id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
88,601,520 |
Neeraj Kumar Mishra (first respondent in MAC Appeal No. 577/2017) was riding on the pillion of motorcycle bearing registration no. DL 7S BC 5516 (motorcycle), driven by his brother Ranjeet Mishra on 11.05.2012, both moving from the direction of Bhajanpura where they lived during the relevant period towards Laxmi Nagar.At the turning in the area of Shahdara, Shastri Park on GT Road, at about 01.30 p.m., the motorcycle concededly came to be involved in a collision with bus bearing registration no. DL 1PC 1630 (the bus) driven by constable Ram Niwas Meena (first appellant in these appeals), it being a vehicle registered in the name of the second appellant in both these appeals (a functionary of Delhi police).Due to the impact, both persons riding on the motorcycle fell down and suffered injuries, they being shifted to Shastri Park Hospital, Govt. of NCT of Delhi where Ranjeet Mishra was declared to be brought dead while Neeraj Kumar Mishra having extensive injuries was found to be unfit for making a statement.The intimation about the collision reached the police station at New Usman Pur vide DD No. 24, logged at 2.28 p.m. on 11.08.2012, it having been routed through the police control room (PCR).The local police official ASI Om Prakash proceeded to the scene of occurrence and also visited the hospital and collected the medico legal records and, on the basis of observations of the scene, registered FIR No. 129/2012 taking it to be a case involving MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 2 of 7 offences punishable under Sections 279/337/304A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).Both the cases were clubbed for inquiry and were decided by common judgment dated 27.01.2017 by the tribunal holding the bus driver (first appellant in these appeals) to be negligent leading to the mishap giving rise to the cause of action and compensation awarded in each case, fastening the liability jointly and severally on the two appellants.MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 2 of 7By these appeals, the findings on the question of negligence on the part of first appellant are questioned.It is also submitted that the evidence showed that the deceased Ranjeet Kumar Mishra and the injured Neeraj Kumar Mishra were also held guilty of negligence, they having contributed to the cause of action since they did not wear helmets on their respective heads while riding on the motorcycle.Submissions on both sides have been heard.The record of inquiry before the tribunal has been perused.It appears that during the inquiry before the tribunal both sides took contradictory stands with regard to the collision, the claimants' case being that the motorcycle had been hit by the bus from behind, the latter vehicle having come at a very high speed without giving any caution sign and violating the traffic rules, moving in a zig-zag MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 3 of 7 manner.On the other hand, the appellants putting in contest pleaded that the bus was moving at slow speed on the left side of the road and that it is the motorcycle which had came from behind and had hit the right side rear portion of the bus resulting in the collision and as a result both the riders of the motorcycle suffered injuries, one of them dying in the process.In order to substantiate the respective contentions, the pillion rider, Naresh Kumar Mishra, appeared as PW- 1 for and on behalf of the claimants, on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.PW-1/A), while the first appellant constable Ram Niwas Meena appeared as witness for the defence (R1W1), on the strength of his affidavit (Ex.R1W1/A).MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 3 of 7Having perused the evidence of both the above-mentioned witnesses, this court finds that while the claimant's witness (PW-1), concededly an eye witness since he was riding on the pillion of the motorcycle, has been consistent and in sync with the version set out in the claim cases affirming that the motorcycle had been hit from behind by the bus with a forceful impact, the first appellant, appearing as R1W1, was not entirely truthful in his deposition.He referred to the bus crossing a speed breaker near traffic light at Dharampura which is not even noticed in the site plan (page 471 of the tribunal's record) MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 4 of 7 prepared immediately after the occurrence by the investigating officer during the course of investigation.The first appellant also testified that his bus was moving on the extreme left side of the road i.e. the lane meant for slower traffic.This, however, was contradicted by the above statement which indicated that blood stains had been found in the middle of the road which would mean the collision had taken place not in the left side slower lane but in the middle one.The tribunal's record includes photographs of the scene (pages 531-551) but these photographs have clearly been taken after the motorcycle had been shifted to side of the road.MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 4 of 7If the motorcycle had struck the bus from the rear side, the injuries would be only on account of fall.In contrast, the post-mortem examination report respecting the dead body of Ranjeet Mishra (pages 481-487 of the tribunal's record) reveal as many as 17 injuries all over the body.What stands out is that in the view of the autopsy doctor, death had occurred on account of hemorrhagic shock as a result of injury to head and multiple internal organs produced by blunt force impact.The extent and nature of injuries, and their situs, affirm that the theory of PW-1 of the motorcycle having been hit by bus from behind with force making both the riders fall down and being wounded.It, however, must be noted in this very context that the entire record of investigation does not indicate, not even remotely, presence of any helmet either of the rider Ranjeet Mishra or of the pillion rider MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 5 of 7 Naresh Kumar Mishra having been found either at the scene or on their person.No injury on account of impact of helmets on their respective heads if worn at the relevant point of time has been noticed either in the MLC or by the autopsy doctor.In these circumstances, mere word of PW-1 that both the riders were sporting helmets cannot be accepted.A finding must be returned that both were riding on the motorcycle without taking the precaution of wearing helmets.MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 5 of 7In above facts and circumstances, while the finding of the tribunal holding the bus driver responsible for the collision cannot be questioned, it must be concluded that both the riders of the motorcycle had also contributed to the cause for the serious injuries suffered by each of them in that they did not take precaution of wearing the helmets on their respective heads.The element of contributory negligence, in the facts and circumstances, is assessed to the extent of twenty five per cent (25%).Deduction to that extent from the compensation awarded by the tribunal will have to be made.Ordered accordingly.Thus, both appeals are partly allowed.The compensation determined by the tribunal in the two cases shall be paid after deducting twenty five per cent (25%) on account of contributory negligence.The appellants have deposited the entire awarded amount with upto date interest in terms of the earlier order.The tribunal shall release seventy five per cent (75%) of the amount, thus deposited, to the respective claimants in terms of the impugned judgment, refunding the excess to the appellants.MAC Appeal No. 577 & 590 of 2017 Page 6 of 7Both the appeals are disposed of in above terms.The statutory deposits shall be refunded.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,606,204 |
Apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.1062 of 2018, registered by the non-applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 452, 323, 427, 506-B of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants seek pre- arrest bail.The applicant Nos.1 to 4 claim that they are students.The crime is registered against the applicants on the complaint that in the procession of Ganpati Immersion, the applicants focused laser light on the women and girls and when they were asked not to do so they created ruckus near the house of the complainant and caused damage to the complainant's vehicle and cooler.The application is opposed on the ground that the investigation is still under progress and whereabouts of 3 or 4 co-accused are not known and they have to be traced and for that custodial interrogation of the applicants is required.::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:10:00 :::2 aba698.18 Considering the nature of accusations against the applicants and accepting the submission made on behalf of the Investigating Agency that custodial interrogation of the applicants is required, I am not inclined to show any indulgence at this stage.The application is dismissed.JUDGE RRaut..::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/10/2018 02:10:00 :::
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 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.
|
8,860,673 |
It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Tamilselvi is the wife of the appellant and that suspecting her fidelity, he doused her with kerosene in the early hours of 01.04.2003 and set fire to her and caused her death.The prosecution case begins with the evidence of Mathivanan [P.W.1], who in his evidence stated that, the appellant and his wife deceased Tamilselvi were his neighbours and they have two children, of whom the girl child was being brought up in her grand mothers house at Pattukottai and the son was living with them.He further stated in his evidence that the appellant suspected his wife, on account of which they used to quarrel frequently.A complaint was also lodged about 4 or 5 months prior to the incident in the All Women Police Station, Pattukottai and the appellant and his wife patched up their differences before the police and continued to live together.Even thereafter, their relationship did not improve and four days prior to the incident, there were mediation talks on the intervention of some prominent persons of the village.[a] On 01.04.2003 around 2.00 in the morning, the appellant came to the house of Mathivanan [P.W.1] and called him.When Mathivanan [P.W.1] went there, he found several others including Marudambal [P.W.4] in front of the appellants house.At that time, the appellant told him that, his wife attempted to commit suicide by self immolation.He found Tamilselvi with burns and sent her by an auto with Marudambal [P.W.4] and the appellant to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi at 4.45 a.m. on 01.04.2013, where Dr.Indirani [P.W.15] examined Tamilselvi.At that time, Tamilselvi was conscious and she told Dr.Indirani [P.W.15] that her husband had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire.Indirani [P.W.15] has recorded this in the Accident Register, a copy of which was marked as Ex.Tamilselvi was found to be with 95% burns.Indirani [P.W.15] admitted Tamilselvi as an inpatient and gave her immediate first aid.Thereafter, Dr.There, she was examined by Dr.Zahir [P.W.16] who has recorded in the Accident Register [Ex.P11] thus:"said to have been lighted accidentally during sleep at 01.04.2013 at 3.00 a.m. at her house. [b] While she was under treatment in Thanjavur Medical College, Ramanathan [P.W.13], the Head Constable, on information from the hospital went to the Burns Ward and recorded the statement of Tamilselvi, which was marked as Ex.Investigation in this case was taken over by Ayyanar [P.W.20], the Inspector of Police, who went to the hospital and recorded another statement [Ex.P9] from Tamilselvi, which was marked as Ex.[c] On 01.04.2003, K.Palaniammal [P.W.21] Judicial Magistrate-I, Thanjavur came to the hospital and examined Tamilselvi and after preliminary enquiries, recorded her statement which was marked as Ex.Investigation was continued by Ayyanar [P.W.20], who went to the house of the appellant and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] in the presence of Mathivanan [P.W.1] and Paramayan [not examined].He also prepared the Rough Sketch [Ex.P21].On 02.04.2003, he received information from the hospital that Tamilselvi had died at 8.45 p.m. and therefore, he sent an alteration Report [Ex.P9] to the Judicial Magistrate for altering the offence to one under Section 302 IPC.On 03.04.2003, he conducted inquest over the body of Tamilsevli between 9.00 and 12.00 noon.Mucoso congested.Liver, spleen, kidneys - c/s congested.Small intestine - contained 10 gms of thick yellow coloured semisolid materials.Mucosa - congested.Bladder - empty.Uterus - 5 x 3 x 2cm in size cavity empty.Pelvis - intact.Brain - Surface vessels congested.Oedema seen.Opinion : The deceased would appear to have died of effects and complication due to extensive burns."[e] Ayyanar [P.W.20] arrested the appellant at 4.00 p.m. on 04.04.2003 and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.Based on the disclosure made by the appellant, the Investigating Officer seized a shirt [M.O.15] that was allegedly worn by the appellant at the time of the incident.This was seized under the cover of Mahazar [Ex.P4].In her statement, Tamilselvi told him that the appellant poured kerosene on her and set her on fire.The statement of Tamilselvi [Ex.P7] was treated as complaint and Ramanathan [P.W.13], Head Constable, came to the Police Station and registered a case in D1, Mannargudi Police Station Cr.No.174/2003 for offence u/s 498-A and 307 IPC and prepared the printed FIR [Ex.P8].The Inquest Report was marked as Ex.He examined witnesses Devadas [P.W.3], Shankaran [P.W.5] and others and despatched the body for post-mortem.[d] Dr.Balakrishan [P.W.17] conducted post-mortem on the body of Tamilselvi and in his evidence as well in the Post-mortem Certificate [Ex.P15], he has stated as follows:"External injuries:Dermo-epidermal burns seen over whole body from head to foot except over dorsum of both feet and front of left leg and scalp amounting to 94% of burns.Peeling of cuticles and reddening in patches noted all over the body.Singeing at scalp hair, eye brows and eyes lashes noticed.Surgical IV cut down wounds noted over right ankle and medial aspect of right arm.Heart : All chambers contain fluid blood.Valves - normal.Coronary vessels - patent.Green vessels - normal.Lungs - both on c/s congested and oedematous.Larynx - normal.Hyoid bone - intact.Stomach - contain 100 ml of light yellow coloured fluid.No specific smell.The appellant was sent for judicial remand.The seized articles were sent to the Court for being forwarded to the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Laboratory for chemical examination.After examining several witnesses including the Doctors who examined Tamilselvi at various stages, Ayyanar [P.W.20], completed the investigation and filed a Final Report on 15.05.2003 u/s 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate No.[f] On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The Sessions Court framed a charge u/s 302 IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded not guilty.The prosecution examined 21 witnesses, marked 26 Exhibits and 18 Material Objects.When the accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances, he denied the same.The trial Court after hearing either side and after perusing the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid and hence, the appeal.The prosecution has satisfactorily established that, the death of Tamilselvi was an unnatural one and was due to the burns suffered by her.The Chemical Examiner in his Report dated 26.05.2003 vide Ex.P25 has stated that, kerosene was detected in the clothes of the deceased and the appellant.Therefore, we have no hesitation in our mind to hold that Tamilselvi died of burn injuries caused and kerosene was used for causing the burns.The next line of enquiry is to find whether it was suicidal or homicidal?Ravi, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the Accident Register [Ex.P11] that was recorded by Dr.Zahir [P.W.16] it is stated that said to have been lighted accidentally during sleep at 01.04.2013 at 3.00 a.m. at her house. We are not able to place much reliance on the statement in the Accident Register [Ex.Devadas [P.W.3] turned hostile to the prosecution case, which is quite understandable and proferred the theory of self immolation by the deceased.On the contrary, Marudambal [P.W.4] who took Tamilselvi from her house to the hospital has stated in her evidence that, Tamilselvi told her that it was the appellant who had poured kerosene on her and had set her on fire.When Tamilselvi was taken to the Government Hospital, Mannargudi, there also she told Dr.Indirani [P.W.15] the same and it has been recorded in Ex.Similarly, she maintained the same story when she was examined by Ramanathan [P.W.13].Finally, when Palaniammal [P.W.21], the Judicial Magistrate came to the hospital for recording her statement, she maintained the same version implicating the appellant and described the incident clearly.Ravi, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Dying Declaration given to Palaniammal [P.W.21], the Judicial Magistrate bears the following certification by Dr.This has been adequately explained by Palaniammal [P.W.21] who stated that Mr.N.Kaliaperumal was her predecessor and he had prepared a format under his name which was used for recording the Dying Declaration and hence, the format bears the name of Kaliaperumal therein.We do not find any serious infirmity in this.The answers given by Tamilselvi have been recorded by Palaniammal [P.W.21] herself in her own hand in the format and hence, this does not create any suspicion in our mind nor can it be disbelieved.As regards the motive aspect, the evidence of Mathivanan [P.W.1] and Krishnasamy [P.W.2] are available.The prosecution has also examined one Kannagi [P.W.19], the Inspector of Police of All Women Police Station ,who gave evidence about the earlier incident and also spoke about the reconciliation that was brought about between the appellant and the deceased.If that is so, the appellant could have given such an explanation when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. There were no injuries sustained by the appellant as such.In fact, the appellant has gone to the house of Mathivanan [P.W.1] and has given a false information that the deceased had attempted to self immolate.This is a powerful circumstance against the appellant.In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,613,849 |
Shri Sunil K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Akhilesh Singh, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Brief facts of the case are that on the report of Rajesh Verma, Jila Adhyaksha Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh of Daily Wages, an FIR vide Crime No.423/14 dated 24.8.2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 420/120-B/34 of IPC and Section 13(1)(D)/13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the petitioners at Police Station Kotwali, Balaghat District Balaghat.After due investigation, challan has been filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Balaghat and learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 03.12.2015 2 Cr.R. No.136 of 2016 levelled the charges against the applicants, hence, this revision for quashment of charges.2 Cr.R. No.136 of 2016Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order of framing charges against the applicants are erroneous and illegal, because there is no material on record and only on the basis of false and concocted story, learned trial Court taken cognizance in the matter.Both the applicants are daily wages employees and as per the provisions of Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, sanction for prosecution is mandatory.Other co-accused persons working in the same department have been discharged from the charges of corruption by learned trial Court on same set of evidence.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent-State supported the impugned order and prays for dismissal of this revision.Considering the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available as well as the charge-sheet prima facie, well founded case is made out against the applicants and the Court is of opinion that this revision petition deserves to be rejected.The scope of framing of charge was considered and after adverting to various decisions, the Apex Court enumerated the following principles:
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,621,021 |
11.02.2020 pri Speaking Order/ Non Speaking Order Index: Yes/ No Internet: Yes/ Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in C.C.No.243 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri and to quash all the proceedings as against the petitioner.2.The petitioner is arrayed as A18 in the amended charge sheet filed by the law enforcing agency.Challenging the said action, the present petition has been filed.4.Initially, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was conducted with regard to the malpractices in the Dharmapuri Town Co-operative Bank Limited between 15.07.2003 to 09.12.2003 and the Enquiry 2/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 Officer submitted a detailed report.Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar of the said Bank lodged the complaint and the case was registered.6.While being so, one T.Salammal, a member of the Dharmapuri Town Co-operative Bank Limited filed a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in Crl.O.P.No.5939 of 2007, before this Court seeking direction to the respondent to conduct further investigation in the case and this Court vide order dated 16.02.2008, disposed of the said petition by directing the respondent to take up further investigation in the matter.7.Pursuant to the order of this Court, the law enforcing agency conducted further investigation and filed amended charge sheet under Section 173 (8) of Cr.P.C. in Crime No.6 of 2003 for the offence under Sections 120 B and 109 r/w. 408, 406, 465, 468, 471 and 477 (A), 406 r/w. 511 of IPC and the petitioner was arrayed as A18 in the 3/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 amended charge sheet.Challenging the implication of the petitioner as A18 in the said charge sheet, this criminal original petition has been filed.Padmanabhan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not arrayed as accused in the initial charge sheet, however, he was arrayed as A18 in the amended charge sheet on the allegation that he disbursed the amount in favour of A1, A2 and A9 without verifying whether any amount is lying in their account or not.He would further submit that even the Enquiry Officer who conducted enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, has, in his report stated that it is only due to administrative lapses.He would further submit that though the report of the enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was submitted in the year 2003 itself, thereafter, no surcharge proceedings was initiated against the petitioner.Hence, implicating the petitioner as A18 is un-sustainable one.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 Court vide order dated 21.11.2011 dismissed the petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file discharge petition, however, without discussing anything on merits.Hence, no res judicata will apply in the present case.Hence, it attracts the penal provisions.14.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that in an earlier occasion, the petitioner filed petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.243 of 2004 as against the petitioner and this Court vide order dated 21.11.2011 dismissed the petition.Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to file another petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., before this Court for the very same relief.15.Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.18.It is un-disputed fact that before the complaint was lodged, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act was conducted with regard to the malpractices in the Dharmapuri Town Co-operative Bank Limited between 15.07.2003 to 09.12.2003 and the Enquiry Officer submitted a detailed report.The defacto complainant is entitled to collect the amount by initiating surcharge proceedings in the manner known to law.21.In view of all the above, since no document was produced to establish that the petitioner entered into conspiracy with the other accused, I have no hesitation to allow this criminal original petition.22.This criminal original petition is accordingly allowed and the 11/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri.2.The Inspector of Police, C.C.I.W.Dharmapuri (Ref.Crime No.6 of 2003)12/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 M.DHANDAPANI,J.pri Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 13/13http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.22464 of 2013 11.02.2020
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,622,508 |
'On 09.07.1996, at about 5.30 p.m., one Dhara Singh came to the police post Nihal Vihar, PS Nangloi and informed that one Lekh Raj had murdered his wife Smt Mamta.On receipt of this information, SI Zile Singh, in-charge Police Post Nihal Vihar, reached the spot of crime i.e. house no. B-2777, Nihal Vihar, Delhi along with HC Bhagwati, Ct.Dharminder and Surinder where they found the dead body of deceased Mamta lying in a pool of blood.There were injuries on her forehead till her nose towards the right side and also on her left hand palm.The injuries had been caused by some sharp edged weapon and blood was oozing out from the injuries.In the meantime, Insp.P.S.Patwal, SHO PS Nangloi reached at the spot where Sh.Sri Pal, father of deceased Mamta was found present and his statement was recorded by SI Zile Singh.In his statement, Sh.Sri Pal, father of deceased Mamta told that he was working as meson and has two daughters and two sons.His eldest daughter namely Mamta( now deceased) was married to Lek Raj @ Titu R/o Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi on 10.05.1992 and from the said wedlock, one son namely Ashish, now aged 3 years, was born.On 10.06.1996, he had given Rs. 10,000/- to his son-in-law for construction of his house at Bapa Nagar and he himself worked there for CRL.A.16/2002 Page 2 of 45 about two and half months.Even then, his son-in-law remained short of funds and demanded Rs. 25,000/- from him on 06.07.1996 but he refused to give.On this, his son-in-law told him that he would not take his daughter with him and he should remove his articles.Thereafter, he took his son Ashish and went to his house at Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, Delhi.While leaving from the house, Lek Raj, son-in-law of Sh.Sri Pal, threatened that he should remove his articles from his house otherwise he would kill his daughter.Sri Pal further told that on 09.07.1996, deceased Mamta and her brother Suresh aged about 5-6 years were present at their house.At about 5.00 p.m., when he returned to his house from work, he found his son Suresh weeping while standing near the door and he saw his daughter Mamta lying in a pool of blood inside the room.While he was watching, his son-in-law Lekh Raj @ Titu set Mamta on fire with a match stick.Seeing him, his son-in-law whose clothes were soaked with blood and who was having a knife in his hand fled away from there.He chased him for some distance but he succeeded in fleeing away from the spot.He immediately returned back and with the assistance of the people of the locality, extinguished the fire from the body of deceased Mamta.However by then, his daughter Mamta had expired.Sri Pal further told the police that due to the non fulfillment of the demand of Rs. 25,000/-of Lekh Raj @ Titu, he has burnt and killed his wife.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 2 of 45Inspector P.S.Patwal prepared site plan and conducted the inquest proceedings.Postmortem on the dead body of deceased Mamta was got conducted.SI Zile Singh called the photographer and got the scene of crime photographed.Appellant Lekh Raj was arrested on the same day and on his disclosure statement and on his pointing out, his blood stained shirt was recovered which CRL.A.16/2002 Page 3 of 45 was lying in a park behind the bushes.Patwal also seized baniyan, pant and shoes of appellant having stains of blood on them which the appellant was wearing at the time of his arrest.Burnt clothes of deceased Mamta were seized.One acid bottle containing the acid, one empty kerosene can, one broken blade having blood on it which was having wooden dasta and a bolt on it were also seized.He is fit to be examined.On that day, my elder sister Mamta and myself were at home.He had reached at the spot when appellant was setting the deceased Mamta on fire.He has also narrated the incident in detail and has deposed as follows:- CRL.A.16/2002 Page 13 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 13 of 45'Deceased Mamta was my daughter.In the year 1992 I married my daughter Mamta with accused Lekh Raj today present in court.After marriage she started living at her matrimonial House situated at Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh.After 3/4 months from marriage accused started Maltreating with my daughter and he used to demand money from me.Once after about 2/3 years from marriage he demanded Rs.10,000/- from me to meet with his expenses, which I paid to him at his house.Prior to death of my daughter i.e. about 1 prior, accused started construction of his house at Bapa Nagar, Since I was mason, I worked for construction of his house at the site for about 2 months.He had then raised the demand of Rs. 25,000/- from me, when he had come to me at my house but I do not remember the date, month or year, however it was prior to her death, however I refused to make this demand.Upon my refusal, he declared that either I should bring my daughter back from his house, or to pay Rs. 25,000/- Then 8/10 days prior to the incident, when I had gone to his house, he had ousted my daughter from his house, whom I had brought back to my house.About 3 days before the final incident accused had again come to my house and threatened to kill my daughter in case I do not pay Rs. 25,000/- to me, however I did not take his words as true, but he left my house at that time.On 9.7.1996 about 5 p.m., accused today present in court came to my house where my younger son Suresh along with my daughter Mamta was present and I was a way to my work, at about 5:15 p. m. when I returned to my house and found my son Suresh weeping at the door of the house.Immediately I entered the house and found my daughter Mamta lying on the floor of the house, while she was bleeding from her face.At that time accused today present in court was setting my daughter on fire with a matchstick which he ultimately did in my presence.At that time accused was armed with a knife, with which he had run away from the CRL.A.16/2002 Page 14 of 45 spot.I then with the help of neighbourers, extinguish fire on the body of my daughter Mamta, but by that time my daughter had already expired.At that time accused was wearing a vest, a pant, and a shoes, which he was wearing at that time having blood stains, which was also sealed and seized vide memo EX.PW 3/C. During his interrogation accused volunteered a discl.he got recovered a blood stain shirt from a bushes of a DDA Park which was also sealed into a parcel and it was seized vide memo EX.PW3/D. I can identify these articles if shown to me.(at this stage a sealed parcel having seal of ZSS is opened and found to contain a bag) accused had brought on the day of incident this bag EXP1, which police lateron seized.(at this stage another parcel having FSL seal is opened and found to contain in a blood stain white shirt).White shirt EX.P2 is the same which accused got recovered from bushes.(at this stage another sealed parcel having FSL seal is opened and found to contain pair of shoes, a pant and a vest) pair of shoes EX.P3/1 to 2, pant EX.P4 and vest EX.P5 are the same as stated by me above.( at this stage another sealed parcel having FSL seal is opened and found to contain burnt clothes, bed sheet et.at point A. SDM had also recorded my statement which is EX.PW 3/ H, bears my sig.at point A. (at this stage parcel no. 4 sealed with court seal is opened and knife is taken- out.The knife with broken blade which police also sealed from my house is EX.P9.(at this stage another sealed parcel having seal of CFSL is opened and found to contain empty matchbox is taken) ( at this stage another sealed parcel having seal of CFSL is opened and found to contain empty match box is taken), which is partially burnt.This is the same match box which was found from the spot by the police and same is EX.xxxxxxxxxxx by Sh.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 16 of 45Police had recorded my statement twice and I had signed those statements.I had signed my statements.Police had reached the spot for the first time, at about 5/5.30PM. 8/10 police officers have come but I cannot tell their names.Occurrence took place at about 5 PM and police reached at the spot at about 5.30PM.PW-3 Sri Pal has deposed that knife Ex.P-9 was recovered from the spot and it is also clear from the photograph Ex.PW11/A4 that knife is lying at the spot.PW12/E reveals that one burnt piece of toshak(Gudari) Ex.1a, burnt piece of bed-sheet Ex.1b, burnt blouse piece Ex.1c, broken knife having wooden handle Ex.4, pant of appellant Ex.5a, T-shirt CRL.A.16/2002 Page 22 of 45 of appellant Ex.5b, pair of leather shoes Ex.5c, shirt Ex.6, one sealed bottle containing bunch of hairs Ex.7 and one gauze cloth piece having brown stains Ex.8, were sent to FSL for opinion.As per FSL report Ex.PW12/E, blood was detected on exhibits 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, 4, 5a, 5b, 5c, 6,7 and 8 except Ex.3 which is a control sample of earth.Further, as per the Serological report of Biology Division, FSL which is also a part of FSL report Ex.It is a matter of common knowledge that public persons are generally reluctant to join police proceedings and there is general apathy and indifference on their part to join such proceedings.It is a general tendency of people that they do not like to get themselves involved in any kind of legal impediments.He has argued that PW-5 HC Bhagwati has deposed that the appellant was arrested on the pointing out of PW-3 from his house at Karol Bagh.He is directed to surrender before the Jail superintendent, Tihar Jail within 7 days.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 45 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 45 of 45BRIJESH SETHI, JFIR was registered on the basis of the above statement of Sri Pal.One hand bag on which Genius was written was also lifted from the spot apart from four burnt match sticks and one match box having unborn sticks.All the exhibits of this case were sent to the FSL for examination.After completion of the investigation, charge- sheet against the appellant was filed before the Court for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 3 of 45Case was committed to the learned Sessions courts.Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant.The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in support of the case.Statement of accused was recorded and after hearing arguments, Learned Additionl Session Judge, Delhi vide impugned judgment dated 23.08.2001, convicted appellant Lekh Raj for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC and vide order dated 24.08.2001,he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-.In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo RI for a period of three months.'Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order on sentence, the appellant has filed the present appeal.Learned Senior Counsel Sh.Sandeep Sethi for the appellant has argued that Learned Trial court has erred in law by placing heavy reliance on the uncorroborated testimonies of PW-3 Sri Pal CRL.A.16/2002 Page 4 of 45 and PW-10 Suresh who are father and brother of the deceased respectively and failed to appreciate the fact that they being relatives were not independent witnesses.The prosecution has also failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the offence.The testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal, father of the deceased is full of contradictions and stands completely rebutted by the defence evidence.Complainant (PW-3 Sri Pal) had never lodged any police report with regard to the alleged demand of a sum of Rs. 25,000/-by the appellant.On the contrary, the appellant in his defence has proved that the deceased Mamta had illicit relations with one Shyam Singh.The prosecution version is, thus, unreliable as the complainant had the motive to falsely implicate the appellant.It is further argued that there was undue delay in lodging the FIR which gave ample time and opportunity to the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 4 of 45It is further argued by learned Senior Counsel that prosecution has failed to prove the recovery of the weapon of offence and could not link the same to the alleged commission of offence by the appellant.It is argued that the prosecution version is self- CRL.A.16/2002 Page 5 of 45 contradictory and not reliable as PW-3 has deposed that the appellant had run away from the spot with the knife whereas prosecution version is that the knife was recovered from the spot.It is further submitted that the photographs taken on the spot show two knives lying there and even if the prosecution version is believed for the sake of argument that the knife was recovered at the spot, it has failed to explain as to why only one of the knife was taken into possession and not the other one.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 5 of 45It is next argued by learned Senior Counsel that prosecution has failed to lift finger print impression from the knife for examination by the expert and this is a serious lapse since it would have proved that the knife was used by the appellant in commission of offence.Further the knife was also not sent to the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem, for his opinion on the point whether the injuries found on the body of deceased were inflicted by it.Learned Senior Counsel has next argued that there are different versions regarding the place from where the appellant was arrested and there are other contradictions in the statement of witnesses which go to the root of the matter and throw grave doubt CRL.A.16/2002 Page 6 of 45 on prosecution version.PW-5 HC Bhagwati has deposed that the appellant was arrested on the pointing out of PW-3 Sri Pal from his house at Karol Bagh.On the other hand PW-9 SI Zile Singh has stated in his cross examination that the appellant was arrested near a bridge in Nihal Vihar on receipt of a secret information.PW-12, Insp.Prem Singh Patwal on the other hand has stated in his cross examination that the appellant was apprehended on the pointing out of PW-3 from a park.PW-12 has further deposed that the disclosure statement of appellant was recorded in the park itself under an electric pole whereas PW-9 SI Zile Singh has stated in his cross examination that the disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded while sitting on the Kacha road near park.Learned Senior Counsel has further argued that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that non-examination of one Dhara Singh, who had allegedly informed the police first about the incident, is a grave lapse on the part of the prosecution.The explanation for his non examination given by the prosecution is not CRL.A.16/2002 Page 7 of 45 tenable for the reason that he was relative of PW-3 and his address was also available with the police.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 7 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 8 of 45We have considered the rival contentions and carefully examined the impugned judgment, order on sentence and the evidence appearing on record.The prosecution case is primarily based upon the testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal, who is the father of deceased Mamta, and had seen the appellant Lekh Raj setting deceased Mamta on fire and PW-10 Suresh, who is brother of deceased and had seen the appellant inflicting injuries on the person of deceased with a knife.Before proceeding further, let us examine the testimony of PW-10 Suresh to find out whether Ld Trial Court has rightly appreciated his evidence.His deposition before the court is being reproduced for appreciating the arguments advanced by the learned Senior Counsel and learned APP for the State and it runs as follows:- CRL.A.16/2002 Page 9 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 9 of 45'Q1: How old are you?Ans: I am nine years old.Q2: In which school do you study?Ans: I study in Govt. Boys School No. 5Jawalpuri, Delhi.Q3: Which subject do you like most? Ans: I like social studies.Q4: Do you speak truth or lie?Ans: I should speak truth.Q5: what happens when you tell lie? Ans: It is a sin From above questions and answers given by the witness, I am satisfied that the child witness is able to understand the questions properly and answer logically.On that day, at about 5:15 PM my brother in law present in court came to the house and started threatening my sister and also inflicted knife injury on her nose.My jeeja Lekhraj slapped me and thrown me out of the room.I remained standing at the door of the room.My jeeja poured Kerosene on my sister and set her a- fire.My sister was shouting for help bachao, bachao, I also started shouting bachao, bachao, meanwhile my father reached there, seeing my father the accused fled with the knife.At the time the clothes of accused were soaked with blood.My sister died on the spot.S.C. Dogra My father was working in camp in no. 5 but I do not know the name of his employer.He was mistry by profession.I do not remember the colour of the clothes which I was wearing on that day.On the date of incident I was not studying in any school.Besides myself, my sister Mamta and my father, my elder brother Madan use to reside in the house.It is incorrect that Madan was also present in the house on that day.My sister used to the reside with her husband who was staying in Karol Bagh.As far as I remember Mamta had been CRL.A.16/2002 Page 10 of 45 staying in our house for one week before the incident.Accused was not staying in our house that time.It is incorrect that any boy of the name Shyam Sunder used to come to meet my sister Mamta in the absence of my father.People had gathered when I raised the alarm.I do not know my date of birth.I also do not remember the date of my admission in the school.It is incorrect that I was tutored to narrate the story.On the date of incident I did not know to read the time.The time was told to me by the police.I was aware of the date on the date of incident.Police made enquiries from me.I had narrated to the police that accused slapped me.The quarrel had taken place on account of money.It is incorrect that I was not present in the house but was playing outside the house and had not seen any incident and deposing falsely at the instance of police.'CRL.A.16/2002 Page 10 of 45We are conscious of the fact that PW-10 Suresh was 9 years old at the time of incident.However, perusal of his testimony reveals that it is cogent, consistent and trustworthy.Though, he was thoroughly cross examined by the learned defence counsel but no such contradiction, discrepancy or inconsistency has appeared in his testimony which may impeach his creditworthiness.On thorough examination, we find his testimony natural and free from any tutoring.His specific and vivid testimony with regard to his presence at the spot at the time of incident and his deposition CRL.A.16/2002 Page 11 of 45 regarding seeing the appellant inflicting knife blows on his sister is trustworthy and reliable.at point A. Police on arrival at the spot had seized one saree of my daughter, one kerosene oil cane, one bottle of acide, one match box, also lifted the blood from the spot etc., after sealing these items into different parcels, vide memo EX.PW 3/B which bears my sig.at point A. On the same day accused today present in the court was arrested from DDA park on the same day.of diseased).CRL.A.16/2002 Page 14 of 45At the spot one pattinuma blood stained knife was also recovered by the police, which I also can identify.(at this stage it is revealed that CRL.A.16/2002 Page 15 of 45 acide bottle, kerosene oil cane and the Plattinuma knife are not produced, so further examination of witness is deferred).When I entered in the room on 9.7.96, I had found my daughter lying in pool of blood on floor.The police had also seized a Acid bottle EX.P7, can of kerosene EX.P8 from the house.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 15 of 45Before the dead body was sent to mortuary, for post mortem I had identified her dead body, and my statement in this report is EX.PW3/ E. I had also joined in the proceedings and death repost EX.PW3/F bears my sig.at point A. The articles seized by the police from our H.No.RZ-B-277, Nihal Vihar, were seized vide memo EX.PW3/B, which bears my sign., his P.S. was taken vide memo EX.PW3/G which bears my sign.PW3/B also bears my sig.at point A. The clothes, which accused was wearing at the time of crime, was seized vide memo EX.PW3/C, which bears my sig.S. Singh, Adv.for accused.My daughter had expired at the spot, and she was not taken to any hospital for treatment.Police was informed by Dhara, who resides in Peera Garhi.On the date of occurrence I had gone to my work.Dhara had not gone with me.Dhara is my relation and he had come to my house to take me for some work.It is wrong to suggest that when I returned from my work, Dhara was already present.When accused had come out of the house public had come.Since the knife was in the hands of the accused, so nobody dared to apprehend the accused.On that day, I was working at 5 No., Jawalapuri and I was free from my duty at about 5PM.It was a distance covered within 10 minutes from Jawalapuri, to my house.It is correct that I had given Rs.10000/- to the accused.It is correct that before the occurrence, there were tensed relation between my daughter and her husband.In my house, I live with my son.Her son was with her.On Saturday, prior to date of occurrence, accused had taken away his son from my daughter and he had warned my daughter to be at my house as he was to return on Monday.I had raised an alarm and there was no occasion to express the happiness after seeing my daughter in pool of blood.My daughter was lying dead in burnt condition.There were many persons, and I can name if there were persons to extinguish the fire.In my presence, statements of these persons were not recorded by the police.At the time of raising construction by the house of accused, my daughter was residing with his uncle.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 17 of 45I am unable to stand for a long time.First of all my statement was recorded by the police.I do not know who is SDM.My statement was also recorded at Tis Hazari in court and that statement was recorded after the dead body was criminated.I had stated whatever incident had taken place to the police and SDM.I had stated in my statement to the police that after months of marriage, her husband had started harassing, beating and maltreating her.(con.with Ex.I had stated to the police that I had given Rs.10000/- to my son in law after about 2/3 years of the marriage.'Perusal of testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal reveals that he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and also given the motive behind commission of the offence by the appellant.Though, this witness has not seen the appellant inflicting injuries upon the person of deceased Mamta as he was not present at that particular time, however, he was present when appellant was setting the deceased Mamta on fire with the help of match stick.The learned Trial Court has analyzed the testimony of this witness and has given following reasons as to why he should be believed:-'33.A careful scrutiny of the evidence of PW-3 Sri Pal would show that his evidence could not be demolished or shaken at all in the cross- examination.The presence of Sri Pal at the spot could not be put in doubt despite a searching cross-examination.The evidence of Sri Pal also corroborates the version of PW-10 Suresh that he was present at the spot at the time of the incident.When Sri Pal had returned to his home at about 5.15 PM, he found his son Suresh PW10 weeping at the door of his house.Sri Pal found his daughter lying in a pool of blood on the floor of the room.In his presence, the accused even had set his daughter on fire with a match stick and therefore he had fled away from there with a knife with which he was armed.'CRL.A.16/2002 Page 18 of 45We find no infirmity or illegality in appreciation of the evidence of PW-3 by the learned Trial Court.Though, this witness was thoroughly cross examined but nothing beneficial to the defence has emerged out of the same.In fact, a suggestion was given to the witness that he had given Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant and the relations between his daughter and her husband were tense.The said suggestion was admitted by the witness to be correct, thereby proving that money was given to the appellant and there were strained relations between appellant and deceased.Perusal of statement of PW-3 further reveals that there is no cross-examination by the learned Defence Counsel on the point that appellant had raised a demand of Rs. 25,000/- from him and he (PW-3 Sri Pal) had refused to meet the same and upon his refusal, he (the appellant) had CRL.A.16/2002 Page 19 of 45 declared that either PW-3 should bring his daughter back from appellant's house or to pay Rs. 25,000/- and about eight to ten days prior to the incident, the appellant had ousted his daughter Mamta from the house.Further, there is no cross examination of PW-3 on the point that about three days prior to the final incident, the appellant had come again and threatened to kill his daughter in case he did not pay Rs. 25,000 to him.Since there is no cross examination at all on these vital points, it proves that appellant had reason to commit the offence since PW-3 Sri Pal had refused to meet the demand of Rs. 25,000/-, raised by the appellant and the appellant had threatened that in case of refusal, he would kill his daughter.This, thus, proves the motive behind commission of the offence by the appellant.This also answers the contention of learned Senior Counsel that accused had no motive to kill the deceased Mamta.Though it is a settled law that existence or absence of motive is of little significance when the offence is proved by way of evidence of eye-witnesses as well as by medical and forensic evidence.In this context, reliance can be placed upon 'Om CRL.A.16/2002 Page 20 of 45 Prakash Vs.State of Uttaranchal, (2003) 1 SCC 648' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:-CRL.A.16/2002 Page 19 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 20 of 45'We are not concerned with the sufficiency or otherwise of the motive which would have prompted the appellant to commit the crime.There is further no cross examination on the point that appellant had got recovered blood stained shirt from the bushes in a DDA park.In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that PW-3 Sri Pal and PW-10 Suresh have fully supported the prosecution version and learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence appearing on record CRL.A.16/2002 Page 21 of 45 and has given a reasoned finding and there is nothing on record to suggest that findings are perverse.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 21 of 45Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has next argued that learned Additional Sessions Judge did not apply his mind to the fact that as per the testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal, the appellant had run away from the spot with a knife in his hand.On the other hand, the prosecution version is that the knife was recovered from the spot.There is, thus, a major contradiction regarding recovery of alleged weapon of offence and it goes to the root of the matter and makes the prosecution version unbelievable.We have given our thoughts to the matter.The said knife was also sent to FSL for forensic examination.As per FSL report, the blood stains were detected on the alleged knife and the same were of 'B' Group.Perusal of FSL report Ex.PW12/E, blood stains over all the above mentioned exhibits (except Ex.3 which was a control sample of earth) were of 'human origin' having 'B' Blood group.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 22 of 45The FSL report EXPW12/E has been proved by PW-12 IO Insp.Prem Kumar.There is no cross examination by learned Defence counsel of PW-12 IO Insp.Prem Kumar on the FSL report.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has next argued that learned Trial Court failed to consider the fact that as per the testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal and PW-10 Suresh, public persons were present at the time of incident but none of them have been joined as witness.He has further argued that public persons were also not joined at the time of arrest of the appellant and recovery of shirt from the park and this throws grave doubt on the prosecution version.We have carefully considered the contention of Learned Senior Counsel.We have given our thoughts to the matter.The appellant was arrested on 09.07.1996 and during interrogation, he had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW3/D and on his pointing out, his blood stained shirt which was lying in a park behind the bushes was recovered.We are of the opinion that since the blood stained shirt was recovered at the instance of appellant from park behind the bushes and the place of recovery was in exclusive knowledge of appellant, the recovery of the same is admissible in evidence.The person who hid it alone knows were it is until he discloses that fact to any other person.Hence the crucial question is not whether the place was accessible to others or not but whether it was ordinarily visible to others.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 30 of 45Learned Senior Counsel for appellant has, however, drawn our attention to 'Makhan Singh Vs.State of Punjab, Crl.Appeal No. 238 of 1988' decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court on 27.07.1988 and has argued that recovery effected from the appellant does not prove that he had committed the offence for the reason that shirt was recovered from an open place i.e. park and it can't be said to be a place within exclusive knowledge of appellant.We have carefully gone through the above case and are of the opinion that the same is distinguishable on the basis of facts and circumstances stated therein.In the case before the Hon'ble CRL.A.16/2002 Page 31 of 45 Supreme Court, one witness Amrik Singh had told IO that dead body and other articles were buried by the accused in the field.The field was an open place.In the said case, the IO had admitted that after recording the statement of one witness Amrik Singh, he knew that the bodies were buried in the field.In these circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that recovery which was affected at the instance of accused could not be said to be in his exclusive knowledge whereas in the present case, blood stained shirt of appellant was recovered from behind the bushes in the park and except appellant, no one else knew about this fact.The appellant had led the police officials and got the blood stained shirt recovered.Thus, the authority cited by learned Counsel for the CRL.A.16/2002 Page 32 of 45 appellant does not help the appellant in proving the fact that blood stained shirt recovered at his instance is not admissible in evidence.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 31 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 32 of 4534. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant has next relied upon, 'Varghese vs. State of Kerala, JT 1998(2) SC 436' wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the only evidence against the accused was that of discovery of knife and gloves recovered in pursuance of the statement made by him in police custody and since the knife and gloves were found lying in open paddy field and there was no statement indicating concealment of the weapon or articles by the appellant, this evidence cannot be made the basis for conviction of the appellant.We have given our thoughts to the matter.The present case is clearly distinguishable since there was a statement made by appellant and in pursuance of the same, recovery of blood stained shirt was effected and there was other evidence also in the form of statement of eye-witnesses, medical and forensic evidence before learned Trial Court to connect the appellant and the authorities cited by learned Senior counsel, therefore, do not help the appellant.Lastly, it will also be relevant to point out that learned defence CRL.A.16/2002 Page 33 of 45 counsel had not cross examined the IO on the point relating to the recovery of shirt from the park and this fact remains unchallenged and proved on record.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 33 of 45Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has next argued that learned Trial Court did not apply its mind to the fact that one of the material witness i.e. Dhara Singh has not been examined by the prosecution, though he was the first to inform about the incident on 09.07.1996 at 5.30 PM at PP Nihal Vihar (PS Nangloi) and a DD no. 14, Mark 'A', was also recorded in this regard.It is argued that since Dhara Singh was an important witness and, therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution for his non examination and benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant.We have given our thoughts to the matter.It is a settled law that prosecution is not bound to produce all the witnesses cited by it.Only those witnesses who are considered necessary by the prosecution for unfolding its version need to be produced before the court.However, in the present case, PW-12 IO Insp.Prem Singh Patwal has deposed that Dhara Singh was not traceable.The CRL.A.16/2002 Page 34 of 45 learned Senior counsel for the appellant was also not able to show us as to how the prosecution version is rendered less trustworthy if the said witness was not examined in the court.Dhara Singh was not an eye witness to the incident and in case, the defence was of the opinion that Dhara Singh ought to have been examined by the prosecution and it has deliberately not examined him, nothing prevented the appellant to examine him as a defence witness.(Ref.:- Reghubir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (1972) 3 SCCOn the other hand PW-9 SI Zile Singh stated in his cross examination that the appellant was arrested near a bridge in Nihal Vihar on receipt of a secret information.Further, PW-12, Insp.Prem Singh Patwal has stated in his cross examination that the appellant was apprehended CRL.A.16/2002 Page 35 of 45 on the pointing out of PW-3 from a park and that his disclosure statement was recorded in the park itself under the electric pole whereas PW-9 SI Zile Singh stated in his cross examination that the disclosure statement of the appellant was recorded while sitting on the Kacha road near park.We cannot be oblivious of the fact that incident had happened on 09.07.1996, whereas PW-3 Shri Pal, PW-5 HC Bhagwati, PW-7 Ct. Dharmender, PW-9 SI Zile Singh & PW-12 IO Insp.Prem Singh Patwal were examined in the year 1999 to 2000 i.e. approximately after 3 to 4 years of the incident.It is very difficult for a witness to remember each and every detail of his statement or what he had done or seen.Minor contradictions, which are not material, need to be disregarded if they do not demolish the prosecution version.As discussed earlier, there is authentic ocular evidence on record which stands supported by medical and forensic CRL.A.16/2002 Page 36 of 45 evidence and, therefore, these contradictions are not fatal to the prosecution version.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 36 of 45It is next argued that learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there has been undue delay in lodging the First Information report and this gave ample time and opportunity to the complainant to falsely implicate the appellant by concocting a totally false story.We have carefully gone through the evidence.As per record, the incident had taken place at around 5.00 p.m. and one Dhara Singh had first informed PP Nihal Vihar at about 5.30 p.m. about the incident.DD no.14 dated 09.07.1996 was recorded to this effect and thereafter IO SI Zile Singh along with HC Bhagwati, Ct.Dharmender and Ct.Surinder had reached the place of occurrence.On the basis of statement of complainant Sri Pal, rukka was prepared by IO SI Zile Singh and he had sent HC Bhagwati to PS for lodging the FIR at about 7.25 p.m. and on the basis of the rukka, the present FIR no. 485/96 U/S 302 IPC was recorded at 7.45 p.m. Since, the FIR has been lodged on the same day i.e. the date of incident and within two hours and 45 minutes after the happening of CRL.A.16/2002 Page 37 of 45 the incident, it, therefore, cannot be said that appellant was falsely implicated in the present case by delaying the lodging of FIR.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 37 of 45The prosecution has, however, seized one knife and has failed to explain as to why only one knife Ex.P-9 was taken into possession particularly when evidence does not support that knife Ex.P-9 was used in commission of the offence.We have seen the photographs placed on record.The prosecution has seized one knife Ex.P-9 which had blood stains on it and as discussed earlier, that was used by the appellant for inflicting blows on his wife.So far as other knife in the photograph is concerned, it may be a pencil or paper cutter or any other kind of knife.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 38 of 45CRL.A.16/2002 Page 38 of 45It is next argued by learned Senior Counsel that findings of learned Trial Court are not in accordance with law as it has failed to consider the fact that prosecution had not taken finger print impression from the knife which is a grave lapse as the same was necessary to prove that the knife was used by the appellant in commission of the offence.It is further argued that the knife Ex.P-9 was also not sent to the Doctor, who had conducted the post- mortem, for opinion on the point whether the injuries found on the body of deceased were inflicted by the same.We have considered the contention of learned Senior Counsel.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 39 of 45Learned Senior counsel has lastly argued that appellant has been falsely implicated as he had caught his wife red handed with one Shyam Singh with whom she had illicit relations and learned Trial court has failed to consider the said fact.Pooran Chand and DW-2 Sh.Mukesh who have deposed that they knew the appellant from childhood.The wife of the appellant had developed illicit relations with one Shyam Singh and appellant had caught his wife red-handed and there was a meeting in which Sh.Shyam Singh had told that either Mamta should be married to him or he would destroy appellant's house.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 40 of 45DW-3 Shyam Lal has deposed that in the year 1996, he had gone to the house of appellant to work as a labour.He had worked there for one month.The appellant used to leave the house leaving him, PW-3 Sri Pal who was also working there and two other labourers in the said house.At that time, son of Lekh Raj's Tau Mr. Shyam Singh used to visit Mamta and they both used to sit in a room together.He has further deposed that Shyam Singh had visited Mamta on the date of incident at about 4/5 p.m. and he had heard the noise of a quarrel between Mamta and Shyam Singh.Learned Senior counsel has argued that learned Trial Court has not fully appreciated the statements of DW-1, 2 & 3 who have proved that deceased had illicit relations with one Shyam Singh who has falsely implicated the appellant.The DWs have failed to tell even the date when the accused had caught his wife with Shyam Singh red handed.What the deceased was doing with that alleged Shyam Singh has not even been clarified by these DWs.According to him, on the date of the incident, Shyam Singh had visited Mamta at about 4/5 PM and he had heard the noise of a quarrel from the house of Mamta and the quarrel was between Mamta and Shyam Singh.If he was present at his house on 09.07.1996, how could he see and depose that Shyam Singh had CRL.A.16/2002 Page 42 of 45 visited the house of Mamta at about 4/5 PM.As discussed by learned Trial Court, DW-1 Pooran Chand and DW-2 Mukesh have failed to give the date when appellant had caught deceased Mamta with one Shyam Singh.There is no clear, cogent and convincing evidence on record to prove illicit relationship between deceased Mamta and Shyam Singh and defence evidence, therefore, does not help the appellant in proving the fact that he has been falsely implicated.Similarly, the testimony of DW-3 Shyam Lal is also not believable for the reason that in his cross-examination, he has stated that he was in his house on 09.07.1996 and, therefore, learned Trial Court has rightly observed that since he was in his house, it was not possible for him to state that Shyam Singh had visited the house of Mamta at 4/5 p.m. He has also failed to prove any illicit relationship between deceased and Shyam Singh.His evidence is CRL.A.16/2002 Page 43 of 45 not convincing and reliable and it, therefore, does not help the appellant in proving his innocence.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 43 of 45A careful examination of testimonies of DW-1, 2 & 3, thus, reveals that defence evidence is totally unbelievable and does not inspire that confidence and trust which may compel us to ignore the ocular testimony of PW-3 Sri Pal and PW-10 Suresh as well as medical and forensic evidence.The appellant despite leading defence evidence has, therefore, failed to prove the fact that he was falsely implicated for the reason that Mamta (deceased) had illicit relations with one Shyam Singh.In view of the foregoing discussion, we find the testimonies of PW-3 Sri Pal and PW-10 Suresh reliable and creditworthy.Their testimonies are completely and demonstrably corroborated by the medical as well as forensic evidence.Therefore, we have no hesitation in arriving at a conclusion that the evidence on record leads to but one inescapable conclusion, that appellant was guilty of committing murder of his wife.The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.The impugned Judgment dated 23.08.2001 and order on sentence dt. 24.08.2001 are, therefore, hereby upheld.CRL.A.16/2002 Page 44 of 45Accordingly, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.Copy of the judgment be sent to the Jail Superintendent, Tihar Jail and also be sent for updation of records.BRIJESH SETHI (JUDGE) SIDDHARTH MRIDUL (JUDGE) AUGUST 21, 2019 A.K.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
88,628,522 |
The appellant is presently in custody.Record of lower Court is available on record.Heard on question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Heard on I.A. No.4197/2015, which is an application under section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant - Kanwarlal S/o Puralal Ahir.The present appellant suffered conviction and the jail sentence as under:Taking various facts and circumstances that appear from the impugned judgment into consideration, after going through the record of the lower Court, without commenting on merit, the application is allowed.The remaining portion of the jail sentence is suspended.It is directed that on production of personal bond for Rs.50,000/- and solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and also on payment of fine, the appellant shall be released on bail for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 22.09.2015, and thereafter, on each subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry of this Court in this behalf.C.C. as per rules.(Alok Verma) Judge sumathi
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,631,965 |
Allegation against the applicant is that when he was posted as Branch Manager of Vidisha Bhopal Regional Rural Bank during the period of 2008-2011, he had sanctioned demand loan to different persons.The loan was sh sanctioned on the basis of forged documents, beneficiaries e did not get loan.The allegation is that appropriate security was not obtained by the applicant at the time of sanction of loan.of He has further submitted that the applicant was not arrested during investigation.He had cooperated with the rt investigating agency.sh Case diary perused.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of e ad Criminal Procedure for grant of bail to the applicant, as he has been arrested on 28.11.2017 in connection with Crime/ R .Pr No.0082013A0012 registered at Police Station CBI Char Imali, a Bhopal for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 120-hy B, 109, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 477-A of IPC and 66-C Information ad Technology Act, 2000 & 13(1) ( C) and (D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 13 (2) thereof.M There are total six accused persons in number.Remaining five of accused persons have been granted bail by this court.Learned Additional Solicitor General of India has admitted rt this fact that other accused persons have been granted bail.ou This court passed the following order in one of the cases of C other accused persons:-h ig "Shri Ajay Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri H D. Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri J. K. Jain, Assistant Solicitor General, learned counsel for the respondent Central Bureau of Investigation.Case diary perused.The applicant was not arrested during investigation.He is in jail for last two months.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 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.
