id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
1,607,312 |
It so happens that the respondents were earlier arrested on 28th August 1981, by the Special Staff of West District on the basis of a F.I.R. dated 28th August 1981, recorded at Police Station Nangloi.It was then found that they were also the accused in the F.I.R. recorded at Police Station Nizammuddin.The Station House Officer.Nizzammuddin Police Station moved the Magistrate for fixing a date for holding an identification parade.The Magistrate ordered on 29th August 1981, that the identification parade should be held on 1st September 1981, in the Jail and the Superintendent should be informed.On that very date, there was an application that the arrested persons be kept in judicial custody for the purpose of holding the identification parade and the request for an order for police custody should be kept pending.On the date fixed for the identification parade, the respondents refused to join the same and, on 2nd September 1981, a prayer was made to the Magistrate to direct the respondents to be remanded to police custody for a period of seven days to facilitate recovery of case property, etc. The Magistrate ordered that since the respondents' counsel wanted to argue this point the accused should be remanded to judicial custody till 4th September 1981, on which date this question would be dealt with.The State then moved the present petition to this Court.The accused also agreed to join the identification parade.On principle.I can see no difference at all between the two types of cases.Petition allowed.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
160,734,030 |
Naval Kishore, a bachelor, then aged 26 years old, was driving truck bearing registration No.HR-38J-0744, on 24.05.2006 on the Bombay-Nagpur-Highway when it came to be involved in a collision against another truck bearing registration No.CG-04G-3863, admittedly insured against third party risk for the period in question with the appellant insurance company (insurer), the accident resulting in death of Naval Kishore, which became the subject matter of the investigation of the FIR No.59/2006 for offences punishable under Sections 304-A/334/279/338/400/184 of Indian Penal Code, 1806 (IPC) registered with Police Station Muktai Nagar, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra.Noticeably, the third respondent herein was the driver of the said truck, it being registered in the name of the fourth respondent, MAC Appeal No. 105/2010 Page 1 of 4 at whose instance the appellant insurance company had issued the insurance policy.MAC Appeal No. 105/2010 Page 1 of 4The tribunal held inquiry and on the basis of evidence led, by judgment dated 22.10.2009, found the third and fourth respondents herein to be jointly and severally liable, they being the principal tortfeasor and the person vicariously liable respectively.The tribunal awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.3,05,216/-, fastening the liability on the appellant to indemnify and pay with interest to the claimants.The insurer, by the appeal at hand, has questioned the judgment of the tribunal and submits that in absence of an eye witness, the findings on the issue of negligence could not have been returned.It is also the contention of the insurer that on the basis of evidence led by it through two witnesses Ashok Sharma (R3W1) and Rathindre Mohan Goswami (R3W2), the tribunal should have held that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and exonerated the insurer.The prime ground urged in this regard is that the driving licence which was valid for the period 21.10.2005 to 20.10.2008 was a licence that had been renewed on the basis of document previously presented to the transport authority as a licence earlier issued which, however, upon verification, was found to be fake.MAC Appeal No. 105/2010 Page 2 of 4It is not correct on the part of the insurer to contend that if there is no eye witness available, an accident claim case cannot be maintained.The involvement of the offending vehicle or the negligence on the part of its driver can be brought home even in absence of the eye witness account.The principle of res ipsa loquitor can be invoked to show from the facts and circumstances which are proved by other material on record the involvement of the vehicle or negligence on the part of its driver.This is precisely what has been the basis of the findings, returned in the present case which consequently do not call for any interference.The other issue is covered by a number of judgments of this court in similar fact situation including the one passed in M/S The New India Assurance Company Limited versus Zakir Hussain & Anr, CM(M) 1104/2013, decided on 12th July, 2017, the observations in paras 3 and 4 being of import are extracted as under:-It appears that from the evidence led during the inquiry it was brought out that the driving license had been obtained by the first respondent on the basis of a document which was fake.Fact remains that the transport authority through its official confirmed before the tribunal in the inquiry that the driving license for the period in question was valid and effective.MAC Appeal No. 105/2010 Page 3 of 4By order dated 23.02.2010, the insurance company had been directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with upto date interest.By subsequent order dated 07.09.2015, fifty per cent (50%) of the awarded amount was released to the first respondent.The statutory amount shall be refunded to the appellant insurance company.The appeal stands disposed of in above terms.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,607,435 |
It has beenalleged that he was tortured by the police of the said policestation and was also forced to sign certain blank stamppapers.Wife of Babu Lal Jaiswal, who is the revisionist in thepresent case approached the various police officers and theDistrict Magistrate of Chitakoot, but in vain.This criminal revision is directed against the order dated5.5.2001 passed by the learned Additional C.J.M.,Chitrakootin Criminal Case No.278 of 2001, J.P.Yadav Vs.Dharamveer, P.S.Karvi, Chitrakoot.On that dateeven in the revised list learned counsel for opposite party nos.2 to 4 were absent.Learned counsel for the revisionist and thelearned A.G.A. were present who were heard.It appears that during the investigation of this case Babu LalJaiswal was called by the police of P.S.Karvi, Chaitrakootwhere he was detained for some ten days illegally.She also sent letters to the Human Rights Commission and to the high-upsin the government.Ultimately an F.I.R. was lodged with thepolice of P.S. Karvi, Chitrakoot under Section 343 I.P.C. atcase crime No.280 of 1999 by one J.P.Yadav, Inspector,C.B.C.I.D., Allahabad against Dharamvir Singh the then C.O.of Karvi and Narendra Kumar Singh the then S.H.O. of thesaid police station.The learnedMagistrate issued notice to the complainant of the caseJ.P.Yadav.He did not appear but sent his consent that thefinal report be accepted.It appears that no notice was issuedto the person aggrieved and the revisionist appeared beforethe learned Magistrate on her own.The learned Magistrate while disposing of thematter accepted the final report vide his impugned orderdated 5.5.2001 after rejecting the application under Section473 Cr.P.C. which was moved before him by the revisionistwith the request that the delay in filing the final report byC.B.C.I.D. before him be condoned.Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the present revision hasbeen filed.I have gone through the impugned order.In the instant case ifthe facts are summarised it will be concluded that an F.I.R.under Section 343 I.P.C. was lodged at the police station forwhich the maximum punishment prescribed is animprisonment for 2 years or fine or both.In the order impugned the learnedMagistrate has said that the aggrieved party did not adduceany evidence in support of her version.The impugned order dated 5.5.2001is quashed and set aside.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,479,527 |
(07.07.2017) This Criminal Revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has been filed against the judgment dated 19.05.2016 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Mungawali District Ashok Nagar in Criminal Appeal No. 117/2015, affirming the judgment dated 17.10.2015 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali, District Ashok Nagar in criminal case No. 83/2014 by which applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 509 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment, with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation.2- The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant is working as a teacher in Vidhya Convent High School, Badarwas District Ashok Nagar.procession of the students of school was passing through the market, the applicant with intend to insult the modesty of complainant used filthy words against her.The incident was reported to the Police Station Bahadurpur and a case was registered for the offence punishable under Section 354-A (1) (iv) of IPC.On completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungawali district Ashok Nagar.After framing of charges and recording of evidence, offence under Section 509 of IPC was found proved and the applicant was convicted as stated herein above.3- An appeal was preferred by the present applicant against the judgment dated 17.10.2015, which was dismissed by the appellate court vide impugned judgment.Hence, the revision petition.There was previous enmity between the parties and the applicant shall maintain a good behavior in future.Therefore, since applicant has already served approximately 12 days jail sentence, same be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and the amount of fine may be reasonably enhanced.-( 3 )- Cr.8- Hence, on the basis of material available on record, the courts below have not committed any error in convicting the applicant under Section 509 of IPC.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,485,874 |
Item no. 25 Ct.And In Re:-The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,487,910 |
Vide the impugned the judgment dated 22.01.2005 of the then learned ASJ, Delhi in relation to FIR No.854/2002, PS Saraswati Vihar in State Case No.37/2004 in which there were seven persons arrayed as accused i.e. Alamgir, Ismail Sheikh, Abul Aakan, Saidul, Md. Dulal, Aslam, Abul @ Kabir, vide the said impugned judgment, the accused persons Ismail Sheikh, the appellant of Crl.A.386/2005, Md. Dulal, appellant of Crl.A.1006/2006 and Saidul, appellant of Crl.A.789/2005 presently under consideration before this Court were held guilty for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 395/397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all the four accused persons i.e. Alamgir, Abul Aakan, Aslam, Abul @ Kabir were granted benefit of doubt and acquitted.Submissions in relation to Ismail Sheikh were made by learned counsel on 13.06.2018 and have been reiterated today CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 2 of 18 also by the learned counsel on his behalf submitting to the effect that the charges qua the commission of offences punishable under Sections 395/397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 against Ismail Sheikh, s/o Afsar Ali have not been established even remotely and that the said appellant is entitled to be acquitted.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 2 of 18In terms of proceedings dated 04.06.2018, the nominal roll of the appellant was called for which indicates that he has already completed his sentence imposed vide impugned judgment dated 22.01.2005 whereby the said appellant along with two other appellants i.e. Md. Dulal and Saidul was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default of the payment of the said fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months with the benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC, 1973 having been given to the convicts.On behalf of the appellant of Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 3 of 18 Md. Dulal and that the stated diamond ring taken out by the appellant Md. Dulal from Praful Khosla, PW-8 has not even been recovered.It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that in any event, the charges against the said appellant qua the conviction under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 cannot stand in any manner inasmuch as there is no specification of the deadly weapon of offence allegedly utilised by the said appellant during the course of the dacoity.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 3 of 18As regards the appellant Saidul @ Afzal, in view of the nominal roll that has been received for the date 06.06.2018 which indicated that the appellant was presently undergoing life sentence in relation to FIR No.849/2002, PS Saraswati Vihar, production warrants were issued for the production of the said appellant for the date 13.06.2018 CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 4 of 18 and he was so produced and is present today as well.The appellant had submitted on 13.06.2018 and once again he reiterated that he does not seek to contest the appeal and had submitted on 13.06.2018 that he had deposited the fine of Rs.500/-, which was not so reflected in the nominal roll.The report has thus been called for from the Superintendent Jail, Delhi.It has been reported vide the said nominal roll that the substantive sentence of this appellant has been completed on 22.09.2008 but that the fine sentence i.e. a fine of Rs.500/- and in the event of non-payment of fine, of three months of Rigorous Imprisonment was still pending.In view of the submissions that was made by the appellant that he had deposited the fine, the report was called for from the Superintendent Jail, Delhi, it is indicated that the appellant had made a request in the early morning of 14.06.2018 i.e. today with the report from the Superintendent Jail being of the date 14.06.2018 for the deposit of fine of Rs.500/- imposed in the instant case, the said amount had been deducted from his Prisoner's property account and the same would be deposited in the Government fund today itself.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 4 of 18CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 5 of 18The facts as put forth in relation to FIR No.854/2002, PS Saraswati Vihar have been succinctly brought forth through the impugned judgment dated 22.01.2005 of the then learned ASJ which indicate to the effect that on the night intervening between 24/25.11.2002, the persons who had come were armed with deadly weapon like pistols and knives and they looted jewellery belonging to Shakuntla Khosla and her mother Smt. Saraswati Khosla and her son Praful Khosla and that her son Praful Khosla examined as PW-8, sustained injuries on his left arm in the incident and had been taken to the Jaipur Golden Hospital and was examined by Dr. Ashok Tandon, PW-11 vide MLC Ex.PW11/A. Information of the said incident is indicated to have been communicated to PS Saraswati Vihar whereafter the police arrived at the spot and Smt. Shkuntla Khosla made her statement as Ex.PW6/A to the Investigating Officer and the FIR was thus registered on the basis of the same on 25.11.2002 at 7:55am.It has been indicated further that one of the persons had left a muffler at the spot and so were one empty cartridge and some pellets, which were seized vide the seizure memo Ex.PW7/A and Ex.PW7/B and seven persons arrayed as accused in this case, are indicated to have been arrested on 08.12.2002 while they were sitting in Jheel Wala Park near Rashmi Apartments, Saraswati Vihar and on the interrogation, they made disclosures about their involvement in the instant case and were produced in Court and remanded in police custody and it was alleged that on 08.12.2002, the accused persons led the police to D-24, Shaheen Bagh, Okhla and produced a packet containing six gold bangles, which were taken into possession vide CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 6 of 18 memo Ex.PW1/E and the said bangles were later on identified by Smt. Shakuntla Khosla, examined as PW-6, in the TIP conducted by learned MM in the instant case.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 8 of 18 the person who had removed gold bangles from her hands and also identified those gold bangles Ex.P1/1-5 as five of the eight bangles and Ex.P2 as one of two bangles which have been released to her on superdari.On being cross examined she has stated that the miscreants were armed with knives and pistols but she could not say who was armed with the knife and who was armed with the pistol and that there were five persons inside the house and that five persons had covered their faces with scarf and that "she was categorical about Ismail Sheikh" and 100% sure about his identity but about the other boy she was not sure whether he was there or not and she has further stated that she was not sure in relation to the involvement of the appellant Saidul who has already stated on 13.06.2018 and reiterated today also that he does not seek to contest the appeal.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 7 of 18CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 8 of 18The witness PW-7 Vipul Khosla in his testimony has testified to the effect that on 24.11.2002 when they retired to bed in the night around 3:30 am, they heard cries from the lobby and on hearing the cries, he and his mother Dr. Shakuntala PW-6 went out from bedroom to the lobby and he saw that his maternal grandmother Smt. Saraswati Sachdev had been caught hold off by two persons and three of four persons were standing in the lobby and when he came out of the room, one miscreant put a pistol on his head and the miscreants threatened that if they would raise alarm they would kill them and this witness further stated that in the meantime his brother Praful Khosla and his wife also came out to the lobby and that the miscreants removed the gold bangles from the hand of his mother Dr. Shakuntala Khosla and CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 9 of 18 removed the gold chain and gold bangles of his Nani, i.e. of Smt. Saraswati Sachdev and they also removed the diamond ring of his brother Praful (i.e. PW-8) and he further stated that meanwhile his nani somehow escaped and went to her room and bolted it from inside and that the miscreants became nervous and went to the room of his Nani and he, his mother and his sister-in-law went out to the door to the right side and that his brother went out through the drawing room on the left side and that one of the miscreants caused injury to his brother Praful with a knife and also fired at him and the miscreants got panicky and started running away.He further stated that they were five boys who were present at that time and he also testified to the effect that the miscreants had left an empty cartridge, pellets and a muffler at the spot which were seized by the police and the sketch of the empty cartridge was also prepared, which was signed by him.On being cross examined, this witness stated that he had identified the five persons, that he had identified i.e. Alamgir, Abdul Agnan, Dulal, Saidul and Aslam whom he pointed out and stated that there were two others whom he could not identify.He further stated that as far as he could remember only the accused Saidul covered his face with the red muffler and the other persons had not covered their faces and he further stated that the accused Saidul put the pistol on his head and he had covered only his face below the nose and he also stated that the accused Saidul had a pistol in his hand but he categorically denied that he had wrongly identified the accused persons.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 18 of 18Thus the instant appellant has also undergone the entire sentence imposed vide the impugned order on sentence dated 22.01.2005 of seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 6 of 18It is indicated as per record that the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in support of its contention i.e. PW-6 Smt. Shakuntla Khosla, PW-7 Vipul Khosla, PW-8 Praful Khosla who deposed in relation to the occurrence and PW-1 Constable Vinod Kumar, PW-5 HC Rajbir Singh, PW-10 ASI Jai Singh who were present at the time of the arrest of the accused persons from Jheel Wala Park on 08.12.2002 and PW-1 Constable Vinod Kumar and PW-12 Inspector Suresh Kumar Banta were put forth as being witnesses of the recovery of stolen bangles from Shaheen Bagh.The learned trial Court vide the impugned judgment itself held the recovery of the stolen property put forth by the prosecution through investigation conducted to be wholly insufficient in the mode and manner that the same had been conducted observing to the effect that the evidence regarding arrest of the accused persons, disclosure allegedly made by them and the recovery of the stolen property was not very convincing inasmuch as the disclosure statement Ex.PW1/H to PW1/N were more or less verbatim reproduction of each other and that such identical versions of the incident could not have been given by seven different persons in the ordinary course and that Inspector SK Banta who was categorical in relation to recovery of stolen bangles, was unable to identify all the accused persons and could not remember whether the police had gone to Okhla for recovery in the morning or in the evening and was unable CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 7 of 18 to recollect whether the room from where the alleged recovery was made was found locked or open whereas another witness PW-1 Constable Vinod Kumar stated that the packet containing the bangles was recovered from a trunk which was locked but was unable to state as to who produced the key of the trunk.Apparently as observed vide the impugned judgment, the evidence led by the prosecution in relation to the alleged recovery of stolen property is insufficient in relation to the recovery of the stolen articles from the appellant herein.The appellants Saidul and Ismail Sheikh were duly identified by PW-6 Dr. Shakuntla Khosla as being amongst those boys who surrounded her and her son Vipul Khosla in the lobby and stated that they were having knives and pistols and also stated that in the meantime, his son Praful and his wife Sonia came out of their bedroom into the lobby and that the boys who had surrounded them started threatening them to hand over whatever they had, else they would kill them and those boys removed the diamond ring of her son Praful and one of them removed eight gold bangles from her hand.She also testified to the effect that she had also seen that somebody had caused stab injuries on the left hand of her son Praful and he was bleeding and that they fired twice and thrice and they ran away.She categorically identified the accused i.e. convict/appellant Ismail Sheikh, appellant of Crl.A.386/2005 as being CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 9 of 18CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 10 of 18PW-8 Sh.Praful Khosla testified in relation to the occurrence on the night intervening 24th/25th November, 2002 and stated inter alia to the fact that while he was sleeping in his bed room and that his wife opened the door of his room and saw that there were five or six persons in the lobby and one of them had caught hold of his brother Vipul i.e. PW-7 and after seeing this he had locked his room from inside and picked up his mobile phone to inform the police but in the meantime there were shouts from the lobby asking him to open the door of the bedroom or else they would kill them and he had opened the door towards the lobby, and he and his wife came out from the lobby and that one of the miscreants caught hold of him and put a pistol on his head and he was taken near the dining table and one boy who had covered his face with the muffler came to him and removed his diamond ring and tried to tie his hands but he could not properly tie his hand and he further stated that in the meantime his Nani escaped and ran towards her room and bolted the room and that all the miscreants ran towards the door of his nani and tried to break it open and that he had run out and the miscreants came behind him and one of them caused injuries on his hand with a knife.This witness further stated that he raised an alarm and his mother and brother also raised an alarm and the miscreants ran away and they were taken to Jaipur Golden Hospital.This witness has further categorically testified that the accused Saidul i.e. one of the boys, present before this Court who has stated that he does not seek to contest his appeal, had put the pistol on his head when he came out into the lobby.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 11 of 18This witness categorically pointed out to the accused Dulal i.e. the appellant in Crl.A. 1006/2006 presently under consideration.He also stated that two or three miscreants had pistols in their hands and the others had long knives.During cross examination he stated that the total number of miscreants was five to seven and he was not sure about the exact number and that as far as he can remember, the face of three persons was uncovered and the faces of the other persons might have been covered.He identified three appellants of the appeal presently under consideration i.e. Saidul, Mohd. Dulal, Ismail Sheikh as being the three persons involved there who had their faces without cover.He stated that these persons were not known by him before the date of the occurrence and he had seen them thereafter when he had come to the Court.He categorically denied that he had wrongly identified the accused person at the instance of the police.As observed hereinabove, PW-11 Dr. Ashok Tandon, Jaipur Golden Hospital, Rohini had examined Praful Khosla on 25.11.2002 in relation to the injuries sustained by him of a lacerated wound with clear cut margin, spindle shaped 7x1 cm.on extensor surface of left forearm and it having been observed by him that the wrist with left little finger was diminished and there was active bleeding was observed and he opined that the injuries sustained by Praful Khosla were grievous in nature vide the MLC Ex. PW11/A prepared by him.The said MLC No. 5908 of the Jaipur Golden Hospital Ex. PW11/A is on the record and indicates that it has been opined thereon in relation to Praful Khosla that the injuries sustained by the said person were CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 12 of 18 opined to be grievous with lacerated wound as observed hereinabove with active bleeding.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 12 of 18The entire record thus consistently brings forth the factum of the incident having taken place as deposed by PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8 and there appears no reason whatsoever to disbelieve their testimonies as there is nothing on the record to indicate that they had any inimical terms with any of the appellants and or they had any reason to falsely implicate the appellants in the instant case.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 13 of 18A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 14 of 18 as being the boy who put the pistol on his head.He also testified to the fact that as far as he could remember the knife injury to him had also been caused to him by Saidul.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 14 of 18Though the charges were framed against the appellants and the other accused persons Alamgir, Abul Aakan and Aslam and Abul @ Kabir in relation to the alleged commission of the offence punishable under Section 412 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; none of the accused including the appellant have been convicted in relation thereto.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 15 of 18Though, undoubtedly, in terms of the said verdict and in terms of Section 397 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 the presence of any injury per se is not essential and the use of weapon by an offender for creating terror in the mind of victim is sufficient with it also not being required to be shown whether the weapon was actually used for cutting, stabbing or shooting, as the case may be as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashfaq v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) AIR 2004 SC 1253, nevertheless as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Dilawar Singh Vs.The testimonies thus on the record do not substantially bring forth the allegations against Md. Dulal qua the offence punishable under Section 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860 in relation to the specific deadly weapon utilized by him.The conviction of Md. Dulal under Sectin 397 Indian Penal Code, 1860, 1860 is thus set aside.As observed herein, the appellant Ismail Sheikh has also been held to have been present in the commission of the dacoity at the time CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 16 of 18As per the nominal roll received, the appellant Ismail Sheikh has already undergone the entire period of sentence.Nothing more survives in the instant appeal.The impugned judgment and impugned order on sentence are modified thus to the extent qua the conviction of this appellant Ismail Sheikh having been upheld too qua the commission of the offence punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 alone.To similar effect is the conclusion arrived at in Crl.The conviction against CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 17 of 18 him under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is set aside.This appellant too has however, already completed his sentence on 13.08.2009 and nothing more survives in the instant appeal thus as well.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 17 of 18Copy of this order be sent to the Superintendent, Central Jail, Tihar Delhi.ANU MALHOTRA, J JUNE 14, 2018 vm/p CRL.A 386/2005, Crl.A 789/2005 & Crl 1006/2006 Page 18 of 18
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,488,580 |
The FIR lodged by non-applicant No.2 may be quashed and the applicant No.2 may be discharged from the offences, as mentioned above.The only thing is that they have purchased the tickets from a travel agent, who has played fraud in the matter.They are in jail for the last one year and in spite of bail order granted by this Court, as they do not have local contacts and they do not have financial resources, they are languishing in jail.The F.I.R. lodged in the matter reads as under:-" 12 First Information contents izFke lwpuk rF; eSa Fkkuk vijk/k 'kk[kk bUnkSj esa bUpktZ Fkkuk izFkkjh ds in ij inLFk gwWA Jheku vfrfjDr iqfyl v/kh{kd vijk/k bUnkSj ds i= dz- 3552@16 fnukad 20-12-16 ds }kjk vkosnd Vh-ds- tks'k izksik;Vj tks'k VsoYl bUnkSj dk vkosnu i= izkIr gqvk ftlds voyksdu ls ik;k x;k fd vkosnd dh esy vkbZ Mh josedomesticgmail.com ij fnukad 5-12-2016 dsk vukosnd lh-,l- ;kno eSustj ,p vkj ,l Vh vkbZ luksg xqMxkao gfj;k.kk }kjk mldh esy vkbZ Mh chandsingh.yadavstisanoh.com ls esy Hkstrs gq, mudh daiuh dh ;wds fLFkr eSU;wQSDpfjax ;qfuV dks ,;jykbal ds fVfdV cqd djk;s tkus gsrq dsusFk LVksu eSustj luksg ;w-ds-eSU;wQSDpfjax fyfeVsM dh esy vkbZ Mh kenneth stoneuksanoh.com dks jsQj fd;k x;kA vkosnd }kjk vukosnd ds iwoZ ls O;kolkf;d laca/k gksus ls vkosnd }kjk dsusFk LVksu ls esy ds tfj;s bl laca/k esa lEidZ fd;k x;k tks dsusFk LVksu us fnukad 05-12-16 ls 13-12-16 rd fons'kh ukxfjdks ds ,;j fVfdV cqd djus gsrq ;kf=;ks ds uke] ikliksVZ uEcj] LFkku vkfn tkudkjh esy ds ek/;e ls Hksth tkdj dqy jkf'k 1]02]68]178@& :i;sa ds ,;j fVfdV cqd djk fy;s x;sA vukosndx.kks ls vkosnd }kjk [kpZ dh xbZ /kujkf'k 1]07]90]724@& :i;s dh ekax dh xbZ rks vukosnd dsusFk LVksu }kjk vkosnd dks fnukad 09-12-16 dks esy Hkstk x;k fd mlus 27300 xzsV fczVsu ikmaM thfcih vkosnd ds QsMjy cSd fyfeVsM ds [kkrk u- 12345500001081@ ,Qmhvkj,y 0001234@,QMhvkj,y vkbZ ,u ch@ch vkbZ HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-8-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.2STI Sanoh India Ltd, 161, Secto 4 IMT Manesar, Gurgaon Haryana 122052 Mr. Chand Singh Yadav Head HR Contact No.09717392728, Mr. Rajesh Contact No.08130001446, 3 Sanoh Manufacturing Ltd. Grandeur Point, Fourth Way, Avonmouth, Bristol, BS 8DL, UK.Mr. Kenneth Stone Manufacturing Unit Manager Contact th No.442033897601, sequence of Events 1 On 5 Dec 16, Mr. Chand Singh Yadav from STI Sanoh, Gurgaon, called our office between 33.30 Pm, and informed us that their UK counterpart sanoh UK manufacturing Unit Bristol, UK needs assistance for their travel requirements.We have long association with STI group ie, STI India Ltd, Pithampur Tools and STI Sanoh Ltd Dewas and with the recommendation of STI Sanoh Dewas, we had started business with their Gurgaon office.Since Gurgaon office introduced their UK Unit, we accepted the offer and his to send an official mail to us regarding the same.2 On 5th Dec 16, 346 PM, Mr. CS Yadav send a mail to their UK manufacturing Unit manager Mr. Kenneth stone, informing our office telephone no and email address to enable him to contact us, and marked a copy of the mail to us.3 On 5 th Dec 16, 4.03 pm, we received a mail from Kenneth stone HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-9-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another) that as you have spoke to our India office and also we received your contact details from Mr. CS Yadav, as further he asked to do the bookings with a credit period of 7 to 14 days and he will strictly adhere to the payment conditions.4 On 5th Dec 16, 7.10 pm we have accepted the proposal and forwarded our bank details to them to enable them t5o remit the payments.We had send a copy to CS Yadav, STI Sanoh, Gurgaon.5 On 6 th Dec 16, 11.03 am we received the acceptance mail from Sanoh Manufacturing Unit.6 On 6 th Dec 16, 12.44 pm we started the bookings for travel Sanoh UK, and he forwarded us the tavel itinerary and the preferred airlines.And asked us to quote the fare.Once they agreed with our itinerary and fare quote, they send us the passengers name, date of birth, passport no, date of expire and Nationality of the PAX to enable us to issue the tickets.Hence we suspect that we have been cheated by the company in UK and Gurgaon and they have purposely drawn us into this situation.We request you to kindly look into this matter.We will be very thankful for this.Thanking you gLrk{kj viBuh; TK Jose, Jose Travels, G3 Ahinsa Tower, 7 MG Road, Indore 01, Ph:9826026150 Enclosure: They day wise correspondence and communication with Sanoh UK and STI Sanoh India Ltd."of the case reveal that respondent No.2 is the proprietor of Jose Travel and a request was made by HR Manager, STI Sanoh India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon (Haryana) for booking air tickets.The request was made by HR Manager based upon an e-mail received from its London Office.One Kenneth Stone projected himself to be the Unit Manager, Sanoh UK Manufacturing Ltd., England and as many as 83 tickets were booked for Rs.1,02,68,178/- through the complainant.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-2-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another)During the investigation, it was revealed that the petitioner No.1, who is holding British passport came to India on a medical visa for treatment of Osteoporosis of very advance stage and for knee replacement and the petitioner No.2 came to India with her mother as an attendant.Learned counsel has further argued before this Court that an application for grant of bail was preferred i.e. M.Cr.C. No.3040/2017 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. and the same was allowed by this Court on 25.04.2017 directing the applicants to furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.5 Lacs each with two solvent sureties each in the sum of Rs.2,50,000/- to the satisfaction Chief Judicial Magistrate.Learned counsel has argued before this Court that the petitioners do not have any local contact and they are literally hand to mouth and even they do not have return tickets to go back to their country and they are in jail for more than one year.He has also brought to the notice of this Court that the co-accused persons Chand Singh Yadav and STI Sanoh India (P) Ltd., Gurgaon (Haryana) have entered into a compromise with the complainant by filing an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and a prayer was made for quashment of F.I.R. and this Court has quashed the F.I.R. registered at crime No.20/2016 in respect of other co-accused.It has been argued that once the F.I.R. has been HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-3-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.C. No.310/2017 has been quashed only to the extent it relates to the applicants - STI Sanoh India Pvt. Ltd. and Chand Singh Yadav.He prays for dismissal of the present petition.9. Heard the learned counsel at length and perused the record.Undisputed fact reveals that two of applicants have preferred a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashment of F.I.R. and by an order dated 18.08.2017 passed in M.Cr.C. No.310/2017 the F.I.R. has been quashed, the order dated 18.08.2017 reads as under:-"M.Cr.C. No.310/2017 18.08.2017 Shri Arvind Gokhale, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-4-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.Mukesh Kumar Garg S/o Shri Bhagwandas Agrawal is authorized to look after the legal matters of the company and he was fully aware of the facts, who filed this application on behalf of the company.Non-applicant No.2- Proprietor Jose Travels lodged an FIR in Police Station- Crime Branch, which was registered under the provisions of law, as stated above.The facts giving rise to this application was that one person Kenneth Stone, who pose himself to be an employee of Sanoh UK Manufacturing Ltd., send an e-mail to applicant No.2 and requested him to make certain arrangements for his travel to India.The parties have entered into a compromise and this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed on the basis of the compromise entered into by them.7 On 6th dec 16, at 6.02 pm all the invoices against the tickets which was booked on that day was raised for Rs.8,75,908/ and Mr. Kenneth acknowledged the same.8 On 7th Dec 16, 4.56 pm, we had forwarded the account statement for INR 21,37,736/ since it was a huge amount, we requested him to transfer the amount immediately.Mr. Kenneth acknowledged the mail which was also marked to STI Gurgaon office.9 On 8 th Dec 16, 4.55 pm Mr. Kenneth had send us the screenshot of the transfer details after which we continued with the further bookings.10 On 10 th Dec 16, 6.20 pm we forwarded the bills and statement by mail to Mr. Kenneth stone, Sanoh UK and Mr. Yadav, Sanoh Gurgaon for Rs 35,18,549/- requesting them to process the payment immediately also informant that the previous remittance of GBP 27300 was not yet credited to out account, which is again acknowledged by Mr. Kenneth and marked it to Mr. CS Yadav, STI Gurgaon. 11 On 12th Dec, 7.46 pm we again raised the invoice for Rs.1,02,68,178/ and Mr. Kenneth acknowledged the same.12 On 13th Dec 16, 1.30 pm we forwarded the final statement to both sanoh UK and Gurgaon, for Rs. 1,07,90,724/ requesting them to remit the same along with the confirmation of previous transfer to continue with the booking.We noticed some manipulation in the calculation and realized that the said amount transfer may not be correct.We have forwarded the same to Sanoh HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH AT INDORE M.Cr.C. No.21084/2017 (-10-) (Muyinat Adenike and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh and another) Gurgaon and requested them to verify the same.We telephonically contacted Mr CS Yadav on his mobile on 09717392728 and he informed that since he is driving, he deputed Mr Rajesh to find out from UK office rgardin the payments.We called Mr Rajesh and he advised us to stop the booking immediately since they found some suspicious dealing.Sanoh Gurgaon also informed us later that Mr. Kenneth is on leave for the past one week.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 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', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,490,370 |
Heard on the point of admission and records of both the lower Courts are perused.Arguable points are involved in this criminal revision, hence, admitted for hearing.Appearing counsel for the parties are also heard on I.A.No.22857/2017 filed under Section 397(1) of the Cr.P.C, 1973 for suspension of custodial sentence of the petitioner - Ajay Pal Singh.The petitioner was convicted under Sections 279, 304- A, 338, 337 of IPC by the Nyaydhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Karera District Shivpuri but he was sentenced only under Section 304-A of IPC to undergo one year's RI with a fine of Rs.3,000/- with default stipulation.On the other hand, above-mentioned prayer has been strongly opposed by the Public Prosecutor.After considering the rival contentions made by the parties and looking to the facts that the petitioner was released on regular bail during trial and his jail sentence was suspended by the lower appellate Court and there is no possibility of early hearing of this revision, without commenting on the merits of the matter, I.A.No.22857/2017 is allowed and it is ordered that subject to depositing the fine amount and on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees Thirty Five Thousand only) by petitioner - Ajay Pal Singh alias Ballu with a solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, petitioner's jail sentence shall remain suspended till disposal of this revision and he be released on bail.Petitioner is further directed to remain present before the Registry of this Court firstly on 20.03.2018 and, thereafter, on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry for the same purpose in future.Certified copy as per rules.(Ashok Kumar Joshi) Judge Abhi ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI 2017.12.12 10:17:36 +05'30'
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,497,711 |
It is contended on behalf of the Appellant-accused that Nagar @ Chhotu, Babulal, Ashok and Dataram were acquitted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 in alternate 302/149, 307 (two counts) in alternate 307/149 (two counts), 323 (five counts) in alternate section 323 read with 149 (five counts) of IPC.It is urged that present Appellant also along-with accused Sukhram Shivraj 2 CRA-1212-2017 were acquitted under Sections 147, 148, 307 in alternate 307/149 (two counts) but has been convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC, on the testimony of injured eye-witness viz., Haridas, Sumeeta, Udai Singh, Manohar, Raghuveer, Ramvaran and Jagdish who made omnibus statement of causing injuries with sharp edged weapons such as axe, shovel and by iron rod.The role attributed to present Appellant is that he caused injuries to Raghuveer with iron rod (saria).It is urged that there is no iota of evidence as to present Appellant No.3 causing any injury on the deceased.And the aid of Section 34 of IPC with which Appellant No.3 has been prosecuted and convicted when tested on the anvil of the entire evidence on record will establish that the present Appellant did not share common intention with the main assailant of causing any death to either the deceased or the injured person.After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into 3 CRA-1212-2017 consideration the entire evidence on record and without expressing any opinion as to merits of the case, the sentence of Appellant No.3-Dhara Singh is suspended, subject to furnishing the bail bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with two like sureties of close relatives of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 12/05/2020 and on all such subsequent dates as may be fixed in this regard.I.A. No.3530/2019 stands disposed of in above terms.Certified copy as per rules .
