id
int64
394
1.89B
cases
stringlengths
15
383k
labels
stringlengths
38
1.08k
instruction
stringclasses
1 value
178,873,630
The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused;The applicant shall not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; and he would not move in the vicinity/area of the prosecutrix and he would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant in any manner.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that a false case has been registered against him.Dichotomy of narration of story as reflected in the FIR and statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. indicates the nature of allegations.Therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.The applicant shall comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.As per the undertaking given by counsel on behalf of the applicant, it is hereby directed that applicant shall plant 2 saplings (either fruit bearing trees or Neem/ Peepal) alongwith tree guards or has to make arrangement for fencing for protection of the trees, because it is the duty of the applicant not only to plant the saplings but also to nurture them. " o`{kkjksi.k ds lkFk]o`{kkiks"k.k Hkh vko';d gS A" He shall plant saplings/ trees preferably of 6-8 ft., so that they would grow into full fledged trees at an early time.Any default on behalf of applicant in plantation or caring of trees shall disentitle the applicant from enjoying the benefit of bail.The applicant shall be at liberty to plant these saplings/ trees at an place of his choice if he intends to protect the trees on his owncost by providing tree guards or fencing or he may plant the saplings at the place of his choice in his vicinity/area for which applicant shall have to bear necessary expenses for plantation of the trees and their measures for safeguard.This direction is made by this Court as a test case to address the Anatomy of Violence and Evil by process of Creation and a step towards Alignment with Nature.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately engrained attributes of human existence."It is not the question of Plantation of a Tree but the Germination of a Thought."A copy of this order be sent to the Trial Court concerned for compliance.C.C. as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge 5 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.27813/2019 (Sunil Jatav Vs.State of M.P.) Rashid NEETU SHASHANK 2019.07.19 17:04:17 +05'30'
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
17,887,489
Through: Mr. Lovkesh Sawhney, APP.These two appeals are preferred under Section 341 Cr PC to assail the common order dated 21.04.2012 passed by Ms. Madhu Jain, ASJ, Saket, New Delhi, whereby the application preferred by respondent no.2 under Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 1 of 15 Section 340 Cr PC was allowed and the matter was directed to be placed before the ACMM (South Distt.) to proceed with the trial of the appellants under Section 340 Cr PC either on his own, or by assigning the same to the concerned Court of P.S. Jamia Nagar.Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 1 of 15FIR No.7/2009 was registered at P.S. Jamia Nagar, Delhi on the complaint of respondent no.2 herein.The appellants were the named accused in the said FIR under Section 448/380/341/34 IPC.The learned ASJ directed the IO to issue 3 days advance notice in the event of the appellants arrest.The appellants were issued the requisite notice on 20.05.2009 for their arrest.This petition was listed before the Court of Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal on 26.05.2009, when the following order came to be passed:"Crl.M.A.No.6158/2009 (Exemption) Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.Application stands disposed of accordingly.CRL.M.C. 1692/2009 and Crl.M.A.No.6157/2009 (stay) Notice.U.L.Watwani, the learned Addl.Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 2 of 15REVA KHETRAPAL, J MAY 26, 2009"The appellants thereafter moved an application to seek bail in the Court of the District & Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi under Section 438 Cr PC.The averment made by the appellants in para 2 of the said application reads as follows:"That on 26.05.2009, the applicants herein approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi for quashing of the aforesaid FIR.The Hon'ble Court of Smt. Reva Khetrapal was pleased to issue notice in CRL M.C. 1692/2009 (Abulais Javed & Ors Vs State & Anr) and directed Ld. Counsel for State to inform the IO to not to harass the applicants herein.A copy of the information sent by the Ld. Counsel for the State to the IO dated 26.05.2009 is annexed herewith as Annexure-2".The appellants filed as Annexure-2 along with the bail application the index of their quashing petition (Crl MC 1692/2009), which had the following inscription in hand:"Learned IO was directed through learned Advocate for State not to unduly harass the petitioners.Sd/ (Illegible) 26.05.09"The averment of the appellants in the bail application, extracted herein above, was to the effect that the aforesaid endorsement was "the information sent by the learned Counsel for the State to the IO dated Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 3 of 15 26.05.2009".The appellants were granted anticipatory bail.Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 3 of 15Respondent no.2 preferred the application under Section 340 Cr PC in the said Bail Application proceedings on or about 27.07.2010 on the premise that the appellants had made deliberately and knowingly false averments in para 2 of their bail application to mislead the learned ASJ hearing the anticipatory bail application, supported by the affidavit, to the effect that on 26.05.2009 this Court (Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal) while issuing notice in Crl MC No.1692/2009, directed the counsel for the State to inform the IO not to harass the appellants.Respondents further submit that the appellants did not stop at making the said averment, and proceeded to attribute the endorsement made on the index of Crl.If oral directions given by the Hon'ble High Court to the Ld. Counsel for the state were their, then it was the duty of the non applicant's/accused to mention this fact in their application also.It was not necessary for the learned ASJ to go deeper into the issue as to whether, or not, an oral direction had been issued by this Court (Ms. Justice Reva Khetrapal) while passing the order dated 26.05.2009 in Crl.The appellants not only made the averment, as extracted in the impugned order Crl A Nos.693/2012 & 905/2012 Page 14 of 15 in paragraph 2 of the bail application, but also annexed to index of Crl.M.C. No.1629/2009 containing the endorsement, as aforesaid, thereby giving the impression that the learned counsel for the State had been directed to instruct the IO not to harass the appellants.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,875,996
The appellant is in custody in connection with Crime No.326/2016 registered at Police Station Simrol, District Indore for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 294, 506, 324 and 326 of IPC; under Section 25 of the Arms Act; and under Sections 3 (2)(v-a), 3 (2) (v) and 3 (1) (Da) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Application of the appellant under Section 439 of -: 2 :- the Code of Criminal Procedure [in brief "the Code"] has been dismissed by the Special Judge vide impugned order.Being aggrieved, the appellant has filed this appeal.The appellant is detained since 13.09.2016; whereas the trial will take time to conclude.In such circumstances, the impugned order be set- aside and the appellant be released on bail.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer for the Respondent No.1/State as well as Respondent No.2 oppose the prayer and support the impugned order and pray for dismissal of the appeal.Tarachand and Shekhar in their statements recorded under Section 164 of the Code have stated that appellant Gopal has caused the injury with iron rod on the -: 3 :- head of Tarachand, however, Tarachand has not sustained any injury on his head.He sustained two incised wounds (i) over right clavicle bone deep; and (ii) posterior aspect of left shoulder - muscle deep.I am of the view that the appellant is entitled for bail.Hence, the order passed by the Special Judge is set-aside.Thus, the appeal is allowed and it is directed that the appellant be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with two local solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.-: 3 :-The appellant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the Trial Court out of which this appeal arises.Appeal stands disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.[ Jarat Kumar Jain ] JUDGE (AKS) -: 4 :--: 4 :-
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,879,570
The averments made in the petition is extracted below for better appreciation of case.The charges have been framed and the trial is yet to commence in the said proceedings.2.2) The Respondent has registered a complaint against the petitioners and one Mr.P.Suresh, Managing Director, M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited and Mr.P.Karthikeyan, Director, M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited alleging that in respect of fixation of infrastructure and amenity charges pertaining to the multi-storied buildings proposed to be constructed by M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited.2.3) In terms of Section 63(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act, inserted by way of Act 34 of 2007 with effect from 01.06.2007, every local authority or Planning Authority while granting building permit (or) planning permission, shall levy charges on the institution of use or change of use of land or building or development of any land or building in the whole area or any part of the planning area in order to meet the impact of the development and for ensuring sustainable development of urban and rural areas at different rates prescribed for different area by following procedures by providing adequate infrastructure and amenities.The Authorities shall levy infrastructure and amenities on any person who undertakes or carries out any such development or institutes any use or changes any such use.In so far as the Chengalpattu region is concerned, the Director of Town and Country Planning area is vested with the authority to levy infrastructure and amenity charges while according planning permission.In terms of the aforesaid provision the Government of Tamil nadu vide G.O.(MS).No.191 dated 01.06.2007 instructed the Director of Town and Country Planning to collect infrastructure and basic amenity charges for multi-storey building at the rate of not exceeding Rs.1000/- per sq.mt.By way of the said G.O the Director of Town and Country Planning was empowered to fix different rates for different places after taking into account the various aspects of development including the infrastructure needs.Subsequently, by Proceedings dated 01.06.2007, the Director of Town and Country Planning fixed a sum of Rs.1000/- per sq.mt for multi-storey building governing Chengalpattu region as infrastructure and basic amenities charges.2.4) Pursuant to the aforesaid proceedings the private builders challenged the said proceedings before this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the levy of Infrastructure and Amenity Charges is without any basis as there was no notification by the Government of Tamil Nadu.Subsequently, vide G.O.(MS).No.22 dated 25.01.2008, the Infrastructure and Amenity Charges in respect of different categories of buildings was notified in the Government Gazette.In terms of Rule 2(b) and Rule 7, the Planning Authority or Local Authority is empowered to determine whether or not and if so the infrastructure and amenity charges leviable in respect of multi-storied building or commercial building.2.5) On 01.12.2008 in terms of G.O.(MS).No.22 and 84 a sum of Rs.1000/- was sought to be collected in respect of various Survey numbers pertaining to M/s.ArunExcello to the extent of 3,01,650 sq.mt in Potheri and Vallanjeri Village, Maraimalai Nagar Municipality.In the meantime, the sum of Rs.1000/- fixed as Infrastructure and Amenity charges were challenged before this Hon'ble Court by an Association of Builders namely CREDAI questioning the rate of levy fixed by then Government in addition to various other charges levied for the buildings.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited gave a representation to the Commissioner, DTCP seeking to exclude 1,83,720 sq.mt for which by proceedings dated 29.03.2007 planning permit was accorded to the above said extent of land.Hence, M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited requested to revise the Infrastructure and Amenity Charges after excluding the extent of 1,83,720 sq.mt.On 26.03.2009, the Commissioner, Town and Country Planning, accorded approval to exclude the floor area to the extent of 1,83,720 sq.mt which was granted planning approval even prior to 31.05.2007, before introduction of Infrastructure and Amenity Charges.2.6) In respect of the demand raised against M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited on 01.12.2008, the then Regional Director  Incharge sent a reminder informing M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited to comply with the two special conditions contemplated in terms of DTCP technical clearance proceedings wherein one of the conditions was to obtain the opinion of Government Pleader in respect of the title and only thereafter planning permission could be accorded and only subsequent thereto the infrastructure and amenity charges could be collected by the Department.In the meantime as the stay was in force, the demand raised against the said M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited could not be pressed into service.In fact, during the said period various Builders Association also requested the Government to reduce the Infrastructure and Amenity Charges on account of slump in the real estate market and also that they faced severe financial crunch.Accordingly, on 09.09.2009 vide G.O.Ms.No.161, the Housing and Urban Development Department reduced the Infrastructure and Amenity charges to the tune of Rs.250 per sq.mt from Rs.1000/- per sq.mt.2.7) On 16.09.2009, the DTCP Office, Chennai vide circular communicated the same to the Chengalpattu region and was asked to collect infrastructure charges on the revised rate.On 25.10.2009, the then Regional Director incharge sent another reminder to M/s.Only on 18.01.2010 M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited obtained Government Pleader opinion and submitted the same to the petitioners.Thereafter on 22.01.2010, the first petitioner raised a fresh demand in terms of G.O.Ms.The demand was raised in respect of land area to the extent of 1,83,720 sq.mt.Thereafter the petitioners were transferred to Coimbatore and Villupuram respectively.The graveman of the final report against these petitioners, who are public servants and other private individuals is that, the Government had examined the proposal on the fixation of Infrastructure and amenities charges in the context of the rapid developments that are taking place in the State.After detailed discussions on the above proposal, it has been underscored that for ensuring sustainable development leading to the formation of well planned urban areas and growth centers provision of adequate basic amenities like alternative and or additional source for water supply availability of facilities such as broad road connectivity provision of standard infrastructure implementation of schemes for connecting sewerage and drainage to the trunk systems creation of environment friendly atmosphere on long term basis etc., have become essential and it is felt necessary to provide adequate funds by way of establishing an Infrastructure and Amenities Fund with adequate sources of revenue.The Government accordingly in G.O.Ms.Infrastructure and Basic Amenities ChargesS.No.Type of BuildingCeiling of the Rates1.Commercial & IT BuildingRs.500/- per sq.m.2.Multistoried BuildingRs.1000/- per sq.m.3.InstitutionsRs.200/- per sq.m.4.Industrial useRs.300/- per sq.m.In G.O.Ms.In G.O.Ms.In G.O.Ms.No.161 of Housing and Urban Development Department dated (UD4-1) dated 09.09.2009 the Government has revised the rates of infrastructure and amenities charges and mode of payment with reference to the categories of buildings and places.The Regional Deputy Director (I/C) Chengalpattu Letter No.2870/2010/CR2 dated 27.02.2010 Chengalpattu RDD (I/C) has brought the following facts to the notice of the Directorate that M/s.The DTCP has accepted the proposal vide proceedings Roc.No.5352/07/BA2 dated 26.03.2007 (8 block (G+3) floor, 1568 dwelling units & FSI area is 183720 sq.mt).The Final approval for the site has been issued by Executive Officer, Maraimalainagar Municipality on 29.03.2007 this was done before the implementation of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges by the Government.Again the entire site has been declared as MSB area vide CTCP proceedings Roc.No.9014/08/CP (Special cell) dated 16.07.2008 and it was also published in the Official Gazette dated 30.07.2008 this was done after the implementation of Infrastructure and Amenities Charges by the Government.Then the MSB Building approval for that area has been issued vide CTCP proceedings Roc.No.19432/08/CP (Special Cell) dated 18.11.2008 (1903 dwelling units & FSI area is 301650 sq.mt).In this proceedings RDD (I/C) Chengalpattu was instructed to collect the infrastructure and amenities charges with reference to the Government Order Ms.No.22 of Housing and Urban Development Department (UD4-1) dated 25.01.2008 and G.O.Ms.No.84 of Housing and Urban Development Department (UD4-1) dated 08.04.2008 before issuing the planning permission.In addition to the above two special conditions have been laid down to issue the Planning Permision as given below.2.To get the NOC from concerned department regarding Channel.In the note file of RDD (I/C) Chengalpattu the CTCP Letter No.3869/09/BA2 dated 26.03.2009 to exclude the floor areas for which approval has been issued by Local Body prior to 31.05.2007 from total area was found.Accordingly, the demand should have been raised for the area 117930 sq.mt @ Rs.1000/- per sq.mt (301650 sq.mt.- 183720 sq.mt.).The applicant also requested for remittance of infrastructure and amenities charges towards that balance area.Contrary to the instruction of CTCP in the proceedings 19432/08/CP (Special Cell) dated 18.11.2008 the demand had been worked at the rate of Rs.500/- sq.mt vide RDD (I/C) proceedings 2552/07/CR 7 dated 22.01.2010 (111805 sq.mt x 250 + 6275 sq.mt (Club House) x 500 = 3,10,88,750/-).This has caused a financial loss to the tune of Rs.8,68,41,250/- (Rs.11,79,30,000/- - Rs.3,10,88,750/-) (i.e., exclude the previous approval area of 183720 sq.mt from total area of 301650 sq.mt the demand for infrastructure and amenities charges should have been raised for Rs.11,79,30,000/- (117930 sq.mt @ 1000 per sq.mt) to the Government exchequer.The Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in Special C.C.No.3 of 2014 and quash the final report dated 03.06.2014 on the file of Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited in Maraimalai Nagar Municipality, the petitioners along with the said persons conspired and did not pursue the demand raised in terms of G.O.(MS).No.191 dated 01.06.2007 by fixing the infrastructure and amenity charges at the rate of Rs.1000 per Sq.mt.Instead kept the demand pending for a period of 10 months and raised a fresh demand in terms of subsequent G.O.(MS).No.161 dated 09.09.2009, reducing the infrastructure and amenity charges at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.mt.The crux of the allegation is that the petitioner in order to ensure M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited derives the benefit from the subsequent G.O.(MS).No.161 dated 09.09.2009 reduced the infrastructure rate and thus caused revenue loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.8,68,41,250/- which was gain to the said M/s.On 25.02.2009, the said M/s.It would appear that subsequently on 09.02.2011, the then Regional Director raised a fresh demand for the entire rate of Rs.1000/- and demanded a sum of Rs.11,79,30,000/- as per the instructions of DTCP.The said M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited challenged the proceedings before this Hon'ble Court and ultimately the same was set aside by this Hon'ble Court.The Special Leave Petition filed by the Town and Country Planning Department was dismissed and the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed that M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited is liable to pay only Infrastructure and Amenity charges at the rate of Rs.250 per sq.mt.2.8) On 10.08.2011, the Director of Town and Country Planning gave a complaint before the Respondent alleging that the petitionerss during their tenure in Chengalpattu Region ought to have demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- per sq.mt as Infrastructure and Amenity charges for the property belonging to M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited, that the petitioner demanded Rs.250/- per sq.mt contrary to the instructions of Town and Country Planning Commissioner vide his proceedings dated 18.11.2008 and thus caused a financial loss to the tune of Rs.8,68,41,250/-.Further it was alleged that the action of petitioners was to ensure that M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited derived benefit by causing loss to the exchequer and that the petitioners and the Directors of M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited hatched a conspiracy to cheat the Government.2.9) The Managing Director and Director of M/s.The said application was dismissed and ultimately it was carried to the Supreme Court in Crl.By order dated 28.07.2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that as the charge sheet against them were laid on the ground that they were required to pay Rs.1000/- per sq.mt and it was ultimately held to be only Rs.250/- per sq.mt and as the foundation of the charge sheet being demolished, they cannot be prosecuted.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeals of both the Accused were allowed.The SLP challenging the order of this Hon'ble Court setting aside the demand in terms of proceedings dated 09.02.2011 and 15.02.2011 were also dismissed and the infrastructure and amenity charges applicable to the said M/s.The petitioners act of demanding Rs.250/- per sq.mt being upheld by the Supreme Court, no material avail for prosecution to frame charge against these petitioners.The respondent in its counter has stated that, 3.1) Originally Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure private Limited vide letter dated 08.01.2007 applied to the Director of Town and Country Planning seeking for Multi Storied Buildings (MSB) declaration for their proposed construction of Information Technology Buildings with 16 floors and a height of 60 mts.M/s.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited had to fulfill 32 conditions specified by the Town and Country planning Department, unless the petitioner completes the said conditions, the Multi Storied Buildings declaration cannot be done.3.2) Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited having had come to know about the Government initiative to bring levy of Infrastructure and Amenity charges by making necessary amendments to the Town and Country Planning Act and rules and hence withdrawn their request for the multistoried building declaration proposal which was submitted initially on 08.01.2007 and thereafter submitted another application dated 06.03.2007 to Regional Director Chengalpattu Region seeking approval for special buildings consisting of stilt plus 4 floors residential buildings to an extent of 33.92 acres.In the same letter it was made clear by Ms.However no construction was put up by Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited based on the above approval.3.4) At a later period another application dated 24.10.2007 in the name of Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited was again given requesting the Regional Deputy Director Chengalpattu expresing their intention to develop MSB to the height of 60 mts with 20 floors roof slab.It is pertinent to note that in that letter it was made clear that pursuant to the approval in March 2007 no construction was made and the project of special buildings with stilt plus G+3 was abandoned and the authorities were requested to approve once again a MSB declaration which was already applied and cancelled suo moto by the Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited.So only an application for MSB is alone is pending.3.5) The approval for the Special building which was granted on 29.03.2007 and the MSB for which fresh application was submitted on 24.10.2007 are two different concepts.Special buildings means a building having more than two floors but not exceeding 4 floors inclusive of ground floor or a building with basement or stilt floor and 4 floors or a residential building having more than 4 dwelling units or a building accommodating commercial or industrial or institutional or combination of such activities with a floor area exceeding 300 square metres and Multistoried building means a building having parking under stilts, then excluding the ground floor.Whose height is 15 metres or more.It is further submitted that the fresh application for MSB covers an area of 3,01,650 sq.mts whereas the already approved Special Building plan covers an area of 1,83,720 sq.mts.Since the MSB and Special Building are two different concepts and Ms.ArunExcello Infrastructure Private Limited have themselves committed in their letter dated 24.10.2007 that they have abandoned the Special Building project.3.6) It is submitted by the respondent that the petitioners (A1 and A2) have delayed the process of collecting the demanded amount which was raised when the G.O.Ms.84 was in force and prolonged the issue till G.O.Ms.161 came into force and thereby gave the benefit to M/s.ArunExcello Private Limited these aspects have been clearly brought out with connected documents and have been filed in the Trial Court to prosecute the petitioners.Perused the petition and counter.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.A1 and A2 being Government servants had issued a notice dated 01.12.2008 to A3 and A4 instructing to pay an amount of Rs.15,08,25,000/- as infrastructure and amenities Charges at the rate of Rs.1000/- per sq.mt this notice was given a gobye by A1 and A2 while issuing a fresh notice dated 22.01.2010 based on G.O.161 where the rates were revised and only an amount of Rs.3,10,88,750/- at the rate of Rs.250/- per sq.mt was raised and this amount was duly remitted by A3 and A4 ignoring the earlier instructions.Therefore, it is alleged in the final report that in pursuance of G.O.No.191 dated 01.06.2007 the builders are required to pay charges as per the provisions of the Government Order which were prevalent when the planning permission was issued.The Planning permission was issued for Ms.Hence the G.O.M.S.No.191 issued on 01.06.2007 G.O.Ms.No.22 dated 25.01.2008 and G.O.M.S.No.84 dated 08.04.2008 and the rates prescribed in these G.O's alone are applicable and the builders are not eligible to any benefit of revision of rates on account of the subsequent orders.Knowing fullywell that the G.O issued subsequently i.e., G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 09.09.2009 is not applicable but in order to obtain wrongful gain and in order to help A3 and A4 the accused A1 and A2 with criminal intention to obtain wrongful gain and caused wrongful loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.8.68 Crores had delayed the process and thereby committed offence of Criminal misconduct.While the allegation against the petitioners in the final report is as above, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the quash petition of the Co-accused, in Crl.A.Nos.1325 and 1326 of 2017 dated 28.07.2017, has held as under.i) The First Information Report (FIR) under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is registered against the appellants herein for causing wrongful loss to the Government.The allegations in the charge sheet are that the appellants in conspiracy with petitioner nos.1 and 2 in SLP(C)No.26254/2015, anticipating some reductions in Infrastructural and Amenities Charges without paying the amount to the Government; petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in SLP(C)No.26254/2015 being Government Servants abused their official position and helped the appellants to get the benefit of G.O.Ms.161 dated 09.09.2009 as per which the charges were reduced from Rs.1000/- per square meter to Rs.250/- per square meter.The trial Court framed the charges against the appellants.The appellants filed discharge application which was dismissed.Being aggrieved, the appellants filed two Criminal Revisions against the order of the Trial Court, which have been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned Judgment and challenging the order of the High Court these proceedings are filed.ii) It may be recorded at this stage that the question as to whether the charges were payable by the appellants @ Rs.250/- per square meter or Rs.1000/- per square meter was the subject matter of SLP(C)No.26254 of 2015 which is also listed along with these appeals.In that case, the demand of the State Government calling upon the appellants to pay the charges @ Rs.1000/- was challenged by the appellants in the High Court and the High Court allowed the writ petition.Intra Court appeal preferred by the State Government was also dismissed.SLP(C)No.26254 of 2015 has been filed against the said Judgment of the High Court.By a separate order, the said petition stands dismissed.The effect thereof is that the appellants were required to pay Rs.250/- per square meter only and having held so, the very basis and foundation of the charge sheet in the present case is demolished and they cannot be prosecuted.While so, no culpability can be attributed to these petitioners for not collecting Rs.1000/- sq.mt.(Housing and Urban Development Department)Therefore, it is very clear that there was neither deriliction of duty or any criminal intention on the part of the petitioners herein for not collecting Rs.1000 per sq.mt from the promoters.The Hon'ble Supreme Court after taking note of all these facts has quashed the criminal case against the other accused.The said reasoning squarely applies to these petitioners also.A.Nos.1325, 1326 of 2017 dated 28.07.2017, the petition under consideration is allowed.In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.The Special C.C.No.3 of 2014 pending on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu is hereby quashed.2.The Chief Judicial Magistrate Cum Special Judge, Chengalpattu.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN.J,rna Pre-delivery Judgment made inCriminal Original Petition No: 25124 of 201702.01.2018
['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.
178,883,317
He has been falsely implicated.It is further submitted that the belated FIR was got registered by father of the victim against the applicant and his family members with the allegation that while going to the school on 12.09.2018, his daughter was enticed away by two co-accused persons and thereafter, she was handed over to the applicant Ritesh Patel at Gorakhpur and thereafter, the victim and the applicant went to Ahemdbad without any resistance or alarm.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicantRitesh Patel, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,895,240
Shri Gaurav Panchal, learned counsel for the Objector.Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.The present applicant apprehends his arrest by Police Station Tonk Khurd, District Dewas in Crime No. 27/2017 for offence under Sections 354,354-A,354-D(2) and 506, 34 of IPC.The prosecutrix was going to the market to purchase some provisions.The present applicant alongwith another accused Deepak came there and it is alleged that they tried to outrage her modesty and also torn her clothes.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the present applicant has been falsely implicated.Learned counsel for the Objector submits that the present applicant is giving threat to the prosecutrix and her family members and seriously objects in granting bail to the present applicant.Certified copy as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,895,486
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are: A. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant at the relevant time had been working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police at Malappuram, and his wife was living at Palluruthy, and was using a vehicle which was driven by Praveen (deceased).He was also related to the appellant.Praveen developed an illicit relationship with the appellant’s wife, and the appellant was informed of this development by his Manager, Aji.The appellant reached Palluruthy, and made enquiries about the situation from Praveen and others, and his relatives tried to resolve the aforesaid matter.In the presence of other relatives, the matter was then amicably settled.Praveen (deceased), was asked not to come to appellant’s house thereafter, and thus Praveen left and began working in a shop at Ettumanoor, as a driver.B. During this period, on 25/26.11.2004, Vijayamma, relative of Praveen (deceased), and N. Sahadevan PW.2’s father, informed Pavithran (PW.1), father of Praveen, that Praveen was in danger as Vijayamma had found out about the illicit relationship that Praveen had developed with the appellant’s wife.C. N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father informed Pavithran (PW.1), Praveen’s father who resided at Trivendrum, via the telephone of this danger to Praveen’s life.Pavithran (PW.1) immediately informed his brother and requested him to help Praveen, as he may not be spared by the appellant.N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father, went and brought Praveen to his own house, whilst informing everybody, that his mother was seriously ill.The appellant asked N. Sahadevan, PW.2’s father, in conversation over the telephone about Praveen, and directed him to bring Praveen back.PW.2’s father then took Praveen back.When the meeting took place in the presence of various relatives, the appellant (A-1), attempted to assault Praveen, but they were separated by other persons.Praveen pleaded his innocence, and told the appellant that Aji had played this dirty game for some personal gain.However, when Aji was called to participate in the said meeting, he stood by his version of events and stated that he had seen Praveen and the appellant’s wife in a compromising position.The appellant told Praveen to leave the said place and to not enter the city.D. Praveen was brought by Jilesh M.S. (PW.2), and taken to Trivendrum for treatment.Praveen told his father after a period of 2/3 days that it was not safe for him to stay in hospital as 2/3 gundas had been roaming around in the hospital.Thus, he went back to the city and sought employment.E. On 15.2.2005, Divakaran (PW.7), neighbour of Vinu (A-2), while coming out of a bus stop, saw Vinu (A-2) coming on a motor bike while Praveen was standing in the market.Vinu (A-2), stopped the bike and took Praveen towards Kottayam.They then went to a bar, had drinks as were served to them by Saiju (PW.9), and came out of the bar at 8.30 p.m., after which they ate at a ‘thattukada’ (a small petty shop), where they were served by Jose (PW.8), an employee of the ‘thattukada’.Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13), who was the owner of the ‘thattukada’, saw the appellant (A-1), coming in a Maruti car.In the said car, there were also some other persons.They had coffee, as was served to them by Jose (PW.8), and seen by Mohammed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13).The appellant (A-1) went back to the car and started driving.Other persons also joined him, and Vinu (A-2), along with Praveen, left on a Motor Cycle.Vinu (A-2) lifted his hand and proceeded further.The Maruti Van followed them.They all left the city at about midnight, and drove into the jungle.F. Shanavas (PW.12), an auto-rickshaw driver carrying patients to the Medical College, Kottayam found one motor cycle parked on the side of the road.As he had slowed down seeing the vehicles on the road, he also saw two persons coming out of the van.The pillion rider of the motor cycle sat in the van and after he got into the van, the van left immediately.The motor bike also started.He noted the registration number of the van, and also that of the motor bike.G. Mohanan (PW.10), another auto rickshaw driver saw the Maruti Van parked on the road and a person standing near it.Mohanan (PW.10), stopped his auto and asked him what had happened, however he only replied that a person had gone nearby.Upon obtaining requisite information, K.M. Antony (PW.17), Circle Inspector of Vaikom, reached the scene and Pavithran (PW.1) also identified the torso, to be that of his son.While the inquest of the torso was being conducted, a pair of hands was seen floating in the lake.K.M. Antony (PW.17) recovered the same and conducted inquest.Pavithran (PW.1) identified the hands to be those of Praveen as well.The house of the appellant (A-1) was searched by K.M. Anto (PW.74), Circle Inspector of Police, Kottayam West and there was recovery of M.Os.13 to 18, under Exts.P.17 and 18 Mahazars.B. Muralidharan Nair (PW.77), Dy.S.P., Kottayam, received information that a human head in a plastic cover, had been spotted on the shores of the back waters of the lake.The head was then recovered and inquest prepared.Divakaran (PW.7), deposed that he knew Praveen (deceased) and Vinu (A-2) from childhood, and that on the fateful day Vinu (A-2) had taken Praveen on a motor cycle and had driven towards Kottayam.Jose (PW.8) was running a ‘thattukada’ (petty shop) during the night.He deposed that on 15.2.2005 at 8.30 p.m., Praveen (deceased) came with Vinu (A-2) to his shop, and that the two, after their meal, left for the theatre, on a motor cycle.At 11.45 p.m., the appellant and three others also came to his shop and had coffee.The appellant then returned to the van after which, the other three persons also got into the van.The appellant got into the driver’s seat of the van.When most of the people had left after watching the movie, the witness saw Vinu (A-2) and Praveen on the said motor cycle, riding towards Thirunakkara.Vinu (A-2) came close to the van, lifted his hand and then proceeded.Thereafter, the van in which the appellant (A-1) was sitting, followed them.During the cross-examination on behalf of the appellant (A-1), the witness deposed that at the time when A-2 had lifted his hand, there was only a distance of 5 feet between the van and motorcycle.This witness further deposed that he had been shown only one photograph.He stated that A-1 had come to his shop and had remained there for 10-15 minutes.During this cross-examination on behalf of A-2, the said witness also deposed that he had told the police and magistrate that A-2 and Praveen had eaten a Bull’s eye, and that he had accepted cash from them and had also returned the balance.Baiju (PW.9), was working as the barman at Hotel Arcadia.He deposed that it was in fact, A-2 who had come with another person on the 15th February 2005, at about 6.30 p.m. to the Hotel and had consumed liquor.He stated that they had remained in the bar till about 8.30 p.m. and that A-2 had paid the bill.The witness had noticed the presence of the two because they were both highly intoxicated at the said time.Mohanan (PW-10), an auto rickshaw driver, deposed that on 15th February 2005, he had seen an Omni Van along the eastern side of the Arpookara temple.That night, he was driving from MCH, to Kottayam town via Panambalam road.While returning, he stated that he had seen the Omni Van some 200 metres east of the temple, and on the southern side of the road at about 12.30 -1 am.He further deposed that the two people had then caught hold of the pillion rider of the motor cycle, and had taken him to the van.Thereafter, the, van left the place and he followed the van to MCH.He identified A-1 as the person he had seen there and A-2, as the person who had been riding the motorcycle.During his cross examination by the appellant (A-1), the witness deposed that he had in fact, seen three other persons there.However, he did not identify them.Vinu (A-2) and the appellant (A-1) were closely related and together they had hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Praveen (deceased).Pavithran (PW.1) has stated in his deposition that Praveen (deceased) did not bear any animosity towards any person.In fact, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has even admitted so.Praveen (deceased) was seen by Divakaran (PW.7) talking to Vinu (A-2) at his work place.Thus, Mohanan (PW.10) left the place.H. On 16.2.2005, a pair of human legs was found floating in the backwaters of the Vembanad lake (hereinafter referred to as the ‘lake’) at Kottayam, by a person who thereafter lodged a complaint to Subhah K. (PW.68), Sub-Inspector of the Kottayam West Police, on the basis of which, an FIR was registered.I. On 18.2.2005, Pavithran (PW.1) lodged an FIR in the Police Station alleging that his son Praveen had gone missing, and that after he became aware of the same, he had spent the last 3/4 days searching for him, but had been still unable to trace him.J. On 19.2.2005, a torso in a plastic bag, was seen floating on the eastern side of the lake.The chopper (M.O.4), alleged to have been used in the said crime was recovered at the instance of the appellant.A Maruti Van (M.O.5) was also recovered after information was furnished by the appellant (A-1), to the effect that the said Maruti Van had also been used.L. After having completed the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against five persons, including the appellant.The trial however, could be conducted only against two persons, i.e. the appellant (A-1) and Vinu (A-2), as all the others were absconding.Subsequent to the trial of this case, A-3 and A-4 were also apprehended, put to trial separately, and convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’).A-5 is still absconding.M. So far as the present case is concerned, the appellant (A-1) was convicted under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the IPC, and was awarded a sentence of life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. one lakh, in default of which, he would undergo SI for a period of one year.Vinu (A-2) was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- only, in default of which, he would undergo SI for 3 months.Both the accused were also convicted under Section 201 read with Section 120-B IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 3 years, and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default of which, they would undergo SI for a period of 3 months each.They were further convicted under Section 364 read with Section 120-B IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 7 years each, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of which, they would undergo SI for a period of one year.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.Hence, this appeal.Shri S. Gopakumaran Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that there was no motive for the appellant to cause death of Praveen.It is a case of circumstantial evidence as there is no eye-witness to the actual incident of killing.The chain of circumstances is not complete.Haridas (PW.14), an auto- rickshaw driver had seen the appellant and others only for a fleeting moment.Though the appellant and Vinu (A-2) were arrested, no Test Identification Parade was conducted.The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) by a Magistrate who did not even mention the date of recording such statements, such statements were not exhibited before the court for the purpose of corroboration and confrontation.Jose (PW.8), Shanavas (PW.12), and Mohamamed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13), identified Praveen (deceased), by seeing only his passport sized photograph.This is not enough as Shanavas (PW.12), had seen the appellant and others including Praveen (deceased), only for a brief moment and thus, was unable to identify them in court after the lapse of a period of several months, during the course of the trial.Different parts of the body were found, and the identification of the dead body, merely on the basis of a mole on the leg of the body cannot be held to be proper identification by the father, as the dead body was recovered after a lapse of 3/4 days.Different parts of the body were recovered on different dates and by such time the skin would have dis-integrated entirely.Neither Vijayamma nor Radhamma were examined.Aji, who had disclosed information pertaining to the illicit relationship of Praveen with the appellant’s wife, was also not examined.A DNA test was conducted on the dead body to determine whether the same was in fact, the body of Praveen (deceased).However, the FSL report disclosed that in respect of the chopper used for the purpose of dismembering the parts of the body, no blood group could be detected.The whole case of the prosecution hence, becomes unbelievable, and the conviction of the appellant is liable, to be set aside.Per contra, Mr. Basant R. learned senior counsel appearing for the State has opposed the appeal, contending that the various circumstances that stood proved, pointed only towards the guilt of the appellant, and that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, no one apart from the appellant could have committed the murder of Praveen (deceased).There was no reason for the prosecution witnesses, particularly, Jose (PW.8), Mohanan (PW.10), Shanavas (PW.12) and Mohamamed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13), to depose against the appellant and both the courts below also have found their evidence to be trustworthy.Jose (PW.8) and Mohamamed Sherif @ Monai (PW.13) knew the appellant, as well as Vinu (A-2) and Praveen (deceased).Therefore, holding a TI Parade would have been a mere formality.Though, Mohanan (PW.10) and Shanavas (PW.12), the auto rickshaw drivers, were chance witnesses, their presence cannot be doubted as it is an ordinary circumstance that patients are taken to the hospital even in the late hours of night, and the said incident had occurred on the road that led to the hospital.There was sufficient light on the road, and the High Court recorded a finding to the effect that Shanavas (PW.12), an auto rickshaw driver, even if he had been unable to see Praveen, was still able to identify the appellant and others.We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.The courts below have appreciated the entire evidence on record, including the evidence of the defence.The appellant also examined Ajeesh M. Muraleedharan (DW.1), who was a Sub-Editor, Malayala Manorama and thereafter, the High Court concurred with the findings of fact recorded by the Sessions Court on various issues.There is no dispute that Praveen (deceased), was a victim of homicide, and that the dismembered parts of the body recovered from the lake were those of Praveen, as the same stood proved by the DNA report.The High Court concurring with the opinion of the Sessions Court, held as under:“The DNA analysis made it clear that the blood samples of the parents of Praveen matched with the DNA of Praveen, deceased and the same proved and established the identity of the dead body as the DNA had also been extracted from the portion of the limbs recovered from the lake and compared with that of DNA of parents.”The recovery of other articles also stood proved as the High Court yet again concurring with the finding recorded by the Sessions Court in this regard, held as under:“The recovery has been made by the Investigating agency on the statement voluntarily made by the appellant in respect of various materials and the High Court took note of the fact that the appellant was the seasoned police officer and unless and until some of the links were identified and located, nobody could doubt his involvement.The recovery witnesses have proved the recoveries.B. Muraleedharan Nair (PW.77), stated that the seizure was at the behest of the appellant and the vehicle infact recovered belonged to the brother-in-law of Babu (PW.6) and as the owner of the vehicle did not have enough space to park the vehicle in his house, the van was being parked in the compound of Babu (PW.6).The said PW.6 was familiar to the appellant who has deposed that the appellant had come to him on 15.2.2005 and told the said witness that the appellant’s vehicle had developed some trouble and that is why he wanted to use the vehicle parked in the house of the said witness.The van was taken by the appellant as allowed by Babu (PW.6) after taking the consent of the owner and the witness further disclosed that the van was brought back by the appellant after few days.B. Muraleedharan Nair (PW.77) has stated that the vehicle was identified by the appellant himself telling that this was the van which had been used for committing the crime.”Undoubtedly, the van was returned on 16.2.2005 and was recovered on 24.2.2005, and hence, it might have been used in the interim period, but this does not affect the evidence on record.Some police officers collected samples of blood stains from the floor of the said vehicle and also some hair.The hair and blood stains recovered during the investigation, were compared with the hair collected by the Scientific Officer from the deceased, which established that the said hair did in fact, belong to Praveen (deceased), and thus, the use of the said vehicle in the crime stood proved.The recovery of the van was in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Evidence Act’), and as the same was done at the behest of the appellant, his conduct was relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act.The recovery of the chopper (M.O.4) stood proved as the said chopper was crafted by Vijayakumar (PW.5), who deposed that appellant was familiar with him and that the appellant had given him a leaf plate for the purpose of making a chopper, as also, a kitchen knife.Vijayakumar (PW.5) identified the chopper.As per the deposition of B. Muraleedharan Nair (PW.77), the appellant made a disclosure statement to the effect that Praveen’s body was mutilated using the chopper (M.O.4).The said chopper was recovered from the southern side of the lake on the basis of such disclosure statement made by the appellant.The appellant had exclusive knowledge as regards the place of concealment, and the evidence on record makes it clear that when he was in fact, taken to such place, the appellant himself got into the water and retrieved the chopper from there.No one else knew that the weapon was hidden in such a place, and the location was not one that was frequented by the public at large.Therefore, recovery of the said chopper at the behest of the appellant cannot be doubted.The chopper (M.O.4) was recovered by M.K. Ajithkumar, Scientific Assistant, who deposed that at the time of recovery, the chopper had blood stains and hair stuck on it.Dr. P. Babu (PW.71), a Forensic Surgeon deposed that the dismemberment of the body of the deceased could certainly have been possible with the said chopper.So far as the recovery of the skull of Praveen (deceased) is concerned, the same was also made on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant.The investigating team was taken to the relevant place by the appellant, and it was on the basis of his disclosure statement that the skull was found.This happened after digging in a few places around the land of Ananda Kini.A glove and a plastic rope were also recovered at his behest, and in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the said recoveries suffered from any illegality.Some minor issues with respect to the above, were raised before the Sessions Court, as well as before the High Court, and the same have rightly been explained by the courts below.Thus, they do not require any further discussion.Learned senior counsel for the appellant has urged that statements of certain witnesses were recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before Magistrates, namely, Kalampasha (PW.61) and Dinesh M. Pillai (PW.62).The said statements were not put on record before the trial court, and the same were not marked.No question had been put to the witnesses whose statements had been recorded nor an attempt had been made to extract answers from them and the witnesses were asked by the learned magistrates what they wanted to say and they had no clue as to what they had to speak.Therefore, they simply spoke what came to their mind at that point of time whether it was relevant or irrelevant.The witnesses could not be deemed to carry so much of wisdom to enable them to know what are the essential facts they need to state before the learned magistrate.The witnesses whose statements were recorded before the magistrate were simply asked “have you finished, you can go”.The van was green in colour with KL7 registration and 5855 number.Furthermore, a man was also seen by him standing near the door of the driver’s seat.Upon asking, the said man only replied that one person had gone up.During cross-examination on behalf of appellant (A-1), the witness deposed that the person standing near the said van, had a North Malabari accent.Shanavas (PW.12) also an auto driver by profession, identified Shaji (A-1) and Vinu (A-2).He deposed that he had first seen them on 15th February 2005 while he was proceeding in his auto from Baker Junction to MCH.He had seen an Omni Van and a motorcycle on the side of the road beyond Chemmanampadi, near the Medical College, and had seen two persons coming out of the said van.Mohammad Sherif (PW.13) a businessman, deposed that he knew the appellant (A-1) and identified him as Shaji and also Vinu (A-2).At about 8.30 p.m. on 15th February 2005, A2 and Praveen came to his petty shop from the Arcadia Bar premises, on a red coloured bike.Jose (PW8), an employee of PW13 was previously acquainted with the accused (A-2) and Praveen (deceased), and hence, PW8 introduced them as his friends.He further deposed that the Omni Van arrived in front of the Arcadia Bar at 11.30 pm.A1 got out of the driver seat and proceeded to the theatre.The three other persons came out of the van and had black coffee at the witness’s shop.All of them (including A-1) then returned to the van.Later, when A-2 and Praveen riding a bike, approached the Arcadia Bar, A-2 signaled to A-1 to follow him and rode in the direction of Thirunakkara.The van followed the bike and they headed to MCH, Ettumanoor and Ernakulam.He deposed that he did not know A1’s friends, or the place to which A1 belonged.He only stated that he knew A1 when he was the control room, S.I.Mohammed Sherif (PW.13) denied having told the Police that Shaji Sir of Valiadu was the person he had seen on the road.He deposed that he knew S.I.s such as Satheesan and Suseelan, and that they were also from the West Police Station.He further said that he knew of A1 only as control room S.I. He had read about the incident in the subsequent days’ newspaper.He further admitted that the help of the police, as well as that of the Municipality, was needed to run the petty shop which did business from 8.00 p.m. to 1.30 a.m.Reji (PW11) deposed that on 15.2.2005 at about mid-night, he had gone to Baker Junction and there he had seen the appellant (A-1), getting out of the driver’s seat of a green coloured van.He thereafter, crossed M.C. Road and went into the Post Office and placed inland like material inside the post box.The appellant (A-1) returned to the van after crossing the road, got into the driver’s seat and drove off towards Baker Junction.It appears that in the cross-examination, he did not support the case of the prosecution.However, his evidence is not very relevant with respect to the issues involved in this case, as at the initial stage the witness had supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that it was in fact, the appellant (A-1), who had posted the letter in the name of the deceased’s father, that was purported to have been written by Praveen (deceased), stating that he was going to Bombay in search of employment.This letter seems to have been written to misdirect/mislead the deceased’s family.The same became entirely insignificant, as immediately after the murder of Praveen, the dismembered parts of his body were recovered.The recoveries of a shirt (MO.1), underwear (MO.2) and of a watch (MO.3), belonging to Praveen (deceased) were identified by Pavithran (PW.1).His body was also identified by PWs.1 to 3 and the DNA report did not leave any room for doubt with respect to the said identification.Same stood proved by super imposition.The injuries found on the body that were revealed by the post- mortem report established that the dismemberment of the parts of the body was possible by using a weapon like the chopper (MO.4), as was explained/opined by Dr. Babu (PW.71).He was last seen on 15.2.2005 with Vinu (A-2) and the appellant (A-1).The motive as explained hereinabove stood proved.Divakaran (PW.7) was acquainted with both Vinu (A-2) and Praveen (deceased) since childhood.The evidence of Baiju (PW.9) who was working at Hotel Arcadia at Kottayam, revealed that he was the man who had served drinks to Vinu (A-2) and Praveen (deceased).The Virca Report proved by Sujatha (PW.64), corroborated the same.Jose (PW.8) and Mohammed Sherif (PW.13) identified the appellant (A-1) and Vinu (A-2) and stated they knew both of them very well.Baiju (PW.9) was not acquainted with either Vinu (A-2) or Praveen (deceased) but he did in fact, have an opportunity to see them for a sufficient amount of time as he had served them food.Babu (PW.6) deposed that the appellant (A-1) was well acquainted with him.Phone calls made by the appellant (A-1) to Babu (PW.6), were also not denied by the appellant in his cross- examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The aforementioned call details were duly proved.There is also material on record to show that the said van was used in the crime by the appellant (A-1) and 3 others.Vinu (A-2) and Praveen (deceased) after watching a movie at the cinema hall and having meals etc., proceeded towards Thirunakkara on the bike, and Vinu (A-2) signaled to the person in the van by raising his hand.The appellant (A-1) and three other persons followed the bike in the van.He stated that he had seen the van standing in the middle of the road.The said witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case fully.Recoveries of all the material items/objects stood proved.A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, owing to which, direct evidence is difficult to obtain.The offence can therefore be proved, either by adducing circumstantial evidence, or by way of necessary implication.However, in the event that the circumstantial evidence is incomplete or vague, it becomes necessary for the prosecution to provide adequate proof regarding the meeting of minds, which is essential in order to hatch a criminal conspiracy, by adducing substantive evidence in court.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,903,186
In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.Chitra Sonawane 7By said revision petition, the petitioner Michael Gabriel had challenged the Order dated 3.07.2019 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 64th Court, Esplanade Mumbai, thereby rejecting application under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and disposing the C.C. No.1069/Misc/2019 filed by him.By filing said criminal case, the petitioner Michael Gabriel had prayed for issuance of directions under section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to Azad Maidan Police Station, Mumbai for investigation of offences alleged by him.The offences punishable under Section 177, 182 , 193, 196, 199, 200, 209, 420, 423, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w 34 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code were alleged to have been committed by the accused therein i.e. respondent nos.2 to 6 herein.It is averred in the complaint that petitioner Michael Gabriel is Chitra Sonawane 3::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc the owner of several plots of land and he had entered into an agreement for development with Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein i.e. proposed accused, for total consideration of Rs.15 Crores.The averments regarding filing of civil Suit bearing No.3540/2005 in this Court by respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for specific performance of agreement for development were also made in the said complaint.The petitioner contended that he received the summons in the said suit and was shocked to see the receipt-Exhibit D with the plaint.It is further contended that the receipt was reflecting payment of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner and therefore, he filed separate suit No.1526/2008 before this Court for declaring that development agreement as well as fabricated receipt for Rs.17 lakhs is illegal, null and void.The complaint further avers that on 14.1.2019 evidence on the affidavit came to be tendered before this Court and the petitioner i.e. the complainant was shocked to see another fabricated receipt for Rs.17 lakhs purportedly bearing signature of the complainant Chitra Sonawane 4::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc but the details were filled in by hand writing.It is further averred that however, the complainant was further shocked to read the affidavit which referred said receipt (Exhibit H) to be the same previous receipt as aforesaid inspite of the apparent distinguishing factor.With this, it is alleged that upon comparing both the receipts those appeared to be forged and fabricated as, one receipt contains details of amount, date in typed format and the other one contains those particulars in hand written format but the signatures are exactly at the same location.It is pleaded in the complaint that even if it is assumed that there was a receipt, there can not be two originals of one receipt, in light of the fact that the accused persons themselves have referred only to one receipt of Rs.17 lakhs in the complaint but they had produced copy of similar receipt of same amount subsequently.Chitra Sonawane 2::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 3::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 4::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 5::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 5::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::(6)WP-6122-2019.docFeeling aggrieved by the order of the learned trial Magistrate, the petitioner/original complainant preferred revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.It is observed in para 21 of the Judgment by the Revisional Court that the complaint is not only pre-matured but the Investigating Officer has kept open the question of ascertaining it before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate by way of miscellaneous application.Chitra Sonawane 6::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 6::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::(6)WP-6122-2019.doc::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::"(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money, A not intending to repay it.A cheats."The crux of the postulate is the intention of the person who induces the victim of his representation and not the nature of the transaction which would become decisive in descerning whether there was commission of offence or not.The complainant has stated in the body of the complaint that he was induced to believe that the respondent would honour payment on receipt of invoices, and that the complainant realised later that the intentions of the respondent were not clear.He also mentioned that the respondent after receiving the goods had sold them to others and still he did not pay the moey.Such averments would prima facie make out a case for investigation by the authorities.By relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court, in the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs.Bhajan Lal and others2, and Lalita Kumari Vs.Government of UP 3 it is argued that when any information disclosing a cognizable offence is laid before an officer in charge of a police station satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Code, the said 2 1992 Supp (1)Supreme Court Cases 335 3 (2014)2 SCC 1 Chitra Sonawane 8::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information.With this, my attention was drawn to the complaint in writing lodged by petitioner with Senior Inspector of Azad Maidan Police Station.It is submitted that the said complaint was disclosing commission of cognizable offence and therefore, the police machinery ought to have registered the offence.The concerned officer has made himself liable for inaction despite the law laid down by the Supreme Court.Order of the learned Trial Magistrate is criticized by stating that mere pendency of civil dispute between the parties do not preclude the Magistrate to exercise his jurisdiction when commission of cognizable offence is reflected from the averments made in the complaint.Chitra Sonawane 8::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::As against this, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 to 6 vehemently argued that the respondents never claimed that they made payment of Rs.34 lakhs to the Chitra Sonawane 9::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc petitioner/original complainant.Their stand is to the effect that, they made payment of Rs.20 lakhs only as part consideration of development agreement.It is urged that respondent nos. 2 to 6 had filed civil suit bearing no.3540/2005 way back in the year 2005 before this court for specific performance of Contract by annexing receipt dated 9.04.2005, reflecting payment of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner.This receipt was typed because alongwith the plaint, typed documents are required to be filed.He further submitted that while adducing evidence on affidavit original copy of such receipt (which was earlier filed with the plaint) was tendered with the affidavit and therefore, instead of type-written portions, hand written portions appears on that receipts.It is further argued that even receipt filed with the plaint reflecting payment of Rs.17 lakhs to the petitioner came to be challenged by the petitioner in Suit No.1362/2008 for declaration and injunction before this Court.There is no question of cheating or fabrication of evidence because it is Chitra Sonawane 10::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc not claimed that payment of Rs.34 lakhs is made by the respondent/accused to the petitioner/original complainant.Chitra Sonawane 9::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 10::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::The learned APP contended that the petitioner i.e. the complainant was informed by the concerned Police Station Officer that there is no wrongful loss even if it is assumed that contents of receipts are not tallying with each other.In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that bare perusal of both receipts shows that those are printed from the same Printer.Therefore, it is hard to digest that same printer would have been used by the respondent for a period of 3 years.I have carefully considered the submissions so advanced and also perused the material placed on record.At the outset it needs to be mentioned that the Chitra Sonawane 11::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc petitioner/original complainant had alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 177, 182, 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code by accused persons/respondents herein.These are offences falling under Chapter X and XI of the Indian Penal Code.The cognizance of such offences can also be taken by some other Court which is sub-ordinate to the Court alleging commission of such offences.Chitra Sonawane 11::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::It is seen that in the suit for specific performance Chitra Sonawane 12::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc development agreement dated 15.3.2005 came to be filed by respondent nos.2 to 6 against the petitioner in this Court.Receipt dated 09.04.2005 was annexed to the plaint as Exhibit 'D'.Said receipt is mentioning in type written format, the amount and date.Subsequently, evidence on affidavit of respondent Alpesh Sheth came to be filed on 14.01.2019 to which receipt dated 9.4.2005 came to be enclosed.In this receipt amount as well as date is stated to be in hand written format.The averments in the plaint filed by respondents/accused nowhere mention that total amount of Rs.34 lakhs was paid by way of part payment of consideration for development agreement dated 15.3.2005 by respondents/accused to the petitioner/complainant.Chitra Sonawane 13::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 12::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 13::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::(6)WP-6122-2019.docIn the said suit, prayer is to the effect that the agreement for development, and General Power of Attorney be declared as illegal, null and void.Similarly, Suit claim is also to the effect that receipt dated 9.4.2005 for a sum of Rs.17 lakhs be declared as illegal, forged and void and not binding on the plaintiff i.e. the petitioner herein.One can not dispute that civil transaction can also create criminal offence.It is trite that once complaint reflects allegation of commission of cognizable offence, then the Police Station Officer is duty bound to register the FIR.Similarly, if the Magistrate finds that complaint made to him contains averments regarding commission of cognizable Chitra Sonawane 14::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc offence then he is duty bound to proceed under Chapter XII of Criminal Procedure Code by passing appropriate order one of which is to issue directions to the Police Station Officer to investigate the matter.This position is clear from the Judgment of State of Haryana and others (supra) and Lalita Kumari (supra) relied by the petitioner.However, in case in hand, both parties have filed suits against each other and the receipt in question is also the subject matter of the Suit.Order dated 4.10.2006 passed by this Court in Notice of Motion No.2/2006 reveals that this court has noted the contention of plaintiffs therein i.e. respondent nos.2 to 6 herein that amount of Rs.17 lakhs was paid to defendant nos.1 to 4 therein i.e. the petitioner no.1 (original Complainant) herein and other parties to the Development Agreement.Nowhere respondent nos. 2 to 6 have claimed that they had paid an amount of Rs.34 lakhs to the petitioner Chitra Sonawane 15::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc herein as part consideration for the contract of development entered into between the parties.Chitra Sonawane 14::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 15::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::It is apposite to note that while directing investigation by passing order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the accused has no right of audience.In the case in hand, peculiar situation has arisen because of which accused persons got right of audience in the instant matter.The learned trial Magistrate, upon perusal of the complaint application for issuance of directions under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., after hearing the petitioner/original complainant came to the conclusion that the complainant by filing a Civil Suit bearing No.1362 of 2008 has sought relief in respect of receipt dated 9th April 2005 and the challenge is already pending before this court for adjudication.The learned trial Magistrate further observed that the dispute in respect of the Development Agreement is a civil dispute.With such observations, the complaint application seeking direction to Chitra Sonawane 16::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc the police for investigation by invoking powers under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.Feeling aggrieved by this order, the petitioner/original complainant then preferred Revision Petition bearing No.973 of 2019 and that is how the respondent herein/accused persons got an opportunity of putting their say in the matter.Accordingly, they had placed on record of the revisional court their affidavit along with relevant documents which are carefully considered by me, while deciding the instant petition.For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs it is not possible even to infer commission of cognizable offence of preparation of false documents with intent to cause injury or damage to the petitioner.No prima facie case against the respondents for making documents dishonestly or fraudulently in order to believe that those are signed by the petitioner/ original complainant is made out.Chitra Sonawane 16::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 17::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::The petition as such is devoid of any merit.Therefore, the order.ORDER The petition is dismissed.(A. M. BADAR, J.) Chitra Sonawane 18::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 ::: (6)WP-6122-2019.doc Chitra Sonawane 19::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 18::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::Chitra Sonawane 19::: Uploaded on - 21/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 26/04/2020 13:04:57 :::
['Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,908,422
Item No. 38And In the matter of: Chinmoy Sarkar Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Minoti Gomes For the Petitioner Mr. Bitosok Banerjee For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Ranaghat Police Station Case No. 347 of 2013 dated 26.08.2013 under Sections 341/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and 3 & 4 of the Explosives Substances Act, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record and the statements of the complainant as well as the injured recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. In our opinion, there is no need for the custodial interrogation of the Petitioner in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,789,129
On 25th June 1972 the brother of Shyam Sunder (first appellant), by name, Suresh was murdered.One month previous to this occurrence, the deceased had been granted bail and released from jail.Since then he left his original house on account of fear and was residing in Kanhaipurwa along with one Shambhu Dayal, but occasionally visited his old house.Vinod Kumar (the second appellant) is the son of the first appellant and both of them were residing at Mohalla Unchathak which adjoins the village where Raj Narain along with his family members initially used to reside.On account of the murder of Suresh there was bitter animosity between the appellants 1, 2 and the deceased.On 27th August, 1972 at about 8.30 P.M. while the deceased was proceeding to his house, the three appellants surrounded him.The second appellant caught hold of the deceased and the first appellant gave a blow to the deceased by the butt of his gun.Smt. Ram Beti and Smt. Vimla took the injured to the police station, Kotwali, where the injured Raj Narain lodged a report at about 9.05 P.M. On the basis of the report a case was registered.Exh. Ka-5 is the First Information Report.Then Raj Narain was removed to the District Hospital where he was medically examined by about 10.00 P.M. The Medical Officer found on his person a lacerated wound above the left ear and a gun shot wound on the side of his back with blackening around the wound.The Sub Inspector took up the investigation and interrogated the injured Raj Narain and recorded his statement as Exh. Ka-12, which statement was similar to that of Exh.JUDGMENT S. Ratnavel Pandian J.Thereafter the third appellant fired a shot with his pistol from behind the deceased and caused an injury, to which injury he succumbed later on.On seeing the witnesses approaching the scene, all the appellants took to their heels.The injured was brought to the house of one Radha Krishna.The Investigating Officer after visiting this scene spot examined the witnesses.Raj Narain died on 29.8.1972 at about 9.50 P.M. The Investigating Officer held the inquest over the dead body.Dr. S.C. Raj conducted autopsy over the dead body.After completing the investigation the challan was filed.The defence of these appellants was of a complete denial.Vinod Kumar stated in his recorded statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that since he was an injured witness in the murder case of Suresh, he is falsely implicated in the case.The third appellant stated that since he happens to be the cousin of the first appellant he has been falsely implicated.The Trial Court convicted the third appellant under Section 302 simpliciter and the first and the second appellants under Section 302 read with 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life.The High Court on appeal confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.Hence this present appeal.During the course of the hearing of the appeal, it was brought to our notice that the third appellant had died.As no near relative of th deceased has approached his Court within 30 days of the death of the third appellant for leave to continue the appeal as contemplated under Section 394, the appeal as against the third appellant abated.Therefore, now we are concerned only with the case of the first and the second appellants.Of the witnesses examined, Ram Beti (P.W.3) who is the wife of the deceased has deposed that she was informed by her father that all the three appellants assuaged her husband.In her further evidence she states that she took her husband to the police station where her husband made a complaint.P.W.6 who claims to be an eye witness has deposed that while the second appellant caught hold of the deceased, the first appellant assaulted the deceased by hitting him with the butt of his gun.Then at the instigation of the second appellant the third appellant fired a shot at the deceased.P.W.9, the city Magistrate speaks about the recording of the dying declaration of the deceased Exh.We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the counsel for the State and perused the records.In our considered opinion, the accusation against the second appellant (Vinod Kumar) that he caught hold of the deceased and that it was only thereafter the third appellant fired a shot from behind is highly artificial and improbable because if the deceased had been shot at the time when the second appellant had caught hold him, the second appellant would also have received some injuries.Moreover, the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution as against this second appelant is highly unnatural and unbelievable.No doubt in Exh.Ka-5, Ka-7 as well as in Exh.Ka-12 the deceased had consistently mentioned the name of the second appellant and attributed the overact of catching hold of him.The fact that the second appellant was an eye witness in the murder case of Suresh filed against the deceased Raj Narain, is not disputed.Therefore, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the deceased Raj Narain would have mentioned the name of this second appellant also as one of the assailants.If really the second appellant had participated in the commission of this crime, he would have been the first person to attack the deceased since Raj Narain had previously murdered his grand-father.Coming to the case of the first appellant (Shyam Sunder) it is alleged that he hit the deceased with the butt of his gun.The overact attributed to this appellant consistently found in all the 3 dying declarations (Exh. Ka-5, Ka-7 and Ka-12) besides the evidence of P.W.6 corroborates that version.The first appellant, who was armed with a gun did not fire at the deceased but only hit with the butt of the gun.If really he had intended to kill the deceased he himself would have fired at the deceased and murdered him especially when he was armed with a pistol.It is alleged that this first appellant instigated the third appellant to kill the deceased.This version of the prosecution that the first appellant instigated the third appellant is unbelievable for the reason that while he himself was armed with a gun there was no necessity to instigate the third appellant to kill the deceased.The consistent case of the prosecution is that the third appellant suddenly fired standing from the back of the deceased.This spells out that the first appellant wound not have expected the third appellant to shoot at the deceased.It further indicates that the first appellant was not sharing the intention of the third appellant in putting an end to the life of the deceased.Therefore, even if the entire evidence is accepted, the first appellant could not be held to have intended to cause the death of the deceased, but however he would have intended to cause that lacerated wound which in the opinion of the Medical Officer was simple in nature.Therefore, he would be liable to be punished under Section 324 IPC and not under Section 302 IPCIn the result, we set aside the conviction of the second appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life by allowing his appeal and acquit him.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,915
JUDGMENT S. Muralidhar, J.This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC') challenges an order dated 19th April 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge ('ASJ'), Delhi dismissing an application filed by the Petitioner, who is an accused facing trial in FIR No. 42 of 2006 under Sections 3, 4, 5 and 9 of the Official Secrets Act, 1923 ('OSA') and 409/201/120-B of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') registered at Police Station Special Cell, for the supply of certain documents relied upon by the Respondent State.A significant question of law that arises in this matter concerning the right of an accused facing trial under the OSA to be provided with the copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution which are in digital form in pen drives and hard discs.The case of the prosecution is that under Section 14 OSA even documents gathered during investigation can, if they are classified or secret, be withheld from the accused although they are relied upon by the prosecution.The brief facts relevant for the present petition are that the FIR No. 42 of 2006 dated 11th June 2006 was registered in the Police Station Special Cell in respect of the collection and dissemination of certain of secret defense related information.As regards the petitioner, a complaint dated 16th October 2006 under Section 13(3) OSA was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police ('DCP') Special Cell, New Delhi in the court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.The background to the complaint against the petitioner is that acting on the basis of some secret information about the co-accused Shib Shankar Paul having illegally procured certain classified documents from his office at the National Security Council Secretariat for being supplied to foreign agents, a search of Mr. Paul's house was conducted on 10th June 2006 and certain classified documents and a circular were recovered.The investigation of the case was taken up and the co-accused Mukesh Saini was arrested and at his instance certain further classified data was recovered.The arrest and interrogation of the Petitioner led to the recovery of three pen drives in which he had stored the secret information.(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in Sub-section (5).(8) Notwithstanding in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under Sub-section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed and the provisions of' Sub-section (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under Sub-section (2)Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents.Separate complaints were filed against the co-accused.It was further found that the Petitioner had in possession classified data on his official laptop.He brought it to his residence, worked on the data on his home PC and transferred information on to pen drives.The case of the prosecution as regards the contents of the hard discs and is evident from paras 11,12 and 13 of the Complaint which read as under:The recovered hard disk drives and pen drives recovered from accused Ujjal Dasgupta were analysed in Cyber Lab of Special Cell.During analysis the steganography software "Stegno_tesec version 1.0" developed by "FCE, MCTE", Faculty of Communication Engineering Military College of Telecommunication Engineering, Mhow (An Army Institution).About 50 presentations relating to NSCS and "Special Action Plan and Follow ups 29 Sept 2004 (3PPs) and "Project Anveshak" related 3PPs accessed from F Drive relating to R&AW were recovered from the hard disk of his home computer.19 PPs relating to "Project Anveshak" were also recovered from the hard disk of his official laptop computer.Documents/information relating to "Project Anveshak" recovered from the house computer and laptop computer of accused Ujjal Dasgupta were sent to Cabinet Secretariat (R&AW) for opinion on classification and authorization of possession.R&AW categorically opined that Project "Anveshak" is a classified project.Ujjal Dasgupta had access to the software developed under this project.Ujjal Dasgupta was not allowed to take the software or its populated contents outside the office.He was also not allowed to connect his official laptop computer of PC computer to an internet connection.The project is related to the security/ defense matters of the country.IF the project or its details were passed on to an unauthorised person or foreign agent, it could be prejudicial to the safety or interest of the State.All the recovered hard disc drives, pen drives, CDs recovered from all the accused persons have also been sent to CFSL, Chandigarh for forensic analysis.The result is awaited.Along with the chargesheet the prosecution appended a list of witnesses as well as a list of documents being relied upon.The list of documents includes the following which are relevant to the case on hand:The Petitioner filed two applications before the learned trial court on 12th January 2007 praying that the prosecution should supply "clones of the alleged hard disk drive of the office laptop and home computer allegedly of the accused" as well as the following documents:(ii) D-7: Envelope (X) not supplied.(iii) D-10: Pages 3-5 not legible.(iv) D-11" The list of documents says there are 2 + 33 pages but the 2 + 66 pages are filed.(v) D-17: Annexures A and B as mentioned in the letter have not been filed or supplied.(vi) D-2,8,19-24 not supplied.B Statements of witnesses(i) Statements of PW 1-7,9, 10 and 12 have not been supplied.By an order dated 12th January 2007 the application was rejected by the learned CMM for the following reasons:An application Under Section 207 Cr.P.C. has been moved on behalf of the accused Ujjal Dasgupta for supply of the clone of the hard disk recovered on the instant case copy of the same has been given to APP for State.Since the said hard disk form the case property of the case, the clone can neither be prepared and as reported by the IO, the hard disk are likely to get tampered with if the clones are ever ventured to be prepared.Another application Under Section 207 CrPC has been moved on behalf of accused Ujjal Dasgupta for supply of certain deficient documents.No. 1 and 2 mentioned in the application in para 3 (a) of the said application.The Petitioner then filed a petition Crl.(c) D-17: Annexure A & B, as mentioned in the letter have neither been filed nor supplied by the prosecution.That during the pendency of the said petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi the applicant had filed a Miscellaneous Application under Section 482 CrPC bearing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 7266/2007 seeking inter alia therein amendment of the Petition under Section 482 CrPC.In the said Criminal amendment Petition Criminal M.A. No. 7266/07 applicant had sought following documents:By an order dated 10th March 2008 the said application was rejected by the trial court inter alia on the ground that "the pen drive and its contents are the exhibits and the copies thereof cannot be supplied." Copies of the documents contained in a hard disk were also declined to be supplied.In any case where the proceeding has been instituted on a police report, the Magistrate shall without delay furnish to the accused, free of cost, a copy of each of the following.(i) the police report;As regards the hard disc of the office PC of the Petitioner and the details of the documents in D-6 and D-7, Ms. Gupta states that the prosecution will have no objection to running a software on the hard discs of the home and office PCs which will indicate the various charges the hard disc has been subject to indicating the file name, date of creation, date last accessed, file size and path of the contents of the hard disc.The print out of the results of the software so run on the hard disc authenticated and certified, should be handed over to the accused.In view of the directions passed today, the deadline of 30th April 2008 for the trial court to pass an order on charge is required to be extended.The petition and the pending application stand disposed of.A copy of order be given dusty to learned Counsel for the parties.