|
86,320,708 |
No.28 (Allowed) C.R.M. 6625 of 2019 In Re: - An application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25/07/2019 in connection with Baduria P.S. Case No. 230 of 2019 dated 31/05/2019 under Sections 341/325/326/307/354B/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Sk. Abdul Hasan ....petitioner.In the event the petitioner fails to comply with the 2 conditions as enshrined hereinbefore, it is open to the trial court to cancel the bail without any further reference to this Court.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,322,865 |
Item No. 04State of West Bengal Opposite Party Ms. Faria Hossain Ms. Anima Chakraborty For the Petitioner Mr. Prasun Kumar Dutta Mr. Subrata Dutta For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Haroa Police Station Case No. 57 of 2012 dated 23.3.2012 under sections 304/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 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 report of the Investigating Officer in which he states that the identity of the Petitioner and one Asura Bibi named in the FIR is the same.We have also seen the case diary and the injury report.ALLOWED Hence in the event of arrest, the Petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of like amount, one of whom must be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,326,049 |
a hy This is repeat (fifth) bail application filed on behalf of the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. His earlier bail ad applications being M.Cr.C.No.21790/2016 has been dismissed as M withdrawn by order dated 19.12.2016, M.Cr.C.No.685/2017 and M.Cr.C.No.787/2017 have been dismissed as withdrawn on the same of date i.e. 16.1.2017 and M.Cr.Therefore, this application has ou been filed after recording of the evidence of prosecution witness Gulshindar Singh (PW/2), Dr. Chhavi Shrivastava (PW/3), Dr. (Ku.) C Asmeet Bhatiya (PW/4) and Smt. Navneet Kaur (PW/5).h The applicant is in custody since 1.12.2016 in connection with ig Crime No.1117/2016 registered at Police Station Garha, District H Jabalpur (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 354-D, 376, 506-34 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act.Allegedly, on 30.11.2016, in the night at about 2:45 AM, applicant Afsar Khan along with other co-accused Nagendra Singh @ Rishabh Singh and Rishabh Pal had taken the prosecutrix in a Maruti Desire car from the guardianship of her parents in a room and thereafter applicant Afsar Khan and co-accused Rishabh Pal closed the door from the outside and thereafter juvenile Rishabh Pal has committed rape upon her.On her report, the case has been registered against the applicant and other co-accused.He is ready to a furnish bail as per the order, abiding with all conditions imposed by hy the Court.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays ad for grant of bail to the applicant.Per-contra, learned Govt. Advocate opposes the bail application.C ou rt of M ad hy a Pr ad e sh
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,329 |
The petitioners, who are A.1 to A.4 for the alleged offences underSections 365, 302 and 201 I.P.C read with Section 3(2)(v) of the ScheduledCastes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, seek to quashthe proceedings in P.R.C.No.10 of 2009 pending on the file of the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.II, Thoothukudi, insofar as the offence punishable underSection 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act, 1989 is concerned.The second respondent/defacto complainant gave a complaint stating thather deceased husband was having illicit relationship with one Pushpavalli.Inview of the objections made by her, the defacto complainant's husband hadstopped going to the house of the said Pushpavalli.Since the deceased hadstopped going to the house of Pushpavalli, all the accused have abducted thedeceased.A further statement was given by the second respondent/defactocomplainant stating that when the petitioners 1 and 2 were walking in thestreet, they shouted at the deceased who was following them and the secondpetitioner stated that why the deceased was following him which was replied bythe deceased stating that it is none of botheration of the second petitioner.Thereafter, the second petitioner has replied stating that the deceased has nobusiness to say that the second petitioner should not enter into the street andmove with one Jayanthi.After making such statement, the deceased was attackedand taken in a tri-cycle by all the accused.The other witnesses have alsogiven the same version to the effect that the deceased questioned therelationship of the said Jayanthi with the second petitioner which has resultedin the alleged occurrence.It has been further stated that thereafter the deceased has beenmurdered and the body has been buried.Challenging the implication of the petitioners for the alleged offenceunder Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Preventionof Atrocities) Act, 1989, the present petition has been filed.Therefore, the learned Counsel for the second respondent prayed for thedismissal of this petition.Admittedly, in the present case on hand, there is no allegation in thestatements of the witnesses and in the complaint that the alleged offence hasbeen committed by the petitioners on the ground that the deceased was belongingto the Scheduled Caste community.The case of the prosecution is that the second petitioner got agitateddue to the objection raised by the deceased about the illicit relationshipbetween the second petitioner and one Jayanthi.Even in the charge sheet, thevery same facts have been stated to the effect that in pursuance of theobjections raised by the deceased, the alleged occurrence had been happened.Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions areclosed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,330,993 |
This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 16/04/2019 15:17:29This is the first application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 11/3/2019 in connection with Crime No.2/2015 registered at Police Station T.T. Nagar, Distt.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.C.C. on payment of usual charges.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE m/-
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
8,633,572 |
Since the case of the prosecution primarily revolves around the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother (PW-1), we deem it appropriate to examine their testimonies first.The prosecutrix in her complaint (Ex.PW-2/A) alleged that on 11.01.2013, she had a confrontation with her younger sister aged about 13 years at that time and as such, she went to her mother in the kitchen where her mother used to sleep with her younger brother and slept there only.On the day at about 12:00 midnight, her neighbor/respondent came into her room and entered into her quilt.He closed her mouth and took off her pajami and also his pant and committed rape with her.He also threatened her while leaving the room that if she disclosed his acts to anyone, he would kill her.She further alleged that she told the incident to her mother as her father was a truck driver and had gone to Jaipur with the truck.L.P. 501/2016 Page 4 of 13Before the Trial Court, the prosecutrix (PW-2) deposed that she is studying in 10th standard and that her family consists of her mother, elder brother and her younger brother and sister.Her father expired on 26.01.2014 and was a truck driver.On 11.01.2013 at about 12 midnight, the respondent came into her room while she was asleep and alone there.The respondent entered into her quilt and pressed her mouth and held her tightly.PW-2 further deposed that the respondent took off his clothes and her wearing clothes and committed sexual intercourse with her against her will.Thereafter, the respondent left the room threatening her that if she disclosed the incident to anyone, he would kill her.At the time, her mother was sleeping in the kitchen alongwith her brother, which is situated outside her room.The prosecutrix (PW-2) then went to her mother and told her about the incident.At the time, her father was in Jaipur.Her mother called her father and talked to him.On the next day, her father came back and the prosecutrix also disclosed about the entire incident to him.Later, her father called up at 181 and the officials asked her father to go to the police station.The whole area of the ground Crl.L.P. 501/2016 Page 5 of 13 floor is covered by a single room; while on the first floor there is one room and a kitchen adjacent thereto and the remaining is an open area.The incident had taken place in the winter season.The respondent resides in the same vicinity and his house is adjacent to their house.From the roof of his first floor, the respondent can jump on out terrace after crossing a small wall.The main entrance gate of the house is closed at about 9-10 PM.She stated that there is a door in the room at the first floor, but the same cannot be closed properly.The door in the room makes some noise at the time of opening and closing.On the date of the incident, her two daughters Kanchan and the victim were sleeping in a room at the first floor of her house in the night.There occurred a quarrel between Kanchan and the prosecutrix.She deposed that at the time, she was sleeping in the kitchen along with her youngest son Bobby in order to take care of the gas cylinder from theft.Her eldest son was sleeping in the hall at the ground floor.Owing to the quarrel, Kanchan had also come and slept with her in the kitchen.At about 12:45 AM, the victim had come to PW-1 while weeping and told her that their neighbor respondent herein had committed rape with her forcibly.M.A. 14631/2016 (delay)This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the appellant seeking condonation of 68 days delay in filing the present leave to appeal.We find the reasons so mentioned in this application to be stereotyped and although, there are no cogent reason which would convince us to condone the delay, but since we have heard the matter on merits, the delay is condoned.The application stands disposed of.L.P. 501/2016 Page 1 of 13On 13.1.2013, DD No. 12A was assigned to IO/SI Monika who reached the spot, i.e. A-62, Gali No. 2, 1st floor, Sriram Colony, Khajuri Khas, Delhi, where she met the minor victim - a girl aged about 15 years alongwith her mother Smt. Pushpa and after getting the victim medically examined at GTB Hospital, IO recorded her statement.The victim raised allegations against the accused stating that he used to follow her whenever she went to school.She further alleged that on 11.1.2013, at about 12 midnight while she was sleeping alone in her room, accused came in her room and entered her quilt and then pressed her mouth and thereafter, he removed her pajami as well as his own pant and then forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her and before going, he threatened her of being killed if she disclosed about it to anyone.Thereafter, matter was reported to the police and present case was registered for the offences under Section 376/452/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act"After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 376/452/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).After hearing arguments, charge for the offences punishable under Section 450/376/506 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act was framed by the Trial Court against the accused/respondent, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.In order to bring home the guilt of the respondent, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses in all.Statement of the respondent was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances put to him and claimed that he had been falsely implicated in the case.The respondent claimed that the victim/prosecutrix was major and was in a love affair and had falsely implicated the accused/respondent at the instance of her mother, who objected to their friendship.No evidence was led by the defence.L.P. 501/2016 Page 2 of 13The Trial Court found the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-2) and her mother (PW-1) to be unreliable and in the absence of any corroboration by medical or forensic evidence, extended the benefit of doubt to the accused/respondent herein.Aggrieved by the judgment, the state has filed the present leave to appeal.It was contended that the Trial Court has erred in taking a negative inference in the absence of any alarm being raised or resistance shown by the prosecutrix.It is next contended that there was no delay in the registration of the FIR as the incident took place at 12 midnight and the victim informed her mother at 12:45 AM and she inturn informed her husband at 1:15 AM and after the return of the father of the prosecutrix, the FIR was lodged.It is next contended that the prosecutrix has been consistent in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Section 164 Cr.P.C. and her deposition before the Trial Court and hence, her evidence was reliable Crl.L.P. 501/2016 Page 3 of 13 and sufficient to convict the respondent/accused.Katyal concluded that there is sufficient evidence in the form of oral testimonies, medical evidence and forensic evidence to convict the respondent/accused.In respect of contradictions, it is submitted that the same are minor and do not go to the root of the case of the prosecution and hence, the Trial Court should not have thrown out the case of the prosecution entirely.L.P. 501/2016 Page 3 of 13We have heard the learned counsel for the State, perused the impugned judgment and examined the evidence placed on record.Her mother informed her father who arrived at Delhi on 13.01.2013 and her father Crl.L.P. 501/2016 Page 4 of 13 called the Women Helpline at 181 who advised them to approach the police station and accordingly, they went there and lodged the complaint.In her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix reiterated the facts except for the confrontation with her younger sister.Her father went to the police station and thereafter, some police officials had come to her house alongwith her father.She also deposed that the respondent used to follow her prior to the incident when she used to go to school.The prosecutrix was thoroughly cross-examined wherein she stated that the area of her house is 65 sq. yrds.She also stated that she usually switches off lights while sleeping, but it is never completely dark as light enters the room through windows.PW-2 also stated that at the time of the incident, she was sleeping on a double bed.After lying on the bed, the door of the room is not visible, however, the door is visible for one who is lying in the kitchen.Additionally, it was also stated that the prosecutrix had informed her mother that the respondent used to stalk her, but no formal complaint was given to the police.L.P. 501/2016 Page 5 of 13Pushpa (PW-1) deposed that the prosecutrix is her daughter and is about 15 years old at present.At Crl.L.P. 501/2016 Page 6 of 13 the time, her husband was in Jaipur and she telephonically informed him about the incident.To which, her husband said that he will come on the next day.On the next day, her husband came home and called up at 181 (helpline number); the official advised her husband to go and make a complaint at the concerned police station.Thereafter, she along with her husband and the victim went to the police station.L.P. 501/2016 Page 6 of 13During cross-examination, PW-1 stated that her house comprises of two floors/storey i.e. ground floor and one room, one bath and kitchen on the first floor.There is one hall, one room and one bath room at the ground floor.There is a wooden door affixed in the room situated at the first floor, which can be bolted from the outside.There is no window in the room at the first floor.The victim had informed her of the incident on the same night at 12:45 AM and PW-1 had informed her husband telephonically at about 1:15 AM.The incident had also been informed to her son Piyush.She stated that she cannot tell the size of the kitchen, but it can accommodate one cot and cylinder.On the night of the incident, she heard a noise but suspected that it might be a cat.She also stated that she had not seen the respondent/accused entering into her house or doing any wrong act with her victim daughter.The MLC (Ex.PW-4/A) has also been placed on record wherein a similar story of incident is recorded, however, there is no history of physical assault.It has also been stated that the hymen of the victim was torn; there was one linear scratch mark on the abdomen of the victim which was self-inflicted, according to the victim (PW-2) herself; and that the prosecutrix was not cooperating to the tests.In the forensic evidence (FSL Report), blood was detected on body fluid collection, in-between fingers, rectal examination, oral swab, culture, Crl.L.P. 501/2016 Page 7 of 13 vaginal secretion and breast swab, but no semen was detected nor was the blood sufficient for serological analysis.Further, there was no blood or semen detected on the clothes of the prosecutrix or the mattress/gadda.L.P. 501/2016 Page 7 of 13L.P. 501/2016 Page 9 of 13 and forgotten but had nevertheless lured him to the police station.If such statement had indeed been made by PW 2 there would have been no occasion to even go to the police station.Assuming, however, that the appellant was naive and unaware that he was being led deceitfully to the police station, once having reached there he could not have failed to realise his predicament as the trappings of a police station are familiar and distinctive.The leave to appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,340,488 |
This is an application under Section 14-A of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has been filed for grant of bail to the appellant ad in connection with Crime No. 101/2017 for offences punishable under M sections 363, 366 (Ka), 376, 376 (2)(dha), 342, 344 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3 (1)(w)(ii) and 3(2)(5)of the Scheduled of Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and rt under sections 5, 6 of the POCSO Act registered at Police Station-ou Bijadandi(AJAK), District-Mandla (M.P).The appellant is in judicial custody since 2/08/2017 and the charge C sheet has been filed as so stated by learned counsel for the appellant.h The allegation against the appellant is of having abducted the minor ig daugther of the complainant and committed the rape with her.H Learned counsel for the State has read out from the 164 statement of the prosecutrix but for the age of the prosecutrix which is just about 16 years, the 164 statement reflects consent.The offence alleged against the appellant is one of statutory bail.Under the circumstances, I am inclined to allow the appeal and direct that appellant herein be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The appeal is finally disposed of.C.C. as per rules.sh (ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE e ad Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE NAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH JABALPUR, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=8412b9ec9b382fa2f82c7a5e97071 NAGDEVE 555fc5c5d0114d3a84b0dee2d50ecd839c5, 2.5.4.45=0321001386F7BA8FD376A7BBBF7 C4EDC794E8FF6BDE35A4E0479FD98C989A 771BDABBF, cn=NAVEEN NAGDEVE Pr Date: 2017.12.21 16:41:13 +05'30' a navin hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,343,474 |
The prosecution also relies upon Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 1 of 11 statement of Pooja, as recorded in the MLC Ex. PW-6/A, wherein it is mentioned that Pooja was admitted with history of burns, when her husband poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire, after a quarrel.A. 440/2012 Page 1 of 11It is not disputed that the appellant was married to Pooja for four years.They had no children.Death of Pooja, as a result of burns, is proved from the testimony of Dr. Shilpi Baranwal (PW-6) who had examined Pooja, on 30th July, 2008 at 6.45 PM.She had stated that Pooja was admitted with alleged history of burns when her husband poured kerosene oil over her and set her on fire following a quarrel.She had examined the appellant on the same day, and at about the same time, as the appellant had thermal burns on his hands which it was stated were caused when he was trying to save his wife.Pooja had 60% thermal burns with facial and respiratory burns at the time of admission.It was stated by PW-6 that the facial burns, as mentioned in MLC Ex. PW6/A, meant that she had burns on her face.He has averred that Pooja had died in the hospital on 12th August, 2008 at 10.20 AM.Pooja had superficial to deep burns all over the body except major parts of lower limbs, external genitalia, buttocks, lower parts of back.Thereafter PW-1 heard screams where upon he reached the place of occurrence and found Pooja burning.He poured water on her.Pooja told him that appellant had set her on fire, after pouring kerosene on her.He called police by dialing No. 100 and police took Pooja to the hospital where she subsequently died.He identified the dead body of Pooja in the hospital.Appellant was a habitual drinker who quarreled with his wife and other family members.The appellant was present at the time when PW-1 reached the spot of occurrence.The appellant had stated to PW-1 that he would provide treatment to Pooja and she would be alright.A. 440/2012 Page 2 of 11Seema (PW-3) is wife of Surender and appellants sister-in-law.In her examination in chief, she had stated that she did not know what had happened but after hearing noise, she came out and saw that Pooja was lying in a burnt condition.She, along with her husband, poured water on Pooja.While lying on the floor, Pooja was saying that she was burnt by the appellant.In cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3, it was suggested that appellant and PW-1 had a land dispute and they were not on good terms.In court no material has been put forth to show that there was a land dispute between PW-1 and the appellant.9. PW-1, in the cross-examination, had stated that he had not seen the appellant pouring kerosene on Pooja and setting her on fire.But they had reached the spot immediately after the "act" and had the occasion to hear the Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 3 of 11 deceased Pooja.Presence of PW-1 and PW-3 is natural as they were residing in the same building.PW-1 called the police from his telephone number.PW-1 had further stated that the appellant had also got injured.Therefore, presence of the appellant at the spot is proved.Presence of appellant was also proved by MLC of the appellant (Ex. PW6/B) which was recorded by PW-6, at about 6.45 PM on the same day.A. 440/2012 Page 3 of 11Head Constable P. Tiwari (PW-19) was posted in PCR at Vasant Vihar.On receiving a call, he had reached House No. 143, C Block, Vasant Village and had taken injured Pooja and her husband to the hospital.He has stated that Pooja revealed to him that she was burnt by her husband by pouring kerosene oil.She also informed that her husband was a habitual drinker.In his cross-examination, he confirmed that Pooja had made this statement when she was in the hospital.He denied the allegation that Pooja was not in a fit state of mind and he had falsely implicated the appellant at the instance of the Investigating Officer.Surender Kumar, Executive Magistrate (PW-4), had stated that he had received a call, on 30th July, 2008, at 7.00 PM, from S.I. Sandeep that a lady called Pooja had been admitted in Safdarjung Hospital with burnt injury.Recording of statement begin at 4:25 P.M. after obtaining fitness at 4:15 P.M. Statement is being recorded in my own handwriting and in total isolation.Q. What is your name?Q. When did you get married?Suraj and I had been (sic) working together.I belonged to Bengal and had been living here all alone.Five years ago both of us got married in a temple on our own.Q. How did this incident happen?I (-sic?) had been at home at 4:00 Oclock that Suraj came home drunk.When I stopped him, Suraj started quarrelling with me and he poured kerosene oil on me and lit a matchstick.Hearing my screaming, my elder brother-in-law (Jeth) (who lives in our neighbourhood) came and extinguished the fire with water.Meanwhile, my elder sister-in-law (Jethani) also came and my elder brother-in-law informed the Police through his telephone.Q. Did your husband beat you earlier too? Ans.Everyday he would come drunk and after being stopped he would beat me.I request you to take the sternest action against Suraj.Q. What is the address of your parental house? Ans.Village Subhash Nagar, Police Station Bethwa, Post Shelugram, District Nadia, West Bengal.I am making this statement voluntarily without any coercion in my full senses.This statement has been read-over and explained to me and admitting it to be correct; I am putting my right hand thumb impression on it.(Surendra Kumar) Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 5 of 11 Executive Magistrate Vasant Vihar Govt. of NCT of Delhi Kapashera, New Delhi 4:45 P.M."A. 440/2012 Page 5 of 11PW-4 instructed SHO to get in touch with parents of Pooja but there was no response from them.Surender Chauhan, elder brother of appellant, requested PW-4 to hand over dead body of Pooja to him.At PW-4s request post mortem was conducted.In cross-examination, PW-4 denied that Pooja was tutored by the brother of the appellant and his wife.He has stated that he had no knowledge of any property dispute.On the question of property dispute, as noticed before, there is no material to establish the same.No details of property or exact nature of dispute has been put forth and set out or put in the cross-examination of PW-1 and PW-3 or in their statement under Section 313 CrPc.Therefore, the property belonging to the appellant would in all likelihood be inherited by him.Thereafter, on 14th August, 2008, Surender Chauhan and Naresh Chauhan, brothers of the appellant identified the dead body in the mortuary.On the basis of affidavit, Surender (PW-1) received the dead body for cremation.On 30th July, 2008, PW-24 had prepared the rukka which was sent through Constable Mahesh.He also recorded statement of Surender and Seema who reached the spot.Photographs were taken and the plastic can was sealed and seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW7/A. Match box was also seized vide Ex. PW7/B. Burnt clothes of Pooja were sealed and seized vide Ex. PW7/E. He had arrested the appellant vide arrest memo Ex. PW10/A on 1st August, 2008, at about 12.30 PM.A. 440/2012 Page 11 of 11Prosecution alleges that the appellant had poured kerosene oil on Pooja and burnt her in their residence in Village Basant, New Delhi.There is no eye-witness and the prosecutions case is primarily based upon dying declarations of Pooja.The cause of death was ascertained as septicaemic shock due to dry flame thermal ante-mortem, burn injuries which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.We have statement of PW-1 Surender, elder brother of the appellant.She was married for about four years.He visited the hospital at 9.00 PM but the doctors had opined that she was not fit to make a statement.On 1st August, 2008, at about 3.15 PM, he received a message from SI Sandeep that injured Pooja was fit to make a statement in the opinion of Medical Officer.He recorded the statement of Pooja vide Ex. PW4/A. The statement bears thumb Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 4 of 11 impression of Pooja at point A and signature of PW-4 at point B. He accordingly directed the SHO to make the investigation, vide note Ex. PW4/B. Dying declaration (PW4/A) recorded by PW-4 reads as under:-A. 440/2012 Page 4 of 11"Statement of Mrs. Pooja W/o.Suraj alias Bittoo R/o.Village Basant (sic) who was admitted in SJH Delhi on 30.07.2008 at 6.45 P.M. with 60% burn.The Investigating Officer, Sandeep Sharma (PW-24) has stated that he had collected the MLC of Pooja (PW6/A).However, she was declared fit for statement on his application Ex. PW24/D by the doctor and thereafter PW-24 recorded her statement (Ex. PW24/A).Parents of Pooja who were residents of Nadiya, West Bengal, were informed through wireless message sent to SSP.On 6th August, 2008, information was received from SSP, Nadiya that their address was incorrect and that there was Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 6 of 11 no such village by the said name, as stated by Pooja.We do not think that Pooja could be tutored by PW-1, PW-3 or brothers of the appellant.Right from the beginning when Pooja was taken to the hospital in the PCR van, along with the appellant, Pooja had blamed the appellant for pouring kerosene oil and burning her.In the statement of the appellant, recorded under Section 313 CrPC, he did not claim that Pooja had committed suicide.MLC Ex. PW6/A recording Poojas statement, that she was burnt by pouring kerosene oil by the appellant after quarrel, was put to the accused.He answered that his wife may have stated so out of anger.His reply was similar for dying declaration (PW4/A) recorded by the Executive Magistrate.He had stated that his brother Surender and bhabhi Seema were inimical towards him because of property dispute.Further his bhabhi Seema used to provoke and instigate his wife.However, the appellant accepts and admits that he was with the deceased at the time of incident.It was stated by PW-1 that, post the incident, appellant had stated that he would get his wife treated.This shows that after the act, the appellant may have been impelled to realize his wrong and heinous act.Nevertheless, this is different from stating that the deceased had committed suicide and the appellant had not poured kerosene oil and burn his wife.A. 440/2012 Page 10 of 11In view of the aforesaid evidence which is on record, it is clear that the appellant has been rightly convicted, for committing murder of Pooja by pouring kerosene oil and setting her on fire.His conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and fine are accordingly sustained and upheld.The appeal is dismissed.Copy of this judgment will be sent to the Child Welfare Committee.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE ( S. P. GARG ) JUDGE September 17th, 2012 kkb Crl.A. 440/2012 Page 11 of 11
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
86,349,031 |
In the matter of : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 14.11.2018 in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 100 of 2018 dated 24.03.2018 under Sections 143/144/149/153/153A/186/188/295A/298/353/332/333/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act.And In the matter of : Amit Bangari ... ... petitioner Mr. Debapriya Samanta ... ... for the petitioner Mr. Ranabir Chowdhury, Mr. Mainak Gupta ... ... for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Contai P.S. Case No. 100 of 2018 dated 24.03.2018 under Sections 143/144/149/153/153A/186/188/295A/298/353/ 332/333/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25(i)(a) of the Arms Act.The petitioner claims to have been falsely implicated as the petitioner submits that the petitioner was attending his duties on the relevant date.The State produces the case diary and says that there was open intimidation and some injuries were also suffered.Weapons were brandished at the Ramnabami procession.Since the petitioner has been identified, there may not be any need to take him into custody as long as he cooperates with the investigation.In addition, the petitioner is directed to meet the investigating officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer.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.
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,586,309 |
This revision arises against the judgment and conviction dated 17.05.2011 made in C.A.No.5 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Thiruvallur confirming the judgment dated 12.03.2009 made in C.C.No.96 of 2004 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, Thirutani.Prosecution case was that on 21.11.2002, the first accused approached Thatchayini and represented to her that he would arrange loan for her daughter's marriage and he induced her to part with Rs.30,000/-.The accused delivered two cheques bearing Nos.219376 and 219377 dated 03.02.2003 drawn on ICICI Bnk, Anna Nagar in favour of the de-facto complainant and a pronote also was obtained as security.On accused's failure to do as promised or to effect repayment on complaint, a case in Crime No.7 of 2003 was registered for offence u/s.420 IPC.Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was tried in C.C.No.96 of 2004 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani.Before the trial Court, prosecution examined 6 witnesses and marked 13 exhibits.None were examined on behalf of the defence and nor were any exhibits marked.On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court, under judgment dated 12.03.2009, convicted petitioner/first accused and sentenced him to undergo 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- i/d one month S.I. There against, the petitioner/first accused preferred C.A.No.5 of 2009 on the file of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Tack Court No.III, Tiruvallur.Appellate Court, under judgment dated 17.05.2011, confirmed the finding of conviction and sentence of Court below and dismissed the Criminal Appeal.There against, the present revision has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for first respondent and learned counsel for second respondent.The second respondent/de-facto complaint is present before this Court.The case is one where the petitioner/accused is said to have cheated the second respondent/de-facto complainant of a sum of Rs.30,000/-under promise of obtaining a loan.The parties are related and both have expressed the desire to compound the offence and sought permission of this Court there towards and through the petitioner paying a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent.In the circumstances, this Court permits the compounding of offence tried in C.C. No.96 of 2004 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirutani in keeping with Section 320(2) Cr.P.C. The Demand Draft No.124813044100 dated 16.09.2017 drawn on The Karur Vysya Bank Limited, Chennai-Tiruverkadu in favour of second respondent/de-facto complainant in a sum of Rs.50,000/- has been handed over by the learned counsel for petitioner to learned counsel for the second respondent/de-facto complainant.C.T.SELVAM, J.,kmi9. Learned counsel for second respondent/de-facto complainant has made an endorsement in the Court bundle there regards.Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to correct the name of the second respondent/de-facto complainant in the Court bundle.The Criminal Revision Case shall stand allowed.Case tried in C.C.No.96 of 2004 for an offence under section 420 IPC shall stand compounded.Petitioner shall stand acquitted in the case.21.09.2017Index:yes/no Internet:yes/nokmi To1.The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No.III), Thiruvallur.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Thirutani.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Thiruvallur.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.R.C.No.819 of 2011
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,586,835 |
In short, the prosecution case is that in the noon of 12.10.1998, while Meenu and Vineet, respectively the son and nephew of Udal (deceased) were searching their lost she buffalo, there occurred a quarrel between them and appellant Rammu.When they went to their house, Meenu informed the said incident to his mother Kusum Bai.In the evening, when deceased returned home, Kusum Bai narrated the incident to him.In the evening, at about 8 P.M., when they were at their house, appellants including Rammu reached near their house, abused them and pelted stones at the house.When deceased came out of his house to remonstrate them, accused Mishrilal dealt a stick blow on his head.Madan and Mukesh (3) Cr.275 & 334/2006 assaulted him with swords.Rammu and Veeran assaulted him with sticks.When Kusum Bai (PW2), the wife of deceased shouted Jugal Kishore (PW1), Chiranjilal (PW3) and Omprakash (PW9) came out of their house and rushed to the spot.When these persons tried to intervene, appellants assaulted them also by their weapons.Accused Anantram also reached there and uttered filthy abuses to them.Deceased fell down unconscious.All the injured persons were sent to Govt. Hospital, Panagar for preliminary treatment.Subsequently, they were referred to Medical College, Jabalpur.Investigating Officer A.S.I. H.S.Gaur (PW17), after recording first information report, recorded statements of witnesses.Since, deceased was not in condition to speak, his statement could not be recorded.On 15.10.1998, deceased expired.On receipt of that information, a merg report was recorded at police station Garha.Investigating Officer conducted inquest proceedings, drew memorandum Ex. P/3 and referred the dead body of deceased for postmortem examination.Jugal Kishore (PW1) stated that hearing cries of Kusum Bai, when he reached at the house of deceased, he saw appellants assaulting deceased with axe and lathis.When he and his brother Chiranjilal tried to intervene, they were also assaulted.By the blow of sword given by Mukesh his finger of left hand got amputated.He, deceased and other injured persons were sent to Panagar Hospital and also to Medical College, Jabalpur.On the third day, his uncle deceased succumbed to his injuries.Left lung lower lobe was punctured.Left 3rd to 10th ribs were found fractured.Injuries were antemortem.In the absence of any specific medical evidence and the X-ray examination, injuries were found to be simple in nature.Dr. K.C.Agrawal (PW6) on the same day examined Omprakash and vide his report Ex. P/21, he found a contusion 2 cm x 1 cm on his left leg lower part.This injury was found to be simple in nature.Now, the question before this Court is whether injuries to deceased which resulted into his death and injuries of other prosecution witnesses were caused by the appellants.(10) Cr.275 & 334/2006Prosecution case rested mainly on the evidence of Jugal Kishore (PW1), Kusum Bai (PW2), Chiranjilal (PW3), Omprakash (PW9) and Vineet (PW11), who were also injured in the incident.Kusum Bai (PW2) stated that on the day of occurrence when her son Meenu and nephew Vineet had gone for grazing she buffalo, appellant Rammu assaulted him.When they came back, they informed her about the said occurrence.On her asking, her son along with Chiranjilal went to police station in the evening and lodged report in that regard.Evidence of Kusum Bai in this regard finds support from the evidence of Vineet (PW11).Kusum Bai further stated that in the evening when her husband Udal came back from his work and sat for eating food, she informed him about the incident of beating by Rammu.Soon thereafter Rammu came in front of their house and started pelting stones.Other accused persons viz. Anantram, Mukesh, Madan and Veeran also pelted stones.When her husband went out and asked them as to why they were throwing stones, Mukesh dealt a blow of sword on his head, Rammu, Veeran and other accused persons assaulted him with lathis.When she went there to rescue him, Rammu dealt a lathi blow on her mouth.On her shouting Chiranjilal, Jugal Kishore and Omprakash also reached there and tried to save them, whereupon all the accused persons assaulted them also.After the occurrence was over, they carried injured Udal to police station Panagar.Udal was firstly taken to Panagar Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to Medical College, Jabalpur.Though, no witnesses were examined by the accused persons in their defence and no report lodged by them with police was proved in the case, but from the evidence of Station Officer of Police Station, Panagar R.S.Kalra (PW14), it is revealed that in the same occurrence some of the accused persons had suffered injuries, though he could not remember specifically as to which of them suffered injuries and to which of them he sent for Medical Examination.For the Appellant : Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.For the Respondent/State : Shri Amit Pandey, Panel Lawyer.Date of hearing : 09/04/2013 Date of judgment: 26/04/2013 Per: Rakesh Saksena;J, (J U D G M E N T ) Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28th January, 2006 passed by 12th Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), (2) Cr.275 & 334/2006 Jabalpur in Sessions Trial No. 68/1999, convicting and sentencing the appellants as under:In the course of investigation, accused/appellants were arrested and on their information, weapons used in the offence were seized.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of (4) Cr.275 & 334/2006 Magistrate, who committed the case for trial.On charges being framed, appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded false implication.According to them, complainant, deceased and other prosecution witnesses assaulted them with spear and lathi.As a result of which, they also suffered injuries.They, merely, defended themselves from the assault made by the members of the complainant party.Learned trial Judge, upon trial, after appreciating the evidence, held the appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above.However, finding no sufficient evidence against accused Mishrilal and Anantram, acquitted them of all the charges.Aggrieved by their conviction and sentence, appellants have filed the present appeals on the grounds that the learned trial Judge erred in holding appellants guilty on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution.The order of conviction was incorrect, improper and illegal since learned trial Judge failed to consider that there were contradictions, omissions and improvements in the prosecution evidence.The evidence was not properly appreciated.In respect of the same incident, a counter case was registered against the complainant party for the injuries sustained by the appellants.The injuries of appellants were not explained by the prosecution which indicated that the prosecution suppressed the material part of the prosecution story.Learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that it was a case of exercise of right of private defence.In the alternative, he submitted that the conviction of appellants under Section (5) Cr.275 & 334/2006 302/34 was not justified.Evidence of Jugal Kishore finds support from the evidence of Investigating Officer H.S.Gaur (PW17).R.S.Choubey (PW18), Sub Inspector of police Station, Garha on receiving information about the death of deceased from Medical College, Jabalpur conducted inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum Ex. P/3 and referred the dead body of deceased to C.M.O., Medical College, Jabalpur for postmortem examination.(6) Cr.275 & 334/2006Dr. K.C. Agrawal (PW6), Medical Officer of P.H.C. Panagar examined injuries of all the injured persons including deceased.He deposed that he found following injuries on the body of Udal Prasad Kewat (deceased):-(i) Lacerated wound 3.5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left eye brow.(ii) Incised wound 10 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the right side of skull going behind the ear.(iii) Abrasion 5 cm x 2 cm on left scapular region.He referred patient to Medical College for detailed investigation and treatment.Injury nos. 1 and 3 were caused by some hard and blunt weapon, whereas injury no.2 was caused by sharp edged weapon.Injury report Ex. P/17 was written and signed by him.Dr. P.K. Agrawal (PW21), the Surgical Expert of Medical College stated that on 12.10.1998, in the night injured Udal was brought to Medical College from Govt. Hospital Panagar.He gave history of beating at about 7 P.M.. He was semiconscious.On examining him, he found following injuries:-(i) Lacerated wound 7 cm x cm x muscle deep on his right temporal region.(ii) Lacerated wound 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on left eye brow.(iii) Abrasion 3 cm x 2 cm on left shoulder.On CT scan, depressed fracture on the right side of skull was (7) Cr.275 & 334/2006 detected.There was hemorrhagic contusion on the same side which had affected the balance of brain.In his opinion, the nature of injuries was grievous.A summary of MLC Ex. P/41 was prepared and signed by him.After the death of deceased, Dr. Suresh Kumar Nema (PW20), Medical Jurist conducted postmortem examination of the body of deceased and found following injuries vide postmortem examination report Ex. P/40:-(i) Stitched wound on left eye brow.Small stitched wound noticed on right tempro parietal region of scalp vertical in direction.Starting just above pinna of right ear.Length was 13 cm.Scrotum was swollen.(ii) Abrasion on back of left shoulder 3 cm x 2 cm.Drainage tube found coming out from right parietal eminence.On internal examination, he found piece of right parietal bone missing under the stitched wound.Brain was exposed in that portion.Sub- dural collection of blood was found on right cerebral hemisphere.Right temporal lobe was found lacerated.Since it was an operated case, no opinion regarding cause of injuries could be given.Cause of death was combined effect of head injury and the puncture of lower lobe of left lung.From the aforesaid evidence, in our opinion, it stood established that deceased suffered injuries for which he was examined by Dr. K.C.Agrawal (PW6) and after his death his postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Suresh Nema (PW20).His injuries were serious/grievous in nature and (8) Cr.275 & 334/2006 his death was caused by the injuries.Thus, the learned trial Judge, in our opinion, rightly held that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature.Dr. K.C.Agrawal (PW6) on 12.10.1998, examined Jugal Kishore and found following injuries on his body:-(iii) Incised wound 2.5 cm x 0.3 cm x skin deep on right forearm.(iv) Incised wound 5 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on left side of head near mid line on top of head.(v) Abrasion 3 cm x 0.5 cm on left leg anterior aspect near knee joint.Injury nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were due to sharp cutting object.Injury No.5 was due to hard and blunt object.For further investigation, patient was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur.In his opinion, except the amputation injury of the finger, other injuries were simple in nature.From the aforesaid medical evidence, it stood proved beyond doubt that Jugal Kishore suffered five injuries out of which the amputation injury of his left hand finger was grievous.According to Dr. K.C.Agrawal (PW6), on examining Kusum Bai, he found a contusion of 5 cm x 5 cm size on left side of her chin and lower lip.examination of the injury and referred the patient to Medical College for opinion and treatment.On the same day, Dr. K. C. Agrawal (PW6) examined injuries of Chiranjilal and vide his report Ex. P/20, he found following injuries on his body:-(iii) Incised wound 5 cm x 0.3 cm x skin deep on right arm upper part.(iv) Incised wound 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 cm on left side of head.(v) Incised wound 8 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on occipital region of head.Injury nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 were caused by sharp cutting object and injury no.2 was caused by hard and blunt object.Patient was referred to Medical College, Jabalpur for detailed examination and treatment.After three days, Udal died.(11) Cr.275 & 334/2006Evidence of Kusuam Bai stood corroborated from the evidence of Jugal Kishore (PW1) and Chiranjilal (PW3).Jugal Kishore (PW1) stated that in the evening at about 8.30 P.M., when he was at this house, he heard cries of his aunt Kusum Bai calling for help.When he and Chiranjilal rushed and reached there, they saw accused persons assaulting their uncle with swords and lathis.When he tried to defend his uncle, accused Mukesh dealt a blow of sword to him, whereby his left hand finger got amputated and fell down.Madan also inflicted sword injury to him on his back.Veeran, Rammu and Anantram assaulted him with lathis.Chiranjilal, Kusum Bai and Omprakash also suffered injuries when they tried to intervene.Udal was initially taken to Panagar hospital and thereafter was shifted to Medical College, Jabalpur, where on third day he died.He stated that his house was situated at a distance of 150 feet away from the house of Udal.Chiranjilal (PW3) also reiterated the same story.According to him, he and his brother Jugal Kishore rushed to the house of Udal upon hearing cries of Kusum Bai and saw Madan and Mukesh assaulting Udal with swords and other accused persons assaulting with sticks.When he tried to intervene, Madan dealt a blow of sword on his head causing 6" long cut wound on his head.He also accompanied Udal and other persons to police station and the hospital.Evidence of Jugal Kishore stood corroborated (12) Cr.He sent Udal and other injured persons to Panagar Hospital and thereafter to Medical College, Jabalpur.Similar version was given by Omprakash (PW9), the son of deceased.(13) Cr.275 & 334/2006Learned trial Judge, while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses though found that the complainant Jugal Kishore (PW1) as well as other witnesses made exaggeration in involving accused Mishrilal and Anantram, since their names were not mentioned by Jugal Kishore in First Information Report Ex. P/1, but merely on this ground whole of the evidence of the said witnesses cannot be held to have been rendered unreliable.As far as the non examination of independent eye witnesses is concerned, Jugal Kishore (PW1) and Kusum Bai (PW2) stated that some of the persons from the neighbourhood witnessed the incident from their house, but they did not dare to come out and save them.This clearly indicated that the neighbour witnesses wished to keep themselves away from the occurrence.Merely by their non examination, in our opinion, no adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution.Learned senior counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the evidence of eye witnesses examined by the prosecution is not reliable since they did not give the truthful and correct account of the incident and failed to explain the injuries found on the body of accused persons.He submitted that the injuries found on the body of accused persons were not merely superficial or trivial injuries, they were caused on vital parts of the body like head and that too by some sharp edged weapons.According to him, the incident had not occurred at the house of deceased, but on the way to village.He referred to the spot map Ex. P/14 prepared by the (14) Cr.275 & 334/2006 Investigating Officer and Ex. P/39 drawn by Patwari Girani Lal (PW19).He further submitted that as per prosecution case stones were pelted at the house of deceased, but no such stones were seized by the Investigating Officer.According to him, in these circumstances it was apparent that the genesis of the occurrence was suppressed and in fact deceased and prosecution witnesses had attacked Rammu, who is said to have assaulted Meenu, the son of deceased in the noon.(1) that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis and the origin of the occurrence and has thus not presented the true version;(2) that the witnesses who denied the presence of injuries on the person of the accused were lying on the most material point and, therefore, their evidence was unreliable; (3) that in case there is a defence version which explains the (15) Cr.Dr. K. C. Agrawal (PW6) of Primary Health Centre, Panagar, however, deposed that on 12.10.1998, accused Madanlal, Rammu, Mukesh and Veeran were brought to hospital by police for treatment.He examined their injuries.He found following injuries on the body of Madan:-post-axillary line near fifth lumber vertical region.(iv) Penetrating wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 0.8 cm on back.(v) Penetrating wound 0.3 cm x 0.3 cm x 0.2 cm on right side of back.Injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by hard and blunt object, whereas injury nos. 4 and 5 were caused by blunt object.Injury no.6 was caused by some sharp edged weapon.The patient was referred for X-ray examination for further treatment and opinion about the nature of injuries.He found following injuries on the body of Rammulal:-Injury no.1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and injury no.2 was caused by hard and blunt object.The patient was referred for X-ray examination and opinion.He found following injuries on the body of Mukesh:-Injury no. 1 was caused by sharp edged weapon and other injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.The patient was referred for X-ray examination.He found following injuries on the body of Veeran:(i) Contusion with lacerated wound 2 cm x 2 cm on left side of forehead.Size of laceration 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep.(ii) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x 0.2 on bridge of the nose.(iii) Contusion 5 cm x 2 cm on left posterior axillary line.Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object.They were simple in nature.It is thus proved that accused persons also suffered injuries in the same incident.When explanation was sought from the prosecution witnesses, they bluntly refused to have caused any injury to accused persons.Jugal Kishore (PW1) and Kusum Bai (PW2) though admitted that a case for `Marpeet' of accused persons was pending against them, but they did not know as to how they suffered injuries since they (witnesses) were empty handed, they did not cause any injury to accused persons.According to Kusum Bai (PW2), accused persons suffered injuries with their own weapons.Defence suggested to prosecution witnesses during cross examination was that when Rammu happened to pass from the front of (19) Cr.275 & 334/2006 the house of deceased, Jugal Kishore, Chiranjilal, Omprakash etc. attacked him.When he raised hue and cry, other accused persons reached there and defended themselves.This gives, in our opinion, some idea that injuries to deceased and prosecution witnesses were caused by the accused persons, but how the incident occurred remained shrouded in suspicion.Admittedly, Meenu and Vineet were beaten by Rammu prior to the present occurrence, which was the cause of the instant occurrence.Though, it is alleged by the prosecution witnesses that Meenu and Chiranjilal had gone to lodge report about the said occurrence, but that report was not produced in the case.Be that as it may, since accused Rammu had beaten Vineet and Meenu, the grudge must remain with the complainant party.If a report was lodged, the grudge could have been shifted on the side of accused persons.It is alleged that Rammu pelted stones at the house of deceased, but admittedly no stones were seized by the Investigating Officer.It is also significant to note that the incident occurred not exactly at or in front of the house of deceased, but at some distance from his house.From the spot map Ex. P/14, drawn by the Investigating Officer, it seems that the incident occurred in front of the house of Prabhat, which according to Omprakash (PW9) is about 75-100 meters away from the house of deceased.It has been admitted by the witnesses that it was the passage for going to village.From the evidence on record, it is, however, not established that the houses of accused persons were situated at or near the place of occurrence.It does not, (20) Cr.275 & 334/2006 therefore, seem probable that if at all Rammu was attacked by the accused persons, at once other accused persons could have reached the spot armed with weapons.Had this been the situation, Rammu would have suffered much more injuries rather only two injuries as found on his body by the doctor.It, however, in our opinion, stood established that appellants attacked deceased and the prosecution witnesses armed with swords and sticks, whereby deceased suffered injuries which resulted into his death and that at the same time they attempted to cause death of Jugal Kishore (PW1) by causing dangerous injury on his head.Since the genesis or the origin of the occurrence remained shrouded in obscurity and neither of the parties presented the true version of the occurrence, in our opinion, it cannot be held established that appellants assaulted deceased with the intention and premeditation to commit his murder.At the same, since the incident seemed to be a case of sudden fight/sudden quarrel, appellants, in our opinion, were liable to be held guilty for committing the offence under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.For the aforesaid reasons, the conviction and sentence of appellants as awarded by the trial Court under Sections 307/34, 324/34 and 323/34 of (21) Cr.A.Nos.275 & 334/2006 the Indian Penal is affirmed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,588,083 |
Arguments heard.This first application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for grant of bail.Subsequently, Section 304 of IPC was also added.According to prosecution story, the deceased-Pooja along with her friend-Priyanka was travelling in a Tata Magic Van which was being driven by the present applicant.The present applicant has made certain obscene gestures against the deceased and he also tried to take them towards Rhow, due to which the deceased and her friend jumped from the moving vehicle in order to save themselves and they sustained grievous injuries and Puja died due to injuries.Learned counsel for the respondent - State opposes the prayer of bail application.In response, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present applicant was only arrested on account of 2 suspicion and no one saw him driving the vehicle and the deceased jumping from the vehicle.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) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate for his appearance on all the dates of hearing, as may be, directed in this regard during trial.He is further directed that on being so released on bail, he would comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, meticulously.Certified copy, as per Rules.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/-
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,591,286 |
Hence, without any base, the first respondent police registered a case as against the petitioners.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 CRL.O.P.No.3204 of 2020 Hence they prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation in both complaint lodged by the petitioners as well as the respondents is almost completed and the first respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.It is also seen that the petitioners also lodged complaint as against the second respondent/defacto complainant and the same is also pending before the first respondent police.Hence, the first respondent police is directed to complete the investigation by following the procedure laid down under Section 558(a) of Police Standing Order and file a final report within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.27.07.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order arbhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 CRL.O.P.No.3204 of 2020The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 CRL.O.P.No.3204 of 2020 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.arb Crl.O.P.No.3204 of 2020 and Crl.M.P.No.1874 of 2020 27.07.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,598,364 |
Procedure Code, 1973 [for short "the Code"], the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.2, refusing to recall the Process as well as the order dated 1st April, 2011 passed by the Sessions Court refusing to exercise revisional jurisdiction in challenge to the aforesaid order are called in question.Part of that property was occupied by some tenants who had constructed huts thereon.The applicants herein were officers of the Nagpur Municipal Corporation [for short "the Corporation"] in its Assessment Department.According to the non-applicant, the applicants as Assessment Officers without following the provisions of::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 ::: apl297.11 3 the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 [for short, "the said Act"] and the Rules framed thereunder mutated the names of the occupiers - Accused Nos. 5 to 19 as owners.After verifying the records of the Corporation, it was found that the applicants herein had acted illegally.On that basis, the non-applicant on 9th July, 1998 filed a private complaint alleging commission of offences under Sections 217, 218, 220, 425, 420, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 109 and 506-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class issued Process against the accused which included the present applicants.The applicants approached the learned Judicial Magistrate as per application at Exh.31 and sought recall of the summons and dismissal of the complaint.Being aggrieved, the present application has been filed for quashing the proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::Ms. Jog, learned counsel for the applicants, made two-fold submissions.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::The non-applicant did not appear on 30th October, 2017 when the learned counsel for the applicants was heard.In para 4, it is stated that the applicants mutated the names of accused nos. 5 to 19 as owners without seeing the valid documents.In para 5 of the complaint, similar allegations are reiterated and in para 6, it is stated that the action of::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 ::: apl297.11 6 the applicants of taking the mutation entries was contrary to law and arbitrary.::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::On these counts, the applicants are entitled to succeed.In view of aforesaid, the following order is passed:-::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::[b] Application below Exh.31 stands allowed and the complaint filed against the present applicants stands dismissed.-0-0-0-0-|hedau|::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 01:00:10 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
846,015 |
JUDGMENT Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.In this appeal, the State has challenged the order of acquittal of respondent, of the charge Under Section 302, I.P.C.According to the prosecution version, on 5-6-1984, the deceased had gone to a flour-mill in village Sabalgarh.While he was returning back, it was stated that he was assaulted by the respondent at about 3.00 p.m. Two injuries were caused on the abdominal part and one on the neck.The deceased was removed to Sabalgarh Hospital.The police on getting information, on telephone that there was some incident near the flour-mill, had reached the spot and when the injured was not found, the Sub-Inspector Dohre, the Investigating Officer, went to the Hospital.The deceased was fully conscious at that time.The report lodged by the deceased was taken down by Sub-Inspector Dohre (PW 8) as Dehati Nalishi and was sent to the Police-Station for kaimi.The accused was named in F.I.R.The doctor on the examination of his injuries found his condition to be serious and, therefore, recorded his dying-declaration in question-answers form.The deceased had named the accused/respondent as his assailant in this dying-declaration.The deceased was tried to be treated at the hospital but when the doctors found that it was difficult to save him due to limited resources at that hospital, he was referred to J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior.The deceased was brought to Gwalior.On examination of the deceased at J.A. Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, the doctor declared him dead.His body was taken back to the Sabalgarh and funeral was done.On the same day, the accused-respondent was arrested by the police.From his possession a knife (which had the spring) was recovered from his possession.On the suspicion of the knife being bloodstained, it was duly sealed and sent for chemical examination.The knife was found to be stained with blood.After the due investigation, the police had filed the challan against the accused-respondent.The motive for the commission of offence was the alleged abusing by the deceased with the accused on the suspicion of accused's illicit relationship with the wife of the deceased's elder brother.At the trial, the accused-respondent abjured the guilt and pleaded his total ignorance of the incident.Eye-witnesses, examined by the prosecution, did not support its version.As such, the remaining available evidence and the circumstances of the case against the accused were (1) the dying declaration; (2) the recovery of the bloodstained knife from his possession and (3) the motive for the commission of offence.The learned trial Court on the consideration of available evidence, acquitted the accused of the charge holding that out of the three written dying-declarations, i.e., (1) recorded as FIR (Ex. P/9) lodged by the deceased with the police at the hospital; (2) the dying-declaration (Ex. P/6) recorded by v Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW 4) and (3) the last dying-declaration (Ex. P-7) recorded by Tehsildar (Executive Magistrate), D.C. Shrivastava (not examined), the last dying declaration was reliable wherein the accused was not narned.In the F.I.R. (Ex. P/9) which was lodged by the deceased himself, he had named the accused-respondent with allegation of assault on him by knife.In the dying-declaration (Ex. P/6) which was recorded by Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW 4), the deceased had attributed to the accused-respondent, the causing of two injuries from the front and one from the back.It was also stated that in the preceding night at about 10.00 p.m., there was hot exchange of words and abuses, between him and the accused which provided the motive.But in the last dying-declaration (Ex. P/7) recorded by Tehsildar, the deceased is alleged to have stated that he did not remember as to who had inflicted the knife injuries to him.He even did not remember the place where he was assaulted.The last dying-declaration recorded by Tehsildar was not proved by prosecution as the Tehsildar was not examined, but defence sought to rely upon the above dying-declaration as Dr. Mahore (PW9) had proved his signatures and also that of Tehsildar, thereon.But the doctor could not say anything about the contents of the document nor could state as to what was asked by the Naib Tehsildar from the deceased and also what was stated by deceased to Naib-Tehsildar.The learned trial Court on the reasoning that the deceased had steadily and clearly signed the last dying-declaration (Ex. P/7) and that it was recorded by the Tehsildar in the presence of doctor, found it to be more reliable and had, therefore, rejected the other two dying declarations; one being in the form of FIR (Ex. P/9) and the other (Ex. P/6) recorded by Dr. K.C. Chopra (PW4).By placing reliance on the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) recorded by Executive Magistarte, the accused respondent was acquitted of the charge.It was also found by the trial Court that the Investigating Officer failed to record in the rojnamcha, the information initially received by police on telephone, nor had recorded the statement of the informer.The only fact disclosed was that the information was given on telephone by one Mohan.The origin and the blood grouping on the knife was not established as it had disintegrated.The trial Court also found that eye-witnesses had turned hostile and other witnesses, namely; Mohan, the person who had informed the police on telephone and the mother of the deceased were not examined by the prosecution at the trial.Therefore, in the above circumstances acquitted the respondent of the charge.It has beeh contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-State in this appeal that the learned trial Court acquitted the accused only on flimsy grounds.The present appeal has been preferred by the State against the order of acquittal of respondent.The other ground assigned by learned trial Court for the acquittal of the accused-respondent is that the prosecution had failed to examine Mohan, who had reported to police on telephone about the quarrel near the flour mill and the mother of deceased to whom the name of assailant was disclosed by the deceased.Therefore, the examination of Mohan cannot lead to any adverse information against the prosecution.Further, the prosecution is not required to duplicate the evidence.PW1 Ramesh Chandra alias Rameshwar Dayal was examined by the prosecution.He had proved the oral dying declaration made by the deceased, of naming the accused-respondent as assailant soon after the incident.On that count the learned trial Court, as discussed above, has disbelieved the oral and also the two written dying declarations (Ex. P/6 and P/ 9) of the deceased.The learned trial Court found that the deceased had signed the other two dying declarations in hurry whereas his signatures on the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) recorded by Executive Magistrate (not examined), were not put in hurry.Writing on Ex. P/7 was more stable.Secondly, that it was recorded by the Executive Magistrate, who was more truthful witness than the doctor and thirdly, because on the other dying declarations there was no witness whereas on Ex. P7 acertificate of doctorB.L. Mahore (PW9) was appended thereto, certifying that the deceased was in a fit condition to make the statement.We shall take the above reasonings one by one.There appears to be no basis for the first reasoning that the signatures of the deceased on the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) were stable than other signatures on the FIR (Ex. P/9) and the dying declaration (Ex. P/6) recorded by Dr. Chopra (PW4).The signatures on all the dying declarations are similar.Whereas on the contrary, the very narration in the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) indicates that the deceased was not in a fit mental state.The doctor had certified about his fit mental condition at 4.45 p.m. i.e. after the recording of his version.In the figures showing the time, there is over-writing on the figures.It appears that earlier written figure '7' was later on made '4'.Now admittedly the incident was in a small town of Sabalgarh where people know each other.It occurred in the broad day light.The deceased was assaulted by knife from the front.As such, the deceased had ample opportunity of seeing and identifying the assailant and the spot which he had described in his earlier dying declarations.But in the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) the deceased had stated that he did not remember as to at what place the knife injury was caused to him.It was further stated that he also did not remember as to who had caused the injury.Curiously in this statement, the deceased had not stated that he did not know the assailant or that he had not known the place of assault, but at the time of statement Ex. P/7, he could not remember or recollect the same.The, very expression that he did not' remember as to at what place and by whom the injury was caused to him, only indicates that the injured was loosing memory, even if he was conscious, because of the excessive bleeding from the injuries.The cause of death was also the excessive bleeding.The quick loss of blood may dim the memory of an injured or it may weakern and confuse his intellectual power.Those dying declarations were recorded earlier in point of time when the mental powers of the deceased were not affected and his capacity to remember was not impaired.The details given in the other dying declaration which came on record as FIR lodged by the deceased go to show that at that time his mental condition was better.In the later dying-declaration (Ex. P/6) recorded by Dr. Chopra (PW4), the version of deceased had come in reply to the questions put by the doctor.By itself the dying declaration did not have much details.This only indicates that by then his condition had somewhat deteriorated and in that process, the dying declaration recorded by the Executive Magistrate was the last, which shows that his condition had worsen and he was confused.The doctor had also to refer the patient to the J. A.Group of Hospitals, Gwalior, since the condition of the injured had deteriorated.The observations made by the trial Court that Dr. Chopra (PW4) had not disclosed his recording of dying declaration to other Dr. B.L. Mahor (PW7) is wholly out of the, place.The fact of the recording of dying declaration is itself mentioned in the injury report Ex. P/5 written at 4.25 p.m. The dying declaration was recorded earlier to it.The recording of the other dying declaration Ex. P/7 was not in the knowledge of Dr. Chopra.There is also no allegation of any ill-will against Dr. Chopra (PW/4).In view of the above circumstances, the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) could not be said to be more reliable than the other dying declarations (Ex. P/6 & Ex. P/9), as found by the trial Court.The oral dying declaration proved by Ramesh Chandra (PW1) could also not be discarded on account of the witness being a relation of the deceased, not on the basis of minor contradictions.The oral and the documentary dying declarations (Ex. P/6 & P/9) are consistent in material particulars and have to be preferred and relied, than the dying declaration (Ex. P/7).The dying declaration Ex. P/7 is also not in the question-answer form.Scribe thereof was also not examined.Doctor has tried to prove the dying declaration, but he had not heard the statement of deceased which he made to scribe.The injured was admittedly examined by Dr. Chopra.He had recorded his dying declaration (Ex. P/6), before the examination of injuries, as the condition of the patient was serious.This fact is reflected from injury certificate (Ex. P/5).The brief made by the injured soon after the incident, when he was fully conscious and composed, has to be preferred and can be acted upon.When the dying declaration is made under a solemn sense of impending death and when circumstances are such where the deceased is not likely to be mistaken, then it can be relied for baling the conviction.In the instant case, the documentary dying declarations (Ex. P/6) and (Ex. P/9) are also supported by oral dying declaration, proved by Ramesh Chandra (PW1) and by the other circumstances such as the early arrest of accused/ respondent with the weapon of offence i.e. the knife, the presence of blood on the knife, the medical corroboration of stated injuries and of corresponding cut in the banyan of deceased.The doctor also proved that the injuries on the person of deceased and the corresponding cut in the banyan could be caused by the seized knife.The version of Dr. Chopra (PW4) could not be discarded.There is absolutely no allegation against him, nor any motive is alleged against him to implicate the respondent.Therefore, from the evidence and circumstances on record, the only possible view which can be drawn by any Court acting reasonably and judiciously is of the commission of the offence by accused/respondent alone and by none-else.On the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused by discarding the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of the case on record, by illegally placing reliance on the dying declaration (Ex. P/7).In our view the dying declaration (Ex. P/7) only reflects the impaired memory of the deceased and as such does not make the prosecution version unreliable.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,604,249 |
Procedure Code ('Cr.P.C.' for short) for relief of quashing of C.R. No.255/2018 registered with Shrigonda Police Station, Tahsil Shrigonda, ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 ::: Cri.No. 251/2019 2District Ahmednagar for the offences punishable under sections 420,506 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short).The crime isregistered on the basis of report given by one Satish Pokharana, whois businessman and who is doing business in Shrigonda.According tohim, he purchases agricultural produces like onion from farmers andsells that commodity on commission to merchants.According to him,from December 2016 to 10.3.2017 he had supplied onion toArunachalam Stores/Traders, Trivendram, State Kerala of presentapplicant and the value of onion was around 24.44 lakh.It iscontended that as the purchase price was not given, he had sent hisson Satish to Kerala to collect money from the present applicant.Itis contended that on 7.7.2017 the applicant gave threat on phoneand said that the matter needs to be settled by them otherwise hewould not allow Satish to return from Kerala.It is contended that theapplicant had said that as per the record he was in dues of only Rs.8lakh and not Rs.24.24 lakh.It is contended that in view of theaforesaid threat, the first informant settled the dispute and acceptedcheques of Rs. 8 lakh in lieu of amount due to him.On the date ofF.I.R., which was given on 5.6.2018, seven cheques were encashed.The submissions made show that after registration of crime, the 8 thcheque was encashed and entire amount of Rs.8 lakh is received bythe first informant.It is the contention of first informant that as theamount of Rs.24.24 lakh was due, the applicant needs to pay ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 ::: Cri.No. 251/2019 3Rs.17.24 lakh and as this amount is not yet given and as underthreat, the aforesaid settlement was obtained, offence is committedby the applicant.In view of the nature of allegations, the crime isregistered for the offences punishable under sections 420, 504 and34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::He submitted that thecircumstance that the matter was settled and 8 cheques of theamount of Rs.8 lakh were given and those cheques came to beencashed show that there was settlement of dispute.He submittedthat the case of the first informant that on 7.7.2017 threat wasgiven and under threat the settlement was obtained does not appearto be probable in nature as the report was not given to policeimmediately and it was given on 6.6.2018, about one year after theso called incident.4) Though the first informant has produced some recordlike photocopies of the bills, it is the case of applicant that theamount which was due is already paid and as there was somedispute with regard to the amount, the settlement took place and ::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 ::: Cri.No. 251/2019 4remaining amount was given by cheques.Thus, there arecircumstances to show that there is dispute in respect of the amountdue from the applicant to the first informant and that is in respect ofsome transactions of supply of onion.The learned counsel for firstinformant submitted that the applicant is in the habit of deceivingthe suppliers and in the past, he had deceived other concern of oneShobha Roham and she had filed Special Civil Suit No. 24/2014against the present applicant.Copy of the judgment in that matter isproduced and it shows that decree of Rs.36.68 lakh is given infavour of that lady against the present applicant.That circumstancecannot help the first informant in the present matter to show thatthe applicant had deceived the said lady and he has deceived thefirst informant of the present matter also.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::No. 251/2019 5The facts of that case were totally different.In view ofthe facts of the present matter and as the dispute is apparently ofcivil nature, this Court holds that relief needs to be given to theapplicant.In the result, the application is allowed.::: Uploaded on - 26/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 16:44:25 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,615,560 |
CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 1 of 24We would accept the prosecution case that the deceased Raju had died an unnatural death as a result of burn injuries as is clear from the MLC, marked Exhibit PW-10/A, recorded at the Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital on 14th April, 1997 at 1.30 P.M. The post-mortem report by Dr A.P.Singh, dated 19th April, 1997, marked Exhibit PW-11/A, records that Raju had died four days after admission on 18th April, 1997 at 7.20 A.M. The cause of death was septicaemia consequent upon infected burn injuries.The injuries were ante-mortem in nature, and inflicted about 4 days back.Injury Nos. 1 & 2 were caused by a blunt object, and Injury No.3 was caused by burns due to fire.Scalp hair were duly sealed and sent for FSL examination to confirm presence of kerosene oil.The primary question, which has to be answered is whether the injuries were self inflicted, or were perpetrated by the appellant- Sarvesh with his co-predators namely Pappu, Vinod, Rajender and Raju, who had allegedly poured kerosene oil on Raju and set him ablaze near the railway crossing next to the house of Sarvesh.The said Pappu, Vinod, Rajender and Raju have not been arrested and declared as proclaimed offenders.My marriage to Shobha d/o Ranjeet Singh two years back was organized by my brother Ram Kishan s/o Dhaniram.Shobha was previously married.On April 11, 1997, I and my wife had quarrelled as Shobhas brother, Raju would come to my house again and again.I packed my articles and left.Today, I had gone with my brother Pammi and our (employee) Chotu to my brother-in-laws house near the railway phatak, where Shobha was residing.Shobha and her brother asked me whether I had come to take Shobha.Shobha refused to return with me and had stated that I had died for her and she had died for me.I left the place and went outside, while my brother had stayed inside.When I was on the street outside, Sarvesh and Pappu came and met me.Pappu caught hold of me.Then, Sarveshs brothers Vinod, Rajender and Raju caught me and threw kerosene oil on me and set me ablaze.I ran and screamed and my brother, Pammi, took me to the hospital.The kerosene oil was in a plastic bag.My wife has two children from her previous husband who are residing with her."Before we advert to our reasons for doubting truthfulness of the dying declaration, as probably an incorrect version given by the deceased out of spite and anger on being spurned and rejected by one Shobha, sister of Sarvesh and wife of Rajender, we would like to refer to the testimonies of Shanti (PW-3), Santu (PW-4) and Pammi (PW-8).Shanti (PW-3), mother of deceased Raju, has testified that Raju had married Shobha about two years before the occurrence.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 4 of 24 They were earlier residing at Khajoori and thereafter had shifted to Gopalpur.PW-3 had admitted to disputes and differences between the couple, and that resultantly Shobha had left with another boy for her village.Raju had also told her about his quarrels with Pappu and Raju, brothers of Shobha.(For convenience and to avoid confusion, Raju, brother of Shobha, shall be hereafter referred to as Raju-II).There was a dispute over money matters between Raju and Pappu, Raju-II and Shobha.To settle the dispute, Chotu and Pammi along with the deceased Raju had gone to the house of Sarvesh.PW-3 had subsequently learnt from Chotu that Raju had suffered burns and was admitted in a hospital.Noticeably, Shanti (PW-3) did not depose and state that Chotu had seen the occurrence and had identified Sarvesh as one of the perpetrators.In her cross- examination, on being specifically asked, PW-3 had responded that Chotu had simply told her that Raju had suffered burns.Shanti (PW-3) is, therefore, not an eye witness to the occurrence, but has deposed about the muddled relationship shared by Shobha and her family with the deceased Raju, and the disputes inter-se.In her cross-examination, Shanti (PW-3) has accepted that the deceased Raju used to beat Shobha, for she had concealed her previous marriage and that she was a mother of three children.At that time, Raju was in his senses, although he was in pain and crying.On enquiry, Raju had informed her that while Chotu and Pammi were made to sit at the house of Sarvesh, he was burnt by Pappu, Sarvesh, Vinod, Rajender and Raju- II.Raju was served liquor before the incident, but PW-3 had not stated this fact to the police when her statement was recorded.At a later point in her cross-examination, PW-3 denied that Raju had consumed liquor before visiting Shobhas house.PW-4 has also accepted that the relationship between Shobha and Raju had soured for there were frequent quarrels between the two regarding money.Shobha was sent to her village in Aligarh.Shobha had then taken some articles and money alongwith her.She returned after 10-15 days.At the time of occurrence, Shobha was staying with her brothers.At that time, Raju had taken with him, the mangal sutra, ear tops and anklets, which he had earlier given to Shobha.On 14th April, 1997, at about 11 A.M., once again Santu (PW-4), Pammi (PW-8) and Raju had gone to the house of Sarvesh.There, Shobha alongwith Sarvesh, and others namely Pappu, Raju II, Vinod and Rajender (proclaimed offender(s)) were present.Shobha had brought water for Pammi and Raju, but Raju had refused to drink water.Quarrel ensued.Raju and PW-4 had thereupon gone to a barber shop and then had stood near the railway crossing No. 8 at Samai Pur Badli.Sarvesh and four others, namely, Pappu, Raju-II, Rajender and Vinod (all proclaimed offenders) had surrounded Raju.Raju asked him, i.e., Santu (PW-4), to call Pammi (PW-8) from Sarveshs house.PW-4 went to call Pammi and had returned with Pammi at about 12 noon.He had then seen Raju burning.He was surrounded by Sarvesh and his co-associates (the reference is probably to Pappu, Raju-II, Rajender and Vinod).Raju had told PWCRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 6 of 24-4 and PW-8 that he had been burnt by the five, who had poured kerosene oil on him and alighted a match stick.Pammi (PW-8) threw water on Raju to extinguish the fire and had informed the police, who had taken Raju to the Irwin Hospital.In his cross- examination, Santu (PW-4) has accepted that Shobha and Raju would CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 7 of 24 quarrel frequently, abuse each other and even had physical fights.On being questioned about the barber shop, PW-4 had stated that it was located about 100- 150 paces from the house of Sarvesh, while the railway crossing was 100-150 yards away.PW-4 professed that Pappu was carrying a polythene bag of /2 kg capacity with Kerosene oil, but he had not seen any match box.Noticeably, Santu (PW-4) does not state and profess that he had seen Sarvesh and others throwing Kerosene oil on Raju and alighting him.His examination and affirmation is predicated on what was stated and told to him by Raju.As per PW- 4s version, he had not seen the actual occurrence.He implicates Sarvesh and four others by pre and post occurrence presence and conduct.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 7 of 24He, alongwith Raju and Santosh (PW-4), had reached the house of the appellant Sarvesh, where Raju and Shobha had fought.Therafter, Raju went outside the house and had reached the railway crossing, while Pammi (PW-8) remained inside and Santosh had gone to call Raju.According to PW-8, Santosh i.e., Santu (PW-4) had immediately cried out, that Raju had been caught by four persons CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 8 of 24 at the railway crossing.This witness has referred to four and not five persons.A lady had come to PW-8 and stated that someone was on fire.Pammi (PW-8) went outside and tried to extinguish the fire.He had called the police.At the hospital, Raju had told PW-8 that Rajesh and Rajender had set him on fire and had mentioned two other names, which PW-8 did not remember.In his cross examination, PW-8 had accepted that Neelam, sister-in-law of Shobha, aunt of Shobha, and Pappu were present at the house of Sarvesh.After Raju and Shobha had an altercation, PW-8 has accepted that Raju had proceeded outside with Chotu.After about half an hour, both of them had returned and thereafter the couple had quarrelled once again over money.Raju, to placate Shobha, had told her that she could bring her children with her, but Shobha refused and was adamant.Thereupon, Raju in anger, had left the house with Chotu.We would at this stage notice, and evaluate the pertinent contradictions emerging from the testimony of the said witnesses, including Pammi (PW-8), brother of Raju.Pammi (PW-8) did not state that Raju and Santu (PW-4) visited the barber shop or that Santu (PW-4) had returned to Sarvesh's house to tell PW-8 that Raju had been cornered or surrounded and that he should come with him to save Raju.As per Pammi (PW-8), Santu (PW-4) was throughout with Raju and therefore an eye-witness, but Santu (PW-4) states that he had seen Raju being surrounded, but he was not present when Raju was set ablaze.PW-8, on the first occasion, claimed that Raju had stated that Rajesh and one Rajender had set him on fire.The hesitation and oscillation of PW-8 to name Sarvesh is apparent and perceptible.Initially, PW-8 had named only Rajender, husband of Shobha and one Rajesh, who was not charge-sheeted, but he had accepted that Raju had named others."............Accused told me that he was doing labour work with contractor.I cant say whether Sarvesh was working in PWD department.I cant say whether accused was doing his duty at the time of incident............."Sarvesh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. had specifically asserted that he was on official duty in the MCD Department at Shalimar Bagh at the time of occurrence and was not present at the place of occurrence.He denied having surrounded Raju.Sarvesh has averred that his attendance was duly recorded in the muster roll of the said date.At that time, J.E. Kaptan Singh of MCD was his duty officer.The said Kaptan Singh (DW-1), has deposed that he was a Junior Engineer with MCD and had reached the site on 14th April, 1997 at about 10.30/11 A.M. Sarvesh was working there.DW-1 affirmed that CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 12 of 24 the duty hours were from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. DW-1 had produced the attendance register marked Exhibit DW-1/A, to show that Sarvesh was on duty.In his cross-examination, DW-1 accepted that Sarvesh was a daily wager.DW-1 had remained at the spot for 15/20 minutes and had then left, and he did not return.DW-1 could not confirm whether Sarvesh had left the spot after his departure.These contemporaneous recordings could point and reflect that the assertion by Sarvesh could be correct and in fact, the truth.After recording the dying declaration which was converted into the FIR, ASI Man Chand (PW-9) had spoken to Pammi (PW-8) and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. was recorded.On reaching the place of occurrence, PW-9 had met Constable Suresh Kumar (PW-5).PW-9 had then spoken to persons present at the spot and had met one Vinod, wife of Gulab Singh, who had joined the investigation.Vinod had stated that, at about 2.30 P.M., she was washing clothes in front of her house and nobody was present on the street.She had seen that one person had come from the side of the railway crossing, and had CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 14 of 24 set himself ablaze in front of Sarveshs house.Once the fire engulfed him, he started shouting "I am burnt I am burnt (jal gaya, jal gaya)".Thereupon, several persons had gathered at the spot.Vinod had learnt that this person, who had set himself on fire, was the brother-in-law of Sarvesh and husband of Shobha.Brother of the said person had poured a bucket of water to extinguish the fire.Neelam, Shobha, Pappu and other ladies had arrived at the spot.15. PW-9 had also interrogated Neelam, wife of Sarvesh Kumar about the occurrence.She had informed that Shobha was married to Rajender, resident of Aligarh.About two years back, she had left Rajender for a boy called Raju whom she married and the two had lived in a rented accommodation.On 11th April, 1997, Shobha had come to Sarvesh's house and had complained that Raju would beat her.She left Raju and had started residing with her mother.Thereafter, Shobha had started residing with them.Raju would visit them as he wanted that Shobha should return, but Shobha had refused.Raju on the second occasion had fought with Shobha.At that CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 15 of 24 time, Raju was drunk.Raju had made Shobha remove her mangal sutra, ear rings, nose pin and pajeb, as she had refused to go with Raju.To chide Shobha, Raju had proclaimed that she had died for him, and was henceforth, a widow.Neelam had tried to pacify the couple but was unsuccessful.Raju had left the place with the mangal sutra and other articles.In the evening, she had informed Sarvesh, her husband, about this incident.Sarvesh had then stated that if Raju would return, she should ask Shobha to go with him and give Rs.51/- for Raju, and a suit for Shobha.In the morning, her husband Sarvesh had left for duty at about 11.30 A.M. Neelam, Shobha and Pappu were at home when Raju, his brother Pammi and another boy had come.Shobha had served water but Raju had objected and did not even allow Pammi to drink water.Shobha had then taunted Raju, as to why he had come back when he had earlier proclaimed that Shobha had died for him.Both of them quarrelled.Raju then left and went outside.Pammi had stayed back to speak to Shobha and to request her to return to Raju.Shobha protested and had stated that Raju used to drink and beat her.Neelam had coaxed Shobha to go back and live with Raju.Shobha had proceeded to take bath and in the meanwhile, Neelam got busy.Neelam thereafter heard that someone had set himself ablaze.Neelam, Pammi and Shobha ran CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 16 of 24 outside along with Pappu.They saw one person was on fire outside their house.He was shouting.Pammi had poured a bucket of water and Neelam had put a blanket around him.The said person was Raju.Thereafter she, i.e., (Neelam), Pappu and Shobha ran to the police station and lodged a report.A police vehicle arrived at the spot and Shobha, Pammi and the third boy who was with them, took Raju to the hospital.We are also conscious and aware that the said versions of Vinod and Neelam are not "evidence", for the two have not deposed and made statements on oath, and their versions have not been tested.The present appeal leaves a sense of disquiet and concern for we perceive there was an attempt to withhold exculpatory evidence and hide discontinuity in the prosecution version.The triteness was latent in the written records in the form of the police case diary, and is enmeshed in some of the answers given by the author, i.e., the Investigating Officer ASI Manchand.Unfortunately, this concavity and latency could not be decripted at the first stage.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 1 of 24The judgment under challenge dated 20th November, 1999 convicts the present appellant-Sarvesh under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 2 of 24 1860 (IPC, for short).The order on sentence dated 22 nd November, 1999 sentences Sarvesh to undergo life imprisonment, pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.Benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 would apply.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 2 of 24The prosecution case as per the charge sheet and as accepted by the trial court is primarily predicated on the dying declaration of Raju, marked Exhibit PW-1/B, implicating Sarvesh and the proclaimed offenders.For the sake of completeness, we would like to reproduce the dying declaration in entirety, which was recorded by ASI Man Chand (PW-9), the Investigating Officer on 14th April, 1997 and became the fulcrum of the FIR No. 292/1997, Police Station Samai Pur Badli.In the four days, his statement was not recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.ASI Man Chand (PW-9) has stated that he had requested the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to record Rajus statement, but his request was orally rejected, an assertion rather ambiguous and debatable.It is strange, that PW-9 did not make the request in writing, knowing the sensitivity of the matter in light of its peculiar facts, as noticed and elucidated below.A rough English CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 3 of 24 translation of the dying declaration marked Exhibit PW1/B statedly recorded by ASI Man Chand (PW-9), would read:-CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 3 of 24"I am residing at the address given above.I am a meat- seller at Azadpur Mandi.Doctors were present, when the police had interrogated and asked Raju.The doctor also signed the dying declaration.(In fact, the dying declaration has not been signed by any doctor).PW-3 also denied that deceased Raju had beaten Shobha and then, out of anger, poured kerosene oil on himself and had set himself ablaze.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 4 of 24CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 5 of 24The said incident had taken place outside the jhuggi of Sarvesh.Pammi (PW-8), on cross-examination by the public prosecutor, claimed that his brother, (i.e., Raju) had told him in the hospital that he was set on fire by Raju-II, Pappu, Rajender, Vinod (all proclaimed offenders) and Sarvesh.In the same breath, Pammi (PW-8), brother of the deceased Raju, in his cross examination by the prosecutor had asserted that Sarvesh was innocent.For the sake of clarity, we would CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 9 of 24 like to reproduce the exact version given by Pammi (PW-8), when he was cross-examined by the Prosecutor:-CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 8 of 24CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 9 of 24"....My brother Raju told me that he was set to fire by Rajender, Vinod, Pappu, Raju and Sarvesh after pouring kerosene oil.Hand of Raju had been burnt.My mother was also present at time of dying declaration, with Shobha.In my opinion accused Sarvesh is innocent."In the cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW-8 clarified that two other persons were named by Raju, but PW-8 did not remember their names.On further cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor, PW-8 reiterated that Raju had left the house in anger, accompanied by PW- CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 10 of 24CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 10 of 24He instead claims that he had seen Raju being surrounded by the five and, thereafter, saw Raju in flames.PW-4 had seen kerosene oil in a plastic bag being carried by Pappu (proclaimed offender).This brings us to the testimony of ASI Man Chand (PW-9), who has referred to the MLC of the deceased, marked Exhibit PW-10/A, and the statement of the deceased marked Exhibit PW-1/B. The MLC records the patient's version that five persons poured kerosene oil on him and set him on fire near the railway crossing.PW-9 has referred to the statement of Raju which became the FIR, Exhibit PW-1/C. PW-9 avers that Raju was declared fit for statement and thereafter Exhibit PW-1/B was recorded.The mother and brother of Raju were CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 11 of 24 present when Exhibit PW-1/B was being recorded.Importantly, in his cross-examination, ASI Man Chand (PW-9) has accepted that while he was making inquiries at the place of occurrence, Sarvesh had appeared before him and had identified himself.Sarvesh had stated to PW-9 that he was working as a labourer with the contractor at the time of occurrence.In other words, Sarvesh was not present at his residence and place of occurrence at the relevant time.The relevant portion of PW-9s cross examination reads:-CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 11 of 24This witness confirms that Sarvesh was not present at his house at about 10.30- 11AM on 14th April, 1997, as he had seen him at the site.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 12 of 24Rajesh (DW-2), a co-worker with Sarvesh, affirms that in April, 1997, they were working for Kaptan Singh (DW-1).DW-2 could not affirm if Sarvesh was with them till 5 P.M., but he did state that he and Sarvesh had left the house at about 8 A.M that morning.Sanjay (DW-3) confirms that Sarvesh had come to work on 14th April, 1997 and had marked his presence at about 11.30 A.M. with other workers.The railway crossing No. 8 was at a distance of 2-3 kilometers from the place where DW-3 was working.We have referred to the deposition of ASI Man Chand (PW-9) wherein he has accepted that Sarvesh had himself appeared and identified himself.Sarvesh had then stated that at the time of occurrence, he was working with the contractor.Therefore, PW-9 could not state whether, CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 13 of 24 on April 14, 1997, Sarvesh was on duty at the time of the incident.The version of Santu (PW-4) that he had seen five persons, including Sarvesh, suddenly appearing at the railway crossing, is also confusing and inexplicable for Rajender was a resident of Aligarh, and Vinod is his brother.In the police file written by ASI Man Chand on April 14, 1997, from 2.40 P.M. onwards, are equally puzzling and truculent as to the true and correct portrayal.Neelam had wrapped a blanket around the injured and he was then taken to the hospital in the PCR (van).Shobha, the brother of the person injured, and a third boy had accompanied him.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 13 of 24CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 14 of 24Neelams husband Sarvesh returned from duty at about 6 P.M. and was then informed about the said occurrence.CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 15 of 24CRL.A. No. 226/2000 Page 16 of 24His name figures in the MLC marked Exhibit PW-10/A, as a person who had brought the deceased Raju to the hospital.We notice that the appellant Sarvesh was released on suspension of sentence vide order dated 28th August, 2002 and is absconding.Non-bailable warrant for his arrest and appearance has been issued and proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 have been initiated.In view of our findings, the non-bailable warrant would be cancelled and further proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 shall not be taken.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,618,391 |
Counter FIR Nos. 399/2016 and 400/2016 were filed by Subhash and Hariom against each other at the same Police Station--Shujalpur, District--Shajapur.FIR filed by Subhash (No.399/16) was registered under Sections 323, 294, 506/34 of IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 against son and father Hariom and Mathuralal, while FIR filed by Hariom (No. 400/16) was registered under Sections 324, 323, 294, 506/34 of the IPC against Subhash, his brother Rajaram and all threee sons of Rajaram namely Vinod, Ajay 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.14035 of 2019 Mathuralal Parmar and others Vs.Subhash Mewada and Sandeep.Later, at the time of filing of charge-sheet in the FIR No.399/2016 of Subhash, Section 324 IPC was also added.After resorting other remedies, he filed a private complaint against the petitioners alleging commission of offence under Section 307 IPC along with some other offences.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,619,124 |
The petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1892/2009 is a company India Infoline Limited.Petitioner in Crl.It was stated in the complaint that on receipt of the amount of Rs. 10.48 crores, the accused were under legal obligation to transfer the shares purchased by the complainant, from the Pool Account to its Demat Account, but, instead of doing that and refunding the excess amount of Rs.25,22,477.53/ they vide letter dated 14th May, 2008 asked the complainant to clear the debits of five companies, namely,M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 3 of 21(i) Carissa Investments Pvt. Ltd. (ii) Altar Investments Pvt. Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 4 of 21 Ltd. (iii) Oval Investments Pvt. Ltd. (iv) Dalmia Housing Finance Ltd. (v) Dear Investment Pvt. Ltd. in terms of its letter dated 1st March, 2008 failing which, they would regularize the aforesaid five accounts by selling the stock of the complainant.It has been further alleged that on numerous occasions, the complainant met accused Nos. 2 to 7 and requested to refund the excess amount and transfer its shares to Demat Account, but those meetings failed to bring any result.The accused, according to the complainant, thus committed criminal breach of trust and also the offence of cheating.The accused sold off 876668 shares of the complainant on 23 rd June, 2008 and misappropriated the sale proceeds.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 4 of 21The bone of contention between the parties is a letter dated 1st March, 2008 purporting to have been written by Shri Bhuwneshwar Mishra, Trustee of the respondent to the Director, India Infoline Ltd. referring to its debit balance of Rs.7,99,29,681/-in the account of the complainant with the company and requesting the company to clear the same by Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 5 of 21 selling the shares in the same account.The letter also contained a request that the account could be clubbed with Promoter Group Companies of GHCL, mentioned in the letter, for the purpose of margin requirement.These are the five companies referred in the complaint.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 8 of 21 case of the complainant that the letter dated 1 st March, 2008 was forged by anyone out of accused Nos. 2 to 7 or that it was forged pursuant to criminal conspiracy to which any of them was a party.The Demat Account was opened by the complainant with India Infoline Ltd., which is a company.The shares were purchased by the complainant through the company.It was the company which claimed that it had adjusted the sale proceeds of the shares purchased by the complainant towards liquidation of the dues payable by group companies of GHCL Group.It was the company India Infoline, which sold the shares purchased by the complainant and adjusted the sale proceeds against dues recoverable from group companies of GHCL Group.Thus, it was the company which was entrusted with the property of the complainant or with dominion over its property.The Hon'ble Supreme Crl.A complaint alleging commission of offences under Section 406/409/420/477A/34/120B IPC was filed by the respondent against the petitioners.It was alleged in the complaint that the respondent/complainant opened a Demat account with accused No.1-India Infoline Ltd. on 11th September, 2007 and placed orders from time to time for purchase of shares and Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 3 of 21 also made payments, from time to time, against its running account with the company.The accused company claimed that there was an outstanding debit of Rs.10.48 crores against the complainant, in its Demat account with it.Accused No. 1 was having lien on 20,46,195 shares purchased by the complainant in that account.Vide letter dated 30th April, 2008, accused No. 1 informed the complainant about the aforesaid debit.The complainant cleared the amount outstanding against it, by making payment of Rs. 10.48 crores, by a cheque.Later on, it transpired that the correct debit against the complainant was Rs. 10,22,77,522/- only and the accused dishonestly received a sum of Rs.25,22,477.53 from the complainant by making false demand.The respondent was to charge commission from the petitioner @ 2%.The petitioner was informed by the respondent that the boiler had been sold by the seller to another party.When asked to return the money, the respondent failed to do so.As regards the alleged cheating, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that though the amount outstanding against the complainant was only Rs.10,22,77,522/- the accused claimed Rs.10.48 crores vide its letter dated 30th April, 2008 and thus dishonestly induced Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 18 of 21 the complainant to part with an excess amount of Rs.25,22,477.53/-.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 18 of 21The very fact that accused company has given credit for the balance amount in the account of the complainant with it leaves no reasonable doubt that it had no dishonest or fraudulent intention to retain that amount.It appears from the documents that there was some dispute between the parties as regards the rate of interest to be charged for delayed payment.If either on account of higher interest being claimed by the accused company or on account of some mathematical error, a higher amount was claimed that by itself would not show any dishonest intention on the part of the accused company when the credit for the balance amount has been given in the account maintained by the complainant with the accused company.Whether the accused company was entitled to interest of delayed payment or not may be a disputed question of fact, but, no cheating is made out by making a claim for interest.As regards adjustment of the Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 20 of 21 balance amount towards clearance of the liabilities of group companies of GHCL Group, the company, in any case, is facing trial for criminal breach of trust on the allegation that the letter dated 1st March, 2008 was not written to it by the complainant.No separate offence of cheating is, however, made out against it by making these adjustments.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 19 of 21M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 20 of 21For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned order dated 27th September, 2008, to the extent it summons the petitioners Nirmal Bhanwarlal Jain, Venkataraman Rajamani, Nimish Ramesh Mehta, Nilesh Shivji Vikamsey, Kranti Sinha and Arun Kumar Purwar for the offences punishable under Sections 415/409/34/120B of IPC and further to the extent it summons the company India Infoline Ltd. under Section 415 of IPC is hereby set aside.The learned Magistrate will, however, proceed with the trial against the accused India Infoline Ltd. under other Sections of IPC.(V.K.JAIN) JUDGE DECEMBER 14, 2009 bg Crl.M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 21 of 21M.C.Nos.819,800,801,788,786,743,1892 of 2009 Page 21 of 21
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
84,623,963 |
Without any base, the first respondent police registered a case in Crime No.384 of 2015 for offences under Sections 420, 465, 468 r/w 34 of IPC, as against the petitioner.Hence he prayed to quash the same.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the investigation is almost completed and the respondent police have only to file final report.Heard Mr.If the ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused are prima facie made out in the complaint, the criminal proceeding shall not be interdicted."In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the First Information Report.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.However, considering the crime is of the year 2015, the first respondent is directed to complete the investigation in Crime No.384 of 2015 and file a final report within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this Order, before the jurisdiction Magistrate, if not already filed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.11.03.2020 Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking orderhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/7 CRL.O.P.No.6610 of 2016 lokhttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/7 CRL.O.P.No.6610 of 2016 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.The Inspector of Police, E-8, Kelambakkam Police Station, Kelambakkam, Kancheepuram DistrictThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.No.6610 of 2016 11.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 7/7
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
857,457 |
ORDER M.P. Singh, J.This revision application is directed against the order dated 18-7-1994, framing of the charge under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code against the applicants by Xth Addl.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,748,795 |
Since both these Misc.Criminal Cases have arisen from the same Crime number (Crime No.261/2019), they have been analogously heard and are being disposed of by this common order.Heard on these first bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicants in connection with Crime No.261/2019 registered at Police Station Chhipabad, District Harda, for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of the IPC.The case of the prosecution is that, co-accused Abhishek Jain @ Monu, proprietor of Mahavir Agency used to purchase pulses from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, situated at Khirkiya, under the jurisdiction of Police Station Chhipabad, District Harda.It is alleged that between 09.05.2019 to 13.05.2019 co-accused Abhishek @ Monu had purchased pulses and cereals of the farmers from Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Khirkiya valued at Rs.1,81,00,000/- and assured to the concerned farmer that amount will be deposited in their accounts within 72 hours through R.T.G.S., but the same has not been credited in their accounts, then they made a complaint to the Inspector of Mandi, who lodged the report.On that basis above mentioned crime has been registered against the applicants and other co-accused person.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the case.In view of the aforesaid, it has been prayed that the applicants be released on bail.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the applications.Consequently, these applications for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicants-Shaitan Singh and Mahesh Rajoriya, stand allowed.It is directed that the applicants shall be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/06/2019 22:02:17 3 MCRC-25494-2019 for their appearance before that Court on all dates fixed in the case and for complying with the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE taj Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 26/06/2019
|
['Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,749 |
The facts of the case, in brief, are that there was a water channel, going through the fields of appellant Ravi Shanker and Ramesh.Ramesh is son of Ram Gopal.They closed the water channel.The deceased Sardar Singh along with Kali Charan and Siduhoo Singh were digging it in the evening prior to the occurrence.The appellant Ramesh and Ravi Shanker reached there and intervened and got it stopped and left saying that they would teach them a lesson.On 21st October, 1976 at about 8-30 a.m. the deceased Sardar Singh and Raja Singh were called at the Chabutra of Bhagwan Lodh by Ram Gopal to get the dispute settled.While Ram Gopal and the two deceased Sardar Singh and Raja Singh were talking, appellants Ramesh armed with the gun of his father Ram Gopal, Ravi Shanker armed with a Tabal and Raja Ram armed with a pharsa reached there and threatened that if any one would again dig the water drain, they would kill him.Thereupon a wrangle ensued between the accused-appellants Ramesh and Ravi Shanker one hand and the deceased Raja Singh and Sardar Singh on the other.At that moment Ramesh fired a shot with his gun at Raja Singh and Ravi Shanker and Raja Ram attacked Sardar Singh with the Tabal and Pharsa and thereafter the accused made good their escape.Both the injured died on the spot.An FIR of the occurrence was lodged at police station Gajner at a distance of five miles by P.W. 1 Nawab Singh narrating the above incident.Incised wound 2" x 1/10" x whole thickness of the right pinna of the ear cutting the lower part completely clean cut edges.eye to the forehead upper Rt. side.Edges inverted, blackening and charring present.Direction back-wards to the right.Brain matter peeping out from the wound.On internal examination there was a fracture of the frontal parietal, temporal and occipetal bones on the right side.Membrane and brain were badly lacerated.Two pellets were recovered from the brain.Stomach contained 80z fluid material Small intestines were full of faecal matter and gases.P.W. 6 S.I. Ram Swarup Singh is a formal witness and he had executed the warrants regarding attachment of the property etc. when the accused Raja Ram and Ravi Shanker were absconding.P.W. 8 S.I. Ranvir Singh Solanki deposed about the various steps taken by him during the course of investigation.On the other hand, the defence version of the accused Ramesh has been that two days prior to the occurrence Nawab Singh and Sardar Singh were digging drain in his field of paddy.On finding that his crop was being damaged, he stopped them and then both of them had left.On the date of incident at about 9 a.m. when he again went to see his crop he found that Raja Singh and Sardar Singh were digging the drain.On his remonstration why they were again digging the drain, Raja Singh attacked him with a Lathi.That he himself was empty hands.Gun of Sardar Singh was lying there.Raja Ram then exhorted Sardar Singh to shoot him to finish the dispute for ever and when Sardar Singh attempted to shoot him he caught his gun and struggled and during that struggle the gun got fired.That he himself had received several lathi injuries and had fallen down unconscious.He subsequently found himself at his house.After some time his father arrived there from Kanpur with his gun and sometimes thereafter the Investigating Officer arrived there and arrested him and carried his father's gun to the Police Station.In defence, he examined D.W. 1 Harbilas Tewari, Block Organiser, who deposed that in his presence the quarrel had taken place on 10-9-76 when he had gone to get the drain dug up.JUDGMENT H.C. Mital, J.Ramesh, Ram Gopal and Ravi Shanker have preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 23-12-1978 passed by Sri B.B.S. Chaudhary, the then Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Kanpur Dehat, convicting appellant Ramesh Under Section 302, IPC simpliciter and the remaining two Ram Gopal and Ravi Shanker Under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC and sentencing all the three appellants to life imprisonment.In the FIR in column No. 2 regarding the names of the accused the name of appellant Ram Gopal was not entered.The investigation of the case was entrusted to P.W. 8 S.I. Ranvir Singh Solanki, who reached the scene of occurrence, prepared the inquest report of the dead bodies and then sent them for post mortem examination and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet against Ramesh, Ram Gopal, Ravi Shanker and Raja Ram Under Section 302/34, IPC.At the trial the prosecution examined 8 witnesses of whom P.W. 1 Nawab Singh, P.W. 2 Badlu Singh, P.W. 3 Bharat Singh and P.W. 7 Ram Gulam are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and they corroborated the prosecution story stated above.P.W. 4 Shripal Singh was Head Moharrir at the relevant time.He proved the first information report and registered the case in general diary and made other relevant entries.P.W. 5 Dr. G. C. Gupta had done the autopsy on the two dead bodies on 22nd October, 1976 from 1-30 p.m. to 4 p.m. The deceased had received the following injuries :--Incised wound 4 1/2" x 1" bone deep on the right side of the neck behind the right ear obliquely cutting the angle of the mandible bone, caroted vessels on the right side and the body of the 5th vertebra on the right side margins clean cut and everted.Incised wound 3 1/2" x 1/2" bone deep on the back of the chest upper part obliquely near and middle line, cutting the third and fourth ribs on the right side disternly.On internal examination there was clean cut on the 5th cervical vertebra, 4th and 5th ribs on the right side and right angle of the mandible cutting the caroted artery.Stomach contained 12 Oz of Semi digested food.Small intestines were full of faecal matter and gases.Gun shot injury 4" x 2" x cranial cavity deep on the front of the fore-head Rt. side from Rt.At that time Nawab Singh objected and then a quarrel took place between Ravi Shanker and Nawab Singh, hence he stopped the work.Subsequently he again went on 14-9-76 with the police force and got the drain dug.D.W. 2 Jai Narain stated that Ram Gopal was living in Kanpur for the last 10-12 years; that he used to keep his gun at Kanpur; that there was a separate drain through which the field of Raja Singh was irrigated; that on that day at about 10 a.m. when he was putting his cart in order he came to know that .Ramesh had been injured and that he was lying in his paddy field near the drain.He then went there and carried him to his house.Lastly, D.W. 3 Dr. Kishan Lal Shah was the Medical Officer in the District Jail, Kanpur.He had examined Ramesh in the District Jail on 22-10-76 at 9-40 p.m. and noted the following injuries on his person vide injury report Ext. Kha-7 :--Contusion 3 cm x 2 cm on left ear pinna of upper part.Abraded contusion on the back of right ear in an area of 1 cm x 1/2 cm.Abraded contusion 6 cm x 1 cm on front lateral side of right side neck of its base.Contusion 6 cm x 1.5 cm on the left side neck middle 1/3 region.Contusion multiple 12 cm x 3 cm on front medial aspect of right upper arm.Contusion 3 cm x 1.5 cm in front of right eblow.Contusion 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm on medial aspect of right elbow.Abraded contusions 3 cm x 1 cm on the back of right hand on the base of middle and index finger.Abrasions 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm at dorsal side of right index finger.Traumatic swelling at right dorsem of hand (u.o.).Traumatic swelling at whole of left dorsum of hand.Contusions 3 cm x 1.5 cm on the dorsum of left hand.Contusions 4 cm x 1.5 cm on the dorsum of left hand.Complain of pain in whole of chest (u.o.).In his opinion all the injuries could be caused on 21-10-1976 at about 10 in the morning.The learned Sessions Judge believed the prosecution case and disbelieved the defence version and hence convicted and sentenced all the three appellants as stated above.Raja Ram died during the trial.On being aggrieved this appeal has been preferred and on behalf of the appellants the learned counsel argued that the prosecution case was highly suspicious; that Ramesh received 14 injuries at the scene of occurrence which have not been explained by the prosecution and that from the totality of the circumstances it is clear that the prosecution has failed to bring home guilt to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The main question for decision is, whether the injuries received by Ramesh have been duly explained by the prosecution.The prosecution has tried to explain the injuries of Ramesh alleging that the same were received at the time of his arrest when he had put up resistance.The prosecution however, did not file a copy of the entry of his injuries in the G.D. On the other hand, the defence got the same proved through P.W. 4 S.I. Shripal Singh who was Head Moharrir on 21st Oct. 1976 at police station Gajner and in his cross-examination he admitted that Ramesh was brought to the police station under arrest by the Station Officer Ram Swamp Singh Bhadoriya on 21-10-76 at 7-30 p.m. and acase Under Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered against him.At that time his injuries were also noted and he proved Ext. Kha-1, copy of the entry in the G.D. The injuries mentioned are "Chot dono Hathon me, Panjo me, Chot Kharas" i.e. only abrasions were noted on both the hands and feet of Ramesh.Besides the injuries on the hands and feet, injuries on both ears and both sides of neck as well as elbow and thigh were also noted.There is no explanation to those injuries.That apart, though the injuries on hands were there but no injury on the feet of Ramesh was noted by the Doctor except injury No. 14 on the posterior side of left thigh middle 1/3, which cannot be said to be on the feet.According to Dr. K. L. Shah D.W. 3, those injuries appeared to have been caused on 21st October, 1976 at about 10 in the morning, i.e. they could be received at the time of the occurrence and were consistent with the defence version.The number and nature of the injuries clearly belies the prosecution case that the same were caused to the accused-appellant Ramesh when he put up resistance at the time of his arrest.The injuries on ears as well as both the sides of the neck clearly indicate that he had been badly assaulted with lathis.That apart, on behalf of the appellant a certified copy of the judgment in the case Under Section 25 of the Arms Act, which was registered against him after his arrest along with the gun, has been shown to us and the same was not disputed that he was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate on 10-8-83 and in the judgment the arrest of Ramesh along with gun at that time was disbelieved.Admittedly no Govt. Appeal has been preferred.That further belies the prosecution case that Ramesh was arrested along with the gun as alleged by the prosecution and that further belies the prosecution explanation to the injuries received by Ramesh at the time of his arrest at that moment.That apart, no role was assigned to Ram Gopal in the FIR nor in the evidence.It is also not alleged that he had exhorted either of the accused-appellants to attack any one on the complainant's side.In spite of that surprisingly not only charge sheet was submitted against him but he had also been convicted by the learned Sessions Judge simply because he was present at that time and hence it was presumed that he must have also exhorted Ramesh, Ravi Shanker and Raja Ram to kill the deceased.It is also of importance to mention that in the end of his statement P.W. 1 Nawab Singh admitted that on the date of occurrence Ram Gopal was at his own house at about 2 p.m. Had Ram Gopal participated in the occurrence as alleged along with others, he could not be present at his residence and not arrested from there.This part of his statement corroborates the statement of Ramesh appellant Under Section 313, Cr.P.C. that in the afternoon the Investigating Officer had come and before that his father had come from Kanpur with his gun and the Investigating Officer had then arrested him (Ramesh) and had also taken the gun of his father with him while his father was not apprehended at that time.According to P.W. 1 Nawab Singh, Mangi Lal had taken him from his house at about 8 a.m. and then along with him Sardar Singh and Raja Singh he had gone to the Chabutra of Bhagwan Lodh where the incident had taken place.The prosecution neither examined Mangi Lal nor Bhagwan Lodh at whose Chabutra the incident had taken place nor Rameshwar whose house is opposite in the east to the scene of occurrence or any other person of the locality.Instead, all the eye witnesses are highly interested persons.Nawab Singh P.W. 1 is brother of both the deceased Raja Singh and Sardar Singh P.W. 2 Badlu has admitted in his cross-examination that he was Zamindar of Tilochi Village; that Smt. Siddhi Kunwar was his tenant; that Smt. Ganga Dei daughter of Siddhi Kunwar was married to Ram Gopal, father of appellant Ramesh; that he had filed a suit for eviction against Smt. Siddhi Kunwar and that he had lost both in the revenue court as well as Commissioner's court.That apart, P.W. 1 Nawab Singh has admitted that the house of Badlu Singh is at a distance of one furlong from the scene of occurrence.Thus this witness was not only an interested one but there was no reason of his presence at that place.P.W. 3 Bharat Singh though stated that he was at his house which was 15-16 paces away from the scene of occurrence but in his cross-examination he admitted that he was a Truck Driver and lives in Govindnagar.He also admitted that he was resident of village Lakshman Pur which is at a distance of 18 miles.It was alleged that his name was struck off from the voters' list as he was not resident of that village and against it he had preferred an appeal before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which was also dismissed.He also avoided to answer that his mother had taken loan of Rs. 3000/- from Ram Gopal accused and that for Rs. 500/- a gold Mohar was pawned with Ramesh but admitted that he did not take back his gold Mohar as he had to pay Rs. 900/ - and thus he lost his gold Mohar P.W. 7, the other eye witness, Ram Gulam has his house at a distance of three furlongs from the scene of occurrence as this fact has been admitted by P.W. 1 Nawab Singh in his cross-examination himself.Thus he had no obvious reason to be present at the scene of occurrence.He, however, admitted that in the court of Tehsildar there was a case against him Under Section 122 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act in which he was fined to Rs. 1000/- and that case was got prosecuted by appellant Ravi Shanker and his father Vijai Bahadur, who was Sasha Pati of the Panchayat.Thus all the witnesses examined in the case were highly interested persons and not having houses near the scene of occurrence when admittedly other persons who were present were not examined.The above circumstances clearly indicate that the prosecution has not come with clean hands and had also failed to establish the origin of the incident as alleged.The origin of the incident appears to be shrouded in mystery in view of the unexplained number of injuries of Ramesh accused-appellant.The conclusion, therefore, is that the evidence on record is not sufficient to bring home the guilt to the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.The appeal is, therefore, allowed.
|
['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.
|
85,750,915 |
A No.887/2005 Page 1 of 23On 17.10.2000, Arun Kumar lodged a complaint with the police that on 07.10.2000, Anand Pratap Singh @ Bablu and Rudra Pratap Singh @ Arvind Kumar (related as uncle and nephew), left their respective houses without leaving behind any intimation.Attempts were made by their family members to search them but they could not be traced.On 16.10.2000, at about 9.00 am, a missing report regarding Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh, was lodged by Arun Kumar (brother of Anand Pratap Singh) at the Police Station of Kalyanpuri, Delhi.On the same day at about 2 p.m., Arun Kumar received a registered letter purported to have been sent by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar, Dasyuraj Samrat, Village Badanpur, Police Station Sahso, District Etawah.The said letter disclosed about the abduction of Anand Pratap Singh @ Bablu.Similar letter with respect to abduction of Rudra Pratap Singh was received by Bhanu Pratap Singh (brother of Rudra Pratap Singh) on the same day.Ransom amount of Rs.6,51,000/- and Rs.2,51,000/- Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 2 of 23 respectively, was demanded for the release of the two said abducted persons.A No.887/2005 Page 2 of 23SI, Kishore Pandey, PW-7, had investigated this case.PW-7 deposed that in the month of November, 2000, he formed a police party and went to Etawah at the address mentioned in the letter of Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar and that he and his police party had tried to trace out the said abducted persons, but of no avail.On 29.11.2000, both the victims, Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh came to the police station themselves and made the following revelations before the police.They stated that the appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu was known to Anand Pratap Singh for the last ten years and that they had developed a good friendship.Anand Pratap Singh used to carry on the business of fire alarm system at Malviya Nagar but was not happy with the income that he was generating and he had also discussed this fact with Raj Kumar @ Pappu.About ten/twelve days prior to the Dussehra festival, appellant Raj Kumar @ Pappu, told Anand Pratap Singh that there was a party dealing with the Fire Alarm System at Aligarh.Anand Pratap Singh expressed his desire to meet the party.Rudra Pratap Singh, nephew of Anand Pratap Singh, was unemployed during those days and when Anand Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 3 of 23 Pratap Singh disclosed the fact that there was a meeting with a party at Aligarh, to Rudra Pratap Singh, he also agreed to accompany him, as he thought that he might get a job there.A No.887/2005 Page 3 of 23On 7.10.2000 the appellant came to Anand Pratap Singh and then these three persons, i.e., the appellant Raj Kumar @ Pappu; Anand Pratap Singh; and Rudra Pratap Singh went to Shahdra Railway Station in a bus.After that they boarded the EMU train, arrived at Ghaziabad and from there they took the Gomti Express at 3.05 p.m. for going to Aligarh and arrived at Aligarh at about 5/5.30 pm.When they came out of Aligarh Station, the appellant separated himself from them.After sometime, the appellant along with five other persons arrived there in a Tata Sumo.Thereafter they proceeded towards Etawah and at about 10.30 pm, they stopped the vehicle.The appellant and the abovesaid five persons handed over both Anand Pratap Singh and Rudra Pratap Singh to 10-12 persons, who were wearing police uniform and were equipped with guns.The appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu and five other persons thereafter left.Both the victims were made to travel on foot upto a distance of 18-20 Kms.in the jungle and were told that they had been abducted and that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar was their leader.The victims were asked to write Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 4 of 23 ransom letters demanding a sum of Rs.6,51,000/- and Rs.2,51,000/- respectively.A No.887/2005 Page 4 of 23On 27.11.2000, Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar and his companions took a large number of drinks and then under the influence of intoxication, all of them slept.Both the victims chose a moment and slipped away, escaped by catching a truck and arrived at Etawah.From Etawah, they boarded a train to Delhi.On 5.5.2001, the appellant was arrested by Rajesh Kumar, SI.It may be mentioned here that both the ransom letters have been purported to be written on the letter pad of Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar.The following address in Hindi appears on the head of the letter pad."DASYURAJ Ram Rattan Singh Gurjar Village Bandanpura PS Sahso Distt.Etawah UP-M.P."9. Accused Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar could not be traced and was declared a proclaimed offender.Search was effected in respect of the accused Kailash and Rajbir, whose names were disclosed by accused Raj Kumar @ Pappu but they too, could not be traced.Raj Kumar @ Pappu was arrested and booked for the offence under Section 364-A, IPC.It would be useful, at this stage, to analyse the evidence of some of the material witnesses and refer to them in detail.Anand Pratap Singh who is PW-1, is also one of the victims.PW-1 has deposed that he knew the appellant, Raj Kumar for about 7-8 years prior to the date of the incident and that the appellant was residing at Noida in a jhuggi.PW-1 stated that he used to visit a betel shop situated at Sector 8, Noida, and there he came into the contact of appellant and developed friendship with Raj Kumar @ Pappu.PW-1 further stated that at the request of the appellant, he arranged a rented accommodation for him at 1/20, Trilokpuri.The appellant resided there with his family for two to three years and thereafter left the said address but continued to visit PW-1s house.PW-1 further deposed that he was unhappy with the income that he was getting at Fire Works System, at which place he was working and that he had asked the appellant to search a better job for him.PW-1 stated that about two to three days prior to the Dusshera Festival, the appellant approached him with an offer to meet a party at Aligarh on Crl.On the above mentioned date PW-1 along with his jobless nephew (Rudra Pratap Singh), and the appellant went to Aligarh.PW-1 further testified that at Aligarh the appellant left them for sometime at the pretext of making a phone call and when he returned he was in a vehicle, Sumo, accompanied by five other persons.PW-1 then stated that those five persons put a tamancha (katta) on his temporal region and he was ordered to sit inside the vehicle.And that his nephew was slapped by the appellant and was asked to sit inside the vehicle.Thereafter the said five persons and the appellant put a bandage on their eyes and drove off for three to four hours.When the vehicle was stopped both PW- 1 and his nephew were asked to follow ten to twelve persons who were standing there, wearing police uniforms and had guns with them.PW-1 further stated that while they were following those ten to twelve persons inside the jungle, the appellant and his five associates separated themselves and disappeared.Thereafter PW-1 and his nephew were told that they had been abducted and that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar was their leader.PW-1 also deposed that they were beaten up; were made to carry the goods and baggage of those men as they used to shift places frequently; were kept in fetters during the nights; and were eventually asked to write ransom letters to their respective families by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar.PW-1 further stated that, however, on Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 7 of 23 27.11.2000, the dacoits were celebrating something and consumed a lot of alcohol, they got so intoxicated that they forgot to put PW-1 and his nephew in fetters and then the two ran away.They kept running the entire night through the jungle, and when they reached a road they took lift from a truck and reached Etawah.A No.887/2005 Page 6 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 7 of 23PW-1 then deposed that on 29.11.2000, he along with his nephew and other family members went to the Police Station of Kalyanpuri and narrated the entire incident to the police officials.PW-1 further deposed that on 5.5.2001, he along with his nephew and another person Mukesh were standing at the bus stand of Mother Dairy when they spotted Raj Kumar inside the bus of route no. 118, coming from the side of Laxmi Nagar.They brought down the appellant, Raj Kumar from the said bus and took him to the Police Station.PW-1 deposed that Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar wrote a letter on his letter pad Dasuraj and that he was made to write on the back side of the said letter regarding demand of ransom.He proved the letter Ex. P-1 and testified that its portion Ex.P-2 is in his hand writing and bears his signature at point A. He deposed that the letter Ex.P-1 was written by Ram Rattan Singh Gujjar himself.A No.887/2005 Page 8 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 8 of 23Rudra Pratap Singh who is the nephew of PW-1 and is also PW-2, has supported the entire version of the prosecutions case.PW-2 also stated that the said dacoit wrote the letter Ex. PW2/A and on its back the contents which are marked as Ex. PW2/B are in his hand writing.PW-2 also proved his signature thereon.Arun Kumar, PW3 (brother of Anand Pratap Singh), has supported the prosecution story.He also proved the letter from Dasuraj that was received by him and has identified the writing and the signature of PW-1 on it.PW3 has also proved the complaint made by him as Ex. PW 3/A.Shashi Pratap Singh, PW-4, is the elder brother of Rudra Pratap Singh.He also received the letter, Ex. PW 2/A, and identified the writing of his brother on its back as Ex. PW 2/B.Shri Gian Srisvastav, PW-9, was posted as a Postal Assistant in Head Post Office, Etawah.A No.887/2005 Page 15 of 23"On 14.10.2000 I was posted as Postal Assistant in Head Post Office, Etawah.The enveloped Ex.PW-9/A was received in our office for booking and it was addressed to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Trilokpuri, Delhi.The name of the sender was Anil Kumar.The same was dispatched after making entry in our office in Etawah, R.M.S. for delivering the same to the addressee."The appellant had Crl.G.S. SISTANI ( JUDGE ) B.N. CHATURVEDI ( JUDGE ) January 9th , 2009 Msr Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 23 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 23 of 23The present appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "CrPC") against the Judgment dated 20.07.2005 and the Order of Sentence dated 21.07.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 113/01, FIR No. 353/2000 of Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi.The accused was charged under section 364A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, "IPC") and post trial, was found to be guilty of the said Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 1 of 23 offence and was thus sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of the payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo a further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 5 of 23 Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter, "CrPC").A No.887/2005 Page 5 of 23In this case, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses and one witness has been adduced from the side of the defence.He deposed that the envelope, Ex. PW 9/A was received in their office for booking, and that it was addressed to Bhanu Pratap Singh, Trilokpuri, Delhi.PW-9 deposed that after making an entry in their office at Etawah, RMS for delivering it to the addressee, the same was dispatched.Rest of the witnesses produced by the prosecution are police witnesses.HC, Prem Kumar, PW-5, deposed to have recorded the statement of Gian Srivastava.HC, Shyam Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 9 of 23 Singh, PW-6, took a rukka to the Police Station and got this case registered.Shalinder Singh, PW-8 assisted the I.O. during investigation of this case.SI, Kishore Pandey, PW-7, and Rajesh Kumar, PW-10, had investigated this case.A No.887/2005 Page 9 of 23In his statement recorded under section 313 CrPC, the appellant, Raj Kumar @ Pappu admitted that he was a friend of Anand Pratap Singh.The appellant stated that Anand Pratap and Rudra Pratap came to him to enquire about the address of Rajbir and Kailash; that he also went with them and that they were released after taking money.The appellant stated that he has been framed in the case.The learned defence counsel had examined Hari Singh, DW-1, and who is also a friend of the appellant.DW-1 explained that some eight to ten years ago, he was coming back alongwith Raj Kumar @ Pappu when he was accosted by one person whose name he did not recollect.DW-1 testified that that person had threatened him and had taken Raj Kumar to Police Post Dallupura.And he did not know as to what happened thereafter.DW-1 further deposed that after about one and a half years back, when he went to the house of the appellant, Raj Kumar, the wife of the appellant had told him that some unknown person had taken appellant to Police Post about one and half years back.There he came to know that the accused is in jail.In his cross-examination, he explained that the appellant hails from Etawah.DW-1 could Crl.A No.887/2005 Page 10 of 23 not tell as to from where the appellant was arrested.And further could not tell whether the appellant was involved in a kidnapping case or not.A No.887/2005 Page 10 of 23The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that it is beyond imagination that a person who is not a man of means and was doing a job on a monthly salary of Rs. 3000/- and was searching for a better job, a huge sum of Rs. 6,51,000/- and for another jobless person Rs. 2,51,000/- would be demanded for their release.The learned counsel submits that on the one hand as per the prosecution the appellant was asked by PW-1 that his income was not sufficient to run his family, so he wanted some other job and he requested the appellant to search for another job for him and on the other hand the prosecution claims that the appellant had a hand in the kidnapping of PW-1 & 2 for ransom.The counsel argued that it is beyond imagination that a person who knows the family background and financial position of a particular person would help in getting such person kidnapped for a huge sum of ransom.A No.887/2005 Page 11 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 11 of 23The learned counsel also submitted that the depositions of the two prime witnesses, who are also thevictims, Anand Pratap Singh (PW-1) and Rudra Pratap Singh (PW-2), are a thicket of contradictions.Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the place where PW-1 and PW-2 were forced to sit in a Tata Sumo, was not a lonely place.It is, thus, unnatural that they did not raise any alarm to attract the attention of the people around.The same being an unnatural conduct on their part creates a doubt whether anything as alleged has happened or not.Also according to the learned counsel for the appellant there was no occasion for PW-3 to lodge a missing person report in the light of the version of PW-1 that he had informed his mother about going to Aligarh.The learned counsel also argued that there is no evidence that Ex. P-1 and Ex. PW-2A, were written by the same person.And moreover no report regarding the same has been obtained from the CFSL.A No.887/2005 Page 12 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 12 of 23Further it is the case of learned counsel for the appellant that there is not a single eye-witness to support the story of the prosecution even though there were many occasions for the investigating officer to join public witnesses, in order to give credence and corroboration to the prosecution story.And further that the appellant has already undergone about five years of imprisonment, more over he is suffering from the failure of both the kidneys which requires special medical care and in case proper medical care is not provided to him in time, the life of the appellant would be in danger.Per contra, it is submitted by learned counsel for the State that the prosecution has proved its case beyond any shadow of doubt.We have heard learned counsel for the parties as well as carefully scrutinized the record and given our thoughtful consideration to the matter.A No.887/2005 Page 13 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 13 of 23The arguments of learned counsel for the appellant can be summarized as under:The evidence of PW-1 and PW- 2 is corroborated by the evidence of PW-9, Postal Assistant, Main Post Office, Etawah, who supported that the letters of ransom were in fact posted from Etawah.The deposition of PW-9 is reproduced herein below:-A No.887/2005 Page 16 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 16 of 23A No.887/2005 Page 22 of 23 slapped PW-2 and thereafter left the scene after handing PWs 1 and 2 to another group of 10-12 persons.On the minute analysis of the evidence, it would show that the act committed by the appellant was in furtherance of a common intention.By bringing the victims to Aligarh, the appellant, in fact, had participated in the commission of the offence.A No.887/2005 Page 22 of 23Having regard to the facts of this case, it has been established that the appellant and PW-1 were known to each other and the appellant had shown greener pastures to PW- 1 in promising PW-1 better job prospects and thereafter by deceit took him to Aligarh.Taking into consideration the evidence on record and the reasons as aforestated , we find no infirmity in the Judgment dated 20.07.2005 and the Order of Sentence dated 21.07.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, in Sessions Case No. 113/01, FIR No. 353/2000 of Police Station Kalyanpuri, Delhi.The appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
85,752,614 |
(Criminal Misc.Application No. 95097 of 2013) This second bail application is moved on behalf of the accused applicant.I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P. and learned perused the material available on record.This second bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in S.T No. 258/2010, arising out of Case Crime No. 406 of 2010, under Section 376/506 I.P.C., P.S. Kumarganj, District Faizabad, whereby, the applicant has been convicted under Section 376/506 (2) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and three years imprisonment for section 506 (2) and to pay of find of Rs. 25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant to further undergo for the period of six months additional imprisonment.Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that as per the prosecution story itself the alleged occurrence took place on 26.06.2010 at about 10 a.m while F.I.R. for the same had been lodged after on extra ordinary delay of 20 days which created serious doubt to the prosecution story even then the learned trial court has convicted the appellant/applicant without proper appreciation of evidence and facts on record.The learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and particularly this vital fact that prosecutrix had not disclosed to her mother on the same day that she was subjected to rape which was very unnatural.The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the medical evidence with regard to the age of the prosecutix which, according to Modi, come to 17-18 years.The learned trial court has also failed to appreciate the medical report of the prosecution which clearly reveals that hymen was torned, two finger easily inserted and there was no opinion regarding rape.The learned trial court has also failed to appreciate that the sole basis of the alleged prosecution story was extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant under influence of liquor which is very weak in nature and unbelievable.It appears that so far the appellant has undergone imprisonment for about two years and four months.The High Court declined to grant bail pending disposal of the appeal before it.In the circumstances, we direct that bail be granted to the appellant on such conditions as may be imposed by the District and Sessions Judge, Faridabad.Controverting the above arguments raised on behalf of the appellant, the learned A.G.A. has submitted that the appellant has been convicted for a very serious and heinous offence of rape with a minor girl.His first bail application was rejected on 13.05.2014 after elaborate discussions made by Hon'ble Zaki Ullah Khan, J. Most of the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant belongs to the facts of the case, which were available to him at the time of making the first bail application.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
857,534 |
ORDER Jyotirmoyee Nag, J.The accused opp.parties were charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and one of the accused was charged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code separately.There was also a charge under Section 6(3) of the Indian Explosives Act against all the accused persons.As the offences are sessions triable the accused persons were committed to the court of session by the learned Magistrate.After the charges were framed in the Sessions Court an application was made by the learned Public Prosecutor under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for permission to withdraw the case against the accused persons.The application made by the learned Public Prosecutor in charge of the case was to the following effect."That, being instructed by my client and satisfied with the grounds of withdrawal, the Public Prosecutor Murshidabad puts in the petition seeking Your Honour's consent to the withdrawal from the prosecution in the above case with regard to all offences against the accused persons on the following amongst other grounds: For that in the interest of administration of justice the consent be given.Upon this application being made the learned Sessions Judge passed the impugned order.The accused was charged under Sections 302 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.The ground stated by the Public Prosecutor in his application for permission to withdraw was that on the evidence available it would not be just and expedient to proceed with the prosecution of Sri Mahesh Desai (accused) and that therefore it was necessary to withdraw the case against Shri Mahesh Desai only.The learned Magistrate granted permission and discharged the accused.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,335,194 |