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,498,803 |
The petitioners shall file their surrender applications three days prior to their date of surrender, so that the compliance as required under Section 15(A) of the SC/ST Act is complied with.In the meantime, if the petitioners are arrested the direction will become infructuous.O.P(MD)No.6476 of 2020 B.PUGALENDHI,J., pkn/ssl Crl.O.P(MD)No.6476 of 2020 22.06.2020http://www.judis.nic.in 6/6The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the friends of accused No.1 and they are in no way connected with the relationship between the de-facto complainant and accused No.1 and a false complaint has been given against the petitioners.4.Heard Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 Crl.O.P(MD)No.6476 of 2020 State.Considering the nature of relief sought for in this petition and the present situation, the notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.5.Considering the rival submissions made on either side, the interest of justice will be served, permitting the petitioners to surrender as prayed for.6.Accordingly, the petitioners are directed to surrender before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Thanjavur, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.In the event of the petitioners surrender, the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR Court), Thanjavur, shall consider their bail applications on the same day on merits in accordance with law.Therefore, the respondent Police is restrained from arresting the petitioners for a period of six weeks.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 Crl.O.P(MD)No.6476 of 20207.This Criminal Original Petition is allowed on the above terms.NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 Crl.O.P(MD)No.6476 of 20201.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Pattukottai, Thanjavur District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 Crl.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,502 |
Delhi Unit, a Government of India Enterprise, New Delhi, a public servant in the discharge of his official duties as such public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as such public servant, had accepted or obtained Rs. 250.00 from Shri Jaswant Singh, Proprietor M/s. Khalsa Tyre Soles, Rohtak Road, Delhi and thereby committed an offence under Section 5(l)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, punishable under Section 5(2) of the aforesaid Act. Secondly, on the same day and time while employed and posted as Engineering Supervisor (Automobiles) Modern Bakeries.Delhi Unit, a Government of India Enterprise, New Delhi, a public servant in the discharge of his official duties as such public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as such public servant accepted or obtained Rs. 250.00 as illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration as a motive or reward for shooing him favor in getting his payment released from the Modern Bakeries for having their job of retreading the tyre soles of the vehicles vide his bill Nos. 1187 and 1188 for a sum of Rs. 1045.00 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code."(3) Stating in a little detail, prosecution's case is based on the complaint of one Shri Jaswant Singh, Proprietor M/s. Khalsa Tyre Soles, Rohtak Road, Delhi.The respondent on the relevant date, i.e. 20th December, 1974, was employed as Engineering Supervisor (Automobiles Modern Bakeries, Delhi Unit), a Government of India Enterprises, New Delhi, (hereinafter for short known as 'enterprise').The complainant on the relevant date was engaged in resoling the vehicular tyres of the aforesaid enterprise for four years.The work was being allotted to him on the basis of lowest quotations.On submission of the bills he used to receive payment through cheques.The case of the prosecution is that the respondent used to create obstacles in the payment of his bills with a view to pressurise him to grease his palm.This according to the complainant was being done by the respondent by not verifying the bills as without the verification of the bills by the respondent the bills were not being passed for payment.(4) About a month prior to the date of the incident, the complainant had completed the work worth Rs. 1045.00 and two bills Nos.1187dated 1.12.1974 for Rs. 285.00 marked Ex. PW2/A/1 and bill No. 1188 dated 7th December, 1974, marked Ex. PW2/B/1 were pending for payment with the aforesaid enterprise on the date of incident.On 17th December, 1974 when the complainant inquired on telephone, he learnt from the Cashier that his cheque was ready.Allegedly, on 19th December, 1974, the complainant, is stated to have visited the enterprise at 3 p.m. to collect the cheque.There, he is alleged to have met the respondent, who told him that he would not get the cheque unless the respondent was paid Rs. 250.00 as bribe.A bargain was allegedly struck and it was agreed that the respondent would visit the shop of the complainant at 3 p.m. on 20.12,1974, and on payment of Rs. 250.00 to him, the cheque would be delivered to the complainant.JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.The complainant had also alleged that the cheque which he generally used to collect from the Cashier, had also been taken away by the respondent from the Cashier and according to him, the respondent had also told him to inquire from him on telephone in case he did not come at 3 p.m. On 20th December, ] 1974, the complainant ataboutl2a.m.goes to the Anticorruption Organisation where his statement marked Ex. PW2/B, is recorded and thereafter a trap is arranged.Two panch witnesses namely PW3 Sardar Harbans Singh and Public Witness 4 Shri Gurbax Singh are summoned from the office of the Joint Director, Agriculture, Delhi Administration.In their presence the statement of the complainant is read over to them and after the complainant admits its correctness, the complainant hands over Rs. 250.00 , two hundred rupee and five notes of ten rupee denomination.Serial numbers of these notes are noted and thereafter they are dusted with phinopethelin powder (for short P. Powder).Demonstration is also given in respect of the effect of P. Powder in the presence of panch witnesses.They are also given necessary directions, that they have to remain quite close to the complainant and hear and see what transpires between the complainant and the respondent.The panch witnesses are also informed that in case the bribe is accented they will give an agreed signal to the raiding party.He parked the car opposite the shop of complainant.The complainant accompanied by panch witnesses, is said to have gone near the respondent.The respondent is alleged to have come out of the car, had some talk for two to three minutes with the complainant.The respondent is then stated to have sat on the driving seat of the car and there it was noticed that he accepted the bribe money with his left hand and put it in the left pocket of his coat.On receiving the signal given by Public Witness 3, Harbans Singh, there was a raid.The respondent was told by the Investigating Officer that he has accepted bribe, whereupon he took out the bribe money with his left hand from his pocket.The currency notes were compared and seized.Thereafter left hand and the left pocket of the coat of the respondent was washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink.A raid report Ex. PW7/X was prepared and the case was registered.(6) The whole case of the prosecution, in fact, rests on the evidence of PW2, Jaswant Singh, complainant, PW3, Harbans Singh and Public Witness 4, Gurbax Singh, two panch witnesses as also on the testimony of Public Witness 7, Krishan Gopal, investigating officer.From there the papers go back to the Accounts Manager, who on receipt thereof passes on the cheque along with other papers to cashier.The cashier then disburses the cheque to the concerned party, after obtaining his signatures on the voucher.In the present case we find that both the bills of ihe complainant had been verified by the Maintenance Branch in which the respondent was working long before 17th December, 1974, the date on which the cheque was ready.(13) Wherein a case the specific allegation against the accused person in that he demanded illegal gratification to do a favors in his official capacity.The Investigating Officer, however, has not taken the court into confidence as to how he came to know this fact.Admittedly, he had not contacted any official from the enterprise, till then.That makes us believe that he must have come to know about it from the complainant, and that he knew that the allegations against the respondent were being falsely made.1974, when the demand for bribe was allegedly made for the first time.From these facts, it clearly appears that it was really an arranged trap.Under these .circumstances this appeal fails.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
153,503,831 |
Form No. J (1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:The Hon'ble Justice Ashim Kumar Roy And The Hon'ble Justice Subal Baidya Death Reference 02 of 2013 The State of West Bengal Versus Md. Islam with C.R.A. No. 281of 2013 Md. Islam versus The State of West Bengal For Appellant : Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, Ms. Sreyashee Biswas For State : Mr. Manjit Singh, P.P.Mr. Syed Shamser Ali.The accused Md. Islam was placed on trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track 3rd Court, Islampur, Uttar Dinajpur to answer charges under Section 376/511 IPC for attempting to commit rape on his daughter Parveen Khatoon and under Section 302 IPC for killing her.He was also charged under Section 324 IPC for voluntarily causing hurt to his wife Ruksana Khatoon by means of a slaughter knife, an instrument for stabbing.While in the trial, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his daughter and sentenced to death but earned an acquittal against the charge under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code.He was also convicted under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt to his wife by dangerous weapon and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months.The acquittal of the appellant of the charge under Section 376/511 of the Indian Penal Code was neither challenged either on behalf of the State or on behalf of the de-facto complainant, as have been reported by the learned Public Prosecutor.On April 1, 2013 the Death Reference 2 of 2013, was listed before this Bench.When it was found the preparation of paper book is complete and the death reference was ready for hearing.However, having found no appeal has been preferred by the convict, at once we directed the office to issue notice to him, with a further direction that he should be produced before us in person on the returnable date.Accordingly, on April 1, 2013 the convict was produced before us, when we first apprised him of his rights to resist the Death Reference and defend him as also his right to prefer appeal against his conviction.At the same time we also apprised him if he is unable to engage a lawyer at his own cost then also he is legally entitled to the service of a competent criminal lawyer to defend him in the Death Reference and prefer appeal against his conviction completely at the cost of the State.However, on his prayer we allowed an adjournment for 10 days.On the next day when the convict was produced from custody the Welfare Officer of the Correctional Home was also present in Court and we were informed by him that as desired by the convict intimation was sent to his brother Md. Lal and his mother requesting them to meet him at the Correctional Home, but no service return was received.Thereafter on 16th of April 2013 the convict was again produced before us and on that day both the Welfare Officer and the Superintendent of Correctional Home were also present in Court and we were informed by them that already his mother had expired and his brother has refused to meet him.In such a situation we engaged Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, a very competent lawyer practising in the criminal side of this Court for more than 16 years and also in the State panel to defend the appellant with a junior of his choice.Thereafter, on 23rd of April 2013 a memo of appeal has been filed on behalf of the convict challenging the order of conviction and sentence.The appeal was then admitted and both the said criminal appeal and the Death Reference were taken up for hearing together.The prosecution case in a nutshell is as follows:On 10th April 2011 when the de-facto complainant, i.e., the wife of the appellant was sleeping with her minor children, at about 9.30 p.m. the appellant came there and tried to rape their daughter Parveen Khatoon.As the convict and her daughter tried to resist him, he attacked the de-facto complainant and assaulted her with his butcher- knife and caused bleeding injuries on her right leg.In the meanwhile, the daughter of the convict tried to run away, but the convict chased her for some distance and after she was caught, he assaulted her with the butcher's knife and killed her.Hearing the noise the other children of the de-facto complainant sleeping there woke up and the villagers rushed to the spot hearing their cries and the appellant fled away.This is a case which is essentially based on the eyewitnesses' account of assault.They are PW/1, Ruksana Khatoon, the de-facto complainant, the mother of the victim and the wife of the appellant, PW/2 Ashique, the son of the appellant, PW/3 Simran Khatoon, the daughter of the appellant, PW/4 Saifun, PW/5 Khus Md., PW/6 Dipen Ray and PW/9 Giasuddin are all neighbours and they are post occurrence witnesses.PW/7 Dr. Binoy Bhusan Bera is the Autopsy Surgeon who held the postmortem over the dead body.PW/8 Dr. Jiban Krishna Bhaduri is the doctor who treated the de-facto complainant for the injuries she sustained on being assaulted by the appellant.PW/10 Dilip Jamadar is an employee of Islampur Sub-Divisional Hospital where postmortem was held.PW/11 Gurudas Saha is the scribe of the FIR.PW/12 Shrutirupa Ghosh is a Judicial Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 CrPC of the witnesses.PW/13 Samir Tamang is the Investigating Officer of the case and PW/14 Mritunjay Singh is a police personnel.From the side of the defence no witness was examined.It appears from the trend of cross-examination and the reply given by the convict while was questioned under Section 313 CrPC that he has been falsely implicated in the said case.At the very beginning, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the Ext-7 is not admissible in evidence as FIR of the case because the same was hit by the legal prohibition contained in Section 162 CrPC.He then submitted that much prior to the handing over the written complaint to the police pursuant to which the FIR was recorded, over mobile PW/11 Gurudas Saha informed the police about the aforesaid incident of murder and the same was reduced into writing against a G.D. Entry Ext.-9 and the content thereof clearly discloses commission of a cognizable offence and pursuant to which police came to the spot and started investigation.He then draws our attention to the Ext.-9 and pointed out that the same was, first in point of time, a report lodged to the police about the aforesaid incident and although the identity of the victims and the assailants were very much there, but there was no mention that PW/6 Ashique and PW/3 Simran Khatoon were also present at the spot and saw the incident.He then urged that the subsequent claim of the prosecution that at the time of the incident both PW/2 and PW/3 were present at the place of occurrence is a clear improvement in the prosecution case and an afterthought.He then highlighted the reasons as to why the evidences of PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 are not otherwise reliable.The learned Counsel for the appellant then drew our attention to the evidence of PW/1 and submitted, according to her, after she sustained injuries on her right leg caused by the appellant, she fell down and thereafter her daughter was assaulted and killed.Now taking us through her cross-examination it was pointed out that she admitted that was a dark night and having received injuries on her leg she lost her mobility and police removed her and while the victim was trying to flee away, she was assaulted outside the house.Then the learned Counsel referred the evidence of PW/2 and PW/3 and pointed out while in his cross-examination PW/2, the son of the de-facto complainant admitted that was a dark night and the outside view was not visible from the room, according to the evidence of the PW/3, the daughter of the de-facto complainant, the assault on her mother took place inside the room.He then took us to the evidence of PW/13, the Investigating Officer of the case and pointed out that according to the said witness, after arranging electric light inquest was held and in the sketch map no street lamp was shown in and around the place of occurrence.Therefore, according to the learned Advocate of the appellant, the claim of the PW/1 that she had seen the entire incident of assault on her daughter, victim Parveen in the street light is not at all acceptable.Firstly, because the outside was dark and there was no street lamp and secondly, from the room where she was lying injured the outside view was not visible.Coming to the evidence of PW/2, the learned Counsel for the appellant first urged that he being a child witness, his evidence has no independent value unless corroborated by very strong evidence.Our attention was then drawn to the cross-examination of the PW/3 where she disclosed altercation between her parents took place on the varandah.Lastly, he pointed out the following infirmities in the prosecution case.a) According to the prosecution case, the offending weapon was embedded in her head and the same was taken out during the postmortem.Although the fingerprint of the appellant was taken during investigation, but no attempt was made on their part to match the specimen fingerprint of the appellant with the fingerprint found in the alleged offending weapon.b) No evidence was led to prove that the alleged offending weapon was belonging to the appellant.On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor first pointed out that the case against the appellant was based on the evidence of his closed relations and they were his wife, son and daughter.He then submitted when they deposed against the appellant, there is no scope to disbelieve the prosecution case.He further submitted that all the three eyewitnesses were cross-examined at length, but their credibility was never shaken.He further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court was fully justified to convict the appellant.He, however, conceded that no case for Death Sentence has been made out.This is a case where there is no dispute that the injuries which caused the death of Parveen Khatoon were ante mortem and homicidal in nature.We have also very carefully gone through the postmortem report and considering the same together with the evidence of the postmortem doctor, we find no reason to take a different view.The prosecution case entirely rest on the evidence of three eyewitnesses to the occurrence, viz., PW/1, Ruksana Khatoon, PW/2, Ashique, PW/3 Simran Khatoon.We are therefore, not going to exclude the evidence of those two witnesses without testing their evidence.So far as the PW/1 is concerned, it was claimed by the learned Counsel of the appellant that she cannot be accepted to have seen the incident of assault on her daughter by her husband, the appellant herein because of the fact she claimed that she was assaulted inside her room and after sustaining injury on her leg she lost her mobility and only after police came she was removed and her daughter was assaulted outside the house and that was a dark night.However, going through the evidence of PW/1 we find during her cross- examination she categorically stated the victim fell down outside their house and not beyond her sight and vision and further claimed to have seen the occurrence in the street light.This is what she deposed in cross-examination by the defence and there was no further cross- examination on this point.In this regard it was also argued that in the sketch map there was no mention about the existence of any street lamp in and around the place of occurrence but we find on this score the investigating officer of the case was never cross-examined.It is noteworthy on this score PW/4 Saifun, a local resident was cross- examined and when it was disclosed that there was light on the pole situated on the roadside.Accordingly, we find her evidence can safely be relied upon as an eye-witness to the occurrence.Herein above we have already noted as to why we are not inclined to reject at the very threshold the evidence of PW/2 and PW/3 as the eye-witness to the occurrence on the ground canvassed before us by the Counsel of the appellant.Besides that, from the side of the appellant the credibility of the PW/2 was challenged with reference to his cross-examination where, he stated that was a dark night and outside view was not visible from inside the room.But we find it was his evidence that he came out from the room and found his father beating her elder sister at courtyard.Therefore, his evidence that outside view was not visible from the room and that was a dark night does not stand on his way to see the incident after coming out from the room.The only other witness in this case, the PW/3 Simran Khatoon, the daughter of the appellant is equally trustworthy.The witness in her deposition vividly described how the victim was assaulted by the appellant.From side of the appellant nothing is brought to our notice which may justify us to disbelieve her.The defence suggested to both the PW/2 and PW/3 that the victim sustained injury when she fell on a weapon, but both of them categorically denied the same.In our opinion, the postmortem doctor would have been the best witness to depose in this regard, but we find his cross-examination was declined.In the case in hand there is another very vital aspect which cannot be overlooked easily.All the three witnesses viz., PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 are the wife, son and daughter of the appellant.In this case prosecution examined 4 more witnesses, viz., PW/4 Saifun, PW/5 Khus Md., PW/6 Dipen Roy, PW/9 Giasuddin.They were post occurrence witnesses and their unchallenged evidence goes to show that on being attracted by the hue and cry of the PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 they rushed to the spot and on their arrival they found the victim was lying dead with a knife pierced on her head.At that time PW/1 Ruksana was found crying and disclosed that Parveen was assaulted by her father, the appellant before us and the witnesses also found injuries on her person.Thus, the evidence of PW/1, PW/2 and PW/3 stand amply corroborated by the evidence of those post occurrence witnesses.Coming to the three other alleged infirmities in the prosecution case to which our attention has been drawn, we find that the fingerprint of the accused was obtained during the investigation and the same were sent to the fingerprint expert for obtaining an opinion whether the same matched with the fingerprints found on the offending weapon remained pierced on the head of the victim.During inquest the investigating officer also found the knife embedded in her head which would be evident from the inquest report Ext-5 and he identified the same Mat.The PW/7 Dr. Binay Bhusan Bera is the Autopsy Surgeon and according to his evidence, during postmortem he found the knife remained embedded in the head of the deceased and he removed the same and handed over to the police and the same was seized and he identified Mat.ext-1 as the said knife.The PW/10 Dilip Jamadar employed in the hospital morgue corroborated the evidence of PW/7 and identified the Mat.ext-1 as the said knife.So far as the last point raised from the side of the appellant that before the PW/8 who treated the PW/1 for the injury she sustained during the incident the name of the appellant was not divulged as the assailant is concerned, we find neither the PW/8 was asked whether she disclosed the name of the assailant or not, nor the PW/1 was cross- examined to discredit her on this score.Coming to the last two points raised by the Counsel of the appellant we do not think it is fatal for the prosecution not to lead any evidence to prove that the offending weapon was actually belonging to the accused.Much has been argued on the point that PW/1 had not disclosed the name of the appellant to the doctor, the PW/8 Jiban Krishna Bhaduri by whom she was assaulted.We are unable to accept such evidence as to contradict the PW/1 on that score for the reason before getting such facts from the doctor, but PW/1's attention was not drawn to such omission and she was not cross-examined on that score.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,758,183 |
Subsequently, he is alleged to have threatened her that if she did not resume their conversation, he would upload the recordings on some social media.It is alleged that on the date of the incident, which was about 2 months prior to the registration of the FIR, when she was coming back from school he stopped her mid-way and held her hand and misbehaved with her and asked her as to why she was not talking to him and threatened her and made her sit on his scooty and took her to Rakabganj Gurudwara and when he was trying to put her school bag in the boot (dicky) of the scooty, she used the mobile phone of a passer-by and called her parents and went to the police station with her parents and made a complaint.It is further alleged that thereafter he used to contact her and threatened her that in case she did not resume their friendship, he would upload the recordings on some social media.Subsequently, her father was called to the house of her uncle where there was a fight between them, consequent to which, subject FIR was registered.SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)State has filed this petition impugning order dated 25.05.2017, whereby, the Trial Court has discharged the respondent of the offence punishable under Section 12 POCSO.Subject FIR was registered on the complaint of the prosecutrix alleging that the respondent accused was her first cousin and they were also friends.The prosecutrix at the time of the registration of the FIR was aged 17 years and 4 months.It is alleged that they used to Crl.P.666/2017 Page 1 of 4 talk over the phone and respondent had stated that he had recorded some conversation with her, because of which, she stopped talking to him.P.666/2017 Page 1 of 4It is contended that thereafter he tried to contact her and asked her as to why she was not talking to him.The Trial Court, in the impugned order, while framing a charge Crl.Perusal of the record as also the statement given by the prosecutrix does not prima facie show that any act was done by the respondent with any sexual intent.The Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts of the case and held that that there was nothing on record to show that the respondent had done anything with any sexual intention.The allegations against the respondent, who is the first cousin of the victim, showed that he was upset with the victim not talking to him.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,761,044 |
8 The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 Pugazhendhi knew the petitioners and he is running a juice shop at Thirupapuliyur bus stand and residing at S.N.Chavadi.Both the petitioners and P.W.1 belong to the same place and there is a previous enmity between the petitioners and P.W.1, in respect of collecting money for conducting temple festival.On 21.07.2006 at about 23.30 hours, when P.W.1 was standing in front of Sivakozhundu's house at Mettu theru, S.N.Chavadi 6http://www.judis.nic.in with P.W.2 Jambulingam, P.W.3 Saravanan, P.W.4 Rathinavel, P.W.5 Kandeeban, A1 to A4 came there with “Veecharuval” and M.O.2 wooden log and way laided P.W.1 and A1 attempted to cut P.W.1 with “Veecharuval” on his left side of the head but since he turned his head he sustained injury on his cheek.R.C.No.1696 of 2011: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and set aside the Judgment made in C.A.No.25 of 2008 dated 30.05.2011 by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court 1http://www.judis.nic.in No.II), Cuddalore confirming the Judgement made in S.C.No.252 of 2007 dated 06.03.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuddalore.PRAYER in Crl.R.C.No.1466of 2011: Criminal Revision case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to re- appreciate the evidence available on record and may be set aside the conviction given by the Court below and may be acquitted the accused and allow the revision petition.The respondent police registered a case against these revision petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 326, 506(ii) r/w34 IPC After investigation the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Cuddalore.The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore made over the case to the Assistant Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) for trial.The learned Assistant and Sessions Judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate) after trial, found guilty of the accused for the offences and convicted them as follows:appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Court.After hearing arguments jointly, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge taken the appeal on file in Crl.A.No.25 of 2008 and made over the case to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court No.II, Cuddalore, the learned Judge after hearing the arguments dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence alone against accused 3 and 4 and confirmed the sentence passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.Challenging the said judgment the convicts have 3http://www.judis.nic.in preferred these revisions.4 Since all the revisions are arising out of the judgment in C.A.No.25 of 2008, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No-II) Cuddalore.Therefore all the revisions are heard together and decided commonly.Both the Courts have failed to consider the said fact.Though, the prosecution has stated that A1 attempted to attack P.W.1 using knife, the Pugazhendhi evade from the attack and he sustained injuries in the check and from left arm.In this case, the said alleged knife was not recovered by the prosecution.Therefore, the non recovery of the alleged weapon is not fatal to the prosecution case.The other accused stated to have attacked with wooden logs, there is a injury not tallied with the prosecution only the injuries caused by the first accused alone.Therefore the benefit of doubt should have been extended to the revision petitioners.The second revision petitioner is the A4, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.Both the courts below have failed to consider the facts and recorded the conviction, which warrants interference by this Court.P4 also clearly shows that four persons were attacked and caused injuries.The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 are coupled with the evidence of P.W.7/Doctor and medical evidence clearly shows that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.Both the Courts below have rightly found the appellant guilty for the offences as mentioned above, which does not warrants any interference by this Court.7 Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.Once again A1 attempted to attack P.W.1 and also threatened P.W.1 if he continues to interfere in their matter, they would murder him.P.W.5 took P.W.1 to Government Hospital, Cuddalore where he took treatment.He had given oral complaint /Ex.P1, to the then Inspector of Police, Thirupapuliyur.P.W.1 had seen the accused in the temple light which was burning for festival.9 The respondent police registered the case against the revision petitioners.After investigation, the respondent police framed the charges against these revision petitioners for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 506(ii) 326 r/w 34 IPC respectively.On reading of the evidence of P.W.1 she has clearly narrated the occurrence.P.W.2 to P.W5 have been stated as eye witnesses by the prosecution and they have been examined before the Court and they have catagorrically stated that on 21.07.2006 at about 02.30 hours P.W.1 was standing infront of the 7http://www.judis.nic.in house of Sivakolunthu that P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 and A2 to A4 came with vettuaruval and wooden logs.A1 attempted to attack with aruval on his left side of the hand and since the victim turned her head, she sustained injuries on his cheek .A1 attacked the victim uttering the word die.Hence, P.W.9 Inspector of Police registered the case.11 On reading of the evidence of P.W.6 treated the victim P.w.1 and he pointed out three injuries and made action in the Accident Register.P.W.8 the doctor has opined from the X-ray the injury sustained by the victim P.W.1 is grievous in nature and from the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.P.W.5 who had taken P.W.1 to the hospital and admitted in the Government Hospital.P.W.7 has given the permission to the victim.Therefore, on reading of the entire evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.13 On reading of the entire evidence of prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W4 and also the evidence of P.W.7 and P.W.8 prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.This Court does not find any perversity in appreciation of evidence by the lower appellate Court and finds no reason to interfere with the judgment of both the Courts below.Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.Since P.W.1 is the injured witnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4 are the eye witnesses, the non recovery of the weapons from the scene of occurrence is not the fatal to the case of the prosecution.This Court find that there is no merit in the Criminal Revision Cases.Accordingly all 9http://www.judis.nic.in these Criminal Revisions are dismissed.15 However, the sentence of A2 to A4 is alone modified from three years to two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 326, 506(ii) IPC, which will meet the ends of justice.29.07.2019 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/non speaking order sbn To1.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore.2.The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No II, Cuddalore.3.Inspector of Police, Thirupapuliyur Police Station.4.Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.10http://www.judis.nic.in P.VELMURUGAN.J sbn Crl.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,770,043 |
( 13 / 10 /2015 ) This criminal revision is filed under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 31.10.2010, whereby the court below has framed charge against the petitioners.Shri Arvind Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per story of prosecution, FIR is lodged by Police Station Incharge, Ater in which it is urged that deceased Mamta died in suspicious circumstances.She was physically and mentally tortured by the present petitioners.The present petitioners demanded dowry and when the said demand was not fulfilled, she was tortured which resulted into her death.Thus, offences under Section 302, alternatively 306, 304-B, 498-A, 34 IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act were alleged against the petitioners.However, the court below by order dated 31.10.2010, found that allegations under Section 304-B are not established and petitioners were rightly exonerated from the said offence.Criticizing the order impugned, it is urged that although there was no material before the court below CRR.54/2011 2 to indicate exact date of marriage of deceased, it was clear that two children of deceased were born on 19.07.2002 and 26.08.2005 respectively.Thus, marriage had admittedly taken place before the birth of said children.Thus, death has taken place after 10 years from the date of marriage.It is submitted that prosecution has not filed any document nor narrated anything to show that during these last 10 years, any complaint was made by deceased or by her parents about any kind of demand of dowry or torture arising thereto.The story of prosecution is not trustworthy.He relied on AIR 2002 SC 1998 (Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh), (2006) 1 SCC 463 (Harjit Singh Vs.State of Punjab), Shailendra Singh Vs.State of M.P. 2005 (I) MPWN-34, Meera Bai and another Vs.State of M.P. 2009 (I) MPWN 70 and Parmal Singh Vs.State of M.P. 2011 (I) MPLJ 340, it is submitted that necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 IPC are not available in the present case.Hence, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with.He supported the order impugned.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,850,526 |
By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 17 th February, 2010 convicting the Appellant for offence under Section 306/498A IPC and the order on sentence dated 19th February, 2010 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for offence punishable under Section 306 IPC, and for offence punishable under Section 498A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.2. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that there was suicidal tendency in the family of the deceased and after her death, her brother has also committed suicide.Though the suicide note was allegedly recovered from the window, however the site plan does not show window.The seizure Crl.The alleged suicide note has not been sent to the CFSL for an expert opinion to prove that the hand-writing belonged to the deceased.Further as per the letters itself the deceased wanted the husband to perform her last rites and if the Appellant was ill-treating her, she would not have desired her last rites to be performed by him.There is no allegation of demand of dowry and hence the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed.On 23rd July, 2003 an information was received regarding suicide committed by a girl in H.No.A- 450, New Ashok Nagar.FIR No. 244/2003 under Section 406/498A/306 IPC was registered at PS New Ashok Nagar on the statement of PW1, the father of the deceased, who also gave the five pages hand-written notes lying at the window of the room of the deceased which were duly seized.During investigation, the dowry articles were seized by the Police and handed over to the complainant.Besides the Appellant, his family members were also Crl.A. 389/2010 Page 2 of 6 charge-sheeted.A. 389/2010 Page 2 of 6She used to tell that her in-laws were harassing her on minor issues such as jewellery items given in the marriage were artificial and they treated his daughter like a servant.Whenever he visited the matrimonial house of her daughter, her in-laws did not allow him to meet his daughter alone.They did not even allow his daughter to talk to him on the telephone.Though he gave a motor-cycle in the marriage but the accused were not satisfied.A week prior to the death of the deceased, when PW1 visited her house, the Appellant told her daughter in a loud voice to bring a Maruti car and Rs. 1 lakh.When PW1 stated that he was not in a position to fulfill the demand, the in-laws stated that they would send her back to his house and will marry the Appellant again.PW1 further stated that after one month of marriage of his daughter when he received the complaint from his daughter about harassment by the in-laws, he had gone to their house along with the mediator and the parents of Appellant assured them that everything will be alright.He is (Ajay) saying if I will sleep with mummy he is with me otherwise he will leave me for his entire life.She has to bear the marriage but she is not the kind of wife that is desired by her in-laws.(3)Letter dated 8.7.03 Ex.PW1/G Mummy (Shayama Devi) was saying that your father always doubt everything...... If I communicate anything about this Crl.A. 389/2010 Page 4 of 6 house to my parents then She will get me married somewhere and then marry Ajay.She says that as your parents are worried about you they are worried about Ajay.He has left food.PW1/C to be in the hand-writing of his daughter duly signed by her and similarly exhibits Ex.PW1/D, PW1/E, PW1/F and PW1/G. Though an objection has been raised to Ex.A. 389/2010 Page 1 of 63. Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that the marriage between the parties lasted for two months only and a number of letters were written by the deceased which showed a continuous course of harassment to her.Section 498A IPC contemplates mental and physical cruelty as well, de-hors the demand of dowry.Since there was no demand of dowry in the letters, the Appellant has not been convicted for the same, though the family members of the deceased have alleged harassment for bringing more dowry.Thus, no case for acquittal is made out and the appeal be dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the parties.Charge under Section 498A/34 IPC was framed against all the 6 accused whereas charges for offences punishable under Section 406/34 IPC and 306/34 IPC were framed against the Appellant and his parents.After examining the prosecution witnesses, the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence witnesses, the learned Trial Court acquitted all the other accused except the Appellant who has been convicted as above.Similar statement was made by PW2 the mother of the deceased who also stated that the Appellant was not interested in marriage with the deceased and told her that he had married the Crl.A. 389/2010 Page 3 of 6 deceased under compulsion of his parents and he had a love affair with some other girl.A. 389/2010 Page 3 of 6The crucial evidence on which the learned Trial Court decided the matter are the 5 letters of the deceased recovered from the window of her house Ex.PW1/C to PW1/G, the contents whereof are reproduced as under:"(1)Letter dated 23.7.03 Ex.PW1/C This letter was written immediately before her death by deceased Sangeeta.The contents of this letter are reproduced verbatim as follows:-"Sasural wale bahut dhokebaj nikle meri zindgi barbaad kar diya aur mujhe bahu ki taraha na samajh kar naukar ki taraha rakha yeh shabad mere bhosur ne kahaan sabke saamne ab main jaa rahi hoon.Meri bhi is zindgi ko jeene ki ichcha thi par inn logon ne jeene nahin diya."(2) Letter dated 7.7.03 Ex.PW1/D addressed to her father: When I (deceased Sangeeta) asked him (Ajay) to talk with you (father) on telephone he slapped me and told me that why your father calls daily.He should not say so.These people are taking out faults in me and you.He (Ajay) was saying that if you do not live properly then either he will die or leave the house.He (Ajay) tells me that it will happen either you will run away leaving the house or he (Ajay) can kill you even at the cost of going to jail.He was saying so.I don't know whether he was joking or was serious.Before this I will finish myself.A. 389/2010 Page 4 of 6(4)Letter dated 15.7.03 Ex.PW1/E Mummy and Bhabhi are making false allegations against me.It is difficult for me to live here....... He (Ajay) was saying that he will die and get someone implicated ....... My in-laws had harassed me a lot ......... My husband himself told me that either I will leave the house or will rot here (yahin Sadhegi).I will not talk to you ever nor keep any relations.My life has been spoilt.What will I do by living? If this happens to a girl, how will she live later on? So whenever I finish myself it will be for these reasons.(5)Letter dated 17.7.03 Ex.PW1/F I am fed up with life.I just want to die.I do not want to listen to daily bickerings.If I die my husband will cremate my body.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