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,921,141
As a result of assault, Jindar suffered injuries.(06.05.2011) Since both the appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment, 2 they are being disposed of by this common judgment.Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment dated 30th May 2007, passed by XI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No.316/2005, convicting all the aforesaid appellants under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/-, each.Appellant Abdul Sameer has also been convicted under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1000/-.In short, the facts of the case are that on 5.8.2005, because of previous quarrel, appellants assaulted complainant Jindar by means of a hockey.It is said that Abdul Smeer picked up a pickaxe from the spot and dealt its blow on the foot of Jindar.He lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) at Police Station, Govindpura, district Bhopal.Injuries of Jindar were examined by Dr. Jyoty Aaind (PW-6).Apart from other injuries, she found an incised wound on the right leg of Jindar.She did not give any opinion about the nature of injuries found on the body of Jindar.After due investigation in the case, charge sheet was filed under Section 307, 307/149 and Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code.After appreciating the evidence of Jindar (PW-1) and eyewitness Ajay (PW-2) and in the light of medical evidence of Dr. Jyoti Aaind (PW-6), trial court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted them under Sections 323/34 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the appellants do not assail the finding of conviction of appellants.However, they submit that in view of the fact that appellants, at the time of occurrence, were students and young boys of about 19-21 years of age, they ought to have been given the benefit of the provisions of Probation 3 of Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Though appellants have remained in jail for a period of about 56 days, but, if their sentence of imprisonment is affirmed, their future career would be marred.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to appellants by the trial Court are correct and do not call for any interference.On perusal of the evidence of Jindar (PW-1) and Ajay (PW-2), I find that appellants assaulted Jindar by hockey and pickaxe, as a result of which he suffered simple injures.Evidence of Jindar stands corroborated by Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) lodged by him immediately after the occurrence and also by the evidence of Dr. Jyoti Aaind (PW-6), who examined his injuries and found simple injuries on his body caused by hard and blunt object and also by some sharp edged weapon.After appraisal of the aforesaid evidence, I am satisfied that the finding of conviction of appellants recorded by the trial Court is just and proper and calls for no interference.As far as question of granting benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to appellants is concerned, Section 6 of the Act puts a restriction on awarding sentence of imprisonment to an offender under 21 years of age, who is found guilty of having committed offence punishable with imprisonment (but not with imprisonment for life).On perusal of records, it is apparent that at the time of occurrence appellant Jitendra Kumar Patel was 19 years of age, Arun Puri Goswami was 19 years of age and Abdul Sameer was 21 years of age.In my opinion, when appellants were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted only under Section 324/34 or 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, they ought to have been given benefit of the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 in the absence of 4 any special reason.There is nothing on record to indicate that they had bad antecedent or they were previous convicts.In view of the above, I deem it proper to set aside the sentence of imprisonment awarded to all the appellants under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of imprisonment awarded to appellant Abdul Sameer under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Sentence of fine awarded by the trial Court to appellants is also set aside, instead it is directed that all the appellants shall be released on probation of good conduct for a period of two years on their entering into a bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/-, each, to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the said period.It is further directed that appellant shall appear before the trial Court for furnishing the aforesaid bonds within a period of two months.During the term of bonds, appellants shall keep peace and maintain good behaviour.In view of the fact that sentence of fine, as awarded by the trial Court to appellants, has been set aside, appellants are directed to pay compensation to Jindar (PW-1) for the injuries caused to him by them.Under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, all the appellants are directed to deposit Rs.1500/- in the trial Court for payment of compensation to Jindar.Appellant Abdul Sameer, in addition to above, is directed to pay Rs.3000/- by way of compensation to Jindar.The amount of fine, as imposed by the trial Court, if already deposited by the appellants, shall be adjusted in the amount of compensation awarded to injured Jindar.The amount of compensation shall be deposited by the appellants in the trial Court within a period of two months.Appeal partly allowed.(RAKESH SAKSENA) JUDGE Shukla
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
178,998,180
The inherent powers of this Court u/s.482 Cr.P.C. are invoked for quashment of the criminal prosecution triggered by FIR dated 21.02.2016 bearing Crime No.70/2016 registered at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior alleging offence punishable u/Ss. 420, 467, 468, 120B IPC.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.Brief facts giving rise to the present case are that complainant Sunil Rajauriya made written complaint to police primarily alleging that he had purchased the property in question from one Smt. Shakuntala Shrivastava W/o Ambika Shrivastava vide sale deed executed on 20.08.2010 followed by entering of the name of complainant as owner of the said property in the records maintained by Municipal Corporation, Electricity Department and M.P. Housing Board and since then complainant owns and possesses the said property.3.1 It was further alleged that since prior to the above said sale in favour of the complainant the property in question was occupied by one Shri Vijay Mathur ( father of the petitioner herein) as tenant of Rs. 2,000/- per month.It is further alleged that factum of sale of property in favour of complainant was made known to the said tenant.Further it is alleged by the complainant that late Ambika had been allotted the said property under the 1976 Scheme of the M.P. Housing Board by deed dated 27.09.1997 in which Smt. Shakuntala was shown as nominee of her husband.Thereafter it is alleged by the complainant that said Vijay Mathur despite having knowledge of the fact that late 2 M.Cr.C. No. 2719/2016 Ambika during his life time did not alienated the said property, prepared a forged document and got his name mutated as owner of the said property in connivance with the employees of M.P. Housing Board.3.2 It is further alleged that this mutation is based on forgery which was committed on 30.01.1999 which fact was suppressed from the complainant as the said Vijay Mathur continued to act as tenant of the complainant by regularly paying rent to the complainant.It is also alleged that said Vijay Kumar further got issued the NOC in his name on 06.05.2000 qua the said property.The complainant further alleges that when application was made before the Housing Board for mutating the name of complainant as owner of the house, the knowledge of said forgery committed by Vijay Mathur came to light.The complainant further alleges that he made written complaint to the Housing Board which led to conduction of inquiry and disciplinary action against certain employees of the Housing Board.In the above factual background, the FIR alleging cheating was lodged by complainant Sunil Rajauriya alleging offence against the petitioner, who is Rohit Mathur S/o Vijay Mathur.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that entire allegation contained in the FIR and other material collected by the prosecution alleges offence against Vijay Mathur and not against the petitioner Rohit Mathur.In support of challenge to the FIR and consequential proceedings, it is alleged by the petitioner that entire issue relates to civil dispute with no criminal colour attached to it.3.5 It is further submitted by counsel for the petitioner that all the transactions of sale and mutation in respect of land in question took place till August, 2015 till when the father of the petitioner, Vijay Mathur, was very much alive.In August, 2015 Vijay Mathur expired.C. No. 2719/2016 Superintendent of Police was approached which led to lodging of FIR in question.
['Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
179,000,532
2.The prosecution story is as under :2.1.The deceased Shenbagavalli was the daughter of Logabiran (P.W.1) and Ammani (P.W.9).She had studied up to B.B.A. and was employed in a private concern.The couple was unfortunately not blessed with child.In the night on 13/14.05.2009, Shenbagavalli committed suicide by hanging in the bedroom of her matrimonial home.The accused who was sleeping beside her, incidentally woke up to reduce the temperature of the air conditioner and was shocked to see his wife hanging.2.2.The parents of Shenbagavalli were informed and on the written complaint (Ex.P1) given by Logabiran (P.W.1), the police registered a case in Crime No.194 of 2009 under Section 174(3) Cr.P.C. on 14.05.2009 at 12.15 hours and prepared the printed F.I.R. (Ex.P7).2.3.Investigation of the case was taken over by Chandran (P.W.11), Assistant Commissioner of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P10) and rough sketch (Ex.P11).Since the death was within seven years of marriage, Pandurangan (P.W.10),http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 Revenue Divisional Officer conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and in his evidence as well in the inquest report (Ex.P8), opined that the death of Shenbagavalli was not due to dowry harassment.This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge (Mahalir Neethimandram), Chennai in S.C.No.230 of 2010.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012Autopsy was done over the body of the deceased and the post-mortem certificate (Ex.P13) shows that 'she died of asphyxia due to hanging'.Except the ligature mark, no other external injury was found on the body of the deceased.2.4.After examining witnesses and collecting various reports, the police filed a final report in P.R.C.No.267 of 2009 before the X Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for the offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B alternatively 306 IPC and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998 against the accused.3.On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.230 of 2010 and was made over to the Mahila Court, Chennai, for trial.When the accused was questioned, he pleaded “not guilty”.4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses and marked Exs.When the accused was questioned under Section 313http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 Cr.P.C on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.No witness was examined on the side of the accused.5.After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 20.06.2012 in S.C.No.230 of 2010, acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 304-B and 306 IPC, but convicted and sentenced him as follows :Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Three years rigorous imprisonment and Prohibition of Harassment fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to of Woman Act, 1998 undergo six months simple imprisonment The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.P.Kritika Kamal, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent State.7.Before adverting to the rival submissions, it may be necessary to state here that the State has not chosen to file any appeal challenging the acquittal of the appellant of the offence under Section 304-B/306 IPC.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 20128.The nub of the allegations in the charge that was framed by the trial Court against the appellant is that, he would come drunk, demand dowry from his wife, beat her and had illicit intimacy with one Lakshmi.9.In this case, the independent witnesses viz. the neighbours, Amudha Gunalan (P.W.2), Rosemary (P.W.3) and Arumugam (P.W.4), turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.Therefore, this Court is left with the evidence of Logabiran (P.W.1) and Ammani (P.W.9).Ammani (P.W.9), the mother of the deceased, turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case.What remains is, the evidence of Logabiran (P.W.1), the father of the deceased.10.Logabiran (P.W.1) was examined in-chief on 03.02.2011, but was not cross-examined on the same day.However, he was recalled on 22.05.2012, for the purpose of cross-examination and at that time, he turned hostile.Of course, this Court cannot jettison his evidence completely on that score, in view of Section 154(2) of the Evidence11.Logabiran (P.W.1) for the first time in the chief-examination, has stated that his daughter told him that the appellant is demanding further dowry from her and is harassing her.He did not state this either in the complaint (Ex.P1) or in the statement (Ex.P2), that was given by him to the Revenuehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 Divisional Officer (P.W.10).He has not stated in his evidence about the alleged intimacy of the appellant with Lakshmi.In the chief-examination, he has stated that his daughter did not conceive for two years.He has not stated that the appellant or his family members had asked him for more dowry after marriage.He has only stated that his daughter told him that the appellant is harassing her for more dowry.Kannan rightly contended that such a statement can be construed as a dying declaration, only when Shenbagavalli's death comes into question and not for convicting the appellant under Section 498-A IPC.In support of this proposition, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gananath Pattnaik Vs.State of Orissa [(2002) 2 SCC 619] .Hence, the statement of Shenbagavalli to Logabiran (P.W.1) that the appellant harassed her for dowry, is beyond the ken Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act and cannot be used to sustain the conviction under Section 498-A IPC in the absence of any other evidence.Therefore, the solitary evidence of Logabiran (P.W.1) does not inspire the confidence of this Court to sustain the charges under Section 498-A and Section 4(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998.http://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed.The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.230 of 2010 are set aside.Bail bond executed by him will stand discharged.Fine amount, if any, paid by him shall be refunded.The Registry is directed to transmit the records to the Court concerned forthwith.07.11.2019 gya To1.The Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram, Chennai.2.The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Pulianthope Range, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4.The Deputy Registrar, Criminal Side, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 P.N.PRAKASH, J.gya CRL.A.No.388 of 2012 07.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,790,009
Appellant No. 5 was also tried under S- 203 IPC for having made false entries in police record.According to the prosecution, in Shastri Nagar, two thefts were committed in the night of 8-7-1975, one at the house of Prahlad Narain (P.W. 5) and the other at the house of Chunni Lai, who is not examined.It js alleged that Chunnilal's son Basant Lai was injured in that incident.He is also not examined.Initially, the case of prosecution, as recorded in the document and as mentioned in Ex. D/l'3, an application sent by the aunt of the deceased to the Collector, was that deceased was caught in the neighbouring area bv public.Thereafter, it is alleged that information was sent to Police station, Morar, whereupon, appellant No. 5 and other accused persons came to Sha-tri Nagar and took Paris John in custody.Thereafter, he wag sent to the Police Station and on a search of his body, Article A-Cable (thick iron wire tied around his waist), Article B-scissors, especially designed for cutting lock?, Article A-a pant and Article D-a pair of shoes, were seized from him in presence cf Ramhet Sharma (P.W. 1) through seizure Memo (Ex. P/l).Mohan Singh (P.W. 12), Jagdish Prasad" (P.W. 13), Basant Rao Mandre (P.W. 16), Shyam (P.W. 20) and Data Ram (P.W. 21).IPC read with Section 380 IPC showed their departure from the Police Station.Along with them, Head Constable Makarand Singh, Constables Prem Singh, Munshi Singh, went to Shastri Nagar for investigating the abovementioned crime.At Shastri Nagar, Tulsiram Hindoliya arrested Paris John alias Ranu in connection with the said offence and Save him beating with cane and lathi with a view that he may give the place where he has hidden the stolen articles.This, he did in the presence of the persons slaying at Shastri Nagar.When the condition of Paris John became serious and his pant was spoilt because of urine and stoojs, he was taken in a tempo to the Police Station, Morar.There were many injuries on the body of Paris John.The accused made no arrangement for the treatment of Paris John and on the contrary, they kept him in custody.While he was in the custody of the above Police Officer and the constables, he became unconscious.Accused Tulsiram Hindoliya did not enter the fact of arrest of Paris John in the Police record and suppressed the real facts dishonestly.When the information that condition of Paris John is settOUs was received by in-charge Keshay Singh, then the in charge Keshav Singh of the Thana with Tulsiram Hindoliya and other Police Officials, took Paris John to the Government Hospital.But, by the time Paris John could be taken to the hospital, he was already dead.Dr. D. C. Jain, after seeing Paris John, declared him dead.Because of this order.Keshay Singh Tomar stopped the investigation.But, many persons living in the Shastri Nagar declined to give their statement before him and they said that if the enquiry is made bv anv superior officer, then they are willing to give their statements.When these persons met the D. L G., C. I. D-, S. B. Shri S- B. Roman, D. S. P., C. I. D. Bhopal (P.W. 32) started the enquiry.JUDGMENT A.R. Navkar, J.This is an appeal against an order of conviction, recorded by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, conviciin0 appellant No. 5 Under Section 330 of the IPC and sentencing him to four years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, to further undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and also Under Section 203 IPC to one year's rigorous imprisonment.Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.The facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellants were tried Under Sections 304 and 330 of the I- P- C. on the allegation that on 9-7-1975, while appellant No. 5 was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station.Morar and appellant No. 4 as Head Constable, the remaining appellants were posted as Police Constables.Prosecution also examined Chandir alias Narendra Singh who was in custody of the appellants along with Paris John and Narendra Singh, it is alleged that he enquired as to why Paris John was arrested by the Police.In enquiry, Shri Dixit examined certain witnesses, who claimed that they have seen the incident and also seen Paris John.The Prosecution has examined in support of the story Surai Singh Yadav (P.W. 19), Mangilal (P.W. 8), Nihal Singh (P.W. 9), Narsingh (P.W. 10), Radheshyam (P.W. 11).On the dead body of Paris John, Dr. D. C. Jain, found a number of injuries.Sub-Inspector Keshav Singh Tomar (P.W. 26) entered crime No. as 200/75 Under Section 302 IPC and on the basis of the first information report lodged with him, which is Ex. P/37, he went to Shastri Nagar and prepared the spot map and also investigated the matter.C. S.P. Vijay Singh ordered that the enquiry of the incident should be made by the Additional District Magistrate and Keshav Singh should not enquire in the matter.The enquiry was started by him when he received an order dated 18-8-1977 under the orders of the D. I. G., C. I. D. During the investigation, he recorded the statements of the witnesses and took the counterfoils of Rojnamcha kept in the Police Station, Morar.Through Naib Tahsildar Shri S. G. Nim-balkar, an identification parade was held and Makarand Singh, Prem Singh, Munshi Singh and Bhagguram were put in for identification.After completing the investigation, challan was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gwalior.The complaint was taken up by Shri p. C. Agarwai, and he framed against all the accused persons charges Under Sections 304, 331, 342, 218, 201 and 203, IPC and after taking into consideration the statements given by the eye-witnesses and other documents, committed the accused to the Sessions Court to stand their trial.All the accused have denied guilt.The defence of accused Tulsiram Hin doliya is that when he received a telephonic message that some incident of theft has taken place in Shastri Nagai, he went to the spot along with Police force.When he reached there, the residents of Shastri Nagar had a thief in their custody and they were beating him and on the body of the thief, there were grievous injuries.The person, the people were beating was Paris John, and the Police force saved him from serious beating which the residents of the Shastri Nagar wanted to give him and after protecting him from the wrath of the crowd, they took Paris John to the Police Station.He gave the articles seized from Pari5 John to Head Constable Ram Prakash Singh and also gave instructions to Ram Prakash Singh to send Paris John to the Hospital.Then Keshav Singh Tomar came in the Police Station and he recorded the details of the incident.After recording all the details by Keshav Singh Tomar, the accused came back to the Police Station.At that time.Head Constable called Keshav Singh and informed him that Paris John is complaining of pain in his chest and also he is not feeling well.At that, the accused along with Keshav Singh Tomar, took Paris John in his jeep to the hospital.But, while he was being carried to the hospital, he had a hiccup and when they reached the hospital Dr. Jain, M. O., saw Paris John and informed the party that he is dead.Further, he has said in his defence that when Paris John was at Shastri Nagar, the crowd which was assembled there, gave beating to Paris John by means of lathis and he saved Paris John and at that time, Asha-ram, Dhadaiya, Kbacheraram and Babu were present.He, on the contrary tried to save Paris John and never gave the beating to him as alleged by the prosecution.In defence, he has submitted the statements which were recorded bv the Additional District Magistrate Dixit and also the order passed by him.The defence of the rest of the accused is that they accompanied Tulsiram Hindoliya to investigate the crime Under Section 379, IPC and went to Shastri Nagar.When they reached Shastri Nagar, they saw a crowd giving beating to Paris John and after protecting him from the crowd, they brought him to the Police Station.When they tried to save him, Asharam, Babulal and others were present.On the basis of the evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appel- lants as mentioned above, but the tris Court has acquitted- the accused persons of offence Under Section 304, IPC.Against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed.The learned trial Court framed (seven points for decision.After considering the evidence, the trial court found all the points against the accused.Before deciding this appeal, I will consider, briefly, the evidence produced in the case.When certain articles were seized from Paris John,'there was a crowd standing out and he enquired from Paris John as to how he has suffered the injuries on his body.To this query, Paris John told him that at Shastri Nagar, he was given beating badly, because the residents of Shastri Nagar thought that he has committed theft in the locality.He was cross-examined with para 7 of his statement given to the Police and was asked whether in the Police statement he has mentioned that when he saw Paris John, he was in a good condition.He has said in his statement he did not give that statement.From the statement of this witness., the defence taken by the accused becomes probable.Whether the defence should be believed or not, I will consider after taking into consideration the whole evidence.The second witness is Smt Roslin John (P.W. 2) the mother of Paris John.Much stress was led by the learned Counsel for the State on the statement by mother of Paris John.In para 5 of her statement, she has stated that one Anil Gupta told her that the police has arrested Paris John and that he is given a bad beating.Hearing this, she along with Rebeca Jecob, went to the Morar Police Station.When both of them enquired regarding Paris Joseph, the Police told them that no one by name of Paris John is in their custody.Hearing thaf, both of them came back.Again they went to the Control Room and while they were sitting in the Control Room up to 1.00 p.m., no information was given to them regarding the whereabouts of Paris John.On the contrary, they were informed that Paris John will be coming there very shortly.she has further stated that when she saw the dead body, there were injuries on the body of Paris John and the pant worn by him was in a torn condition and it was soiled by the excreta.Afterwards, continuously for seven days, all the 24 hours, the police guarded ther residential house and did not allow them to see anyone.She was confronted with omission in the statement she gave to the Police to the effect that Police has given beating to Paris John and how it is that in the police statement she could not say that, she could not say.Further, she also had to admit the omission in her statement to the Police to the effect that when she saw the dead body of her son, there were injuries on his body and why this portion of the statement ?s missing, she is not in a position to say.I may mention here that these twoomis-siong make it very difficult for me to hold that the statement given by this witness is nothing but sterling truth.Petric John (P.W. 3) is the father of the deceased.His statement is similar to the statement given by his wife.Patiram (P.W. 7) in para 2 of his statement has stated that Paris John told him that an incident of theft took place in Shastri Nagar and at that place, the residents of that locality gave him beating and the police saved him.John was having a great pain.The rest of the statement is not material eithtr from the prosecution side or from the defence side.Narsingh (P.W. 10) has stated in para 4 of his statement that he saw about 200 to 300 persons in front of his house.The police were investigating a case of theft and the Thanedar had arrested a boy whom he suspected to be the culprit.Thanedar and two other Police officials brought him on the road and gave him slaps.After that, the witness (P.W. 10) returned to his house.He has identified Hindoliya in the Court.Regarding the rest of the accused, lie said that he is not in a position to identify them.But when he was put a direct question whether it is a fact that Thanedar Hindoliya and the rest of the Police officials were beating Paris John with cane, he had to say that it is not true.After this, the witness was declared hostile by the prosecution, He hag contradicted material parts of the statement which he gave to the Police.Therefore, in my opinion, it will be difficult to hold that this witness has no sanctity for truth and his statement, n my opinion, cannot be believed for convicting the accused appellants.His statement is vacillating statement and benefit can be taken from his statement by prosecution as well as by the accused.I may mention here that when there are two stories put forward by the prosecution, the one which is beneficial to the accused should be accepted, and it need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.He is also a hostile witness.Mohan Singh (P.W. 12) has gone to the extent of not identifying the accused persons who were standing in the Court.He is also declared to be a hostile witness.Same is the condition of the statement of Jagdish Prasad (P.W. 13).He has said in para 2 of his statement that he is not in a position to say whether Thanedar Hindoliya is amongst the accused persons or not.He is not in a position to identify him also.His statement was recorded bv the C. I. D. Police after 2i years of the incident.Brii Bihari Singh (P.W. 13) has stated in para 9 of his statement that when he enquired of Paris John as to how he was arrested by the Police, he stated that he has been arrested in a case of theft.Further, Paris John told him that the residents of Shastri Nagr gave him hard beating.If his condition had been serious, he would not have taken him in his custody.Basantrao Mandre (P.W. 16) has taken a position to support the prosecution as well as the accused.To make the position clear, I may mention thit in para 6 of his statement, he has stated that Paris John was tied with a rope and the Police were giving him beating.He saw about 1 or 2 blows by a cane given by the Police.He further says that Paris John was uneasy.But, when he was asked as to whether he could identify Darogaji from the accused persons who were standing in the Court, he has stated that he could not single out Darogaji from the accused persons who were standing in the Court.From his statement also, it is not clear as to what exactly he wants to convey regarding the incident and the accused.Surai Singh Yadav (P.W. 19) does not take the story of the Drosecu-tion further.He has stated in para 7 that he came to know the name of the Police Inspector as Hindoliya.But he is not in a position to identify as to who is that man as they are not in dress today in the Court as they were at the time of the incident.The statement of Dataram (P.W. 21) also is of no help to substantiate the story of the prosecution as his statement was recorded after two to three years after the death of Paris John.Neither the Police arranged any identification parade to get Hindoliya identified by this witness, Regarding the rest of the accused, he has again reiterated the same fact.S. C. Nimbalkar (P.W. 25) is the Naib Tahsildar and he conducted the identification parade and witnesses Jag-dish Prasad, Surat Singh and Basantrao were asked to identify the accused.In para 3 of his statement, he has stated that Jagdish Prasad could not identify anyone, while Surat Singh identified only Bhagguram.Similarly, Basantrao I identified Bhagguram.Surat Singh and Basantrao told that on 97-1975, they, saw these persons in Shastri Nagar, but when I read para 7 of his statement, I must say that this identification parade is of no consequence.In para 7, he has stated that when the identification parade, was held, the accused were in their dress and their number plates were put on their dress.Before the identification parade, he also did not enquire from the witnesses as to the facial peculiarities of the accused.In para 9, he has stated that he could not say that on the day of identification parade, whether Bhagguram's eye was operated upon and he had a bandage on it.in my opinion, no benefit could be derived from the identification paraae which is conducted by this witness.If the evidence produced by the prosecution is taken as a whole, certain points which come before roe are thai there was a theft by someone at Shastri Nagar.After committing the theft, the thief was caught by the residents of the locality.He was given a beating and in that beating, he received some injuries, but who were the persons who gave him beating is not clear from the evidence of the prosecution.After taking him into custody, he was brought to the Police Station, In the Police Station, he met other persons who were already in Police custody.These persons were knowing Ranu alias Paris John and they asked him what was the reason that, he is there.To them, he replied that he was found by residents of Shastri Nagar and they gave him beating thinking that he might be responsible for committing the theft.It is also clear from the evidence that certain implements of house breaking were seized from Paris John.Against this, there is evidence also led by prosecution that some Police Officer gave beating to Paris John and he was in pain, but exactly what were the injuries and who save the beating is shrouded in mystery.It would have been clear if the identification parade could have been held by the prosecution, but the manner in which the identification parade wag held by the prosecution is of no consequence as I have mentioned above.Even in the Court, the witnesses for prosecution have not identified the accused persons.Maybe, from fear or for any other reason which is not clear.But the fact remains that there are two different versions of the incident; one supporting the prosecution and the other supporting the defence taken by the accused.The story which supports the accused and also make their defence probable should be accepted as laid down by the Supreme Court in Pohalya Motya Valvi v. State of Maharashtra .The other defect in the prosecution story is that the statements of the eye-witnesses were recorded after a long delay.Whatever benefit can be derived from this defect, the accused will Ret it.The cumulative effect of the evidence led by the prosecution, at the most, raises a suspicion against the accused.But, there is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' as laid down in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab .Therefore, differing from the trial Com I, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge levelled against them Under Section 330, IPC.It is not proved that the accused have caused any hurt for the purpose of extracting from Paris John or from any person interested in Paris John to make any confession or to give any information which may lead to the detection of an offence Or misconduct or for the purpose of constraining Paris John or any person interested in Paris John to restore op to cause the restoration of any property or valuable security or to satisfy any claimA Or demand or to give information which may lead to the restoration of any property Or valuable security.Ex. p/27 says that in Shastri Nagar, a crowd was seeing that they have caught a thief and they were giving him a beating.They were informed that they should not take law in their ..own hand and beat him.To this, somebody from the crowd told the Police Officer that they have a suspicion that the person who was receiving the beating has committed the theft in the locality and from him a chain and an instrument of cutting the lock were recovered and he was wandering in the locality in suspicious circumstances.Reading Ex. p/27 and taking into consideration the prosecution evidence, in my opinion, the ingredients required Under Section 203, IPC for conviction have not been proved by the prosecution evidence against the accused.Therefore, the conviction of the accused Under Section 203, IPC and sentence will have to be set aside and I set them aside accordingly.The appellants are already on bail.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
179,004,966
Certified Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the respective parties.(Syamal Kanti Chakrabarti, J.)
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
179,006,732
The instant appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 12.2.2016 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in S.T. No.411/10 whereby the appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 304-B of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, and U/s.498-A of I.P.C. and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.500/-.Heard on I.A. No.4459/16, an application under Section 389(1) of the Cr.P.C.Learned counsel for the appellant says that this is a case of false implication and that offence U/s.304-B of I.P.C. is not made out, as the victim died after 8 years of marriage.In order to establish his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-5, who is father of the deceased, who has turned hostile and in his examination- in-chief, he says that the marriage took place about 5 years before the death of the deceased.He further states that the deceased never told about any demand of dowry by the appellant.PW-6 who is mother of the deceased, says that the marriage took place 6-7 years back before the date of incident.In her cross-examination, the mother of the deceased says that it is correct to suggest that the appellant herein used to look after her daughter well and never inflicted any kind of difficulties on her.She also states that the marriage took place about 8 years back.Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn my attention to PW-7, who is wife of deceased's elder brother, who has also turned hostile.She also states that the deceased never told her anything about the matrimonial home.Further, she does not know how the deceased died.Per contra, learned counsel for the State has drawn my attention to the statement of PW-8, who is brother of the deceased who has supported the prosecution case in extenso.The appellant shall appear before the Registry of this Court on 24.8.2016 and on such other dates as may be directed in this regard.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN)
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,790,076
For the sake of brevity and convenience, weshall refer to Thomas Dana as the first petitioner, and LeoRoy Frey, as the second petitioner, in the course of thisJudgment.The relevant facts are these : The first petitioner is aCuban national.He came to India on a special Cubanpassport No. 11822, dated November 16, 1954, issued by theGovernment of the Republic of Cuba.In May,1957, both the petitioners were in Paris.There, the secondpetitioner purchased a motor car from an officer of theAmerican Embassy.He is said to have sold that car to thefirst petitioner on May 14, 1957, and the same month, it wasregistered in the first petitioner's name.The twopetitioners sailed by the same steamer at the end of May.The car was also shipped by the same steamer.They reachedKarachi on June 11, 1957, and from there, flew to Bombay.From June 11 to 19, 1957, they278stayed together in Hotel Ambassador in Bombay.The car wasdelivered to the first petitioner in Bombay on June 13, andon June 19, both of them flew from Bombay to Delhi.InDelhi also, they stayed together at Hotel Janpath.Thefirst petitioner received the car at Delhi by rail on June22, and the same night, the two petitioners left by the saidcar for Amritsar, where they reached after mid-night, andstayed in Mrs. Bhandari's Lodge.On the morning of June 23,they reached Attari Road Land Customs Station by the samecar (No. CD 75 TT 6587).On arrival at Attari, thepetitioners presented themselves for completing customsformalities for crossing over to Pakistan.The Customsofficers at Attari Road Land Customs Station, handed over tothem the Baggage Declaration forms, to declare the articlesthat they had in their possession, including any goods whichwere subject to the Export Trade Control and/or ForeignExchange Restrictions, and/or were dutiable.Both thepetitioners completed the forms aforesaid, and handed thosecompleted statements over to the Customs officers.The firstpetitioner declared the under-noted articles:-On suspicion, the Customs officers searched his baggagewhich was being carried in the car aforesaid.His personwas also searched, and as a result of the search, the under-noted articles which had not been declared by him, wererecovered :-Indian currency Rs. 900 Pakistan currency Rs. 250 U. S. Dollars $ 1.00 Hong Kong Dollars $ 1100 Thailand currency 78 Pocket radio 1 Time-piece 1279The second petitioner, in his statement, had declared thefollowing articles:-Indian currency Rs. 40 U. S. Dollars $ 500.00 U. S. Coins $ 1.23 Belgian coins BF 26.00 French coins BF 205.00 Italian coins L. 400.00 Wrist watch I Personal effects Rs. 1,00,000On suspicion, the Customs staff searched the person of thesecond petitioner also.They recovered from him one pistolof 22 bore with 48 live cartridges of the same bore.As hecould not produce a valid licence under the Indian law, thepistol and the cartridges were handed over to the police,for taking appropriate action under the Indian Arms Act.The car was thoroughly searched, and as a result of theintensive search and minute examination on June 30, 1957, asecret chamber above the petrol tank, behind the hind seatof the car, was discovered.On June11, 1957, the petitioner arrived at Bombay, later came toDelhi and from there he travelled to Amritsar by car incompany with Mr. Leo Roy Frey.ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 65 of 1958.Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India forenforcement of fundamental rights.N. C. Chatterjee and Nanak Chand, for the petitioner andthe appellant.H. N. Sanyal, Additional Solicitor-General of India, H J.Umrigar, R. H. Dhebar and T. M. Sen, for the respondent inboth the matters.The Judgment of Das, C. J., Bhagwati,Sinha and Wanchoo, JJ. was delivered by Sinha J., Subba Rao,J., delivered a separate judgment.SINHA, J.-Petition Nos. 65 of 1958, under Art. 32 of theConstitution, on behalf of one Thomas Dana, and CriminalAppeal No. 112 of 1958, by special leave to appeal grantedto one Leo Roy Frey (appellant), raise substantially thesame question of some constitutional importance, and have,therefore, been heard together, and will be covered by thisjudgment.The main question for determination in these twocases, is whether there has been an infringement of theconstitutional protection granted under Art. 20(2) of theConstitution.The chamber was opened, and thefollowing things which had not been declared by thepetitioners, were recovered from inside the secret chamber:-besides other insignificant things.Under the Indian law,Indian currency over Rs. 50, Pakistan currency over Rs. 100and any foreign currency, could not be exported out ofIndia, without the permission of the Reserve Bank of India.Thepetitioners could not produce, on demand the requisitepermission from the Reserve Bank of India..' or the licencefor the export of the pocket radio, or a permit forexporting280a time-piece, as required by the Land Customs Act, 1924.The car also was handed over to the police for necessaryaction.Both the petitioners weretaken into custody for infringement of the law.On July 7,both the petitioners were called upon to show cause beforethe Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, New Delhi,why a penalty should not be imposed upon them under s.167(8) of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, and why the seizedarticles aforesaid, should not be confiscated under s.167(8) and s. 168 of the Act. Both the petitioners objectedto making any statements in answer to the show-cause notice,on the ground that the matter was.subjudice and anystatement made by them, might prejudice them in theirdefence.But at the same time, the second petitionerdisclaimed any connection with the car in which the twopetitioners were travelling, and which had been seized.He came to the conclusionthat the petitioners had planned to smuggle Indian andforeign currency out of India, in contravention of the law.They had been acting in concert with each other, and had,throughout the different stages of their journey from Franceto India, been acting together, and while leaving India forPakistan, were travelling together by the same car, untilthey reached the Attari Road Land Customs Station, on theirway to Pakistan.He also ordered theconfiscation of the pocket radio and the time-piece andother articles seized, as aforesaid, under s. 167(8) of theSea Customs Act, read with s. 5 of the Imports and Exports(Control) Act, 1947, and s. 7 of the Land Customs Act, 1924.He further imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 25,00,000 oneach of the petitioners, under s. 167(8) of the Sea CustomsAct.Thepetition of complaint, after stating the facts stated -above, charged the accused persons with offences of attempt-ing to take out of India Indian and foreign currency, incontravention of the provisions of the Acts referred toabove.After recording considerable oral and documentary evidence,the learned Additional District Magistrate, Amritsar, by hisjudgment dated November 13, 1957, convicted the petitioners,and sentenced them each to two years' rigorous imprisonmentunder s. 23, read with s. 23-B, of the Foreign ExchangeRegulation Act, six month's rigorous imprisonment under s.120-B(2) of the Indian Penal Code, the sentences to run con-currently.It is not necessary to set out the convictionsand sentences in respect of the third accused Moshe, who wassubsequently acquitted by the High Court of Punjab, inexercise of its revisional jurisdiction.The learnedMagistrate also, perhaps, out of abundant caution, directedthat " The entire amount of currency and foreign exchangeand the car in which the currency had been smuggled as wellas the sleeveless shirt Ex. P. 39 and belt Ex. P. 40 shallbe36282confiscated to Government ".This order of confiscation waspassed by the criminal court, notwithstanding the fact, asalready stated, that the Collector of Central Excise andLand Customs, New Delhi, had ordered the confiscation ofthe-offending articles under s. 167(8) of the Sea CustomsAct and the other relatedActs referred to above.On appeal by the convicted persons, the learned AdditionalSessions Judge, Amritsar, by his judgment and order dated.December 13, 1957, dismissed the appeal after a veryelaborate examination of the facts and circumstances broughtout in the large volume of evidence adduced on behalf of theprosecution.It is riot necessary, for the purposes ofthese cases, to set out in detail the findings arrived at bythe appellate court, or the evidence on which thoseconclusions were based.The petitioners moved the High Court of Judicature for theState of Punjab, separately, against their convictions andsentences passed by the courts below, as aforesaid.Boththe revisional applications were dismissed summarily by thelearned Chief Justice.By his order dated February 28,1958, the learned Chief Justice refused to certify that thecase was a fit one for appeal to this Court.The petitioners then moved this Court for, and obtained,special leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of thecourts below, convicting and sentencing them, as statedabove.They also moved this Court for writs of habeascorpus.The petition of the first petitioner for a writ ofhabeas carp= was admitted, and was numbered as petition No.65 of 1958, and a rule issued.The writ petition on behalfof the second petitioner was dismissed in limited.Subsequently,the first petitioner moved this Court for revocation of thespecial leave granted to him, and for an early hearing ofhis writ petition No. 65 of 1958, as the points forconsideration were common to both the cases.This 283Court granted the prayers by its order dated May 13,1958.Before dealing with the arguments advanced on behalf of thepetitioners, in order to complete the narrative of eventsleading up to the filing of the cases in this Court, it isnecessary to state that the petitioners had moved this Courtseparately under Art. 32 of the Constitution, against theirprosecution in the Magistrate's court, after the aforesaidorders of confiscation and penalty, passed by the Collectorof Customs.They prayed for a writ of certiorari and/orprohibition, and for quashing the proceedings.There wasalso a prayer for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus.It wasargued that the letter Ex. P. DD/2, admittedly written byhim to his father in German, had not been specifically putto him with a view to eliciting his explanation as to thecircumstances and the sense in which it had been written.The learned Magistrate in the trial court put the followingquestion (No. 20) to him :-What have you to say about itThe answer given by the accused to this question was " Thetranslation of Ex. P. FF/I is mostly correct except for fewvariations which could have been due to misinterpretation ofhandwriting ".evidence against him with particular reference to theletter.They are,accordingly dismissed.On June 23, 1957, he reachedAttari Road Land Customs Station and was arrested under s.173 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878) onsuspicion of having committed an offence thereunder.He wasserved with a notice by the Collector of Central Excise andLand Customs, New Delhi, on July 7, 1957, to show cause whypenalty should not be imposed on him under s. 167(8) of theSea Customs Act (hereinafter called the Act) and s. 7(2) ofthe Land Customs Act, 1924, and why the goods should not beconfiscated.The petitioner was againprosecuted on the same facts before the Additional DistrictMagistrate, Amritsar, on charges under s. 167(81) of the Actand ss. 23 and 23B of the296Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. 'He was convicted oncharges under s. 23 read with s. 23B of the Foreign ExchangeRegulation Act, s. 167(81) of the Act and s. 120B of theIndian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonments of 2 years,6 months and 6 months respectively by 'the AdditionalDistrict Magistrate, Amritsar.The conviction and sentenceswere confirmed on appeal by the Additional Sessions Judge,and the revision filed in the High Court was dismissed.
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,659,404
of the Indian Penal Code.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) 2 ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,662,683
Brief facts of the case are that on 28.06.2009 at about 6:00 am when complainant Roopsingh was going to his farm by tractor non-applicant No.1 Jadu Singh and his brother non- applicant No.2 Bhanwar Singh obstructed him.When he objected for the same, they started abusing him.At the same time, non-applicant No.3 Narayan Singh, father of the non- applicants No.1 & 2 also came there.Shri Sudhanshu Vyas, learned Panel Lawyer for the applicant/State.Heard on admission This application has been filed under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.02.2016 passed by JMFC, Dhar in S.T. No.3649/2009, whereby the learned Judge acquitted the accused/non-applicants from the charge under Sections 294, 323, 324, 341, 323/34, 324/34 & 506 of the IPC.All the non-applicants assaulted complainant Roopsingh and non-applicant No.1 Jadu Singh bit complainant on his right hand due to which he shouted, on hearing, his father Bahadur Singh (PW.1) came there and tried to rescue his son but he too was assaulted by the non-applicants by stick.Thereafter, complainant Roopsingh lodged the report at Police Station Sagor, District-Dhar.On that report, Crime No.96/2009 for offence 294, 323, 324, 341, 323/34, 324/34 & 506 of the IPC was registered against the non-applicants.After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC-Dhar.On that charge-sheet Criminal Case No.2649/2009 was registered.However, after trial, trial Court acquitted the non-applicants from the offence u/Ss.294, 323, 324, 341, 323/34, 324/34 & 506 of the IPC.Being aggrieved from that judgment, applicant filed this leave to appeal.Although in the Examination-in-Chief complainant Roopsingh (PW.2) deposed that on the date of incident when he was going towards field by tractor, on the way non-applicants Jadu Singh and Bhanwar Singh stopped and assaulted him by stick and also abused him and non-applicant Jadu Singh bit on his right hand.When his father-Bahadur tried to rescue him, non-applicants assaulted him also by stick and threatened to kill him, which is also corroborated from the statement of Bahadur (PW.1).But in the cross-examination of both the witnesses there are many contradictions and omissions regarding incident.In their statements Ramesh (PW.3) and Sorambai (PW.4), who are the independent eye- witnesses of the incident, did not support the prosecution case.Complainant Roopsingh, only sustained one bruise on his right leg and Bahadur Singh (PW.1) sustained only one injury in his left forearm.K.L. Pandey (PW.7) who was the Investigating Officer also admitted in his cross-examination that on the date of incident he also registered crime against injured Bahadur Singh, Hukam Singh, Gulab Singh, Mangubhai and Tejubai on the report of non-applicants and also sent non-applicants Bhanwar Singh, Jadusingh & Meerabai for medical examination.So in these circumstances the learned trial Court did not commit any mistake in disbelieving the statements of complainant and his witnesses and acquitting the non- applicants from the aforesaid charges.Consequently, the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed as being without merit.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge JYOTI
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,856,642
They belong to Nadar community.The deceased Appiranantham is a resident of Arunachalaperi village.The accused are the residents of Kasiapuram village.Both Arunachalaperi and Kasiapuram are adjacent villages near Alangulam Town.P.W.1 Issaikidurai and P.W.4 another Issaikidurai are the relatives of the deceased.P.W.7 Parameswari is the wife of the deceased.The deceased Appiranantham was doing finance business.Though he became the highest bidder in the chit and took the amount, he defaulted in making periodical payments of chit.When A-2 demanded the deceased to make payment, the deceased told him that unless he repays the loan of Rs. 8,000/-, which the deceased had given to him about five years back, he would not make the regular payments.Regarding this, there was a misunderstanding.A-2 issued a lawyer's notice to the deceased for default in payment of chit amounts.(b) During the month of September, 1994, A-1 Vaithialingam, the elder brother of A-2, came to Arunachalaperi in a tractor to load paddy.When he saw the deceased walking along the road, he tried to hit the deceased.The deceased jumped and escaped.The tractor fell down in a ditch, by which A-1 sustained injuries.With regard to this, A-1 made a complaint to the police against Appiranantham, the deceased, and his wife.The said complaint is Ex.This complaint was referred as "a mistake of fact".Thus, there had been enmity between the deceased and the accused.(c) On 12.01.1995 at about 08.15 p.m., the deceased Appiranantham was riding his Rajdoot Motorcycle, in the Nettor Road in Alangulam Town, P.W.4 Issaikidurai was the pillion rider.P.W.1 Issaikidurai was following the deceased in his TVS Champ, keeping one Govindasamy in the pillion.They were proceeding towards their village Arunachalaperi.While crossing Subramania Nadar's house, A-1 to A-4 suddenly appeared at the scene with aruvals in their hands and restrained the deceased from proceeding further.When the deceased stopped the vehicle, the accused began to attack the deceased.Then, P.W.4 ran away from the scene of occurrence.Thereupon, the accused continued to attack the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased died on the spot.P.W.1 and Govindasamy made a hue and cry.The public gathered.All the four accused ran towards north with aruvals.Then, P.W.1 came near the old Police Station and found the injured P.W.4 standing nearby.He asked Muthudurai, cousin of P.W.4, to take P.W.4 to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital in a hired van.Accordingly, the said Muthudurai took P.W.4 to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and admitted him at 9.00 p.m. In the meantime, P.W.1 went to the Alangulam Police Station and gave a complaint at 08.45 p.m. to P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police.Ex.P-1 is the complaint and Ex.P-14 is the F.I.R. A case was registered for the offences under Sections 302 and 324 IPC.(d) P.W.13 Doctor, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, examined P.W.4 at 9.00 p.m. He issued Ex.P-15 Accident Register and gave treatment.P.W.13 then sent Ex.P-16 intimation to the Out-post Police Station attached to Tirunelveli Medical college Hospital.(e) In the meantime, P.W.14 Inspector of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. from P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, took up investigation at about 09.30 p.m.. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-12 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P-17 Rough Sketch.He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased.Ex.P-18 is the Inquest Report.He examined P.W.1 Issaikidurai, Govindasamy, P.W.7 Parameswari and another.Thereafter, he arranged for sending the dead body for post-mortem.(f) P.W.2 Doctor conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 13.01.1995 at 11.00 a.m. He noticed as many as 28 injuries on the body of the deceased; issued Ex.P-3 Post-mortem certificate and opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries and head injuries.(g) On 13.01.1995 at about 02.30 a.m., P.W.14 Inspector of Police came to the spot and recovered blood stained earth (M.O.11), sample earth (M.O.12) and Rajdoot Motorcycle (M.O.6).Thereafter, P.W.14 took steps to arrest the accused.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.1. Appellants (A-1 to A-4) were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each respectively.In addition to that, appellant No. 4 (A-4) was convicted for the offence under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment.The sentences imposed on the accused were directed to run concurrently.Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.The prosecution case in brief is as follows :(a) Vaithialingam (A-1), Selvam (A-2) and Kutty (A-3) are the sons of Natarajan (A-4).Then, the accused were sent for judicial custody.He arranged to send all the material objects for chemical examination.After completing the investigation, he filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 341, 302 read with 34 and 324 IPC.After framing the charges, the trial went on against the accused.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Exhibits P-1 to P-19 were filed and M.Os.1 to 12 were marked.During the questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused stated that they had no enmity against Appiranantham, the deceased, and his family and on the other hand, they have been falsely implicated in the murder case, at the instance of Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.12, since they filed a private complaint against P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police.On the side of defence, Exs.D-1 and D-2 were marked.The trial Court, on an appraisal of the evidence available on record, concluded that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the appellants (A-1 to A-4) for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 IPC and also A-4 under Section 324 IPC and sentenced them thereunder.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed.Mr. Sriramulu, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. R. Nadanasabapathy on behalf of the appellants/accused, would contend that P.Ws.1 and 4 eye witnesses would not have seen the occurrence in view of several suspicious features in their evidence and the evidence of P.W.4 is completely contradictory to the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor, who gave treatment to P.W.4 and as such, the materials projected by the prosecution would not be sufficient to prove that the accused had participated in the crime in question and consequently, they are liable to be acquitted.We have considered the rival contentions urged by the counsel for the parties and also gone through the records.The motive projected by the prosecution as spoken to by P.W.1 Issaikidurai, P.W.4 another Issaikidurai and P.W.7 Parameswari, wife of the deceased, is that there was a misunderstanding between both the deceased and the accused with reference to the chit transaction and there was also issuance of a lawyer's notice for non-payment of chit amounts by the deceased to the accused.They would also state that some months prior to the date of occurrence, A-1 went to Arunachalaperi village in a tractor and tried to hit the deceased, who was walking along the road and when the deceased jumped and escaped, the tractor got damaged by falling into a ditch, as a result of which, A-1 sustained injuries and from then onwards, A-1 had vowed to finish the deceased one day or the other.Though P.Ws.1 and 4 would speak about the motive, both of them would admit in the cross-examination that they did not have any personal knowledge over this.P.W.7, wife of the deceased, though would state that she had personal knowledge with reference to the dispute in the chit transaction, she was not consistent regarding the aspect of non-payment of the loan amount of Rs. 8,000/- to the deceased by the accused.It is also noticed from the evidence of P.W.7 that in the accident, A-1 sustained injuries and he vowed that he would murder the deceased.In respect of that occurrence, the prosecution itself has produced Ex.P-19 F.I.R., which was given by A-1 to the police with reference to the incident that had taken place on 08.09.1994 at Arunachalaperi village.In the said complaint, there is no mention about the accident.On the other hand, it is mentioned that when A-1 went to Arunachalaperi village in a tractor; he was attacked; tractor also got damaged and from A-1, cash and chain were snatched.A perusal of Ex.P-19 would show that a case was registered against the deceased Appiranantham, his wife and others for various offences and ultimately, P.W.14 Inspector of Police would state that the said case, which was registered on 09.09.1994, was referred to "as a mistake of fact".Therefore, the motive as projected by P.W.7, in our view, has not been clearly established.On the other hand, Ex.P-19 would make it clear that there was enmity between the two families, due to which some incident took place on 08.09.1994 and for that incident, a complaint was given by A-1 against the deceased and others, which was referred as a mistake of fact.Even though the motive as projected by the prosecution has not been established, in the light of the enmity as found in Ex.P-19, it cannot be said that failure to establish the motive, as spoken to by the prosecution, would be a ground to reject the entire case of the prosecution, when the eye witnesses are available and their evidence is reliable.P.Ws.1 and 4 are admittedly the relatives of the deceased.According to P.W.1, he, along with one Govindasamy, went in a TVS Champ following the Rajdoot Motorcycle, which was driven by the deceased on 12.01.1995 at about 08.15 p.m. It is the specific case of the prosecution that when the deceased Appiranantham and P.W.4 crossed the Subramania Nadar house, all the four accused appeared at the scene, carrying aruvals with them and restrained the deceased.When the deceased stopped the vehicle, all the four accused began to attack the deceased indiscriminately.On receipt of injury, P.W.4 ran away from the scene.According to P.W.1, he went to the Old Police Station and saw P.W.4 standing there.When he asked one Muthudurai, cousin of P.W.4, to take P.W.4 to the hospital, he arranged a van and sent both P.W.4 and Muthudurai to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.P.W.1, in the cross-examination, would admit that there are two hospitals, namely, Pushpalatha Hospital and Mani Hospital near the place of occurrence.It is also admitted by him that there is a Government Hospital at Alangulam.There is no reason as to why Muthudurai was not asked to take P.W.4 to Government Hospital or to some other hospital, which is nearby.As a matter of fact, P.W.1 would admit in the cross-examination that police station is situated only half-a-kilometre away from the place of occurrence.If that is so, there is no reason as to why P.W.1 did not take steps to take P.W.4 to the Police Station to give a complaint.On going through the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 4, it is clear that there are no details as to why P.W.4 was taken to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, which is situated 30 kms.away from the scene of occurrence, even though there are private hospitals and a Government Hospital situated in the Alangulam town itself.Admittedly, P.W.1 did not state anything to Muthudurai about the incident.He would also admit that P.W.4 had telephone facility in his house.When he was careful enough to send P.W.4 along with Muthudurai to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital for giving treatment, it is not known as to why P.W.1 did not choose to inform the relatives of P.W.4 by making a telephone call to them.As a matter of fact, P.W.1 did not state in Ex.P-1 that he sent P.W.4 to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital along with Muthudurai.Even during investigation, as admitted by P.W.14, P.W.1 did not state that he sent P.W.4 to the hospital along with Muthudurai.According to P.W.1, he left Alangulam town and was proceeding towards Arunachalaperi village by following the Rajdoot Motorcycle driven by the deceased, on his TVS Champ.In chief-examination, he stated that TVS Champ belonged to him, but, in cross-examination, it has been elicited by defence that the said Champ did not belong to him and he had not purchased the same and that he had no driving licence.Under those circumstances, a doubt arises as to whether P.W.1 would have followed the deceased on TVS Champ.Furthermore, while giving details about the topography, P.W.1 would state that near the place of occurrence, there is an Amman Koil and there are some karivela trees.It is also stated by P.W.1 that on seeing the occurrence, he stopped the TVS Champ near the bus stop and from there, he witnessed the occurrence.But, the Amman Koil, the karivela trees and the bus stop are not found place in Ex.P-17, rough sketch.Of course, it is settled law that merely because one of the eyewitnesses has been disbelieved, it cannot be a ground to reject the other eye witness, especially when the other eye witness happens to be the injured eye witness.In other words, if we believe the evidence of P.W.4, even though we are unable to place reliance on Ex.P-1 and P.W.1, then certainly the conviction can be based.At the outset, it shall be stated that P.W.4 did not state in his evidence that P.W.1 alone arranged a van or taxi to send him to Tirunelveli Medical College hospital along with Muthudurai.There is a clear evidence to show that Muthudurai alone accompanied the deceased to the hospital.In Ex.P-15, issued by P.W.13 Doctor, it is clearly mentioned that the victim/ Issaikidurai/P.W.4 was brought by Muthudurai.Unfortunately, P.W.4 admitted in his cross-examination that he did not tell about the incident to any person including Muthudurai and as soon as he reached the hospital, he became unconscious.This is against the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor.According to P.W.13, P.W.4 was brought by Muthudurai and the victim P.W.4 himself told the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons with aruvals at Alangulam Market Bus Stand.If P.W.4 was unconscious, there was no necessity for P.W.13 to record in Ex.P-15, which is one of the earliest documents in this case, to the effect that P.W.4 told him that he was attacked by three unknown persons.Though P.W.4 in cross-examination specifically denies the suggestion that he told the Doctor that three unknown persons attacked him, P.W.13, in his evidence, would clearly state that P.W.4 only told him that he was attacked by three unknown persons.Further, P.W.4, in cross-examination, admits that he told the Doctor what he knew about the incident.This admission made by P.W.4 in cross-examination that he told the Doctor regarding the incident would clearly show that his evidence in his chief-examination that he was unconscious in the hospital is not true.It is clear from the evidence of P.W.13 that P.W.4 was admitted to hospital at 9.00 p.m. on 12.01.1995 and he told the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons.P.W.13 would further state that after issuing Accident Register, Ex.P-15, he sent the intimation Ex.P-16 to the Out-post Police Station, attached to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.Though P.W.4 would state that he has not given any statement to the Out-post Police Station, it has been elicited from the cross-examination of P.W.13 Doctor that on receipt of Ex.Thus, the evidence of P.W.4 that he did not tell the Doctor that he was attacked by three unknown persons is quite contradictory to the evidence of P.W.13 Doctor and Ex.P-15 Accident Register.Admittedly, P.W.4 was not examined during the course of inquest.Even though it is contended that the statement of P.W.4 to P.W.14 police officer at about 02.30 p.m. is in consonance with Ex.P-1, the same cannot be given due credence, in view of the fact that P.W.4, as mentioned in the earliest document, namely, Ex.P-15, told P.W.13 that he was attacked by three unknown persons.There is no investigation by the police officer with reference to this statement made by P.W.4 to P.W.13, the Doctor.When P.W.13 gave this evidence on the basis of Ex.P-15, the Accident Register, there is no reason to reject the same.This aspect could be viewed from yet another angle as well.There is no dispute in the fact that Muthudurai, the cousin of P.W.4, took the victim to the hospital.As indicated above, the name of Muthudurai is mentioned in Ex.P-15 as the person, who brought the victim.The prosecution has not chosen to examine the said Muthudurai.Had Muthudurai been examined, this Court would have been able to know as to what P.W.4 told the Doctor with reference to the occurrence and the number of known or unknown persons involved.There is no reason for the non-examination.Hence, non-examination of Muthudurai would be an additional feature to hold that the evidence of P.W.4 is not a reliable one.One another important aspect to be noticed in this case is the suppression of the alleged statement obtained from P.W.4 by the Police Officer, attached to Out-post Police Station.Though P.W.13, the Doctor, has not stated anything about the statement recorded by the Out-post police from P.W.4 in chief-examination, it has been elicited by the defence during the course of cross-examination that on receipt of Ex.If that is the admission of the Doctor, who has been examined as a prosecution witness, then the prosecution is bound to explain as to whether such a statement has been recorded or not by examining the police officers, attached to Out-post Police Station, and the same is in consonance with the contents of Ex.Admittedly, this has not been explained.Thus, it is clear from the evidence of P.W.13 in cross-examination that recording of statement from P.W.4 by the Out-post police remains unchallenged.There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.13, especially when it has been established that after admitting P.W.4 in the hospital, he sent Ex.P-16 intimation to the Out-post Police Station.If this is not true, the prosecution would have treated P.W.13 as hostile.One another important eye witness is one Govindasamy, who is the pillion rider in TVS Champ.According to P.W.1, Govindasamy also accompanied P.W.1 up to the Old Police Station.It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.14 that the said eye witness Govindasamy was examined during the course of inquest.Strangely, he has not been examined in the Court.Though the appellants/accused stated in Section 313 Cr.P.C. questioning that a false case was foisted only at the instance of P.W.12 Sub-Inspector of Police, as they earlier filed a private complaint against him, the said plea cannot be accepted, since the private complaint Ex.D-1, which was filed in the year 1993 against P.W.12 by A-4 was not taken on file and as such, it was not pursued.Consequently, there cannot be motive for P.W.12 to implicate A-1 to A-4 in a murder case.However, as indicated above, the prosecution established through the documentary evidence of Ex.P-19 that there was enmity between the two families.It is a well established rule that enmity or motive is a double-edged weapon.The motive can be used for the attack on the deceased and the same motive can be used for filing a false case against the persons, who are inimically disposed of.Admittedly, there was enmity between the accused family and the deceased family.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,664,463
The revision is disposed of accordingly.Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.(tar)The court below is directed to secure the custody of the petitioner and make him to undergo the remaining part of the sentence.The petitioner was tried in C.C.No.18036/2004, on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, and he was convicted for offence under section 498-A IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; he was also convicted under Section 406 IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment.Aggrieved by the said order, he preferred an appeal in C.A.No.236 of 2006, before the Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Chennai, who upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner and dismissed the appeal.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.He was an alcoholic.Ever since the day of marriage, the petitioner demanded more dowry and harassed the defacto complainant in many ways.Unable to bear the harassment, the defacto complainant laid a complaint before the respondent police.b) A case was registered against the petitioner and tried in C.C.No.18036 of 2004 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, and the petitioner were convicted as aforesaid."After making some elaborate arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner confined his arguments with regard to sentence alone.The learned counsel submitted that the lower Court has awarded 6 months rigorous imprisonment for 498-A IPC and 406 IPC, to run concurrently.The petitioner has been acquitted of offence under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already undergone sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment.The petitioner was only 27 years old at the time of the incident and he is repenting for his actions.He is the sole breadwinner of the family and therefore, the learned counsel prays for leniency to be shown in the quantum of sentence.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) fairly submitted that the sentence could be reduced to two months rigorous imprisonment.On going through the entire materials placed on record, it is seen that the petitioner was only 27 years at the time of occurrence and he is repenting for his actions.Therefore, while confirming the conviction, sentence alone is reduced to a period of two months rigorous imprisonment.1.The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore.2.The Addl.District and Sessions Judge cum V F.T.C., Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras4.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Anna Nagar, Chennai 40 Crl.R.C.No.776 of 2008
['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.