The facts as are relevant for the adjudication of the present appeal are briefly encapsulated as follows:-(a) It is the case of the prosecution that, in the month of December, 2010, the Delhi Police received an information that two cell phones bearing No.9560872567 and 923335000846 were being used for Hawala transactions.(b) It is further the case of the prosecution that, case bearing FIR No.4/2011 was registered at Police Station-Special Cell, Lodhi Colony on 16.01.2011 under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC') read with Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the UA(P) Act').CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 2 of 23(d) It is alleged in the charge sheet that, on the aforementioned information, certain phone numbers were put under surveillance and on the basis of the information collected from the surveillance, it came to light that, one Maqbool Pandit, who was a member of a banned outfit, was sending huge amounts of funds to the secessionists and terrorists based in Jammu and Kashmir via Delhi.(e) It is further alleged that on 22.01.2011, on the basis of the reliable information, a joint team of the Delhi Police and Jammu and Kashmir Police, laid a trap at Bemina Bypass Chowk, Srinagar, to apprehend the accused persons with the illegal money.(f) It is further alleged that, at around 10.30 a.m. a white Maruti Car bearing No.JK 09 2942 came from the Bypass road and stopped near the water tank, adjacent to a park.CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 3 of 23It is further alleged that two people namely, Ghulam Jeelani Liloo @ Salim @ Ghulam Jeelani Sofi (A-3) and Farooq Ahmed Dagga @ Rahi (A-4) stepped out of the car and waited.(g) It is further alleged that, in the meanwhile the appellant, Ghulam Mohd. Bhat (A-1), came from the same side and started talking to them.It is further alleged that at that time the informer identified the above said three persons.(h) It is further alleged that, the persons who had come in the car (A-3 and A-4) took out a red and yellow bag from the car, opened it and showed it to the person, who had come on foot i.e. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat, the appellant herein.The team members then approached the said three persons and apprehended them.(i) It is further alleged that, from A-1, Rs.20 lakhs, cell phones bearing No.88039112274 and 9797720964 and a slip containing certain phone numbers were recovered.It is also alleged that, from the remaining two accused persons also certain recoveries were made.It is further alleged that, the appellant herein, was produced before CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 4 of 23 the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar and one day's transit remand was granted to the Delhi Police.CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 4 of 23(j) The case of the prosecution is that, the appellant while being apprehended, tried to flee from the spot and in the process, he received some injuries after which he was shifted to the hospital.That further, two seizure memos were allegedly prepared, with respect to the recoveries allegedly made from the appellant.10 (Ex.SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, JThe present appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NIA Act') read with Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.') assails the order dated 26.11.2018 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 1 of 23 (NIA), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in case arising out of RC- 06/2011/NIA/DLI, registered by the NIA under Sections 13,17,18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (hereinafter referred to as 'UA(P) Act'), whereby the third bail application instituted on behalf of the appellant came to be dismissed.CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 1 of 23(c) The NIA submitted its charge sheet before the Special Court on 20.07.2011 indicting four persons, including the appellant herein.(k) Thereafter, the NIA also filed a supplementary charge sheet on 22.12.2011 in the court, indicting Mohd.Maqbool Pandit and Aijaz Ahmed Bhat as accused No.5 and 6 respectively, wherein it was alleged that the aforementioned have illegally raised funds in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and sent it to India through Hawala channels to Mohd. Sidiq Ganai @ Lala, to promote terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, India.(l) The District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NIA) vide the order dated 03.03.2012 was pleased to frame charges against the appellant herein under Sections 13, 17, 18 and CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 5 of 23 20 of the UA(P)CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 5 of 23(m) The first bail application instituted on behalf of the appellant was dismissed by the learned Special Judge (NIA) vide order dated 18.02.2012, observing therein that the prosecution has been able to show that there is prima facie evidence to substantiate the accusations against the appellant.(n) The appellant, after 25 witnesses had been examined, filed the second application for bail dated 08.05.2015, pleading therein that, he had been falsely implicated;false allegations of recovery of money had been leveled against him; no independent witness was joined; neither has any specific act of terrorism been alleged against him nor has any material been placed on record to connect him to any terrorist act; and that the testimony of the witnesses examined thus far shows that he has been falsely implicated.The second bail application was also predicated on the submission that although PW-1 testified that the appellant suffered injuries while trying to evade apprehension, but his testimony shows that the latter was CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 6 of 23 kept at the spot while his search was conducted.CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 6 of 23(o) The second bail application lastly mentioned that the appellant is 60 years old and suffering from various ailments like hypothyroidism, gout, arthritis, prostrate enlargement, respiratory allergy/asthma, spinal problems and also diagnosed with T2 Hyperintense Lesions and Hemangioma etc.(q) The appellant assailed the aforesaid order dated 05.11.2015 by instituting Criminal Appeal No.1251/2015 before this Court.(r) The High Court vide its order dated 07.02.2018, disposed of the said Criminal Appeal No.1251/2015 with the following order:-"This appeal is pending since 2015 against the order rejecting grant of bail.Since then the trial has progressed.In our view, it would be appropriate that the appellant moves a fresh application before the Trial Court to seek bail, since the Trial Court is seized of the matter and would be able to better appreciate the contentions of the CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 7 of 23 parties in relation to grant of bail.Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, seeks leave to move a fresh application before the Trial Court.Liberty to move a fresh application to seek bail is granted.In case such an application is moved, the same shall be considered by the Trial Court on its own merits on an early date convenient to the court.The appeal stands disposed of."(s) Subsequent thereto, the appellant filed a third bail application, which has been dismissed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), vide order dated 26.11.2018, impugned in the present appeal.Ramban, Jammu and Kashmir.The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the commission of the stated offence or otherwise".It has also been enunciated that, "once charges are framed, it would be safe to assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials before the Court, which prompted the Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged against the accused, to justify the framing of charge".(Ref: Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), paragraphs 24 and 26)In view of the foregoing, we find no warrant to interfere with CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 22 of 23 the impugned order dated 26.11.2018 rendered by the District & Sessions Judge, Special Judge (NIA), Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.The appeal being devoid of merits, is consequently dismissed.CRL.A.1264/2018 Page 22 of 23
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
303,355 |
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.11.79 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.T.V.S.R. Krishna Sastry, Vishnu Mathur and V.B.Saharya, Amicus curiee (NP) for the Appellants.G. Prabhakar for the Respondent.Learned Sessions Judge,West Godavari Division, Eluru tried the case and relying onthe evidence of P.Ws. 1,2 and 7 in toto and the evidence ofP.W.3 to some extent convicted all the accused persons forthe offences charged under Section 302 read with Section 149I.P.C. and awarded each one of them sentence of imprisonmentfor life and other minor terms of imprisonment for otheroffences.On appeal the High Court set aside the convictionand sentence of seven accused persons, namely, DasariBhaskara Rao (A-4), Kali China Krishna (A-5), NamburiLakshmana (A-8), Namburi Ramulu (A-9), Namburi Prasada Rao(A-10), Mada Govardhana Rao (A-11) and Kali Kamaka Rao (A-12).The High Court confirmed the conviction of theremaining five accused persons Mullagiri Vajram (A-1), MadaLakshmandas (A-6) and Gandi Abraham (A-7) under Section 302read with Section 149 I.P.C. and sentenced them toimprisonment for life.The High Court further held that asthese accused had been sentenced for the main offence underSection 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. there was no needof separate sentence under Sections 148 and 147 I.P.C.The five accused A-1, A-2, A-3, A-6 & A-7 have comebefore this Court in appeal against the order of the HighCourt by grant of Special Leave.We have gone through the Judgment of the lower courtsand have perused the record and have considered thearguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties.The High Court hasplaced implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W.2 and whowas a clerk working in the panchayat office of Ramaraogudemand had accompanied the deceased in an autorickshaw and hadseen the incident.We find no infirmity in the statement ofP.W.2 and the High Court has rightly placed reliance on hisevidence.Learned counsel for the accused persons submitted thateven if the statement of P.W.2 is taken to be correct, nooffence is made out so far as accused (A-3) is concerned.Learned counsel in this regard submitted that P.W.2 in thecross examination has admitted that he did not state thename of A-3 in his statement recorded under Section 164Cr.P.C. It was also submitted that though P.W. 2 stated thathe had given the name of A-3 in his statement recorded atthe inquest but the name of A-3 does not find mention inexhibit D-7, the statement of P.W.2 recorded at theinquest.We see force in the aforesaid contention.A perusalof the statement of P.W.2 shows that he did not make amention of the name of A-3 in his statement recorded underSection 164 Cr.P.C. and also in his statement exhibit D-7recorded at the inquest.It was next contended by learned counsel on behalf ofthe accused A-2 and A-7 that P.W.2 in the cross examinationadmitted that after the incident he had gone to policestation seven or eight times.He had gone to the policestation as he was asked by the police.He also admitted thatat that time accused persons were in police lock up.On thebasis of the aforesaid statement of P.W.2 it was contendedthat when P.W.2 had gone to the police station scene oreight times after the incident the possibility of his seeingthe accused (A-2) and (A-7) in the police station cannot beruled out.It was thus contended that any identificationparade held on 25.1.1978 and 26.1.1978 has no value as P.W.2had already seen the accused persons in the police station.We find no force in this contention.Exhibits P-16 and P-17are the proceedings of identification parade held on25.1.1978 and 26.1.1978 respectively.A perusal of thesedocuments shows that P.W.2 Garapati Krishnavatharam hadhimself stated that he had prior acquaintance with MullagiriYesupadam (A-2) and Gandi Abraham (A-7).The High Court hasexamined this aspect of the matter and has rightly arrivedto the conclusion that P.W.2 in his evidence has statedthat he came to know the names of the accused from thechildren of the deceased and it was not unnatural for aperson, who resides in a village for a period of two monthsand especially when they reside opposite to the residence ofthe president(deceased) in whose office he was working as aclerk to know the names of the persons residing nearby.P.W.2 is a witness of sterling worth and both thetrial court and the High Court have placed reliance on histestimony.He had identified A-1, A-2 and A-7 in the Court.Their conviction is not based on the identification paradebut on the statement of P.W.1 AND P.W.2 made during thetrial as eye-witness.It is established beyond any manner of doubt that therewere two factions and long standing rivalry in between thetwo groups in the Village.The accused persons belonged tothe group headed by A-6, A-7 and the deceased was the leaderof the other group.He was found to have 26 external injuries asrecorded in the autopsy of his dead body conducted by theDoctor.It has also been found established by the learnedtrial court as well as by the High Court that A-1 inflictedinjuries by and axe and A-2 by a spear and A-7 was Courtthat A-1 inflicted injuries by an axe and A-2 by a spear andA-7 was among the other persons who inflicted injuries by astick.He surrounded the housewith his staff, guarded the house and in that house he foundthe twelve persons against whom the case was challaned.Ithas also been proved by the prosecution that A-7 was theleader of the rival faction against the deceased.Thus wefind that there is no infirmity at all in the reasoning andconclusion arrived at by the High Court so far as accused A-1, A-2 and A-7 are concerned.In the result we allow the appeal so far as DasariBhima Rao (A-3) is concerned and he is acquitted of all thecharged levelled against him his bail bonds shall standdischarged.The appeal filed by Mullagiri Vajram (A-1),Mullagiri Yesupadam (A-2) and Gandi Abraham(A-7) isdismissed.They shall surrender to their bail bonds andserve out the sentence awarded to them by the High Court.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
30,340,258 |
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Police Station and Crime No.Sections of Law1Valavanur Police Station Crime No.260/2011147, 148, 341, 294(b), 506(II), 307, 302 IPC and Sec.3(1) Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992)2Valavanur Police Station Crime No.261/2011 147, 457 & 427 IPC3Valavanur Police Station Crime No.262/2011 147, 148, 457, 427 & 506(i) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Villupuram Taluk Police Station in Crime No.814/2013 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii), 302 IPC.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the question of delay in consideration of the petitioner's representation, which has not been properly explained by the respondents.Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,342,250 |
A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 1 of 52. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the evidence of PW1 the complainant Brij Kishore is not supported by PW2 Ajay, though he had claimed that he had witnessed the incident and had intervened in the matter.Despite PW1 stating that he was given fist blows, no injury was found on his body.Further it is alleged that the Appellants showed him the knife, however there is no injury by the knife on the body of the complainant.Though PW1 has stated that there were 200 people at the spot, PW3 has stated that there were 50-100 people at the spot and PW5 stated that there were 20 people at the spot chasing the accused, however no public witness has been examined.PW2 is an introduced witness and this is evident from the fact that PW1 himself has stated that PW2 did not go to the Police Station and his statement was not recorded in PW1's presence.The Police Officers PWs 3, 5 & 6 claim to be on patrolling duty, however no DD entry has been exhibited to prove that they were on patrolling duty.On the same day the Appellants were arrested in two other FIRs, however they have been acquitted in those two matters.The case of the prosecution being highly improbable and based on conjectures and surmises the Appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt.3. Learned APP on the other hand contends that the Appellants were apprehended at the spot.Though PW2 had turned hostile, however he admits that a quarrel had taken place.PW1 Brij Kishore @ Pappu has stated that on 9th July, 1995 he was present at his shop on 2nd Pusta, First Gali when the Appellants came there and attacked his gold chain which he was wearing in his neck.He saved himself by moving at the back.The Appellants put their hand on his neck to break the chain when he raised an alarm.In the meantime his neighbours Ajay PW2 and some other persons came there.When they tried to apprehend them, the Appellants ran away showing their knives in the air.However, they were apprehended at a distance by the Police officials and public persons and they sustained injuries while being apprehended.This witness has identified the knives and the gold chain which was also seized by the Police.This witness in his cross-examination has stated that in the process of snatching, the chain broke and fell down.PW2 the other independent witness has turned hostile.However, in his testimony he had stated at about 4/5 PM he had come to the shop of Brij Kishore @ Pappu PW1 for taking tea, he saw the quarrel taking place near the shop.He however denied the identity of the persons i.e. Appellants.By these appeals the Appellants lay a challenge to the judgment dated 26th November, 2008 convicting the Appellants for offences under Section 393/398/34 IPC read with Section 27 Arms Act and the order dated 3rd December, 1998 directing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Sections 398/34 IPC, Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 days for offences under Sections 393/34 Crl.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 1 of 5 IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for 5 days for offence under Section 27 Arms Act. The Appellant Irfan is in custody, however the Appellant Yusuf was released from jail on 28th October, 2011 after completion of his sentence of 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 1000/-.The Appellants were apprehended with the knives which were seized from them.The case of the Appellants is that they were lifted from their respective houses, however in cross- examination PW3 had denied this suggestion.Further this suggestion is contrary to the statement of the Appellants recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein they have admitted that they had consumed beer and they were going together to purchase articles for the birthday of Irfan's nephew and on the way Police officials stopped their and falsely implicated in this case.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.He clarified that it did not break but opened from its lock and fell down on the ground outside the shop.He Crl.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 3 of 5 lifted the chain immediately and gave it to the Police who seized it.Nothing much has been elicited from the cross-examination of this witness.6. PW3 Constable Lalit Kumar, PW5 ASI Rishi Pal Singh and PW6 Constable Satish Kumar were on patrolling duty.According to them while patrolling they heard Bachaoo - Bachaoo and when they went near, they saw both the Appellants running away with open knives in their hands and the public was chasing them.They chased and apprehended the Appellants with the help of the public.Two knives were seized from the possession of Appellants at the spot.Further the gold chain of PW1 which was tried to be snatched was also seized.The witnesses have duly identified the knives and the chain seized on that date.Despite asking the public witnesses to join the investigation, they refused to do so.A perusal of the testimony of PW-1 clearly show that the Appellants attempted to commit robbery by snatching the chain of PW1 and when the public collected, they ran away.They were apprehended by PWs 3, 5 & 6 with the help of public.In the present appeal it is being contended that the Appellants have been falsely implicated at the instance of PW1 who is a stock witness of the Police.However, no such suggestion has been given to the witness during cross-examination.The explanation of the Appellant Irfan is that on 9th July, 1995 he along with co-accused Yusuf @ Galkata were going to Seelampur market in the day time i.e. 12/12.30 PM for making some purchases for the Crl.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 4 of 5 birthday of his nephew and on the way Police officials stopped them and falsely implicated them in this case.Appellant Yusuf @ Galkata has stated that he along with Irfan had come from Theka after consuming beer, when two Police officers came on scooter and without any rhyme or reason falsely implicated them.Though PW1 has stated that he was beaten, however no MLC has been placed on record.The non-placing of MLC would not be material as the statement of PW1 is that the Appellants put their hand on his neck to break the chain when he raised the alarm.Though in his cross-examination he stated that he was beaten for about 10 minutes by the Appellants, however he has also clarified that his MLC was not prepared.Mere beating by the slaps and fist blows, as stated, may not have necessarily resulted in external injuries.Thus non-preparation of the MLC of the PW1 would not falsify his statement.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 4 of 5In view of the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 5 & 6, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the Appellants.The appeals and application are accordingly dismissed.The Appellant Irfan, who is in custody, would undergo the remaining sentence.(MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 04, 2012 'ga' Crl.A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 5 of 5A. Nos. 331/2009 & 660/2010 Page 5 of 5
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,342,253 |
Ref.:-Criminal Misc.Correction Application Learned counsel for the applicants is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause of the application during the course of the day.Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. for the State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that due to inadvertent mistake, in the description of sections, "506 IPC" has not been mentioned in the prayer clause of application.He, therefore, submits that he may be permitted to correct the application today itself as well as the same may be transcribed, accordingly.Prayer made for is bona fide.Accordingly, the same is allowed.After Section 504 IPC, "506 IPC" appearing in the fourth line of second paragraph as well as second line of second last paragraph of the aforesaid order is added.With the aforesaid directions, the present correction application stands finally disposed of.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
303,492 |
Ntohing seems to have been done in pursuance of the first information report aforesaid except that in or about December, 1955, the Vivian Bose inquiry Commission was appointed to enquire and report on the administration of some companies said to be included in the Dalmia Jain Group." In reply to this letter, the petitioner Company wrtoe a letter dated January 15, 1966, to the Company Law Board stating inter alia: "We would, however, like to inform you that we are taking necessary steps to make provisions in our Articles of Association to provide for alternate form of management should the Government of India finally decide, on receipt of the report of the Managing agency Inquiry Committee, nto to allow managing agency system in the business in which our Company is engaged."It appears that certain decisions were taken and minutes recorded by the Company Law Board which indicated the reasons for refusing the extension asked for but all that the petitioner Company gto was a letter dated January 23, 1967 from the Company Law Board stating: "I am directed to refer to your letter No. RDN: 5319 dated 25-8-66 on the above subject and to say that after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the Company Law Board regrets its inability to approve extension of the tenure of the managing agents of your company for a further term from 1-4-67."Similar orders refusing extensions to the Managing Agents of the toher Dalmia Group companies like Orissa Cement Limited, Dalmia Cement Limited, Dalmia cement (Bharat) Limited and Raza Buland Sugar Company limited were made by the Company Law Board at about this time and these companies filed writs in this Court challenging the orders of the Company Law Board refusing the extension.It may only be stated that the Govan Brtohers (Rampur) Private Limited were managing Agents of the Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited also.But it is nto disputed that the alleged offences were nto in respect of anything done by V. H. Dalmia in connection with the affairs of Messrs. Govan Brtohers (Rampur) Private Limited.Hereinafter referred to as the "Managing Agents".Representations against the refusal dated January 23, 1967 were made by the petitioner company and by their letter dated June 6, 1967, the Company Law Board informed the petitioners that their request for extension of the term Managing Agents had been rejected.The petitioners will have their costs of this petition Counsels fee is assessed at Rs. 200/-.Petition allowed.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,362,354 |
The FIR by CBI has been registered at Delhi.The Petitioner has been asked to produce documents at Delhi and the treasury from which the money has been embezzled is also at Bail Appln.444/2012 Page 1 of 6 Delhi.Reliance in this regard is placed on CBI Vs.Braj Bhushan Prasad & Ors.AIR 2001 SC 4014 and Sanjay Tripathi Vs.Bail Appln.The facts as set out in the abovementioned FIR are that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad vide order dated 15th November, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 3611/2011 (PIL) and other connected writ petitions directed the CBI to conduct preliminary enquiry into the matter of execution and implementation of National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) Scheme and utilization of funds at various levels during such implementation in the entire State of Uttar Pradesh, register regular case in case of persons against whom prima facie cognizable offence is made out and proceed in accordance with law.The said enquiry was directed to be conducted from the period 2005-2006 till date.On the basis of the said direction, 5 separate preliminary enquiries were registered in different branches of CBI at New Delhi in respect of alleged irregularities in the utilization of funds of Government of India Bail Appln.It was decided to improve 134 hospitals of the State for which Rs. 13.40 crores was allotted to Construction & Design Services (C&US) U.P. Jal Nigam, Lucknow in July, 2009 by the Executive Body of NRHM Uttar Pradesh.During the period 2009-2010 M/s. Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd., Mohan Nagar, Ghaziabad through its Directors and representatives entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Modern Interiors, Lucknow and Ramesh Bhati of M/s. Ankur Goods & Parcel Services at Gaziabad with the illegal object to cheat the Central Government funded NRHM funds placed at the disposal of office of Director General Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of upgradation of 134 hospitals in Uttar Pradesh.The various accused including the then Minister of Family Welfare, Uttar Pradesh and the officials by abusing their official position as public servants, in collusion with the Directors/ representatives of the above said private firms and in order to give undue favour to the said firms, identified 27 items to be supplied to 134 hospitals Bail Appln.444/2012 Page 3 of 6 for upgradation work without consulting the concerned District Hospital authorities and used forged rate estimates without making any comparison with the then DGS&D, CPWD, PWD rates or actually conducting any market survey for getting approval of the competent authority.The estimates of the aforesaid 27 items were prepared and given by representatives of M/s. Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd., Gaziabad to the officials of C&DS Gaziabad and the rates of items in terms of other firms were collected in such a way that M/s. Surgicoin may get the tender for supply of abovementioned items.Subsequently the work relating to upgradation work was allotted to M/s. Surgicoin Mediquip Pvt. Ltd., Gaziabad for 114 hospitals and M/s. Modern Interiors, Lucknow for 20 hospitals.These firms supplied the items at exorbitant rates to the extent of 5 times more than the existing market rates, thus causing wrongful loss to the extent of Rs. 5.36 crores to the Government exchequer.444/2012 Page 4 of 6 appointed for the case, or, where there was more special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government."Bail Appln.444/2012 Page 4 of 6In the CBI Vs.Through: Mr. P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel.The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner applied for an anticipatory bail before the Learned Special Judge, Delhi but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court at Delhi only has jurisdiction to try the offence and thus the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application for want of territorial jurisdiction.444/2012 Page 1 of 63. Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the abovementioned FIR was registered on the direction of Hon'ble High Court at Allahabad.After registration of FIR, the copy of the FIR was sent to and all the accused are being produced for remand before the learned Special Judge, Gaziabad as the corruption and embezzlement of Government funds has taken place in Uttar Pradesh.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,365,022 |
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Crl.M.A.48381/2018 (stay) & CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 1 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 1 of 19Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of one constable Sanjeev, who had given his statement that he was on duty on the police picket in the intervening night of 30 - 31 March, 2014 and at CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 2 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 about 1 AM he saw two persons, whom he knew from before, get out of a Scorpio Car on the main road where they were talking.He subsequently saw that the talking had escalated into an aggravated discussion, where after, he stated that he saw the accused Rajeev Chaudhary take out a revolver from his pocket and with that he shot the deceased on his right temple at point blank range, because of which the victim died.Subsequently, it is alleged that the accused drove away from the spot in his Scorpio Car.1. Petitioner in Crl.Pet.1052/2018, i.e., Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi impugns order dated 26.10.2018 to the extent that the said order records that prima facie it appears that the petitioner Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi has committed an offence under Section 201/192/120B Indian Penal Code (I.P.C. for short) and thereafter summons him as an accused under Section 319 Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C. for short) for the offence punishable under Sections 201/192/120B I.P.C. and further lists the case for faming additional charge against the accused under Section 201/120B I.P.C..2. Petitioner in Crl.P.1068/2018, i.e., Rajeev Chaudhary @ Rajeev Kumar, who is the accused in FIR No.194/2014 under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station Jagat Puri also impugns the said order insofar as it seeks to list the matter for framing additional charge against him under Sections 201/120B I.P.C..Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi was the first Investigating Officer of the case and was entrusted with the investigation of the case at the time of registration of the FIR on 31.03.2014 till 04.04.2014, when the case was transferred to District Investigation Unit.CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 2 of 19FIR was registered on the DD Entry given on the statement of Constable Sanjeev.Thereafter, investigation was marked to Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi.Perusal of the record shows that the Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi thereafter issued "Request For Post Mortem" to Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital requesting for preservation of certain items.FIR was registered on 31.03.2014, final report was filed on 28.06.2014 reporting that it was not a case of murder but of suicide.The Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was not satisfied with the report and, accordingly, on 30.06.2014, directed further investigation.Thereafter, on 30.08.2014, another final report was filed, wherein, the Police reported that they were not certain as to whether it was a case of murder or suicide.On perusal of the evidence and after hearing the counsel for the accused and also the Public Prosecutor, charge under CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 3 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 Section 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused Rajeev Chaudhary, (petitioner in Crl.Rev.Pet.1068/2018).CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 3 of 19During trial when the statement of the doctor, who had appeared from Guru Teg Bahadhur Hospital as PW - 3, to prove the "Request For Post Mortem", was being recorded, it transpired that the "Request For Post Mortem", a copy of which was produced by the hospital, showed that only three items were requested to be preserved, i.e., viscera, clothes and blood.When Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi appeared as a prosecution witness, as.PW - 11, he also sought to prove the original "Request For Post Mortem".The Trial Court observed that in the original "Request For Post Mortem", produced by Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi, apart from the three items sought to be preserved (as indicated by PW - 3), there were two additional items which were mentioned in the original "Request For Post Mortem", i.e., (d) handwash of the deceased and (e) scalp hair.The Trial Court observed that at the time of the recording of the statement of PW - 3, a specific question had been put by learned counsel appearing for the accused as to why he had preserved the scalp hair when there was no request made in the "Request For Post Mortem".The doctor had stated that he had preserved the scalp hair on his own.The Trial Court thereafter inter alia held as under:-"As during investigation this case was diverted towards suicidal theory and even the police filed the charge sheet that during investigation, evidence of section 302 I.P.C. was not found, thus, preservation of handwash of deceased and accused to rule out the possibility of using revolver by showing the presence of gunpowder/led particles on the handwash of either of deceased or accused, was an important piece of evidence.It is pertinent to note here that doctor, who conducted post-mortem on the body of deceased was examined as PW3 and during his examination, PW3 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh specifically deposed that IO only requested three items to be preserved i.e. viscera, clothes and blood vide Ex.PW3/C i.e. photocopy/carbon copy of request for post-mortem and he further explained that at his own he preserved the scalp hair from around the firearm entry wound site for range estimation and further specifically deposed that before starting the postmortem the CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 5 of 19 CRL.REV.P. 1068/2018 investigating officer was asked, if preservation of swab/handwash of deceased is required, on which he said that it is not required and he recorded this fact in post-mortem report Ex.PW3/CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 5 of 19Thus, there are two documents on record i.e. Ex.PW3/C and Ex.PW11/E and exhibit PW3/C is the photocopy of the request for the post-mortem made by IO/Inspector Yashvir Tyagi i.e. Ex.PW11/E wherein on one document i.e. request for post-mortem, which was given to doctor, who conducted the post-mortem it was not mentioned to preserve the handwash of deceased while in other document i.e. request for post-mortem Ex.PW11/E which was filed along with charge sheet, it is mentioned to preserve the handwash.P.C empowers the Court that if during trial it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.After considering the evidence of PW3 Dr. Vishwajeet Singh and PW11 Inspector Yashvir Tyagi, as well as documents Ex.PW3/B, Ex.PW3/C and Ex.Put up for appearance of Inspector Yashvir Tyagi as an accused for offence punishable u/s. 201/192/120B I.P.C. and for framing additional charge against accused u/s. 201/120B I.P.C., on 10.12.2018."By the impugned order, the Trial Court on perusal of the material and evidence of PW - 3 and PW - 11 has returned a prima facie finding that it appeared that the Inspector Yashvir Singh Tyagi, knowingly for causing disappearance of the evidence, fabricated the false evidence by mentioning that he had requested for taking handwash of the deceased when in fact he had not done so.Impugned order does not state as to what evidence has disappeared.CRL.REV.P. 1052/2018 & Page 12 of 19
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,373,969 |
It must be mentioned at the outset that the applicant was first arrested in a different case bearing FIR No.111/2020 dated 04.03.2020; and was subsequently formally arrested in the present case.The applicant has been in judicial custody from the date of his arrest in the other case on 03.04.2020 till date.______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.It is stated in the application that the applicant has already been granted bail in FIRs Nos.111/2020 and 112/2020 on 13.05.2020 and 19.05.2020 respectively, by the learned Sessions Court.It is important to mention that the applicant is not named in the present FIR, which stands registered against unnamed accused persons.The incident in respect of which the FIR came to be registered is alleged to have taken place on 24.02.2020, on which date, according to the police, a mob engaged in rioting and destruction of property in certain areas of North-East Delhi, during which the property of one Mohd. Shanawaz, being shop No.27, property No.A- 126A, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Shiv Vihar Crossing, Delhi was burnt down, whereupon he filed a complaint with the police on 04.03.2020 i.e. around 10 days after the incident.______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 2 of 24Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 2 of 24Status reports dated 03.07.2020, 20.07.2020 and 23.07.2020 were filed by the State.Medical status report dated 30.06.2020 and nominal rolls dated 30.06.2020 and 07.07.2020 have also been received from the Jail Superintendent.As gathered from the contents of the FIR, the status reports and from submissions made in the matter, the stand of the State is the following:(i) that on 04.03.2020 complainant/Mohd.Shanawaz, who is stated to have a shop in Shiv Vihar, Delhi, made a written complaint to the Police Headquarters alleging inter alia that on 24.02.2020 at 4:15 pm a crowd of rioting persons burnt down his shop in front of his eyes; that he telephoned the police but since their phone-lines were busy, the complainant ran away from the spot to save his life.The relevant extract of complaint dated 04.03.2020 is as below:(extract from the record) ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 3 of 24Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 3 of 24(iii) that, according to the police, thereafter two other statements of the complainant were recorded.One was a supplementary statement dated 'nil' which, it was clarified during the course of the hearings, was recorded on 10.03.2020, in which the complainant says that Investigating Officer S.I. Rajeev Kumar visited and inspected the complainant's shop on 10.03.2020; and drew a site-plan of the scene of crime on the complainant's pointing-out; and that the complainant also accompanied the I.O. to look for the offenders but did not find anyone.It is further recorded in this statement that the complainant also gave to the I.O. photographs of his shop.The relevant portion of the statement is placed below:(extract from the record) ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 4 of 24Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 4 of 24(iv) that thereafter another statement of the complainant, being supplementary statement dated 10.04.2020 was recorded, in which he said that on 24.02.2020 around 4:00 pm a group of rioters came from Shiv Vihar side armed with sticks, iron rods and petrol bombs/petrol- filled bottles, entered his shop, caused breakage and set it on fire.The statement further records that today i.e. 10.04.2020, the I.O. visited the shop and showed the complainant certain photos and videos on the I.O.'s cellphone, in which the complainant identified two persons who were involved in setting his shop on fire; and that the complainant would be able to identify other persons also if confronted.The relevant extract of the statement is as under:(extract from the record) ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 5 of 241231/2020 Page 5 of 24(v) that in addition, a statement dated 05.03.2020 of Ct.Vikas from PS: Dayalpur was also recorded, in which the Constable says that on 24.02.2020, on instructions of his superiors, he went to Shiv Vihar Junction and Mahalaxmi Enclave to control the rioting going-on there; that a crowd of around 1500-2000 people had gathered there, many of whom were carrying sticks, iron rods and petrol- filled bottles; that the crowd became riotous and around 4:00 pm they started burning down shops and vehicles.The Constable further says that he, alongwith other members of the police staff, tried to reason with the crowd but without success.Most pertinently, the Constable says that in the crowd there were some boys from the local area; from amongst whom he recognizes two boys who were from Mustafabad, namely Firoz Khan s/o Munan Khan and Mohd. Anwar s/o Mohd. Zahid Hussain (i.e. the applicant); and that he can also recognize the other boys if confronted.The Constable says that these boys were carrying petrol-filled bottles, and committed arson in the shops in Mahalaxmi Enclave and ran away thereafter.The relevant extract of the statement is as below:______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 6 of 24 (extract from the record)Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 6 of 24(vi) that the State further relies on 02 photos, which are stated to be snapshots/screen-grabs of purported CCTV footage of 24.02.2020 at about 4:02 pm from one Rajdhani Public School, in which, according to the State, the applicant Mohd. Anwar is clearly seen in a white shirt.Copies of the snapshots have been filed on record.While counsel for the applicant disputes that the boy in the white shirt is indeed the applicant, it is noticed that in any case the applicant does not appear to be carrying either a stick or an iron rod or a petrol-filled bottle and that the applicant's hands are empty;______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 7 of 24Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 7 of 24(vii) that the State further relies upon call detail records (CDRs) for the period from 15.02.2020 to 27.02.2020 purporting to relate to the applicant's cellphone number 8882289495, to show that on the relevant date and time, i.e. 24.02.2020 at about 4.00 pm, the applicant's cellphone was in the Old Mustafabad area, where the rioting happened.It is on the basis of the aforesaid material that the State alleges that the applicant was one of the persons involved in arson and rioting; for which he was arrested and has been kept in judicial custody ever since.The applicant's jail conduct is stated to be 'satisfactory'.Notably, in status report dated 03.07.2020, the State also says:That notice U/s 91 CrPC were given to the residents/shopkeepers of the area to provide the CCTV Footage of the said incident, although most of the CCTV Camera's in the area were damaged and burnt by rioters.However, a video footage regarding the incident was found ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 8 of 24 in the mobile phone of accused itself.1231/2020 Page 18 of 24Bail Appl.Seeing the distance between Rajdhani Public School, ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 20 of 24 Mahalaxmi Enclave and the complainant's shop at property No. A-126A, Mahalaxmi Enclave on Google Maps, which identifies the school and property No. A- 126 (though not A-126A), it appears that the shop and the school are about 400 metres and a 5-minute walk apart, but on two different sides of a turn in the road.The complainant's shop is stated to at No.27, property No.A-126A, Mahalaxmi Enclave, Shiv Vihar Crossing.1231/2020 Page 1 of 24Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 1 of 24The applicant is also accused in the following other cases:By way of the present application, the applicant seeks regular bail.(ii) that on the basis of the complaint a rukka was prepared on 04.03.2020, based on which the FIR came to be registered;Bail Appl.Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 8 of 24That it is pertinent to mention here that during the course of investigation of the riot cases registered at PS Dayalpur, one CCTV footage dated 24.02.2020 of Rajdhani Public School, Mahalaxmi Enclave, was seized in Case FIR No.111/2020 Dated 04.03.2020 U/s 147/148/149/427/436 IPC PS Dayalpur, Delhi, wherein the above said applicant was clearly seen actively participating and instigating others during the riots.The copy of the CCTV Footage is also enclosed as Annexure-B.The said mobile and the Micro SD Card contained the videos of the incident, which were intentionally deleted by accused person Mohd. Anwar.The above said mobile phone has already been sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Rohini for the extraction of deleted data of the mobile phone on 21.04.2020."(emphasis supplied)In the above factual matrix, counsel for the applicant submits that firstly, there is no credible evidence to identify the applicant from ______________________________________________________________________________________ Bail Appl.Secondly, counsel submits that investigation in the matter is complete and charge-sheet stands filed; that the applicant has been in custody for more than 03 months; and there is no reason to detain him any longer; and the applicant therefore deserves to be enlarged on regular bail.Bail Appl.1231/2020 Page 9 of 24The co-accused were already granted bail.1231/2020 Page 18 of 24On a prima-facie appreciation of the factual matrix of the present case, the following position emerges :1231/2020 Page 23 of 241231/2020 Page 24 of 24
|
['Section 436 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
917,485 |
In brief the prosecution case is that on 2-4-2001, Collector Dewas alongwith Superintendent of Police, District Forest Officer, Special Police Force, Police Officials, Forest Officials and members of Van Samiti, in the morning at 8.00 A.M. proceeded to Punjapura village.They were attacked by the villagers and members of Adivasi Mukti Morcha Sangathan, some were residents of Village Mehendikheda.They all were about 200 in numbers.Even after warning given by the Collector, they started pelting stone and also used bow arrow, gofan, rifle, country made pistol and caused injuries to as many as 13-14 police officials and employees of the forest department.At that juncture, one more group consisting about 150-200 villagers and members of Adivasi Mukti Morcha Sangathan also reached over there and attacked on the Collector and his associates.In that event the Collector had ordered for firing in self defence and during the course of firing, 3-4 persons from the opposite side have died.ORDER S.L. Kochar, J.This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 10-11-2003 whereby the learned Trial Court has dismissed the prayer of the applicants for discharging them and held that prima facie offences against them under Sections 147, 148, 353/149, 332/149, 307/149, 109, 120-Band 121A of IPC are made out.The police and forest officials had seized the bulk of wooden log which were illegally cut by the accused persons.The incident was reported in the police station and after due investigation, charge-sheet was filed for the above mentioned offences.On behalf of the applicants, application was filed under Section 227 of the Cr.PC for their discharge but the same has been dismissed by the impugned order.Hence, this revision.The learned Counsel has filed certain booklets and literatures to this effect.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,754,425 |
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complaint was lodged by one Tinkoo aged 17 years alleging that on 01.08.2017 at about 6.30 pm, when he was returning on his scooty bearing registration No. DL-3SDE-5240 from his Uncle's shop, he was stopped by two boys near the Lalu Kothi.They demanded money and took Rs. 200 from him.They also demanded mobile from him but he refused to give them his mobile phone.It was alleged by the complainant that he was stopped by the two unidentified persons, who threatened him and snatched his money.Through: Mr. Anita Abraham, APP for State with ASI Rudresh, P.S- Jaitpur.HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code,1973 (hereinafter referred as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No. 400/2017, under Section 323/341/365/394/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as 'IPC'), registered by P.S. Jaitpur, New-Delhi.On this, they slapped BAIL APPLN.2325/2017 Page 1 of 5 him and made him sit in the middle of the same scooty and one of them kept the knife on his back and took him at the back of the Baraat Ghar ground near Tent School where Sourav, Jeetu and Bhola Jaat were already present.Sourav was holding a punch in his hand and hit the complainant with the punch whereas Bhola Jaat was holding knife and hit the Complainant on his head.Jeetu and other boys hit him with blows and fits.People gathered at the spot after hearing his screams after which they ran away.The case was registered against the petitioner under Section 365/323/341/34 IPC.Hence, the present petition.2325/2017 Page 1 of 52325/2017 Page 2 of 5On the converse, the learned APP for the State contends that benefit of anticipatory bail should not be accorded to the petitioner as the offence is of serious nature.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.2325/2017 Page 4 of 5Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.Observations made in the order shall have no impact on the merits of the case.
|
['Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
917,565 |
a)P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Raja.The marriage between the first accused and the deceased took place 9 years prior to the occurrence.The deceased was addicted to liquor and was carrying on wayward life.The spouses had quarrel often.On 17.11.2003 at about 8.30 p.m., the deceased went to the house of his mother-in-law to call A-1 back to live with him.Thereafter, he did not return.On 18.11.2003, P.W.1 was informed that there was a dead body on the railway track nearby.Immediately, he rushed over there and found that it was that of his brother.b)The railway employees informed to the Railway station master on 18.11.2003 as to the fact that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the railway track.On that information, a case came to be registered in Crime No.292 of 2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Ex.P.25, the F.I.R. was despatched to the court.P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police of Railway polic went to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared the observation mahazar and Ex.P.27, the rough sketch.He recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.28, the inquest report.Then, the dead body was sent for the purpose of autopsy.P.W.1 did not entertain any suspicion and that the railway police closed the case as it was the railway accident.c)P.W.17, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.33, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the multiple injuries sustained.d)A-1 to A-3 were called for and were enquired before the villagers.But they came forward to state that they did not know anything about the incident.Thereafter, on 02.12.2003, again they were called and A-1 and A-2 made extra judicial confession to P.W.2 in the presence of P.W.1, P.W.5 and villagers that on the date of occurrence, the deceased came in a drunken mood and quarreled with A-1 and at that time, A-1 pressed his testicles and when he fell sown, it was A-2, who dashed him on the ground and caused his death and in order to screen the evidence, A-1 to A-3 took the dead body and placed it on the railway track.e)After knowing about the same, P.W.1 went to the railway police and gave the complaint.The matter was referred to Palacode Police station, the respondent herein.On the strength of Ex.P.1, the complaint received from P.W.1, a case came to be registered by the respondent police in Crime No.661 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.P.34, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court.f)P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses.He prepared Ex.P.35 and P.37, the observation mahazars and Exs.P.36 and P.38, the rough sketches.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.M.O.1, the pant of the deceased was recovered and the same was identified by P.W.1. A-1 to A-3 were arrested and A-1 came forward to give confessional statement, which was recorded in the presence of the witnesses, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.Pursuant to the same, A-1 produced M.Os.2 and 3, clothes, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar.The material objects were recovered from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar.The second and third accused also came forward to give confessional statements, which were recorded in the presence of the witnesses.The admissible parts of the confessional statements of A-2 and A-3 were marked as Exs.The accused were sent for judicial remand.(The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.179 of 2006, whereby A-1 and A-2 were stood charged under Section 302 IPC and A-1 to A-3 were stood charged under Sections 302 r/w S.201 IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges.A-1 and A-2 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo one year R.I. under Section 302 IPC and A-1 to A-3 were sentenced to undergo three years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo 6 months R.I. under Section 302 r/w S.201 IPC and the sentences imposed on A-1 and A-2 were ordered to run concurrently.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:The Investigator examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.The material objects recovered were sent for chemical analysis.Ex.P.14, the Chemical Analyst's report and Ex.P.15, the Serologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.3.The case was committed to the court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and also relied on 40 exhibits and 6 M.Os.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.The trial court, after hearing the submissions made and also looking into the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found them guilty as per the charges and awarded punishments as referred to above.Hence this appeal has arisen at the instance of the appellants.4.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel inter-alia has made the following submissions:a)The occurrence has taken place on 17.11.2003 night, but the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer and it has relied on its entire case on circumstantial evidence.The main circumstance relied on by the prosecution was the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to A-3 on 02.12.2003, pursuant to which P.W.1 went to the railway police and gave Ex.Except this piece of evidence, the prosecution had no further evidence to offer.So far as the extra judicial confession was concerned, according to the prosecution, it was given by A-1 to A-3 to P.W.2, the Oorgounder in the presence of P.Ws.1,5 and the others.So far as P.W.2 was concerned, he has turned hostile.So far as P.W.1 was concerned, he has categorically stated that A-1 to A-3 gave extra judicial confession on 02.12.2003 itself and they waited for a few days and he went to the police station on 08.12.2003, but according to the statement recorded by the police, extra judicial confession was made only on 07.12.2003 and not before that.Further, if the extra judicial confession was made by A-1 to A-3 on 02.12.2003 as claimed by P.W.1, why there was a delay of 5 days in making such a report as found in Ex.P.1 and no reason was coming from the prosecution.Thus, this would cast a doubt whether A-1 to A-3 could have committed the offence and that P.W.1 has given a false report as found in Ex.Further, P.W.5 was the other witness examined in this regard.P.W.5 has not stated when the extra judicial confession was made.Further, initially, the dead body of the deceased was found and it was actually recorded as an accident.The prosecution was able to show through the medical evidence that it was actually not an accident, but it was due to homicidal violence, but the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the nexus of the accused with the crime and the trial court took an erroneous view.All the evidence did not support the prosecution case in any way and under these circumstances, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the hands of this court.5.The court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.6.It is not in controversy that the dead body of Raja, the husband of A-1, was found on the railway track and a case was registered by the railway police in Crime No.292 of 2003 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. Though P.W.1 identified the dead body that it was his brother, did not whisper anything about the suspicion that he entertained and that the case was also closed as an accident.Thereafter, according to the prosecution, suspicion was entertained by the villagers and P.W.2, the Oorgounder called A-1 to A-3 and enquired them, but they pleaded no knowledge.Thereafter, on 02.12.2003, again they were called by P.W.2 and in the presence of P.Ws.1,5 and the villagers, A-1 to A-3 made extra judicial confession and P.W.1 went to the railway police station and gave Ex.P.1, the report.The case was referred to Palacode Police Station and a case came to be registered in Crime No.661 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 201 IPC against all the three accused.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer.P.W.2, the Oorgounder has turned hostile.What was the reason for such a delay remained unknown.If really such an extra judicial confession was made on 02.12.2003, as claimed by P.W.1, he would have rushed to the police station immediately, but not done so.Apart from that, even after the extra judicial confession alleged to have been made by A-1 to A-3 as to the involvement of murder of the deceased, who is the brother of P.W.1, the witnesses did not claim that they produced A-1 to A-3 before the police, but it was the police who caused the arrest of them.Had it been so, there was no impediment for producing them before the police on that day itself.7.Apart from that, in the instant case, no other material was placed before the court.The identity of the dead body was not in dispute.The medical opinion was canvassed to show that the death was due to homicidal violence.In a given case like this, the prosecution must prove clearly the nexus between the crime and the accused.In the instant case, though the prosecution was successful enough in bringing forth the fact that the death was due to homicidal violence and the dead body was placed on the railway track, it has rested its case entirely on the circumstantial evidence, namely the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-1 to A-3 to P.W.2 in the presence of P.Ws.1,5 and the villagers.But, even the extra judicial confession for the above reasons cannot be accepted as a piece of evidence to act so or to come to a conclusion.Hence the trial court without appreciation of the circumstances in the proper perspective, has taken an erroneous view.Except the extra judicial confession, the prosecution had no evidence to offer.Hence it would be highly unsafe to sustain conviction on such a weakest piece of evidence.Therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.8.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court on the appellants are set aside and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand terminated and the fine amounts if any paid by them shall be refunded to them.Accordingly, this criminal appeal is allowed.(M.C., J.) (M.V., J.) 27.01.2009Index : YesInternet : Yesvvk M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.AND M.VENUGOPAL, J.1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri.2.The Inspector of Police, Palacode Police Station, Dharmapuri District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,762,086 |
Prayer in all Crl.For Appellant in Crl.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj For Appellants in Crl.G.Krishnamurthy For Respondent in all Crl.: Mr.P.Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor- - - - -COMMON JUDGMENT The appellant in Crl.A.No.11 of 2005, the appellant in Crl.A.No.1083 of 2004 and the appellant in Crl.2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-On 09.07.2000 P.W.4 was talking with his friend.At that time, the first accused was teasing the girls, who were passing that side.P.W.4 and his friend questioned the first accused.P.W.2 went and questioned the first accused and also reprimanded him.A.No.734 of 2004 are the accused 1 to 3 in S.C.No.212 of 2004 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai.Accused 1 to 3 were convicted for an offence under Section 307 r/w. 34 I.P.C. and each one of them was sentenced to undergo nine years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, appellants herein/accused 1 to 3 have preferred the above three Criminal Appeals before this Court.The first accused attacked P.W.2 on his head with knife and accused 2 and 3 attacked P.W.2 with casuarina sticks.P.W.1, the father of P.W.2, who had witnessed the occurrence, took P.W.2 to the hospital.(ii) P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugam examined the victim P.W.2 on 09.07.2000 at about 5.50 p.m., and prepared the Accident Register-Ex.P.3 and admitted him in the hospital as inpatient.At that time, P.W.2 was unconscious and therefore P.W.5 got Ex.P.1-complaint from P.W.1 and he came back to the police station and registered a case in Crime No.384 of 2000 for an offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and prepared the First Information Report-Ex.(iii) P.W.9-Inspector of Police, who took up further investigation in this matter, went to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.8 and a Rough Sketch-Ex.P.9 and he enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements.On 10.07.2000 at 9.30 a.m., P.W.9 arrested the third accused and in pursuance of the confession given by him, P.W.9 recovered a knife and two casuarina sticks.The Doctor P.W.7 gave an opinion-Ex.P.4 stating that the injuries sustained by the victim was grievous in nature.P.W.9 recorded the statements of P.W.6-Dr.A.N.Shanmugam and P.W.7-Dr.After completing the investigation, he laid the final report against the accused.(iv) In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances and they denied their complicity.On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked.(v) The Trial Court, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above.G.Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.Nos.11 of 2005 and 1083 of 2004/accused 1 and 2 and Mr.R.C.Paul Kanagaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Crl.A.No.734 of 2004/third accused and Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor were heard.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 1 to 3 submitted that P.W.1 could not have been an eye-witness to the occurrence and Ex.P.1-complaint had been prepared belatedly.It is further submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there was no delay in preferring the complaint and the occurrence had taken place on 09.07.2000 at 5.00 p.m. and the F.I.R. was registered on the same day at 11.00 p.m.This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the records.It appears that there was some quarrel among P.W.4 and the first accused.The evidence of P.W.2 is also corroborated by the evidence of his father-P.W.1 and his wife P.W.3, who had witnessed the occurrence.In Ex.P.3-Accident Register, it is mentioned by the Doctor that the victim-P.W.2 was brought by his wife and it was informed that the victim was assaulted by known persons with Knife and Urutukattai.The prosecution had established the fact that P.W.2 was attacked by accused 1 to 3 on his head using knife and casuarina sticks and P.W.2 had sustained serious injuries.Though it was contented by the learned counsel for the appellants that the offence would not fall under Section 307 I.P.C., on perusal of medical evidence, it is apparent that the victim had sustained very serious injuries on his head and there was fracture of skull bone.The operation was performed and the victim could survive.The accused attacked the victim on his head, which is vital part, with knife and casuarina stick.There was common intention among accused 1 to 3 for attacking the victim and causing injury which may result in causing death.With regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that now more than twelve years had elapsed from the date of occurrence and according to their instructions, accused 1 to 3 are not involved in any other case.Considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants and as more than 12 years had elapsed from the date of occurrence, the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, is reduced to a period of one year rigorous imprisonment.The fine amount and the default sentence imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3 are confirmed.Except the above modification only with regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellants/accused 1 to 3, all the above Criminal Appeals are dismissed.The learned trial Judge is directed to take steps to secure the appellants/accused 1 to 3 and send them to prison in order to undergo the remaining period of sentence.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai.The Inspector of Police, H.6, Radhakrishnan Nagar Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
917,664 |
It is alleged by the prosecution that after taking Ramila in the hut accused No. 1 forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her.This he did twice in that night.JUDGMENT R.A. Jahagirdar, J.Both the accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 366 read with 109, 376, 376 read with 109, 325 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code.The prosecution case was that the prosecutrix, one Ramila, examined as P.W. No. 2, who is an unmarried girl, was working in a Khandsari sugar factory, which is about one and half miles away from a place called Buddhaval to which she belongs.Buddhaval itself is about three miles away from Taloda, which is the Tahsil headquarters in the District of Dhule.The Khandsari sugar factory is at Taloda and one person, who is referred to by the prosecution witnesses as Kisan Shet, was the Manager of the factory at the relevant time.On 5th of February, 1974, says the prosecution, accused No. 1 went to the factory in his jeep driven by accused No. 2 at about 9 p.m. Thereafter accused No. 1, who was in an inebriated State, started catching some of the female labourers working in the factory.He failed in his two attempts and succeeded in the third by catching hold of Ramila, whom he forcibly lifted and put in the back side of the jeep.From there he drove to the garden land where there was a hut.Defence witness No. 2 Narsi was the watchman of that garden land.The prosecution then alleges that in the morning of 6th February, 1974 accused No. 1 allowed her to go away in the company of Narsi who accompanied her upto the factory at Taloda from where she went on her own to her house.There she disclosed what has happened to her in the previous night.It is only thereafter that she went to her house.It is alleged by the prosecution that she first disclosed this incident to her grandmother who, however, has not been examined.Her mother was not in the house and it is only at about 4 p.m. on 6 February, 1974 that her father returned to her house from his own land.At this time one Kochari, who was a co-worker of Ramila and who had witnessed the kidnapping that had taken place on the night of 5th, come to the house of Ramila and informed her father about the incident.Thereafter all of them went to the police at Taloda and lodged the first information report, whereafter investigation followed.On these facts accused No. 1 and 2 were prosecuted as mentioned above.The defence of the accused was that accused No. 1 was having illicit relationship with Ramila for some months before the day of the incident.On the night in question Ramila accompanied him voluntarily.He, however, contended that on the morning of 6th February, 1974 he sent Ramila in his own jeep to her house.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge of Dhule by his judgment and order dated 2nd January, 1976 convicted accused No. 1 of the offences punishable under sections 366, 376 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to several terms of imprisonment, the details of which need not be repeated here.Accused No. 1 was, however, acquitted of the offence punishable under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code.Accused No. 2 was convicted for the offences punishable under section 366 read with sections 109 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.He was sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment as mentioned in the order, the details of which need not again be repeated here.It may be mentioned at this stage that during the pendency of the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, a revision application had been filed in this Court with a prayer that the defence should be permitted to cross-examine the prosecutrix again for the purpose of bringing additional evidence on record.Accordingly the prosecutrix Ramila was examined again and cross-examined before the learned Additional Sessions Judge before the disposal of the appeal.After going through the material which has been brought on record in appeal, I notice that practically no fresh evidence has been brought on record.The defence has only succeeded in bringing out on record that the prosecutrix Ramila had made certain statements in another sessions case being Sessions Case No. 87 of 1977, in which the present accused No. 1 and two others were prosecuted for offences punishable under sections 365, 366, 342 read with 34 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.The order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissing the appeal of the accused has been challenged in this revision application supported before me by the learned Advocate Mr. S.R. Chitnis.A legitimate grievance has been made by Mr. Chitnis that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has very summarily disposed of the appeal when the evidence which was to be reviewed by him was considerably large.This is a revision application and in the normal circumstances it would not have been permissible for me to re-appreciate the evidence, but Mr. Chitnis has pointed out, as mentioned above the unsatisfactory nature in which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has dealt with the massive evidence on record.He has also pointed out a patently misreading of parts of the evidence.I am, therefore, constrained to go through the entire evidence.This would not have become necessary if the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as a final Court of facts, had properly addressed himself to the task which was legally imposed upon him.In support of its case the prosecution examined, apart from Ramila, her father who went to lodge the first information report to the Police Station.It was the case of Ramila that after the watchman of accused No. 1 brought her to the factory on the next day morning, before she went to Budhaval she went to the house of one Kusumbai at Budhaval.She has mentioned that she narrated the incident to Kusumbai who told her to stay in her house and that she would convey the incident to her father in the morning.According to Ramila, she reached the house of Kusumbai a little after 5 a.m. when the siren of the factory was heard.However, Kusumbai later told Ramila that her child is crying and, therefore, she alone should go to her house and that Kusumbai would follow her after some time.She had never gone to the house of Kusumbai previous to that time.In her statement before the Executive Magistrate also she has not mentioned that she went to the house of Kusumbai.In other words, the story of her meeting Kusumbai in the morning of 6th February, 1974 must be rejected out of hand.It is for the purpose of showing that she was an unwilling victim in the incident of the previous night and for the purpose of showing that she disclosed this incident at the earliest to somebody that she has brought out the story of having met Kusumbai and of having narrated the incident to her.That she went to the house of Kusumbai and that he narrated the incident to her are, therefore, not proved at all.Worse still is her admission in paragraph 24 of her deposition, which is in the following terms:---"I left the land of accused No. 1 and directly went to my house and slept there."I cannot see how the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have ignored these contradictions as minor contradictions.In a case of this type whether there was consent or not has to be judged from the conduct of the alleged victim of the incident immediately before the incident, during the incident and after the incident.As far as her conduct during the incident is concerned, it is likely that it would be shrouded in secrecy because the incident itself takes place in secrecy.But one could easily infer as to what conduct she displayed during the incident if one can look to her conduct immediately before the incident and after the incident.It has come on record in the evidence of Ramila herself that the road from the factory to the land of the accused passes through Taloda town.She has further narrated that the jeep of accused No. 1 at the time of the incident passed by the road through Taloda town.The Taloda town itself has a square called Samarak square and the jeep passed through the said square.Assuming that the accused is a powerful person judging from the name by which he is known-Baban Pahelwan-even then one does not find sufficient reason as to how the girl kept quite for a distance of one and half miles.The Khandsari sugar factory has admittedly a labour force of 40 to 50 persons.According to her she shouted but none of the persons came to her rescue.It must be mentioned that apart from Kochari no other worker from the factory has been examined.I will make my comments on Kochari a little later.That conduct shows that she was not the unwilling victim of the unfortunate incident on the night in question.For several hours after she returned to her house she did not disclose the incident to anyone.It is her case that she mentioned the incident to her grandmother, but the grandmother has not been examined.Her further conduct in keeping silent till the evening of 6th February, 1974 is inconsistent with the case of rape because if she had been subjected to that indignity then she would have gone to some person or other and would have disclosed the incident.The incident of kidnapping at least had, according to her, taken place openly.Several workers from her own village were working in the factory and they had witnessed the incident of kidnapping.Still none of them has been examined by the prosecution for the purpose of proving the kidnapping.To none of them did she go in the morning of 6th to confide or to tell about the indignity to which she had been subjected the previous night.None of them went to her house in the morning to inquire as to what happened after she was kidnapped in the previous night.It is highly improbable that all the workers in the Khandsari sugar factory from her own village were so heartless and callous as not to make even an ordinary inquiry about her safety in the morning after the kidnapping in the previous night, even if one excuses them from doing nothing in the night because they were concerned with earning their living rather than with anything else.At this stage I must digress to the conduct of the prosecutrix during the incident itself."Govinda Patil, Ex. 13, is also a Panch for the Panchanama of the scene of offence, Ex. 12, conducted on 7-2-1974 under which the broken pieces of bangles, Article No. 1 before the Court came to be attached."Worse, however, is the mistake which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed at the end of the same paragraph.The statement is in the following terms :---Unfortunately, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has not done this in the instant case.The learned Additional Sessions Judge pursuaded himself into believing that the bleeding injuries which were allegedly caused on the right hand of Ramila were caused when her bangles were broken.This may or may not true, but while examining the incident of rape, in paragraph 8 of his judgment, the learned Judge has proceeded in the belief that the bangles were broken during the course of the forcible sexual intercourse.The following finding is noticed in paragraph 8 of if his judgment :---" She quite positively deposed that before this incident nobody had taken sexual intercourse with her and by this intercourse her vagina had swollen and there was bleeding from it.Bleeding injuries were also caused on her right hand when her bangles were broken.Accused No. 1 had this intercourse against her will and consent.She was obstructing accused No. 1 while he was committing the said intercourse and thereafter, she goes on to say how she was sent back by accused No. 1 towards her house with his watchman Narsi."The broken bangles were attached not from the hut of the accused but from the place near the factory.It may be noted that in her first information report she has not mentioned that her bangles were broken and thereby she sustained any injury.She has also not stated before the Executive Magistrate that her bangles were broken and thereby she sustained injuries.It has also been proved that in her statement before the police and in her statement before the Executive Magistrate she has not stated that she sustained injury on her breast.These omissions are material and they amount to contradictions which must necessarily vitiate the story given by her in her examination-in-chief.To cap the improbability of the case unfolded by Ramila in her examination-in-chief is the following statement to be found in paragraph 30 of her deposition :---"I have gone in the land of accused No. 1 when the piece of the bed was taken.In the result, this revision must succeed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
917,688 |
O R D E R Leave granted.We have heard learned counsel on both sides.Accordingly, his name was rejected.Aggrieved byproceedings dated December 18, 1990 culminating incancellation of his provisional selection he filed OA in theCentral Administrative Tribunal.Though he was physically foundfit, Passed the written test and interview and wasprovisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record,the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint aperson of such record as a Constable to the disciplinedforces The view taken by the appointing authority in thebackground of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted.TheTribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving thedirection for reconsideration of his case.Though he wasdischarged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the samehas nothing to do with the question.What would be relevantis the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointedto a service and not the actual result thereof.Appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focussed thisaspect and found him not desirable to appoint him to theservice.The appeal is accordingly allowed.The order of theTribunal stands set aside.No costs.
|
['Section 394 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.
