his entering into a bond of Rs. 10,000.00 with one surety of the like amount, to appear and receive sentence, when called upon during the period of one year from the date of release and in the meantime, to keep peace and be of good behaviour.The bond be furnished before the CMM/Duty Magistrate.This petition and the application are disposed of in the above terms.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,804,429 |
Heard on IA No. 3126/2017, which is the second application under Section 389 (1) of the CrPC moved on behalf of appellant No.1 Hom Singh.It be noted that his first application under the same Section was dismissed as withdrawn.Vide the impugned judgment dated 11/5/2016 passed by the Sessions Judge Bhind in Sessions Trial No. 131/2015, appellant Hom Singh, along with his son/co-appellant Devendra Singh has been convicted under Section 498-A read with 34 and 304-B of the IPC and 3 read with 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act and sentenced to suffer on first count R.I for 3 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand), second count R.I for 10 years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand) and third and last count R.I for 2 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) with default jail sentences with the direction that the substantive jail sentences in CRA No. 519/2016 Hom Singh & Anr.v. State of M.P.the aforesaid Sections shall run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant Hom Singh remained in judicial custody for a period of two months and 14 days, thereafter he remained on bail.However, he has been undergoing the jail sentence since 11/5/2016, the date of impugned judgment.As such, he has so far been in prison for one year and about six months.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2016, therefore, there is no likelihood of this appeal being heard on merits in recent future.Thus, on the day of death of the deceased, she had marital life with the co-appellant for 7 years 3 months and a few days.Thus, the learned Sessions Judge committed legal error in convicting appellant Hom Singh under Section 304-B. It be noted that the learned Sessions Judge had acquitted appellant Hom Singh from the offences under Sections 306 and 302 read CRA No. 519/2016 Hom Singh & Anr.v. State of M.P.with 34 IPC.After referring to the depositions of deceased's parents Jai Singh (PW-1) and Sudama Bai (PW-2), he submits that at the time of death the deceased, she had three children with the co- appellant and the age of their eldest son Anuj is over five years.He further submits that they have admitted in their cross-examinations that at the time of engagement no dowry had been fixed and the appellant and the co-appellant had not demanded any dowry at the time of marriage.He submits that the deceased was hyper-sensitive and short tempered by nature and on account of trivial family feud, she committed suicide.Thus, the deceased's parents and maternal uncle Ramautar (PW-5) have given false evidence before the Court.He submits that the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in support of its case.He submits that appellant Hom Singh has no criminal past and that he suffers from old age infirmities.Thus, appellant Hom Singh has good case on merits.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A.Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer.Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted appellant Hom Singh under Section 304-B IPC alongwith other offences.He submits that the learned Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Hom Singh upon proper appreciation of evidence.Therefore, appellant Hom Singh does not deserve to be enlarged on bail and the IA be dismissed.Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the evidence on record and the written objections submitted by the respondent/State, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that a case is made out for post-conviction suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail to appellant Hom Singh.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,807,969 |
It is not in dispute that the wife and the minor daughters of the accused were found dead in room No.6, Gautam Hotel, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri and that the viscera of the wife of the accused as also his daughters Kumari Alisha and Kumari Chamma, tested positive for the presence of aluminium phosphide and the viscera of the two Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.The viscera of Kumari Jyoti tested positive for the presence of dihydroergotamine.The same is evidenced from the FSL report Ex.PW-38/M.It is also not in dispute that the cause of the death of the wife of the accused and the three daughters, as per post-mortem reports Ex.PW-6/A, Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/C pertaining to Anita, Jyoti, Alisha and Chamma respectively, opined as under:-Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 4 of 58She was suffering Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 5 of 58 with this disease after one day of their arrival in my hotel.She was looking depressed because of her illness.It is incorrect to suggest that the lady and the kids have committed suicide in the room.I cannot say, whether deceased Anita was looking depressed because of her financial loss.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 5 of 58Since emphasis was laid during arguments in appeal that the evidence on record does not rule out the possibility of Anita murdering her children and committing suicide herself, we shall be specifically focusing on the conduct of the accused, for the reason, whenever a housewife is found dead as a result of poison and the husband was in the house and there is no suicide note found, the conduct and the mental condition of the wife as also the conduct and the mental condition of the husband are relevant; probably the only source wherefrom an inference can be drawn by the Court, whether it is a case of suicide or of murder.The accused admitted being married to Anita and being the father of Alisha, Chamma and Jyoti.In response to question No.1, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he also admitted that he was residing as a tenant in Mohalla Lakhibagh Mannpur, Pulpaar, Gaya, Bihar and was running a small scale manufacturing unit under the name and style Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 6 of 58 M/s.Jyoti Industries.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 6 of 58Pertaining to the events which took place at Gautam Hotel on 5.7.2005, the hotel staff noted that the accused left the hotel at around 9:30 AM on 5.7.2005 and till early evening there was no movement of his wife and the children.Amrit Lal PW-9, an employee of the hotel was filling water in the tank of the water coolers installed in the various rooms of the hotel and proceeded to fill the tank of the water- cooler in room No.6 and received no response when he knocked at the door.He applied a gentle pressure on the door, which not being locked from within, opened.To his horror, Amrit Lal saw four dead bodies on the bed.His instinct, naturally so, was to rush to the owner of the hotel.Deepak Mehta PW-5 son of Prithvi Raj Mehta PW-7 was present at the reception of the hotel, which belonged to his father Prithvi Raj Mehta.He i.e. Deepak Mehta immediately ran to the police post nearby i.e. Police Post Church Mission Road under jurisdiction of PS Lahori Gate, where Const.Sanjay was on duty, who recorded DD No.31, Ex.PW-26/A, noting therein the statement of Deepak Mehta to the effect that the accused, his wife and three daughters had checked in Hotel Gautam at 7:45 Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 7 of 58 PM on 25.6.2005 and that at 9:30 AM the accused had left the hotel informing him i.e. Deepak Mehta, that he was going to collect money from an acquaintance to clear the hotel bill and that at 6:15 PM, Amrit Lal, a waiter in the hotel, had gone to room No.6, where the accused and his family were staying, and saw the wife and the three daughters of the accused lying dead on the bed.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 7 of 58SI Brij Mohan PW-27 was in charge of the police post at Church Mission Road.A copy of DD No.31 was transmitted to him through Const.Sant Raj PW-26, and accordingly SI Brij Mohan and Const.Sant Raj accompanied by Deepak Mehta reached the hotel.Inspector Raja Ram Yadav PW-37, then posted as SHO PS Lahori Gate, received telephonic information at 6:35 PM of four dead bodies being found in a room in Gautam Hotel.He immediately reached the hotel and joined SI Brij Mohan and Const.Sant Raj.An FIR had to be got registered to proceed with the investigation.SI Brij Mohan penned a statement of facts (rukka) Ex.PW-27/B, recording therein the recovery of four dead bodies; that of a lady named Anita and her three daughters.It was noted that froth and blood had oozed out from the mouth and nose of the deceased.Two glass and a steel tumbler were seen on the table as also a small plastic Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 8 of 58 cup; which facts were noted in the statement.It was recorded that the conduct of the accused was suspect and that an FIR be registered under Section 302 IPC.Sant Raj took the rukka to the police station, where the FIR Ex.PW-31/B was registered at around 8:00 PM.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 8 of 58At the spot, Inspector Raja Ram Yadav PW-37, prepared the rough site plan Ex.PW-37/A, indicating therein the spots within the room where the four dead bodies were found lying.A photographer, Const.Sunder Lal PW-12, was summoned, who took ten photographs of the spots viz. Ex.PW- 12/1 to Ex.PW12/10; negatives whereof are Ex.PW-12/11 (collectively).The mobile crime team was summoned.SI Ajay Kumar PW-13, the head of the mobile team lifted chance prints from various objects and articles in the room; from which chance prints, Const.Rajbir successfully developed six chance prints from the two glass tumblers, the steel tumbler and the inner cup of the Mayur water jug in the room.Later on, after the accused was arrested and his specimen finger prints were obtained and sent to the FSL laboratory, vide report Ex.PW-20/A, it was opined that the chance finger prints Q-2 lifted from the steel tumbler and the change finger prints Q-4 and Q-5 lifted from the inner cup of the Mayur water jug matched those of the accused.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 9 of 58Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 9 of 58Two bed-sheets having vomit stains thereon were seized from the room by the police personnel present, vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/C drawn up by Inspector Raja Ram Yadav.The glass tumblers, the steel tumbler and the inner cap of the Mayur jug were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/D drawn up by Inspector Raja Ram Yadav.Various other articles were seized vide various other seizure memos, all of which need not be noted save and except the fact that vide seizure memo Ex.PW-5/A various personal belongings of the family were seized, which included a black coloured rexine bag of make REEBOK S.A.H.Q. in which clothes were kept and as noted at serial No.3 of the recovery memo, a dupatta was amongst the clothes.Additionally, it may be noted that as recorded in another seizure memo Ex.PW-5/E prepared by Inspector Raja Ram Yadav an exercise book Ex.P-14 bearing the name of Alisha Kumari was also seized from the room.The bodies of the three young girls were sent to Subzi Mandi mortuary where Dr.Aakash Jhanji PW-4 conducted the post-mortem and submitted his reports Ex.PW-4/A, Ex.PW- 4/B and Ex.PW-4/C pertaining to Jyoti, Alisha and Chamma as noted in para 7 above.The body of Anita was sent to the mortuary of Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital where Dr.K.Goyal PW-6 conducted the post-mortem and submitted his report Ex.PW- 6/A as noted in para 7 above.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 10 of 58Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.Messages were flashed all over Delhi to keep a look out for the accused.At 10:40 PM on 7.7.2005, the accused was spotted by HC Davinder Kumar PW-23 and Const.Karamvir PW-24 at platform No.7, Railway Station Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi.As recorded in the kalandra under Section 41 Cr.P.C., on being questioned about his identity by HC Davinder Kumar, the accused kept on disclosing different names and different addresses pertaining to himself.He ultimately broke down and confessed that his name was Raj Kumar Khandelwal.The accused was kept in the police lock- up overnight and produced in the court of the area Metropolitan Magistrate viz. Shri Harish Dudani, M.M., Delhi having jurisdiction over PS Hazrat Nizamuddin.It stands recorded in the kalandra that the accused was produced in the Court with his face muffled.Since it was disclosed in the kalandra that the accused had admitted to have murdered his wife and children, and even otherwise since the accused was a suspect, he was remanded to judicial custody.The accused was formally arrested on 16.7.2005 when the application Ex.PW-38/A moved in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate having jurisdiction over PS Lahori Gate, demanding police custody was allowed, and the Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 11 of 58 accused was handed over in police custody for a period of two days.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 11 of 58The investigating officer had changed by said date.Inspector Rai Singh Khatri PW-38, posted as the Addl.SHO of PS Lahori Gate took over custody of the accused and interrogated him.He recorded the statement Ex.PW-28/A made by the accused, which we note is by and large a confessional statement; confessional parts being inadmissible in evidence, we eschew reference to the same.Relevant and material for adjudicating the fate of the accused, it may be noted, that the accused disclosed to Inspector Rai Singh Khatri that he purchased sulphas tablets from Rajesh Mehta PW-14 who has a shop at the by-pass road, Gugri Taand, Gaya City, Bihar.The accused also disclosed that his youngest daughter Jyoti vomited the sulphas tablet which he had administered to her and that he had cleaned the vomit with a handkerchief Ex.P-19 and a gamcha Ex.P-18 which he had put inside a yellow coloured polythene bag and had thrown the same outside the room from the window towards Church Mission Road.He stated that he suspected that his youngest daughter would not die as she had thrown up the sulphas tablet and therefore he used a dupatta Ex.P-22 belonging to his wife to strangulate Jyoti.The accused also disclosed that he had sold Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.P-22 in the bag, which was seized separately, vide seizure memo Ex.PW-27/C. On 18.7.2005, the accused led Inspector Inder Singh Khatri PW-38 to the place of occurrence and pointed out the ledge of room No.6 of Hotel Gautam from where a polythene bag containing a gamcha Ex.P-18 and a handkerchief Ex.P-19 were recovered which were seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/A. Thereafter, he led Inspector Inder Singh Khatri to Dariba Kalan Chandni Chowk and pointed out a shop (No.1654) which happened to be the shop of Rajesh Babbar PW-6 as recorded in the pointing out memo Ex.PW-11/A. This was the shop, where as per the disclosure statement made by the accused, he had sold the gold ring of his wife on 26.6.2005 to Rajesh Babbar.The ring could not be recovered but Inspector Raj Singh Khatri recorded the statement of Rajesh Babbar that indeed, on 26.6.2005, the accused along with one Shiv Kumar, who was known to him i.e. Rajesh Babbar, had come to his shop and sold a ladies gold ring weighing two grams and had received Rs.900/- as sale Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 13 of 58 price thereof.PW-15/A. The accused and Inspector Rai Singh Khatri proceeded to Canara Bank, G.B.Road, Gaya and the Manager of the Branch Shri Vidhu Bhushan Thakur handed over a statement of account Ex.PW-18/A in the name of Jyoti Industries.A. No.294/2008 Page 15 of 58 whereto the dupatta used by him to strangulate his youngest daughter Jyoti was recovered at the instance of the accused as also the recovery of the polythene bag containing a gumcha and a handkerchief from the ledge beneath the window of the room towards Church Mission Road, which gumcha and handkerchief were found with traces of aluminium phosphide.The conduct of the accused i.e. the pointing out memos pertaining to the shop from where he purchased the sulphas tablets and the shop of Rajesh Babbar where he sold the gold finger ring of his wife were also relied upon as evidence against the accused.The report Ex.PW-20/A of the finger print expert which opined that chance finger prints Q-2, Q-4 and Q-5 lifted from the steel tumbler and the inner cup of the Mayur jug seized from the room where the dead bodies were found as also the report Ex.PW-38/L of the handwriting expert which opined that the writing Q-1, Q-2, Q-2/1, Q-3, Q-3/1, Q-4 and Q- 4/1 in the exercise book Ex.P-14 of Kumari Alisha; the writings Q-7 to Q-11 in the two registers Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-21; the writings Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.PW-18/E, the entries in the ledger Ex.P-22 and the specimen handwriting of the accused taken by the investigating officer when the accused was in police custody were in the hand of the accused were relied upon.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.At the trial, Rajesh Babbar PW-1 deposed that the accused accompanied by Shiv Kumar had visited his shop on Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 16 of 58 26.6.2005 and had sold a ladys gold ring to him for which he had paid Rs.900/- to the accused.Shiv Kumar PW-11 deposed that he had accompanied the accused to the shop of PW-1 on 26.6.2005 and that in his presence the accused had sold the ring of his wife and had received Rs.900/-.It may be noted that in response to Question No.8 where said circumstance i.e. the accuseds financial crisis and his selling the gold ring of his wife for which he received Rs.900/- was put to him, he admitted the same to be correct.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 16 of 58The relevance of said evidence is that the accused attempted to conceal his identity as also his residential address.The said fact is an admitted fact inasmuch as this evidence was put to the accused as question No.5, which evidence has been affirmed as correct by the accused.Deepak Mehta PW-5 deposed that his father P.R.Mehta owned Gautam Hotel at 185, Church Mission Road, Fatehpuri, Delhi and that he used to help his father in Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 17 of 58 managing the day-to-day business of the hotel.That the accused checked in the hotel once again on 25.6.2005 at 7:45 PM and that his wife and three daughters were still with him.On 5.7.2005 he was present at the reception of the hotel at 9:30 AM and the accused came to him and told him that he was going to collect money from a person who had come from Bihar and that he would clear the pending bills by evening.That intending to fill the tank of the water cooler at 6:15 PM, Amrit Lal, a waiter, knocked at the door of room No.6 on the second floor which was allotted to the accused and on pushing the door saw the dead body of a lady and three daughters on the bed and immediately informed him at which he reported the matter at the police post Church Mission Road.SI Brij Mohan and Const.Sant Raj came with him and after some time Inspector Raja Ram, the SHO also came to the spot.A photographer was summoned who took photographs.Crime team lifted finger prints.The investigating officer seized various items from the room and he signed the recovery memos.That Anita Devi, wife of the accused, was unwell as she was suffering from loose motions and was vomiting.That the accused had sold the gold ring of Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.That on 4.7.2005 the accused was in his room at about 10:00 PM and remained in the room all night.That when he had gone to the police post to inform of the incident, his statement was recorded.