185,666,447
Case Diary is available.This is fourth application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 14/01/2017 in connection with Crime No.17 of 2017 registered at police station Mayapur, District Shivpuri for offence under Sections 302, 323, 294, 506-B, 34 of IPC.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,666,895
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 trial;Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and his further custody is not required in this case.On the aforesaid changed grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.The learned counsel for the applicant has filed court statements of PW- 1 Budhlal, father of the prosecutrix, PW-2 Prosecutrix and PW-3 Sanju, brother of the prosecutrix.In the event of breach of any of the conditions imposed by this Court, the complainant/victim/State will be at liberty to move an application for Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Date: 18/02/2020 01:07:50 3 MCRC-19402-2019 cancellation of bail granted today.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE MSP Digitally signed by MANVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Date: 18/02/2020 01:07:50
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,669,831
Darton Zink-accused No.1 is a foreign national and Megha 3/15 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 ::: apl_1133, 547 & 781_13 is a President and Chief Executive Officer of accused No.4 -M/s.Zeeco INC, a company having its registered office in the State of Oklohoma, USA, engaged in designing, manufacturing and supplying various industrial equipments.The accused No.5 M/s. Zeeco Europe Limited is the European affiliate of M/s. Zeeco INC, accused No.4-company.The accused No.2 Nigel Palfreeman is the Director of accused No.5 company.Accused No.6-M/s.Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd. is the Indian affiliate of the accused No.4 company and Shri Sanjiv Chipalkatti-::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::accused No.3 is the business Director of the accused No.6 company.The accused No.4 company entered into an agreement dated 31st August, 1994 with a company called USCO ltd. through its President-Atulkumar, thereby appointing USCO as the sales representative and granting sole and exclusive right to promote the sale and solicit orders for the products of the accused No.4-M/s.Zeeco INC Company.In terms of the said agreement USCO was entitled to get necessary commission for the services provided under the contract.By these applications filed under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Applicants, have sought to quash the order of issuance of process dated 8th February, 2012 in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009 for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 120 B r/w. 34 of the IPC.The Respondent No.2-Sunil Gupta is the complainant in Criminal Case No.36/SW/2009, who as per the said agreement dated 31st August, 1994 was appointed as a sales representative.The complainant Sunil Gupta claims that he had Megha 4/15 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 ::: apl_1133, 547 & 781_13 procured several contracts and assurances for the accused No.4- M/s.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::Zeeco INC from various corporate sectors in India.The complainant claims that it was only because of his efforts that the accused No.4 company could raise market within India as well as other countries.The complainant has alleged that the accused in collusion and connivance with each other tried to remove him from the picture even though he had been looking after the work of accused No.4- M/s.Zeeco INC and helped the accused No.4 in establishing its business in Indian market and also in acquiring global business.The complainant further claimed that accused Nos.1 to 4 had assured that they would start a subsidiary company and that they would accommodate him as a Director with a good percentage of profit and requested him to close the original company and business.The grievance of the complainant is that some time in the year 2005, he procured a contract with Indian Oil Corporation.The complainant signed an agreement with Indian Oil Corporation under an authority from the accused No.3 and also received an advance amount of Rs.51,86,464/-.The complainant has stated that even after adjusting the said amount of Rs.51 lakhs, accused was liable to pay to him a sum of Rs.1.2 crores.The complainant has stated that when he had requested the accused to settle his dues and comply with the contract assigned by Indian Oil Corporation, the accused started pressurising him to transfer the said contract in the name of the accused No.6- M/s. Zeeco India Pvt. Ltd. as if the said contract was procured by accused No.6 directly from the Indian Oil Corporation.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::The complainant has denied having entered into any such MOU.The complainant has alleged that the accused Nos.1 to 3 got themselves introduced to the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation and by misleading the officers of the Indian Oil Corporation they claimed that they had procured the agreement directly from the Indian Oil Corporation.The complainant further claimed that right from the beginning the accused had no intention to continue the services rendered by the complainant and that they have side lined him after utilising his services and after having established themselves in the Indian market.The complainant has further stated that the accused Megha 7/15 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 ::: apl_1133, 547 & 781_13 have refused to pay to him sum of Rs.2 crores as sales commission in addition to Rs.1.2 crores, which was due to him as estimated profit under the contract and an amount of Rs.6 crore 70 lakhs towards investment in establishing the accused No.4 company in India.The complainant therefore, claimed that accused have made illegal profits for themselves and loss to him to the equivalent amount.The said act according to the complainant constitutes an offence of cheating.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::The learned Magistrate recorded the statement of the complainant under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter forwarded the complaint for further enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. Since the concerned police submitted a report stating that dispute was of civil nature, the complainant /Respondent No.2 filed a protest petition and after hearing the complainant, the learned Magistrate by order dated 8th February, 2012 issued process under sections 406, 420 and 120 B as well as section 34 of the IPC.Being aggrieved with this order the Applicants /accused have filed these applications under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing and setting aside the order of issuance of process.The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2-complainant at the outset submitted that the order being revisable, the Applicants Megha 8/15 ::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 ::: apl_1133, 547 & 781_13 cannot be permitted to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Court under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code.It may be mentioned here that out of these criminal applications, Criminal Application No.1133 of 2012 was admitted as early as in 2013 and hence the Applicant cannot be non suited at this stage on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::Reverting to the facts of this case, a plain reading of the complaint reveals that some time in the year 1994 Shri Atulkumar, brother of the complainant, who is the President of USCO has entered into an agreement with the accused No.4 company thereby appointing USCO as the sales representative and granting sole and exclusive right to promote sale and solicit order for the product of accused No.4 company.The grievance of the complainant, as it is revealed from the averments made in the complaint, is that the accused No.4 company has now decided to sideline the complainant as its sales representative.The accused No.4 company also set up accused No.6 Indian affiliate company, which obtained a contract from the Indian Oil Corporation.Special Jud.Magistrate & Ors.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::The impugned order dated 8 th February, 2012 passed in C.C. No.36/SW/2009 is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 05/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 06/08/2016 00:41:49 :::
['Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
185,678,549
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the Objector.Heard learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is in custody since 24.10.2014 relating to Crime No.835/2014 registered at Police Station Kotawali, District Sehore for offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 147, 148, 149, 325 of I.P.C and 25 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is a youth of 26 years of age, who has no criminal past alleged against him.It is alleged against the co-accused Mohan and Mukesh that they assaulted the deceased Bhanwarlal on his head by deadly weapon.The deceased Bhanwarlal died due to the head injury.It is not alleged against the applicant that he assaulted the deceased Bhanwarlal on any vital part of his body.Under such circumstances, applicant prays for bail.Shailesh Yadav may be accepted.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,877,604
The facts of the case, as per the case of the prosecution, in a nutshell are that Rishi Sachdeva (PW-1) and Vishal Sachdeva (PW-3) are real brothers.The appellant/accused came there and enquired from PW-1 as to why he had taken money from his brother.It was denied by PW-1 and he asked the appellant to get this fact confirmed from Sahid.Thereafter, the appellant slapped Sahid.The appellant/accused started giving beatings to PW-1 after which PW-1 started running.When PW-1 eached near the hotel of Shafiq, his brother Vishal @ Kamal came there and tried to intervene.The appellant/accused lifted a danda from the hotel and assaulted Kamal.Thereafter he whippd out a knife from his back pocket and stabbed Kamal on Crl.Ghanshyam, PW-9 Const.Vee Das, PW-10 HC Mohd.PW1 Rishi Sachdeva, who is an independent injured witness, has deposed that on 15.02.1997 at about 5 PM, he had gone to the dhobi, PW-2 and he was getting his clothes ironed.In the meantime, the appellant/accused came and enquired from him as to whether he had taken money from his brother.He told the appellant that he had not taken any money, but his brother had on his own given money to him.PW-1 was lying on road, his brother tried to lift him, when accused Harun lifted a danda and hit his brother Vishal @ Kamal on his head.He then threw the danda and whipped out a knife from the back pocket of his pant and stabbed his brother on the right side of the chest.When he was trying to give another blow to the brother of PW-1, PW-1 caught hold of the hands of the appellant/accused.In the mean time, PW-1 lifted the danda and gave blow on the head of accused Harun.He was trying to give a knife blow, but people intervened and saved him.He sustained injuries on his right shoulder and hand.This witness correctly identified Crl.When he was near the hotel of Shafiq, he noticed that an altercation was going on between Rishi and the appellant/accussed Harun.When PW-3 tried to intervene, accused Harun lifted a danda lying there and hit the same on his head.Accused tried to give another blow which PW-3 averted by catching hold of his hand.As a result thereof, he had sustained injuries on his left hand.The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against judgment dated 20.09.2001 and order on sentence dated 25.09.2001 whereby the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for offences punishable under Section 307 and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.4,500/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page1 of 12 Section 307 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 324 IPC.Appeal No.774/2001 Page2 of 12 the right side of his chest.When the appellant/accused wanted to give another blow to Kamal, he caught hold of the hand of the appellant.PW-1 then gave a danda blow on the head of the appellant/accused.PW-1 and PW-3 were removed to hospital, FIR was recorded and after completion of investigation, challan was filed.Vide order dated 06.09.1999, charge was framed against the accused under Secitons 307/324 IPC to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution examined eleven witnesses in support of their case i.e. PW-1 Rishi Sachdeva, PW-2 Badshah @ Suresh Kumar, PW-3 Vishal Sachdeva, PW-4 Kirti Ram Uniyai, PW-5 Syed Ahmed, PW-6 HC Anand Prakash, PW-7 Ashok Kumar, PW-8 Const.Naeem and PW-11 SI Chanderrup Singh.Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and he examined DW-1 Nasiruddin in his defence.In support of the appeal, the appellant/accused has taken Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page3 of 12 the grounds that there was no legal evidence in the case against the appellant justifying his convication; that the learned ASJ has observed in the impugned judgment that 'had brother of Harun told him that Rishi had taken the money from him peacefully, it would not have given a cause to Harun to assault Rishi', that the learned ASJ has not appreciated this fact that the prosecution agency has failed to produce the doctors who had prepared the MLC and x-ray report; that non examination of the concerned doctor inspite of the fact that PW-4 had furnished the addresses of the concerned doctors had caused prejudiced to the right of the appellant; that the learned ASJ has not appreciated this fact that PW-2 and PW-5 who are independent public witnesses have not supported the prosecution version, that the learned ASJ has not considered this fact while passing the impugned order that no offence punishable under Section 307 IPC is made out as PW-1 was discharged from the hospital after some time on the same day; that the learned ASJ has not considered this fact while passing the impugned order that PW-1 has admitted the presence of some independent persons at the spot, but none of them was Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page4 of 12 produced as a witness by the prosecution before the Trial Court; that the learned ASJ has not considered this fact that the danda allegedly impounded by the police was used by the injured Rishi Sachdeva for inflicting head injury to the appellant and the same was not recovered at the instance of the appellant, as such recovery of the danda cannot be read against the appellant in any manner whatsoever; that the learned ASJ has not appreciated this fact that PW-11 SI Chanderrup Singh has deposed before the learned Trial Court that 'the accused had disclosed about the knife used by him in the occurrence, but the same could not be recovered' as per prosecution case, the police reached at the spot just after the incident and removed the injured persons to the hospital including the appellant, meaning thereby that the appellant was apprehended from the spot but the recovery of knife was not effected from his possession; that the learned ASJ has not appreciated this fact that the appellant is not a previous convict, he is a married person having three minor children to support, he is the sole bread earner of family comprising five sisters and two brothers; he is facing the agony of trial for the Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page5 of 12 last so many years.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has vehemently opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and submitted that the judgment of conviction and order on sentence as passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge do not suffer from any irregularity or illegalities and is passed with a reasoned order, therefore, the same is not liable to be interfered with.Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP for the State were heard.The Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page6 of 12 appellant/accused then took him to Sahid.Harun enquired from Sahid as to whether the money had been taken forcibly from his brother or not, to which he replied that PW-1 had not taken the money forcibly but it was given voluntarily by his brother.He slapped Sahid and also started giving beatings to PW-1 on which he started running.In the meantime, his elder brother Vishal Sachdeva came there.His brother wanted to intervene.In the meantime, his brother Rishi lifted the danda and gave its blow on the head of Harun.He tried to move, but after covering a distance of 10/12 steps, he had fallen and become unconscious.From the testimony of PW-1, it has been duly established that on the day of incident, a quarrel between him and appellant Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page8 of 12 had taken place.It has also been established that PW-3 Vishal Sachdeva @ Kamal came there and on seeing that his brother PW-1 Rishi was being beaten by the appellant, he tried to intervene.In the meanwhile, appellant picked up a danda and gave a blow on the head of PW-3 Vishal.Thereafter, he took out a knife and gave its blow on the right side of the chest of PW-3 Vishal Sachdeva.Thereafter, the appellant gave beatings to PW1 Rishi due to which he received injuries on his person.As per the testimony of PW1, he is an eye witness and injured in the incident.PW3 Vishal Sachdeva is another injured witness who has duly corroborated the testimony of his brother PW1 Rishi.PW3 has specifically deposed that on the day of incident when he had reached gali no.24, he noticed that an altercation was going on between his brother Rishi and appellant Harun.When he tried to intervene, firstly the appellant gave a danda blow on his head Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page9 of 12 and then gave the knife blow on the right side of his chest.The testimony of PW1 Rishi and PW3 Vishal Sachdeva has further been corroborated by medical evidence.MLC Ex.PW4/1 of injured Vishal Sachdeva @ Kamal shows that he received 2 cm incised wound on the latral aspect of chest wall, incised wound on the left hand and 4 cm CLW the scalp.As per the MLC, the injuries on the chest and left hand of injured Vishal Sachdeva @ Kamal were caused by a sharp edged weapon.As per MLC ExPW4/2 of the injured Rishi, he received LCW over left finger and incised wound over left thumb apart from abrasions.The medical evidence duly corroborates that injury caused on the person of injured Vishal was on his vital organ i.e. chest caused by a sharp edged weapon.Further, it has been corroborated that the injury caused on the person of injured Rishi was caused by a sharp edged weapon.The intention and knowledge of the appellant in attempting to commit the murder of Vishal Sachdeva @ Kamal is apparent from the facts that firstly he hit him on his head with Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page10 of 12 a danda, then he took out a knife and gave its blow on his chest.Being armed with a deadly weapon i.e. knife and causing injury with the same, clearly brings the case of prosecution against the appellant that he was having intention to commit the murder of the injured and was having knowledge that by causing injuries with knife would result into death of the injured.V. State 2005(1) JCC 239 do not come to the aid of the appellant inasmuch as it has clearly been established from the evidence that the injury on the person of Kamal were caused by the appellant with intention and knowledge to commit his murder.In view of the totality of evidence discussed above, there is no merit in the present appeal.Consequently, the judgment of Crl.Appeal No.774/2001 Page11 of 12 conviction and order on sentence are accordingly upheld.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,878,367
Shri K.S.Rajput, Advocate for the applicants.Shri Vijay Soni, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the first application filed by the applicants under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants are in custody since 4.8.2014 in connection with Crime No. 495/2014 registered at P.S. City Kotwali, District Khandwa for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 188, 147, 148, 149, 353, 333, 294, 323, 506, 427 and 171 of the IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act As per prosecution, it is alleged against the applicants that when curfew was imposed in the Khandwa city, complainant along with the Police force was on duty and was announcing that no one should come out of the house, at that juncture co-accused Farukh pelted a big stone on the complainant as a result of which he got injured.A mob of about 39 persons also pelted stones on the complainant party.The complainant has lodged report which has been registered vide Crime No. 495/2014 for the aforesaid offences.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.The names of the applicants do not find place in the FIR.There is no specific allegation against the applicants that they assaulted anyone.The applicants are in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, they be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.On due consideration of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that it is a fit case to release the applicants on bail, therefore, without expressing any view on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing a personal bond in a sum of `30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,879,579
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned AGA and perused the record.By means of the present appeal the appellant is assailing the validity and veracity of the judgment and order dated 30.05.2019 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Sant Kabir Nagar in Special Trial No. 49/2010 whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence u/s 324 IPC for 1 year imprisonment and for offence u/s 504 IPC for 6 months imprisonment and 6 months imprisonment for offence u/s 506 IPC and 2 years and 6 months imprisonment for offence u/s 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 3 months additional imprisonment.Submission made by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated in the present case.It is further submitted that the appellant is aged about 63 years at present.The total period of incarceration is four and half years along with the fine of Rs. 2000/-.The appellant is languishing in jail since 01.03.2010 having no criminal antecedents except the present case.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that there is sufficient evidence against the appellant so he should not be entitled to be enlarged on bail.After having heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, I find that the appellant is entitled to be enlarged on bail.Order Date :- 2.1.2020 Nisha
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
141,887,388
Certified copy as per rules.(C. V. Sirpurkar) Judge b Digitally signed by BIJU BABY Date:2018.08.07 05:11:55 -07'00'Heard on admission.Learned Special Public Prosecutor accepts notice on behalf of respondent - EOW; as such, no further notice is required.Let record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Heard on I.A. No.12992/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Sumersingh Uikey.A perusal of the impugned judgment dated 20.07.2018 passed in Special Criminal Case No.300047/2008 by the Court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Seoni reveals that appellant Sumersingh Uikey has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5693/2018 Sumersingh Uikey Vs.State of M.P.All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jail sentence of the appellant has already been suspended till 24.08.2018 by the trial Court; therefore, it has been prayed that the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended.Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, particularly the quantum of sentence 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR Criminal Appeal No.5693/2018 Sumersingh Uikey Vs.imposed upon the appellant, in the opinion of this Court, the substantive jail sentence of the appellant deserves to be suspended and he be released on bail.Consequently, I.A. No.12992/2018 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail under Section 389 (1) of Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of appellant Sumersingh Uikey, is allowed.It is directed that on depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, and furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19-12-2018 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, the remaining part of the substantive jail sentence imposed upon the appellant shall stands suspended and he shall be released on bail.
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,895,509
The petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to cause registration of an FIR against the 2nd respondent and his constables for criminal intimidation with Uruttukkattai (based upon the photographs), and to cause seizure of the whips and other weapons stored in the police station, besides directing their dismissal from police service and render justice.She would also contend that the 2nd respondent wanted to kill her in a fake-encounter and the High Court ordered Police protection which was provided to her for 2 years from 2005 at the cost of the exchequer.The petitioner would further contend that the second respondent has now been promoted as Inspector and posted in the same place, and he is back with his usual tricks and after his promotion, he has begun to indulge his old habits including (i)Thrashing the public on the roads, and creating a reign of terror in the township, (ii) He carries his handgun, and threatens tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 shoot the public while he does his evening-rounds, (iii)He carries his handgun, even when he is inside court halls and makes intimidatory gestures to the witnesses and creates terror in the minds of witnesses,(iv) He carries huge logs of casuarinas to beat the public, and does rounds with all his policemen, and terrorises the public.Such act of the second respondent, the Police officer in civil society amounts to criminal case of intimidation and he had to be arrested for the said criminal intimidation.He would also point out that the respondent has storing weapons inside the police station and he used to beat up the public, who come to the police station with whips, used for beating cattle.The 2nd respondenthttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 has also pride in his acts and acknowledged the same in interviews to the magazines and no action has been taken against the respondent by the Home Secretary, in spite of several complaints given.The petitioner's complaint of attempting to murder her by pointing a pistol at her forehead and attempting to pull the trigger in an inebriated state remains unattended by the entire hierarchy of officers from the SP to the Home Secretary.A perusal of the typed set would show a report dated 02.01.2008 in Dinakaran Newspaper wherein it stated that the police officers, along with wooden logs, were going around the City of Mettur, Salem Camp, Thottilpatti, Thangamapuripattinam to control the rowdy elements, on the eve of new year celebration, the rowdies may try to create some problem.Hence, the Inspector-2nd respondent and other Police Officers have started patrolling the area with wooden logs.It is also stated that they would also met the general public and requested them to inform the police immediately if any person who tries to disturb or harass them or tease them.The typed set of papers, further contains an article with the photographs of police officials with wooden logs, patrolling in cycle.It could be further seen from the said report that one of the police official alleged to have stated that the police took such action only to suppress the acts of the rowdy elements and the general public stated that the rowdy elements have threatened them in the evening and if anybody informs they will beaten them and after the inspector's patrol the said rowdies have been suppressed and nobody is rounding the area after the police people take this action.A counter has been filed by the second respondent.The second respondent has submitted that the petitioner has filed the writ petition with an intention to prevent the law enforcing authorities from acting in a swift manner to maintain law and order within the jurisdiction of Karumalaikoodal Police Station limit.Some one with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with the process of the court for improper motives, and try tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 bargain for a good deal as well as enrich themselves.7.The second respondent would submit that the petitioner is an advocate and second wife of one Anbuselvan, history sheeted rowdy.The petitioner's sister was given in marriage to the the said Anbuselvan, who is having 15 cases to his credit from the list of cases are as follows:-No Crime No. Police Station Penal Provisions1) 89 of 1992 Salem Town 341, 324 IPC2) 575 of 1993 Asthampatti 147, 148, 379, 506(ii)3) 675 of 1993 Asthampatti 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC4) 1588 of 1993 Kichipalayam 341, 427, 448, 506 (ii)5) 1596 of 1993 Kichipalayam 307 IPC6) 22 of 1994 Kichipalayam 307 IPC7) 713 of 2002 Kichipalayam 147, 148, 323, 324, 506 (ii) 307 IPC8) 482 of 1997 Karumalaikoodal 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC9) 81 of 1998 Kolathur 392, 307 IPC10) 1442 of 1998 Mecheri 147, 148, 364, 302 IPC11) 1112 of 1999 Karumalaikoodal 147, 148, 448, 506(ii)12) 1059 of 2001 Mecheri 307, 302 IPC13) 123 of 2002 Mettur 147, 148, 364, 307 IPC r/w 5 of Explosive Substance Act.14) 70 of 2005 Karumalaikoodal 294(b), 341, 220,307 IPC15) 100 of 2005 Karumalaikoodal 147, 148, 341, 120(b), 302 r/w 149, 109 IPCIt is also submitted by the second respondent that the petitioner was also involved in various cases and also in Crime No.317http://www.judis.nic.in 7 of 2003 on the file of Mecheri Police Station for the commission of offences under Section 147, 148, 307 IPC r/w Section 25 (1-B) (a) of Indian Arms Act. Later, she was dropped in the final report and her father Rajakali, working as Head Constable in the Pallapatti Police Station, was having 11 cases and that they were ended acquittal by the judgment dated 16.02.2007 made in C.C.No.13 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Mettur.9.The learned counsel for the second respondent would also submitted that the petitioner's husband is branded as history sheeted rowdy in HSP No.120 of 1999 and he is also facing a case in Crime No.100 of 2005 on the file of the Karumalaikoodal Police Station for the offence under Section 302 IPC, in which report has been filed and the case is right for committal.It is submitted that the general public living within the jurisdiction of Karumalaikoodal Police Station were under constant threat at the instance of the rowdy elements and the general public, who were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, were afraid of giving any complaints to the police apprehending danger to their life and family at the hands of the criminals and anti social elements etc. Being the Station House Officer the second respondent ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 expected to ensure public safety and that it necessitated to organize the entire police force available in the police station to conduct beat march in the streets and patrol the area.The second respondent would also contend that the police is entrusted with the duty to protect law and order and to maintain public safety and that they are entitled to carry lathi and pistol for safety.Mere reading of the article published in Kumutham reporter biweekly would show that the allegations made against the second respondent are baseless.The confidence which they have created in the mind of the general public enable them to inform about the possible hideouts of the criminals and their activities.No one from the general public has commented about the act of the police force and in fact, it has been well appreciated by superiors and District Administration.It is pertinent to n ote that the petitioner has never visited the police station during the second respondent's tenure as Inspector of Police, while so she has made baseless allegations in the affidavit as if, the public who approached the police station were beaten with whips.Because no one including the petitioner should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the image of Tamil Naduhttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 Police.11.The petitioner filed an additional affidavit after the counter has been filed by the 2nd respondent stating that she had originally filed the present writ petition, when the orders passed in W.P.No.28763 of 2005, directing the Home Secretary to grant her Police protection was violated by the Home Secretary, and since the Inspector of Police Suresh Kumar was unleashing a reign of terror by operating like a common criminal.Suresh Kumar, Inspector had already violated the orders of this Court directing him to grant police protection, to the petitioner and hence, a contempt petition was also pending against him.She would also submit that then learned Judicial Magistrate of Mettur has also preferred a criminal complaint on 20.08.2008 against the Inspector and his subordinates for the acts of terror and vandalism.All these activities of the 2nd respondent to be checked.Meanwhile, the learned counsel, who appeared for the respondent, viz; Mr.N.Manokaran has filed a memo on 30.09.2008 stating that the 2nd respondent has taken back the bundle on 29.09.2008 and she has engaged the other counsel in the writ petition, and hence, he has withdrawn his vakalath filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent, and now he is not appearing for the 2nd respondent.From the perusal of the materials available on record, viz; affidavit, additional affidavit and counter on record, and also from the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it could be seen that no such evidence was produced before this Court to prove the claim of the petitioner.In such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 1st respondent to cause registration of an FIR against the 2nd respondent and hishttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 constables for criminal intimidation with Uruttukkattai (based upon the photographs), and to cause seizure of the whips and other weapons stored in the police station, besides directing their dismissal from police, cannot be granted.Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.No costs.
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,899,937
12. CONSIDERATON :-Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.Rule made returnable forthwith.With the consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.By the present petition, filed by the petitioner, under Article 14, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, prayed that the impugned order dated 05.12.2011 passed by the respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bhusawal and order dated 19.04.2012 passed by the respondent No.2, Officer on Special Duty in Appeal No.234/2011 be quashed and set aside.The petitioner is the aggrieved person against whom action under section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1950 has been taken by the respondents, whereas respondent no.1 is the State of Maharashtra represented through its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and respondent no.2 is the Appellate authority which has passed the impugned order dated 19.4.2012 confirming the order passed by the lower authority and the respondent No.3 is the Sub Divisional Officer, who has passed the impugned order dated 5.12.2011 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 3 externing the present petitioner out of Jalgaon District for a Period of two years, whereas respondent no.4 is concerned Sub Divisional Police Officer who has submitted the proposal for externment.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::FACTUAL MATRIX :-It is the contention of the petitioner that he is the active member of of Rashtravadi Congress Party (N.C.P.) in Bhusawal Municipal Council.At the instance of political rivals certain offences were registered against him which were out come of political indifference.However, competent authority has dropped the said externment proceedings observing that there were no sufficient grounds to extern the petitioner under section 56 (B) of Bombay Police Act. However, according to the petitioner after lapse of about number of years and that too on the verge of the elections of Municipal Council, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the respondent no.4 on 9.9.2011 asking him to show cause why he should not be externed with a view to prevent him from contesting the Elections at the behest of the political opponents.Thereafter, respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 4.10.2011 to extern the present petitioner from Jalgaon District since he was to contest the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 4 elections.Pursuant to the said notice, respondent no.3 passed externment order on 5.12.2011 which is annexed herewith at Exh.E under section 57 (1) of Bombay Police Act and, thereby externed the petitioner from the Limits of Jalgaon District for the period of two years on the ground that he was convicted and sentenced in Crime No.89/2000 of Bhusaval City Police Station and petitioner has impugned said order in the present petition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::However, said appellate authority i.e. respondent no.2 rejected the said appeal by passing order dated 19.4.2012 and, confirmed the order dated 5.12.2011 passed by the respondent no.3 and, said order was communicated to the petitioner herein by communication dated 23.4.2012 and, petitioner has also impugned said order in the present petition.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid orders dated 5.12.2011 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 19.4.2012 passed by respondent no.2 the petitioner has approached this court by filing present petition and prayed for quashment thereof.7. SUBMISSIONS :-However, the action of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 5 externment was taken by the impugned order dated 05.12.2011 considering the conviction and sentence against the petitioner in Crime No.89/2000 of Bhusawal City Police Station which is arbitrary.In so far as said conviction and sentence under Crime No.89/2000 is concerned, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.449/2011 before this court challenging the same and said appeal was admitted and he was enlarged on bail suspending the substantive sentence imposed upon him during the pendency of said appeal.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::Besides, learned Senior Counsel submitted that there was only solitary conviction and sentence against the petitioner i.e. under crime no.89/2000 of Bhusawal City Police Station and said conviction and sentence were suspended as mentioned herein above and therefore, ingredients of section 56 and 57 of Bombay Police Act were not attracted and activities of petitioner cannot be construed as prejudicial to public peace and order and certainly cannot be construed as antisocial or dangerous and hence, action of externment taken against the petitioner is malafide.In the said context, he also canvassed that action of externment taken against the petitioner by respondent no.3 on the basis of solitary conviction under Crime No.89/2000 of Bhusawal City Police ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 6 Station is not real import of section 57 of the Bombay Police Act and hence, submitted that impugned order dated 5.12.2011 passed by respondent no.3 is without application of mind and same is erroneous and unsustainable.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::As regards the impugned order dated 19.4.2012, passed by respondent no.2 i.e. appellate authority, learned Senior Counsel submitted that said appellate authority has reiterated the order passed by respondent no.3 and passed said order Arbitrarily and there is no application of any mind while passing the said order and, thereby dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner mechanically.In so far as the suspension of sentence in crime no.89/2000 of Bhusaval City Police Station in Criminal Appeal No.449/2011 by this court is concerned, it is submitted that said sentence was suspended while granting bail to the applicant during pendency of appeal.As regards suspension of conviction is concerned, it is submitted that said conviction was suspended by this court by order dated 21.11.2011 to enable the petitioner to fill up the nomination forms to avail the opportunity to contest the elections of Municipal Council and not beyond that.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::It is further submitted by the respondents that the petitioner is engaged in commission of the offences involving force and violence under Chapter XII, XVI, and XVII of Indian Penal Code and petitioner's behavior is dangerous and causing harm to the persons and property of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 8 the concerned vicinity.Hence, considering all these aspects, it is submitted that respondent no.3 has rightly passed the order which is legal, reasoned and proper and same was rightly confirmed by the respondent no.2 in the appeal and hence, no interference is warranted in the present petition and, hence, respondent nos. 2 and 3 urged that present petition be dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::I have perused the present petition, its annexures, impugned orders dated 5.12.2011 passed by respondent no.3 and dated 19.4.2012 passed by respondent no.2 and also the order passed in Criminal Application No.5011/2011 in Criminal Appeal No.449/2011 in respect of suspension of conviction against the applicant and heard submissions advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the respondents anxiously and also perused the judicial pronouncement cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner carefully.At the outset, it would be useful to reproduce Section 57 (1) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 for the reference as follows :-Removal of persons convicted of certain offences :-(ii) of any offence under section 65, 66A or 68 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 ; or ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 9::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::Applying said parameters in the instant case, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 10 it is a matter of record that, conviction and sentence was inflicted upon the petitioner in Crime No 89/2000 of Bhusawal City police Station for the offence p/u/s 307 of Indian Penal Code i.e. offence against human body, which comes under the Chapter XVI of Indian Penal Code and hence, considering the conduct of the petitioner and also considering the apprehension that there was likelihood of the petitioner to engage in the offences of similar type to which he was convicted, the respondent no.3 issued show cause notice to the petitioner on 4.10.2011 asking him to show cause why he should not be externed from the limits of Jalgaon District and, accordingly, due opportunity was given to the petitioner and petitioner filed his clarification and, also audience was given to him through his Advocate and thereafter, having comprehensive view of the matter, the respondent no.3 passed an order on 5.12.2011 and thereby externed the petitioner from the limits of Jalgaon District for the period of two years and said order appears to have been passed by the respondent no.3, after following principles of natural justice and after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and, also after conducting due inquiry before passing said order.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::Thereafter, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said order passed by respondent no.3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent no.2 i.e. Appellate Authority.It appears from the contents of the order passed by the Appellate authority on 19.04.2012 i.e. respondent no.3 that even the appellate authority gave opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case before it and, considering the contentions of the petitioner and also the contentions of the other side, the Appellate authority has passed the order on 19.4.2012 and, thereby dismissed the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 11 appeal filed by the petitioner.Hence, it is apparently clear that the appellate authority also gave due opportunity to the petitioner and thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 19.04.2012, dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and therefore, no interference is warranted in the present petition.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::In the circumstances, having comprehensive view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the impugned order dated 5.12.2011 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 ::: 13 passed by respondent no.3 and order dated 19.4.2012 passed by respondent no.2 do not appear to be erroneous and unsustainable and hence, no interference therein is warranted in the present petition and therefor, present petition deserves to be rejected.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::In the result, present petition which is sans merits stands dismissed.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:15:00 :::
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,900,750
Case diary is available for perusal.This is first bail application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.71/2014, Police Station Noorabad, District Morena, offence registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506-B, 325, 326 read with section 34 of IPC Heard the arguments of both the parties.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the case was registered under sections 341, 294, 323 and 506-B of IPC.Thereafter, the applicant was arrested by the concerned police station and released on bail.After receipt of the medical report of Ramakhtyar an offence under section 326 of IPC was further added during investigation, owing to which, the police wants to arrest the applicant/accused again in the same offence.Learned counsel further submits that the co-accused-Murari was granted anticipatory bail by this court vide order dated 12.8.14 passed in M.Cr.The circumstances against the applicant/accused are same to the co-accused Murari which was granted anticipatory bail by this court.On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed Mukesh Vs.State of M.P. 2 M.Cr.C.No.7945/2014 for grant of anticipatory bail.Mukesh Vs.State of M.P. 2Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection.Considering the aforesaid facts and order dated 12.8.14 passed by this court in M.Cr.C. No.7014/14, this application is allowed.as per rules.(M.K. Mudgal) Judge van
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,902,510
The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 26.3.1997, the complainant Ramkumar @ Pottu (P.W.8) alongwith his son deceased Babulal and daughter Sushila went to Gariyara Mauhaar to collect some Mahua, near his house, situated at village Pasaud (Police Station - Jaisingh Nagar, District Shahdol).Appellant Samarjeet Singh stopped him from picking up Mahua fallen from the tree.The complainant Ram Kumar told him that the tree of Mahua was his property and therefore, he alone will collect the Mahua of that tree.The appellant Samarjeet Singh also threatened the complainant that he would bring a gun to teach him a lesson.The complainant alongwith his son and daughter continued to collect Mahua.At about 9 a.m., the complainant saw the appellant Samarjeet Singh coming towards him having a gun in his hand alongwith Kaptan Singh and Sheopal Singh.The appellant Kaptan Singh also had a gun, whereas the appellant Sheopal Singh had a tangi (small axe).The complainant alongwith his children ran towards his house.But the appellants also chased and entered the house of complainant.-:- 3 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 gun, causing injury in the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar and thereafter, the appellants had ran away.Sushila (P.W.9), daughter of complainant was also present at the spot at the time of incident, whereas Chhallu and Munna, brothers of complainant Ramkumar came to the spot after hearing the noise of commotion.Thereafter, complainant Ramkumar went to the Police Station alongwith Chhallu and Rampal and lodged an FIR, Ex.Complainant Ramkumar had been sent for his medico legal examination, whereas dead body of deceased Babulal was sent for post-mortem.Sampoorananand (P.W.1) had performed the post-mortem on the body of deceased Babulal @ Dadu, aged 11 years and gave his report, Ex.He found entry as well as exit wound on the head of deceased Babulal.His frontal, parietal and other various bones in the head were found broken.He died due to head injury caused by gun shot.His death was homicidal in nature.He had also examined the victim Ramkumar and gave his report, Ex.He found entry as well exit wound on left elbow of the complainant, caused by gun shot and he found consequential injuries on his left elbow.The police seized various articles from the spot, accused and the officials of hospital and sent them to the Forensic Science Laboratory after sealing them.In Forensic Science Laboratory report,-:- 4 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Ex.P/17, it was opined that there was a dent mark of gun shot on bamboo, whereas a piece of lead was found by the police was a piece of bullet fired from a smooth bore weapon.After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Beohari, who committed the case to the Sessions Court, Shahdol and ultimately, it was transferred to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Beohari.P/18, post-mortem report, Ex.The appellant Samarjeet Singh had a hot talk with complainant Ramkumar when he was picking Mahua under a tree, alongwith his children.There was no need for appellant Samarjeet Singh to cause any harm to 11 years old child Babulal, when he went to the house of complainant Ramkumar alongwith two accused persons armed with gun and Dhariya.Hence, his intention could be to kill the complainant Ramkumar.Kaptan Singh fired with the gun, causing injury on the head of deceased Babulal.Head of deceased Babulal was broken and he fell on ground and died.Appellant Samarjeet Singh had also fired with theThe appellants abjured their guilt.They did not take any specific plea in defence and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the accused Ajeet Singh but, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.In the present case, the witnesses Sushila (P.W.9), Bhuggi @ Juggi (P.W.11) and Ramkumar (P.W.8) were examined as eye witnesses.Initially they have stated about the entire incident.They have also stated that appellant Kaptan Singh fired his gun and caused a fatal injury to deceased Babulal, whereas due to gun shot fire made by appellant Samarjeet, Ramkumar sustained an injury on his left elbow.Other witnesses like Phool Bai (P.W.10), Munni-:- 5 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 (P.W.12), Munna (P.W.13) were examined as witnesses, who reached the spot, soon after the incident and they saw the appellants leaving the spot.The witnesses Ramkali (P.W.3), Ujariya (P.W.5), Ram Bai (P.W.6), Radhe (P.W.7) did not support the prosecution's story from very beginning.Witnesses Ram Kumar (P.W.8), Sushila (P.W.9), Phool Bai (P.W.10), Buggi @ Juggi (P.W.11), Munni (P.W.12) and Munna (P.W.13) have turned hostile during their cross- examination.They gave a different version that two unknown persons came on motorcycle and out of them, one had fired from the gun and injuries were caused to deceased Babulal as well as complainant Ram Kumar.The complainant Ramkumar had lodged an FIR, Ex.P/18 soon after the incident.Police station Jaisingh Nagar was 30 kms away from his house and he had lodged the FIR within two hours.Sampoorananand had proved the post-mortem report, Ex.P/1 of deceased Babulal and MLC report, Ex.P/3 of complainant Ramkumar and it is proved by Dr.Sampoorananand that deceased Babulal died due to gun shot head injury and complainant Ramkumar had sustained injury from gun shot.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that since the witnesses have turned hostile, therefore, their testimony could not be relied upon.Under such circumstances, if a prosecution witness turns hostile then, his entire testimony should not be thrown but, acceptable portion of his testimony may be used while appreciating the evidence if such part is corroborated by other evidence.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila is to be examined.Initially, complainant Ramkumar and eye witness Sushila have stated about the incident and thereafter, they had changed their evidence in the cross-examination.It is true that only one piece of lead was found at the spot but, looking to the injuries caused to deceased Babulal-:- 7 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 complainant Ramkumar, it would be apparent that they did not sustain injuries from one gun shot.It is not established by the circumstances that by firing a gun, pellets were discharged.If pellets would have been discharged from firing a gun then, deceased Babulal would have sustained injuries of different pellets and similarly, complainant Ramkumar would have also sustained the injury of some pellets and some pellets would have also found on the wall and floor.But no multiple pellets were found at the spot, nor it is alleged that pellets struck on wall or other places.Hence, injuries caused to deceased Babulal and complainant Ramkumar had been caused by two different gun shots and therefore, the testimony of the witnesses, after they turned hostile, appears to be hypothetical, which is not corroborated by the medical evidence.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was no enmity between the appellants and the complainant and therefore, there was no need to the appellant to go and fire at deceased and the complainant.It is true that there was no previous enmity between the parties but, according to the statements made by the witnesses, it would be apparent that when the complainant alongwith his children was picking up Mahua fallen from a tree then, appellant Samarjeet Singh stopped them and-:- 8 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 stated that he would bring a gun and teach a lesson and thereafter, he came with the gun.Therefore, though there was no previous enmity between the parties but, that enmity was created soon before the incident when the complainant and his children were picking Mahua fallen from the tree and therefore, the appellants cannot get any advantage that they did not have any enmity with the complainant.It is pertinent to note that witnesses Ramkumar (P.W.8), Sushila (P.W.9), Phool Bai (P.W.10), Buggi @ Juggi (P.W.11) were initially examined on 17.12.1999 before the trial Court.On that day, the learned defence counsel sought an adjournment due to his non preparation of the case and thereafter, these witnesses were re-examined between 11.1.2000 to 1.7.2000 when they turned hostile.Apparently either the witnesses were won over after recording of their examination-in-chief or they were threatened not to support the prosecution's case.State of Madhya Pradesh", [AIR 1991 SC 1853] may be referred, in which it is held that if a witness whose cross-examination is deferred and subsequently turns hostile then, his previous testimony cannot be brushed aside on the ground that he was declared hostile.A small portion of para 6 of that judgment may be read as under:--:- 9 -:-P/1 of deceased Babulal and MLC report, Ex.P/3 of complainant Ramkumar.Under such circumstances, the acceptable testimony of witnesses Ramkumar and Sushila Bai may be acted upon and it is-:- 10 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 proved beyond doubt that appellant Kaptan Singh fired from a gun causing death of deceased Babulal, whereas appellant Samarjeet Singh fired from a gun, causing injury on the left elbow of complainant Ramkumar.So far as the overt-act of appellant Kaptan Singh is concerned, he was not present at the scene of crime in the first part of the incident.He came with appellant Samarjeet Singh having a gun.The moment he entered inside the house, he fired his gun at Babulal, a small child of 11 years, who died on the spot.If appellant Kaptan Singh did not have any intention to kill deceased Babulal then, he would not have fired from his gun at the head.Hence, death of deceased Babulal was caused by appellant Kaptan Singh with an intention to commit his murder and the trial Court has rightly convicted him of the offence under Section 302 of IPC.So far as the act of appellant Samarjeet Singh is concerned when he reached the spot and his co-accused Kaptan Singh had fired with a gun, killing deceased Babulal, he fired from his gun and injury was caused to complainant Ramkumar.It was apparent that complainant Ramkumar sustained a simple injury on his left elbow but, looking to the nature of injury that there was an entry wound as well as exit wound, it would be apparent that bullet had passed-:- 11 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 through and through from a portion of his left elbow.The appellant Samarjeet Singh had given a threat to the complainant when he was picking up Mahua under a tree that he would come with a gun and teach him a lesson.Thereafter, he not only came with a gun but, also came with two persons, out of them, one had a gun, who fired from the gun, causing death of deceased Babulal.Thereafter, Samarjeet Singh had fired with the gun.It is true that gun shot did not hit the complainant Ramkumar on any vital part of the body but, that was due to act of God and his good luck.When the appellants learnt rushing of number of persons towards the spot, they fled and therefore, if complainant Ramkumar was left without fatal injury then also it makes no difference.If overall conduct of appellant Samarjeet Singh is considered then, it would be apparent that he had intended to kill the complainant Ramkumar and therefore, though no fatal injury was caused to complainant Ramkumar, appellant Samarjeet Singh had committed an offence under Section 307 of IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the appellant Samarjeet Singh of that offence.As argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, it would be apparent that appellant Sheopal Singh did not assault anyone with the weapon, which was-:- 12 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 kept by him in his hand and therefore, he did not commit either an offence under Section 307 of IPC or any inferior offence of same nature as of Section 307 of IPC.So far as his common intention is concerned, it is true that he came with the co-accused persons, who had fire arms and they also fired from the fire arms but, possibility cannot be ruled out that appellant Sheopal Singh might not have any information about the probable activities of other co-accused persons when he reached to the spot with them.In this context, the learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in case of "Girja Shankar Vs.-:- 13 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 of the appellant Sheopal Singh is considered, then it is true that he came to the spot alongwith two accused persons armed with guns but, after reaching the spot, there is no overt-act of appellant Sheopal Singh to show that he had intended to kill deceased Babulal or he intended to cause any injury to complainant Ramkumar.Hence, appellant Sheopal Singh could not be convicted for any of the offence committed by the co-accused persons with help of Section 34 of IPC.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellant Sheopal Singh of various offences.Similarly, common intention of appellant Samarjeet Singh and Kaptan Singh may also be considered with each other because appellant Samarjeet Singh had committed the crime under Section 307 of IPC, whereas appellant Kaptan Singh had committed an offence under Section 302 of IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted these two appellants of both the offences with help of Section 34 of IPC.The learned counsel for the appellant has placed his reliance upon various judgments-:- 14 -:-On reaching the house of-:- 15 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 appellant Ramkumar, he did not intend to kill child Babulal.Though he went with a fire arm alongwith two armed companions, but he never intended to kill child Babulal.Even he could not think of that the co-accused Kaptan Singh would fire from a gun and kill the child Babulal.Under such circumstances, by mere going to the house of complainant Ramkumar with a gun and taking two companions, it cannot be said that appellant Samarjeet Singh had intended to kill the deceased Babulal and therefore, there was no common intention of appellant Samarjeet Singh with appellant Kaptan Singh, who killed deceased child Babulal.The learned Additional Sessions Judge has wrongly convicted appellant Samarjeet Singh of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC with aid of Section 34 of IPC.On the other hand, it is apparent that appellant Kaptan Singh went with the co-accused Samarjeet Singh, who was also armed with a gun and as soon as he reached the spot, he fired from the gun.It means he had knowledge that they had to go to the house of complainant to kill complainant and in doing so, he killed the child Babulal.Under such circumstances, the overt-act of appellant Kaptan Singh clearly indicates that he had common intention with the co-accused Samarjeet Singh and therefore, the trial-:- 16 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Court had rightly convicted appellant Kaptan Singh of offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 of IPC.The trial Court has also convicted the appellants for offence under Section 450 of IPC.The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that according to the witnesses, the incident took place at an open place in the courtyard and therefore, no offence of house trespass was made out.The contention of learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted because if the spot map, Ex.P/13 is considered minutely then, there was a badi prepared by the complainant near his house.There was a chogan (courtyard) which was not covered by roof but fenced.The incident took place in a second courtyard, which has no roof but, it was covered from 4 sides with walls and rooms of the complainant.-:- 17 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 the house where the complainant lived and tethered his cattle is a building, answering Section 442 of IPC.Hence, the place of incident was a house as defined under Section 442 of IPC.The appellant Samarjeet Singh and Kaptan Singh entered inside the house to commit a crime punishable with life imprisonment and therefore, they were guilty of offence under Section 450 of IPC.The learned Additional Sessions judge has rightly convicted these two appellants for the offence under Section 450 of IPC.So far as the sentence is concerned, the appellant Sheopal Singh shall be acquitted of all the offences for which he was convicted and therefore, there is no need to discuss about his sentence.The appellant Kaptan Singh has been convicted of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.He has already undergone the sentence to the remaining offences.The trial Court did not impose death sentence for offence under Section 302 of IPC and therefore, already a lesser sentence has been imposed by the trial Court and hence, there is no need to interfere in the sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant Kaptan Singh.The appellant Samarjeet Singh is found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 307/34 and 450 of IPC.He has already undergone the sentence directed by the trial Court of such offence.-:- 18 -:-Criminal Appeal No.118 of 2001 Hence, there is no need to make any interference in the sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant Samarjeet Singh.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant Sheopal Singh is hereby allowed.Conviction and sentence of offence punishable under Sections 302/34 and 450/34 of IPC are hereby set aside.He is acquitted from the charges of all the offences.The appeal filed by the appellant Kaptan Singh is dismissed in toto.The appeal filed by the appellant Samarjeet Singh is hereby partly allowed.His conviction as well as sentence of offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC is hereby set aside.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,907,695
The necessary facts for the disposal of present appeal in short are that on 8/3/2008 the complainant-Sultan Shah lodged a report that at about 8 PM all the appellants came to his house with common intention and they started abusing him and he was attacked by Lathi and stones causing several injuries on his body.When his brother-Insar came to save him, then he too was assaulted by appellants by pelting stones and Lathis.(11/01/2018) Per Justice G.S. Ahluwalia, This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 31/8/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in S.T. No.259/2008, by which the appellants have been convicted under Section 326/149 of IPC and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- with 2 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.State of M.P.] default imprisonment.His wife Rati, son Shahid and daughter Sameena tried to intervene in the matter, they too were assaulted by the appellants either by pelting stones or by Lathi, as a result of which, all the injured persons had suffered several injuries.The police registered the FIR for offence under Sections 147, 294, 336, 323 and 326 of IPC.The trial court by order dated 17/12/2008 framed charges under Sections 147 and 326/149 of IPC for causing injuries to the injured persons.During pendency of the trial, it appears that an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was filed for compounding the offence.The trial court after considering the evidence, which has come on record, came to the conclusion that the grievous injury was caused to complainant-Sultan, therefore, the appellants are guilty of committing offence under Section 326/149 of IPC, whereas simple injuries were caused to injured Insar, Rati, Shahid and Sameena and, therefore, the appellants are also guilty of committing offence under Section 323 read with Section 149 of 3 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.State of M.P.] IPC.Since the parties had already compromised the matter, therefore, the appellants were acquitted for causing simple injury to injured Insar, Rati, Shahid and Sameena and they were acquitted from offence under Section 323/149 of IPC.Since the grievous injuries were caused to the complainant-Sultan and the offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC is not compoundable, therefore, the appellants were convicted for offence under Section 326 read with Section 149 of IPC and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.500/- with default imprisonment.Being aggrieved by the judgment and sentence passed by the trial court, the present appeal was filed.During pendency of this appeal, an application (IA No.10986/2013) was filed under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. by the appellants and the injured persons for compromise.The said application was taken up for consideration by this Court on 4/4/2014 after the factum of compromise was got verified from the Principal Registrar and by order dated 4/4/2014 the compromise application was rejected because the offence under Section 326/149 of IPC is not compoundable and the following order was passed:-Yet it can be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal."4 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.State of M.P.] Thus, this Court by order dated 4/4/2014 observed that the effect of compromise can be considered by the Court at the time of final hearing.During pendency of this appeal, it appears that the appellant no.6-Kamlu alias Kamal Shah expired and after getting the factum of his death verified, this Court by order dated 23/8/2017 observed that since Kamlu alias Kamal Shah (appellant no.6) has expired, therefore, this appeal stands abated so far as the appellant no.6 is concerned.It is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the parties have compromise their dispute.Even during pendency of the trial, an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was filed and after considering the said compromise / compounding of offence the trial court acquitted the appellants from offence under Section 323/149 of IPC for causing simple injuries to injured Insar, Rati, Shahid and Sameena.Even during the pendency of this appeal, an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was filed.State of M.P.] of compromise can always be considered while considering the question of sentence.Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel for the State.7.1 So far as the conviction of appellants is concerned, the same has not been challenged with vehemence by the counsel for the appellants.Sultan (PW-1) has specifically stated that he was beaten by the appellants.The MLC report Ex.P/15 corroborates the evidence of Sultan (PW-1).The injuries were found to be grievous in nature.Since the findings of the trial court with regard to commission of offence have not been challenged, therefore, the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 326/149 of IPC is hereby affirmed.7.2 So far as the question of sentence is concerned, undisputedly the appellants and the complainant had filed an application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. before the trial court, which was partially allowed and the appellants were acquitted from offence under Section 323/149 of IPC.A similar application was filed before this Court, which was registered as IA No.10986/2013, but since the same is not maintainable at the appellate stage, therefore, the same has been rejected.However, it has also been observed in the order dated 4/4/2014 that the effect of this application shall be considered at the time of final hearing.Since the parties have resolved their dispute and they are 6 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.7.3 From the record, it appears that the appellants were in jail from 1/5/2008 to 7/5/2008, i.e. six days.In the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is of the view that the period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellants would serve the interest of justice by enhancing the fine amount.7.4 Since Sultan had sustained grievous injuries, therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, where the application under Section 320 of Cr.P.C. was filed before the trial court as well as before this Court, the sentence awarded by the trial court is modified and it is directed that the period of jail sentence already undergone by the appellants would be sufficient.7.5 Accordingly, the sentence of two years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellants by the trial court for offence under Section 326/149 of IPC is reduced to the period already undergone by them and the fine amount is enhanced to Rs.2,500/-.The fine amount shall be payable within a period of three months from today.It is made clear that in case if the fine amount is not deposited within a period of three months from today, then the sentence awarded by the trial court shall automatically get revived and the trial court shall be free to issue warrants against the 7 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.State of M.P.] appellants for undergoing the remaining jail sentence.Accordingly, the judgment and sentence dated 31/8/2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karera, District Shivpuri in S.T. No.259/2008 is hereby affirmed with aforesaid modification.With aforesaid modifications the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge 11/01/2018 Arun* Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR MISHRA Date: 2018.01.16 12:10:22 +05'30' 8 Criminal Appeal No.620/2009 [Shokeen and others Vs.State of M.P.] HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, JABALPUR, BENCH AT GWALIOR Gwalior : Dated 11/1/2018 Case was called thrice, but none appeared for the appellants.Shri Vijay Sundaram, Advocate, who is in the panel of High Court Legal Services Authority, Gwalior was present in the Court.He was requested to go through the record and make submissions.The request made by the Court was graciously accepted by Shri Vijay Sundaram, Advocate.Shri Vijay Sundaram has a vast experience of appearing on criminal side.He went through the record for about 2 hours and thereafter made detailed submissions.Shri R.K. Awasthi, Public Prosecutor for respondent/State.Arguments heard.Judgment dictated, signed and dated on separate sheets.(G.S. Ahluwalia) Judge Arun
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
141,907,714
The present petition has been filed for quashment of the final report filed 1/8http://www.judis.nic.in __________ Crl.O.P. No.7690/2015 in S.C. No.204/2014 insofar as the petitioner is concerned.It is the case of the petitioner that the son of the defacto complainant, who was working as a driver under him, had developed liking with his minor daughter and with a view to marry her, had kidnapped his daughter and had married her at Thittagudi and had left her at the house of his uncle.The petitioner's efforts culminated in securing his daughter and, thereafter, the petitioner lodged a complaint with the respondent police based on which the accused was taken into custody.