|
91,772,140 |
Avinash Balkrishnan & Anr.in Crl.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 3 of 5M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 3 of 5In the present case also, since I have taken the same view earlier, in the interest of justice, keeping the settlement dated 20.07.2011 into view, FIR No.388/2009 under Section 452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered against the petitioners at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi and the proceedings emanating thereto are hereby quashed.I find force in the submissions of learned APP for the State, therefore, while quashing the FIR, I impose a costs of 10,000/- upon petitioner No.1, who is agriculturist; and a costs of 50,000/- upon petitioner No.3, who is a cable operator.I defer in imposing any costs upon petitioner Nos.2 & 4 who are Constable and Head Constables in Central Para Military Forces.I also defer in imposing any costs upon petitioner No.5, who is a National player of Rugby & recently had won Bronze Medal.The aforesaid total costs of 60,000/- shall be deposited in favour of the 'Welfare Fund for Children & Destitute Women' Nirmal Chaya, Jail Road, Tihar, New Delhi within a week from today and proof thereof shall be placed on the record.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 4 of 5M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 4 of 5M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 5 of 5M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 5 of 5Issue notice.Rajdipa Behura, learned APP for State/respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 present in person, accepts notice.3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide FIR No.388/2009 dated 14.12.2009 a case under Section Crl.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 1 of 5 452/506/34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against the petitioners on the complaint of respondent No.2 at police station Vijay Vihar, Delhi.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 1 of 5Further submitted that compromise has been taken place with the intervention of the common friends and relatives and members of the locality on 20.07.2011 and the respondent No.2 does not wish to pursue the case against the petitioners.Respondent No.2 is present in person, who has been duly identified by ASI Pradeep Kumar, police station Vijay Vihar.Respondent No.2 submits that he has settled all the issues qua the aforesaid FIR and he does not wish to pursue the case further against the petitioners, therefore, the FIR may be quashed.State of Punjab & Anr.in SLP (Crl.) Crl.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 2 of 5 No.8989/2010 wherein the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has referred three earlier decisions viz, B.S. Joshi V. State of Haryana (2003) 4 SCC 675, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.(2008) 9 SCC 677 & Manoj Sharma Vs.State & Ors.(2008) 16 SCC 1 to the larger Bench for re-consideration whether the abovesaid three decisions were decided correctly or not.Alternatively, she prayed that in the event, the FIR is quashed, heavy costs should be imposed upon the petitioners.M.C.No.3028/2011 Page 2 of 5The Division Bench of Mumbai High Court in Nari Motiram Hira Vs.W.P.No.995/2010 decided on 03.02.2011 has permitted for compounding of the offences of 'non- compoundable' category as per Section 320 Cr.P.C. even after discussing Gian Singh (supra).Criminal M.C.No.3028/2011 stands allowed and disposed of in above terms.14. Dasti.SURESH KAIT, J September 23, 2011 Mk Crl.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
91,777,533 |
In the instant appeals we are concerned with the fate of Rahul and Amit.Rahul has been convicted as the main offender in view of the testimony of the prosecutrix Kumari P as also the Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 2 of 23 fact that spermatozoa was detected in her vaginal swab by Dr.P.C.Dixit PW-11 as per his report Ex.PW-11/A and that DNA fingerprints of the blood sample of Rahul matched the DNA fingerprints from the source of Ex.C i.e. the sanitary pad used by Kumari P soon after she was sexually assaulted.Though of a weak incriminating nature, a knife Ex.P-1 got recovered by Rahul pursuant to his disclosure statement has been opined to be the weapon of offence with which an incised injury was caused on the left hand (palm) of Kumari P.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 2 of 23Qua appellant Amit the sole incriminating evidence is the testimony of Kumari P as per whom the appellant was a co-partner with Rahul in the commission of the crime.Vide order on sentence dated 17.1.2005 the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year pertaining to the offence punishable under Section 376 (2)(g) IPC and to undergo RI for a period of 7 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 392/397/34 IPC.For the offence punishable under Section 506/34 IPC they have been punished to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and pay fine in sum of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo SI for 2 months.Same is the punishment inflicted for Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 3 of 23 the offence punishable under Section 324/34 IPC.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 3 of 23Case sent for trial and sought to be proved by the prosecution was that Kumari P a student of 4th year at the Maulana Azad Medical College had collected the admit card for the ensuing exams which were to be held on 18.11.2002 and around afternoon time on 15.11.2002 was walking towards Shaheed Bhagat Singh Bus Terminal to take a public transport to go to her house and on the way had reached Khooni Darwaja.Rahul and Amit accosted her.Having a knife in his hand, Rahul commanded her to keep silent and enter inside the structure called Khooni Darwaja.Out of fear Kumari P obeyed their command as her initial hesitation was met with a threat by Rahul placing the knife on her neck.As she entered inside Khooni Darwaja 2 juvenile co-accused Neeraj and Suraj were found by her inside Khooni Darwaja.At the asking of Rahul, Neeraj and Suraj searched her bag and took out her mobile phone and Rs.100/- inside a purse kept by her in her Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 4 of 23 bag.The stolen property i.e. the mobile phone, and the purse containing Rs.100/- was handed over to Amit and thereafter she was compelled to climb up the stair inside Khooni Darwaja and at the landing of the stairs at the top she was molested and raped by Rahul.While subjecting her to rape, Rahul continued to threaten her with the knife.She was inflicted a wound with the knife on her left hand.After satisfying his lust, Rahul wiped semen from her private parts using his shirt and thereafter Rahul and the two juveniles left.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 4 of 23Since the defence has used it for the benefit of the appellants, it may be noted that as per Kumari P after wearing her clothes she reached the bus stand at Firozshah Kotla where HC Bhikam Singh PW-4 and Const.Attar Singh, on beat duty, saw her very tense and perturbed.On being questioned by them whether all was fine she told them about her ordeal.At their request, she accompanied them to the place where the crime was committed.They did so hoping to apprehend the accused.Whereas Kumari P stood on the ground of the stairs of Khooni Darwaja, the two police officers climbed up and when they returned, Kumari P had left.No such information was reported by the two police officers at the police station and only on 16.11.2002 i.e. the next day HC Bhikam Singh recorded said fact in his statement Ex.Reverting to what Kumari P did after she returned to Khooni Darwaja with the two police officers and left the spot, she went to her college and therefrom to the hostel and since she was bleeding she put a sanitary pad and narrated her woes to her friends Kumari S PW-5 and another friend Kumari S. Her friends consoled her and took her to the casualty where she refused to be medically examined, stating that being a matter of her reputation she would like to consult her parents.She reached her house at 5:30 PM and informed her parents, who after confabulations decided to take recourse to law.They brought her to LNJP hospital at 9:30 PM where she was examined by Dr.Chinda Jassal PW-9 who prepared her MLC Ex.PW-9/A noting therein a small sharp cut on the left hand near palmer surface of thumb and bruises on the right side of her face.A small 1/2 x 1/2 cm tear was present on posterior fourchette and it was bleeding.Hymen was found to be torn and bleeding.He sealed the sanitary pad which the patient was wearing and prepared two slides of vaginal smear and sealed the same.Seal of hospital was put on the two parcels.Kumari P and her parents changed their mind to pursue the matter and Kumari P wrote on the MLC that she does not wish an FIR to be registered and thereafter she and her parents left.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 6 of 23A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 6 of 23Shamsher PW-28 who was on duty at LNJP hospital informed the local police station at 12:45 in the night that a girl named P daughter of Sh.P.R.S. R/o ----- who had been raped had come to the hospital and requested that an investigating officer be sent.Said information was noted vide DD No.17A, Ex.PW-30/A, by the duty constable at the police station at 12:45 in the night.The date recorded therein is 16.11.2002 for the obvious reason, past midnight the next day commences.Since Kumari P and her parents left LNJP hospital soon after the MLC was recorded by informing the doctor that they do not wish to pursue the matter it is apparent that when the investigating officer deputed reached the hospital he met nobody.It is apparent that further events did not charter the normal course.No FIR was registered at the police station pertaining to the offence.However, SI Rajesh Shukla PW-30 summoned HC Bhikam Singh PW-4 on 16.11.2002 and recorded the statement Ex.PW-4/A of HC Bhikam Singh who informed him the facts as told to him by Kumari P and further events till Kumari P vanished when he and Const.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 10 of 23 names of appellant Amit as also the two juveniles who were with him on the day of the incident.Thereafter, appellant Amit and the two juvenile co-accused were apprehended and Suraj made the disclosure statement informing that the mobile phone belonging to Kumari P had been handed over by him to Mohan Lal.The mobile phone was recovered from the possession of Mohan Lal.Rahul informed in his disclosure statement that the knife used by him to threaten Kumari P had been concealed by him near a garbage collection centre at Kotla.On 23.11.2002 he led the investigating officer to the garbage collection centre and after digging the soil near the same recovered and handed over the knife Ex.P-1, sketch whereof shows that the knife is no ordinary knife.It is a knife used by butchers to cut meat.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 10 of 23Immediately after he was apprehended, Rahul was got medically examined at LNJP Hospital where Dr.Sanjay Kumar PW-5 examined him on 22.11.2002 and prepared his MLC Ex.PW-8/A noting two old dried abrasions with scab injuries, one each on the left and the right knee.A linear scratch with dried scab on the right cheek.It was noted that a tattoo mark of the name Rahul was tattooed in English in the right forearm of Rahul.He opined that Rahul was capable of performing sexual intercourse and that the injuries on the Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 11 of 23 body of Rahul were 5 to 7 days old.He took the blood sample of Rahul which he handed over to the investigating officer.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 11 of 23The sanitary pad of the prosecutrix was sent for forensic examination and Mr.A.K.Srivastava PW-6 detected semen on the sanitary pad as per his report Ex.PW-6/A. Her vaginal swab slides were sent for forensic examination and Dr.P.C.Dixit PW-11 detected spermatozoa in the slides as per his report Ex.PW-11/A.The blood sample of Rahul as also the vaginal smear slides and the sanitary pad were sent to CDFD Hyderabad where Sh.C.H.Venketeshwar Goud PW-14 isolated DNA from the three exhibits i.e. blood sample of Rahul (Ex.A), vaginal smear slides of Kumari P (Ex.B) and the sanitary pad of the prosecutrix (Ex.C).He gave his report Ex.The biological fluid (semen) present on the source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) is of a male origin.2. Y-STR profile of source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) is matching with the Y-STR profile of the source of exhibit A (Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash).Y-STR profiles of sources of exhibits A and C (Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash and sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) are from one and the same source.CONCLUSION The above STR analysis (Autosomal STRs and Y- chromosome STRs) are sufficient to conclude that the biological fluid (semen) present on the source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) is of the source of exhibit A (Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash)."It is no doubt true that there is delay in registration of the FIR and one would have expected HC Bhikam Singh to have immediately reported his conversation with Kumari P at the police station so that an FIR could be registered on 15.11.2002 itself.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 13 of 23While deposing in Court Kumari P stated that she was a medical student at MAMC and after collecting her admit card on 14.11.2002 for the ensuing exams commencing from 18.11.2002 she was proceeding on foot to Shahid Bhagat Singh Terminal to take a bus home and when she crossed Khuni Darwaza: A boy around 21 years, medium built suddenly came in front of her with a knife in his hand and placed the knife on her stomach.Another boy was standing behind him.The boy who showed the knife to her abused her and said that I should quietly move inside.(She pointed out accused Rahul as the one with the knife in his hand and appellant Amit as the other boy).She refused to obey their command and resisted and attempted to shriek.Rahul put the knife at her neck and threatened to stab her if she yelled.Thereafter, both the boys pushed her inside Khuni Darwaza.Within the precincts of the open space of Khuni Darwaza, in the verandah, two boys aged 12 - 13 years were standing whose names she later on learnt were Neeraj and Suraj.In the verandah Rahul told Neeraj and Suraj to search me.Neeraj searched her bag and took out her mobile phone No.9810467122 and Suraj removed her purse containing Rs.100/- and at the asking of Rahul they handed over the mobile phone and the purse to Amit.Thereafter these persons told her to go upstairs.She asked them why.They said that they wanted to search her.She responded that Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 14 of 23 they could search her there only.Rahul touched a black cord around his neck and swore in the name of a saint that except for searching her no harm would be caused to her.He said that somebody may notice them.She repeatedly refused and pleaded to be allowed to go and therefore she was forcibly compelled to go up.Neeraj caught her hand.Kumari P has given graphic details of what happened on the unfortunate day.The MLC Ex.PW-9/A prepared by Dr.Chinda Jassal who examined her at LNJP Hospital at around 9:30 PM in the night clearly establishes that Kumari P was raped.The injuries on the body of Rahul as noted in Ex.PW-8/A i.e. Rahuls MLC have not been explained by Rahul and the said injuries also suggest that Rahul had knelt on a hard surface and had pressed his knees.This would have happened if Rahul either exercised by shifting his weight on his knees or indulged in sexual intercourse with a girl lying below.The injury on the right cheek of Rahul has not been explained by him.Nothing has been shown to us wherefrom it can be urged that the sanitary pad and the vaginal swab slides of Kumari P which were sealed by Dr.Chinda Jassal and were taken possession of by SI Rajesh Shukla on 16.11.2002 were tampered with.As noted above Rahul was arrested on 22.11.2002 and the question of his semen being planted on the two exhibits is thus ruled out.The report Ex.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 22 of 23 directing that he shall be sentenced to undergo imprisonment for the period already undergone without payment of any fine.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 22 of 23Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar for being made available to Rahul and to release Amit if he is not required in custody in any other case.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 05, 2010 mm / dkb Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 23 of 23A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 23 of 23Appellant Rahul and Amit have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 376 (2) (g) IPC; Section Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 1 of 23 324/34 IPC; Sections 392/397/34 IPC and Section 506/34 IPC.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 1 of 23Co-accused Mohan Lal who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 411 IPC and Ashok Kumar who was charged for the offence punishable under Section 212 IPC have been acquitted.Pertaining to co-accused Mohan Lal, notwithstanding the fact that a mobile phone belonging to the victim was recovered from his conscious possession, benefit has been given to him of not having knowledge that the mobile phone was stolen property.Qua Ashok Kumar from whose house Rahul was arrested and a pant belonging to Rahul was recovered, has been given the benefit of not knowing that Rahul was an offender at law.The trial of two juvenile co-accused named Suraj and Neeraj was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board as the two were minor.The two juveniles pleaded guilty and appropriate orders have been passed against them by the Juvenile Justice Board.For the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, Rahul has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and pay a fine in sum of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 1 month simple imprisonment.All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.Attar Singh went up the stairs at Khooni Darwaja.Since the facts disclosed in the statement Ex.PW-4/A showed the commission of a cognizable offence as Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 7 of 23 also the name and the residence of the victim, SI Rajesh Shukla got an FIR registered the same day for the offence of rape.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 7 of 23No headway could be made over the next few days till 21.11.2002, for the reason Kumari P and her parents continued to vacillate.As and when the investigating officer went to their house, the parents of Kumari P told him that their daughter was not available.But, SI Rajesh Shukla acted wisely, in that, on 16.11.2002 itself i.e. the next day of the crime being the day when he learnt about the crime, he went to LNJP Hospital and as recorded in the seizure memo Ex.PW-10/A took possession of two sealed parcels, one containing the slides of the vaginal swab of Kumari P and the other her sanitary pad.He immediately deposited the parcels in the malkhana, with the seals intact.On 21.11.2002 Kumari P and her parents finally decided that Kumari P should suffer the shame, if any, but the accused should be prosecuted.She further disclosed that the boy who raped her had the name Rahul tattooed on his right forearm.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 8 of 23A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 8 of 23On 21.11.2002 itself the photographs in the dossiers of known criminals maintained at the police station, being 8 in number, all of whom were known as Rahul, were shown to Kumari P and she identified appellant Rahul as her tormentor.From the afore-noted vacillating conduct of Kumari P, learned counsel for the appellants have been quick to spring an argument that what credibility would be there in the version of Kumari P. Counsel urge that if it is to be argued that on account of perceived sense of shame and indignation Kumari P did not lodge an FIR, it defies logic as to why soon after the offence she confided everything in strangers i.e. HC Bhikam Singh and Const.Attar Singh.Learned counsel seek to cement and strengthen their argument by drawing attention to the fact that as deposed to by HC Bhikam Singh, Kumari P accompanied them to the place where the crime was committed, hoping that the accused or anyone of them may be noticed and hence apprehended and her tormentors brought to justice.Counsel urge that it is obvious that Kumari P was avoiding to meet the police so that she could gain time to think about a false story.All these negative feelings would pull the victim inwards and tend to make her a recluse.Simultaneously Anger, Hatred, Desire for Retribution and Desire for Punishing the accused would push her towards positive acts qua the accused.All these negative and positive feelings would be competing in the mind at the same time.Knowing the address of appellant Rahul, through the dossier maintained, appellant Rahul was tracked and was arrested on 22.11.2002 from the house of Ashok wherefrom a pant belonging to Rahul was seized.Rahul was interrogated and his disclosure statement Ex.PW-14/A listing the result of examination as under:-"RESULT OF EXAMINATION Autosomal STR analysis DNA fingerprint of source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) is the mixed profile, which is of the victim and source of exhibit A (Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash).On comparison, the DNA fingerprint of the source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix) is comaprable with the DNA fingerprint of the source of exhibit A (blood sample Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash).Therefore, source of exhibit A (Mr.Rahul @ Budh Prakash) cannot be excluded from being responsible for the biological fluid (semen) present on the source of exhibit C (sanitary pad of the prosecutrix).A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 12 of 23But noting the fact that HC Bhikam Singh may not understand the nuances of law nothing much turns on delay in registration of the FIR for the reason nothing has been brought out on record to show that a witness or some evidence was planted in the meanwhile.What prejudice has been caused, if at all to the accused, has not been shown to us.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 13 of 23Rahul walked behind with a knife in his hand with Suraj accompanying him.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 14 of 23Thereafter she deposed the facts as to how at the landing of the stairs upstairs she was first molested by Neeraj who pressed her breast and she started crying and how Rahul raped her by stripping her and continuously threatened her with the knife which he had in his hand and how she received an injury on her right hand.Attar Singh met her.She deposed the facts noted by us in paras 10, 11, 12 and 13 above.She disclosed that when she was raped she read the name Rahul tattooed on the right forearm of Rahul.It is settled law that where the testimony of a rape witness stands the scrutiny of credibility, there is no need to look for any corroboration.Thus, to cut the controversy short we need not note the testimony of the friends and the father of Kumari P as also the doctor who examined her in the Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 15 of 23 night for the reason nothing has been shown to us in the cross- examination of Kumari P which discredits her testimony.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 15 of 23PW-14/A of Shri C.H.Venketeshwar Goud seals the fate of Rahul as the same shows that the DNA finger print isolated from the blood Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 16 of 23 sample of Rahul matched the fingerprints isolated from the sanitary pad of Kumari P.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 16 of 23We note that learned counsel for Rahul has urged that as deposed to by Kumari P after she parted company with HC Bhikam Singh and Ct.Attar Singh whom she took to the place where the crime was committed she went to the hostel and the feeling of being polluted compelled her to wash her private parts; this coupled with the fact that she deposed that after raping her, Rahul wiped the semen from her private parts with his shirt would render it impossible that in the night at around 9:30 when the sanitary pad was taken into possession by Dr.Chinda Jassal and when he prepared two slides of vaginal smear, any semen would have remained.The argument hardly impresses us for the reason the MLC Ex.PW-9/A of Kumari P shows full penetration.It is apparent that semen seeped deep into the vaginal canal and after sometime when Kumari P continued to remain in an erect posture, some semen seeped out and hence being detected in the slides of the vaginal smear and the sanitary pad.We note that the two experts who detected semen on the sanitary pad and the vaginal smear slides were not subjected to any cross-examination on the issue whether semen could be detected as claimed by them if the girl concerned had washed her private parts.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 17 of 23A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 17 of 23That she informed HC Bhikam Singh, a fact deposed to by HC Bhikam Singh and recorded in his statement Ex.PW- 4/A that the boy who raped her had the name Rahul tattooed on his right forearm lends credence to the testimony of Kumari P.Regarding appellant Rahul we need to note no further qua his involvement in the crime of criminally intimidating Kumari P, using a knife to rob her and thereafter raping her.The record shows that the issue of Rahul being a minor was raised before the committal proceedings terminated.After Rahul was arrested, an application was filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate to determine the age of Rahul.Affidavit filed by his father when Rahul was admitted in the school and entries in the school record were produced in evidence.Rahul was subjected to an ossification test.Noting contradictory dates emanating from the school record and that the affidavit produced was executed three years prior to when Rahul was admitted in school, the learned Magistrate returned a finding vide order dated 18.1.2003 that said entries were doubtful as different dates of birth were Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 18 of 23 emerging therefrom.Learned Magistrate further noted that these entries were purportedly based on an affidavit filed by the father of Rahul which was deposed to three years prior to the date when Rahul was admitted in the school.Thus, Rahuls age was determined with reference to an ossification test conducted as per which Rahul was a major.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 18 of 23Order dated 18.1.2003 was not challenged and obtained finality.Committal orders were passed and the challan was sent to the Court of Sessions for trial.Qua appellant Amit, the testimony of the prosecutrix establishes his participation with Rahul from the time Rahul criminally intimidated the prosecutrix with a knife in Rahuls hand and both compelled her to enter inside Khuni Darwaza and thereafter robbing her.The last participative act of Amit is when Rahul, the two accused juvenile and Amit Crl.A.Nos.364/2005 & 561/2009 Page 19 of 23 compelled the prosecutrix to go upstairs.It is relevant to note that as deposed by the prosecutrix, Rahul was telling her to go up because he feared that somebody may see them at the ground level.He wanted her to go up so that they can conduct a body search to see whether she was having any other valuable.Amit never went upstairs.Thus, Amit parted company before the prosecutrix was raped.There is another facet to the issue.The deposition of prosecutrix that when she was being compelled to go up and she refused and at that point of time Rahul touched a black cord around his neck and swore in the name of a saint that except for searching her no harm would be caused to her brings out that Rahul rightly gauged the mind of the prosecutrix and the fear in her mind, that if she went up she would be raped, and to allay the fear Rahul dramatized by touching the black cord around his neck.We do understand that people in India wear black cords called Taaviz around their neck which they obtain from holy men.Rahul was wearing a Taaviz.Appeal No.364/2005 filed by Amit is partially allowed.His conviction for the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) IPC is set aside.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,325,866 |
M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 1 of 12Admittedly, an agreement was executed between Sadashiv Enterprises and Liberty Group, Karnal, on 27th February, 2002 and was signed by Sh.Shyam Sunder Bansal on behalf of Sadashiv Enterprises and by Mr. P.D. Gupta on behalf of Liberty Group.Under the Agreement, Liberty Group was to supply Hawai Chappals of second grade for sale in Delhi.A complaint for cheating, criminal intimidation, extortion and criminal conspiracy was filed by respondent No.2, Shyam Sunder Bansal, proprietor of Sadashiv Enterprises, against three persons including petitioner Adrash Gupta.It was alleged in the petition that at the behest of accused No.1 (Adrash Gupta), accused No.2, Sh.Vivek Gupta had contacted the complainant to become distributor of products of accused No.1 and several false promises were made and lucrative incentives were offered by them to the complainant, vide agreement which was annexed as Annexure-A to the complaint.It was further alleged that accused No.1 added the words "second grade" so as to save his skin from impending orders of a court of Law and the accused were successful in selling their unsalable held up stock of second grade spurious products worth over Rs. 1 Crore, whereas the price charged by them was regular full Crl.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 2 of 12 price and not the usual 50% price of second grade items and, thus, they cheated the complainant to the extent of Rs.1 Crore by compelling him to re-sell the stock at a huge loss.It was also alleged that accused No.1 and 2 did not increase the M.R.P. printed on their box and started billing the complainant on a hiked purchase price.They also charged 2% Branch Charges from the complainant.Allegations of criminal intimidation and threat were also made in the complaint.This is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing complaint case No.619/2003 titled Shyam Sunder Bansal Vs.Adrash Gupta & Ors., pending before learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.It has been stated in the petition that even if the allegations Crl.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 1 of 12 made and evidence available on record is considered, no offence as alleged is made out against the petitioner.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 2 of 12The learned Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 9th January, 2008 took the view that ingredients of Section 503 and 385 of IPC were not made out.He, however, summoned accused No.1 and 2, i.e. the petitioner and one Mr. Vivek Gupta for the offence u/s 420/34 IPC.During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 was specifically asked as to how offence of cheating is made out against the petitioner, from the averments made in the complaint.It was contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner supplied second quality goods to the complainant/respondent No.2, while charging the price of first quality goods and, therefore, cheating is made out against him.A perusal of the agreement executed between Sadashiv Enterprises and Liberty Group, a copy of which has been Crl.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 3 of 12 filed with the petition and contents whereof have not been disputed by respondent No.2, would show that the agreement between Sadashiv Enterprises and Liberty Group was for supply of second grade goods and not for first grade goods.If the agreement between the parties itself envisaged supply of second grade goods, there can be no cheating in supplying goods of that very grade and not supplying the goods of first grade.Had the petitioner sold second grade goods, mis- representing them to be first grade goods then of course offence of cheating would have been made out against them.But, when the agreement itself envisaged supply of second grade goods, there is no cheating in supplying goods of that very quality.If the petitioner claimed price of first grade goods from the complainant/ respondent No.2 while supplying second grade goods to him and if that was against the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties, the complainant could have rejected those goods.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 3 of 12Admittedly, the complainant has not made entire payment as demanded by the seller of the goods and a civil suit filed by Liberty Shoes Limited for recovery of Rs.1589384 against him is pending in civil court.The complainant/respondent No.2 has also filed a suit against Liberty Shoes Limited for recovery of Rs.2823561 and that suit is also pending in this court.A perusal of the plaint of Crl.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 4 of 12 the civil suit filed by the complainant against Liberty Shoes Limited which show that the plea taken by him in the civil suit is that the defendant had all of a sudden changed the discount structure retrospectively with effect from 1 st April, 2003, contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 27th July, 2002, as a result of which he started suffering heavy losses.It was further alleged that the plaintiff was assured that due to introduction of VAT, the price of Chappal were high but the M.R.P. would remain unchanged.He, however, later came to know that VAT was not implemented but the defendant, Liberty Shoes Limited had reduced his margin of profit from 48% to 32.5% and had also decreased the M.R.P. of Chappals as a result of which he suffered net loss of 7.5%.He further claimed Rs.144729/- on account of reduction in M.R.P. He disputed a debit note of Rs.81414/- towards service charges and claimed two other amounts, one of Rs.31758/- and the other of Rs.1422/- besides security deposit of Rs.1 lakh.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 4 of 12Thus, the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 5 of 12In State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not, prima facie, constitute any offence or make out any case against the accused, the court would be justified in quashing the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.M.C. No. 3914/2008 Page 11 of 12For the reasons given above, the criminal complaint No.619/2003 titled Shyam Sunder Bansal Vs.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,232,595 |
Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1570 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 5 of 6and RMT.[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Pasupathy, Son of Palani, male, aged about 25 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 3 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:I am aware that Thiru Pasupathy is in remand in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.541/2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Pasupathy are taking action to take him out on bail in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.541/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.In a similar case registered u/s 341, 302 IPC in C3 Manimangalam Police Station Cr.No.75/2016 bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Kancheepuram District, Chengalpattu in Crl.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.359/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 1570 of 2019 26.06.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.1.The Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal,Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,336 |
The houses in which the two accused and the deceased Lakkappa, resided were all situated in Madargeri, the Harijan locality of the village Ventigod.The mother of accused No. 1 went to these witnesses and appealed to them to stop the quarrel that was proceeding between her son and Lakkappa.These two witnesses and others then proceeded to the houses of accused No. 1 end the deceased Lakkappa.They intervened and separated the quarrelling parties from each other.In the end, accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to their respective places of residence and Lakkappa and his wife likewise went home.Thereafter Lakkappa had gone to the village of Mudalgi to attend the bazar there.He returned on Thursday following at about 3 P. M. As usual, after night-fall he went to sleep in Kamdev's temple.It was while Lakkappa was asleep in front of Kamdev's temple that accused Nos. 1 and 2 murdered him.Lakkappa was then lying on a mat & his head was placed on a pillow.He had taken oft both his shirt and underwear and kept them near the pillow.JUDGMENT Gajendragadkar, J.The two appellants were charged in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code.The charge against them was that on 28th August, 1952, at about midnight, at Vantigod, the two accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Lakkappa, caused his death while he was sleeping in front of the temple of Kamdev by letting down a stone on his left side which caused injuries to him and by cutting him with an axe with the intention of causing his death or such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.The accused denied the charge and pleaded innocence.The assessors with whose help the trial was held were unanimously of the opinion that the charge had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against both the appellants.But the learned Judge did not agree with this opinion and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved their case against both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.That is why he convicted bath of them of the offence charged and sentenced each, of them to transportation for life.Accused No. 1 has been directed to be kept in the juvenile section of the ordinary prison.Just then accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 came near Tippawa and began to abuse her.This led to a quarrel between the deceased Lakkappa and the two accused.This quarrel brought on the scene a number of neighbours, Amongst them were Pendappa and Venkappa.Soon after he had fallen asleep, Sadashiv, who used to sleep by the side of Lakkappa, came to the temple, spread his own bed and went to sleep.About midnight Sadashiv felt the touch of Lakkappa's hand on his body.He was awakened and when he got up he saw the deceased Lakkappa struggling as a result of bleeding injuries.One of the accused was then standsing near the head, of Lakkappa and the other by his side.Accused No. 2 was armed with an axe.Sadashiv could identify the two accused because they were known to him.As soon as Sadashiv got up, the two accused ran away.Sadashiv then ran to the house of the deceased and informed Tippanna, the maternal-uncle of the deceased, Yamnawwa, his mother and Tippawa, his wife, about the offence which had been committed by the accused.These three relatives then rushed to the scene and found that Lakkappa was dead.By this time a large crowd of villagers had assembled on the spot.Information of this offence was then conveyed to the Police Patil and at the end of the investigation a chargesheet was submitted against both the appellants that they had committed tile murder of Lakkappa in pursuance of their common intention.That is the prosecution case.In support of this case the prosecution relied upon the confessions made by both the appellants.They also relied upon the evidence of Sadashiv.In the Court of Session Sadashiv was treated as hostile and the evidence given by him in the committal Court was taken on the record as substantive evidence under Section 288, Criminal P. C. It was on this evidence that the prosecution relied before the learned Additional Sessions Judge.According to the prosecution, this evidence and the confessions were corroborated by the evidence of the three relatives who were called on the spot by Sadashiv and to whom Sadashiv had given the names of the appellants as the assailants of Lakkappa.The learned Additional Sessions Judge hold that the confessions were not admissible.According to him, in recording these confessions the learned Magistrate had not complied with the requirements of Section 164, Criminal P. C. and that rendered the confessions inadmissible.Even so, he was satisfied that Sadashiv's evidence in the committal Court gave a true account of what Sadashiv had really seen, and since this evidence was corroborated by the evidence of the three relatives of the deceased.Lakkappa, the learned Judge held that the offence charged against the two appellants had been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, Mr, Reddi contends that the learned Judge was right in rejecting the confessions as inadmissible and he argues that on the remaining evidence if, would be unsafe to convict the appellants of the offence charged.The learned Government Pleader, on the other hand, contends that the learned Judge was wrong in excluding the confessions on the ground that they were inadmissible and he argues that even without the confessions the order of conviction passed by the learned Judge is well founded.That is why the first question which we have to consider is whether the confessions alleged to have been made by the two appellants are admissible in law.Both of them retracted their confessions at the committal stage and they adhered to their retraction in the Court of Session.The statements made by them are substantially identical.The Police Sub-Inspector and the police had obtained them and it was the police that took their thumb impressions on a paper by force.It is also clear that both the accused persons were not in police custody for more than 48 hours and they seem to have expressed their willingness to confess very soon after they were arrested.The Magistrate then asked each one of them this question : "You had been allowed time to properly consider about making a confession.On 14th November.on the application of the police and under the orders of the District Magistrate, a First Class Magistrate proceeded by car to the scene of the dacoity and to the places material to the events connected with it.The accused in handcuffs accompanied the Magistrate in another car.On arrival the Magistrate excluded the police or sent them apart at a distance, and then was led round by each of the accused and the places were pointed out.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,342,688 |
In short, the prosecution case is that Bhangilal, the deceased along with his daughter Sukarvati resided in village Pando.Since Sukarvati was the only daughter of deceased, he married her to Sadhu Bharia and made them to live in his own house.Appellant, who happened to be the nephew of deceased, did not like it and compelled Sadhu to leave the village.He also pressurized deceased (2) Cr.A.No.123/2004 to ask Sukarvati Bai to leave the village and live with her husband in village Chargaon.Deceased, however, did not yield to his demand saying that he had no other issue therefore he had kept Sukarvati for his help and service.For this reason, appellant entertained grudge against the deceased.On 18.2.2003 at about 11:00 a.m., appellant went to the house of deceased, told to him, since he did not send Sukarvati to the house of her husband, he would not leave him alive and assaulted him with a stick of Tendu tree on his head as a result of which he fell down unconscious and died on the spot.Accused then ran away.Deceased's brother Dhina (PW-1) lodged the report Ex.P/1 at police station, Batkakhapa.After recording first information report Ex.P/1 and marg intimation Ex.P/2, station officer of police viz. K.P.Dhurve (PW-13) went at the spot and conducted inquest proceedings.He recorded inquest memorandum Ex.P/8 in front of witnesses and sent the body of deceased for postmortem examination to Community Health Centre, Harrai.Dr. B.K.Puria (PW-12) conducted the postmortem examination of the body.Vide his postmortem report Ex.It has not been disputed by the appellant that deceased died due to injury on his head.Dhina (PW-1), Sukarvati (PW-3) and Chablo Bai (PW-4) stated that deceased died at the spot.The report (4) Cr.(07.02.2012) Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 19.12.2003 passed by Ist Additional Judge to the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara in Sessions Trial No.62/03 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-.In default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.P/14, he found a lacerated wound on the right eyebrow of deceased.According to him, deceased died of shock as a result of excessive haemorrhage resulting in extradural haemorrhage.Inspector Dhurve, on 24.2.2003, took appellant in custody and on his information, seized a stick from his possession vide seizure memo Ex.The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination and the charge sheet was filed.(3) Cr.After committal, learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charge under section 302 I.P.C. against the appellant.Appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication.To substantiate its case, prosecution examined 13 witnesses.Trial Judge, placing reliance mainly on the evidence of Sukarvati (PW-3), Dhina (PW-1) and Dr. B.K.Puria (PW-12), held the appellant guilty and convicted him of the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction, appellant has filed this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of alleged sole eyewitness Sukarvati (PW-3) was not reliable.She had not witnessed the occurrence.Trial Judge misappreciated her evidence and convicted the appellant.He further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, conviction of appellant under section 302 I.P.C. was not justified.At the most, appellant could have been held liable under section 304-II I.P.C. because the incident occurred suddenly without premeditation and he did not repeat the assault on deceased.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of eyewitness Sukarvati (PW-3) was wholly reliable.It was corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr.B.K.Puria (PW-12).He justified the conviction of appellant under section 302 I.P.C.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and evidence on record carefully.A.No.123/2004 of the incident was lodged by Dhina (PW-1).A.S.I. K.P.Dhurve (PW-13) conducted the inquest proceedings and recorded memorandum Ex.P/8 after observing the injury found on the body of deceased.He sent the body of deceased for postmortem examination whereupon Dr. B.K.Puria (PW-12) performed the postmortem examination.Dr. Puria found following injury on the body of deceased:-examination, a depressed fracture of right parietal bone of skull detected.There was subdural and extradural haemorrhage.The injury was caused by heavy hard and blunt object and was ante mortem in nature.The death was caused due to shock by external and internal haemorrhage from the head injury.The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.Postmortem report Ex.P/14 was written and signed by him.From the evidence of aforesaid witnesses, it is also revealed that the injury to deceased was caused by the appellant.Thus, it is established that deceased died a homicidal death.The next question before us is as to who caused injury to deceased as a result of which he died.In this regard, main evidence is of Sukarvati (PW-3).Sukarvati stated that her father had no sons and she was his only daughter.She had been married to Sadhu of village Chargaon.Sadhu initially lived at her house, but thereafter he went back to Chargaon.Appellant entertained grudge from her father because he did not yield to his demand of sending her to her husband's house at Chargaon.Appellant also asked her to go to Chargaon, but she did not go as there was nobody to look after her (5) Cr.A.No.123/2004 father.She stated that while she was cooking food inside the house, appellant caught hold of her father, took him in the courtyard and assaulted him with a stick.Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Sukarvati (PW-3) was the daughter of deceased.She was the sole witness of the occurrence.Since she was inside the house, it was not possible for her to have witnessed the incident.She submitted that the evidence of such an interested solitary witness ought not to have been relied upon.It is true that this witness admitted that at the time of occurrence she was cooking food inside the room, but she disclosed that there were only two rooms in her house.As soon as she heard the voice of her father, she rushed out and saw appellant running away.She admitted that she did not see appellant assaulting her father and further that she did not know as to what transpired between appellant and deceased before he was assaulted.State of Kerala-AIR 1977 SC 701 observed that "where there is no previous enmity between the deceased or his relatives on one side and the accused on the other, the evidence given by the relatives of the deceased cannot be regarded as suspect needing corroboration from independent witnesses.There appeared no reason for her to have falsely implicated the appellant.In these circumstances, (6) Cr.A.No.123/2004 it can be inferred with certainty that it was appellant who assaulted deceased with a stick.The evidence of Sukarvati (PW-3) finds corroboration from the evidence of Dhina (PW-1) who stated that when he heard the voice of deceased he came out of his house and reached the place of incident.At that time, deceased had died and blood was oozing out of his head.Sukarvati (PW-3) and Chablo Bai (PW-4) were present there.They disclosed to him that appellant ran away after assaulting the deceased.Dhina (PW-1) went to police station and lodged first information report Ex.Though Chablo (PW-4) claimed to be an eyewitness of the occurrence, but in her police statement Ex.D/1, she mentioned that she had gone to the house of Thunnu in marriage.Apparently Chablo, who happened to be the wife of deceased, improved in saying that she witnessed the occurrence.The evidence of Sukarvati (PW-3) stands corroborated from the evidence of Dhina (PW-1).Despite of her being a solitary and relative eyewitness of the occurrence, after careful appraisal of her evidence, we find her to be a wholly reliable witness.Evidence of Sukarvati (PW-3) finds further support from the evidence of Dr. B.K.Puria (PW-12) who performed the postmortem examination of the body of deceased and found a lacerated wound on the right eyebrow of deceased.According to him, the said injury was caused by hard and blunt object.Investigating Officer K.P.Dhurve (PW-13) deposed that on the information furnished by appellant on 24.2.2003 he recovered a heavy stick of Tendu tree from the possession of appellant and (7) Cr.A.No.123/2004 sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for examination.Dashman (PW-5), a witness to the memorandum of deceased, however, in his cross-examination, stated that the said stick was searched by the police earlier and thereafter his signatures were obtained.We are of the opinion that there appeared no reason to disbelieve the evidence of investigating officer against whom no allegation of malice was alleged by the appellant.It is also important to note that on chemical examination by the F.S.L. Sagar, vide its report Ex.P/16, human blood was detected on the said stick.After careful and critical analysis of the aforesaid prosecution evidence, we find that it was established beyond doubt that appellant assaulted deceased with a stick as a result of which he died.Learned counsel for the appellant next argued that only a single blow with stick was said to have been dealt by the appellant to deceased.No further blows were repeated.Since Sukarvati (PW-3) admitted that after hearing the voice of deceased, when she came out of the room she saw appellant running away, it cannot be said that there was clear evidence about the genesis of the occurrence.State of Maharashtra-AIR 2009 SC 1835, Apex Court observed that "the accused and the deceased were in inimical terms.Only one blow was given with the Yoke in the night.PW-4 admitted that it was dark, but he identified the accused because he was known to him.Number of injuries is always not a determinative factor regarding (8) Cr.A.No.123/2004 applicability of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The nature of the weapon, place where it was struck and several other relevant factors throw light on this aspect.Admittedly, appellant did not repeat assault on the deceased.In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it cannot be held that appellant intended to commit murder of deceased.However, since he dealt a single blow of stick on the head of deceased which resulted into his death, the case against the appellant would fall under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is in jail since the month of February, 2003, as such, he has served out actual sentence of about 9 years.For the reasons aforesaid, we hold that the conviction of appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was not justified, as such, we modify his conviction to under section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of sentence already undergone by him.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,347,046 |
222 of 2012 registered with GhatkoparPolice Station.The case of the prosecution is as under:a) On 16th July 2012 message was received by Asst.Sub- Inspector Mr. Jagannath Maroti Shinde (PW-4) attached to Ghatkopar Police Station, from control room that one female was lying in a drainage near Balasaheb Desai Colony, Ghatkopar.He proceeded to the said spot.It was a gutter in front of Home Guard Training Center, Ghatkopar West Mumbai.Body of female was found in the drainage.b) Fire Brigade was called and body of the female was taken out.It was taken to Rajawadi Hospital by mobile van of Ghatkopar Police Station.There was green top and black salvar on the dead body.One metal finger ring, mangalsutra, ear ring and painjan was found on the person of deceased.These articles and the clothes were removed from dead body before sending it for post-mortem.Clothes and articles were seized by panchnama (Exh.24), prepared on 16 th June 2012, in presence of two panch witnesses one of whom was Indrajit Azhad (PW-5).d) Mr. Rajkumar Vishnu Kothmire P.I (PW-8) was attached to Ghatkopar Police Station at the relevant time.Photograph of the dead body were clicked before sending it for post- mortem since the body was not identified.He gave photograph of the body for publishing in newspaper.It was published in Gujarati, Daily "Metro Mirror" through Mr Jignesh Jagdish Pathak (Court Witness).Opinion was reserved.After receipt of report from Forensic Laboratory regarding viscera, cause of death was given as "Hemorrhagic shock due to head injury with skull bone fracture (un-natural)".newspaper was noticed by Mr. Allauddin Hafizullah Maniyar (P.W-1).He suspected that photograph is of his sister Jugara.He was working at Bhivandi, District-Thane.He went to Ghatkopar Police Station and met Mr. Kothmire.He was taken to mortuary.He identified the dead body to be that of his sister Jugara.f) P.W-1 is the brother of deceased.According to him Jugara was married to accused No.1 (Appellant) six years prior to the incident and she was residing at Gaudi Bajar, Uttar Pradesh.The accused was suspecting that she was having relation with person named Mubarak.She was ill-treated.On inquiry by family members of P.W-1, he informed that Jugara ran away.Uttar Pradesh.Both were arrested and brought to Mumbai.h) During investigation house of accused at Borivali was searched on 31st July 2012, in the presence of panch witnesses.Mr. Salim Mehmood Sayyed (PW-10) was one of the panch witness.One rexine bag containing clothes of deceased, other clothes and imitation jewellery was found.Photograph of deceased was also found.These articles were seized by panchnama (Exh.37).On 01 st August 2012, accused No.1 made voluntary statement in the presence of two panch witnesses, Investigating Officer and expressed his desire to show the brick used in the crime and place where brick and the clothes on his person at a time of committing crime were kept.The accused, panchas and police went to the place where dead body was found.Brick was taken out by the accused from the bushes near the gutter.The accused took the police and panchas to the room of his friend Jaganu and took out shirt and pant which was handed over to the police.Call details record of sim card was collected and it was found that, location of the accused at the relevant time of incident was near the place of incident and there was communication between accused No.1 and accused No.2 at around the time of incident.Statements of witnesses were recorded.Allauddin Maniyar is the brother of deceased.He is thefirst informant.According to him his sister Jugara was married toaccused No.1 about six years prior to the incident.She was stayingat her matrimonial home at Gaudihawa along with her-in-laws.Aftertwo years of marriage, she was brought to Kandiwali, Mumbai.Oneyear thereafter, she went to village.The accused No.1 and Jugarahad come to Mumbai and then again returned to village.Jugara hadstayed at her parental home for three months.PW-1 was at his village.Jugarahad told him that, the accused was suspecting that she is inrelationship with one Mubarak and on that count she was ill-treated.Both the accused used to ill-treat her.Jugara had also stated to PW-1 that, the accusedhad threatened to kill her.On 06 th July 2012 accused No.1, Jugaraand their son left the village.Accused No.1 had stated that, they aregoing to Mumbai.PW-1 came to Mumbai two to three daysthereafter.with his son.The accused told them that she had ran away.PW-1searched his sister at Mumbai.He found picture of his sister inGujarati Newspaper.He approached Ghatkopar Police Station.Thepolice showed him photo.He identified the photograph it to be of hissister.He was taken to Rajawadi Hospital.Body was shown to him.He identified it to be of his sister.There were injuries on face andhead.In cross examination he deposed that, the victim had stayedat her father's house for several days after her delivery.At the timeof delivery of son, accused No.1 was at Mumbai.The accused wasnot taking Jugara back home after delivery and he was not happywith her.There was no quarrel between accused No.1 and thevictim in his presence.She had gone to Mumbai voluntarily as shewanted to cohabit with her husband.He had never seen Mubarak.Hedo not know whether he exist or not.The victim had told him thatMubarak stays at Ghatkopar.The victim never stayed at Ghatkoparprior to delivery.She had resided at Ghatkopar at the time ofincident for the first time in her life.Jugara had told him that accusedis suspecting that she has relation with Mubarak at Ghatkopar.Priorto coming Ghatkopar, she had never been to Ghatkopar until then.The agreement was tobe prepared within two days.Mr. Maniyar and his family startedresiding in the room.She supplied them food.The saidaddress given to the mobile company is not the same address whereshe resides.Mr. Dilip Gupta deposed that, he is the owner of tworooms in Ganpat Patil Nagar, Galli No.9 New Link Road, BorivaliWest Mumbai.Mr. Jagannath Shinde, A.S.I was attached to GhatkoparPolice Station.He received information about the body of femalelying in drainage from control room.He went to the spot, body wasremoved with the help of Fire Brigade.The Fire Brigade removedthe body and it was taken to Rajawadi Hospital.Itappeared that it might be cognizable offence.On the basis of hisstatement ADR was registered on the same date.Police told him to act as panchwitness for recovery of clothes of deceased.Panchnama of clothesand articles on the person of deceased was prepared.The articles were kept on thetable in his presence.He did not see any panchnama between09:00 pm to 10:00 pm.Police did not show him any articles between09:00 pm to 10:00 pm.In the cross examination he stated that, hewas shown all the articles which are identified by him before theCourt.He identified the articles on the person of deceased whichare marked as Art. 'A' collectively.Mr. Munna Ismail Hussain Chowdhary connected aspanch witness on 01st August 2012, according to him the accusedmade a statement that he is ready to show where the brick is keptand would produce the brick.He was ready to show the place wherehe kept the clothes and he would produce the same.He identifiedthe accused in Court.The accused with police and panch witnesswent to spot and showed gutter.He took out the brick lying behindthe tree.He took them to room.He took out the clothes kept on therope tied inside the room it was pant and shirt.The police seized thearticles.head is hit with some object.The final cause wasreported after the report of chemical analyzer was received.Hedenied that, the injury noted in column Nos. 17 and 19 of the reportmay be caused by fall from height.Mr. Rajkumar Vishnu Kothmire was attached toGhatkopar Police Station as Police Inspector.He received messagefrom mobile van that, one women was lying in gutter near BalasahebDesai Colony.A. S. I Shinde visited the place along with staff.Theyfound that one women was lying in the gutter.They called for helpfrom the Fire Brigade.The women was removed from the gutter.She was taken to Rajawadi Hospital.She was examined by MedicalOfficer and declared dead.Inquest Panchnama was prepared.He had seen thephotograph in the newspaper Gujarati daily "Metro Mirror" and hadidentified to be that of his sister Jugara.He went to the Hospital andidentified the body of his sister Jugara.He made telephone call tohis father at his native place and informed the incident to him.Hisfather informed him that, husband of Jugara was at native placealong with the child.ran away with Mubarak, with whom she had affair.PW-1 informedthis information to this witness.PW-1 also informed that father ofdeceased took accused to local Police Station where he disclosedinformation that he killed Jugara since she had affair with Mubarak.On the statement of PW-1 FIR was registered.Police squad wassent to native place of the accused.They were produced before the localMagistrate.After obtaining transit remand, they were brought toMumbai.The accused No.1 was interrogated.Clothes of deceased and accused were found in theroom.Photograph was also found in the room.It was seized inpanchnama.He identified the clothes seized in panchnama.Hemade inquiry with the persons who were residing in theneighbourhood.Statements were recorded.On 01 st August 2012,the accused stated that, he is ready to show the brick and clothes.He recorded statement of Jignesh Pathak by usingcomputer in Marathi and it was explained to him in Hindi.Smt. Salma Ayub Shaikh was called by GhatkoparPolice Station for recording panchnama.She stated that, body ofthe victim was lying in the gutter.Brigade people.There was injuries on her head and neck.She waswearing green colour Salvar and black colour Kameez.She waswearing Mangalsutra.Body was taken to Rajawadi Hospital.Inquestpanchnama was prepared in her presence.It is marked as Exh.36.In cross examination she deposed that, she is a social worker.Police Station is fifteen minutes walking distance from her house.She helps police whenever it is required.This was third instance ofattending panchnama.Whenever required, the police call her toPolice Station.She was already at the place since there was foulsmell and people had gathered.She was at the place when shereceived call from the police.She accompanied dead body toRajawadi Hospital.The panchnama was prepared at RajawadiHospital.It takes twenty minutes to reach Rajawadi Hospital from thespot.She was in the Hospital for two hours.He was told that, house search is to beconducted at Borivali and panchnama was to be recorded.Accusedwas present at Police Station.He identified the accused.Theyproceeded to Borivali.Mr. Kothmire and other police officers werepresent.Accused was also present.He showed room.It was a tinsheet room.It was having roof of cement sheet.The accusedstated that his wife and children stay in the said room.In cross examination hestated that, he is doing business as hawker and he do not havehawker's license.Fine is charged to him by police and B.M.C. He isdoing business since last 15 to 20 years.The photograph wasmarked as Art. 'G'.PW-11 Naresh Vishnu Chavan was attached to GhatkoparPolice Station as P.S.I. According to him on 16 th July 2012, He wason duty as S.H.O. Report was received that, one lady was lying ingutter.He went to that spot, lady was found lying in the gutter.Shewas removed from the gutter.She was dead.She was taken toRajawadi Hospital.There was head injury to the body.There werebruise injuries to her right hand.She was wearing top and blackcolour bottom.She was wearing Mangalsutra.The articles were Mangalsutra, one Ring, pair ofPainjan and finger Ring.that, accused was occupying premises at Borivali.The premises occupied by accused No.1 were searched and clothes along with photograph of deceased were recovered.g) The accused did not file any missing complaint on disappearance of his wife.He was arrested in Uttar Pradesh.The dead body of his wife was found at Ghatkopar.The accused is silent with regards to these circumstances.Section 106 of Evidence Act calls for explaination from the accused.3) Accused No.1 leaves his native place together with deceased and their son for coming to Mumbai.5) Accused No.1 was last seen with the deceased leaving the room at 6 pm on 14th July 2012 by PW-2 Ujjwala.She was found dead in the gutter atGhatkopar Mumbai.The evidence of PW-1 established thatphotograph which he had noticed in the newspaper and dead bodywhich was shown to him was that of his sister Jugara.There were injuries on her body.The accused along with his son had reachedUttar Pradesh on 17th July 2012 and on inquiry he had disclosedthat, the victim has ran away.It is pertinent to note that, the theory oflast seen together is made strong by the fact that, the accused wasarrested in Uttar Pradesh on 28 th July 2012 and he was brought toMumbai.The appellant and accused No.2 were prosecuted for theoffence under Section 302, 201 r/w. 109 of Indian Penal Code (forshort "IPC").The First Information Report (for short "FIR") wasregistered vide C.R.No.Medical Officer at Rajawadi Hospital examined the body and found that the female was brought dead.2012 in presence of two panch witnesses, one of whom was Salma Ayuf Khan (PW-9).On 06th July 2012, accused No.1 left the native place along with deceased and their son.While leaving village, he informed that, he was leaving for Mumbai.On 17 th July 2012, accused No.1 returned to village along with his son.Thecharge against accused No.1 is that, he being husband of deceasedJugara commited murder intentionally or knowingly causing death ofJugara on 15th July 2012, at about 1:00 midnight, at Azhad Nagar,Ghatkopar West and thereby committed offence under Section 302of the I.P.C. On the aforesaid date, time and place knowing orhaving reason to believe that offence punishable with imprisonmenthave been committed, the accused caused evidence of said offenceto disappear by disposing the body of deceased Jugara in gutter andthereby committed offence punishable under Section 201 of I.P.C.Prior to 15th July 2012, the accused No.1 committed murder andaccused No.2 father-in-law of Jugara, abetted accused No.1 in thecommission of the offence of murder, which offence was committedin consequence of abetment.Thus, accused committed offencepunishable under Section 302 r/w.Section 109 of IPC.The prosecution examined eleven witnesses.One witnesswas examined as Court Witness.After recording the evidence,statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 ofCr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bombay byJudgment and Order dated 7th March 2015, convicted accused No.1(Appellant) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C andsentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine ofRs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for threemonths.The accused No.1 was also convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 201 of I.P.C and sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and pay fine ofRs.3,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.The accused No.2 was acquitted for the offence punishable underSection 302 r/w. 109 of I.P.C and was directed to be set at liberty ifnot required in any other case or crime.The prosecution examined following witnesses:Allauddin Hafizullah ManiyarMr. Jagannath Maroti Shinde, A.S.IMunna Ismail Hussain ChowdharyThe case is based on circumstantial evidence.We havescrutinized the evidence of witnesses.The case of the prosecutionis based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness ofthe incident.The prosecution has relied upon the circumstances,which have emanated from the evidence of the witnesses.No complaint was lodgedagainst the accused in the village.He didnot state anything to the police about ill-treatment on that day.On26th June 2012, when he had visited Ghatkopar Police Station, thepolice officer had kept his complaint ready in computer.8. PW-2 Ujwala Imran Eeiddrisi is residing at Borivali, Mumbai.She stated that the premises occupied by her were hired on rentalbasis.She is residingat Ganpat Patil Nagar, Galli No.9, New Link Road, Borivali WestMumbai.On 11th July 2012 Mohammad Ismail Abdul Hadis Maniyarand his wife along with son came in search of rental premises.Shelet out one adjacent room to them.The room belonging to Mr. DilipGupta.She contacted him on phone and informed him about thesame.Mr. Gupta came there and premises was let out to Mr.Maniyar and Rs.500/- was paid to Mr. Gupta.They brought someutensils.On 14th July 2012, at about 06:00 p.m while leaving roomthey told the witness that, they would return during night.On 19 th July 2012 she called Mr. Dilip Gupta andinformed him that the tenants did not return.On 31 st July 2012,Police along with Maniyar came to her house but she was not athome.statement was recorded.She identified accused No.1 in the Court.In cross examination she stated that police did not show herphotograph of anyone for identification.The police did not show herdead body in the hospital.Police did not show the clothes for thepurpose of identification.In her statement she is stated that,Mr.Gupta came to the room and then the room was let out toManiyar.She cannot assign any reason why it isnot mentioned in the statement.She stated before the police thatthe tenants had two to three pairs of clothes and they did not preparemeal.On fourth day, they brought some utensils.She cannot assignreason why it is not mentioned in the statement.The police madeinquiry with adjacent residents in her presence.Police did not meether.The search was not taken by the police in her presence.Shedid not hand over the agreement of her room to police.There wasno agreement of her house.She do not have ration card, electioncard, telephone bill, electricity bill or any other documents to showthat, she resides at the given address.While purchasing mobile, shegave her residential address proof to mobile company.The accused No.1 and PW-2 occupied two differentrooms.He paid Rs.500/- towards rent.Agreement was not effected.PW-2 informedhim about it.Police opened the lock of the room.In crossexamination he stated that, he cannot assign any reason why it isnot mentioned in his statement before the police that the accusedresided in his room since 11 th July 2012 to 14th July 2012 and he paidRs.500/- towards rent.Police did not show him accused at the Police Chowky.Policebrought the accused to his office.The police had shown theaccused to him.Police had told him that the accused was residing inhis room.He was not shown any dead body or photograph foridentification purpose.The Medical Officerdeclared that the victim was dead before admission.In the crossexamination he stated that, there were injuries on the body.He identified the brick and clothes produced by accused.Incross examination he stated that, he do not have permit or licensefor business although he is hawker since last ten years.He hadvisited Ghatkopar Police Station on several occasions to pay penalty.On every occasion he attended the Court and pleaded guilty.Hehad acted as panch witness in police cases.He deposed in theCourt as panch witness.The place around gutter was open place.The police officer said that, there were blood stains on the brick.The room where clotheSs were seized was 10-15 minutes walkingdistance from the said gutter.He wasattached to Rajawadi Hospital.He conducted post-mortem on thebody of the victim.He noticed following injuries:i) 1) CLW 3 cm above right ear 6 x 4 x 1 cm., 2) CLW 5 cm above angle of right eye lateral side 4 x 3 x 1 cm., 3) Peeling of skin above right breast over right shoulder upto neck 36 x 16 cm., 4) Peeling of skin forehead 13 x 8 cm.ii) Head - 1) Contusion and Haematoma left side occipital area to left temporal to parital area 11 x 13 cm, 2) Contusion and Haematoma frontal area 9 x 8 cm, 3) Skull - fracture left temporal, fracture right temporal bone, brain liquified decomposed, subdural haematoma present, weight 1100 gm.iii) The final cause of death - Hemorrhagic shock due to head injury with skull bone fracture, unnatural.He produced original post-mortem notes.He stated that, injuries noticed in columnNo.17 of the report may result into death of a person.The injuriesmay be caused by brick or stone.He was shown muddemal Art. 'C'brick.The injuries may be caused by such brick.Statement Exh. 27 was recorded in the presence of panchwitnesses.Brick and clothes were recovered at the instance of theaccused.Mobile phone was recovered from the brother of theaccused on 02nd August 2012, panchnama was prepared.CDR wascollected.Investigation was completed and chargesheet was filed.in the Station Diary.However, along with chargesheet, extract of theentries are not produced.Since it was notrevealed that it is a case of murder, FIR was not registered againstunknown persons and only ADR was registered.When the accusedwas arrested, no statement of local head of the village was recorded.46 and 47 do not bear the name and stamp of the company.Itis not accompanied by any certificate regarding electronic record.The subscriber form and consumer identification form is notaccompanying the record.Statements of persons in whose namephone numbers registered were not recorded.He did not find anymaterial during investigation showing relations of deceased withperson named Mubarak.He had not recorded any statement ofsuch person.Statement of father and mother of deceased were notrecorded.found containing two pairs of Salvar, Kameez, one Godhadi, onecolour Photo, and Imitation Jewellery.The articles were seized.Hewas shown the bag along with articles.He identified the articles.Hewas also shown photograph.It is the same photograph which wasseized by panchnama in his presence.Thereafter, body wastaken for the post-mortem.Clothes were also seized.Inquestpanchnama was prepared.The witnessproduced muddemal with application Exh.55 and list Exh.56.Envelope containing valuation certificate by M. G. Gold Checkersand one metal article were produced.article was opened.He identified the same.In crossexamination he deposed that, the information was received on 16 thJuly 2012, he had seen the dead body at the spot.The dead bodywas found in the gutter.He did not find that, it was the case ofunnatural death.The investigation was handed over to Mr.In case of Registration of ADR, the inquest panchnamamust find mention of ADR serial number.There is no mentioned inthe inquest panchnama of the ADR number since the informationwas only to the effect that one women had fallen in the gutter.He isa Journalist working with Gujarati Newspaper (Metro City Mirror).Hestated that, he visited Ghatkopar Police Station in connection withhis work as Journalist.In July 2012, he had visited said PoliceStation.He met Mr. Kothmire, he was informed about finding offemale dead body and whether he could publish the photograph ofthe dead body as the police may get clue regarding identity ofdeceased.Mr. Kothmire had photograph of the dead body whichwas given to him.It is typographical error.The mention therein that the newswas published on 16th July 2012 in Metro City Newspaper is incorrectto the extent of date.In cross examination conducted by defense Advocate it wasstated that Mr. Kothmire did not seize the copy of newspaper inwhich photograph was published by way of panchnama.Witnesswas permitted to be re-examined on the point of date of publicationof the news item.The witness stated that, he has brought with himoriginal newspaper in which the news item was published.Thenews item was published on page No.4 of the newspaper.Theexhibition of document was not objected.Since the question as tothe date of news item is in question page No.4 of newspapertogether with the news item published was marked as Exh.65 to thatlimited extent.In further cross examination it is stated that, thepolice did not ask for the soft copy of the news item.He is unable toproduce the soft copy before the Court on that day.Soft copy ispreserved in the office of newspaper for the purpose of record.Police did not obtain certificate from him under Section 65(B) of theIndian Evidence Act. News item does not mention that photographwas provided by police.of Jugara on 15th July 2012 by giving blow of brick on her head andthat accused No.1 has caused evidence to disappear by throwingdead body of Jugara into gutter.Hence, accused No.1 was convictedfor the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. Theaccused No.2 was however acquitted on the ground that, theprosecution has not proved that, he has abetted accused No.1 incommission of offence of murder of Jugara.20. Learned Advocate for the appellant advanced severalsubmissions and submitted that the Judgment of the Trial Courtconvicting appellant be set aside.Submissions can be summarizedas under:i) The case is based on circumstantial evidence since there is no eye witness to the incident.The prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances to establish the guilt of the accused.There are discrepancies in the evidence of these witnesses.It suffers from omissions and contradictions.during the investigation.There is no evidence to prove that the victim was assaulted by brick.It was recovered from a open place which accessible to the public.iv) The last seen theory cannot be believed as there is long gap between the time when the accused was allegedly seen by the witness with deceased and the finding of dead body body.There is no nexus of last seen and the commission of offence.v) The prosecution has not established the time of death.vi) The photograph of the deceased was not produced before the Court in evidence.vii) The CDR was not proved.Certificate under Section 65(B) of the Evidence Act was not produced.The Trial Court discarded the evidence of CDR.viii) The panch witnesses were habitual.They were available to police frequently.Section 313 of Cr.P.C, all the incriminating circumstances were not put to the accused.However, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of such circumstance.x) The Trial Court has erroneously invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act, when the prosecution has failed to discharged its initial burden showing complicity of the accused in the crime.xi) The accused has been convicted on the basis of surmises which are not supported by any evidence.xii) C.A Reports do not corroborate prosecution case.xiii) Motive not established.In support of submissions, learned counsel for the appellantrelied upon the following decisions:i) State of Goa V/s.Sanjay Thakran & Anr.(2007) 3 SCCii) Anjan Kumar Sarma V/s.Per contra Learned APP submitted as follows:a) [ There is enough circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused.b) The Trial Court has given its finding after analyzing the evidence on record with reasons.h) There is recovery of clothes of the accused from the premises belonging to his friend at the instance of the accused.i) The C.A report indicates that, blood was found on the pant of the accused.Blood was found on the clothes of the victim.j) The premises from which clothes of the accused were recovered is situated at Ghatkopar which is closer to the place, where dead body was found.On scrutiny of evidence we find that the case of theprosecution is based on several circumstances.Scanning theevidence we do not find that the Trial Court has committed any errorin giving finding of guilt against the accused on the basis of thecircumstances proved by prosecution.The Trial Court has given afinding that the following circumstances are duly established.1) Accused No.1 was the husband of deceased Jugara.2) Accused No.1 entertained grudge against deceased Jugara on suspicion that she had relations with one Mubarak (this gives motive to accused No.1 to kill Jugara).9) Accused No.1 explains when asked by relatives of the deceased that Jugara had run away.10) Accused No.1 lodges no missing report about missing of his wife either at Mumbai or at his native place.11) Accused No.1, together with accused No.2, arrested on 26th July 2012 at the native place at Uttar Pradesh.12) House search of a room at Ganpat Patil Nagar, Borivali in presence of panch witness PW-10 Salim Sayyed shows that trunk was found containing clothes of male and female and photograph Art.G of deceased Jugara.14) No explanation by the accused about death of his wife Jugara.It is not disputed that Jugara @ Seratun, Nisha was wife of theaccused No.1 (Appellant).There was no missing complaint bythe appellant at his native place.He is completely silent as to howshe came to Mumbai and consequently found dead.The Medical Officer PW-7 has stated that there was injury onthe body of deceased.The opinion regarding cause of death wasreserved.The same was given subsequently.It was opined that,the cause of death was Hemorrhagic due to head injury with skullbone fracture (unnatural).Post-mortem notes were produced onrecord.PW-7 has stated that injury can be caused by blunt objectlike stone or brick.He was shown the seized article brick.He statedthat it may cause injury in the nature of fracture to the head.some object.The witness however stated that final cause wasreported after the report of Chemical Analyzer was received.Although suggestion was given to him that the injury noticed in post-mortem report may be caused by fall of person from height, it wasdenied by him.There is no reason to doubt the correctness of hisopinion and contents of post-mortem report.The death wasunnatural and due to hemorrhagic shock on account of skull bonefracture which relates to act of hitting head with hard and bluntobject.It is relevant to note that the dead body was lying in thedrainage which had resulted into spilling of the skin as noted in thepost-mortem report which mentions that, there was spilling of skin ofthe dead body over head and brain.The inquest panchnama alsoindicates that the skin over the head and right elbow of deceasedhad turned whitest.On these aspects, the Trial Court gave findingthat death of Jugara was homicidal.We are in agreement with thefinding of the Trial Court.should be fully and cogently established and the provedcircumstances must bring home the offences to the accused beyondall reasonable doubt.One of the major circumstance against the accused to connecthim with the crime is that of last seen together.We have referred tothe evidence of PW-2 Ujjwala and PW-3 Dilip Gupta.PW-2 is anindependent witness.She has no axe to grind against the accused.She is a natural witness.There is nothing to doubt her evidence.According to her accused along with his wife and son leftpremises at about 06:00 p.m on 14 th July 2012 and never returned toroom.The owner of the premises PW-3 Dilip Gupta was alsoexamined.It is true that, there are omissions in the evidence of PW-2 which were brought in the cross examination by the defense.It isalso brought on record that, there is no agreement executedbetween the parties or there is no document to show that PW-2 wasoccupying the premises.However, the core of her evidence that, theaccused came and resided for three days had not been demolishedthrough the cross examination.ignorance with regards to this circumstance.His defense is that it isfalse.The residential premises which were allegedly occupied bythe accused and deceased was searched.It is the same premiseswhich was referred to by PW-2 and PW-3 being occupied by theaccused, his wife and their son.During the search the bagcontaining the clothes was found in the premises on 31 st July 2012.This fact is established from the evidence of PW-8 Mr. R. V.Kothmire and PW-10 Salim Mehmood sayyed.It is relevant to notethat photograph of deceased was also found in the said premises.Both these witnesses were cross examined by the advocate for theaccused.However, nothing could be brought on record to doubt theevidence relating to search of premises and finding of clothes,jewelry and photograph of deceased.duty to establish strong circumstance that the accused anddeceased were together and hence, non explanation of thiscircumstance by the accused would invite adverse inference againsthim as link to connect him with the crime.28. PW-1 is the brother of deceased.From his evidence itappears that, the marriage was solemnized between accused No.1and deceased about six years prior to the incident.The accusedand deceased had come to Mumbai during the intervening periodand had again returned to native place at Gaudihawa, Uttar Pradesh.The victim had delivered child.She was at her parental home afterthe delivery.She had told PW-1 that the accused is suspecting hercharacter.On account of fact that, she is having illicit relationshipwith Mubarak, she was ill-treated and threatened by the accused.They had informed that, they are going to Mumbai.The only explanation given by him is that, the wife had ranaway.The accused have denied this circumstance.Surprisingly inthe cross examination the witness was questioned with the fact that,the victim had stayed at parental home for several days afterdelivery.Accused No.1 was at Mumbai and he was not taking hiswife back home for several days.Panchayat was called.cross examination would indicate that the accused was not takingthe victim back home from her parental house.The victim had toldPW-1 about Mubarak and that he resides at Ghatkopar.The saidfact was told after her delivery.Thus, the motive which wasattributed by the prosecution has been made stronger through thecross examination by the defense.The witness has also stated inthe cross examination that, the victim had told him that the accusedwould suspect that, she is having relation with one Mubarak atGhatkopar.The prosecution has attributed to him themotive which is corroborated by defense in the cross examination.The evidence of PW-8 and PW-10 relating to search at thepremises where the accused had allegedly stayed with wife and sonhas not been shaken in any manner.The cross examination of PW-1 do not include suggestion as to why the victim came to Mumbai.The evidence of PW-4 relates to recovery of dead body of thevictim.The evidence of PW-5 panch witness refers to the clothes ofdeceased.The evidence of PW-6 relates to the recovery of brick atthe instance of accused and his clothes from the room.The brick was not found at open place.It wastaken out from the bushes by accused.police and panchas to the room which is situated at a short distancefrom the place where dead body was found.The room belongs tothe friend of the accused.Clothes of the accused were recoveredfrom the said room.He was cross examined.However, thereis nothing on record to disbelieve the evidence of this witness.Assuming that witnesses were acquainted with the police, theirevidence cannot be discarded unless the evidence of witnessessuffers from discrepancies or doubtful.According to defense, therecovery cannot be believed because the person from whose housethe recovery is made has been examined although named in thepanchnama.It may be noted that, the brick was hidden near the gutter.Although the police had visited the place at the time of recovery ofdead body, it cannot be said that the place of brick was known tothem as it was taken out from the bushes.The Medical Officer hasopined that, the injuries on deceased can be possible by the brick.Itis also pertinent to note that, the pant which was recovered from thesaid premises had blood stains and it was detected to be humanblood.The blood was also found on clothes of deceased.The evidence regarding CDR relating to the calls betweenaccused No.1 and 2 and the tower location of the accused No.1 hasbeen discarded by the Trial Court as the same was not found inaccordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act. The certificateunder Section 65(B) was not produced.The learned counsel representing the accused had contendedthat, probable time of death is not established and there is a missinglink in the evidence which connects accused with the crime.It wouldnot affect prosecution case.The evidence of Court Witness whopublished the photograph of dead body was also assailed.Onperusal of his evidence we do not find any reason to discard hisevidence.He was sought to be examined to clarify the date ofpublishing news item.PW-10 identified accused No.1to be present at the time of panchnama.He referred to finding ofbag containing salvar kameez, imitation jewelry and one colourphoto.He identified the clothes and photograph.The dead body of wifeof appellant was found in gutter at Ghatkopar.Clothes of accusedNo.1 (Appellant) were recovered from his friend's room at Ghatkoparwhich is at short distance from place of where dead body was found.Thus, there is strong reason to believe that the accused must havetaken his wife to Ghatkopar and killed her.The learned defense counsel had contended that, all thecircumstances are required to be put to the accused to give himopportunity to tender explanation while recording statement underSection 313 of Cr.P.C. He relied upon the decisions referred tohereinabove.The statement can be taken into consideration injudging his innocence or guilt.However, the accused was silent.This strongcircumstance which warrant explanation from the accused wasrelating to last seen together.If the deceased was at Mumbai withvictim how he was found at Uttar Pradesh and dead body ofdeceased was found at Ghatkopar.The silence of accused speaksvolume of adverse inference against him.We have perused thestatement of the accused No.1 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.Question Nos. 7, 8, 11 and 13 would be relevant, which are quotedhereinbelow:"7) He has further stated that, on 06 th July 2012, you accused No.1 & 2 left the village along with his sister for Mumbai and after 2-3 days you came back to the native place.What you to say about it?8) He has further stated that, on 17th July 2012 his family members asked you about Jugra and you told them that she had run away.What you have to say about it?11) PW - Ujwala Imran Eeiddrisi has stated that, on 11th July 2012, you accused No.1 Mohammad Ismail came along with your wife and son in search of rented premises and she let out one adjacent room of Dilip Gupta to you by informing Dilip Gupta and you paid Rs.500/- to Dilip Gupta.What you have to say about it?13) She has further stated that, on 14 th July 2012 at 6.00 pm you left the room informing her that you would return during night but did not return and on 19 th July 2012 she informed Dilip Gupta that you did not return to the room.What you have to say about it?"It is required to be noted that, theaccused was arrested at Uttar Pradesh.Transit demand wasobtained and he was produced before the concerned Court atMumbai.Deceased is the wife of the accused and she was founddead in the gutter at Mumbai.The prosecution has established that,she was in company of the accused/appellant at Mumbai who wassubsequently arrested at Uttar Pradesh.The HighCourt reversed the order of acquittal into conviction.There was nomotive to commit the crime.Otherwise he must have raised a hue and cry by making complaint to the police and relatives about missing of his wife.Silent entry of the accused no.1 to his native place without speaking a word about his wife on his own itself is a vital and incriminating circumstance against the accused no.1 apart from the fact that, he was last seen with his wife by PW-2 Ujjwala on 14.7.2012 at 6 pm when accused no.1 and his wife left the room which they had taken on rent for accommodation recently on 11.7.2012."[ ii) The Judgment and order dated 7th March 2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court Greater Bomay, in Sessions Case No. 737 of 2012 convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C is hereby confirmed.( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (PRASANNA.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,351,032 |
Appellant-accused has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 6.4.2010 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge to the Court of III Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.130 of 2008 by which, appellant has been convicted under Section 457 (Part 2) and 380 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and one year's RI with fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with default stipulation.2. Prosecution case in brief, is that on 6.1.2008, complainant Surya Pratap Singh Chauhan lodged a report to the effect that he was a tenant in the house No. M-54 Gandhi Nagar Gwalior belonging to Bhartendu Johari and on the date of incident, he had gone to his village.He was informed on the phone that the lock of his house had been broken and household goods were lying scattered.On this report, Crime No.8 of 2008 was registered at PS Padav for offence under section 457 and 380 of IPC.During investigation, it was disclosed that the appellant/accused set the house of complainant at fire and stole his CRA.387.2010. 2 motorcycle, which was also seized from the possession of the appellant.Panchnama was prepared, appellant was arrested and FIR was lodged against him.After investigation, charge sheet was filed against appellant.The case was committed to Sessions Judge, who framed charges against appellant under Section 436, 457 (Part 2) and 380 of IPC.The stolen motorcycle and computer belonging to complainant Surya Pratap Singh Chuahan (PW1) have been seized by (PW9) Head Constable from the possession of the appellant/accused who had failed to furnish proper explanation as to how the said vehicle came into his possession.Hence, the findings recorded by learned trial court convicting the appellant, are just and proper.CRA.387.2010. 3A copy of this order be sent to the concerned court for necessary compliance.(M.K.Mudgal) Judge.