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 17 of 58PW-7/A bearing his signatures at point Death Ref.Amrit Lal PW-9, the waiter who had first found the dead bodies of the wife and the daughters of the accused deposed that he had seen the accused leave the hotel at around 9:30 AM on 5.7.2005 and that in the evening when he went to fill the water in the tank of the cooler in room No.6 and getting no response when he knocked at the door, he pushed the same and found the wife and the daughters of the accused dead.He immediately came down and informed Deepak Mehta who in turn informed the police.That on 17.7.2005, in his presence the accused came to the hotel and pointed out a Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 20 of 58 bag on the ledge beneath the window of the room from within which the handkerchief Ex.P-18 and the gamcha Ex.P-19 were recovered.The witness was cross-examined, but nothing of substance has been brought out during cross-examination.PW-18/D, Ex.PW-18/E and the ledger Ex.P-22 as also the registers Ex.P- 16 and Ex.P-21 maintained by Gautam Hotel and Vaishno Hotel as also the specimen writings obtained from the accused while he was in police custody.(c) The writings Q-1, Q-2, Q-2/1, Q-3, Q-3/1, Q-4 and Q-4/1 in the exercise book Ex.P-14, as per the report Ex.PW- 38/L of the handwriting expert, with reference to the admitted writings of the accused i.e. the ledger Ex.P- 22, the letters Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.PW-18/E, the writings in the registers Ex.P-16 and Ex.PW-18/D, Ex.PW-18/E, Ex.P-22, Ex.P-16, Ex.P-21 and the sample writings of the accused obtained when he was in police custody.Death Ref.PW-38/M showed the presence of dihydroergotamine in the viscera of all the three daughters.Further, when he checked in at Gautam Hotel on 3.6.2005, he disclosed his name to be Rajiv Kumar and once again declared a false address.The accused has further admitted that he, his wife and his daughters were staying in room No.6 of Gautam Hotel where he had checked in for the second time on 25.6.2005 and that he was present in the room the entire night of 4th July, 2005 and 5th July, 2005 and had left the hotel at 9:30 AM, telling Deepak Mehta PW-5 that he would return in the evening and that he was going to collect money from a person who had come from Bihar.PW-18/D and Ex.Thus, we have five admitted writings of the accused namely the ledger Ex.P-22, the registers Ex.P-16 and Ex.P-21, and the letters Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.PW-18/E. Ignoring the sample writing of the accused which was taken when he was in police custody, we have troubled ourselves by visually comparing the suspect handwriting and the admitted handwriting of the accused as contained in Ex.P-22, Ex.P-16, Ex.P-21, Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.A crime has been committed and in relation thereto the police goes to the house Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 35 of 58 of A for some inquiry and when A comes home learns that the police came to the house enquiring about him.A absconds.It is possible to argue that he did so out of fear and if there is no other evidence against A, the act of his absconding is explainable being the result of fear, and hence said act of absconding would not be incriminating.But in a case, as is the present case, A has checked into a hotel room and his wife and children are hale and hearty when all are in the room and A leaves the room in the morning and the dead bodies of the family members are found in the evening at 6:15 PM and the police reaches the place at 6:30 PM and does not leave the hotel till even late night, on account of investigation being conducted at the spot and there is no evidence that the police went searching for A. The conduct of A in not coming back to the hotel room and absconding is highly relevant, for the reason, the only inference possible is that he did not come back to the hotel room on account of being aware that the police would apprehend him as they suspect that he is the offender.Except for the fact that A was aware that his wife and children are dead and he is guilty, there is no other hypothesis to explain the act of absconding.As recorded in the tehrir Ex.PW-27/B, the same was dispatched from the hotel at 7:45 PM.From the testimony of PW-37 and 38 it is apparent that the investigation at the spot Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.The fact that the investigating officer was told by PW-5 and PW-9 that the accused had left the hotel at 9:30 AM and was in the company of his wife and children since night and that there was no evidence of any outsider visiting the family members; rightly created a strong suspicion Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.PW-18/D and Ex.No.1/2008 and Crl.The prosecution was not required to explain the presence of dihydroergotamine in the viscera of the daughters of the accused as the said chemical was not the cause of their death.As noted above, dihydroergotamine is a chemical used in the preparation of medicines to treat migraine.It relieves pain by inducing sleep.The presence of dihydroergotamine in the viscera of the three daughters is explainable.Far from rushing his wife and children to the hospital, the accused has absconded.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 40 of 58Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 40 of 58The recovery of the gamcha and the handkerchief i.e. Ex.P-19 and Ex.P-18, from the ledge beneath the window of room No.6 which were found to be contaminated with aluminium phosphide is also an incriminating evidence against the accused because the police had no knowledge that the two articles were thrown on the ledge and that both were used to clean the vomit of Kumari Jyoti, who vomited when she was administered sulphas, a fact disclosed to the police by the accused.Kanshi Ram was absconding.The cause of death of the wife and daughters was asphyxia due to strangulation.(a) That he was not on cordial terms with his wife Kalawati.(b) On the evening of 3.2.1998 he was seen in his house with his wife Kalawati (the deceased).(d) On 6.2.1998 when his house was opened the dead bodies of his wife and daughters were found, and the medical evidence established that Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 42 of 58 they had been strangulated to death, the cause of death being asphyxia.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.In either case, he had knowledge of his daughters condition and yet in spite thereof he gave no medical aid to her.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.(i) Circumstances personal to the offender.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.He killed them as he thought that by doing so he was giving them deliverance from misery.The learned Judge missed out the point that the accused had purchased sulphas in May 2005 and did not commit the crime till 4th July 2005 in spite of the fact that each day gave him an opportunity to feed sulphas to his wife and his daughters.That he came to Delhi time and again and each time brought his family with him, in spite of his financial hardship, and in the past stayed under an assumed name and declaring a false Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 56 of 58 address evidences his desire in the past to do away with his wife and his children.No.1/2008 and Crl.No.1/2008 and Crl.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 1 of 58Vide judgment and order dated 14.2.2008, Raj Kumar Khandelwal, hereinafter referred to as the accused, has been convicted for the offence of murdering his wife Anita and his three minor daughters; Kumari Alisha aged about ten years, Kumari Chamma aged about eight years and Kumari Jyoti aged about four years.Vide order of sentence dated 16.2.2008, the learned Trial Judge has imposed the sentence of death upon the accused and has accordingly made a reference to this Court for confirmation of the sentence.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 3 of 58It is also not in dispute that a white coloured top with light red coloured stripes as also a navy blue coloured flowered designed skirt worn by Kumari Jyoti, which were removed from her dead body at the mortuary, also tested positive for the presence of aluminium, a fact recorded in the FSL report Ex.PW-38/M. Similarly, the gown and the bra recovered from the dead body of the wife of the accused tested positive for the presence of aluminium phosphide.It is also not in dispute that vide same report, aluminium phosphide was detected on two bed-sheets recovered from the beds inside the room where the four dead bodies were found.Similarly, a gamcha and a handkerchief found inside a polythene bag which was recovered from the ledge of the window of room No.6, Gautam Hotel on 18.7.2005 also tested positive for the presence of aluminium phosphide.I had not seen the accused administering the pills or any other substance to his wife or children when they were in the room.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the behest of police officials and that the accused have been falsely implicated in this case."Death Ref.A. No.294/2008 Page 10 of 58A. No.294/2008 Page 12 of 58At the police station, from the black coloured rexine bag of make REEBOK S.A.H.Q. which was seized by the police on 5.7.2005 from the room where the dead bodies were recovered, (as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.The accused was taken to Gaya on 19.7.2005 and pointed out the shop of Rajesh Kumar Mehta PW-14 at By- pass Road, Dogri Taand, Gaya City, Bihar from which shop, he informed having purchased sulphas tablets.Inspector Rai Singh Khatri recorded the statement of Rajesh Kumar Mehta affirming that in May 2005 the accused had purchased seven tablets of sulphas from him.Inspector Rai Singh Khatri purchased ten tablets of sulphas from Rajesh Kumar Mehta vide receipt Ex.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 18 of 58We note that the witness identified the various articles which were seized from the room and as recorded in the various seizure memos.We eschew a lengthy reproduction of said testimony of the witness as the said recoveries are not in doubt and no issue was raised pertaining thereto save and except to note the fact that the witness deposed that an exercise book Ex.P-14 bearing the name of Alisha Kumari was seized from the room as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 20 of 58Raj Kumar Mehta PW-14 deposed that he was selling fertilizers and insecticides from a shop at Maran Pur, Bypass Road, Doogri Tad, Distrcit Gaya, Bihar under the name and style Mehta Krishi Kendra and that the licence Ex.PW- 14/A was issued to him for selling fertilizers and insecticides.That he knew the accused who had been visiting his shop and that in May 2005 had bought seven tablets of sulphas for which no receipt was issued.That on 19.7.2005 the accused came to his shop along with police officers and he sold ten tablets of sulphas to the police.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 21 of 58 proprietor was Raj Kumar Khandelwal i.e. the accused.He handed over the bank statement Ex.PW-18/B and handed over two letters addressed to the bank by the accused on 17.11.2004 and 9.2.2005 i.e. Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.PW-18/E.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 21 of 58HC Devinder Kumar PW-23 and Const.Karamvir PW- 24 deposed that the accused was apprehended at platform No.6, Hazrat Nizamuddin Railway Station.HC Devinder Kumar deposed that he had prepared the kalandra Ex.That on the glasses and the inner cup of the Mayur jug finger prints of the accused were lifted can easily be explained away by the accused by simply stating that it was natural for his finger prints to be found thereon.PW-37 Inspector Raja Ram Yadav and PW-38 Inspector Rai Singh Khatri deposed the facts pertaining to the Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 22 of 58 investigation conducted by them; the various statements recorded by them; the various recoveries effected by them and the various recovery memos drawn by them.Inspector Rai Singh Khatri PW-38 deposed that he recorded the disclosure statement Ex.He also deposed that he took sample writings of the accused when he was in police custody and that he obtained the report Ex.PW-38/L of the handwriting expert on the questioned writing in the notebook Ex.P-14 with reference to the letters Ex.(d) The disclosure statement made by the accused pursuant whereto the gamcha and the handkerchief were recovered from a bag at the ledge of the room on which aluminium phosphide was detected.(e) Aluminium phosphide being detected in the viscera of Anita the wife of the accused as also the viscera of his daughters Kumari Alisha and Kumari Chamma and the fact that the accused had purchased sulphas tablets.Aluminium phosphide was found on the top and the skirt worn by Kumari Jyoti which was stained with vomit.(f) The previous conduct of the accused in faking his identity and giving a wrong address.That Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 25 of 58 the specimen finger prints of the accused were obtained without permission of the Court and hence the report of the finger print expert was inadmissible in evidence.B. The notebook Ex.P-14 of Alisha Kumari was not sealed at the time of the recovery and thus the possibility of the suspected writing at pages 9 to 12 thereof, opined to be in the handwriting of the accused, being dictated by the police to the accused when he was in custody cannot be ruled out.The said writing which amounts to a confession of the guilt has also been questioned with reference to the opinion of the expert being Ex.PW-38/L by urging that the report gives no reasons as to what distinctive characteristics in the writing was noted by the expert and what are the parameters on which the opinion has been given that the said writing is by the same person who has written Ex.A. No.294/2008 Page 26 of 58 was apprehended and interrogated at the police station on 16.7.2005, the black coloured raxine bag of make REEBOK S.A.H.Q. which was seized on 5.7.2005 as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.P-5/A, was taken out from the Malkhana.It was urged that the evidence that the appellant pointed out the dupatta Ex.P-22 which was lying in the bag, as the one used by him to strangulate Jyoti, shows the desire of the investigating officer to create planted evidence.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 29 of 58 arrested at 10:40 PM on 7.7.2005 at Railway Station Hazrat Nizammudin and the kalandra Ex.PW-23/A was drawn up against him, were put to him, the accused responded by answering: it is a matter of record.Thus, the accused has not denied his apprehension at 10:40 PM on 7.7.2005 at Railway Station Hazrat Nizammudin as deposed to by HC Devinder Kumar PW-23 and Const.We further note that the incriminating evidence pertaining to the exercise book, Ex.P-14, being recovered from room No.6 was put to the accused vide question No.20, which was responded to by a simple plea of denial.Similarly, the evidence of Sh.Vidhu Bhushan Thakur PW-18, in relation to the letters dated 17.11.2004 and 9.2.2005, Ex.PW-18/D and Ex.PW-18/E respectively, was put to the accused at question No.34 which was responded to by a plea of denial.The writings on the registers Ex.The writings on the letters Ex.He was apprehended at Railway Station Hazrat Nizammudin.He gave a false identity to the police even at the Railway Station.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 35 of 58A. No.294/2008 Page 36 of 58 continued till late night.Nobody was searching for the accused.The poison administered was parathion: rat poison.The sole evidence of motive was insufficient to convict the accused.The accused Kanshi Ram was having a matrimonial discord with his wife Kalawati.He was married for seven years and was blessed with two daughters Suman and Guddi.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 49 of 58Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 49 of 58Put in a tabular form, a birds eye view of various judicial decisions, reveal as under:-1. CIRCUMSTANCES PERSONAL TO THE OFFENDER- Sr.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 50 of 58(2002) Bheru Singh S/o Kalyan Singh Vs.Re Miller, [2008] EWHC 719 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 357 (Apr)2. PRE-OFFENCE CONDUCT OF THE OFFENDER- IN PARTICULAR THE MOTIVE OF THE OFFENCE Sr.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 51 of 58that he was morally justified planning or premeditation.in committing the offence.Holiram Bordoloi v. State of Assam Bachan Singh v State of Punjab AIR2005SC2059 (1982) 3 SCC 24 In Re Rock, [2008] EWHC 92 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 290 (Feb)3. Offence at the spur of the moment/ lack of premeditation.CONTEMPORANEOUS CONDUCT OF THE OFFENDER WHILE COMMITTING THE OFFENCE Sr.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 52 of 58 ; 2007 U.S. App.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.Mental or physical suffering inflicted on the victim before death.In Re Rock, [2008] EWHC 92 (QB), [2008] All ER (D) 290 (Feb)The use of duress or threats against another person to facilitate the commission of the offence.Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 53 of 585. ROLE OF THE VICTIM IN COMMISSION OF THE CRIME Sr.MITIGATING FACTORS AGGRAVATING FACTORS No.State of Karnataka; AIR 2007 SC 2531 Shivu & Anr.R.G. High Court of Karnataka & Anr.; 2007 CriLJ 1806 Death Ref.No.1/2008 and Crl.A. No.294/2008 Page 55 of 58A. No.294/2008 Page 55 of 58While imposing the sentence of death, the learned Trial Judge has noted that the accused has betrayed the trust and confidence of his wife and his children and has abused the position of trust.That the accused was in a dominating position to the victims has also been noted as an aggravating circumstance.The learned Trial Judge has also found that the crime committed by the appellant is socially abhorrent.The Judge has also noted the multiple numbers of deaths caused.The learned Judge has found that the motive for the crime was to get rid of the wife and the three daughters, to lessen the financial burden on the accused i.e. a motive to get rid of a burden of the family.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
177,819,079 |
In the revised call, none is present for the applicants.The applicants have prayed to quash the proceedings Special Sessions Trial No. 8 of 2003, Radhey Shyam Yadav Vs.Mool Singh and others pending before Special Judge, Dacoity Affected Area, Kanpur Dehat.With the help of learned AGA, I have perused the record.From the pleadings made in the affidavit appended along with this 482 Cr.P.C. Application, it is revealed that an FIR under section 395 I.P.C. was lodged on 29.4.1998 as crime no. 88-A at P.S. Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat against the applicants in which, charge sheet was submitted under sections 325/323/504 I.P.C. after due investigation and the trial of the aforesaid offences is pending before the competent court.According to the allegations levelled in the aforesaid FIR Radhey Shyam Yadav, informant was robbed off Rs. 15000/- on 1.4.1998 by the applicants.Informant was saved by Sita Ram, Arun Kumar, Mahendra Singh and others.Copy of the FIR is annexure no. 1 to the affidavit.During the trial of the concerned crime as case no. 9 of 1999, State Vs.Mool Singh and others, statement of Radhey Shyam Yadav, P.W. 1 was recorded by the trial Magistrate.Subsequent thereto, informant Radhey Shyam Yadav filed complaint case no. 41/12 of 1998 against the applicants under section 395 I.P.C. before Special Judge (DAA), Kanpur Dehat on 21.2.2003 being S.T. NO. 8 of 2003 vide annexure no. 5 to the affidavit.Learned Special Judge (DAA) on the basis of complaint annexure no. 5 took cognizance of the offence on 24.7.2003 fixing 13.8.2003 for appearance.Copy of the order taking cognizance is annexure no. 6 to this affidavit.By the same annexure no. 6, accused persons were summoned fixing 13.8.2003 for their appearance.
