id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
---|---|---|---|
154,152,486 |
Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 12.04.2013, complainant (PW.1) lodged a complaint at Police Station Tonkkhurd, District-Dewas averring that she belonged to Balai Community and resided at Gram Ratankhedi.On 11.04.2013 at about 2:15 pm when she was alone at her house, the accused entered into her house and asked her whether her land has been mutated on her name or not.She told that it had not done yet, so non-applicant/accused told her that he would get it done, if she comes alone with him for a night up to Dewas.When she denied the non-applicant, suddenly, held her hand and tried to stretch towards another room and tried to outrage her modesty.On that she shouted and non-applicant ran away from the spot.When her husband came in the evening she narrated the entire incident to him.On that FIR Crime No.104/2013 was registered at Police Station Tonkkhurd, District-Dewas for the offences u/S. 452, 354 & 506 (B) of IPC & S.3 (1)(11) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent.On that charge-sheet S.T. No.88/2013 was registered.Learned Special Judge framed charges U/ss. 452, 354 & 506 (B) of IPC & S.3 (1)(11) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and tried the non-applicant.However, after trial, learned trial Court acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges.Being aggrieved from that judgment, applicant filed this application for leave to appeal.Learned counsel for the applicant/State submitted that from the statement of complainant (PW.1) which is also corroborated by Badrilal (PW.2), and Deepak (PW.3), who is the husband and son of the complainant.It is clearly proved that on the date of incident non-applicant entered into complainant's house and used criminal force on her to outrage her modesty and also threatened to kill her.The learned trial Court without appreciating all the facts wrongly acquitted the non-applicant from the aforesaid charges.We have gone through the record and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the applicant.Although regarding the incident complainant in her Examination-in- Chief stated that she lodged the report at Police Station and her husband Badrilal (PW.2) and son Deepak (PW.3) also corroborated her statement.Although in the complaint reason assigned for delay is that on the date of incident complainant's husband was not at home and returned home at night, thereafter, report was lodged by them the next day.While in his statement S.S. Pawar, S.H.O. (PW.6) admitted in his cross examination that complainant came alone at Police Station for lodging the report.The complaint lodged by the her is a written complainant, while complainant is illiterate lady.She also admitted in his cross examination that at the date of incident there was a marriage in her neighbour's house who lived in front of her house.But no independent witness was produced by the prosecution.Complainant deposed that at the time of incident her son Deepak had also came on the spot while this fact is not mentioned in the report.So, I have no hesitation in concurring with the findings recorded by the trial Court.Consequently, the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed as being without merit.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,156,438 |
Heard Sri Ram Raj Pandey, learned counsel assisted by Sri Shams Uz Zaman, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Waseem with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. -255 of 2019, under Sections -302, 201, 120B IPC, Police Station -Chhaprauli, District -Baghpat, pendency of trial.3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, at present:(vi) on prima facie basis, only for purpose of grant of bail, it has been submitted that this is a case of pure circumstantial evidence, inasmuch as other than the statement of the informant and his wife that the deceased had accompanied the applicant on 08.08.2019, there is no other evidence of the applicant being involved in the occurrence.The recovery of rope and wooden sticks are claimed to be planted on the applicant.At the same time, it has been submitted that there is no explanation for the delay of more than 24 hours in the FIR being lodged from the time when the deceased went missing.No missing person report has been lodged, though, according to the informant there were bad relations between the parties from before.Without making any observations as may effect the outcome of the trial, at present, it is seen that the case is one of the circumstantial evidence which is claimed to be supported by certain recoveries only.In absence of the applicant's criminal history and also in view of facts alleged by the wife of the deceased to establish bad relation between her and the informant and his wife and further in view of the fact that the applicant has no criminal history, while trial may take much time to conclude, applicant is found entitled to bail though on heavy sureties.The above prayer has been opposed by learned AGA.(ii) The applicant 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant 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 of the Indian Penal Code.(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If, in the opinion of the trial court, absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.(v) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.(vi) The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.That application if filed, may be taken up on priority.
|
['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.
|
1,541,589 |
ORDER Randhir Singh, J.These are two applications in revision against the order of the Sessions Judge of Lucknow dated 10th January 1953, refusing to interfere with an order dated 25th October 1952, passed by aMagistrate, first class, on an application made by Smt. Bitia.As the facts of this case are a trifle complicated it would be useful to make a brief reference to them before entering into a discussion of the points raised on behalf of the applicants.A complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code was made by one Smt. Taravati on the allegations that certain ornaments and a box had been entrusted by her in the company of her adoptive mother Smt. Jamna Devi sometime in 1948, to Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia for safe custody and that they failed to return the property to her and therefore committed criminal breach of trust.The defence of Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia was that the entrustment of the articles had been made by Smt. Jamna Devi and not by Smt. Taravati.It was also contended on behalf of Salig Ram that Jamna Devi in fact pawned the ornaments and that they were not deposited in trust.The learned Magistrate who tried the case came to the conclusion that the ornaments had been entrusted to the care of Salig Ram by Smt. Jamna Devi, but the box, which was a separate item, had been entrusted by Smt. Taravati.Salig Bam was acquitted and Smt. Bitia was discharged.This order of acquittal was followed by an order made under Section 517, Criminal P. C. directing the return of the ornaments which had been taken possession of by the police to Salig Ram and the box to Smt. Taravati.Taravati then went in revision against the order of acquittal while Salig Ram and Smt. Bitia went in appeal against the order passed by the Magistrate under Section 517, Criminal P. C. Both these cases were transferred to Sri Gopal Chand Sinha, Temporary Civil and Sessions Judge.He dismissed the appeal but made a reference to the High Court for the setting aside of the acquittal.The learned Magistrate to whom the application was made dismissed it on 25th October 1952, and a copy of the order has been filed.In this order the learned Magistrate referred to his earlier order for the disposal of the articles which were the subject-matter of the dispute under Section 406, Penal Code, and he refused to amend his order unless an order of the High Court was brought.The applicants Smt. Bitia and Salig Ram then went in revision to the Sessions Judge of Lucknow.The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the application for revision and she has now come up in revision to this Court.It appears that no revision was filed against the order of the Sessions Judge dated 22nd December 1951, dismissing the appeal filed against the order under Section 517, Criminal P. C. The order passed by the Magistrate therefore became final.Smt, Bitia then made an application to the Magistrate for revising the order.Once a Magistrate has passed an order under Section 517, Criminal P. C., and the parties have gone up in appeal, it is not open to him to revise his, order or to set it aside on the motion of any of the parties to the dispute.The learned Magistrate before whom the application for revision of the order had been made by Smt. Bitia was therefore, perfectly justified in refusing to interfere with his earlier order passed under Section 517, Criminal P. C. which had become final.The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any provision of law under which a Magistrate was empowered or entitled to vary his order passed earlier under Section 517, Criminal P. C. at the request of either party unless it be on the basis of a clerical mistake.Any observations of this kind would not amount to a finding on any question of fact such as to justify the Magistrate who had passed the order under Section 517, Criminal P. C., following the acquittal to reverse his order passed regarding the disposal of property.A revision has also been filed on behalf ofSmt.She made an application beforethe Sessions Judge in the application for revisionfiled by Smt. Bitia and Salig Ram.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,541,593 |
The prosecution story, in brief, is that the F.I.R. of this case has been lodged by Mikki Singh at Police Station Iglas on 28.6.2005 at 8.55 A.M. in respect of the incident which had occurred on 28.6.2005 at about 8.00 A.M. The P.I.R. has been lodged against the applicant and co-accused Pooran Singh, Swadesh, Mahesh @ Dhamna alleging therein that on 28.6.2005 one Kalyan Singh, the nephew of the first informant was going to Jungle from the village, he met with Sunder Singh in the way and started teasing.When he asked not to tease, he was beaten by Sunder and his father Raghuraj Singh, its complaint was made by Kalyan Singh to his father Nihal Singh and the first informant, so the first informant Nihal Singh, his wife Smt.JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.Hardevi enquired about the matter in presence of Bachhu Singh,Bani Singh and other villagers then two accused Pooran Singh armed with Pharsa, the applicant Raghuraj armed with the licence S.B.B.L. gun of his father, Sudesh armed with country made pistol and Mahesh @ Dhamma armed with Lathi came out there and intended to cause injury in the presence of the first informant and others but the witnesses Bachhu Singh and Bani Singh and others came in rescue then the accused persons extended threat, the first informant and others went of their house but his nephew Kalyan Singh remained there in the way and the deceased Nihal Singh and his wife Hardevi went on the roof of their house due to some worry.All of sudden Kalyan Singh was assulted by co-accused Puran Singh and Mahesh @ Dhamna and at the exhortation of Pooran Singh the applicant and co accused Sudesh discharged shots by the licensee gun and pistols towards Nihal Singh and his wife Hardevi, the firing was made indiscriminately from the roof of the applicant and other co-accused.I.P.C. on the same day after death of deceased Nihal Singh.According to the post-mortem examination report of the deceased Nihal Singh, he had received ante-mortem multiple fire arm pallets entry wounds 14 cm.x 9 cm.on the front of face, each measuring 4 mm.x 4 mm.x and some oval 4 mm.x 5 mm.as injury No.1 and injury No. 2 was multiple firearm pallets entry wounds 28 cm.x 33 cm.on front of the chest and left front of the shoulder each measuring 4 mm.x 4 mm.to 4 mm.x 5 mm.and medical esamination report of Smt. Hardevi shows that she had received one lacerated wound 3 cm.x 1 cm.x 1 cm.on the head and medical examination report of Kalyan Singh shows that he had received lacerated wound 2 cm.x 1 cm.on the back of the right side head.Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhllesh Srivastava and Pramod Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P.It is contended by the Learned Counsel for the applicant:(1) That the prosecution story is false, concocted and highly improbable.It is further contended that according to the F.I.R. the applicant discharged shots by the licencee gun and co-accused Sudesh discharged shots by country trade pistol from there roof which caused injuries on the person of the deceased Nihal Singh and injured Hardevi who were on their roof.During investigation the statement of injured Smt. Hardevi, Smt. Tulsa Devi and injured Kalyan Singh and first informant were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. but according to their statements the manner of the occurrence has been changed.According to the statement of Smt. Haridevi, she received injuries when she came in rescue of her son outside the house whereas it has not been mentioned in the F.I.R. Thereafter she went on roof where her husband Nihal Singh was present.It is alleged that the applicant and co-accused Sudesh Singh discharged the shots but the shots discharged by the applicant hit the chest of the deceased but it is alleged that the applicant Sudesh Singh had fired.The same statement was given by Tulsa Devi, it has been specifically alleged that the applicant shot had hit the chest of the deceased and the injured Hardevi also received injury but after receiving the injury she fell down from the roof.The injured Kalyan Singh stated that when he was beaten by the accused psrsons, his mother Smt. Hardevi came in his rescue, she was also beaten by Pooran Singh, thereafter she went on her roof to save her life where shots.were discharged by the applicant and Sudesh Singh but nobody received any injury thereafter at the exhortation of Sri Pooran Singh, the applicant discharged shot which hit the chest of the deceased.After receiving the injury he also fell down and deceased and other injured persons were taken to the hospital but the deceased died in the medical College.The witness Mikki Singh stated that the deceased and Smt. Hardevi received injuries caused by the applicant and Sudesh Singh, thereafter they fell down from the roof.There is material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses which shows that the alleged occurrence had not taken place as alleged by the prosecution.It is further contended that the injuries received by the injured persons are either manufactured or the injury reports have been procured.It is further contended that according to the F.I.R., the applicant and co-accused Sudesh Singh discharged shots indiscriminately, it has not been specifically alleged as whose shot hit the deceased.After great thought and consultation and due to some ulterior motive and on a legal advice the specific rold of causing injury to the deceased has been assigned.The applicant is not a previous convict and is not involved in any other case, participation of the applicant in the commission of the alleged offence is highly doubtful, therefore he may be released on bail.In reply to the above contentions, the learned A.G.A. submits that in the present case, the F.I.R. has been promptly lodged within 55 minutes and deceased had received fire arm injuries, in the said incident the injured person has also received injuries, their presence at the alleged place of occurrence is highly doubtful, the injured persons were medically examined in J.N. Medical College Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh which is the hospital of high reputation from where no injury can be manufactured and no false medical examination report can be procured, media 1 examination report of the injured persons are genuine and the specific role of causing injury to deceased has been assigned to the applicant.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. and from the perusal of the record, it appears that the alleged occurrence had taken place in broad day light, the F.I.R. was promptly lodged and the statements of the witnesses clearly show that there is specific role assigned to the applicant causing injury on the person of the deceased and the injured witnesses are there and the F.I.R. was lodged promptly and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail, therefore the prayer for bail is refused.Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,165,597 |
A.793/2017 Page 1 of 16 sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for two months.For the offence under Section 323 IPC, he was sentenced to SI for two months with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two days.A.793/2017 Page 1 of 16The charge against the Appellant was that between 10.30 and 11.00 am on 7th August, 2012 at Ghari Burari, near Burari Pond, Delhi he inflicted knife blows on his wife Radha with the intention of causing her death and thereby murdered her and as such committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The second charge was that he caused a simple injury with a knife on Ms. Janki Devi (PW-5), the mother of Radha, on the aforesaid date, time and place.A call was received at Police Control Room at 11.28 am on 7th August, 2012 to the effect that "Shalimar place ke saamne burari maine apni wife ko chaku maar diya hai".This was immediately passed on to ASI Kishan Chand (PW-1) attached to PS Burari at 11.36 am and noted down as a DD No.22A (Ex. PW-1/A).It was handed over to Sub-Inspector (SI) Dharam Prakash.The PCR form on the right hand column notes that when the police reached there, the public had caught hold of the person who had inflicted the knife injury and were beating him up.There is a further noting at 12.06 pm that Radha had been stabbed by her husband at several places on her body.The full details that emerged finally at 1.33 pm were to the effect that Radha Crl.A.793/2017 Page 2 of 16 was the wife of Deepak; that they had been married two years earlier; they have one child; that Deepak had inflicted multiple stab wounds on her and she died at the spot itself.It also noted that at the spot, the mother of Radha, Smt. Janki Devi had tried to save her and suffered a knife injury on her left hand and she had been taken to the hospital as a result.Ramesh Kumar (PW-22) who was serving as Anti Terrorist Officer (ATO) and attached to PS Burari was one of the police officers who received the message which was flashed on the wireless set regarding the husband of Radha stabbing her and he and Inspector Vikram Jit Singh, the then Station House Officer (SHO) rushed to the spot and found the dead body of a 23 year old lady lying on the kachha rasta near a pond behind Shalimar Palace in Ghari Burari.By the time PW-22 reached there, many public persons as well as police officials had already gathered at the spot.Deepak (PW-8), who is the brother of Radha was also present there and informed the police that Radha had married the accused Deepak in the year 2010 and that she had been killed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of dowry.He further told them that his mother, Janki Devi (PW-5) had been taken away by the police to the hospital and the Appellant had been taken away to the PS.The crime team was called.It inspected the scene of crime, clicked photographs and lifted some fingerprints.Stab wounds were noticed on the Crl.A.793/2017 Page 3 of 16 body which was lying in a pool of blood.Blood stained mud was picked up.A blood stained white scarf was also recovered from under the dead boy.From the spot a blood stained knife was picked up and its sketch prepared (Ex. PW-8/G).The paper cover of the knife was packed in a different transparent packet.PW-22 also picked up two pairs of slippers which were sealed in two separate parcels.On the search of the jeans of the deceased, PW-22 found one mobile phone.The kangans and pyjebs of the deceased were also removed and seized.A.793/2017 Page 3 of 16A motorcycle having registration no. DL 1SN 6289 of TVS Star City make was found lying parked under the house of complainant (PW-5) which was under construction and was also seized.The dead body was then sent to the mortuary.He noticed as many as seven incised wounds.These were over the mid-line chest, over the right breast just below an adjacent to the nipple, over epigastriun at the midline towards the left side, the right ear transversely cut in full thickness, over the left side front of the base of the neck muscle deep with 1 cm long tailing at the medial end.The fifth injury noted was a combination of multiple incised wounds over several areas of the chest, the left arm, the right forearm.There was one incised wound over the midline back of the chest and another transversely placed over back of left chest.There were few grazed abrasions.He found on exploration that Injury No.1 cut the underlying tissues cleanly Crl.A.793/2017 Page 4 of 16 directed slightly oblique, entered into chest cavity through the left second inter costal space and penetrated the Aorta (about 1 cm long cut).Total depth of the wound was 10-11 cm from the skin.Injury No. 2 cut the underlying tissues cleanly and entered into the right chest cavity through right fifth inter costal space, punctured the right pleura and penetrated the lower lobe of right lung about 3 cm deep and 2 cm long.Total depth of wound from skin was about 14-15 cm.Injury No. 3 cut the underlying tissues cleanly, entered into the peritoneal cavity and penetrated into right lobe of liver near its junction with left lobe about 4 cm deep and the total depth of the wound was 11 cm.A.793/2017 Page 4 of 16Cause of death was the combined effect of hemorrhagic shock and respiratory distress as a result of extensive injuries to major heart vessel (Aorta), liver and lungs.Injuries no. 1, 2 and 3 were sufficient to cause of death in ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively.Subsequently, the knife that was recovered was shown to the same doctor on 31st August 2012 and in his opinion injuries 1 to 7 were possible by the said knife.As far as the MLC of PW-5 was concerned, it showed that there was a laceration 5cm x 1 cm noticed on the left index finger.The star witness was the injured PW-5, the mother of the deceased.According to her, after the marriage of the deceased with the Appellant which was on 15 th May 2010, the mother-in-law of the deceased, her elder sister-in-law Deepa, the Appellant as well as her younger sisters-in-law Shalu and Soni used to give her beatings.The younger sisters-in-law used to consume liquor before they did so.The beatings were to compel the deceased to bring more money as dowry.She claimed that once, the mother-in-law and sisters-in-law even tried to kill the deceased by setting her ablaze after pouring kerosene oil on her.However, the attempt failed.Thereafter in the year 2011 the deceased returned from her matrimonial home when she was two months pregnant.When the child was one month and seven days old, on the asking of the Appellant, PW-5 sent her daughter with the new born son to her matrimonial home.Again the Appellant, his sisters and his mother attempted to kill the deceased as well as their new born as they were all in the habit of consuming liquor and bhang, and thereafter the deceased never visited her matrimonial home.PW-5 also stated that on 4th August, 2012 at around 3:00 a.m., the Appellant entered their house after climbing the gate and gave beatings to the deceased.Despite a call made on the 100 number and a visit to the PS Mukherjee Nagar, no action was taken by the police on PW-5s complaint.A.793/2017 Page 6 of 16As far as 7th August, 2012 itself is concerned, PW-5 recalled that it was a Tuesday as the deceased was working in a Beauty Parlour which used to have holidays on Tuesday.She and Radha had reached Burari at the site of construction of the new house of PW-5 at about 10:30 a.m. When they reached the construction site, the Appellant was already present and had parked his motorcycle there.The Appellant asked the deceased to demand Rs. 7 lakhs from PW-5, who refused saying that PW-5 did not have that much of an amount.Thereafter the Appellant demanded Rs. 7 lakhs from PW-5 herself.She also refused and the Appellant then left the spot.After staying at the spot for 15-20 minutes, when PW-5 and the deceased were returning home, the Appellant met them again on the way, parked his motorcycle and started walking with them.Whilst walking, he continuously quarrelled with PW-5 and the deceased demanding money upon which the deceased then told him to come to their house, i.e., the house of PW-5 and talk peacefully.On that he gave an elbow blow to the deceased as a result of which she fell to the ground.Immediately the Appellant pulled out a knife from the side of the belt of his pants and gave continuous knife blows to the deceased.PW-5 tried to shout and save her daughter.The Appellant then gave her a knife blow which landed on the index finger of her left hand and thereafter threw her in a nearby pit.When she managed to come out from the pit, she noticed that her daughter had already expired and the Appellant started running from the spot after throwing the knife there itself.On the shouts of PW-5, people gathered there chased the Appellant and apprehended him at a distance of about 5-10 minutes walk from the spot.A.793/2017 Page 7 of 16Two or three persons also called the police.One of them called from the mobile number of PW-5 as well.He denied that he and his family members had demanded a car from the family of Radha at the time of her marriage and that after marriage also they used to compel her to bring dowry and subject her to cruelty.The Appellant admitted as correct that in the year 2011, the deceased returned to her parental house when she was two months pregnant as her parental house was a short distance away and she generally used to go there.He also admitted as correct that when the son was 1 month and seven days old he had asked his mother-in-law to send Radha to her matrimonial home.He however, denied that after she returned him and his family again attempted to kill her and that he and his family members used to consume liquor/bhang.He also denied the suggestion that on 4 th August, 2012 at around 3:00 a.m., he entered the house of his in-laws after climbing over the gate and subjected his wife to beatings and that the PCR was informed and that PW-5 and others visited PS Mukherjee Nagar but the police did not initiate any action against him.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th May 2017, passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS-2 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts in Sessions Case No.111/2012 arising out of FIR.No. 208/2012 registered at Police Station (PS) Burari convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his wife Ms. Radha (the deceased) and for the offence under Section 323 IPC for causing injury on Smt. Janki Devi (PW-5) who was trying to save her daughter Radha.The appeal is also directed against the order on sentence dated 22nd May 2017, whereby for the offence under Section 302 IPC the Appellant was Crl.The medical opinion was that all injuries were ante mortem in nature.Injuries no. 1 to 7 were caused by sharp edged cutting penetrating weapon.Injury No.8 was caused by friction against rough blunt surface.A.793/2017 Page 5 of 16On the completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed and by an order dated 2nd February 2013 charges as aforementioned were framed.Evidence of PW-5On behalf of the prosecution, 24 witnesses were examined.When the evidence gathered against him was put to him, the Appellant denied the incriminating circumstances.As far as the incident of 7th August, 2012 is concerned, according to the Appellant, his brother-in-law Deepak (PW-8) contacted him on phone and asked the Appellant to take his wife back to the matrimonial home.According to him PW-8 asked the Appellant to reach the formers house Crl.A.793/2017 Page 8 of 16 under construction in the area of Burari.After some time he again called and stated that the Appellant should reach PS Burari.While on his way to the house under construction, the Appellant met PW-8 and his friend, whereupon he accompanied them to PS Burari where the police asked him to call his mother and sisters and then he was detained and not let off.He denied having raised any demand of Rs.7 lakhs from his wife or his mother- in-law that day.A.793/2017 Page 8 of 16The Appellant claimed that he had not caused any injury with any knife on the person of his wife at the given date, time and place.He denied having purchased any knife.He admitted that he was using a mobile phone which had the connection of his brother-in-law.The Appellant examined four witnesses.These witnesses were in support of his plea that he had, in fact, been called by his brother-in-law, Deepak (PW-8) to the place.However, these were witnesses who were themselves not privy to the so-called telephone call.It was only hearsay evidence.Parveen Kashyap (DW-3) stated that on the day of the incident, he received a call from his sister-in-law Shalu stating that they had received a telephone call from P.S. that the Appellant had been apprehended by the police.He confirmed all the documents in connection thereto that had already been marked through Crl.He also confirmed that his motorcycle bearing no.The CDRs do not bear out any such call made by PW-8 to the Appellant.Therefore, this entire defence was a false one.The Court finds that in his deposition, PW-8 does talk of being present at the spot and seeing PW-5 in an injured condition.He watched her being taken to the hospital.The Court, therefore, does not see any inconsistency in the evidence of PW-5 in this regard.The presence of PW-5 at the spot is spoken to even in the PCR form report at an earlier point of time.On the contrary, she appears to be a natural witness.The incident took place at the site of construction of her new house.The police did find her in a pit in an injured condition struggling to get out.A.793/2017 Page 10 of 16The entire case of the Appellant that he was not present and did not inflict the injuries is also plainly disproved by the fact that he was arrested from the spot itself.The public had already apprehended him and were beating him up, as has been noted in the right hand PCR column, when that happened.A.793/2017 Page 11 of 16The Court is unable to be persuaded that it was not the Appellant who killed his wife by stabbing her all over the body.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,417,046 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.3617/2020 (Sarpiya @ Sunil s/o Mesu Dawar Bhil Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 28.01.2020 Mr. Praveen Newalkar, learned counsel for the applicant.According to her statement, she is aged about 19 years and the applicant has not committed any offence against her and turns hostile.There is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on bail.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,171,714 |
The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall mark his presence before the police station concerned on every Monday between 10 am to 2 pm, till filing of charge-sheet.C.c as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge Rashid RASHID KHAN 2019.11.29 19:03:13 +05'30'The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail, who has been arrested and is in custody since 01.11.2019, in connection with Crime No.1119/2019, registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Morena, for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 34, 452, 294, 506-B of IPC.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation/trial and make himself available as and when required by the trial court.He would not be a source of embarrassment and harassment to the complainant party / prosecution witnesses in any manner.He further undertakes to do some community service.Under these grounds, he prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Public Prosecutor for the State opposed the prayer 2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.48224/2019 (Shiva @ Shivanand Vs.State of M.P.) made by the applicant and prayed for dismissal of this application.Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.As per the undertaking of the counsel on behalf of the 3 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No.48224/2019 (Shiva @ Shivanand Vs.State of M.P.) applicant for social/community work, the applicant is directed to visit Community Health Centre Morena/District Hospital, Morena in Outdoor Patient Department (OPD) and serve the patients for one year i.e. from December, 2019 to November, 2020 on every Monday, Wednesday and Thursday from 9 am till 1 pm so that he may learn the lesson to believe in peaceful co- existence in the society and become a better citizen.Chief Medical Health Officer (CMHO), District-Morena/ Hospital Superintendent, Morena as the case may be, shall permit the applicant to work in the Outdoor Patient Department only while assisting the ward boys and male nurses to serve the patients.He would not be allowed to move in the Wards and ICU etc. He would not administer any injection or any injectible to the patients and concerned authorities shall take care in this regard.The natural instinct of compassion, service, love and mercy needs to be rekindled for human existence as they are innately ingrained attributes of human existence.A copy of this order be sent to District Judge Morena, Chief Medical and Health Officer Morena and concerned Hospital Superintendent also for information and ensuring compliance.
|
['Section 452 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.
|
154,176,809 |
Revisional powers of this court u/S.397/401 Cr.P.C. are invoked for challenging the order of framing of charge dated 2/11/2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha (M.P.) in Sessions Case No. 300062/16 by which charges for offences punishable u/Ss. 306, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 11/12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act have been framed against the petitioner and two other co-accused namely Rahul and Shubham.2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that basic ingredients of Sec. 306 IPC against the petitioner is not made out as the allegations do not spell out the pre-requisites of abetment to suicide and thus the petitioner has been falsely implicated merely for being friend of co-accused Shubham and Rahul who are alleged to be main accused.3.1 Learned counsel for the State supporting the order of framing charge submits that there is sufficient evidence to sustain the impugned charge by bare reading of the allegations contained in the FIR and the other material collected by the prosecution.3.2 The bare reading of the allegations especially in the FIR reveals that the FIR was lodged on 18/10/2016 on the basis of an inquest founded upon the information received at the police station on 20/9/2016 regarding death of deceased Diksha Sen, 2 Crr.3662/17 aged around 17 years, due to hanging.It further reveals that the dead-body was sent for postmortem where cause of death was opined to be axphasia due to hanging.Statements of Vaishali, cousin sister of the deceased, Anshu Sen, father of the deceased, Smt. Usha Sen, mother of the deceased and Nikhil brother of the deceased were recorded, disclosing that Rahul and Shubham alongwith the petitioner used to stalk the deceased while she used to go towards school/coaching class.Piqued by this stalking deceased on 20/9/2016 committed suicide.The offence punishable u/Ss. 306, 354-D, 506 IPC and Sec. 11/12 of the POSCO Act was alleged.3.3 One of the PWs Vaishali, cousin sister of the deceased in her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. disclose that her sister (deceased) used to tell her that if some untoward incident happens to her or she dies then she (Vaishali) should inquire from Shobha about the cause of death.Shobha was said to be friend of the deceased who disclosed in her statement u/S. 161 Cr.P.C. separately recorded that Shobha and deceased in July 2016 used to attend English Coaching Class.At the coaching class deceased met Rahul Lodhi (co-accused) who was also a student at the coaching class.Shobha also disclosed that the deceased used to tell her that co- accused Rahul was the boyfriend of the deceased.15-20 days prior to the incident the deceased stopped attending the coaching class.Mother of the deceased thereafter visited Shobha's home to inquire about the reason as to why deceased did not return home to which Shobha showed ignorance.Shobha further disclosed that on 20/9/2016 she lastly met the deceased and asked her as to why 3 Crr.3662/17 she did not appear in the examination to which the deceased responded by saying that she was not well.3.4 However, the disclosures made by Vaishali, cousin sister of the deceased are much more revealing than that of PW Shobha in her statement u/s. 161 Cr.P.C. This witness Vaishali had disclosed that since march 2016 co-accused Rahul was pressurizing the deceased by stalking her while she used to go to school/coaching class.Though co-accused Rahul used to insist upon the deceased to become his friend and used to threatened the deceased to succumb to the said request.PW Vaishali also stated that this fact of stalking by co-accused Rahul and exerting pressure on the deceased to befriend him was known to other co-accused Shubham and Kuldeep (petitioner herein) since both these co- accused Shubham and petitioner used to accompany Rahul during the process of stalking deceased and all the three together were companions in stalking the deceased.3.5 The aforesaid allegations reveal that offence of stalking appears to be prima facie made out but this court is to dwell into the all important aspect as to whether said allegation can further be "sufficient" for satisfying the foundational ingredients of attempt to suicide.The allegations clearly make out a case where the strong suspicion arises against the petitioner alongwith his friends who are alleged to have continuously stalked the deceased for several months.The factum of stalking being prima facie sufficient or not to drive the deceased to commit suicide can be judged by the trial at the time of marshalling of evidence and does not lie within the domain of this court while exercising limited revisional jurisdiction especially in the absence of jurisdictional error.
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,181,227 |
The petitioner has also threatened her that he would beat up her brother and forcibly abduct her and force her into marriage.On 02.02.2014 while the complainant was returning from her workplace, the petitioner started following her and did so right until she reached her house.The complainant tried to catch hold of him but he tried to escape upon which people standing around managed to catch him.The complainant after the above incident got registered the FIR in the present matter.Through: Mr. Kewal Singh Ahuja, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Sub-Inspector Rajender Singh, Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI P.S.TEJI, J.(Oral)The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Satyander Singh for quashing of FIR No.78/2014, under Section 506/354D IPC registered at Police Station Paschim Vihar, Delhi on the basis of a settlement through mediation in Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi between the petitioner and respondent No. 2 namely, Smt. Muskan.2. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State submitted that the respondent present in the Court has been identified to be the complainant in the FIR in question.The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner has Crl.M.C. 2086/2017 Page1 of 7 been harassing the respondent no.2/complainant since about a month due to which she has suffered immense mental torture and agony.All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mediation proceedings carried out at Mediation Centre, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Now no dispute with petitioner survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question may be brought to an end.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,181,343 |
The facts giving rise to the present appeal may be summarised as under:-That on 20.9.2012 at 4.00 p.m. Ranveer gave a written report at police station Kharkhoda stating therein that on that day at 10.00 a.m. his minor daughter, hereinafter referred as victim, aged about 16 years had gone to the field to bring fodder.Dharmendra, a co-villager finding her alone in the field after showing country made pistol had raped her forcibly.At the alarm raised by her, his son Sumit aged about 14 years, who was taking Buggi to bring fodder from the field, reached there.At that Dharmendra had threatened him to kill him and asked him to remain silent and ran away.His son informed him.He had brought his daughter to lodge the FIR.Prior to that in view of sensitivity of the matter he approached the respectable persons of the village and father of the accused, but none came and father of Dharmendra had abused him and threatened to kill him and his family.He could not describe correctly where houses of first informant and the appellant are situated.Evidence of Braham Singh, DW-3 also does not inspire confidence.He is resident of another village.According to him, he was also called for panchayat, but according to him, he was not aware about the dispute.According to him, he only knew Jagmal, who had died.For these reasons, I find evidence of defence on the point of panchayat and threat extended by the first informant to be not substantiated.The instant appeal filed on behalf of accused-appellant is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.3.2014 passed by Shri J.K. Tiwari, Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.7, Meerut in S.T. No.331 of 2013 (State Vs.Dharmendra) whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years with fine of Rs.5,000/-, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.2,000/- respectively.In default of payment of fine he has been directed to further undergo six months' additional imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shailendra Awasthi, learned AGA for the State-Respondent and perused the record.At this check FIR was scribed.Case Crime No.563 of 2012 under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC was registered at P.S. Kharkhoda and investigation was entrusted to S.I. Sanjay Singh, who started the investigation and recorded the statements of inter alia first informant and his son Sumit on the same day.Next day he inspected the spot, took into his possession clothes of the victim and recorded her statement.Statement of victim was also recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. After completing the investigation charge sheet was submitted.The appellant stood for trial before the Court of Session, where he was charged under Sections 376, 504, 506, IPC, on his denial he was tried, convicted and sentenced as above.Feeling aggrieved the instant appeal has been preferred.His third argument is that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution specially the victim PW-1 in her examination-in-chief has stated that occurrence took place at 10.00 a.m. whereas during cross examination she says that at 10.00 a.m. she left her house to the field which took about half an hour.In this reference he further submits that in the examination-in-chief victim, PW-1 has claimed that she was alone when accused caught her and raped her, but during cross examination she has stated that her brother was with her.His fourth argument is that medical evidence does not support the prosecution version, no external mark of injury was found on her person nor internal examination reflected that the victim was raped.On behalf of State-Respondent these arguments have been repelled.On its basis evidence of victim, PW-1 and Sumit, PW-3 cannot be discarded.Since, the High Court was dealing with the appeal in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment, it was required to consider and discuss the evidence and deal with the arguments raised at the bar.Dr. Savita Vashisth, PW-4 had medically examined the victim on 20.9.2012 at 6.45 p.m. According to her, the victim was physically developed.During internal examination she found her hymen to be old torn.She has expressed her inability to give any opinion about commission of rape.S.I. Sanjay Kumar, PW-5 is the Investigating Officer.He gave details of the steps taken in the course of investigation.Constable Surendra Singh, PW-6 is the scribe of check FIR.Dr. M.P. Singh, PW-7 is the doctor, who on the basis of radiological examination determined the age of the victim to be 17 years.Accused Dharmendra is real grandson of Phoolwati residing in the village of the first informant on the strength of property given by grandfather of the victim.After close of prosecution evidence statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. whereby he has denied the facts stated by the prosecution witnesses.According to him, he did not commit rape with the victim.She has deposed falsely on the pressure of her father.There was dispute regarding gher (place where cattle and grains are kept) between him and the first informant.According to him, first informant had occupied his gher.In the defence on behalf of the appellant three witnesses were examined.Ajay Kumar, A.S.I., DW-1 has deposed that in the General Diary dated 20.9.2012 of P.S. Kharkhoda in report no.47 return of the victim after medical examination has not been entered.Thereafter, there is no entry to show that any witness was examined by the Investigating Officer.Momraj, DW-2 has deposed that first informant is his relative and accused Dharmendra is his nephew.Earlier accused used to live at Village Mahtampur.When he received land at Dhantaley (village where the first informant resides) he started to live there.Between the first informant and Dharmendra dispute arose on account of boundary of the fields.First informant had illegally occupied gher of the Dharmendra.Panchayat was held to resolve the dispute, but the first informant declined to vacate the gher and threatened to falsely implicate the accused.According to him, victim never goes to fields alone.Braham Singh, DW-3 is resident of Village Panauta.He has claimed himself to be member of the panchayat.According to him, dispute regarding land of Dharmendra occupied by the first informant could not be resolved in the panchayat and first informant had threatened to falsely implicate the appellant in a case of rape.One witness Yogendra Sharma, CW-1 was examined by the trial court itself, who is clerk of the school where at the relevant time Sumit, PW-3 studied.According to him, on the day of occurrence he was absent from the school.In the present appeal, as gathered from the statement of Dr. Savita Vashisth, PW-4, no mark of external injury nor any injury on the private parts of the victim were found, therefore, the medical evidence in the present case is inconclusive either to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the prosecution version.She has further admitted that her father had occupied gher of Phoolwati, grandmother of the appellant.On behalf of Momraj, DW-2 and Braham Singh, DW-3 have been examined to show that a panchayat took place about dispute of gher of Phoolwati and father of the victim declined to accept the verdict of the panchayat and threatened the appellant to falsely implicate him in a false case of rape.So far as enmity on account of agricultural land and gher is concerned, it is established, but I find evidence of Momraj, DW-2 and Braham Singh, DW-3 not worthy of reliance.Momraj, DW-2 is not resident of Dhantaley.His presence during panchayat has not been explained.Learned trial Judge before administering her oath has put some questions to satisfy about her understanding about the sanctity of oath.She has frankly admitted dispute regarding gher.On the basis of original attendance register he has deposed that on 20.9.2012 Sumit was absent from his class.The witness has given reasons for his presence on the spot.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,541,816 |
JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.This is an application for anticipatory bail.In this case, initially, the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 147/148/149/308/506/34 IPC.The petitioner was named in the FIR.Subsequently, the injured (Hetram) passed away on 04.11.2006 and the offence under Section 302 IPC was added.The petitioner now apprehends arrest in respect of the newly added Section 302 and has, therefore, moved this application for anticipatory bail.According to the learned Counsel for the State, in such a situation, there was no question of entertaining an application for anticipatory bail.The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for anticipatory bail was maintainable because the petitioner had earlier been granted bail when the offence punishable under Section 302 was not mentioned in the FIR.It is not open to the police officer to set at naught the order of pre-arrest bail by merely tinkering with a section in the FIR.The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who has rejected the second application for anticipatory bail on the ground that certain sections have been added in the daily diary, has done grave violence to the judicial authority.The accused therein were granted anticipatory bail.Consequently, Section 302 IPC was added and a charge-sheet was filed, including the offence under Sections 302, 406 and 498A IPC.The learned Counsel for the State submitted a report from Rockland Hospital dated 07.12.2006 which indicates that the petitioner allegedly had a history of road traffic accident about three months prior to 17.08.2006 wherein he is said to have sustained a fracture of his right leg bone (tibia) at the time of the accident.He was put on a long leg cast after the surgery and the plaster cast has not yet been removed.The removal of the plaster cast would depend upon the healing of the fracture, which is to be seen on serial x-rays.He has been called after two weeks for review.These circumstances indicate that from 18.08.2006 till date the petitioner had a long leg cast on his right leg and that although he could move about, he required the assistance of crutches/ walker.The alleged incident occurred on 22.10.2006 at a place which is at a distance of more than 500 meters from the petitioner's place of residence.There are allegations that the petitioner in a group of 15-20 boys came to the spot armed with iron rods, dandas and blunt objects and gave blows to the victims.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,189,144 |
To negotiate for sale or transfer or join in the sale or transfer the schedule property in one lot or in various divided or undivided shares.To receive, admit and acknowledge the receipt of sale consideration therefor.To execute sale agreements, sale deed or deeds in respect of the Schedule mentioned property to be sold, transferred, conveyed or mortgaged either in one lot or in various undivided shares under one or more sale deeds, mortgage deed or other deeds from time to time as the case may be either independently or along with other properties."Therefore the Power of Attorney executed by the petitioner in favour of the first accused to sell the property also.Though the petitioner had full knowledge about the acquisition of the said property by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, he ought not to have executed Power of Attorney to sell the subject property.Further it shows that there is a common intention to induce the second respondent/defacto complainant to pay money as an advance for the property, which was already acquired by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and cheated the second respondent/defacto complainant.It is also seen from the statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C., there is specific allegations to constitute the offence under Section 420 of IPC as against the petitioner.It ishttp://www.judis.nic.in 10 also evident from the undertaken given by the first accused that he undertakes to repay the amount advanced by the second respondent.The mere filing of civil suit by the second respondent would not prevent him to initiate prosecution for the criminal offence committed by the petitioner.Though there is no specific avernments as against the petitioner in the plaint in O.S.No.12134 of 2001, it cannot be a ground for quashing the entire proceedings as against the petitioner herein and though the alleged agreement entered by the first accused alone and the advance amount received by the first accused., as follows :-The High Court by its impugned order dated 11.2.2016, quashed the proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. on the ground that on a plain reading of the FIR, the complainant had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused.Assailing the judgment of the High Court, it has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the High Court had manifestly erred in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPc at this stage particularly when after due investigation, the chargesheet has been filed and charges have been framed.Moreover, it has also been submitted that ahttp://www.judis.nic.in criminal intent emerges from the fact that though the 11 property did not stand in the name of the accused it was sought to be sold and in pursuance of the transaction, the appellant was made to part with valuable consideration.On 29.6.2016, notice was issued in these proceedings.The High Court was persuaded to quash the criminal proceedings purely on the basis that the F.I.R. indicated that the vendor had refused to execute the sale deed.On this basis, the High Court held that there is no element of cheating and on reading of the F.I.R., the complainant had failed to make out any criminal intent on the part of the accused.In arriving at this conclusion, the High Court, as would appear from the narration of facts earlier, has lost sight of crucial aspects which have emerged during the course of the investigation.More over when the ingredients of the offence as against the accused made out, the proceedings shall not be interdicted and all the grounds raised by the petitioner have to be considered only before the trial Court during trial.In view of the above this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.10116 of 2014, pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition in Crl.23.04.2019 Internet:Yes/No Index :Yes/No Speaking/Non speaking order rtshttp://www.judis.nic.in 13The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai,The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
15,420,573 |
Heard on I.A. No.13688/2016, which is an application for condonation of delay.sh On due consideration, delay is condoned.e I.A. No.13688/2016 is allowed and closed.ad They are heard.By the impugned judgment, learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents giving ad them benefit of doubt from the offences punishable under Sections M 294, 506-II and 436 of the IPC.According to prosecution story, in the night intervening 16-17 of July, 2014 at about 10 p.m., there was verbal exchange between the rt complainant Ramesh Singh and respondents.At about 2 in the night, ou when complainant was sleeping on the cot inside the room, respondent No.1 poured kerosene through the window and set the cot on fire.C Hearing the noise to his brother Sanohar, Roshan and Anand reached h the spot and doused the fire.Thereafter, an F.I.R.was lodged in the ig Police Station at about 1.30 in the afternoon on the next day for H offences punishable under Sections 451, 294, 506-II, 436/34 and 511 of the IPC and set the Police machinery in motion.After completing the investigation, challan was filed and after committal Sessions Judge took the cognizance for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506-II and 436 of the IPC.Respondents abjured their guilt and submitted that they were falsely implicated due to previous enmity.Learned trial Judge on the basis of evidence adduced by prosecution found that the prosecution could not bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the respondents.Trial Court also found that no hue and cry was raised by the complainant and no independent witness of the village came to the place of incident and saw the respondents committing the offence.Accordingly, this M.Cr.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
154,207,641 |
No.32 Ct-42 BM Allowed CRM 1765 of 2019 In Re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 07.02.2019 in connection with Kaliachak Police Station Case No.05 of 2016 dated 03.01.2016 under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/326/332/333/353/186/379/427/435/436/ 506 of the Indian Penal Code adding Section 411/307/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 25/27/35 of Arms Act and P.D.P.P Act.And In the matter of : Md. Atikul Sk.... Petitioner Mr. Abhra Mukherjee Mr. Sudip Banerjee Mr. Souradeep Dutta ... for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Ray Chowdhury Mr. Mainak Gupta ... for the State It is submitted by the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that this petitioner was not named in the FIR nor charge sheet was submitted against this petitioner but subsequently on the basis of wrong identification he was implicated in this case and he is in custody for 32 days.He further submits that in the instant case all the accused persons excepting the petitioner have already been released on bail and this petitioner stands on the same footing.The learned advocate appearing for the State formally opposes the prayer for bail but admits that all the accused persons have been granted bail.Accordingly, we direct that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of like amount one of whom 2 must be local to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda, and on condition that during bail the petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence nor intimidate the witnesses in any manner whatsoever and shall appear before the learned trial court on every date of hearing.In the event of failure to comply above direction, the learned trial court will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the petitioner in accordance with law without further reference to this court.The application for bail is accordingly allowed.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties after compliance of necessary formalities.( Md. Mumtaz Khan, J. ) ( Tirthankar Ghosh, J. )
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,600,199 |
Therefore, she might have advised him that there are many complaints against him at Igatpuri and therefore, it is better for him to leave Igatpuri.Apart from that for bringing Section 3(1)(x) in play there should be an allegation that the accused intentionally insulted the member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view." As per complaint this talk took place in the office of the present petitioner.He has not mentioned that the said office was visible to public at large and was exposed to public view.