|
['Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,351,946 |
Heard Sri B.K. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AG.A. for the State.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 140 of 2020, under Sections 323/504/506/304 IPC, Police Station Nebua Naurangiya, District Kushinagar, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that F.I.R. has lodged by Basanti Devi against three named accused persons including the applicant.As per the F.I.R story informants' bhai and bhabhi has got serious quarrel.It is contented that informant's brother Bajrangi Chauhan got married with Sandhya and the couple was blessed with two children.While first marriage was subsisting Bajrangi eloped with some other women.This was the basic and sole cause of yawing differences between them.He has got clean antecedents.Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the bail but could not dispute the fact .Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(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 HIS UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 2.11.2020 Vikram
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,123,542 |
JUDGMENT Shyamal Kumar Sen, J.The question involved in this writ petition is whether the writ court is entitled to quash criminal proceeding for inordinate delay in framing charges and keeping the trial pending for unusually long time.It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that because of gross and inordinate delay in conducting trial the petitioner is entitled to claim that the trial itself should be halted and the charges levelled against him should be quashed.On the basis of the allegations against the petitioner in respect of the offences and because of the pendency of the Criminal Procedure the pension and other retiring benefits of the petitioner have been withheld.The facts thereof may call for a somewhat pointed notice.There was no delay in investigation and trial and the Magistrate, by its judgment dated 27th of June, 1978 (i.e. after barely eight months), acquitted the accused persons.An appeal against the acquittal was taken before the Calcutta High Court which was apparently admitted but could not come up for final hearing till six years.On the 19th December, 1984, the High Court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for re-tr ial afresh.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,235,472 |
The civil suit CS(OS) No.100/2010, from which the issues being considered and adjudicated upon here arise, was instituted by Smt. Seema Thakur, wife of late Sh.Bansi Lal Thakur ("the first noticee") through her attorney Sh.The decree for declaring that the Mutation Order dated 31.3.2005 (bearing No. Tax/KBZ/2004-05) with respect to the suit property allowed by MCD at the instance and in favour of the defendant No.3 and all the subsequent mutations with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,The decree for declaring that the Sale Deed dated 22.5.2006 with respect to the suit property executed by defendant No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 and all the subsequent sale deeds, if any, with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,If this contention were to be upheld, further sale of the property in question by the third defendant to fourth defendant, and, in turn, by the fourth defendant in favour of the sixth defendant would also have to be declared as null and void or inconsequential.Thus, the prime relief was concerning declaration of the documents dated 31.5.2004 in favour of the third defendant.Vijay Kapoor ("the second noticee") besides against the Union of India, through Ministry of Urban Development and Land and Development Office of the CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 1 of 12 Government of India (impleaded as first and second defendants), also showing in the array of parties, in the plaint as originally presented, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) through its assessment and collection department as a defendant (fifth defendant).The record reveals that, on application subsequently made, by order dated 22.5.2013 passed by a division bench of this Court in RFA (OS) No. 42/2013, while the suit was restored (it having been earlier dismissed) by a learned single judge by order dated 18.02.2013, another defendant (sixth defendant) was added to the fray.The litigation though the suit, as it eventually crystallised, was essentially between the plaintiff on one hand and the three private defendants, they being Gopi Chand (third defendant), Sunita Wadhwa (fourth defendant) and Raj Kumar Bhatara (sixth defendant), the plaint praying for the following reliefs:-"CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 1 of 12The decree for declaring that the Agreement to Sale, General power of attorney, Special Power of Attorney, Will, Receipts/Affidavits and all the other documents alleged executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant No.3 on 31.5.2004 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,The decree for declaring that the Conveyance deed dated 20.12.2004 executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of the defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,The decree for declaring that the conversion of the suit property from lease hold to free hold done by CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 2 of 12 defendant Nos. 1 and 2 at the instance and in favour of defendant No.3 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi) is nullity and null and void in the eye of law and hence may be directed as cancelled,CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 2 of 12The decree of possession in favour of the plaintiff and a decree of eviction against the defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the Suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi),The decree of mesne profits of Rs. 7,50,000/- till the date of institution of the present suit,The decree of mesne profits @ Rs. 15,000/- per month for future and pendentelite mesne profits against defendant Nos. 3 and 4 or any other person/entity claiming through defendant Nos. 3 and 4 with respect to the suit property (situated at 18/50, East Patel Nagar Market, New Delhi), CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 3 of 12CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 3 of 129. Decree for interest @ 8% to be calculated from the date of the institution of the present suit on the aforesaid amounts t be recovered,Decree for awarding cost of the suit,Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."The suit was contested and after pleadings had been completed, reference having been made to certain previous litigation between the parties, particularly suit bearing No. 141/2004 titled Smt. Panchi Devi vs. Smt. Seema Thakur and others and CS(OS) No. 2211/2003 instituted by the plaintiff against the other set of parties including third defendant herein, the learned single judge then in seisin of the case considered the application of the sixth defendant (IA No.3453/2014) praying for dismissal of the suit, inter alia, on the basis of "judicial admissions", invoking CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 4 of 12 Rule 6 of Order 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).By order dated 19.08.2015, the contentions of the sixth defendant in the above mentioned application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC were accepted and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed on two grounds namely she being not entitled to explain away the judicial admissions "of the transfer of title in the suit property having been made by her to defendant No.3" and also on the ground of "limitation".CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 4 of 12By the above order, the learned single judge observed that he was of the opinion that the plaintiff had come to the Court "with a false case".Referring to the penal clause contained in Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), notice was issued to the plaintiff and her attorney (i.e. the first and second noticees herein) to show cause under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) as to why a criminal case be not lodged against each of them by the Registrar General of the Court or by sixth defendant in terms of permission to be granted by the Court.Pertinent to mention here that the third defendant had earlier moved an application (Crl.M.A. 19647/2012) seeking initiation of inquiry and criminal prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the attorney of the plaintiff (the second noticee) for having committed offences punishable under Sections 193, 199, 463 and 471 IPC in the judicial proceedings arising out of the above mentioned civil suit by having filed or produced "purported GPA" dated 25.1.2007, the declaration dated 11.8.2004 "alleged to be signed and executed" by the third defendant, thereby fabricating CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 5 of 12 false evidence and by filing of the plaint "incorporating false averments".CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 5 of 12Per the pleadings set out, the plaintiff's case in CS(OS) 100/2010 primarily was that the suit property at one point of time was owned by Mr. Prem Nath Vig who had executed certain documents transferring the right, title and interest therein in favour of the plaintiff, the services of the third defendant at such stage having been engaged because he was working for gain as "a property dealer".It was the averment of the plaintiff that the third defendant engaged by the erstwhile owner for completing the sale proceedings and for conversion and mutation of the suit property had indulged in certain misrepresentation leading to the documents impugned in the suit being executed "fraudulently and mischievously" illegally showing the sale of the subject property by the plaintiff in favour of the third defendant.Besides various other documents, the plaintiff also relied upon a document in the nature of declaration purportedly executed by the third defendant on 11.8.2014 to the effect that he had never purchased the suit property from the plaintiff.In that reference, the station CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 6 of 12 house officer (SHO) of police station Tughlak Road has made an application (IA No. 16243/2016) seeking handing over of some of the documents filed on record of this civil suit to be made available so that the police investigation into the alleged offences can be carried out and taken to the logical conclusion, the said application indicating that for such purposes the specimen and admitted signatures of the third defendant have already been collected, which material is to be sent with the questioned documents to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL).CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 6 of 12It also must be noted that as per the pleadings in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (Crl.M.A. 19647/2012), an FIR had been registered in police station Patel Nagar, it being FIR No. 522/2007 earlier at the instance of the third defendant making allegations in the nature of fraud, forgery, cheating, criminal conspiracy against the plaintiff and her attorney (the noticees) concerning these very transactions.It is stated that the plaintiff had absconded and would not surrender to the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate in such context and, thus, had to be declared proclaimed offender.Reference is also made to yet another FIR it being FIR No. 89/2010 of police station Ranjit Nagar.Further, be it noted that in the application under Order 12 Rule 6 CPC (IA No.3453/2014) which led to the dismissal of the suit on the two grounds as mentioned earlier reference was made to the proceedings in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate arising out of FIR No. 522/2007 of police station, Patel Nagar.CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 7 of 12In this context, the third defendant moved an application under Section 151 CPC (IA No. 24788/2015) praying for directions for proceedings to be commenced on the said application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. As noted above, the Court while dismissing the suit issued show cause notice to the plaintiff and her attorney under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and reply thereto was insisted upon.The plaintiff and her attorney later filed a petition for review (review petition No. 222/2016) with specific reference to the directions in the order dated 19.8.2015 about initiation of criminal proceedings.The said review petition was dismissed by the learned division bench by order dated 6.5.2016 clarifying that the decision in the appeal primarily considering the contentions of the noticees against dismissal of the suit shall not be construed as a final expression on CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 8 of 12 the merits of such defence as may be taken up in the wake of show cause notice under Section 340 Cr.P.C.CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 8 of 12M.A. 19647/2012) has been heard against the above backdrop.The SHO police station Tughlak Road is given liberty to CS (OS) 100/2010 Page 11 of 12 mention the said application for such purposes before the Registrar General.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,360,976 |
dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.3382 & 3383 of 2018 12.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul.http://www.judis.nic.in 1/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 20182.The case of the prosecution is that on 17.07.2017, based on the secret information, the respondent police seized 67 bags of Swagat gold and 8 bags of cool lip tobacco from the house of the second accused viz., Senthilkumar, who is the worker of the petitioner/first accused.The respondent police arrested the second accused and based on his confession statement, they falsely implicated the petitioner/first accused in this case.They registered a case in Crime No.321 of 2017, as against the accused persons for the offences under Sections 188, 420 of IPC and 24 (1) Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003, and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.123 of 2017 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul.The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in this criminal original petition.He is selling consumer products including beedis, cigarettes, cigars and tobacco along with other general goods.The petitioner is a registered dealer (GSTIN 33 AEGPB9713FIZV) legally carrying on business with all required licences and permission.He further submitted that the offenceshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018 under Sections 188, 420 of IPC and 24 (1) Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003, would not attract as against the petitioner.He further submitted that there is absolutely no witnesses have spoken about the occurrence and to connect the petitioner, there are no materials to proceed with the trial.When there is no material to proceed with the trial, the petitioner unnecessarily would not have put them an ordeal trial.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings.4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioner to proceed with the trial.Further, he would submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender by committing this kind of crimes.Therefore, he vehemently opposed the quash petition and prayed for dismissal of the same.5.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents/State and perused the materials available on record.6.On a perusal of the charge as against the petitioner is concerned, the respondent levelled the charge under Sections 188,http://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018 420 of IPC and 24 (1) Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Acts, 2003, as against the petitioner.It is seen from the charge that on on 17.07.2017, based on the secret information, the respondent police seized 67 bags of Swagat gold and 8 bags of cool lip tobacco from the house of the second accused viz., Senthilkumar.The petitioner is not the owner of the house.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018 a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”In so far as the offence under Section 428 of IPC is concerned, according to the prosecution, without disclosing the fact that the petitioner sold out the tobacco to the public, charges were framed as against him and there is no material to attract offence under Section 420 of IPC.The respondent said that the tobacco were seized from the house of the second accused, who is the worker of the petitioner's Company.But the shops are situated very far from the house of the second respondent and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner sold out the tobacco to the public.Therefore, the offence under Section 420 IPC would not attract as against the petitioner.In so far as the other offences under Section 24 (1) of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, concerned that is banned by the Government of TamilNadu.view of the above observation, the offences under Sections 188, 420 of IPC would not attract as against the petitioner.In so far as the other offence under Section 24 (1) of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, is concerned there are material to proceed as against the petitioner.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018Accordingly, the proceedings in C.C.No.123 of 2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul, is quashed in so far as the offences under Sections 188 and 420 of IPC alone.In so far as the other offences under Section 24 (1) of the Cigarette and other Tobacco Products Act, 2003, is concerned, the Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.10.In view of the above, this criminal original petition is partly allowed.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.12.11.2019 Internet: Yes/No Index : Yes/No dsshttp://www.judis.nic.in 6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018 To1.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dindigul.2.The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.7087 of 2018
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,385,249 |
Court No.28 Sl No.26 AP CRM 12404 of 2019 In Re: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 24.12.2019 in connection with Rajganj Police Station Case No. 349 of 2019 dated 27.10.2019 under Sections 143/341/186/332/333/353/307 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Pulen Roy ....Petitioner.Ms. Madhushri Dutta Majumdar, ...for the Petitioner.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, rejected.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,388,987 |
No costs.This petition has been filed by the Accused No.6 to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2765 of 2012 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.The second respondent herein lodged a complaint to the first respondent on 02.05.2008 alleging that he and his brother jointly purchased the property at No.140, P.H Road, Koyambedu, measuring about 58 cents and had constructed a compound wall to the said property, but some land owners showing the adjacent bushy lands to their buyers, fabricated the documents mentioning Survey Numbers of his property and sold the lands to one Prakash Bojwani (Accused Nos.8).Based on the said complaint, the first respondent had registered an FIR in Cr.No.251 of 2008 and investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet stating that the accused persons have committed offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474 r/w.120-B and 420 IPC.The sixth accused has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings against him in the aforesaid C.C.3. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for the petitioner andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 3 Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent and Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Gandhimathi for the second respondent.He further submitted that the property of the second respondent was not included in the sale deed executed by the other accused persons in favour of the 7th accused viz., E.V.Jothi and hence the second respondent is not entitled to lodge a complaint.He further submitted that in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, the only allegation is that he being an advocate, and the document writer, ought to have verified the fact before executing the document and since he had not properly verified the document will amount that he is also a party for the fraud.He further submitted that it is not the duty of the advocate to conduct the investigation as to whether the documents placed before him are fabricated or real one and hence the allegation made against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 petitioner is not sustainable.He further submitted that unless there is an allegation that he himself indulged in fraud, the advocate cannot be prosecuted for giving a legal opinion and drafting the sale deed and therefore, he prayed to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in the aforesaid C.C. In support of the aforesaid contention, he relied upon the decision in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs.He further submitted that the investigation further reveals that the said O.P.Nos.321 and 322 of 1999 corresponding to one Chockalingam and Rajendran respectively which were filed and disposed of in connection with the case pertaining to railways.He further submitted that after the death of the said Nayagam, his legal heirs viz., A2 to A4 executed a forged power of attorney in favour of A1 in respect of the said 3.76 acres and registered as document No.330/07 dated 29.10.2007 at SRO, Srivilliputhur.He further submitted that A1 to A5 also created a forged sale agreement vide Doc.No.2965/2007 as if the same was executed by one Murugesan, power agent of the said Nayagam in favour of Vilvamani (A5) before Nayagam's death and subsequently A1 cancelled the said sale agreement vide document No.52/2008 at SRO, Annanagar.He further submitted that A5 along with A6 to A8 conspired together and with the help of A1 executed a forged sale deed vide Doc.No.75/2008http://www.judis.nic.in 6 registered at SRO, Annanagar in favour of A7 and A8 for a sale consideration of Rs.8.20 Crores and for that, the A1 to A4 received Rs.25 lakhs and the balance amount was shared between A5 and A6 (petitioners).The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) has further submitted that the said sale deed was drafted by the petitioner herein and he himself signed as a witness.He further submitted that the criminal activities of the petitioner herein was condemned by this court while granting anticipatory bail in Crl.He further submitted that by utilising the aforesaid sale deed, A7 and A8 got the patta transferred in their name, but the same was cancelled by the District Collector, Chennai, on the petition filed by the second respondent.He further submitted that A5 being aware of the entire facts of forgery, attempted to sell the said property to one Sundaramurthy and Mathew and obtained Rs.5000/- as advance.He further submitted that after completing the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the Accused persons including the petitioner herein and based on the said chargesheet, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, has taken the case on file in C.C.No.2567 of 2012 and issued a non-bailable warrant against thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 7 petitioner herein.He further submitted that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner and hence he prayed to dismiss the petition.AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel who is appearing for the second respondent has adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and further he has submitted that the petitioner has not only given a legal opinion, but also conspired with the other accused persons and created a false document in the name of the accused Nos.1 to 4 and sold the property measuring 3.76 acres comprised in S.Nos.149 and 150 of Koyambeu village, Egmore, Nungambakkam Taluk, Chennai City in favour of the accused Nos.7 and 8 for Rs.8.20 Crores.He further submitted that though the petitioner is a native of Kerala and advocate by profession, procured A1 to 4 who are the natives of Srivilliputhur Taluk, Virudhunagar District in Tamil Nadu and fabricated a false document in their favour as if they are owners of the property situated in Chennai city.He further submitted that the petitioner has further created records stating that the said Wills were probated before this court and as per the said Wills, the said Nayagam acquired the property and subsequently, the said Nayagam died and after his death, his legal heirs viz., A1 to A4 have acquired the said property.He further submitted that the petitioner had not only drafted the sale deed but also signed as witness and also identified the parties before the Sub-Registrar.He further submitted that the investigation would clearly reveal that the petitioner is the person who has perpetrated the entire crime and therefore he prayed to dismiss the petition.A perusal of a copy of the cancellation deed of the agreement of sale dated 17.12.2007 executed between A1 to A4 and A5 would show that the said document has been drafted by the petitioner and signed as one of the witnesses.Further, he has identified the parties before the Sub-Registrar.Further, the copy of the sale deed dated 03.01.2008 also would show that the said document has been drafted by the petitioner herein and also signed as witness.In that document also, he signed as one of the persons, who identified the parties beforehttp://www.judis.nic.in 9 the Sub-Registrar.But according to the first respondent, the investigation reveals that the said O.P.Nos.321 and 322 of 1998 corresponding to one Chockalingam and Rajendran respectively which were filed and disposed of pertaining to Railways.In the said legal opinion, he has stated that originally the property was belonging to one Varadappa Naidu and the said Varadappa Naidu had borrowed a loan from one Sadhu Gangayyasami and to settle the said loan, the said Varadapa Naidu executed an unregistered sale deed in favour of the said Sadhu Gangayyasami for release of two-third share of the land situated in S.No.149 having an extent of 3.76 acres out of 5.64 acres.But in the list of documents enclosed with the said legal opinion, it is stated that the said Varaddappa Naidu executed a mortgage cancellation deed dated 11.04.1948 in favour of Sadhu Gangayyaswami.In the Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad Vs.Merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be mulcted withhttp://www.judis.nic.in 11 the criminal prosecution, particularly, in the absence of tangible evidence that he associated with other conspirators.At the most, he may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence and cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 and 109 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them.It is further made clear that if there is a link or evidence to connect him with the other conspirators for causing loss to the institution, undoubtedly, the prosecuting authorities are entitled to proceed under criminal prosecution.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.06.03.2019 gv Index:yes/No Speaking order: Yes/Nohttp://www.judis.nic.in 13The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, XVIII – Team, Egmore, Chennai – 8,The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 14 P.RAJAMANICKAM.J., gv Pre-Delivery Order made in Crl.OP.No.1128 of 2013 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,390,662 |
sdas rejected C.R.M. 1594 of 2019 In Re.: An application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 05.02.2019 in connection with Daspur Police Station Case No. 399 of 2018 dated 31.12.2018 under Sections 448/323/325/307/354B/379/435/34 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re : Sk.Lutphar Rahaman ..... petitioner Mr. Achyut Basu, Mr. Prasenjit Debnath, Ms. Punam Basu, Ms. Sonam Basu ..... for the petitioner Mr. Yapau Duta Gupta, Mr. Sayantan Hazra, Mr. Parvej Anam, Mr. Saudip Dinda ..... for the de-facto complainant Mr. Soumik Ganguly .... for the State Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Accordingly application for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
112,397,360 |
It is urged by Ms. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant that litigation qua this property was pending for several years and consequently Anil Kumar Sharma would not have nursed any motive to cause any harm to the family members of Gopal for such motive.Be that as it may, so far as the unfortunate incident is concerned, the 28th of July, 2010 happened to be the birthday of the son of Anil Kumar Sharma who had hosted a party in regard thereof.The prosecution case was that Meenakshi Sharma and her son Shivang were not invited to this party because of Anil Kumar Sharma's differences with them.It is also in the evidence of Master Shivang who appeared as PW-7 that he was studying Mass Communications from the Punjab Crl.On the night intervening 28th/29th of July, 2010, he has stated that he was studying and at about 3.00 am had wanted to ease himself.However, when he tried to get out of his room, he could not do so for the reason that the door of the room was bolted from outside.His mother did not respond when he called out to her to open the door.He tried to reach his mother Meenakshi Sharma on her mobile which was responding as being switched off.PW-7 claims to have gone to sleep.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 3 of 9At about 7.00 am of the next morning of the 29th of July 2010, PW-7 heard their servant Sachin knocking on the main door as per usual practice.On hearing the knocking, PW-7 called out to Sachin to open the door of his room as well.Sachin is stated to have climbed to the roof of the property and opened the bolt of Shivang Sharma's room.Upon coming out, Shivang Sharma went to his mother's room where he found that the room was shut, though not bolted.On opening the door, he found his mother Meenakshi Sharma lying on the floor with a string tied around her neck.The room appeared to have been ransacked.The police was called by PW-7 which came to the spot and recorded his statement the rukka (PW7/A).Pursuant thereto FIR No.273/2010 was registered by P.S. Sun Light Colony.During investigation, an autopsy was conducted on the body of Meenakshi Sharma (Ex.PW26/A) wherein the doctor had opined that she had died because of "asphyxia due to ante mortem ligature, strangulation and smothering".The post-mortem was conducted on 30th of July 2010 at 2.10 pm.The doctor had opined the time since death as approximately 36+ 2 hours.Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a chargesheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. On a consideration of the matter, charges were framed against all the three accused persons by order dated 26th April, 2011 that pursuant to criminal conspiracy, they had committed murder of Meenakshi Sharma thereby committing offences under Section 302 read with 120B IPC.GITA MITTAL, J.The appellant is stated to have been in custody for a period of approximately three years.It is submitted by Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant that so far as the appellant is concerned, it is a case of no evidence at all against her client and that she deserves to have been acquitted by the trial court.A request is made by learned counsel for the parties that inasmuch as the record of the lower court has been received and tagged along Crl.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 1 of 9 with the appeal of the co-convict being Crl.A.No.675/2016 (also listed here) and paper books have been prepared, the present appeal may be heard.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 1 of 9With the consent of both parties, this appeal is taken up for consideration today itself.The appellant has challenged the judgment dated 24th May, 2016 passed in Sessions Case No.06/2015 arising out of FIR No.273/10 registered by P.S. Sun Light Colony whereby the appellant and her son-in-law - Anil Kumar Sharma were convicted for commission of the offence under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC.The third accused, namely, Ramesh Kumar - brother of Anil Kumar Sharma was acquitted.By a consequential order dated 26th May, 2016, the appellant stands sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of `2,500/- for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for five months.The appellant was allowed the benefit of Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.The case of the prosecution before the trial court was that one Gopal Sharma was the owner of property no.H.No.102, Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi which consists of built up and open area on a plot ad measuring 700-800 sqr.fts.There was an akhara being maintained on the said property as well.Gopal Sharma's family consisted of his wife Meenakshi (deceased) and son Shivang Sharma who at the relevant time was aged about 21 years.Anil Kumar Sharma appears to have joined the akhara for the last about Crl.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 2 of 9 20 years and was living with his wife and son in two rooms constructed by Gopal Sharma on the first floor of the same property.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 2 of 9It appears that the relations between Gopal Sharma and his deceased wife Meenakshi were strained purportedly for the reason that Gopal Sharma wanted to adopt Anil Kumar Sharma.Meenakshi Sharma was objecting to this adoption as a result of which, it appears that Gopal Sharma was not on talking terms with his wife or their son Shivang Sharma (PW-7).Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the prosecution had urged that the motive for the commission of the offence in the case was acquisition of Gopal Sharma's property.As a result of the statement (Ex.PW7/A), the police arrested Anil Kumar Sharma who is stated to have made a disclosure statement implicating his mother-in-law - Bindu Sharma (the present appellant) and his Brother - Ramesh Kumar.These two persons Crl.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 4 of 9 were arrested as a result.Pursuant to the said disclosure statement, the police also effected recoveries on the pointing out by Anil Kumar Sharma of certain articles.It is not necessary for us to examine the recoveries in detail so far as the present appeal filed by Bindu Sharma is concerned.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 4 of 9All the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution had examined 28 witnesses in support of its case during trial.No defence evidence was led.After considering the evidence led on record as well as the statements of the three accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., by the impugned judgment dated 24th May, 2016, the trial court acquitted Ramesh Kumar while founding Anil Kumar Sharma and the appellant -Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 5 of 9Bindu Sharma guilty for commission of offences for which they were charged and sentenced them as above.We have heard Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, learned APP for the State at length.It is submitted by Ms. Sindhu, learned amicus curiae for the appellant that there is only one piece of evidence which has been relied upon to establish the commission of offence by the appellant.Our attention has been drawn by ld. Counsel to the testimony of PW-3, a child witness who was aged about 12 years as on 1st December, 2011 when his testimony was recorded by the trial court.In the witness box, PW-3 has stated that he had been brought to the house of Anil Kumar Sharma only on 26 th of July, 2010 by the present appellant to take care of Anil Kumar Sharma's child.On the 28th of July 2010, after the birthday party of the son of Anil Kumar Sharma was over, PW-3 had been called by Anil Kumar Sharma to open the door of one aunty who was in a room in front of his house.As this room was bolted from inside, PW-3 was made to climb through the ventilator of the room to open the door from inside.The witness stated that Anil Kumar Sharma helped him climb up to the ventilator.PW-3 has stated that he had entered the room from the ventilator and opened its bolt from inside.When he came out, Anil Kumar Sharma had entered into the room and that he (PW-3) thereafter went upstairs to sleep.The witness has stated that when he left, the present appellant Bindu and another person were there along with Anil Kumar Sharma.The witness had identified the present appellant as well as the other Crl.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 6 of 9 accused present in court.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 6 of 9Ms. Sidhu, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that from the testimony of the witness, it is completely unclear as to the location of the appellant Bindu along with a third person.It is argued that there is nothing in the evidence to connect the appellant to any of the events which led to murder of the deceased.There is substance in these submissions.It is not possible to discern from PW-3's evidence, the location at which he claimed to have spotted the appellant.The witness has proved this statement as Ex.PW3/A on record.We have been carefully taken through this statement and we find that so far as the episode of his being asked to open the ventilator or to enter the room to open the door is concerned, in Ex.PW3/A, PW-3 refers to opening the door to the room in the "neighbouring house (paros wale ghar)".Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 7 of 9PW3/A contains no reference either to the appellant Bindu Sharma or any third person.The above narration from the record shows that PW-3 had made no reference at all to the appellant in his statement recorded on oath on the 31st of July 2010 and that his court testimony suffers from material improvements so far as the evidence against the appellant is concerned.For this reason and that to the extent that it implicates the appellant the court testimony of PW-3 Neeraj, cannot be relied on and deserves to be discarded.Ms. Aashaa Tiwari has been unable to point out any other evidence to support the guilt of the appellant.In view thereof, we also agree with learned counsel for the appellant that there is no legal evidence to support the charge of the prosecution against the appellant Bindu Sharma.As a result, the judgment dated 24th May, 2016 qua the appellant to the extent it finds her guilty of having committed the offences with which she was charged is hereby set aside and quashed.The appellant shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in another case.Let a copy of this judgment be conveyed to the appellant in jail no.6 as well as Superintendent, Tihar Jail by special messenger today itself.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 8 of 9CRL.M.(BAIL) 1522/2016In view of orders passed in the main appeal, this application does not survive for adjudication and is hereby dismissed.GITA MITTAL, J P.S.TEJI, J SEPTEMBER 08, 2016 aj Crl.Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 9 of 9Appeal No. 776/2016 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,723,142 |
The factual aspect of this case, emerging from the record, is as follows:-Shiv Sagar, brother of Vijay Kumar when tried to intervene in the matter was also stabbed on the left side of his chest and left thigh by the said boy.The said boy thereafter ran away from the spot.Rajesh, who was however accompanying the two injured brothers removed them to hospital in a TSR.Subsequently, police met the two injured persons in the hospital and IO/SI Deen Dayal recorded statement of Vijay Kumar, Ex.PW1/A. The blood stained clothes of the two brothers were already taken into possession by the doctors and were sealed with the seal of hospital.The pullandas were taken into possession by the IO.SI-Deen Dayal thereafter prepared a rukka Ex.PW-8/B and got a case registered u/s 324/307 Indian Penal Code at PS Mangol Puri.In the meantime in the mela ground, one Ct.For the offence of attempted murder, Appellant stands convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal."On the night intervening 01/02-10-1995 at about 11.30pm one Vijay Kumar along with his brother Shiv Sagar and one Rajesh went to see a fair at Crl.A. No. 623/2006 Page 1 Mela Ground, Kala Mandir, within the jurisdiction of PS Mangol Puri.While, they were roaming in the mela ground, the hand of Vijay Kumar incidentally touched one bearded boy.The said boy however upon this, started abusing Vijay Kumar and on the objection having been raised by Vijay Kumar, he even stabbed him with a knife on his left shoulder.Sushil saw that public persons were giving beating to a boy.Upon inquiry, he was told by the public persons that the said boy has stabbed two other boys.SI CM Meena of PS Mangol Puri also happened to reach near the spot.Upon checking, one gararidar button actuated knite having blood stains upon its blade was recovered from the possession of said boy, who disclosed hisname as Sanjay Kumar.As the said boy Sanjay Crl.A. No. 623/2006 Page 2 was also having some injuries on his person on account of the beating given to him by the public person so, he was also taken to the DDU Hospital for his medical examination.At the hospital, both Vijay Kumar and Shiv Sagar identified him to be their assailant, who had stabbed them.Later on, during the course of investigation, the clothes of the injured persons and the knife alleged to have been recovered from the possession of accused were sent to CFSL for examination.After completion of investigation charge sheet for the offences under section 307/324 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act was filed against the Appellant/ accused."Appellant/accused was put to trial on the aforesaid offences, as he had not pleaded guilty to the charges framed under the aforesaid provisions of law.Out of the eight witnesses, who had deposed at trial, the crucial evidence is of two injured, i.e., Vijay Kumar (PW-1) and Shiv Sagar (PW-2).The medical record of this case stands proved by Dr. B.M. Nag (PW-7).SI C.M. Meena, (PW-5) and SI Deen Dayal, (PW-8) have conducted the investigation of this case.Appellant/accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. before the trial court, Crl.A. No. 623/2006 Page 3 denied the prosecution case and had stated that at the time of alleged incident, he was present outside the mela ground and was detained there by SI C.M. Meena as on earlier occasions, he had some quarrel with the Beat Staff of the police and so he has been falsely implicated in this case.No evidence was led by the Appellant/accused in his defence before the trial court.After the trial, Appellant/accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 Indian Penal Code and he has been directed to undergo for rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 25 of Arms Act. These sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the Appellant/accused does not dispute his presence at the mela ground.It emerges from the deposition of injured witnesses, (PW-1) and (PW-2), that when they had reached the mela ground, hand of Vijay Kumar, (PW-1) had touched the Appellant/accused, who started abusing him and when this witness (PW-1) asked the Appellant/accused not to abuse, he stabbed him on his left shoulder and when his brother, Shiv Sagar (PW-2) came to his rescue, he was also stabbed on his chest and thigh and thereafter, both the injured were removed to hospital by Rajesh, brother of injured (PW-1).A. No. 623/2006 Page 4In the face of the evidence of injured witnesses, non-examination of above said Rajesh becomes immaterial.It has also been contended on behalf of the Appellant/accused that injured Vijay, (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that the accused was apprehended and was shown to him in the hospital and this falsifies the prosecution case of Appellant/accused being apprehended at the spot.Aforesaid contention is fallacious for the reason that it has come in the evidence of Vijay (PW-1) that the Appellant/accused was caught at the spot and it has been also so stated by SI C.M. Meena, (PW-5) and in fact, he had found public persons were beating the Appellant/accused at the spot and upon apprehension of the Appellant/accused at the spot, blood stained knife was recovered from his pant pocket.The plea taken by the Appellant/accused is of false implication by SI C.M. Meena (PW-5).Aforesaid plea of false implication has not been suggested to SI C.M. Meena (PW-5) and the same appears to be vague and an afterthought.Recovery of the weapon of offence from the Appellant/accused at the spot cannot be disbelieved merely because it is not witnessed by any public person.About non-joining of public witnesses, Investigating Officer, has not been questioned by the Appellant/accused.There was no occasion to hold Test Identification Parade as the Appellant/accused was arrested at the spot itself.A. No. 623/2006 Page 5The ocular version of this incident and the apprehension of the Appellant/accused at the spot and recover of the weapon of offence from him at the spot only, stands firmly proved from the evidence on record and the trial court has rightly relied upon it.L.J. 2622; 1995 (2) CC Cases 519 (HC); 2004 (3) JCC 1648; 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 793; 2007 (2) RCR (Criminal) 537; AIR 1959 J&K 119 (V 46 C 48), to contend that the present case is of sustaining simple injuries and the Appellant/accused had no intention to kill the injured and therefore, at best, the offence made out would be under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.A. No. 623/2006 Page 61) had accidently touched the Appellant/accused at the mela, which led to abusing and incident of stabbing.This appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms.With the aforesaid directions, this appeal stands disposed of.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,240,172 |
This is First application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. as the applicants Gajraj Singh and Dhaniram Vishwakarma apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.331/2015 registered at Police Station Ayodhya Nagar, District-Bhopal (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC & Section 134 A, B, Motor Vehicle Act later on Section 302, 201 of the IPC were added.As per the prosecution case, on 23/10/2015 Himanshu Mishra lodged a report at the police station Ayodhya Nagar averring that on 22/10/2015 at around 11:00 pm when Aditya Maurya and he were returning from Narela Jod and going towards Sagar avenue, on the way in front of Rajput Petrol Pump driver of a car came there driving it rashly and negligently and hit his friend Aditya Maurya, due to which he sustained injury and died.On that police registered Crime No.331/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the IPC and investigated the matter.During investigation, it was found that said accident was caused by the vehicle bearing registration No.MP-04-CP-5886 which was being driven by applicant No.1 Gajraj Singh at the time of incident and owned by applicant No.2 Dhaniram Vishwakarma.It was also found that applicant No.2 Dhaniram Vishwakarma hide the evidence of that accident and gave false information to the police.So police arrested the applicant No.1 Gajraj Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.08.27 18:15:37 +05'30' Singh and applicant No.2 Dhaniram Vishwakarma and after investigation filed charge-sheet against them for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the IPC & Section 134 A, B of Motor Vehicle Act. On the instant of police JMFC Bhopal also recorded the statement of prosecution witness Neeraj under section 164 of Cr.P.C. who deposed that at the time of the incident four people were sitting in the car and out of the two people who were sitting in the front seat of the car, the boy sitting next to the driver of the car told the driver of the car " ".He also stated that at the time of incident vehicle was being driven by the Shubham.On that learned JMFC took cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the applicants and committed the case to the court of session.On that S.T. 715/2019 was registered.Applicants filed anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of the CrPC which was rejected by learned 2nd ASJ, Bhopal.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicants have not committed any offence and have falsely been implicated in the offence.In the event of arrest, their reputation will be ruined.Under these circumstances, applicants pray for anticipatory bail.The applicants will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by them;The applicants will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge vs Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 2019.08.27 18:16:14 +05'30'
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
472,451 |
ORDER S.B. Sakarikar, J.Accused/applicants have directed this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for quashing of the order dated 15-7-1998 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in ST No. 132/ 98 whereby the learned ASJ framed charges against the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 304B and 498A of the IPC and prayed for reconsideration on the point of framing of charges.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Police Neelganga, District Ujjain filed challan against accused/applicants for the offences under Sections 498A and 304B, IPC on the allegations that daughter-in-law of the petitioner No. 2, Smt. Kirtibai wife of Arunkumar committed suicide by setting her to fire resulting into her death due to burn injuries within seven years of her marriage on the ground of demand of Rs. 1 lakh and a motor cycle from her parents.Learned trial Court on perusing challan papers and considering the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners ordered framing of charges against the applicants by the impugned order.After said order of framing of charges against the applicants, the applicants have filed an application before trial Court on 21-7-98 stating therein that the applicants came to know that before the death of the deceased Kirtibai, her statements under Section 161, Cr.P.C. as also statements in the form of dying declaration were recorded but the said statements are suppressed by the Prosecution and not filed along with the charge-sheet.The applicants prayed that the Prosecution be directed to file said dying declaration and statements recorded under Section 161, Cr. P.C. in the Court and copy be supplied to the accused/ applicants.It is also prayed that on perusal of such statements and dying declaration of the deceased no charges could be framed against the applicants and the question of framing of charges be reconsidered in the light of the said dying declaration of the deceased.Learned trial Judge by order dated 22-7-1998 rejected the said application on the ground that the prosecution cannot be compelled to file documents which are not relied on by the prosecution.Aggrieved, the applicants have filed this petition for quashing of the aforesaid order of the trial Court and directing prosecution to file said dying declaration of the deceased in the Court and supply copy of the same to them and also for reconsideration of charges in the light of the said dying declaration of the deceased.I have heard Shri Mahendra Bhatnagar, Senior Counsel with Shri Chouhan for the applicants and Shri Vivek Sharan learned P. L. for the State.I have considered rival submissions of the counsel and carefully perused the record as also the case diary of Crime No. 219/98 of Police Station, Neelganga, District Ujjain.During the course of arguments, learned Pane Lawyer appearing for the State, on perusal of the case diary submitted that during investigation and before the death of deceased Kirtibai, her dying declaration was recorded on 11 - 4- 1998 by the Executive Magistrate (Tehsildar).also the statements of all persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.
|
['Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,246,235 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.This is the first anticipatory bail application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.As per the version in FIR there were four persons, who were watching her when she had gone to answer call of the nature and when she shouted on them, one boy namely Pushpendra come close to her, outraged her modesty and tore her clothes.When she shouted daughter of prosecutrix's uncle heard and informed one Anup, who is son of elder brother of the prosecutrix's father.Incident is of 12.05.2018 and FIR was lodged on 13.05.2018 thereafter in her 164 statements recorded on 14.05.2018, she alleged that she was raped.Consequently, she was subjected to medical.C.C. as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE shanu* SHANU RAIKWAR 2018.07.03 14:22:29 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,246,488 |
[Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.92/2014 dated 17.01.2014, whereby the son of the petitioner by name Isai @ Isaivanan, Son of Jeevanathan, aged 34 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".As per the grounds of detention dated 17.01.2014, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:i)Adverse case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1N-1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.698/2011379 IPC2N-1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.1022/2011341, 397 and 506(ii) IPC3H-4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.689/2013341, 294(b), 385 and 506(ii) IPC4H-4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.693/2013341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC5H-4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.730/2013341, 294(b), 385 and 506(ii)(ii) Ground Case:Name of the Police station and Crime No.Section of law1H-4 Korukkupet Police Station Cr.No.14/2014 341, 294(b), 323, 385, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii)3.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs.THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS.STATE OF MANIPUR] .5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner.Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.7.Before adverting to the arguments of the counsel for both sides, we would like to reproduce the relevant portion of the grounds of the detention order, viz., paragraph 4, on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner:Nos.689/2013, 693/2013, 730/2013 and 14/2014 and he has not moved any bail application for the above cases so far.In a case registered at N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.196/2013 registered under Sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 385, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.In a similar case registered at H.1 Washermenpet Police Station Cr.No.911/2011 under Sections 341, 336, 384, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,247,506 |
And In the matter of : Rampada Ghosh @ Dari and Anr. ... Petitioners.Mr. S. Purkyastha .. for the Petitioners.Mr. Sunirmal Nag .. for the State.Defence counsel submits that this is nothing but a counter blast to Raina P. S. Case No. 200 of 2015 filed by his daughter under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.They are in no way involved with the offence alleged and they have been falsely implicated with the instant case.Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail is allowed and the application is, thus, disposed of.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. )
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
472,577 |
[The Judgment of the Court was delivered byM.CHOCKALINGAM,J] The appellants, three in number, have brought forth this appealaggrieved over the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalorein SC.No.185 of 1998, where they stood charged and tried for the followingoffences and they were found guilty and awarded punishment as stated below.(i) The first accused was charged for an offence under section 302 IPC, foundguilty and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.(ii) The second accused was charged for an offence under section 326 IPC,found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three yearsand to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of which to undergo one yearrigorous imprisonment.(v) The sentences imposed upon the second and third accused are ordered to runconcurrently.The case of the prosecution as put forth before the trial courtcan be stated thus:-(a) P.Ws.1, 5 to 9 belonged to Melirrupu Village, while theappellants/accused 1 to 3 belonged to Semmedu village, which is one kilometeraway and on the north of Melirrupu Village.On 21.3.1994, at about 3.00 p.m.at Panruti Bus Stand, P.W.5 had a quarrel with the first accused in sharing aseat in a bus parked in the bus stand.P.W.5, on comingback to the village, informed to the villagers and they wanted to question thefirst accused in that regard.P.Ws.1,5 to 9 and others went to SemmeduVillage at about 10.00 p.m. where they found accused 1 to 3 sitting outsidethe house of the first accused and chatting with each other.They questionedabout the conduct of the first accused on that evening at Panruti bus stand.Immediately, the first accused assaulted the deceased Vellakannu with M. O.1,knife on his left side of the head and the second accused assaulted thedeceased with M.O.2 on his lower jaw, and the first accused attacked P.W.7with M.O.3, stick.At that time the witnesses also retaliated.The secondaccused cut P.W.6 and one Sekar with knife M.O.2 , and the third accusedattacked P.W.8, one Chelladurai and one Tamilselvan with M.O.3, stick.Theaccused left the place of occurrence with the weapons.(b) Injured were taken to the Panruti Hospital.P.W.2, an AssistantSurgeon attached to the Government Hospital, Panruti examined P.W.5 at 1.35a.m on 22.3.1994 and issued Ex.P2 wound certificate narrating the injuries andhe examined P.W.6 at about 1.45 a.m., P.W.1 at 1.50 a.m. and P.W.7 at 1.50a.m.and issued wound certificates Exs.P3, P4 and P5 respectively where theinjuries sustain ed by them are narrated.On 21/22.3.1994 at about 00.10hours, P.W.2 examined the first accused and gave treatment for the injuriesand issued wound certificate Ex.He also examined accused 2 and 3 at thesame time and issued wound certificates Exs.P7 and P8 respectively.P.W.3, an Assistant Surgeon, Government Hospital, Panruti examined P.W.9 at 8.25 a.m., on 22 .3.1994 and issued wound certificate Ex.P.W.4, Radiologist attachedto Government District Headquarters Hospital, Cuddalore, took Xray for P.W.1and issued M.O.5, X-ray report.(c) P.W.14, Sub Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur on receipt ofinformation, proceeded to the hospital at 3.00 am and recorded the statementEx.On the strength of Ex.P1, he registered a case in CrimeNo.152/94 under sections 302, 324 and 323 IPC and printed express FirstInformation Report Ex.P19 was sent to the Court.On 24.3.1994 he took upinvestigation.He proceeded to the place of occurrence on 22.3.1994 at about 7a.m. In the presence of two witnesses he made an inspection and preparedEx.P12, an observation mahazar and Ex.P13, a rough sketch.He conductedinquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars andwitnesses between 8.30 a.m. to 11.30 a.m. and prepared Ex.P22, inquestreport.He recovered M.O.6, bloodstained earth and M.O.7, sample earth undera mahazar, Ex.A requisition Ex.The fine amount, paid by thesecond appellant will be refunded to him.Index : YesInternet :The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.The District Collector, Cuddalore District.The DGP, ChennaiThe Public Prosecutor, Chennai.5.The Superintendent of Police,Central Prison, Cuddalore.(iii) The second and third accused were charged for offences under sections302 read with 34 IPC and 324 IPC, found guilty and sentenced to undergo lifeimprisonment for 302 read with 34 IPC and six months simple imprisonment for324 IPC.(iv) The third accused was charged for offences under section 324 IPC in fivecounts, found guilty and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for eachcount.He examined A1 and recorded his statement under Ex.P17 was sent to the Government Hospital,Panruti along with the dead body of the deceased Vellakannu for conduct ofautopsy.(e) P.W.13, an Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Panruti, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body andfound the following injuries:-An incised wound over the left side of the head, situated obliquely,extending from left eyebrow to the left parietal region about 10 cms inlength, margins regular, gaping in the middle, depth upto the brain and thewound margins are tapering towards the parietal region.An incised wound over chin, obliquely situated 5 cms in length, marginsregular, gaping in the middle exposing the tooth.An incised wound obliquely situated below the chin 3 cms in length,margins regular, depth + cm, breadth about + cm.Abrasion over right leg size 2X1 cms.Lacerated injury of 4 cm x + cm over the back of right shoulder.Abrasion 3 x + cm over back of right side chest.The Doctor has issued a postmortem certificate Ex.P18 and has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage and brain injuryand death would appear to have occurred 16 to 20 hours prior to post mortem.The first accused gave aconfessional statement and admissible portion is marked as Ex.Followingthe same, he produced M.Os.1 to 3 which were recovered under a mahazar Ex.All the material objects were despatched to the Court with a requisition tosend them for chemical analysis.Accordingly, they were subjected to chemicalanalysis, and Ex.P27 and Ex.P28, serologist's reports were received by theCourt.On completion of investigation, the final report has been filed by theInvestigating Officer in the said crime number.The case was committed to Court of Sessions.Necessary chargeswere framed against the appellants/ accused.In order to substantiate the charge levelled against the accused,the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 29 exhibits and 10material objects.On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to theincriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which they flatly denied as false.Neither a witness was examinednor a document was marked on the side of the defence.After hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, and onscrutiny of the materials available on record, the trial Court found theaccused guilty as per the charge and awarded punishment referred to above,which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.The senior counsel appearing for the appellants inter alia madethe following prime submissions:-In order to questionabout the same and to put the matter before the Panchayatdars, P.W.5, deceased and others went to Semmadu Village, the place of the accused.From theevidence, it could be seen that at about 10.00 p.m., number of persons, notless than 40 or 50, have gone to the house of the accused, but none of thewitnesses or the deceased went to the panchayat.This would indicate the factthat they have not gone for any panchayat but they were the aggressors.(ii) All the three accused were treated by P.W.2, the doctor, on thevery day on 21/22.3.1994 at 00.10 hours, in respect of the injuries sustainedby them, and wound certificates have also been marked as Ex.A perusal of the same would clearly indicate that the accused sustainedlacerated injuries also and these injuries, if to be caused by the witnessesand the deceased, they should have gone to the place of occurrence armed withweapons, as the injuries could not have been caused with hands.Further onthe very same day, at that time, it is pertinent to point out that all thesethree accused were chatting in front of the house of the first accused.Evenas per the prosecution case, no one could expect the witnesses and theirvillagers to come to their place at that time and thus the accused should havebeen sitting and conversing with each other unarmed.Under thesecircumstances, the accused/appellants were constrained to defend themselvesand thus in exercise of self defence, the injuries should have been caused tothe witnesses.In the instant case, immediately after the occurrence, theaccused have also gone to the hospital.They were also treated and woundcertificates have also been marked, where they have spoken to the fact that 40to 60 persons came to the place of occurrence with knife and stick.(iii) It is further to be pointed out that according to theprosecution witnesses, the occurrence had taken place before Easwaran temple.Nowhere in the sketch or in the mahazar, Easwaran temple is shown.Thus itcan be concluded that the place of occurrence seems to be different and thishas fatally affected the prosecution case.(iv) Added further, the prosecution has not explained the injuriesfound on the accused.P.W.7 and 8 have spoken to the fact that no injurieshave been caused to the accused.(v) Added further the learned senior counsel that in the instant casethe investigation was not properly conducted.Ifit be so, then the case should have been investigated.From the evidence ofthe Investigating Officer, it is clear that the case was referred to as one ofmistake of fact on the very day.Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the abovecontentions.It is not in controversy that one Vellakannu died at the time ofoccurrence that took place on 21.3.1994 at about 10.00 p.m. in the village ofSemmapudu.It has to be pointed out that he died due to homicial violence.Sufficient evidence has been brought forth by the prosecution through theDoctor, who conducted autopsy, and also through postmortem certificate,Ex.P10, issued by him, and the same is also not disputed by the appellantseither before the trail court or before this Court.Accordingly, it could besafely recorded that Vellakannu died out of homicidal violence.In the instant case, the accused have been facing number ofcharges before the lower court and they were also found guilty as per thecharges.After careful scrutiny of the available materials and on hearing thesubmissions of both sides, it is highly doubtful whether the prosecution hasbrought forth a case connecting the accused with the crime.The prosecution has come forward to state that there was aquarrel between the first accused and P.W.5 at Panruti bus stand in sharing aseat in a bus.Immediately, the first accused brought four auto drivers andattacked him.Subsequently, P.W.5 went to the village and informed thevillagers and they wanted to question the conduct of the first accused.It ispertinent to point out that the witnesses and the deceased were belonging tothe place of one Melirrupu, which is situated one kilo meter away on the southof Semmadu, to which place the accused party were belonging.At about 10.00p.m.the witnesses and deceased along with others went to the p lace ofaccused.It is pertinent to point out that these persons went to the SemmaduVillage at about 10.00 p.m. During that time they found A1 to A3 sitting infront of the house of the first accused and chatting with each other.Thus itwould be clear that no one can expect the witnesses, deceased and others tocome to their village at that time to keep themselves armed.Thus it would beindicative of the fact that the persons were conversing with each otherunarmed.At this ju ncture, it has to be pointed out that the woundcertificates of A1 to A3 have been marked as Exs.According toP.W.2 he examined all these three accused at 00.10 hours on 22.3.2004 and the wound certificates in their regard are Exs.P6 to P8 respectively.A perusalof those certificates would clearly indicate the fact that they sustainedlacerated injuries.In such circumstances, a duty is cast upon theprosecution to show, how these lacerated injuries were sustained by theaccused.In the instant case, the prosecution witnesses have not spokenanything about the way in which the accused sustained injuries.But on thecontrary they would plead no knowledge about the same.The injuries sustainedby the accused at the time of occurrence would clearly indicate that thesewitnesses and deceased along with others, from their village at Melirrupu,went to the other village Semmadu with weapons.The place of occurrence, according to the prosecution is in frontof the house of the first accused.But all the witnesses have spoken to thefact that the occurrence has taken place before Easwaran Koil.The next contention is that from the evidence available, it couldbe seen that the prosecution has neither examined nor recorded the statementof independent witnesses before the Court.Yet another circumstances which inthe opinion of the Court is in favour of the appellants, is that theInvestigating Officer has categorically admitted in his evidence that on thestrength of the statement given by the first accused, he registered a case inCrime No.154/94 on 24.3.1994 against the witnesses.Again, it is pertinent topoint out that the Investigating Officer has admitted the fact that hereferred that case as mistake of fact on the very day.He has also admittedthat he has not examined any witnesses in that regard.It is not only aproper investigation but also adds strength to the defence that the policeagency did not bring forth the truth of the case before the trial court.The further case of the prosecution that the witnesses, thedeceased and others went to the place of the accused for the purpose ofPanchayat is also falsified from the evidence.It is an admitted positionthat the village of Melirrupu is situated on the south of Semmadu, i.e. onekilometer away.Thiswould indicate the fact that the witnesses and the deceased along with othershave gone to the place of the accused armed not for the purpose of panchayatbut with an aggressive attitude.In such circumstances, there should havebeen a fight between the groups, which, as rightly pointed out by the learnedSenior Counsel for the appellants, was only in exercise of self defence by theaccused, who remained unarmed, and the injuries should have been sustained by the witnesses.In view of the lacunas found in the prosecution case, it cannotbe stated that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonabledoubts.But the lower court has been carried away by the fact that in theoccurrence one person died, and it has caused prejudice, and thus the accusedhave been found guilty.The evidence as discussed above would clearlyindicate that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty.The order of the lowercourt has got to be necessarily set aside, and accordingly, the accused areacquitted of the charges levelled against them.In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the judgmentof conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,261,799 |
(i) In the event of arrest of applicant in C.R. No.337 of 2019registered with Pandharpur Police Station, for the offences punishableunder Sections 332, 333, 353, 504 and 506 of I.P.C., he shall be releasedon bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one suretyin the like amount;(ii) Applicant shall attend Investigating Officer from 08.04.2019,09.04.2019 and 10.04.2019 and thereafter as and when called by theInvestigating Officer and shall co-operate with the investigation.Applicantshall not tamper with investigation or pressurize any witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 01:22:38 :::::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2019 01:22:38 :::
|
['Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,483,067 |
Case diary is available.Heard on the question of admission.The applicants have filed this criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 9.12.2014 passed by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Rahli, District Sagar (MP) in S.T. No.437/14 framing the charges under sections 304-B of IPC and in alternative 302 and 498-A of the IPC and section 3/ 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.The counsel for the applicants submits that the deceased Smt. Sadhna Singh died on 11.4.2014 in her maternal house by burning herself.Her dying declaration was recorded on the same day by the Tahsildar wherein she has stated that she had been residing at her maternal house for one year before and she was not being taken away to her in-laws house by her husband, owing to which, she committed suicide.The counsel further pleads that in the said circumstances, no offences under sections 304-B and 302 of the IPC are made out.Considering the aforesaid facts and the statement of the deceased, this criminal revision is admitted for final hearing at motion stage.Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings of the trial court are hereby stayed till further order.List on 13.5.2015 for final hearing at motion stage.Certified copy as per rules.(M.K. MUDGAL) JUDGE
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,164,963 |
The hearing stems from an application under Section 482 read with Sections 397/401 Cr.PC filed by the petitioner praying for setting aside the order dated 14.11.2000 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 12th Court, Calcutta and quashing the proceeding being Case No. C-153/99 against accused No. 4 Ananda Bazar Patrika.As pro-O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and the present petitioner are responsible for the day to day affairs of the business and publication of the Ananda Bazar Patrika, and Ananda Bazar Patrika is only a brand name of a newspaper which is not a legal entity and is incapable of committing an offence of defamation, and Ananda Bazar Patrika Ltd. is not a juristic person, the petitioner filed a petition praying for recalling/ withdrawal of summons issued to accused No. 4 which was rejected by the impugned order.3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present application.As none appeared for O.P. No. 1, the matter was heard ex-parte.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,498,726 |
DATED : 17/09/2019 ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER:- PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) 1] Rule.Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of Ms. S.S. Jadhav, learned advocate for the applicant and Shri S.J. Kadu, APP for the non-applicant/State.::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 08:21:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 08:21:02 :::the offence under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Manora, Dist.3] We have perused the impugned F.I.R. The F.I.R. is lodged simplicitor for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code.The informant contested as an independent candidate in the elections of 14 Yavatmal Washim Loksabha Constituency.According to the informant, the petitioner - an independent candidate for the said elections, had breached the Code of Conduct by calling meeting on 29/03/2019 by publishing advertisement in newspaper about the inauguration of his canvassing campaign for the elections.He also published photographs of Saints and thereby injured the religious feeling of "Banjara" and other communities.4] As per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court cannot take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate.In the present case, FIR is not lodged by the officer competent as per Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Hence, the FIR is illegal and cannot sustain the scrutiny of law.::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 08:21:02 :::FIR No. 0136/2019 instituted by the non-applicant no. 1 and registered with Police Station Manora on the basis of complaint lodged by the non-applicant no. 2 for the offence punishable under Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code, is quashed.It is disposed accordingly.::: Uploaded on - 24/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2020 08:21:02 :::
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,499,633 |
(Pronounced on this 17th day of October, 2019) The appellant / accused has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code) against impugned judgment dated 13.10.1999 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur, District Shajapur (MP) in Sessions Trial No.45/1999, whereby the appellant has been convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to un- dergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively along with default stipula- tion.The prosecution story, in short, is that on 08.06.1998 at about 11.00 AM, the prosecutrix aged about 17 years, went near to 'Well' for taking bath.When she did not return to home, her parents searched her, but when she could not be traced, then on 10.06.1998 Ex.During the inquiry, on 27.07.1998 Ex.P/3, the Police re- covered the victim / prosecutrix from Waiting Room, Bus Stand, Sarangpur, District Shajapur (MP); and recorded her statement in which she informed that when she was taking bath near the 'Well', the appellant / accused came there and he gave prasad - sweet edible thing (izlkn) to her.After consuming the food article, she felt uneasi- ness.Thereafter, the appellant / accused allured her to live in Biaora City on the pretext to marry with her.On refusal to the said proposal, the appellant / accused threatened to kill her.Thereafter, he took her forcefully on the point of knife to Sarangpur by tempo.Thereafter, he took her to Biaora and kept her in a room where in night he committed rape twice and also threatened to kill her.In next morning, he took her to Vidisha and kept her in a room for a period of one month and twenty days; during which, he made forcefully physical relationship with her by threatening to kill.After taking it, she felt uneasiness.Thereafter, the accused asked her to come with him and he will marry with her.When she re- fused, then the accused took out a knife and threatened her to kill.Thereafter, he took her forcefully to Sarang- pur by tempo.Thereafter, he took her to Biaora by bus.In Biaora, he took her in a room where in night, twice he committed rape.Then, he took her to Vidisha where he took a room on rent and kept her in a room for a period of one month and twenty days; during this period, he also committed upon her.He also joined service in Tent House and when he went to his duty, he put a lock on the room from outside.He stated that Moman Barodiya Po- lice is searching them in the surrounding area; therefore, they will go to Indore.However, Indore Bus was missed therefore he took her to Sarangpur by Mini Bus.At 7 CRA No.1397/1999 about 02.00 to 03.00 AM when they were waiting at Bus Stand Sarangpur for a Bus to go to Indore, the Police came there along with her uncle and after seeing them, the accused run away from the spot leaving her alone.When it came to the knowledge of the appellant / accused that Momam Baro- diya Police was surrounding him in Vidisha, then he took her Biaora via Narsingarh by bus, but when they could not get a bus from Biaora to go to Indore, then they come to Sarangpur by Mini Bus at about 03.00 to 04.00 AM; and at Bus Stand Sarangpur, when they were waiting for a Bus to go to Indore, the Police came there with her un- cle and after seeing the Police, the appellant / accused fled away leaving her alone.On the basis of the aforesaid 3 CRA No.1397/1999 statement, on 27.07.1998, the Police registered FIR bear- ing Crime No.74/1998 against the appellant for commis- sion of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and sent the prosecutrix for medical examination and also for ossifi- cation test for determination of her age.The Police vis- ited the spot and prepared spot map, recorded statement of the witnesses, arrested the accused person and sent him for medical examination.The police also collected clothes, pubic hair and vaginal / semen / sperm slide of the prosecutrix and accused; and sent it to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Indore for chemical analy- sis.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur, District Shajapur (MP), who committed the case to the Sessions Court, which was finally trans- ferred to the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sha- japur, District Shajapur (MP) for its trial.He abjured his guilt; pleaded false im- plication and prayed for trial.In defence, he examined Dr. Ramesh Shiva (DW-1) on the point of age of the pros- ecutrix.The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the appellant / accused, examined Hari Narayan (PW-1), Bal Chand (PW-2), Dr. M.L. Gar (PW-3), Dr. 4 CRA No.1397/1999 (Smt.) Aruna Vyas (PW-4), Munshilal (PW-5), Assistant Sub Inspector B.S. Parmar (PW-6), Police Constable Tarachand (PW-7), prosecutrix (PW-8), Shiv Narayan (PW-9) and Investigating Officer Prakash Batham (PW-10).The trial Court, after appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, acquitted the appellant / accused for offence punishable under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, however, convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the In- dian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively along with default stipulation.Both the custodial sentence has been directed to run con- currently.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has preferred this appeal.It is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecutrix was a major lady aged around 19 years at the time of alleged incident.He sub- mitted that the prosecutrix visited various places with the appellant / accused by mode of public transport and remained in his company for a period of more than forty days, during which, neither she raised any alarm nor made complaint to any one, who met her during the visit to various places with the appellant when the appellant / 5 CRA No.1397/1999 accused took her forcibly.In these circumstances, it would be clear that the prosecutrix was the consenting party, but in spite of that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and committed legal error in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for setting aside of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court; and the appellant / accused is entitled to be acquitted.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh has sup- ported the findings of conviction recorded by the trial Court and submitted that there is nothing on record to suggest that the prosecutrix was having any motive to falsely implicate the appellant in the present crime.Therefore, from the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that the appellant took her forcefully by threatening her life.In these circumstances, if she did not raise any alarm, then inference cannot be drawn for presumption that she was the consenting party.Therefore, trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo five years rigorous im- prisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 366 of IPC and seven years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 376 of IPC.Therefore, the trial Court has committed no error whatsoever in passing the judgment / order of conviction and sentence imposed on 6 CRA No.1397/1999 the appellant.Hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.Then, the Police took her to Police Station Moman Baro- diya, District Shajapur (MP) and sent her to Shajapur Hospital for medical examination.The Police also vis- ited the spot and sketched the spot map at her instance.Shiv Narayan (PW-9) stated that the pros- ecutrix is her daughter.She was married to Mohanlal resident of village Piplya Kulmi, however, prior to three months of the incident, she is residing in his house.Be- fore one and half year at about 11.00 AM, the prosecutrix went to 'Well' for taking bath.When she did not come back, then he went to search her, but could not found her.Therefore, he lodged her missing person report Ex.After one and half month, the Police recovered the prosecutrix and took her to the Police Station.After receiving the information, he reached to Police Station Barodiya, where the prosecutrix told him that the ac- cused on the point of knife took her to Biaora and allured that he will marry with her.Thereafter, he took her to Vidisha where he took a room on rent and kept her there and committed rape upon her.When accused was taking her to Indore, then at Sarangpur, Police intercepted them and after seeing the Police, the accused fled away from the spot.Hari Narayan (PW-1) uncle of the prosecutrix and Balchand (PW-2) cousin of the prosecutrix also sup- ported the statement of the Shiv Narayan.Dr. (Smt.) Aruna Vyas (PW-4) deposed that on 28.07.1998 she medically examined the prosecutrix at District Hospital, Shajapur and no internal or external injuries were found on the body of the prosecutrix.Her hymen was torn and two fingers were easily admitted in her vagina.She prepared two vaginal slides; got col- lected pubic hairs and petticoat of the prosecutrix; and handed over all these articles in sealed packet to Police Constable.According to Dr. Aruna Vyas, the prosecutrix was habitual for sexual intercourse and no definite opin- ion can be given regarding rape with her.Although the prosecutrix claimed that at the time of incident, she was aged about 15 years, however, no document is available on record to establish the afore- said contention of the prosecutrix.From perusal of the statement of the prosecutrix, it is clear that she was al- ready married and according to the ossification test re- port, the age of the prosecutrix was found to be more than nineteen years.Then coming to the conviction of the appellant under Section 376 IPC, although both the courts below have held after accepting the evidence of prosecutrix being truthful held that the appellant has forcibly com- mitted the rape, we are of the opinion that the said fin- ing is unsustainable.The prosecutrix had sufficient op- portunity not only to run away from the house at Ram- garh but she could have also taken the help of neigh- bours from the said village.The medical evidence of Dr. Maya shankar Thakur - P.W.2 also indicates that there were no injuries on the person of the prosecutrix including her private part.It is not in her testimony that she was confined to one place.In fact, it has been borne out from the material on record that she had travelled from place to place and she was ravished number of times.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,499,746 |
P.C filed by the applicant for grant of bail.First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat after recording of some evidence vide order dated 18.10.2019 passed in M.Cr.The applicant has been arrested on 10.07.2019 by Police Station Janakganj, District Gwalior in connection with Crime No.888/2018 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss.363,366,368, 120-B of IPC.I t is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that statements under Section 161 and 164 have been recorded and the abductee has clearly stated that she went with main accused on her own will and the role of the present applicant is that she helped the prosecutrix to go with the accused person.She is ready to abide by all the conditions as may be fixed by the Court.On these grounds, he prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposed the bail application stating that the applicant has helped the co-accused persons for kidnapping the abductee.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(VISHAL MISHRA) JUDGE mani SUBASRI MANI 2019.11.21 10:31:29
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,504,473 |
Arguments heard.This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant has been arrested on 1/1/2015 in connection with Crime No. 460/14, registered at Police Station Kotwali Datia, district Datia (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 341/34 of I.P.C.As per prosecution case, the incident occurred on 31/12/2014 when due to fire made by the present applicant- Jamuna Patel, one firearm injury was sustained by the complainant Manoj over his thigh.Prayer for bail was made on the ground that after investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and the trial and final disposal of the case would take time.Prayer for bail was opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer for the State on the ground that one more criminal case was registered against the applicant though he has been acquitted by the trial court vide judgment dated 25/6/2014 rendered in Criminal Case No. 666/2012 for offence under Sections 294, 323/34 and 506 (part-II) of I.P.C.Having considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the rival sides and in view of the nature and place of the injury sustained by the complainant and absence of showing any 2 Mcrc.1335/15 Jamuna Patel Vs.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
116,509,634 |
No. 1/State.This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the FIR in Crime No. 350/2017 registered by Police Station Gola Ka Mandir, District Gwalior for offence under Sections 498-A, 306/34 of IPC as well as for quashing the criminal proceedings in Criminal Case No. 392/2017 pending before the Court of 8 th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present application in short are that the deceased Rajkumari was married to the applicant No. 1 in the year 2008 and in the intervening night of 10 th and 11th of June, 2017 she committed suicide by hanging.It is the case of the petitioner that since the deceased was not blessed with any issue, therefore, she was under depression and, thus, 2 MCRC-10895-2017 she had committed suicide.The deceased was married about 9 years prior to her death and during this period, she had never made any allegation against her in-laws warranting prosecution of the applicants.On 07.06.2017 the applicant No. 3 had gone to Ahmadabad and there he got the information about the incident and thus it is prayed that no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out.Furthermore, it is submitted that it is clear from the statement of brother of the deceased that she was treated with cruelty soon before her death.Furthermore, the fact that the witnesses have not alleged against Jeth and Jethani of the deceased clearly shows that truthful allegations have been made against only those persons, who were actively involved in treating the deceased with cruelty.Furthermore, it is submitted that for making out an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, it is not necessary that the harassment should be for the fulfillment of demand of dowry only.The execution of an undertaking by the applicant No. 1 on a stamp paper clearly indicates that the dispute was going on between the parties and the applicant No. 1 had given an undertaking in writing that he would not treat the deceased with cruelty and would not harass her and thus, it is clear that the deceased was being treated with cruelty.So far as the non-examination of any independent witnesses is concerned, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that nowadays no independent witness is willing to come forward to depose in any 4 MCRC-10895-2017 criminal case either for a reason that he does not want to spoil his/her relation with the accused persons or they are not inclined to involve themselves in the dispute of other persons, therefore, non- examination of independent witnesses would not be sufficient to discharge the accused persons.Further, it is submitted that so far as the inquest proceedings are concerned, the basic purposes of the same are different, therefore, the allegations made in the merg statement or in the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. cannot be discarded only on the ground that no allegation was made at the stage of inquest report.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,663,230 |
On that Police registered crime no.238/2019 against deceased Harnam Singh, father-in-law, Kuldeep Singh, husband and Dali Bai mother-in-law of deceased Bulbul.It is alleged that during investigation of that crime applicants gave false statements against deceased and other co- accused Kuldeep and Dali Bai and falsely implicated the deceased Harnam, his son Kuldeep and wife Dali Bai, due to which he committed suicide.Applicants may be cause of suicide but not the abettor.The applicants are ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE S /-Digitally signed by SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 03/07/2019 18:08:26This is first application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. as applicants Jasmat Singh, Jeevan Singh, Nitesh, Jasrat Singh, Phool Singh and Kamal Singh apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No.371/2019 registered at Police Station Ashta District Sehore for the offences punishable under Section 306,34 of IPC.A s per the prosecution case, daughter of Jasmat Singh Bulbul, wife of Kuldeep committed suicide by hanging herself on 23/03/2019 within one year of her marriage.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,663,474 |
The case of the prosecution is that A-1 was having an affair with the deceased, Inderjeet.On the date of the incident, i.e. 6th January 2013, she called the deceased on his mobile phone from a Public Call Office (PCO) operated by Naresh (PW-5) between 3 and 3.30 pm.According to the prosecution, since A-1 suspected that the deceased was having an evil eye on her daughter, A-1 and her brother Rakesh (A-2) and one Bhagwan Singh (absconding accused) made a plan to eliminate Inderjeet at A-1s residence at E-111, Om Vihar, Phase-V, Uttam Nagar.The deceased was killed by a sharp-edged weapon.His dead body was thereafter wrapped in a jute sack, put in a suitcase, wrapped in a quilt and left on a rehri in Dwarka.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 2 of 14The deceased stayed with his two brothers Satender Kumar (PW-17) and Devender Kumar (PW-21).PW-17 deposed that A-1 was having an illicit relationship with the deceased.When A-1 learnt about PW-17 and PW-21 having tried to reason with the deceased about the affair, A-1 - who was staying in a rental accommodation close to the house of the deceased - shifted to another rented accommodation at Om Vihar.On the date of incident, when the deceased did not come back to the house till 6 pm and was also not answering calls on his mobile phones, PW-17 and PW-21 began searching for him.The next morning, they lodged a missing person report with the police.While filing said report, they learnt that a dead body had been found in the jurisdiction of PS Bindapur.They then went to DDU Hospital and identified the dead body of the deceased.Thereafter, A-1 was arrested.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 3 of 14During his cross-examination, PW-17 disclosed that he came to know of the residence of A-1 through a friend of the deceased known as Lucky.The person who sold the quilt to A-1 was also examined, namely Yusuf (PW-23).He correctly identified A-1 as having visited his shop.Although the quilt was priced at Rs. 550, she gave only Rs. 420 and undertook to pay the balance the following day.PW-23 stated that he knew Geeta because she was residing just one street away from his shop.Nothing fruitful for the defence emerged in his cross-examination.Ram Dayal Saini (PW-15), the person running the PCO, correctly identified A-1 as she frequently visited the PCO to make calls.He deposed that on 6th January 2013 at about 3-3.30 pm, A-1 made a call from his PCO and went away.In the cross-examination of PW-15, again, nothing emerged which could help the accused.To prove that the deceased used the aforementioned mobile numbers, the prosecution examined the Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services Limited, Deepak (PW-4).A-1 was residing at the ground floor of the property at E-111, Phase-V, Om Vihar.PW-22 stated that A-1 had a daughter aged 16 years and two younger sons.She stated that the deceased used to visit A-1 and when PW-22 asked A-1 about him, A-1 disclosed that he was her cousin.This witness too was unable to be shaken by the defence in her cross-examination.Two neighbours of A-1 were examined by the prosecution, i.e. Sushila (PW-19) and Chandraprakash (PW-20).These are the two appeals by Geeta and Rakesh, Accused Nos.1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2), challenging the impugned judgement dated 20th December 2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-04, South-West District, Dwarka, New Delhi (ASJ) convicting them for the Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 1 of 14 offences punishable under Sections 302/201/34 Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the order of sentence dated 23rd December 2014 sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months.In addition, the Appellants were also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year for the offence under section 201/34 IPC along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, they shall further undergo SI for one month.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 1 of 14The trial Court held that since there was no evidence on record that the accused persons conspired with each other or co-accused Bhagwan Singh to commit the murder of the deceased, Inderjeet, they stood acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 120B IPC.According to PW-17, A-1 disclosed the names of her two accomplices, i.e. Rakesh (A-2) and Bhagwan Singh (absconding).According to PW-17, A-1 further disclosed that after committing the murder, A-2 and co-accused Bhagwan Das had taken the dead body on a motor cycle and left it on a rehri at the JJ Colony, Sector-3, Dwarka.She further disclosed that the bed sheet and the mattress on which the deceased was murdered had been burnt by them in a nearby vacant plot.He further disclosed that the deceased had told them that A-1 was making threatening calls to him.PW-17 stated that the deceased was married to Reena and they had three children.Neither of them was seriously challenged by the defence in their cross-examination.In the course of the investigation, the police were able to locate and record the statement of PW-24 (Asgari Begum) on whose rehri the suitcase containing the dead body was found.PW-24 too remained unshaken in her cross-examination.The police was also able to locate and record the statement of the owner of the shop from where A-2 purchased the suitcase.This was Naresh Kumar (PW-5), who was able to identify the suitcase (Ex.PX1) as the same which was sold by him.He was also able to identify A-2 as the person who had purchased the said suitcase.PW-5 stated that he had not issued any bill as such for the suitcase.In his cross-examination, PW-5 stated that there was neither any identification mark on the suitcase nor any name of the company which manufactured it.He further stated: "These kinds of suitcase are readily available in the market and can be purchased from anywhere.I do Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 4 of 14 not know which company has manufactured Ex.He produced the Call Detail Record (CDR) of one mobile number used by the deceased (at Ex.PW4/D).The Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Limited, Pawan Singh (PW-2) brought the CDR of the other mobile number (at Ex.PW2/A).The CDRs showed that there were frequent calls to both the mobile numbers from the PCO.The frequency of the calls established that A-1 had a relationship with the deceased.For Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 5 of 14 this, the prosecution examined PW-7, Leela Ram, and his son, Dinesh Kumar (PW-10).PW-7 stated that he and his son ran a barber shop in Om Vihar, Phase-V in the name and style New Luck Gents Parlour.PW-7 stated that although the deceased did not enter his shop on the day in question, he passed by it at about 3-3.30 pm and went towards the gali.PW-7 too remained unshaken in his cross-examination.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 5 of 14Now turning to the evidence of A-1s landlady, Laxmi (PW-22).When PW-19 asked A-1 about it, the latter disclosed that she was burning a mattress that was infected by germs.PW-20 too noticed A-1 burning some articles.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. B.N. Mishra (PW-1) who opined that the cause of the death was due to haemorrhagic shock caused by the cutting of a large blood vessel of the neck by a sharp Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 6 of 14 edged weapon like a knife.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 6 of 14After the arrest of Rakesh (A-2), the police, led by IO Inspector Rajbir Singh (PW-33), made a number of recoveries, the principal among which was the recovery of the Cool Pad mobile phone belonging to the deceased.The knife purportedly used in the commission of the offence was also recovered, apart from the shoes purportedly worn by the deceased.Turning to the forensic evidence, a large number of items containing blood stains seized from the house in which A-1 resided were sent to the Forensic Scientific Laboratory (FSL) for testing.There was also a blood stained piece of the gunny bag recovered from A-1s house.From the open ground in front of her house, one torn, bloodstained sleeve of a shirt and ashes of the articles burnt were recovered.The FSLs report, dated 5th December 2013, confirmed that the blood stains on the wall of the house were of human origin and of Group A, the blood group of the deceased.The trial court listed out the circumstances sought to be proved by the prosecution which unerringly pointed to the guilt of the accused as under:Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 7 of 14This Court has been taken through all the evidence by learned counsel for the Appellants as well as learned APP for the State.First, there is no challenge to the fact that the deceased has died a homicidal death.PW-1, Dr. B.N. Mishra, has proved the post-mortem report.That the death was homicidal has not been challenged by the Appellants.The body was kept in a gunny bag, stuffed into a suitcase wrapped in a quilt and left on a rehri.Also, this happened in the relatively cold weather of January.In fact, there is no suggestion to PW-1 in this regard.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 8 of 14 much turns on this as far as the accused is concerned.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 8 of 14The next circumstance which has been discussed by the trial Court, and which is a critical one, is that A-1 knew the deceased and was in a close relationship.It was sought to be urged by learned counsel for the Appellants that the deceased used to supply milk and water to the accused and that is how they knew each other.The testimonies of the brothers of the deceased, i.e. PW-17 and PW-21, show that the relationship between A-1 and the deceased was not merely of an acquaintance.Despite their intense cross- examination, both witnesses were unable to be shaken on these facts.The CDRs of the mobile phones of the deceased were proved by the prosecution.A-1s landlady (PW-22) also testified that the deceased used to visit A-1 at her premises.All of this established that A-1 was in a relationship with the deceased.On their part, both A-1 and A-2, in their statements under Section 313 CrPC, flatly denied even knowing the deceased.This was clearly a false plea and belied by the above overwhelming and unchallenged evidence to the contrary.The next circumstance to be considered is the purchases of the quilt and Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 9 of 14 the suitcase in which the dead body of the deceased was wrapped and which was then placed on the rehri.The dead body was spotted by Asgari Begum (PW-24), on whose rehri the suitcase was kept.Yusuf (PW-23) proved that A-1 had purchased the quilt from him.He identified A-1 and the quilt (Ex.P7) correctly.PW-23 deposed that his shop was close to the residence of A-1, where the crime took place.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 9 of 14The purchase of suitcase by A-2 was proved by Naresh Kumar (PW-5).Learned counsel for the accused pointed out that the receipt book (Ex.PW5/D-1) showed a receipt of 6th January 2013 in respect of a VIP suitcase whereas the suitcase in question was not of VIP make.At this stage, it must be noticed that at the hearing of the present case on 12th September 2017, a contention was raised by the Appellants regarding the colour of the suitcase in which the dead body was found.The suitcase bore the mark Dell whereas, according to PW-5, the suitcase sold by him had no brand name.This Court, at the hearing on 12th September 2017, directed that the suitcase (Ex.PX1) be produced before the Court.When it was produced on 12th October 2017, this Court, on viewing the same, noted that even the counsel were in agreement that the colour of the suitcase is such that "it can be called either brown or green and prima facie there does not seem to be any misdescription of the suitcase.The suitcase is also of Dell make."Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 10 of 14The further statement made by this witness showed that "these kind of suitcases are readily available in the market and can be purchased from anywhere.In any event, PW-5 did not claim to have issued any receipt for the purchase of the suitcase.In the considered view of the Court, nothing in the evidence of PW-5 can be said to help the case of the Appellants.It does not detract from the fact that the suitcase in which the body of the deceased was found was proved to have been purchased by A-2 from PW-5 and it formed an important link in the chain of circumstances.Another important circumstance is that the blood stain recovered from the wall of the residence of A-1 matched the blood group of the deceased.This reasonably fixes the location where the murder was committed.When this circumstance was put to A-1 in her statement under Section 313 CrPC it was met with a bare denial.There is nothing in the cross- examination of the IO (PW-33), to suggest that there was any tampering with the evidence prior to the recovery of blood stains from the wall or that the evidence was Crl.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 11 of 14 fabricated in order to falsely implicate the accused.The Court thus finds no reason whatsoever to doubt the recovery of blood stains from the wall of the residence of A-1 and the fact that it showed presence of human blood of A group, which matches the blood group of the deceased.Appeal Nos. 829/2015 & 1282/2015 Page 11 of 14In particular, the prosecution was unable to prove that the knife recovered was the very same knife that was used to commit the crime.Further, the shoes recovered were not proved to belong to the deceased.The learned trial Court observed that these lapses were inconsequential when viewed in the overall context of the evidence that has been put forth by the prosecution against the accused.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,665,271 |
Since both these criminal appeals arise out of a common order, they are being decided by a common order.The aforesaid criminal appeals have been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.02.1999 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Barabanki, in Sessions Trial No.42 of 1994 arising out of case Crime No.83 of 1994, Police Station Safdarganj, District Barabani, whereby and whereunder the appellants Hanoman Loniya and Dileep Verma were found guilty and sentenced as under:-I. Hanoman Loniya U/s 366 IPC - 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/-with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.U/s 376 IPC - 7 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.U/s 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act - 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.II Dileep Verma U/s 363 IPC - 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.U/s 366 IPC - 3 years' RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.U/s 376 IPC - 7 years' RI with fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation of two months' rigorous imprisonment.U/s 3 (1) (x) SC/ST Act - 1 year's RI with fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation of one month's rigorous imprisonment.The prosecution story reveals that on 02.05.1994 at about 07.00 AM Bhabhuti son of Jagannath (informant) was cutting the crops in the fields of Chhotey Lal.In the meantime, Dileep, Rampal, Mahadeo, Chhotey Lal - all residents of Mahmoodpur, Bhondu, Harish Chandra Yadav - residents of Mahuwari, Majeed, Ram Sagar - residents of Saifpur came there and called the son and daughter in law of the complainant and after scolding the son Bhabhuti, directed him to go away from there.After that, all these persons with daughter in law of the complainant went somewhere.This fact was communicated to the police station by means of Ext. Ka-1 on 11.05.1994 at about 08.35 AM and was registered as first information report.The matter was investigated and after spot inspection and preparation of map, the charge sheet Ext. Ka-3 was submitted before the Court.Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took the cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.The charge sheet was submitted against accused Dileep Verma and Hanoman Loniya.They were summoned by the Court and charges under Sections 363, 366, 376 and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act were framed for which they pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.In order to prove the prosecution case, PW-1 Smt. Shiv Kumari, PW-2 Jagannath, PW-3 Bhabhuti, PW-4 Mangulal, PW-5 Hublal and PW-6 S.I. Kailash Yadav were examined.It is noteworthy that PW-3 Bhabhuti is husband of the prosecutrix and PW-2 Jagannath is father-in-law of the prosecutrix.PW-4 Mangulal and PW-Hublal stood signatory of the recovery.In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellants have stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case due to inimical relations with the complainant.Learned trial court after hearing the prosecution as well as defence concluded and found the appellants guilty and sentenced them as above.Aggrieved by the order, the appellants by filing the aforesaid criminal appeals have submitted that:-I. the trial court has erred in believing the prosecution evidence on record;in the first information report the complainant has alleged that in all eight named accused persons including appellant Dileep Verma had forcibly taken away the prosecutrix while she was working with her husband in the fields but later on the witness had not named rest of the seven persons in the statement;In her statement she had stated that while she was working in the fields with her husband only Dileep came there and none of the accused persons were there nor called her nor were present there.Further she had stated that she had her son whose age was about one year and she left her son on culvert (Pulia).The version of leaving her one year old son is highly improbable if it was forcible taking away of that lady.She had further stated that appellant Dileep took her to Ayodhya then Barabanki, then came to bus stand and then to the court where another accused appellant Hanoman Loniya met her from where she went to his Sasural.The story as narrated above reveals that the prosecutrix had never made any loud or never made any resistance or never tried to flew away or never stated in her statement that any kind of force was used on her to restrain her.She had further stated that she remained with appellant Dileep for more than one month and never asked to him as to why he took her and never narrated to anybody else or any passerby or any person where she was residing and further stated that she stayed in a hut where there was no door at all and the appellant Dileep used to go out of there for some time or throughout the day and she never tried to come out of that situation and further during visit towards Bababanki with bus there were so many passengers but she never told that she has been kidnapped or abducted or she remained for one night at Ayodhya railway station and never stated to anybody or even police personnel or the statement that the appellant never threatened or scolded at any point of time or never restrained her or she remained in the house of the appellant for one month or she used to visit with one of the relatives of the appellant towards the field for natures call or the fact that the residential accommodation hut or house in which she was kept was never closed or never stated to the appellant she may be left to her husband's house or the fact that she was never subjected to any kind of torture or the fact that until the period she was with the appellant she was very happy.All these facts reveal that there was a free consent and there was no force at all used by the appellants.In the first information report, eight persons were named while in the charge sheet only two persons were named to commit the present offence.Further the incident is said to have taken place on 02.05.1994 and the story reveals that the son of the complainant was present there and in spite of these facts the first information report was not lodged upto 11.05.1994 and the story of prosecution reveals that the complainant and his family were searching the prosecutrix.PW-4 Mangulal and PW-5 Hublal are the witnesses of Fard Baramadgi where after recovery of the prosecutrix she was given to the custody of her husband and father in law.The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand controverted this contention.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
376,665 |
This reference raises two short questions under proviso (a) to Section 363(1) of the Calcutta Municipal Act. The facts which have led up to this Reference are as follows :On some date in 1950, one Badrudduja who was occupying a flat in the second storey of premises No. 15 Dhurrumtolla Street, Calcutta, made a complaint to the Corporation that one Abdul Hamid, who was occupying the ground floor, had erected a two-storeyed structure to the south of the building which was Interfering with his light and air.On receipt of that complaint, the corporation sent an officer to inspect the premises, who found that not only had a structure been erected in the back space to the south, but another structure had also been erected in the side space to the west.JUDGMENT Chakravartti, C.J.Both were two-storeyed structures with corrugated iron roofs and both were unauthorised.Thereafter, proceedings were commenced under Section 363, Calcutta Municipal Act and after hearing Abdul Hamid, the Corporation made an order on 28-3-1951, that an application be made to the Municipal Magistrate for a demolition order.Actually, the application was made on 5-4-1951, when the Magistrate directed notices to issue for May, 31 following.On 20-5-1951, two notices were Issued, one addressed to Abdul Hamid and another addressed to "All owners and occupiers of premises No. 15, Dhurrumtolla Street", Both the notices were scon 25-5-1951 but when the returns were placed before the Magistrate on the 31st May, he con-, sidered the service on Abdul Hamid to be unsatis- factory and directed a fresh notice to issue.On that date Abdul Hamid appeared and the Magistrate record-ed an order to the effect that the general notice had been served, adjourning the case to 23-8-1951 for evidence.The case put forward by Abdul Hamid was that he had no concern with the constructions and had been merely a tenant of the structures for more than five years.He attended the hearing on the serveral dates on which prosecution witnesses were examin- ed, but when the time came for him to adduce his own witnesses, he asked for time to do so.That application was made on 6-3-1952 and about two months time was allowed.Thereafter he never appeared, though the case was adjourned further twice, and ultimately on 17-7-1952, the Magistrate made an order, directing him to demolish the structures by 30-9-1952 and authorising the Corporation to demolish them at his cost if he failed to do so himself.On 31-1-1953, one Bakul Behari Roy, who is the petitioner in the present case, appeared before the Magistrate and made an application in which he stated that he was an occupier of one of the structures but had come to know of the demolition order only three days earlier.He accordingly prayed for six months' time to vacate.That application was rejected by the Magistrate by an order passed on 2-2-1953, but it appears that on the same date, Bakul Behari Roy made a second application by which he prayed for three months' time.He was allowed fourteen days.The Rule came up for hearing before a Division Bench composed of Guha Ray and Sen JJ.It transpired that the petitioner was not a registered occupier and the only point urged on his behalf was that, nevertheless, he was entitled to be served with a notice of the demolition pro-It will be convenient at this stage to sets out the proviso on which the case turns.The challenge was left unanswered.