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,778,225 |
233/09 dt. 7.8.09 U/s.396/397 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act.2. 375/09 dt. 16.12.09 u/s. 302/34 IPC 25/27 Arms Act.
|
['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.
|
177,825,245 |
This is repeat (Fourth) bail application of the applicant Yogesh Agrawal under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.261/2016 registered at Police Station Tejaji Nagar, Indore, District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 and 12-B of the IPC.Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the third application has been dismissed vide order dated 24.10.2016, thereafter this court has considered the application of co-accused Babulal and Sachin.They have been enlarged on bail.On the ground of parity applicant is also entitled for bail.Applicant is detained since 03.07.2016; whereas the trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, he be released on bail.The applicant Yogesh Agrawal is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the Trial Court out of which this bail arise.Certified copy as per rules.(JARAT KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE ns
|
['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.
|
1,778,291 |
The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased Rukmanbai was married to the accused within seven years of her un-natural death.The accused persons were demanding Rs. 5,000/- and auto-vehicle as dowry, but as the parents of the girl could not meet the demand, they extended cruel treatment to the deceased.Being aggrieved by the behaviour of the accused persons and as the cruelty was beyond tolerance, the said Rukmanbai committed suicide on 28.11.92 by setting fire to herself.The prosecution case further is that on 28.11.92, at about 11 a.m., the deceased set fire to herself and committed suicide.The matter was reported to Police Station, Kotwali.JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J.This judgment shall also dispose of Criminal Appeal No. 892/94, Manohar v. State of M.P. and Criminal Appeal No. 893/94, Onkar v. State of M.P.The three appellants have been convicted by the IIIrd Addl.Sessions Judge, Sagar in Sessions Trial No. 69/93 for having committed offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306, IPC.The learned Trial Court was pleased to award sentence of two years R.I. and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month under Section 498A and also convicted each of the accused under Section 306, IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years and pay fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of payment of fine, the accused were required to undergo one month's R.I. Being aggrieved by the said conviction and the sentence each of the accused has preferred a separate appeal from jail.The body was sent for autopsy, spot map was prepared, various articles were seized.Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completing the investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B, IPC.The accused persons denied commission of the offence and submitted before the Court below that they were falsely implicated.The defence was that as the deceased was suffering with serious backache, she decided to commit suicide.The learned Trial Court, recorded the evidence of the parties and after hearing them, came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to make out the case under Section 304B. It accordingly acquitted the accused of the said charge.The Trial Court was pleased to hold that prosecution was successful in proving the ingredients of offences under Sections 498A and 306, IPC, it accordingly convicted the accused persons and awarded the sentence as referred to above.Miss Singhai, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident took place on 28.11.92, but the investigation started only after 18.12.92, therefore, it must be presumed that the police did not find commission of any offence prima facie.She further submits that the evidence on record shows that the marriage took place in a congregation and no demand of dowry was ever made either at the time of the marriage or subsequent thereto, therefore, and even otherwise charge under Sections 498A and 306, IPC is not made out.From the statement of PW 1 Deendayal, brother of the deceased, it is clear that at the time of the marriage or subsequernt thereto, even upto the time of the death no dowry was demanded from this witness.According to the witness the marriage was performed in a Sammelan (congregation).He only suggests that about 15/45 days prior to the death, the deceased had informed him that the husband and the other two were demanding dowry and were treating her with cruelty.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,852,225 |
This is an application under Section 438 Cr PC seeking anticipatory bail in FIR No. 14 of 2014 registered at Police Station (PS) Sagar Pur under Sections 307/302/34 IPC.This order should be read as a continuation of the previous order passed by the Court on 15th October 2014 which sets out the facts in detail.At that stage the case was still one under Section 307/34 IPC.Bail Application No. 2261 of 2014 Page 1 of 6Bail Application No. 2261 of 2014 Page 1 of 6The subsequent event was that as a result of the burn injuries suffered by the daughter-in-law of the Petitioner, she expired on 2nd July 2014 while undergoing treatment in the hospital.Thereafter, Section 302 IPC was added.The first was Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (2001) 4 SCC 280 in which the Supreme Court held that merely because the accused was initially granted anticipatory bail for a lesser offence, that would not entitle him to grant of a regular bail when subsequently he was found to be involved in a graver offence like murder under Section 302 IPC.In Hamida v. Rashid @ Rasheed (2008) 1 SCC 474, the Supreme Court held that where the accused had been granted regular bail for a bailable offence and later the offence was converted to one under Section 304 IPC, the High Court erred in continuing the bail earlier granted.Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that both the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court are distinguishable on facts.The above submissions have been considered.In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with a case which initially had been registered under Sections 306 and 498A Bail Application No. 2261 of 2014 Page 3 of 6 IPC and the accused has been granted anticipatory bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ).Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302, 406 and 498A IPC and the accused was asked to appear before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM).Since the accused failed to appear before the MM on that date, non-bailable warrants (NBW) were issued against him.The accused then moved the High Court under Section 482 Cr PC to quash the NBW.The High Court opined that no ground has been made out for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused.As a result, the accused remained on bail.Bail Application No. 2261 of 2014 Page 3 of 6Subsequently, the charge was converted into a more serious offence under Section 304 IPC.The accused did not apply for regular bail but filed a petition under Section 482 Cr PC praying that he should continue to remain on bail.The High Court granted that relief.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,852,779 |
For this purpose, the learned counsel relies upon pages 138 and 142 of the paper book, supplied to the detenu.3.1.Furthermore, the learned counsel says, that a perusal of paragraph 5 of the impugned order book, would show that even though bail petitions were pending, the detaining Authority, came to a conclusion, that the detenu was likely to be enlarged on bail.4.On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies upon the impugned order and the record, to resist the petition.5.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and also perused the records.6.According to us, the impugned order, cannot be sustained, for the following reasons:
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,852,934 |
PW.1-Bharathi Raja is the resident of 56th Street, Ashok Nagar, Chennai, he was working as a Software Engineering in Infosys Company.On 22.05.2009 at about 11.30 p.m., after finishing the regular work when he was returned to his home two unknown persons followed him and demanded to give the Cell phone, one person forcibly took the cell phone from his pocket.After taking the Cell phone, another one person assaulted the PW.1 by using the concrete stone (M.O.1).Due to the assault made by the accused, he sustained injury in his nose and in the lip, further one teeth was broken and another one teeth was damaged.Immediately, he went to the Appollo Hospital for getting treatment.The said incident was witnessed by PW.2 Ashok Kumar.4. PW.7-Dr.Mohammed Kareem Basha, attached with the Appollo Hospital, on 23.05.2009 at about 01.00 a.m., when he was on duty, treated the PW.1 and during the time of treatment, he found following injuries:1.Right upper missing teeth;2.Deep cut injury over both lips (both upper and lower lips);3.Pain swelling over the face.According to the medical opinion PW.1 sustained grievous injuries.After getting the statement from PW.1, he registered a case in Crime No.427 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 397 and 326 of IPC.After the registration of the case, he handed over the case records to the Inspector of Police for further investigation.On the same day, PW.10-Charless Samraj Durai, when he was working as a Inspector in the above said Police Station, received the FIR and took up the same for investigation.On the same day, at about 16.00 hours he went to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of PW.4 Venkatachalam and one Gandhi Raj, he prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P15).He drawn the rough sketch.Further, he recovered concrete stone under the recovery mahazar (Ex.P17) in the presence of the same witness.This appeal arises against the the judgment in S.C.No.85 of 2010 dated 29.06.2010, on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV Fast Track Court, Chennai.The appellants are the first and second accused in S.C.No.85 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV Fast Track Court, Chennai, they stood charged for the offence under Sections 326 r/w 34, 394 r/w 397 by judgment dated 29.06.2010, the Trial Court convicted them under Section 397 r/w 394 of IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each i/d to undergo six months simple imprisonment.Now challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants before this court.After recovery, he examined the witnesses and recorded the statements.On 24.05.2009 at about 11.00 a.m., near Kasi Theatre Palam, Karikalan Street, near Indian Bank ATM Centre, both the appellants were arrested in the presence of PW.3-Prakash and PW.5-Kuppusamy.After arrest, the second appellant viz., Saravanan gave the confession statement, in which he admitted the guilt alleged in this case.The statement was recorded in the presence of above said witnesses.After recording the confession statement, the vehicle which was used by the appellants at the time of occurrence bearing registration No.TN-09-AL-1653-Pulsor-Motorcycle, was recovered under the recovery Mahazar Ex.Further, the stolen property namely Sony Ericson Cell phone has also been recovered under Ex.Subsequent to that, the property and the appellants were sent to the judicial custody, thereafter, he laid a final report against the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 397, 326 r/w 34 of IPC.In the trial Court, based on the above materials charge have been framed for the offence 397,326 r/w 34 I.P.C. Both the accused denied the same.Besides twenty two exhibits were marked, as Ex.P.1 to Ex.Out of the said witnesses PW.1, is the victim, who is the eye witness to the occurrence stated in his evidence that the accused are initially asked about the one address and thereafter the first accused took the cell phone from his pocket.Further he stated with regard to the assault made by the other accused.PW.2 is the Manager of one Anjaneya Temple situated in K.K.Nagar, who is the eye witness to the occurrence had deposed about the assault made by the accused.Further he identified the vehicle used by the accused.Pws.3 and 5 are the witnesses to the confession statement recorded by the Investigating Officer and for recovering the stolen property from the custody of the accused.10. Pws.8 and 10, are the Police Officers, deposed in their evidence about the recording of confession statement from PW.1, particulars of investigation and about the filing of the final report.When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C about the incriminating materials available in the prosecution evidence, they denied the same.However, they had not chosen to examine any witness on their side.After concluding the trial, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, came to the conclusion that both the appellants are found guilty for the offences under Sections 394 r/w 397 and imposed a punishment as already stated.Today, when the appeal is taken up for hearing, I heard the arguments advanced by Mr.V.Parthiban for Mr.M.Rajavelu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms.T.P.Savitha, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent.The first and foremost point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants is in the trial Court till the examination of PW.1, both the appellants are not identified by the defacto-complainant.Without identification of the appellants, it is unknown that on what basis the Investigation Officer laid a charge sheet against the appellants.Further he added that without considering these aspects, the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant which is erroneous one.It is true Ex.In which he mentioned as only two unknown persons, committed the offence.Further, at the time of getting treatment he told to the Doctor as three unknown persons, assaulted him at the time of occurrence.In the said circumstances, PW.10-Investigation Officer stated in his cross examination as no identification parade is conducted during the time of investigation.According to the evidence given by PW.10, the confession statements are recorded in the presence of PWs.3 and 5, but in the trial court they had not supported the case of prosecution and they are treated as hostile witnesses.The said circumstances show that in the trial court, the factum of recovering material objects were not properly proved through the examination of relevant evidence.In general, in order to prove the case of prosecution, in respect of the case registered under Sections 394 r\w 397 IPC, prosecution shall prove the factum of recovery.The evidence given by PW.10 creates a suspicion as to whether the stolen properties are recovered as stated by him or not.But the trial Court, without considering those aspects, came to the conclusion that the appellants are found guilty which is nothing but erroneous.Therefore, the Criminal Appeal shall stand allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV Fast Track Court, Chennai, in S.C.No.85 of 2010, dated 29.06.2010, is hereby set aside.The Appellants/accused are acquitted of all charges.21.06.2018Speaking order/non-speaking orderIndex:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NoToThe Additional District and Sessions Judge, IV Fast Track Court, Chennai.2.The Record Clerk, VR Section.R.PONGIAPPAN, J.A.420 of 201021.06.2018
|
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,534,045 |
In brief the case of prosecution is that on 5.10.2010 in the morning one dead body of Gudda alias Ravindra was seen in the Government Well by one Mohanlal who informed this fact to one Ramlu of the Village, who (Ramlu) informed about the dead body lying in the said Well to Village Kotwar Jugal Kishore.Thereafter all these three persons again arrived at the Well and found that one dead body was lying there.One trousers, shirt and chappals were also lying nearby the Well.On seeing the dead body, the Village Kotwar Jugal Kishore sent this information to the police station , Bichiya on the basis of which a Merg was registered.Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.06.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandla in Sessions Trial No. 112/2010 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and further imposing the fine with default stipulations as mentioned in the impugned judgment, the appellant/accused has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 2 Cr.A. No. 1513/112 Cr.A. No. 1513/11The dead body of the deceased was taken out from the Well and it was identified to be of Gudda alias Ravindra, son of Shri Lakkhu Lal, resident of Mandla.During the investigation it was found by the investigating agency that the appellant had killed the deceased and to hide his offence he threw the dead body into the government Well.The dead body was sent for postmortem and the Autopsy Surgeon found that deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by him.After the investigation was over a charge sheet was submitted in the Committal Court which committed the case to the Court of Session where the appellant was tried.The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the averments made in the charge- sheet framed charges punishable under Sections 302 and 201 3 Cr.A. No. 1513/11 IPC against the accused/appellant which he denied and requested for the trial.In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and also placed Ex. P/1 to P/18, the documents on record.The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set- forth in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in support of his defence he did not choose to examine any witnesses.3 Cr.A. No. 1513/11The learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record found the charges to be proved and eventually convicted the appellant and passed the sentence which we have mentioned hereinabove.In this manner, this appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.In his usual vehemence, Shri Anand Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after near about four days of the incident, the story that the appellant had caused injuries to the deceased by iron rod has been thrusted and the statement of eye witnesses namely Kariya alias Akal Singh (PW-4), Teeto Bai (PW-5) and Sukhchain (PW-6) has been manufactured by the investigating agency because their case diary statements were recorded after considerable long period.4 Cr.A. No. 1513/11 By inviting our attention to the testimony of the eye witness Kariya alias Akal Singh (PW-4) it has been submitted that this witness has categorically admitted that for five days he was kept in the police custody and not only this the police personnel were insisting to name the appellant only otherwise he will be in difficulty and may face dire consequences because he will be made as an accused.It has also been put forth by him that the factum of keeping the eye witnesses for five days in police station has also been admitted by another eye witness Teeto Bai (PW-5).Learned counsel by inviting our attention to the testimony of Sukhchain (PW-6) has submitted that he is a child witness and his testimony should not be readily accepted particularly when it has come in his testimony that the eye witnesses were kept in the police custody for five days.Hence, it has been submitted that by allowing this appeal, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside.4 Cr.A. No. 1513/11Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.5 Cr.A. No. 1513/115 Cr.A. No. 1513/11So far as the authenticity and hallmark of the evidence of eye witnesses is concerned, in very specific words Kariya alias Akal Singh (PW-4) in para 9 and 11 has admitted that the police persons kept him in custody for five days and not only this, Antram, Birsu, Bhadde and Munna were also kept in the police custody for five days.He has further admitted in para 10 of his testimony that the police persons were saying that appellant has committed the offence.In para 11 of his cross- examination this witness has categorically admitted that if he will not depose against the appellant that he has committed the offence he may face dire consequences and he will be arrayed as accused and, therefore, on account of fear of police he is accusing the appellant.According to us, once this type of evidence has appeared in the statement of so called eye witness, the entire case of prosecution becomes highly doubtful.Another eye witness Teeto Bai (PW-5) has also admitted that the eye witnesses were kept in custody for five days and today she has come along with Kariya (PW-4) who had already deposed that on account of giving threat by the police he has named the appellant as accused.Although this witness has stated that she saw the appellant causing injuries by iron rod and dragging the deceased but why she did not narrate the incident to anybody and after three days of the incident she gave her 6 Cr.A. No. 1513/11 case diary statement to the investigating agency.Similar type of evidence is of child witness Sukhchain (PW-6).His case diary statement was also recorded after three days.6 Cr.A. No. 1513/11According to Teeto Bai (PW-5), the appellant was giving blows by some iron object and he was also dragging the deceased towards the Well.However, in cross-examination, para 5 PW-6 has disowned his evidence given in para 2 of his examination-in-chief and in cross-examination he has deposed that appellant did not cause injuries to the deceased by bottle, but by which weapon the blows were dealt his evidence is silent.Hence, on the point that by which object the appellant dealt blows upon the deceased there are different versions of all these three witnesses.According to Kariya alias Akal Singh (PW-4) appellant dealt blows by iron rod.But, Teeto Bai (PW-5) is not saying that blows were dealt by an iron rod, but it was given by some iron object having flat shape.The statement of Sukhchain (PW-6) is altogether different and he says that appellant gave blows by bottle to the deceased.Nowhere in his entire testimony 7 Cr.A. No. 1513/11 Sukhchain (PW-6) is saying that first of all the bottle was broken and by using the broken bottle as a weapon he dealt its blows upon the deceased from the pointed end.7 Cr.A. No. 1513/11According to the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Dinesh Taksade (PW-11), the deceased sustained following external injuries which are mentioned in postmortem Ex. P-12-A also..(i) Lt. side hand near elbow joint 3 in No. penetrating injury oral in shape caused by hard & sharp object 2 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm present at side.(ii) While face swollen & Blue blackish in colour.Rt side face(iii)Lt Side Eye brow middle post injury penetrating oral in shape present 2x2x1cm hard & sharp object.(iv)Post side lumbar region penetrating injury 2 in No. present caused by hard & sharp object Left side oblique in position 2x3x1cm.Present gap between 5 cm.(v) Post side chest 4 lumber region multiple bruise present 10 to 15 in No. 4x4 cm.(vi)Rt & Lt Leg bruise knee joint 3x3 cm present(vii)Rt side chest - bruise present 10x7cm present.No any sign of drowning present & above all injury ante mortem in nature.True, the doctor in para 7 has deposed that the iron plank which was sent to him by the investigating agency was pointed and on examining the weapon he opined that the injuries sustained by 8 Cr.A. No. 1513/11 the deceased could come by the said weapon.8 Cr.A. No. 1513/11The Investigating officer Indrajeet Singh (PW-13) has simply deposed that appellant told that the clothes which he wore (trousers, shirt) and an iron rod he has kept in a bag which is hanging in the kitchen of his home and upon the basis of memorandum statement (Ex. P/7), the recovery of articles including the iron rod in the shape of a plank was seized.10 Cr.A. No. 1513/11
|
['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.