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
142,025,657
Heard Sri Amit Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri A. N. Mulla, Sri Saghir Ahmad, Sri J. K. Upadhyay and Kumari Meena, learned AGAs for the State and perused the record of this appeal.A report was lodged against several persons including the appellant by informant- Sheetal Kumar s/o Laxman Singh at Police Station- Nadigaon, District- Jalaun alleging that some dispute exists with Parshuram and others for installing door.In the morning of 25.10.2001, informant- Sheetal Kumar- along with his father had gone to work in their field and his mother- Girja Devi was at home.Accused persons- Parshuram s/o Chuttan, Pappu @ Govind Narain s/o Parshuram, Shivram @ Sukhai s/o Har Narain, Ram Sharan s/o Har Narain, Sudama s/o Har Narain and Smt. Munni Devi w/o Shivram @ Sukhai entered in the house of informant- Sheetal Kumar and caught informant's mother- Smt. Girja Devi, who was brooming floor of the courtyard of the house, and with intention to kill, Shivram @ Sukhai poured kerosene oil on his mother and put her afire.Informant's mother raised alarm when Shyam Sundar s/o Amrit Singh, Vimal s/o Raghav Ram and Ramkesh s/o Chatur Singh, who were sitting in front of the house, came to her rescue after breaking open the door, which was locked from inside, when they found informant's mother lying on the ground in burnt condition.They also saw the assailants fleeing away through the roof of the house.Contents of report were noted in the check F.I.R. No. 53/2001 at 8:45 a.m. on 25.10.2001 at Case Crime No.100/2001, under Sections 147, 452, 307 IPC, Police Station- Nadigaon, District- Jalaun.On the basis of entry made in the check FIR, relevant entry was made in the concerned GD and a case was registered against the accused persons including the present appellant at aforesaid case crime number on 25.10.2001 at Case Crime No. 100/2001 under aforesaid sections of Indian Penal Code at Police Station- Nadigaon.Stain is peeled off at places.Hairs in axilla, eyebrow, eye lash and above the forehead are singed.Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I, J.) By way of instant criminal appeal, appellant- Shivram @ Sukhai s/o Har Narain, r/o- Katkari P.S.- Nadigaon, District- Jalaun at Orai has challenged judgment and order of conviction dated 30.3.2005 passed by III- Additional Sessions Judge, Jalaun at Orai in Sessions Trial No. 105 of 2003, State Vs.Parshuram and Others, under Sections- 147, 452, 302 IPC, Police Station- Nadigaon, District- Jalaun arising out of Case Crime No. 100/2001, whereby appellant- Shivram @ Sukhai- has been sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 452 IPC and imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC.Both the sentences to run concurrently.At this stage, the investigation was taken over by another Investigating Officer.He has also proved several other aspects regarding the proceeding undertaken by him.We also gather from record that Smt. Girja Devi(the then injured) was taken to C.H.C.- Konch where her medical examination was conducted around 9:15 A.M. by Dr. Rajesh Tripathi PW-7, who after examination of her person noted condition of the patient:-"General condition was low, pulse 90 per minute, conscious, B.P.- 100/70, R/R- 16 per minute.Singeing of hair present."In the estimation of the doctor, the percentage of burn was 90%.He has testified that he took statement of Girja Devi on 25.10.2001 at 11:15 a.m. and after recording the statement, thumb impression of Girja Devi was also obtained on it.The condition of the patient was certified fit by the doctor at the commencement of recording of dying declaration and also at the closure of the dying declaration.The information was sent to the concerned police outpost at 4:40 p.m. Thereafter, S.I. N.K. Tiwari PW-6 proceeded to the mortuary of Medical College Jhansi at 10:30 a.m. on 28.10.2001 and after appointing inquest witnesses, who were family members and co-villagers, held inquest and completed the same around 11:45 a.m.(28.10.2001) In the opinion of inquest witnesses and N.K. Tiwari PW-6, it was suggested that postmortem examination of dead body be conducted for ascertaining real cause of death, therefore, relevant papers like letter to R.I., letter to C.M.O., challan dead body, photo nash were also prepared, which are paper no. Exhibit Ka-7, Ka-8, Ka-9 and Ka-10, respectively and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination.Postmortem examination on the cadaver of deceased- Girja Devi- was conducted by Dr. D.K. Garg P.W.3 at the mortuary of Medical College, Jhansi on 28.10.2001 at 1:30 p.m., wherein, the doctor noted following ante-mortem injuries on the body:-Superficial to deep burn present all over the body except waist line, palms and soles.Red line of demarcation is present.Cut open is present in both ankles.Record further reveals that during course of proceeding, several Investigating Officers were changed and directed to investigate into the case.He took over the investigation at the command of Superintendent of Police and recorded afresh statement of witnesses.In the process, statement of witnesses- Vimal, Ram Kesh, Shyam Sundar, Bhagwan Singh, Mathura Prasad, Shiroman etc. were recorded.The Investigating Officer also took several steps for ensuring arrest of the accused persons and, thereafter, on 4.5.2002, the investigation of the case was transferred by order of Superintendent of Police to S.I.S Branch.As per his statement, this case was investigated into previously by several Investigating Officers and he has specified the period.Thereafter, S.I. Sri R.N. Singh also investigated into the case from 15.7.2002 to 19.7.2002 and thereafter, R.N. Gautam PW-10 investigated into the case from 21.7.2002 onwards til its completion.He after collecting the entire testimony found sufficient evidence against the accused persons, therefore, submitted charge-sheet Exhibit Ka-17 in the aforesaid case crime number.Thereafter, committal proceeding took place and the case was transferred to the concerned trial court of Additional Sessions Judge, who after hearing both the sides on point of charge, was prima facie satisfied with the case against the accused persons under Sections 452, 302 and 147 IPC.The charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charges and opted for trial.He has also testified on various aspects of the case.Vimal Kumar PW-2 claims himself to be an eye-witness of the occurrence.Constable Suresh Kumar P.W.5 has noted relevant entry in the concerned check FIR and GD and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-4 and Ka-5, respectively.Dr. Rajesh Tripathi P.W.7 has conducted medical examination of the deceased and has proved the same as Exhibit Ka-13 and he has also proved Exhibit Ka-11 and Ka-12, as the endorsement made on dying declaration to the effect that Girja Devi was fit for giving the statement and pursuant to his certification, dying declaration was recorded by Naib Tehsildar.Rafeek Khan PW-8 is the Investigating Officer.He took over the investigation at subsequent stage and has ensured recording of statement of various persons under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and has proved the process.Thereafter, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he termed his implication false on ground of enmity and stated that one day prior to the incident, some compromise was facilitated by the intervention of police between the informant side and himself due to which, the deceased felt humiliated and she herself set afire (on her) and the informant side tried to extract money by falsely registering a case against the appellant.In its turn, the defence led testimony of three witnesses:-Keshav Das DW-2 is witness of fact that Girja Devi had sustained burn injuries around 8:00 a.m. At that time, Laxman Singh and son of deceased were away from home and he did not enter the house when the incident took place.He is also witness of fact that when he went inside the house, he saw Laxman Singh banging his head against the door.He has denied involvement of accused in the incident.Raj Kumar DW-3 is also witness of fact that some dispute took place between Laxman Singh, and Shivram on point of construction of wall and installation of door.Shivram had opened door and Laxman Singh had a constructed wall.Police came to the spot and then some compromise was arrived at in the police station.Wall was demolished and door was closed.Thereafter, the trial court after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, passed aforesaid verdict, and acquitted all the accused, except the present appellant- Shivram @ Sukhai and convicted him under Sections 452 and 302 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment, respectively, under aforesaid sections.Consequently, this appeal.It has been vehemently claimed on behalf of the appellant that he has been falsely roped in, in this case on account of animosity and as a measure of blackmailing him by the informant side.No such incident ever took place, as alleged by the prosecution.There was no occasion for him to commit such offence.The fact is that prior to the incident, some dispute arose between both the sides regarding installation and construction of door and wall by both the sides and a report was made to the police, and after its intervention, some compromise was arrived at between the parties.This compromise included terms that the wall raised by Laxman Singh, husband of deceased, shall be destroyed and was eventually destroyed, which was taken seriously by the deceased, who, out of humiliation and as a gesture of opposition to the terms of compromise, set herself on fire.After the fire was detected, it was an opportune moment to falsely name the appellant, as culprit and things were managed by giving false testimony.During the course of investigation, one of the Investigating Officers took stock of the evidence and filed final report, which was rejected and a number of Investigating Officers were changed by the Superintendent of Police for deliberately collecting sketchy evidence.In the process, a "managed dying declaration" was got recorded through the agency of Naib Tehsildar.The dying declaration, on its plain reading, does not appear to be natural and voluntary statement of an illiterate lady, but her statement is so systematically ordained that it contains meticulous particulars of date, time and name of persons, who indulged in the act.Even in this dying declaration, it has emerged out that the deceased had no dispute with the assailants and she cannot say why the culprit set her on fire.Learned counsel further added that statement of various witnesses of fact is inter-se contradictory in substance.Their testimony, on the whole, does not inspire confidence.Instead, it creates lot of doubts about their being present on the spot and happening of any such occurrence, as claimed.The version of FIR is not supported by the informant and the witnesses in their ocular version.The fact is that the informant side wanted to extract money and tried to encash the act of suicide by deceased- Girja Devi.The prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.The trial court while appreciating facts and evidence on record- qua circumstances of the case- miserably failed to take wholesome view of the incident and adopted parochial approach and erroneously convicted the appellant and awarded the sentence.Learned AGA has retorted to aforesaid contention and submitted that it is a case where independent testimony of culpability is amply proved by dying declaration of the victim herself and it is on the face truthful, consistent and voluntary.Dying declaration becomes an independent piece of evidence apart from any other testimony.A number of witnesses arrived on the spot and they saw the accused committing the crime.Fortunately, the victim survived for sometime and she herself narrated the incident in her dying declaration recorded shortly after the incident.Witnesses of fact have proved the incident.Investigation of the case has been properly conducted and involvement of the accused is exorbitantly proved.We know in such cases some contradictions are bound to occur in the testimony of witnesses, but these contradictions alone are not the sole ground for throwing away case of the prosecution, because the incident and involvement of the accused in committing the crime has been reasonably proved.It is prerogative of Superintendent of Police of a District that he may order for change of investigation, if he comes to conclusion that better result can be obtained.Mere change of Investigating Officers will ipso facto not make a case that things have been tried to be managed in a particular way to the detriment of the accused.The testimony, on the whole, inspires confidence and the trial court has taken correct view of the testimony and facts of the case and has justifiably recorded conviction against the accused.We have considered the rival submissions and also considered the rival claim made by both the parties.In view of above, the point for determination of this appeal relates to fact whether the prosecution has been successful in proving charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?The genesis of the prosecution case is reflected from perusal of the first information report which, iner-alia, contains facts in form of allegation that the appellant- Shivram @ Sukhai along with certain other co-accused persons entered in the house of first informant on 25.10.2001 when Smt. Girja Devi was brooming the floor of her courtyard.It was around 8:00 a.m. The accused picked up plastic containers kept in the courtyard filled with kerosene oil, poured it on victim Girja Devi, and set her on fire by use of matchstick.Informant's mother raised alarm when Shyam Sundar, Vimal and Ram Kesh rushed inside the house after breaking open the door where they saw informant's mother- Girja Devi- in burnt condition and fallen on the ground and they also saw the assailants fleeing away from the scene through the staircase of the house and onto the roof.Informant's father and family members took her to the hospital at Konch.A report was lodged at the Police Station- Nadigaon at 8:45 a.m. The distance between the place of occurrence- from Village Katkari up to the Police Station- Konch was 6 kms.We come across testimony of Dr. Rajesh Tripathi PW-7 to the effect that he medically examined the victim Girja Devi at C.H.C.- Konch at 9:20 a.m. on 25.10.2001, wherein, he found condition of patient conscious, B.P.- 100/70, pulse 90 per minute.Singeing of hair present.In his opinion, degree of burn was 90% caused by flame.It is case of defence that some dispute took place between the parties qua written report was moved before the Police Station- Nadigaon on 23.10.2001, which related to fact that the accused side have destroyed wall of house of Laxman Singh and are trying to forcibly open door at that place.It has further been claimed by the appellant that some compromise was also entered into between the parties at the police station (Nadigaon) and copy whereof was obtained by the Investigating Officer- Rajendra Bahadur Singh DW-1 and he has testified to that effect in his examination-in-chief before the trial court and lastly, Girja Devi felt humiliated due to aforesaid compromise, thus, she herself committed suicide.We have to scrutinise testimony of witnesses of fact qua claim of the appellant.At this stage, we may analyse various vital aspects of this case and one of the most vital aspects of this case is the dying declaration; because it is trite law that dying declaration forms independent piece of testimony and to be tested on its own merit and dying declaration, if found to be truthful, consistent and voluntary, then the same can be the basis of conviction apart from other testimony.Therefore, we will take note of dying declaration from that view point.But before we discuss the same, it would be appropriate and relevant to take note of oral testimony of witnesses of fact and other attendant circumstances.It is quite startling that the prosecution did not come out with true facts about conduction of the entire investigation.We will be failing in our duty, if, we don't take account of such a situation- like the present one.If an investigation was conducted previously by any Investigating Officer and he collected certain material during course of investigation and submitted final report, then that part of the investigation must have been made conspicuous by the prosecution itself because omission to put entire record before court throws doubt on the intention of the prosecution and this adversely affects ultimate interest of justice.It is bounden duty of the prosecution to bring truth before the court.Thus, it is obvious that prior to the incident, a compromise had been arrived at between the parties and the overall outcome of the compromise was in terms aforesaid.He has also been confronted on various aspects by the defence about availability of kerosene oil in his home and he has stated on page no.24 of the paper book that the plastic containers filled with kerosene oil were not possessed by him.This witness was again confronted by suggesting that he had written in his report that plastic container, with kerosene oil was picked up by Shivram, whereupon, he has denied the fact.However, he could not assign any reason as to how this has been written in his report.Here also, we come across language of the F.I.R., which describes in clear-cut terms, that certain persons broke open the door, which was bolted from inside and then entered into the house.P.W.-1 has also stated in his cross-examination that he wrote the report at the instance of her mother and of his own.He has also stated on page no.32 of the paper book that at the time of occurrence, his wife was away from home.He has stated in his examination-in-chief that at the relevant point of time he was sitting on the chabutra of Laxman Singh along with Ramkesh and Shyam Sunder when some shriek of deceased was heard from her house, whereupon, all the three persons rushed inside the house where they saw Govind Narain @ Pappu, Shivram @ Sukhai, Sudama, Ram Sharan and Munni Devi present in the midst of courtyard of the house and deceased- Girja Devi was inflames in the courtyard.This witness has been put to specific question, as to what was being possessed by the accused at that point of time.Reply has come to the extent that Shivram @ Sukhai was possessing plastic container, Pappu possessing danda and Munni Devi possessing matchbox.Parshuram, Ram Sharan and Sudama were empty handed.On being challenged by the witnesses, the accused persons fled away from the scene, then they put off flames on the person of deceased- Girja Devi- and after sometime Bhagwan Singh, Laxamn, Mathura and Shiromani also arrived.Victim- Girja Devi was taken to the Hospital.He has been cross-examined by the defence, whereupon, he has stated that they arrived at the place of occurrence and they were standing near to the accused persons, then the accused persons fled away.However, he has also stated on page-36 of the paper book that grand-mother of Sheetal Kumar (P.W.1) was also present inside the house.It has also emerged in his testimony that after the assailants had left the scene, they (accused) went to their adjoining home.Here springs question that no one from among witnesses tried to pursue them (accused) nor any gesture was made in that regard.On the same page, he has stated that his aunty (victim) remained in stationary position/condition at the same place while she was in flame.This sort of testimony sans normal course of conduct generates doubt, if taken on its face value.How can it be expected that a lady, who has been set ablazed remained stationary in burning condition at the same place in standing posture and the burnt percentage has been assessed to be of magnitude 90%.This factual aspect is hard to believe as stated by the witness, because in normal course of human behaviour that conduct is highly improbable on the part of the victim- Girja Devi.She will always try to save herself and will move from her original position.This particular testimony gives rise to a situation that the witness (P.W.2) was neither present on the spot nor did he see the actual incident of burning.He has testified that on 25.10.2001, he was posted as Naib Tehsildar of Konch Tehsil and he went to record statement of Girja Devi w/o Laxman Singh.However, on page no. 46 of the paper book in his cross-examination, he has stated that no one recorded his statement about the proceeding he undertook.Further, he testifies that he was satisfied with the condition of the victim after he asked her about name of her husband.However, reference of asking any question with the victim was not recorded by him on the dying declaration.He has also stated on page no. 46 of the paper book that the victim was fluently answering to question put to her.Her whole body was burnt, except the two palms.He has stated that she (Girja Devi) was in fit condition to give statement at that point of time.However, he has been cross-examined, wherein, he has testified that he did not talk about general condition of the victim.He has been cross-examined on page-54 of the paper book, wherein, he has specifically stated that looking to the serious condition of the patient, he referred the patient for Medical College, Jhansi at 10.40 a.m. and at that point of time, dying declaration or any statement of the victim had not been recorded.It signifies that the condition of the victim had already deteriorated around 10.40 a.m. on 25.10.2001 and doctor Rajesh Tripathi P.W.7 was himself the person, who after examining the victim had referred her for Medical College, Jhansi from C.H.C. Konch, then obviously, the point is that after the condition of the victim had deteriorated to such an extent that she was referred for better treatment at the Medical College, Jhansi then after 10.40 a.m. where was she staying till 11.30 a.m. and for what and under what circumstance the dying declaration was managed/recorded and at whose instance it was managed, has not been clarified properly and the circumstances allude to inference that during this span of time gap from 10.40 a.m. upto 11.30 a.m. why the victim was not sent for treatment, as per reference, once her (Girja Devi) condition was serious, is shrouded in mystery.A patient, who is carrying 90% burn injury and her condition has become serious, and has been referred to medical college can hardly be expected to be under such a condition to speak fluently and give statement.Doctor Rajesh Triapthi has himself stated that he had not examined general condition of the victim and the certification given by the doctor declaring the victim fit for recording statement also does not specify exact physical condition and we cannot ignore this particular aspect, in the face of unassailable testimony, that the whole body was burnt- except the palms.Even Prabuddh Singh- Naib Tehsildar- P.W.4 is so clever that he himself is silent in his testimony in examination-in-chief itself, as to how he came to record dying declaration and at whose instance.It appears that the Naib Tehsildar has cleverly evaded explanation in his examination-in-chief for which none but the prosecution alone is to be blamed.It was upto the prosecution to have come out with real and existing facts and circumstances under which Prabuddh Singh- Naib Tehsildar- P.W.4 arrived on the spot and recorded statement (of the victim).
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
142,027,336
Thus, this cannot be a change in the circumstances to consider this repeat bail application.The second ground is of alibi plea.He submitted that at the time of occurrence the applicant was at Neemuch.This question has been considered by this Court while deciding first bail application by order dated 11.12.2014, which reads as under:-"Heard.Case diary perused.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.8575/2014 has been filed by applicant Babu Billod s/o Fakir.This is his first application.Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7711/2014 is second repeat application for grant of bail filed by ap- plicant Raju s/o Babu Khan.As per the prosecution story, on 13.03.2014, complainant - Imran Khan, who is one of the eye wit- ness, has lodged a report that when he was travelling in his car bearing registration number RJ-01 CB-5277 along with his two brothers, namely Haji Mohammed & Mujib Khan, driver Ramesh and Sakka @ Sakka- mal @ Jafar Hussain and were going to Doda-Chura Godown, which is situated at Village Billod.On the way, accused Kamal along with other co-accused per- sons came in his Scorpio Car and dashed the car of the complainant.Thereafter, persons, who were sitting in the car, started firing; due to which, Mujib Khan and Haji Mohammed sustained gunshot injuries; as a re- sult of which, they succumbed to their injuries.Sakkamal and Ramesh were also injured.The impact of the dash was so much that the car of the com- plainant was overturned.Accused Babu, Shahid, Ab- dul and Kamal came out from the Scorpio vehicle.Accused Abdul, who was armed with firearm, inflict- ed gunshot injuries to Haji Mohammed.As a result of which, he succumbed to his injuries.Kamal also tried to cause firearm injury to Ramesh, Complainant.Scorpio Car came from the backside and dashed the car of the complainant.The background of the case is that family of the complainant submitted tender in the relevant year for Doda-Chura in Districts Mandsaur and Neemuch and accused Babu Billod and his proxy also submitted their tender, but somehow they could not succeed in the tender of Doda-Chura; resulting in Babu Billod having enmity with the complainant party.On the date of offence, applicant Babu Billod, his sons Shahid & Abdul and other accused persons chased intentionally the vehicle of complainant and dashed on the vehicle and openly fired guns; resulting in death of two persons on the spot and two other per- sons sustained grievous injuries.Both the applicants Raju and Babu Billod are not only the mastermind ac- cused, but having common intention of causing dou- ble murder and attempt to murder.It also submitted that as per the case diary statement of the prosecution witnesses, his presence on the spot is doubtful.He, therefore, sub- mitted that the application for grant of bail be allowed and applicant Babu Billod be released on bail.On the other hand, Shri Devendra Singh, learned Panel Lawyer opposed the prayer for grant of bail to applicant Babu Billod.He submitted that as per the case diary and 164 statements of Ramesh, Imran and Yakub Khan, the present applicant Babu Billod is the mastermind in committing double murder; he is the main accused and named First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged against him and prayed for rejection of this application.Shri P.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of applicant Raju s/o Babu Khan has submitted that no named FIR has been lodged against the present applicant.As per the FIR, only nine persons have been implicated in the alleged offence, though name of applicant Raju s/o Babu Khan has been discussed in the details of the FIR and later on, after a period of ten days, the present applicant is implicated in the alleged offence.It is also submitted that at the time of consideration of the first bail application, Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Report was not available, and therefore, this repeat application has been filed after receipt of FSL Report.Learned counsel for the applicant Raju s/o Babu Khan has further submitted that the present applicant is having parity with co- accused Rais Khan s/o Babu Khan, whose application (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4669/2014) for grant of bail has been allowed by order dated 08.09.2014 and prayed that this repeat application filed on behalf of applicant Raju s/o Babu Khan be allowed and he be released on bail.By order dated 19.08.2014, his first application (Raju son of Babu Khan) has been rejected; relevant part of the order reads as under: -"As per prosecution story in 2014 com- plainant party were awarded contract of 'Doda Chura' of Mandsaur - Neemuch Dis- trict.Earlier the contract was awarded to the accused persons, due to the aforesaid rea- sons enmity between them arisen.On 13.03.2014 at about 04.30 complainant Im- ran Khan, his brother Haji Mohammed, Mu- jib Khan and Sikka were going to 'Doda Chura' godown, which is situated at village Bilodh in car bearing Registration No.The aforesaid car was driven by Ramesh.On the way of village Bilodh, ac- cused Kamal came in Scorpio Car and dashed the car of the complainant.There- after, the persons, who were sitting in the car started firing due to fire Mujib Khan sus- tained injuries as a result of which he suc- cumbed to his injuries.The impact of dash was so much that the car of the complainant was over turned.Thereafter accused Babu, Shahid, Abdul and Kamal came out from the Scorpio vehicle.Accused Abdul, who was armed with fire arm inflicted gun short in- jury to Haji Mohammed, as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries.Kamal also tried to cause fire injury to Ramesh.Com- plainant - Imran, Ramesh and Sikka ran away from the place of occurrence.As per statement of Satar Hussain, present appli- cant was also sitting in the Scorpio Jeep.Fire arm has been seized from his posses- sion.Reki was carried by Abdul and present applicant as is evident from the statement of Satar Hussain.He lastly submitted that due to business rivalry, the applicants and other co-accused persons committed the alleged offence, because they could not succeed in the contract of Doda Chura at Mandsaur and Neemuch Districts, and therefore, they prepared a plan to elimi- nate them.He further submitted that looking to their past criminal antecedents and the manner in which the crime was committed and their involvement in the al- leged offence, their bail applications deserve to be re- jected.Therefore, he prayed for rejection of the both bail applications.I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the case-diary of the case.As per the FIR, police case diary state- ment and 164 statement of the prosecution witnesses, the present applicants are deeply involved in the al- leged offence.They were present on the spot at the time of occurrence of the incident.Looking to the in- volvement of the present applicants in the alleged of- fence, no case for grant of bail, as prayed for by appli- cants Babu Billod s/o Fakir and Raju s/o Babu Khan, is made out.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Cases No.8575 & 7711 of 2014 are rejected."In view of the aforesaid, there is no change in the circumstances, nor any case for grant of bail as prayed by applicant -Babu Khan is made out.Accordingly, M.Cr.C. No.2849 of 2015 is rejected.(P.K. Jaiswal) Judge pp
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,420,313
ORDER S.L. Jain, J.Invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Shishupal Thakur, the brother of detenue Nekpal Singh has filed this petition for quashment of the order of detention dated 24-11-2003 passed by Distt.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 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.
142,031,954
Case diary perused.As per prosecution case, on 06.07.2019 complainant Kanu lodged a missing person report at police station Jhabua to the effect that on 10.06.2019 at about 3 p.m. his eldest daughter aged about 17 years went to the agriculture field and thereafter she did not returned back till 5 p.m. so he searched for her everywhere but he could not found her.On the basis of the aforesaid information F.I.R. has been lodged for commission of offence under Section 363 of the I.P.C. During investigation police recovered the prosecutrix on 09.08.2020 and recorded her statement on the basis of which the present case has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant is a youth aged about 19 years and he has not committed any offence.Investigation is over charge- sheet has been filed.The prosecutrix has been examined 2 M.Cr.C. No.39610 of 2020 Kailash V/s.State of M.P.before the trial Court on 31.01.2020 and in the court statement she has not stated anything against the applicant and turned hostile.The parents of the prosecutrix has also not supported the prosecution story.Under these circumstances, no alleged offence is made out against the applicant.Hence, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State submits that no sufficient ground is made out for releasing the applicant on bail, hence the application filed by the applicant be dismissed.
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,420,346
The prosecution case, briefly stated, is as under;The above Padik along with the babultrees stating thereon belonged to and was in possession ofSheshappa Vithoba Misal (P.W.15) and his associates.On orabout July 18, 1980 A1, A3, A5 and A6 cut some branches ofthose trees and left them there.In the evening of July 29,1980 P.W.15 and some of his associates removed thosebranches from the Padik and brought them to another opensite near the house of one Sida Pandurang.When A6 askedP.W.15 about such removal the latter replied that the treesbelonged to the.He also questioned the right of A6 to cutthem.(b) On the following morning i.e. on July 30, 1980 at orabout 7 a.M. the twenty nine accused persons along withthree more namely, Dattu (since dead), Bhausaheb Sidram andappasaheb Saidram (both absconding) came to the place wherethe branches were stacked, armed with deadly weapons such asaxes, spears, iron bars and sticks and started removingthem.On getting that information P.W.15, his brothers andassociates reached there and asked the accused persons notto remove the branches.Immediately thereupon A1 inflictedan axe blow on the head of Ganpati felling him down.WhenVIthoba went to the rescue of Ganpati, A2 inflicted an axeblow on his head who instantly slumped down.All theaccused persons then started assaulting Ganpati and VIthobaand other members of the complainant party as a consequencewhereof Ganpati and VIthoba breathed their last on the spot,while Kashinath (P.W.8), Sarjarao (P.W.12), Murlidhar(P.W.14), Sheshappa (P.W.15) and Jalinder (P.W.17) sustainedinjuries.During the incident A3 to A7 also receivedinjuries(c) Accompanied by the other four injured P.W.8 then wentto Singola Police Station in bus and lodged the FirstInformation Report at 11.30 a.m. In course of theinvestigation that followed, usual steps for holdinginquest, preparing panchnama of the scene of offence,seizures of blood stained clothes were taken and the twodead bodies were sent to the Medical Officer, Singola forautopsy.Tanajl Govind Misalvs.The State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.501-502 OF 1987Dadasahedb Patalu MisalV.The State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.503-504 OF 1987Shrimant Vishwanath MisalV.State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.505-506 OF 1987Babasahedb Chandu Misal & Ors.State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.507-508 OF 1987Raosaheb Shripati MisalV.The State of Maharastra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.509-510 OF 1987Shahji Govind MisalV.The State of Maharashtra WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.511-512 OF 1987 J U D G M E N TM.K. MUKHERJEE, J.Twenty nine persons were arraigned before an AdditionalSessions Judge of Solapur for rioting, two murders and otherrelated offences.The trial Judge convicted nineteen ofthem under Section 148, 302/149, 307/149 and 324/149 I.P.C.and acquitted the rest.For the conviction under Section302/149 I.P.C. the trial Judge sentenced three of theconvicts to imprisonment for life and the remaining sixteento rigorous imprisonment for two years each and fine.Forthe other convictions he sentenced them to different termsof imprisonment and fine with a direction that thesubstantive sentences shall run concurrently.Assailing theabove judgment the nineteen convicts filed one compositeappeal.The State also filed two appeals: one for settingaside the acquittal of the ten accused persons and the otherfor enhancement of the sentences imposed upon the nineteenconvicts.A revision application was also filed by thecomplainant seeking similar reliefs.307/149 and 324/149 I.P.C. shouldnot be enhanced.In disposing of all the matters by acommon judgment the High Court set aside the convictions offive of the nineteen convicts and upheld those of the otherfourteen.After upholding the conviction the High Courtenhanced the sentences of those convicts who were imposedrigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 302/149I.P.C. to imprisonment for life.Aggrieved by the dismissalof their appeals the fourteen convicts (who wee arrayed asA1 to A8, A10, A12, A13, A17, A20 and A24 and henceforthwill be so referred to) have filed these appeals which havebeen heard together and this judgment will dispose of them.All the injured were also sent to the MedicalOfficer for examination and treatment.Certainincriminating weapons were also recovered at the instance ofsome of the accused persons during investigation.Aftercompletion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet and In usual course the case was committed to theCourt of Session.The accused persons pleaded not guilty to the chargeslevelled against them and contended that they had beenfalsely implicated.Some of them took the plea of alibiwhile others, through A1 gave a written statement detailingtheir version of the incident.The version so given is thatthe open space whereon babul trees grew belonged to some ofthem and for years together they had been cutting the treesfor using them as fuel.As in previous years, they had cutthe tress some 15 days prior to the incident and left themthere to dry.In the evening of July 29 1980 when A3 and A6saw that some members of the complainant party were carryingthose cut branches in the bullock-cart of P.W.12, A3 and A6accosted them and asked them not to do so.Without payingany heed to their objection, the members of the complainantparty carried the branches to the farm of Sida PandurangMisal and kept them there.A6 had then told them that theywould take away the branches on the next day.Accordingly,when in the following morning A1 along with ten to fifteenpersons were going to the farm of Sida Pandurang Misal withaxes and sticks to remove the thorny branches, they saw thecomplainant party approaching them armed with axes andsticks.While they were at some distance from them A5requested Ganpati (P.W.2) to be prudent and get the claimregarding the trees decided by a competent Court of lawInstead of heeding to his advice, the members of thecomplainant party started beating them with sticks and axes.At that stage they 9th accused persons) attacked them inself defence.They asserted that they had no intention tobeat any of the persons of the complainant party.Theylastly stated that A9, A11, A12, A14, A15, A18, A19, A21,A22 and A25 to A28 were not present at all at the time ofthe incident.From the respective cases of the parties narrated abovethe following undisputed facts emerge: (i) On or about July18, 1980 some of the accused persons cut some branches ofbabul trees from the Padik and left them there; (ii) In theevening of July 29, 1980 some members of the complainantparty removed those branches from the Padik and brought themto another open site near the house of Sida Pandurang,inspite of objections raised by some members of the accusedparty.At that time, one of them namely A6 told that theywould take away the branches on the next day.; (iii) On thefollowing morning i.e. on July 30, 1980 at or about 7 A.M.,some of the accused persons went to remove those branchesarmed with axes and sticks; and (iv) a little later anincident of assault took place in which two members of thecomplainant party, namely, Ganpati and Vithoba met withtheir death and five members of each of the partiessustained injuries.With the above uncontroverted factual matrix, the trialJudge proceeded to consider the questions of fact on whichthe parties had joined issue.Seven of them were incised injuries,one was a contusion and the other a fracture of leftmaxilla.He also found the larynx,trachea and large vessels cut.He opined that the incisedinjury on the neck (6" x 5" deep to the spinal cord) wasfatal.On the dead body of Vithoba he found two insidewounds and one contused lacerated wound.One of the incisedwounds was over the neck, cutting large blood vessels andcausing fracture to the cervical vertebra.As regards thefive eye-witnesses whom he examined, we get that P.W.8 hadseven, P.W.12 two, P.W.14 five, P.W.15 seventeen and P.W.17eight injuries.While the injuries on the persons of P.Ws.8, 12 and 17 were simple, P.W.14 had a fracture of the rightfrontal bone and P.W.15 had a number of fractures on hisface.So far as the accused are concerned, P.W.19 foundthat A3 had one, A4 five, A5 four, A6 two and A7 threeinjuries.P.W.19 testified that the injuries of A5, A6 and Awere insignificant, but A4 had a fracture of the left ulnaand A3 had a simple injury on the forehead.9. To narrate the events that took place on that fatefulmorning in which the above injuries were suffered by themembers of both the parties, the prosecution examined,besides the above five injured eye-witness, Yashoda (P.W.5),Sopan (P.W.10) and Hari (P.W.11).The High Court found themto be reliable witnesses and on an elaborate discussion oftheir evidence held that the assault started with the axeblow given by A1 on the neck of Ganpati at the place wherethe cut branches were kept, when the latter asked theaccused persons not to take them away and this was followedby a similar blow inflicted by A2 on Vithoba when he triedto rescue Ganpati.Scanning the evidence further the HighCourt held that the prosecution succeeded in conclusivelyestablishing that A3, A5 and A6 also assaulted Ganpati andA2 and A4 assaulted Vithoba.The High Court next posed the question which of the tworival groups were the aggressors and considering thesequence of events answered the same in favour of theprosecution.Agreeing with the findings of the trial Courtthe High Court concluded that the Padik belonged to thecomplainant party and that the accused had no right ofprivate defence either of property or person.In arrivingat that conclusion the High Court not only relied upon theeye-witnesses but also upon the fact that the total tally ofinjuries suffered by the members of the complainant partywent upto 51, while the corresponding tally for the fiveinjured on the accused side was just 15, and except onefracture of the left ulna of A4 all other injuries wereinsignificant.Coming now to the third contention of Mr. Lalit we findthat to ascertain what was the common object of the unlawfulassembly which attacked the complainant party the High Courtfirst pointed out that to decide the same the relevantconsiderations were, inter alia, the motive, the weaponsused in the attack and the conduct of the assailants bothbefore and at the time of the attack.Applying the aboveprinciples the High Court observed that taking acomprehensive view of all the relevant materials, theconclusion was irresistible that the common object of theunlawful assembly was to remove babul wood from the scene ofoffence at any cost, even by committing murders, ifnecessary.After having considered the evidence in thelight of the sequence of events we are however unable tofully subscribe to the above view of the High Court.Judgedin the connect of the admitted fact that on the previousevening i.e. in the evening of July 29, 1980, A6 had openlygiven out that on the next morning they would remove thebabul trees it is obvious that when on the following morningthe accused party came to the sport armed with axes, spears,this etc. their purpose was to remove the babul trees atany cost and cause such injury as may be necessary forachieving that object.Fromthe manner in which A1 suddenly started the assault onGanpati immediately after all the accused persons reachedthe spot followed by the assault on Vithoba by A2 andsubsequent assaults on the former by A3, A5 and A6 and onthe latter by A4, it cannot be conclusively said that theother accused persons knew that the murders were likely tobe committed in prosecution of their common object so as toattract the second part of Section 149 I.P.C. In otherwords, in conjointly committing the two murders - that ofGanpati by A1, A3, A5 and A6 and of Vithoba by A2 and A4 -the above six accused persons acted beyond the common objectof the unlawful assembly.It is true that the mere factthat no overt act has been attributed to the accused personsexcept A1 to A6 in the two murders is not sufficient toexonerate them form the charge under Section 302/149 I.P.C.But applicability of Section 149 I.P.C. would depend on thefacts of each case.In the instant case we are satisfiedthat the accused shared the common object of causinggrievous hurt by deadly weapons to the two deceased - andnot of their murders - and P.W.15, who also sustainedgrievous injuries.They would, therefore, be guilty ofrioting as also an offence under Section 326/149 I.P.C. butnot under Section 302/149 I.P.C. A1, A3, A5 and A6 arehowever guilty of the offence under Section 302/34 I.P.C.for committing the murder of Ganpati.Similarly A2 and A4are guilty under Section 392/34 I.P.C. for committing themurder of Vithoba.Similar benefit should also go to A24 forthough PW.8 testified about his involvement in the incident,in the F.I.R. he did not assign him any role.For the foregoing discussion we alter the conviction ofA1 (Dadasaheb Patalu Misal), A2 (Pandurang Bhimrao Bhagat),A3 (Raosaheb Shripati Misal), A4 (Shrimant VishwanathMisal), A5 (Tanaji Govind Misal) and A6 (Shahaji GovindMisal) under Section 302/149 I.P.C. to one under Section302/34 I.P.C. For the altered conviction, we maintain thesentences of imprisonment for life imposed upon A1, A2 andA3 by the trial Judge, as affirmed by the High Court and theenhanced sentences of imprisonment for life imposed for lifeimposed upon A4, A5 and A6 by the High Court.Theconviction of A7 (Namdeo Nanasaheb Moisal), A8 (BabasahebChandu Misal), A10 (Vasant Shamrao Bhagat), A12 (AbasahebBhimrao Bhagat), A13 (Bappusaheb Bhimrao Bhagat) and A17(Mahadeo Patalu Misal) under Section 302/149 I.P.C. for thetwo murders is altered to one under Section 26/149 I.P.C.and for the altered conviction they are sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for three years each.The convictionof appellant Nos. A1 to A8, A10, A12, A13 and A17 underSection 307/149 I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murderof P.W.15 is altered to one under Section 326/149 I.P.C. andthey are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of threeyears each.The conviction and sentence under Section324/149 i.P.C. and the conviction under Section 148 I.P.C.of the above twelve appellants are upheld.Theirsubstantive sentences shall run concurrently.The abovetwelve appellants who are on bail will now surrender totheir bail bonds to serve out the sentences.All theconvictions of A20 (Kashinath Daulu Misal) and A24(Ramchandra Nivrutti Bhagat) are set aside and they areacquitted of all the charges.They are discharged fromtheir respective bail bonds.The appeals are, thus,disposed of.
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
142,047,301
The detenu came to adverse notice in Crime No.36/2018 on the file of Cuddalore Port Police Station, for offences u/s.147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC.The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.209 of 2018 on the file of Reddichavadi Police Station for offences under sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 392 IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the detaining authority, while noticing that the detenu has been remanded to judicial custody in Crime No.209 of 2018, i.e. ground case and has not filed any bail application, had informed that in a similar case bail was granted and therefore, there was likelihood of his coming out on bail by filing bail application and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and also perused the records.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Balaraman S/o.Krishnan, made in C3/D.O/32/2018 dated 05.06.2018, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
['Section 392 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.
142,050,179
Learned AGA has filed counter affidavit on behalf of State which is taken on record.Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal under Section 14 A (2) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (in short "S.C./S.T. Act") has been filed for setting-aside the bail rejection order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, in Bail Application No. 3294 of 2019 (Pintu Sharma Vs.The main accused Dinesh Kumar has clearly stated in his statement that the appellant has no knowledge about this incident and no offence is made out against the appellant under section 302 IPC.The case of the appellant is distinguishable from the case of co- accused Dinesh Kumar.Learned A.G.A and learned counsel for the complainant opposed the prayer for bail and could not dispute the aforementioned facts.The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, prima facie, is quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for bail.Let the appellant- Pintu Sharma, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPELLANT WOULD FULLY COOPERATE IN THE CONCLUSION OF TRIAL WITHIN ONE YEAR AND ANY TEMPERING OR WILLING TACTICS ON THE PART OF THE APPLICANT TO DELAY THE TRIAL WOULD WARRANT THE AUTOMATIC CANCELLATION OF BAIL.(ii) THE APPELLANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(iii) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iv) IN CASE, THE APPELLANT MISUSE THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPELLANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(v) THE APPELLANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPELLANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.However, it is made clear that any willful violation of above conditions by the appellant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this court.Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and the same stands allowed.Impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act/Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad, is hereby set aside.Order Date :- 28.11.2019 v.k.updh.
['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.
16,772,266
This petition has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheetfiled in C.C.No.203 of 2017 in Crime No.257 of 2017 on the file of theAdditional Mahila Court, (Magisterial Level), Madurai.2.On the complaint lodged by the second respondent herein, thefirst respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.257 of 2017 for theoffence under Sections 294(b), 324, 427 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 ofTamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 against the petitioner/sole accused.3.Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing,Mr.R.Ghanaguru, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, South Gate PoliceStation, Madurai District is present.The defacto complainant, thepetitioner and the injured persons are present and their identifications werealso verified by this Court, in addition to the confirmation of the identityof the parties by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) throughMr.R.Ghanaguru, the Special Sub Inspector of Police, South Gate PoliceStation, Madurai District.Learned counsel appearing for the parties alsoendorsed the identify of their respective parties.4.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for thefirst respondent submitted that trial in C.C.No.203 of 2017 is not yetcommenced.5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and defactocomplainant have filed a joint memo of compromise on 28.06.2018, wherein, itis stated as follows:"3.It is submitted that the petitioner and the 2nd respondent are samelocality.Due to intervention of village elders, the parties were enteredinto the compromise.In this circumstance, the 2nd respondent is not willingto proceed further against the petitioner before the respondent police.Therefore, the entireproceedings in C.C.No.203 of 2017 on the file of the Additional Mahila Court,(Magisterial Level) Madurai in respect of the petitioner/sole accused arehereby quashed.8.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed on thebasis of the compromise entered into between the parties.The jointcompromise memo filed on 28.06.2018 shall form part of this order.L.Ganesh Naidu (Deceased) and 2 others].A report in this regard shall be sent by the District Legal ServicesAuthority, Dindigul to the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu State Legal ServicesAuthority, Chennai, mentioning clearly the amounts spent towards the purposesmentioned in the above order and the balance amount left etc., To1.The Inspector of Police, South Gate Police Station, Madurai District.
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,725,881
In his disclosure statement, he had given the name of his co-accused as Ishwar @ Chana.It has come in the statement of PW4 SI Praveen that Ishwar @Chana was arrested.However he was a juvenile, as such his challan was filed separately in Juvenile Court.The locket was recovered from his possession.: SUNITA GUPTA, J.Appellant Shyam impugns the judgment dated 27.02.2013 and order on sentence dated 28.02.2013 in case FIR No.61/2011, P.S. South Rohini vide which he was convicted for offence u/s 394 IPC and was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 3 years and was also directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo SI for 3 months.Prosecution case lies in a narrow compass.On 22.03.2011, complainant Yudhvir Singh (PW3) was roaming near CAW Cell, Sector 3 Rohini along with his two nephews aged about 1 year and 5 years old.At about 07.20 p.m, two boys aged about 20-25 years started walking very closely near to his nephew Pratyakash Rana and one of the boys cut down Crl.A.305.2014 Page 1 of 10 the thread of the locket which his nephew was wearing.He apprehended one person who had cut the thread and his name was revealed as Shyam.However, Shyam showed him a blade and threatened "Chup-Chap Hat Ja Nahi to Abhi Faad Dunga" and thereafter he gave a fist blow in his stomach but he did not let him go and at that time Shyam had thrown the locket towards the other boy who ran away.He made a call to the police at 100 number on which DD No.28A was recorded and was assigned to SI Parveen Kumar (PW4) who reached the spot where Yudhvir Singh produced accused Shyam and one piece of blade.SI Parveen recorded statement of Yudhvir and got the case registered.Accused was arrested, site plan was prepared.Blade was seized.After completing investigation, charge sheet was submitted u/s 392/397 IPC against the accused before the learned Magistrate which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions.Charge for offence u/s 394/34 IPC and u/s 397 IPC was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.A.305.2014 Page 1 of 10In order to substantiate its case, prosecution in all examined four witnesses.The case of accused was one of denial simplictor.After considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the evidence adduced by the prosecution, vide impugned judgment and order on sentence, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove.Dissatisfied, the present appeal has been preferred.A.305.2014 Page 2 of 10A.305.2014 Page 2 of 10It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellant on the solitary testimony of the complainant.The place of incident was densely populated but no public person was examined.It had come in the deposition of the complainant that he purchased balloons for his nephews.Even the balloonwala was not examined.Further the complainant was not medically examined in order to prove that any hurt was caused to him.No recovery was effected from the accused.Accordingly the accused was liable to be acquitted.The impugned order be therefore, set aside.Per contra, it was submitted by learned APP for the State that the accused was apprehended at the spot.There is no reason to discredit the testimony of the complainant as the accused is not alleging any enmity either with the complainant or with the police.There is absolutely no reason as to why the complainant or for that reason police will falsely implicate him in the case.The accused was acquitted of the charge u/s 397 because according to the learned Trial Court, surgical blade was not a deadly weapon.The mere fact that the complainant was not medically examined is not sufficient to lead to the conclusion that no hurt was caused to him.It was submitted that the impugned order does not suffer from any Crl.A.305.2014 Page 3 of 10 infirmity which calls for interference, as such, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.A.305.2014 Page 3 of 10The star witness of prosecution is complainant PW3 Yudhvir Singh who testified that on 22.03.2011, he along with his two bhanja's, aged about 1 year and 5 years had gone to market at Sector 3, Rohini.At about 07.20 p.m., when they were present near CAW Cell, two boys started walking along with his bhanja, Pratyaksh Rana, aged about 5 years who was walking ahead of him.His bhanja was wearing a gold locket of 2 gms.which was in a black thread.Accused Shyam cut down the said thread from the neck of his bhanja and took the locket.He caught hold of accused Shyam, who showed him a blade and threatened him saying "Chup Chap Hat Jaa Nahi To Phaar Dunga".He also gave fist blow on his stomach.Accused Shyam had thrown the locket to his associate who ran away from the spot with the locket.He, however, continued to hold Shyam and gave a call to police at 100 number from his mobile phone.Police came there along with Ct.Jitender at the spot.He had also taken out the blade from accused Shyam which was handed over to SI Praveen who took the same into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/A. Accused made a disclosure statement Ex.PW 3/A wherein he gave the name of his other associate as Ishwar @ Chana.He duly identified the accused as well as the blade recovered from him.This witness was cross Crl.The initial complaint made by him to the police which swung the police machinery into action was reiterated by him in the Court.One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties.The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability, if any, suggested by the accused."Under the circumstances, it also stands proved that pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the appellant, his co-accused Ishwar @Chana was arrested from whom the recovery of locket was effected.As regards the last limb of arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not medically examined and, therefore, Section 394 IPC is not made out is also devoid of merit inasmuch as, as per Section 394, if any person while committing or attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt then he is liable to be punished under this Section.Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code defines `hurt' as under:-Hurt- Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt."A.305.2014 Page 8 of 10However, in the instant case, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment only for a period of 3 years and fine.The impugned judgment and the order on sentence does not Crl.A.305.2014 Page 9 of 10 suffer from any infirmity which calls for interference, as such the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.A.305.2014 Page 9 of 10Under the circumstances, the appellant is directed to surrender forthwith in order to serve the remainder period of sentence, failing which learned Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps for getting him arrested for serving the remainder period of sentence.Copy of the judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back.(SUNITAGUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 28, 2014 as Crl.A.305.2014 Page 10 of 10A.305.2014 Page 10 of 10
['Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,728,006
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 27.09.2018 passed by Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court no.8, Kanpur Nagar in complaint case no.3507 of 2007, under Sections 255, 259, 260, 406, 420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar.The said Company Petition is between two branches of the family i.e. headed by applicant's late husband and other side headed by brother of the applicant's late husband (Sri H. K. Srivastava).On the same set of facts the present complaint was filed before the court at Kanpur on behalf of Gwalior Sugar Company.The Metropolitan Magistrate-I vide order dated 17.11.2000 summoned the applicant without applying judicious mind.The entire proceeding and summoning order dated 17.11.2000 were challenged before this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Criminal Misc.In this complaint, the applicant has not been arrayed as an accused.Therefore, both the complaints were transferred to one Court and clubbed with each other.In pursuance of the order dated 31.07.2017 the applicant filed various applications seeking exemption on various dates before the court below.The order dated 13.02.2018 was challenged before this Court in Criminal Misc.The application was disposed of with a direction to court below to decide application of the applicant afresh in accordance with law.The applicant moved an application on 29.03.2018 before the court below to grant her exemption from personal appearance and to grant bail through her counsel.The opposite party filed objection to the application on 29.03.2018The Special Leave Petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.07.2017 by Hon'ble Supreme Court.The exemptions applications were filed by the applicant before the court below on the ground that the applicant is an old person.The order dated 13.02.2018 was challenged before this Court.
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,737,799
Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Akbar
['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.
167,741,839
Mother and father of the prosecutrix categorically admitted in cross- examination that their marriage was performed before 20-22 years.As per mother of the proseuctrix, after 5 years of her marriage, prosecutrix was born and as per father of the proseuctrix, after 3 years of his marriage, prosecutrix was born.Heard I.A. No.19345/2019 under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant-Arvind Golandas.T h e appellant stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, Section 366 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Section 376 (2) (n) of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years along with fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation.Being aggrieved by that conviction and sentence, the appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution not conducted the ossification test for age of the prosecutrix.The appeal would take considerable time for its final disposal; therefore, it has been prayed that jail sentence of the appellant may be suspended.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the statements of prosecutrix and other witnesses.On the basis of school record, prosecutrix was found aged about 16 years.(VISHNU PRATAP SINGH CHAUHAN) JUDGE pnm Digitally signed by SMT POONAM MANEKAR Date: 12/02/2020 17:05:18
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,745,644
Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20/2/2013 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chhatarpur in Sessions Trial No. 149/11, whereby respondent no. 2 Makhan @ Makhu Yadav has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 6/4/11 at about 7 a.m., consequent upon an altercation as to entering of buffalo belonging to Jagatraj (since deceased) in the field of Amar Singh, when Jagatraj along with Anil reached near the field of Mahadev Sahu, Amar Singh, armed with an Axe and other accused armed with Lathi, Danda and Axe came from behind, and started assaulting Jagatraj.They also rushed to assault Anil, but he ran away and shouted, hearing which Mahadev Sahu reached the spot and the miscreants, presuming Jagatraj to be dead, fled from the spot.Anil, his brother Ashok Patel and Mahadev found that Jagatraj had sustained Axe injuries on his neck and back.They took Jagatraj at Police Station Rajnagar, where report was lodged and immediately thereafter, he was taken to Primary Health Centre, Rajnagar, from where he was referred to District Hospital at Chhatarpur, where he was declared brought dead.Morgue intimation was accordingly recorded and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Government Advocate argued that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and respondent no. 1 ought to have been convicted under section 307 of the IPC as well as under the Act.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties we have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the trial Court held that the name of respondent no.2 was not mentioned in the First Information Report (Ex.P/3).
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,749,421
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the detention order passed in C.M.P.No.14/GOONDA/C2/2017 dated 24.03.2017, against the detenu by name, Steel @ Iynu @ Iyyanar, aged 30 years, S/o.Chellaperumal, residing at Periya Andippatti Village, Devankadu, Attaiyampatti, Attaiyampatti Police Station Limit, Salem South Taluk, Salem District and quash the same.The Inspector of Police, Attaiyampatti Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:i) Salem District, Attaiyampatti Police Station, Crime No.64 of 2014, registered under Section 174(ii) Cr.P.C @ Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code;ii) Salem District, Attaiyampatti Police Station, Crime No.137 of 2014, registered under Section 307 @ 302 of the Indian Penal Code;iii) Salem District, Attaiyampatti Police Station, Crime No.332 of 2015, registered under Section 392 @ 395 of the Indian Penal Code;iv) Salem District, Attaiyampatti Police Station, Crime No.108 of 2016, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code; andv) Salem District, Attaiyampatti Police Station, Crime No.284 of 2016, registered under Section 392 of the Indian Penal CodeFurther it is averred in the affidavit that on 24.12.2016, One Dhandayuthabani, Son of Rajamanickam, residing at S.Papparappati Post, Attaiyampatti Police Station Limit, Salem District, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint wherein it is alleged to the effect that in the place of occurrence, the present detenu and others have forcibly taken away a sum of Rs.3000/- from the custody of the defacto complainant.Under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.551 of 2016 under Section 392 of Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.The Detaining Authority, after perusing the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as Goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the elder brother of the detenu, as petitioner.On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed.Under such circumstance, this petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of available materials on record.Chellaperumal is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
167,749,588
The petitioner is working as a supervisor (office) at the office of the Airport Authority of India.The petitioner is presently under suspension by an order issued by his appointing authority.In the reply, the petitioner had asked for cross-examination of 11 of the prosecution witnesses.In aggregate, the petitioner wanted to cross-examine 11 witnesses.More than 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution in the adjudication proceedings.The authorities initiated an adjudication proceedings in respect of the show cause notice dated February 13, 2017 and the replies filed by the noticees with regard thereto.The petitioner was heard by the adjudicating officer.In the course of the hearing, the petitioner reiterated his request for cross- 8 examination.The prosecution, therefore, ought to have allowed such persons to be cross-examined.The petitioner made a request to the adjudicating authority for an opportunity to cross-examine.Such request was made by the written notes of defence.The adjudicating authority took such written request on record.It was not for the Tribunal to have guesswork as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and what extraction the appellant wanted from them.As mentioned above, the appellant have contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination.Therefore, it was not for the adjudicating authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject-matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above.We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came up this Court in CCE vs. Andaman Timber Industries Ltd., order dated 17-3- 2005 was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal 25 with a direction to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions.[DEBANGSU BASAK, J.]
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,155,978
1 Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURSIDICTION APPELLATE SIDE C.R.R. No.423 of 2009 Present :The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal Sri Tripurati Roy Versus State of West Bengal & Anr.For the petitioner: Mr. Suman De.For the Opposite parties: None appears.Prasenjit Mandal, J: This application under Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred against the orders dated 23.09.2008 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur in G.R. Case No.208 of 2006 thereby accepting the Final Report submitted by the I.O. in the Kotowali P.S. Case No.27 dated 14.02.2006 under Sections 255/260/406/417/468/473 of the I.P.C.He filed one petition of complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Paschim Medinipur and that petition of complaint was forwarded to the concerned P.S. by the learned Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for investigation.Accordingly, police investigated into the case.Having considered the submission of the learned Advocate for the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the petition of complaint forwarded by the learned C.J.M. to the Kotowali P.S. culminated in Final Report after investigation.Before acceptance of such report, the learned Magistrate issued notice upon the de-facto complainant.Then on September 23, 2008, the learned Magistrate passed the impugned order in the following manner:-Today is fixed for hearing as per order dt.25.8.08 against the I.O.'s prayer.Perused the C.D. None defacto complainant.The F.R.T. is accepted."But on surprise, I find that the learned Magistrate did not discuss at all whey he has accepted the Final Report.There will be no order as to costs.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.( Prasenjit Mandal, J. )
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,156,214
The allegations of the prosecution is that prosecutrix who was aged 14 years has left her parental house 1 year before the incident and started residing with Ramprakash Vega.Her father complainant Ramdasiya Singh had not lodged any report because of fear of defamation.C.C., as per rules.None for victim, though noticed.This first appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(1) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 1.3.2019 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST, Waidhan, Singrauli.It is alleged that on 26.10.2018 when Ramdasiya Singh had inquired regarding his daughter from Ramprakash Vega, then he was informed that she is not living with him and had gone somewhere without informing him.On that basis, aforesaid crime was registered against unknown persons under section 363 of IPC.Her medical examination has been conducted and her statements under sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded.On that basis, sections of IPC, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act were also added in the already registered crime.Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is innocent lady and has been falsely implicated in the The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Cr.A.No.2300/2019 (Vibhagwati @ Fuleshwari Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 case.There is no criminal antecedent alleged against the appellant.She is a permanent resident of the address shown in the appeal and is ready to furnish adequate surety and shall abide by all the conditions that may be imposed by the Court.Therefore, it is prayed that the appellant be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for State has opposed the appeal for bail.The statements of prosecutrix under sections 161 of Cr.Consequently, the present criminal appeal is dismissed.