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 200 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,001,998 |
Item no. 33 Ct.No.34 CHC Allowed C.R.M. No.4248 of 2018 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 26.06.2018 in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No. 55 of 2018 dated 11.4.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/406/409/463/464/468/471/325/326/307/308/285/286/3 4/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act.And In Re:-Kamal Kumar ... Petitioner Mr. Sekhar Basu, Sr.Advocate Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya, Advocate Mr. Shailendra Shukla, Advocate .. for the petitioner Mr. Soumopriya Choudhury, Advocate Mr. Soumen Mohanty, Advocate Ms. Prapa Ganguly, Advocate ..for defacto complainant Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld.P.P. Mr. Saibal Bapuli, Advocate Mr. A. Bhattacharyya, Advocate ..for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Haripal Police Station Case No. 55 of 2018 dated 11.4.2018 for alleged offence punishable under Sections 420/406/409/463/464/468/471/325/326/307/308/285/286/3 2 4/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act.The State and the defacto complainant oppose the prayer.The defacto complainant says that goods supplied did not contain anthracene oil.There was an explosion at the defacto complainant's factory which resulted in one person suffering injuries.The State relies on the report issued by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Belgachia to the effect that anthracene oil was not contained in the container that was sent to the laboratory.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,022,057 |
Four of the seven accused persons whose conviction under Section 302IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment has been affirmed by the HighCourt of Chhattisgarh have filed the instant appeals challenging Judgmentand Order dated 30th November, 2009 of the High Court.We have heardthe learned counsels for the appellants as well as the learned counsel forthe State.The short case of the prosecution is that on 05.12.2000 at about8.55 p.m., Santosh (PW-4) lodged a FIR in the Ambikapur Police Stationstating that a short while ago i.e. at about 8.40 p.m. while he wasstanding in front of his house alongwith deceased Vinod and Amit (PW-13),accused Gopi Ghasia(A-6) and Ranu(A-5) had come there in a state ofintoxication.According to the first informant, an altercation took placein the course of which he as well as Vinod had slapped accused Gopi.Enraged, the accused persons went away threatening to kill them.Accordingto the first informant, after about an hour, the four accused appellants.i.e.Bharat, Dhruv, Sanjay and Rupesh accompanied by accused Ranu, Gopi andJitender came to the place armed with different kinds of dangerousweapons.Specifically it was mentioned that accused Gopi had come armedwith a Nepali Khukhri; accused Ranu had a knife with him whereas accusedJitender was armed with a Nan Chaku.In so far as accused Bharat and Dhruvare concerned, it was claimed by the first informant that while the formerwas armed with an iron rod, accused Dhruv had carried a leather belt in hishand.In the FIR it was further alleged that accused Ranu had assaultedthe first informant Sanjay (PW-4) with a knife but he had escaped withoutany serious injuries.However, accused Gopi and Ranu gave knife blows tothe deceased Vinod on his chest and stomach whereas accused Dhruv andBharat had assaulted Amit Kashyap (PW-13) with the belt and iron rod thatthey had carried.According to the first informant, accused Rupesh andSanjay had instigated the other accused to kill the deceased Vinod.Due tothe assault committed on Vinod, he had sustained injuries for which reasonhe had to be taken to the hospital.On receipt of the FIR a case under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 ofthe IPC was registered.However as the injured Vinod died at about 9.15p.m.on the same night, the offence under Section 302 was added in the FIR.The crime alleged was duly investigated and on completion thereof all theseven accused were charge sheeted under Section 147, 148, 302/149 of IPC.Thereafter, the case was committed for trial to the court of sessions andcharges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149 IPC were framed against theaccused persons.As the accused claimed innocence a regular trial was held, at the conclusion of which all the seven accused were found guilty of thecharge under Section 147, 148, 302/149 IPC.They were accordinglysentenced.The separate appeals filed by the seven accused before theHigh Court having been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.11.2009,the accused Bharat, Dhruv, Sanjay and Rupesh have challenged the aforesaidorder of the High Court in the appeals filed by them before this Court.Before adverting to the core legal issue arising in the presentappeals, namely, the liability of the accused appellants for the offenceunder Section 302 IPC on the basis of their constructive liability, if any,under Section 149 IPC, it will be necessary to notice, though very briefly,the salient part of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support ofthe charges levelled.Of the fifteen witnesses examined by the prosecution, the evidence ofSonu Kewat (PW-1), Suraj Dass (PW-2), (though declared hostile), Ram Naresh(PW-3), Prakash Suryavanshi (PW-5), Imtiaz Ali (PW-6) and Dr. S.K. Sinha(PW-7) would be relevant.Equally, the evidence of (PW-4) and PW-13 whohad been examined as the eye-witnesses to the incident will have to benoticed in some details.From the deposition of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5, it transpires thatthe aforesaid witnesses had come to the place of occurrence on hearing thecommotion that had taken place.The said witnesses, without any majordiscrepancies or contradictions, have narrated that on reaching the placeof occurrence they could see the deceased Vinod lying injured and all theseven accused fleeing away therefrom.However, two of the accused, namely,Dhruv and Bharat were apprehended by the persons who had gathered at theplace of occurrence, having come there on hearing the commotion that hadtaken place.It may be noticed, at this stage, that in so far as theidentity of the accused is concerned, no issue has been raised on behalf ofthe accused at any point of time.Imtiyaz Ali (PW-6) is a witness to the recovery of the allegedweapons of assault.All such recoveries were made at the instance of theaccused persons.Specifically, PW-6 has deposed that on the basis of thestatement of accused Jitender a Nan Chaku (Ex.P-7) was recovered.At theinstance of accused Gopi and Ranu a Nepali Khukri and a Gupti (Ex.P-8 andEx.P-11 respectively) was recovered.Similarly, on the basis of thestatement of accused Dhruv and Bharat a leather belt and an iron rod (Ex.P-14 and Ex.P-15) were recovered.Dr. S.K. Sinha (PW-7) M.O. District Hospital, Ambikapur who hadconducted the post mortem of the deceased Vinod had proved the report ofpost-mortem (Ex.P-26).This witness had deposed that corresponding to oneof the external injuries found i.e. an incised wound over the abdominalwall below the umbilicus, internal injuries cutting the diaphragm and lowerlobe of the right and left lung were found by him on the person of thedeceased.This witness hadspecifically deposed that accused Bharat, who was armed with a Gupti, hadassaulted the deceased in the stomach with the said weapon.However, in theFIR filed by him, he had stated that accused Bharat was armed with an ironrod.Similarly in his deposition, PW-4 had stated that accused Dhruv wasalso holding a Gupti whereas in the FIR it had been mentioned that the saidaccused was armed with a leather belt.In a similar manner, though in theFIR accused Sanjay and Rupesh had been alleged to be the persons who wereinstigating the others to kill Vinod, in his deposition in court PW-4 hadstated that he had seen the accused Sanjay assaulting the deceased in thethigh with a Gupti.Similarly, PW-4 had not implicated accused Jitender his evidence in courtthough in the FIR filed he had specifically mentioned that accused Jitenderwas armed with a Nan Chaku.In so far as the accused Gopi and Ranu isconcerned PW-4 has, however, been consistent in the alleged involvement ofthe said two accused both in the FIR as well as in the deposition tenderedin Court.On the other hand, Amit Kashyap (PW 13), had deposed that theaccused persons, including the present appellants, were assaulting(beating) Vinod with hands and fists and were also kicking him.However,when he (PW-13) along with others had rushed towards Vinod to save him, theaccused persons took out the Guptis that they were carrying and startedassaulting the deceased with the said weapons.The motive for the same, as evident from the cross-examinationof PW-13, is some relationship between the two i.e. PW-13 and accusedBharat.Specifically, PW-13 had stated that he had not seen Bharatcommitting any assault on the deceased and that he was also not sure as towhether Bharat had accompanied the other accused persons and also whetherhe was holding any weapon at all.PW-13 has also given a different sequenceof the arrival of the seven accused persons at the place of occurrence.Inthis regard he had stated that while five accused had arrived together,accused Bharat arrived at the place of occurrence thereafter and the lastto arrive was the accused Sanjay.Having noticed the essential features of the evidence tendered bythe prosecution witnesses we may now proceed to examine the liability ofthe accused appellants, all or any of them, on the principle of vicariousor constructive liability under Section 149 of the IPC.Thereafter, all the seven accusedhad come armed with weapons.From the evidence of the prosecution witnessit transpires that some of the accused had attacked Santosh (PW-4) and Amit(PW-13) who were present at the spot besides assaulting the deceased Vinodin the stomach with sharp weapons resulting in his death.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,029,373 |
(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Alok Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2019.09.11 16:58:28 +05'30'In view of the above, on payment of 7 days, issue notice to respondent No.2 only, returnable within four weeks.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,037,133 |
of the case are that there are two godowns of Hyundai Crl.A.615/2013 Page 1 of 15 Company in Jindpur, Delhi merely at a distance of about 200 meters but opposite to each other across the road.Shakti Singh complainant was a security guard in one showroom and Prem was a security guard in other showroom.One Dharmender Pandey was Incharge of both godowns for day and night and he used to reside in a room in the showroom but he was addicted to drinking and other vices.Due to these complainant he was removed from night Inchargeship and was replaced by Sunil Kumar.Dharmender Pandey was asked to vacate the room and so, he had to take a room on rent in village Mukhmelpur.He was harbouring a grudge against Sunil Kumar thinking that complaints against him were made to Hyundai Management by Sunil Kumar.On 5.12.2008, as usual, Shakti Singh and Prem joined their duty at 7.45 P.M. After some time, Dharmender Pandey came there in an inebriated condition and started taking drinks in the office and asked Shakti Singh to join but he refused.Shakti asked Dharmender to leave the office but he was waiting for Sunil Kumar.He asked Shakti Singh to make a call to Sunil Kumar to come speedly to the office, and hence, guard Shakti Singh asked Sunil Kumar to come early.After making telephone call, both came to the showroom and started waiting Sunil.Sunil Kumar came at 10.00 P.M. and blew horn.The main gate was opened by Shakti Singh and Sunil Kumar parked the bike inside the showroom.The usual practice was to lock the main gate from inside and its key would be handed over to Prem.So, after closing the main door and locking it, Shakti Singh went to other showroom to give key to Prem.When Shakti was with Prem, he heard the cries of Sunil Kumar and when he reached there running, he saw Sunil Kumar lying on the ground gasping and yearning for life.Blood was oozing from his head and Dharmender Pandey was standing near him with an iron oil dispenser.He placed the oil dispenser on the side after seeing the complainant.In the meantime Prem, i.e. Security Guard/Chowkidar of the other Hyundai godown also came.In the presence of both Security Guards, accused Dharmender Pandey confessed that he had committed a blunder by murdering Sunil Kumar and sought mercy from them saying that he had very little children.They raised noise and pushed Dharmender Pandey inside the showroom.When several persons assembled there, Dharmender Pandey took to heels.We have also given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions, which have been made before us.In this case, there were two godowns of Hyundai Company in Jindpur, Delhi.Shakti Singh, PW-1, was employed as a security guard in one of the showrooms and Prem Kumar, PW-5, was employed as a security guard in the other showroom.The appellant was also employed and was initially working at the night shifts.He was also given one room.The appellant was addicted to drinking.Due to complaints, he was replaced by Sunil Kumar.The case of the prosecution revolves primarily around the testimonies of Crl.A.615/2013 Page 5 of 15 two witnesses, being PW-1, Shakti Singh and PW-5, Prem.A careful analysis of the testimonies of the aforesaid two witnesses would show that since 23.11.2008 PW-1, Shakti Singh, was working with 24 Security Guarding Private Limited, Rohini.On the intervening night of 5th /6th December, 2008, PW-1 was on duty at the godown of Hyundai Motors, situated at Jindpur, from 8.00 p.m. to 8.00 a.m. This witness has further testified that when he joined the duty at the godown the appellant, Dharmender Pandey, was incharge and in the night he used to stay in the room situated in the godown itself.2-3 days prior to the incident Dharmender Pandey had been replaced by Sunil Kumar and the room occupied by Pandey was allotted to Sunil Kumar.On the fateful night, PW-1 reached the godown at 7.45 p.m. Prem Kumar was on duty at the godown on the other side of the road.The appellant was also present at godown.The appellant informed PW-1 that he would be relieved by Sunil Kumar.At about 10-10.30 p.m., the appellant had asked PW-1 to go to a nearby PCO and make a telephone call to Sunil Kumar, however, PW-1 had refused to do so, but on repeated requests of the appellant, he accompanied the appellant to the nearby PCO.PW-1 was informed that Sunil Kumar would reach within fifteen minutes after having his dinner.This witness has also testified that at around 10.30 p.m. he heard the noise of blowing of horn at the gate of godown, he opened the gate and Sunil Kumar came inside the godown on his motorcycle.Prior thereto the appellant had asked PW-1 as to whether he was interested in having a drink, to which PW-1 refused being on duty.A.615/2013 Page 5 of 15The testimony of PW-1 also shows that the main gate of the godown was then locked and he went outside from the small gate to hand over keys of Crl.A.615/2013 Page 6 of 15 this godown to Prem Kumar, the guard of the other godown, which was on the other side of the road.When PW-1 was handing over keys to Prem Kumar, the appellant came there.At that time the appellant was very nervous (Ghabraya hua tha) and told PW-1 that "Uncle Mujhe Bacha Lo" and also asked Prem Kumar for some Gutkha (panmasala with chewing tobacco).On questioning by PW-1 as to what has happened, the appellant pointed out towards the godown where PW-1 was deputed.He saw that Sunil Kumar was lying on the floor and his head was in a pool of blood.He was gasping and yearning for breath (Tadap raha tha).He then raised an alarm and asked Prem Kumar to call the Police and the Ambulance.Prem Kumar dialled No.100 from his cell phone and gave the cell phone to PW-1, who informed the police about the incident.PW-1 has also testified regarding the formalities completed by the Police with regard to seizure of motorcycle of the deceased, plastic chairs and the oil dispensing pump.A.615/2013 Page 6 of 15Police was informed by Shakti Singh by using the telephone of Prem.FIR was registered and investigation was handed over to Inspr.Mahender Pal.A.615/2013 Page 1 of 15A.615/2013 Page 2 of 15Charge u/s 302 IPC was framed against accused on 05.12.2009 to which he claimed trial."In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined twenty witnesses.The appellant appeared as a witness in the matter.Counsel further submits that both, PW-1 and PW-5, have testified that they were not the eye-witnesses and the trial court has erred in relying upon their testimonies.PW-1 and PW- 5 have also testified that the appellant had simply told PW-1, Shakti Singh, "Uncle, Mujhe Bacha Lo", which has been misinterpreted by the learned trial court as an extra-judicial confession and on this ground alone the appellant is liable to succeed in the present appeal.Counsel further contends that reliance by the trial court on the so-called extra- judicial confession has caused miscarriage of justice.It is also contended that since there was no eye-witness in the matter, the case of the prosecution would rest on circumstantial evidence and sufficient evidence has not been on record and further the chain of circumstances are not complete, which would lead to the only conclusion of guilt of the appellant in the murder of the deceased, Sunil Kumar.An alternate argument has also been made by counsel for the appellant that no case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant for the reason that it is the case of the prosecution that an oil dispenser, which was lying on the spot, was used to hit the deceased, which resulted in his death.A.615/2013 Page 3 of 15Tufail, counsel for the appellant, also contends that it is not a case where the offence was committed by a weapon, neither there was pre- meditation nor has the appellant acted in a cruel manner, nor has he taken any undue advantage of the condition of the deceased.Tufail has also pleaded that the Court must take into account that as per the post-mortem report only two blows were inflicted upon the deceased, which resulted in the death of Sunil Kumar.Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the State, submits that presence of the deceased, the appellant, PW-1 Shakti Singh and PW-5 Prem, stand duly established by the Attendance Sheet Registers, which were produced.Counsel further contends that even otherwise in the statement made under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant has not disputed the presence of the aforesaid persons.It is contended by Mr.Sharma that evidence of PW-1 would show that the deceased and the appellant were together and soon after the incident the appellant had informed PW-1 that he had committed a mistake and he should be saved as he has small children.Sharma also submits that this initial statement has not been supported by this witness during his testimony in Court as he had been won over by the relations of the appellant, but he has deposed in Court that the appellant had told him that "Uncle Mujhe Bacha Lo".Sharma also contends that the Crl.A.615/2013 Page 4 of 15 prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond any shadow of doubt and the links in the chain of circumstances are complete, which is evident from the presence of the deceased, appellant and two star witnesses, being PW-1 and PW-5 at the spot of the incident; and the fact that soon after the incident the appellant slipped from the place of the incident and only surrendered on 15th December, 2008, i.e. after a gap of ten days from the date of the incident, during which period his native village was also raided, but he could not be found there.This would thus be another circumstance and vital link in the chain of circumstances which would prove the guilt of the appellant.A.615/2013 Page 4 of 15Leading questions were put to PW-1 by the learned APP.PW-1 was confronted with various portions of his statements made to the Police under Section 161 with regard to the fact that the duty of the appellant had been changed on account of his habit of consuming liquor and also the fact that Sunil Kumar had made complaints to the Management with regard to the appellant being found under the influence of liquor during duty hours, all of which were denied during the evidence in Court.PW-1 also denied having made a statement under Section 161 that the appellant had told him that he killed Sunil and committed a mistake.We have also examined the testimony of PW-5, who has also deposed that he was on duty on the fateful night.He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 that he was on duty and had seen PW-1 and the Crl.A.615/2013 Page 7 of 15 appellant talking to each other.He has also corroborated the testimony of PW-1 that the appellant had told PW-1 "Mujhe Bacha Lo, Mujhe Bacha Lo".PW-5 has also testified with regard to the presence of PW-1, the deceased, the appellant and his own presence at the time of the incident.He has also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 with regard to the appellant having requested Shakti Singh to telephone Sunil Kumar as he had to leave early and the fact that after the incident he had informed the Police.Both these witnesses have testified that before the arrival of the Police, the appellant had left the spot of the incident.A.615/2013 Page 7 of 15Based on the testimonies of both the witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-5, the following four important aspects emerge:(i) The appellant, the deceased, PW-1 Shakti Singh and PW-5 Prem were present at the spot of the incident on the fateful night at the relevant time;(ii) The appellant was eagerly waiting for Sunil Kumar to relieve him and he repeatedly requested PW-1 to call up Sunil.(iii) The appellant had told PW-1 "Uncle Mujhe Bacha Lo";(iv) The deceased was found lying in a pool of blood, the Police was informed and before the Police arrived the appellant had left the spot of the incident.A.615/2013 Page 8 of 15A defence was raised before the trial court that some unknown persons had scaled the wall of the godown, killed Sunil Kumar and fled from the spot.The offence has been committed, it seems on the spur of the moment, on account of delay by the deceased in relieving the appellant, whose duty hours had come to an end.The testimony of PW-5 also shows that the night duty allocated to the appellant had been switched by the agency and even the room provided to him had been taken away and given to Crl.PW-2 has also testified that the deceased had made a complaint against the appellant of consuming liquor at the place of work.It has also come in the evidence that the appellant was in fact in a hurry to reach home as his gona was fixed on the next morning.A.615/2013 Page 12 of 15There was no malice.The meeting was a chance meeting.His conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life are liable to be set aside."A.615/2013 Page 13 of 15Having regard to the facts and circumstances, which would show that the offence was not pre-planned; no weapon of offence was used except what was lying on the spot; the act was committed in a heat of the moment; two blows were inflicted on the head of the appellant; the appellant did not act in a cruel manner; the utterances of the appellant to PW-1 "Uncle Mujhe Bacha Lo", which would show the element of remorse; the age of the appellant; the fact that the appellant has clean antecedents; and in view of the settled position of law in the case of Jagtar Singh (supra), we feel that this case should fall under Section 304 Part II of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, the appellant's conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 304 Part-II IPC.Consequently, the sentence of the appellant is modified from life imprisonment to seven and a half years.A.615/2013 Page 14 of 15The appeal is partly allowed.The appellant shall serve the remaining sentence, as modified.Let a copy of this order be sent to the concerned Trial Court as well as to the Superintendent Jail by fax as well as through email for necessary compliance.Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.G.S.SISTANI, J SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J APRIL 30, 2015 msr Crl.A.615/2013 Page 15 of 15A.615/2013 Page 15 of 15
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
16,003,818 |
item no. 163 sdas C.R.M. 5324 of 2019 In Re.: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.06.2019 in connection with Bidhannagar (South) Police Station Case No. 57 dated 07.05.2019 under Sections 341/354A/323/506/509 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Sukesh Adhikary ..... petitioner Mr. Monish Sen, Mr. Debdas Khana, Mr. Avijit Roy ... for the petitioner Mr. Sandip Chakraborty .... for the State This application is dismissed as not maintainable as the offences cited in the F.I.R. are bailable.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
285,819 |
(i) PW.1 is the wife of the deceased, Chinnakkalai.PW.2 is the daughterof PW.1 and the deceased and she was given in marriage to the accused/appellant.He was a native of Vellottam.The body wassubjected to Post-Mortem by PW.12, attached to the Government Hospital,Dindigul, and he gave a Post-Mortem Certificate, which was marked as Ex.P.17wherein it is mentioned that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhaemorrhage due to injuries sustained and injuries due to vital organs, about 12to 16 hours prior to autopsy.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the judgement of the Principal Sessions Division,Dindigul District dated 28.9.2006 made in S.C.No.172 of 2005 whereby the soleaccused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder and awardedlife imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo threeyears rigorous imprisonment, apart from five years rigorous imprisonment andfine of Rs.3,000/- on each count under Section 307 IPC (2 counts).From the time ofmarriage, he did not maintain her properly and hence, she used to go and stay inher parental home.On 12.3.2005, that was on the date of occurrence, in themorning hours, he came to his father-in-law's house and asked to send his wifealong with him and he was informed that his father-in-law, the deceased had goneout and she would come after her father's return and in the evening hours, at6.00 p.m, he came to his father-in-law's house and asked his wife to come withhim but he was informed that since he was always quarrelling with her, afterconvening a panchayat, she would be sent and thereafter, at 9.00 p.m, he camewith an aruval, MO.1 and attacked the deceased indiscriminately and when PW.2and PW.3 intervened, they were also attacked and they also sustained injuries.(ii) Immediately, PW.1 rushed to the respondent police station along withPW.2 and PW.3 where PW.18, Sub-Inspector of Police was on duty and gave acomplaint, Ex.P.1 and on strength of which a case was registered in CrimeNo.55/2005 under Sections 324 and 302 IPC.Express F.I.R., Ex.P.23, wasdespatched to the Court.(iii) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R, the Inspector of Police, PW.19,took up investigation and proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and preparedan Observation Mahazar Ex.p.11 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.24 and he also conductedinquest over the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses andpanchayatdars and the inquest report was marked as Ex.Whenhe was examined, he came to give a confessional statement in the presence ofwitnesses and recorded the same and the admissible portion of which was markedas Ex.P.5 and he produced the Aruval, MO.1 used in the commission of offence andthe same was recovered under the cover of Mahazar Ex.(v) On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed afinal report.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.Necessarycharges were framed against the accused.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 19 witnesses and relied on 28 Exhibits and 10 MOs.Oncompletion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused wasquestioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which was denied on the part of theaccused.Neither witness was examined nor document was marked on the side ofthe defence.The trial Court after hearing the arguments advanced by eitherside and on considering the materials available on record, took the view thatthe prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts in respect of thecharges levelled against the accused and found the accused guilty of the chargesand awarded punishments as referred to above.Advancing the arguments on behalf of the accused/appellant, the learnedcounsel appearing for the appellant would submit that-(i) in the instant case, the prosecution had failed to prove its casebeyond reasonable doubts.It is true the prosecution had three eye-witnessesbut they are all closely related to the deceased and they are not onlyinterested witnesses but their evidence was thoroughly discrepant and it isliable to be rejected.(ii) Apart from that, the injuries claimed by the witnesses, PW.2 and PW.3were not sustained injuries and the evidence was so artificial.(iii) The evidence of the Doctor, PW.12, who conducted autopsy and thecontents of Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.(iv) The arrest and the so called confessional statement and the recoveryof Material Objects were nothing but cooked up for the purpose of theprosecution case.The accused came from hisnative place to the place of father-in-law at 6.00 p.m., when he was ill-treated, which would naturally provoke son-in-law, and when he was in drunkenmood at 9.00 p.m., he came and attacked the deceased and thus, there wassufficient provocation and it was provoked by the father-in-law, the deceased,and it was sustained provocation and it was lingering in the mind of theaccused/appellant, which resulted in acting so and hence, it cannot be statedthat he acted or done with an intention but due to sustained provocation andhence, the Court has got to consider the same and it has got to be given effectin recording a finding that it is not a case of murder but a case of culpablehomicide not amounting to murder.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and alsoscrutinised the materials available.It is not in controversy that one Chinnakkalai, husband of PW.1 wasdone to death in the incident that had taken place at 9.00 p.m., on 12.3.2005and following the inquest made by the Investigating Officer on the dead body andpreparation of the inquest report, the dead body was subjected to Post-Mortem byDoctor, PW.12, who has categorically witnessed before the Court and the contentsof the Post-Mortem, Ex.P.17, are that the deceased would appear to have died ofshock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained and injuries due to vitalorgans, about 12 to 16 hours prior to autopsy and thus, the fact that he dieddue to homicidal violence was never disputed before the trial Court or beforethis Court and hence, there is no impediment for the Court in recording so.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theaccused/appellant, the prosecution relied on the evidence of three eye-witnesses, which it marched before the trial Court.It is true, PW.1 is thewife, PW.2 is the daughter and PW.3 is the son of the deceased.PW.2 and PW.3are injured witnesses.In the instant case, neither anycircumstances is noticed nor any reason is brought to the notice of the Court.Hence, no impediment was felt for accepting the testimony of these witnesses.The ocular testimony projected through PWs.1 to 3 have been fully corroboratedby the evidence of the Doctor PW.12, who conducted Post-Mortem and also thecontents of the Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.17 apart from the evidence ofDoctor PW.11, who examined PW.2 and PW.3 and the contents of the AccidentRegister Copy Exs.Yet another circumstance which is against the accused is the recoveryof MO.1 Aruval and also blood-stained shirt and dhothi viz., MO.9 and MO.10being produced by the accused/appellant following his confessional statement.In the instant case, from theevidence of PW.1, it would be quite clear that, from the time of marriage, theaccused/appellant did not maintain his wife properly which compelled her to stayin her mother's house.In the evening hours, he came to his father-in-law andhe asked him to send his wife PW.2, along with him.From the time of marriage,he was not properly maintaining her and hence, he was informed that a panchayathas got to be convened and then only his daughter would be sent with him.Even assuming that the accused wasprovoked, he left the place, and he came back at about 9.00 p.m., with anAruvual, MO.1 and attacked his father-in-law indiscriminately and caused hisinstantaneous death.Thus, there was nothing which would provoke theaccused/appellant or the provocation would have sustained to cause such heinouscrime.So, the act of the accused was actually one of murder attracting thepenal provision of Section 302 IPC, and awarding life imprisonment and fine hasgot to be sustained and accordingly, it is sustained.Insofar as the convictionand sentence awarded under Section 307 IPC (2 counts) is concerned, at the timeof occurrence, PW.2 and PW.3 sustained injuries when intervened, while thedeceased was attacking the deceased.The act of the accused insofar as PW.2 isconcerned, will attract only Section 326 IPC, and awarding five years rigorousimprisonment is sufficient and insofar as PW.3 is concerned, he sustained simpleinjuries, which would attract only section 324 IPC and the punishment of simpleimprisonment for one year is sufficient and accordingly, it is modified.Thefine imposed under Section 307 IPC (2) counts by the trial Court is ordered tobe treated as one imposed under Section 326 IPC and 324 of the IPC.Thesentences awarded are to run concurrently.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is disposed of.1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul District.2.Inspector of Police, Chinnalapatty Police Station, Dindigul District.(Crime No.55/2005)3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,585,099 |
ARDR CRR 1826 of 2018 Waqar Mohammad Khan & ors.The State of West Bengal & anr.Mr. Soumya Roy, Mr. Rajnil Mukherjee, Mr. Shantanu Dutta, Mr. Goutam Roy, Mr. Uttam Basak, ...for the petitioners This application is for quashing of a proceeding being GR case no. 1534 of 2016 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Durgapur arising out of Durgapur Police Station case no. 459 of 2016 under Sections 147/148/149/323/ 324/379/427/458/506/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Learned advocate for the revisionists submits that the daughter of the revisionist was given marriage to the family of the defacto complainant.The daughter of revisionist was subsequently driven out following a matrimonial discord between the parties.No order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon compliance of necessary formalities.(Subhasis Dasgupta, J.)
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,589,292 |
COMMON ORDER Though these revisions have been filed by the respective petitioners against the orders passed by the First Class Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Perambalur, by order dated 07.10.2016 in a separate orders, the issue raised in these revisions are one and the same and also, the facts pertaining to these revision cases are either the same or interconnected, these Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of by these Common Order.3.The petitioner had executed a bond under Section 107 read with 111 and 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code) on 05.09.2016 towards the Executive Magistrate for ensuring the good behaviour of the petitioner for a period of six months, being the bond period.4.However, inspite of such execution of bond by the petitioner, it is alleged by the respondent that the petitioner along with others had indulged in a crime on 13.09.2016, by which he had been one of the party in stone throwing in a Temple festival, by thus, the public peace and tranquillity in that locality was at stake.5.In view of the said involvement on the part of the petitioner, according to the respondent, since it was necessitated to proceed against the petitioner by invoking Section 122(1)(b) of the Code, notice was issued to the petitioner to appear before the Executive Magistrate and to show cause why the bond executed by him was not cancelled, in view of the alleged violation on the part of the petitioner, by invoking Section 122(1)(b) of the Code.Against this order, the present revision has been filed.6.Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, the facts are similar and the dates of the impugned order are also same.9.Subsequently, the petitioners had also approached this Court seeking for relaxation of the conditions imposed by this Court, by order dated 24.10.2016, while granting bail to the petitioners.10.When that petition to relax the conditions was taken up for consideration, on behalf of the respondent/prosecution, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted that the petitioners had been complying with the said conditions imposed by this Court, by making appearance before the respondent regularly, without fail.13.The very bond, directed to be executed by the petitioners herein under Section 107 of the Code, was to ensure the public peace and tranquillity in that locality, as at that time, the temple festival was proposed to be conducted, where the Executive Magistrate and the respondent police had been in apprehension that the petitioners may indulge in any criminal activity, by thus, law and order situation and public peace would be at stake and that is the reason why, they have been directed to execute the bond under Section 107 of the Code.With these observations, these Criminal Revision Cases are disposed of, as the petitioners bond period itself having been expired on 04.03.2017, no further orders are required to be passed on merits in this case.11.09.2017Index :yes/noInternet :yes/nobriToMr.R. Suresh,Sub-Inspector of Police,V. Kalathur Police Station,Mangalamedu Taluk,Perambalur District.R. SURESH KUMAR, J,bri Crl.R.C.Nos.1236 to 1239 of 201611.09.2017
|
['Section 107 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,589,834 |
However,it maintained the acquittal of another accused Shardi, mother of theaccused Krishan.This FIR was registered in furtherance of the rukka, Ex.PH,received by the Police Station Sadar Narwana, from Civil Hospital, Jind.After receiving the rukka ASI Umed Singh, PW9 along with police officersreached the Civil Hospital, Narwana.That police officer obtained theevidence certificate in respect of Smt. Rani, wife of Krishan.She wasadmitted to the hospital with burn injuries.The doctor declared Rani fitto make the statement and also provided her medico-legal report to theInvestigating Officer.Since Rani’s condition was serious, theInvestigating Officer summoned Sh.Baljit Singh, then SDJM Narwana for thepurpose of recording the statement of Rani.On the request of the police, the said SDJM came to the hospital andproceeded to record the statement of Rani.The statement of the deceasedwas recorded on 30th March, 1998 at about 11.40 a.m. As per the dyingdeclaration, Ext. PR/2 she was married to Krishan approximately 18-19 yearsago.Krishan was addicted to liquor and used to harass her.When sheserved food to Krishan, he would throw away the thali on the ground.From this wedlock, two sons were born aged 9 years and 7 yearsrespectively.According to Rani, accused Krishan used to give herbeatings whenever he was under the influence of liquor.Krishan also usedto make demands for a car, and used to ask Rani to bring money to purchasethe car from her father.She also stated that her father-in-law used tohelp her, but mother-in-law never helped.Shardi, mother of the accusedused to instigate him.On the fateful day, Rani herself took kerosene oil from the storeat about 7 a.m. in the morning to burn the stove.At that time, herhusband poured the kerosene oil on her body and set her on fire.On thenight previous to the occurrence, Krishan had come with his friend Bedu,son of Teka and asked her to prepare tea which she prepared and served toboth of them.According to Rani, when she was set on fire by the accused,her father-in-law and sister-in-law extinguished the fire and seeing themeven her husband helped in putting off the fire.Dead body was 160 cm.It was naked.Rigour mortis was present in all the limbs.There was a golden colour nazle coca.There were superficial to deep bones over the whole body except lower parts of both thigh, both legs, and foot.Line of demarcation was present.Singeing was present.Redning, blackning and peeling of skin was present.Vesication was present.Bones were superficial to deep and approximately 75%.The cause of death was due to burns and its complications which were anti-mortem in nature and sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.The following were handed over to the police.Dead body after Post Mortem Examination.2. Copy of PMR3. 11 Police papers duly signed.The probable time that elapse between the injury and death was between 3-4 day (as per record and between death) and post mortem was within 4-36 hours.Ext. PT is the carbon copy of the PMR which bears my signature.On police request Ex. PO I conducted the P.M. Examination on the dead body of Rani wife of Krishan which is also accompanied by the inquest report Ex. PN which are in total 11 pages and I initial the same.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx by defence counsel.The burns were on the whole body except as mentioned in the statement.The burns are classified of three types.Swatanter Kumar, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and orderof sentence dated 17th July, 2007 passed by the High Court of Punjab andHaryana at Chandigarh whereby the High Court reversed the judgment ofacquittal passed by the Trial Court against the accused Krishan.The father-in-law andsister-in-law had come to the place of occurrence after hearing herscreams, but none of them were present when the accused Krishan hadsprinkled kerosene on her body.Vide Ext. PJ, PW9 had sought the opinion of the doctor, which wasrecorded vide Ext. PJ/1 wherein it was stated that “patient is fit to makeher statement”.The Investigating Officer then requested the SDJM torecord the statement of the deceased which then was recorded vide Ext. PR/2and thumb impression of Rani was taken.This was signed by the SDJM.Based upon the dying declaration made by the deceased, FIR wasregistered under Sections 498A, 307, 109 and 34 IPC.However,subsequently on 2nd April, 1998 Rani died and the offence was converted toSection 302 IPC and FIR accordingly amended.The Investigating Officerprepared the site plan, recorded statement of PWs and prepared the InquestReport, Ext.PN, with regard to the dead body of Rani.The doctor, PW14,who performed the post-mortem upon the body of the deceased and noticedthe condition of the body and injuries upon the body of the deceased statedin his statement as follows:-“On dated 3.4.98 vide PMR No. 325/98 I conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Rani wife of Krishan Balmiki by Caste, resident of Sudkan Kalan, District Jind.Dead body was brought by H.C. Om Parkash 451 and Identified by Rajinder and Wazir.I found the following on Post-mortem examination.Epidermal, Dermo-epidermal and Deep.Burns were of superficial and deep burns.It is correct that due to burns there is severe pains, and the medication is prescribed.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.”The accused were directed to face trial before the Court of Sessions.The learned Trial Court vide its detailed judgment dated 15th November,1999 confirmed the opinion that the prosecution had not been able to proveits case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and, thus,while giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted both the accused.The TrialCourt found that in the facts of the present case, it was not safe to relyupon the dying declaration of the deceased and acquitted both the accused.It will be useful to refer to the relevant findings of the trial court.“14.All the material witnesses examined by the prosecution namely, PW1 Ramdhari, PW3 Mamo, mother of deceased, PW4 Nirmala sister of accused Krishan have not supported the prosecution version in any manner and they were declared hostile on the request of the learned PP and were cross-examined by him but nothing favourable to the prosecution came out of them.The only piece of evidence against accused Krishan is the dying declaration recorded by Shri Baljeet Singh then SDJM, Narwana in which Rani has implicated her husband Krishan for the present occurrence.PW11 Dr. B.R. Kayat who admitted Rani has stated in the cross examination that Krishan accused was also admitted in the hospital at the same time on the same and he also suffered burn injuries and Krishan remained admitted in the hospital for 21 days.From this it is proved that Krishan tried to extinguish the fire and that is why he also received burn injuries along with Rani.DW2 Ram Rati who is real sister of Rani has stated that Krishan was not present in the house at the time of occurrence but he came to the spot from outside and he also helped the other family members in extinguishing the fire.So, from the evidence it is proved that Krishan accused took part in extinguishing the fire and Rani was got admitted in the hospital alongwith Krishan.The parents of the deceased have clearly stated that accused Krishan was not addicted to liquor and he never harassed Rani for bringing less dowry and that accused Krishan never demanded any dowry articles although the marriage took place more than 18/19 years ago.Similarly sister of the deceased who was married with the brother of the accused Krishan and who appeared as DW2 has also stated that it was a natural death because Rani caught fire while preparing tea and Rani told the witness that Krishan was not at fault and accused Krishan took part in extinguishing the fire.The material witnesses were declared hostile on the question of the learned PP and were cross-examined by him but nothing favourable to the prosecution came out them.There is no evidence on record that accused Krishan or her mother Sardhi might have ever treated Rani with cruelty for bringing fewer dowries or for bringing more dowries.It is also not proved from the evidence of the prosecution that accused Krishan might be addicted to liquor.So now we are left with the dying declaration.......Similarly, even the sister of the deceased who was present at the time of occurrence has not implicated the two accused in any manner.Further she has stated that it was accidental fire and Krishan accused extinguished the fire.”It is free from blemish.The act of the Magistrate cannot be suspected when he records the dying declaration as a part of the judicial function, which carries great sanctity.The circumstance would further strengthen the duly proved and unequivocal dying declaration.It may be in the form of question and answer and the answers be written in the words of the person making the declaration.To its correctness and authenticity, there can hardly be any challenge.After receiving the rukka at the police station, PW9 had rushed to thehospital and vide Ex.PJ/2 submitted application for recording the statementof the deceased.The doctor vide Ex. PJ/1 issued a certificate of fitnessto record the statement of Rani.They dying declaration is Ex.PR/2 andphotocopy thereof was marked as Ex.This was recorded by the SDJM inhis handwriting after questioning the deceased.Ex.PR/2 was signed by theSDJM as well as the thumb impression of Rani was taken, which was dulyidentified by the Investigating Officer.The proceedings to that effectwere duly recorded as giving complete details as to how the dyingdeclaration came to be recorded and the proceedings were submitted to theSDJM and the Area Magistrate.In the dying declaration,the deceased did not unnecessarily involve the other family members of theaccused Krishan.On the contrary, she specifically stated that her father-in-law and sister-in-law were always helping her and, in fact, even triedto douse the fire.She had 75% burns.The doctor issued the endorsement, Ex.PJ/1, declaringthat the deceased was fit to make statement and he also permitted theMagistrate to record the statement of the deceased and she remained fitduring the recording of her statement.According to this witness, he hadgranted endorsement (Ex. PJ/1) at 11.15 a.m. and then he granted the othercertificate, Ex.PR/3 at about 11.42 a.m. certifying that she remained fitduring recording of her statement.He also stated that the Magistrateremained present in the hospital for about 30 minutes.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant heavily relied uponthe answer of the doctor in his cross-examination, where he stated that “itis correct that both hands of Rani were burnt, including fingers andthumb.” The deceased is stated to have suffered 75% burns.This answer ofthe witness in face of his statement in examination-in-chief does not bringany advantage, inasmuch as no specific question was put to the doctor thatthe extent of burns was such that her thumb impression could not have beentaken.No such question was put to this witness.Not even a suggestionwas made to the doctor and the Investigating Officer to the effect that itwas not possible to take the thumb impression of the deceased in the stateof health that she was in.Dr. R.K. Wadhwa, PW14, who performed theautopsy on the dead body of Rani clearly noticed that there weresuperficial to deep burns all over the body except her lower parts of boththighs, both legs and feet.The next submission was that since PW1, PW3 and PW4, the relatives ofthe deceased had themselves turned hostile, it cannot be said that theprosecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.On the contrary, this will also take this case outside the category ofcases where an accused can be convicted solely on the basis of a dyingdeclaration.No doubt, these three witnesses were declared hostile by theprosecutor with the leave of the court.However, this Court can still relyon and refer to the statements of these three witnesses to the extent thatthey support the case of the prosecution.PW1, father of the deceased,stated that he had four daughters and one son.His daughters, Rani and RamRati were married to Krishan and Sat Narain about 19 years back.He deniedthat Krishan used to treat his daughter with cruelty.But two vital piecesof information that clearly surfaced from his examination-in-chief areinferred by the following statement “about two years ago, Krishan came tome and demanded money for purchase of vehicle, but I refused......Statement of my daughter was recorded before my arrival.” It was,thereafter, that the witness was declared hostile and cross-examined.Similarly, PW3, mother of the deceased stated that her daughter was neverharassed by the accused for bringing less dowry and was declared hostile.PW4 is the sister of Krishan and she stated that Krishan was not at homeand the deceased caught fire while she was preparing the tea.Maybe, itwas not possible for the Court to convict the accused on the basis of thestatements of PW1, PW3 and PW4 respectively.These witnesses support thecase of the prosecution to a limited.Rani and Ram Rati were two sisterswho were married to two real brothers, i.e. Krishan and Sat Narain.Thisfact has duly been noticed by the Trial Court in its judgment.However,its impact on the case of the prosecution and the reason for not supportingof the prosecution case by these witnesses was completely ignored by theTrial Court.PW1 supports the dying declaration to the extent that moneywas demanded for purchase of a car and he had refused to meet the demand.To that extent, this fully corroborates the dying declaration made by thedeceased.There also two witnesses had turned hostile and a dying declaration wasinvolved.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,591,782 |
Heard on I.A.No.11514/2017 an application for grant of bail and suspension of sentence on behalf of appellant.This is first application under section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of sentence and grant of bail on behalf of appellant, who has been convicted under sections 120-B, 420, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of IPC to undergo R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months and under section 471 of IPC to undergo R.I. for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively.Appellant has been convicted for maximum sentence of three years.During trial he remained on bail.A.No.2209/2017 Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 19.12.2017 and on such other dates as may be directed from time to time in this regard.I.A.No.11514/2017 stands allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,606,431 |
Apln 5383-2016Tahsil and Dist.Saluba Mhaske is father of deceased Laxman.Raghunath is a brother of Saluba.There was some dispute betweenRaghunath and Shabbir as the wages in respect of few months werenot given to Raghunath by Village Panchayat.Public Prosecutor, for applicant/ State.WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 495 OF 2016 Saluba s/o Ranganath Mhaske, Age 60 years, Occupation Agriculturists, R/o Gavali Pokhari Tq.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 :::Mr. A. D. Ostwal and Mr. K. D. Jadhav, Advocate for appellant.Ms. V. S. Choudhari, Addl.Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1/ State.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2016 Saluba s/o Ranganath Mhaske, Age 60 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Gavali Pokhari Tq.Jalna. ...Appellant Versus1) The State of Maharashtra.Through Police Station, Jalna.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 :::Mr. A. D. Ostwal and Mr. K. D. Jadhav, Advocate for appellant.Ms. V. S. Choudhari, Addl.Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1/ State.The first proceeding is filed by the State to challenge thedecision of acquittal given by learned Additional Sessions Judge,Jalna in Sessions Case No. 173 of 2014 in favour of respondents whowere accused No.2 to 5 in the said case.Charge was framed asagainst them for the offences punishable under Section 143, 147,148, 302, 504, 506 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code.CriminalAppeal No. 495 of 2016 is filed by the first informant to challengethe same decision of the trial Court.This appeal can be heard foradmission purpose.The third proceeding is filed as appeal forenhancement of the sentence given to accused No.1 Shabbir BashirChoudhari who is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section302 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code and when he is convictedfor the offence punishable under Section 304 ( Part - II) of IndianPenal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment forseven years.Both the sides are heard.This Court has gone throughthe record of evidence and the reasons given by the trial Court.2. Accused No.1 Shabbir is the Sarpanch of village Gawali Pokhari ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 ::: 4 Cri.On the day of theincident, Shabbir was asking to hand over the key and spanner inrespect of water supply scheme to Raghunath but he was not readyto hand over those articles unless his payment was made by VillagePanchayat.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 :::The incident in question took place after 06.30 p.m. in front ofthe house of Raghunath and house of Saluba.When Saluba andLaxman who were initially inside of the house, they heard the noiseof quarrel which was going on between Raghunah on one side andthe accused on the other, they came out.Laxman went ahead tosettle the dispute and at that time accused Rafiq held Laxman fromback side and then Shabbir gave blow of knife on the chest ofLaxman.Others gave abuses to Raghunath and others and thenthey went away.Attempt was made to save the life of Laxman byshifting him to Civil Hospital, Jalna but doctors declared that, he wasalready dead.FIR was given by Saluba on the same day and thecrime came to be registered at 09.00 p.m.Before trial Court, prosecution has examined eye witnesseslike Saluba and Raghunath.There is circumstantial evidence as ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 ::: 5 Cri.Apln 5383-2016against Rafiq of the nature that his shirt having blood stains wasrecovered and seized on the next day of the incident after hisarrest .Human blood was detected on one sleeve of his shirt.It wassubmitted for the State and for the first informant that as all therespondents had come together, the provision of Section 149 ofIndian Penal Code can be used against all of them and it can beinferred that there was common object to use the knife and to finishsomebody like at least Raghunath.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:12 :::There is only aforesaid circumstantial evidence which givescorroboration to direct evidence as against Rafiq.The evidence onthe record to the effect that all the five accused had come togetheris there but only Raghunath had quarrel is the circumstaqnce whichis not in favour of the prosecution to show that they had commonobject of murder.Laxman came outside all of a sudden only, afterhearing the noise of quarrel.Evidence is given to the effect that hewanted to separate the parties to settle the dispute.No evidence isgiven that, the accused persons had started assaulting Laxman also.In view of these circumstances, the other probability is there thatLaxman was there and Rafiq probably tried to do the same thing liketo separate the persons who were involved in the quarrel.Considering the length of the knife which was around seven inchesand the evidence that accused No.1 Shabbir took out the knife andall of a sudden used it creates probability that other accused had no ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:13 ::: 6 Cri.Apln 5383-2016knowledge that Shabir was carrying knife and he had intention touse the knife against anybody including Laxman.In view of thesecircumstances it was not possible to infer even as against Rafiq that,he had knowledge about the intentions of Shabbir and only tofacilitate the assault which Shabbir was to make he had held Laxmanfrom back side.It was evening time and considering the nature ofdispute it is not possible to draw inference of formation of unlawfulassembly with common object of finishing somebody.No assaultwas made by accused No.2 to 5 on anybody from the side of the firstinformant including Raghunath.In view of these circumstances, thisCourt holds that nothing can be achieved by admitting the appealfiled by the first informant against the acquitted accused and bygranting leave to State to file appeal as against the acquittedaccused persons.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:13 :::The evidence as against Shabbir is of different nature and hehad come there with the knife.He gave the blow of knife on thechest of Laxman and that caused the death of Laxman.There wasthe dispute between Shabbir and Raghunath and the evidence onthe record shows that, in any case on that day Shabbir wanted toget back the spanner and the key from Raghunath.In view of thesecircumstances this Court holds that, there is good arguable case forthe State for offence of murder as against Shabbir and so to thatextent the proceeding filed by first informant against Shabbir can be ::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:13 ::: 7 Cri.Apln 5383-2016admitted.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:13 :::In the result application No. 5383 of 2016 filed as againstShabbir - respondent No.1 is allowed and application filed as againstrespondents No.2 to 5 is dismissed.Leave is granted to file appealas against Shabbir only.As this Court has granted to State leave tofile appeal as against Shabbir for the offence punishable underSection 302 of Indian Penal Code and reasons for the same aregiven, for the same reasons the appeal as against Shabbir filed bythe State is admitted.Appeal No. 495 of 2016 stands dismissed.The appeal No. 518 of 2016 is hereby admitted.Comply theprovisions of Section 390 of Code of Criminal Procedure only in theappeal filed by the State.Send back the record to trial Court forpreparation of paper book and list the matter after receipt of paperbook.::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 06:46:13 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,606,730 |
Mr.P.T.Perumal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Criminal Revision Case.He has also made an endorsement to that effect.Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
286,174 |
It is not in dispute that deceased Babybai was married to accused Bikai.Their marriage had taken place five years before the incident.JUDGMENT S.P. Khare, J.The appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to a fine of Rs. 500/- each.The Gauna took place about two years ago.Babybai sustained burn injuries in the intervening night of 12th and 13th July, 1997 in Village Khad in the house of her husband.Accused Bulakibai is her mother-in-law and accused Chutkun is her father-in-law.Deceased Babybai had no issue.The prosecution case is that there used to be quarrel between Babybai and the accused persons as she had not been able to beget any child.According to the prosecution the accused persons poured kerosene on the body of Babybai when she was sleeping on a cot in her room and set her on fire.The information was sent to Sunderlal (P.W. 1) and Sudhribai (P.W. 2) who are parents of the deceased.They came to Village Khad and saw their daughter.Sunderlal (P.W. 1) lodged the report (Ex. P-1) at Jaisinghnagar on 13-7-1997 at 6.30 A.M. Babybai was admitted in Jaisinghnagar Hospital.According to him he began recording the dying declaration at 7.15 A.M. and finished it at 7.40 A.M. Dr. Sampurnanand (P.W. 8) certified that Babybai was conscious and in a fit condition to give her statement.It is also the prosecution case that certain articles were seized from the place of incident and these were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar and as per report (Ex. P-29) of this laboratory, presence of kerosene was detected on some of the articles.Kerosene was also found on the clothes which the deceased was wearing at the time of the incident.The accused persons pleaded not guilty.They have not set up any specific defence.The Trial Court found that the dying declaration of the deceased is true and voluntary and on that basis convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated at the outset.In this appeal it has been argued that the dying declaration is vague and the deceased was sleeping when her body is said to have been set on fire and therefore, she could not have seen the person who actually poured the kerosene on her and ignited the fire.It is also argued that some of the witnesses of the neighbourhood who have been declared hostile have stated that the deceased made a declaration after the incident that she caught fire while cooking food and therefore, it can not be said that the deceased was set on fire by the accused persons.It is also contended that there is no specific evidence on the point who poured the kerosene and who ignited the fire and therefore, the accused persons can not be convicted on the basis of vague declaration of the deceased that they were found standing near her when she got up after her body caught fire.It is also pointed out that father-in-law and the mother-in-law of the deceased actually tried to save the deceased from being burnt and in that process father-in-law also sustained injury OB his hand and therefore, they deserve the benefit of doubt.The evidence on record has been scrutinised by us in light of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants.K.S. Sen (P.W. 11) was Naib Tehsildar and Executive Magistrate.He has deposed that on 13-7-1997 he received information from the police that the dying declaration is to be recorded in Jaisinghnagar Hospital.He went there.He obtained the certificate of Dr. Sampurnanand Dubey (P.W. 8) to the effect that Babybai was in a fit condition to make her statement and then he commenced recording her dying declaration.He commenced recording the dying declaration at 7.15 AM.and Finished it at 7.40 A.M. He obtained the thumb impression of the declarant.He also obtained certificate of the doctor at the end of the declaration that Babybai was conscious throughout and was in a condition to give her statement.He has also stated that no police officer or any relation of the deceased was present at the time he recorded the dying declaration.According to the dying declaration (Ex. P-14), the deceased was sleeping and she got up when she was set on fire.After waking up she saw her father-in-law, mother-in-law and her husband near her cot.Again in Para 3 she has stated that she was set on fire when she was sleeping.She has further stated that her mother-in-law used to say that she does not want to keep her in her house as she has no child.She has further stated that she was brought to Jaisinghnagar Hospital by her parents, father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband.A close scrutiny of this dying declaration shows that the names of the three accused persons have been taken by the deceased as the perpetrators of the crime.But at the same time she has stated that she was sleeping when she was set on fire and she could not see the specific part played by each of the appellants.9; Sunderlal (P.W. 1) is father of the deceased.He has deposed that he went to the house of father-in-law of his daughter on hearing the news that she has caught fire but she did not tell him anything in the village how she caught fire as she was not able to speak.In cross-examination he has stated that accused Bikai who is husband of his daughter was having separate food from his parents.Sudhribai (P.W. 2) has also deposed that when she reached Village Khad her daughter was alive but she was not able to speak.From the testimony of these two witnesses it is clear that deceased Babybai did not make any statement in the village.Balkaran (P.W. 3), Sarju Prasad (P.W. 4) and Jageshwar (P.W. 5) are neighbours of the accused persons and they have been declared hostile.They have resiled from their statements under Section 161, Cr.PC.They have tried to support the accused persons by deposing that deceased Babybai had made a declaration that she caught fire when she was cooking food.It is difficult to believe this part of the evidence of these witnesses as there could be no cooking at about 12 O'clock in the night.Dr. Sampurnanand (P.W. 8) has deposed that he examined Babybai when she was alive.But he is not in a position to say whether it is a case of suicide or homicide.M.A. Khan (P.W. 17) is the Investigating Officer.He has deposed that on 13-7-1997 he recovered certain articles from the place of incident as per seizure memo (Ex. P-24) and these were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory in sealed condition.The report of the laboratory is Ex. P-29 which shows that kerosene was found on these articles.That rules out the theory of accidental fire as spoken by the three hostile witnesses.Ram (D.W. 1) has stated that deceased Babybai had made a declaration in her house that she has caught fire while cooking the food.This witness has further stated that Sunderlal (P.W. 1), father of the deceased, asked his daughter to implicate the three accused persons and also asked her to make such a statement before the Magistrate.Babulal (D.W. 2) and Vijay Kumar (D.W. 3) have deposed that the accused persons were trying to extinguish the fire when they reached the spot.From the entire evidence on record and the dying declaration (Ex. P-14) we are of the opinion that appellants Bulakibai and Chutkun Choudhary deserve benefit of doubt.According to the dying declaration they were standing with accused Bikai near the cot of the deceased.It is not unlikely that they reached near the cot of the deceased after hearing the noise.They were living separate from their son Bikai.That has been admitted by Sunderlal (P.W. 1), father of the deceased.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,617,634 |
(a)The deceased in this case was one Perumal.There was a longstanding land dispute between the 2nd accused and the deceased.The 1st accusedis the son of the 2nd accused.P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased and P.W.1 istheir son.P.W.5 was then working under thedeceased.There is a common Well just by the side of the house of the 1staccused, in which, according to the prosecution, the deceased had right to takewater.(b)On 04.12.2005, P.W.5 had gone to the said Well, for taking water.It was 6.00 p.m. The 1st accused objected to the same and attacked P.W.5.P.W.5 returned to the house of the deceased and told him about the same.Atabout 6.30 p.m., on hearing about the same from P.W.5, the deceased asked P.W.5and P.W.2 to go to the well.Accordingly, they went to the Well followed by thedeceased.Both the accused were there near the Well.The 1st accused was armedwith a stick.The deceased asked them as to why did they attack P.W.5.Immediately, the 1st accused attacked the deceased on his hand, with stick.The2nd accused fisted the deceased on his chest, repeatedly.The 1st accused againattacked the deceased on his head.The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 5.P.Ws.3 and 4 raised alarm.The accused fled away from the scene of occurrence.Thereafter, the deceased came in his cycle to his house and complained of chestpain as well as pain on his hand.(c)P.W.3 informed P.W.1 about the occurrence, over phone.P.W.1rushed to the house.The deceased told him that he had pain on the chest and onthe hands.The deceased also told P.W.1 that he was attacked these accused.Then, P.W.1 took the deceased to the hospital.He complained of chest pain.His pulse rate was not measurable.BloodPressure had also gone down.Then he proceeded to the place ofoccurrence on 05.12.2005 at 6.00 a.m. He prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.2) and a Rough Sketch (Ex.P-15), in the presence of witnesses.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) This is an appeal against acquittal.The State is the appellant.The respondents herein are the accused in S.C.No.23/2006 on the file of thelearned Sessions Judge, Karur.They stood charged for the offence under Section302 read with Section 34 IPC.On his way, P.W.1 went toPasupathipalayam Police Station and informed about the occurrence.From there,he took the deceased to Government Hospital at Karur.(d)P.W.13 was an Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to GovernmentHospital, Karur.On 04.12.2005, at about 8.30 p.m., he examined the deceased.The deceased told him that he was attacked by three known persons, with woodenlogs.P.W.13 admitted him as an inpatient.After admission, within short time, the deceased died.(e)P.W.18, the then Inspector of Police, attached toPasupathipalayam Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P-1-Complaint, registered acase in Crime No.698/2005 under Section 302 IPC.P-14 is the FIR.Heforwarded the complaint and FIR to the Court.Then he went tothe Hospital and conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, between 7.30a.m.and 9.30 a.m. Ex.P-16 is the Inquest Report.Then he forwarded the bodyfor postmortem.(f)P.W.12 Dr.Selvakumar conducted autopsy on the body of thedeceased on 05.12.2005 at 9.50 a.m. He found the following injuries on the bodyof the deceased."A lacerated injury 1 x 1cm x muscle depth over left upper arm.O/D.Skull 100mlof blood present in the sub scalp in the occipital region.Cranial cavitycontain 200 ml of blood.Skull base fracture.Hyoid intact.Heart chamberscontain 50 gms of clotted blood.Stomach contained 200gms of undigested foodparticles.Bladder empty.All the internal organs are pale.P-6 is the postmortem certificate.He opined that the deceased would appearto have died of shock and haemorrhage due to head injury, about 10 to 15 hoursprior to autopsy.(g)Continuing the investigation, P.W.18 examined the eye-witnesses and recorded their statements.On the same day, at 1.15 p.m., nearThanthonimalai Municipal Office, P.W.18 arrested both the accused.On sucharrest, the 1st accused gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed theplace where he had hidden the wooden log.In pursuance of the same, he took thepolice and the witnesses to the said place and produced M.O.1 wooden log.ThenP.W.18 forwarded both the accused to Court, for judicial remand.He forwardedthe material objects to the Court, with a request to the Court to forward thesame for chemical examination.The dress materials found on the deceased werealso sent for chemical examination.3.Based on the above materials, the trial court framed a lone chargeunder Section 302 read with 34 IPC against both the accused and they denied thesame and pleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.In order toprove the charge, on the side of the prosecution, 18 witnesses were examined and16 documents were marked, besides 6 material objects.Out of the above saidwitnesses, P.Ws.2 to 5 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.4.When the above incriminating evidence were put to the accusedunder Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied them as false.On their side, theyexamined 3 witnesses.D.W.1 is the sister-in-law of the 1st accused and D.W.2is the wife of the 2nd accused.These two witnesses have stated that in respectof taking water from the Well, there was only a scuffle between the deceased andthe 1st accused and he was not at attacked.D.W.3 Dr.R.Vallinayagam is aForensic Medicine Expert.Second opinion has been obtained from him, byexamining him as a defence witnesses to offer his opinion regarding the natureof the injuries found on the deceased and the possible cause for the same.Having considered the above materials, the trial court found the accused notguilty and acquitted them from the charge levelled against them.That is howthe State is before this Court with this appeal.5.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for theappellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also perusedthe records, carefully.6.The lower court has found that at the earliest opportunity whenthe deceased was taken to the hospital, he told the Doctor that he was attackedby three known persons, with wooden logs.This is certainly a dying declarationfalling within the sweep of Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. But, beforethe Court, there are only two accused.Even among the two, one accused alonewas armed with wooden log and the other was not armed with any weapon.Thus,the earliest oral dying declaration made by the deceased to the Doctor is intotal conflict with the prosecution case.7.Nextly, according to the charge, the 1st accused attacked thedeceased with wooden log, on his head.But, P.Ws.2 to 5 have uniformly statedthat the 1st accused attacked the deceased only on his left hand.They have notstated that any of the accused attacked the deceased on his head.It is theirevidence that the 2nd accused fisted the deceased on his chest.The lower courthas found that there was no corresponding injury on the chest at all.So far asthe head injury, which is sought to be proved to be fatal, no witness hasstated that any of the accused attacked the deceased on the head.Thus, themedical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution at all, in anymanner.8.It is the evidence of P.W.1 that the deceased complained of painon the chest and hand.It is also the evidence of P.W.5 that the deceasedcomplained of pain on the chest and hand.He did not complain of any pain onthe head.P.W.13, Dr.At that time, he was told by the deceased that he was sufferingfrom chest pain alone.He did not say that he had pain on the head.In Ex.P-7,the Doctor has mentioned that the patient complained of only chest pain.Had itbeen true that the deceased was attacked by the accused with wooden log on thehead, certainly, there would have been pain and the deceased would have shownthe location of the attack made on the head to the Doctor.The very fact thatthere is no eye-witness account, thereby accounting the vital injury on thehead, would go to show that the prosecution has not come forward with the truthand P.Ws.2 to 5 would not have been witnesses to the occurrence at all.9.The evidence of D.W.3 also assumes importance in this case.D.W.3is a Forensic Medicine Expert.He has got experience of having conducted 2000postmortem examinations, spreading for a period of 15 years.He is a retiredProfessor in Forensic Medicine from Madras Medical College.He has opined thatif attack had really been made on the head with wooden log on the head with aformidable like weapon M.O.1, certainly there would have been atleast contusion.But, there was no contusion at all found.The Doctor has further opined thatthe postmortem was not conducted properly and the said postmortem examination isincomplete.He has stated that the Doctor who conducted postmortem had noticedonly a fracture to the skull, but he has not further explored as to whetherthere was any injury to brain.He has given lot of reasons as to why he quotedthe postmortem as an incomplete postmortem examination.The lower court hasgiven weightage for the evidence of D.W.3 also.We do not find any reason totake a different view.10.Having a scientific analysis, as stated above, when we lookinto the evidence let in by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution hasnot proved the case beyond reasonable doubts.There are lot of doubts asnarrated above which were not explained by the prosecution at all.In an appealagainst acquittal, unless it is shown that the view taken by the trial court isan impossible view, it is not possible for the appellate court to substitute itsview in the place of the view taken by the trial court.In this case, in ourconsidered opinion, the view taken by the trial court cannot be stated to be animpossible view.Thus, we are of the view that the trial court was right inacquitting the accused.The appealfails and the same is dismissed and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal,acquitting the respondents from the charge levelled against them, rendered bythe trial court is hereby confirmed.1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Karur District.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Inspector of Police, Pasupathipalayam Police Station, Karur District.