|
1,785,344 |
Shortly stated the prosecution case is that deceased Khanderao Kerba Vhatkar was serving in Shahu Co-operative Sugar Factory, Kagal as a peon.He was residing in a room at the back of Yashodhan Hostel, Nagala Park.He was unmarried and was staying alone.Complainant Jeevan Jaywant Kamble was also residing at Nagala Park.On 4/8/2000 at about 11-45 p.m. Karansingh Thapa, Watchman of Yashodhan hostel came to his house and told him that the deceased was shouting loudly.Thereafter the complainant and Karansingh went to the room of the deceased.Students of the said hostel also gathered there.They knocked at the door of the room.One person from the said room told them that the deceased was vomiting and, therefore, they should go away.However, the complainant and others asked him to open the door.The said person opened the door and started running away.The complainant and others caught hold of him.They locked him in the room of the hostel.Then they went to the room of the deceased.The deceased was lying dead.He was naked.They went back to the room where the appellant was kept.He told them that his name was Samir Nijam Landage and he was a resident of Warna Colony.He told them that he had murdered the deceased.Thereafter the complainant lodged his complaint at the Shahupuri police station.He has stated that he is residing in Yashodhan hostel, Kagala Park along with his wife and children.He is serving in Ghadge Developers as a peon.He knew the deceased who was serving in the office of Shahu Co-operative Sugar Factory as a peon.He was residing in the back portion of the office of Shahu Co-operative Sugar factory.According to him on the date of incident at about 11-45 p.m. Karansingh Thapa, the watchman came to him and told him that the deceased was moaning in his room and they should go and see what had happened.The deceased was naked.He was residing in Yashodhan hostel.According to him on 4/8/2001 at about 11-45 p.m. he heard noise coming from the back of the hostel.He went there.Watchman Karansingh Thapa and PW 5 Jeevan Kamble were present there.He has corroborated the version of PW 5 Jeevan Kamble, as regards knocking at the door of the deceased and apprehending the appellant while he was trying to run away after opening the door and finding of the dead body of the deceased in naked condition in the room.In cross-examination he has stuck to his version in the examination-in-chief.PW 6 is Dhondiram Balu Hajare.He was working as a medical representative.On the day of the incident, he was residing in Yashodhan hostel.According to him he and other students had gathered near the room of the deceased, after hearing loud noise from the back of the hostel.He has also corroborated PW 5 Jeevan Kamble as regards the apprehending of the appellant and finding of the dead body of the deceased in the house.According to him they caught the appellant.Thereafter they confined him in one room of the hostel.According to him there was no scuffle between him and the appellant and others.PW 10 is PHC Manohar Narayan Tipugade, who was attached to Shahupuri Police Station, at the relevant time.He has deposed about the recording of F.I.R. of PW 5 Jeevan Kamble.According to him on 5/8/2000, the accused made a statement that he will produce three rings, one gold bracelet and a sattur.Thereafter the appellant led them to a room in Yashodhan Hostel.There was a cupboard fixed in the wall in the said room.There were newspapers in the cupboard.The appellant took out three golden rings, one bracelet of gold and a sattur from the said newspapers.Therefore, he had brought his uncle's vehicle.The appellant told him that he should collect the vehicle in the morning.Accordingly he gave his vehicle to the appellant and took his vehicle.Next day he went to the appellant's shop.The deceased fell down because of the assault.According to the appellant then he got scared and he surrendered to the police.JUDGMENT Ranjana Desai, J.1 The appellant was tried in the court of the III Additional Sessions Judge, at Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2000 for offences punishable under Section 394 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code ("I.P.C." for short).By his judgment and order dated 31/8/2001, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 394 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- in default to suffer R.I. for one month.The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Being aggrieved by this judgment and order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.On the basis of the same, offence came to be registered and investigation was started.After completion of the investigation the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses.The prosecution inter alia examined PW 9 Kerba Tukaram Vhatkar, father of the deceased, PW 5 Jeevan Jaywant Kamble, the complainant, PW 17 Dr. Rajeya Maruti Desai, who had examined the appellant on the next day and PW 4 Dr. Mansingrao Naikrao Ghatge, who had conducted postmortem of the deceased.PW 3 Kiran Ramchandra Takle is the pancha to memorandum Exh.-24 and panchnama Exh.-25 regarding recovery of gold ornaments and weapon at the instance of the appellant.The appellant claimed to be innocent.He filed a written statement setting out his defence.According to the appellant, he had gone to the house of the deceased for repairing TV.At that time the deceased wanted to have unnatural sex with him.He removed his clothes and attacked the appellant.The appellant suffered injuries.The appellant apprehended that the deceased might subject him to unnatural sex and, therefore, to protect himself he used a weapon which was lying there and attacked the deceased.Thereafter he got scared and he surrendered to the police.He denied that he had committed any theft.After perusing the evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.He, therefore, convicted the appellant as aforesaid and hence this appeal.We have heard Mr. Mundargi, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned APP at great length.With their help we have gone through the evidence and the record.The learned Counsel submitted that the case of the prosecution that the appellant robbed the deceased of his jewellery and then murdered him and hid the jewellery and the weapon in the room in the hostel where he was kept by the persons who apprehended him is inherently improbable.The prosecution has fabricated this case.He submitted that it is inconceivable that if the appellant had used a sattur to assault the deceased the persons who apprehended him could not have noticed it.Mr. Mundargi, urged that in any case there is sufficient evidence on record to indicate that the deceased wanted to subject the appellant to unnatural sex.The deceased was found naked.There were injuries on the appellant.This is consistent with the defence version that the deceased wanted to have unnatural sex with the appellant and in order to protect himself the appellant attacked the deceased.He submitted that, therefore, the assault was made by the appellant in exercise of his right of private defence.Fourthly of Section 100 of the I.P.C. Mr. Mundargi urged that in any case, if this Court is of the view that the appellant has exceeded his right of private defence then at the most he could be convicted under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. as he had no intention to murder the deceased.Mr. F. R. Shaikh, the learned APP on the other hand submitted that the appellant has been rightly convicted under Sections 302 and 394 of the I.P.C. He submitted that the appellant was caught on the spot.He confessed to the crime.At his instance sattur and ornaments of the deceased were found.We have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel in depth.PW 5 Jeevan Kamble is the complainant.Therefore, he went to the room of the deceased along with Karansingh Thapa.He knocked the door of the deceased.Someone was moaning in the room.Students of the hostel also came there.They knocked at the door.A person came out.He was trying to run away.Jeevan Kamble, Pavan Desai, Dhondiram Hajare caught him and took him to a room of the hostel and locked him in that room.Thereafter they came back to the room of the deceased.They found that the deceased was lying dead in the room.They went back to the room where the appellant was locked.The appellant told them his name.He told them that he had murdered the deceased.Thereafter they went to the police station where complaint of Jeevan Kamble was recorded.This witness has been cross-examined at some length.In the cross-examination he has stated that there was a scuffle between the appellant and those who had gathered there.He has stated that they had not seen any ornaments or weapon on the person of the appellant at that time.Sofar as the deposition of this witness that the appellant was apprehended when he was trying to run away is concerned there is hardly any challenge to it in the cross-examination.The appellant told them his name as Samir Nijam Landge.In the cross-examination he has said that the deceased was lying in a naked condition.Panchnama Exh.-25 was recorded.This discovery is also deposed to by PW 16 Manoj Govind Patil, DY.S.P. Kolhapur, who was investigating the case.PW 4 Dr. Mansingrao Naikrao Ghatge had done postmortem on the deceased.Dr. Mansingrao found the following external injuries on the deceased:1) I inch above stendnotch extends from in to the Rt side neck to RF side neck just above claricle.Transverse 3 in x 1 in x 1 1/2 in Stclidomoolid RF) side cut Int Jugular vein cut same side.RF) side.1" 1 1/2" 3" depth.2) Just below 1st wound to rt side.2" x lin x 1/2" Clericle open.1" 1/2" depth. 2 1/2" According to the doctor the cause of death was shock due to Hemorrhage.PW 9 Kerba Tukaram Vhatkar, the father of the deceased has identified the ornaments which were discovered at the instance of the appellant as being the ornaments of his son.It is basically on the basis of this evidence that the learned Sessions Judge has held that the appellant is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 394 and 302 of the I.P.C.The prosecution has also established that the appellant was caught by the prosecution witnesses while he was running away after opening the door of the house of the deceased.This is conclusively established by the evidence of PW 5 Jeevan Kamble, PW 6 Kondiram Hajare and PW 7 Santosh Patil.He has also stated that the dead body of the deceased was found in naked condition in his house.We have, however, doubt about the veracity of the prosecution story that the appellant had stolen gold ornaments of the deceased and concealed them and a sattur in a room in the Yashodhan hostel.PW 3 Kiran Takle has deposed about the statement made by the appellant and the discovery of golden rings, a bracelet and a sattur at his instance.However, we find it difficult to place reliance on this discovery.Admittedly the room in which the appellant was kept confined was an open room.Therefore, it was accessible to everyone.It is inconceivable that the people would lock the appellant in the room without taking his search to find out what was on his person.We have had a look at the sattur.It is not a small article.It is about 12 inches long and its width is 2 1/2 inches.It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant was carrying a bag with him.It was impossible for the appellant to conceal such a big weapon on his body.It could have been easily noticed by the people.Besides one of the prosecution witnesses has said that they had a scuffle with the appellant.If there was a scuffle then obviously the people would have noticed sattur concealed by the appellant on his person.If the appellant had a sattur with him while running away he would have certainly brandished it to scare away the people so as to be successful in his attempt to run away.Therefore, the prosecution case that the appellant had concealed the ornaments and sattur in the room where he was locked by people is not acceptable.We feel that this discovery is foisted upon the appellant to supplement a motive.We are also not impressed by the prosecution case that the appellant had borrowed the scooter of PW 8 Uttam Jadhav and changed its number.PW 8 Uttam Jadhav has said that on 4/8/2000 at about 7-45 in the evening he and one Ajit Panchal went to the shop of the appellant in connection with the repairs of his tape recorder.The appellant told him to bring his tape recorder.Thereafter at 8-30 p.m. they came out of the shop.The appellant requested him to give him his vehicle.He asked the appellant why though he had a vehicle he was asking for his vehicle.The appellant told him that he has to recover Rs. 11000/- from someone.He further told him that he has purchased his vehicle on loan.The finance company had taken away the vehicle because he had not paid the loan amount.It was closed.Thereafter he was called by Shahupuri Police Station.In this connection it is necessary to note that none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they had seen the appellant coming to the deceased on a scooter.Nobody has referred to a scooter being parked near the house of the deceased.In the panchnama Exhibit-20 under which the scooter standing near the house of the deceased was seized, it is stated that No. MZH 8417 found on the number plate was minutely examined and it was noticed that the real number of the scooter was MZH 3117 and No. 3 was changed into No. 8 and No. 1 was changed into No. 4 with a chalk.The police washed out white colour on the said plate.Now his case that the number plate was washed is not stated in the panchnama or by PW 15 PI Jadhav.We also find that though while recording the statement of the appellant under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has been put questions regarding the seizure of the scooter, no question has been asked to him about change of the number plate.In the circumstances, a doubt is created whether really the appellant had borrowed the scooter of PW 1 Dharmendra Nikam.Though we have no manner of doubt that it is the appellant who has dealt the fatal blows on the deceased, we are of the opinion that the appellant has done so in exercise of his right of private defence.The defence of the appellant is that he had gone to the deceased's house for repairing his TV.The deceased had just come home.He expressed a desire to have unnatural sex with the appellant.The appellant said no to it.Thereupon the deceased removed all his clothes.He became naked and with a view to having unnatural sex with the appellant and for the purpose of gratifying his unnatural lust he attacked the appellant.The appellant received bruises and contusions.The appellant apprehended that the deceased would force him to have unnatural sex with him.He felt that he may not be able to prevent it and he may fall prey to the deceased's desire for unnatural lust.Since he was certain that he would be a victim of unnatural lust, he picked up a weapon and to protect himself from unnatural sex and assault he attacked the deceased with the weapon.It is unusual for a person to be moving around in the house naked particularly when a guest visits him.Unless the deceased had some desire to have unnatural sex with the appellant, who had come to repair his TV he would not be found naked.PW 17 Dr. Rajeya Maruti Desai had examined the appellant on 5/8/2000 at the C.P.R. hospital Kolhapur.He found the following injuries on the appellant.Abrasion of size 2 c 3 cm.Abrasion 3 x 0.5 cm.over right pinna of ear, simple injury caused by hard and blunt object, black to red in colour.Abrasion 5 x 1 cm.over right delto pectoral region... simple caused by hard and blunt object.red to black in colour.Contusion 3 x 2 over right shoulder, simple, hard and blunt object.Bluish red in colour.Abrasion 4 x 2 cm.overleft leg, simple caused by hard and blunt object.Dr. Desai has stated that all the above injuries are possible due to fall during a scuffle.Therefore, it does appear that there was a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.It was argued that this scuffle was between the appellant and the persons who apprehended him while he was running away.It is not possible to accept this because while PW 5 Jeevan Kamble says that there was a scuffle between the appellant and the persons who apprehended him, PW 6 Dhondiram Hajare who was with Jeevan Kamble says that there was no such scuffle.This variance between the evidence of two prosecution witnesses makes us disbelieve the prosecution story about the scuffle between the appellant and the people who had gathered at the scene of offence.The appellant's case that he surrendered appears to be true.If the appellant had surrendered which appears to be the only thing he could have done considering that many people had gathered there the question of his receiving injuries from people does not arise.All that the people had to do was to take him to the other room and lock him there.Therefore, the injuries were obviously the result of the scuffle between the appellant and the deceased.The injuries on the appellant probabalise his defence that the deceased had attacked him as he wanted the appellant to submit to his unnatural lust and the appellant had, therefore, to assault him in exercise of his right of private defence.The postmortem notes indicate that the deceased had received two external injuries.The first injury admeasures 3" x 1" x 1 1/2".Because of this injury transverse juglar vein was cut.Just below this wound, there is another wound which admeasures 2" x 1" x 1/2".These injuries are on the vital part of the body.We feel that either of these injuries could have immobilized the deceased.The appellant was a young man aged about 26 years.The deceased was old.The appellant could have, therefore, averted the attack on him and ran away.It was not necessary for him to give the second blow.Therefore, though the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide he is not guilty of murder.He is guilty of culpable homuicide not amounting to murder.If he had intention to kill the deceased, he could have stabbed him in chest.We feel that there was no intention to do more harm than was necessary for the purpose of his defence.He has simply exceeded his right of defence.Once it is held that the appellant is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder for punishment, we will have to turn to Section 304 of the I.P.C. We have already noted that the appellant had no intention to cause death but looking to the nature of the injuries and the weapon used it cannot be said that the appellant had no knowledge that his act is likely to cause death.We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the appellant's case falls in part II of Section 304 of the I.P.C. and a sentence of seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months would serve the ends of justice.Hence, we pass the following order:The impugned judgment and order dated 31/8/2001 passed by the III Addl.Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 187 of 2000 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month is set aside.Instead the appellant Samir Nijam Landage is convicted for offence under Section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer R.I. for seven years.He is also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 400/-, in default to undergo further R.I. for two months.Needless to say that the appellant shall get set off for the sentence already undergone.Appeal is disposed of in the aforestated terms.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 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.