668,563 |
JUDGMENT Malik Sharief-ud-din, J.(1) Sat Pal appellant in criminal appeal No. 27 of 1986 Ashok and Prem Singh appellants in criminal appeal No. 42/1986 have been convicted under section 302/34, section 323/34, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302/34 Indian Penal Code and to the payment of fine of Rs. 500.00 each, in default of which they are to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.They have also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323/34 IPC.Sat Pal appellant was also convicted u/s 27 of the Indian Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.All the sentences have been made concurrent.The appellants have made a grievance against these orders of conviction and sentence dated 30.1.1986 and 31.1.1986 respectively.(2) The facts are that on 16.10.1982 at about 8.30 P.M. the appellants came to the shop of one Dhruv, a panwalla.This shop was situated in front of the house No. 6-166, Mohalla Maharam belonging to the deceased Jai Prakash.At that time the deceased was sitting outside his house.On their arrival near the aforesaid shop, the appellants started abusing each other.When the deceased Jai Prakash objected and asked them to behave, the appellants are alleged to have beaten him.After beating the deceased, the appellants left the place but the deceased followed them.Having seen the deceased following the appellants, his two nephews Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) and Shri Kailash Chand (P.W.3) also followed.It is also alleged that P.W.7 Diopadi, wife of the deceased also followed l^e deceased.When the appellants reached Oali No. 6, opposite house No. 6/42, Mohalla Moharam they attacked the deceased with knives and also dragged him.It is also alleged that when Dropadi (P.W.7) intervened she was pushed by the appellants as a result of which she fell down.The appellants are said to have escaped from the scene of incident thereafter.(3) The deceased Jai Prakash was removed to hospital by Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) and Kailash Chand (P.W.3).In the hospital itself Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) is said to have made a statement marked Ex. Public Witness 2/A before the police giving full details about the sequence of events and also the particulars of the persons responsible for the commission of this crime.It was this statement which was made the basis for the registration of the F.I.R. We may notice that the statement of Lalit Kumar was dispatched from the hospital at 11.15 p.m. by Hoshiar Singh S.I. and the F.I.R. was registered at 11.55 p.m. on the same date.We, however, still find it necessary to make a brief reference to the testimony of autopsy surgeon Dr. G.K. Sharma.(P.W.19) only to find out how far the medical evidence is consistent with the prosecution case.P.W.19 has found as many as 20 injuries on the person of the deceased, out of which injuries No. 2, Ii, 12, 13, 14 and 16 are incised wounds and the remaining are either lacerated punctured wounds or abrasions.Injuries No. 2 & 14 proved to be fatal in this case.P W.19 also opined that injuries No. 1,3,4,6,7,9,17,18 and 20 were caused by impact of blunt force while injuries No. 5 and 16 were earned by sharp cutting weapon.According to him, injuries No. 2,11,12,13 and 14 were caused by pointed penetrating weapon.(5) It is apparent from the evidence of the autopsy surgeon that injuries with sharp weapons were caused by more than one person.Medical evidence also sustains the prosecution case that the deceased was beaten and dragged resulting in a number of simple injuries.The injuries resulting in death were so fatal that the deceased died shortly after his admission to hospital.(6) At this stage, we may make a reference to what Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) had stated in his earliest statement Ex PW2/A before police and we quote: "I along with my parents and my uncle Shri Jai Prakash live in house No. 6/166, Mohalla Maharam together with the family members of Jai Prakash.On 16.10.82 at about 8.30 P.M when my uncle Jai Prakesh was sitting outside the door of his house, three boys namely Ashok alias Billoo son of Pt.Shiv Charan, R/o House No 6/29 Mohalla Mabaram, Prem Singh alias Babu who is bother of above mentioned Ashok and Sat Pal alias Pappu s/o Pritam Singh, R/o Mohalla Moharam came over there and started indecent talks while standing on the Pan Shop of Dhruv which is situated adjacent to our house.When my uncle Jai Prakash asked them not to do so, all the boys picked up a quarrel with him and gave beating.After giving beating when they tried to run away, my uncle followed them and after covering a little distance they again gave beating and dragged him and attacked him with knives in Gali No 6 in front of House No. 6/42 All the three were having knives- with them and they all gave knife blows to Jai Prakash.This quarrel has been witnessed by my brother Kailash and myself.On receiving the information when my 'Mousi' (.mother's sister) Dropadi w/o Jai Prakash (now deceased) came to Oali No. 6, the place of occurrence, she also sustained minor injuries, on the left arm.Thereupon, my brother Kailash and myself took our uncle to J.P.N. hospital and we sent our 'Mousi' to the house.These boys have run away from the spot.My uncle died on reaching the hospital.The aforesaid three boys have caused knife injuries to him on both sides of neck, on both sides of stomach, left foot and the buttock."(7) On a careful examination of the testimony of Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) and Kailash Chand (P.W.3) we find that the version of the incident given in the F.I.R. has been supported by both of them in all material particulars.They have directly held Ashok and Prem Singh appellants responsible for the commission of this crime.However, while testifying at trial they defused to identify Sat Pal appellant as the third culprit.According to them, since the back of the third person who was involved in the crime was towards them they could not identify him.This they have done even though they knew all the appellants before-hand and that is how Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) had mentioned their full particulars in the F.I.R. Moreover, since all the appellants also reside in the same Mohalla, the witnesses are bound to know them.(8) In our view these two eye witnesses have clearly attempted to save Sat Pal appellant.The reason why they do so, we can only guess ? The fact, however, remains that Sat Pal appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of the fact that his name has been mentioned in the FI.R. Substantive evidence is one tendered at trial and it is on that evidence that the court may or may not base a conviction F.I.R. can at the most be used for the purpose of corroboration.Both Public Witness 2 and Public Witness .3 have gone on record saying that they identified Sat Pal at test identification parade only after they were shown his photographs by the police.Mr. Mathur, learned counsel, urged that if the court finds these two witnesses lying on a particular feature of the case, then their testimony is not worthy of any credit.We do not agree for the simple reason that the conduct of a witness does in no way absolve the court of its duty to separate grain from the chaff.(9) Mr. Malhur's contention that the conduct of these two witnesses in not interfering at the time of the incident shows that they are not the eye' witnesses, in our view, is unsustainable.The reason is that it is actually these two witnesses who removed the deceased to the hospital.Name of P.W.3 Kailash appears in M.L C. The shirt of Lalit Kumar was found having blood stains of the same group as that of the deceased.Lalit Kumar (P.W.2) made the statement Ex. Public Witness 2/A immediately after the incident giving full details and also the names of the eye witnesses.The F.I.R. was sent to the Magistrate within time leaving no room for any manipulation.Public Witness .3 Kailash Chand could not be examined on the same night as, according to him, he left for Kota in Rajasthan to inform the son of the deceased about the incident.He made the statement immediately on his arrival back from Kota.(10) Mr. D.C. Mathur invited our attention to the statement of Public Witness .6 one Radhey Sham to press his point that Kailash Chand was not an eye witness.Relying on the testimony of Radhey Sham it is contended that the son of the deceased was in Delhi as it was he who had informed Public Witness .6 about the incident at 11 P.M. same night.It is nowhere stated by Public Witness .6 Radhey Sham that Subhash, the boy who informed him is the son of deceased, or that he is the only son of the deceased.All he states is that the deceased was his 'sala' (brother-in-law) and Subhash Chand was the son of his brother-in-law How can the presence of Public Witness .3 Kailash Chand be doubted when his name also appears in the M.L.C. as the person who brought the deceased to hospital ? We, however, agree with the learned counsel that Public Witness .7 Dropadi is not an eye-witness.She is not so described in the F.I.R. and it seems to us that she came to the place of incident only after it was over Her plea that she was pushed by the appellants resulting in injury is not sustainable.There is no medical evidence about her sustaining an injury.(11) In our view, the presence of Public Witness .2 and Public Witness .3 at the scene of incident is clearly established.As already observed, the medical evidence is also consistent with the eye-witnesses account.The only point now left for our consideration is who, if any, is to be held responsible for the commission of this crime ? The case of the prosecution rests on the direct evidence of P.W.2 and Public Witness 3 and we find them worthy of credit- The only departure they have made in their testimony at trial is their refusal to identify Sat Pal appellant as the third culprit.we are left with no evidence against Sat Pal appellant regarding his involvement in the commission of this crime.As far as the appellants Ashok and Prem Singh are concerned the prosecution has established their guilt beyond any doubt.The shirt recovered from Ashok appellant was stained with the blood group of the deceased.In this case the nature of injuries, the force used in inflicting the fatal injuries, the seat of the injuries and the cruel manner in which these were inflicted clearly go to show that the appellants intended to kill the deceased.In this case, the facts amply establish that the assault on the deceased was extremely vindictive and merciless.The force used was out of all proportion: The accused worked with one design and object and were definitely in know of the fatal consequences that in fact ensued as a result of conjoint attack which makes everyone who participated in the crime responsible for the same.This is a case wherein all the accused simultaneously attacked with knives clearly establishing their common intention.However, there is no evidence that the knife recovered from Sat Pal is a prohibited weapon.(12) The result is that the appeal No. 27/86 of Sat Pal is allowed.His conviction and sentence is set aside and he is acquitted of all the charges.The appeal No 42/86 of Ashok and Prem Singh is dismissed and their conviction and sentence under sec.302/34 Indian Penal Code is confirmed.They are.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,856,716 |
In Re: - An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 12/02/2020 in connection with Kandi P.S. Case No. 151 of 2017 dated 06/03/2017 under Section 363 /365 /368 /354 /323 /354D /506 /509/34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 12 of the POCSO Act.And In the matter of: Dilabur Sk @ Hossain ....petitioner.Mr. S. Mondal ...for the petitioner.Petitioner shall appear before the court below and hand over his passport, if any, within four weeks from date.In the event he does not have a passport, he shall personally appear before the court below and furnish a affidavit to that effect within the time frame mentioned hereinabove.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,862 |
Appeal by special leave from the uderstand order datedAugust 3, 1967 of the Patna High Courtin Criminal Appeal No.389 of 1965 with Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1048of 1969 from the judgment and order dated July 14, 1969, ofthe Patna High Court in Criminal Misc.No. 411 of 1969.from the judgment and, order dated July 14, 1969, of thePatna Hi& Court in Criminal Misc.No. 411 of 1969.S. N. Prasad, for the appellant.B. P. Jha, for the respondent.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, after going throughthe oral and documentary evidence, answered the first pointin the affirmative and held that the accused was handlingthe cash in the office during the aforesaid period as acashier.On point No. 2 the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, afterconsidering the oral and documentary evidence, held :On point No. 3 he held that "the accused made entries in thecash book showing remittance of the charge amount to sub-divisions Nos. 2 and 3 but the same were not actuallyremitted by the accused nor they were received in sub-division Nos. 2 and 3."The point of issue-estoppel was raised before him, the pointbeing that the accused was put up on trial in a previouscase under s. 409, I.P.C., for having committed criminalbreach of trust with respect to certain amounts during theperiod December 8, 1960 to August 17, 1961, and in that casethe High Court had acquitted the accused holding that he wasnot in621charge of the cash.The learned Assistant Sessions Judgeheld that the aforesaid finding of the High Court could notoperate as a res judicata.The High Court, on appeal in the present case, upheld thefindings of fact of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,867,493 |
None for the complainant though the provision under Section 15-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act [hereinafter it would be referred as "the Special Act") has been complied with.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants prays to withdraw the appeal i.e. Criminal Appeal No.591/2017 filed by appellant No.2 Komal Singh Yadav and the same, in respect of appellant No.2 Komal Singh Yadav, is dismissed being withdrawn.The remaining appellants have challenged the order dated 13.04.2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Special Act, Guna in Bail application No.72/2017 whereby the application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. preferred by appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh was dismissed.Crime No.72/2017, against appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh was registered at Police Station Kumbhraj, District Guna (M.P.) for the offence punishable 2 Cra.589.2017 Pahalwan Singh and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Cra.591.2017 Harveer and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh under Sections 324, 294, 323, 506/34 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r-s), 3(1)(va) of the Special Act.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that except of offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC, remaining IPC offences are bailable.It is alleged against the co-accused Komal Singh that he abused the victim with the words relating to his caste.Hence, no offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the Special Act is made out against the appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh.Also it is apparent that co-accused Komal Singh Yadav has given a motor to the complainant on rent.If the appellants had hatred with the complainant due to his caste then such motor could not be given to him on rent.Hence, quarrel is not dependent upon the caste of the complainant.It is alleged against the co-accused Komal Singh Yadav that he assaulted the victim with a farsa whereas the appellant did not know that 3 Cra.589.2017 Pahalwan Singh and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh Cra.591.2017 Harveer and another Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh the co-accused Komal Singh Yadav would assault in such a manner.Common intention of appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh cannot be presumed with the co- accused.Prima facie no offence under Section 324 of IPC either directly or with the help of Section 34 of IPC is made out against the appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh and the remaining IPC offences are bailable.Under these circumstances, the trial court has committed an error in not accepting the application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. preferred by the appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh, however, they assure that they will co-operate during investigation and thus they pray for bail of anticipatory nature and acceptance of the present appeals.Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the appeals.4 Cra.589.2017 Pahalwan Singh and another Vs.This order shall continue till disposal of the case and therefore as and when charge-sheet is filed, each of the appellants i.e. Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh shall furnish bail bonds of the similar amount before the trial court and they shall be released on bail.Though this order shall continue till disposal of trial, however, in case of bail jump it shall become ineffective and each of the appellants Pahalwan Singh, Golu Yadav and Harveer Singh would be required to move an application under Section 437 or 439 of Cr.P.C., as the case may, be before the trial court afresh.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,867,551 |
(Delivered on the 31st day of July, 2015) The appellant has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 29.1.1997 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in Special Case No.266/1996 whereby the appellant has been convicted of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced to three years' RI with fine of Rs.1000/- and six month's RI respectively, with an additional two months' RI in default of payment of fine.The prosecutions case, in short, is that on 4.11.1996 the prosecutrix (PW-1) was working in her fathers field at Village Pathariya (Police Station Pathariya District Damoh).At about 6:00 PM the appellant held her and kept a towel on her mouth.Thereafter he committed rape upon the prosecutrix.On shouting of the prosecutrix, the appellant gave a threat that if she would tell about the incident to her parents, then she would be killed.The prosecutrix went to her mother Rooprani (PW-3).Rooprani found that blood was oozing from the private part of the prosecutrix.Komal (PW-2), father of the prosecutrix was informed about the incident on the evening when he came back to the house.The incident was also informed to the witnesses Achheylal (P-5) and Babulal (PW-7).Due to threat given by the parents of the appellants, Komal could not go to the police station to lodge an FIR, and therefore after 4-5 days an FIR Ex.P-1 in shape of a written complaint was lodged.The SHO of Police Station Pathariya registered a case by the document Ex.P-2 for the offence under Section 376 of IPC.The prosecutrix was sent for her medico legal examination.Dr. Tulsa Thakur (PW-6) found 5-6 abrasions to the prosecutrix, however no internal injury or any bleeding was found from her private part.Her hymen was found intact.One little finger only could be inserted in the vagina with difficulty.However, some white liquid was found on her outer vagina, and therefore two slides were prepared and handed over to the concerned Constable for forensic science examination of such discharge.After due investigation, a charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Damoh.The appellant-accused abjured his guilt.He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter due to enmity.However, no defence evidence was adduced.The Special Judge, Damoh after considering the prosecution evidence acquitted the appellant from the charge of Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, however convicted him for commission of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC and sentenced as mentioned above.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has stated that her mouth was closed by the appellant with the help of a towel and thereafter he committed rape upon her.She went to her house after the incident and intimated about the incident to her mother Rooprani (PW-3) and to the witnesses Babulal (PW-7) and Achheylal (PW-5).When her father Komal came to the house, he was informed about the incident.There was a threat given by the parents of the appellant, and therefore an FIR could not be lodged within four days.Thereafter a written report Ex.P-1 was submitted by Komal, father of the prosecutrix at Police Station Pathariya and the crime was registered vide document Ex.In support of the prosecutrix, Rooprani (PW-3), Komal (PW-2), Achheylal (PW-5) and Babulal (PW-7) have been examined.However, Dr. Tulsa Thakur (PW-6), who recorded the MLC of the prosecutrix as document Ex.P-6A, has discarded the story of the prosecutrix.According to Dr. Tulsa Thakur, 5-6 abrasions were found to the victim on lip, back, left hip, right thigh and left knee.However, she did not find any internal injury or bleeding to the prosecutrix.Her hymen was found intact.There was no discharge from her internal organ, but white discharge was present in the outer surface of the vagina, and therefore she prepared two slides of such discharge and handed over to the concerned Constable after due sealing.The prosecution did not file the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory relating to vaginal swab of the prosecutrix.Dr. Tulsa Thakur has accepted that abrasions found on the body of the prosecutrix could be caused due to nails of bushes.If such abrasions were found to the prosecutrix on her left hip and back due to offence committed, then there was no possibility of such abrasions on lip and two abrasions on left knee.Those abrasions could be caused before or after the incident.The prosecutrix (PW-1) has accepted in para 18 of her statement that when she went to the field of her father, and was cutting grass, then she sustained injuries due to thorns and bushes grown on the mend of that field.She sustained such injuries in her hands and legs.Hence the explanation has already been given by the prosecutrix for her external injuries on her knee, thigh and lip.The trial Court has convicted the appellant of offence under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC, because Dr. Tulsa Thakur found the hymen of the prosecutrix to be intact and no internal injury was found.When it is specifically alleged by the prosecutrix that the appellant inserted his penis in to her vagina and committed complete rape, then in absence of such symptoms on internal organs of the prosecutrix, the evidence of the prosecutrix would be disbelievable.When there was allegation made of complete rape, then it cannot be said that the offence falls within the attempt to commit rape and hence the view taken by the Special Judge is not correct.In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution appears to be fishy and and concocted.First of all, it is to be noted that the FIR has been lodged with a delay of 4-5 days and it is submitted in the written form.The prosecutrix had admitted that her uncle Dwarka Prasad was a Police Constable, who was posted at Police Station AJAK, Damoh.On information given by her father, Dwarka Prasad came to the house of the prosecutrix on the same evening and thereafter the FIR was lodged.When she was produced before the SHO Pathariya, the SHO had stated that no case is made out.Thereafter he advised the police Constable Dwarka Prasad to lodge a written report and thereafter the report was written by Dwarka Prasad and her father appended his signature on the report and thereafter the written FIR Ex.P-1 was filed before the SHO Pathariya.Komal (PW-2) has stated that since he was threatened by the parents of the appellants, he could not lodge the FIR for 4-5 days and the FIR was not prepared by Constable Dwarka Prasad.As per his statement, he could contact with his relative Dwarka Prasad with a difficulty and Dwarka Prasad immediately left his house on the evening and thereafter Komal visited the Police Station Pathariya and lodged a written FIR.However, in the cross examination of this witness, he has accepted that he was daily visiting the village Pathariya to sell vegetable.If he was going out of his residence and specially to village Pathariya where Police Station was situated, then there was no problem to him to lodge an FIR on the next day of the incident.If any threat was given by the parents of the appellant, then as to why such reason was not mentioned in the FIR Ex.P-1 or case diary statement Ex.There is no corroborative evidence on the record to show that the parents of the appellant have given a threat to complainant Komal.Witnesses Achheylal and Babulal, who were examined in support of the prosecutrix could say about that threat, but they did not say anything that the complainant told them about the threat given by the parents of the appellant, and hence it would be apparent that there is no good explanation with the complainant about the delay of 4-5 days in lodging the FIR.If the cross examination of witness Komal is examined, then he has accepted that his relative Dwarka Prasad came to his house on the next day of the incident and a talk took place of complainant Komal with Dwarka Prasad and Dwarka Prasad advised him to lodge an FIR.If the Constable of Police Station AJAK was relative of the complainant, then he could go along with Constable Dwarka Prasad to lodge an FIR at Police Station Pathariya on second day of the incident.According to the prosecutrix, an intimation was given about the incident to the relative Dwarka Prasad on the same night and he came in the same very night.When the complainant had a shelter of police official, then he could go to lodge an FIR with that Constable Dwarka Prasad on the same very day or at the most on the next day of the incident.Komal and the prosecutrix have accepted that the appellant cultivated the land of Komal one year prior to the incident and in the current year of the incident, brother of the appellant took the field of the complainant Komal on rent.The field was cultivated and in the beginning a plough was hired to plough the land and there was a dispute relating to payment of rent of plough.Hence the admission of the prosecutrix can be accepted that when the complainant told about the dispute to the SHO concerned, the SHO advised that no case is made out.Under these circumstances, the possibility cannot be ruled out that due to dispute of payment of rent of plough, the complainant had lodged an FIR of rape against the appellant to create a pressure upon the appellant and his brother.If the rape would have committed by the appellant upon the prosecutrix, then some internal injury must be present, which could be found by Dr. Tulsa Thakur.Looking to the report of Dr. Tulsa Thakur, it appears that a false case has been lodged against the appellant.The prosecutrix has stated that when she went to her house and told about the incident to her mother Rooprani (PW-3), then witnesses Babulal (PW-7) and Achheylal (PW-5) came to the house of the prosecutrix and they were informed about the incident.However, there is a lot of contradiction between the evidence of the prosecutrix, her mother Rooprani, Babulal and Achheylal about the time and place of narration of story.According to Rooprani, when the prosecutrix was telling about the incident to her, the witnesses came and thereafter her husband Komal came to the house.On the contrary, Achheylal has stated that when Rooprani was weeping, he had asked about the reason for weeping and thereafter the narration of the incident was given by Rooprani.However, in the cross examination, he has accepted that he went to the house of Rooprani on her intimation.It was not expected from Rooprani that in place of telling about the incident to her husband, she would have called another person from the locality, who was neither Kotwar, nor Patwari, Panch or Sarpanch and told about the incident.Similarly, Achheylal has stated that he saw that the frock of the prosecutrix was torn, however it is not told by the prosecutrix or her mother that in the incident the frock of the prosecutrix was torn.It appears that witness Achheylal is showing an extra interest in favour of complainant Komal to establish the case.Similarly, according to the prosecutrix and her mother, the witnesses came to the house of the prosecutrix, whereas Babulal (PW-7) has stated that he was cleaning his utensil at a particular hand pump where the prosecutrix visited that hand pump while going to her house.She was weeping at that time and when she was asked by Babulal, she told about the incident.Thereafter he went to the house of the prosecutrix and told to her parents to lodge an FIR.He has also stated that he saw torn underwear of the prosecutrix and blood was oozing from her private part.He has stated that there was a clot of blood on the thigh of the prosecutrix and her both knees were bruised.However, his statement was found contradictory to his case diary statement Ex.The prosecutrix and her mother did not say that witness Babulal met with the prosecutrix at the hand pump and he visited to her house with her.Similarly, no torn underwear was seized by the police.The prosecutrix and her mother Rooprani did not say that underwear of the prosecutrix was torn.Dr. Tulsa Thakur did not find any reason so that any internal bleeding would have been caused to the prosecutrix 4-5 days back.Dr. Tulsa Thakur has specifically accepted that there was no internal discharge.Some white discharge was placed in outer surface of the vagina and she did not explain what was the source of that discharge.Hence the testimony of the prosecutrix is not believable that the appellant had committed any rape upon her.Looking to the evidence given by Komal and the prosecutrix relating to enmity between Komal and the appellant and his brother, the possibility cannot be ruled out that a false FIR has been lodged to create a pressure upon the appellant so that the dispute between the complainant and the appellant and his brother could be resolved.As discussed above, the evidence given by the prosecutrix is not believable, because her evidence was negativated by Dr. Tulsa Thakur in her report Ex.P-6A. The written FIR was lodged with a delay of 4-5 days and no acceptable explanation was given for such delay.It is also established that the FIR was prepared by police constable Dwarka Prasad, who was relative of the complainant.Police Constable Dwarka Prasad was not examined before the trial Court though entire incident was told to him by the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, the testimony of the prosecutrix is not at all believable.It appears that a false case has been lodged against the appellant.It is not proved beyond doubt that the appellant had committed any intercourse with the prosecutrix or committed any indecent act with her.The trial Court has committed a manifest error in convicting the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 of IPC.The trial Court has framed the charge of Section 506- B of IPC on the ground that the appellant threatened the prosecutrix while he was committing rape.When it is highly doubtful that any rape was committed with the prosecutrix by the appellant, then there is no question of giving a threat to the prosecutrix.Hence the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant gave any threat to the prosecutrix while committing any rape.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the appellant of offence under Section 506-B of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the present appeal filed by the appellant appears to be acceptable.Consequently, it is hereby allowed.His conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court upon the appellant for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 read with Section 511 and Section 506-B of IPC are hereby set aside.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,875,203 |
(14-08-2018)This criminal revision is directed against order dated 2.3.2016 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of (Atrocities) Act, Narsinghpur in S.T. No. 26/2016, whereby a charge under Section 304 and in the alternative Section 304 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. (on 7 Cr.R.No.1787/2016 2 counts) and Section 3(2-v) (on 6 counts) was framed against petitioners/accused persons Manish Rai and Ashish Rai.The facts giving rise to this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: On 29.9.2015, construction work was going on in the warehouse of petitioners Manish and Ashish.Labourers first informant Arvind, Meghraj, Mohan Lal, Punnu, Sukhram, Rajesh, Ramesh, Sonu @ Suresh, Rajkumar and Akhilesh had gone to work on the site.They were plastering the wall of the warehouse from outside.At the same time, co-accused Naresh was performing filling work inside the ware house with the help of a J.C.B. Machine, on the instructions of and under the supervision of the petitioners Manish and Ashish, who were present on the spot.First informant Arvind and other labourers expressed apprehension that use of J. C. B. Machine might cause the wall to collapse and the labourers might lose their lives.However, petitioners Ashish and Manish and co-accused Naresh did not pay any heed to them and Naresh, on the directions of Manish and Ashish, kept operating J.C.B. Machine.At around 1:00 p.m., J.C.B. Machine crashed into the wall on which aforesaid labourers were applying plaster.As a result, the wall collapsed.Labourers Meghraj, Kishori, Mohanlal, Punnu, Rajesh, Sukhram, Ramesh, Sonu @ Suresh and Raj Kumar were buried under the debris.They were pulled out by the others.However, Meghraj, Kishori, Mohanlal, Punnu, Sukhram and Rajesh lost their lives on the spot.Ramesh, Sonu @ Suresh and Rajkumar sustained injuries.Out of aforesaid victims Ramesh, Punnu, Sukhram, Mohanlal, Meghraj and Kishorilal belonged to Scheduled Castes.After investigation, charge sheet was filed and after hearing the accused persons, the trial Court framed charges as aforesaid.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the charge mainly on the ground that the petitioners were not driving the J.C.B. Machine.Due to rashness and negligence of co-accused Naresh, the J.C.B. Machine crashed into the wall causing it collapsed.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State on the other hand, has supported the impugned order.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
668,778 |
ORDER A. Ramamurthi, J.Petitioner is the complainant in C.C. 2510 of 1997 and aggrieved against the orders passed in Cri.M.P. No. 67 of 1998 by the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chornai, the present revision is filed.Subsequently, the third accused filed Cri.M.P. No. 67 of 1998 under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground that he is only a signatory to the letter containing reference to an allegation made by one of the members and calling upon the others to attend a meeting to discuss the issue and, as such, no offence under Section 500, IPC is made out and sought for discharge.The complainant filed a counter and opposed the application and after hearing both the parties the learned Magistrate allowed the application and aggrieved against this, the complainant has filed the present revision petition.3. Heard the learned Counsel of both sides.2) To what relief ?Points :- It is admitted that the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 500, IPC against four accused.Out of the four accused, the third accused filed a petition under Section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The complainant is a Veterinary Doctor.The complainant as well as accused 1 to 3 are residents of Rajendra Apartments, Kilpauk.Para 3 of the letter reads as follows :As you know, Mr. Sukumaran has alleged that Dr. Selvaraj has manipulated the accounts and misappropriated the Association's funds.He has also disclosed how he has resisted Dr. Selvaraj's attempts to tax' the flat owners, which has greatly benefited us.Learned Counsel for the respondent contended that the attention of the flat owners alone was drawn to the allegation with a request to them to attend the General Body meeting and express their views.It cannot be said that the third accused has committed the offence under Section 500, IPC and he was only a signatory to the letter containing reference to the allegation made by one of the members and he had bona fidely called upon the others to attend the General Body Meeting.The continuance of the proceedings against him will be in the nature of harassment.Learned Counsel for the petitioner complainant contended that the admission of the third accused that he signed the letter dated 10-10-1996 which contains the earlier defamatory statements made by the first accused against the complainant itself is an offence under Section 500, IPC.The third accused being a signatory to the document is liable for the offence.It is stated that the third accused and others had inspected the accounts and he confirmed the apprehension of misappropriation of the complainant.No case has been made out by the third accused for discharge.While so, the complaint and the other documents would reveal that all the accused joined themselves and Issued circulars to all the flat owners containing defamatory allegation of misappropriation of the Association's funds.The circular dated 1-10-1996 contains only defamatory allegation and, as such, the third accused also should be proceeded further.A bare reading of the complaint clearly indicates that there is dispute between the occupants of the flats and defamatory allegations have been made against the complainant, who happened to be the President of the Association for a period of three years.It is also disclosed how they have resisted the President's attempts to tax the flat owners.Now, the learned Counsel for the third accused contended that since other persons had signed in the said circular, he had also signed the same.