|
['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.
|
28,619,400 |
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,] The appellant is the 2nd accused in SC.No.27/2014 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Cuddalore.3 The facts leading to the filing of this Criminal Appeal and which are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows:3.1 The Accused No.1 and 2 are husband and wife and they are related to one Samatha who was aged about 64 years, residing at Veeran Koil Street, Periyan Colony, Anukampattu.Samatha is the mother of Rajamani (PW1) and about a month prior to the date of occurrence on 25.08.2013, the son of Rajamani (PW1) namely Kumaresan died and in connection with the death ceremony, both the accused went there and stayed in the house of Malar (PW4) who is the elder sister of Rajamani.3.2 On 25.08.2013, in the early morning hours at about 3.30 a.m., when samatha was sleeping in the house of her daughter Malar (PW4), both the accused with the motive of stealing 4 gms of Mangalasuthra and 2gms of gold balls (Thalli weighing 2 gms attached to Mangalasuthra) went near Samatha and A1 said to have strangled her neck from the rear side and also smothered her mouth with an hand and also kicker her on the left side of the head with legs and the appellant / A2, pressed her leg and at that time, her husband/A1 took the nylon rope (MO4) and put it around the neck of Samatha, strangled her and as a consequence, she died on the spot.3.3 PW1, daughter of the deceased, lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 to PW12, Sub-Inspector of Police of Kullanchavadi Police Station and would state among other things, that her mother in connection with the death of his son, came to her house and she and her husband went out in connection with their work and at that time, they handed over 2 gms ring, 2 chains weighing 4 gms, Mangalasuthra of his Daughter-in-law weighing 5 gms, 2 small gold balls attached to the Thali (weighing 1 gms each) and 2 gold coins (1 gms each) totally 17 gms and also a sum of Rs.10,000/- by putting in a small pouch to her mother Samatha (deceased) and at that time, A1 and A2 were present at the time of handing over the jeweleries and at about 9.00 p.m. on 24.08.2013, her elder sister Malar (PW4) went out of town and P.W.1 provided food to her mother [deceased] and A1 and A2 and thereafter, she went to sleep and at about 3.30 a.m. on 25.08.2013 and when she went to answer the nature's call, she heard some mourning sound and when she raised the query about the said sound, A1- Viji @ Vijayakanth who was staying with her mother in the house of PW4 had stated that Samatha is blabbering something in her sleep and sometime thereafter at about 4.00 a.m., A1 and A2/appellant went out urgently and PW1 asked her as to where they are going and A1 had stated that his wife [appellant/A2] is going to answer the nature's call and that he is accompanying her and sometime thereafter, both PW1 and her husband left to carryout the work of sugarcane cutting and at about 10.00 a.m. on the same day Aishwarya (Daughter-in-law of PW1)/PW3, telephonically informed that her grandmother/mother of P.W.1, was lying dead and immediately PW1 and her husband went to the house and saw the body and nearby the body, MO4-rope was found and it was used for drying cloths.3.4 PW1 ad PW2 checked her mother and found a ligature mark on the neck and when she checked up the pouch, they found jewels and cash were missing.PW1 wept and came out and she was informed by one Prabhu (PW5) and PW6 (Jayasundar) and Muthulakshmi (Wife of Jayasundar) that they saw A1 and A2 went on the early morning at about 4am along with the child urgently.P.W.1 further stated in the complaint marked as Ex.P1 that A1 and A2, apprehending with stealing of jewels and cash from samatha would be disclosed, had strangled and murdered her.3.5 P.W.12 after receipt of Ex.P1 compliant, has registered the FIR in Crime 204 of 2013 at about 17.00 hours on 25.08.2013 for the commission of offences under Section 380 and 302 of IPC and forwarded the original complaint and FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate.The printed FIR was marked as Ex.3.6 PW13 at the relevant point of time, was the Station House Officer of Kulanchavadi Police Station and on receipt of the FIR registered by PW12, took up the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and in the presence of Boopalan and PW7/Senthil, prepared the observation Mahazar marked as Ex.P2 and in the Rough Sketch (Ex.P8) and in the presence of the same witness, has recovered MO4 - an orange colour nylon rope measuring 11 feet and 6cm and MO5-saffron colour with gold outlined pouch and yet another white colour small pouch-MO6 under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P.3] and obtained their signatures.Transverse ligature mark of length 18 cm, breadth 1-1.5cm seen over front & left side of neck upper border is 8cm below chin, Lower border 7cm above supra sternal notch.Contusions seen over (1) above medical end of right eyebrow -0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm (b) Right cheek 1cm x 1cm x 1cm (c) above left eyebrow lateral end 2 in number end 0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm (e) left cheek 0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm (F) Left side of mouth (1) angle of the mouth 0.5cm x 0.5cm x 0.5cm (2) above upper lip 3cm x 1cmx 1cm (3) below angle of the mouth 2cm x 1cm x 1cm(g) angle of left mandible 3cm x 1cmx1cm(h) front of nect, middle 1/3cm x 2cm x 1cm x 1cm right side (i) back of neck 3cm x 0.5cm x0.5cm (j) Left front temporal region of head 10cm x 9cm x 2cm.On opening of the Head :On opening of the Neck : Contusion of middle 1/3rd of left sterno muscle.Hyoid bone & thyroid cartilage intact.Mucosa congested.3.9 PW.11 reserved the opinion as to the cause of death and given the opinion that the death would have occurred about 36 to 48 hours prior to autopsy.She had given the final opinion stating that deceased would appeared to have been died due to combined effects of ligature strangulation and head injuries sustained.3.10 PW13, continued with the investigation and on receipt of secret information, he went to Cuddalore Bus stand on 29.08.2013 at about 6.00 a.m. and effected the arrest of A1 and A2 and A1-Viji @ Vijayakanth voluntarily came forward to give the confession statement and it was recorded in the presence Narayan [PW8] and Devaraj [PW9] and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement, marked as Ex.P.10, A1 identified the shop in which the stolen jewels were sold.On 29.08.2013 along with the accused, PW13 went to Villupuram and A1 identified the shop under the name and style of Krishna Jewellery and the investigating officer examined one Soganlal (PW10), owner of Krishna Jewellery and one Subash, and they have stated that on 29.08.2013 at about 9.30 a.m., the accused came along with their child and told them that they are not having any money to buy milk for their child and therefore, produced the Mangalasuthra weighing 4 gms and 2 small gold balls and sold the same and received a sum of Rs.5,700/- and for that, PW10 has not issued any receipt.The said two articles were recovered under the cover of Mahazar under Ex.P4 and marked as MO1 and MO2 and both articles were sent under Form 95 to the Judicial Magistrate.3.11 PW13 has examined PW10, Subash and Constable Balaraman, Head Constable Murugan and PW11 and Geethanjali, the doctor who conducted autopsy and recorded their statements and after obtaining the Postmortem Certificate, he completed the investigation and filed the final report / charge sheet, charging A1 for the commission of the offences under sections 392, 302 of IPC and charging A2 for the commission of the offences under section 342, 392, 302 read with 34 of IPC, before the Committal Court.3.12 The Court of Judicial Magistrate III, Cuddalore, took the charge sheet on file in PRC No.30 of 2013 and issued summons to both the accused and on their appearance, furnished them with the copies of documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C and having found that the case is exclusively tried by the Court of Sessions, committed the same to the Principal Sessions Judge, who in turn, made over the case to the Mahila Court, Cuddalore.3.13 The Trial Court on appearance of the accused had framed charges against A1 and A2 under Section 302 as well as 397 of IPC and questioned them u/s.313[1][b] Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidences rendered by the prosecution and both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them and on behalf of both accused, no oral and documentary evidence let in.3.14 The prosecution in order to sustain their case, examined P.Ws.1 to 13 and marked Exs.(i) The staying of A1 and A2 with the deceased Samatha, on the date of occurrence on 25.08.2013 and fleeing away of A1 and A2 from the scene of occurrence on the early morning hours on 25.08.2013 after committing the offence.(ii) PWs 1,2,5 and 6, saw both of them leaving the house in a hurried manner.The 1st accused namely Viji @ Vijayakandh, is her husband.Both accused were charged for the commission of the offence under sections 302 and 397 of IPC.The Trial Court vide impugned Judgment dated 21.05.2015, had convicted both of them for the above said offences and imposed a sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for life to each of them for commission of offence under section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, with a default sentence of simple imprisonment for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment.The Trial Court ordered the sentences of imprisonment to run concurrently and they are also entitled to set-off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.2 The Accused No.2 who is the wife of accused No.1, challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Cout vide Judgment dated 21.05.2015, has filed this criminal appeal.3.7 PW13 recorded the submissions of PW1, PW2, PW3, Boopalan and PW7 under Section 161[3] of Cr.PC and on 26.08.2013, PW13 went to Mundiyanpakkam Government Hospital and in the presence of panchayatars, conducted the inquest and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P9 and thereafter, made a requisition for conducting the postmortem.3.8 PW11 on receipt of the body along with the requisition at about 1.00 pm on 26.08.2013, had commenced the post postmortem at about 1.30 pm on the same day and noted the following features :I.External Examination :-1.All finger nails cyanised.Face congested and swollen.Patchy peeling of enticles over chest and abdomen.Tongue protuding between the teeth to a length of 3cm.Marbling present over (n.c) of both shoulders.On opening of the Thorax :Rib cage intact.Heart normal size.Soft cut section : great vessels, valves coronaries intact.Chambers :emptyBoth lungs soft multiple (n.c) haemorrhages seen over the (n.c) Tissues.On opening of the Abdomen:Stomach : About 500 gm yellow coloured cooked free particles partially digested mucosa intact.Liver, Spleen and both kidneys : Normal in size, soft.Uters 6cm x 4cm x 2cm.3.15 The Trial Court, on consideration and appreciation of oral and documentary evidences and other materials, had convicted both the accused for the commission of the offences u/s.397 and 302 IPC and sentenced them as stated above and challenging the legality of the said conviction and sentence, A2 has preferred this appeal.4 The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A2 would submit that the case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the appellant / A2 has been implicated merely on account of the fact that she happens to be the wife of A1 namely Viji @ Vijayakandh.It is a further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A2 that even for the sake of arguments that both the accused were seen in the company of the deceased Samatha on the night hours on 25.08.2013, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that A2 had stolen the jewels and cash and she also played the vital role in commission of offence of murder.It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / A2 ever as per the version of the prosecution, her husband (A1) has been attributed with the fatal overt act and the role played by the appellant/A2 was that she caught hold of legs of the victim / deceased and the Postmortem Report marked as Ex.P6 coupled with the evidence of PW11 who conducted the autopsy, has not noted down any injury on contusion on the leg of the victim and as such, the implication of appellant /A2 for the commission of offence is per se unsustainable.(iii) PW1 has spoken about the fact that when she heard the sound / mourn of the deceased and asked A1, he told her that the deceased was blabbering something in sleeping and this is also one of the circumstances to prove that he was with the deceased along with his wife.(iv) The arrest and recovery of incriminating articles on the basis of the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 (Ex.P10) and the selling of jewels by A1 and A2 to PW10 / Pawn Broker.It is the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), the prosecution through the evidence let in by it, had linked the chain of circumstances and it had led to the only inference that both the accused had committed heinous offence / crime for gain and the Trial Court on further appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and further materials, had rightly reached the conclusion of convicting and sentencing the appellant / A2 and prays for dismissal of this appeal.6 This Court paid its best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submission and also perused the oral and documentary evidence and other materials as well as the original records.7 The following questions raised for consideration in this appeal:1.Whether the prosecution had proved all the circumstances leading to the commission of offences on the part of appellant / A2 along with her husband / A1?2.Whether the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for convicting appellant / A2 are sustainable?8 PW1 is the daughter of the deceased Samatha and wife of PW2 and as per her testimony, a month prior to the occurrence on the date of 25.08.2013, his son viz., Kumarakuru died and in connection with the death ceremony, both accused came to the house of her elder sister viz., Malar (PW4) and when PW1 asked the accused as to why they are staying in the house of P.W.4, they told her that since their house is not in a habitual condition, they came there to stay.PW1 further state that she and her husband were eking out their likelihood by cutting sugarcane and since they want to go out for the purpose of job, she handed over the cash of Rs.10,000/- along with some jewels by putting it in a pouch and handed over the same to her mother and at that time A1 and A2 were also present and her mother / deceased told A1 that he should also earn like that.PW1 would further depose that at about 9.00 p.m., she prepared and served food for her mother as well as for both the accused and went to sleep and at about 3.00 a.m. on the next day, she heard the mourning sound and when she asked A1, he told her that Samatha (Deceased) was blabbering something.PW1 came outside the house at about between 3.30 am and 3.45 am and she saw A1 was carrying his child and was going out of the rear entrance of the house of her elder sister (PW4) and A2 was preceding him.When PW1 asked A1 as to why he is leaving at this odd hour, he replied it by saying that A2 is going to answer the nature's call and he is accompanying her by way of protection.PW1 after completing the work went along with her husband for sugarcane cutting job.At about 10.00 am she was informed by her daughter-in-law (PW3) about the death of her mother and she and her husband rushed back and found that the pouch was empty and the jewels and cash given, was also stolen.PW1 made enquiry and she was informed by Prabhu (PW5), Jayasundar (PW6) and Muthulakshmi about seeing both the accused leaving the house at early morning.9 PW1 also identified the jewels in the pouch.According to the prosecution, after stealing the jewels, both the accused approached PW10/Pawn Broker who was carrying on the business of running the jewel shop and both of them had represented that for procuring milk for their child, they don't have money and therefore, sold Mangalsutra and other jewels attached to it and they received a sum of Rs.5,700/-.PW10 has also identified A1 and A2 in the Court.PW13 / Investigating Officer in his evidence, has spoken about the investigation and as regards selling of jewels to PW10 and he would depose in the chief examination that A1 and A2 were taken to the Shop of PW10 on 29.08.2013 and they examined PW10 and one Subash and they told PW10 that they did not have money to procure milk for their child and accordingly sold jewels for which a sum of Rs.5700/- has been paid.10 PW8 who was examined to speak about the arrest and recovery of MO.4 / Nylon Rope pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement of A1 marked as Ex.P10, has turned hostile.PW9 was also a witness to the arrest and recovery and in the chief examination, he has spoken to the said fact and in the cross examination admitted that he is related to the deceased Samatha.11 PW10 / Jewellery Shop owner in his chief examination has spoken about the coming of A1 and A2 to his shop and attempting to sell the jewels and the receipt of Rs.5,700/- on the pretext of not having money to buy milk for their child.PW10 would further depose in the chief examination that on 29.08.2013, Police came to the shop and seized Mangalsutra and small 2 Golden Balls attached to the Thali under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P4] and he along with his son had signed the same and he has also identified A1 and A2 in the Court.PW10 in the cross examination would state that before subscribing his signature in the Mahazar, the police has already written something and would admit that for pawning the jewels or selling the jewels, and for effecting recovery of the said jewels from his possession and custody, the police did not handover any receipt and during the course of investigation, in his statement, he did not specifically state as to which accused has handed over the jewels.12 The Investigating Officer [P.W.13] was cross examined and in his cross examination, he would depose that A1 in his confession statement had stated that he sold 6 gms of jewels and however having stated that for the purpose of getting milk for his child he did not have money and only for that purpose, he sold the jewels.PW13 would further depose that he has not filed any document to show that PW10 was the owner of the Krishna Jewellery and denied the suggestion that PW10 did not procure any bill.PW13 also made crucial admission that he has not filed any documents to show that A1 and A2 went to the shop of PW10 and sold the jewels and that was due to the reason that PW10 told him that for selling jewels, he did not prepare any bill.13 The prosecution through the testimonies of Pws.1,2,5 and 6 was able to prove that both the accused stayed with the Samatha (Deceased) and that on the early morning hours on the date of occurrence, have left the place hurriedly along with the child.14 PW9 has also spoken about the arrest and recovery of the jewels in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confession statement given by A1 and the said jewels were also identified by PW1 during the course of evidence.(2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 17 This Court keeping in mind the time tested legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence, carefully analysed the oral and documentary evidences and other materials.18 The motive for the commission of murder according to the prosecution on the part of A1 and A2 is to steal the jewels and cash which were in the custody of Samatha (Deceased) / mother of PW1 and therefore, the crucial aspect is in respect of the recovery of jewels.It is also to be remembered at this juncture that as per the case of the prosecution, it was A1 / Viji @ Vijaykandh, has been attributed with fatal overt act and appellant / A2, his wife held both the legs of the deceased.It is also to be noted at this juncture, the Postmortem report marked as Ex.P6 coupled with the evidence of PW11, did not reveal anything as to any contusion or other wound found on the legs of the deceased and it is also the case of the prosecution that A1 murdered by smothering the mouth of the deceased and kicked her and thereafter, by using MO.s 3 and 4, strangled her neck and as a consequence, she died of asphyxia and there should have been a struggle on the part of the deceased to escape from the same and in order to prevent the same, A2 must have strongly held the legs and curiously \, no injuries or marks have been noted.20 On a careful analysis of the evidence of the PW10 would disclose that both the accused came to the shop on 29.08.2013 and at about 9.00 am under the pretext of not having money to procure milk for their daughter, sold the jewels and received a sum of Rs.5,700/- towards sale consideration and he also identified both the accused in the Court.PW10 has also identified the jewels at the time of his chief examination and in the cross examination would depose that before he has subscribed his signature in the Mahazar, the Police has written something and the Police at the time of seizing the jewels, did not seek any record as to the pawning of the jewels or selling of the jewels and not issued any receipt for seizing the jewels.PW10 also made a crucial admission that he did state anything as to which accused had handed over the jewels to him during the course of investigation.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,621,207 |
He also obstructed the way with the motorcycle in front of them and told that as to why she is not accepting his friendship and when the complainant told him to give away then he caught hold her.Upon shouting her the neighbours came there and caught hold the applicant.This is the second bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The first bail application has been dismissed as withdrawn vide order 15.3.2016 in M.Cr.Applicant Liyakat Khan has been arrested in Crime No.122/2016 registered at Police Station Bhanwarkunwa, District Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 354, 354-D of IPC and 7 / 8 POCSO Act.According to the prosecution case, the complainant aged 17 years was going to her home along with her friends Kajal and Mahima when they reached near Ram temple one boy came there on motorcycle bearing registration No. MP 41 MR 6905 and he enticed and used filthy language and thrown a slip mentioning his mobile number.The conclusion of trial likely to take time.Hence, prayed for bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Govt. Advocate.Case diary perused.Also perused the statements of the complainant, her friend Mahima Chouhan, her father Amarjeet Yadav and Vinod Chouhan, father of Mahima.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge moni
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,621,710 |
The offence of criminal intimidation constitutes the threat of injury to a person's person, reputation or property or to another person's person, reputation or property in which that person is interested with the intention to cause alarm or cause him to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is 11 Cr.R. No. 3191/16 legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.In the present case, on perusal of statement of complainant, it appears that the dispute between the parties occurred six times.(22.05.2020) This revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 06.09.2016 in Session Trial No.99/2016 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST), Jabalpur, whereby charges for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act have been framed against the petitioners.Case of prosecution in brief is that respondent No. 1 has filed a private complaint before JMFC, Jabalpur, requesting to take cognizance against the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324, 323, 294, 427 and 506-B of IPC as well as Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(2)(5) of SC/ST Act. After recording the statement of complainant and other witnesses, the learned JMFC came to the conclusion that prima facie case is made out against the petitioners for the offence under Sections 294, 323/34, 506-II of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter the learned JMFC has 2 Cr.R. No. 3191/16 committed the case before Special Judge (Atrocity) who framed the challenged charges by passing the impugned order.The respondent No. 1 was trying to raise construction of his house over the Nazul land and making boundary wall over the land belonging to the petitioners and when the petitioners obtained interim order from the Court of Tehsildar, then he falsely implicated them.The learned JMFC has no jurisdiction to take cognizance under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in a complaint filed under the provision of SC/ST Act whereas under the Act, only Special Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance under this Act. With the aforesaid, he prays for allowing this revision and quashment of the charges framed by the learned Special Judge.R. No. 3191/16The petitioners may raise all the grounds before the trial Court at appropriate stage of trial.5. Heard all the parties and perused the case.If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."If Court finds that there is sufficient material is showing to connect the accused with the aforesaid offences then Section 228 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 comes into role, provision is also quoted as under:First time on 31.03.2011, when the complainant was raising construction, petitioner No. 1 came there and threatened the complainant.Thereafter, On 23.04.2011, when the complainant was again raising construction, petitioner No. 1 again came there along with four other persons and assaulted the complainant's wife.Third time, on 10.06.2011, for the same dispute, petitioner No. 1 sent some persons to attack on the complainant.Co-incidently, the police official also reached there and called petitioner No. 1 and advised him to demark the land.Thereafter, petitioner No. 2 (son of petitioner No. 1) approached the Tahsil Court and got stay in respect of land bearing Khasra No. 11/1 whereas as per spot verification, the disputed land does not belong to said khasra number., hence, after taking the certified copy of the same, the complainant again started raising construction.Thereafter, on 13.07.2011, the punks of petitioner No.1 demolished the construction raised by the complainant.Fifth time, on 18.07.2011, the petitioners along with other persons came there armed with weapons.They abused the complainant and his family members and made some caste remark over them.They attacked on wife of the complainant who saved her life by hiding herself.They also tried to assault the complainant.The 12 Cr.R. No. 3191/16 complainant stated that the police did not register the FIR, consequently, on 21.07.2011, the petitioners demolished the rest of the construction.I find force in the argument put forth on behalf of the accused applicants inasmuch as a bare perusal of the FIR itself reveals that there is no mention whatsoever in the said FIR that the accused applicants are not the members of the Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe community and the complainant and his brother were intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate them within public view.R. No. 3191/16The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the complainant is of 'Gurjar' cast which comes under the category of SC community and offence of SC/ST Act is made out against the petitioner but on careful reading of the complaint and the statement of witnesses I find that the respondent did not mention this fact in his complaint.It also appears that the dispute pertains to raising construction over the government land.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,623,871 |
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2 Ms.Rani Devi for the missing of her daughter respondent No.3/ Crl.M.C.No.799 /2016 Page 1 of 6 namely Ms.By way of this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.80/ 2013 registered at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.Nishu Kumari, aged 13 years.After realising the facts, respondent No.2 has settled the matter with petitioners and does not wish to pursue the case against them.M.C.No.799 /2016 Page 1 of 6Respondent No.2 and respondent No.3 are personally present in the Court and has been duly identified by the Investigating Officer of the case, above named.Respondent No.2 submits that her daughter respondent No.3 had gone with petitioner No.2 with her own will without any pressure or threat as they were staying in a same house on rent.Both petitioners have taken respondent No.3 to their village at Gopal Pur, District Supaul, Bihar.She further submits that petitioners are also from Bihar and they knew each other even prior to the incident, however, due to some misunderstanding she lodged the complaint, which culminated into registration of the FIR.Respondent No.2 further submits that police traced her daughter on 21.07.2013 from the village of petitioners, mentioned above.There is no allegations of sexual assault and respondent No.3 was also got medically examined.Pursuant to the settlement between the parties, she does not wish to pursue her case against petitioners.She also submits that since the matter stands settled between them, therefore, to restore cordiality amongst the parties, proceedings arising out of FIR in question be brought to an end.Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that though the respondent No.3/victim was less than 18 years of age at the time of the incident, despite, the case should not have been lodged by the Crl.M.C.No.799 /2016 Page 2 of 6 Police against the petitioners in view of judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in case Courts On Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) Vs.State 2012 VI AD, Delhi 465, whereby held as under:M.C.No.799 /2016 Page 2 of 6If the girl is more than 16 years, and the girl makes a statement that she went with her consent and the statement and consent is without any force, coercion or undue influence, the statement could be accepted and Court will be within its power to quash the proceedings under Section 363 or 376 IPC.Here again no straight jacket formula can be applied.The Court has to be cautious, for the girl has right to get the marriage nullified under Section 3 of the PCM Act. Attending circumstances including the maturity and understanding of the girl, social background of girl, age of the girl and boy etc. have to be taken into consideration."Moreover, petitioners are father and son respectively.There was no occasion to kidnap the victim.Thus, it would be in the interest of justice and to avoid harassment to the petitioner if the proceedings are quashed.Consequently, FIR No.80/2013 registered at Police Station Kashmiri Gate, Delhi, for the offence punishable under Section 363 of the IPC with emanating proceedings thereto, if any, is hereby quashed.M.C.No.799 /2016 Page 5 of 6Accordingly, the petition is allowed with no order as to costs.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,624,573 |
These appellants are convicted by the learned 2 nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara by the judgment and order dated 29.3.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 110/2005 for the offence::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 2 APPEAL209.06.odt punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.For the said conviction, they are directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- by each appellant and in default of payment of fine, they are directed to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.The present appeal challenges the said conviction.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::I have heard Mr. A. R. Kaple, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. T. A. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.Also perused the record and proceedings, notes of evidence and the impugned judgment with the able assistance of both the learned counsel.According to the prosecution case, the appellants are the owners of a sugarcane field, situated at mouza Ukara and the said sugarcane field was fenced.It is the allegation in the prosecution::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 3 APPEAL209.06.odt case that they supplied electricity through live wires to the said fencing.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::According to the prosecution, on 19.8.2005 at about 7.00 am to 8.00 am, deceased Pramod proceeded to his field and his leg came in contact with the live wire of the fencing raised by the appellants.Consequently, Pramod died.It is the case of the prosecution that in order to screen themselves from the legal proceedings both the appellants threw the dead body of Pramod in a water tank and also disposed of the bicycle and umbrella.In all 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.Out of them, PW6 Ramesh Lanjewar, PW7 Dayaram Kapgate and PW8 Moreshwar Kapgate turned hostile and they did not support the prosecution.The learned Judge of the Court below after appreciating the entire prosecution case, acquitted both the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 304 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, however convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.The State has not filed any appeal against acquittal of::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 4 APPEAL209.06.odt the appellants from the offence under Section 304 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::PW3 Tarachand Bhalavi is the father of deceased Pramod.His evidence shows that his agricultural field is adjoining to the agricultural field of the appellants.Through his evidence, it is brought on record that there exists a well fitted with electric motor pump in the agricultural field of the appellants.As per his evidence, on 19.8.2005 at about 8.30 am, his son Pramod took bicycle and umbrella and went to his field, however he failed to return home.Therefore, he made search for his son, albeit in vain.He, therefore, reported the matter to the police.His evidence shows that he asked the appellant as to whether they have passed electric current to their fencing and their reply was in affirmative and thereafter, both these appellants absconded.Therefore, that raised suspicion in the mind of Tarachand and he lodged the first information report (Exh.21).The dead body was in highly decomposed state when it was recovered.Exhibit 44 is the post mortem report.The post mortem was conducted by PW10 Dr. Chandrashekhar Meshram.Since, he could not give the specific reason for the cause of death, he::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 5 APPEAL209.06.odt sent the bones to the Forensic Medical Department of Government Medical College for expert opinion.The prosecution has filed on record the opinion of Dr. N. Y. Kamdi, Professor of Department of Anatomy of Government Medical College, Nagpur and it is at Exh.49- A. The expert's opinion Exh.49A shows that -::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::1] Bones examined are of male individual 2] Age of deceased person is more than 17 years.3] No any ante-mortem injury over bones.4] There is no any sign of electrocution mark (electrical burnt mark) over bones.5] No opinion possible regarding whether the dead body is first cut in to parts and then submerged in water or whole body is submerged in water.In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below has rightly recorded the finding on the basis of this particular report and found that with certainty it cannot be said that deceased died due to electrocution due to electric current passed by the appellant to their fencing around the sugarcane field and therefore, rightly acquitted both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the Indian::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 6 APPEAL209.06.odt Penal Code on the basis of the memorandum statement recorded by PW11 Chandrasen Jadhav, the Investigating Officer in presence of panch witness PW5 Arjun Irpate.The learned Judge of the Court below has found that the appellants led police party to this tank and the body was fished out from the said and therefore, convicted the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::In my view, this reasoning cannot be upheld, because firstly, the entire prosecution case is totally silent to show the presence of deceased near the agricultural field of the appellants.Secondly, the presence of the appellants was also not found in proximity of their own agricultural field in the morning hours.It was incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove that death occurred either inside the agricultural field of the appellants or within the proximate distance from their agricultural field.The said is not at all established by the prosecution.If death of Pramod did not occur inside the agricultural field or within the proximate distance of the agricultural field of the appellants, there::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 ::: 7 APPEAL209.06.odt was no reason for the appellants to throw the body of the deceased in the water tank.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::It is established on record through various prosecution witnesses that during the relevant period, there were heavy rains in Bhandara district and the place of occurrence and all the rivers and tanks were flooded with the water.Presence of PW5 Arjun in the police station itself, to me, appears to be doubtful.PW5 Arjun states in his evidence that he was not called in the police station by the police for the fact that appellant Ramlal is intending to give his disclosure statement.His evidence is totally silent that for what reason, he attended the police station.In his cross-examination, he admitted that he went to police station casually.This appears very improbable to this Court.No citizen will go to the police station casually because it is not a place where a citizen will visit in a casual manner.In my view, this itself creates doubt about the very fact of recording memorandum statement of appellant Ramlal.Except memorandum statement of appellant Ramlal, there is no other evidence to connect the appellants for throwing the dead body in the water tank.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::As observed above, death of Pramod was not caused by electrocution.The prosecution has not proved that the death occurred either inside or within the proximate distance of the agricultural field of the appellants and further the prosecution has not proved that at any point of time there was any type of enmity in between these two families.In that view of the matter and looking to the expert opinion (Exh.49A) and the fact that all the water tanks and rivers were flooded with rain water, the appellants cannot be held guilty for the offence under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Consequently, I pass the following order :The criminal appeal is allowed.The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 29.3.2006 in Sessions Trial No. 110/2005 convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.The appellants are acquitted of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::Their bail bonds stand cancelled.With this the appeal is allowed and disposed of.JUDGE Diwale::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::::: Uploaded on - 17/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 18/04/2018 02:07:54 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
28,633,642 |
Shri Bhupendra Shukla, learned counsel for the objector.According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants herein are stated to have assaulted and abused the complainant.But for the offence under Section 3 (1) (r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the I.P.C. offences are bailable in nature.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the appeal and direct that appellants Rajnish Singh and Dilip Singh be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.The appeal is finally disposed of.Certified copy as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE vy
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,741,800 |
In brief, the prosecution story runs like this appeal, that one Zulfikar Ali son of Faiyaz resident of Suzdu, police station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar had lodged the first information report dated 21.09.1989 at 1:30 A.M. in police station Kotwali, Muzaffarnagar to this effect that complainant was having old enmity with Mohammad Ali, Faizul, Mujammil, Muzaffar, Mamnoon son of Mohammad Ali, Amir Hasan, Kalwa, Malwa, Riazul, Shafi, Afzal.In intervening night of 20/21.9.1989 at about 12:50 A.M. when the complainant was sleeping in the house of his brother-in-law (behnoi), all of sudden, he heard a noise of firing.He came out from the house, peeped into the neighbouring house, which belongs to Mamnoon and had seen that all the above persons were firing upon Mamnoon in the courtyard.There was a light of electric.In the meantime, witnesses Waris, Liyaqat, Abdul Rahim @ Chotta, Jai Prakash and other persons came on the spot and they had also seen the occurrence.When they raised alarm, the accused persons left the place of occurrence giving threats that they will not leave anybody alive.All the accused persons were having guns and country-made-pistols.When the accused persons fled away from the spot, they went into the house of Mamnoon.It was seen that blood was coming out from the body of Mamnoon and his six years daughter Km.HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R.RESERVED CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 361 OF 1992 Afzal and others-----------------------------Appellants Versus State of U.P.----------------------------Opposite party Hon'ble Sheo Kumar Singh,J Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J (Delivered by Hon'ble Anant Kumar,J) This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the accused persons, namely, Afzal, Mujammil, Mohammad Ali, Faizul, Muzaffar, Mamnoon S/o Mohammad Ali, Amir Hasan, Kalwa, Malwa, Riazul and Shafi against the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1992 passed by Sri S.K. Bhatt, VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar in respect of Sessions Trial No. 75 of 1990, State vs. Afzal and others, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 302 read with 149 IPC to undergo for life imprisonment, under Section 307 read with 149 IPC rigorous imprisonment for seven years, under Section 148 IPC for one year rigorous imprisonment.All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.It is pertinent to mention here that during pendency of the present appeal, accused Muzaffar and Amir Hasan have died and a report to this effect dated 11th March, 2014 from Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar is on record.So, the appeal against them stands abated and this appeal is heard and decided in respect of other accused persons.Nusrat was lying dead on the cot due to bullet injury.It is further stated that the complainant and other villagers went to the police station to lodge the F.I.R.. A request was made that his report be lodged and legal action may be taken.This complaint was registered in police station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar at Crime No. 607, under Sections 147/148/149/302 IPC and entry to this effect was made in G.D. Rapat No. 5 at 1:30 A.M. on 21.09.1989 at police station Kotwali Muzaffarnagar.In the medical examination report, one lacerated wound 2.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on outer aspect of left forearm 6 cm from elbow joint was found and an X-ray was advised and the injury was kept under observation.At the time of medical examination, bleeding from the wound was present.X-ray of the injured Mamnoon was done and in x-ray report, multiple small, rounded, radio-opaque shadows resembling lead pellets were found.Postmortem on the dead body of Km.Nusrat was done and one gunshot wound of entry measuring 2.5 cm x 2 cm cavity deep on right side of lower part of chest and upper of abdomen anterior margins, blackening was found present in the internal examination.The investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer, who visited the place of occurrence and collected pellets and wad from the spot.The I.O. has also taken into possession the bloodstained bed-sheet from the cot, two live cartridges of 315 bore and five empty cartridges of 12 bore.After investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused persons and charges were framed against them under Sections 148, 302 read with 149 and 307 read with 149 IPC.During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution two witnesses of fact P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali-complainant and P.W.-2 Mamnoon-injured son of Kadam were produced.This apart, P.W.-3 Dr. R.S. Kansana who had medically examined the injured Mamnoon, P.W.-4 Dr. M.K. Gupta who had conducted the postmortem upon the dead body of Km.P.W.-5 Constable Ramesh Chandra, P.W.-6 Head Constable Ramesh Chandra Sharma, P.W.-7 Dr. N.N. Sharma, Senior Radiologist, District Hospital, Muzaffarnagar, P.W.-8 S.S. Mehta, Inspector Kotwali, Investigating Officer, P.W.-9 Vidhyaram Sharma, S.S.I. who had prepared the inquest report of the deceased Km.Nusrat have been examined.After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing the parties, learned trial court has convicted the accused persons as stated above, hence, this appeal has been filed.We have heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sudhir Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri Rama Shankar Yadav, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and perused the entire record.It is mainly argued on behalf of the learned counsel for the defence that from the statement of witnesses of fact, it is evident that there was a deep rooted enmity between the parties and as such, there was every chance of false implication of the accused persons.It is also stated that looking to the injuries of the injured Mamnoon and the injury of the deceased Km.Nusrat, it appears to be a case of single injury to both the persons and 11 accused persons have been shown to have taken part in the said occurrence.So the number of accused persons has been exonerated.It is also stated that as per version of the F.I.R. no source of light has been shown and since the occurrence has taken place in the night in courtyard where no electric connection is shown, so in the night, it is very difficult to recognize the accused persons.It is also stated that neighbours, who are named as witnesses in the F.I.R. have not been produced before the Court.It is also argued that as per the injury report of Mamnoon, who had sustained injury in his left forearm whereas x-ray report shows that injury in the right forearm was done, so there is contradiction in the injury report and x-ray report.It is also stated that the witness-complainant Zulfikar Ali is shown to be sleeping in the house of his brother-in-law.It is highly doubtful because when he was having his own house in the village, why he was sleeping in the house of his brother-in-law.It has been shown just to make him to be a witness of this occurrence.A plea of alibi has also been taken from the side of accused persons and it is stated that at the time of occurrence, there was a cattle fair in Didwana, district Nagor, Rajasthan and they have gone to purchase cattle in the said fair.In this regard, certain documents have also been filed.Per contra, on behalf of the State, learned Additional Government Advocate has stated that from perusal of the site plan, it is evident that occurrence had taken place in the courtyard of the house of Mamnoon who was injured and in the northern and western of the said courtyard, there was two entry gates and at the place ''F' which is in the western side gate.There was a electric bulb which was litting at the time of occurrence, so it cannot be said that there was no light at the place of occurrence.It is also stated that all the accused persons belong to the same village and the prosecution witnesses as well as accused persons were very well known to each other before the occurrence.They can very well be recognized even in the dim light and it cannot be said that in this state of circumstance, accused persons could not be recognized.It is also stated that so far as source of light is concerned, in the F.I.R. itself it is mentioned that in the courtyard there was light of electric.It is also stated that deep rooted enmity is a double edged weapon and the occurrence may also be taken place due to enmity of the accused persons with the injured.So far as, the contradiction in the injury report and x-ray report is concerned, it is stated that P.W.-7 Dr. N.N. Sharma has rightly explained in his statement that due to clerical mistake in the x-ray report, instead of left arm, right forearm has been mentioned.So merely on this ground, benefit cannot be extended to the accused persons.From perusal of the site plan (exhibit Ka-7), it is evident that there was a big courtyard and at the place ''E' where fire was opened upon Mamnoon and at the place ''X' the cot of the deceased was there where she was sleeping at the time of occurrence.P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali has admitted in his statement that there was enmity between the parties.However, merely on the ground of enmity between the parties, the entire prosecution story cannot be thrown out and only caution to be exercised is that the statement of witnesses should be scrutinized cautiously and should be assessed that the witnesses are not giving any statement out of enmity.P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali has stated in his statement that Mohammad Ali was standing on the wall and was exhorting to the accused persons to kill Mamnoon.The accused persons Faizul and Mujammil were there in the courtyard and standing near the cot of Mamnoon and they have opened fire and due to fire of Faizul and Mujammil, daughter of Mamnoon had died.Regarding involvement of other accused persons, general allegation has been made to this effect that other accused persons were also opening fire from the side of wall and presence of only these two accused Faizul and Mujammil have been stated to be near the cot of Mamnoon.P.W.-2 Mamnoon has stated in his statement that in the night he was sleeping.Due to some noise, his eyes were opened and he waked up and he had seen that near his cot Faizul and Mujammil were standing and Faizul has opened fire from his country-made-pistol with intention to kill him but the fire escaped and hit the deceased Km.Nusrat daughter of P.W.-2 Mamnoon.Thereafter, second fire was opened by Mujammil, who had hit the left hand of Mamnoon and rest of the accused persons had opened fire which hit the wall.He has admitted in his statement that at the time of occurrence, there was no electricity connection in his house but in fact, he has taken an electric wire from Mool Chand Kabadi and at the time of occurrence, there was light.So from the entire evidence of fact witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution i.e. P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali and P.W.-2 Mamnoon, it is evident that except the accused Faizul and Mujammil, other accused persons were at the side of wall where entry is there at the place ''F' shown in the site plant.So to our view, the distance from place ''E' to place ''F' appears to be sufficient enough and in the night, it is difficult to recognize the persons standing near the wall but so far as the accused Faizul and Mujammil are concerned, since they were standing near the cot and they were also living in the same village, there was every chance that the witnesses P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali and P.W.-2 Mamnoon may recognize them, even in dim light which was at the place ''F' shown in the site plan.So, to our view, the witnesses of fact i.e. P.W.-1 Zulfikar Ali and P.W.-2 Mamnoon produced on behalf of the prosecution have very well been considered by the trial Court and the trial Court has rightly believed them.So merely on the ground that other witnesses shown in the F.I.R. have not been produced, it will not having any adverse effect on the prosecution story.Looking to the number of facts, it is evident that only it is a case of two fires, one has hit the injured Mamnoon and other has hit the deceased Km.Nusrat and no other fire has hit any one.Therefore, to our view, the accused persons other than Faizul and Mujammil should be acquitted but since there is specific and sufficient evidence against the accused persons Faizul and Mujammil that they had opened fire upon Mamnoon and Km.Nusrat, both of them are not liable to be acquitted.P.W.-2 Mamnoon is an injured witness and that is why his testimony cannot be discarded at this stage.So, to our view, this appeal is liable to be partly allowed.In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this criminal appeal is partly allowed accordingly.So far as the accused persons Afzal, Mohammad Ali, Mamnoon S/o Mohammad Ali, Kalwa, Malwa, Riazul and Shafi are concerned, this appeal in respect of them is, hereby, allowed.Therefore, the accused persons Afzal, Mohammad Ali, Mamnoon son of Mohammad Ali, Kalwa, Malwa, Riazul and Shafi are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them.Since, the accused appellants Afzal, Mohammad Ali, Mamnoon son of Mohammad Ali, Kalwa, Malwa, Riazul and Shafi are on bail, they need not surrender and their sureties are discharged.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
148,742,229 |
Item No. 44And In the matter of: Sushila Devi Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Debasis Kar For the Petitioner Mr. Rudradiptya Nandy For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Jagaddal Police Station Case No. 306 of 2013 dated 28.04.2013 under Sections 498A/406/306/34 of the Indian Penal Code and 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition 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 the statements recorded including the statements of the son of the victim.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,742,615 |
1 In The High Court At Calcutta Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction 20.6.19 CRR 1282 of 2019 Netai Chandra DasThe State of West Bengal & Anr.Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee Mr. Arindam Dey Ms. Kriti Mehrotra Mr.Abhijit Singh ... petitioner.In this revisional application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of G.R. Case No. 1228 of 2013 arising out of Serampore Police Station Case No. 279 of 2013 dated July 5, 2013 under Sections 420/406/409/120B of the Indian Penal Code now pending before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly, inter alia, on the grounds stated in the petition.Mr. Mayukh Mukherjee, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the FIR was instituted on the basis of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC which was not complied in terms of the provisions has required because there was no compliance of the provisions of Section 154(1) and 154(3) by filing an application under Section 156(3) of the Code.It would appear from the order sheet of the learned Sessions Judge an anticipatory bail was moved for admitting him on bail that the learned Sessions 2 Judge was of the view that since the charge-sheet has been submitted and the has been absconding and was an absconder, therefore, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable.Let a copy of this application be served on the opposite parties by speed post with acknowledgement due within a period of one week from the date hereof and the State/opposite party no. 1 be served through the learned Public Prosecution, High Court, Calcutta.The petitioner do file affidavit-of-service on the returnable date.Let the matter be listed under the same heading two weeks hence.No interim stay is entertained at this stage.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,744,199 |
It is alleged that, in 2011 he had sold his land at Chincholi.From the amount received in the said sale, the complainant had booked the flat with Builder-Nilesh Kale (applicant) in Sai Darshan Apartment, on the ground floor described as Flat No.1 admeasuring 850 Sq.ft.Agreement was executed.The consideration agreed upon was Rs. 13,50,000/-.On 29 th November, 2011, the::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 2 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc complainant gave a cheque to the applicant.Subsequently, instead of handing over the aforesaid flat, the complainant represented that, he would be given flat in Sai Leela Apartment, situated at Survey No. 76 Jachak Nagar, Jay Bhavani Road and stated that at the same location two flats will be provided with the larger area.Rahul Gandhas and Shraddha Kange are children of Vishwas Gandhas.Shraddha Kange is working in Police Department.Vinod Bodake is cousin of Rahul and Shraddha.The applicant was acquainted with Rahul Gandhas.The applicant was in construction business.He was in need of loan, which he could obtain from people.This was known to Rahul.Agreements were executed with complainant.The contention that, the agreement relating to the properties, were executed by way of security, towards the loan is false.There were no need of executing such documents.He was working with the applicant.He transfer cash in his account for business.The agreement do not indicate that the same were executed as security.The amount was parted to the applicant.He drew my attention to the reply to the notice send by the complainant and addressed at the instance of the applicant.He pointed out the clauses of the agreement do not specify that it being executed for security.He stressed on the modus of the applicant in executing such transaction.I have perused the documents.According to the complainant, he parted an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- towards consideration.Subsequently, the complainant gave Rs. 16,50,000/- in 2013 and thereby he had paid Rs.30,00,000 to the applicant.According to the complainant in 2018, he learnt that the flat is sold to third person.According to the complainant, his brother Vishwas Gandhas was also induced to part with Rs. 10,00,000/- and thereby::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 8 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc they were deceived.The applicant through his advocate forwarded notice dated 25th February, 2019 to the complainant stating that, the agreements were executed by way of security.The applicant was in need of money in 2011 and that Rahul Gandhas requested for loan.However, he contacted the complainant, thereafter demand of Rs. 15,00,000/- was made towards the loan with the complainant.Subsequently, the applicant was informed by Rahul Gandhas that the complainant is willing to give an amount of Rs. 13,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 18 per cent by way of security.The applicant was requested to execute the agreement in respect to Sai Darshan project.On reading the clauses of the agreement, stipulated in Clause 7-A, C and D, it is clear that the amount was parted towards that agreement executed towards interest.It was also mentioned that the complainant had directed the applicant to deposit the amount in the account of Rahul Gandhas.The amount had been credited through cheque or RTGS in the account of Rahul Gandhas.The consideration for each flat was Rs.15,00,000/-.The complainant had previously given Rs.13,50,000/- and the additional amount demanded by the applicant was Rs.16,50,000/- Believing representation of the applicant, the complainant gave him and his father amount in cash from time to time.His mother had also participated in the transaction.It was stated that, the construction would take 2 to 3 years.After receipt of Completion Certificate, the registered Sale Deed was to be given to the complainant.On enquiry, it was stated that, the Completion Certificate is not received and complainant will have to wait.Although, the attempts were made to contact the applicant, he did not respond.Written letter was forwarded to him,which was not responded.The complainant repeatedly approached the applicant and demanded the possession of the flats booked by him.However, he gave excuses.In November, 2018 he made enquiry at the place of construction and it was found that, the applicant had executed::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 3 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc transaction of the flat with third person and sold the same to that person.The applicant also assured brother of the complainant Vishwas Mahadev Gandhas that flat would be provided to him.Agreement for Sale was prepared and the amount received by cash/cheque to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- and even he was not given possession of the flat.Thus, according to the complainant and his brother, they were induced to part with an amount on the promises of the sale of flat and the flats were sold to third person.Thereby, they were cheated.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::The applicant preferred an application for Anticipatory Bail, before the Sessions Court, the said application was rejected.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the claim of complainant is false.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The applicant has co-operated with the investigation.The dispute is of commercial nature.There is no element of cheating or breach of trust.The agreements were executed by way of security.The transaction was relating to amount borrowed by the applicant.The entire amount has been returned.The custodial interrogation of the::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 4 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc applicant is not necessary.The matter relates to documents.The money transaction has been converted into criminal prosecution.The complainant is in money lending business.Vishwas, Baban Gandhas are brothers of the complainant.In 2011, he introduced the applicant to complainant for obtaining loan.The complainant informed that he is government servant.In 2011, the applicant obtained hand loan of Rs. 13,50,000/- at the interest of 18 per cent from the complainant.The document relating to the flat was executed only for the purpose of security.The parties never had any intention of entering into a sale transaction.Rs. 3,50,000/- was given by way of cheque and the rest of amount was not deposited in the applicant's account.The applicant would borrow money from complainant from time to time against the security of documents of flats.Rahul Gandhas is witness to the agreement dated 19 th June, 2014 between Rajaram and Veena Pai with Dudhedia Builder.Up to 2013, the total amount received by the applicant vide cheques from the complainant and his family members towards loan amount is::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 5 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc Rs.63,75,000/- In 2012-2015 the applicant following direction of the complainant, transferred an amount of Rs. 92,33,000/- to his nephew, Rahul Gandhas.The reason given for it by the complainant was that he was government servant and he could not accept money directly.The remaining amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- due, to be repaid, was transferred by the applicant directly to the complainant by RTGS.Despite the repayments of the money along with interest, totalling to Rs.1,02,33,000/-, the complainant threatened the applicant to extort more money.The reply was sent by the complainant on 6th March, 2011 opposing the claims of the applicant.According to the applicant, the entire amount has been returned by him.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted tabular form giving details about the amount received by him and credited by him.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::The properties were specified in::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 6 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc the agreement.The property was sold to the third party after the agreement were executed with the complainant and his brother.Huge amount is accepted towards sale of flats.The promises were not fulfilled and the premises were sold to another person.Inducement was made by the applicant with false promises.The offences are clearly made against the applicant.The statement of owner was recorded, which indicates that the applicant had no right to sell the property.The Power of Attorney do not give right to sell the property.Learned APP relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the prosecution opposing the relief prayed in this application.The applicant also received money through bank account.Statements of witnesses were recorded.During investigation, bank statements of applicant were recovered.It is submitted that custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.Learned APP pointed out the agreements,::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 7 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc statement of witnesses and statement of employees.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::The advocate for the applicant forwarded reply in re-joinder dated 11 th March, 2019::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 9 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc reiterating his contentions.In the FIR, there is no allegation, no evidence of forgery of documents.The applicant has admitted to have received the amount of Rs.63,75,000/-.He has provided the statements, giving details about the amount received by him from Vishwas Gandhas, Suresh Gandhas, Baban Gandhas and Vinod Bodake, who are related to Rahul Gandhas.The amount was received by cheque.The details of the cheque are mentioned.According to the applicant, he had received Rs. 3,50,000 from Vishwas Gandhas, Rs. 21,50,000 from Suresh Gandhas Rs.26,50,000/- from Baban Gandhas and Rs. 12, 25,000/- from Vinod Bodake.All of them are related to each other.The applicant has also furnished the details about the amount credited by him.According to him he had paid Rs. 5,00,000/- by RTGS on 26th October, 2015 to Suresh Gandhas.According to him, he has parted an amount of Rs. 92,33,000/- to Rahul Gandhas.Thereby the applicant has parted Rs. 1,02,33,000/-.He was directed to mark his presence with the Investigating Officer.The applicant has complied the direction.The matter relates to document.In the facts and circumstances, and in view of the aforesaid observation, custodial interrogation of the::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 ::: Ganesh Lokhande 10 of 10 902-ABA-883-19.doc applicant is not necessary.::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::Hence, I pass the following the Order:i) Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 883 of 2019, is allowed and disposed of by confirming interim order dated 16th April, 2019;ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in C.R. No. I-155 of 2019, registered with Upnagar Police Station, Nashik the applicant be released on bail on furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, with one surety in the like amount;iii) The applicant shall report the Investigating Officer as and when called for till filing of charge-sheet.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 07/06/2020 22:08:13 :::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,487,460 |
ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J.By means of the present petition Under Section 482, Cr. P.C., 1973 (hereinafter, for brevity, referred to as Cr. P.C.), the petitioner has sought the relief for quashing of the complaint in case No. 172 of 1980, Sheo Kumar v. Naresh Chand Jain Under Section 500 of the Penal Code (hereinafter, for brevity, referred to as I.P.C.) pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Kathras, District Aligarh.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 190 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,756,656 |
1 175 01.05.2018 C.R.M. 1549 of 2018 Aloke Court 28 In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16.02.2018 in connection with Suti P.S. Case No. 527 of 2017 dated 19.09.2017 under Sections 147/148/149/186/332/333/353/323/325/307/435/436/379/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25/29 of the Arms Act.And In the matter of: Sohorab Ali Mahaldar @ Sohrab Ali ...Petitioner Mr. Arnab Chatterjee Mr. Anisur Rahman ... for the petitioner Mr. Madhusudan Sur Mr. Manoranjan Mahata allowed ... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no injury was suffered by the police personnel and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.The application for anticipatory bail is, accordingly, allowed.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
148,758,073 |
Notice be made returnable within six weeks.(Anand Pathak) Judge Aman
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,884,673 |
No.54 ad C.R.M 8448 of 2014 In re: An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21.07.2014 in connection with Panchla Police Station Case No.155 of 2014 dated 17.06.2014 under Sections 341/325/326/307/354B/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.Heard the learned advocate of both the parties.The petitioners are seeking bail in connection with a case relating to offence punishable under 341/324/326/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and under Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.The learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the said petitioner is in custody for about last 57 days.The learned Advocate representing the State does not dispute the aforesaid contentions made on behalf of the petitioner.Therefore, the accused/petitioner, namely, Prasanta Das be released on bail upon furnishing bond of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) with one local surety of like amount, to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Howrah, subject to the condition that the said petitioner will meet the I.O once in a week till the investigation is complete.The application for bail, thus, stands disposed of.(Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay,J.) (Sudip Ahluwalia,J.) 2
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,884,730 |
CRL.M.C. 4004/2014 Page 1 of 9At the same time, complainant had also instituted proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic ViolenceUltimately, with the intervention of friends and relatives the complainant and petitioners have arrived at a settlement and recorded the same in compromise deed dated 13th August, 2014 whereby the complainant agreed to accept the total sum of Rs.2,46,000/- in full and final settlement of all her claims and dues.The entire amount has already been paid to the complainant.This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No. 417/2014 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Jamia Nagar on 14th June, 2014 on the ground that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties.Issue notice.3. Petitioners as well as complainant/respondent No.2-Sana Parveen are present in person and are identified by the Investigating Officer/ ASI Krishan Pal, Police Station Jamia Nagar.Thereafter, the complainant has also withdrawn proceedings under Section 12 of the Domestic ViolenceIn the earlier proceedings also some compromise deeds/samjhautanama were prepared, however, the same were admittedly not signed by the complainant.It appears that even after signing of the compromise dated 13th August, 2014 the complainant has some reservations.In response to the same, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the petitioner who is present in person, submits that the petitioner is willing to pay a further sum of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant today itself.Looking to the overall circumstances this appears to be a fair stand.Counsel for the complainant on instructions from the complainant also accepts this statement and the aforesaid amount of Rs.25,000/- which is handed over to her in the Court today in cash.I am of the opinion that this matter deserves to be given a quietus, since the parties have resolved their differences and have obtained divorce by mutual consent; and since the complainant is no longer interested in CRL.M.C. 4004/2014 Page 8 of 9 supporting the prosecution, because of which, its chances of success in the matter are now greatly diminished.CRL.M.C. 4004/2014 Page 8 of 9Consequently, the petition is allowed, and the FIR No. 417/2014 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Jamia Nagar on 14th June, 2014 and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition and the pending application are disposed off.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,885,616 |
This application u/S. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is filed by the applicant Manoj s/o Hariram Sen who is in custody since 29/7/2017 in connection with Crime No.128 / 2017 registered at P.S. Pithampur for commission of offence punishable u/S. 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly stated before this Court that this Court has granted bail in identical case to the applicant vide order dated 30/10/2017 passed in M.CR.C.No.The order dated 30/10/2017 reads as under :C. No.9372/2017 30.10.2017 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent/State.Arguments heard.This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., before this Court for grant of bail.The present applicant was arrested by the Police Station- Pithampur, District Dhar in Crime No.127/2017 for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 of IPC.As per prosecution story, the present applicant was the owner of the land situated at village Pithampur, District Dhar.He entered into an agreement with co-accused Paramjeet Singh and it is alleged that the co-accused developed a colony without obtaining proper permission from concerning authorities while he falsely represented to the prospective customers that all the documents regarding development of colonies were obtained by him.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is no ingredient to make charge under various Sections regarding forgery of documents.Even if prosecution story is taken to be true, the case falls under Section 420 of IPC only and the same is punishable by a sentence of 7 years.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application, however, he fairly admits that on the diary, no such material is present to indicate that any forgery was committed by the present applicant.It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) and one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing as may be directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under section 437(3) Cr.P.C. meticulously.Certified copy as per rules.The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent - State.This Court has carefully gone through the statement available in the case diary and is of the considered opinion that the present application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly hereby allowed.Applicant Manoj s/o Hariram Sen is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before the said Court on the dates fixed in this behalf.Certified Copy, as per Rules.(S. C. SHARMA) JUDGE KR Kamal Rathor 2017.12.21 11:43:40 -08'00'
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,890,312 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.16146/2019 (Banty Khede s/o Pappu Khede Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 01.05.2019 Mr. Vikram Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicant.The investigation is over and charge she et has been filed.Conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.05.01 16:45:51 +05'30'
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,892,392 |
(vii) The Courts have frequently refused to judge delay in isolation, but with other supervening circumstances, looking into the cumulative or combined effect.Private Secretary to the President of India;Principal Secretary - Home(Jail), Mantralaya, Raipur;ADG - Jail, Raipur;District Magistrate, Koriya, Baikunthpur; and District Magistrate, Raipur 09.04.2012 Mercy petition is received in the Presidents Secretariat.16.04.2012 The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India forwarded the request to the Government of Chhattisgarh for placing it before the Governor for his consideration under Article 161 of the Constitution and in the event of rejection by the Governor, place the matter before the President with the requisite documents and other details.20.04.2012 Superintendent of Police, Shahdol, M.P. sends his inputs to the Collector, Shahdol.26.04.2012 District Magistrate, Shahdol informs the Jail Superintendent, Raipur that the petitioner is a resident of District Anuppur and therefore, inputs should be sought from District Magistrate, Anuppur.30.04.2012 The letter dated 26.04.2012 is received in the Office of Jail Superintendent, Raipur.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 36 of 95Date Particulars The Jail Superintendent seeks inputs from District Magistrate, Anuppur.31.05.2012 The SDM, District Anuppur seeks inputs from the Superintendent of Police, Anuppur.02.06.2012 The SHO, P.S. Baikunthpur send his inputs in the negative to the Superintendent of Police, Koriya.04.06.2012 Superintendent of Police, Anuppur seeks inputs from SHO, P.S. Chachai, District Anuppur.05.06.2012 The Superintendent of Police, Koriya sends his inputs for rejection of mercy petition to the Additional Collector, Koriya, Baikunthpur.27.07.2012 The SHO, P.S. Chachai, Anuppur sends his inputs to the District Magistrate, Anuppur.30.07.2012 The Superintendent of Police, Anuppur sends his inputs to the District Magistrate, Anuppur.22.08.2012 District Magistrate Anuppur informs the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur that the family of the petitioner has shifted from Anuppur to Chirimiri, District Koriya and therefore, is unable to give any input.27.08.2012 The letter dated 22.08.2012 is received in the Office of the Jail Superintendent, Raipur.31.08.2012 The Office of Jail Superintendent seeks inputs from District Magistrate, Koriya, Baikunthpur.04.12.2012 The Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur sends the inputs received from District Magistrate Koriya to the Jail and Reformative Services, headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh; President of India Principal Secretary - Home (Jail), Mantralaya, Raipur; ADG -W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 37 of 95Date Particulars Jail, Raipur, District Magistrate - Koriya, Baikunthpur; and District Magistrate, Raipur.19.12.2012 Noting that all the inputs have been received and that both the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate have advised against the mercy petition.20.02.2013 Note is prepared recommending that the petition should be rejected.20.03.2013 The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India sends a reminder to the State of Chhattisgarh.01.04.2013 Note is placed for presenting to the Governor 02.04.2013 The Note is approved by the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh 08.04.2013 As per the Affidavit of the respondent no.1/Union of India: The Governor rejected the mercy petition.08.04.2013 The Governor rejects the plea of the petitioner, holding that he is not entitled to pre-mature release.17.04.2013 The Under Secretary - Home (Jail), Government of Chhattisgarh seeks the required information as demanded by the Ministry of Home Affairs from the Office of Jail & Reformative Services, Raipur 26.04.2013 The Jail & Reformative Services sends its response to the Principal Secretary - Home (Jail), Government of Chhattisgarh 10.05.2013 As per the Affidavit of the respondent no.2/State of Chhattisgarh: The Governor rejects the mercy W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 38 of 95 Date Particulars petition in exercise of the powers under Article 161 of the Constitution.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 38 of 9510.05.2013 The Under Secretary - Home (Jail), Government of Chhattisgarh informs the Office of Jail & Reformative Services, Raipur that the mercy petition has been rejected by the Governor UNION OF INDIA 27.05.2013 Letter sent by the State of Chhattisgarh to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India intimating that the mercy petition has been rejected by the Governor 31.07.2013 Noting made in file for expediting proceedings.06.02.2014 Draft Letter was placed for consideration 07.02.2014 The reminder was sent by the Ministry of Home (Date of Issuance) Affairs 12.02.2014 The reminder is received by the Government of Chhattisgarh 19.02.2014 Along with the noting that the that a reminder has been sent to the State Government, the file was put up for further directions by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India 19.02.2014 The Under Secretary - Home (Jail), Govt. of Chhattisgarh issues a Letter to the Superintendent of Police, Koriya to provide the necessary documents as detailed in Letter dated 10.09.2013 20.02.2014 Decision is taken that the mercy petition may be finally processed for submission to the President for consideration 24.02.2014 Note was finalized and put up 25.02.2014 Recommendation for rejection of mercy petition by the Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs 04.03.2014 The Under Secretary - Home (Jail), Govt. of Chhattisgarh sends a reminder to the Superintendent of Police, Koriya directing that the documents necessarily be sent within 3 days.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 40 of 95Home (Jail), Govt. of Chhattisgarh sends another reminder to the Superintendent of Police, Koriya to send the documents immediately.26.03.2014 Home Minister approved the Summary and recommended the rejection of the petition 02.04.2014 The Under Secretary - Home (Jail), Govt. of Chhattisgarh again directs that the necessary documents be sent within 3 days.22.04.2014 Another reminder issued by the OSD/Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, Government of Chhattisgarh 05.05.2014 Mercy petition is rejected by the President of India 07.05.2014 The Superintendent of Police, Koriya sends the documents to the OSD/Secretary, Home (Jail) Department, State of Chhattisgarh 08.05.2014 Letter is issued to the Secretary - Home, Jail Department, Government of Chhattisgarh that the mercy petition has been rejected.13.05.2014 The letter of rejection sent by the Union Government is received by the Government of Chhattisgarh 20.05.2014 Letter issued by the Under Secretary - Home, Jail Department, Government of Chhattisgarh to the Jail and Reformative Services directing that the rejection of the mercy petition may be intimated.22.05.2014 The petitioner is informed of the rejection of his mercy petition.The prisoners used to use common toilet and bathing facilities.All prisoners were allowed to roam around and talk to each other freely.14.09.2011 The petitioner was shifted to another sector of the jail premises [Raipur Central Jail] which has 24 rooms with attached toilets.These 24 rooms have veranda in front.Present petition has been instituted by the parokar of Sonu Sardar (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the orders of the President of India and the Governor of Chhattisgarh rejecting the mercy petition of the petitioner and to commute the death sentence of the petitioner into life imprisonment on account of delay, improper exercise of power and illegal solitary confinement.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 1 of 95We may note that after this Court had issued notice in the present writ petition on 02.03.2015, the State of Chhattisgarh had preferred a transfer petition [Transfer Petition (Crl.) 297/2016] before the Supreme Court of India and at the same time, moved an application bearing Crl.M.A. 3651/2015 before this Court for the dismissal of the petition on the ground that this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.We are informed that the State of Chhattisgarh filed a petition for special leave to appeal [SLP (Crl.) 131/2017] before the Supreme Court.On 12.01.2017, while hearing the transfer petition, the Supreme Court requested this Court to decide the writ petition on its own merits.Thereafter, none of the parties approached this Court seeking an early hearing in the matter; but waited till 16.02.2017, i.e. the date fixed.The facts leading to the filing of the present petition are as follows:(i) On 26.11.2004, Shamim Akhtar, a scrap dealer, his driver Asgar Ali, his wife Ruksana Bibi, daughter Rana and son Yakub were at home when five persons came there at about 7.00 p.m. on the W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 2 of 95 pretext of selling scrap.They accosted Shamim Akhtar and demanded money from him by putting a knife to his throat.At that time, Shamims 9 years old daughter Shabana escaped from the back door.She went to Ramlals house and informed him about what was happening in the house.Ramlal attempted to go to Shamims house but Shabana stopped him by saying that he should not go as he too would be assaulted.So, he did nothing for 10 hours.At 5.00 a.m. in the morning, when they went to the house, they found the dead bodies of the aforementioned five persons.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 2 of 95(ii) The trial court, vide its order dated 27.02.2008, convicted the petitioner and his co-accused under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code and finding the crime to be rarest of the rare, sentenced them to death.(iii) Later on, the High Court of Chhattisgarh on 08.03.2010 confirmed the death sentence of the petitioner while declaring the co-accused to be a juvenile and referring his case to the Juvenile Justice Board.(iv) Thereafter, the Supreme Court on 23.02.2012 upheld the death sentence by dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner [Sonu Sardar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2012) 4 SCC 97].(vi) On 24.05.2014, the petitioner through his lawyers wrote a letter to the President of India pointing out that his mercy petition had W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 3 of 95 been dismissed on the basis of his being 23 years of age on the date of offence when, in fact, he was 18 years and 2 months old at that time.In May, 2014, the petitioner filed a review petition before the Supreme Court, inter alia on the same ground.(viii) Thereafter, the review petition of the petitioner was ordered to be listed in open Court.(ix) On 14.02.2015, the petitioners lawyers by hand delivered a letter to the Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Raipur advising the prison authorities against initiating black warrant proceedings, as the letter dated 24.05.2014 was still pending before the President of India.Extensive arguments have been made before us.The arguments of the Dr.The seriousness of the crimes committed by the terrorists can be gauged from the fact that many hundred innocent civilians and men in uniform have lost their lives.At times, their objective is to annihilate their rivals including the political opponents.They use bullets, bombs and other weapons of mass killing for achieving their perverted political and other goals or wage war against the State.While doing so, they do not show any respect for human lives.Before killing the victims, they do not think even for a second about the parents, wives, children and other near and dear ones of the victims.The families of those killed suffer the agony for their entire life, apart from financial and other losses.The above Rules make it clear that at every stage the matter has to be expedited and there cannot be any delay at the instance of the officers, particularly, the Superintendent of Jail, in view of the language used therein as at once.Apart from the above Rules regarding presentation of mercy petitions and disposal thereof, necessary instructions have been issued for preparation of note to be approved by the Home Minister and for passing appropriate orders by the President of India.The extracts from the Prison Manuals of various States applicable for the disposal of mercy petitions have been placed before us.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 32 of 95The letter recommends the pre-mature release of the petitioner.13.12.2012 The Office of Jail and Reformative Services Headquarters, Raipur forwards the copy of mercy petition along with other documents to the Principal Secretary - Home(Jail) for further proceedings.absconding and accordingly, it was decided to call for the present status of theses absconding accused from the State Government along with copies of the Trial Court Records (TCR) and the Police Diary.10.09.2013 Status of absconding individuals, Trial Court (Date of issuance: Records and Police Diary were called for.11.09.2013) 22.10.2013 Reminder sent to the State Government (Date of issuance) January, 2014 The State of Chhattisgarh provided the information pertaining to the absconding accused, but failed to furnish the trial court proceedings and the police diary.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 39 of 95may be processed without further waiting for the TCR and Police Diary 05.02.2014 Suggestion made that a reminder may be issued to the State of Chhattisgarh to supply the TCR and the Police Diary within 14 days and if no information is received within a month, the Ministry would process the case.Learned counsel for the Union of India submits that the only delay attributable to the respondent no.1 is between 27.05.2013 and 31.07.2013 wherein the file was not being processed.This fact has been omitted in the affidavit on behalf of the Union of India though borne out from the record.The petitioner has alleged that he was kept in solitary confinement for two periods:(i) between 27.02.2008 to June, 2010 at Ambikapur Jail; and(ii) between 2011 to 2014 at the Central Jail, Raipur.In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no.2, a detailed chart has been given as to the details where the petitioner was kept.We deem it appropriate to extract the corresponding periods of the chart as under:07.04.2009 to The petitioner was kept in a separate barrack along 20.06.2010 with 2 other prisoners.Thus, affidavit clearly omitted to mention the vital aspect as to number of occupants of the rooms, the number of convicts housed in one room, etc. During the course of arguments, we had specifically put to the counsel for the respondent no.2 that the detainees of the rooms lived in one room each or together: to which the answer was that they live in one room each.Upon enquiring as to what was the difference between this section and others, learned counsel was unable satisfactorily answer.The light was, however, enough.In front of the room there was a small verandah with pakka walls and iron gates separating each side of it from a similar verandah in front of an adjoining cell.The entrance into this verandah was also through a similar iron gate.Chaudhary submits that the petitioner, in law, could not have been granted pre-mature release prior to commutation of sentence.Only prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment or to a term of imprisonment can be granted pre-mature release.Learned counsel submits that a similar factual scenario had arisen in Peoples' Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) (Supra) wherein the State Government had processed the convicts mercy petition under rules which strictly excluded death sentence prisoners and only applied to other prisoners.Upon examining the original records, the following emerges:Chaudhary in respect of extraneous circumstances.The facts portray a grim picture.During the course of the hearing, we had been taken through the various inputs received from various public functionaries and how they were under Rule 775 of the Jail Manual.The opening of Rule 775 reads as under:" 775. -The translated version reads as:Instructions for dealing with petition for mercy from prisoners other than condemned prisoners.- (1) Every petition for mercy from prisoners other than condemned prisoners shall be forwarded by the Jail Superintendent through the District Magistrate concerned, for the orders of the Government. ..."(Emphasis Supplied)From even a cursory perusal of the same, it is clear that the Rule is inapplicable to mercy petitions received from condemned prisoners.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 87 of 95Noticing the discrepancy, this Court by order dated 21.05.2015 had directed the respondent no.2 to file an affidavit meeting "the allegation in the rejoinder affidavit that the mercy petition filed by the petitioner was examined under Rule 775 W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 88 of 95 which relates to premature release.The considerations bearing in mind in respect of the two are different and operate on different planes.When the death sentence of a convict is commuted to one of life, he continues to be a prisoner lodged in prison but only that the hangman no longer waits for him.For pre- mature release, the germane considerations would be qualitatively different.In the former, it inter alia may be seen whether the convict has reformed, repented to his crime, his presence in the prison would pose a threat to the prison population or the guards.Thus, the inputs given by the District Magistrate and the Police Superintendent were wholly extraneous for deciding the mercy petition.While the whole decision of the Governor primarily rests W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 89 of 95 upon these inputs to the exclusion of the recommendation of the Jail Superintendent.W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 89 of 95":-- 775--00--( -2// )1/4/13 (..) , () Sd./-1.4.13 ( ) W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 90 of 95 Sd./-W.P. (Crl) 441/2015 Page 90 of 95--00--From previous page:--Though the subject line mentions that the petition is from a condemned prisoner, but the whole body pertains to pre-mature release and what the Government and consequently, the Governor had rejected was also pre-mature release.129.4 The mercy petition was processed in an extremely cavalier and casual fashion by the State Government at all stages, right upto placing the note for the Governor.It was all along treated as a petition seeking pre-mature release under an inapplicable rule of the Jail Manual.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,895 |
Abdul Karim (P.W.11), at the relevant point of time, was attached with Shivaji Nagar Police Station, Nanded as Police Inspector.He received an information at about 10.45 p.m. that an incident had occurred at Ashrafnagar.He went there in a police jeep and came to know that one Kayyum was injured in a quarrel, which took place between him and one Syed Shaukat.He came to learn that Kayyum was admitted in the Government Hospital.He went there and found him in the 'Out Patient Department' (OPD) in an injured condition.J U D G M E N TWith Criminal Appeal No.1676 of 2005S.B. Sinha, J.The appellants, along with one Syed Salim, were tried for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC', for short) and were directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life.A fine of a sum of Rs.3,000/- each was also imposed.Before him a statement was made by Mohammed Shakeel (P.W.6) which was treated as a First Information Report.Since the deceased, Kayyum, was operated, his statement could not be recorded immediately.P.W.11, however, went to the place of occurrence on the next day and recorded statements of some witnesses.He recorded the statement of one Rauf, who was present in the hospital.He also seized the blood stained clothes of the victim.He gave a dying declaration before a Judicial Magistrate on 18.3.1999, which is very short one and is reproduced hereinafter :"I. S.B. Shaikh, 4th Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Nanded will ask you few questions and you may answer those without any fear.Q.1 What is your name and where do you stay?Shaikh Khayum s/o Shaikh Nabisab, r/o Ashraf Nagar, Nanded.Q.2 How did the incident take place?I have been injured by weapons on 17.03.99 in front of the house of Shaukat by Shaukat, Saleem and others.Q.3 Who is responsible for the said incident?The above mentioned people are responsible."I have been read over the statement given by me and the same is correct.Thumb impression of left hand"Yet again, a dying declaration was made before the Investigating Officer on 19.3.1999, which is a detailed one.Therein, the deceased disclosed that he was running business of fissile stone in partnership with appellant-Arshad and he invested a sum of Rs.60,000/- in the said business.He, however, wanted the said amount back from Arshad.Although, he was assured thereabout, Arshad did not pay him back the same.While he was riding a two-wheeler, accidentally it dashed with the motorcycle of Syed Shaukat who was sitting thereupon drinking water.He started abusing him.The matter was reported to the police station, but, on intervention of their parents no report was lodged and the matter was compromised.He narrated the second incident which took place on 17.3.1999 at about 6 O'clock when he and his cousin Mohammed Rais were going to the hotel 'Sailani' together, Syed Shaukat was standing in front of his house and asked as to why he had been looking at him, to which he replied in the negative.Shaukat, allegedly, threatened him saying that that was his last day and asked him to do whatever he could.He went to hotel 'Sailani' and thereafter reported the matter to the police station of Shivajinagar.He came back to the hotel and discussed the matter with his friends.He, thereafter, having thought that his mother must be worrying, went to his house to tell about the incident to his family members.While returning from the hotel, when he reached in front of a mutton shop, Syed Salim (absconding) came on the road and asked him to wait and as soon as he stopped his motorcycle, he, allegedly, gave a call saying "Shaukat Bhai" and started assaulting him with a knife.At that time Shaukat and Arshad came running.Whereas Shaukat took out his knife and assaulted him in his chest and stomach, Arshad, allegedly, assaulted him on his back by a wooden stick.He, thereafter, started shouting and begged them not to hit him, whereupon several people came running and rescued him.They made him sit on the motorcycle and brought him to the hotel.The motive for alleged commission of the said offence, in his words, is as under :The deceased died three days after the incident.Apart from the appellants and Syed Salim, it appears one Syed Maqdum was also prosecuted for commission of the said offence, although, he was not named in the dying declaration of the deceased.He, however, was acquitted.The learned Sessions Judge found the appellants herein as also the said Syed Salim to be guilty of commission of the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.The appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants herein as also Syed Salim was dismissed.Both the learned Trial Judge and the High Court relied upon the evidence of Farukoddin (P.W.2), Mohammed Shakeel (P.W.6) and Mohammed Rais (P.W.7), as also the dying declarations of the deceased Kayyum.Before we advert to the depositions of the said witnesses as also the dying declarations of the deceased, we may notice the injuries suffered by the deceased, which are as under :(1) Abrasion at nose anteriorly on left side.Size 2.5 x 1 cm.Brown scarp formed.(2) Stitched wound of 3 stitches (2.5 cm.) at the neck on the right side on the lower aspect.On dissection track directed medially down-wards in right thoracic cavity.Pleura showed corresponding cut of 2.5 cm.(clean cut) with corresponding puncture wound of 2.3 cm.x 0.3 cm.x 1.5 cm.at upper lobe.Blood clots seen in the track and adherent to lung.Evidence of right haemothorax-1600 ml with few blood clots.(3) Stitched wound at left side second inter-costar space, Mid-clavicular line (3 stitches) 2.5 cm.in length, stitches intact.(4) Stitched wound at left side of chest, seventh inter- costal space anterior axillary (fold), Line (2 stitches intact) 1.5 cm.(5) Stitched wound on chest right side, seventh inter costal space anterior axillary (fold) 3 stitches 2.5 cm.(6) Stitched wound on abdomen on right siden Lumber region, (2 stitches intact) 8 cm.above iliac-crest.(7) Stitched wound on abdomen right para medical, vertical, 11 stitches intact (suggestive of laprotomy).(8) Stitched wound over abdomen 2 stitches left side just below umbilicus.(9) Stitched wound on right arm on middle third laterally 4 stitches intact.(10) Stitched wound on right elbow laterally four stitches intact.(11) Stitched wound on right wrist medially, six stitches intact.(12) Stitched wound on right forearm middle third region medially (2 stitches intact).(13) Evidence of veni-section left ankle medially."It is of some significance to point out that although, the appellant-Mohammed Arshad is stated to have assaulted the deceased with a stick on his back, no such injury was found on his person.Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1674/2005 - Mohammed Arshad would submit that the prosecution case cannot be relied upon inasmuch as : (1) the deceased had not named the appellant in two dying declarations; (2) an improvement was made by the deceased in his 3rd dying declaration, wherein some role was attributed for which no credence can be given.Mr. Uday Umesh Lalit, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1676 Syed Shaukat, pointed out that Farukoddin (P.W.2) was not an eye-witness.It was furthermore submitted that his evidence as regards the purported statements made to him by the deceased relating to the mode and manner of assault by the appellant and the said Syed Salim had not been believed by the High Court also.The learned counsel urged that Mohammed Shakeel (P.W.6) is also not reliable as although he had helped the deceased to sit on the motorcycle, his clothes did not become blood stained although, admittedly, the deceased received serious injuries and blood was oozing profoundly.Drawing our attention to deposition of Mohammed Rais (P.W.7), the learned counsel would contend that he had introduced one 'Dastiwala' and even his identity as accused No.4 had not been established.It was further submitted that both P.Ws.6 and 7 were interested witnesses, as P.W.6 was a friend of the deceased and P.W.7, admittedly, was related to him.In the First Information Report as also in his evidence, P.W.6 had named the appellants herein and Syed Salim.He was an eye-witness.He categorically stated that whereas Salim had a khanjar in his hand, Arshad had a wooden stick.He also heard the deceased crying as "Save me", "Do not beat me".He also heard the deceased taking the names of the appellants and Syed Salim, whereupon he rushed to the spot and found them to be assaulting the deceased.The clothes of the deceased were stained with blood.He found injuries on his person.After the accused fled away, he helped the deceased to sit on his motorcycle and was taken to the hotel.Mohammed Rais (P.W.7) was another eye-witness.He deposed in regard to the business dealings by and between the deceased and Arshad.Fakruddin (P.W.2), on the other hand, came to the spot immediately after the occurrence.He is not an eye-witness in the strict sense of the terms but the same is corroborative in nature.He, however, reached the spot immediately after the occurrence.As noticed hereinbefore, his testimony of the fact that the deceased told him about the participation of the appellants and Syed Salim had not been believed by the High Court.It is no doubt true that the appellants and Syed Salim were named in the First Information Report, but, the deceased was the only person who could tell about the actual incident.He, as noticed hereinbefore, made three dying declarations.The 1st dying declaration was before the doctor.He did not name Mohammed Arshad, although, he named Syed Shaukat and Sayed Salim.No doubt in his 1st dying declaration he named Shaukat and Salim and stated "others", but we do not find any reason as to why despite the fact that he had later on described the motive on the part of Arshad, he did not take his name as one of the assailants in his 1st dying declaration.The comments made by the learned counsel that in the dying declaration before the Judicial Magistrate he did not state in details the role played by each of the accused, cannot be accepted as only three questions were put to him by the learned Judicial Magistrate, out of which only question Nos.2 and 3 are relevant.It was for the learned Magistrate to ask for the details of the incident.He did not do so and presumably, therefore, the deceased had no occasion to state about the incident in detail in his dying declaration before the learned judicial Magistrate.The dying declaration before the Investigating Officer, which was recorded on 19.3.1999, is a detailed one.It is not in the question-answer form.The statements made by him corroborated the statements made by the eye-witnesses Mohammed Shakeel (P.W.6) and Mohammed Rais (P.W.7).He only helped the deceased to sit on the motorcycle, and the same may be the reason of his clothes not stained with blood.There was, thus, no reason for us to reject the testimony P.W.6 in regard to Shaukat.It may be true that P.W.7 named one 'Dastiwala'.He, however, explained the same stating :"....We reached the house.Kayum said that he would go back to hotel.Kayum left the house with Yamaha Motor Cycle, I followed him.I was on the bicycle.In front of house of Pasha, Salim stopped Kayum.Thereafter Salim, Shaukat, Arshad and Dastiwala were beating Ayub with stick Khanjar and Knife.I ran away after seeing them.I again say that I ran towards Kayum."He, however, stated :"....It is true that a person returning from 'Haj' pilgrimage wears white scarf (Dasti).It is not true that Suleman Pirani was always wearing white scarf."We also do not find much substance in the submission of Mr. Lalit that when the Police Inspector Abdul Karim - P.W.11, made inquiries from Mohammed Shakil - P.W.6, the names of the appellants were not disclosed.That was not the occasion where the names could be disclosed as P.W.11 had only informed him about the incident.All the people must have been worried abut the deceased.Furthermore, it is not in dispute that the incident took place at about 10.30 p.m., whereas the First Information Report was lodged at about 11.45 p.m. It is, therefore, unlikely that appellant - Syed Shaukat had been falsely implicated, particularly, in view of the fact that as a sequel to the incident which took place on 8th March he had lodged a report and in respect of the incident which took place on 14th March, the deceased had lodged a report.Furthermore, Dr. Rajendra Kagane - P.W.10 in his evidence categorically stated that injury No.2, which was vital, could be inflicted with Article 12 which overt act was ascribed to the appellant.The said weapon was also recovered pursuant to the confession made by him.We, therefore, do not find any merit in the appeal preferred by Syed Shaukat.So far as the appeal preferred by Mohammed Ashraf is concerned, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to benefit of doubt.He was not named in the first two dying declarations.He was named only in the 3rd dying declaration.
|
['Section 302 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.
|
1,838,983 |
...on 2.3.2001, DD No. 3A was got recorded through Railway Memo produced by Sh.Ram Asrey (Daily Defficeinty Register) SSE, Office Delhi Main that in 362/4 S.S.D on W/Line No. 21 in coach No. 11278A N.G.R.S. G.Z.B/end three gunny bags fully packed are lying in coach.Please arrange to remove these bags so that maintenance of the coach could be done.The DD was entrusted to SI Satender Kumar who reached near washing line No. 22 and found four gunny bags written 'Kishan Urea' in coach No. 11278A lying in the gallery near latrine.These were tied with jute rope/rassi.On opening the said gunny bags carton box, black punnies and bag SSC were found in which different parts of human body were found.In one bag human internal parts and intestine, in second bag two hands and feet along with leg, in third bag the part of human body above legs and below stomach was found, penis and testicles were found cut.In third bag human head with upper part of stomach was found.Injuries were found on the face and neck of that persons.The said man was aged around 35-40 years of age.On finding this dead body in the gunny bags, Satender Kumar prepared rukka on the basis of which the present case was registered.Crime team and photographer were summoned at the spot and Sr.officers were informed and investigation was carried out by Insp.B.S. Ahlawat.Identity of dead body could not be established.So, pamphlets of the dead body was prepared and gazette notification was published.Thereafter, SI Satender and Insp.B.S. Ahlawat went to Meerut, U.P. and found one missing report lodged in PS Kandla matching the description of deceased.Accordingly, dead body was got identified as of Giani Ram by son of deceased and his brother Nanak Chand and they suspected Jameel Ahmed Abassi in the murder of Giani Ram.So, police party reached at the house of Jameel Ahmed Abassi and arrested him as well as recovered articles from his residence which were matching the packing of gunny bags.Thereafter, other accused persons were also arrested and after completion of the investigation, challan was filed.The prosecution in order to substantiate the case examined as many as 26 witnesses.PW-3, Ram Asrey, deposed that on 2.3.2001, three or four gunny bags were found in Agra Passenger Train 362 Down in coach No. 11278 which were taken into possession vide memo Exhibit PW 3/A. PW-4, Khalid, deposes that he knew one person by the name of doctor but does not know his real name.He pointed out Jameel Ahmed.The witness was declared hostile and did not support the prosecution's case.PW-6, Head Constable Sudarshan Lal, deposes that on 2.3.2001, Delhi police officials went to Police Station Baraut, U.P. and distributed posters and pamphlets of an unknown and unclaimed body.He also pasted one on notice board of the Police Station.According to him, on 3.3.2001, one Dinesh Kumar came to the Police Station to enquire about an unknown person's accident and was told that no accident had taken place.Dinesh Kumar identified the body in the poster as that of Giani Bhai.Dr. Jameel was also along with Dinesh who confirmed the photograph to be that of Giani Ram.4. PW-7, Fajlu Rehman, has deposed that he was a rickshaw puller and that about one and a half year ago, he had taken a passenger in rickshaw to Kandla city from bus stand.The police met him at the bus stand and made enquiries about his name.He stayed along with police for about 5-10 minutes.He too does not support the prosecution's case.PW-8, Dinesh Kumar, who deposes that on 27.2.2001, Jameel had telephoned his father Giani Ram to reach Kandla Village, District Muzzafar Nagar.Jameel had established an ice factory and required his father, Giani Ram, to bring one lac of rupees along with him.The witness deposes that his father left for Kandla, however, he did not call back on that day nor the following day.On the evening of 2.3.2001, he along with his friends Hari Om, Ashok Kumar and Rajender left for Kandla.In the morning of 3.3.2001, he took Jameel with him to Police Station Kandla.The witness gave a complaint in writing about the missing of Giani Ram.He saw some poster at Police Station Baraut and told Jameel that the said photo appears to be that of his father.They went to Police Station Loni where he came to know that a dead body had been recovered at Railway Delhi Main.He goes on to say that he along with Jameel then came to Village Rithala.On 11.3.2001, Inspector came to his house and showed him some photographs.Nanak Chand, his uncle, was also there.The witness along with Nanak Chand then went to mortuary Subzi Mandi where he identified the dead body of his father.His statement was recorded Exhibit PW 8/A and he received the dead body vide memo Exhibit PW 8/B. On 27.3.2001, he along with Jameel and Dilshad went to Kandla.Some links of the strap of the wrist watch were recovered from near the drain in the heap of kura.The links got identified as belonging to his father.In cross-examination, he states that his father used to do the work of welding and from that business only their household expenses were met.He also states that accused Jameel had been visiting their house and his wife also came once, however, families of Jameel and the deceased were having friendly relations for the last six years.He states that he had identified the pieces of chain as he had seen his father wearing the same.There is no specific mark on the chain.At the time of recovery, he was not present but pieces of chain were shown to him later on.It was in crushed condition.5. PW-11, Jaidev, deposes that on 13/14.3.2001, he joined investigation.He along with Jameel, Dilshad and police officials went to Baraut Kotwali.From there, the accused led them to Village Kandla.The accused persons pointed out the place inside the house where they had kept the dead body of the deceased Giani Ram and also got recovered a saw which was seized vide memo Exhibit PW 11/A. The accused thereafter led them to the cremation ground from where they recovered pieces of blade and a piece of chain of wrist watch.One pair of shoes, socks and one piece looking like shirt belonging to Giani Ram were sealed in a parcel with a seal of BSA.In cross-examination, the witness deposes that he was asked to join investigation by the wife and brother of deceased and became witness as they were unwell.No police official asked him to join investigation.It was the son of Giani Ram, namely, Dinesh Kumar, who had identified the pieces of wrist watch chain as belonging to his father.He did not tell any special mark.Police did not look for any special identification mark on the piece of chain.Police did not put any special mark of identification on the saw.6. PW-14, ASI Vijay, deposed to the arrest of Fazludeen and Ahsan from Village Kandla as also recording of their disclosure statements Exhibit PW 14/A and 14/B. In cross-examination, he states that he does not recollect if any person from the locality was informed about the accused being brought to railway station Sarai Rohilla at Delhi.They were formally arrested at Delhi.PW-15, Ramji Dass, states that he runs a STD booth at Kandla, District Muzzafar Nagar with the name and style Sonu STD Booth.One Jameel used to come to his booth to make telephone calls.Due to poor eye sight, he was unable to identify Jameel in the court.He produced register Exhibit PX which was seized vide memo Exhibit PW 15/A.7. PW-16, Nanak Chand, deposes that he knew Jameel and his family members.Jameel was a Tantrik and had hypnotized his entire family.Jameel had sold medicines to him including Tabeez.He goes on to depose that accused Jameel had been visiting his house for the last 7-8 years and that Giani Ram was his younger brother.On 25.2.2001 at about 12:45 p.m., a telephone call was received at his house from Jameel.Jameel told him that accused wanted to setup an ice factory and he should send Giani Ram with one lac of rupees.The witness told him to talk directly to Giani Ram.On 27.2.2001, Giani Ram left the house at 4 p.m. for going to Kandla.Giani Ram, whenever he used to go to Kandla, he used to call at Delhi after reaching there, however, no telephone call was received on Wednesday and Thursday.Thereafter, at about 8:15 p.m., he reached the house of accused Jameel on 1.3.2001 and made enquiries.He was told that Giani Ram had left for Delhi on that very day.He made enquiries but could not trace Giani Ram.The witness came back on Friday to Delhi and told his family members that Giani Ram did not meet him at Kandla upon which Dinesh left for Kandla.This information was given to Jameel Ahmed.The witness asked Dinesh to lodge a report which was not recorded.He then gave a complaint in writing at Police Station Kandla.He asked Dinesh to make enquiries from the police stations following between Kandla and Delhi.On 6.3.2001, he along with 20 persons went to Kandla for the Eid function at the house of Jameel.On that day also a complaint in writing was made at Police Station Kandla.Jameel Ahmed accompanied them in search of Giani Ram at Village Kandla.On 11.3.2001, a telephone call was received from Police Station Kandla informing him that pieces of dead body were recovered at Railway Main Delhi.In cross-examination, he states that he has no proof of the ownership of the shop as well as him running the hardware business.However, he states that he is a retailer of hardware products.He had to purchase the same from the local market in Shyamli.He admits that there are many shops of hardware who sold the same saw and blades.The other shopkeepers have also purchased hardware goods from where he purchased.He identified the saw only because the accused pointed out at his shop in the presence of police.9. PW-18, Suresh Chand, deposes that he runs a shop selling pannis, ropes, bamboos, etc. On 28.3.2001, some police officials along with two persons came to his shop.He could not identify the two persons in court.Both persons pointed out towards his shop and told the police that they had purchased a black panni and a rope from his shop.He had told the police personal that he cannot say that the two persons purchased pannis from his shop because many customers used to come daily.The police prepared a pointing out memo Exhibit PW 18/A. The witness was sought to be cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor but does not support his earlier statement.In cross-examination, the witness states that he was running a shop for over 7-8 years but did not have any proof of running such a shop nor could he produce the same.He purchased pannis from Muzzafar Nagar.PW-23, Neeraj Goel, states that he is running a fertilizer shop in the name of 'M/s Goel Trading Company'.JUDGMENT R.S. Sodhi, J.Death Sentence Reference No. 2 of 2006 and Criminal Appeal No. 205 of 2007 arise out of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. 103 of 2002 arising out of F.I.R. No. 79 of 2001, registered at Police Station Railway Main Delhi, whereby learned judge vide his judgment and order dated 19.05.2006 has held the appellants guilty for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC.Further by his order dated 25.05.2006, awarded death sentence to Dr. Jameel Ahmed and Dilshad for an offence under Section 302/34 IPC.He, however, acquitted the appellants under Sections 120-B/201/34 IPC.The judge also acquitted Fazludeen and Ahsan of all charges framed against them.He accordingly went to Railway Main Delhi and then to Subzi Mandi mortuary and identified the dead body of Giani Ram vide statement Exhibit PW 16/B. He received the dead body vide memo Exhibit PW 8/B. In cross-examination, he states that for the last 7-8 years, Jameel Ahmed used to send medicines to his family.PW-17, Ajay Kumar, states that he runs a hardware shop in front of his house in the name of M/s. Ajay Kumar.On 14.3.2001, some police officials of Delhi police along with two persons, out of which one person is Jameel Ahmed, present in court, was with the police officials.He cannot identify the other person who accompanied the police party.The accused pointed out towards his shop that they had purchased saw and its blade from his shop.The police prepared a pointing out memo Exhibit PW 17/A. He could identify the said saw if shown to him.The witness identified the saw and the blade as purchased from his shop.Other shopkeepers also used to purchase the pannis from Muzzafar Nagar and the same were sold in Shyamli.There were no specific marks to identify any panni.PW-19, SI Raj Kumar Tyagi, states that on 6.3.2001, he was posted at Police Station Kandla.He was responsible for beating of the drums in order to give publicity to the poster.In cross-examination, the witness states that he had neither recorded F.I.R. nor made case diary but made interrogations orally.PW-22, Constable Dharampal Singh, states that on 6.3.2001, a 'Missing Person's Report' was lodged at 4.40 p.m. by Nanak Chand and Deep Chand, residents of Delhi.On 28.2.2001, he arranged a bhandara in Mata Mandir at Kandla (U.P.).Jameel came to his shop to purchase four plastic bags in which he had kept urea.He sold him the bags for Rs. 32/- and can identify the bags.He has identified the bags as Ex.In cross-examination, he admits that the seals on some of the the pullandas were not visible.He also admits that he had brought no proof to show that he is running a urea shop at Uttar Pradesh.However, he purchased the urea from Gopal Trading Company, Muzzafar Nagar.He does not have any proof of dealership for purchasing the same.He volunteered that there is only one urea shop in the entire area in Kandla.He goes on to state that he used to sell urea bags to whoever purchased the same.He admits that prior to his selling the bags to Dr. Jameel, he had sold a number of them to other customers also.He could not give the details.He admits that such like bags are obtained from even other shops.He admits that there is no specific mark on the bags shown as having been purchased from his shop.PW-24, SI Satinder Kumar, is the Investigating Officer who deposes as to the steps taken during investigation, various recoveries made and exhibiting them.PW-25, Anil Kumar, states that on 14.3.2001, he had a shop which sold sports items at Shyamli.On that day, he saw many police officials standing in front of his shop.He was asked whether he is the owner of the shop.At that time, two more persons, Dr. Jameel and Dilshad, who are present in court, were with the Police party.The Police inquired of him if he had sold any SSC bags of sports to the accused persons.The witness replied that he cannot say whether the SSC bags were purchased by the accused persons from his shop.This witness was not cross-examined by the APP.Dilshad, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denies the incriminating material put to him and pleads that he has been falsely implicated.Similarly, Jameel in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denies the incriminating material put to him and claims that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.The Additional Sessions Judge, upon an overall analysis of the testimony of the PWs, returned a finding that the last seen evidence is absent.However, he returned a finding that Dr. Jameel had made telephone call to the house of the deceased at Delhi on 25.2.2001 which was attended to by Nanak Chand, PW-16, and further corroborated by PW-8, Dinesh Kumar, who deposes that his father left for Kandla on instructions from Jameel to see the ice factory and to bring rupees one lac.Relying upon the testimonies of PW-17, Ajay Kumar, PW-18, Suresh Chand, PW-23 Neeraj Goel and PW-25, Anil Kumar, according to the learned Judge, the Prosecution has proved that the accused pointed out the shops from where they purchased the saw and its blades vide Memo Ex. 7/A and 7/B. Similarly, the pannis from the shop of PW-18, Suresh Chand, were pointed out vide Memo Ex. 18/A and the plastic bags from the shop of Neeraj Goel, PW-23, vide pointing Memo Ex.23/A. The Court held that it was of the opinion that the Prosecution had proved that Dr. Jameel had purchased the said bags from the shop of PW-23, Neeraj Goel, with intention to pack the dead body of the deceased in these bags.So, the Prosecution has proved the pointing out Memo Ex. PW-23/A. It also held that the Prosecution has proved the pointing out Memo Ex. PW-25/A regarding the purchase of SSC bags from sports shop though the shopkeeper cannot recollect whether the accused had purchased them from him.The Prosecution has also proved the recovery of the unclaimed gunny bags as also the copy of the F.I.R. and the DD No. 3A, besides the fact that the deceased had come to the house of Jameel Ahmad on the night of 27.2.2001 and did not return to his residence thereafter.The Court has also used the disclosure statements of Jameel and Dilshad to prove the motive and recoveries of pieces of chains, saw blades and the saw etc. It has also used the disclosure statement to buttress its judgment regarding the common intention to commit murder of Gianni Ram and thereafter, although acquitting the appellants of the charge of 120-B/201/34 IPC.The learned Public Prosecutor, Ms. Richa Kapoor, has very fairly and with great deal of professionalism, taken us through the record of this case since nobody appeared to assist this Court on behalf of the appellants.On an analysis of the material placed before us, we find that the case of the Prosecution revolves around the telephone call received by the deceased from Dr. Jameel to come and assist him in setting up an ice factory at Kandla and to bring rupees one lac.The deceased is stated to have reached Kandla on 27.2.2001 and not returned home thereafter.Coupled with this is the so-called pointing out memos by the accused showing the place from where certain packing material was purchased in which the body of Giani Ram was recovered by the Police at the Railway Station Delhi.The above, together with the recovery of a hacksaw and broken pieces of blades, is the mainstay of the Prosecution's case.The trial court itself has come to the conclusion that there is no positive evidence on record regarding the last seen, yet has gone on to rely upon the telephone call made by Dr. Jameel pursuant to which the deceased came to Kandla.The circumstance that Dr. Jameel invited the deceased to Kandla to help Dr. Jameel in setting up his ice factory, even if proved, by itself is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.The question, therefore, that needs attention is whether the pointing out of shops selling the packing material would in itself be sufficient to show that the packing material was, in fact, purchased and the dead body disposed of in the packing material so purchased.In the testimony of PW-17, Ajay Kumar, we find that he had a hardware shop and that on 14.3.2001, some Policemen along with two persons came to his shop.The witness identifies Dr. Jameel as one of the persons with the Police party.He deposes that a pointing out Memo, Ex. PW-17/A, was prepared and that he identified the aaree/saw handle, Ex. P-1, on account of the pointing out in presence of the Police party.He admits that the saw is easily available in many other shops and that he along with the other shop owners makes purchases of hardware from Shyamli itself and that there are many shops selling such like saws and blades.He cannot identify that it was Jameel or Dilshad who had purchased this saw and the blade from his shop.His testimony is only general in nature and based on his shop being identified by the accused persons.Similarly, PW-18, Suresh Chand, runs a shop selling pannis, ropes and bamboos.He deposes to the fact that on 28.3.2001 personnel from Delhi Police along with two persons came to his shop.He cannot identify the two persons who were along with the Police party.Both persons pointed out to his shop but he cannot say that these were the persons who purchased the pannis from his shop.He also admits that such like pannis are available at many shops which he, along with other shopkeepers, purchases from Muzzafar Nagar and sells in Shyamli.There was no specific mark of identification on any of the pannis.PW-23, Neeraj Goel, runs a fertilizer shop.He admits that he had sold a large number of bags to a large number of customers prior to the bags being sold to Dr. Jameel and could give no details of the number of bags sold.He also admits that such like bags can be obtained from other shops in the area as well and that there is no specific mark on the bags to show that they were purchased from his shop.He denies the suggestion that Dr. Jameel is the President of Yuva Congress and that he is a BJP worker.Similarly, PW-25, Anil Kumar, sells sport items in Shyamli.He, on 14.3.2001, saw a large number of police officials standing in front of his shop and that two persons, Dr. Jameel and Dilshad, were along with the Police Party.He categorically told the Police party that he cannot say whether the SSC bags were purchased by these two persons from his shop.This witness was not cross-examined by the APP.The recoveries of these articles have been made many days after their alleged use from an open place accessible to each and every one and cannot be termed as being 'places within the special knowledge of only the accused persons'.Furthermore, strangely enough, there is no evidence on record to show which of the accused made which disclosure statement, at what point of time and thereafter at whose instance were any recoveries made.The material on record suggests that both the accused made statements simultaneously and got recoveries effected simultaneously at simultaneous pointing outs.This cryptic and shoddy method, to say the least, is not acceptable and cannot be made the basis of a conviction.Last but not the least, is the so-called motive.There is no admissible evidence on record to show that the deceased was having an illicit relation with the wife of Dr. Jameel.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,839,016 |