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,158,348
Confinement since 09-08-2018 amounts to pretrial detention.He undertakes not to move in the vicinity of prosecutrix in any manner and would not be a source of harassment THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 Cr.A.No.5776/2019 and embarrassment to the complainant party.With consent heard finally.Present appeal has been filed under Section 14 (A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') against the order dated 04-08-2018 passed by Special Judge (Atrocities), Vidisha whereby the application of the appellant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking bail has been rejected.Appellant is in custody since 09-08-2019 in connection with Crime No.55/2018 registered at Police Station Mugalsarai District Vidisha for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 506-B, 376(chha) of IPC, under Sections 3(i)(r) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that false case has been registered against the appellant.Court statements of prosecutrix and her father were recorded on 08-04-2019 in which both have not supported the story of prosecution and turned hostile.Therefore, on the basis of court statement of prosecutrix and looking to the fact that now chance of tampering with evidence is remote, appellant be released on bail.Appellant further undertakes to cooperate in trial and would make himself available as and when required by the trial Court and to do some community service.Thus, prayed for grant of bail.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and prayed for the dismissal of appeal.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,163,199
The Inspector of Police, Vishnu Kanchi Police, Kancheepuram, Tamil NaduThe Inspector of Police, CBCID, KancheepuramThe District Forest Officer, Chengalpet, KancheepuramPrayer:- These Criminal Appeals have been filed, against the common order, 27.01.2016, made in the Memo filed by the Prosecution in SC.No.94 of 2005 and Cr.MP.No.1754 of 2015, filed by the Appellant/A5, in SC.No.94 of 2005, by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.These Criminal Appeals have been filed, against the common order, dated 27.01.2016, passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, allowing the Memo filed by the Prosecution in SC.No.94 of 2005 to order for handing over the Case Property No.29 of 2005 to the Forest Department for legalhttp://www.judis.nic.in 2 disposal through the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram and dismissing Cr.MP.No.1754 of 2015, filed by the Appellant, in SC.No.94 of 2005, seeking for return of property as listed in the seizure mahazar and in the Form 95, to the Appellant herein.This court heard the learned counsel on either side and considered their respective submissions and also perused the materials placed on record.By judgement dated 27.11.2013 in SC.No.94 of 2005, in respect of Cr.No.914 of 2004, on the file of the B2, Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram, registered under Section 120B of IPC read with 302 of IPC and other related provisions of IPC, with respect to the murder of the deceased, Sankararaman, the Trial Court had acquitted all the 24 accused persons.The above properties have been mentioned as Item No.32 in the list of non valuable items of case properties and found in the property extract register in PRC.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I Kancheepuram.After commital, the case was taken up as SC.No.191 of 2005, originally on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and later transferred to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry and renumbered as SC.No.94 of 2005.http://www.judis.nic.in 3The properties in question, namely, as found in Item No.32, at S.Nos.1 and 2, are (1) 3478 kgs of red sanders kept in 173 gunny bags and (2) 385 cut pieces of red sanders, weighing 1,457 kgs.During the trial, on a memo filed by the Prosecution on 24.3.2009, the Trial Court, by order dated, 24.3.2009, had directed the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram to retain the properties in question, until further orders and the properties in question have been kept under the safe custody at PWD godown at Kancheepuram.No appeal against the order of acquittal in SC.No.94 of 2005 has been preferred.While so, on 28.9.2015, the Prosecution had filed a memo, seeking to hand over the properties to the Forest Department, for legal disposal through the Judicial Magistrate, I, Kancheepuram.Thereafter, another memo had also been filed, on 20.10.2015, stating that the properties in question are lying intact and under the supervision of CBCID Police, Kancheepuram.Subsequently, the father of the Appellant herein had died.At this stage, while considering the memo filed by the Prosecution, the Appellant herein, K.Sarath, son of K.G.Krishnasamy @ Appu, had filed Cr.MP.No.1754 of 2015 under Section 452 of Cr.PC, claiming the properties in question.In the affidavit filed in support of Cr.MP.No.1754 of 2015, it had been stated that the Appellant was running a Company in the name of Bharath Trading, at Door No.6, Gandhi Street, Vanagaram Road, Iyyambakkam, Chennai-95 and was doing business in red sanders and that the properties in question had been purchased legally from the Divisional Forest Officer, Wild Life Division, Rajampet, vide order dated, 26.7.2003 and that the witnesses,http://www.judis.nic.in 4 present during the seizure, had turned hostile and that in the trial, the properties in question have not been marked as material objects, as they were not concerned with the case.The Appellant had filed the death certificate of his father and the legal heirship certificate and the authorisation given by his mother and brother to file the application and sought for return of the properties in question to his custody.In and by the impugned order, the Trial Court, after considering all the documents and hearing the submissions of the learned counsel on either side, had allowed the memo filed by the Prosecution, directing the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram to hand over the case property No.29 of 2005 as found in Item No.32, S.Nos.1 and 2, namely, (1) 3478 kgs of red sanders kept in 173 gunny bags and (2) 385 cut pieces of red sanders, weighing 1,457 kgs, in Cr.No.914 of 2005, on the file of the Vishnu Kanchi Police Station, Kancheepuram, in PRC.No.2 of 2005, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate I Kancheepuram, in SC.No.191 of 2005, originally on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet and then transferred to the Court of the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry and renumbered as SC.No.94 of 2005, to the Forest Department, Chengalpet Division, Kancheepuram, for disposal, in accordance with law, through the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram.10.The Trial Court had dismissed Cr.MP.No.1754 of 2015 filed by the Appellant, seeking return of property as listed in the seizure mahazar and in the Form 95, holding that the Appellant had not produced any valid licence for possession and custody of the properties in question and that a separatehttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 report had been earlier sent to the concerned Department for taking into consideration and necessary action, as per law and that it was improbable for the Appellant to produce licence after 10 years.11.During the pendency of these appeals, this Court, by order dated, 27.03.2018, had suo moto impleaded the District Forest Officer, Chengalpet Division, Kancheepuram, as the 3rd Respondent herein, directing him to file necessary statement/ affidavit and documents.The 3rd Respondent has entered appearance.12.The learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that his father was running a business dealing with red sanders under the name and style of M/s.He would further submit that on coming tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 know that his father's property was kept in the custody of the Court, the Petition seeking to return of the same, had been filed.13.The Special Public Prosecutor for the Respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the Prosecution had filed a memo as early as on 24.3.2009, seeking for disposal of the properties, in accordance with law, however orders were passed by the Trial Court, directing the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram, to retain possession of the properties in question, until further orders and they have been taking earnest steps for disposal of the properties, however, because of the pendency of the present appeals, the properties are now being retained at the godown of PWD at Kancheepuram and that Respondents are incurring unnecessary and heavy costs for safe keeping of the properties in the godown for no fault of them and would pray that now since the Forest Department is seized of the matter and directed to deal with the disposal, they may be directed to pay the rents to PWD.14.The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the 3rd Respondent would submit that the licence given to the father of the Appellant was valid till 31.3.2004, whereas, the properties in question were seized on 26.12.2004 and as such, on the date of seizure, the father of the Appellant did not possess any valid licence and thereby, there was violation of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder and thereby, the properties are liable for confiscation and thereby, the Trial Court had rightly directed the property to be handed over tohttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 the Forest Department for disposal in accordance with law.Further, during the life time of the Appellant's father, he had not made any claim and shown any proof to show that the red sanders were purchased legally and that the licence issued was in respect of the above properties.She would further submit that even as on the date, the Appellant has neither sought for renewal of the licence nor produced any document to prove that those properties which had been seized were legally purchased by his father from the Government of Andhra Pradesh and that the properties in question are connected to the possession certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu.She would further submit that unless and until a proper enquiry is conducted by the appropriate authority, the Department cannot come to a conclusion that the properties belonged to the father of the Appellant and that the Trial Court, finding that the possession of properties in question by the father of the Appellant as on the date of seizure was not in accordance with law, had rightly directed for handing over the properties to the Forest Department to deal with disposal of the properties in accordance with law.She would further submit that the District Forest Officer, Chennai is the proper authority to deal with the disposal of the properties in question and during enquiry, if it is found that any violation is committed by the owners of the property, the properties are liable for confiscation and that confiscation can be done only after following the procedures in accordance with law and that appropriate notice will be served on the Appellant and due enquiry will conducted and a finding will be arrived at only after completion of the enquiry.15.At this jucture, the learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that the properties in question have been seized from the father of the Appellant without following the procedures as contemplated under law and no notice had been issued to the father of the Appellant during his life time and that now the Appellant being the legal heir of the person from whom the properties in question have been seized, is entitled to be heard before any order is passed regarding disposal of the properties.16.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the 3rd Respondent would submit that the properties are now in the custody of the Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram and they are stored in the godown of PWD at Kancheepuram, under the supervision of CBCID Police and the properties will be disposed of after due enquiry being conducted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder.She would submit that notice will be served on necessary parties concerned and the 3rd Respondent will complete the enquiry within six months and would pray that still such time, the properties in question may be retained at the PWD Godown at Kancheepuram and that after conclusion of the enquiry, suitable orders will be passed by the 3rd Respondent, in accordance with law.17.The learned Additional Government Pleader for the 3rd Respondent would submit that the 2nd Respondent has also filed an affidavit of undertaking, stating that the properties in question will not be disposed of till the enquiry is completed.The father of the Appellanthttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 has not claimed for return of the properties in question during his life time.Only after the death of his father, the Appellant has claimed for return of the properties in question.The Trial Court, suspecting the bona fide of the Appellant, had dismissed the Petition.20.The 3rd Respondent is the appropriate authority to deal with the properties in question, in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the relevant Rules framed thereunder, since the properties in question being a scheduled timber.The Trial Court had directed the Prosecution to hand over the properties in question to the 3rd Respondent for legal disposal through Judicial Magistrate I, Kancheepuram.Now that a claim has been made by the legal heir of the person from whom the properties in question have been seized, it would be proper on the part of the 3rd Respondent to issue notice to them and conduct an enquiry and pass appropriate orders.i. The Forest Department shall serve notice on the Appellant, who is the legal heir of K.G.Krishnasamy, who was A5, in SC.No.94 of 2005, from whom the properties in question were seized and thereafter, shall conduct an enquiry as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and the Rules framed thereunder and pass appropriate orders, for disposal of the properties in question, in accordance with law and on merits, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.From 01.09.2019, onwards the rental charges for keeping the properties in question in the Godown of PWD at Kancheepuram shall be borne by the Forest Department.Till the completion of the enquiry by the Forest Department and till the passing of the final order, the properties shall not be disposed of by the 3rd Respondent.28.08.2019 Index:Yes/No Web:Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking Srcm To:The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.A.Nos.157 and 170 of 2016http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,170,779
The appellant, though charged with the offence under Section 325 read with S.149 of the IPC, stands convicted under Section 325 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default, to suffer S.I. for six months.The corresponding judgment passed on 28.09.1995 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in Sessions Trial No.106/1990, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.By this judgment only, co-accused Shiv Bhajan, Tilakdhari, Badri Prasad and Ramsiya were acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 325 read with S.149 of the IPC.Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal.In the light of the guideline laid down in Kewal Krishan v. Suraj Bhan AIR 1980 SC 1780, learned trial Judge, on the same day, delivered the judgment in the case registered as Criminal :: 2 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402/1995 Appeal No.1352/1995 in S.T.No.17/1989 whereby Matukdhari, examined as PW8 in this case, and his sons namely Balmukund (PW1), Balkaran (PW4) and Chhotelal were convicted and sentenced for various offences.The appeal preferred against the judgment passed in counter case and registered as Criminal Appeal No.1352/1995 is also being decided by a separate judgment today itself.From the evidence of Matukdhari, the following genealogical tree reflecting that the appellant & the co-accused (since acquitted) as well as members of complainant party, who, at the relevant point of time, were residing in village Rithi, are descendants of a common ancestor, may usefully be traced :Jagannath Indrabhan Matukdhari (PW8) Tilakdhari Shesmani Co-accused (since acquitted) Balmukund (PW1) Balkaran (PW4) Chhotelal Co-accused Ramdhari (appellant) Badri Prasad (since acquitted) Mathura Prasad Co-accused Co-accused Shiv Bhajan (since acquitted) Ramsiya (since acquitted)The prosecution case, in short, may be stated thus -(i) On 02.06.1988 at about 10.30 a.m., the appellant and the co-accused were cutting babool tree standing on the land falling in the share of Matukdhari (PW8) and on being objected to, all of them started assaulting him.:: 3 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402/1995 In the course of the joint assault, the appellant dealt tangi (small axe) blows on the head and right hand of Matukdhari.(ii) In a seriously injured condition, Matukdhari was taken to the P.S. Civil Lines, Rewa where his son Balmukund (PW1) lodged the FIR (Ex.P-3).Accordingly, a case under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 read with S.149 of the IPC was registered.(iii) Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW5), after a preliminary examination, admitted Matukdhari to the hospital for treatment.Radiologist Dr. Anand Singh (PW7) found fractures in shaft of radius and ulna of Matukdhari.Upon completion of the investigation, charge sheet in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 325 read with S.149 of the IPC was presented against the appellant and the co-accused before Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.In the cross-examination of members of the complainant party, the following suggestions were made :(i) Neem tree, that was cut by Matukdhari and his sons with the assistance of Premlal, and the babool tree were jointly possessed by them.(ii) the quarrel had ensued at the time when, despite being forbidden by the appellant and his brother Badri Prasad, Matukdhari and his sons continued with the cutting of Neem tree.(iii) With intent to prevent cutting of the Neem tree, the appellant and the co-accused had expressed their intention to cut the babool tree and in the process, the appellant and his brother Badri Prasad were :: 4 ::In the examination, under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant further pleaded that, even after being subjected to a joint assault, he was falsely implicated by the members of the complainant party with a view to concocting a defence.The prosecution sought to prove the charge by examining 11 witnesses in all including the injured Matukdhari, his sons Balmukund & Balkaran and Premlal as the eyewitnesses to the incident.The disturbing feature of this case is that the learned defence counsel did not prefer to bring the evidence as to the right to the babool tree and the existence of injuries allegedly received by the appellant and Badri Prasad.He was presumably under a misconceived notion that the evidence of the counter case would be looked into for deciding the points involved in this case.However, it is trite law that each case has to be decided on the basis of evidence adduced in that case only.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, learned trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the judgment under challenge, proceeded to hold that only the appellant was liable for causing injuries to Matukdhari.He, accordingly, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove.:: 5 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402/1995Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been assailed primarily on the ground that it was not a case of free fight as held by learned trial Judge.According to learned counsel for the appellant, the act of the appellant was protected under the right of private defence in view of the fact that he and his brother had sustained numerous injuries including those characterized as dangerous to life.However, the Deputy Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence, has contended that the conviction was fully justified.Dr. Y.S. Tiwari (PW5) proved existence of following injuries, as described in the report (Ex.P-4), on the body of Matukdhari -(i) Lacerated wound on left side of parietal region size 3 cm x 1 cm x muscle, bleeding present with clotted blood.(ii) Swelling 2" x 1" with lacerated wound 1" x " x muscle deep present on the dorsum of right forearm, middle region, bleeding with clotted blood present.Bony crepitus with abnormal movement.In the light of medical evidence, the allegation made by Matukdhari (PW8) supported by his sons Balmukund (PW1) and Balkaran (PW4) that the appellant had used tangi to cause abovementioned injuries appeared to be exaggerated.Moreover, Premlal (PW9), the only independent witness, did not corroborate the allegation.Learned trial Judge, therefore, rightly concluded that sharp side of the weapon was not applied to inflict the injuries.The first informant Balmukund, his brother Balkaran, their father Matukdhari and Premlal (PW9) clearly admitted that the appellant and the co-accused had asked them not to cut the Neem tree.This also came in their evidence that the appellant and the co- accused had proceeded to cut the babool tree only after being unsuccessful in preventing them from cutting the Neem tree.As :: 6 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402/1995 further admitted by Matukdhari, it was the appellant only who had brought the village Sarpanch Jokhulal to settle the dispute.It was also not denied that the Neem tree was situated in Raha Khet, that was partitioned amongst Matukdhari and his brothers including Indrabhan, the father of the appellant.However, as pointed out already, no evidence was led by the defence as to the appellant's right to the babool tree and consequences of the joint assault allegedly made by Matukdhari and his three sons on him and his brother Badri Prasad.Learned counsel for the appellant still contended that the Court can take notice of the judgment in the counter case whereby members of the complainant party were convicted and sentenced as under -Name of the Convicted Sentenced to accused under Section Balmukund 325 of IPC undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- and in default, to suffer S.I. for 6 months.Balkaran 307 of IPC undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer S.I. for 1 year.Matukdhari 323 of IPC undergo R.I. for 4 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to suffer SI for 1 month.Chhotelal 307 of IPC undergo R.I. for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to suffer S.I. for 1 year.This brings me to the question of sentence.The appellant, at the relevant point of time, was aged about 60 years.Thereafter, a considerable period of nearly 20 years has already elapsed.Taking into consideration the social impact of the crime and other relevant circumstances particularly his age, interests of justice would be met that if the appellant is released on probation for a period of one year.:: 8 ::CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1402/1995Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.But the consequent sentences are set aside and, instead, it is directed that he shall be released on probation of good conduct, under Section 4(1) of the Probation of Offender Act, 1958, on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15000/- to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year commencing from the date of bond and, in the meantime, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour with a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appellant is directed to remain present for the purpose in the trial Court at Rewa on 17.06.2009 at 11 am positively.Appeal partly allowed.
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
16,517,311
whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Deenadayalan @ Deena, S/o.Venkatesan, Hindu, aged about 24 year, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA.2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.K.Raja, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by this Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC in Cr.No.301/2009 on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station respectively.
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,173,191
The petitioners herein seek a direction for transfer of case pending inC.C.No. 58 of 2012 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate,Melur, Maduraidistrict to another competent court outside the district.The petitioners are brother and sister.They and the husband of thesecond petitioner face prosecution for offences under sections294(b),323,427,447 and 506(ii) IPC.On the complaint of one J.Adel who was theOperations and Marketing manager of the Meenakshi Mission Hospital, the case incrime number 16/2012 on the file of the first respondent came to be registeredfor offences under sections 147,294(b),323,427,447 and 506(ii) IPC.The defactocomplainant is the second respondent and in his complaint he informed that on13.01.2012, at about 3.00 P.M, he, holding a Sony handicam worth Rs.10,000/-,was discussing official matters with the secretary.N.Sethuramanand the brother and the sister of Dr.(ii) Dr.N.Sethuraman, formed a public trust under the name and style of'S.R.Trust' by means of a registered trust deed dated 09.05.1985 and the objectsof the Trust is to establish, maintain and run a Hospital, Health Clinic,Nursing Home and other allied activities and also to promote the Education andResearch in the field of Health Care.The wife of Dr.N.Sethuraman, namelyDr.Rajam Sethuraman was one of the first six trustees and she was theSecretary of the Board of Trustees also.(iii) On 20.06.2003, Dr.S.Gurushankar, another son of Dr.N.Sethuraman, whois also the brother of the first petitioner herein, along with the firstpetitioner, were appointed as trustees for their life time and subsequently, on22.07.2005, a Supplementary Deed was executed and registered wherein a newclause i.e. clause 3(a) was inserted and as per the said clause, the firstpetitioner shall be the Director of Academics and his brother Dr.S.Gurushankar,shall be the in-charge of the Management of Trust till they attained the age ofsuperannuation and that the first petitioner in his capacity as Director ofAcademics, shall administer the Educational Institutions of the Trust andDr.S.Gurushankar, being the Managing Trustee shall administer Meenakshmi MissionHospital and Research Centre which is being run by the Trust and that theDirector as well as the Managing Trustee shall not interfere with theirrespective functions.Clause 7 of the original Trust Deed dated 09.05.1985 wasalso modified giving power to the Founder of the Trust to appoint and to removeany of the trustees and shall be done by unanimous decision of the President,Secretary, Managing Trustee and Director of Academics.(iv) The second petitioner who is the daughter of the Founder Trustee andher husband who is arrayed as A.3 in the impugned charge sheet, filed O.S.No.224of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Madurai, praying forsettlement of selection of trustees and functioning of the Trust and to declarethat the first petitioner is one of the trustees in the S.R.Trust and allow herto discharge her functions as trustee, rendition of accounts of S.R.Trust, adecree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants which included herbrother Dr.S.Gurushankar, her father Dr.N.Sethuraman, her mother Dr.RajamSethurman and seven others from interfering with her duties as trustee of thesuit property and for other consequential reliefs.(v) The first petitioner herein was arrayed as fourth defendant in theabove said suit and he filed a Memo in the above said suit submitting to thedecree.The Trust having felt that the filing of the Memo by the fourthdefendant in the said suit/first petitioner herein, being against the interestof the Trust, issued a show cause notice dated 02.02.2011 through a lawyercalling upon him to substantiate his explanation within seven days from the dateof receipt of the notice as to why he should not be removed from the trusteeshipof the above said Trust and the reasons have also been assigned for taking suchan action.(vi) The first petitioner along with one P.Chinnaiyan filed O.S.No.14 of2011 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Madurai, against hisbrother Dr.S.Gurushankar, his father Dr.N.Sethuraman, his mother Dr.RajamSethuraman and her sister/second petitioner herein Dr.S.Brathibha and sevenothers praying for declaration that clauses 7 and 8 of the trust deed providingfor the autocratic removal or appointments of trustees by one person as illegal;for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men or agents orpersons from removing the first plaintiff as the trustee of the suit propertyand for other consequential reliefs.The three accused bargedinto the secretary's room and abused the two.The first accused plucked thehandy cam, threw it down, broke and took away the hard disk and in the processphysically assaulted and caused the second respondent injury.All three accusedasked both the defacto complainant and the secretary to leave the hospital,threatening to do away with them otherwise.To explain the backdrop it would be appropriate to reproduce thefollowing from the order in Crl.O.P.No.18351/2012, a petition moved by thepetitioners seeking quash of proceedings in the very same case.The following facts emerge on a perusal of the typed set of documentsfiled by the petitioners as well as the second respondent and also the counteraffidavit filed by the second respondent:(i) The petitioners 1 and 2 are the son and daughter of Dr.(vii) The Board of Trustees of S.R.Trust in the meeting held on17.02.2011, passed a unanimous resolution removing the first petitioner hereinfrom the Board of Trustees in the light of his activities affecting the interestof the Trust.(viii) A plaint in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629 was presented on the file of theDistrict Court on 25.02.2011 by the Advocate on record namely Thiru.P.SureshKumar and the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, returned the plaintwith the above said S.R.Nos., on the ground that the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2011filed by the first petitioner and another for substantial relief, is pending ontheir file, wherein the relief sought for in the present suit can be obtainedalso.In the C.R.19 Register, pertaining to the said plaint, the name of theCounsel was mentioned, but not the parties.(ix) The first petitioner herein filed another suit in O.S.No.320 of 2011on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai, praying for a judgment anddecree to declare that the Board meeting dated 17.02.2011 which resulted in hisremoval as a trustee of the Trust, is to be declared as null and void and forpermanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from discharging hisduties as trustee of the Trust and according to the second respondent herein,the filing of the plaint in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629 before the Principal DistrictJudge, Madurai, as well as the return of the plaint, had been totallysuppressed.(x) The first petitioner herein filed I.A.No.378 of 2011 in O.S.No.320 of2011, praying for an order of ad-interim injunction restraining therespondents/defendants from preventing him from discharging his duty as trusteeand vide order dated 06.04.2011, an exparte ad-interim injunction order wasgranted in his favour.(xi) The trustees of S.R.Trust challenged the legality of the order dated06.04.2011 made in I.A.No.378 of 2011 in O.S.No.320 of 2011, filedC.R.P(PD)(MD)No.822 of 2011 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,contending among other things that the first petitioner herein had totallysuppressed the presentation of the plaint in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629 before thelearned Principal District Judge, Madurai and return of the plaint by the saidCourt and further contended that since he has abused the process of Court, theplaint in O.S.No.320 of 2011 is liable to be struck off.(xii) This Court vide order dated 27.04.2011 has granted an interim orderin the above said Civil Revision Petition, suspending the order of ad-interiminjunction dated 06.04.2011 made in I.A.No.378 of 2011 in O.S.No.320 of 2011, onthe file of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.(xiii) The first petitioner herein who was arrayed as the respondent inthe above said revision, filed M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2011 on 05.07.2011 to vacate theinterim order granted in the above said revision, contending that he was not theplaintiff in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629 and only her sister namely Dr.S.Brathibha, thesecond petitioner herein had presented the said plaint.(xiv) C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.822 of 2011 was taken up for final disposal and thisCourt, vide final order dated 17.08.2011 has allowed the Civil Revision Petitionand thereby, ordered the striking of the plaint in O.S.No.320 of 2011 on thefile of the I Additional Sub Court, Madurai.(xv) The petitioners 1 and 2 and others filed O.S.No.9503 of 2011 on thefile of the VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai, on 23.12.2011, praying forpermanent injunction restraining the trustees of S.R.Trust from interfering withtheir official function and their administration of S.R.Trust and alliedInstitutions.On the basis of the registered document dated 05.12.2011registered on the file of the Sub Registrar, T.Nagar, Chennai - 17, an expartead-interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.21169 of 2011 in O.S.No.9503 of 2011by the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.(xvi) The trustees of S.R.Trust filed C.R.P.No.5222 of 2011 and M.P.No.2of 2011 to suspend the above said order of ad-interim injunction, contendingamong other things that the document dated 05.12.2011 has been fabricated andfiling of the suits in O.S.Nos.224 of 2010 and 14 of 2011, and the presentationof the plaint in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629, had been totally suppressed.(xvii) The Principal Seat of this Court has granted interim suspension ofthe order of ad-interim injunction granted in the above said I.A. and alsoissued notice to the respondents which included the petitioners herein and on11.01.2012, the interim order was extended till 27.01.2012 and it was directedto be listed for final hearing on the said date.In the said Contempt Petition, it is contended that on 13.01.2012, thepetitioners herein along with A.3, with their henchmen, trespassed into theMeenakshi Mission Hospital and Research Centre, Madurai and threatened the staffand occupied the room of the Executive Secretary of the Chairman and created lawand order problem, which lead to the registration of the case in Cr.By way of countering the said contention, the petitioners herein who arearrayed as the respondents 1 and 2 in the above said Contempt Petition,contended that since no prohibitory order is issued as against them, they havevisited the hospital in the capacity of the trustees of S.R.Trust to acquaintthemselves with the day-to-day affairs of the hospital and in the process, theyhave enquired with Mr.P.T.Sundar, the Executive Secretary of the Chairman inrespect of the Management of the hospital.In theinterregnum, challenge was made to the order dated 17.10.2012 in C.R.P.No.822 of2011 under which the plaint in O.S.No.320 of 2011 on the file of the IAdditional Sub Court, Madurai, was struck off and the Honourable Supreme Courtvide orders dated 19.03.2012 had remanded the matter to the High Curt to disposeof the revision in accordance with law with a further direction to examine thequestion as to whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was maintainable andwhether the plaintiffs had suppressed any material facts from the Court asalleged by the defendants in the said suit.(xxii) C.R.P(PD).No.5222 of 2011 was also finally disposed of on28.02.2012 giving liberty to the petitioners namely Dr.Rajam Sethuraman andfour others to approach the Court of VII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai andthey are further at liberty to file a vacate stay petition in respect of the ad-interim injunction granted by the said Court and this Court ordered maintenanceof status quo for a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy ofthe order.(xxiii) Dr.(xxiv) On 25.03.2012, C.R.P(PD)(MD)No.822 of 2011, after remand bythe Honourable Supreme Court, was taken up for hearing and the petitionersnamely Dr.N.Sethuraman and others prayed for appropriate direction, to call forreport from the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, after examiningP.Suresh Kumar, who presented the plaint in S.R.Nos.3626 to 3629, the secondpetitioner herein and P.Chinnayan and also as to the return of the plaint in theabove said S.R.Nos.(xxv) The contempt applicants, aggrieved by some of the observations, withregard to the status of the contemnors as trustees, filed the Contempt AppealNo.2 of 2013 and the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 28.03.2013,has deleted the sentence in paragraph 16 of the order, i.e. 'the entry of therespondents into the hospital in question is in their capacity as Trustees.' andfurther ordered that after deleting the said order, fresh order in the contemptpetition to be issued and disposed of the said Contempt Appeal on the aboveterms.(xxvi) C.R.P.No.822 of 2011 was taken up for final disposal and thisCourt, vide final orders dated 17.10.2012, has held that the first petitionerherein is guilty of suppression of material facts and consequently, directed himto pay the cost imposed by the High Court into the Honourable Chief Justice'sRelief Fund and challenging the vires of the same, the first petitioner hereinfiled S.L.P.No.9831 of 2013 and the Honourable Supreme Court vide order dated15.03.2013, has issued notice to the second respondent and on behalf of therespondents 1, 3, 4 and 5, the learned Counsel took notice and directed thelisting of the S.L.P. after completion of pleadings and further directed thepetitioner namely S.Ramesh to pay the cost imposed by this Court within sixweeks from 15.03.2013."The first effective hearing in this case was on 10.10.2013.Mr.Thereupon, this courtpassed the following order:There shall be an order of interim stay till then."Learned Senior counsel appearing for the second respondent/defactocomplainant submitted that the petitioners have obtained an order of stay at thehands of this court by misrepresentation.The matter which stood referred tomediation by the Hon'ble Apex court related to the civil dispute between thepetitioners and the founder trustee and others.The second respondent/defacto complainant was not so much as aparty in the proceedings before the Apex court.O.P.(MD).No.10770/2013 dated 23.08.2013 had directed learnedJudicial Magistrate, Melur, to split up the case in respect of A1 and A2(petitioners herein) and dispose of the case within three months from the dateof receipt of a copy of this order, on day to day basis.O.P.(MD).No.10770/2013 has also found no mention in the present petition.On being informed that the petitioners would bequestioned on 10.09.2013, the first petitioner had addressed the court in a mostabusive and intemperate manner.Thepetitioners are facing prosecution in C.C.No.1725/2013 for offences underSections 420,465,467,468,471 r/w 34 IPC.Though the affidavit of Dr.N.Sethuramandated 21.09.2013 negates the contention of the petitioners that he had informedthem of payment of bribe to the learned Magistrate, it is necessary not to go bysuch affidavit as even otherwise the circumstances, on prima facieconsiderations would indicate making of false and wreckless allegations.We arenow not going into the question of punishment for contempt of the lower courtunder Section 10 of Contempt of Courts Act. A complaint against the wrongfulconduct of the petitioners has been made before the Registry by the secondrespondent and we would think that the same would be duly and justly acted upon.Without reservation, we would hold that in not informing of proceedings inCrl.O.P.(MD)Nos.18351/2012 and 10770/2013, the petitioners are guilty ofsuppression of facts and abuse of process of this court.The petition shallstand dismissed.The petitioners are directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- incosts to the District Legal Services Authority, Madurai.1.The Inspector of PoliceOthakkadai Police Station,Madurai District2.The Public ProsecutorMadras High Court, Madurai
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,173,358
The applicant has definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.Order on Criminal Misc.Exemption Application This exemption application is allowed.Order on Criminal Misc.In the event of arrest of the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office;The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, who shall ensure the compliance of present order.Order Date :- 18.11.2020 Rohit
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,651,739
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.In brief the case of the prosecution is that on 25-2-1999 at 10.30 a.m., Village Chowkidar Matadeen lodged first information report that Shankar Patel and Ramu Dhimar told him that Hira Kondar (hereinafter referred to 'the deceased') is lying dead in front of the door of accused/appellant and blood is coming out from his head.These persons also told him that accused/appellant was carrying a lathi, his clothes were stained with blood and he had fled towards jungle, has killed deceased by lathi, bricks and stones.After registering the case on the basis of FIR (Ex. P-1), Station Officer Incharge L.P. Yadav came to spot for investigation.At the spot the Investigating Officer prepared Panchnama of dead body; seized ordinary and blood stained earth; sent dead body of the deceased to hospital for post-mortem where post-mortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Chourasia and opined that the deceased died on account of head injury as a result of shock.In furtherance to his investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses; arrested the accused and at his instance seized his blood stained clothes and a lathi.After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the competent Court which, on its turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions where the accused was tried.Learned Trial Judge, after going through charge-sheet, framed charge punishable under Section 302, IPC which was denied by accused/appellant.In order to prove charge, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and placed Exs. P-1 to P-26, the documents, on record.The defence of accused is of false implication, however, he did not choose to examine any witness in the defence.Learned Trial Judge after scrutinising the evidence came to hold that appellant did commit offence for which he was charged, as a result of which, convicted him and passed sentence which we have mentioned herein-above.Hence this appeal.In this appeal Shri S.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the appellant, has contended that the conviction of the appellant is founded on solitary eye-witness Gulzari (P. W. 10) whose evidence suffers from serious infirmities.It has been further contended by the learned Counsel that if the case of prosecution is X-rayed, one can say that it is a case of accident and it can not be said to be a culpable homicide amounting to murder.On these premised arguments, it has been prayed that the appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted.Per contra, Shri S.K. Rai, learned Public Prosecutor, argued in support of impugned judgment.After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed.In order to ascertain whether appellant has committed any offence, we shall now examine the evidence led by prosecution.Matadeen (P.W. 1) is a village Chowkidar and is the author of FIR.He has said that he was informed by one Ramu Dhimar that Sarpanch has called him, as a result of which, he went to his house where Sarpanch told him that deceased had died and his body is lying nearby the door of the appellant.Sarpanch directed him to lodge report in police station.This witness, before going to police station, went to spot and found deceased was lying dead nearby the door of appellant, the blood was coming out from his head.The inhabitants of village told him that appellant killed the deceased by throwing bricks on him.This witness has proved FIR (Ex. P-1).Ramu (P.W. 2) is a formal witness.He had seen the deceased lying at the spot, as a result of which, he informed the Sarpanch and thereafter on the instructions of Sarpanch he called Chowkidar Matadeen (P.W. 1).This witness has categorically stated that umpteen bricks were lying over the body of deceased and he was lying beneath these bricks.This witness saw only legs of the deceased.In cross-examination this witness has said that the entire body of the deceased was covered by several bricks and only legs were visible.Kamla (P.W, 3) is a formal and hostile witness.He has denied the suggestion in cross-examination that he saw accused and deceased quarreling with each other, he further denied the suggestion that appellant was quarreling and was throwing bricks on deceased.In cross-examination made by defence Counsel he specifically said that there was enmity between the appellant and the deceased.Smt. Kanchi Bai (P.W. 4), is, the sister-in-law (Bhabhi).He on 15-2-1999 examined the spot and his official photographer Mohd. Ishaq obtained several photographs of the spot.This witness has stated that the dead body of the deceased was beneath of several bricks.This witness has proved photographs (Exs. P-8 to P-13).According to the testimony of this witness, first of all, the photographs were taken when the dead body was covered with the bricks, later on certain photographs were also taken after removing the bricks and it was found that the deceased was lying turtle.Pamma @ Parma (P.W. 6) is a formal witness of arrest as in his presence appellant was arrested.This witness is also the witness of seizure memo of clothes and lathi.In cross- examination, he has admitted that the seizure memo was prepared after one day of the arrest of accused/appellant.This witness further stated that police caused 'Marpeet' to the appellant.Jagannath (P.W. 7) is the brother of deceased.This witness has stated that on the next day when he came from his field he found that deceased had died and was lying in front the door of the appellant, according to him, when he arrived at the spot he found deceased lying dead.According to him Gulzari and Kamla Dhimar told that deceased was killed by appellant.Thus, the evidence of this witness is hearsay and is not helpful to the prosecution, however, one important fact came in his testimony that there was no enmity between accused/appellant and the deceased.According to post-mortem report, the deceased died on account of shock and asphyxia due to head injury.From the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon and his report, it is revealed that there was fracture on right parietal bone.The doctor further found that there were multiple lacerated wounds found over right side of head, fore-head, right external ear (upper half) crushed, right half of the head, neck and face was stained by dried blackish blood.Doctor found blackish secretions coming from mouth.Four abrasions were also found on upper half of medial, aspect of right thigh.Some soil was also found on lacerated wounds.Cross-examination of this witness is very important and throw sufficient light on the incident.In the cross-examination, this witness has said that if several bricks falls from up side the injuries sustained to the deceased may come.At this juncture, we have seen the photographs (Ex. P-8 to P-13) and it is found that in Exs. P-8, P-9 and P-12 a heap of bricks is there and legs of deceased are seen.After removing the bricks photographs (Ex. P-11) was taken, in which it is seen that deceased was lying turtle.His face and head were found to be seriously injured.Thus, it can very well be said that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained to him due to fall of several bricks.L.P. Yadav (P.W. 9) is Investigating Officer.Gulzari (P.W. 10) is an important witness.Indeed on the basis of this witness only, conviction has been accorded by learned Trial Judge.This witness has said that in the night at 10-11 when he was coming from field he found that appellant and deceased were quarreling.They were grippling and were causing 'Marpeet' to each other.Since he was alone, he did not go nearby them though he asked why they were quarreling, as a result of which, appellant asked to go from the place as he had no concern with the incident.In the morning when he had gone to drink tea in a stall, one Ramdeen Dhimar told him that one person is lying dead and when he went to the spot he found deceased was lying dead and he was beneath umpteen bricks.In cross-examination he has specifically said that 'Marpeet' was not being taken place in his presence.This witness did not say to anybody in the village about the incident.This witness further says that a day earlier to the incident, appellant and deceased had gone together to discharge the work of labour.There was no enmity between them.In Para 5 of his cross-examination he has specifically said that he can not say how the deceased had died.On going through the photographs (Exs. P-8 to P-13) and the evidence of Autopsy Surgeon, it is revealed that deceased died on account of injuries sustained to him by several bricks blows.It be seen that deceased was lying turtle and beneath the heap of bricks, it appears that a 'Kachcha Wall' was there and it may be quite possible that on account of scuffling the deceased might have struck the 'Kachcha Wall', as a result of which, all the bricks fell down over him and he passed away.We are drawing the inference in this manner because there is evidence of doctor and in the post-mortem report (Ex. P-18) soil was found on the person of the deceased.The posture of deceased and the manner in which the heap of bricks is found over him, it can not be said that it could have been thrown by a single person.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,179,815
D.K. JAIN, J.:1.The issue which has been referred for the opinion ofthe Constitution Bench is whether the High Court, inexercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, can direct the Central Bureau ofInvestigation (for short "the CBI"), established underthe Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (forshort "the Special Police Act"), to investigate acognizable offence, which is alleged to have taken placewithin the territorial jurisdiction of a State, withoutthe consent of the State Government.2.For the determination of the afore-stated importantlegal issue, it is unnecessary to dilate on the factsobtaining in individual cases in this bunch of civilappeals/special leave petitions/writ petitions and abrief reference to the facts in Civil Appeal Nos.6249-6250 of 2001, noticed in the referral order dated 8thNovember, 2006, would suffice.These are:One Abdul Rahaman Mondal (hereinafter referred toas, "the complainant") along with a large number ofworkers of a political party had been staying in severalcamps of that party at Garbeta, District Midnapore, inthe State of West Bengal.On 4th January, 2001, thecomplainant and few others decided to return to theirhomes from one such camp.When they reached thecomplainant's house, some miscreants, numbering 50-60,attacked them with firearms and other explosives, whichresulted in a number of casualties.The complainantmanaged to escape from the place of occurrence, hidhimself and witnessed the carnage.On 8th January, 2001, Director General of Police, West Bengaldirected the C.I.D. to take over the investigations inthe case.A writ petition under Article 226 of theConstitution was filed in the High Court of Judicature atCalcutta by the Committee for Protection of DemocraticRights, West Bengal, in public interest, inter alia,alleging that although in the said incident 11 personshad died on 4th January, 2001 and more than three monthshad elapsed since the incident had taken place yet excepttwo persons, no other person named in the FIR, had beenarrested; no serious attempt had been made to get thevictims identified and so far the police had not beenable to come to a definite conclusion whether missingpersons were dead or alive.It was alleged that sincethe police administration in the State was under theinfluence of the ruling party which was trying to hidethe incident to save its image, the investigations in theincident may be handed over to the CBI, an independentagency.4.Aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court, theState of West Bengal filed a petition for special leaveto appeal before this Court.On 3rd September, 2001 leavewas granted.When the matter came up for hearing before atwo-Judge Bench on 8th November, 2006, taking note of thecontentions urged by learned counsel for the parties andthe orders passed by this Court in The Management ofAdvance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs.Shri Gurudasmal & Ors.1 andKazi Lhendup Dorji Vs.
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
165,179,914
been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).Prosecution case, in brief, is that in the night intervening 27 and 28/11/2010, under a false promise to marry, respondent kidnapped the prosecutrix and persistently subjected her to sexual assault.Upon the report of her father, Crime was registered and after investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.Prosecutrix (PW7) deposed that she had went with the respondent from Village Agariya to Kannoj and had stayed there for about 1 months with him and, thereafter, had escorted him to Mahidpur, where also she had stayed with him in a rented house belonging to Rahisabi (PW9), who also used to stay in the same house.Rahisabi, in her cross-examination, testified that prosecutrix had never informed her that the respondent had forcibly abducted her.She further deposed that prosecutrix and the respondent used to live happily as husband and wife.In paragraph 14 of her cross- examination, prosecutrix also admitted that she had no objection in sleeping with the respondent.Dr. Bhavna Benjamin (PW12), who examined the prosecutrix and prepared corresponding report (Ex.P/9), opined that prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse and no sign of struggle was present on her body.After appreciating the entire evidence on record, trial Court found that the prosecutrix had gone with the respondent without informing any member of her family and had voluntarily stayed with him for a period of more than six months and during this period, despite having sufficient opportunity, had not made any complaint or narrated the incident to anyone.In the aforesaid premises, the trial Court found that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,117,489
It is not necessary that any misconduct of an Electricity Board employee must relate to Prevention of Corruption Act alone.Even other offences such as bigamy have been made as part of the Conduct Rules applicable to Electricity Board employees.
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,123,324
Case diary perused.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.449/2015 registered by P.S. Bina, District Sagar (MP) for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376-2N of the IPC and 3/4 of POCSO Act.As per the case of the prosecution, on 24/09/2015 complainant Jairam lodged the F.I.R. against the applicant alleging that he has taken his daughter/prosecutrix by inducing her.On that basis, Crime No.449/2015 under Sections 363 of the IPC has been registered against the applicant.Her statement under Sections 161 & 164 have been recorded.On that basis, Sections of 366A, 376 of the IPC and 3/ 4 of the POCSO Act, have been added in the crime already registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant has not committed any crime and has falsely been implicated in the case.He further submitted that the applicant and prosecutrix have performed marriage and both were living together as husband and wife.He further submitted that the prosecutrix and her parents have not alleged anything against the applicant before the SDM.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicant be released on bail.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.49085/2018 (Raghuvir Adiwasi Vs.State of M.P.) 2 Learned counsel on behalf of the prosecutrix has submitted that prosecutrix and applicant have undergone marriage and they have also a child out of their wedlock.She has further submitted that prosecutrix and her parents have no objection, if the applicant is released on bail.Her Statement under Section 164 has been recorded on 12/01/2018 in which her age is shown to be of 18 years.She has submitted in her statement that she is living as a wife with the applicant.An affidavit of her father Shri Jairam Aadiwasi has also filed before the trial Court, copy of same is available on record.In the affidavit, he has submitted that he has given given consent regarding marriage of prosecutrix with the applicant and he do not have any objection if the applicant is released on bail.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and particularly the fact that the applicant is in judicial custody since 27/11/2018, in the opinion of this Court, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.Consequently, this application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant is allowed.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge Digitally signed by MANJU CHOUKSEY Date: 2018.12.18 15:05:28 +05'30' THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.49085/2018 (Raghuvir Adiwasi Vs.State of M.P.) 3 manju
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,126,997
Heard on the point of admission.The applicant has filed this revision being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the appellate Court dated 11.03.2019 in Cr.A. No. 205/2017 whereby while dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court dated 23.09.2017 in Criminal Case No. 4310/2014 thereby learned trial Court stand convicted the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 354A, 457 and 323 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-, S.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.100/-, S.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.100/- and S.I. for 6 months with default stipulations respectively.After perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses who came on the spot and saw the incident, not supported the statement of the prosecutrix, therefore, this appeal is having an arguable point.Hence, it is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No. 5144/2019, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicant.On the basis of the forgoing discussion, I.A. No. 5144/2019 is allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(Vishnu Pratap Singh Chauhan) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2019.04.11 16:18:59 +05'30'
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,128,393
of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Sri Sanjit Ghosh ... ... petitioner Mr. Shekhar Barman ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Shiladitya Banerjee ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Barasat Women P.S. Case No. 98 of 2018 dated 09.08.2018 under Sections 376/417/506 of the Indian Penal Code.The State produces the case diary and refers to the statement of the victim, from which it appears that the relationship may have been consensual but the grievance is that the petitioner declined to marry the victim after initially promising to do so.Considering the material on record, there may not be any need to take the petitioner into custody as long as he cooperates with the investigation.In addition, the petitioner is directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,131,411
The factual conspectus germane to the adjudication of the present appeal lies within a narrow compass and may be taken note of pithily before we advert to the rival submissions canvassed at the bar.Two male children.Harminder Pal Singh and Harsimran Pal Singh were born out of this wedlock.The married couple and the two children resided at E-257, Ramesh Nagar-New Delhi along with Manohar Lal - father of the appellant.The evidence led by the prosecution evinces acrimonious matrimonial relations between the couple.The appellant remained unemployed in spells and would beat his wife; who was gainfully employed as a teacher in MCD school, to extract money from her to purchase liquor.Two months before the unfortunate incident, on May 16, 1998 a PCR call was received at P.S Kirti Nagar intimating that a quarrel was taking place at E-257, Ramesh Nagar.In this regard D.D. No. 7A [Ex. PW 10/A] was recorded and in furtherance thereof, SI Jaswant Singh PW-10, along with Ct.Surender (not examined during trial) visited the Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 2 of 15 spot.As subsequently recorded in the Daily Diary Register vide D.D. No. 19A [Ex. PW10/B], the matter was compromised by the couple and not pursued further.A.No.536/2000 Page 2 of 15Perhaps the situation did not improve and on May 18, 1998 the wife of the appellant was compelled to address a complaint [Ex. PW 9/A] to Ms. Nisha Aggarwal PW-9 (Reconciliation-cum-Guidance Officer, Department of Social Welfare- Delhi Government) seeking protection from her husband alleging that she had been persistently torturing her.Consequently on the same day, Ms.Nisha Aggarwal promptly addressed a letter [Ex. PW 9/B] to the A.C.P. - Crime Against Women Cell, Tilak Nagar seeking intervention and protection for the wife of the appellant.At 07:15 a.m. the two children, Harminder Pal Singh and his younger brother Harsimran Pal Singh (not examined during the course of investigation and trial) left residence to attend school.It may be apposite to notice that on the relevant date of incident Harminder Pal Singh was aged 12 years and a student of class VII whereas his younger brother- Harsimran Pal Singh was studying in class I.According to the prosecution the children returned from school at 2:15 p.m. The appellant is stated to have opened the door of the house and upon entering the drawing room Harminder Pal Singh saw his mother lying on the floor.Harminder Pal Singh enquired from the appellant as to what had happened to his mother.The appellant took him to a separate room and revealed that a quarrel had taken place between them earlier during the day.The appellant confessed that in a fit of rage he had pressed the neck of the deceased that resulted in her death.Further, the appellant requested that if any person or the police enquired Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 3 of 15 about the incident, he should inform that the deceased had suffered a heart attack.A.No.536/2000 Page 3 of 15The police was brought into the picture only at 3:05 p.m. when DD No.33-B [Ex. PW 7/A] was recorded at P.S. Kirti Nagar, contents of which reveal that a telephonic information had been received from ASI Chander Bhan- PCR (not examined during the course of investigation and trial) that a quarrel was taking place at E-257, Ramesh Nagar.Upon receipt of DD No.33-B, HC Ramesh Chand PW-4 along with staff reached the spot of occurrence at 3:15 p.m.HC Ramesh Chand telephonically informed P.S. Kirti Nagar that a woman named Inderjeet Kaur was found lying dead at E-257, Ramesh Nagar and the said information was recorded vide D.D. No. 11A [Ex. PW 7/B] at 3:30 p.m.In furtherance thereof, the S.H.O.- P.S. Kirti Nagar (not examined during the course of investigation and trial) along with the Additional S.H.O.- Insp.Kulbhushan PW-14 left for the spot in a government vehicle driven by HC Prem Singh (not examined during the course of investigation and trial).At around 03:40/03:45 p.m., Insp.Kulbhushan along with other police personnel reached the spot of occurrence and found Inderjeet Kaur lying dead in the drawing room of the house.In the meanwhile, Harminder Pal Singh telephonically informed Harnam Singh PW-3 (maternal uncle of the deceased) about the incident.Thereupon, Harnam Singh rushed to house of Jaswant Singh PW-2 (father of the deceased); who resided in his immediate vicinity.Together they proceeded to the spot of occurrence.Later, other relatives including Rajender Kaur PW-8 (sister of the deceased) and Raj Singh PW-11A (cousin brother of the deceased) also arrived at the spot.Accordingly, rukka was sent to P.S. Kirti Nagar through HC Ramesh Chand at 05:00 p.m.HC Ramesh Chand reached P.S. Kirti Nagar along with the rukka and consequently FIR No. 261/98 was registered u/s 302 I.P.C at 5:10 p.m.At around 6:20/6:25 p.m. HC Ramesh Chand returned to the scene of crime and handed over the copy of the FIR and rukka to Insp.According to the prosecution, the appellant was found present at the spot of occurrence and was apprehended there itself.Pursuant to his arrest, a Personal Search Memo [Ex. PW 4/A] was prepared by Insp.Kulbhushan in the presence of HC Ramesh Chand.Kulbhushan conducted spot-investigation and prepared a visual site plan without scale [Ex. 14/B] at the pointing out of Harminder Pal Singh.Manish Kumar PW-13 (a private photographer) was summoned to the scene of crime to take photographs [Ex.PW-13/1-5].The statements of HC Ramesh Chand, Manish Kumar and father of the appellant, namely - Manohar Singh were recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.P.C at 11:30 p.m.The next day, on July 29, 1998 Rajender Kaur and Jaswant Singh identified the body of the deceased vide statements Ex. PW 14/C and Ex. PW 2/C respectively.Upon completing the inquest proceedings including the preparation of Death Report [Ex. PW 2/B] and Brief Facts [Ex. PW 14/D], Insp.Kulbhushan submitted an application for conducting autopsy along with the inquest papers with the Medical Superintendent- Civil Hospital, Sabzi Mandi at 01:00 p.m. [Ex PW 14/E].At 1:15 p.m. autopsy was conducted by Dr.K.Goyal PW-16 at Civil Hospital Mortuary, Subzi Mandi and Post-Mortem Report was prepared [Ex. PW 16/A].The cause of death was opined to be asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation by other party that was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.The probable time since death was stated to be around 26 hours.Two sealed pullandas containing the blood sample and clothes of the deceased (one gown and one underwear) were prepared.The same were handed over to Ct.Rajesh Kumar PW-5 along with the sample seal.Upon completing the autopsy, body of the deceased was handed over to Jaswant Singh [Ex. PW-2/D].The said pullandas along with the sample seal were handed over by Ct.Rajesh Kumar to HC Sushila PW-7; who seized the same vide Seizure Memo [Ex. PW 5/A].The said fact was duly recorded vide D.D. No. 14A at 04:00 p.m. In furtherance thereof, HC Sushila deposited the pullandas and the sample seal with HC Jodha Singh PW-12 who made an entry to the said effect in the Malkhana Register at Serial No. 1285 [Ex. 12/A].A.No.536/2000 Page 6 of 15On July 30, 1998 PW-2 Jaswant Singh produced two letters before the police that were seized by Insp.Kulbhushan vide Seizure Memo [Ex. PW 2/A].The said letters were found by Jaswant Singh upon conducting search of the almirah of the deceased.The first document was a photocopy of the complaint dated May 18, 1998 [Ex. PW 9/A] addressed by the deceased to Ms. Nisha Aggarwal (Reconciliation-cum-Guidance Officer, Department of Social Welfare- Delhi Government) seeking protection from her husband i.e. the present appellant as he had been persistently torturing her.The second document was an original communication dated May 18, 1998 [Ex.PW-9/B] addressed by Ms.Nisha Aggarwal (Reconciliation-cum-Guidance Officer, Department of Social Welfare- Delhi Government) to the A.C.P., Crime Against Women Cell, P.S. Tilak Nagar, Delhi seeking intervention and protection for the deceased.Thereafter, Insp.Kulbhushan recorded the statements of the relatives of the deceased Jaswant Singh, Harnam Singh, Rajinder Kaur and Raj Singh in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C.On September 14, 1998 the statement of Nisha Aggarwal (Reconciliation-cum-Guidance Officer, Department of Social Welfare- Delhi Government) was recorded by Insp.Kulbhushan in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C and she confirmed the veracity of the two letters produced by Jaswant Singh.On October 16, 1998 Insp.Davender Singh PW-6 - Draftsman visited the spot of occurrence and prepared notes at the instance of Insp.Consequently, scaled site plan [Ex. PW 6/A] was prepared by Insp.The appellant is on bail.Bail bonds and Surety bonds are discharged.The appellant before us seeks to assail the judgment of conviction dated July 28, 2000 and order on sentence dated August 02, 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Delhi convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The appellant has been awarded imprisonment for life and directed to pay fine of `1,000/-; in default of which he would be required to undergo further imprisonment for a period of fifteen days.The finding of guilt has been returned by the learned Trial Court in wake of trinity of circumstances that we summarize at the outset.A.No.536/2000 Page 1 of 15(i) Existence of strained matrimonial relations between the appellant and his wife as emerging from the testimony of Harminder Pal Singh PW-1, Jaswant Singh PW-2, Harnam Singh PW-3, Rajender Kaur PW-8, Nisha Aggarwal PW-9, SI Jaswant Singh PW-10 and Raj Singh PW- 11A.(ii) Extra-Judicial confession made by the appellant to his son Harminder Pal Singh.(iii) Failure of the appellant to substantiate his plea of alibi by leading evidence or suggest an alternate explanation of the incident.A.No.536/2000 Page 4 of 15Harminder Pal Singh informed Jaswant Singh, Harnam Singh, Rajender Kaur and Raj Singh that the appellant had confessed his guilt before him.Statement/fardbayan of Harminder Pal Singh [Ex. PW 1/A] was recorded by Insp.Kulbhushan at the spot of occurrence.Kulbhushan made endorsement/tehrir [Ex PW 14/A] upon the statement of the informant and recommended registration of case u/s 302 IPC against the appellant.Rajesh Kumar PW-5 deposited the body of the deceased in the Civil Hospital Mortuary- Subzi Mandi at 09:00 p.m. Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 5 of 15A.No.536/2000 Page 5 of 15A copy of FIR No. 261/98 P.S. Kirti Nagar was received by the learned Illaqa Magistrate in terms of Section 157 Cr.Upon conducting enquiry from the Office of A.C.P- Crime against Women Cell, Tilak Nagar, the communication dated May 18, 1998 Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 7 of 15 addressed by PW-9 Ms. Nisha Aggarwal could not be traced in the records maintained at the said office.A.No.536/2000 Page 7 of 15The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses in support of the charges.Upon conclusion of trial the learned Trial Court held the present appellant guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC.We have endowed careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced at the bar by Shri Harsh Prabhakar, learned Amicus-Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Shri Varun Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Synopsis of Submissions submitted by the learned Amicus during course of hearing has also been taken on record.Apropos the circumstance of extra-judicial confession emerging from the evidence of Harminder Pal Singh, the learned Amicus urged that it would militate against natural human conduct for the appellant to make an extra-judicial confession before his son of tender age who was bound to harbor immense affection towards his mother and could naturally not be expected to support the appellant in his sinister designs of concealing the crime.It was submitted that the appellant could have easily hood winked Harminder Pal Singh into believing that his mother had died of a heart attack as there were no visible marks of violence on the body of the deceased.Thus, there existed no plausible reason to impel the appellant to utter a confession before his son and further expect him to collude in misleading the world at large that the deceased had suffered a heart attack.The probity of the extra-judicial confession was assailed before us by the learned Amicus on another count.It was submitted that according Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 8 of 15 to the evidence adduced by Harminder Pal Singh he returned from school on the fateful day at 2:15 P.M and by the said time his mother was already lying dead.Thereafter, the appellant is stated to have made the alleged confession to him.On the other hand our attention was drawn to the contents of D.D. No. 33B [Ex. PW 7/A] that was recorded at P.S. Kirti Nagar at 3:05 P.M wherein it was stated that a quarrel was taking place at E-257, Ramesh Nagar.The said information had been telephonically received at the Police Station from ASI Chander Bhan- PCR; who was not examined during the course of investigation or trial.It was thus stated that the prosecution had not been able to crease the said inconsistency emerging in its case.It was submitted that on this aspect the learned Trial Court erred in observing that a quarrel may have ensued when the relatives of the deceased reached the spot as the said finding is in teeth with positive evidence of Jaswant Singh and Harnam Singh who have deposed that the police personnel had already reached the spot when they arrived.Thus, the relatives of the deceased could not have been the participants in any quarrel that resulted in a call being made to the police.A.No.536/2000 Page 8 of 15The learned Amicus thereafter sought to discredit the version of the prosecution that the appellant was found at the spot and was apprehended there itself.It was submitted that D.D. No. 11 A [Ex. PW 7/B] and tehrir [Ex PW 14/A] were conspicuously silent on the aspect of presence of the appellant at the spot and strongly probablize the assertion of the appellant that he was not present at the time of incident.It was further submitted that the site-plans [Ex. 14/B and Ex. PW 6/A] prepared by the prosecution also did not depict the room wherein the appellant is alleged to have made the extra-judicial confession or the spot from where he was apprehended.A.No.536/2000 Page 9 of 15The learned Amicus would submit that the case of the prosecution was fraught with innumerable contradictions on material aspects that go to the root of the matter and could not be brushed aside as mere discrepancies, when viewed conjunctively in a holistic perspective.(i) Jaswant Singh stated that the statement of Harminder Pal Singh was recorded at the Police Station whereas other witnesses have deposed to the contrary.(ii) The photographer Manish Kumar and the Investigating Officer Inspector Kulbhushan did not notice any visible marks of injury, however, some marks (bruises and abrasions) were found upon the neck of deceased by PW-16 Dr. K. Goyal while conducting Post-Mortem examination.(iii) Contradictions inter-se in the testimony of various prosecution witnesses on the aspect when the body of the deceased was removed from the scene of crime.The appellant was not armed and used his bare hands.TCR be returned.Copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent- Central Jail, Tihar for updating the jail record.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE FEBRUARY 16, 2016 mamta Crl.A.No.536/2000 Page 15 of 15A.No.536/2000 Page 15 of 15
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,131,671
CRM No. 5343 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 Karimpur Police Station Case No.96 of 2018 dated 03.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:-Swarup Swarnakar ... Petitioner Mr. Asraf Mandal, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate Ms. Kumkum Mitra, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Karimpur Police Station Case No.96 of 2018 dated 03.06.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State opposes the prayer and says that the wife of the petitioner suffered a deep cut on her hand and the wife has made a statement that the petitioner, poured kerosene on the wife in an attempt to set her on fire.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 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,134,555
The petitioner's son was arrested on 23.01.2018 for the offence under Section 392 of IPC in Cr.There are two other previous cases pending against the petitioner's son in Cr.No.189 of 2017 under Sections 341, 294 (b), 307 of IPC on the file of the Annadanapatty Police Station, Salem District.Similarly, another criminal case in Cr.No.750 of 2017 under Section 392 of IPC on the file of Annadanapatty Police Station was also registered.The ground case has been filed against the petitioner's son in Cr.No.53 of 2018 under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 502 (ii) of IPC.Challenging the saidhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 detention order passed against the petitioner's son, the petitioner is before this Court.2.Heard Dr.S.Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.Side) for the respondents.S.Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is a delay in passing the detention order as the petitioner's son was arrested on 23.01.2018 whereas, the detention order was passed on 05.04.2018, after passing of 72 days.State of Tamil Nadu and two others in H.C.P.(MD)No.1009 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018” to contend that similar detention orders have been quashed on the ground of delay in passing the detention order from the date of arrest.4.However, Mrs.S.Thankira, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that there is no time limit fixed with regard to the passing of detention order.When there is no prohibition in passing the order with delay also, there cannot be any bar for the respondent to pass such a detention order.5.Heard the parties and perused the records.6.Though Dr.S.Manoharan, learned Counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds to attack the detention order that it is liable to be quashed fully on the ground of delay, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there is no prohibition in passing the detention order belatedly.In this case, the petitioner's son was arrested on 23.01.2018 whereas, the detention order was passed on 05.04.2018, after 72 days.Taking into consideration, the settled position of law by this Court earlier in the Judgement reported in 2005 MLJ (Crl.) 821 andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 another unreported Judgement of this Court in “Raj @ Sekar @ Rajasekar Vs.State of Tamil Nadu and two others in H.C.P.(MD)No.1009 of 2018 dated 18.07.2018” and following the said judgments, the detention order is liable to be set aside.Accordingly, it is set aside and the writ petition is allowed.1.The State represented by its The Secretary to Government (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem District,http://www.judis.nic.in Salem.N.KIRUBAKARAN, J and ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J ay H.C.P.No.1831 of 2018 Dated: 12.12.2018http://www.judis.nic.in
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
98,138,120
Applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during 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 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 4 M.Cr.C.No.33161/2020 (Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs.State of M.P. & Anr.) 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.4 M.Cr.No.1/State.Matter is heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 14.8.2020 by Police Station, Chanderi, District Ashoknagar, in connection with Crime No.389/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 454, 354, 354-A of IPC and Sections 7,8 of the POCSO Act.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that he is suffering confinement since 14.8.2020 and charge-sheet has already been filed.Applicant does not bear any criminal record and even otherwise, he learnt the lesson hard way and would mend his ways and would become a better citizen.He further undertakes not to repeat the same nature of offence in future.He further undertakes to cooperate in trial and to perform community service.On these premises, he prayed for bail Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 M.Cr.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.After release, the applicant is further directed to strictly follow all the instructions which may be issued by the Central Govt./State Govt. or Local HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 M.Cr.C.No.33161/2020 (Jeetu @ Jitendra Vs.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.Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.(Anand Pathak) Judge ms/-MADHU Digitally signed by MADHU SOODAN PRASAD DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA SOODAN PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, postalCode=474011, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=d6b55bd7b8b095e45b0d58a876 PRASAD e9dd057f98aa4a26968acc4ea58035d05b0 084, cn=MADHU SOODAN PRASAD Date: 2020.09.29 12:03:42 -07'00'
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
18,317,634
Heard on I.A.No.2344/2017, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants.The appellants have been tried and convicted for an offence under Section 326/34 of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I for 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- and also under Section 323/34 (Three counts) of I.P.C and sentenced to suffer R.I for 3 months with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Looking to the short sentence is of only three years, I am inclined to allow I.A No.2344/2017 and suspend the remaining part of the jail sentence of the appellants and direct that they be enlarged on bail upon their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.Call for the record of the trial Court and list the case thereafter for admission.The appellants are directed to appear before the Registry of this Court on 25/07/2017 and on such other dates as may be directed in this regard.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE julie
['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.