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,879,715 |
The facts in brief of this case are as follows.PW-1- Har Narayan Yadav, who is father of the deceased- Sheela, had married his daughter in the year 2008 with the appellant- Krishna Kumar Yadav (appellant no. 3) S/o Yugul Kishor, after having given dowry as per his means but the said appellant and his family members were not satisfied with the same and were demanding more money to be given for purchase of plot in District- Ballia and for this they were continuously harassing his daughter as phone calls were being received regularly from his daughter's side in this regard and she used to say that she needed protection.PW-1- Har Nayaran Yadav, some times used to tell Yugul Kishor Yadav (father of Krishna Kumar Yadav), R/o Village- Bajra Ke Tola, P.S. Bairiya, that he should keep patience but he had started telling his daughter that her father had got the money of pension released and, hence he should procure money from him so that plot could be purchased.His daughter used to explain him that he had two other sisters and a brother, who were to be married and were being given education but being annoyed, Krishna Kumar Yadav (appellant no. 3), Ashok Yadav (appellant no. 2), (Jeth of the deceased) and Yugul Kishor (father-in-law of the deceased) and Smt. Manju Yadav (appellant no. 1), mother-in-law of the deceased, all together hatched conspiracy to eliminate his daughter in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012 and finally murdered her and cremated her in company with their friends and, thereafter, sent information to the informants house and after receiving said information when the family members of the informant reached village Bajra Ke Tola, then the villagers there told that they had heard some noise in the house of accused-appellants but nothing much was revealed.Having written this report (Ext. Ka-1), the same was given at P.S. Bairiya and Case Crime No. 316 of 2012, u/s 498A, 304B, 201 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act was registered against Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Yadav, Manju Devi, Yugul Kishor (father-in-law of the deceased), Indu Devi W/o Sri Narayan Yadav, Kamla Devi, all R/o of village Bairiya on 24.8.2012 at 09:40 a.m., chick F.I.R. of which is Ext. Ka-5 and entry of this case was made in G.D. (Ext. Ka-6) at report no. 16, time 9:40 hours on 24.8.2012 and the case was assigned to C.O. Alok Kumar Jaiswal (PW-6) for investigation in this case, who made inspection of the place of occurrence at the instance of informant and prepared site plan (Ext. Ka-2).Smt. Manju Devi W/o Ashok Kumar, Indu Devi, W/o Sri Narayan Yadav, Ashok Kumar s/o Yugul Kishor, Yugul Kishor S/o Zalim, Kamla Devi (wife of Yugul Kishor) had killed his daughter Sheela because they wanted to purchase a plot.At the time of marriage, domestic items were provided in dowry by which they were not satisfied and all of them were demanding additional money for purchase of plot in District- Ballia.His daughter used to tell him on phone that she was being harassed and being threatened to be killed for non-fulfillment of the demand of dowry and that the said demand was being made by all the accused named above.He went to matrimonial home of his daughter many times to explain his position to them but they did not stop torturing his daughter, rather started saying to his daughter that her father had brought home his pension, therefore, she should press for money to be given but his daughter explained to them that her father had liability of marrying other sisters and brother who were also being given education which required money but to no avail, his daughter was murdered; after having cremated her, information of her death was sent to them.At that time he was not at home rather had gone to Gangapar village alempur at his sister's place in Bihar.After getting information, his nephew Raju S/o Bhulan , Visarjan S/oAmerika had gone to the house of accused persons and found that they were cremating body of his daughter and when they inquired from the persons nearby, they simply stated that there was some noise heard coming out of the house of the appellants and nothing much was revealed.In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had retired from the post of S.I. and had not received any promotion but why he was not promoted, he could not tell its reason but he was never suspended.He retired on 31.7.2010 from District Sultanpur in June, 2011 and had not received his funds so far.At the time of his retirement, he had received about 14,00,000/- as fund amount but could not tell as to when the same was received.Further, he stated that he had told about amount of fund having been received by him to his son-in-law and had stated that the entire amount was not received by him but he does not recollect the date when he told him about this.His daughter was a graduate, who was told that he had not received full amount of fund.Further he stated that on 19.8.2012, he had gone to Village Salempur, Ara in District Bihar where weather had deteriorated, hence he had to return through (via) Baksar.His brother-in-law (jeeja) used to remain sick and he had gone to meet him there.He had died after his returning to his village.He had received information about death of his daughter Sheela but not in Salempur.At that time, his nephew and his sister did not have any mobile phone and he himself had not taken his mobile phone with him but wife of his nephew had mobile phone.He still had one daughter left to be married.His eldest son Suresh lives at home and does domestic work.He is staying at home in his ancestral house in Chhapra and does not have any house or plot in any city.Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.)Heard Sri M.B. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Jai Narain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.10.2015 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No. 1, Ballia in Sessions Trial No. 169 of 2013 (State Vs.Krishna Kumar Yadav and others), whereby all the accused have been held guilty and awarded following punishment and all the sentences are directed to run concurrently.No. Name 304-B IPC 498-A IPC 4 D.P. Act 201 IPC 1 Manju Devi Life imprisonment 2 Years R.I., Fine Rs. 2000/-, In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of 6 months 1 Year R.I., Fine Rs. 1000/-, In default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment of 3 months ......He after having perused marriage card, recorded statements of Ram Kumar Pandey, Pandit, who performed the marriage and witness Umesh Yadav, who was mediator of the marriage.On 26.9.2012, he recorded statements of Susheela Yadav (PW-4), Raju Yadav (PW-2), Fagu Yadav, Ishwar Dayal Yadav, Bakey Ram Yadav and accused Yugul Kishor Yadav, witness Ram Narayan Yadav, accused Kamli Devi (wife of the Yugul Kishor Yadav) and after having found sufficient evidence on record submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-3) against Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Kumar Yadav and thereafter after having recorded statements of accused Manju Devi on 15.2.2013, the same day submitted charge sheet (Ext. Ka-4) against her also.The chick F.I.R. and the G.D. which were prepared by Constable Mohorrir Banarasi Ram, was also proved by PW-3, who had remained posted with him.The trial court framed charges against the appellants Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Yadav and Manju Devi, under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 IPC and under Section 3/4 D.P. Act on 5.8.2013 to which the accused-appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In support of prosecution's case as documentary evidence, written report (Ext. Ka-1), site plan (Ext. Ka-2), Charge sheets (Ext. Ka-3 and Ka-4), Chick F.I.R. (Ext. Ka-5), G.D. (Ext. Ka-6), were presented and proved.Thereafter, the prosecution evidence was closed and the statements of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded.The accused-appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav has stated on 4.8.2015 and 28.9.2015 in defense that he had given information about death of Sheela (deceased) to the informant on 20.8.2012 pursuant to which the informant had come to his house village- Tola Ke Bairiya and after having seen the deceased, had given consent to cremate her body.Further he denied any demand of dowry having been made and stated that the entire prosecution evidence was false, in fact the deceased died due to pain in her abdomen as a result of ailment and when soon after her death information was sent to her parent's house, all of them had come and in their presence after having obtained their consent the last rites were performed according to Hindu customs.The informant is a greedy person who has lodged this false report being beguiled by others.He further stated that Susheela is younger sister of his wife Sheela, both of them had good relations with each other and used to share everything between them.The investigation was not properly done.The informant is a retired S.I. of Police Department, who due to his greediness and coming under influence of other person, has concocted a false version of prosecution and pressurizing the police department has got lodged this false case.He had very sweet relations with the deceased as he had assisted her in filling up form of B.Ed and had made the deceased nominee in his LIC policy and out of their wedlock one daughter Chiku was born, who was one and half year old at the time of incident.The appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav has stated that during holidays, separate OPD register was used to be kept by Doctor and that the patient who used to be seen during holidays, the nature of illness of those patient used to be entered in such register.On 15.8.2012, due to OPD being closed, the OPD patients were not seen and due to that no entry could be made in OPD register, however, the entry with respect to the treatment of deceased might have been entered in private register of the doctor.He further stated that it was wholely wrong that on the basis of statement of CW-3- Pharmasist Sri Shukla, the out door patient ticket (Ext. Kha-7) was a forged document because it has come in the statement of said witness that the residence of Dr. Mukund Lal was in Sonvarsha hospital itself and no page of the said register was certified.He has pleaded innocence and has stated that the parcha proving treatement having been given to the deceased by Dr. Mukund Lal has been proved by his domestic servant.Appellant- Ashok Yadav, has stated in defense that all the evidence presented by the prosecution against him is false and further stated that after death of Sheela when information was sent by Krishna Kumar Yadav to the informant Har Narayan, he had come at the place of occurrence on 28.8.2012 at 6:30 a.m. and denied that any dowry was demanded.Further he stated that Sheela had died of ailment and her last rites were performed with the consent of her parents and other family members.In her last rite, all the relatives of the deceased from her parent's side were present.This accused also reiterated that the informant being a retired S.I. had lodged this false case due to being greedy under infuence of outsiders.Further he stated that the deceased Sheela and Krishna Kumar Yadav were married on 24.4.2007 and prior to said marriage, since 2004 Krishna Kumar Yadav was living separate from his parents and his brothers.He is innocent and still lives separate from his own family.She also stated that the deceased was given treatment by the appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav.Further Vinod Kumar Singh as DW-1, Kameshwar Prasad Yadav as DW-2, Ram Ji Yadav as DW-3, Ram Niwas Singh as DW-4 and Bhuvneshwar Yadav as DW-5, have been examined in defense from the side of the appellants.Learned trial court after having considered the arguments as well as having perused the record has convicted the accused-appellants and awarded punishment as mentioned above, hence this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellants has mainly hammered the point that there was no demand of dowry made from the side of the appellants because the marriage had been performed in the year 2008 while death of the deceased had occurred on 19.8.2012 and during this entire period not a single complaint was ever made at any P.S. or to any other higher authority of police with respect to demand of dowry.The deceased had died because of pain in her abdomen for which she was given treatment but she could not survive and soon after her death, the appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav had intimated the parents as well as other family members of the deceased, in response to which they had come to the place of incident and after having taken their consent the last rites were performed of the deceased.There is enough evidence adduced from the side of defense to prove that parents and other family members of the deceased had come to the place of incident and had participated in the last rites, including photographs were showing presence of the complainant side but subsequently due to greediness of the first informant, who is retired police S.I., whole false story has been concocted only with a view to extorting money from the appellants.The accused-appellants are absolutely innocent and hence they deserve to be acquitted.On the other hand, learned A.G.A. has vehemently argued that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment as the learned trial court has rightly arrived on a conclusion that there was demand of dowry made from the side of appellants and for non-fulfilment of the same, deceased died within seven years of her marriage in her matrimonial home and hence with the aid of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, the conviction has been rightly made.We have heard both the sides and have perused the entire record.It would be appropriate to go through the evidence to evaluate the evidence afresh and to see as to whether the findings of the learned trial court are in accordance with the evidence adduced from the side of prosecution and the defense is correct or not.The informant (PW-1) has deposed that in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012 occurrence had taken place.He has five daughters out of whom, one was married to Krishna Kumar Yadav.At the time of death of deceased, all his nephews were in the village except to one or two.Prior to the death of Sheela, all his cases of Tehsil Bairiya used to be looked after by his son-in-law (accused appellant-Krishna Kumar Yadav).Prior to her death, Sheela was being harassed, therefore, he does not think that Krishna Kumar Yadav was a good person.Further he stated that he had engaged Ram Niwas as his counsel while Krishna Kumar Yadav was his junior but subsequently stated that he was his assistant.When he reached home, all were weeping and when news of death of his daughter reached, his youngest daughter- Susheela had given this news to him in the evening on phone on 19.8.2012 and, thereafter, he had given an application at P.S. for registering a case at 5:00 p.m. He had written the report at home and, thereafter, he had gone to P.S. next day i.e. on 24.8.2012 to obtain its copy and his statement was recorded by the circle officer there only at P.S. at about 10:00 a.m. and, thereafter, he did not meet the S.H.O.. Further he stated that on 24.8.2012, at about 12 noon, he had gone in the office of circle officer, Bairiya with a copy of Chick F.I.R. He had given application in the evening of 23.8.2012 but does not recollect the same but by that time the sun-set had happened.When Krishna Kumar Yadav demanded money for purchase of plot, when he had gone to explain to him, he does not recollect.Further he stated that till four days after the occurrence, he remained in his relation at Salempur and that the news of death of Sheela was received in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012, none of his nephews had come to Salempur to give him this news.Further he stated that prior to the death of Sheela, last time she visited his home was on 10.2.2011 and six months thereafter a daughter was born to her but he does not know what was name of daughter of the deceased and at that time the deceased had stayed at his home for 15 to 20 days.Further he stated that he does not know as to who had come from the matrimonial home of the deceased to bring her back from his home but subsequently conceded that Yugul Kishor had come to take her back because after marriage Krishna Kumar Yadav had vowed not to visit his home.He denied that Krishna Kumar Yadav used to take his youngest daughter Susheela to enable her to appear in the examination of B.A. on his motor-cycle, rather stated that his nephews used to take Susheela for her examination.Further he stated that even prior to his retirement or his fund having been released, a demand for money to be given for purchase of plot, was being made from his daughter.The appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav is a law graduate and he is the best ecucated amongst his sons-in-law and was doing practise at Tehsil Bariya.He had gone to see him there and marriage were performed with much fanfare.Gauna was performed after two and 1/2 years after the marriage, his daughter returned from her matrimonial home in depressed condition but he had not written this in his written report (Ext. Ka-1), but he could not tell its reason.Further he stated that the daughter of Krishna Kumar was born on 10.2.2011 at his home and on that occasion, he had gone there without any clothes and all and showed ignorance that daughter of Sheela was born in Divyalok Sonvarsha Nursing Home and also showed his ignorance that the medical expenditure at the time of birth of deceased's daughter was borne by appellant Krishna Kumar and his family members.Further he stated that no money was spent at the time of birth of daughter of the deceased by him.The daughter of the deceased is still staying with appellants and later on he stated that he had no knowledge about her nor did he try to know about it as to who was bringing her up, although he stated that he had gone to see her many times but still could not tell her name.Further he stated that demand for money to be given for purchase of plot was being made not from the time when he retired, rather the same was being made soon after marriage was performed but when he retired the said demand was exacerbated and despite knowing that demand of dowry was an offence, he did not make any complaint about it through anyone.He also stated that whenever he called her daughter on occasions of marriage etc., she used to visit his home and due to being harassed for demand of dowry, he never brought his daughter to his home, although he stated that he kept explaining his position to the accused side in this regard.He denied that financial condition of appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav was better than his own at the time of marriage.Further he stated that he had gone to his relation's place on 19.8.2013 (appears to be wrong as it should be 19.08.2012) leaving his mobile phone bearing no. 9451996874 and on this very mobile no., he was called by Yugul Kishor (father of appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav) and upon receipt of this information his two nephews namely Raju Yadav and Visarjan had gone there and also Kapil Muni who was his brother had also gone there.He does not know whether Krishna Kumar Yadav had participated in last rites of the deceased or not.Further he stated that incident is of intervening night of 19/20.8.2013 (appears to be wrong and it should be 19/20.8.2012) while when he returned home on 23.8.2013, then he was told about it by his nephews and brother.His brother Kapil Muni did not tell him that he was present at the time of last rites on the Ghat (cremation ground), rather stated that when they were returning after cremation then Kapil Muni met them.He denied that on the date of incident, he, his daughters, his son Surendra, brother Kapil Muni, son-in-law Umesh had participated in last rites of the deceased- Sheela on 20.8.2013(should be 20.8.2012) on the banks of river Ghagra.When he reutrned home, his son told him that they were waiting for him for lodging the report but, he did not mention about it in the F.I.R. nor did he state so in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Further he stated that the house of the appellants is near river Ghagra (Sarju) and after seeing photographs (Ext. Kha-1)), he stated that two persons who were sitting in round circle made in the said photo were his brother-in-law Ram Darash Yadav and brother Kapil Muni whom he recognises.In photograph Ext. Kha-2, he stated that the dead body which was shown in it was that of his daughter and near funeral pyre, the mediator of marriage and his son-in-law Umesh Yadav were seen in the said photo whom he recognises.In third photograph (Ext. Kha-3) he also stated that Mahawar was put on the feet of the deceased and 'mukhagni' was given by Krishna Kumar Yadav and behind him was his father Yugul Kishor and he denied that he had gone to the cremation ground and returned soon from there with an intention to extort money from the appellants to lodge an F.I.R. even prior to the funeral pyre was being set.Further he stated that he has no knowledge that Krishna Kumar Yadav had any L.I.C. Policy or not and whether deceased Sheela was a nominee in that.He also does not know that appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav had got a B.T.C. form filled by the deceased Sheela in the year 2010 and was deliberately concealing about it.But he did recognize that the admission form of B.Ed.of 2013, Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Mukt Vishwavidyalaya, Kaidan Gadhi, New delhi, photo pasted on that was of his daughter (deceased).He also showed ignorance about the treatement being given to his daughter by Dr. Rakesh Singh at his clinic between 27.2.2012 to 5.3.2012 and also showed ignorance that prior to the incident, his daughter suffered pain in abdomen and was having vomiting because of which she was taken to Community Health Clinic in Kasba Ballia for treatement where on 10.8.2012 till 15.8.2012, treatment was given to her and on 15.8.2.12 her medicines were changed and denied that her daughter died a natural death due to pain in abdomen and that his brother and other relatives have participated in her cremation.Further he denied that younger brother of Krishna Kumar Yadav namely Deepak was doing any job after having completed M.B.A. and there was any proposal of marriage of his younger daughter with Deepak and when it was denied, being aggrieved this false case has been lodged and also to earn illegal money, out of the said episode, this false case has been lodged.His testimony is wholely unreliable because of delay in F.I.R. and his admission that he never made any complaint with regard to demand of extra money being made neither soon before the death of the deceased nor after her marriage for the purchase of plot by the appellants side.His conduct has also been pointed out to be not appropriate because he admitted that deceased had given birth to a daughter and on that occasion, he had not gone there with any clothes and all nor had spent a singly penny on that happy occasion which is unnatural.He has also admitted the presence of above mentioned relatives in the photographs which are alleged to have been taken on the cremation ground which shows their presence and it was pointed out that no post-mortem was done in this case only because the deceased died as a result of pain having suffered by her in abdomen for which she was given treatment and if the complainant side had any suspicion about the death of the deceased to have happened in some other manner they could have resisted cremation on the spot and could have pressed that post-mortem be got conducted to ascertain the cause of death but nothing such has happened.He also argued that deliberately PW-1 is showing his presence at his relative's place on the date when incident happened only to explain the delay in lodging the F.I.R. which was lodged after much deliberation though information was transmitted to him promptly.It is also reflected from the statement of PW-1 that the deceased was even got BTC form filled up by her husband and her husband had even named her in LIC policy as a nominee which all indicates that they were having good relationship and there was nothing abnormal between them and even daughter which was born out of the wedlock was still staying with the appellants, therefore, from the statement of PW-1, it does not appear that there was any demand of dowry made, from the side of the appellants.It is also apparent from the statement of above witness that there is no consistency in his statement due to various discrepancies as to when actual demand of said dowry was made, whether at the time when he got the funds released after retirement or soon before death of the deceased and due to this, the statement made in examination-in-chief in the light of discrepancies which have been elicited in cross-examination, does not appear to be a believable statement in respect of demand of dowry and other material particulars.19. PW-2, Raju Yadav has stated that the deceased was his cousin sister.On 19/20.8.2012, he had received a phone call from Krishna Kumar Yadav regarding illness of deceased and at that time, informant was not at home as he had gone to his relation's place in Ara.In response to the said information, he had not gone to the matrimonial home of the deceased, as he had gone for tuition and he also does not have knowledge as to who had gone from his home.The informant had retired from the post of S.I. on 20.8.2012 but he had no knowledge that Krishna Kumar Yadav, Ashok Kumar, Manju Devi and other family members were asking for money from Sheela for purchase of plot.The father of Sheela had not told him about any such demand nor did he know as to how Sheela died in her matrimonial home or how her cremation was done.This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned ADGC (criminal).In cross-examination, he has stated that his father had five brothers and all were staying together; no demand of money was made by Krishna Kumar, Ashok Kumar and Manju Devi for purchase of plot from him or his family members nor does he have any knowledge about it.The deceased was not being harassed by anyone in her matrimonial home.He has shown ignorance that she was being treated in Sonvarsha Government hospital for pain in abdomen.After having seen Ext. Kha-1, he stated that in the said photograph uncle- Kapil Muni, Phoopha- Ram Darash were appearing and in Ext. Kha-2, he recognized the dead body of the deceased Sheela placed on funeral pyre and near which was present Umesh Yadav, who was mediator of the marriage.The information on phone call was received from Bajra Ke Tola that Sheela was sick, in this regard the ladies at home had told him.The statement of this witness appears to be believable because he seems to be genuinely saying that in photographs mentioned above, his relatives were present at the time of cremation of the deceased and that he had no knowledge about demand of dowry having been made.20. PW-3, Visarjan Yadav has stated that the informant is his uncle, he has no knowledge as to how the deceased died but he does know that a night prior to 20.8.2012, she had died in her matrimonial home, information about which was received next day in the morning and pursuant to that he had gone to see her but she was not found there.No one had given any information about her death.He had no knowledge as to whether any noise was heard coming out of the house of deceased, though this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned A.D.G.C. in which he has not supported the prosecution version rather, stated that Krishna Kumar and Sheela had a daughter and they were living happily.He used to go there to matrimonial home of the deceased but would never know that any harassment was being made for demand of dowry.His statement does not appear to suffer from any infirmity and appears to be creditworty statement.PW-4 Susheela Yadav, sister of the deceased has also stated that no demand of money was made by the accused persons for purchase of plot from his sister and father.She was told that in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012 her sister died due to pain in abdomen in a Government hospital for which she was being treated in Government hospital Sonvarsha and she also stated that the Krishna Kumar Yadav and his family members had given information about death of Sheela and in response to that Raju and Visarjan Yadav had gone there from complainant's side to the deceased matrimonial home.The report regarding death of her sister was lodged by her father at P.S. concerned regarding which her father had told her that the same was got lodged by him at the instance of some villagers and the deceased was not eliminated for demand of any money for purchase of plot not being fulfilled.This witness was also declared hostile but in cross-examination, learned A.D.G.C. could elicit nothing which would discredit her statement in examination-in-chief.PW-5 Ashok Kumar Yadav is son-in-law of the informant, who has also stated that informant had told him that due to being beguiled by some other persons, he had lodged the F.I.R., against appellants.His wife Geeta had told him that the deceased Sheela had suffered pain in abdomen 7-8 days prior to her death and was being treated in Sonvarsha Government hospital.Information about death of Sheela was given by Krishna Kumar Yadav in the morning about 5:00 a.m., to the complainant side and he was also informed about it and pursuant to that he had participated in her last rites.He denied that any demand of money was being made for purchase of plot by the accused side and for non-fulfilment of which she was eliminated.After being declared hostile, nothing could be elicited from his cross-examination to discredit his testimony in the examination-in-chief which is found to be creditworthy.PW-6, C.O., Alok Kumar Jaiswal is a formal witness who has proved C.D., site plan and other formal documents, hence his statement does not require to be dealt with at length.Court itself has examined Kapil Muni Yadav as C.W.-1, who is brother of the informant, who has stated that appellant Krishna Kumar Yadav is an Advocate in Bairiya Tahsil where he contests revenue cases.Out of the wedlock of Krsihna Kumar and Sheela one daughter Chicku was born, who lives with grand-parents.The deceased was never given any kind of torture or subjected to any kind of harassment for demand of dowry and had died a natural death due to abdominal pain regarding which information was given by Krishna Kumar timely and he had participated in her last rites.Similarly, C.W.-2 Ram Darash Yadav has been examined by the court on its own who is brother-in-law of the informant, who has given same statement as given by C.W.-1 with respect to the death of the deceased and regarding dowry demand.C.W.-3, Nirbhaya Kumar Shukla has been examined by the court but his statement is admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant to be not revelant because an effort was made by the trial court to see whether the deceased was admitted or got treated at C.H.C. Sonvarsha or not, on the basis of any entry found in the register there, but this witness had stated that no such entry was found on 10.8.2018 which could show that Sheela Devi was given treatment there.In defense, from the side of appellants, Vinod Kumar Singh has been examined as D.W.-1 who has stated that he is resident of the same village and that Ashok Kumar Yadav was living separate from Krishna Kumar Yadav from last 10 years and father of Manju Devi lived in Howrah where Manju Devi had gone on 30.7.2012 on the occasion of Rakshabandhan.The death of wife of Krishna Kumar had happened due to abdominal pain in the intervening night of 19/20.8.2012 and on that day in the morning he had gone to his house where father of the deceased Har Narayan, uncle of the deceased Kapil Muni and cousin brother etc. were present and her dead body was taken for cremation at the banks of river Sarju.He denied that any demand of dowry was ever made nor any harassment for the same was made by the appellants and denied that being resident of same village, he is giving false statement.D.W.-2 Kameshwar Prasad has stated that he resides near the house of the appellants.The wife of the deceased and his wife were friends of each other.In the night of 19/20.8.2012, the deceased died natural death due to abdominal pain and upon information being sent to deceased parents, relatives from there side had come to attend the funeral.The father of the deceased Har Narayan Yadav had returned without reaching Ghat.When he was at the door of Krishna Kumar on the date of incident, he came to know that wife of Ashok i.e. Manju had gone to his father's place i.e. Howrah on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and that wife of Krishna Kumar was already running sick, who was being treated in Government hospital Sonvarsha and she died because of abdominal pain.DW-3 Ramji Yadav has stated that Krishna Kumar was living separate two years prior to year 2007 and that deceased had died due to abdominal pain, a natural death.In cross-examination, he has stated that the deceased was never tortured for any kind of dowry and both the husbands and wife were having sweet relations with each other.D.W.-4 Ram Niwas Singh, Advocate who is a senior of the appellant Krishna Kumar, has stated that Krishna Kumar was known to him very well.He used to look after of all the cases of informant at Tahsil, Bairiya and used to do pairvi in them.Prior to 19.8.2012, the relations between them were very good.He had never heard that Krishna Kumar was making any demand from informant about purchase of plot.In cross-exmination this witness has stated that he has no knowledge as to where the said doctor is right now but in August, 2012, he was working with the said doctor.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,883 |
The facts of the case, as indicated in the impugned judgment, are that on 14.08.2004 an information was received at police station Defence Colony regarding the commission of the offence of murder in the first floor of the Annexe portion of 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi.The information was noted in Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 3 of 31 the Daily Diary Register vide D.D. No.7-A and was assigned to the Additional SHO (Inspector Ranbir Singh), who, alongwith Sub-Inspector Shiv Charan and Constable Veer Bhan, reached the spot.There, in the drawing room, they found the dead body of a man of about 25 years of age wearing a white vest (baniyan) and red shorts.They noticed that there were deep injuries on the dead body on the throat, chest and both wrists, which appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon.Inspector (Ranbir Singh) searched the house and found another dead body of a naked man in the bathroom attached to the bedroom.Both the hands of the dead body were tied at the back and both his legs were tied with a pant.There were injuries on the neck, chest and stomach which appeared to have been caused by a sharp edged weapon and they found blood spread around the dead body.Inspector Ranbir Singh also found two blood stained knives, one of which was broken, lying near the dead body in the drawing room.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 3 of 31It is the case of the prosecution that Inspector Ranbir Singh recorded the statement of the complainant PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra), who stated that he was residing in the ground floor of House No.24, Anand Lok, New Delhi alongwith his wife.The first and second floors of the said house were occupied by the tenants.PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra) also stated that his elder son Pushkin Chandra was residing in the first floor of the Annexe of the building.According to the prosecution, A.N. Chandra stated that around 11.00 a.m. in the morning, on 14.08.2004, his domestic servant, PW-1 (Hare Ram), as usual, went to clean the room of Pushkin and when he opened the door, he found the dead body of an unknown person lying in the drawing room.He rushed back and informed A.N. Chandra and thereafter he, alongwith his wife and Hare Ram, went to the Annexe and saw the dead body of an unknown person.It is further stated that they immediately went to the police station to Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 4 of 31 inform the police and came back to the spot alongwith the police officials.The complainant A.N. Chandra identified the dead body which was lying in the bathroom as that of his son Pushkin Chandra.He, however, could not identify the dead body lying in the drawing room.The statement of Anil K. Chandra is Exhibit PW-5/A. After recording the said statement, Inspector Ranbir Singh sent the ruqqa (Exhibit PW-14/1) to the police station and recommended the registration of an FIR under Section 302 IPC.Thereafter, the FIR (Exhibit PW-6/A) was registered and the investigation was assigned to Inspector Ranbir Singh.The crime team as well as the finger print expert were called at the spot who conducted their proceedings.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 4 of 31Thereafter, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) seized the said two glasses and the beer bottle vide seizure memo Exhibit PW-7/A. He also made seizures of several other articles, that is, cigarette butt, beer glasses, blood samples of the dead body lying in the drawing room and that of Pushkin Chandra lying in the bathroom, pair of sport shoes, one blood stained knife (Exhibit R-3) and another similar knife with a broken blade which was again blood stained (Exhibit R-4) and two pieces of blade of a knife, which were also blood stained vide memo (Exhibit PW-7/7).The Investigating Officer also seized other articles lying at the scene of crime.The dead bodies were sent for post mortem examination.The post mortem report in respect of the dead body lying in the drawing room is exhibit PW-4/B. As per the said report, the cause of death has been indicated as haemorrhagic shock due to cumulative effect of ante mortem injuries.The report further indicates that injury numbers 14, 15, 17, 19 and 22 were individually sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 5 of 31 that all the ante mortem injuries were caused by a sharp edged weapon.We may point out, at this stage, that the dead body lying in the drawing room was subsequently identified as that of Kuldeep.The report also indicated that all the injuries, except injury No.6, were caused by a sharp edged weapon.In the course of investigation, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) found that certain articles belonging to the deceased Pushkin Chandra were missing from his place of residence.It was found that Pushkin Chandra's car bearing registration No. DL-3CY-8012, make-Opel Corsa, was missing.Pushkin Chandra's credit card, laptop computer, mobile phones were also missing, as indicated by Pushkin Chandra's father PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra).It was found that Rajesh Rekwar was a resident of Balia, police station Malhera, District Chhatarpur, M.P. and consequently PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) visited the native place of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and on identification by his father Sant Ram, the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was allegedly apprehended and arrested in this case vide Memo Exhibit PW-10/C and his alleged disclosure statement was recorded vide Exhibit PW-10/A. The appellant Rajesh Rekwar was allegedly found in possession of certain articles belonging to the deceased Pushkin Chandra.Those articles include a Philips DVD Player (Exhibit P-7), one portable CD Player (Exhibit P-8), one blue cap (Exhibit R-1), 10 coins of USA [Exhibit R-2 (Collectively)], one dark blue pair of jeans, one half sleeve T-shirt with Reebok written in white on the left side of the chest portion (Exhibit R-3).All these articles were seized by PW-18 Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 7 of 31 (Inspector H.C. Verma) vide seizure memo (Exhibit 10/B).As per the prosecution, the appellant Rajesh Rekwar also got the following recovered:-Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 7 of 31a) One car key (Exhibit P-15);b) One key of the flat of Pushkin Chandra (Exhibit P-16).These were seized vide memo (Exhibit PW-7/13) on 30.08.2004 from House No.On 14.08.2004 at 11.00 a.m., he had gone to the room of Pushkin Chandra, who is the son of Anil Kumar Chandra.He opened the gate and then opened the next door and he found that all the articles in the room were scattered.He noticed that one boy was lying there and after seeing the dead body, be became "perplexed" and informed his employer Anil Kumar Chandra.He stated that the said Anil Kumar Chandra went to the police station and the police arrived at the spot.He further stated that the police inspected the site and, at that time, he came to know that Pushkin was also found dead.The case is that he had seen Kajal, who was present in the police station- Defence Colony on that date and, therefore, he did not want to participate in the TIP proceedings.This establishes his presence at the scene of crime.Recovery of T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) and its being found identical with the T- shirt appearing in the photograph taken at the ATM49. PW-9 (S. Krishan Murthi, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank Limited) testified that on 24.08.2004, he was posted as Chief Manager at the Regional Office of the ICICI Bank Limited at NBCC Place, Pragati Vihar, Lodi Road, New Delhi.He stated that on 23.08.2004, the police officials had reached his office and asked for details of the ATM withdrawals in connection with the credit card which was in the name of Pushkin Chandra.He stated that on 25.08.2004, he handed over the statement of the credit card and also handed over a Samson Digital 48X CD which contained images taken by the camera installed at the ATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh.We examined the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) and compared it with the T- shirt appearing in the said photographs, as also in the colour photographs available on the CD and we found the same to be identical.It is, therefore, clear that the prosecution has been able to establish that Exhibit P-17 which was recovered from the possession of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar from his house in Delhi on 30.08.2004 was identical to the T-shirt worn by the person shown in the photographs taken at the ATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh.It is also clear from the statement of the credit card account that on 14.08.2004, two withdrawals of Rs 15,000/- each were made from the above mentioned two ATM machines.From this, it can be easily inferred that the person who was involved in the murders of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal, was also the person who made the said withdrawals of Rs 15,000/- each.The blood stains on the pants of Rajesh Rekwar matched the blood group of the deceased KuldeepExhibit PW-18/A is the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 19.05.2006 with regard to various articles.Exhibit E-6a (one banian having brown stains) was said to belong to the deceased Kuldeep.Exhibit E-17b [pants (jeans) having brown stains] was that of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.The identification was done by his father Ranbir Singh and his brother Sudheer Kumar later in the course of investigation by virtue of identification memos (Exhibits PW-14/6 and 14/7 respectively).Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 5 of 31The post mortem report in respect of the dead body of Pushkin Chandra is Exhibit PW-4/A, in which the cause of death has been indicated as haemorrhagic shock due to ante mortem injuries Nos.2 to 11, except injury No.6, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature individually as well as collectively.The Investigating Officer thereafter obtained the statement of accounts of the credit cards of Pushkin Chandra in respect of ICICI Bank, Standard Chartered Bank and UTI Bank.From the said statements, it was found that the credit card of ICICI Bank in respect of Account No.4477460118500000, pertaining to Pushkin Chandra had been operated on 14.08.2004 and that two transactions of Rs 15,000/- each had taken place from the ATM booths at Rajinder Nagar and Hotel Tripti at Karol Bagh.It is further the case of the prosecution that the Investigating Officer PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) obtained the black and Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 6 of 31 white photographs and the CD which contained the photographs of the persons who had transacted at the ATM booths.It is the case of the prosecution that since no clue had been received till that time with regard to the identity of the accused persons, Inspector Ranbir Singh circulated the photographs in the area of police station Rajinder Nagar and Karol Bagh, and, in particular, to the beat staff of that area.It is further alleged on the part of the prosecution that Constable Charat Lal and Constable Gorakh Nath of police station Rajinder Nagar had shown the photographs to one Jai Lal who was residing at 4, Janaki Devi Memorial College, Rajinder Nagar and who identified some of the photographs as that of Rajesh Rekwar.He has not supported the prosecution version.However, as has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, DW-1 does not seem to be a truthful witness.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 6 of 31B-26/1, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.As per the prosecution, PW-14 (Inspector Ranbir Singh) went to 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi to verify that the key (Exhibit P-16) was that of the flat of Pushkin.Similarly, the key (Exhibit P-15) was also checked by visiting the police station where the car bearing registration No.DL-3CY-8012 was parked and the said car was started with the help of the said key, which, according to the prosecution, confirmed that the key (Exhibit P-15) was of the car belonging to Pushkin.We must point out that the car had been found earlier, having been abandoned.A T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) was also recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and was seized vide memo (Exhibit PW-7/14).The prosecution alleges that the shirt (Exhibit P-17) was the very shirt worn by the person seen withdrawing money from the ATM in the photographs provided by the ICICI Bank.The appellant Moti @ Mohit was also apprehended in the course of investigation from Rupedia, Indo-Nepal Border (U.P.) and from his possession, PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) allegedly recovered five CDs [Exhibit J-2 (collectively)], 25 coins [Exhibit J-1 (collectively)], one Seiko wrist watch (Exhibit P-2), shorts and shirt [Exhibit P-4 (collectively)].Blood stained Levis Jeans (Exhibit J-3) and a shirt (Exhibit J-4).Apart from these articles, a laptop computer was also recovered from the possession of the appellant Moti @ Mohit and the same was seized vide memo Exhibit PW-12/B.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 8 of 31As per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer had moved the application for Test Identification Parade (TIP) proceedings in respect of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit on 29.08.2004 and 06.09.2004 respectively, but they refused to join the same.We may also point out that as per the prosecution, the Investigating Officer (Inspector Ranbir Singh) sent the post mortem reports of deceased Pushkin Chandra and that of Kuldeep Singh, alongwith the alleged weapons of offence, that is, the two knives, one of which was broken, to the Department of Forensic Medicines, AIIMS Hospital to obtain a subsequent opinion regarding the injuries on the dead bodies.The subsequent opinion is Exhibit PW-18/C.After completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and after committal of the case to the Sessions Court, the charges were framed against the appellants, as already mentioned above.The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The prosecution, in all, examined 18 witnesses.Thereafter, the statements of the appellants under Section 313 CrPC were recorded.One defence witness DW-1 (Jai Lal), as mentioned above, was also examined.After considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the prosecution as well as on behalf of the accused, and after considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as already indicated in the beginning of this judgment, convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34 IPC and 380/34 IPC.They were sentenced, as already mentioned above.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 9 of 31Submissions on behalf of Moti @ MohitThe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Moti @ Mohit, submitted that the case of the prosecution is based on the alleged circumstantial evidence.The most important elements of the evidence being the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob), who are the alleged "last seen" witnesses.The alleged recoveries included the recovery of the laptop, a bag, five CDs, 25 coins, Seiko wrist watch, shorts etc. The other circumstance, which has been held against the appellant Moti @ Mohit, was his refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings.The learned counsel submitted that insofar as the testimony of PW-1 (Hare Ram) is concerned, the time gap between his having seen the appellants and the time of death of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep is too large and, therefore, cannot be regarded as evidence falling in the category of "last seen" evidence.It was further contended that the testimony of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) does not inspire any confidence inasmuch as he is alleged to have seen the appellant in the company of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep at about 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 at a party at Sawant Nagar, when he himself was not an invitee.It was also contended on behalf of the appellant Moti @ Mohit that the recoveries are clearly not believable.According to the learned counsel, the evidence of PW-18 (Inspector H.C. Verma) indicates that he returned from Ropedia, District Bahraich, Uttar Pradesh on 05.09.2004 and it is then that the case property was deposited in the Malkhana.It was also contended that PW-17 (Head Constable Ram Avtar) stated that it was on Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 10 of 31 04.09.2004 that Inspector H.C. Verma had handed over to him the exhibits of the case alongwith the seizure memo and the same were deposited in the Malkhana.He also contended that there were other articles in the Malkhana for which no recovery memo was prepared by any of the police officials.Thus, according to the learned counsel, the recoveries, insofar as the appellant Moti @ Mohit is concerned, are clearly not believable and cannot be regarded as a circumstance against the said appellant.With regard to the adverse inference, as regards the refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings, the learned counsel submitted that the refusal on the part of the appellant Moti @ Mohit was justified inasmuch as he was under the impression and belief that his photographs might have been taken and might have been shown to the witnesses.Consequently, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Moti @ Mohit submitted that there was no clinching evidence against the said appellant and, therefore, he was entitled to be acquitted.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 10 of 31Submissions on behalf of Rajesh RekwarCrl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 11 of 31The learned counsel, insofar as the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) are concerned, reiterated the contentions of the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of Moti @ Mohit.Consequently, it was submitted that there was serious doubt with regard to the finger prints having been manipulated.Thus, according to the learned counsel, this fact clearly belies the alleged recoveries at the instance of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.Insofar as the refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings is concerned, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar submitted that it was not unnatural or unreasonable on the part of the appellant to have refused to participate in the said TIP proceedings.He submitted that this was a highlighted case.There was a great deal of media attention and that there was apprehension that the police may have shown the photographs of the appellants to the witnesses.As regards the matching of the blood group of Kuldeep with the blood group of the blood stains found on the pants of Rajesh Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 12 of 31 Rekwar, the learned counsel submitted that the same was also manipulated and was false evidence created by the prosecution.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 12 of 31It was, therefore, contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar that the circumstances allegedly taken against the said appellant were not firmly established and, in any event, did not form a complete chain.He, therefore, submitted that the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside and the appellant was entitled to an order of acquittal.Submissions on behalf of the StateShe submitted that though there are differences in the dates with regard to when the recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana, they are only minor errors and cannot belie the factum of the recovery itself which has been testified by various witnesses.She also submitted that there existed no reasonable basis or ground for refusal on the part of the appellant Moti @ Mohit to participate in the TIP proceedings.She submitted that the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) clearly indicated that the appellant Moti @ Mohit worked in tandem with the co-convict Rajesh Rekwar.Insofar as the appellant Rajesh Rekwar is concerned, Ms Richa Kapur submitted that there was clinching evidence against him.She submitted that there was evidence of withdrawal of money at the two ATM booths by use of Pushkin's ICICI bank credit card.The T-shirt worn by the person at the ATM booth was identical to the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) recovered from Rajesh Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 13 of 31 Rekwar.The said T-shirt was not of a design or type which was commonly available.It had unique features.She further pointed out that the chance print Q3 lifted from a glass tumbler at the scene of crime, had clearly matched with the specimen left thumb impression (S1) of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar and there was no answer or explanation for this.She further submitted that while there may have been some reasonable debate with regard to the date of deposit of certain articles in the Malkhana, there was no such controversy insofar as the recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) vide memo PW-7/14 dated 30.08.2004 is concerned.The said T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar's house in Delhi.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 13 of 31She further submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly drawn an adverse inference on account of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar having refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.She submitted that there is no indication that PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had seen the said appellant in the police station.On the contrary, she has drawn our attention to Exhibit PW-14/11, which is the record of the TIP proceedings, wherein the said appellant has stated - "Main shinakht parade mein hissa nahin lena chahta kyonki Kajal jo party mein Sawant Nagar mein hamein mile thi usne aaj thana Defence Colony mein mujhe dekha hai." (I do not want to participate in the identification parade because Kajal whom we had met at the party at Sawant Nagar, has seen me today in police station Defence Colony).According to Ms Richa Kapur, the reason for not participating in the TIP proceedings is not that the said appellant was shown to PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) in the police station, but that he had been shown to one Kajal whom he had met at the party at Sawant Nagar.Ms Kapur further submits that this is also an admission on the part of the appellant Rajesh Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 14 of 31 Rekwar that he had, indeed, attended the party at Sawant Nagar regarding which PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had testified.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 14 of 31She also submitted that insofar as PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra) is concerned, he has clearly identified all the articles belonging to his son, the deceased Pushkin Chandra.Some of the articles were recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.Ms Richa Kapur further submitted that the pants belonging to Rajesh Rekwar had blood stains of blood group 'B'.This was the same blood group as that of the deceased Kuldeep.She submitted that Rajesh Rekwar's blood group was 'O'.Therefore, it could not be said that the blood found on the pants belonging to Rajesh Rekwar was his own blood.She submitted that this was a clear indication that the blood stains on the pants of Rajesh Rekwar were those of the deceased Kuldeep.With regard to the admissibility of the specimen finger prints, Ms Richa Kapur submitted that Section 4 of the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 clearly permits the police officers to take measurements, which, as per Section 2(a) of the said Act, included the taking of finger impressions.She submitted that such specimen finger prints were taken in the course of investigation to which Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 did not apply inasmuch as, the said Section 73 would apply only to proceedings pending before the court.Thus, according to her, there was no legal infirmity in the taking of the finger prints in the course of investigation and with regard to the admissibility of the same.Ms Richa Kapur, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has clearly established each of the circumstances, which it had proposed to establish, and the circumstances taken together, formed a complete chain.After considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and on going through the entire evidence on record, we find that the fate of these appeals hinges on - first of all, the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) insofar as they had allegedly seen the appellants in the company of the deceased shortly before their murders; secondly, the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the appellants; thirdly, the issue of the appellants refusing to participate in the TIP proceedings; fourthly, the chance print Q3 matching with the specimen left thumb impression (S1) of Rajesh Rekwar; fifthly, the alleged recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) at the instance of Rajesh Rekwar and the fact that this T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) was also worn by the person at the ATM on 14.08.2004; and lastly, the blood stains of blood group B (which is the blood group of deceased Kuldeep) being found on Rajesh Rekwar's pants.It is not in dispute that Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal were found dead in the First Floor Annexe of House No.24, Anand Lok, New Delhi.It is also not in dispute that the deaths of both these persons were homicidal and that the same were caused by sharp edged weapons.The subsequent opinion (Exhibit PW-18/C) indicates that the knives found at the scene of crime could have caused the fatal injuries found on the bodies of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal.It is also not in doubt and has been clearly found to have been established by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the articles belonging to Pushkin Chandra, which were allegedly recovered from the appellants, have been correctly identified by Pushkin Chandra's father PW-5 Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 16 of 31 (Anil Kumar Chandra).The dispute is not so much with regard to the identification of the articles, but with regard to the factum of the recovery itself.In this backdrop, it would not be necessary for us to go into the details of the injuries found on the dead bodies and the manner of infliction of the said injuries nor would it be necessary for us to go into the details with regard to the identification of the said articles at the instance of PW-5 (Anil Kumar Chandra).At the same time, various articles belonging to Pushkin Chandra were removed from his flat.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 16 of 31Testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob)Let us, first of all, examine the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob).PW-1 (Hare Ram) stated in his examination-in- chief that he was working with Anil Kumar Chandra as a domestic servant.He stated that he had told the police that he had seen both the appellants, namely, Rajesh and Moti with Pushkin on 13.08.2004 between 6.30 - 7.00 p.m. He further stated that on 13.08.2004, both Rajesh and Moti had arrived at House No.24, Anand Lok Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 17 of 31 alongwith Pushkin in the car at that time.He also stated that he had told these facts to the police officials.It may also be pointed out that PW-1 (Hare Ram) correctly identified both the accused persons in court.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 17 of 31This part of the testimony that PW-1 (Hare Ram) had seen both Rajesh and Moti alongwith Pushkin at the said house at about 6.30 to 7.00 p.m. on 13.08.2004 has not been shaken in the course of his cross-examination.32. PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) stated that he was familiar with Pushkin as also Kuldeep @ Vishal.He further stated that he had seen them both alongwith Moti and Rajesh Rekwar in a party at Sawant Nagar.He, however, did not recollect the house number.He further stated that Pushkin and Vishal arrived at the party at 12.00 midnight and had left at about 12.30 a.m. alongwith the appellants.He stated that he could identify Moti and Rajesh Rekwar and he did so in court.In the course of his cross-examination, he revealed that he did not know the address where the party was going on, but that he went to the party on the request of a girl friend by the name of Kajal.He admitted that Pushkin and he used to see blue films at Pushkin's house and that he was a bisexual.He also stated that he had spent the night at Kajal's house.From the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob), this much is established that PW-1 (Hare Ram) saw the present appellants in the company of Pushkin at Pushkin's house between 6.30 and Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 18 of 31 7.00 p.m. on 13.08.2004 and that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had also seen the two appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit in the company of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal at about midnight in the night intervening 13.08.2004 and 14.08.2004 at a party at Sawant Nagar.It has also been established that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) saw that the appellants left the said party at about 12.30 a.m. alongwith Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 18 of 31The learned counsel for the appellants contended that insofar as PW-1 (Hare Ram) is concerned, his testimony with regard to him having seen the appellants in the company of the deceased Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal is of no consequence, because, even if it is assumed that he has testified truthfully, subsequent to that, as per the case of the prosecution, PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) saw the four of them in the party between 12.00 midnight and 12.30 a.m. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the testimony of PW-1 (Hare Ram) cannot be placed in the category of "last seen" evidence.They submitted that the time gap was so large that there could be many intervening circumstances and, in any event, if the testimony of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) is to be believed, it is clear that there were intervening circumstances in the sense that the four of them had gone to the party at Sawant Nagr where they met others present in the party.It was also contended on behalf of the appellants that insofar as PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) is concerned, he has only stated that he saw Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal in the company of the present appellants when Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 19 of 31 they arrived at 12.00 midnight and left at 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 and that there is no evidence of anybody having seen the four of them entering Pushkin's house after 12.30 a.m. and prior to the murders.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 19 of 31Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants, the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) do not establish the complicity of the appellants.We must note that the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) are evidence in respect of one of the many circumstances which are to be considered for the purposes of arriving at a finding of guilt.We do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the testimony of PW-1 (Hare Ram) is completely meaningless inasmuch as, subsequent to his having seen the appellants in the company of the deceased, PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) had also seen them several hours later.Going by the testimonies of PW-1 (Hare Ram) and PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) in conjunction, we are of the view that the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellants and the deceased Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal were in the company of each other from at least 6.30 p.m. - 7.00 p.m. on 13.08.2004 till 12.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 when, PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) saw them leaving the party at Sawant Nagar.Shortly, thereafter, between 1.00 a.m. and 2.30 a.m. on 14.08.2004, Pushkin Chandra Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 20 of 31 and Kuldeep @ Vishal were brutally murdered in the First Floor Annexe of House No.24, Anand Lok which was the residence of Pushkin Chandra.Therefore, we cannot sideline or push aside the testimonies of either PW-1 (Hare Ram) or PW-3 (Christopher Jacob).Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 20 of 31As pointed out above, the learned counsel for the appellants had sought to challenge the credibility of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) by questioning him with regard to the exact address at which the party was held and whether he was an invitee in the party or not.According to us, that would not make any difference.The fact that PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) was not an invitee in the party, but had gone alongwith Kajal, who was an invitee, does not, in any way, disturb the credibility of PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) as a witness to the fact that he had seen the present appellants in the company of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal.The fact that the said Kajal has not been produced as a witness by the prosecution would also not dent this testimony.Recoveries at the instance of the appellants of the articles belonging to Pushkin ChandraWe have already noted above that the learned counsel for the appellants had contended that there are discrepancies between the depositions of the recovery witnesses and the dates on which the allegedly recovered articles were deposited in the Malkhana.We are of the view that the learned counsel for the appellants have raised a legitimate concern about the discrepancies with regard Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 21 of 31 to the dates.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 21 of 31The question which arises in both the cases is - As to how the articles sought to be recovered were already entered in the Malkhana Register prior to the alleged date of recovery? The learned counsel for the State submitted that the fault lay in the making of the entries in the Malkhana register and that there was enough evidence of the recoveries having actually been made as alleged by the prosecution.She also submitted that the recoveries were established by the seizure memos which have been proved.Although we find that the recovery witnesses have supported the prosecution case with regard to the recoveries of the articles belonging to Pushkin Chandra at the instance of the appellants, the discrepancies in the entries in the Malkhana register does create an element of doubt.However, we find that insofar as the recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-The said T-shirt was recovered from the appellant Rajesh Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 22 of 31 Rekwar from his house in Delhi on 30.08.2004 and the same was subsequently deposited in the Malkhana.Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the recovery of the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17).This is a very important circumstance, as will become clear hereinbelow.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 22 of 31Refusal of TIPAs noted above, both the appellants Rajesh Rekwar and Moti @ Mohit had refused to participate in the TIP proceedings.It is also evident from Exhibit PW-14/11 that Rajesh Rekwar has virtually admitted that he was present in the party at Sawant Nagar and that he had met Kajal there.Consequently, we agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the State that an adverse inference will have to be drawn against the appellants with regard to their refusal to participate in the TIP proceedings.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 23 of 31Chance Print Q3 matching with specimen left thumb impression S1 of Rajesh RekwarPW-11 Sub-Inspector P.K. Bawa (Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau Malvia Nagar) deposed that on 14.08.2004, she was posted at the said Finger Print Bureau and that, as per the direction of the Director, Finger Print Bureau, she, alongwith the police photographer, Constable G. Ganeshan, reached 24, Anand Lok for examination of the scene of crime.She inspected the site carefully and thoroughly.She stated that Inspector Ranbir Singh was also present at the spot.She stated that she lifted 5 chance prints from different articles and that her detailed report in this regard was Exhibit 11/A, which contained her signatures at point 'A'.It is pertinent to note that PW-11 (Sub- Inspector P.K. Bawa) has not been cross-examined on behalf of any of the accused, although opportunity had been given.Thus, her testimony with regard to the lifting of five chance prints and with regard to the fact that her report was Exhibit PW-11/A is unchallenged.Exhibit PW-11/A discloses that the examination was conducted between 2.30 p.m. to 4.30 p.m. on 14.08.2004 at the First Floor Annexe, 24, Anand Lok, New Delhi.Three chance prints Q1 to Q3 were lifted from one glass tumbler.One chance print Q4 was lifted from another glass tumbler and one chance print Q5 was lifted from a beer bottle (glass).The report of the Finger Print Bureau dated 23.11.2004 (Exhibit PW- 9/A) clearly indicates, inter alia, that the Finger Print Bureau received the chance prints marked Q1 to Q5 from Ms P.K. Bawa, F.P. Expert of FPB Delhi.The report further indicates that the questionnaire was, inter alia, whether the chance prints marked Q1 to Q5 developed by Ms P.K. Bawa FP Expert of FPB Delhi on 14.08.2004 are identical with any of the finger / palm prints of the persons mentioned in Annexure A or not? The result of the examination, as discussed in the said report (Exhibit PW-9) is that chance print marked Q3 was found to be identical with the left thumb impression marked S-1 on the finger Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 24 of 31 print slip of Rajesh son of Sant Ram (accused).The report also indicated that the duly marked enlarged photographs of identical prints marked Q3 (developed on 14.08.2004) and S-1 alongwith description of the points of identity were enclosed with the report in support of the opinion.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 24 of 31From the above, it is clear that chance print Q3 lifted from one of the glass tumblers at the scene of crime matched with the specimen left thumb impression S-1 of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.The learned counsel for the appellants had raised suspicions with regard to the said chance prints and stated that the same were planted.However, we find from the evidence on record that this is merely a bald allegation.The chance prints were clearly lifted on 14.08.2004, as evidenced by the report (Exhibit PW-11/A) of the same date which has not been challenged by the defence.His specimen finger prints were taken on 24.09.2004 and were sent on the same day.The statement with regard to the aforesaid credit card is Exhibit PW-8/B and the photocopies of photographs of a person withdrawing amounts from the banks are Exhibit PW-8/C and Exhibit PW-8/D. The witness testified that an amount of Rs 30,000/- was withdrawn in two installments of Rs 15,000/- each from the said account on 14.08.2004 and the relevant entries are to be found at point 'X' at page 5 of Exhibit PW-8/B. The first transaction was carried out at about 10.20 a.m. at the ATM situated at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh and the second amount of Rs 15,000/- was withdrawn Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 26 of 31 from the Old Rajinder Nagar ATM at about 10.33 a.m. Although, in cross- examination, this witness has stated that he cannot identify the person by looking at the said photographs, it is clear that the T-shirt worn by the petitioner in the said photographs exactly matched the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17), which was recovered from the appellant Rajesh Rekwar, as already mentioned above.In order to ascertain the likeness of the T-shirt in the photograph and Exhibit P-17, we had also required the same to be produced before us.The said Exhibit P-17 as also the CD was produced from the Malkhana for our perusal.Exhibit E-20 (Gauze cloth piece having brown stains) was the blood sample of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.The result of analysis, as per Exhibit PW-18/A indicated that the blood was detected, inter alia, on exhibits E-6a, E-17b and E-The report of the Serological analysis was attached with the said report (Exhibit PW-18/A).The Serological Report indicated that Exhibit E-6a (banian) had blood stains of human origin of blood group 'B'.Exhibit 17-B (pants) also had human blood stains of blood group 'B'.Exhibit E-20 (Gauze cloth piece), on the other hand, had human blood stains of blood group 'O'.From the above, it is clear that the deceased Kuldeep's blood group was 'B' and that of the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was 'O'.It is also clear that Rajesh Rakwar's pants (Exhibit E-17b) also had blood stains of blood group 'B' which was the same blood group as that of the deceased Kuldeep.This is also a very strong piece of incriminating evidence against the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.It is clear that the prosecution has been able to establish that both the appellants were definitely with the deceased Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal from 6.30-7.00 pm on 13.08.2004 till 12:30 a.m. on 14.08.2004 when PW-3 (Christopher Jacob) saw them leave the party at Sawant Nagar, together.Since the time of death of Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal has been fixed at 1:00 a.m. to 2:30 am on 14.08.2004, their being seen together is so proximate as to rule out the possibility of any third person intervening.The use of the ICICI Bank Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 28 of 31 credit card of Pushkin and the two withdrawals of Rs 15,000/- each at two different ATMs after Pushkin was already dead also establishes the fact that not only were the deceased murdered but that the credit card had also been stolen.The person operating the ATM at Hotel Tripti, Karol Bagh was wearing a T- shirt which was found to be identical with the T-shirt (Exhibit P-17) recovered from Rajesh Rekwar.Chance print Q3 lifted from a glass tumbler found in Pushkin's residence was found to be identical to Rajesh Rekwar's specimen left-thumb impression (S1).Both the appellants avoided participation in Test Identification Parade on false pretexts.And, the blood group 'B' of the blood stains on Rajesh Rekwar's pants matched with the blood group of Kuldeep @ Vishal.All these circumstances taken together clearly establish the complicity of both the appellants.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 28 of 31Another important aspect is that of injuries found on the appellant Rajesh Rekwar.The MLC (Exhibit PW-4/C) in respect of Rajesh Rekwar was proved by PW-4 Dr Sanjeev Lalwani of AIIMS, New Delhi.As per the said MLC (Exhibit PW-4/C) dated 29.08.2004, Rajesh Rekwar, inter alia, had a healed wound with partially peeled off scab on dorsum of left hand near base of left thumb with red base of size 2.5 cm x 1 cm.The duration was said to be consistent with that of history.The said MLC indicates that the history of sustaining the injury in the night of 13/14.08.2004 by knife on the left hand dorsal aspect near base of the thumb was narrated by the person examined (i.e., Rajesh Rekwar).Since the appellant Rajesh Rekwar was taken for his medical examination in police custody, we are discounting the statement in the said MLC to the extent it mentions the manner in which the injury on the left hand was sustained.His answer was that he "received injuries while playing cricket".PW-4 (Dr Sanjeev Lalwani), when cross-examined, however, stated that he could not tell the exact time and date on which the injuries were sustained by Rajesh Rekwar as the injuries were 'healed and old'.He denied the suggestion that the injuries were two to four months old.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 29 of 31The answer given by the appellant Rajesh Rekwar that he received the injuries while playing cricket does not impress us.The fact of the injuries on the person of Rajesh is not, by itself, suggestive of his complicity in the crime but it does lend support to the other circumstances established by the prosecution.As per the said MLC, which has been proved by PW-4 (Dr Sanjeev Lalwani), Moti @ Mohit had a healed incised wound of size 6 cm 0.5 cm on the right thigh middle one-third anteriolateral aspect.The said MLC (Exhibit PW-4/F) further indicates that Moti @ Mohit had himself stated to the doctor that he had sustained the injury about 20-22 days back.The opinion of the doctor as recorded in the said MLC and as testified by him (PW4) in court was that the duration of the injury was consistent with the history and that the Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 30 of 31 injury had been caused by a sharp-edged weapon.It is also important to note that the testimony of PW-4 (Dr Sanjeev Lalwani) with regard to Moti @ Mohit's injury has gone unchallenged.Thus, as in the case of Rajesh Rekwar, so also in the case of Moti @ Mohit, there is evidence that the latter received the injury caused by a sharp-edged weapon around the date of the murders of Pushkin and Kuldeep @ Vishal.This also lends support to the prosecution case inasmuch as it suggests that there was struggle in which the assailants could have received injuries.Of course, this by itself is not sufficient to establish the complicity of both Moti @ Mohit and Rajesh Rekwar but, it certainly lends support to the other circumstances which have clearly been established by the prosecution.Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 30 of 31From the above discussion, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the murders of Pushkin Chandra and Kuldeep @ Vishal.The circumstances taken together form a complete chain and point only in the direction of guilt of the two appellants.The appellant Rajesh Rekwar is on interim bail which was granted to him on account of his medical condition.He be taken into custody to serve out the rest of his sentence.The appellant Moti @ Mohit is already in custody.The appeals are dismissed.BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J MANMOHAN SINGH, J October 31, 2011 dutt Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 31 of 31Crl.A. Nos.614/10 & 711/10 Page 31 of 31
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
66,891,946 |
C.C. as per rules.(B. K. SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE vy Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 16/06/2020 16:33:41Shri Deep Narayan Tiwari, counsel for the complainant/objector.After consideration, permission is granted.The aforesaid I.A. is dismissed as withdrawn.Heard on I.A. No. 3861/2020 filed on 20/02/2020 on behalf of Rambabu and Jaswant @ Gudda under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of substantive jail sentence.The trial Court convicted the appellants and passed the sentence for offence punishable under Section 307/149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, 326/149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 325/149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years with fine of Rs. 500/-, 323/149 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 200/- and 148 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year with fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation.The complainant is represented by Shri Deep Narayan Tiwari Advocate who expressed his no objection on behalf of the complainant.A compromise Digitally signed by VAIBHAV YEOLEKAR Date: 16/06/2020 16:33:41 2 CRA-7514-2019 petition has been filed which is pending.After releasing on bail, the appellants will appear before the Registry of this Court on 3/09/2021 and, thereafter, on other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.3/09/2021 is already fixed for other co- accused.At the time of releasing from custody, all the instructions issued by the Government related to Covid-19 shall also be followed by the concerned authority.I.A. No. 3861/2020 is allowed.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