There was a longstanding property dispute between the family of P.W.1 and the accused appellant.There was a panchayat constituted.The accused was demanding the house property, in which P.W.1 and her family members were residing.At the time of Panchayat on 22.12.2005, P.W.1 and her family members were demanding partition of the property of the accused, to which course he was not amenable.Hence, the panchayatdars advised them to divide the ancestral property.In view of the wordy altercation between them, they could not decide the matter and left it open.In the panchayat, P.W.5 was among them.(b) On 23.12.2005, at about 7.00 PM, there was a quarrel between the members of both families in respect of the property as usual.At that time, the son of P.W.1 told the accused that his father had no eye sight and therefore, not to quarrel with him.The accused originally threatened him to stab and thereafter, actually stabbed him by taking a pen knife on his left thigh.When P.W.1 intervened, he also attacked her on her right eyebrow and fled away from the place of occurrence.(c) Immediately, P.W.1 and others took the severely injured Munikrishnan to the Government Hospital, Denkanikottai.Treatment was given to him by P.W.7 doctor and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.Despite treatment, he died at 10.40 p.m. on the same day.An intimation was given to the respondent Police Station about the death of Munikrishnan.(d) On intimation, P.W.13, the Sub-Inspector of the respondent police Station proceeded to the Government Hospital, where he recorded the statement of P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P-1 and on the strength of the said complaint, a case came to be registered in Crime No.370 of 2005 under Sections 294-B, 302 and 324 I.P.C. against the appellant/accused and the first information report is marked as Ex.P-17 and the copy of the same was despatched to the Court.(e) P.W.14, the Inspector of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection, prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-19 and he also caused photographs to be taken through P.W.9 and the photos and negatives are marked as M.O.4 series.Thereafter, he sent the dead body to the hospital for the purpose of post-mortem along with his requisition.(f) On receipt of the requisition, P.W.8 doctor attached to the Government General Hospital, Denkanikottai, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Munikrishnan and gave post-mortem certificate, Ex.P-7, wherein she opined that the deceased would appear to have died out of shock and haemorrhage due to the penetrating injury.Pursuant to which, he produced M.O.1 knife and the same was recovered under a cover of mahazar Ex.Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand.Then, all the material objects, namely, blood stained earth M.O.2, sample earth M.O.3, blood stained dresses of the deceased M.Os.5 to 9 were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.(Judgment of the court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.26 of 2007, whereby the single and sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under section 324 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.Short facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, can be stated thus:(a) P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased Munikrishnan.P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased.The accused/appellant is the brother of P.W.1's husband.After getting Ex.P-14 biological report, Ex.P-15 chemical report and Ex.P-16 serological report and after examining the witnesses and on completion of investigation, he filed the final report under sections 302 and 324 I.P.C.(h) The case was committed to the Court of Principal Sessions Division, Krishnagiri and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and also relied on 19 exhibits and 9 material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial Court heard the arguments advanced and scrutinized the materials.On doing so, the trial Judge took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant/accused guilty and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment as referred to above, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.It is not in controversy that one Munikrishnan, son of P.W.1 was taken to the Government Hospital, Denkanikottai following the incident that took place at about 7.00 PM on 23.12.2005, where he was given treatment by P.W.7 doctor and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,904,279 |
The respondent was went to the hospital and recorded statement of the above said person Raja Sekar who has said that there was a wordy quarrel between his brother Raja and the petitioners for which the petitioners and some other persons trespassed into his house, brutally attacked him and his brother Raja and caused injuries to both of them.The contention of the petitioners is that there was already some enmity between the said Raja who belong to the rival parties.The petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case.The petitioner has never attacked the above said person Raja Sekar and his brother Raja.Due to political rivalries the petitioners have been falsely implicated in this case however both the groups belongs to the different community.2/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8338 of 2020The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that intimation from the Government Hospital, Cheyyar, the respondent police has recorded the statement and the Raja Sekar who was taken treatment as inpatient and A1 & A2 has also caused injuries to the above said person Raja Sekar on his left hand wrist and his brother Raja got injured on his right hand wrist and left hand shoulder.In this case, the injured has been discharged from the hospital as far as A5 is concerned, there is no previous case against him.However the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submit that since there was a clash between the two groups, the petitioners return back to the village would disturb the peace of the public and cause nuisance in the village.The petitioners were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.05.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,148, 294(b), 1/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8338 of 2020 323, 506(ii) & 307 of IPC in Crime No.760 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.05.2020 at about 09.00 p.m., the respondent received an intimation from the Cheyyar Government Hospital, where one Raja Sekar was taking treatment.(b) the petitioners shall execute two sureties for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, before the concerned Magistrate within a period of 15 days from the date of lifting of lockdown and commencement of regular functioning of Court below, failing which the bail granted by this Court shall stand dismissed automatically;(c) the sureties shall affix their photographs and Left Thumb Impression in the surety bond and the learned Magistrate may obtain a copy of their Aadhar card or Bank pass Book to ensure their identity;(d) the petitioners shall report before the Villupuram Town Police Station for a period of two weeks daily at 10.30 a.m.(e) the petitioners shall not commit any offences of similar nature;(f) the petitioners shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;(g) the petitioners shall not tamper with evidence or witness either during investigation or trial;4/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8338 of 2020(h) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioners released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560];(i) if the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 229A IPC.With the above directions, this Criminal Original Petition is ordered.15.06.2020 arb 5/6http://www.judis.nic.in CRL.O.P. No.8338 of 2020 M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Cheyyar.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.The Sub Inspector of Police, Moranam Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.O.P.No.8338 of 2020 15.06.2020
|
['Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,905,369 |
It did not yield the expected result.The elders of the family, thereafter, suggested Shanthi to join her husband and live together with his paramour.3.Shanthi was employed as a Sweeper at Kelamangalam Government Hospital.She got transferred to Primary Health Centre at Panathur, so that, she can join her husband.On the day of occurrence, Shanthi took her daughter to her mother 's house.Left her daughter with her mother and returned to Kattalan kottai.For returning home, late in the evening, her mother-in-law and father-in-law scolded her in a filthy language so, Shanthi went to her room and closed the door and slept.Hearing the knocking of thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 door, she opened the door and found her mother-in-law and father-in-law waiting.Her mother-in-law (A.2), caught hold of her hair and hand.Her father-in-law (A.1), attacked her with Aruval over her neck, leg, hip and back.Shanthi pleaded for mercy and screamed to leave her alive and allow her to go elsewhere and live with her daughter peacefully.But, the accused (A.1 and A.2) threatened them with dire consequences, if they intervene.So Kasiammal and Periyannan moved away from the place.The victim was first taken to Kaveripakkam hospital and due to the gravity of injuries, P.W.1 was referred to the General Hospital, Salem.This fact is recorded in Accident Report - Ex.9.The F.I.R., was registered after receiving the statement from the victim.P.W.10 – Murugesan, Grade - I Police has spoken about these facts.It is corroborated by P.W.11 - Inspector of Police.Therefore, apart from the evidence of the victim, through the deposition of P.W.4 – Kumar and P.W.5 - Pandiyan, the prosecution has proved the fact that, P.W.1 has sustained cut injuries all over her body and she was taken to the hospital for treatment.To establishhttp://www.judis.nic.in 8 who caused that injuries, the evidence of P.W.1 gain significance since, she being the victim, in her deposition she had stated that on 28.02.2007, her mother-in-law (A.1) knocked the doors of the room.She under the impression that A.1 has brought food for her, innocently opened the door.At that time, A.1 caught hold of her hair tightly.A.1 with Aruval has indiscriminately attacked her on her neck, hand, hip, shoulder and leg.When she pleaded for her life and prayed to leave her alone so that, she will go somewhere, they did not allow her.She tried to flee from there.But both of them (A.1 and A.2) chased her and threw her nearby Well.According to P.W.1, they tried to bury her.While they were digging pit to bury her, she escaped from them and met Kumar – P.W.4, Laxmanan – P.W.3 and one Shankar, on the way and with their help, she was taken to hospital.15.P.W.9 - Dr.2.The case of the prosecution, as per the final report is that, one Shanthi, a resident of Kudimanahalli Kattakalan Kottai was married to one Krishnan.During the subsistence of their marriage, her husband started living with another lady at Paparapatti.Shanthi gave a complaint with Bargur Police regarding the illicit affair of her husband with another lady.A.1 attacked Shanthi with Aruval on both her wrists.A.1 and A.2 after removing the saree of the victim, threw her in a well.While they were preparing to dig a pit, the victim escaped.On her way, Kumar, Lakshmanan and Shankar saw her, took her to Kaveripattinam hospital.Later, she was shifted to General Hospital, Salem.After receiving the complaint from the victim - Shanthi, the F.I.R., came to be registered.5.To prove the case, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses and marked Exs.The accused have not chosen to examine any witness or mark any document on their side.6.The trial Court, after appreciating the material facts before it, held both the accused guilty of charges, convicted and sentenced A.1 and A.2 as follows:-7.The present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused 1 and 2, on the ground that except the victim's evidence (P.W.1), no evidence of the independent witness has corroborated the prosecution case.Whereas, P.W.1, in her deposition, has indicated only two persons.The omission to implicate other two persons caste doubt over her evidence.The contradiction about the nature of the weapon used is fatal to the prosecution.P.W.1 not sure, 'Whether she was attacked with Aruval or Vettu kathi'.The earliest information received by the Police is not before the Court.P.1 - complaint which was prepared subsequently carries embellishment and false information.The hostility of eye witness (P.W.2) is fatal to prosecution.The statement of witnesses that the Police was informed about thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6 incident prior to that, does not mean that the said information was sufficient to record first information report and proceed.Therefore, the discrepancy in naming the weapon or the hostility of recovery mahazar witness are insignificance in the light of victim evidence.11.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the defacto complainant – P.W.1 had given a clear picture of what happened to her, on the day of occurrence.Her evidence being natural, cogent and consistent, corroborated by the Wound Certificate and the material objects, M.O.1 – blood stained hair; M.O.3 – blood stained knife.The blood stained clothes of the victim are clinching evidence against the accused persons.Though P.Ws.2, 6 and 7 have turned hostile and failed to support the case of the prosecution, the evidence elicited from the rest of the witnesses proved the prosecution case, beyond doubt that the accused 1 and 2/appellants have committed offence under Sections 341, 307 and 506(ii)12.The point to be determined in this Criminal Appeal is, 'Whether the evidence relied by the prosecution is sufficient to hold the appellants guiltyhttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 of the charges framed against them' and 'Whether the trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence in proper perspective'.13.The appellants are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the defacto complainant (P.W.1).The victim was admitted in the Government hospital, Salem for the injuries she sustained.Laxmanan – P.W.3, Kumar – P.W.4 have deposed that they took P.W.1 - Shanthi to the Burgur Government Hospital and on reference, she was taken to Kaveripattinam Hospital and was given first aid and on the advice of the Doctor, she was shifted to Salem Government Hospital.P.W.9 – Dr.The Accident Register copy is marked as Ex.14.Based on the intimation received from the hospital, the Police attached to Burgur Police station has gone to the hospital, recorded the statement of the victim - P.W.1 and taken up the investigation.Hariram, who was working in Kaveripattinam Primary Health Centre has deposed that, on 28.02.2007 at about 11.00 pm, Shanthi – P.W.1 came to the hospital and on examining her, he found seven injuries on her body.He has referred her to Salem Government Hospital for further treatment.The Accident Register marked as Ex.P.9, indicates the defacto complainant (P.W.1) has sustained seven cut injuries, out of which, three were grievous in nature.16.A feeble doubt is raised by the learned counsel for the appellants regarding the previous complaint and the statement of P.W.1 alleged to have been given before the Kaveripattinam Police.From the evidence we could not find any such complaint or statement formally lodged with the Kaveripattinam Police Station.The victim who had pleaded for her life, cannot expected to recollect the event during the cross examination more particularly, to whom are all she has reiterated about the incident.Minor discrepancies regarding this aspect does not shake the strong foundation of the prosecution.17.Few witnesses failure to support the prosecution also, will not have any impact in the prosecution case.The victim had deposed about the overt act of the appellants.Therefore, the finding of the trial Court holding A.1 and A.2 guilty of offences under Sections 307, 341 and 506(ii) I.P.C., is based on evidence and it requires no inference.http://www.judis.nic.in 1018.At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the first appellant is no more and the second appellant being a lady, sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment is too harsh and excessive.Though, no death certificate is furnished regarding the death of the first accused, considering the age and the gender of the second appellant, this Court is of the view that, the sentence imposed on the second appellant for offence under Section 307 I.P.C., is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.The sentences shall run concurrently.Except the above modification, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed.19.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.The trial Court is directed to secure the presence of the appellants to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.13.02.2019 jbm Index: Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 To1.The Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 12 G.JAYACHANDRAN.J., jbm Crl.A.No.774 of 2011 13.02.2019http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,839,065 |
The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless he is required in any other case.The Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Chennai.The Superintendent Central Prison,Puzhal, Chennai.(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner challenges the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.285/2007 dated 3.7.2007 under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a Goonda, by filing this petition for Habeas Corpus seeking to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the order of detention, referred to above, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set at liberty forthwith.The impugned order of detention dated 3.7.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.297 of 2007 on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 336, 397 and 506(2) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by one Subramaniam.According to the complainant, on 20.6.2007 at about 19.00 hours, when he was proceeding in the southern gate of Tambaram Railway station, the detenu along with another waylaid him and at the knife point, threatened him to part with his money and when the complainant attempted to raise alarm, they held the knife on the complainant's neck and removed the gold chain.The accused also threatened the public who came to his rescue, by brandishing the knife and pelted stones against them, which scattered all over the platform.Fearing danger to their lives, the public ran for safer places and taking advantage of the panic situation, the accused escaped from the spot.During investigation, the detenu and the other accused were arrested and produced before Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, who remanded them to judicial custody.The second respondent, taking note of the above ground case and finding that there are three adverse cases, two on the file of Koyambedu Police Station Crime Nos.4181/2005 and 4397/2005 for the offence under Section 384 and 379 r/w 34 IPC and one on the file of Tambaram Railway Police Station Cr.No.273 of 2007 for the offence under Section 379 IPC., having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention branding him as a Goonda.The learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in DARPAN KUMAR SHARMA alias DHARBAN KUMAR SHARMA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [(2003) 1 CRIMES 446], contends that the three adverse cases, referred to above, relate to the offence punishable under Section 379 and 384 I.P.C., and therefore, the solitary instance of robbery mentioned in the ground case is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention and hence, the impugned order of detention suffers on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said point.Thus, a solitary instance of robbery as mentioned in the grounds of detention is not relevant for sustaining the order of detention for the purpose of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order."That apart, the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one of us (P.D.DINAKARAN, J.) was a party, in MALA v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, GOVT.OF TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI, [(2004) M.L.J. (Crl.) 306].The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,907,375 |
The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to Signature Not Verified SAN ensure that he is not suffering from the coronavirus and if he is, he shall be Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE Date: 2020.11.11 13:32:37 IST 2 MCRC-36507-2020 sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment.If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.C.C. as per rules.(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE PG Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by PARMESHWAR GOPE Date: 2020.11.11 13:32:37 ISTThis is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in connection with Crime No 523/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 481, 482, 483, 486, 487, 488, 489 and 420 of IPC and under Sections 51(A), 52(A), 68(A), 63 and 65 of Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Police Station- Hatta District-Damoh.T h e applicant is in judicial custody since 26.08.2020 in the aforementioned case.The allegations against him is that he makes spurious motor-oil and coolant and sells it as branded products of known Companies.Upon the raid of his premises, spurious motor-oil and coolant worth Rs. 14,50,000/- was recovered from his site.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,839,103 |
P.W. 3 Thandapani is residing at Palani Adivaram.All the three witnesses are friends.They used to play cards for stakes in poramboke land under a Karuvelan tree near Vaiyapuri Tank.(b) The occurrence took place on 15-3-87 at about 3.00 p.m. The appellant along with P.Ws. 1 to 3 gathered in the said place for playing cards on the fateful day.P.W.2 Chinnadurai spread a green cloth M.O.1 for playing cards.Thereafter, all the persons were gambling with playing cards M.O. 2 series.The deceased Rajendran, one of the players, was winning in all the games, whereas the appellant Rajendran was losing.Ultimately, the appellant lost all his money in the game.So, he could not gamble further and he requested the deceased Rajendran to allow him to participate in the free cards.However, the deceased Rajendran refused to give him free cards and asked to to get out.(c) So, the appellant got annoyed at this and in a bid of rage, he took out a knife M.O. 3 from inside his banian and inflicted a single stab injury on the left side of the chest of the said Rajendran.On receipt of the said injury Rajendran fell down.All the witnesses and others attempted to catch the appellant.He threatened them with the knife and took to his heels.The witnesses came near the deceased and found that he already died.JUDGMENT M. Karpagavinayagam, J.Raja, the appellant herein, challenging the conviction imposed upon him for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., has filed this appeal.The prosecution case is as follows :-So, Kulanthaivelu, the brother of the deceased along with P.W.1, went to the police station.These documents were sent to the Court as well as to the higher officials.He recovered green cloth M.O.1, one 50 paise coin M.O. 5, 4 Beedies M.O. 6 series, a match box M.O. 6, playing cards M.O. 2 series and blood stained earth M.O. 8 from the scene of occurrence.Ex. P-15 is the inquest report.Thereafter, he sent the body for post-mortem to the hospital.(f) P.W.5, the Medical Officer attached to the Palani Government Hospital, conducted postmortem on 16-3-87 at 10.30 a.m. He found the following external injury :-An elipitcal transversely placed wound over left side of chest 3" below left clavicle close sternum over the second intercostal space measuring 2 1/2 x 1" exposing the subcutaneous tissue intercostal muscles and rib.He found that the deceased died due to fatal injury to the great vessel ascending aorta causing haemorrhage.When the arrest was resisted by the appellant/accused, the police used force to apprehend him.In pursuance of the said confession, M.O. 3 knife was recovered from the place on being pointed out by the accused.Since the accused had injury on his body, he was sent to the hospital.(i) P.W.11 sent the material objects for chemical analysis.During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined, Ex. P-1 to P-16 were filed and M.Os. 1 to 15 were marked.On questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied having participated in the commission of offence.The evidence of P.W. 1 is very clear to the effect that the appellant/accused having lost ten times, on the 11th time, he requested the deceased Rajendran to allow him to play free cards.The deceased not only did not allow him to play free cards and distributed the cards to others by ignoring the appellant, but also shouted at the appellant asking him to get out.In these circumstances, it can be concluded that the act of removing the knife which he had kept inside his banian and stabbing on the chest and causing a single injury and running away from the place would definitely fall under First Exception of Section 300, I.P.C. which is liable to be punished under Section 304, Part-I, I.P.C. In view of the matter, we deem it fit to convert the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. into 304, Part II, I.P.C.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
183,913,229 |
Item No. 17and In the matter of: Ashter Ali @ Astar Ali ...... Petitioner Ms. Jinia Rudra, Advocate Ms. Madhushri Dutta Majumder, Advocate ......for the Petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty.Additional Public Prosecutor....... for the State The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that after a motor accident, there was a violent demonstration by a mob who assaulted police personnel and damaged the vehicle.The petitioner is in no way connected with the said offence.Counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.Accordingly, we are inclined to extend the privilege of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the petitioner.Therefore, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioner namely, Ashter Ali @ Astar Ali, be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with further condition that the petitioner shall meet the Investigation Officer of the case as and when required and shall cooperate with him.The application being CRM 4736 of 2020 is disposed of. 2
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,747,609 |
PF within 3 clear working days, returnable within 4 weeks.Heard on I.A.No.7215/2013, an application for grant of stay.It is submitted by counsel for the applicant that as Civil suit No.1-A of 2010 is already pending in the court of Civil Judge Class-II, Naogaon, the proceeding u/s 145 Cr.P.C. in case No.23/2009 before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naogaon District Chatarpur cannot be allowed.7215/2013 is allowed and it is directed that proceedings pending in Case No.23/09 u/s145 of Cr.P.C. pending before SDM, Naogaon shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.C.C. As per rules.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb M.Cr.C.No.3443/13 3.4.2013 Shri Sankalp Kochar, Counsel for the applicant.R.Kushwaha, PL for the Sate.Call for the case diary then list for admission.Heard on I..A.No.6319/2013, an application for stay.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that if in R.T.27/13, Crime No.57/2013 pending before JMFC, Begumganj District Raisen charges are framed then this petition shall become futile.In view of the aforesaid submission it is directed that learned trial court shall not frame charges on the petitioner till the next date of hearing.C.C. as per rules.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 11403/10 3.4.2013 Shri S.K.Dwivedi, Counsel for the applicant.R.Kushwaha, PL for the Sate.Learned counsel for the State prays for time to call for the case diary.Time granted.I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.C.C. as per rules.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 1474/12 3.4.2013 Shri R.N.Dwivedi, Counsel for the applicant.None for the respondent though served.Heard on the point of admission.Petition seems to be arguable hence admitted.List for final hearing in due course.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.2888/13 3.4.2013 Applicant No.1 with Shri Manish Tiwari, Counsel for the applicants.Respondent No.1 with Ms.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha, PL for the Sate/respondent No.2 Parties identified by their respective counsel.As directed vide order dated 18.3.2013, applicant No.1 Vajid Ali and respondent No.1 Nilofar Khan are present in the court.It is submitted by counsel for the parties that applicant No.1 and respondent No.1 are living together.It is submitted that they have filed an application for compromise u/s 320(2) of the Cr.P.C. but the learned trial court partly allowed the application only for offence u/s 506 Part-I but the offence u/s 3,4 of Dowry Prohibition Act was rejected.Now since compromise has been arrived at between the applicant and respondent and the dispute has been settled between the parties.In the facts and circumstances of the case, by applying the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. proceedings in RT No. 18336/09 pending before JMFC, Bhopal (Smt.Shashi Singh) together with FIR dated 15.10.2009 registered in Crime No.122/09 by Mahila Thana, Bhopal u/s 3and4 of Dowry Prohibition Act are hereby quashed.Petitioners Vajid Ali, Sattar Ali, Jaibunisha and Vahid Ali are acquitted of the charges and they are set at liberty and their bail bonds are discharged.With the aforesaid direction the petition is disposed of.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 5984/2012 3.4.2013 Shir V.P.Kushwaha, Counsel for the petitioner seeks 2 weeks time to remove the default.Time granted.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.7662/2012 3.4.2013 Shir Avinash Zargar, Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Ramesh Kushwaha,P.L. for the State.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he seeks to withdraw this petition with liberty to agitate wrong involvement and facts of identification before the trial court which shall be decided by the trial court.Counsel for the petitioner is granted the aforesaid liberty to agitate the matter before the trial court.With the aforesaid liberty petition is disposed of .(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 8347/2012 3.4.2013 Shir Ramakant Patel, Counsel for the petitioner.Time granted.Time granted.List after two weeks.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 13136/2012 3.4.2013 Shri Vikas Mishra, Counsel for the applicant.On the request of learned counsel for the applicant list after a week alongwith M.Cr.C.No.10951/12 for analogous hearing.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.1378/13 3.4.2013 Shri D.Chandramalik, Counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the respondent prays for 2 weeks time to file some documents.Prayer is objected by counsel for the applicant.At this stage it cannot be stated that the allegations against the respondent is proved so no stay can be granted.List after 2 weeks.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 1504/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Parag Chaturvedi Counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for 2 weeks time to examine the reply.Learned counsel for the respondent has objected the prayer.By way of last opportunity a week's time is granted with the direction that if petitioner does no co-operate then the order dated 18.2.2013 granting interim relief shall be vacated.List on 10.4.2013 I.R. to continue till the next date of hearing.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 1790/2013 3.4.2013 Shri T.S,Ruprah, Sr.Advocate , Counsel for the applicant.Shri Saytapal Singh Chadar, P.L. for the State.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 1831/13 3.4.2013 Shri O.P.Dwivedi, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Saytapal Singh Chadar, P.L. for the State.Heard on I.A.No.6224/2013, an application for impleading Smt.Since complainant may be a necessary party in the case application is allowed.Counsel for the applicant is directed to implead Vidya Devi as respondent No.2 by amending the cause title.The said amendment be carried out within a period of 3 days.After such amendment notice be issued to respondent No.2 by both modes i.e. ordinary as well as RAD, on payment of process fee within 3 clear working days, returnable within 4 weeks.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 3735/13 3.4.2013 Shri Sourabh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. For the State.Heard on the point of admission.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed in order to give direction to Station Officer of Police Station, Madhavnagar, District Katni as he is not taking suitable action on the written report of petitioner dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure P-2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Petition No.5525/2009 dated 25.11.2009 and in M.Cr.C.No.2609/2013 such type of directions were issued.The relevant part of the order passed in W.P.5525/09 is reproduced as under:Heard on admission.Annexure P2 the Station officer of the P.S. Barela, district Jabalpur, no action has been taken.Without entering into the controversy on the allegations made by petitioner, I only deem it proper to direct that S.P. Jabalpur (respondent No.2) shall treat the written report Annexure P-2 to be one u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and proceed in accordance with law.It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner.With the above direction, the petitioner stand finally disposed of.In the light of the above order, petition is disposed of by extending liberty to the petitioner to approach S.H.O.,Police Station Madhavnagar, District Katni respondent No.4, who shall treat the written report of the applicant to be one u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and proceed in accordance with law.It is also made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner.On filing such application under the aforesaid provision the S.H.O.,Police Station Madhavnagar, District Katni shall consider and decide the same with speaking order within fifteen days under intimation to the applicant.The petition is disposed of as indicated above.C.C as per rules.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 3707/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Sourabh Sharma, Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. For the State.Heard on the point of admission.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petition u/s 482 of Cr.P.C has been filed in order to give direction to Superintendent of Police, respondent No.3 to take appropriate action as Station Officer of Police Station, Katni, is not taking suitable action on the written report of petitioner dated 18.8.2012 (Annexure P-1).Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in Writ Petition No.5525/2009 dated 25.11.2009 and in MCr.C.No.2609/2013 such type of directions were issued.The relevant part of the order passed in W.P.5525/09 is reproduced as under:Heard on admission.Annexure P2 the Station officer of the P.S. Barela, district Jabalpur, no action has been taken.Without entering into the controversy on the allegations made by petitioner, I only deem it proper to direct that Su.P. Jabalpur (respondent No.2) shall treat the written report Annexure P-2 to be one u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. 1973 and proceed in accordance with law.It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner.With the above direction, the petitioner stand finally disposed of.In the light of the above order, petition is disposed of by extending liberty to the petitioner to approach Superintendent of Police, Katni respondent No.3, who shall treat the written report of the applicant to be one u/s 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and proceed in accordance with law.It is also made clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the allegations made by the petitioner.On filing such application under the aforesaid provision the Superintendent of Police, Katni shall consider and decide the same with speaking order within fifteen days under intimation to the applicant.The petition is disposed of as indicated above.C.C as per rules.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.3995/12 3.4.2013 Shri P.R.Bhave, Sr.Advocate with Shri B.P.Yadav, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Pankaj Dubey, Counsel for the respondent.On the request of learned counsel for the applicant 3 weeks time granted.List after 3 weeks.This petition has been filed to modify order dated 5.3.2013 passed in Criminal Revision No.1458/12 by Hon.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 3764/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Vipin Yadav, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the State.Learned Govt. Advocate prays for some time to call for the case diary.Time granted.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.3770/13 3.4.2013 Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the State.Learned Govt. Advocate prays for some time to call for the case diary.Time granted.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No. 3790/13 3.4.2013 Shri A.K.Singh, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the State.Notice be issued to the respondent on payment of PF within 3 clear working days by RAD, returnable within 4 weeks.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb MCRC No.3884/2013 3.4.2013 Shri Shivendra Pandey, Counsel for the applicant.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the State.Counsel for the applicant undertakes to call applicant and respondent No.2 to remain present in person in order to verify their compromise and for which a fixed date is sought.Shri Sameer Chile, G.A. for the State.This petition has been filed for quashment of Criminal proceedings registered u/s 498-A of I.P.C and u/s of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is submitted that parties have entered into compromise but to verify the compromise presence of parties is necessary.(M.A.SIDDIQUI) JUDGE sb
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,847,493 |
- - - - -for one yearAccused No.1 u/s. 307 read with 34 IPC.R.I. For 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, inAccused Nos.2 & .3 u/s.307 IPC.default, to under to R.I.i) PW-1 is the son of the deceased and he is the injured eye witness.In respect of the occurrence, he hasstated that he could not exactly say that the accused had murdered his fatherand that, after he was injured in the incident, he only made a statement to thepolice under Ex.P1 assigning his signature therein.On seeing thevillagers coming to that place, the accused ran away from there.He furtherstated that at night, PW-1 took the deceased to Andipatti Government Hospitaland thereafter to the Government Hospital at Madurai.At 8.50 P.M., he came toknow that the deceased died.iv) PW-6 is the first wife of the deceased, who has spoken to about themotive part of the prosecution case, viz., the land dispute between the deceasedand the accused.The said aspect has also been spoken to by PW-17, another wifeof the deceased.v) PW-7 is the Driver of the Bus in which the deceased was taken to thehospital.PW-8 is another eye witness who corroborated the evidence of PW-5.PWs-9 and 10 did not support the prosecution case, however, they were nottreated by the prosecution as hostile.vi) PW-19, the Sub Inspector of Police, has stated that, on 03.12.2003 atabout 4.45 P.M., the deceased and PW-1 appeared at the police station and onnoticing that they are severely injured, in order to save their lives, withoutrecording any statement, he forwarded them with a medical memo to the AndipattiGovernment Hospital.Thereafter, at 5.30 P.M., he recorded the statement of PW-1 at the Hospital under Ex.P1, returned back to the police Station andregistered F.I.R. under Ex.P.30 in Crime No.378 2003 for the offences punishableunder Sections 147, 148, 341, 326, 324, 307 and 109 IPC.While recording thestatement of PW-1 at the Hospital, he recovered MO-5, blood-stained shirt of PW-1 and MO-4, blood stained dhothi of the deceased under Form -95, marked asEx.P31, and forwarded the same to the court along with copy of the F.I.R.through speed post.viii) PW-15 is the Medical Officer, who, after examining the deceased aswell as PW-1 and giving first aid, referred them to the Government Hospital atMadurai.P10 is the accident register issued by him in respect of thedeceased and Ex.ix) Since the Inspector of Police by name Kannan, who investigated thecase, was no more at the time of trial, PW-22, who is conversant with hishandwriting, deposed with regard to the investigation done by the said Kannan.According to him, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the First InformationReport, took up investigation and at 7.30 P.M., proceeded to the scene ofoccurrence and, in the presence of PW-16/VAO and PW-18/Village Assistant,prepared observation mahazar Ex.P37 and rough sketch Ex.P38 and recovered MOs-7and 8, bloodstained earth and sample earth.The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock andhemorrhage due to cut injuries to both forearms.xi) On 06.12.2008, the Investigating Officer arrested the accused in thepresence of PWs-16, 18 and other witnesses.Subsequent to the arrest, theaccused made voluntary confession statements and the admissible portions thereofare marked as Exs.It is reported that Appellants-1 and 2/A-1 andA2 are in jail and the 3rd appellant/A3 has been enlarged on bail.Appellants-1and 2 ie., A1 and A2, are directed to be released forthwith unless their custodyis required otherwise.The bail bond executed by the third appellant/A3 shallstand cancelled.Appellants-1 and 2 are father and son respectively and the third appellantis the wife of the first appellant.The gist of the charge is that, on03.12.2003 at about 3 P.M., appellants-1 and 2/A1 & A2 armed with aruval and the3rd appellant/A3 with iron rod, on account of their enmity against oneSubburathinam, who won the case against them in respect of 40 cents of land,with the common intention to murder the said Subburathinam, waylaid him and hisson Sundarapandian while they were coming alongside the thrashing field and bysaying 'how dare you bring the Tractor to plough the field; because of you, weare walking between police station and court and only if you are finished off,we would feel relieved', A2 cut the deceased with aruval on right and left wristand attacked Sundarapandian on the right side of the back and shoulder; A1attacked the deceased twice on the head and the third accused beatSundarapandian with iron-rod on the neck and right elbow.The trial courtframed the charge against A-1 for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 readwith 34 IPC.and against A2 and A-3 under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC.By order dated 30.07.2007, passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 2006, the learnedAdditional District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Periakulam, held against theaccused and the details of conviction and sentence are given below:-Ranking Conviction SentenceAccused Nos.1 & 3 u/s. Section 302 read with 34 life imprisonment and IPC.a fine of Rs.10,000/-,inAccused No.2 u/s.302 IPC.default ,to undergo R.I.for 6 months.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.As against the said order ofconviction and sentence passed by the court below, the accused have come up withthe present Appeal.The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PWs-1 to22, marked Exs.On the side of the defence, 14documents were filed as Exs.D1 to D14 however no oral evidence was let in.He however stated that theattack was made with MO-1 aruval and MO-3 iron rod.He also identified MOs-4 to6 as the dress worn by him and his father at the time of occurrence.ii) PWs-2 and 4 did not support the case of the prosecution andtherefore, they were treated as hostile.The evidence of PW-3 also is not usefulto the prosecution case.Whenthey were doing agricultural operations in the land with tractor, the accusedcame there and stating that there is a dispute with regard to the said land,asked P.W.5 not to do the work and also threatened him, whereupon, PW-5 stoppedthe operation.A-1 and A-2 armed with aruval and A-3 with iron-rod proceededtowards eastern side and in the same road, the deceased and his son PW-1 camefrom the southern side.PW-5 further stated that, at that time, the accused, byremarking at the deceased 'how long we have to wander with you between thepolice station and court', started attacking him. A-2 cut him on the hands andwrist and A-1 twice at the head.When PW-1 attempted to prevent, A-2 cut him onthe back and right hand and A-3 beat on the neck with iron rod.He also sent copies thereof to the Inspector of Police andsuperior officers in the Department.On 03.12.2003 at 08.50 PM, hereceived intimation from the hospital about the death of the deceased,whereupon, the penal provisions were altered as one under Sections 147, 148,341, 324 and 302 read with 109 IPC.On the next day, he conducted inquest over the body of thedeceased between 9 and 11 A.M. and sent the body for post mortem through PW-12,the Head Constable.The inquest report is marked as Ex.x) PW-20 is the Doctor, who, on receipt of the requisition from theInvestigating Officer, conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased on04.12.2003 at 10.15 A.M. Ex.P32 is the Post Mortem certificate wherein theDoctor has noticed the following:-Above downwards oblique cut injury noted on the back of Rightforearm 4 cm above the wrist joint measuring 12 cm x 3 cm x cutting theunderlying muscles, vessels, nerves, tendon and both bones of forearm and foundattached with the tag of skin on its front measuring 4 cm.Above downwards oblique cut injury noted on the back of leftforearm 4 cm above the wrist measuring 16cmx4cmxcutting the underlying muscles,vessels, nerves, tendons and both bones of forearm.An oblique cut injury 7 cmx1cmxbone deep noted on the leftparieto temporal region 7 cm above the left eyebrow.An oblique cut injury 8cmx1cmxbonedeep noted on right parieto occipitalregion.Contusion 8 cm x 2 cm with deformity noted on the middle of back ofleft forearm.On dissection, the underlying both bones found fractured in its surroundingbruising is noted. "The accused produced the weapons MOs-1 to 3 andthe same were recovered under Exs.The material objects weredespatched to the court with Ex.P33 requisition to forward the same for chemicalexamination.PW-21/Head Clerk in the Court, on receipt of the same, sent thoseitems with letter of the court under EX.P34 to the forensic Laboratory.P46is the forensic report.On completion of the investigation, final report wasfiled before court.When questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to theincriminating materials adduced by the prosecution against the accused, theydenied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence.The learned trialJudge, after assessing the oral and documentary evidence adduced and consideringthe submissions made on either side, passed the order of conviction and sentenceas aforementioned.Challenging the same, the accused have preferred the presentAppeal.Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, byreferring to the testimony of PW-1, points out that PW-1, son of the deceased,deposed that he cannot say that the accused have caused the death of thedeceased; further, he has also stated that he did not lodge the complaint withthe police but only gave a statement.According to him, the so-called injuredeye witness cited by the prosecution, did not even detail the specific overt actattributable to each of the accused except stating that the deceased sustainedinjury on the wrist and head.At one place, he bluffly stated that he sustainedinjuries on the shoulder and hand but did not say as to who caused thoseinjuries and, at another place, he states that A-2 and A-3 armed with stickattacked him.According to the counsel, the evidence of PW-1 corrodes frominconsistency and lack material details, hence, it is totally unsafe to rely onhis testimony.He points out that, in the cross examination, the saidwitness has stated that he came to know about the occurrence only throughnewspapers and further, he could give the names of the accused only afterhearing those names at the police station.In such circumstances, it isabundantly clear that the evidence of PW-5 is clouded with contradictions and itis wholly unsafe to place reliance on the same.Similarly, PW-8, in the cross-examination, has stated that he did not havepersonal knowledge of the occurrence as an eye-witness but he related theoccurrence only from the information he gathered from the public in the village;hence, naturally, he did not mention the specific overtact against the accused;in such circumstances, his evidence would not advance the case of theprosecution.Annotating that the case of the prosecution with regard to actual numberof the accused persons involved in the offence remains to be murky, he pointsout that the prosecution has shown the appellants/A1 to 3 as the persons whoattacked the deceased and murdered him, whereas in Exs.P10 and P11/AccidentRegister and wound certificate issued by PW-15 at 5 and 5.15 P.M., it isrecorded that the injured were assaulted by five known persons armed with aruvaland stick while Ex.P.1/statement given by P.W.1 on the basis of which F.I.R. wasregistered, proceeds to the effect that apart from the accused, two more personsby name Mayajothi and Natarajan also attacked the deceased and spade isintroduced as one of weapons.Added to the above inconsistency, the deceased, inhis dying declaration, stated that he was attacked by 16 persons including theabove persons.No reason/explanation has been assigned/offered on this vitalaspect by the prosecution; on the face of it, the testimonies of PWs-1, 5 and 8are shriveling, for, two of these witnesses have stated in the cross examinationthat they did not actually witness the occurrence but narrated the incident onthe basis of the information gained by them.According to the learned Senior Counsel, the prosecution has miserablyfailed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial court hasproceeded on a wrong footing to hold against the accused; hence, the appeal maybe allowed.There is no delay in despatching the F.I.R. to thecourt.When these eye witnesses havecategorically and consistently spoken to about the sequence of events, theirevidence cannot be so simply brushed aside due to minor contradictions oromissions therein.Though names of other accused have been mentioned in Ex.P1as well as in the dying declaration of the deceased, since the investigationrevealed that they did not actually participate in the offence, their names wereomitted in the Final Report.The evidence of the Village Administrative Officersand mahazar witnesses coupled with the documentary evidence corroborates thecase put forth by the prosecution; hence, it is pleaded that the order passed bythe trial court may be confirmed.We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissionsmade on either side and meticulously perused the materials available on record.8. PW-1 is the son of the deceased and he is the injured eye witness.PWs-5 and 8 are independent eye witnesses.PWs-6 and 17 are the wives of thedeceased, who speak about the motive part of the prosecution case.PWs-9 and 10say that they do not know about the dispute between the accused and thedeceased, however, they have not been treated as hostile.Undoubtedly, the case of the prosecution mainly hinges upon thetestimony of PW-1, because, the best person to speak about the attack on thedeceased is PW-1, for, he accompanied his father and in his presence, theincident is said to have occurred and in the transaction, he was also attackedby the accused.But curiously, while deposing before court, he did not give thedetails as expected from him.He has deposed that he could not say whether allthe three accused present in the court had caused the murder of his father; tosome extent, he disowns the F.I.R.; being an injured witness, he did not specifythe overtact on the part of each accused and further, though he was attackedwith iron rod by A-3, he stated that she beat him with stick; thus, histestimony is rambling and it raises a doubt in our mind whether PW-1 was presentat the time of attack on the deceased.In such circumstances, as rightlypointed out, when PW-1 does not speak about the material aspects of theprosecution case, it is totally unsafe to rely on his evidence and accordingly,we discard the same.10. PW-5 is the employee of PW-8, who had purchased the land from thedeceased.Though PW-5 had stated that he had witnessed the occurrence, in thecross examination, he stated that he actually came to know about the occurrencethrough newspapers and he could give the names of the accused only after hearingthe same at the police station.In the same line, PW-8 also stated in crossexamination that he did not witness the occurrence and he came to know of thesame only through other persons in the village.If we assess the evidence ofthese two witnesses in the light of the contradiction pointed out by the learnedSenior Counsel for the appellant as regards the number of the accused involvedin the case, we have no other option but to reject their evidence as unreliable.But, when the evidence of the star witnessesof the prosecution has been watered down, such aspect would in no way save theprosecution case which had already crumbled to ground, for, motive is not alwayscapable of precise proof and even if proved, it may only lend additional supportto strengthen the possibility of commission of offence by the person accused ofbut the absence of motive does not ipso facto warrant an acquittal.In this case, from the various aspects adverted to above, it is notfeasible to separate truth from falsehood, and grain and chaff are soinextricably mixed up, in the process of separation, there is an inevitable riskthat an absolutely new cause would be reconstructed by divorcing essentialdetails presented by the prosecution completely from the context and backgroundagainst which they are made; thus, the only available course to be adopted is todiscard the evidence of the prosecution in toto.In view of the ramblingtestimony of PW-1/author of Ex.P1 on the basis of which F.I.R. registered, whohimself, to an extent, disowned the said document, unworthy testimonies of othereye witnesses ie., PWs-5 and 8, coupled with the gloomy part of the prosecutioncase as regards the actual number of the accused in the case, we hold that theprosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts.In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction andsentence passed by the trial Court is set aside and the appellants/accused areacquitted from all the charges.The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellants/accused, isdirected to be refunded.sms / JI.1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court IV), Periyakulam2.The Inspector of Police, Andipatti Police Station, Theni.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,750,327 |
Case diary is available.This is fourth application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.Second application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 03.11.2017 passed in MCRC No.10272/2017 and third application was dismissed by order dated 19.01.2018 passed in MCRC No.26143/2017, holding that merely because some witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case, it cannot be a ground to grant bail to the applicant because some more prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.This Court by order dated 09.03.2018 had directed the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions as to whether entire prosecution witnesses have been examined or not and to place on record the status report.The State has placed the 2 MCRC-5586-2018 status report and has submitted that 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined and 11 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined so far.It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that some of the beneficiaries have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and only formal witnesses have remained to be examined.It is further submitted by counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail from 07.06.2017 and all other co-accused persons have been granted bail by this Court.Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that it is incorrect to say that only formal witnesses have remained to be examined.The evidence, which has come on record, clearly shows that the applicant is the Director of M/s KMJ Land Developers India Ltd. and by making false promise and misrepresentation, they had persuaded the innocent depositors to invest their money in the company, whereas the company was not authorized to carry out any kind of banking activities because it was not registered with the Reserve Bank of India.It is further submitted that the company was also not registered with the Security Exchange Board of India (in short "SEBI").During the investigation, an information was sought from the SEBI, who by its letter dated 02.12.2013 has informed as under:-"(a) Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), EOU-VII, New Delhi in their report dated January 18, 2012 shared with SEBI had noted that prima - facie the company was committing the offences.(b) The Hon'ble Sessions Court, Jabalpur in its order dated July 26, 2011 (copy provided by the company) that observed that company took money from investors for 3 MCRC-5586-2018 development of land.The said matter emerged from case filed by the police station Madan Mahal, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh against the company.(c) from the online search, it was found that CID police of the State of Andhra Pradesh had filed a criminal case No.5 of 2011 against this company for indulging in money circulation scheme in name of real state (http://coproratefraudswatch.blogspot.in/2011/02 /CID-policeof-ap-file-criminal-case.html)By referring to the evidence of Smt. Mala Sharma, whose evidence has been recorded before the Trial Court, it is further submitted that this witness has specifically stated that she is working on the post of Assistant General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, and SHO, Police Station University District Gwalior by its letter dated 12.06.2013 had sought information, with regard to the fact that whether M/s KMJ Land Developers India Ltd. is registered with the 4 MCRC-5586-2018 Reserve Bank of India or not and after verifying from the record of Reserve Bank of India, it was replied that M/s KMJ Land Developers India Ltd. is not registered with the Reserve Bank of India.Thus, it is submitted that it is clear that M/s KMJ Land Developers India Ltd. was carrying out banking activities and was accepting the deposits from the various innocent beneficiaries in the name of providing plots on a cheaper rate or the company had promised to return double of the amount in a short interval.The applicant was the Director of the company and, therefore, he cannot say that he is not responsible for the activities of the company which was floated contrary to the law of the land and which was made operational without getting it registered with SEBI or with the Reserve Bank of India.It is further submitted that Ashok Adhikari is yet to be examined who has stated that his brother-in-law had deposited the amount with the company and who was also cheated by the company.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,752,607 |
The investigation is over and challan has also been filed.No further interrogation is required.Digitally signed by Alok Gargav Date: 2020.10.09 18:36:41 +05'30'This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the applicant - Suresh Baghel S/o.Versingh Baghel, who has been arrested by Police on 28.8.2020 in Crime No.312/2020, Police Station Kukshi, District Dhar under Section 498-A, 306 & 34 of the IPC.As per prosecution case, wife of the applicant - Santoshi committed suicide by consuming poison.The marriage of the applicant with the deceased was solemnized 15 years ago and they have two issues.After the death of deceased the police has registered the criminal case for the offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 306 & 34 of the IPC against the present applicant, his father and mother.The applicant kept the wife happily for ten years, but since last 4-5 years, he used to doubt on character of the deceased and used to assault on the deceased.3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the case.He has never instigated the deceased or harassed her to commit suicide.Neither the deceased nor her parents have ever made any compliant with regard to demand of dowry or harassment.He is in custody since 28.8.2020 and the trial will take long time to conclude.He, therefore, prayed for grant of bail to the applicant.Prayer is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/State.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38521/2020 Suresh Baghel S/o.Versingh Baghel.-: 2 :-I have perused the case-diary.The law with regard to Section 306 of IPC is well settled.THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C. No. 38521/2020 Suresh Baghel S/o.Consequently, interfering with the impugned judgment of the High Court and the Trial Court, the appellant's conviction under Section 306 IPC is set aside and quashed.The appeal is accordingly, allowed."In view of the above, in my considered opinion this application deserves to be allowed.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 107 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.
|
1,847,541 |
This is said to have annoyed Madhusudan, who threatened Dalla to see him and break his limbs.Dalla and his wife, Shanti, went to sleep in their house.ORDER P.L. Bhargava, J.This application in revision has been filed by Babu Lal and Madhusudan, who were charged and tried for an offence punishable under Section 435, Penal Code, by a Magistrate of the first class of Mohamdi, in Kheri district.The case for the prosecution was as follows: On the night between 17th and 18th March 1950, at about 10 p.m., the applicant Madbusudan went to Dal Chand alias Dalla a tongawala, and asked him to get ready his tonga as he had to go somewhere.Dalla refused saying that his horse was tired and he himself was unwell.Dalla's horse was, as usual, tethered in a double-thatched shed (bangla) near his house.About a couple of hours later Dalchand and his wife heard the noise of their horse jumping in the head.As they came out of their house they noticed the applicants near the shed.Madhusudan was sprinkling kerosene oil over the shed and Babu Lal lighted a match and set fire to the shed, which was burnt and the horse was badly burnt.Dalla raised an alarm and the people arrived on the scene, whereupon the applicants fled away.The applicants denied all the allegations-made on behalf of the prosecution and alleged that they had been falsely implicated due to enmity.It was suggested that Shanti, the wife of Dalla, was a woman of loose character and Babu Lal often cut jokes with her; that Dalla suspected illicit intimacy between his wife and Babu Lal, and that on account of that suspicion he had been falsely implicated in this affair.Madhusudan alleged that he had allowed Dalla's wife to use the latrine in his house and since the time when he prevented her from using the latrine, there arose some dispute, on that account and that on account of that dispute he had been falsely implicated.On a careful review of the entire evidence on the record the Courts below accepted the prosecution story and rejected the defence version.