183,179,849
Heard learned advocate appearing for the appellant.Issue notice to the respondents.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 :::2 CriAppeal 233-2020Learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives notice for respondentNo.1-State.Another fact to be noted is that, there appears to be some civildispute.Further there appears that, even certain offence has beenregistered against the respondent No.2 under Section 353, 504, 487 ofIndian Penal Code, some organisation has also made complaint againstthe respondent stating that, the respondent is giving threats of takingaction under the Atrocities Act, and it appears that the presentappellants being the members of the said organisation, were thesignatories to the said representation made to the police authority,thereby at this stage a picture has been painted that the FirstInformation Report is tainted.Under such circumstance, in view of the Prithviraj Chavan v. Union ofIndia, Writ Petition No.1015 of 2018, decided by Hon'ble Apex Court on 10-02-2020,case is made out for extending ad-interim protection till the papers are ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 ::: 3 CriAppeal 233-2020perused and the respondents are heard.Therefore, in the event ofarrest of the appellants in Crime No.16 of 2020, registered with SakriPolice Station Dist.Dhule for the offences punishable under Section427, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andU/sec.3(1)(r)(s) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, they bereleased on P.R. and S.B. of Rs.15,000/- each, till the next date.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 :::(SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI) JUDGEvjg/-.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2020 06:50:02 :::
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,180,646
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Murugan, son of Panneerselvam, aged about 30 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1250/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 15.9.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982)the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail application filed in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.However, he submitted that the copies of the bail applications were not supplied to the detenu.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail respectively in Crl.M.P.No.929/2013, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Cr.No.160/2013 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 427, 397 and 506[ii] IPC; and in Crl.
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,189
P.Ws. 3 and 4 are the daughters of the said Velappan.P.W5 their mother is one Ponnammal.At about 9 p.m. the deceased has been to the house of Velappan for the purpose of enquiring the incident happened in that morning.At about 11 p.m. on that day, P.W.2 brought the deceased with the help of his hands and he was not in a position to talk and she was informed by P.W.2 that the accused has beat him with sticks.P.W.2 told her that when the deceased was returning from the house of Velappan, near the six feet pathway, all the accused beat him with sticks and hands.The left hand thumb finger, left side hand and the back were also seen with the injuries and more so, the deceased complained of pain in his bladder.As it was night time, P.W.1 could not go to the Police Station.Therefore, on the next day evening at about 8 p.m., she took her husband in an auto- rickshaw to the Thukkalay Police Station and gave a oral complaint which was reduced into writing to her narration, read over to her, and she subscribed her signature, marked as Ex.Then she took her husband to Thukkalay Hospital and after some treatment, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil for further treatment, where P.W.1 and the deceased were examined by the Sub Inspector of Police, Thukkalay, and a statement was also recorded from the deceased by a Judicial Magistrate.After 10 days, the deceased Ramasamy died in the hospital.Dr. Azhagesan, P.W.13 is the Radiologist attached to the Nagercoil Government Hospital.He speaks to the factum of the x-rays and Ex.P.17 is the wound certificate.At about 10.50 a.m. on that day, he also examined P.W.4 and found an abrasion on her right shoulder joint and the injury was simple in nature.P.19 is the wound certificate issued by him.9. P.W.18 Vincent, the Head Constable attached to Thukkalay police station has claimed that P.W.1 along with her husband came to the police station at about 8 p.m. on 21.12.1985 and gave a statement, which was reduced into writing to her narration, read over to her and got her signature.Since Ramasamy was not able to speak, he recorded the statement Ex.Then with a Police memo.P.7 he sent the deceased Ramasamy to the Government Hospital, Thukkalay for treatment and placed Ex.P.1 for the perusal of the Sub Inspector of Police.P.W.19 the Sub Inspector of Police, hukkalay, on perusing Ex.P.1 took up the matter for investigation.On 22.12.1985 he had been to the Government Hospital, Thukkalay, and from where he came to know that the patient had been referred to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil and went there and recorded the statement from the injured Ramasamy, marked as Ex.He examined P.W.1 along with the Medical Officer, who treated the deceased.Then he returned to the Police Station by 5 p.m. on that day and based on Ex.P.1 registered the same in Thukkalay P.S.Cr.No. 558 of 1985 for the offences Under Section s 323 and 325, I.P.C. and prepared printed F.I.R. Ex.P.21 and sent the F.I.R. to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel.He took up further investigation and had been to the scene of crime at about 6.15 p.m. and in the presence of P.W.6 and P.W.7 he prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P.3 and rough sketch Ex.P.22 attested by them.P.Ws.7 to 9 were also examined.On 26.12.1985 at Sarottu at about 10.10 a.m. he arrested A1 and A2 and sent them for judicial remand.At about 11.10 p.m. on 4.1.1986, he received the death intimation of the deceased Ramasamy Ex.P.14 and accordingly, altered the section of offence into 302, I.P.C. and sent the express report Ex.P.23 to the court through P.C. 528 and posted the Constable 822 to guard the corpse.P.W.20 got the express report from P.W.19 and handed over the same at about 1.30 a.m. to the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel with his acknowledgment Ex.P.W.21 Kumarasamy, the Constable attached to the Thukkalay police station, escorted the dead body and handed over the requisition for conduct of autopsy and also escorted during autopsy and after wards he recovered M.O.1 dhoti and handed over the dead body to its relatives.ORDER N. Arumugham, J.These two appeals arise out of a judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Kanniyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in S.C. No. 42 of 1987 dated 31.8.1987, finding the first accused (appellant in C.A. No. 569 of 1987) alone guilty for the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. and thereby convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment and acquitting the accused 2 to 4 (respondents in C.A. No. 279 of 1988) of the charges framed and tried against them.Challenging the said judgment, the State has preferred appeal against acquittal in C.A. No. 279 of 1988 and the lifer the first accused has filed C.A. 569 of 1987, challenging the correctness and propriety of the same.Since both the appeals arise out of a single judgment against four accused, which ended in convicting the first accused and acquitting accused 2 to 4 and the convicted accused and the State have preferred separate appeals on the same factual aspects and law and evidence, both these appeals are disposed of by delivering this common judgment.The factual scenario of the prosecution case is stated as hereunder:P.W.1 Chellathangam is the wife of the deceased by name Ramasamy, residing in Vettikattuvilai in Sarottu Village in Kanniyakumari District, within the jurisdiction of the Thukkalay Police Station.P.W.1's husband's brother Velappan was employed as a Wireman in the Electricity Board.It appears that there existed an enmity between Ponnammal's family and the family of the accused for several years and as such they were not in talking terms.Ponnammal, the mother of P.Ws. 3 and 4 is stated to have encroached and put up a hut in the place belonging to one Chellammal and in that connection, at about 8 am.on 20.12.1985 there was a quarrel between P.W.3 and P.W.4 and the accused and in which A1.A3 and A4 had beat P.W.3 and P.W.4 and a complaint was given to Thukkalay Police station and accordingly, the injured were sent to the hospital.3. P.W.2 by name Thangamani, a resident of Kovilvilai in Sarottu village, is an Ex-serviceman from the army and he claims that for the last 10 years, there was enmity existing between the two families above referred to.At about 10.30 p.m. on 20.12.1985 when he proceeded towards Manali road branching from Padmanabhapuram, the deceased Ramasamy came in the opposite direction and he took him to his brother's house to enquire about the quarrel in the morning.When the deceased asked as to what had happened, they were informed that the accused had beaten the two daughters and upon the basis of which a complaint was given to the Police and they were treated at the Government Hospital at Thukkalay.As it was night time, P.W.2 advised the deceased that they could ask the accused on the next day morning.When P.W.2 and the deceased were coming through a six feet road near a Church, all the accused at that time came in the opposite direction with wooden logs in the hands of A2 to A4 and the first accused had no weapon.The first accused (A1) asked the deceased as to who he was to support the Velappan's family and by so saying he beat Ramasamy with his hands.When A2 beat Ramasamy with sticks, he warded it off with his left hand and therefore that beating fell on his left hand.When A2 beat again with the stick, it fell on his left thumb.A3 and A4 also beat the deceased indiscriminately.When Ramasamy fell down facing upwards, all the four accused kicked him upon his cheat, stomach and abdomen with their legs.Afterwards, they left the place.Ramasamy raised hue and cry and was not able to stand up.However P.W.2 holding by the shoulder took him to his house and informed P.W.1 of the details at about 11 p.m. on that day.4. P.W.3 and P.W.4 by name Prema and Selvi claim that the first and second accused were their uncle and A3 and A4 were the sons of A2 and that their family was not in talking terms with the family of the accused from the time of the marriage of their mother and their grand mother had put up a hut in the place belonging to one Chellammal and in connection with vacating the same, in the morning of 20.12.1985, A1 came and insisted her grandmother to vacate and it was at that time, a wordy quarrel erupted.Regarding this incident they were to the Thukkalay police station, where A1 and A2 also came there to give a complaint.Thereafter, a case was filed in the court of Judicial Second Class Magistrate, Eraniel and these witnesses P.W.3 and P.W.4 admitted the offence and were released on admonition.P.2 is the complaint given by P.W.3 to Thukkalay police station.As they had claimed that except the above, there was no other complaint, these two witnesses were treated as hostile.5. P.W.5 Chellammal claimed that she was a resident of Tuticorin and she owns land in an extent of one cent but however, it was occupied by one Annammal by putting a thatched hut and that when she was asked to remove the same, she demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000 and in that connection A1 and A2 asked Annammal to vacate and that she reported the village leader by name Murugan and that thereafter she had been to Tuticorin.Since she denied the further factual aspects of the prosecution case, she was also treated as hostile and she has not supported the prosecution.P.3 along with P.W.7 and P.W.7 also corroborated him in having attested Ex.P.W.8 Thiru.Muthuraj, Special Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nagercoil, appears to have received a requisition at about 1.35 p.m. on 22.12.1985 from the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, to record the dying declaration from one Ramasamy at the hospital and had been to the hospital by 1.45 p.m. and met the deceased at that time and after having introduced himself, he recorded the statement to the narration of the deceased, read over to him, and got his signature.The dying declaration has been marked as Ex.The above exercise was done in the presence of the Medical Officer, who has certified that during the time of recording the dying declaration, the deceased was conscious and able to understand what was going on and was able to give the statement.The certificate given by the Medical Officer has been marked as Ex.He would claim that during the time of recording the dying declaration, excepting the Medical Officer, no other person was present.Dr. Krishnamoorthy, attached to the Government Hospital, Padmanabhapuram, examined as P.W.9, on the receipt of Ex.P.7 the memo from the Sub Inspector of Police Thukkalay, examined Ramasamy and found the following injuries:Tenderness on the supra pubic region.Linear vertical contusion 3" x 1" on the right back near right scapular region.A contusion on the left thumb on the dorsal aspect 1/2" x 1/2".A contusion on the left dorsum of the hand 1" x 1".The patient complained of pain in the abdomen.Catheterisation was done (taking out urine) T.T. was given.He would further say that at about 7.30.a.m.on 22.12.1985 he referred the deceased to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil for further treatment.P.8 is the copy of the Accident Register.P.9 is the copy of the wound certificate.According to this doctor, injury number 1 and 3 were of grievous in nature.P.W.10 Dr. Yusuf, claims that at about 9 a.m. on 22.12.1985 he admitted the deceased Ramasamy in good condition and capable of speaking to others and Ex.P.10 is the copy of the Accident Register.Dr. Pen Ravindran P.W.11, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, claims that he was present during the recording of the dying declaration by P.W.8, the Judicial Magistrate, at about noon on 22.12.1985 and that the patient was conscious and to that extent he has certified in Ex.P.W.12 Dr. Sathyavathi, Devi, the Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Nagercoif has also seen the deceased Ramasamy and she speaks about the intimation sent to the Judicial Magistrate Ex.P.4 to record dying declaration and the surgery done to Ramasamy between 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on that day.The tissues to the extent of 1' x 1/2' in the small intestine had been affected with sepsis and that it was rectified by the surgery and she was of the opinion that because of the tearing above referred, the faecal matter came out and surrounded other portions with infection and this injury could have been caused by kicking and beating and this injury is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature andEx.p.m. on 4.1.1986 and sent Ex.P.14 the death intimation to the Police.Another doctor by name Boopathi, examined as P.W.16 of the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, on the receipt of the corpse with a requisition to conduct autopsy, he did the autopsy and found the following injuries:1. Plastered wound 3 in numbers.The plasters were removed.A sutured wound-surgical 19 sutures along the mid line vertically-30 cm wound is infected.A drainage wound along with drainage tube in situ just about the left anterior super iliac spine 5 cm transverse-infected.A cut down wound 1/2 cm just above the right medial mallelous.He was of the view that all injuries are ante-mortem and the patient died due to the formation of peritonitis.P.16 is the post mortem certificate given by him.Dr. Sahul Hamid, Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Thukkalay, claimed that he examined P.W.3 at about 12.45 p.m. on 20.12.1985 and found a contusion and abrasion on her cheek and back and a contusion below the abrasion and the injuries are simple in nature.P.W.22 Inspector of Police Eraniel was then incharge of Thukkalay police station.He got the express report in this case and took up further investigation.After the inquest, he sent the dead body for autopsy.On 7.1.1986 in the early hours, he arrested A1 and A2 at Azhagiya mandabam and took further steps as provided by law.When the accused were questioned Under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the basis of the incriminating circumstances and materials placed against them by the prosecution, the accused have denied their complicity in toto.A3 has stated that he was studying in the second year in Hindu College and the case had been foisted against him.A4 has stated that he was employed in Richardsons, Madras, and he had also been implicated falsely.However, the accused did not choose to examine any witnesses on their behalf.On recording the oral testimony of 23 witnesses, P.Ws 1 to 23, 27 documents Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27, with the marking of one material object on behalf of the prosecution but none on behalf of the defence, with the rival contentions and the statements made by the accused during the 313 questioning, the learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the offence Under Section 302, I.P.C. committed by A1, who is the appellant in C.A. No. 569 of 1987 has been proved and established by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to life imprisonment.Regarding A2 to A4, he has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them and accordingly found them not guilty and acquitted them of the charges, by rendering the impugned judgment.It is this judgment, the first accused A1 is challenging for its correctness and legality by preferring the former appeal and against the acquittal of A2 to A4, the State has come forwarded with the latter appeal and canvassing for its correctness.We have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Panchapagesan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of A1/ appellant in the earlier appeal and respondents in the subsequent appeal and the contra by the learned Government Advocate in both the appeals.Mr. Panchapagesan, learned counsel for the appellant/ A1 contended firstly that there was an inordinate delay of nearly 21 hours in lodging the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 either by the victim or his party and for which, there was no explanation at all by either of the witnesses for the prosecution and as such, this unexplained delay of about 21 hours goes to the root of the prosecution and that secondly there is only one eye witness in this case and that is P.W.2 and on a careful scrutiny his testimony would disclose that his evidence deserves no legal credance at all and would clinchingly demonstrate that he is a planted witness subsequently by the prosecution and that therefore, the learned trial Judge while disbelieving the evidence of P.W.2 for acquitting A2 to A4, has adopted a wrong approach in believing the version of P.W.2 in the case of the first accused with regard to the one and the same transaction; To illustrate the dubious character and nature of P.W.2's testimony, leaned counsel took us through the various portions of the evidence of the prosecution both oral and documentary, which in our view, are totally convincing and acceptable, with the result, that the entire testimony of P.W.2 is wholly unreliable and untrustworthy; thirdly, that the prosecution in the context of the existing chronic motive, falsely implicated A2 to A4 and so also A1 and in the result, the prosecution has burked the real occurrence and placed a totally different version, which version, directly conflicts with the version of the same prosecution story, with the result, who did the overt act and as to how and in what manner, which accused caused the injury to the deceased who died after a lapse of more than 10 days in the hospital all remain a mystery; fourthly, the medical evidence though emerged out from a large number of medicos attending the deceased and who had taken all positive steps by conducting surgery more than once, did not render any support to the prosecution in substituting and corroborating the claim of the ocular witness.Lastly, the learned counsel would contend while the learned trial Judge disbelieved all the prosecution witnesses and their version, in acquitting A2 to A4, went wrong and had approached thoroughly on a false notion and convicted Al alone by believing the same version with regard to the same transaction, the same occurrence and same set of facts and evidence, which cannot be recognised in law.The contrary was endeavored by the learned Government Advocate Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, on behalf of the state not only to justify the conviction rendered against A1 but also to show that the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Judge against A2 to A4 is perverse in nature and that therefore, called for our interference in these appeals.In the light of the above rival positions, we have been taken through the entire oral testimony and documentary evidence by the bar for the respective parties and accordingly, we have carefully perused the same, much less very meticulously.Immediately after the occurrence, it is also noticed that the accused had run away and the deceased who fell down, unable to speak, was brought by P.W.2, by the shoulder and hands to the house of P.W.1, and he narrated the whole incident happened to P.W.1 , the wife of the injured.This was at about 11.30 p.m. on that day.Strangely enough, after the narration and handing over the inured to his wife P.W.2, the star witness in this case, has left the place by doing nothing and then his whereabouts are not known till about 5.1.1986 when he was examined by the Inspector of Police at the time of inquest at the Government Hospital, Nagercoil, It is worthwhile to note that P.W.1 and the deceased were living in the village by name Sorattu.The observation mahazar Ex.P.3 and the rough sketch Ex.P.22 would clinchingly show that there are several persons living in and around the house of the deceased and anyone in the neighbourhood could have been approached for any help to report the matter to the authorities or set the law in motion.The more significant aspect is though her husband was not in a position to speak and complained of pain in the abdomen below his umbilicus, no treatment was given and there was no evidence to show that any attempt had been taken.It is discernible that P.W.1 came to know about the details of the incident only from P.W.2 and sons his information, she did not know anything about the incident.Even so, on seeing the precarious condition of her husband, she was all along alive without taking any steps even till 8 p.m. on the next day when she took her husband in an auto-rickshaw to Thukkalay police station, which is about four kilometres from her residence.The delay thus caused for about 21 hours, by P.W.1 or P.W.2 remains unexplained and this delay is deliberate and purposeful.Therefore, we find no reason, for any prudent lady or the house wife to keep quiet for nearly a day on the verge of her husband being almost in total collapse.The conduct of P.W.1 and P.W.2 in this regard are totally strange, peculiar and surmising.Therefore, if the evidence of P.W.1, 3, 4 and 5 are eschewed, viewed as aforesaid, the only ocular testimony that remains is the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2, though the sole eye witness, it cannot be a rule that his sole testimony should be disregarded provided P.W.2 appears to be a truthful witness and speaking the truth and nothing but the truth, if not, the result would be on the converse.To illustrate the conduct and character and the falsility of P.W.2's evidence, we would like to point out one or two aspects alone.This conduct on his part is totally strange and unbecoming.Secondly, he has not claimed in the box that the first accused along with others had kicked the deceased upon his chest and abdomen several times.Before the court below, the specific claim of P.W.2 was that the first accused has beat the deceased with the stick several times on several parts of the body.It is true that 'peritonitis' formed in the small intestine of the deceased was due to the injuries referred to as number 1 and 3 in the post mortem certificate and evidenced by the medicos and the deceased was done to death by homicidal violence and injury numbers 1 and 3 are likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.The doctor has given the ordinary course of nature.The doctor has given the opinion and the reasoning for such conclusion but the question that remains to be seen is, who is the person responsible for causing such bodily injury to the deceased, which is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Coming to the subsequent appeal, preferred by the State, against the acquittal of respondents 1 to 3/A2 to A4 we heard the arguments and contentions of Mr. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Government Advocate, and the contra from Mr. Panchapagesan, learned counsel for respondents.We notice that the learned trial Judge while acquitting A2 to A4/respondents 1 to 3, had totally disbelieved the testimony of not only P.W.2 but also other witnesses but for the same transaction and same set of evidence while coming to the first accused the learned trial Judge has placed every reliance upon the testimony of P.W.2 as well as Ex.The so-called dying declaration marked as Ex.P.5 though claimed to have been proved by the author, namely, Special Judicial Fist Class Magistrate, as attested by the doctor, is of no consequence for the very reasoning that it came into existence only on the third day from the date of occurrence and till that time his wife was all along with the deceased, by which, the tutoring of the mind of the deceased as intermeddled, cannot be ruled out.As a result, the subsequent appeal C.A. No. 279 of 1988 has no merits and has become liable to be dismissed in toto.
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,197,331
There is no chance of revisionist's re-indulgence to bring him into association with known criminals.(xi) That there is no apprehension of social physiological danger.This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by learned VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO ACT, 2012), Kanpur Dehat dismissing Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2019 ( Dhananjay Vs.State of U.P.), filed under Section 101 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short 'the Act') and affirming an order of Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat dated 05.12.2019 refusing the bail plea to the revisionist in Case Crime No.40 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Devrahat, District Kanpur Dehat.Heard Sri P.K.Singh, learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Arvind Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and perused the record.The prosecution case, as per the version of the FIR, is that on 4.9.2019 when the niece of the informant was sitting at her door step she was called by the revisionist inside the room where he committed rape with her.When the informant went to the house of the revisionist to make a complaint, he was abused and extended threat for killing him.Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case due to election rivalry.There is no independent witness to the alleged incident.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that the revisionist is juvenile and there is no apprehension of reasoned ground for believing that the release of the revisionist is likely to bring him in association with any known criminals or expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger or his release would defeat the ends of justice.The revisionist was a juvenile aged 16 years, 7 months and 13 days on the date of occurrence.He was, thus, clearly below 17 years of age.He is in jail since 04.09.2019 in connection with the present crime and has completed more than sentence of one year out of the maximum three years institutional incarceration permissible for a juvenile, under Section 18(1)(g) of the Act.Learned counsel for the revisionist further submits that thereafter the revisionist applied for bail before the Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat upon which a report from the District Probation Officer was called for.Hence the present criminal revision has been filed before this Hon'ble Court mainly on the following amongst other grounds:He requires nigorous discipline, so that act may not be repeated.Lastly report is suggestive of fact that after release of revisionist, possibility of social and physiological is their.(vi) That the interrogation of respected persons of village and neighbour had stated that both sides resident of same village and both persons have indulged in quarrel.(vii) That medical report is not supporting allegation of rape as hymen is old torn and healed.(viii) That F.I.R is demonstrate that something had occurred and complaint of same was allegedly made to the family members and applicant became offensive and abuse, threatened for life which was the reason of lodging report.(ix) That age of revisionist is also reported to be nineteen years.(x) That revisionist after released on bail will not misuse liberty of bail.In the circumstances, we direct that the bail be granted to the appellant on conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad."The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/149, Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.Against the said conviction and sentence their appeal to the High Court is pending.Before the High Court application for suspension of sentence and bail was filed but the High Court rejected that prayer indicating therein that the applicants can renew their prayer for bail after one year.After the expiry of one year the second application was filed but the same has been rejected by the impugned order.In the aforesaid circumstances the applicants be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sehore.The appeal is disposed of accordingly."There is nothing said against the juvenile, appearing from the Social Investigation Report that may show him to be a desperado or misfit in the society.The two courts below have held the juvenile disentitled to bail on account of his case falling under each of the three exceptions enumerated in the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 12, for which no reason has been indicated.That finding, in both the orders impugned, is based on an ipse dixit, in one case of the judge and in the other of the Board.Even if it be assumed that the offence was committed in the manner alleged, it would be rather strained logic to hold that release of the juvenile on bail would lead to the ends of justice being defeated.Both the courts below have also overlooked the contradiciton made in statement of the victim recorded under Section 161 and 164 CrPC and further the courts below have also not considered the radiological age of the victim as per the medical report.State of Haryana (supra), Takht Singh Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) and Shiv Kumar alias Sadhu Vs.State of U.P. (supra)., this Court is of the view that the present criminal revision may be allowed and the revisionist may be released on bail.In the result, this revision succeeds and is allowed.The impugned judgment and order dated 17.01.2020 passed by VIIIth Additional District & Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO ACT, 2012), Kanpur Dehat in Criminal Appeal No.53 of 2019 ( Dhananjay Vs.State of U.P.) and the order dated 05.12.2019 passed by Juvenile Justice Board, Kanpur Dehat in Case Crime No.40 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 5/6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, Police Station Devrahat, District Kanpur Dehat are hereby set aside and reversed.The bail application of the revisionist stands allowed.Let the revisionist, Dhananjay through his natural guardian/ mother Smt. Rammurti be released on bail in Case Crime No.40 of 2019, under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323 IPC and under Section 5/6 POCSO Act, Police Station Devrahat, Distraict Kanpur Dehat upon his mother furnishing a personal bond with two solvent sureties of his relatives each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Juvenile Justice Board, Prayagraj subject to the following conditions:(i) That the natural guardian/mother, Smt. Rammurti will furnish an undertaking that upon release on bail the juvenile will not be permitted to come into contact or association with any known criminal or allowed to be exposed to any moral, physical or psychological danger and further that the father will ensure that the juvenile will not repeat the offence.(ii) The revisionist and his mother, Smt. Rammurti will report to the District Probation Officer on the first Wednesday of every calendar month commencing with the first Wednesday of November, 2020 and if during any calendar month the first Wednesday falls on a holiday, then on the next following working day.
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,208,540
On 8th March, 2006, an F.I.R. ( Exhibit Ka-5) was lodged at Police Station Ajgain, District Unnao at 22.30 on an application given by one Chhatrapal Yadav that a dead body of unknown person was found in charred condition near his field.Station Officer of Police Station Ajgain thereupon took the dead body in his custody and conducted Panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka-10).Autopsy (Exhibit Ka-7) was conducted on the cadaver of the deceased on 9th March, 2006 in which whole body was found to be in charred condition except sole.After postmortem the dead body was identified by Sri Vipin Narain Tiwari in mortuary as that of his missing son Ashish Narain Tiwari.He, thereafter, gave an application (Exhibit Ka-1) to Station House Officer, Ajgain, District Unnao that his son had left his house on 6th March, 2006 at about 5 O' clock in the evening for Badshah Gym, but he did not come back.After publication of news in newspaper that a dead body of an unknown person was found, he came to mortuary and identified the dead body.The dead body was handed over to the complainant Vipin Narain Tiwari for its last rites.During investigation the complainant moved an application (Exhibit Ka-2) on 11.03.2006 to Superintendent of Police, Unnao, stating that his son Ashish Tiwari was kidnapped and killed by his friends and in order to destroy the evidence they threw him in area lying under Police Station Ajgain in charred condition.Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.The investigation was conducted by Station House Officer, Gangaghat, which culminated in filing of charge-sheet under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. Case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the Additional Sessions Judge, Unnao framed charges against the accused Vijay Kumar Kori, Mohm.Shafique @ Hero and Mohm.Ashif under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. Additional Charge under section 364 I.P.C was framed against accused Vijay Kumar Kori.Charges were read over and explained to the accused persons which were denied by them.They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.At the trial, prosecution examined PW-1 Vipin Narain Tiwari, who has proved missing report (Exhibit Ka-4) and application moved by him on 09.03.2006 (Exhibit Ka-1).He has also stated on oath that his son Ashish Tiwari had gone to Badshah Gym on 06.03.2006 at 5 O' clock in the evening by his Hero Honda motorcycle thereafter he did not return.PW-2 Rajesh Pandey has stated that on 06.03.2006 he was going to Lucknow by driving his own truck loaded with Morang.Between 6-7 p.m. he stopped at Unnao bypass for tea.where he saw accused Mohammad Asif coming on motorcycle.Accused Vijay was sitting on rear seat and deceased Ashish was in between them.Accused Sharif was on another motorcycle.They were going towards Ajgain.He also called Ashish, but perhaps he did not listen his voice and motorcycle proceeded towards Ajgain.After 4-5 days, when he returned, he came to know that Ashish has been murdered and his dead body has been found in Ajgain.Then he told it to Sri Vipin Narain Tiwari.PW-3 Raj Kishore Singh is also witness of last seen.He had also seen deceased Ashish on motorcycle on which accused Vijay was sitting on rear seat, however, he could not identify the person driving the motorcycle.He had also tried to intercept Ashish, but he did not stop.PW-4 Cp.402 Shiv Pal has proved missing report (Exhibit Ka-4) and corresponding entry in G.D. No. 3 upon 1.00 a.m. dated 07.03.2006 (Exhibit Ka-4).PW-5 H.C. Arun Kumar Singh has proved Chik F.I.R. No. 30/06 (Exhibit Ka-5) and corresponding entry in G.D. (Exhibit Ka-6).PW-6 is Dr. Shiv Kumar, who has conducted postmortem of the dead body and stated that the dead body was completely charred therefore cause of death and time could not be ascertained, Postmortem report is (Exhibit Ka-7).Left humorous bone and one rib were preserved by the doctor for D.N.A. Test.PW-7 S.I. Ashok Kumar Yadav is investigating officer, but he did not record statement of any witness.PW-8 S.I. Dhirendra Singh recorded statement of accused Vijay and Gym owner Ravi Kumar and thereafter the investigation was transferred to PW-9 S.O. Brijesh Kumar Pandey, who concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-8).PW-10 S.I. Rakesh Kumar Singh, who had done Panchayatnama (Exhibit Ka-10) and prepared site-plan (Exhibit Ka-9).Letter to CMO, Photo of dead body, Challan are Exhibit Ka-11 to Ka-14 respectively.On appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court held that no case was made out against accused persons under Sections 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C, therefore, the accused persons were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.Feeling aggrieved by the impugned Judgment passed by the trial Court the appellant-State has preferred this appeal, which has come up before us for hearing.This Court has heard the learned Additional Government Advocate Mrs. Smiti Sahai for the appellant-State and the learned counsel for the accused-respondents at length and considered the evidence forming part of this appeal.Accused persons in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. pleaded their ignorance and filed copy of fees receipt, admit card and identity card.The prosecution could not explain how they were present on the scene of occurrence.Now the question arises as to whether witnesses PW-2 Rajesh Pandey and PW-3 Raj Kishore Singh may be termed as chance witnesses.The trial Court has given several reasons for disbelieving the testimony of these witnesses.He has termed them as chance witnesses.According to the trial Court the reason for presence of PW-2 at the scene of occurrence is not natural.He was just passing-through Unnao Highway while Going to Lucknow and there he stopped to have tea.Prosecution has also not explained as to how PW-2 Rajesh Pandey knows Mohd. Asif and Shafiq Mohd. The trial Court has concluded that he was not present on the place, but the investigating officer has planted him to be there.Similarly, as regards PW-3 Raj Kishore Singh the trial Court has disbelieved the reason for his presence given by him at the place in question.PW-3 has stated that his wife has two Bighas of land in Gadar and to look after that he had gone there.But the witness was not able to show either by oral or documentary evidence that his wife had any piece of land in Gadar and he was there to look after the crops.The evdence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence (Satbir v Surat Singh (1997) 4 SCC 192; Harjinder Singh v State of Gujarat (2004) 11 SCC 253 ; Acharaparambath & Anr.From the perusal of statement of PW-1 it transpires that he came to know about accused persons on 08 March 2006 itself and he had moved an application in this regard.He has also deposed in his cross-examination that in application dated 11 March 2006 he had also mentioned names of witnesses Rajesh Pandey and Raj Kishore Singh.But neither there is any application of 08 March on record nor application of 09 March contains names of persons from whom he had come to know about the accused.PW-2 Rajesh Pandey in examination in chief, has stated that he was a truck driver and he had gone to Lucknow, driving a loaded truck.When he came back after 4-5 days he came to know about the murder of complainant's son Ashish Tiwari, but in cross-examination he has admitted that he had reached his home in Kidwai Nagar on 08.03.2006 and on 08.03.2006 itself through newspaper he came to know that Ashish was murdered.If it is true then why he did not disclose the names of accused on 08.03.2006 to the complainant.PW-3 in his examination-in-chief itself has admitted that he told this fact to the complainant after several months.P.W-3 has also stated that when he saw accused and deceased on Unnao bye-pass, it was dusk and it was slight dark.The head light of motor-cycle was on.It is surprising how the witness could see in the light of motor-cycle coming from opposite direction.This shows that he was not present at the place in question.He was planted witness.The person, who was driving the motorcycle, was not known to him, nor he can tell his name.Both the witnesses have not named accused Shafiq Mohd in their statements .Thus, there is no incriminating evidence on record against accused Shafiq Mohd.The fourth circumstance cited by the prosecution is that the deceased had illicit relation with sister of Mohd. Asif.That was motive for commission of the crime.Illicit relationship of the deceased Ashish with sister of accused Mohd. Asif is said to be motive for commission of crime.It has been contended by the respondent-accused is that though the prosecution has alleged the deceased to have illicit relation with sister of Mohd. Asif but no evidence was adduced to prove this motive.There is nothing on record to establish that the deceased had illicit relation with sister of Mohd. Asif.PW-1 Vipin Narain Tiwari has been cross-examined on this point, who has stated that on the basis of newspaper he came to know about illicit relationship of his son Ashish with sister of Asif, but this fact is not established.Undisputedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence.They should be pardoned.Though in examination-in-chief PW-1 has stated this fact but he has not made it clear as to when the accused persons came to him.They had not seen the deceased in the company of the accused persons.They have been planted by the investigating agency.Prosecution story is based on incredible story and the prosecution has miserably failed to established the guilt of the accused persons.Order Date :-31st May, 2016 MVS Chauhan/-
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
183,211,041
(04.04.2013) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 30.04.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Maihar in S.T. No. 204/2003 whereby he has been found guilty for an offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/-.The brief facts relating to the incident are that while the complainant Mathura Prasad PW/2 and his father Chutkai were going for work, the accused Ramkripal Sahu came on a cycle accosted and abused his father Chutkai for not removing the garbage from his field and thereafter when his father Chutkai asked him not to abuse him he struck him with a stick on his head on account of which his father Chutkai fell down and thereafter also 2 delivered blows on his back.It is alleged that the accused Ramadhar was encouraging and shouting stating that "Maro Sale Ko Jaan Se Khatam Kar Do".The accused Ramadhar Sahu and Ramkripal Sahu were tried for the offence punishable under sections 341, 294, 323, 324, 506 -B/ 34 of the I.P.C.The trial court on the basis of the analysis of the oral and documentary evidence on record arrived at a conclusion that as there was no evidence against the accused Ramadhar and as the prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence against him, he was acquitted while the appellant Ramkripal was found guilty for offence punishable under section 304 Part II of the I.P.C. and has been awarded the aforesaid sentence.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution had infact failed to establish that the accused Ramkripal had committed the offence and therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the trial court be set aside.It is further urged that quite apart from the above, there was no evidence to indicate that it was Ramkripal who had assaulted the deceased Chutkai and therefore, the finding arrived by the trial court is erroneous and perverse.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the oral and documentary evidence available on the record from which it is clear that the injuries on the deceased Chutkai which were proved and established by Dr. R.G. Chourasiya PW/1 and Dr. R.P. Payasi PW/12 3 and are also evident from the medical report Ex. P/1 and the post mortem report Ex. P/15, that were was a fracture on the left parietal bone which has resulted in internal haemorrhage in the left frontal parietal and temporal part of the brain causing haematoma which was the cause of his death.After examining the oral and documentary evidence thoroughly, the trial court has rightly recorded a finding to the effect that the accused/appellant had committed the offence and on going through the same, I find no illegality or manifest error in the finding recorded by the trial court.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
183,211,886
The applicants - accused have preferred this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of the FIR of Crime No. 944/12 registered at P.S. Maharana Pratap Nagar, Bhopal against the applicants for the offence of Section 224/34 of IPC with a further prayer for quashment of the Regular Trial No. 16010/12 pending in the Court of CJM, Bhopal and discharge the applicants from such offence of Section 224/34 of IPC.After taking me through the papers placed on record, the applicants' counsel prayed to admit and allowing this petition for the prayer mentioned in the same.Keeping in view the arguments, on perusing the papers available on record, I have found that initially some case was registered against the applicants as Crime No. 799/12 at P.S. M.P. Nagar, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Section 342 and 34 of IPC.On filing the charge sheet of such case in the Court of JMFC, Bhopal on 29.11.2012, initially the applicants appeared but later they absconded from the custody of Court on which the direction to secure their presence by issuing non bailable warrant was given and simultaneously the direction to register the case for the offence of Section 224 of IPC against the applicants was also given and pursuant to the same the impugned Crime No. 944/12 for the offence of Section 224 and 34 of IPC was registered against the applicants.As the applicants have come to this court for quashment of the aforesaid FIR of Crime No. 944/12 and its entire investigation as well as charge sheet filed in the court as Criminal Case No. 16010/12, I am of the considered view that unless the order passed for issuing warrant of arrest against the applicants, vide dated 29.11.2012 is set aside in toto and pursuant to that direction to register the crime against the applicants for the offence of Section 224 of IPC is set aside, this petition for quashment of the impugned FIR and the charge sheet could neither be entertained nor could be adjudicated under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.In the aforesaid premises, without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of the matter, the petition is disposed of by extending a liberty to the applicants to file appropriate proceeding or criminal revision against the order dated 29.11.2012 passed by the CJM in Regular Trial No. 3158/12 (new No. 10010/12) (as state on the certified copy of the order).It is also made clear that the applicants shall be at liberty to make the prayer in such criminal revision to set aside the direction of the trial court to register the impugned crime of the offence of Section 224 of IPC.(U. C. Maheshwari) Judge bks
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,741,277
It is stated that on 03.03.2019, the accused and the prosecutrix met at hotel Oyo Town Pankha Road, Janakpuri.It is stated in the FIR that in the hotel the accused promised marriage and pressurized her to establish physical relationship with the prosecutrix.It is stated that in April, 2019 the accused came to the house of the prosecutrix and promised that he will talk to his mother about their marriage and established physical relationship with her.It is further stated in the FIR that later the accused called the prosecutrix to Karnal on the pretext of meeting his mother and for discussion about their marriage, the prosecutrix was put up at hotel Gopinath Grand, near Dayal Singh College, Karnal and he established physical relationship with her stating that he will introduce the prosecutrix to his mother.It is alleged that the accused forced her to have unnatural sex.It is stated that after that incident the prosecutrix had a fight with the accused but the accused assured her that he will marry the prosecutrix within 15 days.It is further stated that on 27.07.2019, once again, under the pretext of meeting his mother, the accused took the prosecutrix to hotel Yellow Sparrow, Namaste Chowk, Karnal where the prosecutrix told the accused that she is pregnant with the child of the accused.It is stated in the FIR that despite being told that the prosecutrix is pregnant the accused established physical relationship with her and it is CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 2 of 14 alleged that the accused mixed some medicine in the food of the prosecutrix because of which the prosecutrix had a miscarriage.It is stated that on 25.08.2019, once again the accused called the prosecutrix to Karnal, admitted his guilt and established physical relationship with her.It is stated that after the act the accused refused to marry the prosecutrix and that he told her that he has already used her and that now she is of no use to him.It is stated in the FIR that the accused also threatened that he will put her photo on the internet which would tarnish her image.It is stated that after that incident, despite repeated attempts, the accused refused to marry the prosecutrix.It is stated that Isha Gupta told him that the prosecutrix would help the petitioner/accused in searching online jobs, as she has numerous contacts.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner met the prosecutrix in the evening of 13.03.2019 at District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi, in the presence of said Ms. Isha Gupta.It is stated that his discussion with the prosecutrix regarding his job took a long time, it was late in the night and when the petitioner wanted to return back to his home in Karnal, the prosecutrix persuaded the petitioner to stay in Delhi.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner refused the proposal saying that he does not have any money or any place to stay in Delhi.It is stated that the prosecutrix herself booked two rooms in Oyo Arora Hotel at Janakpuri.The petitioner stayed in Room No.107, and the prosecutrix stayed in Room No.108 with her boyfriend.This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing F.I.R. No.338/2019, dated 06.09.2019, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi, for offences under Sections 509, 377, 313, 506, 376(2)(n)The petitioner is accused of committing rape on the prosecutrix.The allegation in the FIR is that the prosecutrix met her friend, one Isha Gupta resident of Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, who introduced the petitioner/accused to the prosecutrix by stating that the accused is her friend.It is stated in the FIR that after two or three days Isha Gupta told the prosecutrix that the CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 1 of 14 petitioner/accused wanted to meet her and wants to be friends with her.It is stated in the FIR that the prosecutrix refused this proposal by stating that she will only accept friendship from such a person who will marry her.Despite that the said Isha Gupta gave the mobile number of the prosecutrix to the accused.It is stated in the FIR that the accused started talking to the prosecutrix and insisted on meeting her.It is also stated that the prosecutrix tried to contact the mother of the accused who threatened her that she will get cases filed against her and further she was threatened of dire consequences.CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 1 of 14CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 2 of 14The Additional Session Judge, South-West Dwarka Courts, Delhi, discharged the relatives of the accused but has held that there is substantial material on record to frame charges against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 376, 377, 376(2)(n), 509, 313, 323, 506 IPC and accordingly charges were framed against the accused.This instant petition is for quashing the F.I.R. No.338/2019, dated 06.09.2019, registered at Police Station Janakpuri, Delhi, for offences under Sections 509, 377, 313, 506, 376(2)(n) I.P.C. The version of the CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 3 of 14 petitioner/accused is that the petitioner is a bright student and is enrolled in B.Tech programme with the Institute of Engineering and Technology, Nilokheri, Karnal, Haryana, affiliated with Kurukshetra University.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner has also got a diploma in Civil Engineering from Government Polytechnic, Ambala City with First Division.It is stated in the petition that the petitioner was in search of a part- time job and through one of his friend, Isha Gupta, the petitioner came in the contact with the prosecutrix.It is stated that pursuant to that night several communications were exchanged between the petitioner and the prosecutrix and the prosecutrix expressed her desire and liking for the petitioner.It is stated by the petitioner that the prosecutrix called the petitioner and on 18.06.2019, under constant threat given by the prosecutrix the petitioner reached the hotel and the prosecutrix established physical relationship with him and after CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 4 of 14 that put her demands that either the petitioner should marry her or give Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakhs Only) to her otherwise she would get the petitioner arrested in a rape case.It is stated in the petition that the Police arrested the petitioner on 12.09.2019 for rape in the present case.CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 3 of 14CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 4 of 14In the petition it is stated that the prosecutrix came to visit the accused in jail twice on 25.09.2019 and 30.09.2019 i.e. before the petitioner was granted bail and it is stated that the prosecutrix threatened the petitioner/accused either to marry her or give Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) for closing the F.I.R.The petition states that the prosecutrix is in the habit of blackmailing people.It is also stated that she had married another person named Tarun Kumar @ Hari Om on 18.01.2008 and she has a female child from that marriage.It is also stated in the petition that she had filed a dowry complaint against Tarun Kumar @ Hari Om and his family.It is stated in the petition that the prosecutrix entered into a compromise and the complaint was closed.The compromise deed is annexed along with the petition.In the compromise deed, the said Tarun Kumar @ Hari Om has taken the custody of the child.The Additional Session Judge by his judgment dated 17.07.2010 has acquitted Brijesh @ Golu and stated that the prosecutrix is not a reliable witness.CRL.M.C. 177/2021 Page 5 of 14It is also stated in the petition that the prosecutrix is a suspect in FIR No.24/2019 dated 27.01.2019, registered at Police Station Sarai Rohilla under Section 363 IPC, wherein the prosecutrix is alleged of kidnapping one Master Riyansh @ Vishnu.A copy of the said FIR is also annexed with the petition.
['Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,742,043
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sekar.He was a resident of Chetty Nagar Kunimedu, Tindivanam.He was a Village Panchayat Board President for three terms.In one of the elections, the 1st accused contested against him, but, lost to the deceased.From then onwards, there had been long standing enmity between the 1st accused and the deceased.The accused 1 to 6 are closely related to each other and they were also related to the deceased.The long standing enmity stated to be the motive for the occurrence.(b) It is alleged that on 04.05.2007, the deceased and P.W.1 had gone to Pondicherry to attend a function.By about 10.00 p.m., the deceased and P.W.1 were returning in a motor cycle to their village.The deceased was driving the motorcycle and P.W.1 was sitting as a pillion rider.When they were nearing a place known as ''Chellan Kottai'', suddenly, all the 6 accused emerged and they intercepted the motor cycle.The 1st accused shouted at the deceased that if only he was killed, he and his people could live in peace.So saying, the 1st accused attacked the deceased with Aruval on his neck.The 2nd accused attacked the deceased with Aruval on his right cheek.The 3rd accused attacked the deceased with Aruval on his left hand.The deceased fell down along with the vehicle.After that, the accused 4, 5 and 6 also attacked the deceased rapidly with Aruvals.P.W.1 took his heels.On his way, he found P.Ws.2 and 3 coming in a Tempo Load Vehicle.He stopped that and told them that the deceased was being cut by the accused.Then, P.W.1 ran away to his house and informed his relatives.P.Ws.2 and 3 were still in the Tempo Load Vehicle.These 6 accused came towards them and told that they had finished of their enemy- the deceased and they further warned them not to disclose the same to anybody.After so warning P.Ws.2 and 3, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapons.P.W.4, who was also present at the time of occurrence, found these accused so shouting.Thus in effect, P.W.1 alone is the eye-witness to the occurrence, according to the case of the prosecution.But since it was too late in the night, he waited till morning.Then at 06.30 a.m., on 05.05.2007, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch at the place of occurrene in the presence of the witnesses.Then, he recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased at 08.30 a.m. He examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and few more witnesses.Left index finger nail was cut and displaced from the nail bed.Brain: C/S pale Heart: Chambers are empty.Ventricles normal.Coronaries and valves-patent.Hyoid Bone: Intact Stomach : Contained 500gms of partly digested recognizable food particles.No specific smell perceived.Mucosa healthy.Liver, Spleen, Kidneys: C/S pale Intestines: Filled with gas and faecoliths Bladder : 50 ml of urine.P.11 is the Postmortem Certificate.He gave opinion that the deceased had died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the cut injuries found on the body of the deceased.He further opined that the injuries on the dead body of the deceased would have been caused by a weapon like Aruval.P.W.15 recovered the blood stained clothes from the dead body of the deceased and forwarded the same to court.(f) During the course of investigation on 06.05.2007, P.W.15 arrested the accused 1 and 5 in the presence of P.W.6 and another witness.On such arrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden two Aruvals.In pursuance of the same, he took the witnesses and the police to Vallathamman Temple and from the nearby bush, he produced two Aruvals.P.W.15 recovered the same under a Mahazar.The same was recovered in the presence of P.W.9 and another witness.In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.15 and the witnesses to Udayar Koil and produced Hero Honda bearing Registration No.TN 02 F 2251 and an Aruval measuring 69 cms.P.W.15 recovered the same under a Mahazar.On the same day he arrested the 3rd accused at 09.00 a.m. He made a voluntary confession in the presence of the same witnesses.On 17.05.2007 at 4.30 a.m., he arrested the 2nd accused in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.On such arrest, he gave a voluntary statement in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden a Vitchu Aruval.In pursuance of the same, he took the police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the Vitchu Aruval.He forwarded the 2nd accused to court and handed over the material object also to court.On the request made by him, the material objects were sent for chemical examination.The report revealed that there were human blood stains in all the material objects including the Aruvals recovered from the accused.(h) On 27.05.2007, since P.W.15 was transferred, he handed over the case to his successor.This Criminal Appeal is preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.This is an appeal filed by the State, challenging the acquittal of the respondents 1 to 6 herein, who are accused 1 to 6, in S.C.No.93 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Tindivanam.The trial court had framed as many as 4 charges as detailed below:Charge NumberRank of Accused Penal Provision1Charge No.1Accused 1 to 6148 IPC2Charge No.2Accused 1 to 6 341 IPC3Charge No.3Accused No.1506(ii) IPC4Charge No.4Accused 1 to 6302 IPCThe trial Court, by judgment, dated 25.08.2009, acquitted all the respondents from all the charges.That is how, aggrieved over the same, the State is before this Court with this appeal and P.W.1 in the said case has come up with the revision in Crl.Since both the appeal as well as the revision have arisen out of the same judgment, they were heard together and disposed of by means of this common judgment.P.W.15, the then Inspector of Police of Marakkanam Police Station, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.147 of 2007 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC against all the six accused.P.20 is the First Information Report.Then, he forwarded the complaint Ex.The properties recovered at the place of occurrence includes the Motor Cycle of the deceased.Then, he forwarded the body for postmortem.(e) P.W.10 Dr.Ravendiran conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased on 05.05.2007 at 10.40 a.m. He found the following injuries:''External Examination:One chop wound, transversely placed with regular margins with acute edges on the right lower aspect of face extending from the right lateral border of occipital region to the right side of chin close to mid line, 21 cms x 1.5-3.8 cm x varying depths in size.The weapon has cut through the soft tissue including muscles, angle of mandible, body of mandible exposing the upper and lower rows of teeth on the right side and oral cavity.On the medical border, it is situated just below the lower lip.Right lower lip is severed in full thickness.Transversely placed adjacent multiple chop wounds crisscrossing each other in front of the neck extending from the right lateral border of neck to the middle of left side of neck in front.Right end of the wound is situated 6cms below the right mastoid and left is situated over the lower border of middle of body of left mandible, 18cmsx2-6cmsxvarying depths (0.5 cm  1.5 cm) in size.Because of the multiple chops the lower border of wound is irregular.The following structures, namely, the carotid arteries, jugular veins, ribbon muscles of neck and nerves on the right side, thyroid cartilage and thyroid gland were cut into 3 pieces.Trachea, oesophagus, the vertebral column between C5 to C6 and the ribbon muscles of left side of neck were cut.The spinal cord at the level of C5 C6 was found totally served.3. 4.5 cms x 2.5 cms x muscle deep cut injury with regular margins seen on the left lower aspect of back of neck opposite to C1 vertebra.Multiple small lacerated injuries of varying dimensions 1-2cm x-1cm x fascia deep seen on the dorsum of left index, ring and middle fingers.Lungs: Both lungs congested and oedematous C/S exuded blood stained froth.Trachea and larynx: Contained blood stained frothy fluid.Similarly, the 5th accused also gave a voluntary confession.Then, he forwarded both the accused to court and also forwarded the material objects to court.(g) On 10.05.2007 at 08.00 a.m., P.W.15 arrested the 4th accused Preethi and brought her to the police station.On such arrest, she have a voluntary confession in which she disclosed the place where she had hidden a Vitchu Aruval.P.W.16, the successor continued the investigation and laid the charge sheet.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of the Judgment.The accused denied the same.In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 31 documents and 14 material objects were also marked.On the side of the accused, 8 documents were marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1 is the only an eye-witness.He has spoken about the individual overt act of all the accused.P.Ws.2 to 4 have stated that they found all these accused coming from the place of occurrence with blood stained Aruvals and informed them that they have killed the deceased and therefore, they could live in peace.They have further stated that the accused wanted them not to disclose the occurrence to anybody.P.W.5 has stated that one month prior to the occurrence, all the 6 accused sitting together by the side of the deceased and planning to kill him.P.W.6 and P.W.7 have spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the Aruvals.P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and the recovery of material objects.P.W.9 has also spoken about the arrest of the accused and the consequential recovery of the material objects.P.W.10 has spoken about the postmortem and his final opinion regarding cause of death.The balance are the official witnesses.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused u/s.313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false.Their defence was a total denial.However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side.Having considered all the above, the Trial Court convicted the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of the judgment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court.We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused, the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner/P.W.1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.In this case, the occurrence had taken place at a lonely place where there are no houses.P.W.1 claims to have accompanied the deceased at the time of occurrence in the Motor Cycle.It is not in evidence that there was any light available at the place of occurrence.P.W.1 is a close relative of the deceased and he belonged to his faction.Admittedly, the village was two factions on account of the election motive.All these accused belong to the opposite faction.Had it been true that P.W.1 was present at the time of occurrence, certainly, the accused would not have spared P.W.1 without harming him.They would have at least caused some injuries on him.The very fact that he did not sustain any injury and the very fact that there were no blood stains on his clothe have been taken note of by the trial court to doubt his very presence at the place of occurrence.Apart from that, though it is alleged that the occurrence was at 10.00 p.m. on 04.05.2007 and the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is hardly 12 kms.The distance between Marakkanam and the house of the Magistrate at Tindivanam is hardly 35 kms.Absolutely, there is no explanation as to why it took so much of time to reach the hands of the learned Magistrate.The said delay has been considered by the trial court and the lower court has doubted the case of the prosecution on this ground also.Above all, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police has stated that he arrived at the scene at 11.30 p.m. itself.He has further stated that he removed the dead body from the place of occurrence at 11.30 p.m. itself whereas the F.I.R., even according to the case of the prosecution, came to be registered only at 01.00 a.m. It is not known as to what was that information, which was earliest in point of time, which had brought P.W.15 to the place of occurrence.The other witnesses, namely, P.W.2 to P.W.4 have stated that they belonged to the faction of the deceased.They were also equally inimical towards the accused.They have stated that the accused came to them after killing the deceased and informed them that they have killed the deceased so that they could live in peace and warned them not to disclose of the same to anybody.Thus, the trial court disbelieved P.W.2 to P.W.4 as their evidence is highly unbelieveable as it is artificial.Further the very presence of P.Ws.2 to 4 at the place of occurrence is highly doubtful.The trial court has given sound reasons for rejecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 and to acquit the accused.
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,743,866
The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with.Chanditala P.S. Case No.232 dated 07.07.2015 under sections 323/327/341/379/354B/384/452/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,748,932
Heard on I.A. No.6355/2017, which is second application under Section 389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of appellant No.1- Annu S/o Velji Bhuriya.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn without arguing on merit.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as follows :Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant was charged under Section 307 of IPC, however, he convicted under Section 326 of IPC for causing simple injuries by sharp and blunt object.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.After due consideration, this application is allowed.The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, appellant No.1- Annu S/o Velji Bhuriya shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.11.2017, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(ALOK VERMA)
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,769,613
PWs.3 & 4 are the brothers-in-lawof the deceased.The deceased and PWs.1 & 2 were all residing at E.14Refugee Camp at Valavanthankottai, Tiruchirapalli District.PWs.3 & 4 wereresiding at Thiruvathavur Refugee Camp in Madurai District.The accused wereall residing at Kottapattu Refugee Camp in Tiruchirapalli District.It isalleged that one Mr.On the same day, at 2.00 p.m., the funeral procession started.In the said procession, the deceased,PWs.1 to 4 and the first accused and few others participated.When theprocession was progressing, there arose a quarrel between the deceased and the first accused.In that, it is alleged that the deceased attacked thefirst accused.This is stated to be the motive for the occurrence.(b) After the above incident, all of them returned to Iyyan houseat Kottapattu.Around 6.40 p.m., the first accused came to the said placeand shouted at the deceased, referring to the attack made on him by thedeceased earlier.The deceased came out of the house and told the firstaccused that the said issue was over long before and why should he come againto develop quarrel.During this quarrel, it is alleged that all the fouraccused participated.Then, the accused 2 to 4 caught hold the deceased andthe first accused stabbed him twice with knife.The deceased fell downsustaining injuries.All the accused, then, fled away from the scene ofoccurrence.(c)Then, PW1 and others took the deceased to the GovernmentHospital at Tiruchirapalli.Rajasekaran ? PW9 examined the deceased atthe Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, on 05.10.2009 at 7.30 p.m. and onexamination, he declared him dead and recorded the same in the Accident Register (Ex.P5).Then, he forwarded the body to the mortuary.PW1 went tothe Police Station to make a complaint regarding the occurrence.PW11 - thethen Sub Inspector of Police, attached to K.K.Nagar Police Station,Tiruchirapalli, received the complaint (Ex.P1) from PW1 on 05.10.2009 at 9.30p.m.and registered a case in Crime No.422 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC.Ex.P8 is the FIR.He forwarded Exs.ComplainantCOMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence, dated 30.04.2014, made in S.C.No.159 of 2010, bythe learned I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli.!For appellant inCrl.A.(MD).No.198/2014 : Mr.S.Deenadayalan For appellant inCrl.A.(MD).No.177/2015 : Mr.N.Jeyakumar ^For respondent inboth the appeals : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor:COMMON JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) Since these two Criminal Appeals arise out of a Common Judgment, they were heard together and they are disposed of by means of this Common Judgment.2.The appellants in Crl.A.(MD).No.198 of 2014 are the accusedNos.2 & 3 and the appellant in Crl.A.(MD).No.177 of 2015 is the accused No.4in S.C.No.159 of 2010 on the file of the I-Additional District Judge (PCR),Tiruchirapalli.The first accused is absconding and he did not face thetrial in full and therefore, the case against him was split up.The trialCourt framed as many as three charges.The first charge was against the firstaccused under Section 302 IPC.The second charge was against the accused 2 to 4 under Section 109 r/w 302 IPC.The third charge was against the accused2 to 4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.By judgment dated 30.04.2014, the trialCourt has acquitted the appellants / accused 2 to 4 from the charge underSection 109 r/w 302 IPC, but convicted them under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC andsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for live and to pay a fine ofRs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 2 to 4 are beforethis Court with these appeals.(a)The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sahayaseelan.The records revealthat these documents have been received by the learned Magistrate at 9.00a.m.PW11, then, handed over the Case Diary to the Inspectorof Police for investigation.(d) On 05.10.2009 at 10.00 p.m. PW12 ? the then Inspector ofPolice took up the case for investigation, proceeded to the place ofoccurrence and prepared an observation and a rough sketch in the presence ofwitnesses.He conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and then, forwarded the body for postmortem.PW10 - Dr.Renuka Devi, a tutor in theGovernment Medical College Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, conducted autopsy on thebody of the deceased on 06.10.2009 at 12.45 p.m. She found the followinginjuries:?1.An oblique stab wound, 4 cm x 1 cm x cavity deep, on the front ofleft side of the chest.O/E the edges are regular.The upper end is broaderand the lower end is sharp.O/D the inter costal muscles, blood vessels andnerves are clean cut.On further dissection:- Pericardial tear present.Avertical stab wound, 3 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm, on the front of left ventriclepresent.Pleural tear present.A stab wound, 3 cm x 1cm x 1 cm, on the upperlobe of left lung.Left lung collapsed.Pleural cavity contains fluid bloodand clotted blood.2.An oblique stab wound, 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep, on the back of leftside of the chest.O/E the edges are regular.The upper end is broader andthe lower end is sharp.?P7 is the Postmortem Certificate.She gave opinion that the deceasedwould appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries.(e) Continuing the investigation, PW12 arrested all the fouraccused on 06.10.2009 at 3.30 p.m. at TVS Tollgate, Tiruchirapalli, in thepresence of PW8 and another witness.On such arrest, the first accused gave avoluntary confession in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden theknife.In pursuance of the said disclosure statement, he took PW13 andwitnesses to the said place and produced the knife (MO.1).PW12 recoveredthe same under mahazar.Then, he forwarded the accused to the Court forjudicial remand.Since he was transferred, he handed over the case diary tohis successor (PW13).PW13 took up the case for investigation on 08.11.2009,collected the medical records, examined few more witnesses and finally, laidcharge sheet against the accused.(f) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed thecharges as detailed in the second paragraph of this judgment.The accuseddenied the same as false.In order to prove the case, on the side of theprosecution, as many as 13 witnesses were examined and 16 documents and 6 material objects were marked.(g) Out of the said witnesses, PWs.1 to 4 are the eyewitnesses, whohave vividly spoken about the entire occurrence.PW5 has spoken only aboutthe hearsay information and thus, his evidence is not useful for theprosecution in any manner.PW6 has spoken about the observation mahazar.PW7 has turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecutionin any manner.PW9 hasspoken about the fact that he examined the deceased and declared him dead on 05.10.2009 at 7.30 p.m. PW10 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion given by her.PW11 has spoken about the registration ofthe case.PWs.12 & 13 have spoken about the investigation done.(h) When the above incriminating materials were put to theaccused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellants/accused 2 to 4 deniedthe same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness normark any document on their side.(i) Having considered all the above materials, the trial Courtconvicted these appellants/accused 2 to 4 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC andaccordingly, punished them.That is how they are before this Court withthese appeals.3.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellantsand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.Wehave also perused the records carefully.4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 2 to 4would submit that there is delay in registering the FIR and in despatchingthe same to the learned Magistrate.According to the learned counsel, this creates doubt in thecase of the prosecution.The learned counsel would next contend that thepresence of PWs.1 to 4, at the scene of occurrence, is also doubtful.According to the learned counsel, since they were residing elsewhere in twodifferent camps, there would have been no occasion for them at all to evenpresent at the time of occurrence.He would further submit that PW1, duringcross examination, would state that when she was inside the house, theoccurrence was taken place just outside.Therefore, according to the learnedcounsel, PW1 would not have witnessed the occurrence.5.The learned counsel for the appellants would further submitthat though it is claimed that the accused were arrested on 06.10.2009 at3.30 p.m., PW1 has, during cross examination, stated that on 06.10.2009, whenshe made complaint to the Police, the accused were already in the custody.He would further submit that PW1 has stated that within fifteen minutes ofthe occurrence, the Police arrived at the scene of occurrence and they onlytook PW1 to the Police Station.Thus,according to the learned counsel, the appellants/accused 2 to 4 are entitledfor acquittal.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, opposethis appeal.According to him, the presence of PWs.1 to 4 is quite naturaland there is no reason to reject their evidences.He would further submitthat they have given evidence in very cogent and convincing manner and theirevidences are duly corroborated by the medical evidence also.He would lastlysubmit that though the constable, who carried the FIR from the Police Stationto the house of the learned Magistrate, has not been examined and thoughthere is delay in despatching the FIR, on that score, the entire case of theprosecution cannot be doubted, he contended.Therefore, according to him, thejudgment of the trial Court does not warrant any interference at the hands ofthis Court.7.We have considered the above submissions.Even according to the case of the prosecution, the alleged occurrence was at 6.40 p.m. Admittedly,K.K.Nagar Police Station is situated just in front of the place of theoccurrence.The house of the learned Magistrate is situated less than halfor one kilometre from the Police Station.Had it been true that theoccurrence was at 6.40 p.m., there would not have been any hindrance toeither PW1 or PWs.2 to 4 to rush to the Police Station to make the complaint.This part of the evidence of PW1 must be true, because the Police Station issituated just by the side of the place of occurrence.PW1 has further statedthatshe was taken to the Police Station immediately by the Police.Then, at-leastfrom 7.00 p.m. PW1 could have been in the Police Station, but the complaintcame to be registered only at 9.30 p.m. PW1 has further stated that therewas no enmity between these appellants/accused 2 to 4 and the deceased previously, and that she did not know the accused and after the incidentalone, she came to know the name of the accused.She has admitted during cross examination that the accused were in the custody of the Police on thatday night itself.In those circumstances, the delay of nearly two and halfhours in giving the complaint assumes importance.Next comes the delay in despatching the FIR.The FIR isstated to have been registered at 9.30 p.m., but, admittedly, the same hasreached the hands of the learned Magistrate only at 9.00 a.m. on the nextday.Thus, there is delay of 12 hours.But, the fact remains that the houseof the learned Magistrate is situated very near to the Police Station,roughly within about half or one kilometre.But, still there is delay of 12hours, which has not been explained away by the prosecution.The Policeconstable, who took the FIR from the Police Station to the house of thelearned Magistrate, has not been examined.Thus, absolutely there is noexplanation for this delay.But,we should say that when there are multiple number of accused, the delayassumes importance, because there is no check on the prosecution, who can implicate any number of persons falsely using the delay.We arein full agreement with the same.But, now, the question is whether PWs.1 to4, who were present at the time of occurrence, have told the truth or not.Whether the first accused, actually, stabbed the deceased andwhether he has committed any offence or not is a matter to be decided by thetrial Court when the trial against the first accused is completed.Therefore, we make it very clear that any of theobservations, which we have made in this judgment, are only for the purposeof these appeals and the same should not influence the trial Court, when thetrial of the first accused is taken up.We hold that the prosecution hasfailed to prove the case against these appellants/accused 2 to 4 alone andhence, these appellants/accused 2 to 4 are entitled for acquittal.In the result, these Criminal Appeals are allowed and theconviction and sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 2 to 4 is set asideand they are acquitted.The fine amount paid, if any, shall be refunded tothem.Therefore, they aredirected to be released forthwith, unless their detention is required inconnection with any other case.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.1.The I-Additional District Judge (PCR), Tiruchirapalli.2.The Inspector of Police, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirapalli District..3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai..