668,952 |
ORDER B.K. Sharma, J.This is a Government Appeal against the judgement and order dated 18-5-1994 passed by Sri R.S. Maurya, the then Assistant Sessions Judge, Jhansi in Sessions Trial No. 126 of 1991, under Sections 308/34 I.P.C. State v. Ramesh and Ors., Police Station Chirgaon, district Jhansi whereby he acquitted the accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain, Kripa Ram and Siya Sharan under Section 308/34 IPC.The accused - respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram were real brothers inter se.All the four accused - respondents, Brindavan injured and his brother Daya Ram informant were residents of Village 'Aupara', Police Station Chigaon, district Jhansi.Brindavan injured had purchased agricultural field of Lampu in the village.The prosecution case was that on 21-8-1989 at about 10.00 A.M. when Brindavan injured was ploughing his agricultural field in the village, Ramesh, Har Narain, Kripa Ram and Siya Sharan accused-respondents came there and asked him as to why he purchased the agricultural field of the Lampu to which he replied that if he had purchased the field of Lampu, he had paid money for it; that at that time, Ramesh accused-respondent carried a Khuluwa while Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents carried lathis, that Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents started abusing him while Siya Sharan accused-respondent exhorted them to kill him whereupon Ramesh accused-respondent assaulted Brindavan injured with Khuluwa while Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused respondents assaulted him with lathis and inflicted various injuries on his body; that the occurrence was seen by his real brother DayaRam (P.W. 2); Chhotey Lal, Km.Meera daughter of Brindavan injured and Smt. Parvati wife of Daya Ram-informent; that Daya Ram informant took the injured Brindavan to the Police Station and lodged a written F.I.R. at the police station on the same day at 11.00 A.M. the distance of the police station being 5 Kms.from the place of occurrence; that on the basis of this report, a Chik report was prepared and a case was registered against all the accused - respondents for the offences under Sections 325/324/504/506Brindavan injured was sent from the police station to Primary Health Centre, Chirgoan where he was medically examined by Dr. V.K. Tandon ( P.W. 5 ) on 21-8- 1989 at 2.30 P.M. He recorded the following injuries on his person:-Incised wound 5 cm.X 5 cm.X bone deep on right side the head, 7cm.above the ear.2. Contusion 7cm.X 8 cm.on back of right ear pinna.Lacerated wound 1.5 cm.X 5 cm.bone deep just behind the lower part of right ear.Constusion 6 cm.X 2 cm.on outer aspect of upper part of right arm.Contusion 7 cm.X 4 cm.on back and middle of right forearm with suspected fracture under bone beneathContusion 6 cm.X 4 cm.on right side of the upper part of back.Multiple contusion out lying each other in an area of 9 cm.X 8 cm.on outer aspect of right thigh.Multiple contusion in an area of 12 cm.X 7 cm.on outer aspect of upper half of right leg with suspected fracture bone under beneath.Lacerated wound 1.5 cm.x 5 cm.x bone deep on front and lower part of right leg with suspected fracture bones under beneath.Contused swelling 7 cm.x 6 cm.on inner side of right ankle with suspected fracture.Lacerated wound 2.5 cm.x 1 cm.x 6 bone deep on front and meadial side of midpart of left leg with Compound fracture of the bones under beneath.The fractured ends of bones are seen & palpated in the wound.Contused swelling 8 cm.x 5 cm.on outer side of left ankle and lower part of leg.The suspected (sic) of bone under beneath.Injury Nos. 1,5,8,9,10 and 12 were kept under observation.In the opinion of the doctor, injury No. 1 was grievous.Injury No. 1 was caused by some sharp edged weapon while the rest injuries were caused by blunt and hard object.The duration of injuries was fresh.The doctor advised the X-ray of skull, right leg, right ankle, left leg and left ankle.The X-ray was done by Dr. Praveen Kumar Jain ( P.W. 3 ) who found fracture of shaft tibia and fibula.Fracture of frontal bone involving right frontal sinus was also seen.He also found fracture of matleolus and fracture of fibula.The Investigating Officer submitted charge sheet only against Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused respondents and the magistrate committed these three accused-respondents to the Court of Sessions.In the case of fourth accused-respondent Siya Sharan, he was summoned by the court of Sessions under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the application of the learned Public Prosecutor and then all the four accused - respondents were charged and tried together for the offence under Section 308/34 I.P.C.At the trial, ocular testimony was given by Brindavan injured (P.W. 1), Daya Ram informent (P.W. 2) and Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4).The rest of the evidence was formal in nature.The accused denied the charge levelled against them, They did not lead any evidence in defence.The learned trial judge rejected the entire prosecution case and consequently acquitted all the four accused - respondents.Being aggrieved by the same, the State of U.P. has preferred this appeal.I have heared parties' counsel and have also gone through the record.The learned A.G.A. had made scathing attack on the Judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge.He has assailed the lopsided apporach of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge in appreciation of the prosecution evidence and the circumstances of the case.He has also pointed out to the various observations made by the learned Assistant Sessions Judgewhich were contrary to the material on record and also against law.The first point argued is that instead of taking up in the first instance the testimony of injured Brindavan about the occurrence, which is a broad day light occurrence and considering the corroboration coming to it by the medical evidence and the motive and the fact that the defence did not dispute the date, time and place of occurrence and of taking note of the circumstances coming in his cross examination from the side of the defence indicating the admission of the presence of at least Ramesh accused respondent on the spot at the time of occurrence and also of taking note of the fact that the number, nature and location of injuries of the injured were such that the assailants must have been several and further instead of seeing whether the presence of informant DayaRam (P.W. 2) at the scene of occurrence was believable and whether his testimony corroborated the evidence of injured and whether the F.I.R. rendered any corroboration to his testimony at the trial, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge started with a criticism of the evidence of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) and after stating that Chhotey Lal's testimony did not corroborate that any one beyond Ramesh accused-respondent has done Marpit with Brindavan injured; that Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was not a local witness; that there is contradiction about his reaching at the spot whether he was coming towards the scene of occurrence or was sitting at Lampu's land observed that explanation advanced by Brindavan injured about his knowledge of the presence of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) does not appear reasonable which were all untenable and wrongly stating against fact that Brindavan had earlier given an affidavit against the accused wrongly and illegally conclued that these circumstances prove that in reality he (Chhote Lal P.W. 4) was not at all present at the spot and then observing that the prosecution did not examine the daughter of injured and the wife of Daya Ram informant wrongfully and without any justification discarded the prosecution case altogether.He has also argued that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has given practically no reason why the testimony of informant should not be belived at the trial atleast against accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram who actively participated in assulting the injured in the occurrence.He has also argued that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had not considered the circumstance that while Ramesh accused-respondent admitted his presence at the spot, he did not claim to have received a single injury on his body in the occurrence which indicated that the occurrence was one sided.He also claimed that the version given by Ramesh accused-respondent was not discussed by the learned Assistant Session Judge in the judgment.The law regarding the government appeals against orders of acquittal is well settled.While the High Court would not be justified in substituting its own view for the view of the trial Court, if two views are reasonably possible about the evidence and circumstances, it (the High Court) has full powers to reappraise the evidence and interfere with the order of acquittal in case the appraisal of the evidence made by the trial Court is manifestly perverse, erroneous and unreasonable and there are glaring infirmities in the judgment of the trial court resulting in gross miscarriage of justice.The present is one such a case where there is no option for the High Court than to interfere with the order of acquittal in regard to Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused respondents even while it could not like to interfere with the acquittal of Siya Sharan accused - respondent to whom the role of exhortation alone was assigned.The appreciation of evidence at a criminal trial is required to be done on the broad probabilities of the case.The evidence of a witness cannot be thrown away because of few discrepancies here and there or some omissions.It was a broad day light occurrence which took place at the field of Brindavan injured which he was ploughing.The field of Ramesh accused-respondent adjoined it towords north.The injury report in respect of injured Brindavan indicates that he was given repeated assaults and inflicted incised wound in his head and numerous blunt weapon injuries on his right arm, right side of back, right thigh; light leg and ankle, left leg and right ankle which resulted in fracture of his frontal bone; fracture of medial mallolus and fracture of of fibula in his right leg and fracture of shaft tibia and fibula in the left leg.It showed clearly that it was not a case of hit and run and further that it cannot be believed for a moment that all these injuries were inflicted on his body by just one assailant, particularly when the defence has itself tried to bring on record the existence of a Khuluwa in hands of Brindavan injured at the time of occurrence.Obviously, the occurrence was a onesided affair in which the injured was surrounded and assaulted by a plurality of assailants.The injuries of the injured are a hall mark of his presence at the spot and in a broad day light occurrence, it cannot be belived that he would spare the real assailants and instead falsely implicate others.Even though Brindavan injured did not testify in so many words at the trial that he purchased the field of Lampu.The narration given by him at the trial involves and implies this fact and there is not a word in his cross-examination by the defence that he did not purchase the agricultural field of Lampu.In fact, the defence itself elicited from him in his cross-examination that the field in which he was ploughing on the date of occurrence adjoins the agricultural field of Ramesh accused-respondent.The site plan shows the plot of Nathu Ram, father of these 3 accused situated in the northern boundary of plot of Brindavan injured.It was quite likely that the accused respondents 1 to 3, who were real brothers inter se, were annoyed by the purchase of the adjoining field by Brindavan injured.The site plan shows the plot of Lampur to the south of this field.In the cross-examination, not a word was suggested by the defence that the accused-person had no grievance in the matter of the said purchase.There is thus no reason why the genesis of the occurrence, as testified to by the injured, should not be believed.The testimony of Brindavan injured was corroborated by the testimony of Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2), who was also present in the vicinity.He was real brother of injured Brindavan but for that reason, the testimony of Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) cannot be discarded.He has stated that he was grazing his cattle.His presence at the spot at the time of occurrence was quite natural.He has testified about the entire occurrence, including the exchange of retorts between the injured and the assailants.He refuted the suggestion that he has not seen the occurrence and was giving false testimony.He has lodged the F.I.R. with reasonable promptitude at 11.00 A.M. at the police station which was 5 Kms.away from the place of occurrence.He was not suggested in his cross-examination that F.I.R. was actually lodged belatedly but was made ante timed.He was also not suggested that the F.I.R. had been lodged with consultation of the police.The Investigating Officer was also not suggested that the F.I.R. was scribed with the consultations of police or it had been ante timed.The F.I.R. is a material document in this case which goes to corroborate the testimony of its maker, namely Daya Ram (P.W. 2) and the testimony of Daya Ram in its turn goes to corroborate the testimony of injured Brindavan(P.W. 1) at the trial.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has accepted the contention of the defence that the non-examination of the daughter of Brindavan injured and wife of Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) by the prosecution at the trial was fatal for the prosecution case in the absence of the satisfactory explanation for the omission.It seems that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was bent upon acquiting the accused-persons and, therefore, approached the case with a wrong angle and supported it by whatever argument was advanced before him for that purpose.Even the sole testimony of the injured, if credible, may be sufficient to establish the charge.Moreover, it would have been purposeless to examine the daughter of Brindavan injured (P.W. 1) and wife of Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) at the trial.The testimony of each one of whom could be subjected to the same criticism that they were interested witnesses.The prosecution was not at all required to multiply the ocular testimony at the trial unnecessarily.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has given the benefit of the discripency arising about the place where the informant Daya Ram was at the time of occurrence on the basis of a different spot of his presence being shown in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Officer.The point shown by the Investigating Officer could only be a part of the statement of informant recorded by him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. In order to constitute a contradiction under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, the previous contradictory statement had to be proved.This the defence did not do.The defence did not elicit from the Investigating Officer in his cross examination that the site plan was prepared by him at the pointing out of informant Daya Ram.That being so, anything shown by him (the I.O.) in the site plan purporting to be a statement given to him (the Investigating Officer), cannot be used to contradict him at the trial when the Investigating Officer did not even say in his cross-examination that he has shown the place of the informant on the scene of occurrence on the basis of his informants statement given to him under Section 161, Cr.P.C. So the learned Assistant Sessions Judge went wrong in observing that it was a contradiction which made the place of his presence at the spot suspicious.It may be mentioned here that in his judgment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge stated that the Investigating Officer has given the statement at the trial that 'VADI AUR USKI PATNI DWARA GHATNA KO " B" Asthan Se Dekhna Batya Gaya Hai".The Investigating Officer did not testify anywhere that Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) has told him that he had seen the occurrence from point ' B ' as shown in the site plan.The Investigating Officer has stated in his testimony that "Vadi Aur Uski Patni Dwara Ghatna Dekhne Ka Asthan ' B ' Se Darshaya Hai'.It mean that by point' B ' he has shown the place from which the informant and his wife had seen the scene of occurrence.This is different from saying that the informant told him showing to him at the spot the point from where he saw the place of ocurrence and that the point shown to him by the informant was shown by him in the site plan by letter ' B '.Regarding Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4), it has been said in the judgment that the prosecution could not say as to how the parentage of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4), who was a resident of another place, can be known to the informant so as to give in the written F.I.R.. Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was, of course, a resident of village Chirgaon, another village but it was not asked from the informant Daya Ram (P.W. 2) anywhere in his cross-examination as to whether he knew the parentage of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4).Chhotey Lal also did not say that his parentage was not known to informant.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has referred to the statement elicited from the injured in his cross-examination that he had learnt the name of the father of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) in the 'haat' of Chirgaon while purchasing a bullock about four years before the date of his evidence in court and without enough justification treating it to be a doubtful statement even held that it cast a doubt on the prosecution case about the nomination of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) along with his parentage as a witness in the F.I.R. by the informant.Merely because something has come in the testimony of Brindavan injured on the point it cannot be said that the informant also did not know the name of Chhotey Lals father.Therefore, ever assuming that the injured did not have prior acquaintance with Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) and only knew his name, it does not mean that the informant also did not know his parentage.It has been elicited from the injured in his cross-examination that his sister's son Hari Ram also lived in village Chirgaon where Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4).The defence has raised the argument that Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was an interested witness as the son of the sister of the injured also lived in his village but then if it were so, there could be no occasion to raise the argument that the parentage of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was not known to the informant Daya Ram (P.W. 2) or to the injured Vrindavan P.W. 1 but the learned Assistant Sessions Judge has rejected the prosecution case on both counts.He has rejected it because the prosecution has failed to show as to how the parentage of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was inserted in the F.I.R. even though he (Chhotey Lal P.W. 4 ) did not belong to the same village and also rejected testimony of Chhoteylal (P.W. 4) on the ground that he was an interested witness because the injured's sister's son Hari Ram also lived in the village of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4).The two arguments could not be advanced together.If there was association between the nephew of the injured and the witness then there could not be ignorance about the parentage of the witness with whom the association was being assumed or held.If Hari Ram, son of the sister of injured also lived in village Chirgaon and Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) belonged to village Chirgaon, it does not necessarily mean that Chhotey (P.W. 4) was named as a witness in the F.I.R. on account of any association or link between him and Hari Ram.Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was not suggested any such link or asociation.Reliance was place by the defence on the statement by the injured at the trial that Chhotey Lal was coming from the side of the field of Lampu.He was contradicted with his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer in the case diary that Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was siting in an adjoining field, he denied to have given this statement to him.Nothing revolves on this contradiction particularly because the investigating officer appears to be rather inclined towards the accused persons and so introduced material in the case diary tending to go in the favour as we shall see a little later.Chhotey Lal(P.W. 4) is, of course, a chance witness but his presence at the spot cannot be doubted.He testified that he had gone to take Ghee from Lampu and his wife had come to the field for scraping fodder.In day time this was quite probable and his nomination in the F.I.R. tends to corroborate his presence at the spot.It is significant that he was nowhere suggested by the defence in cross-examination that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence.That being so, it was wholly wrong on the part of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge to hold that this witness was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence.The learned Asistant Sessions Judge has made a reference to the affidavit given by this witness as if he had stated therein that he had not seen the ocurrence.The fact is that in the sole affidavit of this witness which is on record, he has rather affirmed having seen the occurrence; that all that he has denied in it is the presence of Siya Sharan accused-respondent at the time of occurrence.Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) has testified on 11th October, 1993 in his examination-in-chief to the assault by Ramesh accused-respondent on the injured Brindavan by Khuluwa and by Hari Narain and Kripa Ram acused-respondent at him by lathis and that at the time of beating, Daya Ram and his wife came to the spot; that when his cross-examination was made on another date 24-3-1994 he stated that he cannot recognize Kripa Ram and Hari Narain acused-respondents and that he saw only Ramesh accused-respondent doing Marpit and that he did not see any other person.Obviously, he had been won over in the meantime.The observation of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge that since Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) did not corroborate that any one beyond Ramesh acused-respondent did Marpit with Brindavan injured, the prosecution story has not been corroborated by the testimony of Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) cannot be accepted.It is not always that a prosecution witness supports the prosecution ease on all points and all facts.In this case even while this witness tried to exclude Har Narain, and Kripa Ram accused-respondents he did not go to the extent of saying that even Ramesh acused-respondent was also not present.He did not say anywhere that he did not see the occurrence.We have noted that the testimony of Brindavan injured (P.W. 1) and Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) is variously corroborated against: the accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ramand it is immaterial that Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) swerved a little in his cross-examination and tried to exclude Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents.I may mention here that neither Har Narain nor Kripa Ram accused-respondents set up any alibi at the trial at any stage and that no specific suggestion was made to the injured (P.W. 1) and informant (P.W. 2) that Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents were not present at the spot.It. has been argued that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge rightly discarded the prosecution case because the prosecution did not declare Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) hostile even though he denied the presence of Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents.In my view the testimony having come during the cross-examination and the witness having already narrated the entire occurrence faithfully and truly in his examination-in-chief including participation of the acused-respondents, the failure of prosecution to declare him hostile and cross-examine him did not go against the prosecution.The Indian Evidence Act, nowhere uses the term hostile witness.The prosecution could, of course, seek and be permitted to cross-examine its own witness if he appeared to have turned hostile.If the prosecution did not declare the witness hostile, it did not mean that the prosecution acepted all that he said in his testimony.The prosecution could rely on a part of his testimony and may not rely on the rest.Moreover, the Court is always free to look into the evidence of such a witness and accept that part of his testimony which it finds truthful being consistent with the other prosecution evidence and the surrounding circumstances and the probabilities inherent in the situation and reject the rest which it considered untrue and unreliable.Brindavan injured (P.W.I) denied on oath having given any such statement to the Investigating Officer.At the fag-end of his cross-examination, the defence suggestion, which was made to Brindavan injured in the last pragraph was that when he purchased the plot of Lampu, then it was included in the plot of Ramesh acused-respondent and demarcation had not taken place and that Ramesh accused-respondent had told him that he (Brindavan injured) had encroached upon his (Ramesh accused-respondent's) plot and that he (Brindavan injured) was ploughing in that encroached land and that Ramesh accused-respondent had told him that he (Brindavan injured) is ploughing his (Ramesh accused-Respondent's) plot and forbade him (Brindavan injured) from ploughing in his (Ramesh accused-respondent's) plot and that thereupon he (Brindavan injured) beat him (Ramesh accused-respondent) and that he and Ramesh accused-respondent had grappled with each other.Brindavan injured refuted all these suggestions.At its best, the same be noted in his own words:-...Aisa Nahin Hai Ki Maine Khet Jab Kharida To Wan Ramesh Ke Khet Me Bhi Tha, Hadbandi Nahi Hui Thi, Yah Kahna Galat Hai Ki Ramesh Ne Kaha Ho Ki Main Uska Khet Dabaya Hun Aurn Main Usme Hal Chala Rahah Hun.Yah Kahna Galat Hai Ki Ramesh Ne Mujhse Kaha Ho Ki Turn Mere Khet Ke Bakhar Bahr Ho Aur Usne Muje Khet Bakharne Se Mana Kiya Ho Aur Maine Use Mara Ho.Yah Bhi Galat Hai Ki Main Wa Ramesh Donon Guttham Guttha Ho Gaye They.Here, it may be also noted that this witness was also suggested by the defence that his head injury came on fall by Hal.Even then there was no explanation suggested to Brindavan injured in his cross-examination as to how he received the other blunt weapon injuries on his body.These suggestions rather go a long away to substantiate the motive set up by the prosecution, namely the annoyance which accused-respondent Ramesh felt by the purchase of field of Lampu by Brindavan injured and its case that Ramesh accused appellant had asked him as to why he had purchsed the field of Lampu and that on his reply that if he had purchased, he had paid money for it, Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram accused-respondents started assaulting him with their respective weapons and injured him.Daya Ram informant (P.W. 2) has suggested that the partition of plot had not taken place at the spot and Brindavan injured was ploughing in the portion belonging to Ramesh accused-respondent.The informant refuted this suggestion.Chhotey Lal (P.W. 4) was made to say by the defence in his cross-examination "Ramesh (acused-respondent) Ne Apne Khet Me Hal Chalane Se Brindavan Ko Roka Brindavan Nahi Mana Aur Dono Guttam Guttha Ho Gaye.Maine Wahan Marpit Karte Ramesh Ko Dekha.Aur Kisi Aadmi Ko Nahi Dekha Tha." So in these suggestions the right of private defence of property was taken up by the defence.However, when it came to the stage of statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C., Ramesh accused-respondent categorically stated in reply to the question No. 5 relating to the inflicting injury on the body of Brindavan injured by him and his companions. "Malum Nahi.Chote Maine Nahi Pahuchai." He has given the same reply to question No. 6 which was about the X-ray of Brindavan injured.He claimed that the witness has given the evidence against him due to enmity and in reply to the question as to why he was prosecuted, he said "Brindavan Mera Khet Jot Raha Tha Maine Mana Kiya Usne Jhagra Kiya." Har Narain and Kripa Ram, accused-respondents, both made a denial of the occurrence and their participation in the same and did not give any counter version of the occurrence at all.The three accused-respondents; viz; Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram did not lead any oral or documentary evidence in their defence.The defence did not file any documents to show that Ramesh accused-respondent was co-sharer with Lampu or that any partition or demarcation proceedings were pending.It was also not claimed by the acused-respondent that they assaulted and injured Brindavan because he had encroched upon their land.Nor was there any plea taken by them at the trial that Brindavan assaulted or threatened to assault them and apprehending danger to themselves they assaulted Brindavan and injured him.It cannot be said that the acused-respondents had a right of private defence of person or property available to them which they may be said to have exercised.In my opinion, these accused-respondents cannot get any benifit out of the admissions extracted from Chotey Lal (P.W. 4) in his cross-examination deviating from what he had himself stated on oath in his examination in-chief on an earlier date.It will be useful to refer to the topography of the spot as given in the site plan Ext. Ka-6 prepared by the investigating Officer Edal Singh (P. 6) which has been duly proved by him at the trial about which no cross-examination was made from the side of defence.It shows a plot of informant Daya Ram long from east to west and to its south plot of Lampu was shown adjoining.To the west of this plot of informant, there was his other plots and to the north and also to the east of the main plot of the informant, there were plots of Nathu Ram (father of Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram acused-respondents).The site plan also shows a point A in the centre of the main plot of the informant about which the site plan says that there earth was found dug.These factual observations of the Investigathing Officer are admissible in evidence as part of his testimony.The site plan showed that there was no occasion for the plot of Lampu overlapping the plot of the three accused-respondents aforesaid or of then being it (sic).Even if we take that this plot of informant as shown in the site plan was itself the plot purchased from Lampu then also there was no indication that any Mend was broken or damaged or demolished by the injured on the date of occurrence and so right of private defence of property could be referred.On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the only inference is that the accused-respondent Ramesh assaulted Brindavan injured with Khuluwa and Har Narain and Krip Ram-accused respondents assaulted him with lathis and intentionally inflicted the various simple and grievous injuries found on his body in medical examination.Consedering the number, location and nature of the injuries inflicted on the injured, it cannot be doubted that in any case these injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death or with the intention that they were likely by such act to cause death and the victim having survived the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34, I.P.C. must be held to have been committed by each one of them.Coming to the question of sentence, the learned counsel for the accused-respondents has prayed that in case they are found guilty, since they have remained in jail for some time as an under-trial, they may be imposed some fine only.Firstly the duration pointed out in the case of Ramesh is about a month and a few days and in the case of Krip Ram, it is just a few days and about Har Narain none could be pointed out.The scales of justice have to be kept even and a wrongful acquittal of these three accused respondents made by the Additional Sessions Judge going out of his way must be set aside and adequate sentence must be awarded.In my view, a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs. 2000/- each would be adequate.For the reasons aforesaid, the government appeal is allowed, as against the accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram.Their acquittal is set aside and they are found guilty of the offence under Section 308 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.They are on bail from this Court.Let them be taken into custody and sent to jail for serving out their sentence acording to law.The government appeal is, however, dismissed as regards Siya Sharan accused-respondent and his acquittal for the offences under Sections 308/34 I.P.C. is maintained.Let a copy of this judgement be sent to the Sessions Judge concerned to get the accused-respondents Ramesh, Har Narain and Kripa Ram arrested and consigned to the District Jail concerned to serve out their sentence according to law.List this appeal before this bench on 7-9-1999 at 1.30 P.M. in chambers for orders along with the compliance report of the Sessions Judge concerned.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,074,816 |
The instant Criminal Appeal is preferred to challenge the judgment dated 15.6.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in S.T.No.281/2004 whereby the trial court convicted the appellants for commission of offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.The facts necessary to be stated for disposal of the instant appeal are that on 29.4.2004, Shankarba-father of the complainant was grazing his goats near the Chambal river at village Sanawada.Devisingh (PW-1) was also grazing his goats there.Kashiram(PW-4) went to give tiffin to Shankarba at noon and he saw that smoke was rising on the bank of river.Appellant Mohan along with his brother-in-laws were preparing wine.After giving tiffin to Shankarba, Kashiram returned back.Thereafter Mohan came to Shankarba and asked him to give male goat to eat but he refused to give.-( 2 )-count, appellants assaulted Shankarba, due to which he sustained injuries on his neck and head, resultantly he died on the spot.Devisingh (PW-1) witnessed the incident and he informed about the incident to Satish Pandya.Satish Pandya intimated about the incident to his brother Praveen Pandya.Praveen Pandya informed the incident to complainant Nathulal who had gone to Badnagar for marketing.He immediately came to the spot and found that his father was lying dead.Nathulal went to the police station, Badnagar and informed the police regarding the incident.Sub-Inspector, R.Gaud along with Head Constable Kailash came to the spot where he recorded Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/15) at the instance of Nathulal.The Dehati Nalishi was sent to P.S.Badnagar and on that basis, Head Constable registered the FIR (Ex.P/20) at crime No.115/2004 and also recorded Marg intimation under section 174 of the Cr.Sub-Inspector, R.Gaud inspected the spot and prepared spot map (Ex.P/16).He also prepared deadbody Panchnama (Ex.P/17) of the deceased Shankarba.His deadbody was sent to Civil Hospital, Badnagar for postmortem.Dr. Devesh Kumar (PW-7) conducted the postmortem of the deceased on 30.4.2004 and gave report (Ex.P/14).R.Gaud seized the simple and blood stained soil from the spot, recorded the statement of the witnesses and arrested the accused persons.He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :-face of the deceased was swelled and puffy.He had lacerated wound of 3x2 inch at left posterior skull.His nose bleeded.Blood mixed secretion from nose to jaw and on table.His neck had a black swelling of 3x 5 cm.around neck and spread upto upper part of chest.His skin had multiple blister all over body.On dissection, trachea and bones were ruptured and bones were fractured also.According to the opinion of Dr. Devesh Kumar, the cause of the death of the deceased was cardio- respiratory arrest due the fracture and separation of trachea with crush, Cervical vessels.Since crush injuries and fractures were found in the skull and neck of the deceased and such injuries can neither be caused by the deceased himself nor they be caused in any manner, it is proved that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.In the examination-in-chief of eye witness, Devisingh (PW-1) he has categorically stated that 11 months ago, at about 12.00-1.00 pm he was grazing cattle of his employer in the forest of village Sanavadia.At that time appellants were preparing wine in the bank of the river.Appellant Mohan asked Shankarba for a male goat to eat.On his refusal, appellants dragged him and beat him.They also tied knob on his neck and caused injuries by wooden stick.He ran away from the-( 5 )-spot and intimated the incident to his employer, Satish.The test identification parade of the accused persons was arranged in which he identified the appellant Suresingh.Satish Chandra Pandya (PW-2) deposed that Devisingh was grazing his cattle.About 5-6 months ago, Devisingh came to him and informed that Mohan and other persons killed Shankarba by throttling.Then he went to the spot where he saw that Shankarba sustained injuries on his neck and blood was oozing from his head.Then he returned back to his brother, Rajendra.Kashiram (PW-4) stated that Shankarba was his father-in-law.Seven months ago he came to his maternal house to know about the health of his mother- in-law.He remained stayed there for one and half hours.Then at the request of his wife, he went to the forest to give tiffin to his father-in-law Shankarba.At that time Shankarba was sitting under the tree and goats were grazing.At that time Devisingh was also present there.After handing over him tiffin, he saw that smoke was arising on the bank of the river.Then he went there and found that Mohan along with his brother-in-law and co- brothers were preparing wine and they were also consuming liquor.After that he came back to the house.At about 2.00 p.m. Satish Pandya informed him that Shankarba has been killed.When he reached to the spot, he found that deadbody of his father-in-law was lying.Nathuram (PW-9) testified that 7 months ago at 9.00 am, his father-Shankarba went for grazing goats.On that day he went to Badnagar for marketing, where Rajendra and Praveen Pandya came and told him that accused persons murdered his father.Then he came to the police station, Badnagar and lodged the report (Ex.P/15).On the basis of their disclosure statement under section 27 of the Evidence Act, wooden sticks were recovered.The seized properties were sent to the FSL for chemical analysis.After completion of the investigation chargesheet was filed before the JMFC, Badnagar, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions and ultimately it was transferred to I ASJ, Ujjain.Appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea-( 3 )-that they are unnecessarily falsely implicated in the matter due to the previous enmity, however no evidence was produced by the appellants in defense.Trial court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties came to the conclusion that appellants in furtherance to the common intention committed murder of Shankarba and held all the three accused guilty of the charge of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w section 34 of the IPC.According to the report received from Central Jail, Ujjain, during the pendency of appeal, appellant No.2- Suresingh has expired.Hence, the present Appeal stands abated against appellant No.2-Suresingh and it is preferred at the instance of appellant No.1-Mohan and appellant No.3-Ganesh.The Prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses to establish its story.Learned counsel for appellants argued that impugned judgment suffers from several infirmities which are sufficient to set aside the same.He further submits that trial court has not appreciated the prosecution evidence in proper manner as there are material contradictions and discrepancies in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.Lastly it has been argued that appellants were not having the intention to commit murder of deceased Shankarba.The incident has taken place all of a sudden without any premeditation.-( 4 )-When he reached to the spot along with police personnel, he saw that deadbody of his father was lying.He sustained injuries on his head and neck and blood-( 6 )-was also oozing.Devisingh, who witnessed the incident informed him that Mohan, Suresingh and Ganesh killed his father because he refused to give them male goat without paying money.Police prepared the spot map (Ex.P/16) and also made Lash Panchnama (Ex.P/17) of Shankarba.As per statement of the witnesses, the incident took place at about 1.00-2.00 p.m.. The incident was reported to the police at about 15.50 pm whereas the police station was situated 14 kms.away from the spot.Although, Devisingh-child witness was 13 years at the time of incident, however nothing has come in his cross-examination to suggest that he is a tuted witness and he has given his statement against the appellants at the instance of his employer, Satish Pandya.Although in the cross-examination of Satish Chandra Pandya, the counsel for the appellants gave a suggestion that there was dispute of this witness with the appellants regarding extraction of sand from the river but he denied the aforesaid suggestion.The appellants have not adduced-( 7 )-any evidence to prove the enmity with Satish Chandra Pandya, therefore the defence taken by the accused persons is devoid of any base, thus trial court has rightly rejected the same.-( 10 )-