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,756,063 |
Item No. 50And In the matter of: Kshitish Dewan & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Phiroze Edulji Mr. Sekhar Barman For the Petitioners Mr. Madhusudan Sur For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kalyani Police Station Case No. 138 of 2013 dated 26.03.2013 under sections 363/366 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State and have considered the case diary.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,758,246 |
V.K.JAIN, J. (ORAL) On 23.01.2010, the complainant - Amarjit Singh, a resident of house no.He stated that during the aforesaid night, he was sleeping in his bedroom on the second floor, whereas his son - Kunal Gulati, along with his wife Ms. Beenu Gulati and his son Ramit Gulati was sleeping in their rooms on the first floor.At about 5 am, four boys entered into the room, threatening him and asked for the cash.One of those boys put a knife on his neck and asked him to open the almirah.The complainant opened the almirah and the robbers removed about Rs.83,000/- in cash which had been kept in the almirah.Thereafter, they forced the complainant to accompany them to the room of his son at the first floor.Hearing the noise, his son came out of the room, but was taken inside and about Rs.1.82 lac in cash, one digital camera,a wrist watch of his son and two mobile phones belonging to the son of the complainant and one to the complainant.It was also alleged in the complaint that the robbers were aged about 20-22 years, were slim and had dark complexion.(2) During the course of investigation, it transpired that one sim having number 9560705721 was being used in one of the stolen mobiles phones.The aforesaid sim was found to be in the name of one Smt. Julekha, who was arrested on 28.01.2010 and was interrogated.Sikender and took the police officers to his place.Sikender was arrested on being pointed out by Smt. Julekha and one Rolex watch was recovered from his possession, which he was wearing on his wrist.On the basis of the information provided by Sikander, the appellant Yaseen and interrogated him.Yaseen, at that time, was in the custody of the Crime Branch.After disclosure statement of Yaseen has been recorded, the appellant Mamun was arrested from Santosh Colony, Faridabad on being pointed out by Yaseen and he was arrested after recovering a watch having blue strap from the pocket of his pant.The fourth person namely Julekha who appears to have absconded during trial and the present appellants - Sikender, Yaseen and Mamun were charge-sheeted.Since they pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against them, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses.The appellant Sikender examined himself as defence witness(4) The complainant, who came in the witness box as PW6, inter alia, stated that in the night intervening 22/23.01.2010, at about 5 am, four persons entered his bedroom and one of them put a knife on his throat and asked about jewellery etc. He identified the appellant - Sikender as the person who had put a knife on his throat.He further stated that Rs.33,000/-, kept in the almirah were taken by the accused Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 3 of 22 persons who thereafter took him to the other room and took out Rs.50,000/- which had been kept in the said almirah.The robbers, according to the complainant, had also taken out cash form a bag kept in the almirah along with some documents.(5) The son of the complainant came in the witness box as PW2 and corroborated the deposition of his father.He stated that, when he heard some noise and opened the door in the night of 22/23.01.2010 or 23/24.01.2010, he saw four boys having surrendered his father and a knife having been put on him.When he came out, he was guarded by the robbers.The witness correctly identified all the three appellants as the person who committed robbery from his house on the aforesaid date.He identified the appellant - Yaseen as the person who had knocked at the door of his room, asking his wife not to make noise and threatened to kill her in case she did not come out.He deposed with respect to the theft of cash amounting to Rs.1.2 lac besides one camera, two gold rings of his wife, one watch make Rolex which belonged to his son.She corroborated the deposition of her husband and her father-in-law in respect of the robbery from their house in the night intervening 22/23.01.2010 and identified all the appellants as the persons who had committed the said robbery.She specifically stated that all of them had knives with them and they had put knives at the abdomen of her husband, father-in-law and son.She also deposed with respect to theft of Rs.1.20 lac belonging to her husband and about Rs.50,000/- / Rs.60,000/- belonged to her.Besides the theft of one camera, some articles of jewellery, wrist watch of her husband make Rolex and one wrist watch of her son.(7) PW9 Shri Ravinder Singh, who was posted as Metropolitan Magistrate during the relevant time stated that on 15.02.2010, the application of the Investigating Officer for holding of TIP of the appellant - Sikender and Mamun was marked to him by the Area Magistrate and accordingly he reached the Central Jail no.4 on 18.02.2010 for holding his TIP.He stated that on that date, the appellant Mamun was produced before him in Central Jail No.4 where he refused to join TIP on the ground that he had been shown to the witnesses during police remand.(8) PW18 Shri Devender Kumar Jangala was posted as a Metropolitan Magistrate on 2.3.2010 when on an application of the Investigating Officer for TIP of the appellant Yaseen, it was marked to him.The appellant Yaseen was produced before him in muffled face but he refused to join TIP vide his statement Ex.PW18/A.(9) The witness further stated that on the same date, the application of the Investigating Officer for TIP of the case property was also marked to him and the witness Kanwar also appeared before him on the said date.After the witness had been sent out of his chamber three transparent jars containing the jewellery, two sealed with the seal R.N.Y. and one sealed with the seal of W.H., were produced before him.The witness could see one wrist watch in each of the containers, the jars being transparent.Another jar sealed with the seal of R.N.Y. was produced before him and it contained one yellow colour wallet and the said wallet contained four packets of jewellery.After mixing the case property with the other articles brought by the Investigating Officer for the purpose, the Metropolitan Magistrate called the witness Kanwar inside and the witness picked up a gold ring thereby correctly identifying the said ring which was taken out of the wallet that had been kept in a jar.Thus, no property other than the gold ring was identified before the said witness.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 6 of 22 FIR, he enquired about IMEI number of the robbed mobile phones which belonged to Kanwar and Beenu.The IMEI number of the mobile phone of Beenu was found activated and the SIM card in it was issued in the name of Julekha.They went to the place of Julekha at House No.610, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi where she was apprehended and interrogated.He further stated that he arrested the accused Julekha and interrogated her.She took them to the house of the appellant Sikender who was then interrogated and he made the disclosure statement PW15/T. He further stated that a Nokia 1600 mobile phone was recovered from the pocket of Sikender, which was seized vide Ex.PW15/N. He also produced an imported wrist watch which was seized vide Ex.PW15/E. According to the witness on 29.1.2010, he received information regarding arrest of the appellant Yaseen by the Crime Branch and on receipt of the said information Yaseen was interrogated.Yaseen made disclosure statement Ex.PW15/1 and on his pointing out, the appellant Mamun was arrested.He further stated that one wrist watch having blue strap was produced by the appellant Mamun from his pocket which was seized vide Ex.PW15/L. He also stated that the appellants Mamun and Yaseen led them to a house in Santosh Colony, Faridabad on 31.1.2010 and Yaseen produced a mobile phone Nokia 7500 which along with other articles produced by him was seized vide memo Ex.PW19/H. The witness identified Ex.She denied the suggestion that there was no light in the house and, therefore she could not have seen the offenders.She specifically stated that all their lights were switched on.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 1 of 22During the interrogation, she disclosed the involvement of the appellant -Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 2 of 22Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the room of his son and as soon as he opened the door, on hearing the voice, the accused dragged him outside, and put knife on his throat.The complainant identified the appellant Mamun as the person who had put the knife on his son.He further stated that one of the accused had also put a knife on his son and the appellant Yaseen could be that person.He claimed that more than Rs.1.3 lac stolen from the room of his son besides the watch of his son, one camera and three mobile phones.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 3 of 22He identified the appellant - Mamun as the person who had pointed out the knife on him and touched at his stomach causing small wound, besides Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 4 of 22 threatening to kill him.He claimed that the appellant - Sikender was slapping his father and had hit him on the back when he was sitting on the bed.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 4 of 22He further stated that on the same day, he visited Jail No.3 for Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 5 of 22 conducting the TIP of the appellant Sikender and the said accused was correctly identified by the witness Kanwar vide Ex.PW9/B.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 5 of 22PW15/1 as his watch which was recovered from the appellant Mamun and Ex.P-2/3 as the watch which was recovered from the appellant Sikender.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 6 of 22(11) In their respective statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants denied allegations against them and claimed to be innocent.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 7 of 22(12) The appellant Sikender has been identified by the complainant, his son as well as his daughter-in-law as one of the persons involved in the commission of robbery from their place.During the course of investigation, he was correctly identified by PW2 Kanwar Guleri during a TIP conducted by PW9 Ravinder Singh, who was the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate at that time.A perusal of the TIP proceedings would show that the aforesaid appellant had got arranged a number of under-trial prisoners of his choice to participate in the TIP proceedings and he was correctly picked up in the company those under-trial prisoners.(13) It has come in the deposition of PW15 ASI Subhash Chand that when the appellant Sikender was arrested on being pointed out by the co-accused Julekha, he was wearing a wrist watch which he removed from his hand and handed over to the Investigating Officer.The watch was seized vide memo Ex.PW15/E after which it had been sealed RNY.The deposition of PW15 in this regard has been corroborated by PW19 SI Ram Niwas who stated that an imported watch was produced by the appellant Sikender which was seized vide memo Ex.PW15/E after which it had been kept in a pulanda and sealed with the seal of RNY.(14) The watch produced by the appellant Sikender is Ex.P-2/3 and was duly identified by PW19 S.I. Ram Niwas.The said watch was also identified by PW15 ASI Subhash Chand.Thus, the aforesaid evidence would show that a watch make-Rolex, which during the course of trial, Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 8 of 22(15) PW2 Kanwar Guleri is the son of the complainant.He identified his watch Ex.P-2/3, when he was examined in the Court.P-2/3 (make-Rolex) just about 5-6 days after it was stolen.(16) The appellant Sikender has not given any explanation for his being found in possession of the watch Ex.P-2/3 and this is not his case that the aforesaid watch which otherwise is a very costly watch, belongs to him.Considering that the appellant Sikender does not claim ownership of the watch Ex.Since the appellant Sikender has not come out with any explanation for his being found in possession of such a costly watch soon after its theft it can be safely presumed under Section 114 of Evidence Act that either he had stolen the said watch or he had received or retained it knowing or having reasons to believe the same to be stolen.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 9 of 22Even in the FIR he had alleged that one of the assailants had put a kitchen knife on his neck while asking him to open the almirah.I, however, find no merit in the contention.Therefore, the appellant Sikender was rightly convicted under Section 392/397 of IPC.(20) Coming to appellant Mamun, there is evidence of recovery of a watch from him since it has come in the deposition of PW15 ASI Subhash Chand and PW19 S.I. Ram Niwas that a watch was recovered from his possession at the time of his arrest and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW15/L. A perusal of the seizure memo would show that the colour of the watch as well as of its strap was blue.The aforesaid watch was identified by PW2 Shri Kanwar, PW6 Sh.Amarjeet Singh and PW17 Ms. Beenu Singh as the watch belonging to the grandson of the complainant.However, there was no allegation of theft of the aforesaid watch of the grandson of the complainant, in the FIR.Therefore, I am excluding from consideration the alleged recovery of the stolen watch from the appellant Mamun.The incident such as armed robbery do not occur every day in the life of a person and, therefore, a person who witnesses an incident in which armed robbers enter the house in the night, and commit theft of cash and various articles, by intimidating the inmates is unlikely to forget the faces of the robbers for a long time to come.The incident of armed robbery would continue to haunt the victim for a long time and would time and again bring the faces of the offenders before their eyes.Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention that the witnesses were not in a position to identify the appellants and they identified them during the trial, at the instance of the investigating officer.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 14 of 22(22) The plea taken by the appellant Mamun for refusing to join TIP was that he had been shown to the witnesses during police remand.However, there is no evidence of the said appellant having been shown any of the eye witnesses during the period he was in police custody.Neither any of the eye witnesses nor does the investigating officer stated so in their deposition in the Court.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 15 of 22(23) It has come in the deposition of PW-17 that all the robbers who entered their house were armed with weapons.When PW-2 came in the witness box, he identified Mamun as a person who had put the knife in his stomach.When the complainant came in the witness box he stated that Mamun had put knife on the neck of his son.There is some contradiction in the deposition of PW-2 and PW-6 as to at which part of the body to PW-2, knife was put by the appellant Mamun, but, the said discrepancy, to my mind, would be inconsequential, the core part of the testimony of both of them being that the appellant Mamun had a knife which he had used for intimidating PW-2 by placing it against his body.Therefore, the appellant Mamun used a knife which is a deadly weapon, during the commission of the robbery by placing the same against the body of PW-2 Kanwar Guleri.(24) The learned counsel for the appellant Mamun submits that since no knife had been recovered by the investigating officer, the appellant could not have been convicted with the aid of Section 397 of IPC.I, however, do not agree with the learned counsel.The use of a deadly weapon during the commission of robbery attracts the applicability of Section 397 of IPC.If the Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 16 of 22PW-6 however was not sure with respect to his identity and stated that he could be one of the persons involved in the robbery.However, there is no good reason to disbelieve PW-2 and PW-17 as regards the identity of the appellant Yaseen.He also refused to join TIP during the course of investigation before PW-18 Shri Devender Kumar Jangala, Metropolitan Magistrate.The justification given by the aforesaid appellant for refusing to join TIP on 02.03.2010 was that he had been shown to witnesses in the police station.However, there is no evidence of the said appellant having been shown to any of the witnesses nor there is any material on record from which it may be inferred that he could have been shown to the witnesses in the police custody.Therefore, there was no justified reason for the appellant Yaseen to refuse to join TIP proposed Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 17 of 22 to be held by PW-18 Shri Devender Kumar Jangala, Metropolitan Magistrate.In these circumstances, it can be inferred that had he joined the TIP, he could have been identified by the appellant and that was the reason he declined to participate in the said proceedings.The identification of the appellant Yaseen coupled his refusal to join TIP without there being any justification for such refusal would be sufficient to establish his identity even if the alleged recovery of the watch of the son of the complainant is excluded from consideration on the ground that in the FIR there was allegation of theft of only one watch, his identification in the Court coupled with refusal to join TIP is sufficient to prove the guilt attributed to him, he having participated in the commission of the robbery.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 17 of 22(26) It has come in the deposition of the complainant that the appellant Yaseen could be the person who had put the knife on his grandson.However, when the son of the complainant came in the witness box as PW-2 he stated that the fourth boy who was not present in the Court was holding a knife over his son, meaning thereby that the appellant was not the person who had put the knife on his son.Though it has come in the deposition of PW-17 Smt. Beenu that all the three appellants were armed with knives she did not tell the Court as to in what manner the appellant Yaseen had used the knife.She did not claim that it was the Yaseen who had put a knife against her son who was on the bed and had been covered with the blanket.However, the complainant when he came in the witness box expressly stated that Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 18 of 22 all the four persons were having knives in their hand.He also maintained that the knives were picked up from his kitchen since later they found the knives missing from the kitchen.Thus, though there is no firm evidence of the appellant Yaseen having put the knife on the grandson of the complainant, the fact remains that the complainant as well as his daughter-in-law are emphatic in saying that all the persons were armed with knives, which of course were kitchen knives.Since the knife was in the hand of the appellant Yaseen was actually seen by the complainant and his daughter-in-law, the obvious purpose behind carrying the knife was to intimidate them so that they do not resist the commission of robbery by the appellants.Therefore, carrying knife in the view of the victim would amount to use of the knife within the meaning of Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code.The appellant Yaseen therefore has been rightly convicted under Section 392 of IPC read with Section 397 thereof.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 18 of 22Conviction u/s 14 of Foreigners Act, 1946 (27) Coming to the conviction of the appellants under Section 14 of Foreigners Act. The said Section, inter alia, provides that whoever contravenes the provisions of the Act or of any order made thereunder, or any direction given in pursuance of this Act or such orders, for which no specific punishment is provided under the Act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and shall also be liable to fine.The said order inter alia provides that no foreigner shall enter India without Crl.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 19 of 22 the leave of the civil authority having jurisdiction at the port or any other place on the borders of India.Therefore, the first question which arises in this regard is as to whether the appellants are foreigners.Section 9 of the Foreigners Act places the burden of proving that a particular person is not a foreigner, places upon that person.The said Section reads as under:-Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 19 of 22"9. Burden of proof.If in any case not falling under section 8 any question arises with reference to this Act or any order made or direction given thereunder, whether any person is or is not a foreigner or is or is not a foreigner of a particular class- or description the onus of proving that such person is not a foreigner or is not a foreigner of such particular class or description, as the case may be, shall, notwith- standing anything contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 , lie upon such person."This is not a case which would attract applicability of Section 8 of the Act and, therefore, the onus of proving that they are not foreigners would be upon the appellants.Section 3 of the Citizenship Act provides for acquisition of citizenship by birth whereas Section 4 of said Act provides for acquisition of citizenship by descent.Section 5 of the Act provides for acquiring citizenship by registration whereas Section 6 provides for acquisition of citizenship by naturalization.Section 6(A) contains certain special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by Assam Accord.(28) The appellants did not tell the trial court as to how they were citizens of India.No evidence was led by any of them except Sikander.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 20 of 22Sikander came in the witness box as DW-1 and, inter alia, stated that he was residing in Jhuggi No.392 of East of Kailash and had ration card and election card at the said address.Exhibit DW-1/A is the copy of his election card, Exhibit DW-1/B is the copy of ration card, Exhibit DW- 1/C is the copy of the voter ID card of his wife, Exhibit DW-1/D is the copy of the birth certificate of his son, Exhibit DW-1/E is the copy of the birth certificate of his daughter and Exhibit DW-1/F is the copy of birth certificate of his other son.However, nowhere did the appellant Sikander claim that he was born in India.It is, thus, evident that he has failed to discharge onus placed on him by Section 9 of the Act.(29) As regards the other two appellants, no evidence at all has been led by them that they are not foreigners or are Indian citizens either by birth or by descent or registration or naturalization.In these circumstances, the conviction of the appellants under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act cannot be interfered with.(30) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the conviction of all the three appellants under Section 392/397 of IPC as well as under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act is confirmed.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants under Section 392/397 of IPC is reduced to 7(seven) years each.There is no ground to reduce the substantive sentence awarded to Crl.The amount of the fine imposed upon them under Section 392/397 of IPC is reduced to Rs.1000/- each whereas the fine imposed upon them under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act is reduced to Rs.2,000/- each.In default of payment of fine imposed under Section 392/397 of IPC, the appellants shall undergo S.I. for 15(fifteen) days whereas, in default of payment of fine imposed under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, the appellants shall undergo S.I. for 1(one) month each.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 21 of 22The appellants shall be entitled to benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the sentences shall run concurrently.The appeals stand disposed of accordingly.One copy of this order be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for information and necessary action.The Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith, along with a copy of this order.Appeal nos.686/2013&connected appeals Page 22 of 22
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,760,164 |
pk CRM No. 4524 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 13.5.15 in connection with Nabadwip P.S. Case No. 142/15 dated 26.3.15 under Sections 498A/325/307/379/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of:- Dayal Sk. & Ors.498A/325/307/379/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code have come to this court for anticipatory bail.The petitioner no. 2 is the husband of the victim house wife and the rests are his relations.At the very outset, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that although he is not admitting any of the allegations made against the petitioners but as a matter of good gesture and as it is the moral obligation of a husband, the petitioner no. 2 to maintain his wife, he is now agreeable to maintain the de facto complainant/wife according to his ability and offered to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- per month as her maintenance.It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the maintenance 2 for this month shall be sent to the de facto complainant/wife within two weeks from this date and thereafter by seventh of each succeeding month.On the face of such submission, the learned counsel for the State has not opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners.Having regard to the voluntary offer and undertaking of the husband/petitioner no. 2 to maintain the wife, in our opinion, no useful purpose will be served by taking them into custody.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail stands allowed.In the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer upon furnishing a Bond of Rs. 5,000/- each on condition that after release the petitioners shall surrender before the regular court within four weeks thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.Let a photostat plain copy of this order duly counter-signed by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned counsel for the State to do the needful.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,762,315 |
AD C.R.M. No. 5744 of 2013 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 18th April, 2013 in connection with Arambagh P.S. Case No. 230 of 1999 dated 19-12-1999 under Sections 147/148/149/353/337/338/186/332/333/341/427 /307 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, Section 9 of M.P.O. and Section 9(b)(ii) of I.E. Act.This is a case where the petitioner was initially released on bail.Thereafter as he was absent in court for some days, his bail was cancelled and now after re- arrest, he is in custody for 20 days.All other co-accused persons are on bail.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Subal Baidya, J.)
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,764,569 |
It is the case of the petitioner that the respondenthttp://www.judis.nic.in and the petitioner got married on 18.03.2012 and it was the 2 petitioner's second marriage.At the time of the marriage, the respondent's family had gifted 94 sovereigns of gold to the respondent and 6 sovereigns of gold to the petitioner.The entire gold ornaments has been kept in the safe locker in the Indian Overseas Bank, Coimbatore which was joint account of the petitioner and the respondent.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in D.V.A.No.1 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.This led to some misunderstandings between them.Thereafter, the respondent lodged a complaint at Kollengode Police Station against the petitioner for the offence under Section 498-A r/w 34 of IPC.Once again, the respondent lodged another complaint at B-14, Kuniyamuthur Police Station at Coimbatore against the petitioner for offences under Sections 498-A, 420, 468, 471, 323, 506(ii) IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, which is also pending.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been working as a Doctor, while the respondent was working as Receptionist in the same hospital.The petitioner got married to the respondent on 18.03.2012 and it was his second marriage.Thereafter, there aroused some misunderstandings between the petitioner and the respondent.The learned counsel therefore, would contend that, now, there is no relationship between the petitioner and the respondent.4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent.The point raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated here, since it involves question of fact, the petitioner has to raise all the grounds only before the Trial Court.Accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.28.03.2019 Internet: Yes Index: Yes/No vjihttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Judicial Magistrate No.VII, CoimbatoreThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.18810 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,765,223 |
Admittedly, the parties are closely related to each other.The respondent no.2 is the father-in-law of the plaintiff/appellant.Mr. Dipanjan Datta, Mr. Sayan Datta.Ms. Pranati Das.Three proceedings are pending between the parties before this Court.By the impugned order, the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction was rejected by the learned Trial Judge.The plaintiff felt aggrieved.Hence, the plaintiff has filed the aforesaid First Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court.While disposing of the said First Miscella-neous Appeal, the Court is required to consider the legality and/or propriety of the order by which the learned Trial Judge was pleased to dismiss the appellant's application for temporary injunction.The other respondents are all proforma respondents viz. different Banks where the parties had their joint accounts of various nature, such as, Savings Bank Account, Fixed Deposit etc. The defendant/respondent nos. 1 and 2 started siphoning the money, invested in those joint accounts of the parties, during the period when the plaintiff/petitioner was in jail custody following a complaint made by the wife/respondent no.1 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, he filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restraining the defendant/ respondent nos. 1 and 2 from withdrawing any further amount from those joint accounts and/or from operating those accounts till the disposal of the suit.It was claimed by the plaintiff/appellant that the entire investment was made by him in those accounts and there was no contribution either of the defendant no.1 and/or the defendant no.2 towards the savings in those accounts.The said application was contested by the defendants/respondents by filing objection.The learned Trial Judge was pleased to reject the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction.The instant First Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the said order of this Court.The appeal has already been admitted for hearing and an interim order was passed restraining the defendant/respondent no.1 from operating the bank account and/or encashing any fixed deposit as mentioned in schedule A-2, A-3 and A-5 of the injunction application till the end of May, 2017 or until further order whichever is earlier.The parties were also directed to maintain status-quo with regard to their shares in the Abahan Housing Co-operative Societies Ltd., and/or their interest in the property as mentioned in the Schedule 'B' of the injunction application till the end of May, 2017 or until further order whichever is earlier.The said interim order was extended from time to time and the same is still in operation.Let us now consider as to whether two revisional applications being C.O. 541 of 2017 and C.O. 790 of 2017 filed by the petitioner, namely, the husband, are in any way related to the merit of the aforesaid First Miscellaneous Appeal or not.In this regard we have considered the scope of consideration of those civil revision applications.The civil revision application being C.O. No. 541 of 2017 is directed against an order being no. 12 dated 25th January, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Barasat, on an interlocutory application filed by the husband/applicant in the Misc.Case No. 220 of 2016 which was initiated on the basis of an application, filed by the husband under Section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act.Admittedly, the couple has two children, one male and one female.Both the children are staying with the mother.In course of a meeting between the father and the children, the father came to know from the children that the children had to discontinue their studies and various other extra-curricular activities due to non-payment of tuition fees and the remuneration to the private tutors.The father became upset.He, thus, filed an application in the custody proceeding, interalia seeking permission from the Court to pay unlimited maintenance for the welfare of the children, subject to the condition that the entire payment which will be made by the petitioner for the welfare of those children will be paid by him directly to the school and/or to the other private tutors etc. The mother of the children contested the said proceeding by filing objection denying the allegations made by the father of the children in the said application.The learned Trial Judge ultimately rejected the said application filed by the father of the children by holding interalia that the applicant has failed to prove that due to non-payment of tuition fees etc., to the respective tutors, the education and/or the other extra-curricular activities of the children were discontinued.Though the learned Trial Judge recorded in the order that the intention of the applicant to provide maintenance to the children appears to be humanatic, bonafide and good gesture, but such prayer of the applicant was rejected as the suggestion which was given by the applicant appeared to the court as not a feasible one.The learned Trial Judge, however, observed that if the applicant intends to provide maintenance amount to his children, he may pay the maintenance amount according to his own volition to the opposite party, viz. the mother of the children, who may use the said amount for the proper development and upliftment of the children.The legality and/or the propriety of the said order is under challenge in this aforesaid revisional application.In our view, the fate of the said revisional application is in no way dependent upon the fate of the First Miscellaneous Appeal.Let us now consider the scope of consideration of the other revisional application being C.O. 790 of 2017 filed by the applicant, namely, the father of the children.The said revisional application is directed against an order rejecting an interlocutory application filed by the applicant, viz. the father of the children, praying for permission of the learned court below to organise the thread ceremony of his son who is aged about 13 years, by acting as the 'Acharya Pita' of the son.The applicant stated in the said application that he will bear all necessary expenses for organising the thread ceremony and/or entertaining the guests who will attend the said ceremony.The said application was also opposed by the mother of the children by filing objection.The learned Trial Judge ultimately rejected the applicant's said interlocutory application which was filed in connection with the guardianship proceeding.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
184,775,051 |
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. BHASINWhether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?The said stone is alleged to have been hit twice on the chest and the deceased Rama Swami apparently died on the spot.Thereafter, Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum are alleged to have run away from the spot.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 2 of 12PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) has stated that the incident took place in the street.She stated in her examination-in-chief that at about 8.00 or 8.15 p.m. when her father, the deceased Rama Swami, was going out with his bedding for sleeping, she was also present there.When her father came out of the house, both the accused were present outside and they started abusing him.She stated that her husband also came there on hearing this and CRL.A. 180/94 Page 5 of 12 persuaded her father to come into the house.Her father was calmed down by her husband PW-5 (K. Ramu) whereafter he left.After some time, her father again came out with his bedding for going to sleep near the E-Block Market and she accompanied him.She has further stated that when he had just gone out of the house and taken a step or two, Vankat Salum had pushed her father from behind as a result of which he fell down.When her father tried to get up, Vankat Salum caught hold of her father by his hair and struck his head twice against the pucca street.In the meantime, C.K. Manikum picked up a big stone and hit it on the chest of his father who was lying on the street.The stone was hit twice.It is further stated that the houses of Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum are opposite her father's house and that they had collected several big stones in front of their houses.In the meanwhile, her husband PW-5 (K. Ramu) had also come there and several other persons had collected.She stated that her father remained lying on the ground and could not get up.The people who had gathered tried to catch hold of Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum but they pelted stones on them too.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 5 of 12In her cross-examination, which was conducted eight months later, the said witness stated that she came to know about the incident, CRL.A. 180/94 Page 6 of 12 i.e., the death of her father only after coming to her house.Yet, the rough sketch Exhibit PW-9/B and the scaled site plan Exhibit PW-12/A both indicate the presence of blood stains in the houses bearing No.497 and 498 of E-Block of J.J. Colony, Shakarpur.The prosecution has not brought forth any evidence to explain as to how the blood stains were found inside the said houses, whereas the entire incident allegedly occurred on the street.The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to D.D. entry No. 25/A dated 10.08.1991 at Police Station Saraswati Vihar.The D.D. entry is of 08.55 p.m. and it indicates that Vankat Salum had gone to the said police station alongwith C.K. Manikum who had been injured and was in an unconscious state.Advocates who appeared in this case:For the Appellants : Mr Sheikh Israr Ahmed For the Respondent : Mr Sunil Sharma CORAM:-2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest ? YES BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)The initial appellants were convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').By the said order of sentence, they were sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs 1,000/- each.During the pendency of the appeal, the second appellant (C.K. CRL.A. 180/94 Page 1 of 12 Manikum) passed away on 04.05.1997 and consequently the appeal insofar as he is concerned stands abated.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 1 of 12The prosecution case is that on 09.08.1991, a fight is alleged to have taken place in the night intervening the 9th and 10th August, 1991 between the surviving appellant Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum and one Maniappam.In that tussle, it is alleged that stones were thrown and incidentally the door of the deceased Rama Swami who lives nearby was broken.It is further the case of the prosecution that the next day the deceased had a conversation with Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum and told them to repair the door.In the evening at about 8.00 or 8.15 p.m. on that day, i.e., 10.08.1991, Vankat Salum and C.K. Manikum are alleged to have come to the residence of the deceased Rama Swami and it is alleged that they started abusing him.The quarrel between them was put to an end at the intervention of Rama Swami's son-in-law (K. Ramu) and his daughter Laxmi.It is the case of the prosecution that after some time Rama Swami was ready to retire for the night.Rama Swami used to sleep at the E-Block Market.While he was going towards E-Block Market, Vankat Salum pushed Rama Swami from behind as a result of which he fell down and when he tried to get up Vankat Salum caught hold of Rama Swami's hair and CRL.A. 180/94 Page 2 of 12 struck his head twice against the surface of the street.Thereafter, C.K. Manikum is said to have picked up a big stone lying nearby and hit the same on the chest of the deceased Rama Swami who was lying on the street.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Vankat Salum submitted that the trial court has convicted the said appellant only on the basis of part of the testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) who is the daughter of the deceased Rama Swami.He submitted that the other alleged eye witness, i.e., PW-5 (K. Ramu), who is the son-in-law of the deceased Rama Swami, has turned hostile.The learned counsel submitted that the only reason why the trial court convicted the appellant was because the trial court was of the opinion that the said witness PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) had been won over by the accused.Before the trial court, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had contended that after the examination- CRL.A. 180/94 Page 3 of 12 in-chief of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) had been conducted, the accused persons had intentionally tried to defer the cross-examination in order to win her over.Several adjournments were taken by them by moving applications and they were ultimately ready for cross-examination only when they had succeeded in their plan to win over the said eye-witness.It was contended that the testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) in her examination-in-chief, in these circumstances, would have to be believed if it was corroborated to some extent.Relying upon the said authority, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had contended before the trial court that in the case before the Supreme Court, there was only an interval of one month, whereas in the present case, there was a much larger interval.This contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor found favour with the trial court which was of the opinion that there was sufficient time with the accused persons to win over the said witness as also her husband PW-5 (K. Ramu) and to terrorise them.Of course, there is no evidence on record that the witnesses had actually been won over or terrorized by the accused.Because of the view taken by the trial court, the appellant CRL.A. 180/94 Page 4 of 12 alongwith C.K. Manikum was convicted on the basis of the testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) as deposed before court in her examination-in- chief.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 3 of 12CRL.A. 180/94 Page 4 of 12Of course, the trial court also sought corroboration from the medical evidence as given by PW-6 (Dr L.T. Ramani) who conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Rama Swami.The injuries found on the deceased Rama Swami were co-related with the testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) and, therefore, the court concluded that there was sufficient corroboration and convicted the appellant and C.K. Manikum under Sections 302/34 IPC for the murder of the deceased Rama Swami.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a bare look at the rough sketch Exhibit PW-9/B would show that PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) was not an eye witness to the incident at all.She also stated that she and her husband had not witnessed the occurrence.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 6 of 12The learned counsel for the appellant Vankat Salum submitted that from the narration of events as per the examination-in-chief of PW- 1 (Smt. Laxmi), the entire incident took place on the street.Apparently, an incident had taken place as a result of which C.K. Manikum had received injuries on his head.Thereafter, of course, C.K. Manikum had been taken to hospital, but no statement was recorded although he was declared fit for statement as per the MLC (Exhibit PW-14/B).CRL.A. 180/94 Page 7 of 12CRL.A. 180/94 Page 7 of 12The learned counsel, therefore, summed up his arguments by stating that while in law there is no impediment upon the courts on convicting persons on the testimony of a sole eye witness and, if it were granted that PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) had been won over, the court could convict on the basis of the testimony which formed part of the examination-in-chief.But, such testimony must be without any doubt and must be of stellar quality.He submitted that because of the fact that there were blood stains in the houses 497 and 498 of E-Block and the fact that the said houses were of the accused persons and that C.K. Manikum was so badly injured that he was brought to the police station in an unconscious state, serious doubts arise with regard to the truthfulness of the testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi).It may also be noted that in the MLC (Exhibit PW-14/B), even surgery was recommended insofar as C.K. Manikum was concerned.These are circumstances which are sufficient to create doubt as to the veracity of the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi).Mr Sharma referred to page 433 of the said report and CRL.A. 180/94 Page 8 of 12 submitted that there was a similar situation which arose with regard to PW-3 (Mohan Yadav) in that case who had fully supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief.In part of his cross- examination, which was recorded on the same day, the said witness gave the details of the weapons being carried by each of the accused and also the specific role played by them in assaulting the deceased and other injured persons.However, his cross-examination could not be completed and it was resumed on the next day.On that occasion, he made a complete volte face and gave a statement that he could not see the incident on account of darkness.In this background, the Supreme Court was of the view that the statement of witness as recorded on the first day, including the cross-examination of that day, was truthful and reliable.The Supreme Court noted that it is a well-settled principle that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat a particular witness as hostile and cross-examined him.The evidence of such a witness could not be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether, but the same could be accepted to the extent his version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof.The Supreme Court, therefore, placed reliance on the testimony of PW-3 (Mohan Yadav) in that case insofar as his examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the first day were concerned and discarded the second day's testimony.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 9 of 12CRL.A. 180/94 Page 8 of 12CRL.A. 180/94 Page 9 of 12Consequently, Mr Sharma submitted that there was nothing wrong with the decision of the trial court in convicting the appellant on the basis of the examination-in-chief of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) which also found corroboration with the nature of the injuries found on the body of the deceased as deposed by PW-6 (Dr L.T. Ramani).He, therefore, submitted that the judgment and order on sentence be upheld.We have considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties.In the first place, it appeared that PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) spoke the truth when she deposed in her examination-in-chief.There also appeared to be some merit in the trial court's finding that there was an interval of eight months between her examination-in-chief and cross-examination and, therefore, there was a possibility of the said witness having been won over.There is no evidence of this.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 10 of 12CRL.A. 180/94 Page 10 of 12However, when we examine the case in greater detail, we find that there are a few facts which have gone unexplained on the part of the prosecution.The first circumstance is the factum of blood stains in house Nos. 497 and 498 both of which belong to the accused persons.The second circumstance is the factum of D.D. No.25/A which shows that C.K. Manikum had been taken to the police station by the appellant Vankat Salum around 8.55 p.m. on the date of the incident itself.According to the prosecution, the death of Rama Swami took place around 8.15 p.m. It does appear to be extremely doubtful that the appellant, after having committed the murder of the victim Rama Swami in the manner suggested by the prosecution, would have gone to the police station and taken co-accused C.K. Manikum there.Moreover, C.K. Manikum was also injured and injured to such an extent that he was unconscious.Thereafter, he was taken to hospital and, as his MLC records, although he was fit for making a statement, apparently no statement of his was recorded by the police and, even if such a statement had been recorded, the same has not been produced before court.The fact that there were blood stains in the said houses belonging to the accused and that the accused were injured on 10.08.1991 itself, it appears that the incident was somewhat different than what PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) has stated in her examination-in-chief.The testimony of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) does not in any manner indicate CRL.A. 180/94 Page 11 of 12 that the accused suffered any injury in her presence.Whereas, it is a fact that they did.So much so that C.K. Manikum became unconscious.So, the incident as narrated by PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) is quite different from what appears from a piecing together of circumstances.CRL.A. 180/94 Page 11 of 12Taking into account these circumstances, we feel that the statement of PW-1 (Smt. Laxmi) in her examination-in-chief is not free from doubt and, therefore, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the appellant.Consequently, the impugned judgment and order on sentence are set aside.The bail bond of the appellant Vankat Salum is cancelled and the surety stands discharged.The appeal is allowed and stands disposed of.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J P.K. BHASIN, J April 15, 2009 dutt CRL.A. 180/94 Page 12 of 12
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,144,309 |
Khacheru, Mansukh and Nathu, who were among the accused persons, are related to Pooran, the father of the girl.On account of the indecent assault on the girl, the Chamars were very much agitated; and, having armed themselves with lathis, about 200 Chamars had collected near the house of one Ghasita Chamar.They were determined to punish the complainant, and had caught hold of him.Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh and Balwant Singh had intervened and tried to bring about a settlement.They along with other accused, who were the relations of the girl, had, in good faith, collected a Panchayat; and with a view to avoid other harm to the complainant and with his consent, the Panchayat had decided, in the interest of and for the benefit of the complainant, to blacken his face and to give him shoe-beating.In pursuance of the decision of the Panchayat the complainant's face was blackened and he was given a shoe-beating.It has been filed after a similar application to the Sessions Judge of Meerut has been rejected.Such an application can be entertained only in exceptional cases; and it was admitted having regard to the special circumstances of the case, because, at the time of its presentation, it was thought that, on the facts found, a question of law of general importance to the community arose in the case.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and after going through the record, I find that the only question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the accused persons were entitled to and were rightly allowed the benefits of the exceptions mentioned in Sections 81, 87 and 88, Penal Code.Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh and Balwant Singh, Khacheru, Mansukh and Nathu were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 read with Section 114, Penal Code.They were tried by the Bench Magistrates of Meerut Cantonment and were found guilty of the offences with which they were charged.Accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced.They preferred an appeal, which was heard by the Assistant Sessions Judge of Meerut.The appeal was allowed and the conviction of and the sentence imposed upon each of them were set aside; and they were acquitted.Bishambhar Sahai, the complainant, filed a revision against the order of acquittal in the Court of the Sessions Judge of Meerut.The revision, which came up for hearing before the Additional Sessions Judge of Meerut, was rejected.3 The facts found by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge are these.The complainant, Bishambhar, had molested a Chamar girl, named Nathia.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,431,948 |
With the consent heard finally.This is the first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.211/2020 registered at Police Station, Namli, Distt.Ratlam for the offences registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 352, 506, 34,326 of the IPC.Shri Katkani, learned counsel for applicant submits that as per prosecution story, initially offences were registered u/Ss.294, 323, 341, 352, 506 and 34 of the IPC.All these offences are bailable.However, lateron pursuant to an x-ray report of Sarjubai it was found that there is a fracture of left foot of Sarjubai because of which Sec.326 of IPC was enhanced.Learned counsel for applicant submits that the incident is arising out of injury by a tractor which cannot be treated to be a weapon as per Sec.326 of IPC.By placing reliance on Kadhorilal & Ors Vs.He will not influence the witnesses or material.P.C shall also apply on the applicant during currency of bail.The application stands disposed of.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,436,206 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No. 196 of 2020, under Sections 307, 326A, 452, 506 I.P.C., police station Noorpur, District Bijnor.The Court finds no ground to accord the facility of anticipatory bail to the applicant bearing in mind the invocation of Section 307 and 326A IPC.The prayer so made is refused.The application consequently stands rejected.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,448,138 |
[2] As per prosecution case, on 26/9/2013 at about 8 p.m. when the prosecutrix was going to attend the call of nature near her house situated at village Jammwada, the appellant met her on the way.He caught hold of her and took her to a room built at Tejlal Sahu's farm used for fastening bulls and committed rape with her there and also threatened to kill her.At about 12 a.m. the prosecutrix's father Ramdas and mother Sugarti Bai came there and on seeing them appellant fled away.Prosecutrix narrated the incident to them.They took her to P.S. Amla, Distt.Shri S.K. Gautam, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/complainant.Complainant is present in person.Case diary perused and arguments heard.This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14- A(1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against the order dated 27/5/2017 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge for Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, in Special Case No.31/2017; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant Raju @ Ramprakash, under Section 439 of Cr.Betul where she lodged the report.On that report, police registered Crime no.341/13 for the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(2) (Jha) and 506 of I.P.C. and also under Sections 3 (2) (v) read with 3(1)(xii)of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and investigated the matter.During investigation Police did not get the accused.So after investigation police filed the charge sheet in the absence of the appellant.On that, charge sheet, Special Case No. 31/17 was registered.Police arrested the appellant on 6/5/2017 and produced before the court.Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.[3] Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that appellant has falsely been implicated in this matter.Appellant is in custody since 6/5/2017, the charge sheet has been filed and conclusion of trial will take time, so appellant be released on bail.[4] Respondent No.2 and her counsel submitted that they have no objection on appellant being granted bail .Besides the possibility of tampering with the evidence by the accused if released on bail at this stage also can not be ruled out.So in the considered opinion of this court learned trial court did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application of applicant for releasing him on bail at this stage.So his appeal is rejected with the liberty that after recording the statement of the prosecutrix, the appellant is free to again file fresh bail application.Accordingly, Cr.A. No. 2239/2017 is disposed of.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376(2) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,444,857 |
Case diary is available.Heard finally.The applicants are ready to co-operate in the investigation and trial.They are reputed citizens of the locality, in the event of arrest their reputation will be tarnished, therefore,they may be released on anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,144,523 |
As per G.S. Solanki,J.:In short, the prosecution case, is that on 14.11.94, at about 2:00 p.m.(Noon), Shital Prasad(PW-2) suspected that appellants had harvested the crops of the disputed land.Therefore, he informed his father Ramvichar(deceased), uncle Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and cousin 3 brother Radheyram(PW-6).These persons while going towards the disputed field when they reached the adjoining field of Baku Harijan, appellants came from the back side and started beating them.It is alleged that Sipahilal(A-1) was armed with Bullai.Ramanugrah (A-2) with Gandasa, Lakhpati (A-5) with Ballam and the rest were armed with Lathies and they assaulted the complainant party.According to complainant first of all they assaulted Kanhaiyalal(PW-5).He fell down.Then they chased Ramvichar(deceased) and assaulted him.Then they assaulted Radheyram(PW-6).Complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) was compelled to run away.The incident was witnessed by Tannu Sahu, Manikram and Samaylal (PW-3).Ramvichar succumbed to his injuries.Radheyram and Kanhaiyalal were injured.Complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) lodged FIR (Ex.P-8) at Police Station Baidhan, Distt.Sidhi at about 4:30 p.m. Injured persons were sent for medical examination.L.P. Patel(PW-7), Assistant Sub Inspector came to the spot on 15.11.94 and prepared inquest panchnama(Ex.P-9), Spot map(Ex.P-10).At the instance of complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) he seized the blood stained soil and normal soil vide seizure memo (Ex. P-35).Dead body was sent for post-mortem examination.Dr. G.S. Soni(PW-1) conducted autopsy on the dead body and found six injuries on the body of Ramvichar, out which three injuries were caused by sharp weapon and three injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The doctor opined(vide Ex. P 1A) that death, was homicidal in nature.Deceased died by shock due to excessive 4 bleedings from injuries.He examined Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and found six injuries on his person vide Ex. 5A. Injuries were grievous in nature and there were three fractures on left clavicle, left radius ulna and fracture of right metacarpal bone respectively.He further stated that appellant Ramanugrah (A-2) was having Gandasa, Sipahilal(A-1) with Bullai, Lakhpati(A-5) had Ballam and the other had lathies.Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) fell down then accused persons assaulted his father Ramvichar(deceased).He also fell down.Then accused persons assaulted Radheyram(PW-6) was also fell down in the field of Baku Harijan and become unconscious.According to him, appellants compelled him to run away therefore, he ran from the spot towards the village.According to him, Samaylal(PW-3) was also present in near by field.The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 13.07.2000, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sidhi , in ST No. 23/95, convicting them under Sections 302 read with 149 of IPC, 326 read with 149 of IPC and 325 read with 149 of IPC and sentencing them to RI for life, RI for 4 years, RI for 3 years respectively.Sipahi Lal(A-1) additionally convicted under Sections 148 and 379 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years and 3 years respectively.Ramanugrah(A-2) and Lakhpati(A-5) additionally convicted under Section 148 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years.Radheshyam (A-3), Shyam Sunder (A-4), Rajeshwari (A-6), Jagjivan(A-7), Janaklal(A-8) and Dukkhi(A-9) have been additionally convicted under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year.It is undisputed that deceased Ramvichar was the father of Shital Prasad(PW-2).Kanhaiyalal (PW-5) was the brother of the deceased.Radheyram (PW-6) is the son of Kanhaiyalal (PW-5).It is also an admitted fact that there was a dispute between appellants/accused and complainant party regarding land bearing Kh.No. 546, situated in village Siddhikala.Regarding this land, a civil suit was pending before the Civil Court, Baidhan for last about 10 years.Appellants/accused were arrested and weapons of offence were seized at their instance.They were charge-sheeted.Appellants/accused abjured their guilt and pleaded that they did not participate in the incident and only due to property disputes they have been falsely implicated.On appraisal of the evidence on record, learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants/accused as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned trial Court committed error in not considering the plea of appellants, regarding self defence which was available from material on record.He further submitted that appellants were entitled to protect their crop and their possession from the trespasser.In such a situation, there was no unlawful assembly.Therefore, he prays for setting aside the finding of conviction recorded by the trial Court.On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of respondent/State submitted that place of incident was not the disputed land, hence right to protect the property and person does not arise.On the contrary, appellants/accused after having formed an 5 unlawful assembly, assaulted the complainant party in the nearby land of one Baku Harijan.In this way, he justified and supported the finding of the trial Court.The prosecution recorded the evidence of as many as 7 witnesses.Complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2), Kanhaiyalal(PW-5), Radheyram(PW-6) are injured persons and there is one more eye witness Samaylal(PW-3).We are conscious that all witnesses mentioned above are related witness therefore, their testimony required to be scrutinized minutely.It is no longer disputed that Ramvichar died of homicidal death.Dr. G.S. Soni(PW-1) performed the post-mortem examination on the body of Ramvichar(deceased) and found following injuries :-(iii) Incise wound on left cheek, mandible 3"X1/2"X1/4".Doctor opined that injury no. 1 to 3 were caused by sharp cutting object and no. 4 to 6 were caused by hard and blunt object.Severe bleeding was present.In his opinion cause of death of deceased was shock due to excessive bleeding from the injuries.He further opined that cumulative effect of all injuries found on the body of deceased was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.His version finds support by his post-mortem report(Ex.P-1A).He also admitted 6 in his cross examination in para 10 that single injury no. 1 was sufficient to cause death of Ramvichar.Dr. G.S. Soni(PW-1) is an independent witness.Nothing could be brought out in his cross- examination to disbelieve his testimony therefore, we are of the opinion that Ramvichar(deceased) died a homicidal death.Complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) deposed that there was a dispute regarding land bearing Kh.He admitted that a civil suit is pending in Baidhan Civil Court since last 10 years but according to him, patta was in the name of his father Ramvichar(deceased).He and his father were in possession of disputed land.They had sown the crop of paddy on it.But on 14.11.94 at about 1' O Clock accused persons were carrying harvested crop.He suspected that they were carrying crop of the disputed land therefore, he alongwith his father Ramvichar(deceased), uncle Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and cousin brother Radheyram(PW-6) proceeded to inspect disputed land, but before reaching the disputed land appellants/accused attacked them from behind and made assault on Kanhaiyalal(PW-5).They reached the place of incident when 7 accused persons fled away and found that Ramvichar(deceased) was dead.He received injuries on his cheek, mandible and the feet and all over the body.Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and Radheyram(PW-6) were also likely to die.They also received many injuries on their person.Complainant and his companion carried them to Baidhan where complainant lodged FIR (Ex.P-8).In cross examination he denied the suggestion that disputed land was in possession of appellants/accused.Some omissions regarding the facts of unconsciousness and likelihood of death of injured persons Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and Radheyram(PW-6) were brought out in his cross examination but they are not material.Aforesaid version of complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) is corroborated by Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) who deposed that on 14.11.94, complainant Shital Prasad informed him and his brother Ramvichar(since deceased) that Tulsi and others were taking away the crops from the disputed land.On this information, he alongwith Radheyram(PW-6), Ramvichar(deceased) and complainant proceeded to inspect the disputed land but just before the disputed land appellants/accused intercepted them in the land of Baku Harijan and assaulted them.According to him, Ramanugrah(A-2) assaulted him by gandasa and Lakhpati assaulted by ballam.He fell down.He also deposed that appellants/accused also assaulted Ramvichar (deceased) who died on the spot.It is true that specific act of appellants/Accused Ramanugrah and Lakhpati was not found in his police statement(Ex.D-5), however the fact that all appellants came from back side and assaulted him, was narrated to the police.It is a matter of common experience that when a group of person assault 8 some one, it is not possible for him to attributed exact act of particular person.In this way, injured Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) can not be disbelieved on these discrepancies.19. Radheyram(PW-6) corroborated the testimony of complainant and injured witness Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) by saying that when all of them reached in the field of Baku Harijan appellants/accused Sipahilal(A-1) armed with Bullai, Ramanugrah(A-2) with Gandasa, Lakhpati(A-5) with Ballam and the rest armed with lathies attacked them from back side.They firstly assaulted his father Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and then to Ramvichar(deceased).After that Lakhpati, Ramnugrah and other appellants assaulted him.He further deposed that complainant Shital Prasad compelled to run away towards the village.There appears some discrepancies from his police statement(Ex.D-6), but they were not material.Since he is an injured witness therefore his presence on the spot can not be doubted.The version of complainant and injured witnesses is corroborated by Dr. G.S.Soni(PW-1) who found three incised wounds on the vital parts of the body of Ramvichar(deceased) and other three wounds which could be caused by hard and blunt object on his person.His post-mortem report is Ex. P-1A. It is further deposed that he found four injuries on the person of Radheyram(PW-6) and fractures on fibula of right leg and radius of right hand.According to Dr. G.S. Soni(PW-1) on same day i.e. 14.11.94 he examined Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) and found six injuries on his person, out of them two were grievous in nature.On x-ray he found fracture in 9 clavicle, radius ulna of left hand and metacarpal bone of right hand.His MLC report is Ex. P-5 and X-ray report is Ex.P-6 respectively.In cross examination he fairly admitted that none of the injuries was found dangerous to life on the person of injured Kanhaiyalal and Radheyam.He admitted that injury no. 1 of Ramvichar was sufficient to cause death.In this way, testimonies of injured witnesses are duly corroborated by the medical evidence.All above mentioned facts are corroborated by Samaylal(PW-3) who was coming from nearby field, at the time of incident.His name finds place in FIR(Ex. P-8).He is also a related witness but nothing was brought in his cross examination so as to disbelieve his presence at the time of incident, therefore, his testimony can not be discarded only on the basis of his relation with the complainant.All the above witnesses deposed that they were assaulted in the field of Baku Harijan which was adjoining to the disputed land.It is also proved by these witnesses that they were proceeding towards the disputed filed for inspecting the crop but they were intercepted and assaulted before reaching to the disputed land.Chandulal(PW-4), Patwari, deposed that Kh.No. 546 was previously recorded in the name of Sonua but during settlement this very field was recorded in the name of Paramsukh.He deposed that Paramsukh(brother of deceased) and his relatives were in possession of the disputed land right from the beginning.Kedar Prasad Namdeo(DW-6) deposed that Kh.No. 546 was recorded in the name of Sonua during the year 89-90 to 93-94 and he produced the khasrapanji(Ex.D-13).He also produced the other 10 khasra entries(Ex.D-40) but another defence witness Sudama Prasad(DW-5), son of appellant Sipahilal, fairly admitted the possession of Shital Prasad(PW-2) on the disputed land.On the strength of khasra entries learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that on the date of incident appellant party was in possession of the disputed land and complainant party tried to interfere in their possession therefore, they had right to protect their property and person, but we are not impressed by the argument of learned Sr. Counsel, for the reason, that place of incident was not the disputed field but it was just before the disputed land, in other words, adjoining land of Baku Harijan.This fact is amply proved by version of eye witnesses that the complainant party was going towards the disputed field and before reaching the disputed field they were assaulted by the appellants/accused.Spot map Ex. P-10 and P-35 corroborate the version of L.P. Patel.The place of incident shown in spot map at Sl.No. 1is where he found the body of deceased Ramvichar and blood stained soil.This fact further supported the version of complainant and injured witnesses that place of incident was just before the disputed land and occurrence took place when the complainant party was going towards the disputed land.In these circumstances, argument of learned Sr. Counsel that the appellants had a right to protect their 11 crop and their person can not be accepted.In these circumstances, question of title and possession of the disputed land is not material, therefore, we are not inclined to further discuss the same.28. Buddhuram(DW-1) is a witness regarding adoption of appellant no. 3 and 4, but as we mentioned hereinabove that incident did not take place on the disputed field therefore evidence of this witness has no impact on the circumstances of the case.Manikram Verma(DW-2) and Radheshyam Panda(DW-3) were the witness to establish the of plea of alibi taken by acquitted accused Tulsiram and Jamuna Prasad.Trial Court accepted their testimony and gave its benefit to Tulsiram(acquitted) and Jamuna Prasad.It is true that complainant Shital Prasad(PW-2) and other eye witnesses did not depose about the specific acts of accused persons but they deposed that accused Ramanugrah(A-2) had Gandasa, Sipahilal(A-1) had bullai, Lakhpati had ballam i.e. sharp edged weapons and other appellants had lathis.Considering the circumstances in which occurrence took place it was not possible for the witnesses to narrate specific acts in the assault.The testimony of eye witnesses stood corroborated by medical evidence of Dr. G.S. Soni(PW-1) who found three incised wounds on the vital parts of the body of Ramvichar(deceased) and three wounds caused by hard and blunt object like lathi.This fact is also corroborated by the FIR(Ex.P-8).Therefore, it is proved that appellant Sipahilal(A-1), Ramanugrah(A-2) and Lakhpati(A-5) armed with deadly weapons, as a member of unlawful assembly caused injuries to deceased and other persons armed with lathis caused other injuries to the 12 deceased.It is also established that appellants/accused came together at the place of incident and after committing the offence fled away together from the spot.It is also established from the evidence on record that accused Sipahilal(A-1), Ramanugrah(A-2) and Lakhpati(A-5) were armed with deadly weapons at the time of incident.In these circumstances, they were the members of unlawful assembly and then in furtherance of common object committed murder of Ramvichar(deceased) as well as caused grievous hurt to witness Radheyram(PW-6) by deadly weapon and grievous hurt to Kanhaiyalal(PW-5) by other weapons, therefore, we are of the opinion that trial Court rightly convicted them under Sections 302 read with 149, 326 read with 149 , 325 read with 149 of IPC and under Section 148 to accused/appellant Sipahi Lal, Ramanugrah and Lakhpati and to other appellants under section 147 of IPC.We therefore affirm the above findings recorded by trial Court.As we discussed hereinabove, the possession of complainant on the disputed land was not clearly established, conviction and sentence recorded under Section 379 of IPC of appellant/accused Sipahi Lal(A-1) is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside.Considering the nature of offence, sentences recorded by trial Court can not be said to be excessive.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 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.