|
178,538,535 |
The factual narration for disposal of the present appeal lies in a narrow compass.The respondent herein was charged with commission of an offence under Section 376 (2) (f) read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for committing rape on a minor girl.Her parents were working with the respondent as labourers.PW14/D obtained by the Investigating Officer from Bhagwati Hospital where the wife of the respondent was getting treatment.As per Ex.On 25.09.2012, Smt.Shanta Devi, sister-in-law of mother of the child victim took the child victim to her house on her responsibility that she would drop her back after Page 1 of 14 2-4 days.On 01.10.2012, the respondent, relative of Smt.Shanta Devi took the child victim and daughter of Smt. Shanta Devi to his house on the pretext of giving company to his children as his wife was hospitalized.In the night of 01.10.2012, respondent sent the daughter of Smt. Shanta Devi with food to the hospital.The respondent taking advantage of the absence of the guardian parents of the prosecutrix, took off his clothes as well as clothes the child victim and tried to do 'Galat Kaam' with her.As the child cried, the respondent ran away from the spot and left the child victim at the house of Smt. Shanta Devi from where she was dropped to her own house when the child victim was taking a bath, her mother had seen redness in her private part.Child victim narrated the entire incident to her mother.DD No. 31A was recorded to the effect that on 30.09.2012 rape of a minor girl was committed by one Mahender.First Information Report was registered and respondent was arrested.During the course of investigation, witnesses were examined, seizures were effected and the child victim was medically examined by the doctors.Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet against the respondent for commission of offences under Sections 376(2)(f) read with 511 of the Indian Penal Code was filed and charges for the said offences has been framed against the respondent to which he pleaded his innocence and claimed trial.One witness has been examined in defence.Page 2 of 14After considering the testimonies of material prosecution witnesses especially the prosecutrix and her father, disbelieving the testimony of the prosecutrix, observing that it was not gospel truth and also that the prosecution failed to explain any plausible reason for registering the First Information Report after a delay of 12 hours, the accused was acquitted in terms of the impugned judgment dated 06.014.2015 for the charged offences.Mr. Aseem Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent, with all force countered the arguments addressed by learned counsel for the State.The Trial Court has also appreciated the evidence considering the improvements and contradictions which are serious in nature elicited during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses proved through the evidence of other witnesses.Page 3 of 14We have heard learned counsel for the State and also examined the material available on record."1. ... The High Court did not accept the evidence of the parents of the victim on the ground that though they came to know of the incident on 23.9.1981 itself the Police complaint was lodged only on the next day evening and the explanation given by the prosecution for the delay was unacceptable.Undue delay in lodging the complaint without acceptable evidence has also contributed to the doubt in the prosecution case.Hence the High Court was justified in allowing the appeal.Prosecution examined the child witness as PW11 and deposed that her Bua came to her house and had taken her to her house.From the residence of her Bua, accused took the child victim as well as the daughter of her Bua, on 01-10-2012 to his residence, on the pretext Page 7 of 14 that his wife Smt. Rukmani was lying hospitalized.In the night of 01.10.2012, the accused sent the daughter of her Bua to the hospital with the food and kept her at his residence aur mere sath gandi gandi baat karne laga.Page 7 of 14Smt. Sonu, mother of the child victim in her complaint Ex.PW12/A stated that on 01.10.2012 Mahender went to the house of her sister in law and took her daughter and daughter her sister's in law Manju on the pretext that his wife was hospitalized and there was no one at home to do the work.Mahender sent Manju to the hospital with the food and kept the child victim back at his residence and in night did 'chedchad' with my daughter and when she cried loudly he ran away and on the next day dropped her to the house of her Bua.She further stated that on 02.10.2012 when she was giving bath to the child victim, she noticed redness at her private part and when asked, the child victim told her about the act of Mahender.When this witness stepped into the witness box as PW12, she deposed that:"My daughter i.e. prosecutrix was called by her Bua Shanta Devi at her residence Pitampura for 2-4 days.I sent my daughter along with her as Shanta has also got a daughter namely Manju, who was about of the same age group of my daughter.From the house of my sister-in- law Smt. Shanta Devi, accused Mahender took my daughter and daughter of my sister in law namely Manju to his house on the pretext that his small son would play with them as his wife was hospitalized.After 2 days accused Mahender left my daughter at the house of her Bua and at that time she was suffering from fever.I went to my sister-in-law's house and found that my daughter was down with fever and she had rashes on her body.I Page 8 of 14 asked from my daughter as to what had happened with her.She started crying and asked me that if she would tell something she should not be scolded by me.She was scared at that time.I assured her that I would not scold her and she should tell me frankly as to what had happened with her.My daughter told me that accused left Manju at hospital with his wife and took her to his house where in the night, he did wrong act with her.She told me that accused took out his clothes as well as her clothes.She told me that accused showed her some guda gudi (toys) and he put his private part in her mouth.My daughter further told me that she got scared and she screamed and on this accused put a kambal (blanket) on her mouth.Next day when she had fever in the morning, accused left her to her Bua's house.I narrated the entire facts to my husband.I also checked my daughter and found redness on her private part. "Page 10 of 14PW12/A and her evidence recorded in the Trial Court with regard to the mode of commission of sexual assault, which was communicated to PW12 by the child victim and noticing the redness by her on the body of child victim.In Ex.PW12/A, she had deposed that when the child victim returned home on 02.10.2012 she noticed redness on the private parts of the child victim, whereas in her evidence, she has stated that she was informed by Smt. Shanta Devi about the redness over the entire body of the child victim as well as fever to her.In the instant case, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses have not been fully corroborated by the testimony of PW3 Dr. Rinkesh Meena, who examined the child victim and opined that hymen was intact.However, redness was found present on vulval and perineal area on the body of the child victim.During cross examination PW3 admitted that "Inflammation/redness observed on the vulvel and perineal area could be caused if the patient causes itching having big nails on the portion because of infection." The version of PW12 that the alleged incident took place on 01.10.2012 as disclosed by the child victim is further falsified by the certificate Ex.
|
['Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,546,638 |
(i) The application is allowed.(ii) Applicant- Mohd Farhan Mohd Usman be released on bail in connection with Crime No.147/2019 registered with Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja, Tq.Khamgaon, Dist.Buldana for an offence punishable under Sections 354-A, 354-D, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act e, on he executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount.(iii) The applicant is directed to attend Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja, Tq.Khamgaon, Dist.Buldana thrice a week i.e. on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and shall be with the investigating officer from 11:00 a.m. to 05:00 p.m. till filling of the charge-sheet.(iv) After filing of the charge-sheet applicant shall attend Police Station, Pimpalgaon Raja once in::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 01:17:32 ::: 3 ba894.19.odt a month i.e. on last Sunday of each month and shall be with the investigating officer between 3:00 p.m. to 05:00 p.m. till culmination of the trial.::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 01:17:32 :::(v) The application is allowed and disposed of.JUDGEsrwagh ::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 01:17:32 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 11/10/2019 01:17:32 :::
|
['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.
|
178,557,121 |
from the charge of offence under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC.The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 25.7.05 Narendra Singh Tomar (PW/3) had lodged an FIR Ex.P/2 at Police Station Noorabad that on that day he was going from Gwalior to Ambah through A.B. Road on a motorcycle and the deceased Gar Singh was sitting as a pillion rider.At about 4.15 PM when they were crossing Ghoda Pachad bridge near Noorabad, the respondent alongwith co- accused persons Ramveer and Charan Singh came on a motorcycle and Ramveer fired from a mauser gun, killing the victim Gar Singh.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed only against accused Charan Singh and Ramveer initially.Vide judgment dated 29.11.11 Charan Singh was acquitted and during the pendency of trial 2 Ramveer had expired.Thereafter, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against the respondent.He has stated against the accused Ramveer that he fired from the gun and he had stated against Charan Singh that he exhorted the accused Ramveer to fire.However, if Maan Singh was present on motorcycle, then the witness Narendra Singh must have told about his overt act in FIR and therefore a doubt was created as to whether the respondent Maan Singh was present with the co-accused persons or not.Also there is no acceptable evidence against the respondent that he did anything to show his common intention with the persons present on motorcycle.His common intention could not be established.Consequently, the present leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed at motion stage.Copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith the record for information and compliance.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,913,097 |
This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of sh bail.The first application was dismissed on merits by order dated 11/8/2017 e passed in M.Cr.C. No.6978/2017, whereas the second application was ad dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 3/11/2017 passed in M.Cr.of The present application has been filed on the ground that some of the rt victims have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and they have turned hostile.Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.01.23 16:49:14 +05'30'
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,134,079 |
Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opp.The applicant, through the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding and quash the impugned order dated 25.10.2011 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.7, District Agra in complaint case No.637 of 2011, Mahendra Kumar Jain Vs.Prem Chand Jain, under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Loha Mandi, District Agra.Brief facts of the case are that the applicant had taken certain goods to the tune of Rs.2,03,304/- from opp.party No.2 (here-in-after-referred to as "the complainant") and in respect of the said transaction, the applicant had given a cheque bearing No.389016 of Rs. 1 lac drawn on Dena Bank on 23.12.2009 and had also given another cheque of Oriental Bank bearing No.108419 of Rs.75,000/- on 23.2.2010, The aforesaid cheques were placed for encashment by the complainant through its bank but the same were returned back without payment with an endorsement of 'no sufficient amount in the account'.It was stated in the complainant that on 8.3.2011 the complainant came to know that the applicant was was trying to sell off his shop, then he met the applicant and demanded his money back, but the applicant made excuses and when the applicant insisted for the payment, he was abused and threatened for dire consequences.Thereafter, the applicant also approached the concerned police station for lodging an FIR but the same was not lodged and he also sent an application through registered post to DIG and SHO, Loha Mandi, District Agra for registration of the case, but the same was not lodged.He filed the an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the A.C.J.M., VIIth, Agra.The said application of the complainant was treated as complaint by the learned Magistrate and thereafter the statement under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. of the complainant and its witnesses were recorded by the learned Magistrate.The applicant has, thus, approached this Court by challenging the impugned summoning order as well as entire criminal proceedings of the complaint by means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application.It has been contended by learned counsel for the applicant that from the perusal of the complaint, the offence, if any, which is made out against the applicant is under Section 138 of N.I. Act but the present complaint has been filed by the complaint for the offence under Sections 406,420,504,506 I.P.C., hence, the prosecution of the applicant should be quashed on this ground alone.Sri Ronak Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opp.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,137,239 |
It was not put on standby in the instant case...."He further stated:Since both these applications relate to the same crime number, hence, they are being taken up together.1. Heard the arguments advanced by Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and in opposition, Shri S.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel, is appearing on behalf of opposite party no. 2 and Shri G.P. Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate, is appearing on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh.Perused the record.By way of instant applications under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Code"), prayer has been made on behalf of the accused-applicants to quash the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No. 5426 of 2012 (State v. Dr. Adil and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 506 of 2012, under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."), Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Aligarh, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judcial Magistrate, Court No. 3, Aligarh as well as the summoning order dated 09.10.2012 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.In order to appreciate the arguments advanced by the respective learned counsel, it would be appropriate to give in a nutshell facts of the case, which are as follows :The opposite party no. 2/informant had lodged an F.I.R. at Police Station - Civil Lines, District - Aligarh, stating therein that his brother Syed Parvez Ali, who was working in the Land and Garden Department of Aligarh Muslim University (for short "A.M.U.") on the post of Lower Division Clerk (L.D.C.), remained admitted for about 23 days in Special Ward No. 28 and had a tube installed in his chest.He was to be discharged on 16.06.2012 as he had become quite fit and was also in walking condition.His treatment was being given under the supervision of Dr. Hanif Beg and few other junior doctors also used to come to see him.On 16.06.2012 at about 09.00 A.M., the accused-applicant Dr. Adil Mahmud Ali @ Dr. Ali Adil Mahmud (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Adil") along with a nurse came there and asked his mother and sister to go out of the room and when it was asked as to why they should got out, in front of them, the said doctor started cutting the tube which was installed in the chest of the patient with the assistance of a blade and as soon as the same was cut, blood oozed out profusely.The said doctor, with a lot of pressure, pressed the chest of the patient, as a result of which, blood started coming out of mouth of his brother and within 20 minutes' time, the whole room including the bed sheet, etc. got soaked in blood.The sister of opposite party no. 2, namely, Ashafiya opposed this act of the doctor, at which the doctor fled away from there.Soon thereafter, the persons taking care of the patient rushed to the emergency in order to give information and after that, one or two persons came there running and tried to stop the blood.Thereafter, the doctors started a drama for about one hour to revive the patient and ultimately, pronounced him dead.Thus, it was prayed that a case under Section 302 of I.P.C. be registered against the accused doctor.On the said information, a case was registered against the accused in aforesaid case crime number, under the aforesaid section.After investigating into the matter, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-applicants.The main argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicants is that there was no role assigned to the accused-applicant Dr. Mohd. Azam Hasin (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Hasin") and yet, he has been charge-sheeted by the police.The police has submitted charge-sheet in routine manner, without making thorough investigation and therefore, the prosecution of the accused-applicant should be quashed, the same being malicious.Attention of the Court was drawn by learned counsel for the applicants towards the statement of the eye-witnesses of this case, namely, Ashafiya and Aisha Begum, sister and wife, respectively of opposite party no. 2, which are annexed at page nos. 42 and 43 of the paper book.Both these witnesses, who were taking care of the patient/deceased in the hospital, had submitted their affidavits before the Investigating Officer (hereinafter referred to as "I.O."), which was believed by the I.O. and the averments made therein were made part of the case diary by him.Dr. Ali Adil has also done ATLS.He did his best to save the patient life under the circumstances.There was no allegation against the accused-applicant Dr. Hasin.The patient died during treatment in A.M.U., as such, the V.C. of A.M.U. vide Office Memorandum dated 17.06.2012, ordered an inquiry into the whole matter of the demise of Syed Parvez Ali, who was admitted in Ward No. 28 of the J.N. Medical College Hospital.During inquiry, opposite party no. 2, the mother and the sister of patient/deceased were also present with him on 16.06.2012 and were examined by the Inquiry Committee.The I.O. had requested the S.P. City, Aligarh to request the C.M.O., Aligarh to submit a report regarding the aforesaid incident and accordingly, the S.S.P., Aligarh had sent a letter to C.M.O., Aligarh on 19.07.2012 for constituting a panel of doctors for submitting its report on the technical aspect of the matter.The I.O. has recorded the statement of Ashfiya and Aisha Begum under Section 161 of the Code, but none of them has stated anything against the accused Dr. Hasin.The High Court while refusing to quash the impugned order dated 01.04.2003 recorded its reasons as under :In the said case, the appellant cardiologist conducted an angiogram on the deceased and finding three blocks in the coronary arteries, conducted an angioplasty around 1.30 p.m. The appellant thereafter informed the respondent (wife of deceased patient) that the angioplasty failed and the blocks of her husband had calcified.The same day around 3.30 p.m., a bypass surgery was conducted in the same hospital.It may also be mentioned here that apart from initiating criminal proceedings against the appellant and others, the first respondent also raised a consumer dispute against the appellant and others.It is in the said proceedings, the abovementioned Dr Dan's evidence was recorded wherein Dr Dan in his cross-examination stated as follows:"... Whenever cardiologist performs an angioplasty, he requests for the surgical team to be ready as standby.The patient/deceased in the present case had been admitted in the hospital of the accused-applicant, after the former met with an accident and remained hospitalized for about 23 days in a special ward.He was on the verge of getting discharged as he had been cured, as has been mentioned in the first information report.Further, it is mentioned in the F.I.R. that on 16.06.2012, Dr. Adil came with a nurse to disconnect the tube which was installed in the chest, blood oozed out profusely and thereafter, the doctor fled away from the said ward and when the informant gave information about this occurrence in the emergency, one or two people came and tried to stop the blood.Thereafter, the doctors feigned to revive the patient/deceased for about one hour and thereafter, declared him dead.The following ante-mortem injuries were recorded :Right side chest tube incertion mark 1.5 x 1.5 cm on right side chest 7.00 cm.lateral to Rt nipple.2. Cut open mark for yv canula on Rt. side on medial aspect 0.5 cm x 0.2 cmIn the report of the Inquiry Committee which was constituted by the V.C., dated 18.06.2012, the following observations were made :