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,075,887 |
sh Case Diary is available.e ad This is first application under Section 439 of CrPC for grant of bail.Pr The applicant has been arrested on 10/10/2017 in a connection with Crime No. 24/2017 registered at Police hy Station Crime Branch, District Gwalior for offence under ad Sections 420, 120-B of IPC, Section 3 (1)(2)(4) of MP M Nikshepako Ke Hiton Ka Sanrakshan Adhiniyan, 2000, Sections 45-S/58-B(5-A) of RBI Act and Sections 4, 5 and 6 of of Inami Chit or Dhan Parichalan Scheme (Banning Act).rt It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that the ou applicant was not the Director of the Company.C Per contra, the application is opposed by the State h Counsel.It is further submitted that all the additional documents shall be filed before the trial Court as early as possible.Considering the fact that charge sheet has been filed and various innocent depositors were cheated by the Company and the applicant is alleged to have been one of the Directors of the Company, this Court does not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail.The application is accordingly rejected.(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE MKB sh MAHENDRA KUMAR BARIK e 2018.06.19 18:34:59 +05'30' ad Pr a hy ad M of rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,340,781 |
The present applicant who was complainant has lodged this application under S. 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to review my judgment dated 25th April 1967 passed in Criminal Revision Application No. 31 of 1967, incorporating a direction in the judgment that the arguments in the case should be heard afresh before delivery of judgment.The original complaint was for the offence under Section 352, Indian Penal Code read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code against the 9 accused who are the non-applicants 2 to 10 in the present application.The non-applicants then filed a revision application against the judgment of the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, in this Court.The revision application was heard by me and by the judgment dated 25th April 1967 I quashed the judgments of the trying Magistrate as well as that of the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, and remanded the case to the trying Magistrate for rewriting the judgment.In that judgment I gave a further direction that the case would be sent before another Magistrate who after hearing the parties shall write the judgment afresh after considering the evidence on record and after considering the complaint and other material on record.After setting aside the convictions and sentences passed against the non-applicants 2 to 10 I directed as follows:"The matter will have to be sent back to the trying Magistrate for writing a fresh judgment after giving a careful thought to the evidence of the witnesses already recorded as well as the complaint and other material on record.For this purpose, I think it necessary to send the case back to the trying Magistrate for writing a fresh judgment.I would, however, like that since no further evidence is to be recorded, but only a judgment is to be written afresh, it would be desirable if the case is sent to some other Magistrate other than the trying Magistrate who decided the case earlier.The Sessions Judge to whom the record of this case will be sent will forward the case to some other Magistrate than the one who has passed the earlier judgment.When the Criminal revision was heard by me, the whole record was before the Court.The record also contained the evidence which was recorded by the trying Magistrate Mr. G. H. Sarada.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,088,846 |
The marriage ran into rough weather, the second respondent raised allegations of she having been subjected to cruelty and deprived of her stridhan, first information report (FIR) no.42/2016 having been registered on 19.01.2016 by police station Mundka, on her complaint involving offences punishable under Sections 498-A/406/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the case being directed against her husband (first petitioner), his parents (second and third petitioners), and his sister (fourth petitioner).On conclusion of the investigation, police filed Crl.M.C. No.1714/2019 Page 1 of 7 report (charge-sheet) under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC) on which cognizance was taken, the said matter being pending on the file of the Metropolitan Magistrate.M.C. No.1714/2019 Page 1 of 7On the basis of the above mentioned settlement, present petition was filed.The second respondent, on being served, has entered appearance and filed an affidavit sworn on 03.05.2019, alongwith which copy of her aadhar card which was submitted as proof of her identity.By the said affidavit, as also orally at the hearing, the second respondent has confirmed that she has agreed to the marriage being dissolved and the criminal case to be brought to an end conditional upon she being paid Rs.5,50,000/- by the first petitioner satisfying all her claims on account of maintenance, stridhan, etc. She has also confirmed by the said affidavit that she has already received a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- in two instalments before the Family court, the amount remaining to be paid being Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty thousand).The said balance amount has been paid to her at the hearing by the first petitioner in the form of a banker's cheque bearing no.686088, dated 26.07.2019, in her name for Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees Crl.M.C. No.1714/2019 Page 2 of 7 One lakh and fifty thousand) drawn on Andhra Bank, copy thereof has been kept on record.M.C. No.1714/2019 Page 2 of 7The petition, thus, has been moved before this court invoking Section 482 Cr.In fact-situation wherein the matrimonial relation has been brought to an end by mutual consent and the parties are eager to move on with their respective lives seeking closure and if there is nothing to indicate lack of bonafide on the part Crl.Dasti to both sides.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,090,606 |
Case diary is available.Heard on this first application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of the applicant in connection with Crime No.108/2019 registered at Police Station Pipariya, District Hoshangabad under Sections 406, 408, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.The case of the prosecution is that, the applicant, who is the Accountant (Muneem) of complainant Vaibhav Chanakya, proprietor Kavya Enterprises, had fraudulently transferred Rs.3,40,059/- from the account of complainant to the accounts of his son and daughter and also misappropriated Rs.2,50,000/- cash which was given by the complainant to the applicant for payment to the farmers but the same has not been paid to them.When the complainant came to know that the applicant has defalcated the aforesaid amount, he made a written complaint to the Police Station Pipariya on that basis, crime under the aforementioned offence has been registered against the applicant.Consequently, this first application for bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on behalf of applicant-Santosh Sharma, is allowed by imposing certain condition.Certified Copy as per rules.(Mohd. Fahim Anwar) Judge taj.Digitally signed by TAJAMMUL HUSSAIN KHAN Date: 24/07/2019 04:22:02
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,092,176 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39346/2019 (Shankarlal s/o Late Kallu D. Kuri Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 01.10.2019 Mr. Ashish Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by the prosecutrix, alleged offence under Sections 354 (A), 506, 354, 376 (2) (I) and 376 (2) (N) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5m, 5n, 7, 8, 9m and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has been registered against the present applicant.Thereafter, on 26.03.2019, statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dr. Ambedkar Nagar, Mhow, District Indore (MP), then first time, she made allegation against the applicant that he inserted his finger in her private part.On that basis, offence under Sections 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Sections 5m, 5n, 6, 7 and 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has also been added and the applicant was taken into custody on 11.05.2019 and since then, he is in custody.The prosecutrix and her parents have already been examined before the trial Court and they have not offered any explanation regarding non-disclosure of the aforesaid allegation in the FIR and earlier statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which clearly shows that the prosecutrix exaggerated the story to implicate the applicant in grave offence.The investigation is over and charge sheet has already been filed.The conclusion of the trial will take sufficiently long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Certified copy, as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.10.01 16:59:45 +05'30'
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,094,377 |
1 01.2019 b.CRM No. 332 of 2019 Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 8th January, 2019 in connection with Garhbeta Police Station Case No. 411/2015 dated 26.10.2015 under Sections 147/148/149/326/302/379/120B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and Section 9-B of the Indian ExplosivesAnd In Re:-The petitioners claim that since the principal accused person who fired the shot that killed the victim remains arrested and the charge-sheet has already been filed, the present petitioners need not be taken into custody for the conduct of the trial.The State also says that since these petitioners were a part of the group that resorted to wanton violence and, merely because another is said to have fired the gun-shot that killed the victim, it should not be seen as a distinguishing feature to confer undeserving benefits on these petitioners.The firearm used has been recovered.The principal accused has been named by witnesses as having fired the shot.It is true that the petitioners were a part of the group which attacked the victim, but the petitioners' role may have been limited and the petitioners' custodial interrogation may yield no fruitful result.The major factor that weighs against the petitioners is that the petitioners have been on the run for nearly four years.The petitioners will be entitled to anticipatory bail on condition that they report every week to the officer-in-charge of Garhbeta police station, attend every date fixed for trial without fail and they do not leave the State without the prior permission of the trial Court.Any default on the petitioners' part to 2 3 attend the trial will entitle the trial court to cancel the bail without further reference to this Court.A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
134,095,240 |
For Appellant (s):Mr.John Sathyan for Appellant/A2 in Crl.A.No.10 of 2012For Respondent:Mr.M.Maharaja, APP for respondents in both Criminal AppealsCOMMON JUDGEMENT(Judgement of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The appellant in Crl.A.No.452 of 2012 is the Accused No.1 and the appellant in Crl.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mr.Palanidurai.A1 is his wife.They were living together along with their child (P.W.5) at Naluvedapathy Village.There were frequent quarrels between A1 and the deceased.The deceased used to keep always an aruval with him and criminally intimidate A1 with direct consequences.A1 was enraged over the same.Therefore, she planned to kill the deceased.It is further alleged that six months prior to 06.10.2005, at the house of the deceased, A1 held the legs of the deceased and A2 pressed a pillow against the face of the deceased causing smotheration and as a result the deceased died.A1 and A2 did not disclose about the occurrence to anybody.A1 was passing rumour that the deceased was found missing.While so, on 06.10.2005, at about 02.00 p.m. P.W.1 , the then Village Administrative Officer of Naluvedapathy was at his house.At that time, A1 appeared before him voluntarily and on such appearance, she wanted to confess.P.W.1 reduced the confession given by A1 orally into writing.In that confession, she disclosed that she killed her husband and buried the body by digging a pit behind her house.However, she did not implicate A2 in any manner.5. P.W.1, thereafter, prepared a special report and proceeded to the police station and produced A1 along with the special report under Ex.P.2 and the extra judicial confession under Ex.P.1 at Thalaignayar Police Station, at 02.35P.3 is the FIR.P.W.3 Dr.Khader had come to the place of occurrence where the body was buried and after inquest was over , as per the request made by the Tahsildar , he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.The body was highly decomposed and it was beyond recognition.There were dress materials on the dead body of the deceased which were all recovered by the investigating officer.As a matter of fact, what was exhumed was only the skeletal.There were small amount of hairs still available on the back of the head.The muscles were all highly decomposed.G.Pugazenthi for Appellant/A1 in Crl.A.No.452 of 2012:A.No.10 of 2012 is the Accused No.2 in S.C.No.294 of 2008 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam Division, Nagapattinam.They stood charged for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 201 of IPC.The trial court, by judgement dated 02.11.2011, convicted A1 under both the charges and sentenced her to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three years for offence under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 201 of IPC; and convicted A2 for the offence under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year.The trial court, however, acquitted A2 from the charge under Section 302 r/w 34 of IPC.On such complaint from P.W.1, the then Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.10) registered a case in Crime No.448 of 2005 under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC against A1 alone.Thereafter, P.W.10 handed over the case diary to P.W.14 for investigation.The investigation was taken up by the then Inspector of Police Mr.Velayudham proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P5) and a rough sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness.Thereafter, on due intimation, the Tahsildar/Executive Magistrate of Vedaranyam had arrived at the scene of occurrence.In the presence of Tahsildar (P.W.13), at the place pointed out by A1, the body of the deceased was exhumed.Velayudham, recovered some blood stained earth and ordinary earth from the place where the body was exhumed under a mahazar (Ex.P6) and forwarded the same to the court along with a request for chemical examination.Thereafter, the investigating officer gave a request to the doctor to come to the place of occurrence to conduct post-mortem.In the mean time, the Tahsildar conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.He collected the skull and hyoid bone and send them for chemical examination.The photographs of the deceased was sent for comparison.P.W.12, an anthropologist attached to the Government Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Chennai, conducted superimposition test on the skull of the deceased with the use of the photograph of the deceased.P.8 is his report.P.8 is the photograph used for the purpose of comparison.According to his report, the photograph of the deceased tallied with the skull which was exhumed from the place of occurrence.On completing the investigation, P.W.14 laid charge sheet against the accused.Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed two charges against both the accused as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.Both A1 and A2 denied the same.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 14 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were exhibited, besides 3 Material Objects.Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, has spoken about the confession given by A1 on 06.10.2005 wherein A1 had admitted that it was she who killed the deceased and buried the body.He has stated that the deceased was in the habit of drinking and he used to torture his wife (A1) in drunken state.A1 had informed him about the same on few occasions.He has further stated that there were trivial family disputes between A1 and the deceased.After the Chitra Pournami festival in the month of April 2005, the deceased was found missing.P.W.3 has spoken about the post-mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death.P.W.4 is a resident of the same village.He has further stated that on 06.10.2005 the body of the deceased was exhumed.P.W.5 is the son of the deceased.At the time of examination in court in the year 2001, he was 21 years old and he was studying II year B.Com,.He has stated that before the deceased was murdered, the deceased had gone to Malyasia and after working there for about eight or nine months, he returned to India.A2 and the deceased were friends.For some days, it is alleged that, he used to stay at her house.Thereafter, his father was not found in the village.When he enquired A1, she told him that the deceased was found missing.11. P.W.7 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch.P.W.8 is a neighbour of the deceased.He has further stated that one day, he found A2 digging a pit behind the house of the deceased.P.W.10 has spoken about the registration of the case.P.W.11 has stated that he took the skull and hyoid bone to the Forensic Lab for scientific analysis.P.W.12 has spoken about the superimposition test conducted and his final opinion that the photograph of the deceased tallied with the skull sent for superimposition test.P.W.14 has spoken about the investigation done by his predecessor and the further investigation done by him and also the filing of charge sheet against the accused.When the above incriminating materials were put to both A1 and A2, they denied the same as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witness nor they did mark any document on their side.Their defence was a total denial.Having considered all the above, the trial Court convicted both A1 and A2 as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement.Challenging the conviction and sentences, both A1 and A2 are now before this Court with these criminal appeals.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/state and we have also perused the records carefully.For the sake of convenience, let us first take up the the case against A2-Senthilkumar.It is the case of the prosecution that A1 and A2 had illicit intimacy and that was the reason why A2 had assisted A1 in committing the murder of the husband of A1, the deceased.The first charge reads that A1 held the legs of the deceased and A2 pressed a pillow against the face of the deceased and smothered him to death.Absolutely there is no evidence to prove the same.P.W.5 has stated that few days after the chitra pournami festival in the village, when he was sleeping in his house, he heard a murmur and therefore, he went behind his house where he found A2 digging a pit and A1 was found talking to him.But, he did not disclose the above said vital information until the body was exhumed.Similarly, P.W.8, a neighbour who claims to have seen the digging of pit by A2 has also not disclosed about the same for about eight months.In our considered view, it is too difficult to sustain the conviction of A2 based on the above evidences of P.W.5 and 8 alone.Thus, according to us, there is no convincing evidence against A2 and so he is entitled for acquittal.A1 went to P.W.1 on 06.10.2015 and made a confession wherein , she has stated that since the deceased was torturing her physically, she decided to kill him and accordingly, she killed him by smothering and then buried the body in a pit behind her house.The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/A1 would submit that the confession of A1 cannot be believed as it was made after about six months of the occurrence.The learned counsel would further submit that there was no reason for A1 to repose confidence in P.W.1 to make such a confession.We find some force in the above said argument.If the extra judicial confession is the only piece of evidence available against A1, then, we may be hesitant to act solely on the said extra judicial confession as it is the settled law that the retracted extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and the same cannot be the sole foundation to convict an accused unless the same draws corroboration from independent sources.Here, in the instant case, in our considered view, the extra judicial confession given by A1 to P.W.1 is not the only piece of evidence as there are other circumstances which duly corroborate the same.After the said confession was made to P.W.1, he took the accused to the police and in the presence of police, the accused made a disclosure statement in which she disclosed the place where the body had been buried.In pursuance of the same, she identified the place where the body was buried.Until such time, the fact that the body was buried behind the house of A1 was not known to any one.Though it was only out of the said disclosure statement, the body of the deceased was exhumed from the place of occurrence, A1 has not explained this to the court, had she been innocent, as to how, she had come to know about the burial of the body of her husband behind her house.The conduct of A1 also assumes much importance.Though the deceased was found missing, had she been innocent, she would not have rested without making a complaint to the police.She did not make any attempt to search for her husband, the deceased.She has got no explanation to offer as to how she was keeping mum for about six months.This unnatural conduct of A1 is yet another incriminating circumstance which is a strong circumstance against her.So far as identification of the body of the deceased is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that there is no proof that the photograph used for superimposition test was that of the deceased.But, during trial, there was no dispute raised in respect of the identity of the photograph of the deceased which was used for the purpose of comparison by means of superimposition test.Thus, from the superimposition test, the identity of the deceased has also been established.From the above proved circumstances, in our considered view, the prosecution has clinchingly and clearly proved that it was A1 who caused the death of the deceased and buried the body behind her house by digging a pit to cause disappearance of the evidence.Thus, A1 is liable to be punished for offence under Section 302 of IPC for murder of her husband and under Section 201 of IPC for causing disappearance of evidence of murder of her husband.Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, the trial court itself has imposed only a minimum punishment and so it also does not require any interference at the hands of this court.21.In the result, (i)Criminal Appeal No.452 of 2012:-(a) This criminal appeal is dismissed and the conviction and sentences imposed on the Appellant/A1-Santhi by the trial court are hereby confirmed.(b) It is directed that the sentences imposed on the Appellant/A1-Santhi shall run concurrently.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,803,232 |
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGALBy way of the present petition filed under Section 439 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') the petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in FIR No. 886/2016 under Sections 498A/406//34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'), registered at Police Station - Shakar Pur, Delhi.The present case has been registered on the complaint of one Soni Bhardwaj who stated that she was married to the petitioner on 21.02.2015 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies; that the complainant's father spent approximately Rs 16 Lakhs at the time of her marriage out of which Rs 12 Lakhs was given in cash to the petitioner and his father; that soon after marriage the in-laws of the complainant, being dissatisfied with the articles gifted at the time of marriage, started abusing the complainant and made demands for dowry; that on 03.03.2015 the complainant was sent back to her BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 1 of 5 paternal home for getting clothes, gifts, and gold jewellery which was left to be given at the time of marriage; that the in-laws of the complainant threatened her that as the petitioner was a practicing advocate of the Supreme Court he would make her face serious consequences; that when the complainant's father gave assurance to the petitioner and his family for fulfillment of their demands, the petitioner took complainant back to her matrimonial home on 15.03.2015; that complainant was given various articles and Rs 10,000/- by her father before leaving her paternal home; that the father-in-law and husband of the complainant after consuming liquor gave beatings to her and harassed her both mentally and physically; that the petitioner forced the complainant to indulge into unnatural sex with him; that on 19.06.2015 the petitioner demanded a swift car and Rs 4 Lakhs from the complainant ; that the complainant was again sent to her paternal home on 24.06.2016 to fulfill their demands and was also threatened by the petitioner that if she fails to do so, her family members would be implicated in a false case; that hence, the present complaint has been lodged.BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 1 of 5Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant to BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 2 of 5 wreck vengeance and to extract money; that the present complaint is a counterblast to the FIR no. 502/2016 registered against the family members of the complainant by the petitioner's father; that neither the petitioner nor his family members ever demanded dowry articles from the complainant or her family members; that all the allegations of cruelty and harassment on account of demand of dowry against the petitioner and his family members are false and baseless; that complainant was aware of the past relationships of the petitioner and agreed to enter in alliance of marriage with knowledge of same; that there are material contradictions in the statement given by the complainant under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C.; that the petitioner was not arrested during investigation and chargesheet was filed against him without being arrested; that as chargesheet has already been filed and no further investigation is required hence no purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in judicial custody, hence in the above mentioned circumstances bail be granted to the petitioner.BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 3 of 5 that can imposed is death or Imprisonment for life.; that there is every possibility of petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence and hence the present bail application be dismissed.BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 3 of 5I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.From the perusal of the record, it transpires that in the present case, the complainant has made serious allegations against the petitioner that he along with his family members had been harassing the complainant with the demand of dowry.The complainant in her statement recorded under Sections 161 & 164 Cr.P.C. has taken a consistent stand and alleged that soon after her marriage she was subjected to mental and physical harassment by the petitioner and his family members due to non fulfillment of their demands of dowry.Besides the allegations of demand of dowry, the complainant has also alleged that the petitioner has been forcing her to indulge in unnatural sex.Furthermore, the complainant has also alleged that the petitioner has solemnized three marriages before marrying the complainant and one during the subsistence of his present marriage without giving divorce to the complainant.The complainant had also adduced marriage certificates pertaining to the fifth marriage of the petitioner and divorce decrees in respect of the first and third marriage of the petitioner.The said documents have been duly verified during the course of investigation.1855/2017 Page 5 of 5BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 5 of 5Through: Mr. Amit Ahlawat, APP for state.On 05.12.2016 FIR No. 886/2016 was registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.However after investigation, chargesheet was filed under Section 498A/377/420/494/34 IPC.Hence, the instant bail application.1855/2017 Page 2 of 5Mr. Amit Ahlawat, learned APP for the State vehemently opposed the bail application of the petitioner and submitted that there are serious allegations of physical and mental harassment of the complainant for demand of dowry, against the petitioner; that the petitioner had abetted and conspired with co-accused persons and concealed the factum of his previous three marriages from the complainant and also performed fifth marriage without giving divorce to the complainant; that the petitioner has been charged with serious and grave offences for which maximum punishment BAIL APPLN.As per the Status Report, similar complaints have also been lodged by the first and second wife of the petitioner in respect of which BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 4 of 5 FIR No. 235/2005 and FIR No. 330/2012 under Sections 498A/3232/506 IPC read with Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961,have been registered.BAIL APPLN.1855/2017 Page 4 of 5Keeping in view the peculiar facts of the present case, the nature and gravity of the alleged offence and in view of the serious allegations against the petitioner and other factors including severity of the punishment prescribed in law, I find no sufficient ground to grant bail to the petitioner.Accordingly, the present bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.Before parting with the above order, it is made clear that anything observed in the present petition shall not have any bearing on the merits of the case during trial.SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J NOVEMBER 13, 2017 //gr BAIL APPLN.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,807,801 |
This petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in S.T.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 2018In that protest, the petitioners used filthy language and criminally intimated the higher officials and further caused public nuisance despite promulgation order was in force.Therefore, the first respondent registered a case in FIR No.642 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 143 and 188 of IPC.Further, the first respondent investigated the case and filed a charge sheet for the offences under Sections 143, 188, 506 (i), 109 IPC and Sections 3–A of Tamil Nadu Town Nuisance Act, 1889, as against the petitioners and the same was taken cognizance in S.T.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.The said criminal proceedings is under challenge in this criminal original petition.3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that on 09.09.2016, Vinayagar Idol Procession was held at Aruppukottai and also police protection was given by the respondent for that procession.Therefore, there was no reason for thehttp://www.judis.nic.in 3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 2018 petitioners to conduct protest on 12.09.2016 at Aruppukkottai in respect of Vinayagar Idol Procession.Further, he would contend that there is absolutely no witnesses have spoken about the occurrence and to connect the petitioners, there are no materials to proceed with the trial.When there is no material to proceed with the trial, the petitioners unnecessarily would not have put them an ordeal trial.Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the criminal proceedings.4.Per contra, the Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that there are specific allegations as against the petitioners to proceed with the trial.Further, he would submit that the petitioners are 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 first respondents/State and perused the materials available on record.http://www.judis.nic.in 4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 20186.On a perusal of the charge as against the petitioner is concerned, the first respondent levelled the charge under Section 188 of I.P.C. as against the petitioners.In that protest, the petitioners used filthy language and criminally intimated the higher officials and caused public nuisance despite promulgation order was in force.Except the official witnesses, no one has spoken about the occurrence and no one was examined to substantiate the charge against the petitioner.Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant — Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes to tender to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of eitherhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 2018 description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.7.Considering the above, this Court finds that for the simple charge, the petitioners cannot be put into an ordeal trial.Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.8.In view of the above discussions, this criminal original petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in S.T.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District, is quashed as against the petitioners herein.Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.2.Town Police Station, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District.3.The Additional Public prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in 7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 2018 G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.dss Crl.O.P.(MD)No.20956 of 2018 and Crl.MP.(MD)No.9698 & 9699 of 2018 20.11.2019http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8
|
['Section 188 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,813,148 |
Applicant is apprehended and is lodged in jail since 17.11.2015 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 341, 506, 325 and 307 read with 34 of IPC vide Crime No.190/2015 registered at Police Station Ramnagar District Anuppur.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,819,149 |
In short, the prosecution story is that on 11.04.2007, complainant Prem Narayan with his com- panion Rameshwar went to village Lupdi in marriage of son of Nagu Singh.There were three processions at Bhagwan Singh Gujjar and the wedding programme was 2 CRR No.3530/2017 going out of the house.At 01.00 O'clock, complainant was serving water to the members of the processions, at the same time, a person from second procession called the complainant, that first let him drink, complainant said him to wait for.Thereafter, he started abusing him and said that "you do not know me", I am Umrav Singh Gurjar from Aabadkhedi.The complainant stopped him from abusing him, then accused Umrav Singh gave a blow of knife on his left ear, due to which flash cut off.Thereafter, two other companions of Umrav Singh as- saulted complainant Prem Narayan by stick, as a result, he sustained injuries on his head and both hands.Com- plainant Prem Narayan shouted, then Rameshwar came for his rescue.(Passed on this 7th day of January, 2020) The applicant / accused has preferred this criminal revision under Section 397 of the Code of Crimi- nal Procedure, 1973 against order dated 26.07.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain (MP) in Criminal Appeal No.370/2011, whereby judgment dated 19.08.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahidpur, District Ujjain (MP) in Criminal Case No.278/2007 has been affirmed, wherein the applicant / accused was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Sections 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stip- ulation.After that, Umrav Singh and his compan- ions also gave blows of stick to Rameshwar.Umrav Singh threatened the complainant, that if he will report the matter, then he will kill him on the way.Com- plainant Prem Narayan lodged a report of the incident at Police Station Raghavi, Tehsil Mahidpur, District Ujjain (MP) on the basis of which, FIR bearing Crime No.93/2007 was registered for offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 326 and 506-II read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the applicant and two other accused persons.Injured persons were sent to the Hospital for medical examination.After due investi- gation, charge sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class.The applicant / accused abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence.Learned trial Court, after appreciating the evi- dence adduced by the parties, acquitted the applicant / accused for offence under Sections 294 and 506-II of IPC, however, convicted him for offence punishable un- der Sections 326 and 323 of IPC and sentenced him, as mentioned above.Being dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment, the applicant / accused preferred an appeal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahidpur, District Ujjain, which has been dismissed by the impugned judg- ment dated 26th July, 2016, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.Learned counsel for the applicant has submit- ted that the independent witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and only on the sole testi- mony of the complainant, both the courts below con- victed the applicant / accused, ignoring the material omissions and contradictions which have come in the statement of the prosecution witnesses.The trial Court has also erred in considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution and wrongly convicted the applicant / accused for the aforesaid offence.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the prayer made on behalf of the applicant / accused by sub- mitting that the trial Court as well as the appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence adduced by the parties and found him guilty for the offence under Sec- tions 326 and 323 of IPC.There is no sufficient ground available for interference in the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.Hence, he prays for rejection of the revision application.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case.From perusal of record, it is found that testi- mony of complainant Prem Narayan (PW-1) and eye wit- ness Rameshwar Yadav (PW-2) establishes the fact that the applicant / accused assaulted victim Prem Narayan with knife on his ear, due to which he sustained injury.Dr. S.K. Gaud (PW-4), who medically examined the vic- tim; and prepared MLC Report Ex.P/4, has stated that he found incised injury of size 1 inch x inch x 1/3 inch on outside of left ear of injured Prem Narayan; and a piece of ear was also cut from the ear; and therefore, the injury caused to injured Prem Narayan was grievous in nature.So far as jail sentence is concerned, it is found that during the pendency of the trial, the applicant / ac- cused was in custody from 16.04.2007 to 15.05.2007, i.e. for a period of one month (thirty days).After rejection of his criminal appeal on 26.07.2016, arrest warrant was is- sued against the applicant / accused on 29.07.2016; he was arrested on 08.10.2016 and thereafter sent to Sub Jail, Mahidpur, District Ujjain (MP).The jail sentence of the applicant / accused was suspended by this Court vide order dated 28.02.2018; and he was released from the custody on 20.03.2018; meaning thereby, that he has al- ready served more than one year and six months in cus- tody.The applicant / accused has no past criminal an- tecedents and the incident took place suddenly in a heat of passion.In these circumstances, considering the im-Accordingly, Criminal Revision No.3530/2017 is disposed of with the aforesaid modification.The Reg- istry is directed to make arrangement for issuance of su- persession warrant against the applicant / accused.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Ramesh Chandra Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, Pithawe 2.5.4.20=dbcd6478673ed1cb472bfe4ff530b412bf73787574d3713 fa86db0de124035d6, cn=Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2020.01.08 18:34:26 +05'30'
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,821 |