|
114,456,366 |
The case of prosecution against all the respondents in shortis as under :(i) Jayshree was the daughter of Shankarrrao Raghoji Dukandar.Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of deceased Jayshree.Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are sister-in-laws ofdeceased Jayshree.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::settlement of marriage, respondent no. 1 agreed that after marriage, hewill stay with his wife Jayshree at Ansing by making arrangement ofroom.(iii) After solemnizing marriage, Jayshree went to cohabit with herhusband/respondent no. 1 at Village Bramha on such promise andassurance given by her husband to reside at Ansing after getting room.Respondent no. 1 not made any arrangement of residence at Ansing.Allthe respondents gave good treatment to her for 1½ years.Jayshreebegotten one female child.Thereafter respondents started ill-treating todeceased.They were directing her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from herparents to purchase plot at Ansing.(iv) In the year 2005, brother of Jayshree, namely, Shivraj had beento the house of the respondents at Bramha for Rakshabandhan.In hispresence, respondent no. 1 beat deceased Jayshree.On 16-4-2006,father of deceased had been to Village Rohada for a marriage.Aftermarriage, he went to Village Bramha.Deceased disclosed him about theharassment of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law.She toldthat she was beaten by her husband.She disclosed that as he was not::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 ::: 4 jg.apeal.203.07.odtpaying Rs. 50,000/- to purchase plot, therefore, her in-laws wereharassing her.He tried to convince father-in-law and mother-in-law andhusband of Jayshree.They were not in a mood to hear him.They askedhim to take Jayshree with him.So he took his daughter at Jintur.Jayshree resided with her parents for 2½ months.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::(v) On 21-6-2006, husband of Jayshree telephoned her and told herthat she should come with her paternal aunt, namely, Laxmibai.He toldher that if she fail to come for cohabitation, he would commit suicide.On 23-6-2006, Jayshree came for cohabitation along with Laxmibai.On25-6-2006, Jayshree committed suicide.Information was given to herparents.Father-in-law of deceased informed the police about the deathof deceased.(vi) Father of deceased, P.W. 1 came to Village Bramha.He lodgedreport at Police Station, Ansing (Exhibit 50).Crime was registered.PSIAvghade, P.W. 9 investigated the crime.He prepared spot panchanama,inquest panchanama etc. and sent dead body for post mortem.Learned counsel has submitted thatdeceased Jayshree was hot tempered.Date of pronouncing the judgment : 15/03/2018.Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J) The State has preferred the present appeal against thejudgment of acquittal passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 78/2006 by which all therespondents/accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code.As perthe opinion of the Medical Officer, cause of death was due to hanging.After complete investigation, P.W. 9 filed the charge-sheet before theJudicial Magistrate First First Class, Washim, who in turn committed to::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 ::: 5 jg.apeal.203.07.odtthe Court of Sessions, Washim for trial.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::Same was readover andexplained to the accused/respondents.They pleaded not guilty andclaimed to be tried.Defence appears to be of total denial.(viii) Learned trial Court recorded statements of accused under Section313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.After hearing the prosecutionand defence, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused/respondentsas stated above, hence, the present appeal.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J. Y.Ghurde for the State/appellant.He has submitted that evidence ofP.W. 1, father of deceased is well supported by P.W. 2 Shivraj Dukandar,sister of deceased Savita (P.W. 3) and independent witness Aasra.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there issufficient evidence by the prosecution to prove the offences punishableunder Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.There is nodispute that deceased died within a period 7 years from the time ofmarriage.Death of Jayshree was unnatural.P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 andP.W. 4 have stated about ill-treatment by the respondents.Learned trial::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 ::: 6 jg.apeal.203.07.odtCourt not considered evidence properly and wrongly acquitted therespondents.At last, he prayed to allow the appeal and convict therespondents for the offences charged against them.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::Heard learned counsel Shri Daga for the respondents.It was decided before marriagethat her husband should reside at Ansing along with deceased.Being aonly son, he could not reside at Ansing.Deceased was upset andtherefore, she has committed suicide.There was no any ill-treatment orharassment as alleged against the respondents.Learned trial Courtrightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted all therespondents.From the perusal of::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 ::: 7 jg.apeal.203.07.odtevidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, it is clear that deceasedhad no grievance against any of the respondents for a period of1½ years.Deceased delivered a female child.Admittedly, her sister-in-laws were married and residing with their respective husbands.Generalallegations are made against father-in-law and mother-in-law sayingthat they were instigating respondent no. 1 to beat deceased etc.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::She resided with them for about 2½months.Respondent no. 1 was insisting his wife Jayshree to return tomatrimonial home.On 21-6-2006, respondent no. 1 made a phone calland requested Jayshree to return with Laxmibai (paternal aunt ofdeceased).Exact reason forcommitting suicide not disclosed, but from overall evidence on record, itis clear that deceased was insisting her husband to reside at Ansing.Respondent no. 1 being the only son of his parents, he wanted tocontinue to reside at Bramha instead of Ansing.Respondent no. 1 wasin service at Ansing.He was working as a Clerk in Maulana Aazad::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 ::: 8 jg.apeal.203.07.odtSchool at Ansing.It was natural for the only son/respondent no. 1 tolook after his old aged parents.His both sisters/respondent nos. 4 and 5were married and residing with their respective husbands.Therefore,expectation of parents from their only son to take care of them in theirold age cannot be said to be cruelty.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::For the first time, after the death of Jayshree, story putforth by P.W. 1 in respect of demand of Rs. 50,000/- to purchase a plot.It is pertinent to note that real sister of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha.If there was any such cruelty or harassment on account of demand ofRs.50,000/-, then it was natural for the parents of deceased to call ameeting of their relatives.It appears from the evidence that there was some bickeringonly on the ground that the respondent no. 1 was not taking deceased toAnsing and reside only with her.There is no dispute that lastly, deceased return tomatrimonial home at Bramha along with her paternal aunt Laxmibai.Laxmibai not examined by the prosecution.P.W. 9 PSI Avghade hasadmitted in his cross-examination that he had recorded statement of::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 ::: 9 jg.apeal.203.07.odtLaxmibai Vaijnathappa Isapure and her son Mahadeo Isapure, residentof Bramha.Both the statements not filed on record.Both witnesses alsonot examined by the prosecution.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::PSI Avghade has specifically admitted in his cross-examination that both these witnesses, namely, Laxmibai and her sonMahadeo not shown any knowledge about the harassment to Jayshree.Evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 also not material.P.W. 4 Aasra Ghugedenied portion marked 'A' of her statement.It is proved by PSI Avghade.In her statement before police stated that there was ill-treatment todeceased from her parents side.This allegation stated by father andrelatives of deceased after her death.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not statedin their evidence that they asked husband of deceased in respect ofdemand.Moreover, real sister of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha withher family.P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 not stated a single word that Laxmibaidisclosed anything about the harassment of deceased in respect ofdemand of Rs. 50,000/-.Being a real sister, it was natural conduct of::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 ::: 10 jg.apeal.203.07.odtLaxmibai to disclose to her brother about the harassment of deceased,but P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 not stated so.On the other hand,evidence of PSI Avghade clearly shows that Laxmibai and her son notdisclosed anything about the harassment to deceased by any of therespondents.Therefore, it is clear that allegations in respect of demandof Rs. 50,000/- introduced after death of Jayshree.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::P.W. 2 admitted both the letters written by deceased.In both the letters, deceasednot made any allegation.In thesaid letter, deceased not shown any harassment to her.Another letter,Exhibit 55 was addressed to respondent no. 1 by Jayshree from herparents house.Below her signature, she wroteas hot tempered wife.Admission of P.W. 1 in the cross-examinationitself shows that deceased was hot tempered.There may be some trivial quarrels on household work.There has to be anexus between such harassment, ill-treatment, cruelty and the death.Itis further held in paragraph 11 of said judgment as under.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::For bringing home the guilt in context with Section 498A or 304B of Indian Penal Code there has to be a specific evidence to show that the bride was harassed, illtreated, treated with cruelty on number of occasions which was sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide.The Court cannot afford itself to be aloof or noninformative of normal human behaviour and humanly transactions which are being transacted in day to day routine life.There are petty quarrels or brushings or conflicts on number of counts in day to day life between a bride, her in-laws, her husband, the sisters or the brothers of the husband.Every such petty bickering or disagreement cannot be treated to be "cruelty" in parlance of law in respect of Sections 498A, 304 B of Indian Penal Code.If they are to be taken into the sweep of the provisions of these two sections, then, it would be very difficult for the persons to survive in normal domestic life.Cruelty should be to such an extent which would make the bride fade up and to abandon the matrimonial life by committing suicide.The harassment, illtreatment or cruelty should be of such an extent which would make her disinterested in living in matrimonial tie or::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 ::: 12 jg.apeal.203.07.odt in matrimonial home and that would be sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide.There has to be a nexus between such harassment, illtreatment, cruelty and the death.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::P.W. 1 also not disclosed anyharassment or ill-treatment by the sister-in-laws of deceased eventhough they are made accused.As per admission ofPSI Avghade, he had recorded statements of Laxmibai and her sonMahadeo who were residing at Village Bramha.She would have disclosed before the Court real factbut prosecution not examined Laxmibai or her son.Moreover, PSIAvghade has stated in his evidence that Laxmibai and her son notdisclosed anything about harassment or ill-treatment to deceased by allthe accused.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accusedpersons were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and on that count beating and ill-treating deceased.The real fact disclosed by P.W. 1 himself in hisexamination-in-chief.He has stated that there was an agreement beforethe marriage of Jayshree.At the time of settlement of marriage,respondent no. 1 agreed to reside with his wife separately at Ansing.Admittedly, respondent no. 1 not taken Jayshree to Ansing.Jayshreewas residing in joint family, therefore, her expectation to resideseparately with her husband not fulfilled.There is noillegality and perversity in the impugned judgment.Hence, we pass thefollowing order.::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,457,030 |
Dipak Misra, J.Leave granted.The present appeal by special leave has been preferred assailing thelegal defensibility of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed in CriminalApplication No. 28461 of 2011 by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabadand praying for quashment of the same, and further to cancel the grant ofbail to the accused-respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’)in respect of offences punishable under Sections 365/506 of the IndianPenal Code (for short ‘the IPC’).The facts material for adjudication of this appeal are that an FIRwas lodged by the present appellant on 29.05.2011 alleging that while hewas going to his in-laws’ place in village Samadia, P.S. Patwai along withBihari Lal near canal of Milk Road from Patwai which leads to Samdia Khurd,two persons came on a motorcycle and after inquiring about the identity ofBihari Lal told him that they had been asked by Lalla Babu @ Shiv Raj Singhto compel him to accompany them.As there was resistance, they threatenedto kill him and eventually made Bihari Lal sit in between them on the HeroHonda motorcycle and fled towards Patwai.The incident was witnessed byMunish and Rajbir.In quite promptitude the appellant went to the PatwaiPolice Station, District Rampur and lodged the FIR as a consequence ofwhich crime No. 770 of 2011 was registered for offences punishable underSection 364 and 506 of the IPC.On the basis of the FIR the criminal lawwas set in motion and the accused was arrested and taken into custody.The accused Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu preferred bail ApplicationNo.1268 of 2011 which came to be dealt by the learned Additional SessionsJudge, Rampur who taking note of the allegations in the FIR and the standput forth in oppugnation by the prosecution as well as by the victimobserved as follows:-“I have perused the case diary.While confirming his abduction, victim Bihari Lal has stated under Section 164 Cr.P.C. that the abductors took him to the accused.Applicant-accused and his accomplices kept him confined in a room for about 8 days and they also used to assault him and threaten for life.As per the victim, he escaped from their captivity after about 8 days of abduction under the pretext of nature’s call/time.Munish and Rajbir reported as eye-witnesses in the First Information Report stated before the Investigating Officer that the abductors had stated at the time of abduction that the applicant-accused Lalla Babu has send them to mend you.”Thereafter, taking note of the fact that the accused is a history-sheeter and involved in number of cases rejected the application for bail.Being unsuccessful to secure bail from the court of Session, theaccused preferred a Bail Application No. 28461 of 2011 before the HighCourt under Section 439 of the Code.The High Court though took note ofthe statement made under Section 164 CrPC that name of Shiv Raj Singh @Lalla Babu had figured as allegations were made against him to that effectthat victim Bihari Lal was taken by the kidnappers to him, yet observedthat he only sat there and offended Bihari Lal.The High Court onlymentioned the fact that the accused has a criminal history and is involvedin number of cases but considering the factum that he has been in custodysince 30.09.2011 directed his enlargement on bail on certain conditions,namely, the accused shall report at the police station concerned on thefirst day of each English Calendar month, shall not commit any offencesimilar to the offence which he is accused of, and shall not directly orindirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquaintedwith the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such factsto the court or to any police officer.Questioning the justifiability of the impugned order Ms. Abha R.Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the HighCourt has absolutely misdirected itself by not appositely considering thestatement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, thegravity of the offences and criminal antecedents of the accused and furtherthe affidavit filed by the prosecution bringing number of factors as aconsequence of which an illegal order enlarging the appellant on bail hascome into existence.He had sent two persons to kidnap BihariLal, who remained in confinement for eight days.The victim was tortured.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,144,571 |
There was an enquiry by the Anti corruptiondepartment.In spite of a letter having been written by the respondent to petitioner No. 3, he permitted the surrender of the locker by petitioners 1 and 2in connivance with them thereby depriving the respondent from her valuables lying in that locker.(1) The petitioners who are sister and brother respectively of the respondent have filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the proceedings of 8 criminal cases detailed in Annexure 19 filed along with this petition against them at the behest of therespondent.Daring the course of arugments, it has been agreed that it may be.quite difficult to hear the arguments in respect of all the 8 criminal cases andtherefore, for the time being the arguments have been confined to the first complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 403/406 etc. read with Section 120B IPC.(2) I have heard arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties in respect of this complaint.Therefore, the husband of the complainant also made a complaint about the un-known sources of income of her sister petitioner no. 1who was a Govt. servant.She has further submitted that since the contents of the locker bad been checked by the anticorruption Inspector on the complaint of the husband of the respondent, the petitioners were well within their rights to surrender the locker because the anticorruption inspector told the bank that they bad no objection to the surrender of the locker.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,366,130 |
WHEREAS Sh.Raj Sharma, Process Server (Emp Code No. 90017) S/o Sh.Bhagwan Dutt, while posted in the Nazarat Branch, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, promised all the complainants to get employ in the office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi in lieu of payment of Rupees One Lac each to arrange jobs for them in the Rohini courts, after taking money, but could not arrange the same.In view of the above conduct, vide order dated 04.09.2006 Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, Process Server was placed under-suspension in terms of sub- rule (2) of 10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal)Rules, 1965 & a regular Departmental Inquiry under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was conducted against him.Inquiry officer Sh.Tarun Yogesh, Ld.Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, submitted his report in which charges against Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, Process Server were not proved.Dev Raj Sharma, Process Server S/o Sh.He will be paid full benefits of the period, he remained suspended & this period will be treated as on duty.M.C.568/2009 Page 3 of 6 Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to:-M.C.568/2009 Page 3 of 6The Pay & Accounts Officer PAO No. VI, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.The AAO, O/o Ld. ACJ, Delhi.The Incharge, Nazarat Branch, Tis Hazari Courts/Patila House Courts, Delhi.Incharge, ACJ Office Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Accordingly, vide order dated 03.05.2008, the delinquent Sh.(DIG VINAY SINGH) ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE DELHI No. 19124-19133/F-184/Vig./ACJ/08 Dated, Delhi the 06/05/08 Crl.Bill Clerk concerned.The Clerk concerned, Service Book/Personal File/Establishment.Official Concerned, Sh.Dev Raj Sharma, Process Server (Emp.Code No. 90017) S/o Sh.Bhagwan Dutt R/o H. No. 118, Gali No. 3, Nai Basti, Near New Era School, Bahadurgarh, Haryana.Civil Judge Office Delhi"M.C.568/2009 Page 5 of 6Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order of summoning passed by the Special Judge against the petitioner is set aside.The bail bond of the petitioner shall stand discharged.The petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,439,961 |
Shri Kaustubh Singh, learned counsel for the objector.Thirty Thousand Only) each with separate sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before the concerned Court on all dates of hearing fixed in this behalf by the Court concerned during trial.C. stands disposed of.Certified copy on payment of usual charges.(S.K. SETH) JUDGE
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,135,287 |
2)The complainant in C.C.No.203 of 2001 is the revision petitioner herein.According to the prosecution, the accused have trespassed into the land of P.W.1/revision petitioner herein in survey No.75/2, Natham Poramboke measuring 9 cents with deadly weapons on 27.4.2001 at about 11.00.a.m., and tried to evacuate P.W.1 from the said Natham Poramboke land and that the accused at the time of occurrence have also abused P.W.1 in filthy language.Hence A1 to A14 were charged under Sections 148,448,294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and A15 to A18 were charged under Sections 148 r/w 109 and 448 r/w 109 ,294(b) r/w 109 and 506(ii) r/w 109 of IPC .This revision has been preferred against the order of acquittal in C.C.No.203 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.3) The case was taken on file by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai and after issuing summons for the appearance of the accused and on their appearance ,copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C were furnished to the accused and when charges were framed and questioned the accused pleaded not guilty.4) On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 12 were examined.Exs P1 to P5 were exhibited.No material objects were marked.5) P.W.1 is the complainant Chinnasamy.Even though he was not treated as a hostile witness, in his evidence before the trial Court, he will give a go by to what he has stated regarding the facts in Ex P1 complaint.But no eye witness was examined in this case.5a) P.W.2 is the wife of P.W.1, who would also corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the fact that the accused have obstructed for laying a road near the place of occurrence.P.W.3 would depose that on the date of occurrence, the accused Karuppusamy, Palani along with other accused came there with deadly weapons like Aruval, Log and Crowbar and tried to put up huts.Even though, he is not an eye witness to the occurrence, according to P.W.1, he would say that the accused have abused P.W.1 by his caste in filthy language.P.W.5 is also not an eye witness to the occurrence but would corroborate the evidence of P.W.4 to the facts which are not in Ex P1 complaint.P.W.7 is the hostile witness.P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the mahazar witnesses.5d) P.W.10 is a Deputy Tahsildar, who would depose that Survey No.75/2 has been assigned in the name of P.W.1 and there was a dispute arose between P.W.1 and the accused in connection with the grant of patta in respect of Survey No.75/2 in the name of P.W.1 and that he gave Ex P3 report to the Inspector of Police, Perunthurai stating that P.W.1 is in possession of Survey No.75/2 which is admittedly a Natham Poramboke land.5e) P.W.11 is the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchikoil Police Station, who had registered a case on the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1 under Ex P1 in Crime No.28 of 2001 against the accused under Sections 147,148,447,294(b) and 506(ii) of IPC.Ex P4 is the First Information report.He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After completing formalities ,P.W.12 has filed the charge sheet against the accused.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, they would totally deny their complicity with the crime.They have not let in any evidence in defence.7.After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt and consequently giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the learned trial Judge has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them,which necessitated P.W.1, to prefer this revision.Now the point for determination in this revision is whether the findings of the learned trial Judge is perverse in nature to warrant any interference from this Court?.Heard Mr. C.Prakasam,learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, Mr.V.R.Balsubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State-R19 and considered their rival submissions.10.The Point:Even though P.W.1 would depose that there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence viz., Periasamy, Muthuvel and Ponnusamy, he has not examined any one of them in support of his case.In Ex P1 complaint, P.W.1 would state that the occurrence had taken place in 9 cents of Natham Poramboke land which is in his possession.But as P.W.1, the revision petitioner herein would depose that the place of occurrence is at the road.The criminal act alleged against the accused under Ex P1 is that they made attempt to put up huts in the land of 9 cents in natham poramboke land under his possession.But before the Court as P.W.1, he would depose that the accused began to dig a pit in the road .In Ex P1, P.W.1 would state that at the time of occurrence the accused were found in possession of deadly weapons like crowbar and Aruval.But no weapon was recovered from the accused and produced before the trial Court by the prosecution.According to P.W1, before the trial Court, the accused at the time of occurrence have threatened him to roast him in fire but in Ex P1 complaint, there is no mention about the alleged threat .In the complaint, the complainant/P.W1 would state that the accused have abused him in filthy language but before the A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN,J sg.Court he as P.W.1, has not alleged that the accused have abused him in filthy language at the time of occurrence.Only under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has come to the correct conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any reasonable doubt to warrant conviction.Hence , I do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered findings of the learned trial Judge which does not warrant any interference from this Court.The point is answered accordingly.In fine, the revision is dismissed ,confirming the Judgment in C.C.NO.203 of 2001 on the file of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai.The District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate,Perundurai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Inspector of Police, Perundurai Police Station, Kanchikoil Police Station Unit, Erode Crl.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,593,040 |
When he reached near the house of Akshaypal, then Akshaypal and his son stopped him and abused him in the name of caste.When complainant objected, then they threw him on the ground and beat him with kicks and fists.This is first bail application under S.438, Cr.P.C. Applicants apprehend arrest in Crime No.133/2015 registered at Police Station Chinoni, Distt.Morena, for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 506B/34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)According to prosecution case, complainant was going to flour mill.There is no likelihood of their absconsion, hence, prayer is made for grant of anticipatory bail.Case diary perused.Taking into consideration the nature of accusations, without commenting on merits of the case, the application is 2 M.Cr.(D.K. Paliwal) Judge vc
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,657,240 |
His mother, his sister and her husband wereacquitted of the same charge.She went to cohabit with him after five months in July2003 but returned within four days informing her family that the accusedused to harass her physically and mentally both for want of Rs. 2,00,000/- as additional dowry.Gandham Anuradha @ Chinni - A3 and ThummalaSreelakshmi – A-4, the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant, tookher back for Varalakshmi Viratam.She was again harassed for the samedemand.So, the father – PW1, brought her back to his house.At home,the deceased – Neelima, expressed her intention to commit suicide.Thefather invited the appellant to his house for Diwali on 23.10.2003 but herefused to come.At about 7.30 p.m. when the family was celebrating thefestival, Neelima consumed pesticide in her bed room.She was foundthere on the bed with the pesticide tin next to her.The family shiftedher to Elect Critical Care Hospital but she died.The father reportedthe matter to the police, who registered a First Information Report.Thenext day, the police recovered the pesticide tin, the bed sheet and thetowel.The Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO) examined the father, who gavehis statement.Hence, the prosecution.We have heard the parties and examined the record.Shri NagendaraRai, learned senior counsel for the appellant, submitted that the otheraccused, namely, the mother - Thummala Satyavani – A2; the sister -Gandham Anuradha - A3; and Thummala Sreelakshmi – A-4 (husband of A3)having been acquitted on the same evidence, the accused is also entitledfor such an acquittal, in view of the fact no specific allegation thatthe appellant demanded dowry has been made, such allegation having beenmade in general in respect of all the accused.As rightly pointed out bythe learned counsel for the prosecution, there is no merit in thissubmission since there is evidence that not only the appellant made ademand of Rs. 2,00,000/- along with other accused but that the accusedspecifically and individually made demand for dowry.In his deposition,PW-1 – father of the deceased, stated that the deceased had informed thatthe appellant used to beat her for dowry when the deceased first went tocohabit with him after five months.Even after her return to matrimonialhouse for the second time, he deposed that on 23.10.2003 when he went toinvite the appellant and his daughter for Diwali Festival all the accusedasked him to take away his daughter as he did not pay the dowry and theywanted to perform marriage of the appellant with another lady.Thefather (PW1) has specifically stated that the appellant himself did notaccept the invitation but asked him to send his daughter with cash.Itis soon thereafter that the deceased expressed her intention to commitsuicide since she came back alone narrating the harassment made by theaccused.There is similar evidence in the depositions of PW-3 – K. SudhaRani, the sister of the deceased, who has deposed that the deceasedexpressed her grief that her husband did not come for Diwali for want ofRs.2,00,000/-.Whereupon, the deceased wept and expressed her intentionnot to live.PW-5 – Kothapalli Satyanarayana – the maternal uncle of thedeceased, has also deposed that Neelima informed that A1-appellantcontinued to demand dowry.These specific allegations in respect of thedemand by the appellant are apart from the various statements of thewitnesses that the accused, which term include the appellant, harassedher even when she went to cohabit for the first time.The appellantentrusted her the work of servant maid and he used to beat her for dowry.In fact, the accused informed the family of the deceased their intentionto marry another lady for higher dowry.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,137,058 |
(1) As the points for determination in both these cases are identical, they are hereby disposed of by a common judgment.(2) The petitioners in Cr.M.(M) No. 131/74 are Mohd. Shafi and Mohd. Rarnzan.Mohd. Shafi was arrested on 16-4-1974 and Ramzan was arrested on I S-4-1974 in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 365 dated 16-4-1974 of Police Station Sadar Bazar under sections 302/34 IPC.The petitioners in Cr.JUDGMENT M.R.A.Ansari, J.M.(M) No. 141/74, namely, Sabir Ali, Raunaq Ali and Zubed Ali, were arrested on 13-5-1974 in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 422/74 of the same Police Station under sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 336, 353, 436, 307 and 302 IPC.When no challan was filed against them within 60 days after the date of their arrest, they applied for bail invoking the provisions of section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code).The learned Magistrate, however, refused to grant bail to the petitioners on the ground that there appeared to be reasonable grounds for believing that they were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.The petitioners thereupon moved the Court of Session for bail, but the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the applications holding that the provision of section 167(2) of the Code have to be read along with the provisions of section 437(1) of the Code and that when so R read, the Magistrate could not release the petitioners on bail if he was satisfied that there were grounds for believing that the petitioners were guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present applications in this Court for the grant of bail.
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
113,799,241 |
(3) Bajayee A2 had died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal qua Bajayee A2 was already abated by order dated 12.10.2018 passed by another co-ordinate Bench of this Court.(4) The prosecution case has unfolded during the trial is that Bajayee (deceased A2) resident of Village Jhajhawa Turkauli, P. S. Jeanpur, District Azamgarh on 14.11.1985 at about 7:30 A.M. stating therein that while his wife and daughter were inside his house, his daughter-in-law-Asharafi @ Sanjafi was sleeping in the western sara and he was sleeping outside the hut.At about 11:30 P.M., four miscreants entered into the house after climbing on the wall, stolen one hansuli of silver from a bag containing barley which was kept in the southern kothari of his house.They also stolen two sarees from a box and then went to the room where his daughter-in-law was sleeping and took out her chhara and sikari from a box and when she resisted, a shot was fired from a pistol on her neck.On hearing the sound of gunshot, Bajayee (deceased A2) got up and realized that some miscreants were committing theft in his house.He raised alarm on which villagers came with lighted torches but in the meantime miscreants came out from the main door of his house and make good their escape and while running away from the place, they fired shots from their kattas.The miscreants were seen by him, his wife, his daughter, Narain, Sita, Sheobadan, Chandradeo, Sheonath, Sawan and many other villagers.He also stated that Sagar son of Vikram, Kishun son of Ramdutta were inimical towards him and he suspected that the aforesaid persons has committed theft in his house.Lacerated wound of 5.0 cm ( long horizontal) x 2 cm x cavity deep on neck.Anterior aspect 9 cm above the upper border of sternum.Blackening present around the margins of the wound.Trachea, oesophagus all lacerated corresponding to the trachea and oesophagus all blackening present upto vertebral column.One plastic cork, one wedding material piece, one small metallic pellet thirty in number were found sealed.Cause of death according to him was shock and hemorrhage due to antemortem injury.(8) On 15.11.1985, P. W. 1 Ram Das, father of deceased-Sanjafi moved an application at police station Jeanpur, district Azamgarh alleging therein that his daughter-Sanjafi married to Sheodhani A1 son of Bajayee (deceased A2) and since he and his family members were not satisfied with the dowry given at the time of the marriage, his daughter-Sanjafi was harassed and tortured by them.Deceased-Sanjafi had returned to her matrimonial home about 11 days back and when about 5 days before the occurrence his son Shyamkaran had visited the matrimonial home of his daughter-Sanjafi, she told him that in case a sum of Rs. 10,000/- was not paid at the earliest, she would be killed.The aforesaid demand was communicated by Sheodhani A1 to him.Hon'ble Ghandikota Sri Devi,J.(1) Heard Sri Sangam Lal Kesharwani, amicus curiae for the appellants and Smt. Manju Thakur, learned A.G.A. I appearing for the State-respondent.(2) This appeal has been filed by Sheodhani A1 and Bajayee A2 against the judgment and order dated 20.03.1987 passed by IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in S.T. No. 144 of 1986 convicting both the appellants and sentenced them to life imprisonment each under Section 304 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and five years rigorous imprisonment each under Section 201 I.P.C. and Section 120-B I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.(5) On the basis of the written report of the incident Ext. Ka1, case crime no. 254 of 1985, under Section 460 I.P.C. was registered vide G.D. rapat no. 8 at 7:30 A.M.He then held inquest on the body of deceased-Sanjafi and prepared inquest report Ext. Ka8 and other connected documents namely challan lash Ext. Ka9, photo lash Ext. Ka10, letter addressed to C.M.O. and R.I. Thereafter, he got the body of the deceased sealed and dispatched it for conducting postmortem examination.He also recovered an empty cartridge and blood from the place of occurrence and prepared the recovery memo and ornaments from which some jewelry was allegedly stolen.He noted following antemortem injuries on the body of deceased-Sanjafi :In the evening of the day, before lodging of the F.I.R., it had come to their knowledge that Sanjafi was murdered and a concocted story of theft was fabricated, although his daughter-Sanjafi had been killed by Sheodhani A1 in connivance with his father-Bajayee (deceased A2).(9) The I.O. of the case again recorded the statements of the witnesses and converted the case to one under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., 120B I.P.C. and 201 I.P.C., arraigning the appellants and one Narayan as accused.(10) After completing the investigation, P. W. 6 Daya Ram filed charge-sheet against all the three accused before C.J.M. Azamgarh.Since the offences mentioned in the charge-sheet were triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, C.J.M. Azamgarh committed the case for trial of the accused on 19.4.1986 from there to the Court of Sessions Judge where it was registered as S.T. No. 144 of 1986 and transferred for disposal from there to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Azamgarh who on the basis of the material on record and after affording opportunity of hearing to the accused as well as the prosecution, framed charges under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., 120B and 201 I.P.C. against all the accused.The accused abjured the charge and claimed trial.(11) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as six witnesses, of whom P. W. 1 Ram Das, informant and father of the deceased-Sanjafi, P. W. 2 Lal Dhari, P. W. 3 Hari Charan and P. W. 4 Shyam Karan were examined as witnesses of fact while P. W. 5 Dr. P. K. Sinha who had conducted the autopsy on the body of deceased-Sanjafi and P. W. 6 Sub-Inspector Daya Ram who had investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against the accused were produced as formal witnesses.(12) Thereafter, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Bajayee (deceased A2) stated that he had falsely been implicated in the case due to enmity.He further stated that the theft had taken place in his house in which his daughter-in-law was killed.Accused-Narain stated that he had falsely been implicated on account of enmity.(13) Sheodhani A1 stated that on the date of incident, he was not present in the village and had gone to his sister's place.He also alleged false implication.The accused-appellant also examined D. W. 1 Chandra Pal Yadav resident of village Turkauli and D. W. 2 Sita Ram resident of village Jhajhawa.(14) Learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge Azamgarh after considering the submissions advanced before him by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing the evidence on record convicted the appellants and awarded aforesaid sentences to them while co-accused Narain was acquitted of all the charges.(15) Hence this appeal.(16) It is contended by the learned counsel for Sheodhani A1 that deceased-Sanjafi was killed by some unknown miscreants in the theft which was committed in his house in his absence at about 11:30 P.M. on 13/14.11.1985, first information report whereof was promptly lodged by his father Bajayee (deceased A2) on 14.11.1985 at 7:30 A.M. The last rites of the deceased were performed in the presence of his family members including P. W. 1 Ram Das and P. W. 4 Shyam Karan and they have not raised any suspicion at that time about the deceased being murdered by the appellants, as an afterthought and after due deliberations and unexplained delay of three days, a written report of the incident Ext. Ka3 was lodged by P. W. 1 Ram Das on 15.11.1985 at police station Jeanpur, district Azamgarh stating therein that he suspected that his daughter had been murdered by the appellants and his family members on account of non-fulfillment of demand of Rs. 10,000/- cash as dowry made by the appellant from his wife and the story of his daughter-Sanjafi being murdered by unknown miscreants during the night of the occurrence of theft in the appellant's house was false and concocted.He also submitted that the medical evidence on record fully corroborates the time of death mentioned in the first information report of the incident Ext. Ka1 lodged by his father Bajayee (deceased A2).He further submitted that P. W. 1 Ram Das in his application dated 15.11.1985 Ext. Ka1 had categorically asserted that his daughter was murdered by Sheodhani A1 and his family members due to non-fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 10,000/- cash which allegation was disbelieved by the learned trial court as a result the motive suggested by the prosecution for the appellant to commit the murder, disappeared and a material link the chain of circumstances stood snapped.He lastly submitted that such being the state of evidence, neither the recorded conviction of the appellant nor the sentence awarded to him can be sustained and are liable to be set aside.(18) She next submitted that the recorded conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent evidence and the sentences awarded to him are supported by relevant considerations requiring no interference.She lastly submitted that this appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.(19) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire lower court record very carefully.(20) The only question which arises for our consideration in this appeal is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not?The first version of the incident was brought on record by Bajayee (deceased A2) in his written report Ext. Ka3 which was given by him at police station Jeanpur, district Azamgarh on 14.11.1985 at about 7:30 A.M. in which he had stated that in the night of 13/14.11.1985 at about 11:30 P.M. a theft had been committed in his house by four unknown miscreants and his daughter-in-law-Asharfi @ Sanjafi had been shot dead by them.The other version of the occurrence came into existence on 15.11.1985 in the light of the day when P. W. 1 Ram Das, father of the deceased filed a report Ext. Ka1 at police station Jeanpur, district Azamgarh stating therein that his daughter-Sanjafi had been murdered by Sheodhani A1, Bajayee (deceased A2) and the other family members on account of non-fulfillment of the demands of Rs. 10,000/- cash.In the report, he further stated that the version of the occurrence of committing theft in the house of Bajayee (deceased A2) as set forth in the report lodged by him Ext. Ka1 was false and concocted.(22) As already noted, the prosecution in order to establish the charges framed against the appellant had examined as many as four witnesses of fact.As far as P. W. 1 Ram Das and P. W. 4 Shyam Karan are concerned, nothing turns on their testimony as they are not the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.The evidence tendered by them on the point of demand of dowry and consecutive torture and maltreatment and eventually murder of Sanjafi by the appellants and his family members on account of non-fulfillment of the alleged demands of dowry has been disbelieved by the learned trial judge.As far as the two so called eye-witnesses of the occurrence P. W. 2 Lal Dhari and P. W. 3 Hari Charan are concerned, their evidence was also disbelieved by the trial court by giving cogent reason and we do not find any reason to take it contradictory.(23) The only question which remains to be addressed and adjudicated by us is that only whether the learned trial judge legally justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C., 201 and 120B I.P.C. and awarding life and other sentences by invoking Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.The evidence of the eye-witnesses when considered in conjunction with the testimony of the doctor does not link the appellant directly or indirectly with the actual act leading to the unnatural death of the deceased.In absence of any persuasive evidence to hold that at the relevant time the appellant was present in the house, it would also be impermissible to cast any burden on him as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The consistent testimony of the appellant and his son to the effect that after alighting from the bus on their return from Potta, the deceased was made to accompany DW1 back home while the appellant did go in search of labourers for works in his compound on the next day and that thereafter till the time DW1 had departed for his ancestral house, the appellant did not return home, consolidates the defence plea of innocence of the appellant.The facts and circumstances admit of a reasonable doubt in his favour.(29) The appeal is allowed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,383,210 |
The present applications under Section 439 read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr. P.C.) have been filed by the petitioner for seeking regular bail in a FIR No.14/2016, under Sections 363/365/368/370/ 346/310/120- B/34 IPC, Police Station Alipur (Bail Appln.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE JANUARY 18, 2017 dd Bail Appl.Nos.28/2017 & 26/2017 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,054,237 |
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.) This special appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 05.01.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 2346 (SS) of 2011, Constable 3105 Mahangi Ram Versus State of U.P. and others.The petitioner/appellant was appointed Constable in Provincial Armed Constabulary (P.A.C.).It was pleaded, as well as contended, by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's service was dispensed with after lodging the F.I.R., and the petitioner after his acquittal by the Sessions Court in the said criminal case, by judgment and order dated 19.01.1996, was entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits.The order of dismissal no where stated that the petitioner's services has been dispensed with on lodging of the F.I.R. or pending of criminal case.The pleadings only pertain to the F.I.R. lodged against the petitioner as well as other constables and their subsequent acquittal in the criminal case.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,115,742 |
This criminal revision is preferred by the petitioner challenging the order no. 44 dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XXXVI/December-2003, by which learned Judge of the court below refused to grant permission to the petitioner for obtaining passport in order to go abroad.It appears from the materials on record that the present petitioner is facing trial before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur along with 27 co-accused persons on the allegation of committing offences under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 35 of the Arms Act.Mr. Banerjee also contends that the petitioner is working as a consultant with International Water Management Institute from the year 2005 having its Headquarters at Sri Lanka and Branch Office at New Delhi and the petitioner will have to go to abroad in connection with the research work.Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the Opposite Party/State submits that Learned Judge of the court below should have called for a report from the Investigating Officer of the case to ascertain whether the petitioner is in genuine and urgent need to go abroad in connection with the research work as a consultant of International Water Management Institute before deciding the issue of granting permission to the petitioner to obtain passport for going abroad.On perusal of the impugned order challenged in this criminal revision, I find that the learned Judge of the court below has formed the opinion for refusal to grant permission to the petitioner for obtaining passport on two grounds: first, there is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure for granting "No Objection Certificate" in favour of the petitioner for obtaining passport and secondly, there is possibility that the petitioner may abscond if he goes abroad after obtaining passport.In this regard I would like to point out that it is entirely the discretion of the learned Judge of the trial court to grant or refuse permission to the petitioner for the purpose of obtaining passport on consideration of the nature and gravity of the charge levelled against the petitioner, conduct and antecedent of the petitioner and the genuine need of the petitioner to go abroad in connection with research work of International Water Management Institute.However, in view of the Notification No. G.S.R. 570 (E) (25- August- 93) Citizens of India Exempted from the Provision of Section 6 (2) (f) of the Passports Act, 1967 issued by the Ministry of External Affairs in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (a) of Section 22 of the Passports Act, 1967 and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India Vide Notification No. G.S.R. 298 (E) dated 14th April, 1976, the Presiding Officer of the Criminal Court has the authority to grant permission to any accused person to obtain passport for going abroad.In view of my above observation, I am inclined to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court with liberty to pass fresh order after hearing submission of both sides.The petitioner is directed to produce the copy of the concerned Notification of the External Affairs Ministry before the Trial Court with copy to the other side for the purpose of hearing in order to pass fresh order by learned Judge of the court below.Accordingly, the impugned order no. 44 dated 11.12.2013 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 7th Court, Paschim Medinipur in Sessions Trial No. XXXVI/December- 2003 is set aside.Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.( R. K. Bag, J )
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,196,411 |
The joint compromise memo, signed by the petitioners and the de factocomplainant, in the presence of their respective counsels is produced beforethis Court.This Criminal Original petition is filed to call for the recordspertaining to the pertaining to the FIR in Crime No.1277 of 2017, dated12.07.2017 on the file of the first respondent Police and quash the same.2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and thelearned Government Advocate(Criminal side) appearing for the first respondentand the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent.On the basis of complaint received from the second respondent, acase was registered in Crime No.1277 of 2017 as against the petitioners / A1to A6 for the offences under Sections 4147,148,341,294(b),324 and 506(ii) ofIPC, on the file of the first respondent Police.As per the joint Compromise memo, the defacto complainant hasagreed for quashing the Criminal case.The parties appeared before this Court and expressed in unequivocalterms that they have signed in the Joint Compromise Memo on their own willand volition.The identities of the parties are verified with reference tothe authenticated documents produced by the parties before this Court.Theidentities of the parties are also confirmed by the learned GovernmentAdvocate(Criminal side) through the first respondent police.Having regard to the terms of the joint memo of compromise, thisCourt is of the view that no useful purpose will be served by keeping thismatter pending.Hence the criminal proceedings pending in Crime No.1277 of2017 on the file of the first respondent Police, is quashed in toto and theJoint Compromise Memo signed by the parties shall form part of the order.Accordingly, the Criminal Original petition is allowed.1.The Inspector of Police, Avaniyapuram Police Station,Madurai City.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,221,893 |
The said person was aged around 30 to 40 years, fair complexioned and about 5 feet 5 inches tall.He hurriedly left the spot in his bicycle say "my aunt is ill and I am going to bring medicine".Hence, he had easy access to her room.(a) appellant was acquainted to the victim as he had approached her for purchase of land;(b) He regularly visited the victim and had easy access to her room.(d) Hearing the cries of the victim, P.W. 15 and 17 went to her room and found her door closed from inside;(e) Thereafter, they saw a person leaving the house and when the latter was confronted by P.W. 17, he left hurriedly in a bicycle stating he is going to bring medicine for his aunt.He received information of the incident on 2/7/2009 at 04.00 p.m. from his nephew Tapas Sarkar (P.W.6).He rushed to the house of Mollika and saw some persons standing in the ground floor.When he went to the first floor he saw his sister lying strangulated on the floor with a rope round her neck.He found Somnath Dutta (P.W.17) and other students at the 7 place of occurrence.On 2/7/2009 around 08.00 p.m. he heard from Tapas Singha that Mollika had been murdered.On the next day, that is, 3/7/2009 in the morning he went to Rampurhat S.D hospital.He deposed on 2/7/2009 that he had gone to the house of Mollika at 3/3.05 p.m. When he was going out of the house, Mollika bolted the door from inside.He saw Asish Chatterjee going up to the first floor of the house.After receiving information of the death of Mollika he along with his wife went to Rampurhat S.D hospital at night.He could not see Mollika.On the next day he again went to the hospital and saw the dead body of Mollika.Tapas Sarkar and others told him that they had seen Asish Chatterjee leave the house after the incident.On the next day in the hospital he heard the name of Asish Chatterjee from Prodyut Mandal.P.W.5, Ranjit Das, is a chance witness.He deposed that on the occasion of 'Ulto Rath' he had stayed at Maya Lodge as he wished to offer puja at Tarapith.When he came out of the lodge he saw a person in a bicycle was gheraoed by 5/6 individuals.The said person stated that he wanted to purchase medicine as someone was ill and left the place.Two months later he again went to Maya Lodge for the purpose of offering puja.He was interrogated by police and he narrated the incident to them.He identified the appellant in T.I. parade.P.W.6, Tapas Sarkar, deposed Mollika was his maternal aunt.Her house is at a 7/8 minutes walking distance from his house.On 2/7/2009 at around 04.00 p.m. he received phone call from Shasthi Majhi, a tenant in the house of Mollika, that an accident had occurred.Subsequently, he received another phone call stating that his aunt has been murdered.He rushed to the spot and found a number of persons had gathered there.They went upstairs and found the door was closed from inside.They called for her but there was no response.Thereafter, they went downstairs.He runs a lodge at Rampurhat.On 2/7/2009 at around 03.45 p.m. he was returning with his daughter from school.He heard a noise and found Somnath had caught hold of Asish and the latter told Somnath not to stop him as he was proceeding to bring medicine for his 'kakima'.Thereafter, Asish left the place hurriedly in a bicycle.He knew Asish from before.He went upstairs and saw the dead body of Mollika.He was present when the police came to the place of occurrence.He signed on the seizure list (Ext.2/1).In cross- examination, he stated that a statement regarding list of boarders was deposited to the local police everyday by 8.30 p.m. P.W.23, Debika Chatterjee, deposed that on 2/7/2009 she had returned home and had gone to the roof to collect garments.She heard someone cry 'Babli-Babli' from the house of Mollika.She called Babli (P.W. 24) and asked her to respond.She found Somnath and some of the students of the locality had gone to the house of Mollika.Hearing this, she came to the courtyard and cried out 'kakima' but nobody responded.Number of people assembled at the spot and some of them went upstairs and found the door of Mollika was locked from inside.She became frightened and entered her room.P.W.9 and 10 deposed that they had seen the appellant go to the house of Mollika relating sale of land.P.W.13, Dr. S.C. Poddar is the autopsy surgeon who held post- mortem on the body of Mollika.He deposed she died due to effects of strangulation by ligature which was ante-mortem and homicidal.He preserved amongst others the ligature material which he explained in a subsequent query to the police was wrongfully described as jute rope instead of nylon rope.He identified the ligature in court (Ext.3).P.W.14, Netai Chandra Ghosh, was a constable attached to Rampurhat Police Station.He brought the dead body for post-mortem examination.He proved the dead body challan (Ext.5).After post- mortem examination doctor handed over articles including ligature to him which was seized by I.O. which was seized under a seizure list.He put his signature thereon (Ext.- 6).He also put his signature on the label in the packet of the nylon rope (Ext.7).He identified the nylon rope and other articles in court.P.W.25 is the first investigating officer.He deposed that he went to the spot and held inquest on the dead body of the victim.He prepared inquest report (Ext.3/2).He seized articles 13 from the place of occurrence under a seizure list (Ext.2/2).He examined witnesses.He informed fingerprint expert and took photographs.S.I. Ashoke Mondal (P.W.19) seized articles which were handed over to constable Netai Chandra Ghosh (P.W.14) by post- mortem doctor.He took charge of the said articles.On 11/7/2009 he seized original deed under a seizure list (Ext.9).On 12/7/2009 pursuant to the statement of the appellant, he seized ash colour trouser, ghee colour full shirt, three nylon ropes of different sizes, a mobile phone and a bicycle.He affixed labels on the said ropes.He collected post-mortem report.Tapas Kumar Singha (P.W.4) did not tell that he heard the name of the Asish Chatterjee from Tapas Sarkar (P.W.6), other neighbours or Prodyut Kumar Mondal (P.W.3).P.W.26, S.I. Sougata Ghosh, is the second investigating officer.He examined two witnesses.He arranged for T.I. parade examination.He sent the exhibits for FSL examination and collected the FSL report.Fingerprint of the appellant was sent for examination.He collected the report of the Fingerprint Bureau (Ext.17).He submitted charge-sheet.and 28.02.2013 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum, Sessions Trial No. 5(2) of 2010 arising out of in Sessions Case No. 127 of 2009 convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the 2 Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year more.The prosecution case as alleged against the appellant is to the effect that on 02.07.2009 at 5.30P.M. Prosanta Sarkar (P.W.1), brother of the victim Mollika Sen lodged a written complaint that his elder sister Mollika used to reside alone in the first floor of the premises named and styled as 'Maa Tara Anusthan Bhaban' situated at Rampurhat, Birbhum.He heard over telephone from his nephew Tapas Sarkar, P.W. 6, that his elder sister Mollika was strangulated by an unknown person.After reaching the place of occurrence he came to know that at 3 P.M. his elder sister had cried out in an unnatural voice "Babli".On hearing the noise, Hrisikesh Dutta P.W. 20, a neighbour told his son Somnath Dutta P.W. 17 and others who used to reside in the ground floor of his house to enquire into the matter.Somnath went upstairs to the room of the victim and found her door locked from inside.Thereafter he saw a person coming out of the house.P.W. 1, further alleged that his sister ordinarily did not open the door to any unknown persons.Hence, he suspected that his sister had been murdered by someone who was known to her.On the written complaint of P.W. 1, Rampurhat P.S. Case No. 111 of 2009 dated 02.07.2009 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered for investigation.In the course of investigation the appellant was arrested and incriminating articles including some nylon ropes used to tie 3 cattle were recovered from his premise pursuant to his leading statement.Forensic report with regard to seized articles was obtained and charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, 3rd Court, Rampurhat, Birbhum for trial and disposal.Charge was framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In course of the trial, prosecution examined 26 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents.Defence of the appellant was one of innocence and false implication.In conclusion of trial, learned trial judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 27.02.2013 and 28.02.2013 convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforesaid.Mr. Ali, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove all the circumstances beyond doubt and the said circumstances do not form a complete chain unerringly pointing to the guilt of the appellant.He stated identification of the appellant as the person who was seen coming out of the house of the victim immediately after the occurrence has not been established.P.W. 17 knew the appellant by name but claimed that he had seen an unknown person coming out of the house at the time of occurrence.In contrast to such version of P.W. 17, P.W. 12, P.W. 20 and P.W. 23 claimed that P.W. 17 had accosted the appellant who was coming out of the house of the victim at the time of occurrence.Evidence of other witnesses who had seen the appellant at the place of occurrence viz. P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 also do not inspire confidence.P.W. 3 did not claim that he divulged the name of the appellant to other witnesses immediately after the incident thereby improbabilising the claims of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 in that regard.He was belatedly examined by the police on 30.08.2009 much after the arrest of the appellant in the instant case.Similarly P.W. 5, a chance witness was interrogated by the police on 30.08.2009 and his version ought to be taken with a pinch of salt as no contemporaneous document supporting his stay at Maya Lodge has been proved in the instant case.It is submitted that the recoveries of nylon ropes from the house of the appellant has not been supported by any independent witness.Ligature mark was kept in a packet which was labelled and signed by P.W.s 14 and 18, while P.W. 22 received it in a card box marked 'S'.He had been seen going into the room of the victim by P.W. 3 prior to the occurrence and thereafter P.W.s 5, 12, 15, 17 and 23 had seen him coming out of the house and hurriedly go away in a bicycle on the excuse of bringing medicine for his aunt.P.W. 5 identified him in court as well as in T.I. Parade.Recovery of nylon ropes pursuant to the leading statement of the appellant has been established and the opinion of the expert, P.W. 22, clearly proved similarity between the ropes seized from the possession of the appellant and the ligature mark.Evidence of the postmortem doctor established that the victim was murdered by strangulating her with a nylon rope.P.W.s 5, 12, 20 and 23 also witnessed this incident.P.W. 5 identified the appellant in T.I. Parade(f) P.W. 13, Post-mortem doctor deposed that the victim died due to strangulation by a nylon rope as ligature.(g) P.W. 25 (I.O.) recovered nylon ropes and other articles including title deed of the victim from the residence of the appellant pursuant to his leading statement.(h) Forensic examination of the ligature and the nylon ropes established that one of the nylon ropes was similar to the ligature used to murder the victim.Evidence led by the prosecution to prove the aforesaid circumstances are as follows: -P.W. 1, Prasanta Sarkar, is the brother of the victim Mollika and the de-facto complainant in the instant case.He heard the incident from the said persons.He went to the police station and lodged written complaint (Ext.1).P.W.2, Subrata Mandal, is the brother of Tapas Sinha (P.W.4), the son-in-law of Mollika.Prodyut Kumar Mandal (P.W.3), informed him that on 2/7/2009 at 03.15 p.m. he had gone to the house of Mollika.When he left the house he saw the appellant going towards the first floor.Appellant was on visiting terms with Mollika regarding sale of land.In cross- examination, he admitted that he did not tell police that Prodyut had informed he had seen the appellant go to the first floor of the house of Mollika.Mollika was the maternal sister of Prodyut Mandal (P.W.3).He went to the crematorium and after cremation he returned home.He visited sradh ceremony of Mollika.P.W.4, Tapas Kumar Singha, is the son-in-law of Mollika.He deposed Tapas Sarkar (P.W.6) telephoned and informed him that his 8 mother-in-law had died due to strangulation.He along with his wife Kakali and others came to the house of Mollika.Mollika never opened the door without ascertaining the identity of the person.Local people had detained a person who had come out from the house immediately after the incident and had left the place on the excuse of bringing medicine.The name of the person was Asish 9 Chatterjee.Police seized articles from the house of Mollika.He signed on the seizure list.He identified the said articles.P.W.17, Somnath Dutta, was a resident of a house adjacent to that of Mollika.He deposed Mollika resided in the first floor of his house.Suresh Chandra Mal (P.W.15), was a student who resided in the ground floor of his house.On 2/7/2009 at 03.30-03.45 p.m. P.W. 17 and his father heard cries 'Babli-Babli' from the house of Mollika.His father told him to enquire into the matter.He along with Suresh Mal (P.W. 15) went to the house of Mollika.A tenant of Mollika was named Babli.They found a cycle and a pair of shoes at the entrance of the house of Mollika.Subsequently, a person came down from the first floor.When he was interrogated the said person, the latter stated that he was going to bring medicine for his aunt.Subsequently, he and Suresh Mal went upstairs and found Mollika was lying dead on the floor of her bedroom with a rope round her neck.They shouted for help.The person who left the house soon after the incident was Asish Chatterjee.He used to visit the house of Mollika and the latter used to refer to him as 'Asish'.He was a land broker and had business of rod, sand, bricks, etc. P.W.15, Suresh Chandra Mal, had substantially corroborated the evidence of Somnath (P.W.17).He further disclosed Somnath told him that he had seen the person who left the house immediately after the occurrence.In the meantime a person came out of the house and when he was stopped by Somnath he stated that he was going to bring medicine for aunt and left hurriedly.Subsequently, Somnath stated that the said person was Asish Chatterjee of Murari.P.W.24, Babli Majhi, corroborated the evidence of Debika Chatterjee (P.W.23) and stated she had heard Mollika call out her name.P.W.18, Nihar Ranjan Dutta, is another constable who signed on the seizure list prepared with regard to seizure of wearing apparels 12 and the ligature handed over by post-mortem doctor.He proved his signature on the seizure list (Ext.6/1).He signed on the label on the packet containing the nylon rope (Ext.7/1).P.W.19, S.I. Ashoke Mondal, prepared the aforesaid seizure list relating to seizure of articles of the victim including the ligature (Ext. 6/2).He deposed on 3/9/2009 he held T.I. parade where P.W.5 identified the appellant.He proved the T.I. parade report (Ext. 12).P.W.22, Dr. Susanta Mukherjee, was posted as Assistant Director, FSL, Calcutta.He received four cardboard cases marked 'S', 'T', 'U', 'V'.He opined that the 203cms.(about 6 ft. 8 inches) yellow colour rope with knots in Ext.T was found similar to yellow colour rope Ext.- S with respect to ply, twist, diameter and presence of blue fibre in one of their three piles.He proved the report (Ext.3).In cross- examination, he stated that when he examined the rope he did not find any seal or signature.There is no annexure in the report showing his conclusion regarding diameter twisting, presence of fibre and plying in the ropes.In the box marked 'S', the rope was made of polythene.In the box marked 'V', there was a nylon rope.In cross-examination, he stated that the statement of Balaram Ghosh does not reveal the names of Dilip Soni and Ranjit Das.No register of the lodge was seized during investigation or placed before the court.The fingerprint was insufficient for giving conclusive opinion.P.W.16, Archana Chatterjee, was declared hostile and she did not support the seizure of articles including nylon ropes from the residence of the appellant.Analysis of the aforesaid evidence would show that the prosecution has essentially relied on the evidence of local people, namely, P.W.s 12, 15, 17, 20 and 23 to establish that they had seen the appellant leave the house hurriedly after the occurrence on the excuse that he is going to bring medicine for his aunt.Evidence of Somnath Dutta (P.W.17) in this regard is most vital.He claimed on 2/7/2009 around 03.00 p.m. he and his father heard cries coming from the house of the appellant.On instruction from his father, he along with P.W.15 a tenant, went to the house of the appellant.They went upstairs and called for the victim who did not respond.Her door was closed from inside.Subsequently, they came downstairs.Soon thereafter, a person came out of the house and when P.W.17 confronted him, he left hurriedly in his bicycle claiming that he was going to bring medicine for his aunt.P.W.15 and 20 have also corroborated his version.From the tenor of the deposition of the said witnesses it appears that none of them were aware of the identity of the person who had left the house hurriedly in a bicycle after the incident.This fact is further reinforced as P.W.1 lodged First Information Report after consulting P.W.17 and other local people against unknown accused.Hence, one can safely conclude that P.W.17 and other local people were not aware of the identity of the appellant till P.W.1 arrived and lodged F.I.R. However, it cannot be 15 said that the appellant was unknown to P.W.17 and other local people.In fact, P.W.17 in his deposition claimed that he knew the appellant as a person who carried on business in building materials and used to visit the house of Mollika.Mollika used to call him 'Asish'.If that were so, why P.W.17 was unable to identify the person leaving the house of the victim as the appellant .Such inconsistency strongly militates against the prosecution version that P.W.17 had seen the appellant come out of the house of the victim soon after the incident and hurriedly leave the place in a bicycle.In sharp contrast to such evidence of P.W.17, P.W.12 claimed that P.W.17 had confronted the appellant whom he had identified at the spot.Thereafter, P.W.20 went upstairs and found the victim lying dead with the ligature round her neck.He was also found present at the time when the police came at the spot and seized articles.P.W.23 another local witness claimed P.W.17 had informed her at the spot that the person who left the house after the incident was the appellant.Furthermore, if P.W.20 had identified the appellant by name at the spot, he would have certainly divulged his name to P.W.15 and 17 and the F.I.R. lodged thereafter by police consultation with local people would not have been registered against unknown accused.Hence, it is amply clear that none of the witnesses had identified the person who had left the spot in a bicycle as the appellant and, therefore, the F.I.R. was registered not against the appellant, but against unknown accused.Apart from the aforesaid evidence on record, prosecution has relied on the evidence of P.W.3 to establish that he had seen the appellant go to the first floor of the house when he was leaving the house after meeting his aunt on the fateful day.P.W.3, however, did not claim that he disclosed such fact to anyone after the incident, although he had come to the hospital and thereafter to the cremation ground.P.W.2 had also not divulged such fact to the police earlier and stated such fact for the first time in court.His desperate attempt to cover up such serious lacunae by putting the onus on the police is not convincing and opposed to normal human conduct of coming out with the most vital clue with regard to the identity of the murder when interrogated by police.Such conduct on his part is most unnatural and it would be unsafe to rely on his evidence.More so, when he was belatedly examined by police on 30/8/2009 much after the appellant had been arrested.Like P.W.3, this witness was belatedly examined, that is, two months after the occurrence and after the arrest of the appellant.He claimed that he had boarded in a hotel, namely, Maya Lodge.No register of the said hotel was produced to corroborate his 17 version.He also did not state the features of the appellant during his examination to the police or in his deposition to the court.It is, therefore, highly unsafe to rely on this witness whose presence at the place of occurrence has not been established by production of contemporaneous registers of the hotel where he had put up.T.I. parade examination was held on 3/9/2007, almost 52 days after the arrest of the appellant.In this backdrop, I do not find it prudent to rely on the version of the chance witness to establish the identity of the appellant in the instant case.In the light of the aforesaid discussion, I am constrained to observe that the prosecution evidence with regard to the fact that the appellant was seen going upstairs to the room of the victim prior to the incident and was seen leaving in a hurried manner after the incident is extremely shaky and cannot form the foundation of proof beyond reasonable doubt.Prosecution has also not been able to establish that it was only the appellant who could have gone inside the room of the victim on the fateful day.In fact, P.W.2 himself claimed that he had visited the victim on that day.It is, therefore, possible that some other person known to the victim but not to P.W.17 and other local people may have visited the appellant.Such a situation is neither in the realm of impossibility or improbability.Finger prints collected from the room was insufficient to come to a conclusive opinion.Hence, it cannot be said with certainty that it was the appellant alone who had visited the victim in her room at the time when she had been strangulated to death.The other circumstance which has been heavily relied upon by the prosecution is the similarity between the ligature seized from the body of the victim and one of the nylon ropes which was seized from the residence of the appellant pursuant to his statement.P.W.22, FSL expert found the ligature in a card board marked 'S' while P.W.14 and 18 claimed that the ligature was put into a packet on which a label was pasted and signed by them.P.W. 25 claimed that he put labels on the ropes seized from the residence of the appellant but P.W.22 did not notice any label on the ropes sent to him.Labels on the nylon rope seized from the house of the appellant were also not noted by the FSL expert.He also could not state the constitution of the rope which was kept in cardboard box marked 'T'.Lastly, P.W.22 had opined that the two ropes were similar but not the same.Therefore, it cannot be said to have been proved that the ligature recovered from the victim was a part of one of the ropes seized from the house of the appellant as claimed by the prosecution.Snap of the aforesaid links in the chain of circumstances are telling and strike at the very root of the prosecution case.I am of the view none of the prosecution witnesses including the neighbours and relatives of the victim had identified the appellant as the person going to or leaving the house of the victim on or about the time of occurrence.Had it been so, they would have disclosed his identity to P.W.1 who consulted them prior to lodging of F.I.R. Registration of F.I.R. against unknown accused, therefore strikes at the root of the prosecution case renders the version of prosecution witnesses P.W.s 12, 15, 17 and 23 vulnerable regarding identification of the appellant.Similarly, belated examination of P.W. 3 and 5 by police much after the arrest of the appellant and failure to produce contemporaneous registers of Maya Lodge supporting the presence of the chance witness (P.W. 5) make it unsafe to rely on their depositions in court.Evidence of P.W. 2 and 4 relating to disclosure by P.W. 3 with regard to presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence is not corresponded by P.W. 3 himself and lose all significance.Copy of the judgment along with LCR be sent down to the trial court at once for necessary compliance.Urgent Photostat Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all necessary legal formalities.I agree.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,389,456 |