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,137,454 |
Heard on admission.After perusing the impugned judgment and the petition of appeal, I find this appeal is arguable.Heard on I.A. No.9238/2017, which is the first application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C. moved on behalf of the appellants for suspension of jail sentences and grant of bail to them during the pendency of this appeal.He submits that this appeal is of the year 2017, hence there is no likelihood of it being heard on merits in recent future.Besides that, the appellants have a good case on merits.Upon these submissions, he prays to allow the I.A. Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.The appellants shall appear before the Registry of this Court to mark their presence first time on 8.1.2018 and thereafter on all such other dates as may be fixed by it in this regard until further orders of this Court.Record of the trial court be called for.List the case for final hearing in due course.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,137,750 |
Shri Neeraj Saraf, learned counsel for the objector.Considered I.A. No.7120/2019, which is an application filed under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the appellant No.1- Rahul S/o Murlidhar and I.A. No.8082/2019, which is an application filed by the appellant Banwari S/o Vishnu Khati.The appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar vide its judgement dated 10.07.2019 passed in S. T. No.195/2016 as under :-There are other victims as well in the matter and they are, Mukesh, Badrilal and Vikram.However, all these three victims have suffered simple injuries for which the appellants have been convicted under Section 324/149 of IPC.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that regarding this charge, sentence was 1 year RI with default stipulation and the appellants have already suffered imprisonment on account of this very charge as also under Section 148 of IPC and on these grounds, suspension of jail sentence has been sought.It has also been mentioned that remaining co-accused persons have been given the benefit of suspension of jail sentence.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State was also heard.Original record was perused.On due consideration of the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I.A. No.7120/2019 & I.A. No.8082/2019, applications for suspension of jail sentence are allowed.The substantive jail sentence of the appellants - Rahul & Banwari Khati are suspended subject to their depositing the fine amount (if not already paid) and furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) each 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE Cr. A. No.6046 of 2019 (Rahul & others vs. State of MP) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 24.03.2020 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
891,383 |
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J) Challenge is made to an order of the first respondent inNo.24/BDFGISSV/2008 dated 06.08.2008 whereby petitioner was ordered to bedetained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of DangerousActivities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, ImmoralTraffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982(Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) terming him as a "Goonda".The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authoritythat the detenu was involved in two adverse cases and one ground case, afterscrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded hissubjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial tothe maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a "Goonda" andaccordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter ofchallenge before this Court.4.The only ground on which the order under challenge is sought to be setaside is that a bail application was filed in Cr.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.A bail application was filed in Cr.M.P.No.2709 of 2008 in theground case in Crime No.495 of 2008 and was pending on the file of the SessionsCourt, Tirunelveli.On the above ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside.The detenu is directed to beset at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any othercase.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.sj/asvmTo1.The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 93.The Inspector of Police, Perumalpuram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,152,053 |
2.The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the firstaccused and PW1 took place on 02.11.1999 and at the time of marriage, the parents of PW1 gave 15 sovereigns of jewels, Rs.25,000/- and householdarticles worth about Rs.5,000/- and due to the wedlock, she begotten a femalechild and thereafter, A1 along with the other accused demanded dowry.3.In the trial court, 10 witnesses were examined and 11 Exhibits weremarked.When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same.The trial court convicted the revisionpetitioners/A1 and A7 for the offence under Section 494 IPC and sentencedthem to undergo two years year Rigorous Imprisonment each and to pay a fineof Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo 3 months RI.Aggrieved by thejudgment passed by the trial court, the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 filedan appeal in C.A.No.46 of 2007, which was heard by the Additional Districtand Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.The first appellate Courtconfirmed the findings of the trial court.Hence, this criminal revision.4.The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 submittedthat the prosecution has failed to constitute the offence alleged against therevision petitioners and there are contradictions in material particularsbetween the evidence of prosecution witnesses and some of the prosecutionwitnesses had not witnessed the occurrence itself and the courts below failedto prove the offence under Section of 494 IPC and the courts below failed tosee that a prosecution for bigamy, the 2nd marriage, has to be proved as afact and it must also be proved that the necessary ceremonies had beenperformed, but in this case, the witnesses have not proved that the essentialceremonies had been performed and there is no evidence regarding the 2ndmarriage and the marriage has also not been registered and the courts belowfailed to see that PW2 to PW8 are close relatives of PW1 and the prosecutionfailed to examine the independent witnesses and the place and time ofmarriage have not been spoken by PW4, who is eye witness of the case and the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and therevision petitioners/A1 and A7 are entitled to acquittal and prays that thecriminal revision may be allowed.5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side)appearing for the respondent/State submitted that both the courts belowappreciated the evidence in a proper manner and believed the evidence of theeye witnesses and having regard to the nature of the offence, convicted therevision petitioners, which does not require any interference by this courtand revision petitioners/A1 and A7 are not entitled for acquittal and praysthat the criminal revision may be dismissed.6.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.Renuka) and 1995-2-L.W.(Crl.) 478 (Navaneetham vs. Ellappan and another), theoffence against the accused is only under Section 494 IPC.The offence underSection 494 comes under Chapter XX and for that private complaint onlypreferred.But, in this case, the offences are under Sections 498(A) and 494IPC.Hence, the aggrieved person gave complaint to the police and on thebasis of the complaint, the police registered the case.Hence, theregistration of the case under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC as against theaccused is correct.Therefore, it is held that it is not necessary to file aprivate complaint by the first wife as against her husband, since hecommitted the offence punishable under Sections 498(A) and 494 IPC.14.PW1 in her complaint stated that on 12.11.1999, the marriage betweenher and A1 was solemnised as per the Hindu Ceremonies and out of the wedlock, she gave birth to a female child on 20.10.2000 and her husband is in thehabit of drinking liquor and demanded Rs.25,000/- and at the instigation ofthe parents of A1, she was subjected to cruelty on 05.08.2003 and A2 to A6demanded dowry and drove her from the matrimonial home and on 05.09.2003, at the instigation of A2 to A6 in the presence of A8 and A9, A1 married A7 inthe bottom of Palani Temple and she and her brother Balu went to the house ofA1 and when it was questioned, A1 pulled her hair and drove her out andthen, she gave the complaint before the police.15.PW1 in her evidence stated that on 12.11.1999, the marriage betweenher and A1 was solemnised as per the Hindu Customs and due to wedlock, she gave birth a female child 20.10.1999 and her husband is in the habit ofdrinking liquor and demanded Rs.25,000/- and at the instigation of theparents of A1, A1 subjected her to cruelty and on 05.08.2003, A2 to A6demanded dowry and subjected her to cruelty and they drove her from thematrimonial home and on 05.09.2003, at the instigation of A2 to A6 in thepresence of A8 and A9, A1 married A7 in the bottom of Palani Temple and itwas witnessed by Muthu and Ganesan and his brother Balu, but the above marriage was not registered and then, she and her brother Balu went to thehouse of A1 and they saw that A1 and A7 were in marriage pose and A2 to A6 were also available in that place and PW1 with her went to the house of A1and it was questioned by PW1, A1 pulled her hair and drove her out and then,she gave the complaint before the police.PW2 stated during his evidence that after the birth of a femalechild, A1 to A6 demanded dowry and drove PW1 out of the matrimonial home and when, he was in the bus stop Muthu and Ganesh came and told him that A1 married A7 in the bottom of Palani temple and he and PW1 went to the house ofA1 and they saw that A1 and A7 were found in marriage pose and when it was questioned by them, A1 pulled the hair of his sister and then, filed aprivate complaint before the Judicial Magistrate.PW3 stated that after the birth of femalechild, A1 to A6 demanded dowry and they drove PW1 out of the matrimonial home and then, she heard that A1 married A7 in a temple at Palani and when, it wasquestioned by PW1 and PW2, A1 pulled her hair and A1 to A6 drove PW1 out of the matrimonial home.PW4 stated that after the birth of the female child to PW1, A1 to A6 had demandeddowry and drove her from the matrimonial home and when he went to Palani on 05.09.2003, he saw in the bottom of Palani Temple, A1 got married A7 and inthe second marriage, all the accused were present and then, he informed thesecond marriage of A1 with A7 to PW1 and PW2 along with PW1 went to the house of A1 on the same day and when they questioned the second marriage of A1 to A6, A1 pulled the hair of PW1 and drove her out of the matrimonial home.19.PW5 is cited as one of the witnesses, who saw the second marriage ofA1 and A7, but PW5 turned hostile and did not support the case of theprosecution.PW5 during her chief examination stated that due to dispute, PW1separated from her husband.Hence, their evidence cannot be rejected in toto.However, considering the family circumstances of the revision petitioners,the sentence imposed on the revision petitioners by the courts below ismodified into one year R/I for the offence under Section 494 IPC.In respectof fine amount, the findings of the Courts below are confirmed.The period ofsentence already undergone by the revision petitioners/A1 and A7 is set offunder Section 428 of Cr.P.C.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Dindigul.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Dindigul.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
89,156,858 |
rrc W. P. 8702 (W) of 2015 (Mojaffar Hossain Mollick Vs.The State of West Bengal & Ors.) Mr. Phiroz Edulzi Mr. Joydeep Biswas ......For the petitioner Mr. Sabir Ahammed ......For the State Mr. Edulzi, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that despite registration of Joynagar PS F.I.R. No. 76/15 dated 29th January, 2015 under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, added Sections 302/201, Indian Penal Code, investigation has not yet been completed.Put up the writ petition on Thursday next (22nd September, 2016) under the heading 'To Be Mentioned'.A report shall be filed by the Officer-in-Charge, Jaynagar Police Station on the next date indicating therein the present stage of investigation.( Dipankar Datta, J. )
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,835,187 |
And In the matter of: - Subho Ari ....petitioner.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State opposes the prayer for bail and submits that he is one of the principal accused who fired at the victim resulting in his death..We have considered the materials on record including the statement of witnesses prima facie disclosing involvement of the petitioner as one of the accused persons who fired at the victim.Co-accused persons who are on bail/pre-arrest bail do not stand on the footing with the petitioner.The application for bail is, thus, rejected.(Bibek Chaudhuri, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,788,437 |
He belongs to Hindu Scheduled CasteCommunity. P.W.7, Rajagopal was the Tashsildar of Madurai North.On request ofthe Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samayanallur, P.W.7 gave a certificate toVellaichamy, Kathiresan and Chelladurai, the accused as well as P.W.1, Murali,P.W.10,Vijayakumar and P.W.2 Azhagupandi, the complainant parties.TheCertificate is Ex.It shows that A1 and A2 belong to Hind Gounder communityand A3 belong to Hindu Yadava community and the complainant parties are belongto Hindu Paraiyar community.(b) On 28.09.1999, at about 8.00 P.M., P.W.1 to 4 and 10 were engaged inelection work.At that time, first accused Vellaichamy came there in a drunkenmood and scolded them in filthy language about their caste.When, it wasquestioned by the victims, A1 and A2 attacked P.Ws.1,2 and 10 by hand.Theyalso threatened the victims.P.W.1 requested the third accused namelyChelladurai to give the telephone key to intimate the incident to the Police.But, the third accused also scolded them in filthy language about their caste.Then, P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 went the Samayanallur Police Station and gave acomplaint to P.W.8, Nagarajan.(c) P.W.8, the Sub Inspector received Ex.On 29.08.1999 at about 6.00 hours, hevisited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2, the Observation Mahazer andEx.P.8, the Rough Sketch in the presence of one Chinniah and P.W.5, Ramiah.Then, he recorded the statements of Murali, Vijayakumar, Azhagupandi, Chinniah,Ramiah and gave a requisition for getting the caste certificates for Murali,Vijayakumar, Azhagupandi, Vellaichamy, Kathiresan and Chelladurai.The accusedsurrendered before the Court.P.W.9, recorded the statements of Raman, Dr.Nagarajan and Tahsildar Rajagopal.The Rule cannot be nullified or overlooked, byallowing P.W.9, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate this kind ofcases, forgetting or ignoring the purport of Rule 7, which is mandatory.If allthe Deputy Superintendents of Police are empowered, the Rule need not say, pastexperience, sense of ability stated "by the officer not below the rank of DeputySuperintendent of Police" in general form, which is not the import or purport ofRule 7, as read from its proper perspective.In this case.This cannot be true.He deposed in his crossexamination that the memos were issued on the same date at 23.45 hours.Theywere examined by P.W.6, Dr.The prosecution case in brief is as follows:P.W.1, Murali was a Painter.P.1, the Complaint and registereda case in Cr.No.630 of 1999 under Sections 341, 323 I.P.C. read with 3(1)(x) ofSC/ST (PA)Act and prepared Ex.P.7, the printed First Information Report anddespatched the same to Court and higher officials.He sent P.Ws.1 to 3 and 10 toMadurai Rajaji Government Hospital for treatment with medical memos.The victimswere treated by P.W.6, Dr. Nagarajan.(d) On 30.08.1999, at about 11.50 A.M., he examined Alagupandi and foundthe following injuries and gave under Ex.P.3, the Accident Register."Abration left thumb 1 x 1 cm."At about 11.55 P.M., he examined Vijayakumar and found the followinginjuries and gave Ex.P.4, the Accident Register."1. Contusion in right forearm 1 x 1 cm.Movement of right wrist normal."At about 11.45 P.M., he gave treatment to Murali and found the followinginjuries and gave Ex.P.5, the Accident Register.Chest pain.No external injuries.The doctor is of the opinion that the injury is simple in nature.