|
['Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 5 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,678,025 |
Heard on this first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioners Chhotelal Ahirwar, Govind Ahirwar and Jaggi Ahirwar in Crime No.428/2016, registered by P.S. Jatara, District- Tikamgarh under Sections 294, 323, 458, 506 r/w 34 of IPC.As per the prosecution case, the minor daughter of petitioner Govind was abducted by cousin of victim Dhaniram.Due to aforesaid enmity the petitioners armed with sticks, entered the hut raised on the field of the victim and abused and beat him up.As a result, he suffered two injuries caused by hard and blunt object.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner Govind is a victim, whose minor daughter was abducted by cousin of the victim.Petitioner Chhotelal is teacher in a Government School and he was only helping petitioner Govind in prosecuting his case against cousin of the victim; therefore, all three petitioners have been falsely implicated.It has further been submitted that relative of the victim is a Head Constable in P.S Prithvipur District Tikamgarh, therefore, the police have also added the offence punishable under Section 458 of the I.P.C in the case, whereas, even if all allegations made in the F.I.R are taken to be true only offence under Section 452 of the I.P.C would be constituted.Learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State on the other hand has opposed the application and has been invited the attention of the Court to the medical report and stated that the victim has suffered two injuries caused by hard and blunt object.There is no question of any false implication in the case.However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case in their entirety, as also the fact that the victim has suffered only two injuries caused by hard and blunt object, the possibility of false implication of petitioner Chhotelal and Jaggi in the crime cannot be discounted.In aforesaid circumstances, in the opinion of this Court the petitioners Chhotelal Ahirwar and Jaggi Ahirwar deserve the benefit of anticipatory bail.However, no such benefit need be extended Petitioner Govind.Consequently, the first application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the petitioner Govind is dismissed.The prayers made on behalf of the petitioners Chhotelal and Jaggi are allowed.It is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners Chhotelal and Jaggi shall be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/- (Rs.Forty Thousand Only) and a solvent surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer for their appearance before the trial Court on all dates and for complying with the conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.Certified copy as per rules.(C V SIRPURKAR) JUDGE Prar
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
376,850 |
The appellant was tried by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Sessions Case No.579 of 2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 (ii) IPC.By Judgement dated 27.03.2001, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Section 376(1) IPC.and sentenced him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of 3,00,0000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 = years.The learned Sessions Judge found the accused also guilty under Section 417 IPC.and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 = months.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.The accused was acquitted in respect of the offence under Section 506 (ii) IPC.The total fine amount of Rs.3,00,000/- was directed to be paid to the victim and her child born through the accused as compensation.In brief, the prosecution case is that the accused, who employed PW-1/victim girl as his Secretary/Assistant, on 08.12.1996, asking her to assist him in his transactions, took her to a Hotel; that, during the course of their stay in the Hotel, he administered sedatives through juice and on PW-1 becoming unconscious after consuming the juice, committed rape on her; that, even after PW-1 regaining consciousness, by consoling her and creating a strong impression that he would marry her, again he had intercourse and continued the intimacy for a substantial period; and that, on PW-1 becoming pregnant, when she insisted the accused to establish the marriage tie, he asked her to undergo abortion and refused to marry and ultimately after delivery of a child deserted her.In the meantime, on 24.05.1998, she gave birth to a female child.During trial, the prosecution examined PWs-1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P12 to establish its case while the defence filed two documents as Exs.D1 and D2, however, did not choose to examine any witness.4 (A).It would be relevant to focus on the case of the prosecution as spoken to by PW-1/the victim, who was aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence and 27 while giving deposition.According to her, during November, 1996, she saw an advertisement in a Tamil Daily for the post of Secretary in the Office run by the accused.She attended the interview and the accused, collecting phone number from her, told that he would call her after his trip to Bangalore.A week thereafter, on 08.12.1996, the accused asked her to wait for him at the Bus-Stop near Meenakshi College, Kodambakam High Road.The accused picked up PW-1 and took her to a Hotel by name Maurya, where in a room opposite to the Lift, there were 5 to 6 persons connected to cine industry with whom he held discussion and asked PW-1 to make note of the discussion.Thereafter, he took PW-1 to Room No.402 and asked her to wait there.After a short while, the accused came there along with Room-Boy, who brought bread sandwich and juice for her, and stating that he would come shortly, he left the room.On consuming the juice, PW-1 felt giddy and at that time, the accused entered in and locked the doors from inside.He removed the garments of PW-1, who was losing consciousness due to the impact of the sedatives administered to her, and had sexual intercourse with her.On regaining consciousness, PW-1 found her naked and started weeping, whereupon, the accused consoled her by saying that he would not abandon her and promised that he would definitely marry her.He requested the accused not to divulge the happening to anyone as it would affect his image as a film actor and his income and would also considerably reflect upon the victim as they are going to unite in marital life.Even though PW-1 refused and complained pain, he again had sex with her and she was not able to prevent him due to feebleness.Thereafter, the accused dropped her near the Bus Stop and asked her to go back to her residence.PW-1 did not inform the incident to her family members.Subsequently, on the request of the accused, PW-1 was willingly accompanying him to various places/outstations and the relationship between them continued.During April, 1997, the accused set up a watch shop and put PW-1 in charge of the same.PW-1 was also accompanying the customers of the accused in the real estate business during Holidays.When the Medical Officer asked her opinion as to whether she is willing for a surgery for the purpose of abortion, she refused therefor.When the victim went to the office of the accused and informed him of her refusal for abortion, the accused got wild and, by stating that it was only the victim who voluntarily came to him to have sexual relationship, that he has got two wives and families to look after and that he would not marry her, asked her to leave the Office and also beat her.Thereafter, PW-1 continued to persuade the accused to take her with him.Accepting her request, he took her to his sister's husband, who was running a shop opposite to Chennai Corporation Office, and by introducing PW-1 as his wife and stating that she is pregnant, requested him to arrange for PW-1's stay at Bangalore with his family till her delivery.Accordingly, PW-1 was taken to Bangalore, where she stayed for four weeks and as there arose misunderstanding between PW-1 and the sister of the accused, she returned back.The accused took PW-1 to the house of his second wife, where she could not stay beyond three weeks due to disagreement.Subsequently, she returned back to the residence of her mother, where she was not admitted.On her request, the accused made her to stay at his friend's place where construction activity was going on; hence, she feared to stay there.When she threatened the accused that she would commit suicide, he came to her and made arrangements for her stay at different places.Subsequently, the accused quarrelled with her and also assaulted her, as a result of which, she was admitted in J.J. Hospital as In-patient for a week.After discharge, she went to Kodambakkam Police Station to lodge a complaint during night time.She was persuaded by the Police Officer to go back and come during day time for giving complaint.Accompanied by her father, PW-1 again came to the police station and gave complaint.On coming to know of the same, the accused came to her, took her and fetched a rental house at Venkateswara Nagar for her stay.In the meantime, the accused persuaded her to withdraw the complaint given to the police to the effect that the accused is not responsible for her pregnancy and that the father of child she is carrying is in Dubai, for which, she refused.Thereafter, since the accused quarrelled again with her, with the assistance of her father, she reported the matter to the police and also informed the press.She was kept in Jawahar Home for two weeks, during which time, the accused took her to the residence of his second wife and as there was quarrel between the accused and his second wife, she was not even allowed to stay during night and was expelled therefrom.Since she developed labour pain at that time, she was taken to the nearby hospital for treatment.On 24.05.1998, she gave birth to a female child.After discharge from the hospital, she went taking the baby with her to the residence of the accused, however, she was not admitted by the accused.PW-1, at the first instance sent a complaint to the police through registered post, and thereafter in person went to the police station and lodged the complaint.In November, 1998, she gave a statement before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.PW-3 is the Medical Officer, who is running J.J. Hospital.She has stated that she gave treatment to PW-1 in her Hospital during April 1998 as she complained pain; that after treatment, PW-1 was discharged; and that, at the time when PW-1 was undergoing treatment, the accused visited her twice.He has been examined by the prosecution to speak about the accused entrusting the custody of PW-1 with him to take her to his residence at Bangalore and about her stay in his residence; however, since he has not supported the case of the prosecution, he has been treated as hostile witness.(D) PW-6 is the Medical Officer, who admitted PW-1 in the Hospital run by her for delivery after obtaining consent from the appellant.He has deposed to the effect that PW-1 was admitted for delivery and after giving birth to a female child on 24.05.1998, she was discharged on 26.05.1998 and that it is the appellant who settled the hospital bills.(E) PW-7 is the Manger of the Hotel 'Maurya International', Madras.He has stated that during December, 1996, four rooms including Room No.402 were booked by Akshaya Films, Bombay, for holding discussion." .... Immediately after drinking cool drink I lost my conscious.After half hour or so when I regained conscious I found that I was deserted by him.Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.She along with her baby was sent for medical examination.(B) PW-2 is the Medical Officer attached to Child Welfare Medical and Research Institute.She has spoken to about the taking of blood samples for conducting D.N.A. Test from PW-1, her child and the accused.PW-8 is the Medical Officer who examined the accused for virility and issued Ex.P-6 in that regard.(F) PW-9 is the Inspector of Police, who, on receipt of the complaint forwarded from the Office of the Commissioner of Police, registered a case in Crime No.1334 of 1998 for offences punishable under Sections 417, 341, 323, 294(b) and 506 (2) IPC.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P7 is the Printed F.I.R. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statement of witnesses.The accused was arrested on 11.12.1998 and and was remanded to Judicial custody.While proceeding with the investigation, he collected materials and documents in the form of hotel receipts, medical reports etc. Further investigation was taken up by PW-10, who after completing the investigation, filed final report for offences punishable under Sections 421, 342, 294(b), 506 (ii), 376 and 413 IPC.(G) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., while answering in the affirmative for some of the questions, he denied others.The appellant admitted the fact of PW-1 joining his Office as Assistant, her admission in the hospital for delivery, settlement of hospital bills by him, blood samples taken from him for conducting DNA test and also the fact that he was having sexual relationship with PW-1; however, he stated that it is only due to the compulsion on the part of PW-1, he was having such affair with her.(H) On the side of the defence, two documents have been marked as Exs.D1 is an affidavit that was filed by PW-1 before the Court of Sessions at Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.8263 of 1998, in which, it is stated by PW1 that she was not aware of the contents of the complaint.Denying the contents of the statement made by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, it has been emphatically stated in the affidavit that the appellant never had any forced sexual relationship with her and that she was neither threatened nor assaulted by the accused.D2 is a letter written by PW-1 wherein she has stated that she is in love with the appellant.Insofar as Ex.D1 is concerned, PW-1, in her cross examination, stated that such affidavit has been filed by her on the compulsion of the relatives of the accused to secure his bail and insofar as Ex.D2 is concerned, though her signature is admitted, she has denied the contents of such letter.The learned trial Judge, on perusal of the oral and documentary evidence and considering the arguments advanced on either side, passed an order of conviction and sentence against the accused as aforementioned.Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, by pointing out that the prosecution case rests mainly on the testimony of PW-1 and that since her testimony can be proved to have tainted with improvements and deviations when contrasted with the F.I.R and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, would submit that the case of the prosecution shall fall to ground.According to him, in the complaint, though PW-1 has stated that she was given a cool drink and after taking the same she became unconscious, nothing has been mentioned about the act of rape by the appellant except stating ' ... when I regained conscious I found that I was deserted by him. .." Similarly, though it is simply stated in the complaint that the affair with the accused continued and that the accused made all arrangements to send her out of country by getting passport, in her evidence, PW-1 has given an exaggerated narration about the happening by building up her story.In the complaint, the name of the Hospital finds place, however, the date on which she was admitted there is not mentioned.Learned Senior Counsel made specific reliance on the date and timing mentioned by PW-1 in her evidence viz., on 08.12.1996 at 1.30 P.M., she was taken by the accused to Room No.402 at Maurya Hotel, where she was subjected to rape, and that she returned to her residence by 7 P.M. on that day.He pointed out that the prosecution relied on Ex.P-3 Hotel Receipt, wherein, it has been stated that Room No.402 was booked by Ayesha Films, Mumbai, on 08.12.1996 at 8 P.M. for a week.According to him, the above aspects would go to show that the occurrence had not taken place at the time and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution.Though the fruit juice containing sleeping pills is said to have been given to PW-1 by the accused through Room-body, the said Room-boy has not been examined.Failure on the part of the prosecution to examine such crucial witness is fatal to its case.Several improvements have been made in the testimony of PW-1 before Court, however, for such improvements no corroborative materials have been produced.Though it is alleged that the first act of sex with PW-1 took place on 08.12.1996 and that she has quarrelled with the appellant, it is the case of PW-1 that she never informed the same to anyone including her parents.Though the explanation given by PW-1 is that she remained silent on the promise made by the appellant that he would marry her, the fact remains that she kept quiet for months together without divulging the relationship to anybody.The complaint has been given on 29.04.1998 for the occurrence that took place way back in 1996 ie., on 08.12.1996, with considerable delay.After the occurrence, PW-1 continued the sexual relationship with the appellant and she accompanied him to various places.Only after she became pregnant and when the appellant asked her to get aborted, the terms between the appellant and PW-1 became bitter.Referring to the evidence of PW-1, learned Senior Counsel submits that it is apparent that at the time when PW-1 was admitted in the Hospital for delivery, it is the appellant who went there and settled all the bills and that he made all possible efforts to make her live along with his wives and that only because of the attitude of the 1st and 2nd wife of the accused, PW-1 could not be kept in those places.Further, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he has admitted his paternity to the child.Though initially, case against the accused was registered under Section 417 IPC.Per contra, learned Government Advocate submits that, though the complaint was given belatedly in this case where the offence alleged to have been committed is rape, the fact remains that the first act was committed by the appellant by way of administering juice mixed with sedative and it is only thereafter, PW-1, unable to wriggle out from the situation, continued the affair.Even though PW-1 is a major and the offence under Section 376 IPC.may not be made out, because of the promise made by the appellant, PW-1 continued the affair, resulting in her pregnancy and giving birth to a child.According to him, since materials are available to show that the appellant made false promise to allure the victim, he is liable to be convicted at least under Section 417 IPC.I have carefully perused the materials available on record and considered the submissions made by the respective counsel.Three charges have been framed by the trial court against the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 417 and 506 (ii) IPC.and on conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge, holding that two of the charges have been proved by the prosecution, convicted the accused under Sections 376 and 417 IPC.As could be seen, the first charge is that between 08.12.1996 and 10.12.1996, one day, at about 2 P.M., PW-1 was given fruit juice mixed with stupefying substance at the instance of the accused and, at the time when she became unconscious, without her consent, the appellant committed rape on her.The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 08.12.1996 and the complaint was given on 29.04.1998, wherein it has been specifically stated as follows:-On telling he promised me to marry and asked me to join the duty in his real estate shop. ... "Later on, during the course of investigation, she was produced before the Magistrate for the purpose of recording statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. After collecting other materials, only at the time of filing the final report, the offence under Section 376 IPC.came to be included, resulting in framing of the first charge by the trial court.In this context, it is useful to refer to the 'fifthly circumstance' falling under Section 375 IPC., which reads as follows:-" Fifthly:-- With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. "Both in the complaint and in the evidence of PW-1, it has been stated by her that she became unconscious on taking the juice mixed with stupefying substance, given to her at the instance of the accused.Though in the complaint, the sexual intercourse by the appellant has not been mentioned at all, in her evidence before Court, PW-1 gives a narration of what had happened on that day.It is pertinent here to mention that if the evidence of the prosecutrix is reliable and free from improvements and contradictions, the same can be solely acted upon by the court without even looking for corroboration by other materials.However, in view of the absence of allegation in the complaint regarding sexual intercourse by the appellant with PW-1, a cautious and careful scrutiny of her evidence is required to be made.It is the charge against the appellant that the first act of rape took place around 2 P.M. In her evidence, PW-1 positively stated that she left the home on the occurrence day ie., on 08.12.1996, at 1.30 P.M and from the Bus Stop, she was taken by the appellant to the Hotel, where she was asked by him to wait in Room No.402 and after some time, bread sandwich and juice were delivered to her through a room-boy.After narrating the act of rape committed on her by the appellant when she became semi-conscious, she states that, on regaining consciousness, she felt pain and started crying and, at that time, the appellant said that he would divorce his wife as she, being an illiterate, is harassing him, and assured that as soon as she is divorced, he would marry her and also requested her that the relationship between him and PW-1 should not be divulged to anybody as he being a cine-actor, the same would damage his image and he would not get chances in films and he may also lose his income.PW-1 further states that though she resisted, he again had sex with her and thereafter directed her to go back to her residence and at the time she reached her house it was about 7 P.M. Thus, even as per her evidence, on that day, she was in the company of the appellant between 1.30 P.M. and prior to reaching her residence at 7 P.M.Pausing here, it is useful to turn towards the deposition of PW-7, the Hotel Manager, who has been examined to substantiate the booking of Room No.402 by Akshaya Films for holding discussion, and through whom Ex.P-3 Guest Registration Card has been marked.It is his positive evidence that he had never seen/met PW-1 in the Hotel on any date.Though it has been specifically mentioned that the room has been allotted as per Ex.P.3 only at 8 PM.on 08.12.1996, no further question has been put to this witness so as to substantiate that the appellant already visited the hotel prior to 8 P.M. Further, it is the positive case of the prosecution that fruit juice has been given to PW-1 through a Room-Boy, however, he has not been examined as a prosecution witness.Similarly, though it is the case of the prosecution that along with the appellant several other persons were also staying with him on arrangements made by Akshaya Films for holding discussion, those persons were not examined.At any rate, at the alleged time of occurrence, Room No.402 was not at all occupied by the appellant; that being so, I am of the considered view that PW-1 would not have visited the appellant in Room No.402 as alleged in the charge.Therefore, the charge that a meeting took place between 08.12.1996 and 10.12.1996 is not substantiated.Added to that, even in the complaint Ex.P-1, no specific allegation of rape has been made by PW-1, hence, initially, the police did not register the case under Section-376 IPC.Moreover, admittedly, after the first meeting, PW-1 was willingly roaming around with the appellant without even informing her parents to several places including outstations.The conduct of PW-1, aged about 23, would go to show that she was moving freely and friendly with the appellant and continued the sexual affair with whole consent.It is also seen that the complaint was given on 29.04.1998, case was registered on 21.05.1998 and, during the course of investigation, the appellant was arrested.Along with the bail application, requesting for release of the accused on bail, PW-1 filed an affidavit/Ex.D1 before lower court, wherein she stated as follows:-Thereafter Mr.Mansoor Ali Khan informed me that a complaint signed by me against him has been given to the (L&O) R-2 Police Station.Denying the Complaint and narrating the actual events I swore a declaration before a Notary public on the 22nd of May 1998 and sent it to the respondent police as well as the city Commissioner of police.Thereafter I was having good relationship Mr.against the appellant.Other prosecution witnesses are not of much use except to speak about the DNA test conducted to substantiate that the child born to PW-1 was through the appellant.There is no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never intended to marry her.Perhaps he wanted to, but was not able to gather enough courage to disclose his intention to his family members for fear of strong opposition from them.Even the prosecutrix stated that she had full faith in him.It appears that the matter got complicated on account of the prosecutrix becoming pregnant.Therefore, on account of the resultant pressure of the prosecutrix and her brother the appellant distanced himself from her. "The remaining question is whether on the basis of the evidence on record, is it reasonably possible to hold that the accused with the fraudulent intention of inducing her to sexual intercourse, made a false promise to marry? We have no doubt that the accused did hold out the promise to marry her and that was the predominant reason for the victim girl to agree to the sexual intimacy with him.PW12 was also too keen to marry him as she said so specifically.The act of the accused left behind her a trial of misery, ignominy and trauma.She was aged about 23, sufficiently matured and intelligent, at the time of occurrence.Therefore, learned Senior Counsel fairly conceded that the appellant may be liable to pay damages to the victim under civil law.Learned Senior Counsel, on instructions from the appellant/accused, submitted that the appellant is willing to deposit a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) apart from Rs.3,25,000/- already imposed as fine, all put together Rs.10,25,000/-, and the same may be treated as compensation payable to PW-1 to take care of herself and the child born to her through the accused without prejudice to her other claims.The offer made by the learned Senior Counsel on instructions from the appellant seems to be reasonable.Consequently, the order of the trial court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376 (1) and 417 IPC.The appellant is directed to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) before the trial court to the credit of Sessions Case No.579 of 2000 within a period of six weeks from to-day, failing which, the trial court is directed to initiate recovery proceedings known to law against him.The appeal is allowed with the above direction to the appellant/accused.It is seen that the child was born in the year 1998; hence, by this time she would be about 9 year old.It is not known as to whether the victim subsequently got married or not.Hence, it is just and proper to apportion the amount between the victim and the minor child.Accordingly, the victim is entitled to Rs.3,25,000/- and the minor is entitled to the remaining sum of Rs.7,00,000/-.On request being made from PW-1, the lower court shall order payment of her share and the share of the minor shall be kept in her name in a Fixed Deposit with a nationalised bank.The share of the minor child along with interest shall be payable to her on attaining majority.Office to note:-
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
376,888 |
A.766/2010 Page 3 of 44A.766/2010 Page 5 of 44On 11.06.2004, Dr. K. Goel (PW-2) conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased.The cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation.On 12.06.2004, the case was handed over to PW-27 Insp.Om Prakash Sharma who prepared the ruqqa and got the case registered vide FIR No. 36/2004 (EX-PW1/A).He went to the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan.Then he went to the dairy where the cousin of the deceased namely Dinesh was working and examined him under section 161 Cr. PC.During the examination Dinesh raised suspicion of the involvement of all the three accused persons.A.766/2010 Page 6 of 44Copy of the same is Ex.A.766/2010 Page 10 of 44c) PW8 Jitender Rai identified the dead body of deceased from photographs showed on 9.6.2004 when he came to Delhi from Ambala.Thereafter on 11.6.2004 he alongwith his cousin Dinesh and younger brother Tarkeshwar identified the deceased at Subzi Mandi Mortuary and also told the police that Deepak, Riken @ Dikan and their uncle Samunder and Shailesh had enmity with the deceased.d) PW 3 Dinesh Rai also deposed regarding the enmity of the accused Deepak as he had earlier attacked deceased Ramesh Rai at the village and Delhi.Both hailed from the same village in Bihar.He identified the deceased Ramesh initially from his pant thereafter at Subzi Mandi Mortuary.A.766/2010 Page 11 of 44 place between deceased Ramesh on one side and Deepak, Samunder and Riken from other side at Delhi.Thereafter, they went back to the village Jivrakha Tola.A Panchayat was held at the house of Mukhia Kailash Singh and he headed the said Panchayat as Panch.Other members of the Panch, besides him, were Shivji Rai, Kalshwar Singh, Loknath Rai and Ramesh Rai.On 19.7.2004, one SI of Delhi Police along with two officials reached their village and they were called to the PS Maner.He told the facts of the Panchayat stated above and handed over the Panch Faisla to the police officer which was seized vide memo Ex.PW9/A. The Panch Faisla Ex.The Panch Faisla was reduced in writing and handed over to police vide Ex.PW9/B, which bears his signatures at point C.g) PW-7 is an independent witness, who owned house No.WZ 14, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi.He deposed that he had not given any room on rent to Shambhu but, he had given his Milk Dairy to Shambhu on contract basis.He stated that on 12.06.2004, he was called by the police at Golden Park where all the accused were present and he identified them in Court.Testimonies of other witnessesj) PW 10 Ct.Sunder Lal deposed that he alongwith Inderjeet Singh reached at the spot at Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi where all the three accused were with police officials and accused persons pointed out the place of incident.At the instance of IO Insp.Om Prakash he took eight photographs of the place of incident.He also proved the negatives of the photographs vide Ex.k) PW12 D.S. Meena, Station Superintendent, Railway Station, Shakur Basti had deposed that on 7.6.2004 the passenger train, Delhi Firozpur 341 which used to go from Old Delhi Railway Station to Firoz Pur via Shakur Basti Railway Station.On that day at about 7.25 am the driver of the said train informed him that a dead body is lying near railway crossing Rampur.7/29 km of up track.He informed to HC Rajmal (In Charge of P.P. Kishan Ganj) GRP at about 7.30 am.l) PW 13 Ct.Daya Ram deposed that he joined the investigation alongwith Insp.Om Prakash, ASI Sarabjeet Singh, HC Hawa Singh and Ct.Ranbir Singh and they visited to pole No.KM 7/29, near Rampura Railway crossing where at the instance of ASI Sarbjeet, Insp.Om Parkash prepared a site plan and thereafter they went to the diary of Bindu Pehlwan.A.766/2010 Page 14 of 44 Ex.PW13/D and accused Riken was arrested vide memo Ex.PW 13/E. The personal search of accused Riken was conducted vide memo PW13/F and of accused Samunder vide Ex.PW13/G. They were also interrogated by the IO and their disclosure statements were recorded vide Ex.PW13/H and J. Thereafter they all went to WZ-14 Golden park, Rampura, Delhi.The landlord of that house Ranjit Singh Khari was also present over there and he has also joined the investigation.Photographer Ct.Sunder Lal and Videographer HC Inderjeet were called at the spot on the direction of Investigating Officer Insp.Om Prakash Sharma.All the three accused persons pointed out the place of incident and pointing out memo was prepared on their instance vide Ex.PW13/K. On the direction of the IO the photography and videography of the place of incident was done.m) PW-14 ASI Sarabjit Singh deposed that on 07.06.2004, he received DD No.6 which is Ex.PW-14/A and he along with Head Constable Hawa Singh, Constable Sukh Ram went to the spot, i.e., Pole KM 7/29, where he found that on the railway track one dead body of male lying between the railway track.He inspected the dead boy and got it photographed.He found that there was an injury near the left ear of the dead body and there was some ligature mark on the neck of the dead body of black colour.Due to rain in the night, the said ligature mark was not visible properly.He inspected the clothes of the dead body and there was sticker affixed on brown coloured pant in the name and style of Prince Tailor, Singh Market, Muner.He also lifted the blood smeared stones and earth control stone from the spot and took them into custody sealing the same vide Ex. PW-14/B. He also seized the hair from the brown coloured underwear make Amul Gold at the instance of crime team which is Ex.A.766/2010 Page 16 of 44 on 10.06.2004 and he made his rival entry.Thereafter, the brother of the deceased was called and they dead body was identified.The same are Ex.PW-14/E, Ex.PW-14/F, Ex.PW-14/G and Ex.The application is Ex.PW-14/N. All the memos bore his signatures.n) PW 17 Ct.Jaivir Singh is the Special Messenger who delivered a copy of the FIR to Ld.A.766/2010 Page 17 of 44 pant of deceased in the Malkhana and made the entry at Sl. No.273 the copy of same vide Ex.PW21/B. PW 21 further deposed that on 11.6.2004 ASI Sarabjit again deposited one sealed parcel with the seal of hospital alongwith sample seal belonging to the deceased alongwith visra box and he made entry at Sl.No.274 and the copy of same Ex.PW21/C. On 12.6.2004 Insp.He made the entry in this respect at Sl. No.275 and photocopy of the same is Ex.PW21/D. The case property were sent to FSL Rohini on 14.7.2004 and the remaining one pullanda sent on 19.7.2004 vide RC No.49/21 and 55/21 respectively.The RC register and photocopy of the road certificate No.49/21 is Ex.A.766/2010 Page 17 of 44r) PW 22 HC Rajmal Singh was posted as Daily Diary writer at P.P. Kishanganj and he deposed that on 7.6.2004 at about 7.30 am, D.S. Meena informed that the driver of train No.341 Passenger, Delhi to Ferozpur informed about the dead body lying at Pole KM7/29 and the information was recorded vide DD No.6 and the copy of the said DD was entrusted to ASI Sarabjeet Singh who alongwith HC Hawa Singh and Ct.Sukhram went to the spot.On 10.6.2004 when he was doing the duty of DD writer at the said PP.Investigating Officer seized one pant of the deceased against the seizure memo Ex.PW22/A. The said pullanda was later on deposited in the Malkhana and copy of DD entry vide Ex.PW26/A.He deposed that after going through the documents, he made his endorsement on D.D. No.6 which is Ex.PW-27/A. He prepared the ruqqa and got the case registered vide FIR Ex.PW-1/A. He also prepared the site plan of the place Ex.PW-27/B. He stated that the deceased was working at Shakur Basti with Lalit @ Bindu Pahalwan, PW-4, who was running a dairy.At the dairy of Lalit @ Bindu Pahlwan, he and his wife Smt. Shashi Sharma were present.They were examined under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He also prepared the site plan of that place which is Ex.PW-27/C. The site of the place near Kikar tree is Ex.PW-27/D. He reiterated in his statement that all the accused led the police party including public persons to a stable behind house No.14, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi, by saying that the clothes were hidden by them at that place.Thereafter, the accused Samunder took out one torn shirt having blood stains on both the shoulders on front and back sides.Accused Deepak took out one T- shirt from the place of underneath a plastic cover above the grass roof.These were seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/D.On 24.07.2004, he sent 18 sealed parcels to FSL, Rohini, through constable Ranbir vide RC Ex.PW-21/E. On that day, 17 parcels were deposited and one parcel was returned back which was sent on 19.07.2004 to FSL, Rohini vide RC Ex.PW-27/F through Constable Ranbir.The parcel was the viscera box.The results of FSL were received which are Ex.PW27/G, Ex.PW27/H, Ex.PW27/I and Ex.PW-5 Smt. Shashi Sharma is the wife of PW-4 who deposed that on 06.06.2004 at about 8-8.30 p.m. the deceased had told her that he was going to Rampura to attend a party.Early changes of decomposition present in scalp tissues.Skull bones were intact Brain matter was soften due to decomposition.On reflection of skin of neck there was subcutaneous and platysmal bruising was seen underneath the ligature marks and surrounding tissues.Deeper neck muscles were also bruised with effusion of blood in neck-layers.Signs of decomposition also seen in soft tissues of neck.There were fracture - subluxation of left greater cornua of hyoid bone and left superior horn of thyroid cartilage with massive bruising around.Epiglottis larynx were bruised.Signs of decomposition were seen in tracheals mucosa.Mode of death was homicide.Time of death was about four and half days.The result of FSL was received and are Ex.The details of description of articles contained in parcels and results of analysis are given as under:DESCRIPTION OF ARTICLES CONTAINED IN PARCELS "Parcel 1 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SS containing exhibit 1, marked as A.Exhibit 1 : Piece of stones having brown stains.Parcel 2 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SS containing exhibit 2 marked as A-I. Exhibit 2 : Pieces of stone described as Earth control stone.Parcel 3 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SS containing exhibit 3, marked as B.Exhibit 3 : Piece of stones having brown stains.Exhibit 4: Pieces of stone described as Earth control stone.Parcel 5 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of SS containing exhibit 5, marked as C.Exhibit 7: A piece of brick having brown stains along with few strands of hair.Exhibit 8: Cemented material having brown stains described as Blood stained floor and plaster pieces.Exhibit 14: One T-shirt.Exhibit 15 : One T-shirt having brown stains.Exhibit 16 : Two pieces of teeth having brown stains.Parcel 17 : One sealed polythene bag parcel sealed sealed with the seal of KLS AAA HOSPITAL SUBZI MANDI MORTUARY DELHI containing exhibit 17a, 17b, 17c and 17d.Exhibit 17a: One damp foul smelling shawl having darker stains.Exhibit 17b: One damp foul smelling shirt having darker stains.Exhibit 17c: One damp foul smelling banian having darker stains.A.766/2010 Page 31 of 44As per the seizure memo Ex.PW-13 also corroborated the testimony of PW-7 by stating that the accused Samunder and Deepak handed over one polythene bag containing one dirty shirt and red colour T-shirt having blood stains to the place after taking out the same from Maizezine/Parchati from the Pashuo ka tabela (the place where the animal are used to be kept).The same were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW13/M which bears his signatures.As per the disclosure statement, the shirt was belonging to Samunder and the T-shirt to Deepak.PW-14 has made the similar statement before the Court that the accused persons took them to tabela (the place used to keep the animals) and from where one red T-shirt and one shirt were got recovered by the accused Deepak and Samunder and the same were sealed with the seal of OPS and taken into possession.The shirt was Ex.PC belonging to Samunder and the T-shirt was of Deepak and the same is Ex.PW-27 also corroborated the statements of PW-7, PW-13 & PW-14, by deposing that all the accused persons led the police party including the public persons to a stable behind house No.14, Golden Park, Ram Pura, Delhi, by saying that the clothes were hidden by them at that place.The pointing out memo Ex.PW13/M was prepared.Thereafter, the accused Samunder took out one torn shirt having blood stains on both the shoulders on front and back.Accused Deepak took out one T-shirt from the place underneath a plastic cover and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW-13 reiterated the statement of PW-7 and deposed that from the sport the I.O. lifted blood-stained soil and earth control sample and the same were sealed with the seal of OPS in pullanda and taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/A which bears his signatures at point-B. At the instance of accused Deepak, one brick having blood stains as well as having some hairs passed on it along with blood stained as well as piece of the earth and earth control sample were lifted and sealed in pullanda with the seal of OPS and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B which bears his signatures at point-B. Thereafter, all the three accused took the police party to the railway track near small way called pagdandi and they disclosed that they kept a dead body there for a while.So, the I.O. lifted the blood smeared soil and taken into custody vide memo Ex.PW7/A. After going forward only upto 15 paces by the side of railway track, there was a keeker' tree.The same was taken into possession vide memo Ex.The pointing out memo Ex.PW13/N was prepared.At that place, blood was found lying on the ground.He lifted blood-stained soil and earth control and sealed them in separate parcel with the seal of OPS and were seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. The parcels were given serial Nos.4 & 4A. Thereafter, the police team proceeded towards railway track.These three appeals have been filed by the appellants, namely, Riken @ Diken, Deepak and Samunder under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the common judgment dated 19.02.2010 and the order on sentence dated 25.02.2010 by which the Additional Sessions Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in S.C. No.111/1/08 convicted them under sections 302/201/34 IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.(i) That on 07.06.2004 a telephonic message was received from CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.On receipt of this information, PW-14 ASI Sarabjeet Singh of GRP P.S. Sarai Rohilla, along with other police officials reached at Pole No. 7/29 near Rampura platform No. 5, where the dead body of a male person was found;A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.There were injuries on the head above the right ear, multiple injuries on head, right shoulder was broken and there were black spots around the neck.The other Senior Police officials also reached the spot.Blood stained stones and earth control stones from around the head and feet of the dead body were collected and deposited in malkhana after sealing with the seal of SS and were taken into possession vide memo EX-PW14/B.(iii) That the deceased was wearing light blue shirt, white vest, light chocolate colour pant on which the mark of "Prince Tailors, Singh Market Maner" was affixed.There were clay and blood stains on the shirt of the deceased due to rain.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 3 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.(iv) That the police recorded the statements of Badri, Abdul Hussain, Jugal Kumar Rai and Jitender Rai.The dead body was kept in P.P. Kishan Ganj for identification and later on shifted to Subzi Mandi Mortuary.(v) That the SSP, Patna, Bihar and SHO P.S. Maner were contacted through wireless and other authorities were also contacted through PCR, for the identification of the dead body.(vi) That thereafter, on 11.06.2004, the brother of the deceased, PW-8 Jitender Rai came to the P.S. Sarai Rohilla along with his cousin Dinesh and his younger brother Tarkeshwar, where PW-14 ASI Sarabjeet Singh showed him a photograph of the deceased which he identified and said that the dead body was of his brother Ramesh Rai.(vii) That the Police took them to the mortuary Sabzi Mandi and showed them the dead body, and they all identified the dead body to be of Ramesh Rai.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 4 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 4 of 44(viii) That Police recorded their statements.PW-8 Jitender Rai, told the police that they have enmity with Deepak, Riken @ Diken and their uncle Samunder and Shailesh and that he has full confidence that Deepak, Riken @ Diken and their uncle Samunder have killed his brother to take revenge.He told the police that on several occasions they have had quarrels with the said persons in their village and about 2 years ago, a quarrel had taken place between his deceased brother Ramesh and accused Deepak at Rohini and Deepak had caused a brick injury on the nose of the deceased, on which a case was registered against Deepak at P.S. Rohini and he was even arrested in this case.Thereafter, his brother went to their native village on the occasion of Holi, and later on he came to know that his brother was badly beaten even in the village by the accused persons.The Panchayat was called and the Panchayat imposed a fine of Rs. 1000/- on accused Deepak as he had pleaded guilty.Thereafter the deceased and all the accused persons came back to Delhi and the accused persons told him that they had felt such disrespect in the village and now they will not spare Ramesh (deceased) and stated "Gaon mey CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 5 of 44 hamari bahut Bezti ho gai hey or ab hamney kafan bandh liya hey or ab hum Ramesh ko chodengay nahi".A. 747/2010, CRL.Thereafter, they went to Naharpur in search of the accused persons and apprehended accused Deepak from the dairy of Nahar Singh.On being interrogated, Deepak made a disclosure statement.Thereafter, they went to Britania Chowk, Ring Road in search of other accused persons and arrested Samunder and Riken.The accused persons made disclosure statements and led the police party to H. No. WZ14, Golden Park, Punjabi Bagh, the owner of CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 6 of 44 the said house, namely PW-7 Ranjit Singh, was also called there and from there blood smeared soil, earth control along with other material like blood smeared brick, which had some hair stuck to it were recovered, all these items were sealed and with the seal of OPS and seized vide memo Ex-PW7/B. Insp.Om Prakash Sharma (PW-27) prepared the site plan of that place Ex-PW27/C.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.On pointing out of the accused Riken, a blood smeared rope and piece of blood stained floor and other earth control were recovered from the way which goes to the railway track.Then the accused persons led the police party to a horse shed/tabela and got one red coloured T-shirt and a shirt recovered, and the same were also seized.Om Prakash Sharma (PW-27) prepared the site plan of each place.After the committal proceedings were completed, charges were framed against the accused persons under section 302/201/34 IPC.The accused persons pleaded not guilty and preferred to contest the case.In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 27 witnesses out which nine were public witnesses and they were PW-3 Dinesh, PW-4 Lalit Kumar, PW-5 Smt.Shashi Sharma, PW-7 Ranjeet CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 7 of 44 Singh, PW-8 Jitender Rai, Pw-9 Vinod Rai, PW- 12 Shivaji Rai, PW-15 Kailash Singh and PW-16 Jitender Kumar.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 7 of 44In the statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. all the three appellants denied the allegations against them.They stated that they are innocent and that they had been falsely implicated.After examining the evidence on record and considering the arguments of the parties, the learned ASJ in his judgment held that there was positive evidence against the accused persons which brought the inference that the proposed accused are the only perpetrators of the crime and that they committed the murder of Ramesh Rai with the ulterior motive to take revenge.Thus, he convicted all the three accused persons for the offence punishable under section 302/201/34 IPC.The appellants, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, have filed the present appeals.Learned counsel for the appellants have raised common grounds of appeal, some of the relevant ones are as follows: I. The Learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that the dead body was identified from a lable/sticker of a Tailor affixed on the pant.Thereafter the address of his house was traced.A. 747/2010, CRL.The Learned Trial Court has erred in not appreciating that admittedly the deceased had gone to have the dinner in the company of some Shambhu who was not implicated or produced as a witness.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 9 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 9 of 44Since there is no eye-witness to the murder, the case revolves around the circumstantial evidence of last seen and the recovery of the material as per the case of the prosecution.The prosecution in order to prove its case relied upon the testimonies of following witnesses who deposed as follows:Rukka & FIRa) PW1 HC Savita deposed that she was the Duty Officer on 12.6.2004 at P.S. Sarai Rohilla and got registered the FIR at Sr.No.36 for the offence u/s 302/201 IPC.PW1/A. She made endorsement about the registration of the case on the rukka vide Ex.PW1/B. She also brought the original DD register No.12/B regarding registration of the case.Medical and Scientific Evidenceb) PW2 Dr. K. Goel conducted the post mortem on the body of Ramesh S/o Mala Rai on 11.6.2004 and as per his report Ex. PW-2/A the cause of death was asphyxia consequent upon ligature strangulation.Injuries No.1 to 5 were ante mortem.Injuries No.1 to 4 were caused by blunt force impact.Ligature marks i.e. injury No.5 was caused by some hard flexible material.Injury No.6 was postmortem in nature and was consistent with pressure over wrist to fasten them.Ligature pressure over neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.Mode of death was homicide.Injury number 5 CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW2/A was caused by some hard flexible material, which means a material like rope, some electric wire and other soft material.The skull bones were intact but there was one lacerated wound on the right temporal region.This was caused by blunt force impact.Semi digested food could not be described.Alcohol like smell was coming from the stomach.Death was not possible by poisoning.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Panchayat had earlier fined Rs.1,000/- on Deepak.The case was registered at PS Rohini Sector-8 on the complaint of Ramesh Rai deceased.He suspected the hands of all the three accused persons in the murder of Ramesh as they earlier threatened Ramesh to kill him since Deepak was made to pay a fine by the Panchayat.e) PW9 Vinod Rai in fact corroborated the version of PW3 Dinesh Rai and PW8 Jitender Rai by deposing that on 17.3.2002 a panchayat was held in village Jivrakhan Tola in the matter of Deepak, Samunder, Riken and deceased Ramesh as they all working in Delhi and quarrel took CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW9/B bears his name at point A.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW9/B. PW 15 Kailash Singh being the Pradhan of the village also headed the Panchayat as Panch on 17.3.2002 wherein he decided the issue of quarrel between deceased Ramesh Rai and Deepak by imposing fine of Rs.1000/- on Deepak and Rs.51/- on deceased Ramesh Rai.He stated that he was asked by the police to open the lock and he opened the shutter of the room.In his presence, police had lifted the blood from near the water tank, blood stained plaster and earth control from the spot and took them into possession by making a recovery memo Ex.PW7/A which bore CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW7/B which also bore his signature at point B. Thereafter, the accused took the entire team near the Railway Track from where the blood stained earth and blood were lifted and one rope was also taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW-7/C. One blood stained shirt and one T-shirt were also recovered at the instance of the accused persons from a Chhappar.The earth control was also lifted from near the TV Tower Polls vide memo Ex.PW-7/E.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Thereafter, Ramesh never returned to the house and on 12.6.2004 she came to know that Ramesh had died.No person of the name of Samunder, had come to their house in the afternoon to meet Ramesh on 6.6.2004, though before Police while recording her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she stated that on 06.06.2004 in the afternoon, Samunder had come to their house to meet Ramesh.i) PW 4 Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan deposed that the deceased Ramesh Rai was working at his dairy about 2-3 years prior to his death on 6.6.2004 he had told his wife that he was going to take meal at some place.Thereafter, the deceased did not return to his work.Later on he came to know that the boy had died.He was declared hostile by Public Prosecutor and in cross examination of APP he denied that deceased Ramesh might have gone to the house of Shambhu for attending the party or on the next day, he came to know that Ramesh has been murdered and his dead body has been found near the Ram Pura Railway crossing.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Where Ms. Shashi Sharma wife of Bindu Pehlwan @ Lalit Kumar met there, both were interrogated regarding the case and their statements were recorded.Thereafter at the instance of accused Deepak they reached Chowk Britania Ring Road where two persons were standing at the Ring Road towards JJ Colony, Shakur Pur, they were pointed out by the accused Deepak towards Samunder and Riken @ Dikan.Accused Samunder was arrested vide memo CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.From the spot IO lifted blood stained soil and earth control sample and same were sealed with the seal of OPS in the pullanda and taken into custody vide memo Ex.PW7/A. At the instance of Deepak, one brick having blood stains as well as piece of the earth and earth control sample were lifted and sealed in pullanda with the seal of OPS and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. All the three accused took the police party to the railway track near a narrow path called Pagdandi and accused persons disclosed that they kept a dead body there for a while.So, IO lifted the blood smeared soil and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/A. When they went forward by 15 paces by the side of the railway track there was a kiker tree at the spot, accused Riken pointed out one rassi/rope which was handing on the said tree and same was seized vide memo Ex.The pointing out memo was prepared by the IO and same is Ex.PW13/L. Thereafter, they against came behind the house WZ-14, Golden Park, Rampura, Delhi and accused Samunder and Deepak handed over one polythene bag containing one dirty shirt and a red colour T-Shirt having CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW13/M. The pointing out memo was prepared where the dead body was kept for a while and the same is Ex.PW13/N and pointing out memo of kiker wala tree is vide Ex.PW13/P. The seal after use was given to Choudhary Ranjit Singh Khari and they all came back to Police Station.The deposition of PW13 Ct.Daya Ram had been corroborated by PW14 ASI Sarabjit Singh, PW 20 Ct.Sukhram, PW 24 HC Hawa Singh, PW 25 Ct.Ranbir Singh and PW 27 Insp.O.P. Sharma in the deposition of and all of them have also proved the documents prepared during the course of investigation.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 14 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.PW14/C. Thereafter, Head Constable Hawa Singh was sent to Muner, Bihar, with the pant of the deceased for the identification of the dead body.Head Constable Hawa Singh came to Delhi CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.He also recorded the statement.He also recorded the statements of Badri, Abdul Hassan, Jugal Kumar Rai and Jitender Rai.PW-14/H. He conducted the inquest proceedings in respect of dead body and prepared the form No.25.35, the same is Ex.PW-14/J. Brief facts are Ex.PW-14/K and identification statement is Ex.PW-14/L. The dead body was handed over to brother Jitender Rai and its last rites vide receipt Ex.PW14/M. He made an application for getting post mortem to the Medical Superintendent, Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital.At his instance, Inspector Om Prakash prepared the site plan of the place of incident, i.e., railway track.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Ilaka Magistrate and Senior Officers.o) PW 18 Inspector Davinder Singh proved the scaled site plan of both the sites vide Ex. PW18/A.p) PW 19 SI Ajay Kumar, stated that on receiving the information he reached the railway track near railway crossing Rampura and found one dead body on the railway track having multiple injuries.He prepared his report and one copy was handed over to the IO Insp.Om Prakash Sharma.q) PW21 HC Devender Kumar being MHC (M) deposed that on 7.6.2004 ASI Sarabjit Singh deposited two sealed parcels containing hair, earth control and blood stained stones and soil and he made entry in register No.19 of Malkhana at Sl.No.272 vide Ex. PW21/A. On 10.6.2004 HC Hawa Singh deposited one pullanda containing one CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Om Prakash deposited five sealed parcels in the Malkhana alongwith personal search of the accused persons.PW21/E containing four pages.A. 747/2010, CRL.PW14/D.s) PW 23 Ct.Gangabir Singh deposed that on 12.6.2004 at about 3 pm Duty Officer WHC Savita handed over to him the copy of FIR No.36/04 alongwith the tehrir which he handed over to the Addl.SHO O.P. Sharma of P.S. Sarai Rohilla at about 3.30 pm at railway track near KM pole No.7/29 Rampura phatak where Insp.O.P. Sharma was already present alongwith ASI Sarabjit Singh, HC Hawa CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.t) PW 26 Ct.Vijay Singh proved the copy of the FIR No.32/02 P.S. Rohini dated 17.1.2002 u/s 341/323/34 IPC on the instruction of MHC(R) vide copy of FIR Ex.PW27/J.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 19 of 44Ms. Anu Narula, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused, has made the submissions that there are various material contradictions on important aspects regarding the recovery of the articles.The said inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions made in statements of the witnesses make the prosecution case highly improbable.The details of the same are given as under:a) As per the prosecution case, the rope was used in strangulating the deceased and the same was recovered at the instance of the accused persons which was also used for committing the murder but not rope was shown to PW-2 Dr. K. Goel nor was his opinion sought by the Investigating Officer.b) PW-3 Dinesh Rai in his examination-in-chief stated that on 10.06.2004 police had shown him one blood stained pant and he identified the pant as having belonged to deceased Ramesh, his cousin.He suspected the hands of all the three accused persons as they earlier threatened the deceased to kill him.He did not give the date, month or year when such threat was extended or did not state as to whether any complaint was lodged against the alleged threat.He did not sign the Panchayats Faisla, rather his conduct shows that he was interested in giving the deposition in rage and to take revenge by implicating the accused.c) PW-4 Lalit Kumar @ Bindu Pehalwan did not support the case of the prosecution and denied that Ramesh had told his wife Shashi that he was going to Rampura to attend a party and he would do the work on the next date.Therefore, chain of the prosecution was totally broken.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Investigating Officer was also present there.But during his cross-examination, he admitted that the video clip did not show witness Ranjeet Singh bringing a hammer, the polythene envelope and chair or charpai nor he stated anything against the accused persons.The chair and the charpai were not sealed in his presence.e) PW-13 Constable Daya Ram did not support the case of the prosecution, as in his cross-examination, he stated that he could not say if there was a constructed room and signed all the four papers prepared by the Investigating Officer.f) Shambhu was not cited as a witness so as to prove that the deceased attended the party and other accused persons were also present there.Ms. Richa Kapoor, the learned counsel appearing on behalf CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.The said part of the statement can be considered by this Court.As per post mortem report Ex.PW-2/A, the result of external injuries and internal examination on the body of deceased were as under:"EXTERNAL INJURIES(i) Lacerated wound 2cmX1.5cm over upper part of left cheek about 3cm below the lateral end of left eye.(ii) Lacerated wound 1.25X0.5cm over right angle of mandible.(iii) Lacerated wound 3.5X0.5cm over right temporal region.(iv) Few pressure abrasions seen over right anterior axillary fold.(v) Ligature Mark.There were dark brownish coloured slightly depressed ligature pressure abrasion marks two in CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.The width of each mark was allowed 0.75 to 09 cm.The skin above and below the marks was darker in colour.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.There was serosanguinous discharge seen in trachea.All chest and abdominal viscera were intact with signs of decomposition.Stomach contained semi digested food with slight alcohol like smell.In view of the testimony of PW-2 and report Ex.Injuries No.1 to 5 were ante mortem.Injuries No.1 to 4 CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.Injuries No.6 was postmortem in nature and was consistent with pressure over wrist to fasten them.Ligature pressure over neck was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.PW27/G,H,I and J. The sealed parcel remained in the custody of MHC(M).PW21 HC Devender Kumar testified that the parcel remained in his custody and in intact condition without any tempering by any one before and after receiving from the FSL Rohini and parcel sent through Ct.Ranbir PW25 and case property remained intact during the transit.The FSL report revealed the human blood on blood stained pieces of stone, piece of brick, blood stained cement material, piece of jute rope, shirt.The pants, shirt blood stained pieces of stone and teeth are of blood group B as examined by Biological Department of Forensic Science Lab.The Physics department of FSL opined that on chemical examination of stomach and piece of small intestine and unidentified tissues they tested positive for the presence of ethyl alcohol.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 27 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.OPS containing exhibit 6, marked as D.Exhibit 6: One pants having brown stains along with Mud.Parcel 7 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of OPS containing exhibit 7, marked as I.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Exhibit 9: Cemented material having brown stains described as Earth control sample of floor and plaster.Exhibit 10: Earthy material.Parcel 11 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of OPS containing exhibit 11, marked as 4A.Exhibit 11 : Earthy material.Parcel 12 : One sealed cloth parcel sealed with the seal of OPS said to contain exhibit 12, marked as 4B, sent in original to Physics Division of this Laboratory for examination.Exhibit 13: A piece of jute rope.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Exhibit 17d: One damp foul smelling underwear having darker stains.RESULTS OF ANALYSISBlood was detected on exhibits 1, 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 17a, 17b, 17c & 17d.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Regarding query No 16 based on Physical and morphological characteristics the teeth found in exhibit 16, were found to be human (i.e. incisior and canine teeth).As per the report of the portion of exhibits were examined by using various serological techniques, the analysed results of which are given as under:A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW22/A, the pant of the deceased and as per memo Ex.PW27/E, two teeth of the deceased in glass bottle, and also one damp foul smelling shawl, shirt, baniyan and underwear having darker stains as exhibits 17a to 17d were sent to FSL for examination.As per the FSL report, the teeth were of human origin having "B" blood group.Similarly, the pant of the deceased contains the blood stains of the same group "B".As per the FSL report, the blood was detected from exhibits 17a to 17d, i.e. shawl, shirt, baniyan and underwear of the deceased.B) Blood Group found in shirt etc. PW-7 Ranjeet Singh who is an independent/public witness had deposed that the accused had got recovered one blood stained shirt and one T-shirt from a Chhappar and they were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PW7/D which bears his signatures at point A. CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 32 of 44A. 747/2010, CRL.PW7/D. The site plan was also prepared.However, in the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons denied the said recovery.As per the FSL report, the shirt submitted as exhibit-15 contained human blood of "B" group which matches the blood group of the deceased.The said shirt which was recovered on the basis of disclosure statement, was belonging to Samunder.C) Blood-stained pieces of stone PW-7 deposed that in his presence, the police had lifted blood from near the water tank, blood stained plaster, earth control from the sport and took them into possession by making a recovery memo CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.PW7/A which bears his signatures at point-A. One blood stained piece of floor, earth control were also lifted from near the wall of water meter vide memo Ex.PW7/B which also bears his signatures at point-A. Thereafter, the accused had taken them near the railway track from where the blood-stained earth and blood were also lifted and one rope was taken into possession and seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C which also bears his signatures at point-A.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Accused Riken pointed out one rassi/rope which was hanging on the said tree.PW-27 deposed that at the instance of the accused persons, one blood-stained brick on which some hairs were stick, was recovered from the place in between water motor and the wall of the room.The brick was sealed with the seal of OPS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. He also lifted blood samples, blood-stained earth and earth control nearby the place where brick was lying and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/B. He also prepared the site plan of that place, Ex.PW27/C. Thereafter, the accused persons led the police party via a pagdandi after travelling about 200 meters, they pointed a place near high tension tower by stating that they rest the body at this place while CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.On the way, accused Riken pointed towards keeker tree where he had thrown the rope.He prepared the pointing out memo Ex.PW13/E. Accused Riken produced one rope having blood stains after taking it from keeker tree where it was entangled.The rope was measured as 7.5 feet and was sealed in a parcel with the seal of OPS and was seized vide memo Ex.PW7/C. It was also deposed that public witness PW-7 Ranjeet Singh was also with them.Thereafter, all the accused led the police party to railway track near kilometer pole No.7/29 and pointed the place on the railway track where the body was thrown by them.The pointing out memo Ex.PW13/L was prepared.The site of the place near keeker tree is Ex.PW27/D.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.The blood was also detected as per the analysis of the result on the pieces of stone having brown stains, a piece of brick having brown stains along with few strands of hair and cemented material having brown stains described as blood- stained floor and plaster pieces and a piece of jute rope.In some of the exhibits, no reaction was shown as per the report of the FSL.PW-14 in his testimony has also stated that due to rain in the night, some of the ligature marks could not be visible properly.He also stated that he inspected the cloth of the dead body and there was sticker affixed on brown coloured pant in the name and style of Prince Tailor, Singh Market, Muner.Thereafter, Head Constable Hawa Singh was sent to Muner, Bihar, with the pant of the deceased for the identification of the dead body.Head Constable Hawa Singh came to Delhi on 10.06.2004 and he made his rival entry.A. 747/2010, CRL.Exhibit- 4 : One pant having dark brown stains with soil adhering to it.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Exhibit- 10 : Soil described as "Blood stained Soil".Exhibit- 11 : Soil described as "Earth Control Soil".Exhibit- 12 : Soil described as "Earth Control muddy Soil Sample".Soil adhering to Exhibit-6 and soil Exhibit-12, were found to be possessing similar physical characteristics.4. Exhibit-8 and Exhibit-9, were found to be possessing similar physical characteristics.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Secondly as per the FSL report the same group of blood CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.It is immaterial if the CD relied upon by the prosecution is not proved, but at the same time, the prosecution was able to prove the recovery made by the accused in their disclosure statements.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.The public witnesses had also CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 40 of 44 deposed in this regard and also proved the said documents.Although the learned counsel for the accused made the statement at the bar that the case has been closed due to non-prosecution.The deceased Ramesh Rai was working at dairy of Lalit @ Bindu Pahalwan, PW-4/. At about 8/8:30 p.m., he left the dairy of Bindu Pahalwan and never returned to the house.It appears, therefore, that PW-5 was the last seen evidence of the deceased Ramesh Rai.The statement of the PW-8 was corroborated in the testimony of PW-3 Dinesh Rai, PW-9 Vinod Rai, PW-15 Kailash Singh and PW-12 Shivji Rai.The dead body of the deceased was lying at railway track near Rampura and the same was identified by sticker of Prince Tailor affixed on the brown coloured pant of Singh Market, Muner.PW-24 Head Constable Hawa Singh went to the village and met the relatives of the deceased who deposed with respect to the identification of the dead body.The accused persons made their disclosure statements before the police and led the police official to the room at WZ-14, Golden Park, where the alleged crime was committed and accused persons also led the police party and PW-7 CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.Accused got recovered one blood stained shirt and one T-shirt from the pashuo ka tabela which were seized.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A.766/2010 Page 41 of 44On the disclosure statement, rope, blood stained stone, earth controlled soil, blood stained shirt and T-shirt were recovered and examined in the FSL.PW-7 Ranjeet Singh, an independent witness, stated that at the instance of accused persons, blood stained shirt, T-shirt, blood stained brick affixed with CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.There is a positive evidence against Samunder as on his disclosure statement, blood stained shirt was recovered which contained human group B blood as per the FSL report.A. 747/2010, CRL.A. 748/2010, CRL.A. 747/2010, CRL.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,688,958 |
C.R.M.10280 of 2018 In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 16/11/2018 in gd connection with Ballygunge P.S. Case No.94 of 2018 dated 24/06/2018 under Sections 417/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of: Kaustav Singha Roy.....petitioner.Mr. Milon Mukherjee Mr. U.S. Chatterjee Mr. S.S. Chatterjeee Ms. Snigdha Saha ...for the petitioner.Mr. Rudradipta Nandy ...for the State.The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Ballygunge P.S. Case No.94 of 2018 dated 24/06/2018 under Sections 417/376/506 of the Indian Penal Code Act.The State and the de facto complainant are represented.It appears from the profile of the de facto complainant as put up on a marriage portal that she is well educated.According to her, the petitioner contacted her upon noticing her advertisement and gradually gained her confidence and allured the de facto complainant to meet the petitioner at a hotel in Kolkata in January, 2017 where, allegedly, the de facto complainant submitted to the advances of the petitioner in her belief that the petitioner would marry her.The complaint was lodged in June of 2018, long after the petitioner appears to have formally indicated by e-mail that the petitioner was not interested in pursuing the alliance with the de facto complainant.The State produces the statement of the de facto complainant recorded under Section 164 of the Code.It appears that she had consented to 2 the physical relationship.It also appears that the petitioner responded to the notice received under Section 41A of the Code.In the circumstances, there is no need for the petitioner to be taken into custody at this stage.In addition, the petitioner will also report to the Investigating Officer at such time and place as may be specified by the concerned police officer, till the investigation is completed.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed on the conditions indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Sanjib Banerjee, J.) (Suvra Ghosh, J.)