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,770,758
DATED : 20th OCTOBER, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT:-The applicant seeks quashing of criminal proceedings/ prosecution initiated vide S.C.C. No. 478 of 2002 pending before J.M.F.C. Ashti.Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal application are as follows:-::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::a) Respondent No.1 original complainant, has filed a complaint bearing S.C.C. No. 478 of 2002 against the present applicant original accused No.1 and one more accused before J.M.F.C. Ashti for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I. Act") and Sections 420 and 114 of I.P.C. It has alleged in the complaint that the applicant and other accused are residents of Aurangabad and they carry on business in the name of 'Mehta Corporation Shil Products' at Aurangabad.Respondent No.1 complainant had agreed to sell goods of the said firm on commission basis to the general public.However, due to sub standard quality of goods, respondent No.1 complainant had stopped to sell the goods of the firm and cancelled the agreement entered with the said firm.However, certain amount was due and original accused No.2 Mukesh Mehta with a view to settle the account, issued cheque No. 0003789 dated 25.12.2001 for Rs.21,037/- in favour of respondent No.1 complainant.It has further alleged in the complaint that the said cheque was written by the present applicant.Respondent No.1 original complainant had presented the said cheque for encashment of amount on 22.3.2002 in his bank, which was returned with an endorsement "insufficient funds".Thereafter, respondent No.1 complainant had issued legal notice through his advocate to the present applicant and accused No.2 Mukesh Mehta.The said notice was returned unserved as not ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 ::: cran1853.05 -3- accepted and therefore, respondent No.1 complainant constrained to file complaint before the Court.The learned J.M.F.C. Ashti, after recording statement of complainant on oath, by order dated 19.8.2002 issued process against the present applicant and accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and Section 114 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::b) On appearance, the applicant filed an application Exh.12 before the Magistrate praying therein for recalling of order of issuance of process.However, learned Magistrate by order dated 17.6.2005 rejected the said application.Hence, this criminal application.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::Even though respondent No.1 duly served, none appears for him.On careful perusal of complaint, it appears that in para 3 of the complaint, it has alleged that the present applicant original accused No.1 has written the said cheque in his own hand writing in the capacity of Manager of the firm of which original accused No.2 Mukesh Mehta is owner and as such, he has committed offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act r.w. Sections 420 and 114 of I.P.C. Learned Magistrate by order dated 19.8.2002 issued process against the applicant and said accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Section 138 of N.I. Act and r.w. Section 114 of ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 ::: cran1853.05 -5-::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::In the instant case, it is alleged in the complaint that the applicant original accused No.1 has written the cheque and original accused No.2 Mukesh Mehta has signed the said cheque, which was drawn on the account maintained by original accused No.2 Mukesh Mehta.Under these circumstances, there is no question of issuance process against the applicant original accused No.1 for the offences punishable under section 138 of N.I. Act r.w. Section 114 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::cran1853.05 -6- Furthermore, there is no question of any abetment when the liability as contemplated under Section 138 of N.I. Act is of the person, who has issued the cheque drawn on the account maintained by him.In the case of M. Inbarajan and another (supra), in similar set of facts, the Madras High Court in para 7 of the said judgment, has made the following observations:-The allegation against the 3rd accused is that he is the person, who abetted the complainant to become time share holder.There is no scope for abetment of the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The question of abetting does not arise.It is not an offence under the Indian Penal Code.But it is made an offence under the amendment made to the Negotiable Instruments Act. It does not make mention of any abetting nor proposes to make persons abetting liable for the offence.Therefore, as regards, accused 2 and 3, who are the petitioners herein, it has to be stated that there is absolutely no basis at all to proceed against them.Of course, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also produced extracts from the Registrar of Companies to the effect that as on 15.7.1994, the 2nd accused has resigned from service and that on 9.5.1994, the 3rd accused was relieved from service of the company."The view taken by Madras High Court squarely applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case.Thus, this criminal ::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 ::: cran1853.05 -7- application is required to be allowed in terms of its prayer clauses and accordingly I proceed to pass the following order:-::: Uploaded on - 24/10/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/10/2016 00:26:46 :::Criminal application is accordingly disposed of.
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,319,280
ORDER B.N. Banerjee, J.The scope of the dispute was the demand by the workers for introduction of a scheme for payment of gratuity.In that view of the matter the workers' claim for gratuity was rejected find the Tribunal passed an award accordingly.The propriety of the award is being disputed in this Rule, at the instance of the Workers' Union.A single point was argued for my consideration in this Rule.It was contended that the Balance Sheets of the company, on the basis of which, the Tribunal came to the conclusion about the financial incompetency of the company, were inadmissible in evidence, alternatively that they did not contain true statements about the economic position of the company and should not have been relied upon, particularly after the company had failed to produce their books of account on the basis whereof the Balance Sheets-were purported to have been prepared.It is necessary for me at this stage to refer to certain orders made by the Tribunal relating to production and inspection of documents.On the aforesaid application the Tribunal passed the following order, on December 12, 1959:"The company objects to the production of books of account to the Tribunal.I do not think that the books are necessary.The company should produce the audited balance sheets at the rime of hearing and allow inspection of any books of account called for by the Union's Lawyer in their office On such dates as may be convenient to both the parties".Thereafter, the Workers' Union filed an application before the Tribunal complaining that the Company did not make inspection of the documents possible by their lawyer.Paragraph 7 of the application is set out below:"That on 5-1-60 Sri Chatterjee went to inspect the book along with two other members of the Union but the Manager objected to the very presence of those members of the Union on the floor of his Office on the alleged ground that they were retrenched persons and as such inspection was not possible because the Advocate could not get any assistance from the Union members".On the aforesaid allegation the Workers' Union prayed for production of the books and documents, called for by the Workers' Union, before the Tribunal.The Company filed an objection to the prayer made by the Workers' Union, the material-portion of which is set out below:"That with regard to the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the Union's application it is submitted that on 5-1-60 Mr. T.P. Chatterjee, Advocate, came for the inspection cf Books along with two Ex-employees of your petitioner, who were retrenched in the month of September, 1959 and as such your petitioners objected in showing the Company's books to the two outsiders.Your petitioner was quite willing to show the Books to the learned Advocate for he Union but the learned Advocate for the Union left without making any inspection".On February 27, 1960, the Tribunal recorded the following order on the application for production:"Heard the lawyers.The Company's lawyers undertake to produce the audited Balance Sheets within a week.The application is rejected as not pressed".From the order dated March 7, 1960, it appears that the company produced the audited Balance Sheets for the years 1903 to 1959 and the lawyer for the Workers' Union was allowed opportunity to inspect the Balance Sheets as desired by him.Thereupon the Tribunal passed the following order:"The Union's lawyer Sri T.P. Chatterjee has filed a petition in duplicate in the matter of production of some more documents by the company.Keep the petition in the record and make over one copy to the company.The cornpany is to take note of it.The case js fixed for hearing on 23-6-60".At the hearing of the case, the application for production of document does not appear to have been pressed.The Tribunal however, rejected the plea of the Workers' Union not to accept the Balance Sheet figures as correct, until they were supported by relevant books and registers, with the following observations:The Company objected to such production and the matter was heard on 18th December, 1959 when the Company was directed to "produce the audited balance-sheets and to allow inspection of the account books mentioned in the application by the Union's lawyer in the company's office.The Union complained on 6th January, 1960 that the company had not allowed such inspection.It appears, however, from the petitions and correspondence on record that the company did not actually refuse inspection either by the General Secretary or by the lawyer of the Union but objected to inspection by two representatives of the Union who accompanied the lawyer.In terms of the order passed on 18th December, 1959 the Company was quite justified in refusing inspection by persons other than the Union's lawyer.The persons objected to were retrenched employees of the Company.The inspection could, have been made by the lawyer and the Secretary of the Union but this was not done.That being so the Tribunal was right in rejecting the claim for gratuity.
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,939,140
IA No. 1273/2021, fourth repeat application u/Sec.389(1) Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant No. 3, Kamlesh is taken up and considered alongwith reply of State.Counsel for the rival parties are heard.This criminal appeal assails the judgment dated 11.08.2016 passed in ST.No. 354/2013 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Dabra, District Gwalior, (M.P.) whereby appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under with default stipulation :-Learned counsel 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 suspension of sentence is made out.Learned counsel for the appellant draws the attention of this Court 2 CRA 1007/2016 to the order of co-convicted person Matadeen passed on 04.12.2020, by which sentence of Matadeen has been suspended.The ground of parity is raised.It is seen from the record specially on a prima facie assessment of dehati Nalishi as well as statement of eye witness Narayan Prasad i.e. father of the deceased that Matadeen appears to be one of main accused who caused gunshot injury.The order of co-convicted person Matadeen also appears to have been passed by this Court inadvertently by miss-appreciation of facts.Therefore, the State is of liberty to recall the same.Accordingly, I.A. No. 1273/2021 stands rejected.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,944,172
JUDGMENT : (PER PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.)1. Heard.This is an application filed by the applicant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of First Information Report No. 3045/2012 dated 13/07/2012 registered with the Police Station, Sevagram, District Wardha for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1989") read with Sections 323 and 504 of ::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 16:58:22 ::: APL 598.12.odt 2the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 16:58:22 :::The applicant herein was the President of KashibaiSansthan, Wardha, a registered Public Trust under the BombayPublic Trust Act, which is running educational institutions, and thenon-applicant No.2 is the Headmaster of Shri Vidya InternationalSchool, Paloti, Wardha run by the aforesaid Trust.The allegations against the present applicant in theimpugned F.I.R. are that on 12/07/2012 at about 2.00 pm, theapplicant had entered into the cabin of non-applicant No.2 and onthe issue of collection of School Fees by non-applicant No.2 againstthe directions of the Chairman of the Trust, assaulted and abusedthe non-applicant No.2 in words "ekaxV;k] tkLr ektyk dk] vkeP;k lkscriaxs ?ksr dk".Furthermore, as regards the allegation of assault, it isalso omnibus and general in nature, made without any specificationand supporting material.For the reasons aforestated, we are inclined to allow theapplication and the same is accordingly allowed.First Information::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 16:58:22 ::: APL 598.12.odt 3 Report No. 3045/2012 dated 13/07/2012 registered with the Police Station, Sevagram, District Wardha for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 read with Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 16:58:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/04/2020 16:58:22 :::
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,945,719
% 08.09.2014 Crl.M.A.No.4622/2013 & Crl.There is a delay of 172 days in seeking leave to appeal against the decision dated July 17, 2012, in so far Raghuraj and Giriraj have been acquitted and co-accused Radhe Shyam alone has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and Section 324 IPC.The non-application of mind in filing the petition seeking leave to appeal is evidenced by the fact it treats as if all accused have been acquitted.This explains even Radhe Shyam being impleaded as a respondent.On February 19, 2014, noting that Radhe Shyam had been convicted, the leave petition was restricted to questioning the acquittal of Raghuraj and Crl.L.P.No.196/2013 Page 1 of 3 Giriraj.L.P.No.196/2013 Page 1 of 3Before the State could file the criminal leave petition, Crl.The said decision dated March 22, 2013 extensively discusses the evidence and concludes that the manner in which the prosecution alleged the incident to have taken place was incorrect.The Division Bench has noted that there was a scuffle between two parties.On one side was the party comprising Radhe Shyam, Raghuraj, Giriraj and one Rohit.On the other side was the party comprising Shambhu PW-1, Ravi PW-5, Avdesh PW-4, Netrapal PW-2, Dharmbir PW-7 and the deceased.The Division Bench has brought out that probably the group of which the deceased was a member had attacked Radhe Shyam's residence.Under the circumstances the Division Bench altered Radhe Shyam's conviction from 302 IPC to one under 304 Part-I IPC.In view of the reasoning of the Division Bench it is apparent that as regards the two co-accused who have been acquitted no case would be made out to grant the State leave to appeal for the reason as per the decision of the Division Bench it was a free-fight between two groups without any pre- meditation and during the sudden quarrel one member of the group took out a knife and stab one member of the other group.Only one blow was struck.We dismiss the petition seeking leave to appeal as also the application delay to be condoned.
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,946,840
Session Judge (Fast Track Court), Shahdara Karkardooma Court, Delhi, in S.C. No. 54/2014, arising out of FIR No.366/2014, P.S. Nand Nagari whereunder he has been held guilty and convicted under Sections 302/506 IPC for a double murder, one of his daughter-in-law, Nagma and the other of her 22 days old daughter, Sofia.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 1 of 30The process of criminal law was set into motion when at around 3.50 AM on 08.4.2014, DD No. 7A (Ex.PW14/A) was recorded at PS Nand Nagari, Delhi.The Control Room was intimated through a telephonic call received by the PCR Van that a lady was murdered in K- Block, House No. 285, Street No. 5, Sundar Nagri, Delhi.On the duty officer intimating PW-24, SI Gaurav Kumar about DD No. 7A, he along with PW-14, SI Ashok Trikey and PW-19, Ct.Charan Pal reached the first floor of the aforesaid house where the dead bodies of Nagma and the baby girl, Sofia were found.There was blood on the floor and in the nostrils of Nagma.Ligature marks were found on the necks of both the deceased.The Crime team was called, who inspected the site and took photographs.The "Scene of Crime Visit Report" (Ex.PW7/A) recorded in column 6 that the modus operandi was strangulation and noted in column 9 that the weapon/tool suspected to have been used for strangulation, appeared to be a rope.In column 14, the exhibits advised to be collected from the spot included the jute rope.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 2 of 30On inquiries made by PW-24, SI Gaurav Kumar, it was revealed that the appellant is the father-in-law of the deceased, Nagma and the grandfather of baby Sofia and that he and his son, Abid Ali @ Nihal aged about 8 years were sleeping outside the room of the deceased; Dildar Ali @ Dillu, husband of Nagma was in Tihar Jail at that time and the appellants wife, Bilkish @ Ujma had left his company 3-4 months ago.There was no sign of breaking open of the door of the room where the dead bodies were found.The dead body of the woman was identified as that of Nagma, w/o Dildar @ Dillu, aged about 22-23 years and that of the baby girl was identified as Sofia, daughter of Nagma, about 20-22 days old.Based on the aforesaid information, the IO prepared a rukka and got the FIR registered.Later on, the investigation was entrusted to PW-29, Inspector Kishan Kumar.The site plan was prepared with the assistance of PW-24, SI Gaurav Kumar (Ex.PW29/A).The exhibits lifted from the scene of crime that included blood samples, blood stained earth, sample earth control, broken mala, one ear ring, small blanket and dari, were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW19/B. On reaching the ground floor of the house, the IO (PW-29) had met the appellant and his neighbour, Nisar Ahmed (PW-10) and Anwar Ali (PW-11).He had also met the minor son of the appellant namely, Abid Ali (PW-5), who is the sole eye witness and his wife, Bilkish @ Ujma (PW-6).Abid Ali (PW-5) stated that his father, the appellant had murdered his bhabi, Nagma and baby Sofia by strangulating them with the help of a rope.The appellant was arrested and on the basis of his disclosure statement CRL.A.576/2018 Page 3 of 30 (Ex.PW6/B), the blood stained rope with which he had strangulated both the deceased, recovered from beneath the cot where the dead bodies were lying, was seized vide pointing out seizure memo, Ex.PW6/A. The blood stained clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the incident were also seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW20/C. Another piece of rope found near the stairs on the ground floor was sealed and seized vide seizure memo, Ex.PW19/A. The appellant stated to the IO that his son namely, Kismat Ali had murdered Nagma and Sofia with the help of his friends and had tied his hands and legs with the said piece of rope.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 3 of 30On 11.04.2014, upon being informed by the police, the parents of the deceased Nagma, namely, PW-2 Asabuddin (father) and PW-3 Mursida (mother) travelled from Bihar to Delhi and their statements were got recorded by the SDM wherein they leveled allegations against the appellant and the accused No.2, Ibne Ali (one of the four sons of the appellant) of murdering Nagma and her baby daughter.An application moved by the IO for recording the statement of the child witness, Abid Ali @ Nihal under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was allowed by the learned ACMM (PW-26) on 11.4.2014, but after putting him general questions and noticing that he was not in a fit mental state to make a statement, the said application was disposed of with liberty to the IO to move a fresh application when the witness was in a position to depose properly.Abid Ali had stated this time that he had seen the appellant/his father, who he addressed as Chacha', strangulating his bhabhi, Nagma with a rope.He further stated CRL.A.576/2018 Page 4 of 30 that his father had killed baby Sofia too and had threatened him to keep quiet and not inform anybody, failing which he would kill him.11) and Mohd. Yaseen (PW-12).The star witness is PW-5, Abid Ali, minor son of the appellant, who is the sole eye witness of the incident.9. PW-2, Asabuddin (father of the deceased Nagma) and PW-3, Mursida (mother of the deceased Nagma) had deposed that a day before her murder, their daughter, Nagma had telephonically informed them that her father-in-law, the appellant herein, was having evil eye on her and had asked her not to lock the door of the room from inside.PW-4, Arshad Ali, brother of the deceased had also deposed about receiving a telephonic call from his sister, Nagma one day before the crime and had stated that he and his parents had spoken to her.On the next day, they had come to know about his sister having expired.PW-4 had identified the dead body of Nagma vide Ex.PW4/A.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 5 of 3010. PW-6, Bilkish @ Ujma, wife of the appellant had deposed that before marrying Nagma, her son Dildar @ Dillu was married to one Yasmeen and a talaq had taken place between them due to allegations of molestations leveled by Yasmeen against the appellant.She stated that because the appellant used to tease Nagma, she had left his home and moved to her parental home; that Nagma used to wear a burka and she had telephonically informed Bilkish that the appellant had forced her to remove the parda; that the appellant was not of good character and their son, Dildar was lodged in jail before the date of the incident; that as long as she was living in the house, Nagma used to close the door of the room where she was residing, from inside.Later on, Nagma had told PW-6 on the telephone that the appellant used to force her to keep the room open.She further deposed that after Nagma had got married to Dildar, she was informed about the loose character of the appellant and was warned to be cautious.She stated that on 04.8.2014, she had visited the house of PW-11, Anwar Ali, who lived in the neighbourhood with a view to take Nagma back with her as her husband was in jail, but when PW-11 went to the house of the appellant to call Nagma, he did not allow her to leave the house.PW-6 had also deposed about witnessing the disclosure statement of the appellant, Ex.PW6/B and the pointing out memo of the recovery of the rope lying under the cot where the dead bodies were lying at the instance of the appellant, Ex.PW6/A.The medical and forensic witnesses produced by the prosecution includes PW-9, Dr. Neha Gupta, who had conducted the postmortem on the bodies of Nagma and baby Sofia and had proved the postmortem reports as Ex.PW9/A and Ex.PW9/B, respectively.She had deposed that CRL.A.576/2018 Page 6 of 30 the time since the death had occurred was about five days and the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by a ligature and that injury No.1 on the body of the deceased, Nagma was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Similarly, the cause of death of baby Sofia was also stated to have been caused by asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem strangulation by a ligature.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 6 of 30The record reveals that during her cross examination, PW-9 had stated that she had not been shown the ligature material for obtaining an opinion.At that stage, the State moved an application before the Court asking for permission to obtain an opinion in respect of rope seized vide pointing memo, Ex.PW6/A, which was allowed and a second opinion dated 24.7.2016 was given by PW-9 vide Ex.PW9/B, opining inter alia that injury No.1 mentioned in the postmortem reports of both the deceased were possible by the rope furnished for examination.PW-17, Dr. Adesh Kumar, Sr. Scientific Officer, Chemistry, FSL Rohini, Delhi had deposed about the contents of a wooden box received from the I.O. and examined by him.He had proved his detailed report, marked as Ex.PW17/A.14. PW-25, Ms. Shashi Bala Pahuja, Sr.Scientific Officer (Biology), FSL, Rohini, Delhi, proved the detailed report, Ex.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 7 of 30PW-10 Nisar Ahmed, a neighbour of the appellant had stated that at about 3.00 AM on the relevant date, he had heard cries and on coming out of his house, he had seen the appellant lying on a slab outside his house with a rope tied on his knees and both his hands tied at the knees, inside the rope.On enquiring as to what had happened, the appellant had told PW-10 that his sons, Kismat Ali and Dildaar @ Dillu had beaten him up and tied him with a rope.On being asked by the appellant to go upstairs and see what had happened, PW-10 had untied him but did not notice any injury on his body.He had then called a lady living in the neighbourhood, namely Lambo, who went upstairs, came down and stated that Nagma and her daughter had died.The said witness went on to state that the appellant was a flirtatious man and there were complaints against him of eve teasing due to which his wife had left him.PW-11, Anwar Ali, another neighbour of the appellant had deposed that he had old relations with the family of the accused; that two months before the incident had taken place on 08.4.2014, PW-6, Bilkish (wife of the appellant) had left her matrimonial home and at that time, Nagmas husband, Dildar was lodged in Tihar Jail and Nagma and her baby daughter were residing on the first floor of the house.He had deposed that the appellant was also residing on the first floor alongwith his minor son, Abid Ali @ Nihal and they used to sleep there; that on 08.4.2014 at 3.15AM, on hearing the noise of someone crying, he had come out of his house and had seen that the appellants hands were tied CRL.A.576/2018 Page 8 of 30 with a rope near his knees.The appellant had told PW-11 that he was thrown from the stairs and was beaten by someone and his cash and mobile phone were robbed; that on his wife Mobina asking about Nagma, the appellant had stated that she was on the first floor.They had then gone to the first floor of the appellants house and found that both the deceased were dead and ligature marks visible on Nagmas neck.PW-11 then called 100 Number and informed the police about the murder.It is relevant to note that it is the mobile number of PW-11 that has been recorded in the PCR form.PW-11 further deposed that one day prior to the incident, the appellant had asked him to call up his wife, Bilkish.At his request, he had called up Bilkish and asked her to come to his house, which she did late in the night.On the instructions of Bilkish, PW-11 had gone to his house to bring Nagma with him as Bilkish wanted to take her, but the appellant had refused to allow Nagma to go with Bilkish.PW-11 also tried to persuade the appellant but he refused to allow Nagma to accompany Bilkish.As a result, Bilkish had left his house.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 8 of 30PW-12, Mohd. Yaseen, residing as a tenant in the appellants house for a year and a half prior to the incident, had deposed that the appellant is a bad character and that 15 days before the incident, his wife had left him after a quarrel.On the day when a quarrel had taken place CRL.A.576/2018 Page 9 of 30 between the appellant and his wife, PW-12 had tried to pacify them and bring about a compromise by asking the appellant to bring Bilkish back to his house, but he had refused to do so.The deposition of PW-6, Bilkish, wife of the appellant is equally damaging to his character.She had stated that the divorce between her son, Dildar @ Dillu (husband of the CRL.A.576/2018 Page 21 of 30 deceased, Nagma) and his first wife, Yasmeen had taken place due to the appellant molesting her.As for PW-11, he had deposed that the appellant had told him that he was thrown from the stairs and beaten by someone and his mobile phone alongwith cash was robbed.The appellant herein has been convicted for committing a double murder.It has been successfully established by the prosecution that he was disreputable and had an evil eye on his own daughter-in-law, a young girl of 22-23 years.All this had happened within the four walls of the appellants own home and that too in the absence of his son, Dildar Ali @ Dillu (husband of Nagma), who was incarcerated at that time.Thus the onus was on the appellant, who had special knowledge as to what had transpired that night in his own house, which he miserably failed to discharge.When the deceased, Nagma resisted the depraved acts of the appellant, he had strangulated her and did not stop at that.He also proceeded to strangulate his 22 days old granddaughter, baby Sofia (Nagmas daughter), without any remorse.The appellant had also threatened his eight year old son, PW-5 and had warned him that he would kill him if he disclosed to anyone, the incident that he had witnessed.However, the appellant and his son, accused No.2, Ibne Ali, were acquitted for the offence under Sections 498-A/34 IPC.Vide order on sentence dated 09.03.2018, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo CRL.A.576/2018 Page 1 of 30 life imprisonment with a caveat that he would not be released on remission before undergoing a sentence for a period of 28 years under Section 302 IPC and shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine, he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.For the offence under Section 506 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years.Further, compensation has been directed to be awarded to the legal heirs of both the deceased under Section 357-A Cr.P.C.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 4 of 30On completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Court and charges were framed against the appellant under Section 302/506 IPC and against both the accused i.e., the appellant and the accused No.2, Ibne Ali under Sections 498-A/34 IPC.Both the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution has examined 29 witnesses to prove its case.The material ocular evidence includes that of Asabuddin (PW-2), Murshida (PW-3), Arshad Ali (PW-4), Abid Ali @ Nihal (PW-5), Bilkish @ Ujma (PW-6, wife of the accused), Nisar Ahmed (PW-10), Anwar Ali (PW-PW-12 stated that the appellant had tried to allure his wife, Shabana by offering her money to establish a sexual relation with him and a scuffle had taken place between him and the appellant.But due to the intervention of neighbourers, the matter was closed.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 9 of 30PW-29, Inspector Kishan Kumar had deposed about reaching the spot of crime at 5.00 AM on 08.4.2014, where he discovered the dead bodies of Nagma and baby Sofia; of preparing site plan, calling the Crime Team, who had inspected place and taken photograph of the place of occurrence; of collecting the case properties and recording the statement of the family members of the appellant, the public witness including Abid Ali (PW-5), Bilkish (PW-6), Nishar Ahmed (PW-10) and Anwar Ali (PW-11).PW-29 stated as to how, based on the disclosure statement of the appellant made in the morning of 09.4.2014, one piece of blood stained rope was recovered beneath a cot where the dead bodies were found lying in the house and the same was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW6/A) along with the blood stained Kurta and Tehmat (Lungi) worn by the appellant.The IO also deposed about the inquest proceedings, recording of the statement of the child witness, PW-5 before the ACMM, receiving of the postmortem reports and the FSL report.We may note that in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case; that it was his son Kismat Ali, his wife, Bilkish and one Shahid CRL.A.576/2018 Page 10 of 30 Kabari with whom he claimed Bilkish had an affair and one Murad, who had murdered Nagma and Sofia and they had tied his hands and put clothes over him.Though liberty was granted to both the accused to lead defence evidence, they did not do so.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 10 of 30Relying on the testimony of the child witness, Abid Ali @ Nihal (PW-5) and holding that his deposition was reliable and trustworthy, particularly in the light of the corroborative testimony of independent witnesses, i.e., the neighbours and tenants including Nisar Ahmed (PW-10), Mohd. Yaseen (PW-12), Saleem Javed (PW-18) and the appellants wife, Bilkish @ Ujma (PW-6), the learned ASJ held that the prosecution had successfully proved that the appellant was not of good moral character and he had harboured bad intention towards his daughter-in- law, Nagma that he did not allow her to bolt the door of her room from inside and one day prior to the incident, he did not allow his wife, Bilkish to take Nagma with her.The trial court also relied on the forensic evidence which established that a piece of blood stained rope seized on the basis of the disclosure statement of the appellant was the one that had been used by him to strangulate Nagma and baby Sofia, as the blood appearing on his Kurta had matched with the blood stains on the rope as also on the shawl in which baby Sofia was found wrapped.Referring to the circumstances that had occurred a day prior to the fateful day, when Bilkish (PW-6) had tried to take Nagma with her, which was resisted by the appellant and connecting the same with the testimony of the parents and brother of Nagma, who had deposed that one day before her murder, she had telephonically informed them about CRL.A.576/2018 Page 11 of 30 the appellant threatening her and warning her not to latch the door of the room from inside, the trial court held that the prosecution was successful in establishing the motive for the murder attributable to the appellant.The defence version that the appellant had been falsely implicated due to a property dispute between him and his wife Bilkish, was turned down.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 11 of 30The trial court had also commented on the false statement made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein he had pointed a finger of suspicion at his son, Kismat Ali, besides his wife and two others for committing the murder of the deceased.Referring to the deposition of Nisar Ahmed (PW-10), who had deposed that the appellant had informed him that his sons, Kismat Ali and Dildar @ Dillu had beaten him up and had tied him up with a rope, the learned ASJ rejected the said version outright in the light of the fact that at that point in time, Dildar @ Dillu (husband of Nagma) was admittedly in judicial custody.It was held that the appellant was trying to wriggle out of the situation by taking shifting stands at different points in time.Mr. Badrinath, learned counsel for the appellant has sought to fault the impugned judgment on three counts, firstly, that there is no scientific evidence to connect the appellant with the murder of the deceased, Nagma and baby Sofia on the ground that the rope originally sent by the police to the FSL for obtaining a report, does not match with the rope that was subsequently sent to Dr. Neha Gupta (PW-9), who had submitted a second opinion on the ligature material.The second plea is that the trial court has erred in relying on the tutoured statement of the child witness (PW-5), which is full of contradictions and ought to have CRL.A.576/2018 Page 12 of 30 been discarded and lastly, that the character of the appellant has been wrongly maligned and the evidence referred to in relation to his character, was mostly hearsay and therefore no motive could have been attributed to him for committing the murder of Nagma and baby Sofia.The aforesaid arguments were sought to be rebutted by Ms. Ashaa Tiwari, learned APP, who stated that there was ample evidence on the record to link the jute rope bearing the blood stains and discovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, to the rope in respect whereof PW-9, Dr. Neha Gupta had given a second opinion.She urged that there was no scope of planting the rope or substituting it and nor was any tampering done by the prosecution to indict the appellant, as alleged.Coming to the testimony of the child witness (PW-5), learned APP vehemently denied the submission made on behalf of the appellant that the child had been tutored by the prosecution or that all the witnesses had deposed at the instance of Bilkish (PW-6), who had a property dispute with the appellant.She asserted that the loose character of the appellant came out clearly from the deposition of PW-6, PW-10, PW-11 and PW-12 and the final nail in the coffin was driven by the medical and forensic reports that leave no manner of doubt that the blood stains on the rope and on the appellants kurta matched with the DNA of Nagma.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 13 of 30The first plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the rope recovered on the basis of the disclosure statement made by the appellant, is the very same rope that was used for the crime and that there is a reasonable doubt about its authenticity in the light of the second opinion dated 27.4.2016, given by PW-9/Dr.Neha Gupta regarding the ligature material, which describes the jute rope as "having three intertwined limbs with one fixed knot at one end and other knot was cut separating the three limbs of the rope".The said report (Ex.PW9/B) also states that the total length of the rope is 69 cms., circumference 3 cms., width 0.8 cms.with a white sticker of FSL present near the end.To test the aforesaid submission, we have meticulously gone through the relevant evidence on the record that reveals that the rope in question was seized vide seizure memo (Ex.PW6/A), from under the cot where the dead bodies were found lying on the first floor of the appellants house, on the basis of his disclosure statement (Ex.PW6/B), duly witnessed by two police witnesses, namely, PW-20, HC Faiyaz Ahmad and PW-21, Ct. Amritraj and one public witness, PW-6, Bilkish @ Ujma.A doubt has also been raised by learned counsel for the appellant on the credibility of PW-6, Biklish on the ground that she had deposed that the said rope was found on the second floor of the house whereas the CRL.A.576/2018 Page 14 of 30 crime had taken place on the first floor.PW6/A, which bears her thumb marks at point A. She had also asserted that the rope had been recovered at the instance of the appellant.She had correctly identified the rope when it was produced from a parcel sealed by the FSL.So, not much would turn on the above discrepancy.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 14 of 30The sequence of events show that once the rope was seized, it was sealed and deposited in the store room by PW-29, Inspector Kishan Kumar.The Store Room Register (Ex.PW16/A) records at Sl.Nos. 4716, 4717 and 4720 that the rope along with other case property was deposited by PW-29, Inspector Kishan Kumar in the Malkhana.It is the very same piece of rope that has been mentioned as Ex.-7 in the FSL report dated 22.04.2016 (Ex.PW25/A), which states that the same matched with the blood stained gauze of the deceased, Nagma (Ex.12) and the blood found on the Kurta of the appellant [Ex.-8(a)].On 26.04.2016, all the 17 parcels were received back from the FSL, Rohini and re-deposited in the Malkhana.The extracts of the Store Room Register, Ex.PW16/A and Ex.PW16/B have been proved to show CRL.A.576/2018 Page 15 of 30 that one sealed pullanda with the seal of FSL SBP Delhi containing the rope was sent to the Head of the Department, Forensic GTB Hospital on 27.04.2016 for a subsequent opinion.The rope was sent through a Road Certificate No.73/21/16 (Ex.PW-9, Dr.Neha Gupta deposed that on 27.04.2016, she had received a yellow envelope bearing seal of SBP, FSL, Delhi, which was intact.On opening the parcel, a jute rope was examined and a subsequent opinion (Ex.PW9/B) was given by her.The testimony of PW-16, Ct.Hari Mohan, Malkhana Mohrar, PS Nand Nagari and PW-23, ASI Prem Kumar, have corroborated the movement of the rope along with other case property, through the entries made in the Store Room Register.Both the said witnesses have affirmed that as long as the case property had remained in their possession, they had remained intact and untampered.Ankit proved deposit of the sealed pullanda with PW-9, Dr. Neha Gupta vide Road Certificate (Mark PW15/A).The said Road Certificate was proved by PW-23, ASI Prem Kumar as Ex.But when the learned ACMM (PW-26) had put some general questions to the child witness to check his state of mind and found that he was not in a fit state of mind to give a statement, he had declined to record the same.Instead, liberty was granted to the IO to move a fresh application when the child witness was in a position to depose properly.A second application was moved by the IO within four days from 11.4.2014, on 15.4.2014 with the same request.This time the statement CRL.A.576/2018 Page 18 of 30 of PW-5 was recorded by PW-28, learned M.M. and he stated as follows:-Mujhko aur kuch nahi kehna hai."The contention of the learned defence counsel that PW-5 had made contradictory statements in his deposition, is found to be devoid of substance.On the contrary, PW-5 has been consistent in all the material facts relating to the incident and in his testimony, he has mostly repeated what was recorded earlier under Section 164 Cr.PC.PW-5 reiterated the fact that the on the fateful day, he was sleeping and when he got up, he saw the appellant putting a rope around the neck of his sister-in-law, Nagma, pulling it and killing her; that this had taken place at about 3.00 AM and thereafter, the appellant had told him to go to sleep, and not tell anyone about the incident, failing which he would kill him.PW-5 has also deposed that his sister-in-law, Nagma had a small daughter, Sofia and his father had trampled on her head and killed her.It must be kept in mind that PW-5, the child had witnessed a gruesome sight, where he saw his own father strangulating his sister-in-law and her baby.It is apparent from his deposition that PW-5 was able to discern between right and wrong.The child was naturally present at his home at that point of time.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 20 of 30It has been duly corroborated by medical and forensic evidence that has come on record and the same when read collectively, clearly inculpates the appellant.PW-6 had stated that though Nagma used to wear a burka, it was at the appellants insistence that she had to remove the same.When PW-6 left the appellants house, the deceased Nagma had informed her on telephone that he had forced her to keep the door of her room open.Both PW-6 and PW-11 narrated how a day before the crime, the appellant had strongly resisted attempts made by PW-6 to take Nagma back with her.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 21 of 30Even if we overlook the statements of Nagmas parents, PW-2 (father), PW-3 (mother) and her brother, PW-4 on the ground taken by the defence counsel that no material evidence was brought on record by the prosecution through CDRs to prove that the calls allegedly received by them from Nagma were made from the mobile phone of PW-6, Bilkish as no efforts were made by the I.O. to collect the CDRs of the mobile phones of PW-2, PW-4 and PW-6, yet the loose character of the appellant has been amply proved through the deposition of independent witnesses, i.e., the neighbours and tenants of the appellant.The appellant comes out as a licentious character, who lusted for his own daughter-in- law and desired to establish a physical relationship with her.This was apparently resisted by the young hapless girl aged 22/23 years, who had delivered a girl child barely 20/22 days before the incident, while her husband was still in jail.This had apparently enraged the appellant to the point that he strangulated Nagma within the four walls of her matrimonial home.The appellant did not even spare the tiny baby, Sofia and strangulated her too in a cold blooded manner.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 22 of 30In the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no manner of doubt that the appellant had sufficient motive to commit the crime which has been amply proved by the prosecution on the basis of the testimonies of independent witnesses and the circumstantial evidence brought on record.Simply because there was no eye witness to the lustful overtures made by the appellant towards his daughter-in-law is not reason enough for this Court to disbelieve the said evidence, which when taken together, clearly establishes that the appellant had resented Nagma for not submitting to his sexual desire which had provoked him to commit such a heinous offence.The prosecution has thus succeeded in proving the motive behind the twin murders committed by the appellant.It is also noteworthy that the appellant has been shifting his stand about the sequence of events that had occurred on the date of the crime as was narrated by him to his neighbours, PW-10 and PW-11, who had reached the spot after hearing his cries and had deposed about what he had told them immediately after the incident.PW-10 had deposed that when he asked the appellant as to what had happened, he stated that his two sons, Kismat Ali and Dillu (husband of the deceased, Nagma) had given him beatings and had left him after tying him with a rope.Both the witnesses had deposed that they did not notice any injury on the body of CRL.A.576/2018 Page 23 of 30 the appellant.In his statement made before the court under Section 313 Cr.PC, the appellant offered yet another version of the incident by claiming that it was his son, Kismat Ali, his wife Bilkish, one Shahid Kabari and Murad, who had committed the murder of Nagma and baby Sofia and had tied his hands and put clothes over him.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 23 of 30Given the aforesaid contradictory versions of the same incident offered by the appellant at different points in time, each one more implausible than the other, we do not find any error in the findings returned in the impugned judgment that the appellants defence did not ring true and the same is unbelievable.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 27 of 30As far as remissions are concerned, it consists of two types.One type of remission is what is earned by a prisoner under the Prison Rules or other relevant rules based on his/her good behaviour or such other stipulations prescribed therein.The other remission is the grant of it by the appropriate Government in exercise of its power under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code.Therefore, in the latter case when a remission of the substantive sentence is granted under Section 432, then and then only giving credit to the earned remission can take place and not otherwise.Similarly, in the case of a life imprisonment, meaning thereby the entirety of one's life, unless there is a commutation of such sentence for any specific period, there would be no scope to count the earned remission.Thereafter, the appellant offered contradictory versions of the incident and kept on shifting his stand about the occurrence on the fateful day by initially seeking to blame his two sons including the husband of the deceased, Nagma and later on, his wife and two others.CRL.A.576/2018 Page 29 of 30Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a direction that he shall not be released before completing 25 years of incarceration under Section 302 IPC alongwith a fine of Rs.10,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.The sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 506 IPC, is maintained.Both the sentences shall run concurrently.The impugned order on sentence dated 09.03.2018, is modified on the above terms.The appeal is partly allowed and disposed of.Trial court record be released and a copy of this order forwarded to the appellant through the Superintendent Jail.(HIMA KOHLI) JUDGE (MANOJ KUMAR OHRI) JUDGE JANUARY 22, 2019 ap/rkb CRL.A.576/2018 Page 30 of 30CRL.A.576/2018 Page 30 of 30
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 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.
1,319,486
The detention, it is urged, is also vitiated by anon-application of mind by an omission to consider materialcapable of influencing the satisfaction.Shri Yogeshwar Prasad, however, sought to support theorder of detention, relying upon the records of theproceedings and the affidavit filed by the detaining-authority.The concerned police officers have also filedtheir counter-affidavits.In order to appreciate the contentions urged at thehearing, it is necessary to advert to the three grounds onwhich the satisfaction on the part of the detaining-authority for the need for the detention was reached.1. 'That on 6.2.88 at Ghursal Mor.The Inspector General of Police.R.S.M. Verma and Shakil Ahmad Syed for thePetitioner.V.C. Mahajan, Yogeshwar Prasad, Ms. A. Subhashini,Dalveer Bhandari, Rachna Joshi and H.K. Puri for theRespondents.Sec. 5A of the Act alsoprovides that where a person has been detained on two ormore grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been madeseparately on each of such grounds.near Jamaniya BaghR.T.O. Road, P.S. Railway Road at 3.50 P.M. you along withyour other companions stopped Mini Bus No. U.S.Q. 9278 andyou immediately started breaking the glass screens of the PG NO 972bus with an iron rod and your companions hurled brick-batsat the glasses of the bus and extended abuses to the driver.On being told about above incident by Shri Chandrapal,Driver of Mini Bus, Shri Anil Gautam made a writtencomplaint on the basis of which a report No. 8 of non-cognizable offence was registered u/s 504, 427 of I.P.C.Your aforesaid misdeed caused fear and terror among thecommon public and in this way you committed an act which isprejudicial to the maintenance of public order."That, on 13.2.1988 at about 11.45 P.M. in front ofFaize-e-Aam Inter College, Meerut on the open road youalongwith your other companions displayed "gundaism" andstopped Bus No. U.S.N. 8377 which was going from MedicalCollege to City Station and you had broken the glass screensof the said bus and abused Shri Balram the driver and Vipinthe conductor of the bus, which caused fear and terror amongthe general public.On the basis of the information given byShri Anil Gautam the Report No. 15 for non-cognizableoffence u/s 427, 504 of I.P.C. was registered at P.S. DelhiGate.In this way you acted in such a manner which isprejudical to the maintenance of public order."That, on 18.2.1988 near Caltex Petrol Pump on Delhi-Muzzafar Nagar Road at about 9.10 O'clock at night youalongwith your other three companions reached at the Bookstall situated at the aforesaid petrol pump, and holding himby neck you pulled Shri Anil the book seller and you, withintent to kill him gave blows of knife on his neck and chestand you also assaulted with knife on other parts of hisbody, because of which the nearby shops were closed down dueto fear and terror caused by you and the people werealarmed.You committed the above misdeed because on 30thDecember 1987 at about 7.00 P.M. you had teased a girl whowas the daughter of an Army Major, while she was buying amagazine from the aforesaid Book-stall and this was objectedby Mr. Anil but you did not refrain from teasing the girl,then Anil had beaten you.On which you and your companions PG NO 973threatened Mr. Anil that this Enmity will be too expensivefor him.On the basis of a written information given by Mr.Brij Mohan, Crime No. 59 under Section 307 I.P.C. wasregistered against you which, after the death of injuredAnil in the Hospital, was covered into an offence underSection 302 of I.P.C. and this offence is underinvestigation.In regard to the third ground of detention, learnedcounsel said, the petitioner was taken into custody at 8.00P.M. on 18.2.1988 and that the wireless message sent at 8.07P.M. by the Mobile Van to the Circle Police Officer and theSuperintendent of Police had specifically referred to theattack on Anil Gautam and had clearly omitted to mention the PG NO 974name of the petitioner and the alleged witnesses.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
131,953
JUDGMENT M.L. Jain, J.(1) On July 17, 1974, one Ramesh Chand lodged a report that while he was going with his brother Anurag Kumar in Tilak Bazar, the accused persons four in number attacked them with knife with the result that Ramesh Chand received a knife injury on the wrist and a scratch on his neck and Anurag Kumar suffered six simple hurts.He is merely tosee if from the report of the police under section 173 Criminal Procedure Code and the statements of the witnesses, a case friable by the court of session is made out or not.But, the Magistrate proceeded to appreciate the evidence and legal position involved in the case about the nature of injuries and other circumstances which he had no jurisdiction to do.At the stage of charge, even the Sessions Judge cannot appreciate the evidence to the extent the learned Magistrate did.The complainant had specifically stated that the accused had called out that they would not allow the victims to leave alive displaying thereby an intention to murder.The learned Addl.Sessions Judge, therefore, set aside the order of the learned Magistrate and directed him to commit the case to the court of session.The accused Dinesh Chand has filed this revision.I have heard the arguments.
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,542,113
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the occurrence in this case had taken place on 23-9-1981 at 4.30 p.m. in the Jungle (fields) of village Jarara near the field of Devi Singh.The place, where there incident had occurred, is about 2 kms.from the Abadi of the village.The F.I.R. of this incident was lodged by Vipin Kumar son of deceased Fatesh Singh at 6.30 p.m. at P.S. Pahasu on the same day.A case, on the basis of this written report, was registered at the above said police station by the Head Moharir, P.W. 4 Shiv Prakash.After preparation of the check report and completion of other formalities the investigation of the case Was taken up by P.W. 6 Yogendra Singh, S.I. He arrived at the scene of occurrence and prepared inquest memo and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.He had also prepared other papers pertaining to the postmortem.He had recovered the bags containing grounded wheat flour and other vegetables that were carried by the deceased on his cycle.They were given in the custody of his son, PW-1 Vipin Kumar.He had also recovered blood stained earth and simple earth from the seat of incident, sealed them in different containers, and prepared their recovery memos.Underneath that injury right vertebral vessels were also found cut through and through.He had hardly run 4-5 steps, when his father was assaulted.He further stated that his field is contiguous to the road.As soon as he reached near his father, the assailants had already taken to their heels.He had stated that he was breaking the rnaind.The road that passes by his field is a public pathway.Nobody was on the road at that moment.Occasionally, carts or Tonga use to passby.He had further stated that Pharsa, which was used by Om Pal on his father, was small in size.Malkhan is uncle of P.W. 1, Narendra, appellant, is son of Malkhan.About Shripal the statement is that he belongs to their group.P.W.-1 Vipin Kumar has stated that he had gone to the flour mill of Poosey Jatav to fetch his grounded wheat.He admits the presence of PW-2 Omkar at that place at about 4.00 p.m. He along with Omkar, who had given his corn seed for grinding at that mill, were returning to village.Omkar's corn was not grinded so he took some flour from the mill.When they reached the conjunction, which leads from Pahasu.At that time he was having a bag and a bundle containing various articles.His father had taken the bag of wheat flour on his cycle.The flour was in gunny bag.All started moving on foot towards the village.As soon as they reached near the tube-well of Shivraj Singh, his father rode the cycle and started to peddle it towards the village.They two were still walking.At about 4.30 p.m. when his father reached near the field of Devi from behind the bushes appellants Om Pal, Shripal, Malkhan, Pratap and Narendra emerged out.Om Pal was armed with a Pharsa, Shripal with a sword, and the others with Lathis.They surrounded his father.Dropping his cycle deceased ran towards east.He was chased and surrounded.Om Pal gave a Pharsa blow on his temple.Shripal inflicted a sword injury on his neck.When his father was surrounded by the assailants, he raised alarm responding to his alarm he and Omkar Singh started running.From the other side his younger brother Gajraj and Bani Singh also ran.Seeing them approaching the assailants ran away through the fields of Netra Pal and Swarupa.When they reached near their father, he was found dead.Leaving Gajraj and Omkar at the spot he had gone to the police station and lodged his written report.It was scribed and signed by him.He had also identified the clothes and the shoes that his father was wearing at the time of death.He had admitted enmity very candidly.In cross-examination he gave out that he had reached the police station at about 6.00 p.m. He went straight from the spot to the police station on a cycle all alone.The report was transcribed by him at the police station.He had informed the S.I. initially that his father is murdered.Gajraj, PW-5, may have mistaken steps as yards.This was the distance at the initial stage when they started running.A family member is not likely to leave out the real assailants and involve falsely his own kith and kins in a murder of their own father if it was a blind murder at all.In this context the learned counsel for the defence has also drew our attention to the evidence of the I.O Yogendra Singh (P.W. 6).This police officer was present in the course of routine Gast in this village at about 4.15 p.m. He came to learn about abovesaid incident of murder in village Jarara around 5.15 p.m. He reached the spot of incident along with his contingent.He had examined the dead body.Large number of people were present there.He had sent two constables, Shiv Kumar and Kunwar Pal to the police station for calling the book in which the inquest is being prepared.He prepared inquest memo and signed it.The dead body was handed over to Shiv Kumar and Kunwar Pal by him.In cross-examination this witness admitted that when he reached the spot he did not find Vipin present there, but Gajraj was present.The incident had taken place at 4.30 p.m. and after receiving the information at 4.45 or 5.15 p.m. he must have reached the place of occurrence within minutes.The incident had taken place at the outskirts of the village.He had further stated that so long as he sealed the dead body, Gajraj remained present there.When he was preparing the inquest, S.I. Balbeer Singh along with few police personnel also arrived at the spot from P.S. Pahasu.Before his preparing the inquest the constables, who were sent to fetch the Jild Panchayatnama had returned.When he started preparing the inquest it was 7.45 p.m. When he had sent the constables to the police station it was 5.15 or 5.30 p.m. P.S. Pahasu is 2 kms.from the spot.The entry of arrival and departure of the constables, whom he had sent to the police station to obtain the Jild Panchayatnama, were made in the G.D. at the police station.He shall report back to this Court in writing as soon as these appellants are arrested and sent to jail in compliance of our order.JUDGMENT S.K. Agarwal, J.Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 1982 was preferred by Malkhan Singh, Narendra Kumar and Pratap Singh.These appeals are preferred by Om Pal and Shripal respectively.All the aforesaid appeals arise out of an order of conviction under Section 302/149, 147 and 148, I.P.C. of all the appellants.Malkhan Singh and Pratap Singh being armed with Lathi were convicted under Section 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to one year's R.I. Appellants Shripal and Om Pal were sentenced under Section 148, I.P.C. for holding pharsa and sword to two year's R.I. They all were also sentenced to R. I. for life under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. All the sentences were to run concurrently.The post-mortem examination on the person of the victim was conducted by P.W. 10 Dr. Chandra Prakash.The doctor had found only two incised wounds on the person of the deceased.One was on the neck just below right ear.About 1 oz. of clotted blood was present around the tissues.The second sharp-edged weapon injury was on left temporal region extending to left cheek bone, of the dimension of 6 1/2" x 1 1/2" x bone deep.Left ramous of mandible and left mastoid process was found cut underneath this injury.The Doctor opined that these two injuries could have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course.Rigor mortis had passed off.There was no decomposition noted by the doctor.In his opinion death could have occurred on 23-9-1981 at 4.30 p.m. He had further very clearly stated that these two injuries could have been the result of use of a sword or a pharsa.In cross-examination he had admitted that injuries No. 1 and 2 could be the result of a single weapon and there can be a difference of 2-4 hours in the duration of death either way.It is also admitted to the doctor that the deceased must have taken his last meal some 4 hours before his death and he had died instantly.The prosecution has examined four ocular witnesses in this case.Out of them P.W. 1 Vipin Kumar and P.W. 5 Gajraj Singh are the sons of the deceased.P.W. 2 Omkar Singh and P.W. 3 Bani Singh have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution story in its entirety.P.W. 2 Omkar Singh in his examination-in-chief had nominated all the five appellants and also attributed role of killing of Fateh Singh to Om Pal and Shripal.He had also stated that Om Pal was armed with a Pharsa and Shripal was armed with a sword.Regarding other appellants the case set up by this witness is that they surrounded the deceased.He had also admitted his presence along with Vipin Kumar, Gajraj Singh and Bani Singh on the spot at the relevant time.His cross-examination was deferred by the Court on the request of learned counsel for the defence.During the course of cross-examination, which was held on 22-4-87, this witness had given out that the assailants were covering their faces with a cloth and he had recognised the assailants by estimation only.Further he had stated that the assailants had taken to their heels after the incident towards east.He showed his inability to tell that for how many minutes the incident lasted.He further stated that the first blow was of Pharsa and, immediately this was followed by the sword blow.He had further admitted in cross-examination that there was no enmity between him and Fateh Singh.On hearing the alarm of Feteh Singh they also yelled out that they are coming.Hearing their challenge the assailants took to their heels towards east.While running away the assailants did not see them.He has refuted the allegation that Shripal is an agricultural labour and he was intending to use his service free of cost.He further categorically denied that Shripal has been falsely involved on account of above fact.He further denied that he never involved Pratap Singh and Fateh Singh in any dacoity case and has no malice or enmity with Pratap Singh.In re-examination by the prosecution he had stated that he did not inform the I.O. during his 161, Cr.P.C. statement anything about Dhata because no such thing was enquired from him.He further stated that the assailants had put on Dhata up to their face.Only their eyes were visible.He had seen them only running away.He was suggested by the prosecutor that his uncle is Sarnam Singh.Anand Pal is brother of appellant Om Pal.Both Sarnam Singh and Anand Pal are married in village Tilakpur and not in Rooppur.It is thus apparent that the statement of this witness is not initially against the prosecution.Thus the witness has not at all been declared hostile by the prosecution.The Court has permitted reexamination of this witness by the prosecution only with a view to allow it to seek an explanation for the change in his version regarding Dhata.In our opinion, this witness cannot be termed a hostile witness.Further this witness has supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety.The prosecution has also brought on record his 164, Cr.P.C. statement.It appears that the evidence of this witness was deferred by the defence with an ulterior motive and on account of some pressure apparently being brought upon him from the side of Anand Pal, brother of Om Pal he had introduced the story of assailants covering their faces with Dhata in the cross-examination.We do not find any substance in this part of his evidence and we are prepared to go to the extent of discarding this part of his evidence and accept that the Pharsa and sword blows, as admitted by him, were given by Om Pal and Shri Pal appellants upon the deceased.His evidence minus the Dhata story is wholly reliable and we do not find any substance minus the Dhata story is wholly reliable and we do not find any substance in the argument of the learned counsel for the defence that in this case P.Ws. are not only chance witnesses but also inimical.So far as this witness is concerned, the defence has completely failed to illustrate any enmity against him for their false implication.Undoubtedly, this witness has turned his back upon the prosecution at the very outset.No doubt in his evidence he has certified the time of incident to be 4.30 p.m. and also the fact that he and PW 5 Gajraj were on the field of the deceased and both of them had rushed to the spot of incident from that very field.He also had corroborated presence of PW 1 and PW 2, but had further deviated from his previous statement under Sections 161 and 164, Cr. P.C. and stated that when they reached the spot they found Fateh Singh dead and he had not seen anybody assaulting him.He had denied his statement under Section 161, Cr.P.C. also.It was read over to him.He had denied even this statement.The explanation offered by him was that due to fear he had made this statement before the Magistrate.He had further stated that these accused persons had brought him forcibly from this house and obtained an affidavit from him.Thus, the testimony of this witness, so far as the factum of assault upon the deceased is concerned, is not available to the prosecution but so far as the presence of three witnesses, viz. Vipin Kumar, Omkar Singh and Gujraj Singh is concerned, he corroborated their presence at the spot of incident at the relevant time, i.e. 4.30 p.m.The law regarding hostile witnesses is now well settled.Evidence of hostile witnesses can also be taken into consideration to the extent to which it corroborates the prosecution story.The law does not permit it to be excluded all together from consideration, undoubtedly tainted evidence cannot be corroborated by another tainted piece of evidence, viz. hostile witnesses' evidence.But, if there is even one reliable witness then the corroboration can be had from the evidence of even a hostile witness, if it does furnish corroboration on material particulars of the case.Here the Court is required to assess the corroborative value of the evidence of PW 2 with caution and circumspection.This witness is furnishing corroboration on all material particulars to PW 1 and, therefore, he is a reliable witness.His half-hearted statement that the assailants were covering their faces with a piece of cloth exposing their eyes alone is nothing but a calculated ploy to help out the defence.We have already discussed this part earlier.However, we will like to discuss first the evidence of PW 5 Gujraj Singh before dealing with the evidence of his brother Vipin Kumar.The main charge levelled against this witness is that he is son of the deceased and could not reach the spot in time to witness the assault upon the deceased, because the assailants would not have taken any time in causing two injuries.His evidence is that he and PW 3 Bani Singh were working in his field.He heard alarm of "save, save" emanating from the side of the boring (tubewell) of Devi Singh Jat.He and Bani Singh both ran towards that side.When they came out on the road from the field of Malkhan Singh, Om Pal, Pratap, Narendra and Shripal were seen surrounding his father on the road in front of Devi Singh's tube-well.He ran towards his father along with Bani Singh.He stated that his brother Vipin Kumar and Omkar were also running towards the deceased.They were also raising alarm.His father was also crying.Om Pal gave a Pharasa blow and Shripal inflicted a sword injury upon his father who fell down.As soon as they reached the spot of incident, assailants ran away towards east.They found his father dead.He has also corroborated that cycle, a bag containing wheat flour and other bags were lying scattered on the road.Leaving them near the dead body his brother, Vipin, had gone to P.S. Pahasu and lodged the report.In cross-examination he stated that his field where he was working was at a distance of about 150 yards from the spot.He repulsed the defence suggestion that when he came out of his field the assailants were running away.He claimed that when he heard the alarm and came on the road assailants were surrounding his father.Devi Singh Jat was not present at his tube well.None from the nearby fields came to the spot as they were not there.No Lathi was plied on his father.When he was assaulted, his cycle was lying on the road.20 minutes after departure of Vipin to the police station, villagers started assembling there.He had not disclosed the names of the assailants to anyone, nor any one enquired the same from him.He admitted to that he is an employee in the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) for last 11 years.It has further been elicited in his evidence that he was at the relevant time on annual leave.Om Pal, appellant has retired as Havaldar from the army.There was no litigation pending between him and Om Pal.Om Pal is his own cousin, son of father's elder brother.The police arrived at the scene of occurrence 30-35 minutes afterwards.They came from the side of the village.He also named Yogendra Singh, S.I. amongst these police personnel.He admitted that he had given out names of the assailants to this S.I., but not to any of the constables.He admitted that Malkhan had lodged at P.S. Pahasu a report against his brother but refuted the suggestion that because of this enmity he nominated Malkhan in the incident falsely.He also denied any enmity with Shripal.He was unable to give out the time when the dead body of his father was despatched by the police for postmortem.He admitted that he had gone to Bulandshahr at about 12.30 p.m. next day.He also denied that Omkar and Bani Singh belong to his party and, therefore, they are shown as witnesses.Thus, we do not find any such thing in his statement on the basis of which we can discard outright his testimony.What we discern from his evidence is that he had witnessed at least withdrawing assailants.He certainly came out of his field on hearing the alarm and was at a distance of 100-125 yards.He did see some people assaulting his father.The assailants were well known to him from before.It would not be difficult for him to identify them from a distance.The estimate of distances may vary from person to person.He could have easily reduced the distance.This shows he is honest.In the circumstances his testimony can be relied upon to the extent that he was present there in his field.He had heard the alarm, rushed out on the road and identified these persons but before he could reach his father the assailants withdrew in full view.It was still broad daylight.A very important circumstance is that all the assailants except Shripal are closely related to each other.They are equally related to the witnesses also.The defence wants us to discard the testimony of these witnesses, viz. P.W. 1 and P.W. 5, on account of admission made by P.W. 1 in paragraph 4 that the relation between his father and Malkhan Singh, appellant, were strained, civil litigations were contented between them, and his father had on a number of occasions got them arrested.This indicates enmity between them but as is commonly known that enmity is a double-edged sword and it can cut both ways.It may be used by the prosecution to rope them to satisfy their grudge and it may equally be a motive to eliminate Fateh Singh (sic) their harassment at his hands by the appellants.So this requires from us a cautious and careful approach in the appreciation of the evidence of witnesses.On that the S.I. asked him to give a written report.After obtaining the paper from the market he prepared his written report and submitted it at the police station.He denied that this report was taken down by him on the dictation of the I.O. He also denied that he was not present at the spot.He had given out the exact weight of the wheat left for grinding at the flour-mill.He further stated that the owner of the flour-mill made an entry in his register.He left that wheat at the flour-mill 2/3 days ago.When he received the ground wheat no entry was made in the register about this delivery.The day, on which he left the wheat at the flour-mill, electricity was not available.Therefore, he had not gone to take it on the next day.In between also he did not fetch the wheat flour for paucity of time.His serial number in the register was tick marked at the time of its delivery to him.When he took his wheat (sic) from Omkar 3 or 4 other persons were also there.This flour-mill is at a distance of 100 steps towards east from the main road.The place where the murder had taken place is about 400/450 steps away from this flourmill.The murder had taken place on the side Patri.He admitted existence of fields of Netrapal and Ram Swaroop there.He pleaded ignorance regarding the fields of Munshi Singh, Sardar Singh and Kehar Singh.He admitted that towards south of Devi Singh is his field.This is that field where Gajraj and Bani Singh were present at the time of incident.No Mukhbir (informer) had disclosed anything either to him or his brother.His father hardly ran about 8 steps after leaving the cycle when this incident occurred.His father had gone to Pahasu at about 10.00 a.m. in the morning for marking purchases of household articles.He had not gone to lodge his report on that cycle.After walking some distance Raj Kumar of Dandpur came across him and he took his cycle for going to police station.He did not find it proper to take the cycle of his father.Om Pal gave only one blow of Pharsa.Pharsa was of medium size.The blade of the pharsa was hardly a balist in length.It was semi-circular.His father had raised alarm before his fall.They were attracted by the alarm.He was at a distance of 100-125 steps from him.From that place where his father has taken his flour bag on his cycle.Shiv Raj's tubewell is about 150 steps.They accompanied his father up to the tubewell of Shiv Raj.From the field of Shiv Raj, tubewell of Devi Singh is about 300-400 steps are admitted that he had no litigation with Om Pal but stated that there was some litigation with his family members.He admitted that Pratap is his Khandani and Om Pal's real uncle.Appellant Mulkhan and his father were real brothers.Pratap is equally related to both of them.He had very clearly stated that when he reached near his father the assailants were running towards east.They were at a distance of 50-60 steps from him.He came from the north.He identified the assailants when they were inflicting injuries.At that time he was coming from the side of Pahasu.At the outset he had seen them from a distance of 100-125 paces.He denied that he was not present at the spot.He admitted that Malkhan had lodged a complaint under Section 420, I.P.C. against his brother Manindra.He did not ask him to bring grounded wheat on his way back because he used to return quite late.His father had appeared in one or two cases.When he took his flour the mill was not running.He pleaded ignorance whether electric supply was on at that time or not.He stated that from the place where his father was murdered tubewell of Devi Singh is only 75 steps.The evidence of this witness, discussed above, clearly indicate that he was on inimical terms with Malkhan, Om Pal, Pratap and Narendra.The defence has failed to elicit anything which may make us discard his going to the flour-mill.No affinity of his with Omkar (P.W. 2) has been proved from his cross-examination.He had involved himself in actual crime only Om Pal and Shripal.Nothing has been brought out in the evidence of this witness why he is involving Shripal and attributing him the main role of giving sword blow.So far as Malkhan and Pratap are concerned, their presence is alleged by them, but they had not given them any role except surrounding the deceased.During the day hours a known person can be recognised from a distance of 100-125 yards of paces also.There is no doubt about this fact.The deceased had run a few steps for his life.It will take sometime before he actually could be encompassed and killed.In the meantime these witnesses who are young impelled vigorously by the zeal to save, definitely cover more distance than the assailants.So finally the distance will come down considerably and the witnesses can easily identify the assailants, who were very well known to them in broad daylight.P.W. 7 has also confirmed presence of Yogendra Singh and the fact that he was busy in conducting inquest proceeding at the time of his reaching there.When he inquired about the informant and his brother Gajraj, he learnt that they had gone with the dead body.As a matter of fact only Vipin went along with the dead body.Gajraj had returned to his house.On 25-9-1981 he recorded statement of Vipin Kumar and Gajraj Singh.He had proved the entries in the register of the flour-mill.There is entry on 19-9-1981 at SI.No. 49 about the flour of Vipin.It is in his name.The wheat was 21.70 kg.He had encircled the entry and put his signature over it.There is also an entry regarding Omkar dated 19-9-1981 at SI.No. 100 about his Maize.It was 32.50 kg.This serial number was also encircled and signed by him.He had admitted that field of Devi Singh is contiguous to the road.It is not at a distance of 300 steps.The field of Manvir is 150 steps and that of Munshi Singh is only 75 steps.The field of Netrapal adjoins the place of occurrence.He had admitted that he did not try to find out what was the condition of electric supply in between 18/21-9-1981 at the flour-mill.His departure to the spot is entered in the G.D. pertaining to 23-9-1981 at 7.45 p.m. He had refuted firmly the suggestion that the report of this incident was registered subsequently and it was anti-dated and anti-timed.Thus, from the evidence of these Section 1s.In the circumstances, we do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants.However, only two of the appellants, viz. Om Pal and Shripal were attributed the principal role in this case.It has been urged before us by learned counsel for the defence that the evidence of the prosecution With regard to Narendra, Pratap and Malkhan is seriously deficient, so far as their direct participation in the incident is concerned.The only role that has been attributed to them is of surrounding the deceased.Even no exhortation part had been added against any one of them.They were armed with Lathis.There are no injuries of Lathi.In the circumstances, had they been there what prevented them from using their weapons against the person of the deceased.It remains a mystery especially when the witnesses were still at a distance.We find some force in the submission of the learned counsel for the defence.So far as Malkhan, Narendra and Pratap are concerned, the enmity between the family is admitted to P.W. 1 clearly.There complete non-participation in the incident except surrounding the deceased appears to us an ornamentation by the prosecution to rope in these three persons (appellants) in the offence.Participation of Om Pal and Shripal is proved in this case beyond all reasonable doubt.But so far as the abovesaid three appellants are concerned, they are entitled to get the benefit of doubt.In the result Criminal Appeal No. 2387 of 1982, filed by Malkhan Singh.Narendra Kumar and Pratap Singh, stands allowed.Their conviction and consequent sentences under Sections 302/149 and 147, I.P.C. are hereby set aside.They are acquitted of the above said charges.They are on bail.They need not surrender.So far as Criminal Appeal No. 2548 of 1982 and Criminal Appeal No. 2686 of 1982 are concerned, they are hereby dismissed.Conviction of Om Pal and Shripal under Sections 302/34, I.P.C. and consequent sentences of life imprisonment are hereby affirmed.