(e) Then the investigation was taken up by P.W.9, Subramaniam, the DeputySuperintendent of Police, Samayanallur.After completition of the investigation, hefiled charge sheet against the accused under Section 323, 506(2) I.P.C andSection 3(1)(x) SC/ST (P&A)Before the trial Court on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws.1 to 10were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked.On completion of the examinationof the witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questionedunder section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in theevidence of the prosecution witnesses and they denied the same as false.Onbehalf of the defence, D.W.1 alone was examined.Considering the evidence available on record, the learned IVAdditional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai found A1 and A3 guiltyunder Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST (P&A) Act and sentenced each of the accused toundergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each indefault, to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence and alsofound A1 guilty under Section 323 (3 counts) I.P.C and sentenced him to pay afine of Rs.100/- for each count(Total fine of Rs.300/-)in default to undergo onemonth rigorous imprisonment and found A2 not guilty under section 506(2) I.P.Cand acquitted him.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, theappellants/accused No.1 and 3 have preferred this appeal.6. Point for determination:Whether the appellants/A1 and A3 have committed the offence as alleged bythe prosecution?7. Point:P.W.1 was a Painter.P.Ws.2 to 4 and 10 are the residents of the samevillage.P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 are belong to Hindu Schedule Caste community.A1,A2belong to Hindu Gounder community and A3 belongs to Hindu Yadava community.Tosubstatiate that, P.W.7, Tahsildar gave a certificate under Ex.(ii) It is the case of prosecution that on 28.09.1999 at about 8.00 P.M.,when P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 were engaged in election work, A1 came in a drunken moodand scolded them in filthy language about their caste and attacked thewitnesses.When the victims wanted to inform the matter to police throughtelephone, A3 refused to give the telephone key and also scolded them in filthylanguage.(iii) The case of the prosecution was attacked by the learned counsel forthe appellants on various grounds namely, (1) the Deputy Superintendent ofPolice was not competent to investigate the case, (2) the complaint is not trueand (3) the witnesses are not speaking truth.(iv) Firstly, the learned counsel for the appellants relied on Rule 7 ofSC/ST and argued that the Deputy Superintendent of Police who is investigatingthe case must be named by the Government.Rule 7(1) of SC and ST (PA) Rules 1995is as follows:An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a policeofficer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.Theinvestigating officer shall be appointed by the State Government/DirectorGeneral of Police/ Superintendent of Police after taking into account his pastexperience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the implications of thecase and investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possibletime.(v) As per the above rule the Deputy Superintendent of Police mustbe named by the Government.To strengthen the case, the learned counsel for theappellants also relied on the decision reported in Sambasivam and another Vs.Inspector of Police, P.R.C.Unit, St.ThomasMount Police Station, Chennai and another (2006)2 M.L.R.(Crl.)463).Purpose ofknowing a person under Rule 7 was emphasised by the Court.The investigating officer so appointed under sub-rule(1) shall completethe investigation on top priority basis within thirty days and submit the reportto the Superintendent of Police who in turn will immediately forward the reportto the Director General of Police to the State Government.(xi) Secondly, The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that thecomplaint is not true and the witnesses are not speaking truth.In Ex.P.W.9, the Investigating Officer claimed that he commenced theinvestigation on 29.08.1999 at about 6.00 A.M.(xii) When the prosecution case is that the occurrence had taken place on28.09.1999 at about 8.00 P.M, P.W.9 claimed that he commenced the investigationon 29.08.1999 at about 6.00 P.M. So, according to him, he commenced theinvestigation even before lodging of complaint.Nagarajan, who claimed that on 30.08.1999, heexamined Azhagupandi, Murali and Vijayakumar and accordingly he had mentioned inthe Accident Registers.In Ex.Evidence of the investigating officer,P.W.8, whoregistered the case, also would show that he sent medical memos on 29.08.1999.The victims were examined on 30.08.1999 at about 11.45 A.M. to 11.55 A.M. Allthe victims were examined by Dr.Nagarajan, the victims replied him that theysustained injury on 30.08.1999 at 01.00 A.M. assaulted by Vellaichamay by handand 'kattai' which was spoken by P.W.6 specifically.So the witnesses informedthat they sustained injury on 30.09.1999 at about 1.00 A.M.` (xiv) So, there is contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 aswell as the evidence of P.W.6 Doctor, with regard to the date of occurrence andthe time of occurrence.There is no reason for the doctor tospeak against the prosecution.He has recorded, what was spoken to him by thevictims.The victims spoke to him that they were assaulted on 30.08.1999 byVellaichamay by hand and 'kattai'.The theory of the prosecution that thevictims were assaulted on 28.09.1999 falls to ground.P.4 wound certificate of Vijayakumarthat he was assaulted by 'kattai'.But, evidence of P.W.10 would show that hewas assaulted by Vellaichamy by hand.He did not say that he was assaulted by'kattai'.So, his evidence is contradictory to the evidence of P.W.6, doctor.So, it is clear that the victim did not say correct occurrence even to thedoctor.(xvii) On careful consideration of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 10, itis evident that they are not speaking truth.Thecontradiction in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not explained bythe prosecution clearly.(xviii) The learned counsel for the appellants relied on the evidence ofD.W.1, Chandrasekaran, who was residing in the same village.He is a relative ofP.Ws.1 to 4 and 10 and also he belongs to Hindu Schedule Caste community.Hesaid that first accused refused to handover the temple administration to P.W.1.So, P.W.1 had enmity with the accused.His evidence was not discredited.Hisevidence would show that the case was foisted against the accused due to theenmity in respect of temple administration.His evidence quiteconvincing, cogent, clear and acceptable.So it demolish the case of theprosecution.(xix) On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, this Court isof the considered view, that the prosecution witnesses are not speaking truthand the alleged offence committed by the accused is not established in themanner known to law.For all the foregoing reasons, I find that the prosecution has notproved its case satisfactorily.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.The order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned IV AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai made in S.C.No.74of 2000 dated is set aside.The fine amount, if any paid by theappellants/accused, shall be refunded to them.The bail bonds, if any, executedby them, shall stand terminated.1.The IV Additional District and Sessions Judge(PCR), MaduraiThe Deputy Superintendent of Police Samayanallur.Inspector of Police, Samayanallur P.S.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,853,357 |
Shri Sharad Verma for the applicant.The incident is said to have taken place on 13.9.2014 and from the statement of the prosecutrix it is seen that the offence is seen to have been committed in an open class room when the school was in progress.Surprisingly, after the offence was committed on 13.9.2014, except for recording the statement of the prosecutrix and her father on 21.9.2014, for about three months, even statement of the students who were in the class-room and in whose presence the incident is said to have taken place, have not been recorded.The manner in which the complaint is made and the police is 2 proceeding in the matter, prima facie makes out a case which goes to indicate that the applicant is being falsely implicated.Accordingly, in the event of his arrest applicant Chhatrapal Singh shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.Applicant shall further abide by all the conditions enumerated under section 438(2) CrPC.CC as per rules.(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,857,643 |
2 The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under:(i) The accused as well as the deceased and witnesseswere all residents of village Sakhalyachi Wadi situated inMangaon, Dist.There was some dispute betweenPhalke party and Sakhale party.Accused were from Phalkeparty and the deceased complainant and other eye witnessesin this case, were from Sakhale party.(ii) The incident occurred between 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.on 7.3.1988 at village Sakhalyachi Wadi.At about 6 to 7 p.m.quarrel took place between Sakhale party and Phalke party onaccount of Chaitra Pournima festival.Thereafter compromisewas arrived at between the parties which is evident from theevidence of complainant PW 2 Subhash Watne.PW 9 GattuSakhale also admitted that this dispute was settled betweenthe parties.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::incident at about 6.30 p.m. to 7.30 p.m., group of complainanti.e.Sakhale party went for construction of the house of onePandurang.While they were returning, they heard noise ofquarrel from the side of the house of police patil.The house ofpolice patil PW 10 Sakharam is situated infront of the house ofaccused no. 45 Bhagoji.Therefore, the complainant PW 2Subhash Watane and others from Sakhale party started goingtowards the house of police patil.Accused no. 24 Krishna fired a gun shot, due to which, PW 4Balkrishna received injury on his left shoulder.Accused no. 21 5 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 6 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docMaruti Sakhale fired a gun shot due to which PW 6 JayramPawar received injury on his right hand.Accused no.1 Shripatfired a gun shot on PW 4 Balkrishna, due to which, he receivedinjury on the ear.Accused no.12 Sitaram Gole and accusedno.35 Sitaram Sakpal fired shots.PW 2 Subhash then lodgedF.I.R. (Exh. 62).Thereafter, investigation commenced.Threedead bodies were sent for post-mortem.PW 17 Dr.Gaikwad has stated that the probable cause of death of Nathuwas "hemorrhagic shock due to rupture of lung and largevessels".In his opinion, the injury can be caused by gun shot.In relation to Laxman Sakpal, PW 17 Dr. Gaikwad has statedthat wound of entry was seen on the chest.The cause of deathof Laxman was due to "hemorrhagic shock due to right sidehaemothorax and hameopericardiam with injury to largevessels due to gun shot".He is a member of ManoharGovind Sakhale party.Kondu Gopal Phalke (accused no.29) is 8 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 9 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docthe leader of another group in the village.Some quarrelalways used to take place place between these two groups.This was going on since prior to the incident.Till 1988 'Holi' wascelebrated jointly in the village, but in the year 1988 group ofKondu Gopal Phalke decided to celebrate Holi separately.Thematter was referred to the police station Nijampur.The policecalled the persons from both the sides and asked them to haveonly one Holi.Accordingly, only one Holi was arranged in thevillage.The Holi fire was lit on 3.3.1988 at about 11.30 p.m.At that time, the members of both the groups were present.That time 'Pooja' took place peacefully.On 6.3.1988 therewas 'Chaitra Pournima'.On that day, only one coconut was tobe taken out in the procession.However, Phalke party decidedthat they will also take out different procession.Hence, aquarrel took place between Sakhale party and Phalke party.However, there was a compromise and the members of boththe groups went to their respective houses.On 7.3.1988 atabout 10.00 a.m. persons from Sakhale party went to thehouse of Pandurang to help him in construction of the house.9 At this stage, we would like to advert to oneimportant document i.e. Exh. 114 pertaining to FIR in CR No. 31of 1988, which is a FIR which was lodged by accused no.45Bhagoji.In his FIR, he has stated that persons from Sakhaleparty suddenly gathered near his house and started peltingstones.Due to this, roof of his house was completely damagedso also, there was damage to the walls of his house.In theincident of stone pelting, his sons, his daughter, his wife and hereceived injuries.As Bhagoji found that there was danger to 14 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 15 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..dochis property as well as his life and that of his family members,he took out his licensed gun and fired two shots from hishouse.When he was firing third shot, one stone which waspelted at him, caused him injury.It is seen that 17 personsfrom the side of the accused i.e. 17 accused persons hadreceived injuries in the incident.These injuries were not minorinjuries but they were injuries like fractures.PW 18 Dr.Kamerkar had examined these 17 accused persons and he hasadmitted that they were injured.His evidence shows thataccused no.45 Bhagoji had sustained two fracture injuries oneon the thigh and the other on the hand.Similarly, accusedno.48 Nathuram who is the son of accused Bhagoji, hadreceived fracture injury on his left hand.There was acompound fracture to the left radius ulna.DATED : JANUARY 06, 2017ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SMT.By the said judgment and order,the learned Sessions Judge acquitted Respondent Nos. 1 to 49of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 r.w. 149, 302, 307r.w.149, 326 r.w. 149, 337 r.w. 139, 504 r.w. 149, 506 r.w. 149of IPC and under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of the Indian ArmsAct.It may be stated that after admission of the appeal,respondents-original accused nos. 1, 2 and 16 expired.For the sake of convenience, we shall referhereinafter to the respondents as they were referred to before 3 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 4 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docthe trial Court.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::On reaching near the houseof Bhagoji (accused no.45), they saw a quarrel was going onbetween the ladies of two groups of the village i.e. ladies fromPhalke party and Sakhale party.They saw accused nos. 12, 21,24, 29, 35 and 48 standing there with guns in their hands.Theincident took place on the road in between the two houses.When the persons of Sakhale party reached the spot, theseaccused persons all of a sudden, fired gun shots one afteranother.Accused no. 29 Kondu Phalke fired a gun shot onNathuram Sakpal.Accused no.24 Krishna fired a gun shot onLaxman Sakpal.Accused no.48 Nathuram Phalke fired a gunshot on Shankar Utekar.All of them died on the spot.Ghanshyam Gaikwad performed post-mortem on the deadbodies of Nathuram and Laxman.Dr. Gaikwad noticed gunshot injuries on the left side of the chest of Nathuram.PW 18 Dr. Santosh Kamerkarperformed the post-mortem on the dead body of ShankarUtekar.He found two punctured wounds in the epigastricregion.According to Dr. Kamerkar, cause of death was "due to 6 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 7 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..dochaemoragic shock due to ruptured liver with haemoperitonealand ruptured right middle lobe of lung with haemothorax dueto gun shot".Admittedly,all these guns were licensed guns.After completion ofinvestigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.3 Charge came to be framed against the Respondents-accused under Sections 147, 148, 302, 307, 326, 337, 504, 506r.w.149 of IPC and under Sections 25(1)(a) and 27 of theIndian Arms Act. The Respondents-accused pleaded notguilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried.The defenceof the accused is of denial and false implication.It is theirfurther defence that complainant and persons from Sakhaleparty came to the house of accused no. 45 Bhagoji Phalke.They pelted stones on his house and caused extensive damageto the roof of his house and to the walls of his house andcaused injuries to Bhagoji and others.Therefore, Bhagoji whowas holding a licensed gun, fired shots at the crowd which wasgathered infront of house, due to which, three persons i.e. 7 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 8 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docNathuram, Laxman and Shankar received injuries and died.After going through the evidence adduced in the present case,the learned Judge acquitted the respondents-accused, hence,this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::4 We have heard the learned A.P.P. for the Appellant-State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused.After giving our anxious consideration to the factsand circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the parties, the judgment delivered by thelearned Judge and the evidence on record, for the belowmentioned reasons, we are of the opinion that the view ofacquittal taken by the learned Sessions Judge, is a reasonableand possible view and hence, no interference is called for.5 To prove its case, the prosecution has relied on theevidence of PW 2 Subhash Watne who is an eye witness as wellas the complainant in the present case.Subhash has statedthat he was residing in village Sakhalyachi Wadi.He knew allthe residents of the said village.At about 6.00 p.m. when they were returning, they heard noise 9 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 10 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docof quarrel from the side of the house of police patil.The houseof police patil PW 10 Sakharam is situated infront of the houseof accused no. 45 Bhagoji.Therefore, the complainantSubhash Sakhale and others from Sakhale party started goingtowards the house of police patil.On reaching near the houseof Bhagoji (accused no.45), they saw a quarrel was going onbetween the ladies of two groups of the village i.e. ladies fromPhalke party and Sakhale party.They saw accused nos. 12, 21,24, 29, 35 and 48 standing there with guns in their hands.Theincident took place on the road in between the two houses.When the persons of Sakhale party reached the spot, theseaccused persons all of a sudden, fired gun shots one afteranother.Accused no. 29 Kondu Phalke fired a gun shot onNathu Sakpal.Accused no.24 Krishna fired a gun shot onLaxman Sakpal.Accused no.48 Nathuram Phalke fired a gunshot on Shankar Utekar.All of them died on the spot.Accused no. 24 Krishna fired a gun shot, due to which, PW 4Balkrishna received injury on his left shoulder.Accused no. 21Maruti Sakhale fired a gun shot.PW 6 Jayram Pawar receivedinjury on his right hand.Accused no.1 Shripat fired a gun shoton PW 4 Balkrishna, due to which, he received injury on the left 10 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 11 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docear.Accused no.12 Sitaram Gole and accused no.35 SitaramSakpal fired shots.PW 2 Subhash then lodged F.I.R. (Exh. 62).6 PW 4 Balkrishna, PW 5 Manohar, PW 6 Jayram, PW 7Parvati, PW 8 Bapu, PW 9 Gattu, PW 11 Sitaram Gokhale, PW12 Bhivrao, PW 13 Laxmibai and PW 14 Anusuya have statedthat accused no. 21 Maruti Sakhale and accused no.24 KrishnaPhalke fired gun shots on Laxman, accused no.29 Kondu Phalkefired a gun shot on Nathuram and accused no.48 Nathuramfired a gun shot on Shankar Utekar.PW 3 Kisan has stated thataccused no.24 Krishna Phalke fired a gun shot at Laxman andaccused no.48 Nathuram fired a gun shot at Shankar andaccused no.21 Maruti fired a gun shot at Jayram.However,Jayram does not state that accused no.21 Maruti fired a gunshot at him.In addition PW 3 Kisan has stated that