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
37,698,895 |
31.8.2017 (CL1263) KC C.R.M. 7482 of 2017 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In the matter of : Shahid Mokarram @ Md. Shahid .... petitioner.Mr. Bitashok Banerjee, Mr. Raju Mondal..............................For the petitioner.We have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the materials in the case diary and are of the view having regard to the level of complicity of the petitioner, as revealed from the case diary, that his custodial interrogation is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical conclusion; hence, he is not entitled to direction, as prayed for in this application.The application stands rejected.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.) (DEBI PROSAD DEY,J.) 2
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 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', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,082,071 |
Re : An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 10th March, 2014 in connection with Rajarhat P. S. Case No. 31 of 2014 dated 20.02.2014 for committing offence under Sections 448/ 498A/406/34 of the Indian Penal Code.In the matter of : Aizul Islam.... Petitioner.....For the Petitioner.Ms. Pushpita Saha.....For the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.) (SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.)
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,082,418 |
Heard on I.A. No.2658/12, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay.As per office note, the appeal is barred by 311 days.Considering the reasons assigned therein, the application is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is, hereby, condoned.Heard on admission.This appeal has been preferred under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") being aggrieved with the judgment dated 25/1/11 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Singrouli in Sessions Trial No.23/2010 (Old S.T. No. 187/2006), whereby respondent nos.1 & 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC").Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 12/10/06, Ramkishore Kushwaha informed at Police Station Bargawan that foul smell was emanating from the locked house of Ganga Prasad Pandey, resident of Village Chingitola.Station House Officer, Bargawan, reached the spot and after getting the lock opened, found that Gangaprasad was lying dead on his cot.Morgue No.0/06 and Dehati Nalishi were registered.During investigation, it surfaced that Gangaprasad was an un-married person, who used to make his living by practicing Jhaadphoonk (witchcraft) and providing herbs.8-9 years prior to the date of incident, he had got a house made for his nephew Ramlakhan behind his house, who used to serve him.However, since last 3-4 years, Krishnavati, wife of Ramlakhan had stopped serving Gangaprasad as she suspected him to be the reason for Ramlakhan's paralysis.From the last one year, Ganga Prasad was interested in dispossessing Ramlakhan from the land given by him and making a Temple thereon and 1-2 days prior to the incident, there had been a quarrel between Ramlakhan and Krishnavati, due to which Krishnavati along with his relative Suresh Kumar Dwivedi, conspired to kill Gangaprasad, in pursuance whereof she strangulated Ganga Prasad to death in his house.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, we have gone through the record of the trial Court.Archana Pandey (PW1), child witness, deposed in para 2 of her evidence that when police had reached the spot and were trying to unlock the door, respondent no.2 Krishnavati had dropped the keys stealthily and told the police not to break the lock as the key was lying there.So far the evidence of this witness is concerned, the same is not trustworthy as neither this fact was disclosed to the persons of locality nor before the police by her, and, for the first time, she had stated it in the Court.On this very ground, the trial Court acquitted the respondents.We fully agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court that are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record.The appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,085,760 |
It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate for the State, on instructions received from the Inspector-in-Charge, English Bazar Police Station, Malda that investigation of English Bazar Police Station F.I.R. No. 1004 of 2013 dated November 18, 2013 under Sections 295/295A/297/298/323/341/506/120B/34 of the Indian Penal Code has culminated in submission of charge sheet under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereafter the 'Cr.P.C.') against all the F.I.R.Indian Penal Code and that except one of the accused who was arrested earlier, the others have surrendered before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Malda.The law 2 must now be allowed to take its own course and therefore, the process for bringing the alleged culprits to book must commence and be completed in accordance with law as early as possible.The inspector-in-charge is, however, reminded of the duty cast upon him by the provisions of the Cr.P.C. as well as the Police Regulations of Bengal to inform the informant/complainant of the fact of submission of charge sheet before the magistrate.I hope and trust that there shall not be any further recurrence of such omission on his part.The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.There shall be no order as to costs.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.) 3 4
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,909,434 |
The Petitioner had been allotted a shop in the Ganga Complex, Subroto Park, New Delhi for the period 1st April 2008 to 31st Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 1 of 25 March 2010 for running a sweet and milk shop.According to the Petitioner, an advertisement was issued in the newspaper by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (representing the Air Headquarters) and Respondent No.4 [the Officer-in-charge (OIC), President Service Institute (PSI) at Subroto Park] on 11th March 2010 inviting tenders for the shop in question.On 17th March 2010 when the tenders were opened it was found that the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 5 were the only tenderers.On 23rd March 2010 the Petitioner gave a representation to the Respondents for allotment of the said shop in his favour.According to the Petitioner, on that very day i.e. 23rd March 2010 the Respondents displayed a list on the notice board of the PSI.The list of Camero SI Shop which is marked as Exhibit EW-5/2 does not bear any date and the same is not signed by anyone including Flt.Lt. Neha Rana.It appears that the Petitioner having failed in his attempt to manage the re-allotment of the shop in question for a further period of two years till 31st March 2012 as well as in extending the time for vacating the same beyond 31st May 2010, he put forward the present story and got the signatures of Flt.Lt. Neha Rana as well as the date of 23rd March 2010 forged/ superimposed on photocopy of list which is Annexure P-IIIA, Exhibit w-1/2 which was merely meant for verification of internal addresses and pass verification and the same nowhere recites that it is a list approved by competent authority regarding allotment/re- allotment of the shops situated in various shopping complexes of Subroto Park."According to the Petitioner this was a list showing the allotments of various shops including the shop in question.The Petitioners name figured at Serial No. 6 in the said list.Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition (at page 23 of the paper book) is a photocopy of the said list.The Petitioner states in para 6 of the writ petition that the said list "was also verified by the No. 2 Provost and Security Unit Personnel in person by visiting the shop in question."The Petitioner made a representation on 4 th May 2010 Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 2 of 25 questioning the facts concerning the address and identity of the Respondent No. 5 for allotment of a sweet and milk shop.He made a further representation on 5th May 2010 to the Respondents asking that the move to evict him from vacating the shop in question be deferred.The Petitioner made representations on 13th and 15th May 2010 and thereafter the present writ petition was filed.On 25th May 2010 the following order was passed by this Court:Mr. Khanna, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws attention to the list purportedly displayed by the Respondents which is annexed as Annexure P-IIIA (page 23 of the paper book) which seems to indicate that the Petitioner has been issued a licence for the period up to 31st March 2012 for a sweet shop.Mr. Ankur Chibber, learned counsel for the Respondents seeks time to obtain instructions and produce, if necessary, the original record which would show the factual position.3. List on 28th May, 2010."Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 3 of 25At the next date of hearing i.e. on 28th May 2010 the following order was passed:Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned counsel for the Respondents states that whatever in the file is only a photocopy of that document.She however hastens to add that in a communication dated 12th May 2010 the Petitioner was, with reference to that very list, informed as under:List attached with your application is not an official list and appears to be a part of some internal work done in the office and this list was not displayed on the notice board.The source from which internal documentation of SI has been procured may kindly be specified.What is still not clear in on what basis some internal note in the office was prepared, who prepared it and what happened subsequent to that list which ended up with the Petitioner not being allotted the shop in question although he bid for it.Till the next date of hearing status quo as of today shall be maintained.Order be given dasti."The averment in this application reads as under:That the Petitioner has not come to the Honble Court with clean hands.He has placed heavy reliance on a list at page 23 which is shown to be signed by Flt.Lt. Neha Rana.The original documents which even the Petitioner had annexed with his earlier letter neither has the date, nor the signature.He has placed heavy Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 5 of 25 reliance on a list at page 23 which is shown to be signed by Flt.Lt. Neha Rana.It is submitted that the Officer has not signed on the list.The original documents which even the Petitioner had annexed with his earlier letter neither has the date, nor the signature.The petition deserves to be dismissed on these grounds alone."As regards the tendering process it is stated in the said affidavit that for the shop in question at Ganga Complex, Subroto Park, bids were submitted by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 Mr. Puttu Singh who quoted the highest rate at Rs. 7,000/- per month whereas the Petitioner quoted Rs. 5,200/- per month.Consequently, the bid of Mr. Puttu Singh was accepted.The tenders were opened by the Board of Officers (BOO) on 17th March 2010 in the presence of the Petitioner himself.Consequently, the Petitioner was well aware that the quotation of Mr. Puttu Singh was higher.Therefore, as on Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 6 of 25 that date i.e. 17th March 2010 the Petitioner knew that he would have to vacate the shop in question forthwith.On 30th April 2010 a formal allotment of the shop in question was done in favour of Respondent No.5 by issuing a letter to him.This led to the Petitioner being issued a letter dated 3rd May 2010 asking him to vacate the shop in question.As regards the complaint of the Petitioner regarding the correct address of Mr. Puttu Singh, it is stated that a verification of the said address was carried out by the Provost, Air Force and was found to be correct.It was stated that the Petitioner was perhaps a political rival of Mr. Puttu Singh.He insisted that the address of Respondent No. 5 in the tender form was wrong.The affidavit of Respondents filed on 1st June 2010 further stated that by a letter dated 12th May 2010 the Petitioner was informed that the list (Annexure P IIIA) was not official.It was not understood as to how the Petitioner had come to possess the said list.The list annexed by the Petitioner along with the letter had neither date nor signatures.The Respondents stated that it was obvious that "the signatures and the date have been forged and Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 7 of 25 fraudulently put." It was explained that the said list was compiled by a clerk and was only intended for police verification of the present incumbents of the shops.It had nothing to do with the tender or allotment of shops.The list was just an internal work and was not meant to indicate any allotment since the allotment was through a proper process of tenders in which the Petitioner had also participated.Therefore, the date indicated under the list as 23rd March 2010 on page 23 shows the falsity of the forged documents.In fact, this list was also submitted in the 1st week of May, 2010 to the local police for verification and did bear the verification remarks.The Respondents stated that the original of the above list was produced before the Court along with the file notings.It was maintained that the Petitioner had illegally procured this list.Along with the short affidavit, an affidavit of Flt.Lt. Neha Rana was filed.It must be mentioned at this stage that Annexure P- III A filed by the Petitioner with the writ petition purportedly contains the signature of Flt.Lt. Neha Rana at the bottom of the document.In her affidavit she stated as under:That I am presently working at AFCAO, Subroto Park as Officer-Incharge, S.Il Fund.I am conversant Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 8 of 25 with the facts of the present case as I am directly connected with the allotment of the present shops.On 29th May 2010 I was shown a copy of the writ petition mentioned above for preparing parawise comments in order to respond to the averments in the petition.I was showed to see that the list bears my signatures at the bottom.I have never signed on any such list and my signatures have obviously been forged or transposed.I submit that earlier, during the course of official transactions I had written certain letters to the Petitioner such as letter for vacation etc. and those documents were indeed bearing my signatures.Since these documents were in possession of the Petitioner, he has misused them to transpose my signature on this list.As a responsible officer of the Indian Air Force I am giving this affidavit with complete responsibility that I have not signed as wrongly given by the Petitioner at page 23."On 4th June 2010 when the application for vacation of stay was listed, this Court passed the following order:In view of the affidavit filed today by Flight Lieutenant Neha Rana who has made a positive statement that her signature on the document at Annexure P-IIIA has been forged, this Court considers it necessary to have an enquiry conducted into the matter by the Registrar of this Court to be nominated by the Registrar General.The file be placed before the Registrar concerned on 2nd July 2010 for enquiring into whether the document at Annexure P-IIIA to the writ petition (page 23 of the Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 9 of 25 paper book) is forged.I will be open to the Registrar to get the view of any expert for this purpose.Meanwhile considering the affidavit that has now come on record, the interim order passed by this Court is modified and it is directed that the allotment made of the shop in question will be subject to further orders in this petition.Order dasti to the parties."Thereafter orders were passed in CM Application No. 9184 of 2010 permitting the Petitioner to obtain photocopies of all documents on record which were relevant to the case.The Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court after conducting a detailed enquiry submitted a report on 14th September 2010 and it was taken on record on the same date.A copy of the said report was given to learned counsel for the parties.The Petitioner was given time to file objections to the report.On 13th December 2010 the Registry was directed to supply copies of depositions of EW-1 to EW-10 to the Petitioner.The submissions of Mr. Rakesh Khanna, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for Respondents 1 to 4 have been heard.Mr. Khanna attacked the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) on several grounds.According to him, there were different versions regarding Annexure P-IIIA.The first version was that Flt.According to him, at that stage she did not dispute that the list had not been signed by her.The second version of Group Captain H.R. Vishwanath was that the list was in the computer and part of internal work for police verification of the present incumbents of the shops and was illegally taken by the Petitioner.According to Mr. Khanna when the original records were brought before this Court the original of Annexure P-IIIA was missing from the file and a photocopy of the said document was available.Mr. Khanna submitted that a comparison of the list of successful bidders with the list at Annexure P-III A showed that the latter "comprises of the names of the persons who on the date of preparation of the list were the list of allottees of the shops and not the present incumbents." Mr. Khanna asked why, when the Petitioners allotment came to an end on 31st March 2010, his name Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 11 of 25 would be sent for police verification along with all the allottees.The Petitioner had offered to pay the rebate (rent) of Rs. 7,000/- by his letter dated 23rd March 2010 and this was reflected in Annexure P-III A.He referred to the evidence of Flt.Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 12 of 25Mr. Khanna alleged that the Registrar (Vigilance) had not permitted the Petitioner to peruse the notings on the file which would have shown the movement of the file from time to time.It is further alleged that the notings portion would have shown that Flt.Lt. Neha Rana was guilty of removing her original signed letter from the official records.Also her original sample signatures were not submitted for forensic examination.Mr. Khanna submitted that the reports regarding superimposition of EW-5/2 and EW-1/2, did not throw light on EW-1 having the signatures of Flt.Lt. Neha Rana by superimposition or forgery.According to Mr. Khanna, the forensic examination of the signatures on the list as well as those on the two documents (EW-5/2 and EW-1/2) showed that they did not tally.It is alleged that the Respondents have taken a great risk by compromising with the national security by favouring Mr. Puttu Singh in a very high security area like Subroto Park.The letters from one Mrs. Omwati Lohia showing him as her tenant for 20 years showed that the address given by Mr. Puttu Singh was false.Mr. Khanna then attacked the depositions of LAC S.K. Patel, Flt.Lt. Gautam Salaria and Mr. Anurag Sharma, Handwriting Expert, CFSL, Rohini.He finally urged that the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) should be rejected and directions should be issued to the Respondents to allot the shop in question to the Petitioner.Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Respondents stood by the several affidavits filed by the Respondents.She also referred to the various paragraphs of the Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 13 of 25 report of the Registrar (Vigilance) which analyze the evidence placed before him in a great detail.The Respondents 1 to 4 have taken the categorical stand that the said list was an internal document, not displayed on the notice board of the Office of the PSI as claimed by the Petitioner.Lt. Neha Rana stated on affidavit that she never signed any such document.This was what led to the enquiry by the Registrar (Vigilance) of this Court into the genuineness of Annexure P-IIIA.Ten witnesses on behalf of the Respondents were examined by the Registrar (Vigilance) during his enquiry.The Petitioner filed the affidavits of himself (EW-1), Mr. Anil Kumar Gupta (EW-2), Mr. Sanjeev Kumar (EW-3) and Mr. Narsingh Jasoria (EW-4).These affidavits were to the effect that Annexure P-IIIA was displayed on the notice board of the PSI, Subroto Park.Before the Registrar (Vigilance) the Petitioner could not produce any person from the office of the PSI to prove the authenticity of the said list (Annexure P-IIIA) which was purportedly placed on the notice board.He stated that the said list was a photocopy and the signature of Flt.Neha Rana appearing on the said list was also not original but was a photocopied signature.During the enquiry he deposed that he had "removed photocopy of the list displayed on the notice board on 10th April 2010, got the same photocopied and thereafter, he again affixed the same list which was removed by him, on the notice board on same day." He further deposed that "he did not move any written application seeking permission to deposit the security amount, he made the representation on 11th May 2010 in the office of the Respondent seeking extension of the period to vacate the shop in question and also to verify the address of Mr. Puttu Singh despite the fact that he had no knowledge about the allotment of the shop in question to Mr. Puttu Singh." The Registrar (Vigilance) noted that the Petitioner improved his version during his further statement recorded on 6th August 2008 when he deposed that on 3rd May 2010 he came to know about the allotment of the shop in question to Mr. Puttu Singh when he went to the office of the PSI for depositing the rent.EW-3 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar had stated in his affidavit dated 16th July 2010 that the list was dated 23rd March 2010 but he deposed before the Registrar (Vigilance) that he is not sure as to whether any date was mentioned on the said list or not.According to him, the typed list was displaced on the notice board.Although both EW-4 Mr. Narsing Jasoria and EW-3 Mr. Sanjiv Kumar stated that they had taken a photocopy of the list at Annexure P-IIIA, they stated that "they were not supplied with a copy of the said list by the officials of the respondent and it was not possible to remove the list from the notice board as it was completely pasted with GUM."The Registrar (Vigilance) observed that it was not clear how EWs 3 and 4 took away photocopies of the list with them.He concluded that the testimonies of EW-2 to EW-4 were full of contradictions and did not inspire confidence.They were interested persons each being an unsuccessful bidder was likely to bear a grudge at not being allotted shops.A list that was completely pasted on a notice board could not have been easily removed and photocopied and pasted back as claimed by the Petitioner.This conclusion of the Registrar (Vigilance) could have been the only logical one to arrive at.Her stand was that the list showed the names of persons who were occupying the shops in different complexes and that it was not the admission list of allottees.It was never displayed on the notice board.During the enquiry, in response to a question during her cross-examination, Flt.Lt. Neha Rana stated that a list of successful bidders was prepared on 26th March 2010 and was signed by Flt.Lt. Gautam Salaria and MWO B S Chauhan, Member of the BOO.She stated that the list at Page 23 of the petition "does not show the names of the persons who were allotted the shop.But the said list shows the names of the persons who were occupying the shops in different complexes and the same was prepared for verification of address." Her statement was corroborated by the statements of EW-9 Gautam Salaria and EW-10 MWO B.S. Chauhan.The evidence is cogent and consistent.The so-called contradictions pointed out by Mr. Khanna are, on a careful examination of the depositions of these witnesses, not material.These witnesses offer a perfectly valid explanation as to what happened when the tenders were opened and finalized.Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 17 of 25Two scientific experts were summoned by the Registrar (Vigilance) from the office of the Central Forensic Scientific Laboratory (CFSL), CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.Mr. Anurag Sharma, Senior Scientific Officer in FSL, Rohini examined as EW-7, in response to a specific query by the Registrar (Vigilance) as to whether Annexure P-IIIA can be got photocopied from another document after it is removed from the notice board or not, submitted that there was no fiber disturbance on the questioned documents and "it does not seem to be removed from the notice board and got xeroxed." The other expert witness Mr. D.R. Handa (EW-8) deposed that the "possibility of transplantation of a genuine model of signature on Annexure P-IIIA cannot be ruled out."When Flt Lt. Neha Rana was examined by the Registrar (Vigilance) she was asked if after receiving the Petitioners letter dated 11th May 2010 she made enquiries regarding the photocopy list (Annexure P-IIIA) referred to by him.All the English words on this document are in original ink.It is this document which was perhaps photocopied to produce Annexure P-IIIA.However, the major difference between the two is that Ex. EW5/2 is undated and bears no signatures.He submitted the following report on 3rd September 2010:ii) The corresponding strokes of the letters are exactly on a similar position in both the questioned and the admitted body writing.The letters of the questioned documents marked Q-2 are exactly tallying with the admitted documents marked A-3 on their corresponding position on superimposition as revealed by Video Special comparator 5000."The Registrar (Vigilance) then concluded as under:The opinion of handwriting expert namely Mr. D.R. Handa (EW-8) who is having vast experience of 28 years in the field that the document Annexure P-IIIA (Exhibit EW-1/2)) is a reduced copy of the admitted English Body Writing i.e. EW-5/2 and that Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 20 of 25 the list Exhibit EW-1/2 and EW-5/2 are exactly tallying in their corresponding positions on superimposition as revealed by Video Special Comparator - 5000 and the relative spacing of the dot after the word "occuping" (mis-spelt) is exactly matching, peculiar vertical stroke of letter 4 are exacting matching at the relative position of the vertical line of the questioned document and A-3 (list of camero Sl Shops Exhibit EW-5/2).The report Exhibit EW-8/2 also recites that the ticked start of letter p in the word occuping (mis-spelt) also shows resemblance in admitted and the questioned body writings, the apostrophe stroke in the word "shll" is also exactly superimposing between the questioned and admitted writings, a peculiar relatively small vertical staff of the second letter I in the word "shll" is exactly similar between both sets of writings.The statement of EW-5 Flt.Neha Rana wherein she stated that the photocopy of list which was annexed by the Petitioner along with his representation, was having larger font size of the alphabetical letters mentioned therein, also seems probable as the Petitioner after coming into possession of photocopy of list Exhibit EW-5/2 may have got it photocopied again with reduction of its contents in size so as to look like a different list.It is an admitted fact that the Petitioner himself has retired from Air Force (as stated by him in para 2 of his affidavit filed during enquiry) as a Sergeant and he is supposed to be on visiting terms with some of Writ Petition (Civil) 3650/2010 21 of 25 the officials posted in PSI office at clerical level at least.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,097,038 |
CRL.M.C. 1600/2019 Page 3 of 3Upon notice, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1-State submits that respondent No.2, present in the Court, is the complainant/ first-informant of FIR in question and she has been identified to be so, by with SI Karan Pal on the basis of identity proof produced by her.Respondent No.2, present in the Court, submits that the dispute between the parties has been amicably resolved as today, she has received CRL.M.C. 1600/2019 Page 1 of 3 amount of 50,000/- by way of demand draft bearing No.305398, dated 26th November, 2018 drawn on Central Bank of India, Branch Angel Public School, Delhi from petitioners.As distinguished from serious offences, there may be criminal cases which have an overwhelming or predominant element of a civil dispute.They stand on a distinct footing insofar as the exercise of the inherent power to quash is concerned.Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations fall for quashing where parties have settled the dispute.In such a case, the High Court may quash the criminal proceeding if in view of the compromise between the disputants, the possibility of a conviction is remote and the continuation of a criminal proceeding would cause oppression and prejudice;".Since the subject matter of this FIR is essentially matrimonial, which now stands mutually and amicably settled between parties, therefore, continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question would be an exercise in futility.Accordingly, FIR No. 105/2017, under Sections 498-A/406/34 of CRL.M.C. 1600/2019 Page 2 of 3 IPC, registered at police station Hauz Khas, New Delhi and the proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed qua petitioners.CRL.M.C. 1600/2019 Page 2 of 3This petition and applications are accordingly disposed of.(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 27, 2019 r CRL.M.C. 1600/2019 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,097,190 |
As per the prosecution story, the accused Najuk Khan dragged the prosecutrix when she was asleep.On her shout, three persons Nanna Pal, Pramod Pal and Shishupal came there.At this time, applicant Kailash Pal and accused Chandan Pal stopped them and also slapped them.They also pointed a country made pistol at them.Therefore, Nanna Pal, Pramod Pal and Shishupal could not help the prosecutrix.This is the first application for regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.The applicant is in custody since 13.06.2015 in connection with Crime No.85/15 registered at Police Station Civil Line, Datia (M.P.) for the offences under Sections 376, 323, 506-B/34 of IPC and 25, 27 of Arms Act.Meanwhile, the accused Najuk Khan committed sexual intercourse with her.Accused Kailash Pal alongwith co- accused Chandal Pal and Najuk Khan after commission of the offence fled from the spot.The incident took on 11.6.2015 at 9.30 PM.The report was lodged on 12 th June, 2015, at about 2.30 PM.2 M.Cr.On behalf of the applicant it is submitted that the applicant is not attributed to commission of any offence of rape.The applicant be given the benefit of regular bail.On behalf of the State, the application is opposed on the ground that the applicant has been instrumental in commission of the offence.From the custody of the applicant fire arm has been seized.For arrest of the applicant, Rs.5000/- was declared as award.By Superintendent of Police Datia.On the same day the applicant has been arrested.On perusal of the MLC report dated 12.06.2015, it is opined by the Medical Officer that the prosecutrix was married and habit to sexual intercourse.No external or internal injury has been found.No definite opinion regarding the commission of sexual assault.No criminal antecedent of the applicant is available on record.Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of 3 M.Cr.C.No.8818/2015 the following conditions by the applicant:-3 M.Cr.If at all the applicant is found to breach any of the above conditions, the learned Trial Court would be at liberty to reconsider on the question of bail.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
391,012 |
The occurrence took place at 6.30 p.m. on 14-3-1977 near Jhanda Chauraha, Kachchi Sarak Mathura in front of the shop of appellant Bhagwan Singh on the road at a distance of about 11/2 kilo-metres the first information report was lodged the same day at 7.30 p.m. by Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 1), who is real younger brother of deceased Radhey Shyam.The prosecution contends that Tunda and Bhagwan Singh armed with knives attacked Radhey Shyam and killed him on the spot.Radhey Shyam and the first informant Ramesh Chandra (P.W. 1) were residents of Mohalla Maya Tila, Halan Ganj, Mathura.The house of the two appellants was also in their neighbourhood.The prosecution story is that Radhey Shyam somehow developed illicit relationship with Smt. Chando, the wife of appellant Tunda.In the upper portion of that shop Bhagwan Singh has his residence.This occurrence took place in front of this shop.It is contended that neighbouring shops were open and electric bulbs were lighted.On that day Vrindavan Rath Fair was held and in that connection Narain Singh (P.W. 2), who is sister's husband of deceased Radhey Shyam and Ramesh Chandra had visited Vrindavan.This Narain Singh is original resident of village Solara, District Gurgaon, in the State of Haryana.After seeing the fair he came to Mathura to visit the house of his in-laws.At about 6.30 p.m. the deceased along with Narain Singh and Ramesh Chandra was proceeding towards the market.When they reached in front of the shop of Bhagwari Singh appellant, both the appellants, who were present on the shop of Bhagwari Singh, jumped down from the shop with open knives crying that now the result of the mischief will be apparent.They started giving knife blows to Radhey Shyam till such time that he fell down on the road.Besides Ramesh Chandra and Narain Singh, two other persons viz. Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W. 3) and Kanhaiya (P.W.4) and some other persons and the shop keepers also saw the occurrence.The shop keepers, however, did not come on the spot and they remained crying on their shops.Basant Singh, father of the deceased, who by chance was coming from the same road also came there and tried to catch the culprits but they escaped.Radhey Shyam died on the spot.Ramesh Chandra went to his house to inform the other family members and there he prepared a written report Ext.Ka. 1 and with it went to Police Station Kotwali, Mathura, where he lodged it at 7.30 p.m. and a case was duly registered.Incised wound 1" x 1/4" x muscle deep on outer side right thigh lower third.Stomach was punctured at two places through and through and so also large intestine at several places.Under injury No. 1 the spleen was punctured.The place of occurrence is not disputed.JUDGMENT V.P. Mathur, J.Mr. O. P.Mehrotra, the then Sessions Judge, Mathura, vide his judgment and order dt. 4-7-1978, passed in Session Trial No. 208 of 1977, eonvicted the appellants under Section 302/34, I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life.Now they have come up through this appeal against that order.According to the prosecution case, Tunda and Bhagwan Singh are cousins.In their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.P.C. Tunda denies this fact and Bhagwan Singh admits it and no cross-examination has been made to the witnesses who have spoken about this fact.There was some sort of Panchayat and as a result of all this Tunda shifted from his house in the neighbourhood of the deceased, and went to live in his shop at Vrindavan Gate.About two months prior to this occurrence, Tunda started raising constructions in his house at Maya Tila and in that connection both Tunda and his wife, at different times started visiting the site of the construction.It is also said that taking advantage of this situation Smt. Chando again started coming to the house of the deceased.Tunda and Bhagwan Singh started suspecting resumption of the illicit relationship.One day prior to this occurrence i.e. 14-3-77, they visited Radhey Shyam and entered into an altercation with him and they were told by Radhey Shyam that Tunda should stop his wife's coming to him because it was not Radhey Shyam who was going to his Ghar.Both the appellants left the place in a huff after threatening Radhey Shyam with death if he dared come to Tunda's shop.There is an area known as Kachchi Sarak near the Jhanda crossing and there Bhagwan Singh has a shop.Mr. Chandramani (P.W. 6), Sub-Inspector who was present in the Thana at the time of lodging of the first information report, took up the investigation and the same day at 8.00 p.m. he reached the spot.Intimation of the lodging of the first information report was communicated by telephone to police outpost Vrindavan within whose area the place of occurrence lay.Mr. Chandramani took the dead body into custody, prepared Pancha-yatnama and then sent the dead body for autopsy.The following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body :Three punctured wounds, each lying 1" apart on epigestrium transversely in an area 5" x 2" each punctured wound measuring 1 1/4 x 3/4 x abdominal cavity deep on Epigestrium-Direction backwards.Stab wound 3/4" x 1/2" x muscle deep on outer side, right buttock upper part direction medially.Stab wound 1" x 1/2" x chest cavity on left side chest 3" x above left nipple direction backward.Incised wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep on right side front of skull 2" above right eyebrow, middle part.Incised wound 11/2" x 1/2" x bone on occipital protuberance.Incised wound 1 1/2" x 1/2" x bone deep on back of head left side 4" back of left ear.Stab wound 3/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep on left side chest back near middle of chest (near mid-line).Abrasion 1" x 1/2" on top of left shoulder.Stab wound 11/2" x 1/2" x abdominal cavity deep near anterior superior Iliac spine direction medically.The death was due to syncope as a result of haemorrhage and shock, which had resulted from the injuries sustained.Seven witnesses in all were examined in support of the prosecution case.Four of them were cited as eye-witnesses, namely Ramesh Chandra (P.W.1), Narain Singh (P.W. 2), Rajendra Prasad Sharma (P.W. 3) and Kanhaiya (P. W. 4).Out of them Rajendra Prasad Sharma and Kanhaiya went back upon their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and came up with the story that they did not see the actual incident.One of them said that he saw the dead body lying on the road at about 8.30 p.m. All other witnesses including the Investigating Officer and Dr. Shailendra Kumar are formal witnesses.Ramesh Chandra (P. W. 1) is younger brother of the deceased and informant of this case and Narain Singh (P.W. 2) is sister's husband of the deceased and Ramesh Chandra.Both of them are, therefore, interested and related witnesses but that will not be the only criterion to judge the worth of their testimony.The only effect of this will be that their statements will have to be read with greater care and caution.A very great emphasis has been laid by the learned counsel for the defence on the fact that Narain Singh has his residence about 60-70 miles away from Mathura in village Solara in the State of Haryana and he could not have been present on the spot at the time of the incident.Narain Singh's testimony is that he had started from his village early in the morning at 7.00 a.m. and arrived at Palwal at about 8 or 8.30 a.m. At about 8.45 in the morning he caught a bus at Palwal which was crossing from Delhi.It was a Haryana Roadways Bus and by it he reached Vrindavan near about 10.45 a.m. Then he saw the Rath fair and remained in the Mela up to 2.00 p.m. and after visiting some other places there, he came to Mathura and reached the place of his in-laws at about 3.30 p.m.2 to 5 have been examined by the defence to show that no Haryana Roadways Bus runs between Delhi and Vrindavan and that there is no regular stop of such bus at Vrindavan and hence the presence of Narain Singh witness on that day at Vrindavan and consequently in Mathura thereafter is highly improbable and impossible.The defence witness D.W. 2 is Sri Amir Chandra, Inspector, Haryana Roadways Bus Stand at Delhi.In the last line of his cross-examination he admits that from Delhi or Palwal tickets are not issued by Haryana Roadways for Vrindavan road but it is always possible for a passenger to obtain a ticket for Mathura and request the Conductor to have the bus stopped unscheduled at Vrindavan road which is known as Chhatikara and get down there.Similarly, D.W. 3, Sri Shyam Lal, Duty Clerk, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon in para No. 3 of his cross-examination says that from Gurgaon Buses run for Mathura at 7.15, 8.15, and 9.30 a.m. and those Buses pass through Palwal.He also gives out that Buses which run from Palwal to Mathura and Agra have to pass through Mathura Delhi Road.D.W. 4, Mr. Har Saran Singh, Traffic Manager, Haryana Roadways, Gurgaon, admits during his cross-examination that while coming from Palwal to Mathura Vrindavan Road is not a regular Bus stop of Haryana Roadways, nor a stop at request, nor any tickets are issued for Vrindavan or Vrindavan Road, but it is always possible to obtain a ticket for Mathura and with the permission of the Conductor to get down any where in between.Lastly D.W. 5 Sri Ramnath Mishra, Station in charge, U. P. Roadways Vrindavan admits that from Agra Road, Vrindavan Bus stand is 8 kilo metres away.During Rath Fair thousands of people visit Vrindavan and hundreds of them get down at Vrindavan Road and reach Vrindavan.In between Vrindavan Road and Vrindavan, by the side of the road, there are many famous places, worth being seen.From the testimony of these witnesses it is quite clear that from Palwal if one purchases ticket for Mathura and if he pleases the Conductor he can get down at Vrindavan Road and reach Vrindavan without any difficulty.No cross-examination was made with Narain Singh in this respect and the whole argument against possibility of his presence is based upon his testimony that he took ticket for Vrindavan and got down at Vrindavan.It is a matter of common knowledge that when people go to the Booking window asking for the ticket of their destination, they are clearly told that the conveyance does not stop where they want to go and yet if they may purchase ticket for a longer distance, they may go by the Bus.Hence if this witness obtained ticket for Mathura under the impression that he was going in for a ticket for Vrindavan and after requesting the Conductor got the bus stopped at Vrindavan Road and got down there and then reached the fair, there would be nothing unusual, unnatural or impossible for him.This witness does not belong to Mathura or Vrindavan.He is resident of a village in Haryana which is 60-70 miles away from Mathura.He is not alleged to be a regular or frequent visitor to Mathura or Vrindavan.Under these circumstances it would be too much to expect that he would differentiate between Vrindavan Road and Vrindavan.A perusal of the first information report would show that the name of Narain Singh is mentioned in it and actually the contention is that it was only to show the market to this guest of the family that the two brothers took him towards the Bazar.The Investigating Officer reached the spot without losing much time at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. and interrogated this witness after about 11 p.m. the same day.Hence undoubtedly the witness was present in Mathura at the house of the deceased where he was interrogated the same night.The inquest memo is on a prescribed form and in column No. 1 the time of occurrence and the time when the inquest is started, have to be mentioned.One day prior to this occurrence Tunda and Bhagwan Singh went to the house of the deceased, where in the presence of the father of the deceased they complained about the matter and they were promptly told that it was not Radhey Shyam who was going to visit Smt. Chando but Chando was visiting Radhey Shyam and Tunda should stop her from doing so.Further, Narain Singh could have no information about this matter.Ramesh Chandra's father has not been examined in this case.On behalf of the accused persons all these facts are denied.As against this, the defence version is that some Parnalas from the house of Ramesh Chandra and Radhey Shyam opened into the house of Tunda and in respect of the same there was a written agreement whereby Radhey Shyam's father had agreed to close those Parnalas as and when buildings were raised in the land of Tunda and he was asked to close the Parnalas.Obviously the other shops were open and those shop keepers would have witnessed the occurrence.They have not, however, supported the prosecution version and the Investigating Officer says that they denied having seen the occurrence and at least one refused to be a witness.Whatever may be the truth, but it is evident that the persons of the neighbourhood of the shop of Bhagwan Singh would be extemely reluctant to come into the witness box to support the prosecution case in which Bhagwan Singh was being accused of murder.Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that during election period Police Officers and officials remain extremely busy with arrangements for holding the elections.The Investigating Officer could have been examined on this aspect of the matter.The reasons is, however, obvious that the Circle Officer must have been busy and in any view of the matter if the Parcha has been promptly sent but was not looked into by the Circle Officer for a long time that will have no effect on the merit of the prosecution case now will it raise a doubt on the mere ground that it was seen by the Circle Officer on 22-3-77 and it cannot raise any presumption of the fact that it had not been sent from the police station on the date and at the time when it purports to have been sent.In view of what we have discussed above, we are convinced that both Ramesh Chandra and Narain Singh are telling truth about how the occurrence took place.Tunda and Bhagwan Singh armed with knives suddenly came out of the shop of Bhagwan Singh.It is, of course, apparently a coincidence that although Tunda has his own shop some distance away, he was at that time at the shop of Bhagwan Singh.There is no evidence to that effect on the record but the possibility that Tunda might have seen Ramesh Chandra, Narain Singh and Radhey Shyam going out of their house towards the market and might have suddenly come to the shop of Bhagwan Singh cannot be ruled out.The fact remains that both these accused persons came out of the shop of Bhagwan Singh armed with knives and attacked Radhey Shyam just when he was in the company of Ramesh Chandra and Narain Singh and they gave him persistent blows with knives as a result of which he fell down on the road and died.In our opinion, the case against the accused appellants is satisfactorily made out and they have rightly been convicted on the charge under Section 302/34 I.P.C The imprisonment for life awarded to them by way of sentence is just and proper and does not call for any interference.DW 1 Bhajan Lal is a worthless witness and has been rightly ignored by the learned Sessions Judge.He says that at about 8 or 8.30 p.m. the murder of Radhey Shyam took place in front of the shop of Bhagwan Singh.He claims that his own shop is 3 or 4 shops away from the place of incident on the Jhanda Wala Chauraha and on hearing the noise he came out and saw Radhey Shyam lying on the road and 4 and 5 persons running away.He also says that there was no electric light at that time and, therefore, he could not recognize those persons.During cross-examination he had to admit that he has no shop of his own.He claimed to be a partner with one Tribhuvan Dixit.There is nothing on record further to show that there is even a shop of Tribhuvan Dixit any where near the scene of occurrence.The story of partnership has not been established.He is unable even to name the servants who were working on the shop.He claims to have had an agreement of partnership, which has not been placed on record.At the time of his deposition he was living in Jaith.He says that after seeing the dead body he went straightway to his home and did not talk to anybody.He had to admit that in those days the shops used to close at 5.30 p.m. but claims that the shop of Tribhuvan Dixit used to remain open up to 10 or 11 p.m. Such a witness can always be procured and no reliance can be placed upon his testimony and in any view of the matter his evidence can only show that about 8 or 8.30 p.m. when he reached the spot he found the deceased lying on the road in front of the shop of Bhagwan Singh.This much is not against the prosecution version.In the result, the appeal is hereby dismissed.The conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to them by the learned Sessions Judge, Mathura on 4-7-1978 are upheld and confirmed.The two appellants are on bail.They shall surrender and be taken into custody to serve out their sentences and their surety deeds and personal bonds shall stand cancelled.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,103,462 |
The applicants herein have approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with FIR dated 13.05.2019 whereby offences against the applicants and 17 others were registered under provisions of the Indian Penal Code including Sections 307 and 395 thereof.While issuing notices in these applications, this Court had taken note of the fact that there were counter FIRs in the present case and that the complainant in the present case had himself later sworn an affidavit stating that when the incident occurred on 13.05.2019, some unknown persons had assaulted him and due to injury on his head, he had fallen unconscious.It is further stated in the said affidavit that he had named the accused persons on the basis of what he was told by other persons.Therefore, it becomes clear that the accused persons, including the applicants herein, have been named in the FIR based on hearsay information ::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 06:31:41 ::: 2 ABA363&364-19.odt received by the complainant.In the said affidavit, it has also stated by the complainant that his gold ornaments and other valuable material which were missing, were later found in his own car.This affidavit was filed before the Sessions Court.::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 06:31:41 :::Considering the aforesaid material, this Court is of the opinion that the present applications deserve to be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 06:31:41 :::JUDGE halwai::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 06:31:41 :::::: Uploaded on - 11/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/07/2019 06:31:41 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,109,235 |
The Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are brothers.The subject-matter of the FIR is thetransaction between the first informant's firm and the 3 entitiesnamely M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd., M/s. Lalit Polyester Pvt. Ltd. andM/s.The Petitioner Nos.3 and 4similarly resigned from being Directors of Sharp Industries Ltd. from21/03/2015 and 24/12/2013 respectively.The main contention of the Petitioners is that, this being atransaction which is purely civil in nature, the Respondent No.2 couldnot have lodged the FIR.In the FIR, there is no mention of any of thepending proceedings.Before referring to the submissions made by the parties, itis necessary to advert to the contents of the FIR.The FIR was initiallyregistered on 15/06/2016 with Marine Drive Police Station videC.R.No.195 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 406,418 and 420 read with Section 120B of the IPC and thereafter wastransferred to EOW where it was registered as C.R.No.58 of 2016under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 474 readwith Section 120B of the IPC.The Respondent No.2, in his FIR, hasstated that their firm was a distributor of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. andBilt Graphic Paper Products Ltd., Delhi.Around March 2011, thePetitioner No.1 contacted the Respondent No.2 and told him that hewas the Managing Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. and theywere in need of Chromo Paper for packaging.The Petitioner No.1visited the Respondent No.2's office at Nariman Point, Mumbai andinformed him that M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. used to supplypackaging material to various 'gutkha' companies and their businesswas growing.The Petitioner No.1 invited the Respondent No.2 to hisoffice for discussion for purchase of Chromo Paper.Accordingly, theRespondent No.2 visited the Petitioner No.1's office.In fact, many a cheatings were committed in the course of commercial and also money transactions.DATE :- 03 APRIL, 2018JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :-1. Rule, having regard to the relief sought, made returnableforthwith and heard by the consent of the learned Counsel for theparties.The Petitioners have filed this Petition for quashing of theFIR being C.R.No.58 of 2016 registered with the Economic OffencesWing (for short, 'EOW') under Sections 406, 409, 418, 420, 465, 467,URS 1 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 2 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18468, 471 and 474 read with Section 120B of the IPC.The said FIRwas lodged by the Respondent No.2 Sumit Nikunj Shah in his capacityas the Head of Operations of M/s. Shambhulal A. Shah & Co., which isa partnership firm.The first informant's father and two uncles are thepartners of the said firm.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::According to the Petitioners, the aforementioned 3companies purchased Chromo Paper from the first informant's firmworth Rs.17,01,73,377/- during the period from March 2012 up toJuly 2012 and that the total amount of Rs.11,47,04,308/- was paidand the balance amount of Rs.5,54,69,069/- remained to be paid.According to the Petitioners, 9 cheques were given to the RespondentNo.2 in the year 2011 towards security deposit; which were used bythe Respondent No.2 to launch false proceedings under Section 138read with Section 141 of the Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, 'NIAct').In the Petition, the Petitioners have enumerated thelitigation which is pending between the parties.These proceedingsare initiated either by the firm of the Respondent No.2 or the partnersof the firm against the aforementioned entities connected with thePetitioners and the Petitioners themselves, though differentproceedings are filed against different Petitioners.These proceedingsare as follows :-::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::All these cases are pending before the learned MetropolitanMagistrate, 33rd Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai and in all these casesdifferent Petitioners are made accused.Apart from these Court proceedings, Summary SuitNo.867 of 2015, Summary Suit No.872 of 2015 and Company PetitionNo.1059 of 2015 are pending before this Court on the Original Side.We have heard Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, learned SeniorAdvocate instructed by Ms. Gunjan Mangla for the Petitioners, Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, learned Addl.P. P. for State - Respondent No.1 andMr.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::The PetitionerNo.1 told the Respondent No.2 that their company was in need of 500URS 5 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 6 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18Metric Tonne (MT) of Chromo Paper.On 05/04/2011, theRespondent No.2 received an email sent by the Petitioner No.4 placinga trial order of 3 MT of Chromo Paper.In the said email, it wasmentioned that the Petitioner No.1 was the Managing Director of thesaid company.The Respondent No.2 supplied the material and thebill was promptly paid on that occasion.In December 2011, thePetitioner Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 met the Respondent No.2 and his uncle inthe presence of the officers of the aforementioned BallarpurIndustries.In the meeting, the Petitioner No.1 told the RespondentNo.2 that they wanted 1000 MT paper worth Rs.10 Crores.ThePetitioner No.1 also assured of prompt payment.From February2012, the Petitioner No.1 started placing big orders and alsorequested to supply paper to other two companies i.e. M/s. LalitPolyester Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Ridhi Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. as well.Between March 2012 to July 2012, the Chromo Paper worth aboutRs.8 Crores was supplied by the Respondent No.2's firm.However,the payment was not made by the Petitioners and their companies.The Respondent No.2 found out theURS 6 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 7 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18new office of the Petitioner No.1 and again asked for his outstandingdues.Even at that time, further assurance was given to him but theamount was not paid.It is further mentioned in the FIR that thePetitioner Nos.1 and 4 issued 9 cheques of Punjab National Bank andFederal Bank amounting to Rs.4,66,12,785/-.However, thesecheques were dishonoured.At that time, the Respondent No.2was informed that the Petitioner Nos.1 and 4 were not the Directors ofM/s.Sharp Industries Ltd. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 wasconvinced that the Petitioners had no intention to make the paymentof the dues and were cheating him.According to the RespondentNo.2, the Petitioner No.1 falsely represented that he was theManaging Director of M/s. Sharp Industries Ltd. when he had alreadyresigned.According to the Respondent No.2, all the Petitioners madefalse representations, induced the Respondent No.2 to supply hugequantity of Chromo Paper, made false representation, deliberatelygave cheques which were not honoured and thus caused wrongful lossto the tune of Rs.7,17,09,029/-.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::According to Mr. Jethmalani,therefore, it was not open for the Respondent No.2 to lodge this FIR,particularly in view of the fact that no steps were pursued in thoseCourts to get the process issued under various sections of the IPC.Mr.Jethmalani further submitted that after having restricted theirURS 8 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 9 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18relief for the offences under the NI Act, the Respondent No.2 was notright in filing the FIR and therefore the FIR was liable to be quashed.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::The purchase order was placed on behalf of M/s.After the first trialorder was fulfilled by the Respondent No.2's firm, the PetitionersURS 16 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 17 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18placed huge orders when they had no intention to make the fullpayment in respect of the same.This, according to Mr. Ponda, was aclear inducement amounting to cheating.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::It was alleged in the said complaint that theaccused had induced the complainant to believe that he was a genuinedealer but his intentions were not clear.In that case also, the8 AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1216 (1)URS 17 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 18 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18argument was advanced that it was purely a commercial transactionand no offence was made out.The Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt withthe submissions in paragraph nos.10 to 13 of the Judgment thus :::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::It may be that the facts narrated in the present complaint would as well reveal a commercial transaction or money transaction.A cheats."The High Court seems to have adopted a strictly hypertechnical approach and sieved the complaint through a cullendar of finest gauzes for testing the ingredients under Section 415, IPC.Such an endeavour may beURS 18 of 26 ::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 ::: 19 WP 2906-17 Judgment.doc-18 justified during trial, but certainly not during the stage of investigation.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::Placing the first purchase order on the trial basiswas clearly a ploy to induce the Respondent No.2's firm to enter intobigger transaction.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::It has to be noted that the Petitioner No.1 had entered intothe Consent Terms with the Respondent No.2's firm accepting theirliability and making commitment of fulfilling the same.There isconsiderable force in the submission of Mr. Ponda that the Petitionershave dishonestly resiled from their commitment.It cannot be lostsight of the fact that some of the Petitioners were granted bail by thelearned Magistrate based on the submission made by the parties thatthe matter was settled i.e. on the basis of the Consent Terms.Suchbail orders were not passed based on consideration of the merits ofthe case.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::After considering the allegations in the FIR, we are of theview that right from the inception, the Petitioners had induced theRespondent No.2 in parting with huge quantity of Chromo Paper.Considering therequest, we are inclined to extend the ad-interim relief granted to thePetitioners by the previous order.::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 00:53:02 :::
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
391,096 |
JUDGMENT N.G. Nandi, J.(1) This criminal revision petition under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as " the Code"), is directed against the framing of charge on 3.11.1996 u/Secs.An atmosphere of terror was created to push her into taking the extreme step.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
39,110,668 |
The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Subal Baidya, J)
|
['Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 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.