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,211,899
5.9.2017 (CL124) KC C.R.M. 7653 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Pradhan Nagar P.S. F.I.R. No. 91 of 2017 dated 20.02.2017 under Sections 366A, 370(4), 370A and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual OffencesIn the Matter of : Karan Roy .... petitioner.Mr. Amit Biswas.........................For the petitioner.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,216
J U D G M E N TRAVEENDRAN, J.The appellant and his son Samivel were accused 1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.139/1987 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South Arcot district.The appellant was tried for the offence of murdering his elder brother Rathina Gounder.The appellant and his son Samivel were also charged with the offence of causing hurt to Elumalai (son of the deceased).The trial court vide judgment dated 27.4.1989 convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.The trial court also convicted both the appellant and his son Samivel under section 323 IPC and sentenced them to 3 months' rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution case, in brief, was as follows :3.1) The appellant and his elder brother Rathina Gounder were residing with their respective families in two adjoining portions, with a common open yard in front of their houses.The appellant used to tether his bullocks in the common yard.There was also an open sewage drain in the common yard.The appellant removed the thorn sticks as they came in the way of tethering his bullocks.There was a simmering discord for about 3 days about the thorn fencing of the drain between the families of the two brothers, that is, Rathina Gounder, his wife Kasiammal and his son Elumalai on the one hand, and appellant (Krishnan) and his two sons Samivel and Sekar on the other.3.2) On 9.6.1987 at about 5 p.m., the appellant removed the thorn sticks which had been placed by Kasiammal.Elumalai (PW-1) put back the thorn sticks in place.At about 8 p.m., the appellant again removed the thorn sticks and tethered his bullocks.Rathina Gounder who saw the thorn sticks being removed, came and replaced the thorn sticks over the drain.The appellant again removed them.The action of Rathina Gounder placing the thorn sticks over the drain and the appellant removing them, went on for a while and a quarrel developed.The appellant told Rathina Gounder "You are always doing like this.I will see." and took one of the thorn sticks lying on the ground and hit Rathina Gounder on his head.When the appellant tried to hit Rathina Gounder with the thorn stick for a second time, his son Elumalai tried to intervene and received the blow causing injury to his right palm.Thereafter the appellant pushed Rathina Gounder who fell down and a protruding stone pierced near the arm-pit.The appellant again hit Elumalai on his forehead with the thorn stick.His two sons Samivel and Sekar also hit Elumalai.Thereafter, appellant and his two sons ran away.Elumalai collected the thorn stick dropped by the appellant and kept it.By then it was about 10 P.M.3.3) Rathina Gounder was taken to Thirukovilur Government Hospital.Dr. Bhaskaran (PW-3) examined him and referred him for further treatment to Cuddalore Government Hospital.However, Kasiammal and others took Rathina Gounder to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry where Rathina Gounder succumbed to his injuries on 12.6.1987 at about 12.45 p.m. 3.4) Elumalai also got himself examined at Thirukovilur Government Hospital.When he was in the said hospital, on 10.6.1997 at about 6.00 A.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Arakandanathur Police Station came and enquired about the incident and recorded his complaint.The prosecution examined 13 witnesses.Elumalai (PW-1), Thangaraj (PW-2), Pitchaimuthu (PW-4) and Kasiammal (PW-5) were the eye-witnesses.Elumalai, son of the deceased was an injured eye-witness.Kasiammal was the widow of the deceased, Thangaraj was the nephew of both Rathina Gounder and the appellant, Thangaraj and Pitchaimuthu were neighbours.In a separate proceeding, in SC.No.140/1987, Sekar, the juvenile son of the appellant, was also found guilty for causing hurt to Elumalai and was ordered to be detained in a juvenile home for six months.Feeling aggrieved, the appellant and his first son Samivel filed Crl.A. No.571/1989 and Sekar filed a separate appeal in Crl.Criminal Appeal No.571/1989 was allowed in part.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under section 302 was set aside and instead, he was convicted for the offence punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC, and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years.The conviction and sentence of the appellant and his son Samivel under section 323 was not disturbed.Criminal A.No.629/1989 filed by the appellant's juvenile son Sekar was allowed and he was acquitted.They also stated that as there was a street-light nearby they could see what happened clearly.M. Subramaniam Pillai (PW-9) was the Panchayat President who had switched on the street light opposite Rathina Gounder's house, which had lit up the area when the incident took place.Dr. Bhaskaran (PW-3) had examined the deceased and his son Elumalai for their injuries at Thirukovilur Government Hospital and issued the injury certificates (Ex. P-2 & P-3).Atul Murari (PW-6), Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Jipmer Hospital, Pondichery, conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased.Both doctors opined that death occurred on account of the head injury (lacerated wound of scalp 3cm X 1cm X bone deep over the vault.PW-6 stated that the corresponding internal injury was separation of coronal suture extending literally on the right side of temporal region, total length of the fracture being 13 cm, extra-dual haematoma in the right temporal region and generalized subsural and subarachnoid haemorrhage.PW-6 has opined that the head injury with corresponding internal injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Sheikh Kani (PW-12) was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Arakandanallur Police Station who recorded the statement of Elumalai and registered Crime No. 196 of 1987 and prepared the FIR, sketch of the place of occurrence (Ex.P16) and drew the Mahazar (Ex. P-13).He also seized the thorn stick of three feet length used by the appellant (MO No.1) and collected blood stained soil from the spot (MO. No.3).He also recorded the statement of Kasiammal and other witnesses.He stated that he arrested the appellant on 11.6.1986 at 6 A.M. G. Jagadeesan (PW-13) was the Investigating Officer, who took over the investigation on 13.6.1987 at 2.00 P.M. PW-7 to 11 were formal witnesses.The trial court found that the evidence of the four eye-witnesses (PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5) clearly established that the appellant hit Rathina Gounder on the head with the thorn stick during his quarrel with Rathina Gounder.The trial court rejected the case of self-defence put forth by the appellant for the following reasons :a) There was no evidence to show that the appellant was injured during the incident.b) The appellant did not state in his statement under section 313 IPC, that he hit Rathina Gounder in self defence, to avoid danger to his life.c) The appellant did not establish that he gave a complaint to Arakandanallur Police Station in regard to the attack by Rathina Gounder and Elumalai, as no such complaint was recorded in the said Police Station.The trial court further held that the appellant had acted with the intention of causing bodily injury to Rathina Gounder and such bodily injury inflicted by him being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, he was guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder under section 300 (Thirdly) of IPC.Consequently, the appellant was convicted under section 302 IPC.The trial court also held that the evidence of the four eye witnesses clearly established that the appellant and his two sons had hit Elumalai (PW-1) and consequently, convicted them under section 323 IPC.The High Court affirmed the finding that Rathina Gounder died as a result of the head injury caused by the Appellant, by hitting him on the head with the thorn stick.It also held that the evidence of PWs.-1, 2, 4 and 5, that the appellant suddenly picked up the thorn stick lying nearby during a quarrel and hit the deceased as also the fact that the appellant did not come to the place of occurrence with any weapon, established that there was no pre-determined or pre-meditated plan or intention on the part of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased or cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death; and that the appellant had hit the deceased with the knowledge that his act of hitting the deceased on his head was likely to cause death.The High Court was of the view that the thorn stick used (of about three feet length) was not a dangerous weapon.Consequently, it held that the appellant had to be convicted under section 304 Part II, IPC and not section 302 IPC and sentenced him to five years rigorous imprisonment.It did not disturb the conviction and sentence under section 323 IPC.The said decision of the High Court is under challenge in this appeal.The grounds referred to the evidence of PW 2 Thangaraj and the several circumstances, which the appellant relied on to make out a case of self defence.The High Court ought to have considered the said plea which goes to the root of the matter.The Sub-Inspector asked him to give a complaint and he got a complaint written and gave it.The Sub-Inspector took it and stated that he has to go out; that he came back around 2 A.M. in the morning; that within a short time, Rathina Gounder, Elumalai, Kasiammal and some others came to the Police Station and the Sub-Inspector took some signatures from Elumalai, and thereafter they went back; that the Sub-Inspector detained him in the police station for two days and arranged for treatment for the hand wounds through a Homeopathy Doctor; and that only on Thursday, he sent him to court.He also stated that he did not hit Rathina Gounder or Elumalai.The accused need not take the plea explicitly.He can succeed in his plea if he is able to bring out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses or other evidence that the apparent criminal act was committed by him in exercise of his right of private defence.He states that he did not see the deceased and Elumalai hitting the appellant and that he did not know whether the appellant received injuries to his hands and whether the blood was oozing from the wounds.It is evident that PW-4 was not a witness to the entire incident and that he saw only a part of it.Kasiammal (PW-5), in her cross-examination admitted that there were altercations on account of tethering of cattle and removing of thorny sticks; that between 8 & 9 P.M. on the day of the incident, both Rathina Gounder and the appellant were respectively putting and removing the thorn sticks repeatedly, and that when the appellant hit her husband with the thorn stick, her husband did not fall down.She, of course, denied that Rathina Gounder bit the appellant in his hand and also denied that Rathina Gounder and Elumalai hit the appellant with sticks.Out of the four eye-witnesses, two (PWs.1 and 5) are the son and widow of the deceased.The evidence of these two witnesses establishes that there was enmity and an ongoing dispute in regard to the use of the common yard; That on the day of the incident, the entire quarrel arose because PW-5 initially placed the thorn sticks over the area where the appellant was tethering his cattle, and the deceased and PW 1 prevented the appellant when he tried to remove them; and that as a consequence there was an altercation between the deceased and the appellant when the deceased repeatedly placed the thorny sticks and the appellant repeatedly removed them.In fact the evidence of the two independent eye-witnesses- PW-2 and PW 4, clearly show that there was no stagnant water in the drain and therefore, there was no need to place any thorn sticks over that area.It is clear that the deceased, PW-1 and PW-5 were bent upon preventing the appellant from tethering his cattle in the common yard.In regard to the evidence of PW-4, Pitchaimuthu, we find that he saw the incident from a distance.He came out of his house only after the altercation/quarrel had gone on for some time and, therefore, had seen only a part of the incident.He admits that the altercation centred around the appellant asking why the thorn sticks were put at the place where he was tethering his cattle, and the deceased asking why appellant was removing the thorny sticks.He also admits that when he first saw the incident, both were holding the thorny sticks and pulling each other.He also admits that the deceased was repeatedly placing the thorny sticks and the appellant was repeatedly removing them.He also admits that both the deceased and the appellant quarreling and pushing each other, came from the drain area to the road.Therefore, the evidence of PW-2 Thangaraj becomes crucial.He had seen the incident from the beginning and has narrated what had happened.He has clearly admitted that when the deceased and the appellant were quarreling and pulling each other, Rathina Gounder bit the appellant in his hand between the right hand thumb and the index finger, and that both the deceased and his son Elumalai attacked the appellant with sticks and to protect his head, the appellant raised his hands and got injured in the elbow.It becomes obvious that apprehending grievous hurt, he took the thorn stick lying near by and hit the deceased to protect himself.The appellant was neither armed with any weapon when he came to the spot nor bring any thing from his house after the quarrel started.He just picked up the thorn stick which was lying at the spot.This clearly probabilises a case of self-defence.Another significant aspect to be noticed is that both Thangaraj (PW-2) and Pitchaimuthu (PW-4) admit that there was no stagnant water in the drain situated in the common yard.We have referred to this fact earlier also.Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the pigs were coming and causing nuisance in the stagnant water in the drain and therefore, thorn sticks were placed by the family of the deceased to cover the drain, is proved to be false.It became clear that the deceased and his wife and son were putting thorny sticks to prevent the appellant from tethering his cattle and they started the discord.The trial court considered the plea of self-defence but rejected it on the ground that the appellant did not state in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he had hit Rathina Gounder in self-defence.Obviously, an accused cannot be expected to admit that he had inflicted the blow that killed the deceased.Where the plea of the accused, when read with the evidence of the eye witnesses, brings out a set of facts and circumstances showing that the accused acted in exercise of the right of private defence, the fact that the accused in his 313 statement only referred to the acts of the deceased and his son hitting him and did not admit that he hit back the deceased, is not a ground to reject the plea of private defence.The approach of the trial court to the plea of private defence was erroneous.The High Court did not go into this aspect at all.It is true that the appellant has not examined the Doctor who treated his injuries on his elbows.There is also no FIR in regard to appellant's version of the incident.There is nothing to show that the Jail Doctor recorded the injuries.These factors would normally militate against acceptance of a plea of self defence.But the clean and uncontroverted evidence of PW-2 and the plausible explanation by the accused in his statement under Section 313 tilt the balance.The court must be objective and examine the matter on the facts and circumstances of each case to find out whether the situation was such as was likely to reasonably cause apprehension in the mind of the accused that death or grievous hurt would be caused to him if he did not act in self defence.Hs action in hitting the deceased on his head by taking a stick lying on the ground, was a reflex action to save himself from the attack by the deceased and his son.The appellant had not gone to the spot with any weapon.There was a lengthy quarrel and scuffle between the deceased and the appellant.The deceased and his wife and son were the root-cause for the quarrel as they put thorny sticks at the place where appellant was tethering his cattle.The evidence probabilises the defence version that the deceased and his son had hit the appellant with sticks on his head and the blows landed on his elbows when he raised his hands to protect his head, and that at that stage, the appellant picked up one of the thorny sticks which were lying at the spot and hit the deceased, to protect himself and not with the intention of killing him.The deceased died two days later on account of the resultant injury.The accused has also stated that he was detained in the police station on the night of 9th , but was shown to have been arrested only on 11th.It is not necessary to go into this aspect, as the preponderance of probabilities show that the act of the appellant was in all probability, in exercise of his right of private defence.For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction under sections 302 and 323 and acquit the appellant of the charges.His bail-bonds shall stand discharged.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 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.
154,217,160
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying to call for records relating to Detention OrderNo.12/2015 dated 04.03.2015 passed by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name K.Jegadeesapandian, Son of Kannuchamy Chettiar and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.2.The Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Station as sponsoringauthority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein itis stated that on 06.02.2015 one Pradeep Alexander as de facto complainanthas given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kodaikanal Police Stationagainst the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No.59 of 2015under Sections 452 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections 452, 376 read with 511, 506(ii) and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code andultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 againstthe detenu.3.The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein afterconsidering the gravity of offence alleged to have been committed by thedetenu has derived subjective satisfaction and ultimately branded him as'Goonda' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quashthe same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife ofthe detenu as petitioner.4.On the side of the respondents a counter has been filed, wherein ithas been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petitionare false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended thaton the side of the detenu five representations are submitted and the samehave not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order inquestion is liable to be quashed.6.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that all therepresentations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed ofwithout delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call forany interference.7.On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted whereinit has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation inbetween Column Nos.7 to 9, nine clear working days are available and inbetween Column Nos.12 and 13, five clear working days are available and withregard to second representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, nine clearworking days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, five clearworking days are available and with regard to third representation in betweenColumn Nos.7 to 9, three clear working days are available and in betweenColumn Nos.12 and 13, five clear working days are available and with regardto fourth representation in between Column Nos.7 to 9, three clear workingdays are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, five clear workingdays are available and with regard to fifth representation in between ColumnNos.12 and 13, six clear working days are available and no explanation hasbeen given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay indisposing of the representations submitted on the side of the detenu and thatitself would affect his rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of theConstitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liableto be quashed.8.In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and Detention OrderNo.12/2015 dated 04.03.2015 passed by the second respondent/ detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set thedetenu viz., K.Jegadeesapandian, Son of Kannuchamy Chettiar at libertyforthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with anyother case.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,218,013
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent.He has been falsely implicated.Couple with the fact that no 164 Cr.P.C. statement of the girl was recorded, this itself is sufficient ground for admitting the applicant on bail.The applicant is in jail since 03.08.2019 and hence entitled to be released on bail.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.Let the applicant Rameshwar Pandey @ Golu Pandey, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,219,043
rrc (Allowed) C.R.M. 3588 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Debabrata Khajanchi @ Ashok KhajanchiKalyani Khajanchi ... petitioners Mr. Arijit Ghosh .....For the petitioners Ms. Sonali Das ......For the State Apprehending arrest in course of investigation of Samuktala Police Station F.I.R. No. 100 of 2017 dated 14th April, 2017 under Sections 498A/304b of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioners (brother-in-law, wife of the brother-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim) have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary.It appears from the post mortem report that the victim committed suicide after consuming poison.We are informed that she was married since 2011 and the husband has been released on bail.The application, thus, stands allowed with the direction that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- each, with two sureties of like amount 2 each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.(Debi Prosad Dey, J.) (Dipankar Datta, J.)
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,232,892
Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 1 of 37By way of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 and 08.05.2018 respectively, Vipin Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.1'); Vivek Sharma @ Billo (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.2') and Gaurav Sharma (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellant No.3'), were convicted and sentenced under the provision of section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000 each, as well as, under Sections 323/324/34 IPC and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year.In default of payment of fine, the Appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months.However, the benefit of the provision under section 428 Cr.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 2 of 37The fulcrum of the case of the prosecution is that on 30.03.2011, the Appellants, in furtherance of their common intention attacked several persons present at Gali No.4, Shankar Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'gali'), namely, Kuldeep Thakur (PW-1), Subhash Chand (PW-7), Neeraj Chandhok (PW-8), Naveen Malhotra @ Akshay @ Vicky (PW-12), Sanjeev Malhotra (PW-13), Shivam Malhotra @ Pinku (PW-14) and Abhishek (PW-15) (hereinafter collectively referred to as the 'public witnesses') using weapons and during the course thereof, committed murder of one Gaurav (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by inflicting multiple knife blows, including one on his abdomen.On 30.03.2011 around 10:04 PM, HC Ram Prasad (PW-3) recorded DD No. 32A in relation to the underlying incident.ASI Om Pal (PW-17) reached H. No. 28, Gali No.4, Shankar Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'crime spot') and admitted the deceased, who had sustained stab injuries to GTB hospital.The PCR took the other injured persons, including Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 3 of 37 the assailants to different hospitals.Jitender Dagar (PW-18) and Insp.Subhash Kumar (PW- 40), the IO in the present case, collected the MLCs of the injured persons, including the eye witness PW-1, upon whose statement the rukka was prepared and sent for registration of the subject FIR.[Ex.PW-4/A].Pursuant thereto, the crime spot was investigated and photographs thereof were taken.During investigation, earth control, blood stained earth were seized.Articles including broken glass pieces, one blood stained shirt, a wooden thapi were seized and were sent for forensic examination.One wiper and a pair of blood stained slippers [Ex.PW-1/P3] were also seized.Two motorcycles bearing registration number DL-7SBB- 3210 [Ex. PW- 1/P5], as well as, DL-7SBA-6888 [Ex. PW-1/P4] were seized.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 3 of 37The deceased was declared brought dead to the hospital at 11:15PM.The dead body of the deceased was identified by his relatives [Ex.PW- 18/S and Ex. PW-18/T].Post mortem on the dead body [Ex.PW-26/A] was conducted by Dr. Thejaswi (PW-26) and the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased.The cause of death was opined to be "hemorrhagic shock and its complications due to stab wound on the abdomen".A. 709/2018 Page 4 of 37A. 709/2018 Page 4 of 37During the investigation of the case, on receiving information through secret informers, the IO along with PW-18 apprehended Appellant No.1[vide arrest memo Ex. PW-18/D] and Appellant No. 3[vide arrest memo Ex.PW- 18/I] on 05.04.2011 and 21.04.2011 respectively from their residences.Appellant No. 2 was subsequently arrested by IO along with PW-20 on 21.04.2011 [vide arrest memo Ex. PW-20/A].In relation to the sequence of events, PW-1 has deposed that on the night of 30.03.2011 around 9:40 PM, while some of the residents of the gali were watching a cricket match at the spot, an altercation broke out between them and a group of 2-3 boys, who came to the crime spot on two motorcycles.Although the matter was pacified and the police was informed of the same, around 15-20 minutes later, a group of 8-10 boys, armed with knives, glass bottles, dandas, baseball bat and cricket wicket arrived at the spot and started attacking the residents present in the gali indiscriminately.Appellant No.2 held a baseball bat in one hand and a knife in the other and caught hold of the deceased.Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 inflicted the knife blows on the deceased.in the scuffle.The relevant portion of the testimony of the injured witness, PW-12, who sustained injuries at the hands of Appellant No.2, corroborating the testimony of PW-1 is as under:"I have been residing at the aforesaid address since birth.I have been doing the work of driver for last about 12 years.Cricket match was going on between India and Pakistan.As and when wickets of Pakistan were falling, children and public persons were expressing their happiness by bursting crackers.At about 9:40 pm, three boys came on a bike.Bike was being driven by accused Yash Gupta @ Chhoti, who is present in the court today (correctly identified).Two more boys of lesser age group were sitting on th bike as pillion riders.Accused Yash Gupta was driving the bike in rash and negligent manner.On this, uncle Subhash Chand Malhotra stopped him and asked him to drive the bike slowly stating that kids were sitting as pillion rider.On this, accused Yash Gupta @ Chhoti became furious and left the spot.After some time, accused Yash Gupta again came along with 3-4 friends and quarreled with us.I do not know the friends of accused Yash Gupta @ Chhoti who had come along with him.The Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 19 of 37 locality people intervened and put the quarrel at rest and left the place again.We also made telephone call on 100 number.Police came there.On this, I caught hold accused Vipin Sharma and asked Gaurav to run away from there.In the mean time, accused Billu @ Vivek Kumar Sharma stabbed me in my left side abdomen.After I received stab injury, accused Vipin Sharma also stabbed me in the front abdomen.Someone assaulted me on my head with some object from back side and I became unconscious.When I regained consciousness, I found myself in police jeep and at that time, accused Mahadev Rawat and accused Rajesh Sharma were also found sitting the police jeep.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 20 of 37"I have been residing at the aforesaid address since childhood.In the year 2011, I was doing private job.Accused Billu gave a knife blow in the abdomen of Vicky.Billu also shouted that the Gaurav should not be spared and caught hold of him.Accused Gaurav Sharma and Vipin chased Gaurav (deceased): accused Mahadev Rawat and Rajesh Sharma gave beating to Sanjeev Malhotra with baseball bat and wicket.Accused Shanky stabbed Shivam in his abdomen.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 28 of 37PW-7 Subhash Chand, PW-8 Neeraj Chandok, PW-12 Naveen Malhotra PW-14 Shivam Malhotra and PQ- 15 Abhishek have not denied that there is no such incident taken place in the gali Everyone who is witness of the occurrence has categorically testified that 8-10 boys came there and attached with chhaku chhuri etc. on the persons who came in their front and watching cricket match.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JThe present appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C') assails the judgment and order of conviction and order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 and 08.05.2018 Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 1 of 37 respectively, in Sessions Case No. 497/2016, titled as 'State vs. Mahadev Rawat and Ors.', emanating from FIR No. 90/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject FIR').P.C has been granted to the appellants.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Charge was also framed against the Appellants, as well as, three other accused persons, namely, Mahadev Rawat, Rajesh Sharma and Yash Gupta @ Chotti (hereinafter referred to as the 'assailants') under Section 307/34 of Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 2 of 37 the IPC and they were all convicted accordingly and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of seven years each with fine of Rs. One Lac only by the Trial Court by way of said judgment and order on sentence dated 24.04.2018 and 08.05.2018 respectively.The disclosure statement of all the Appellants was recorded by the IO [exhibited as PW-18/F, PW-18/G, PW-18/K, PW-18/M, PW-20/C].At the instance of all the appellants, the clothes worn by them at the time of the incident were recovered and seized [Ex. PW- 18/H, Ex.PW-20/E and Ex.PW-18/N] and sent for forensic examination.Further, on the pointing out of the Appellants, the crime spot got verified [vide pointing out memos : Ex. PW- 18/P, Ex. PW- 20/D and Ex. PW- 18/L].At the instance of Appellant No.2, one baseball bat which was used in the commission of the offence was also recovered from Brij Ghat Garhganga, U.P [Ex.The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.At the stage of evidence, in support of its case, the prosecution examined 42 witnesses.The statement of the Appellants was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. All the Appellants denied any recovery effected at their instance, as well as, claim over the case property so recovered.The assailants chose to examine 3 witnesses in their defence.Broadly, the Trial Court has based the conviction of the Appellants on the following grounds :After about 5 minutes, police also left the spot.I do not recollect as to who had made the telephone call on 100 number.After about 5 minutes, accused Yash Gupta @ Chhoti came along with Billu @ Vivek Kumar Sharma who is present in the court today (witness correctly identified) and some other persons whose names I cannot tell but I can identify them.I identify accused Vipin who had also come with these two accused.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 19 of 37Accused Yash Gupta, Billu and Vipin along with other persons had come on foot, while running towards us.They were having dandas, knives and baseball bats with them.It was 9:45 pm.They started beating us with their respective weapons/arms.Accused Vipin Sharma gave knife blow to Gaurav Panesar.Accused Mahadev Rawat and accused Rajesh Sharma, both are also present in the court today (witness correctly identified).I was taken to GTB hospital.Later on, I came to know that Gaurav had expired.I do not want to say anything more about this case."(emphasis supplied)25. PW-15, another injured witness who was stabbed by Appellant Nos. 1 and 3, supported the prosecution's case and deposed as follows:As and when wickets of Pakistan were fallen, said boys were expressing their happiness by bursting crackers.At about 9:40 pm, three boys came in our gali on motorcycle while driving the said motorcycle in rash and negligent manner and pillion riders of the motorcycle were of tender age.Subhash Chand old person of our gali stopped the motorcycle rider and advised them to drive the motorcycle properly.On this, motorcycle rider misbehaved with Subhash Chand and became furious.Said motorcycle was being driven by accused Yash Gupta @ Chhoti who is present in the court today (witness correctly identified).Thereafter, accused Yash Gupta along with pillion riders left the spot by giving threat to boys of our gali by saying to see us after some time.Due to said threat, Kuldeep Thakur made telephone call on 100 number to the police.Police came there but police went back because said motorcycle rider had already left the spot.After departure of the police from the spot, about 10 boys armed with dandas, cricket wicket, glass bottles, baseball bats, knives and chhuri came on foot as well as on motorcycle and they started assaulting all of us.Name of those assailants were revealed as Mahadev, Rajesh, Shanky (Juvenile), Vipin Sharma, Yash Gupta, Raunak (PO) and Gaurav (brother of Rajesh).These accused persons were residents of Shanti Mohalla, Gandhi Nagar and I was knowing them before the incident.All the five accused persons present in the court today (withness correctly identified them) had assaulted us.Accused Billu @ Vivek Sharma, accused present in the court today (witness correctly identified) was exhorting the other accused persons to kill us.Accused Billu was armed with knife.I sustained stab injury in my abdomen in this incident as a result of which I fell down and became unconsciousness.I regained consciousness in the hospital.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 21 of 37(emphasis supplied)A bare perusal of the testimony of PW-1, the star witness of the prosecution, as well as, other public witnesses would reveal that there was an altercation between the latter and a group of three boys who reached the spot, initially unarmed, on two motorcycles around 9:40 PM whereafter, they left the spot, extending threats to them.After 15-20 minutes to the incident, the assailants arrived at the spot, armed with sharp-edged weapons and attacked the public witnesses, as well as, inflicted grave injuries on them and caused death of the deceased.The Appellants arrived together at the crime spot post the altercation, armed with baseball bats, glass bottles, knives etc. Appellant No. 2 caught hold of the deceased and Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 inflicted the fatal blow on the abdomen of the deceased.Appellant No. 2 also gave a knife blow on the abdomen of PW-12, besides attacking the public witnesses indiscriminately.Therefore, the offence was found to be committed with enough time to meditate on the action to inflict serious injuries on the public witnesses present at the spot.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 22 of 37Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 22 of 37This circumstance, coupled with the threat extended by one of the assailants to not spare the public witnesses, which evidence to this effect remains unassailed, points unerringly towards the due deliberation on the part of the assailants, including the Appellants, enraged by the antecedent altercation that ensued between them and the public witness; as also elicit that the Appellants shared the common intention to cause fatal injuries to the public persons; and that, the Injury No. 2 inflicted upon the abdomen of the deceased was a consequence of their common intention, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, thus satisfying the mandate of Sections 302 and 34 IPC in the present case.Furthermore, it would be observed that no plausible reason is offered by the Appellant Nos. 1 and 3 for refusal to participate in TIP which would be sufficient to draw an adverse inference against them.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in State of Rajasthan v. Dhool Singh reported as (2004) 12 SCC 546 , whilst promulgating inter alia the nature of injury, part of the body where it is caused and the weapon used in causing such injury to be the indicators of intention to establish an offence under Section 302 of IPC observed as follows :PW 26, after conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased, opined the cause of death to be "hemorrhagic shock and its complications due to stab wound on the abdomen".The injuries found on the body of the deceased are extracted hereinbelow :Incised stab wounds measuring 3cms X 0.2cms X 9.5 cms obliquely placed is present on the left lower side of the chest 26.5 cms below the clavicle & 6 cm from the midline.Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 24 of 37Incised stab wound of size measuring 3 cms x 0.2 cms x 11.05 cms, horizontally oriented is present on the left upper side of the abdomen.The medial end is located 6 cms from mid line & 10 cms above the anterior superior iliac spine.On further exploration of the wound track which is directed backwards and medially, omental tissue is seen lacerating through the wound track, inserting abdominal muscles peritonium cutting layers of the small intestine and the mesenteric vessels (of the jejunum) through and through.Reddish colored abrasion measuring 2 cms X 1.5 cm is present on the lateral aspect of the right forearm in the backside 5.5 cm below the lateral epicondyle, 3 cm from its midline.Reddish colored abrasion measuring 1 cm X 0.4 cm is present on the outer aspect of the right forearm 13 cm below the elbow.Reddish colored abrasion measuring 1 cm X 0.4 cm is present on the medial aspect of the right elbow 2 cms below the olecranon process.Reddish colored abrasion measuring 2 cms X1 cm is present on the upper aspect of the knee joint just above the patella on the right side.Incised wound measuring 4.1cms X 0.2 cms is present on the right side of the scalp, obliquely oriented, 6cms from the midline & 12cms behind orbital ridge.The depth being 1.6 cms with bone being intact & its margin are clean.Incised wound measuring 4.5 cms X 0.2 cms is present on the right frontal region of the scalp, 3cms from midline & from right orbital ridges 15cms behind it.Reddish colored abrasion 0.5cms X 0.2 cms is present on the dorsum of the right hand 4cms below the wrist joint."(emphasis supplied) Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 25 of 37Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 25 of 37In this behalf, the intention to kill can be ascertained from the medical evidence coupled with the magnitude of the injury caused with the sharp-edged weapon.The stab wound on the body of the deceased measured 3cms x 0.2cms x 9.5cms deep and the cause of death is opined to be "hemorrhagic shock and its complications due to stab wound on the abdomen".The force with which the fatal stab/injury was caused by a dangerous sharp-edged weapon i.e. the knife, leads to an inescapable conclusion that the same is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.A fortiori, the ferocity of the attack is further emphasized by the post mortem report [Ex. PW- 26/A] which reveals that besides the fatal stab wound, multiple other blows were also inflicted on the body of the deceased.Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there can be no manner of doubt that the injury found to be present on the deceased was the injury intended to be inflicted.Besides the injuries inflicted on the deceased, the MLCs of the injured public witnesses namely, PW-8, PW-12, PW-14, PW-15 exhibited as Ex. PW- 27/A, Mark X 1, PW-30/A and PW-30/B reflect that the injuries sustained by the latter were also found to be grievous in nature.A. 709/2018 Page 26 of 37Where the omissions amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and other witnesses also make material improvement while deposing in the court, such evidence cannot be safe to rely upon.However, minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, should not be made a ground on which the evidence can be rejected in its entirety.The Ld. Trial Court on a conjoint reading of the testimonies of all the eye witnesses, rejected the contention to the effect that the prosecution case suffers from glaring contradictions and observed as follows :"73.From the material on record as well as deposition of the witnesses, PW-1 Kuldeep Thakur's testimony is unrebutted on the issue that the two motorcycles rided by 2-3 persons at 9:45 pm and they had some altercations and while going away from the gali were intimated to the public persons including PW Subhash, Kuldeep Thakur etc. One of the person who came on the motorcycle is accused Yash Gupta who is correctly identified.Later on 8-10 boys came on motorcycles armed with wickets, lathies and baseball bats, glass bottles etc. and suddenly attacked with the said weapons, the accused Vivek Sharma holding baseball bat in one hand and knife in the other and caught hold Gaurav, deceased.One of them also gave knife blow on Neeraj inside his house.Accused Yash Gupta started pelting glass bottles upon them.Abhishek, Neeraj Chanodk @ Vicky, Shivam and Kuldeep Thakur suffered Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 28 of 37 injuries.The suggestion made to this effect about the injuries not caused by the accused persons to the abovenamed injured have been vehemently denied and the role of each of the accused in the commission of the offence has been specifically narrated.Though there is a little bit improvement in the statement recorded before the court but the same is natural one and the witness has narrated the same in his own way as happened and observed from their vivid eyes.It is categorically denied by PW-1 Kuldeep Thakur that he did not tell the exact position of accused person to the IO and the Draftsman no such incident has taken place as the accused persons or that he had signed the memos subsequently.It is also denied that accused Yash Gupta was caught in the PS and was implicated falsely at his instance or that he is deposing falsely being tutored witness or that Subhash become a false witness at his instance.It is also denied that he identified accused Gaurav Sharma at the instance of the IO first time in the court.It is also denied that name of accused Vivek & Vipin has came to his knowledge through public he stated that he know them as he contested elections and name of Vipin was taken during incident.He was beaten by accused Mahadev Rawat and Rajesh with baseball bats and danda.It is denied that the quarrel had taken place between him on one side and Vivek and his supporters on the other side and due to this reason he falsely named Vivek and his nephew in this case.It is also denied that he was not present at the spot or that for that reason he did not help the deceased or not intervened in the quarrel and that he is deposing falsely.PW-7 Subhash Chand categorically stated that- "the accuse persons present in the court today are the same person who Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 29 of 37 came there and attached on the persons who were watching cricket match on the TV.My nephew and few others received injuries because of beating of the accused persons and one Gaurav had died...."Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 29 of 37The deposition of above named witnesses have been duly consistent and corroborated and on the contrary there is no evidence in rebuttal to this effect.The suggestions made to these witnesses with regard to their identification involvement in the crime and caused no injury had been denied."Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 32 of 37The law on the point can be summarised to the effect that the testimony of the injured witness is accorded a special status in law.The events antecedent to the incident will also have a bearing on the determination of Crl.The Trial Court record be sent back.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (JUDGE) NOVEMBER 30, 2018/ns/as Crl.A. 709/2018 Page 37 of 37Crl. A. 709/2018 Page 37 of 37
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
1,541,444
The petitioner was working as a clerk in the Postal Department.While on duty he quarrelled with another employee of the department and tried to beat him with a shoe.A criminal case was thereupon started and he was convicted under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code as a result of which he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 200 or, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.On appeal his conviction was maintained but he was given benefit of Probation of Offenders Act and released after admonition.Thereafter the disciplinary authority, taking action under Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, dismissed him from service by order dated 6th June, 1969 which runs as follows:Whereas Shri P.R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar has been convicted on a criminal charge under Section 353, IPC.And whereas it is considered that the conduct of the said Shri P.R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar, which has led to his conviction, is such as renders his further retention in the public service undesirable, Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Rule 19(i) of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 the undersigned hereby dismisses the said Shri P.R. Damle, Clerk, Sausar, at present under suspension, from service w.e.f. 6-6-69, the date of issue of this order.Against the above order the petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed and further representation also was dismissed.Against the aforesaid orders he has filed the present writ petition.Parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs.The security for costs deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him.
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
154,145,350
Under these circumstances, the Division Bench felt it expedient and in the interest of justice to ascertain the full facts from NDTV.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 2 of 112WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 2 of 112One of the CDs was said to be edited, while the remaining five were said to be unedited.The statement of Ms. Poonam Agarwal a reporter of NDTV was recorded to this effect and the CDs were placed in a sealed cover.Ms. Agarwal also stated that "The NDTV news channel does not have any other material in connection with the sting operation in question".She undertook to preserve the original chips.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 3 of 112WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 3 of 112Subsequently, on 6th June, 2007 Ms. Agarwal submitted the transcripts of the six CDs.She also stated that the six CDs were "prepared from four spy camera chips which were recorded on different occasions".On 23rd July, 2007 Ms. Agarwal filed an affidavit (on the direction of the Court) concerning the sting or undercover operation from the stage it was conceived, attendant circumstances, details of recordings, time and place etc. The affidavit broadly states that on 20th April, 2007 NDTV had telecast a half-hour special on the BMW case and thereafter on 22nd April, 2007 one Mr. Sunil Laxman Kulkarni contacted her and told her that he had seen the half-hour programme and was impressed by it.He told her that he had some information relevant to the case and would like to meet her.She met Mr. Kulkarni the same day and again on the 23rd April, 2007 when he told her that there was a strong nexus between the prosecution and the defence in the BMW case and that he wanted to do a sting operation to make the nexus public.At this stage, it may be broadly mentioned that Mr. Kulkarni claims to have witnessed an incident that occurred in the early morning of 10th January, 1999 when a BMW car allegedly driven by one Mr. Sanjeev Nanda in a drunken state caused the death of six persons.The police registered a case under Section 304 read with Sections 308 and 34 of the IPC and commenced their investigations.During the course of investigations, Mr. Kulkarni came forward as an eye witness to the incident.The summons was returnable on 14th May, 2007 and the telecast by NDTV is mainly concerned with the events of this period.Earlier, on 28th April, 2007 a sting operation was carried out by Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Deepak Verma of NDTV in the chamber of Mr. I.U. Khan in the Patiala House Courts.The girl who was allegedly being forced into prostitution was neither a school girl nor a sex worker but a journalist who wanted to make a name for herself.The whole episode was stage managed and was nationally shown as a "sting operation".Investigations revealed that the school teacher was not involved in any prostitution racket and no evidence was found against her to support the allegations of child prostitution.(Come to the farm).WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 80 of 112The question for our consideration is whether Mr. R.K. Anand and Mr. I.U. Khan, Senior Advocates and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate have committed criminal contempt of Court or not.We have found Mr. Anand and Mr. Khan guilty of criminal contempt of Court for reasons recorded in the judgment.Neither of them had tendered any apology or demonstrated contrition or repentance for their actions.Accordingly, towards the end of the judgment, we have pronounced the punishment awarded to them.We have found Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma not guilty of criminal contempt of Court.Background facts:On 30th May, 2007 a TV news channel - NDTV - carried a report relating to a "sting" operation.The report concerned itself with the role of a defence lawyer and the Special Public Prosecutor in an ongoing Sessions trial in what is commonly called the "BMW case".On 31st May, 2007 a Division Bench of this Court, on its own motion, registered a writ petition being WP (Crl.) No. 796 of 2007 since it was of the opinion that if the reported contents were true, they raise serious issues concerning criminal justice administration.The Division Bench issued a direction to the Registrar General to collect all materials that may be available in respect of the telecast and also directed NDTV to preserve the original material including the CD/video pertaining to the sting operation.It appears that simultaneously the learned Additional Sessions Judge before whom the BMW case was pending also instituted an inquiry into the contents of the report and on 1st June, 2007 the Managing Editor of NDTV produced before him three chips and five CDs containing the material in the three chips (which had the original unedited recording).In compliance with the order dated 31st May, 2007 NDTV produced before the Registrar (General/Administration) of this Court, on 2nd June, 2007 six CDs.After investigations were complete, the police filed a challan, charges were framed WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 4 of 112 against the accused (including Mr. Nanda) and the trial commenced before the Additional Sessions Judge.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 4 of 112Among others, the prosecution cited Mr. Kulkarni as its witness, but on 30th September, 1999 he was dropped from the list of witnesses, apparently on the instructions of the police.Much later, by an order dated 19th March, 2007 the learned Additional Sessions Judge suo motu issued a summons to Mr. Kulkarni to depose as a court witness.Mr. Kulkarni carried a hidden camera in his shirt (a button camera) and Mr. Verma also carried a hidden camera in a bag (a bag camera).The chip containing the recording made by the button camera was subsequently reformatted by NDTV after copying the contents onto a compact disc (CD).The original chip from the bag camera is available and we have viewed its contents.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 5 of 112WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 5 of 112A second sting operation was carried out by Mr. Kulkarni on 6th May, 2007 when he met Mr. R.K. Anand (Senior Advocate and learned counsel for the accused) in the VIP lounge at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (Domestic Terminal).The recording was carried out by using a button camera.A third sting operation was carried out in the same manner by Mr. Kulkarni on 8th May, 2007 when he entered a car in which Mr. Anand was already sitting.Both Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand travelled from outside the Delhi High court premises to South Extension where Mr. Kulkarni disembarked.The fourth and final sting operation was carried out later in the evening on the same day when Mr. Kulkarni met Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma (an advocate and colleague of Mr. Anand) and Mr. Lovely (an associate of Mr. Anand and since deceased) in the South Extension Part II market.The original chips used in the last three sting operations are available and we have viewed their contents.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 6 of 112According to Mr. Kulkarni, Ms. Agarwal was aggressive, adamant and had threatened him a lot.He says that in his meeting with Mr. Khan on 28th April, 2007 he put questions to him in the manner directed by Ms. Agarwal.The reference to "Bade Saheb" in that meeting meant senior police officials but Ms. Agarwal "forced me to mean that Bade Saheb means Sh.R.K. Anand as it suits her whole story." Mr. Kulkarni says that he met Mr. Anand, "following him on the instructions of Ms. Poonam Agarwal and forced me to converse with me (sic) regarding the case."The sum and substance of Mr. Kulkarnis affidavit is that the sting operation was masterminded by Ms. Agarwal for her ulterior purposes and to boost the TRP ratings of NDTV and that Mr. Kulkarni was "trapped" into participation.On 7th August, 2007 on a consideration of the material available, that is, the CDs, the transcripts of the various programmes, viewing of the edited and unedited footage and the affidavits on record (other than the affidavit of Mr. Kulkarni) the Court noted that meetings took place on 28th April, 2007, WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 7 of 112 6th May, 2007 and 8th May, 2007 between Mr. Sunil Laxman Kulkarni, Mr. I.U. Khan Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. R.K. Anand, Senior Advocate and learned counsel for the accused, Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate and colleague of Mr. Anand and Mr. Lovely a representative of Mr. Anand and that it was prima facie satisfied that these persons "have willfully and deliberately tried to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and administration of justice by the courts." It was observed that prima facie their acts and conduct were intended to subvert the administration of justice in the pending BMW case and in particular influence the outcome of the pending judicial proceedings.Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred by Article 215 of the Constitution proceedings for contempt of Court (as defined in Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1972) were initiated against Mr. Anand, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sri Bhagwan Sharma and they were asked to show cause why they should not be punished accordingly.Notice was also issued Mr. Lovely but since he expired, the proceedings against him did not continue any further.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 7 of 112Further affidavits and written submissions have also been filed by the alleged contemnors and they have been heard in extenso.Mr. Arvind Nigam, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae and he has also been heard in detail.For the purposes of deciding on the show cause notice, Mr. Anand, who appeared in person, submitted five preliminary matters for our consideration.But surely, isnt it rather odd that Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni travelled together on 8th May, 2007 in Mr. Anands car from just outside the Delhi High Court premises all the way to South Extension without so much as whimper of protest from Mr. Anand? WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 18 of 112WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 18 of 112We wondered why NDTV or Ms. Agarwal or both would want to get after Mr. Anand and Mr. Khan.In response, learned counsel for Mr. Khan submitted that Ms. Agarwal was rather aggressive in her attempts to get information about the BMW case from Mr. Khan, but when he refused her overtures she hatched a conspiracy to malign him.Reference was made to the affidavit dated 1st October, 2007 filed by Mr. Khan wherein he states that a few days prior to 19th April, 2007 the reporter started pressing him and his office for the statements of the witnesses and the case diary; she also wanted to interview Mr. Khan to enable her to telecast a programme on the BMW case.But when Mr. Khan declined to cooperate, she got annoyed and "adopted threatening tactics".In this case, a television news channel aired a programme on 30th August, 2007 in which it was shown that a school teacher was forcing a school girl into prostitution.Subsequently, a crowd gathered at the school gate, and being aghast at the conduct of the teacher, they raised slogans and demanded that she be handed over to them.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 72 of 112The application is, accordingly, rejected.M. No. 4010 of 2008 is an application for initiating proceedings for perjury against NDTV and Ms. Agarwal for deliberately making false statements on affidavit and fabricating evidence.Ex facie, this application deserves to be rejected.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 73 of 112M. No. 4012 of 2008 is an application for sending the original chips and CDs for forensic examination to ensure that they are not edited, fabricated or tampered with.(No question about it).([Come] Between 7 and 8).The conversation ends in this note:Mr. Kulkarni: Main, vese meri K.K. Paul se baat hui hai, lekin maine abhi tak nahi bola hoo.I have not received summons at all.Woh mere ko bata dena.(I had a talk with K.K. Paul [the Police Commissioner] but I have not told him.I have not received the summons at all.You tell me [what to do]).Mr. Khan: Kal tum aajao.(Come tomorrow).Mr. Kulkarni: Main ... huh? Woh hamare dono ki baat hogi.(That will be between us).(I had sent the message to Mr. Khan.You may have received it).Mr. Anand: Haan ... mil gaya tha.(Yes, I received it).WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 79 of 112WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 79 of 112There is then some talk about money and the cross-examination of Mr. Kulkarni.The conversation in this regard is as follows: Mr. Anand: Haan ab ... ab mujhe batao... Ab batao mere ko.(Now tell me).Mr. Kulkarni: Mujhe bola dhai crore doonga ... aap batao mere ko.(He told me that he will give two-and-a-half crore.You advise me).(You ask for five crore).Mr. Kulkarni: Mein paanch crore maang leta hoo.(I will ask for five crore).(Let them do [what they want].I have told [you] what was told to me.Then why has this [petition] been filed in the High Court? Do you not have faith in me? OK, I get angry sometimes...).WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 81 of 112(I have not taken the summon.You may find out).WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 82 of 112In the context of the deposition to be made by Mr. Kulkarni, Mr. Anand says, Mr. Anand: Im out of touch ... Im not in trial ... Im in High Court so I dont know ... anyhow ... what statement you are supposed to make ... we will decide about it.First of all, meet the bugger and talk to him.Dont be silly.Mr. Kulkarni: Kitna mangoo? (How much should I ask for)? Mr. Anand: Chodo na ... baat samjha kar yaar .......... (Leave it.Try to understand .......)With reference to the meeting that Mr. Kulkarni had with Mr. Khan on 28th April, 2007 the conversation between Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni is as follows:Mr. Kulkarni: ..... yeh, doosri baat hai ki ekdum vo din bhi Khan sahab ke saath bahut log the.(That day, there were many people with Mr. Khan).Mr. Anand: Hmm Mr. Kulkarni: Yeh nahi tha ki akele Khan saheb the.(I called him outside to try and speak to him, but there are still so many people with him).Mr. Anand: But natural, yaar, professional hai.(I will be around at a quarter to eight.Please call me).Mr. Anand: Give me a call at seven forty five.I think the copy would have been faxed [referring to a document mentioned earlier]).Mr. Anand: Hogi to tum le aana yaar ... kya dikkat hai ... aur ye lo xxx (If you have it, then bring it along.What about the blood sample)?The nature of the conversations in the three sting operations, the contents of the conversations and the location of the meetings clearly show that Mr. Kulkarni was quite familiar with Mr. Anand and also with Mr. Khan.The several references made to Mr. Khan in the conversations between Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Anand clearly bring out the fact that Mr. Anand knew that Mr. Kulkarni was in touch with Mr. Khan.Thereafter, there is some conversation between Mr. Khan and Mr. Kulkarni wherein Mr. Khan informs him that the Trial Court cannot require his statement to be recorded.This is followed by a private and personal conversation between Mr. Khan and Mr. Kulkarni to the effect that they should meet in the evening over a drink.We are again mentioning the private and personal conversation only to indicate the familiarity between Mr. Kulkarni and Mr. Khan.R.K. Anand as it suits her whole story."Firstly, the conversation between him and Mr. Deepak Verma was impromptu and a part of the sting operation continuum.The expression "Bade Saheb" came up only during the sting operation.I have not received summons at all.Woh mere ko bata dena.(I had a talk with K.K. Paul [the Police Commissioner] but I have not told him.I have not received the summons at all.You tell me [what to do]).Mr. Khan: Kal tum aajao.(Come tomorrow).Mr. Kulkarni: Main ... huh? Woh hamare dono ki baat hogi.(That will be between us).Then again the possibility of a meeting in Mr. Anands office: WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 99 of 112 Mr. Kulkarni: Ha ... ha ... ha (Yes).Aur iska bhi number mein de deta hoo... Jaya bhi aayegee ... isko leke aayo? (I will give you that number also [referring to his wife Jaya].(OK.I think the copy would have been faxed [referring to a document mentioned earlier]).Mr. Anand: Hogi to tum le aana yaar ... kya dikkat hai ... aur ye lo xxx (If you have it, then bring it along.what is the difficulty.... Take this).Mr. Kulkarni has access to Mr. Anand over the telephone and to his office.This is clear from the following:Mr. Anand: Abhi main office main nahi aata ... main bahar utar jata hoo.(I will not come to your office just now.Please call me).Mr. Anand: Give me a call at seven forty five.Mr. Anand: On my office number.That Mr. Kulkarni could gain easy entry into Mr. Anands car further shows their familiarity and proximity.There was no protest or objection from Mr. Anand.In fact, his car stopped to pick up Mr. Kulkarni - it was not as if Mr. Kulkarni forced his way into the car.(You ask for five crore).(I will definitely cross-examine you).Then there is the admonition by Mr. Anand to Mr. Kulkarni not to be unreasonable:Mr. Anand: Im out of touch ... Im not in trial ... Im in High Court so I dont know ... anyhow ... what statement you are supposed to make ... we will decide about it.First of all, meet the bugger and talk to him.Dont be silly.WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 101 of 112Mr. Kulkarni: Kitna mangoo? (How much should I ask for)?There is also a financial benefit that Mr. Kulkarni may get in connection with the petition challenging the summons issued to Mr. Kulkarni under Section 311 of the Cr.P.C. The conversation in this regard is as follows:What about the blood sample)?Mr. Kulkarni: Haan vo to Khan sahab ke apne ghar ki baat hai.We ask: Should the defence lawyer discuss anything about any money at all with the star prosecution witness - even jokingly? WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 102 of 112 Discussions on strategy and future course of action:WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 102 of 112There is a discussion between Mr. Anand and Mr. Kulkarni about the strategy to be adopted in the case with regard to the receipt of summons by Mr. Kulkarni.This is as follows:You may have received it).Mr. Anand: Haan ... mil gaya tha.(Yes, I received it).Then again, Mr. Kulkarni: Bus baat hi kuch nahi ... Patiala House Court main jakar meine de diya ... Khan sahab ne vo din mereko summon lene ke liye mana kar diya ... ab theek hai vo ... vo to obviously hona hi tha ... ab mereko message pahuchana tha ... vo pahuch gaya.(That day Mr. Khan asked me not to accept the summons.I had to convey a message and that has been conveyed).You may find out).WP (Crl.) No.796/2007 Page 103 of 112What about the blood sample)?Mr. Anand: Haan ... mil gaya tha.(Yes, I received it).(Let them do [what they want].I have told [you] what I was told to me.
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code']
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.