accusedno.42 Dattaram Phalke pelted a stone at him which caused himinjury near his left eye.PW 4 Balkrishna has stated thataccused no.24 Krishna had filed a gun shot at him, due towhich, he received injury on his left shoulder.PW 8 Bapu hasstated that some one pelted a stone and he received injury onhis head.However, he does not state that who pelted the 11 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 12 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docstone on him.PW 9 Gattu Sakhale has stated that accused no.25 pelted a stone on his head.PW 11 Sitaram in addition, hasstated that accused nos. 1, 12, 21 and 35 fired from their guns.7 The accused were also charged with offence underSection 307 of IPC for causing injuries to PW 2 Subhash, PW 4Balkrishna, PW 6 Jayram, Dattatray, Chandrakant Sakhale andAmruta.The injury sustained byPW 2 Subhash was only skin deep.PW 4 Balkrishna sustainedinjury on his left shoulder which was not serious in nature.Dattatray had also sustained injury on the shoulder.It was apellet injury.Jayaram had sustained injury on the right forearmwhich could be caused due to pellet of gun shot.Amruta hadsustained CLW over vertex, however, no fracture of skull wasfound.Minor abrasion on left parietal region with haematomawas found on the person of Gangaram.Thus, it is seen thatnone of these injuries were such that they fall under theprovisions of Section 307 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::8 No doubt, three persons had expired in the incident,however, as stated earlier, it is the defence of the accused 12 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 13 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docpersons that Sakhale party came to the house of accusedno.45 Bhagoji Phalke and they caused extensive damage to thehouse of Bhagoji and injuries to Bhagoji and his familymembers, due to which, Bhagoji took out his licensed gun andfired shots.It is submitted by the learned counsel for theaccused that it is on account of firing of Bhagoji that Laxman,Shankar and Nathuram died.The incident took place on theroad between the house of accused no.45 Bhagoji and thehouse of PW 10 police patil Sakharam Gole.PhotographsArticles A, B and C show how badly the house of Bhagoji wasdamaged.The wall was completely broken so also, the roof ofthe house of Bhagoji was completely broken.As seen from theevidence of Investigating Officer i.e. PW 19 PSI Rajput, it isclear that the incident took place in the courtyard of the houseof accused no.45 Bhagoji Phalke.It is the case of the witnessesthat from the Sakhale party 8 to 9 gun shots were fired.If gunshots were fired in the courtyard of the house of Bhagoji oreven on the road between the house of Bhagoji Phalke and thepolice patil PW 10 Sakharam Gole, many more persons wouldhave been injured with gun shots and pellet injuries, however,that is not the case.Almost every witness has admitted that 13 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 14 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..doc30 to 40 persons from Sakhale party and about 30 to 40persons from Phalke party were present.In such case, theincident having taken place in a congested place, casualtieswould have been much more than in the present case.Someof the witnesses have stated that there were about 100 to 125persons.In such case, if 8 to 9 gun shots were fired, in thatsmall area, the casualties would have been at least 8 to 9,because, gun shots were fired from a close range.Thus, itappears that much lesser number of gun shots were fired i.e.only three gun shots were fired due to which, NathuramSakpal, Laxman and Shankar received injuries and died andsome of witnesses received pellet injuries.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::Dattaram who wasanother son of Bhagoji, had received injuries.Babibai daughterof Bhagoji had also received injury.The injury certificates ofthese persons are on record in the counter case filed byBhagoji.Thus, it is seen that 17 persons from accused partyhad received injuries.Many of them were serious injuries likefractures.If the accused persons were having guns and firedshots, at least six in number, there is no explanation coming 15 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 16 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docfrom the prosecution regarding how 17 to 18 accused personsreceived injuries, some of which were serious in nature.Wewould also like to advert to the evidence of PW 5 Manohar whohas stated that on the date of the incident, Phalke party hadgone to forest for hunting.Thus, it appears that only Bhagojiwas at home with his family and Bhagoji on finding that hishouse was damaged and he, his sons, daughter and wifereceived injuries, he used his licensed gun in self defence andfired from his house in which Nathuram, Laxman and Shankarreceived injuries and died and other witnesses received pelletinjuries.The fact that the house of Bhagoji was completelydamaged is borne out by the evidence of Investigating OfficerPW 19 PSI Rajput.PSI Rajput has stated that it is true thatthere was substantial damage to the house of Bhagoji Phalke.This further corroborates the case of the accused that Sakhaleparty came and attacked the house of accused no.45 Bhagojiand injured Bhagoji and his family members, due to which,Bhagoji used his licensed gun and fired in self defence.10 It is interesting to note that though witnesses say thatthey went to the spot on hearing the noise of quarrel of the 16 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 17 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docladies from both the groups, not a single lady from Sakhaleparty had received injuries.This is admitted by PW 13Laxmibai.PW 14 Anusuya has stated that a quarrel was goingon between the ladies of both the groups, at that time,deceased Nathuram, Laxman and Shankar came to the spot.At that time, the ladies were standing in the 'Mandap' in thehouse of Bhagoji (accused no.45).The deceased personsasked the ladies why they were quarreling and all the threedeceased started pushing ladies aside with their hands.At thattime, there was firing.Firing was one after another.Thus, it isseen that three deceased were near the ladies who werequarreling and these deceased were pushing the ladies, in suchcase, if gun shots were fired, it would be expected that theladies would receive gun shot injuries, if not, at least pelletinjuries, because, they were next to the deceased persons.However, looking to the fact that no lady had received eitherbullet or pellet injury, the entire case put forward by Sakhaleparty appears to be doubtful.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::11 As stated earlier, the evidence on record shows thatthe house of Bhagoji was extensively damaged and his 17 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 18 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docdaughter had received injuries and his son Nathuram (accusedno.48) and he himself i.e. Bhagoji (accused no.45) hadsustained fractures in the incident, which are not explained bythe prosecution.Looking to all these facts, it does appear thatit is the party of the complainant who rushed to the house ofaccused no. 45 Bhagoji considering that the party members ofthe group of Bhagoji had gone for hunting in the forest and onfinding that Bhagoji was alone there, his house was completelydamaged and Bhagoji, his sons, daughter and wife wereassaulted, due to which they received injuries.Admittedly, thequantum of defence used by Bhagoji appears to be more thanwhich was actually required but as Bhagoji has expired duringthe trial, we need not go into that issue.Looking to the factthat all the witnesses are interested witnesses, extensivedamage to the house of Bhagoji and the fact that there is noexplanation for grievous and serious injuries sustained by 17persons from accused party, when all these circumstances areput together, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses who 18 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 19 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docare interested witnesses, becomes suspect.Looking to theevidence on record, it can be inferred that persons fromSakhale party which was the party of complainant, wereaggressors and it was only Bhagoji who had fired from hislicensed gun in his defence.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::12 The prosecution has tried to place reliance on the factthat guns were seized from accused nos.1, 21, 24 and 29 andguns were recovered from accused no.12 Sitaram Gole andaccused no.35 Sitaram Sakpal.However, it is seen that noneof these guns were hidden by the accused persons.They wereall licensed guns and they were lying in the house of theseaccused.None of the guns were kept in a concealed conditionin the house of any of these accused.Moreover, Ballistic reportdoes not help the prosecution because it is stated therein thatit is not possible to determine the time of last firing by the gunsin question.Thus, the Ballistic report does not state that theseguns were fired just prior to the receipt in the laboratory but onthe other hand, it states that it is not possible to determine thetime of the last firing by the guns in question.As statedearlier, all the guns were licensed guns, hence, they could very 19 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 ::: jdk 20 of 21 5.cri.apeal.350.93.j..docwell have been used for firing for other purposes like huntingand the evidence of PW 5 Manohar shows that on the date ofthe incident, accused persons had gone for hunting.Thus, ifnot on that day, on earlier days, the said guns could have beenused for hunting.In the facts and circumstances of this case,the seizure or recovery of these guns from the accusedpersons, is not a circumstance which would help theprosecution.::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::15 In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.[ REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.] [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. ]kandarkar 21 ::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 12:15:34 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
17,885,886 |
(Delivered on 22nd day of November, 2017) The applicants have preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 / 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashment of the order dated 10.8.2010 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore in Sessions Trial No.104/2009 whereby charges for the offences Pr under Sections 323, 436, 447 and 392 r/w.Sec. 34 of the IPC have been framed against them.2. Facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent no. 1 filed a complaint against the applicants before the court of JMFC, Sehore for taking cognizance under Sections 447, 435, 323 and 325 of the IPC alleging therein that the applicants are the employees of the Forest Department and respondent no. 1 by caste Korku is a member of Scheduled Caste community and he is a poor person.Hence, he occupied three acres of open land and made it useful for agricultural purposes and under the law he became owner of the said land.The applicants without a any authority abused his son Pramod and his wife Saraswati and also beaten them and set ablaze their hut (Taparia) and compelled his son Pramod to drink urine of them and demanded Rs.5000/- for not registering criminal case against him and they also taken away his two cocks worth hy Rs.800/- with them.With regard to this incident, a report was made to the Police Station AJAK, Sehore on 14.7.2008 and his son Pramod was medically examined but thereafter, no action was taken against the applicants.Hence, on 5.8.2008 a complaint was filed before the concerned court below and after taking statements of the complainant / respondent no.1, son Pramod and daughter-in-law Saraswati and Rahul, another son of the complainant, cognizance has been taken against the applicants and the case has been committed to the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sehore who after hearing the parties, has framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections323/34, 436/34, 447/34 and 392/34 of the IPC ad against the applicants by order dated 10.8.2010 which is under challenge.On behalf of the applicants it is submitted that on 28.6.2008, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Imlikheda informed the Forest officers, Forest Range, Sehore regarding encroachment on the forest land by respondent no. 1 and his family and also for creating nuisance.Thereafter, applicants no. 1 and 3 initiated eviction proceeding against respondent no. 1 who was found encroacher on the forest land and on 12.7.2008 M encroachment was removed and a criminal case was registered against them and in accordance with law, charge sheet has been filed.On behalf of respondent no.1 and his family a complaint was made against the applicants to the DSP, AJAK, Sehore, upon which, an enquiry was made and the complaint was found to be false one.During the enquiry, number of independent witnesses were examined.They had not supported the version of the complainant and it was a counter blast of the proceeding initiated against the complainant party.The aforesaid facts were brought to the notice of the trial court but the trial court has mechanically ignored the same and also rejected objection of the applicants with regard to of applicability of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. as the complaint / application has been filed without taking sanction from the State Government against the applicants as the allegations are squarely covered in purview of discharging their official duty.Hence, the order of learned trial court is not sustained.Hence, the revision be allowed and the applicants be discharged.None appeared on behalf of respondent no.1 / complainant.Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State has argued in support of the impugned order passed by the trial court and rt prayed for rejection of the revision.Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it is found that against respondent no. 1 for making encroachment on the forest land forest offence bearing RT No.1060/17 was registered on 11.7.2008 and on 12.7.2008 proceeding ou for dispossession was taken place and the respondent no.1s son Pramod was arrested and charge sheet was filed against him.On the complaint made on 14.7.2008 after inquiry, DSP, AJAK, Sehore submitted his report on 18.7.2008 to the Superintendent of Police, AJAK Sehore.The complaint filed against respondent no. 1 and his son and wife on behalf of the forest department was enquired by the Police C AJAK Sehore shows that the allegations of the complainant are related to the incident which was taken place during removal of their illegal encroachment on the forest land.(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE sh Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA e Date: 2017.11.22 17:56:19 +05'30' ad JP Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,862,463 |
499, 500, 501 and 502 of I.P.C. The said complaint was filed by him in a personal capacity and not as Public Officer engaged in discharge of public duty.Despite the fact, the statement of the complainant was not recorded under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Without recording his statement the cognizance taken by the trial Court vide order dated 25.11.2014 is contrary to the provisions of law because immunity of recording the statement of the complainant has been granted under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. only in those circumstances where the complaint is filed by a complainant in his capacity as Public Officer engaged in discharge of his public duties.Therefore, the cognizance taken by learned trial Court against the provisions of law deserves to be set aside.On perusal of the photocopy of the order-sheets and the contents of the complaint ,the submissions made on behalf of the applicant- accused appear to be sound, therefore, this petition being arguable is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.List after six weeks.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,788,676 |
JUDGMENT P.N. Sinha, J.This revisional application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called the Code) has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 1246/76 arising out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under Sections 147/447/379/324 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called the IPC) now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court at Krishnagar in Nadia.For the last 27 years the trial has not been completed.It amounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution as the said Article guarantees fundamental right of speedy trial.In the meantime some of the accused persons have expired and some have become old and it causes inconvenience to them to attend Krishnagar Court from long distance of Karimpur for so many years.Learned Advocate appearing for the State contended that already 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.Only three witnesses are left to be examined and the learned Magistrate tried his best to secure attendance of witnesses and warrant was also issued against doctor witness.Ordersheet reveals that accused persons were irregular in attending Court and the delay, if any, was not for the fault of prosecution but for the fault of accused persons.There cannot be any direction for quashing of the criminal proceeding.The Court may direct the learned Magistrate to expedite the trial within a very short time.After perusing the revisional application and annexures and considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties I find from the materials on record that the G.R. Case No. 1246 of 1976 now pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Court, Krishnagar, Nadia arose out of Karimpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 4.7.1976 under Sections 147/447/379/324 of the IPC.The ordersheet further reveals that copies of relevant papers were served to the accused persons on 23.3.77 and the case was transferred to Sri A. K. Banerjee, learned Judicial Magistrate for disposal.I find that on several dates all the 12 accused persons remained absent and, on some dates 2/3 accused persons remained present and others remained absent and, on some dates 6/7 accused persons remained present and others remained absent.It is also clear from the ordersheet that out of 14 witnesses already 11 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution.As doctor Swadesh Saha did not appear learned Magistrate has issued bailable warrant against the said witness.On 26.7.93 for the first time learned Advocate for the accused persons prayed for closing the prosecution case which was rejected by the learned Magistrate.Challenging the said order the accused petitioners moved the instant revisional application and a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 24.9.93 stayed further proceeding of the said case.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
178,867,847 |
e This is a repeat application for suspension of custodial sentence ad awarded to appellants Diggi Raja and Preetam Singh.After having heard rival contentions at length, considering of earlier order dated 30.09.2015 and the evidence that is come on record, rt we are not inclined to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to ou appellants.Accordingly, I.A. No.2923/2017 stands rejected and closed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.