The accused Ajay Pandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel was a dentist byprofession, known as Doctor Jagdish Patel at his Dhabasi Mohalla, DistrictKheda, Gujarat.He possesses a degree in Dental Hygienist and DentalMechanic (D.H.D.M.) from the Gujarat University.Professional income wasnot sufficient for him to lead a lavish and luxurious life, he had otherevil and demonic ideas in mind, to make quick and easy money.Selfpublicity was given of his make-belief contacts with the officials of theAmerican Embassy by which he lured the vulnerable into his net, for sendingthem to America for better prospects in life.Several persons fell inhis net like Nilesh and Jayashree and few others narrowly escaped from theclutches of death.We may first deal with the facts arising out of the judgment of theBombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 46 of 2000 in which the HighCourt, convicted the accused under Section 419 of the Indian Penal Code(for short ‘the IPC) and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year, underSection 420 of the IPC, R.I. for two years and fine, under Section 302 ofthe IPC life imprisonment with fine which was converted to death.During those visits, the accused usedto boost that he had contacts with the officials of the American Embassywhich kindled hopes in the minds of Dilip Patel and his family members andthey decided to send Nilesh Bhailal Patel, cousin brother of Smt. SaralaPatel, wife of Dilip Patel, to America using the accused’s allegedinfluence in the American Embassy.A deal was struck and the accuseddemanded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- for realization of their dream.Negotiations took place and the amount was reduced to Rs.1,10,000/- as aninitial payment, and the balance was to be paid after getting Nileshemployment in America.Dilip Patel in October 1993 paid Rs.60,000/- to theaccused and the balance amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid by Mahendra BhailalPatel, brother of the deceased - Nilesh to the accused.Noticing that evenafter payment of money, the accused was not fulfilling his promises,various meetings and phone calls took place between the accused and thefamily of Nilesh.The accused reiterated his promise and later asked DilipPatel to send Nilesh to Bombay Central Railway Station on 8.2.1994 withreturn ticket of the accused.The accused had also requested Dilip Patel afurther amount of Rs.3500/- towards medical expenses and also for arrangingvisa.Dilip Patel had assured the accused that he himself would be comingto Bombay with the required amount.As promised, Dilip Patel reachedBombay in the afternoon of 8.2.1994 and found the accused waiting atBhulabhai Desai Road near the American Consulate.The accused told DilipPatel that the necessary papers had been submitted to the Consulate andasked to leave the place.Dilip Patel accordingly left the place and thatwas the last time, Dilip Patel saw Nilesh in the company of the accusedthat was around 3 o’ clock.In the evening of 8.2.1994 at about 5 o’clock, Dilip Patel received a phone call from the accused stating that theformalities had been completed and Nilesh would be coming home late in thenight.On the basis of this information,Dilip Patel approached Gamdevi Police Station on 13.11.1994 and narratedthe entire story to the police.The statement was accordingly recorded anda photograph of the dead body of unidentified person found in Room No. 103of the Hotel Aradhana at Nana Chowk in the evening of 9.2.1994 was alsoshown.In the evening of 8.2.1994, the accused had booked Room No. 103 onthe first floor of that Hotel.One Kaushikbhai Sanabhaiu Patel wasleading a normal family life with his wife Jayashree at Labhvel, DistrictAnand, in the State of Gujarat.One Jagdish @ Harishbhai Patel was thecousin brother of Jayashree.All the three were also dreaming betterprospects in America.Kaushikbhai was told by the owner of JoyTravels that the expenses of sending one person to America would be aroundRs.7,23,000/-.Kaushikbhai paid Rs.20,000/- to the travel agent forhimself and Jagdish.While he was nurturing the idea of going to America,the accused seized that opportunity and got acquainted with Kaushikbhai andJagdish.The accused promised that he would realize their dreams for whichhe demanded a huge sum.Kaushikbhai expressed his inability to the accusedto pay such huge amount for a person to go to America and consequentlywithdrew his request.The accused, however, could prevail upon him bysuggesting that he would arrange a loan for him for the time being throughone Ramchandra and he only need to purchase the tickets.On the accusedinitiative, Ramchandra visited the house of Kaushikbhai on 1.11.1994 andgave Rs.4,00,000/- to him, as instructed by the accused, by way of loan.Therefore, it is necessary to dealwith their evidence.PW5 is the sister of the deceased – Nilesh by nameSarala Dilip Patel.She had deposed that she knew the accused since 1991.Further, she had deposed that in January 1993, the accused made a proposalabout sending the deceased – Nilesh to America for which he demandedRs.3,50,000/-.The evidence clearly indicates what had happened from 1993till the death of Nilesh.She stated that after Nilesh had gone to Bombay,his whereabouts were not known.She had also deposed that on 27.3.1994,her husband lodged a complaint at Kandivali Police Station since Nilesh wasfound missing.Further, they had also noticed the news item appeared invarious newspapers about the arrest of the accused in respect of some othercase.On 13.11.1994, her husband had again lodged a complaint as tomissing of Nilesh.She had also narrated the steps they had taken oncoming to know that her brother – Nilesh was missing.Evidence given bythis witness is consistent with the case of the prosecution and there is noreason to disbelieve the version of this witness.PW6 Dilip Patel, the husband of PW5 - had deposed that he knew theaccused since 1991 and the accused had come with the proposal for sendingNilesh to America stating that he had good connections with the officialsof the American Embassy.Details of the amounts paid for the said purposewas also given, in detail, in his deposition.The details of the varioustelephone calls he had with the accused before the incident as well asafter the incident were minutely stated in his oral evidence.PW6 had alsodeposed that he had also gone to Bombay with cash as directed by theaccused.PW6, it wasstated, saw the accused and Nilesh near the bus stop of Blobe Radio.Theaccused told him that at about 3.00 pm on 8.2.1994 he had submitted thepapers before the Embassy and asked PW6 to leave the place stating thatConsulate would not like the presence of too many persons.PW 6,therefore, left the place leaving behind the accused and Nilesh.Nileshdid not return home, search was made and a complaint was lodged on28.3.1994 at Kandivali Police Station.On 6.9.1994, notice was sentthrough advocate to Kandivali Police Station.K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.Death sentence has been awarded by the High Court of Bombay to AjayPandit @ Jagdish Dayabhai Patel for double murder, in separate incidents,one for the murder of Nilesh Bhailal Patel and another for the murder ofJayashree.The Bombay High Court heard both the appeals – Criminal AppealNo. 46 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal No. 789 of 2001 together and rendered acommon judgment on 22nd December, 2005 confirming the order of convictionand enhancing the sentence of life imprisonment to death and ordered to behanged till death against which this appeal has been preferred.Dilip Patel reached home but not Nilesh.Dilip Patel contacted theaccused in the morning of 9.2.1994 and he was informed by the accused thatNilesh was waiting upto 5.30PM on the previous day at Bombay CentralRailway Station and that he would be back.Dilip Patel contacted theaccused on several occasions to know whereabouts of Nilesh.Meanwhile anattempt was made by the accused through one Tikabhai to inform Dilip Patelthat Nilesh had already left for America.Dilip Patel in November 1994 read in a local newspaper SandhyaJansatta of a news item of an incident of attempt to murder and murder byadministering some tablets to three persons by one Doctor by name Jagdish.Dilip Patel also read in Mid Day Evening Daily dated 5.11.1994 about arrestof Dr. Jagdish Patel – the accused.The accused left the Hotel about 7.45PM inthe evening of 8.2.1994 keeping the room locked and he did not return.On9.2.1994, for the purpose of cleaning the room, it was opened with aduplicate key and the dead body of Nilesh was found.The dead body wassent for post-mortem but prior to that police completed other formalities,finger print experts also did their job, articles received were sent to theForensic Laboratory, C.A. report was obtained.Till August 1994, there wasno trace of the suspect and the investigation was continuing.In fact on30.8.1994, case was classified as true but not detected.The accused was,however, arrested by Malabar Hill Police in C.R. No. 278/94 for murderingone woman - Jayashree and for the attempted murder of two other persons atHotel Kemps Corner.The accused was identified by Dilip Patel, his wifeSarala Patel and Mahendra Patel – brother of the deceased - Nilesh.Kaushikbhai, his wife - Jayashree and Jagdish then boarded the trainto Bombay Central from Baroda Railway Station.Few of their relatives werepresent at the Railway Station, Baroda to see them off to Bombay.Accusedreached Bombay Central Railway Station in the early hours of 2.11.1994 andall the three along with the accused went to the Hotel Kemps Corner and twoRooms Nos. 202 and 206 were booked in the name of the accused.The accusedinformed them that all the requisite formalities had been completed and aDoctor, who was supposed to issue the medical certificate, would be comingat 4.30 pm on the same day to the hotel for medical check-up.Theaccused demanded money for completing other formalities, Rs.60,000/- wasreceived from Kaushikbhai and Rs.40,000/- was received from Jagdish.Acheque drawn on Punjab National Bank, Anand for Rs.14,50,000/-, onepromissory note of Rs.8,50,000/- and Rs.4,37,000/- were given to theaccused by Kaushikbhai.Later, the accused gave one capsule and twotablets each to Kaushikbhai, Jayashree and Jagdish which they were asked totake before the medical check-up, which they did.Later, Jayashree went toRoom No. 202 and Kaushikbhai and Jagdish remained in Room No. 206.Kaushikbhai and Jagdish started feeling drowsiness and a sleeping sensationand they lied down on the bed.The accused then administered an injectionon the abdomen of Kaushikbhai who went fast asleep.Jagdish by that timewas already fast asleep and that was the last time, they saw the accused.In the mid-night, Kaushikbhai regained consciousness, he felt some foulplay and alerted the Hotel Manager and they went to the room of Jayashreeand got the room opened, but Jayashree was found dead.Intimation wasgiven to Malabar Hill Police Station and complaint of Kaushikbhai wasrecorded.The trial court as well as the High Court had elaborately discussedthe various steps taken by the investigating agency to unravel the truthand hence, we are not dealing with those facts in detail.The prosecutionin the case of death of Nilesh examined 17 witnesses.PW1 to PW4 are theemployees of the hotel and PW5 and PW6 are the relatives of the deceased –Nilesh.PW 6 also stated that he hadmet accused at village Borsad Chaukadi and the accused gave evasiveanswers.Later, PW 6 came across a news item in Sandhya Jansatta whereinreference was made to one Dr. Jagdish who had committed murder andattempted to commit murder of few other persons.News item also appearedin other newspapers as well.PW 6 was cross-examined at length but the defence could not demolishhis evidence or the evidence of other witnesses including that of PW5.Evidence, in this case, proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was theaccused who lured Nilesh for sending him to America.Facts would clearlyindicate that it was the accused who had extracted money giving falsehopes.The deceased was also seen by PW 6 last, in the company of theaccused.PW 6 had also made payment to the accused for medical expenses.PW 5 and PW 6, therefore, proved the chain and links from the stage ofacquaintance with the accused till the stage of Nilesh being seen in thecustody or company of the accused, for the purpose of sending Nilesh toAmerica.The prosecution had examined PW 1 to PW 4 to prove the subsequentevents and the steps taken.PW 1 to PW 4 were all attached to HotelAradhana or guest house of Aradhana.PW 1 is an independent witness –Manager of the Hotel Aradhana.He narrated what had happened at his Hotel.PW 1 also saw the deceased in the company of the accused.He saw theaccused taking Nilesh in Room No. 103 and later coming back alone leavingthe hotel without handing over the key at the reception counter.Nothinghad been brought out in the cross examination of these witnesses tocontradict what he had stated.Sister of the accused was also examined in this case as PW 14, shehad narrated, in detail, the professional and other details of theThe evidence of the rest of the witnesses had also beenelaborately dealt with by the High Court.Learned counsel appearing forthe accused had also not seriously attacked the findings and reasoninggiven by the trial court as well as the High Court in ordering convictionand his thrust was on the quantum of sentence awarded, and later deathpenalty.We have already indicated the modus operandi adopted by the accusedin the second case was also almost the same.Few facts of this case havealready been dealt in the earlier paragraphs of this judgment and hence, wemay directly come to the evidence of the key witnesses in this case.Jayashree – the victim was poisoned by the accused at Hotel Kemps Corner.PW 1 and PW 5 were direct victims of the accused who fortunately survived.PW 1 was the husband and PW 5 was the brother of Jayashree – the deceased.PW 1 and PW 5 had narrated, in detail, what transpired prior to theincident.The details of the money paid to the accused for sending them toAmerica had been elaborately stated in their oral evidence and the same hadbeen extensively dealt with by the trial court as well as the High Court,hence, we are not repeating the same.They were cross-examined, at length,by the defence.Nothing was brought out to discredit their version.Therewas no reason for these witnesses to depose falsely against the accused andthey have no motive in doing so.Evidence of PW 1 and PW 5 are consistentand have not been shaken at all by the defence.No doubt has been createdabout the veracity of their testimony.PW 1 and PW 5 were the directvictims and were also the eye witnesses to the entire transaction and wehave critically gone through the evidence adduced by PW 1 and PW 5 andnothing was brought out to discredit their evidence.The prosecution examined sixteen witnesses – PW 2, PW 4, PW 14 werethe staff members of the hotel Kemps Corner - they had narrated, in detail,the manner in which the accused booked the room, paid the amount, took thethree witnesses to both the rooms.The hotel witnesses identified theaccused in the court as well as in the identification parade.Theprosecution examined PW 8 panch witnesses before whom the accusedvoluntarily gave statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act which led to thediscovery of huge cash amount, cheques, promissory notes and variousarticles like passports, rubber stamps etc.PW 6 was a Doctor who examined PW 1 and PW 5 and found they wereunder the influence of sedatives and in a drowsy condition.We have alsogone through, critically, the oral evidence and the documents produced inthis case and found no reason to take a different view from that of thetrial court and the High Court on conviction.We have also gone throughthe statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. made by the accused in both thecases which was of total denial of the crime.The accused, a professional,wanted to make quick and easy money and in that process lured people givingfalse hopes of sending them to America utilizing his alleged contacts withthe American Embassy.The accused, though educated, brought discredit tohis profession and to the dentist community in general.Education andprofessional standing had no influence on the accused and his only mottowas to make quick money and for achieving the same, he would go any extentand the Dentist turned killer gave no value to the human life.The Dentisttook away the life of two human beings as if he was uprooting two teeth.Nilesh – the deceased, victim in the first case was an unmarried boyof 25 years and yet to become mature enough to know the world around him.All the hopes dashed on the eventful day when he was murdered in a brutalmanner not only by inflicting injuries by deadly weapon on vital parts ofthe body but also injuries on the testis causing him immense suffering andpain.Jayashree, the deceased - victim was administered excessive tabletsby the Dentist turned killer and Jayashree died of that in the night ofthat fateful day.The medical evidence clearly indicates thatKaushikbhai, Jayashree and Jagdish had taken one capsule and two tablets.The accused had advised them to take the tablets prior to medical check-upso that they must get favorable medical certificates.Kaushikbhai andJagdish started feeling drowsiness.Kaushikbhai was about to regainconsciousness but the accused gave an injection on his abdomen.Kaushikbhai tried to avoid the injection but could not resist due todrowsiness and injection was administered due to which he went fast asleep.Unfortunately, Jayashree succumbed to the poison administered and died.The Bombay High Court noticing the ghastly manner in which the accused hadmurdered Nilesh as well as Jayashree and poisoned PW 1 and PW 5, consideredit as a rarest of rare case warranting death sentence.The High Court heard the arguments of the advocate for the accused aswell as the prosecutor on the point as to whether the High Court couldenhance the sentence of the accused from life to death.Having noticedthat the High Court has the power to enhance the sentence from lifeimprisonment to death, the High Court issued a notice on 1.12.2005 to theaccused to show cause why the sentence of life imprisonment be not enhancedto death sentence.The operative portion of the order reads as follows:“We have heard the arguments of learned advocate for the petitioner as well as learned APP for the State for quite some time on two occasions.In exercise of suo-moto powers and on the basis of judgment of the Supreme Court, it will be necessary to hear the accused as to why his sentence should not be enhanced from life imprisonment to death.The accused was produced before the Court on 12th December 2005 butthe advocate representing the accused was absent.On 13.12.2005, the accused as well as hisadvocate were present and the Court on 13.12.2005 recorded the followingstatement of the accused which reads as follows:He gives the statement in English.We are recording the same in his own language.) I am not involved in the case.The travel agent should also have been implicated in this case.(Repeatedly the accused was informed by us about the nature of the show cause notice given.He made the aforesaid statement and he does not want to say any more.Matter adjourned to 22nd December, 2005 at 3.00 for Judgment.Accused to be produced on that day.”We heard the learned counsel on either side on this point at length.
|
['Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,145,142 |
Present case was registered by the police of PS Nangloi on 24.06.1996 on the statement of Rajni (since deceased).In CRL.A.191/1999 Page 1 of 10 her statement to SI Sammer Singh of PS Nangloi, deceased Rajni informed that she used to reside along with her husband at house No. D-310, Shakkarpur, Punjabi Bagh.Her marriage had taken place earlier about four and half years back with one Ikram.That marriage continued for about four years and a daughter named Pooja was born out of that wedlock.In January 1996, her marriage took place with the appellant.After marriage, the appellant used to put pressure on her to indulge in prostitution.On 21.06.1996 he took her at the residence of her parents to meet them.At about 6.30 P.M. when her parents went to market, all of sudden, the appellant poured kerosene oil from stove on her.Thereafter, he threw the burning match stick on her as a result of which she sustained burn injuries.The deceased further informed SI Sammar Singh that the accused used to torture her for not bringing articles and also used to give her beatings.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 1 of 10Earlier on 21.06.1996 the police had received information vide DD No.46-B that deceased Rajni was got admitted by her husband in the RML hospital.SI Sammar Singh along with constable Dharam Pal reached at RML hospital where the doctor declared her fit for making statement.On enquiry by the IO regarding the burn injuries, deceased Rajni informed him that while preparing tea at the stove she caught fire on her clothes.DD No.46-B dated 22.06.1996 was kept pending.Further, case of the prosecution is that on 24.06.1996 deceased Rajni desired to give her second statement.IO informed SDM about the same, and he himself reached RML hospital.There he recorded the above said statement of CRL.A.191/1999 Page 2 of 10 deceased Rajni and got the present case registered under Section 307/498-A IPC.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 2 of 10The deceased expired on 24.06.1996 itself and the case was converted to 302 IPC.The burning incident took place on 21.06.1996 at about 7.00 PM at the parents' house of the deceased.The deceased was removed to RML hospital by the appellant himself.At that time, the deceased Rajni was conscious and oriented as reflected in the MLC Ex.PW3/A prepared by PW3 Dr.Dheeraj Bahl.From the scanning of the record, it further reveals that the IO did not bother even to cite parents of the deceased as witness before the Court.It has come on record that during investigation IO had recorded their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Prosecution has failed to explain as to why the parents of the witness were not examined to corroborate the contents of the alleged dying declaration.The burning incidence had taken place at the residence of the parents of the deceased and it is alleged in the dying declaration that at the time of incidence, both her parents had gone to market.The parents of the deceased were the proper witnesses to reflect if at the time of incidence they had gone to market or that in their absence any such burning incidence had taken place or as to what was there reaction on their arrival.Parents of the deceased were material witness to depose if the deceased had ever complained to them about this objectionable demand of the appellant.It has come on record that earlier the deceased was married with one Ikram and her marriage with Ikram continued for about four years.There is no cogent proof on record to prove valid marriage between the deceased and the appellant.As CRL.A.191/1999 Page 8 of 10 per the post mortem report, inflammable material was poured on the body of the deceased, Rajni.The report reveals that there were 3rd degree deep burns present on the forehead, face, neck, chest, abdomen, etc. Scalp hair were partly burnt and there was no smell of kerosene oil in scalp hair.No FSL report was proved on record to show if kerosene residue was detected on the exhibits collected by the IO.IO did not bother to seize the stove in question on the day of incident.Even at the time of seizing at the stove, no independent public witness was joined.Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant Lalit @ Babloo against the judgement and order on sentence passed by Ld. ASJ, Delhi whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 498-A/302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.During investigation, the IO recorded statements of concerned witness.The appellant was arrested and his disclosure statement was recorded.Stove was seized vide seizure memo.The post-mortem on the dead body was also got conducted.After completion of investigation, the police of PS Nangloi filed challan against the appellant for the commission of the aforesaid offences.Before the Sessions Court, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses.Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied allegations of the prosecution and submitted that he was falsely implicated in this case by IO Sammar Singh as he was illegally demanding money from him.He never married deceased Rajni or lived with her any time.On perusal of the evidence adduced on record by the prosecution and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the appellant and sentenced him accordingly.Aggrieved by the said orders, the appellant has come up in appeal.We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Purvesh Buttan, Amicus Curiae, and the learned standing counsel Mr. Pawan Sharma, for the state and have gone through the file.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 3 of 10On scrutinizing the record, it reveals that the entire case of the prosecution is based upon dying declaration Ex.Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the reliability of aforesaid dying declaration and has pointed out contradictions and inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution.The deceased never disclosed to the Doctor preparing the MLC if the appellant had put her on fire.It was merely mentioned in the MLC that it was the case of burns.Parents of the deceased never lodged any complaint with the police attributing any motive to the appellant for putting the deceased on fire.It is CRL.A.191/1999 Page 4 of 10 the case of the prosecution that at the first instance when the IO PW5 SI Sammar Singh reached at RML hospital on receiving DD bearing No.46-B Ex.PW5/A, he recorded the statement of the deceased, Rajni in narrative form.In his deposition before the court PW5 SI Sammar Singh testified that after the deceased was found fit for statement by the Doctor, in his presence, he recorded the statement of the deceased at about 1.45 A.M. and he had taken the thumb impression of the deceased, Rajni on the said statement.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 4 of 10From the perusal of record, it reveals that this statement of deceased Rajni was never brought on record by the prosecution.PW5 SI Sammar Singh was given time by the Trial Court on 28.09.1998 to produce the said statement but he miserably failed to do so.He admitted that the deceased had told him that it was an incidental case of burning.This fact also finds mention in the rukka.PW5 SI Sammar Singh categorically stated that the deceased had informed her that she had caught fire on her clothes while preparing tea.Prior to the death of the deceased on 24.06.1996, no sincere efforts were made by the IO to get record the statement of the deceased from SDM or Judicial Officer.No plausible explanation has been offered by PW4 Sh.K.K.Dahiya the then SDM, Punjabi Bagh and PW5 SI Sammer Singh.PW4 K.K.Dahiya admitted that on 21.06.1996, he was informed by SHO PS Nangloi regarding burn incident in which Rajni had stated that she suffered burn injuries in her parents' house and SI Sammar Sing had informed him that deceased Rajni had made a statement that there was CRL.A.191/1999 Page 5 of 10 no foul play in the incidence.This assertion of PW4 shows his callous attitude towards performing his duties to contact deceased Rajni and record her statement personally.He merely relied upon the version given to him by SI Sammar Singh.Even on 24.06.1996 when he was allegedly informed by PW5 that the deceased intended to make second statement, he did not bother to reach at the hospital to record her statement.He made a futile attempt only to reach at the hospital after the death of the deceased.Prior to that the PW5 SI Sammar Singh had recorded the dying declaration of the deceased Rajni.There is nothing in the statement of PW5 SI Sammar Singh that prior to recording the statement of the deceased Rajni, he had informed PW4 K.K.Dahiya to reach at the hospital to record the statement of the deceased.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 5 of 10It seems that the IO did not take the case seriously in the beginning as the deceased had not levelled any allegation against the appellant for putting her on fire.Only when she expired on 24.06.1996, it seems that to save his skin, he recorded the statement of the prosecutrix showing involvement of the accused.No corroborating evidence has been adduced on record by the prosecution to establish that in fact the deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the said statement or that the said statement was actually made by the deceased to the IO.Strange enough, there is nothing on record to show if any permission was taken by PW5 from the Doctor attending the deceased to record her statement.Even the IO did not bother to get signature of the concerned doctor/nurse to show CRL.A.191/1999 Page 6 of 10 if statement of deceased Rajni was recorded in his/her presence.IO simply recorded in the statement that the statements were recorded in the presence of Dr.S.Ravi Shankar.In the absence of any signature of Dr.S.Ravi Shankar on Ex.PW5/B it cannot be inferred that the said statement was recorded in his presence specifically when the prosecution failed to bring him in the witness box during trial.IO has failed to explain as to why he did not deem it proper to obtain signatures of Dr.S.Ravi Shankar to show that the said statement of the deceased was recorded in his presence.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 6 of 10They were also to throw light as to what deceased had informed them regarding the incidence when they had met her for the first time, after the burning incidence, either at the spot or at the hospital.The deceased was removed to RML hospital by the CRL.A.191/1999 Page 7 of 10 appellant and there is nothing to show as to why the parents of the deceased had not accompanied her to the hospital.Adverse inference is to be drawn against the prosecution for withholding these material witnesses.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 7 of 10Parents of the prosecutrix were also relevant to prove the motive of the appellant to set the deceased on fire.In the alleged dying declaration, the deceased has attributed motive to the appellant that he used to force her to indulge in prostitution.IO has admitted that the parents of the deceased had informed that the marriage between the appellant and the deceased had not taken place.No complaint was ever lodged by the deceased or her parents against the appellant for allegedly forcing the deceased to indulge in prostitution.Parents of the deceased never came forward to lodge any complaint against the appellant for harassing the deceased, Rajni on account of dowry.No complaint was ever lodged either by the deceased or her parents at any time against the appellant before any authority on that account.Post-mortem report Ex.PW8/A proved on record also does not corroborate the theory presented by the prosecution.Names of the parents of the deceased find mention in the seizure memo sans their signatures.Nothing has been explained as to why the signatures of the parents of the deceased were not obtained on the seizure memo Ex.PW5/E. There is nothing on record to show that during the intervening period, this stove was not used by the parents of the deceased for cooking purposes.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 8 of 10There are inherent flaws in the investigation of the case.Learned Trial Court itself observed in para 16 that a mess has been created by SI Sammar Singh when he deposed that on 21.06.1996 on receipt of DD No.46-B Ex.PW5/A, he went to RML hospital and recorded the statement of deceased, Rajni in narrative form where she stated that it was an accidental fire but surprisingly that statement has not been placed on record.There are other discrepancies in the deposition of the witnesses regarding the circumstances in which the appellant was arrested and stove in question was seized.The incident had taken place at the house of the parents of the deceased, Rajni.CRL.A.191/1999 Page 9 of 10In normal circumstances the appellant cannot be imagined to first take the deceased along with her daughter aged about two years to her parents' home and there on finding an opportunity of her parents to go to market to purchase vegetables or flour, he would set the deceased on fire.There is nothing that the appellant had anticipated departure of her parents for purchase of house hold articles.All the above referred circumstances were enough to create a serious doubt in the mind of the learned trial court not to base conviction of the appellant on the second dying declaration Ex.PW5/B without having any cogent collaboration.ASJ fell in grave error while relying upon the second dying declaration and convicting the appellant for the serious offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.The evidence adduced on record by the prosecution was not sufficient or creditworthy to base conviction on the dying declaration of the deceased, Rajni.Consequently, the impugned judgement and order on sentence of the learned trial court cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside.The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of all charges.(S.P.GARG) JUDGE (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE October 20th, 2011/tr CRL.A.191/1999 Page 10 of 10CRL.A.191/1999 Page 10 of 10
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,356,321 |
Ramasundaram in Cr.This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.2 of 2017, pending on the file of the Sessions Court, Namakkal.2.The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent Police and an FIR came to be registered in Cr.No.943 of 2012 as against the petitioners.On the completion of the investigation, a Final Report has been filed before the Court below and the same has been taken on file for an offence under Section 147, 294(b), 323, 341 r/w 149 and 506(ii) IPC.The learned counsel submitted that there was a previous enmity between the parties with regard to digging a lane in between the house of the petitioners and the de facto complainant.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/10 3 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20173 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20174.The learned counsel further submitted that the 2nd petitioner is aged about 69 years, the 3rd petitioner is aged about 95 years and the 4th petitioner is aged about 57 years and they have all been dragged into the case intentionally only with a view to harass them.The learned counsel submitted that the 1st and 5th petitioners are advocates and the case has been registered against them only to cause harassment to them and prevent them from carrying on with their profession.5.The learned counsel for the petitioners concluded the arguments by submitting that based on the complaint given by the petitioners, a Final Report has already been filed by the respondent Police in SC.No.104 of 2014, against the 2nd respondent and his wife for an offence under Section 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. As a counter blast, the present complaint has been given by the respondent.6.The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent submitted that the allegations made in the Final Report read along with the statements recorded from the witnesses, clearly shows that a prima faci case has been made out against the petitioners, and therefore thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/10 4 Crl.4 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20177.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Police submitted that there are materials available to frame charges against the petitioners, and therefore this Court should not interfere with the proceedings at this stage.8.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.9.It is seen that for the very same occurrence, the 1st petitioner had given a complaint and the same as resulted in the filing of a Final Report in SC.No.104 of 2014, for the offences under IPC and SC/ST Act. The investigation was conducted by the very same Investigating Officer in both the cases.The purpose for conducting a joint investigation is only to find out the aggressor and to file the Final Report against him.In a case of this nature, the Police cannot file two Final Reports for the same incident alleging the same offence against the parties.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/10 5 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20175 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017No. 64 of 1982, the Inspector of Police has filed a charge sheet in S.C. 132 of 1983 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324 and 302, Indian Penal Code against the Petitioners in Crl.The investigating officer has to enquire into both the complaints, find out who were thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/10 7 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 aggressors and file a charge sheet against them or refer both the cases if he finds them untrue.Where the investigating officer finds it difficult to choose either of the above courses, he should seek the opinion of the Public Prosecutor and act accordingly.No. 64 of 1982 against the Petitioners in Crl.M.P. 5503 of 1684, which is now pending in the court of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in S.C. 132 of 1983 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 324 and 302 Indian Penal Code and must have referred the complaint given by Thangathai registered in Cr. No. 69 of 1982, instead of filing another charge sheet in the said crime number against the Petitioners in Cr.M.P. 4437 of 1983, which is now pending in the court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Tenkasi in S.C. 151 of 1983, for offences under Sections 147, 148, 427, 337, and 307, Indian Penal Code The investigating officer has evidently contravened the express provision of the Order 588 -A which layshttp://www.judis.nic.in 7/10 8 Crl.The investigating officer has referred the matter to the opinion of the Public Prosecutor, but has failed to act accordingly.The result is there are now two Prosecutions in respect of the same matter against the opposite parties.;7 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20178 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017“It is improper for the police to prosecute the same time two counter cases in regard to the same occurrence one of which must be false.It is improper also and disrespectful to the court for the Public Prosecutor to conduct both cases in the sessions court knowing that one must be false.Such counter cases cannot both the prosecuted honestly either by the police or the public prosecutor”.http://www.judis.nic.in 8/10 9 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 20179 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 201712.In view of the above, the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of Court and the same requires interference of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.13.In the result, the proceedings in SC.No.104 of 2014, before the Court below is hereby quashed, and accordingly this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.16.08.2019 Index :Yes Internet:Yes KPPrincipal Sessions Court, Namakkal.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 9/10 10 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.10 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017KP Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 16.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 10/10 11 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 Crl.O.P No.12203 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH.J The learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that in the order in Crl.Hence, the case is posted today under the caption “for being mentioned”.11 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017Accepting the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, para 13 of the order dated 16.08.2019, in Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 shall be read as follows:In the result, the proceedings in C.C No.2 of 2017, before the Court below is hereby quashed, and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.http://www.judis.nic.in 11/10 12 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.12 Crl.O.P.No.12203 of 2017uma Crl.O.P No.12203 of 2017 29.08.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 12/10
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,356,786 |
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and learned A.G.A. for the State.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,361,707 |
The petitioners are facing trial in C.C.No.979 of 2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai.The respondent herein is the complainant.The respondent herein had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.The learned Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai, had taken cognizance of the offences and issued summons to the petitioners herein.Challenging the same, this Criminal Original Petition has been filed.But then, the second petitioner herein summoned him and told him to meet the Branch Manager and the he was not assigned with any duty.This appears to have given rise to a wordy quarrel between the two.2.Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 504 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.
|
493,639 |
In paragraph 2 of the Notification remission has been denied to certain categories of prisoners.Clause (iii) of the paragraph deals with certain categories of prisoners who have been denied the benefit.The said clause is reproduced below :-(iii) the prisoners who are convicted for offences under the following Acts:-The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (No. 23 of 1940).The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (No. 46 of 1973).The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (No. 19 of 1952).The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (No. 37 of 1954).The Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (No. 10 of 1955).The Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (No. 22 of 1955).The Customs Act, 1962, (No. 52 of 1962).The Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (No. 2 of 1915).The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (No. 28 of 1961).The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (No. 28 of 1987).Apart from this Clause other type of prisoners have also been excluded from grant of remission.On a perusal of the list of prisoners we find that the State Government has applied its mind while denying the said benefit.Prisoners under certain offences which relate to social crimes, the economic offences, offences dealing with Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances and Illicit Traffic in N.D.P.S., offences relating to national security, dowry prohibition, violation of foreign exchange, conservation of foreign exchange and protection of smuggling activities and similar others have been excluded.JUDGMENT Dipak Misra, J.As the challenge in both the writ applications relate to quashment of the Notification dated 9-8-96 with other ancillary and incidental prayers they were heard together and arc disposed of by this common judgment.Sans unnecessary details the essential facts of both the applications may be stated thus :-The petitioner in W.P. No. 3948/96 was arrested on 10-10-79 for commission of an offence under Section 396, I.P.C. After conclusion of the trial he was convicted for life in S.T. No. 29/80 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satna.In column III (14) of the said paragraph the prisoners convicted under Sections 120B, 224304B (dowry death) 376, 377, 395, 396 and 498A, I.P.C., 1960 have been excluded.Because of this stipulation in the Notification the petitioner has not been granted the benefit of remission which is the cause of his grievance.In W.P. No. 441/97, the petitioner was tried for an offence under Section 376, I.P.C. in S.T. No. 275/82 and was acquitted of the offence.The State of M.P., feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, preferred an appeal forming the subject matter of Cr.A. No. 1023/83 and this Court partly allowed the appeal convicting the petitioner under Section 354, I.P.C. and sentencing him to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to undergo RI for six months.We have heard Shri D. D. Bhargava in W.P. No. 3948/96 and Shri Jagdish Tiwari along with Shri D. D. Bhargava in W.P. No. 441/97 on behalf of the petitioners and Smt. S. Menon, learned Government Advocate for the State.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have challenged the legal validity of the Notification dated 9-8-96 (Annexure-A).It is her further submission that indication of reasons may be a requisite factor while rejecting the prayer for remission of individual prisoner but is not essential at the time of issuing a notification inasmuch as classification is made taking into consideration the nature of offences.To appreciate the rival submission raised at the Bar it is essential to refer to Section 432(1) of the Code which has been invoked by the State Government in bringing the impugned Notification.Sub-section (1) of Section 432 of the Code reads as follows :-Power to suspend or remit sentences - (1) When any person has been sentenced to punishment for an offence, the appropriate Government may, at any time, without conditions or upon any conditions which the person sentenced accepts, suspend the execution of his sentence or remit the whole or any part of the punishment to which he has been sentenced.Under the said provision the appropriate Government has been authorised to exercise the power of suspension of the execution of the sentence or the remission either in whole or in part with or without imposition of any condition.From the notification we find that under Paragraph 1 various types of prisoners have been mentioned for grant of remission and certain eligibility criteria have been laid down.The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Sub-stances Act, 1985 (No. 61 of 1985).The Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (No. 52 of 1974).The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (No. 43 of 1951).The Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (No. 46 of 1988).The National Security Act, 1980 (No. 65 of 1980).
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,369,649 |
Conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the 2 MCRC-39995-2020 applicant.Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposed the bail application contending that the applicant is the Manager and brother of the partner of the Hotel, co-accused Pankaj Jain used to take the prosecutrix in the said hotel since last one year and committed rape with her.Every time the applicant provided him the hotel room without obtaining any identity proof and he has not made any entries regarding the stay of co-accused Pankaj with the prosecutrix in the guest register of the hotel.After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the allegations made against the applicant, this Court is of the view that at this stage no case for grant of bail to the applicant is made out.Accordingly the bail application is dismissed.(S.K. AWASTHI) JUDGE ajit Ajit Kamalasanan 2020.10.19 11:34:47 +05'30'
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,371,477 |
There is no change in the circumstances to consider these repeat applications.Learned counsel for appellant No.1 submits that Dr. Prashant Rajput (PW-29) conducted postmortem of the deceased Omprakash and found some abrasions and contusions and he in paragraph No.7 of his deposition has admitted that the death was not possible due to the injuries and the patient Omprakash at the time of admission, was unconscious and was unconscious throughout on 30th and 31st of October, 2010 and no fracture was found on the body of the deceased.He has also drawn our attention to paragraphs No.6 and 7 of his statement and submitted that at the time of deciding the first application of appellant No.1, these facts were not brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble Court, and therefore, his first application was dismissed on merit.Heard on I.A. No.6381/2016 and I.A. No.6174/2016, which are third repeat applications for suspension of jail sentence of the appellant No.1 - Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Kuldeep Yadav and appellant No.2 - Yogesh @ Babisingh respectively, who have been convicted under Sections 147, 302/149 and 201/149 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo 1 year RI, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.10,000/- and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.5,000/- and appellant No.1 under Section 25(1-B) (A) of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo 1 year RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulations.Both these present appellants have been acquitted under Sections 364 and 307/149 of the IPC.He has also submitted that Gaurishankar (PW-4), Geetadevi (PW-5) and Rajan Kumar Jaiswal (PW-6) in their statements very categorically stated about the oral dying declaration made by the deceased to them.Order dated 17.06.2015 reads as under :-Heard on IA No.39 & 1828 of 2015, second applications for suspension of jail sentence of appellant No.1 Kuldeep Chaudhary @ Kuldeep Yadav s/o Shivkumar @ Bablu.He further submitted that the learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the oral dying declaration of Gauri Shankar (PW-4) brother of the deceased; Geeta (PW-5) wife of the deceased; and Rajan (PW-6) son of the deceased and submitted that these are the changed circumstances to consider this repeat application afresh.As per the record, by order dated 02.09.2014, first suspension application was dismissed by passing detailed order, which reads, as under: -Shri R.S. Parmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent / State.Heard on IA No.5778/2014 an application for suspension of sentence of appellant No.1 Kuldeep and IA No.6924/2014 an application for suspension of sentence for appellant No.2 Yogesh @ Babi Singh.Learned ASJ Barwaha in ST No.50/2011 vide judgment dated 05.04.2914 convicted and sentenced the appellants as under, whereas acquitted the three co-accused.Offence u/s Convicting and Fine Sentence in default of payment of fine 147 of IPC 1 Year RI 302/149 of Life Imprisonment and One year Ri IPC fine of Rs.10,000/-201/149 5 Years RI and fine of Six months RILearned counsel for the appellant No.1 submits that the deceased-Omprakash died due to diabetes.Prosecution star witness-Mahendra has not supported the prosecution case.The deceased was admitted in a serious condition in Sudarshan hospital, Barwani.Doctor O.P. Tegar deposed that he was unconscious when he was brought to the hospital.Thereafter he was shifted to MY Hospital, Indore.Treating Doctor deposed that he was conscious till death.In these circumstances, oral dying declaration by the deceased to his brother- Gaurishankar and wife-Gita is doubtful.There is no legal evidence to connect the appellant No.1 with the crime.The theory of dying declaration come forward after four days in the statement recorded U/s 161 and for this delay no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution.The appellants have a good case during trial.They were on bail and have not misused the liberty, therefore, their jail sentence be suspended till the pendency of this appeal.Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent / State submits that during treatment deceased was regained, and he told to his brother- Gaurishankar and his wife-Gitabai that he has been assaulted by the appellants.Doctor Prashant Rajput conducted the autopsy and he found many anti-mortem injuries on the parts of the body of the deceased.There is no reason to disbelieve this version.Learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence convicted the appellants.Thus, the applications are liable to be dismissed.We have gone through the judgment recorded in the light of submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.Learned ASJ has convicted the appellants on the basis of oral dying declaration and other circumstances.The appellants have not offered any explanation as to why they have been falsely implicated in this case.We are of the view that the appellants have failed to make out a case for suspension of jail sentence, therefore, the applications are liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed.Thus, IA No.5778/2014 and IA No.6924/2014 are disposed of."As per last paragraph of page 1 and page 2, learned counsel for the State, at the time of arguments of the first application for suspension of jail sentence, submitted that Dr. Prashant Rajput as well as treating doctor of MY Hospital, Indore and private hospital at Barwani were brought to the knowledge of the Court and thereafter, this Court dismissed the application on merit.No affidavit of the earlier counsel was filed to support the contention that the statement of Dr. Prashant Rajput was not brought to the knowledge of the Court while arguing on the first application.In reply, learned Public Prosecutor has drawn our attention to paragraphs No.20 and 24 of the judgment and submitted that the learned trial Court after appreciating each and every aspect of the matter and on the basis of the oral dying declaration, which was made by the deceased before PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6 and the circumstantial evidence, convicted the appellant and there is no change in the circumstances to consider this repeat application and prays for its rejection.As per statement of PW-4, PW-5 and PW-6, oral dying declaration was made by the deceased in which specific allegation has been made against appellant No.1 Kuldeep regarding causing of injuries to him.The same has been corroborated by the treating doctor.As per the postmortem report, the deceased sustained seven injuries, which reads as under: -"(1) Abrasion present lateral part posteriorly Right Arm lower part 1 x 1 cm size Blackish colour.(2) Contusion 3 x 3 cm size medial part of Left Arm.(3) Contusion 4 x 2 cm anterior lower lateral part of Right thigh.(4) Contusion 3 x 3 cm size anterior lateral part of Right Shoulder.(5) Contusion present size 3 x 2 cm over left medial malleolus.(6) Contusion present over medial mid part of Right foot anteriorly.(7) Abrasion 6 x 4 cm size over Posterior lateral mid part anterior Right thigh.Injury caused by hard and blunt object, caused within 1-5 days to death of person."Looking to the nature of the allegation made against appellant No.1 so also the fact that statement of Dr. Prashant Rajput was brought to the knowledge of the Court, there is no changed circumstances to consider this repeat application.IA No.39/2015 and IA No.1828/2015 have no merit and are accordingly dismissed.On due consideration of the aforesaid and other material evidence available on record so also the statements of PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-29, no case for suspension of jail sentence of the appellants, as prayed is made out nor there is any change in the circumstances to consider these repeat applications.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
49,375,201 |
She submits that charges have not been framed.On making reference by the learned MM, Mahilla Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, the parties appeared before the Mediator, Delhi Mediation Centre, Dwarka Courts, Delhi.They have resolved and settled all their disputes before the learned Mediator on 08.05.2015 on the following terms and conditions: -That the aggrieved person/complainant Smt. Chanchal Saxena has finally settled all her claims/disputes qua respondent Sh.Akbar with regard to offence u/s 323 IPC and qua respondent Sh.Raja with regard to offence u/s 509 IPC, FIR No.241/2013, P.S. Dabri, without any monetary W.P. (CRL).No.2827/2017 Page 1 of 3 consideration.The respondents have tendered apology which has been accepted by the aggrieved person/complainant.The respondents have assured that they will not repeat any such act in future.W.P. (CRL).No.2827/2017 Page 1 of 3That all the abovesaid parties undertake to appear before the Hon'ble Referral Court for their respective statements today itself i.e. 08.05.2015 in terms of this settlement for compounding the offence u/s 323/509 IPC, as per law.That the case pertaining to offence u/s 323/509 IPC in the present FIR shall be compounded as per law, with permission of the Hon'ble Referral Court today itself i.e. 08.05.2015 and thereafter, aggrieved person/complainant shall not raise any claim in future qua respondent Sh.Akbar with regard to offence u/s 323 IPC and qua respondent Sh.Raja with regard to offence u/s 509 IPC FIR No.241/13, PS Dabri.That all the parties hereto shall bear their respective cost of litigation.By signing this settlement, the parties hereto state that they have no further claims or demands against each other with respect to offence u/s 323/509 IPC in the present FIR and all the disputes and differences in this regard have been amicably settled by the parties hereto during the process of mediation and that they shall not initiate any litigation in future against each other in respect of offence u/s 323/509 IPC in the present FIR, subject to fulfilment of terms of this settlement.That the abovesaid parties shall be bound by the terms and conditions as mentioned above and shall appear before the Hon'ble Referral Court today itself i.e. 08.05.2015 to make a statement in terms of this settlement.Both the petitioners had also W.P. (CRL).W.P. (CRL).No.2827/2017 Page 2 of 3Both the petitioners present in the court undertake that they shall not repeat such behaviour.The respondent No.2 submits that she has amicably settled the matter with the petitioner without any coercion and force.In the circumstances, the matter has been settled between the parties and no purpose would be served in further pursuing with the said FIR.Hence, to secure ends of justice, the FIR bearing No.241/2013, registered on 07.05.2013 with Police Station Dabri, South West, Delhi, under Section 354/323/506 IPC and proceedings arising out of the same are hereby quashed.The petition is disposed of accordingly.9. Dasti.W.P. (CRL).No.2827/2017 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
493,801 |
JUDGMENT S.K. Seth, J.It was ordered by him that the sentences awarded to the accused would run concurrently.It is having been aggrieved by their abovesaid convictions and sentences that the six accused have filed the present appeal in this Court.2. Accused Tivdilal, Uderam and Balakram were brothers.Accused Premlal was son of Balakram.All the accused were residents of village Tharka Kheda in Seoni district.The Additional Sessions Judge, Seoni vide his judgment dt/- 25-2-1981 passed in Sessions Trial No. 3 of 1981 convicted six persons namely Tivdilal, Ramlakhan, Gopal, Premlal, Uderam and Balakram under Sections 302/149 and 147 of the I. P. C. and sentenced them each to imprisonment for life and rigorous imprisonment for two years.Further, he convicted one of them namely Tivdilal under Section 323 IPC.and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year.Deceased Jhamma Prasad was also a resident of the said village.The house of accused Tivdilal was situated at a distance of only about 15.20 steps from the house of deceased Jhamma Prasad.P. W. 4 Ahalyabai was sister of deceased Jhamma Prasad.The incident took place in front of the house of accused Tivdilal on 23-8-1980 at about 8 p. m. P. W. 1 Kharagram who lived in the neighbourhood and was one of the eye witnesses of the incident lodged first information report Ex. P/l at police station Bandol at 3.30 in the night.The police station was situated at a distance of about twenty five kilometres from the village and as such it was apparent that the first information, report was lodged without any delay.Now, it was amply established from the evidence of P. W. 1 Kharagram and other eye witnesses of the incident namely P. W. 2 Mohanram, P. W. 4 Ahalyabai, P. W. 5 Kesarbai, P. W. 12 Shiv-charan and P. W. 13 Sitaram as to how the incident in question happened.It was an admitted position that there had been no previous enmity between the parties Deceased, Jhamma Prasad had arranged a Ramayan Path at his house on the relevant night and invited persons from the village to participate in the same.Just when the deceased was expecting the persons in the village to come to his house to attend the Path, he was informed that accused Tivdilar had arranged Kirtan in his house on the same night.Getting worried that the Kirtan arranged by accused Tivdilal might prevent the villagers from coming to his house for attending the Path, deceased Jhamma Prasad went to the house of the said accused and asked him to postpone the Kirtan to some other date.However, accused Tivdilal did not agree to the postponement.This led to exchange of hot words between the two persons.It was in the said circumstances that on a call given by accused Tivdilal, the remaining five accused reached the spot armed with lathis and gave a beating to.Jhamma Prasad.During the course of exchange of hot words between the two persons, the abovesaid witnesses namely P. W. 1 Kharagram, P. W. 2 Mohanlal, P. W. 4 Ahalyabai, P. W. 5 Kesarbai, P. W. 12 Shivcharan and P. W. 13 Shyamlal arrived at the place of occurrence.They witnessed the assault made on the deceased by the six accused.The remaining nine accused, who were also tried, were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the offences alleged against them.It was found by the Additional Sessions Judge that during the course of the incident when P. W. 4 Ahalyabai had tried to assist the deceased, accused Tivdilal gave a lathi blow to her, causing simple hurt.It was in view of the said finding that in addition to Sections 302/149 and 147, accused Tivdilal was convicted and sentenced under Section 323, I. P. C. also.The only point that really arises for consideration in the present appeal and is vehemently urged by the learned Counsel for the accused is as to the nature of the offence committed by the accused It is pointed out by him that there had been no previous enmity between the parties and the incident in question happened on the spur of the moment over a trivial matter.It is also pointed out by him that the weapons used by the accused were lathis and there was no satisfactory evidence on the record to indicate as to which of the accused caused the particular head injury which was responsible for causing the death of Jhamma Prasad.It is submitted by him that it appeared to be more probable that whatever common object was formed between the six accused on the spur of the moment was not to commit the murder of Jhamma Prasad but only to give him a good thrashing.The rest of the convictions and sentences awarded to the accused do not call for any interference.For the reasons stated above, the appeal is partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 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.
|
49,380,887 |
Perplexed by the same, the petitioner and her father gave 2 Cr.R. No.240/2016 Rs.2,50,000/- before the elder persons of the society to the respondent but even then his behaviour did not change.Even after receiving the money, one fine morning the petitioner took the respondent to Pariwar Paramarsh Kendra at Madhav Nagar Thana, Ujjain and got a note prepared.(Passed on 16/08/2017) Being aggrieved by order dated 22/01/2016 passed in criminal case No.116/2015 by Principal Judge, Family Court Ujjain, where by the learned Court has awarded interim maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month in favour of the respondent wife, the petitioner has come before this Court.Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent got married on 15/04/2014 following Hindu rites and rituals.Their marriage could not run happily.They developed differences between them.It is alleged by the respondent that just after few days of marriage, the petitioner started demanding dowry of rupees 10 lakhs from the respondent.As the respondent showed her inability to fulfill that demand, he started misbehaving and torturing her.The respondent called her father there.The petitioner left the place leaving the respondent there alone.Since then the respondent wife is living with her parents.Therefore the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order.I have considered the rival contentions of the parties.The petitioner has not submitted his pay-slip before Court to support his contention.Considering the fact that the petitioner has not reverted the fact that his father is a pensioner, he is in service and is getting paid, how much ever it may be, his wife is residing separately due to differences between them and it is his responsibility to maintain her and other facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion the respondent is entitled to get interim maintenance and I find that the trial Court has awarded the maintenance which appears to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.I do not find any incorrectness, illegality or perversity in the order of the trial Court.I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order.Therefore, without commenting on merits of the case, which has to be determined by the trial Court at the time of deciding the maintenance 5 Cr.R. No.240/2016 petition finally, I find the petition sans merits and dismiss it accordingly.5 Cr.R. No.240/2016Resultantly, IA 1756/2016, an application for stay stands closed.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.