H. J. Umrigar, H. R. Khanna and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellants.Krishnaswamy Iyengar and Sardar Bahadur, for the re- spondent.During the course of assessment for the year 1950-51 it was discovered that he had failed to pay advance income-tax.A notice was therefore issued to him on March24., 1951 under s. 28 read with s. 18-A (2) of the Income- tax Act. to show cause why a penalty should not be.imposed for underestimating his income.He again appeared before him on the 28th and the respondent told him that the " penalty papers had.not been disposed of and that the accounts of the current year had also not been gone through " and asked the complainant to see him at his house on the following morn- ing, which the complainant did.There he was told by the respondent that if he wanted to have his return accepted and to be helped in the matter of penalty proceedings he should pay the respondent Rs. 1,000 as illegal gratification.The complainant mentioned this fact to his manager and also that he had been told by the Income-tax Officer that his accounts were unsatisfactory.Because he was asked to do so the complainant saw the respondent at the latter's house on October 6 or 7 and he asked the complainant if he had brought the money and after some talk about the assessment the respondent asked the complainant -to pay half the amount as it was Deepavali time.There is evidence of a defence witness also to show that towards the end of October 1951, the complainant was seen coming from the house of the re- spondent though the prosecution and the defence are not in accord as to the purpose of this visit.The Circle Inspector, Munisami P. W. 12, claims to have received complaints while at Madras about the respondent being corrupt and his " indulging in corrupt practices".He then came toCoimbatoreandgot into touchwith the complain- ant and asked him if he had paid anybribetotherespoiident.The complainant mentioned to the Inspector about the demand of a bribe by the respondent.At the instance of the In- spector the complainant appeared before the Tehsildar-Magis- trate who recorded his statement P-17 wherein the whole story of the demand of the bribe has been set out.The Inspector then gave ten one hundred currency notes -to the complainant after their numbers were taken down in Ex. P-The complain ant then went to the office of the accused but no money was accepted on that day because the respondent had received an anonymous letter Ex. P-18 warning, him of the trap which was being laid by the Malayalam people.The respondent naturally got very annoyed with the complainant and sent him.The portion of the order was :-" All the defects that are usual in hotel accounts exist here."Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 6th September, 1955, of the Madras High Court in Crimi- nal Appeal No. 498 of 1954 and Criminal Revision Case No. 257 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated the 12th July, 1954 of the Special Judge, Coimbatore in C. C. No. I of 1952..The same evening the complainant was told that he was required to go to the house of the respond- ent on the following morning which he did at 8 a. m. The respondent told him that he should take no notice of the anonymous letter which must have been sent by his enemies and asked him to pay some money.The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 200 which on his return he entered in his kacha account book which the High Court has rejected without sufficient reason.On the evening of November 15, the complainant again went to the house of the respondent and the latter told him that he would pass final orders and that money should be paid.The record, P-7 and P-7 (a), shows that an order was dictated on November 13 although there is no proof or even indication that the complainant knew about it.The complainant was given 8 one hundred rupee notes by the Inspector and the complainant paid them to the respond- ent on the morning of November 17 at the latter's house.On this occasion the complainant accompanied by his manager P. W. 14 had gone towards the house of the respondent along with the Magistrate and Circle Inspector and Venkates, lyer 584 P. W. - 14 in a car which was stopped three or four blocks away from the house of the respondent and only the complain- ant and his manager went into the respondent's house and paid the money.Two or three minutes later the Inspector P. W. 12 and the Magistrate P. W. 13 and one Sesha Ayyar who had joined the party en route also came into the house on receiving the signal from the complainant.They disclosed their identity to the respondent and told him that they had information that he had received Rs. 800 from the complain- ant as illegal gratification and asked him to produce the money which he had received from the complainant.The respondent did not say anything and got up from the chair on which he was sitting and tried to go into the house but was prevented from doing so by the Inspector and he then pro- duced the money from the folds of his dhoti.While the mahazar was being prepared the respondent said that he bad received this money as a loan from the complainant who denied this and said it had been paid as a bribe.A tele- gram was then sent to the Superintendent of Special Police Establishment and under his orders a case was registered and the investigation was then taken up by a Deputy Superintend- ent of Police who searched the house of the respondent on November 19 but no pronote seems to have been received or taken into possession on that date.A pronote with four anna stamps affixed was later produced in the court by the respondent on July 17,1952 during the course of his state- ment under s. 342 Criminal Procedure Code but it was not mentioned to the Magistrate P. W. 13 by the respondent.The charge against the respondent was that he had obtained from the complainant Rs. 800 as gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive for the reward for showing favour to him in the exercise of official functions and had thereby committeed an offence punishable under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with a. 4 of the Prevention of Cor- ruption Act (Act II of 47).The complainant offered to lend him Rs 1,000/-.At that time he was not aware that the complainant had an assessment pending before him.It was the complainant who told him on November 15 when he met him again that the anonymous letter was the "'work of his enemies" and promised to advance the loan as previously promised and he also suggested that the respond- ent should execute a pronote for Rs. 1,000 which would be attested by Venkatesa Ayyar to which he (the respondent) was agreeable.The complainant paid Rs. 800 on the morning of November 17 and promised to pay Rs. 200 in the evening.The respondent had the pronote ready and offered to hand it over in the morning but the complainant said he would take it when " he left the house ".The learned Special Judge accepted the story of the prosecu- tion and after a careful analysis of the evidence found the respondent guilty of the offence charged and sentenced him to -six months simple imprisonment.On appeal being taken to the High Court the learned Single Judge reversed the judgment and acquitted the respondent.At least there is nothing to indicate that any intimation was given to the complainant in regard to this matter.The complainant has stated on oath as P.W. 8:-He then told me that the penalty paper was not disposed of and that the accounts for the current year had not also been gone through."Counsel for the respondent contended that there was no occasion for the respondent to say anything about the penalty proceedings because as far as he was concerned the recommendation had already been made by him but the real question is whether the complainant was told as to what had happened or had any knowledge of this.He states that he had none and there is nothing to indicate that he bad.The respondent has then stated that the complainant was known to him since 1942 when he, the respondent, was the Head Clerk of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of In- come-tax and that is the reason why towards the end of August or the beginning of September when be casually met the complain.ant on the road, he told him that he was in financial difficulties and the complainant offered him a loan of Rs. 1,000 to be returned in easy instalments and that he did not know at that time that the complainant was an assessee before him."I have been keeping this in order to compare the results with other nearby hotels."As to why no enquiries could be made in the whole of this period is not clear from the assessment record and it ]ends support to the prosecution case that the respondent was making approaches to the complainant to get money from him.The respondent during the pendency of assessment proceedings of the complainant allowed the complainant to visit him at his house and even paid visit to his cafe.Even according to the findings of the High Court the complainant was "needing the favours" of the respondent who on his own showing was himself in dire need of a thousand rupees as he had succeeded in collecting only a thousand rupees by November2, and needed twice that amount for his son's premi- um or security as he chooses to call it.No importance was attached to this aspect of the case by the learned 593 judge of the High Court.In our opinion the learned trial judge correctly appreciated this part of the prosecution case and his judgment is not, as tile High Court has said, coloured by nere suspicion.On November 6, 1951, Circle Inspector Munisami contacted the complainant and arrangement was made for Rs. 1,000 to be paid by the complainant to the respondent and the money was actually taken by the complainant and offered to the re- spondent on November 8 which the respondent did not accept as he had received an anonymous letter Ex. P-18 which was dated November 6, 1951 in which the respondent had been warned that Malayalam people were attempting to "ruin him".In spite of this warning the respondent continued to have truck with the complainant and actually accepted Rs. 800 from him.It is true that when soon after the money was paid and the Inspector P. W. 12 and the Magistrate P.W. 13 arrived at the house of the respondent and asked him about this money he stated that he had taken it as a loan but in the context it assumes a different complexion.The state- ment of the Magistrate P.W. 13 was:-" While the mahazar. was being prepared the accused volun- teered and told me that he had received the 800 rupees as a loan from P.W. 8-the complainant."This witness had also stated that when he went into the verandah of the house, he asked the respondent whether he had received an illegal gratification from the complainant and also asked him to produce the money.The witness added:" The accused was seen trembling and meddling with something under the towel.I asked the accused to remove the towel.The accused removed the towel.I saw some bulging at his waist in the dhoti be was wearing.I asked him again to produce the currency notes.He produced them from the folds of the dhoti be was wearing.When producing the currency notes the accused did not say anything."No real cross-examination was directed against these por- tions of the statement of the Magistrate P.W. 13 nor has the High Court correctly appreciated them or given them due weight.The respondent produced before the Special First Class Magistrate on July 11, 1952, an unsigned promote for Rs. 1,000 executed by him in favour of the complainant.That promote was not found in the house when the search was made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on November 19, 1951, and it is not explained why the promote should have been made for Rs. 1,000 when actually the amount paid was only Rs. 800 and why the respondent offered to give this promote to the complainant without receiving full considera- tion.The respondent must surrender to his bail bond.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
151,825,153 |
a) P.W.1 Rajagopal is a resident of Maniyampatti and his father is a cousin of the deceased Mani @ Perumal.All the accused belonged to the same place.The first accused was doing the job of selling illicit liquor.The deceased, who initially worked in a tea shop, was working under A1 during the relevant period.The deceased was not married.The remaining accused were also attacking the deceased.Then, they tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree and beat him with sticks and the deceased fell unconscious.On seeing the deceased unconscious, the accused removed the deceased from the tree and poured some water on his face.They took him to the resident of the first accused and found him dead.Later the deceased body was covered with cloth and all the accused escaped from the place.P.W.1 has given a complaint under Ex.P.1 before P.W.4 Village Administrative Officer at 9.00 p.m. and the same was sent to the Police Station through Headman of the village.P.W.9 Sebasthian Head Constable attached to the Pulivalam Police Station received the said complaint on 13.1.1995 at about 11.00 p.m. On the strength of which, he registered a case in Crime No. 3 of 1995 under Section 302 IPC.Express F.I.R. under Ex.P.11 was dispatched to the concerned court.The copy of the same was forwarded to the Superior officers.On 14.1.1995 at 6.30 a.m. he made inspection on the site of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses, which was marked as Ex.He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.The dead body was sent to Government Hospital, Thuraiyur for post-mortem.On 14.1.1995 on receipt of requisition, P.W.8 Dr. Kannabai conducted autopsy and has issued Ex.P.10 post-mortem certificate.He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ liver and right kidney ruptures about 20 to 22 hours prior to autopsy.On 15.1.1995, the Investigating Officer went to Maniyampatti, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements.On information, he proceeded to Kannanur and arrested accused No. 1 Raju and Chinnu.A1 gave confessional statement in the presence of the witnesses and the admissible portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.M.Os.1 to 3 were recovered pursuant to the confessional statement.The accused were produced before the Court and remanded to judicial custody.He examined both Pws.5 and 6 Head Constables and recorded their statements.JUDGMENT M. Chockalingam, J.The appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3, who stood charged and tried for the offences under Section 302 IPC for A1 and Section 302 r/w 109 & 34 IPC for A2 and A3 and under Section 342 IPC against all the accused, and A1 to A3 were found guilty under Sections 342 and 304(2) and sentenced to undergo RI for one year each under Section 342 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for four years each under Section 304(2) IPC, have brought forth this appeal.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:On 18.1.1995, A2 surrendered before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Musiri.On 23.1.1995, the Investigating Officer obtained post-mortem certificate and examined P.W.8 Doctor.He also examined the photographer and obtained the statement.On completion of the investigation, he laid a charge sheet against the accused under Section 342 and 302 IPC.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and marked 14 exhibits and 3 M.Os.The accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false.No defence witnesses were examined.The trial court, on consideration of the rival submissions made and scrutiny of the available materials, found all the accused guilty under Section 342 and 304(2) IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment as referred to above.Aggrieved accused have brought forth this appeal.Arguing for the appellant, the learned Counsel Ms. J. Juliet Pushpa made the following submissions for consideration by this Court.P.W.2 has turned hostile.P.W.1 was a close relative of the deceased and he was interested, and hence it was uncorroborated and self inconsistent testimony.The evidence of P.W.1 should not have been relied on by the trial court for finding the accused guilty.The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 to the effect that the deceased was beaten with sticks.But, in the post-mortem certificate it could be seen that no external injury was found corresponding to the said version of the prosecution witnesses.Hence, the prosecution witnesses could not have seen the occurrence at all.The medical evidence has not in any way corroborated the ocular evidence.Under the stated circumstances, the lower court should have rejected the case of the prosecution and acquitted the accused.Opposing the contentions put forth by the appellants' side, the learned Government Advocate would submit that the prosecution has clearly brought home the guilt of the accused under Sections 342 and 304(2) IPC as found by the trial court.It is true that P.W.2 has turned hostile, but the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, who have given a cogent evidence as to the fact that it was A1 to A3 who tied the deceased in Vadanarayana tree and even before tying the deceased, they beat him and after tying also, they beat him.It is true that there was no corresponding external injury found, but it has in no way affected the case of the prosecution, because, P.W.8 Doctor has opined that the death was caused not due to injury by beating the deceased, but because of tying of rope tightly, the vital organs kidney and liver were not functioning and rupture was also found.Under the stated circumstances, it cannot be said that the ocular evidence was not corroborated by the medical evidence, and thus, the prosecution has clearly proved its case.Hence, the judgment of the trial court has got to be affirmed.After careful analysis of the evidence available and consideration of the rival submissions made, this Court is unable to agree with the contentions of the appellants' side.The gist of the prosecution case was that on the date of occurrence, on entertaining suspicion that the deceased took away the amount of A1, he questioned the deceased and not satisfied with the answer, A1 beat the deceased and A2 and A3 have also joined with him.All the accused tied the deceased with a kadamba rope in Vadanarayana tree situated nearby the house of A1 and beat him.The deceased fell unconscious.Hence, the accused untied the rope and poured water on his face.They took him to the house of A1 and found him dead.They fled away from the scene of occurrence.It is true that P.W.2 has turned hostile.P.W.1 who gave a complaint was a close relative of the deceased.It is pertinent to point out that the complaint was given by P.W.1 where he has given a full narration of the occurrence as he narrated the occurrence before the trial court.Both P.Ws.1 and 3 have categorically spoken to the fact that all the accused have tied the deceased in a tree.P.W.8 Post-mortem Doctor has given post-mortem certificate and has also deposed that when he was tied tightly there was all possibility of non functioning of vital organs, namely, kidney and liver and which caused his death.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,564,330 |
Shri R.V.S. Ghuraiya, Advocate for the complainant.Heard on IA No. 3772/2017, an application under Section 301 (2) of CrPC filed on behalf of complainant seeking permission to assist the prosecution.Considering the averments made in the application, the same is hereby allowed.Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, is permitted to assist the prosecution in the matter.Heard learned counsel for the rival parties.This is the first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants apprehend their arrest in connection with Crime No. 04/2017 registered at Police Station Pandokhar, district Datia for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294, 341, 506-B, 34 of IPC & Sections 324, 326 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants seek permission to withdraw this bail application with liberty that if they file regular bail before the concerned Trial Court, the same may be directed to be decided as early as possible.Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed as withdrawn and it is directed that if the applicants surrender before the trial Court and file an application for regular bail, the same may be decided as expeditiously as possible.(S.K.Awasthi) Judge Aman
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,564,708 |
Heard learned counsel for the parties on I.A. No.1341/2019, first application under Section 389 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for suspension of custodial sentence.The appellant has been convicted as under:Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was on bail during the trial and he did not misuse the liberty so granted to him.It is also submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and wrongly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence as mentioned here-in-above.There are fair chances of success of this appeal and there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal in near future.Though prayer for suspension is opposed by the learned Public Prosecutor, however, looking to the aforesaid, without 2 further commenting on the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence of the appellants.Accordingly, I.A.No.1341/2019 is allowed and it is directed that subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.The applicant after being enlarged on bail, he shall mark their presence before the registry of this Court on 15/07/2019 and on all such subsequent dates, which are fixed in this regard by the Registry.(S. K. AWASTHI) JUDGE praveen Digitally signed by MUKTA KAUSHAL MUKTA KAUSHAL DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, postalCode=482001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=efbfc3440fe5c2b9ad17e337cf112e002d7e642f5045463ce8cbb19b4483f79f, 2.5.4.45=0321003C8C77756C4EB805A439FCC7F54BE8B815EBB0F9381AC223E91973519 61BC38D, cn=MUKTA KAUSHAL Date: 2019.02.22 15:46:31 -08'00'
|
['Section 389 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,566,212 |
Subramani, aged about 36 years is the detenu.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents."5.I am aware that Thiru Parasuraman has filed a bail applications before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in ground case in Arakkonam Taluk Police station in Crime No.424/2018, u/s 376,302 IPC in Crl.M.P.No.5762 of 2018 and the same was pending in the Court.If he enlarged himself on bail, he would indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace........"In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.102/2018, dated 05.12.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
|
['Section 506 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', 'Section 324 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.
|
425,737 |
He says that he found that Utpal was confined near the house of Susanta Mondal and police also saw Utpal.He says that Himanshu and his family were confined in a room, but he then says that he does not know and he cannot say if they were confined to save them from assault by crowd.He says that Murari's wife and Utpal also used to love his son Soumen @ Fatal.JUDGMENT G.R. Bhattacharjee, J.Both the above noted death reference and criminal appeal are being dealt with and disposed of by this Judgment as they arise out of the same Judgment of the Addl.Sessions Judge.1st Court.It is a case of triple murder.The trial Court by Its judgment dated 17/12/98 convicted the appellant Utpal Mondal under section 302 1PC for murder of three persons namely, Smt. Padmarani Mondal, her son Soumen Mondal alias Fatal aged about four years and her father-in-law Sudhir Mondal and by order dated 19/12/98 sentenced the appellant to death and also to a fine of Rs.1,000/- i.d. to R.I. for six months for his conviction under section 302 IPC.Being aggrieved by the Judgment and the orders of conviction and sentence, the appellant-accused Utpal Mondal has preferred the present appeal.Both the death reference and the appeal are being disposed of together by this judgment as already noted above.It may be noted here that originally the trial Court framed charge against the accused Utpal Mondal under three heads, each under section 304 Part-I IPC for causing death of the respective victims.After the commencement of the trial at the conclusion of the examination-in-chief of P.W.1Sachindra Mohan Mondal the trial Court, on the prayer of the prosecution, altered the charge to section 302 IPC in place of section 304 Part-I IPC.Briefly speaking the allegation against the appellant is that on 29Ih July, 1991 at about 7-00 a.m. in the morning he assaulted the aforesaid three victims with wooden 'tasla' (i.e. wooden bar used for bolting door from inside) in their house as a result of which Padmarani died soon after his removal to Uluberia Hospital whereas Soumen @ Fatal died in the hospital two days later.Padmarani is the boudi (elder's brother's wife) of the appellant Utpal and Soumen is the son of Padmarani.The deceased Sudhir is the father of the appellant Utpal.Ext. 1 is the FIR of the case.The FIR was lodged by P.W.1 Sachindra Mohan Mondal who is the husband of Padmarani and elder brother of the appellant Utpal Mondal.It may be mentioned here that appellant Utpal and his brothers are three in number.The eldest one is Murari Mohan, the second one is P.W. 1 Sachindra and the youngest one is the appellant Utpal.in the FIR it is stated by P.W.1Sachindra that his father divided the ancestral properly amongst the three sons and each one was given one bigha land leaving two bighas of land for the father himself.It is stated in the FIR that Sachindra's father used to stay with him and on 28/7/91, Sunday at about 6-00 a.m. in the morning his elder brother planted paddy saplings in the field allotted to Sachin and there was an altercation between his father and the younger brother Utpal on the issue of replantation and at that time Padmarani, the wife of Sachin went to stop the quarrel but his elder brother Murari and his wife Depali Mondal made an attempt to assault her and that on 29.7.91 (Monday) in the morning a quarrel started between the wife of Sachin and the wife of the elder brother of the Sachin concerning the previous day's altercation and at that time Sachin told his wife to remain silent and went to field at 6-00 a.m. It is the further case in the FIR that while Sachin was working in the field at about 8-30 a.m. his cousin Kamal Mondal and Manabendra Sana (P.W.9) reported that at about 7-00 a.m. his younger brother Utpal Mondal assaulted with a wooden cudgel his wife Padmarani, his father Sudhir Chandra Mondal and also assaulted his son Soumen as a result of which all three were lying in injured condition and on hearing the same he immediately rushed to his house and saw that his wife Padmarani was lying dead with bleeding injuries with face downwards on the varandha of the bed-room of his father.It is also stated in the FIR that before the complainant Sachin arrived, his father and son were sent to the hospital and he learnt from Susanta Mondal (P.W.4), Rabin Mondal (P.W.6) and Rabindranath Polley (P.W.5) that Utpal expressed grief and said that he became excited and assaulted the three victims with a wooden cudgel and committed a crime, and also requested them to save him, and at that time the villagers compelled him to sit.The FIR was signed by P.W. 1 Sachinda Mohan and It was scribed by P.W. 10 Sukhen Mondal.It appears from the endorsements in the FIR that the FIR was received by S.I. A.K. Samanta (P.W.15) at 9-50 a.m. while he had been camping at Moubasia Dakshinpara where the occurrence took place and then he forwarded the same to O.C. Ulubaria P.S. through A.S.I. Amal Singha Roy for starting a case under section 304/325/326 1PC and the same was received at the P.S. at 11 -45 a.m. and the Ulubaria P.S. case No. 172 dated 29.7.91 was started under the aforesaid sections.in this connection It is also to be mentioned here that ext.11 is the Ulubaria P.S. G.D. entry No. 1488 dated 29.7.91 which was lodged at 9-05 a.m. It is recorded in the said G.D. entry that one Samir Mondal and Mongalmoy Mondal of Moubasia came to the P.S. and informed that a serious tension was going on at Moubasia between Utpal Mondal and his father and others over the dispute bf paternal property and death of wife of Sachin Mondal was caused.It is also recorded in the G.D. entry that on receiving that information, S.I. A.K. Samanta (P.W.15) S.I. J.N. Sarkar (since deceased).It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that neither the said Samir Mondal nor Mongalmoy Mondal has been examined on behalf of the prosecution although Mongalmoy was cited as a witness in the charge sheet.It has also been submitted by him that even Kamal Mondal who has been named in the FIR has also not been examined on behalf of the prosecution although he was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet.We now proceed to look to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses examined in the case.From the evidence of P.W.1Sachindra Mondal we get that he along with the members of his family used to reside in their house at village Moubasia within the P.S. Ulubaria and the members of their family included his wife and child, his elder brother Murari, Murari's wife (P.W.2) and two children, his younger brother Utpal (the appellant) and their father Sudhir Chandra Mondal as well as his Jattuto dada [elder cousin brother), his wife and children.From him we also get that although adjacent to each other, Murari with his family used to live in the old two storyed house with Utpal, and Murari used to live in the ground floor and Utpal in the first floor.We also get it from him that there are three rooms in the ground floor of the said house and three rooms at the first and out of the six rooms two were in occupation of Murari and Utpal, while the remaining four were in the occupation of his cousin brother Himanshu Mondal and his family.P.W.1Sachin says that their father used to stay with him in his family.We also get it from him that his father was aged about 70 years and formerly he was a teacher in Moubasia Kalllala Prathamik Vidyalaya and he retired from his service 10 years back.He says that the portion in which he lives is mud-built and the portion in which his father lived was a pucca-built house.In this connection it has to be noted here that Ext. 12 is the sketch map with index which was prepared by the police officer and which wilt give some idea about topography of the place.P.W.1Sachindra says that on the date of incident i.e. 29.7.91 in the morning when he was about to go to the field for cultivation, a quarrel was occurring between Padmarani (his wife) and Depali Mondal (the wife of Murari).He further says that at that time his son Soumen @ Fatal aged about four years was also in the house.He says that as he was about to leave for cultivation, he advised the two women not to quarrel and told them that after coming back from the field he would settle the matter.His further evidence shows that subsequently while he was cultivating in the field at about 7-30 a.m. his relations and close neighbours Manabendra and Kamal rushed to him and reported that his brother Utpal had assaulted and killed his wife Padmarani, his father Sudhir and his son Soumen, and all of them were lying in pool of blood and on hearing this, he rushed to his house and found that villagers Syamal Mondal (P.W.8), Kamal Mondal, Susanta Mondal (P.W.4).Rabin Polley (P.W.5) and others had detained Utpal and surrounded him so that he could not flee away.He says that he found that his wife Padmarani was lying in a pool of blood in front of the door of the room of his father and she was already dead.He further says that he also found that his father Sudhir Mondal was lying in a pool of blood on the staircase in the house of Himanshu Mondal.His father was not in a position to speak and his son Soumen he says, was lying in a pool of blood near his mother and was still screaming in pain.His evidence is that his father and son were removed to Uluberia Hospital but Padmarani was not removed as she was already dead.He says that 10/15 minutes after his removal to the hospital his father died and his son also succumbed to his injuries two days thereafter.He says that those who detained Utpal told him that they had seen Utpal assaulting the victim and they also stated that Utpal had confessed his cruelty before them.He further says that Utpal also confessed before him about his guilty in assaulting the three victims with a tasla.In our opinion when an occurrence of the such a magnitude as happened in the present case takes place and different persons come to the place on hearing cries obviously in quick succession, every description of the occurrence by the different witnesses need not be tested on the envil of mathematical accuracy.It is needless to say that reasonable flexibility must be allowed to play in the matter of appreciating the description of the incident given by the witnesses in respect of an incident of this nature when innocuous variations about details are not unexpected even in normal circumstances.P.W. 1 Sachindra says that at the house Tarapada Policy and Gangarani Mondal (P.W.3) stated before him what they had seen about the incident.It has been commented upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant that Tarapada has not been examined in this case although he was cited as a witness in the charge-sheet.However as we have seen Gangarani was examined as a witness.P.W. 1 Sachindra says that Gangarani told him that she had seen accused Utpal assaulting his wife, his father and his son with a tasla and she also told him that after the assault the accused had thrown away and dropped the tasla in a nearby tank.Gangarani is the wife of Surath Mondal who is the cousin brother of P.W.1Sachindra. P.W.1 however says that his injured father and injured son were removed to hospital almost immediately on his arrival at his house.He says that Depali (P.W.2) also staled to him that the accused Utpal had assaulted his wife, his father and son with a tasla.It may be mentioned here that P.W.2 Depali was however treated as a hostile witness by the prosecution.In his cross-examination P.W. 1. says that the viti(plinth) of Susanta is about 5/6 ft below the viti of P.W.1From him we got that Harekrishna Mondal and Dwarik were two brothers and P.W.1is a descendant of Harekrishna Mondal whereas Susanta is the descendant of Dwarik Mondal.They were all separate in mess.4. P.W.2 Dipali Mondal however did not say in Court what she was expected by the prosecution to say and she was treated by the prosecution as a hostile witness, but from her evidence it is also clear that she heard cries and on hearing the same she came to the court-yard of Himanshu and found that the father of Sachin Was lying in his courtyard with bleeding injuries and the wife of Sachin and the son Patal were lying in dalan with bleeding injuries on their persons.She says that she came to the house of Bistu Pada Mondal and narrated the incident to them.She says that she came to know that Utpal had been confined at the P.O. We also get it from her that Utpal who is her youngest debor is staying with her as paying guest.It may be mentioned here that during, the investigation her statement was recorded by the Magistrate under "section 164 Cr.PC.But what she now wants to say is that what she said before the Magistrate was said by her as tutored by police.5. P.W.3 Ganga Mondal says that P.W. 1 Sachin is her cousin debor and that the accused resides by the side of their house.Her evidence is that on the day of the incident (Monday) she heard cries at about 6/7 a.m. and she went there and saw the incident through the window of the room of Sachin.She says that she found Padmarani lying with bleeding injuries and also found Utpal assaulting his father with tasla.Fatal, she says, was lying with bleeding injuries and he was still moving.She says that Utpal thereafter came back.She further says that before that Utpal assaulted his bond (Padma) and Fatal with tasla, and she had seen It.It appears that while deposing she did not maintain the exact sequence of what she saw.But her evidence is definite and emphatic that she saw assault by Utpal with tasla on Padmarani, Soumen and Utpal's father.She says that she started crying for help and Shyamal and Kamal, the sons of her debor Ajit came and removed Fatal.She further says that people from the locality assembled there and removed Fatal to hospital and thereafter the father of Sachin was also removed to hospital.Her evidence is that the accused Utpal came before Susanta and prayed for saving him as he did the mischief.She says that Utpal was fleeing away when para-people caught hold of him and confined him.in her cross-examination she says that it may be that long ago there was Court case with Himanshu and others regarding bastu land and previously they had no talking terms with Himanshu and his family members, We get It from her cross-examination that her house is situated on the eastern side of the house of Sachin towards tank and her viti is about one man's height lower than the viti of Sachin.She says that she saw the incident after climbing over stack of bricks which were kept there near the window of Sachin.The house of Murari, she says, is not visible from the window wherefrom she saw the incident but the house of Himanshu is visible.She says that Utpal left towards the house of Murari after the incident but she did not go inside the house of Sachin and she came out to the road through her house and cried out for help.It has been commented upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant that she had to climb up a man's height and then see the incident and this indicates that it was not actually possible for her to see the incident.We cannot accept this submission.The incident involving three victims obviously did not take place in one moment.It must have continued for a considerable length of time and therefore there was obviously sufficient time for the P.W.3 to come and see the incident through the window after taking up proper position.Evidence of Post mortem doctor will also show that there were several injuries on the person of Padmarani which also will indicate that the assault on Padmarani was not an affair of one moment only.There is therefore no Improbability in the evidence of Ganga that she saw the incident of assault on the three victims by the accused Utpal with tasla.In her cross-examination Ganga says that she was not interrogated by the police but she is disclosing for the first lime before the Court what she had seen, namely, that she had seen Utpal assaulting his father, boudi and Fatal with tasla and thereafter he was leaving away.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that this shows that Ganga was not at all examined by I.O. during investigation and it is for the first time in Court that she stated about the incident.She says that she did not state before the I.O. that Utpal came before Susanta and prayed for saving him as he did the mischief.Utpal, she says, was apprehended by villagers when he was leaving the house and he was assaulted by villagers and was tied up with a tree.Gangarani is a rustic village woman and also illiterate as would be evident from the fact that she affixed her L.T.I, on her deposition.The occurrence look place in July, 1991 and the witness was deposing in the Court in June, 1998, I.e. seven years after the occurrence.It is therefore quite possible that the rustic village woman may not recollect whether she at all made any statement to the investigating officer or to the police after the occurrence.The defence has not taken it from any of the police officers as to whether Gangarani was or was not examined by the police during investigation.One of the I.O. namely, S.I. J.N. Sarkar was dead at the time of trial, but the other police officers were examined in the case but It was not taken by the defence that Gangarani was not at all examined during the investigation by the police.in cross-examination the defence took It from Gangarani that she has stated before the I.O. that Sachin Mondal is her cousin debor and they were not in speaking terms with Sachin's family.This clearly indicates that Gangarani was examined by the I.O. under section 161 Cr.PC.The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has introduced Gangarani as the sole eye witness of the occurrence as P.W.3 only after the P.W.2 while giving evidence did not comply with the prosecution expectation to speak in favour of the prosecution case and that being so it is evident that the P.W.3 cannot be at all relied upon.in our opinion, this submission is not acceptable, firstly, because it is not the defence case that Gangarani was not at all cited as witness by the prosecution, and secondly If Gangarani were not at all examined by the I.O. during investigation there would have been no question of supplying any copy of section 161 statement to the accused before the trial and in that event the accused would have taken objection even at that stage that no copy of section 161 statement of Gangarani was supplied to the prosecution, but that was not done.On the contrary, as we have seen, the defence in cross-examination took from Gangarani what she stated to the I.O. Thirdly, P.W. 1 as we have seen, in his evidence has said what he learnt about the incident from Gangarani.Obviously P.W.2 the hostile witness was yet to be examined at that stage.Therefore It cannot be said that Gangarani had been introduced by the prosecution as P.W.2 only after P.W.2 belled the expectation of the prosecution and was treated as hostile witness by the prosecution.As a matter of fact, as we have seen.P.W.1has stated in his deposition what he heard from Gangarani and this he stated when P.W.2 was not yet examined.P.W.4 Susanta Kr.Mondal is the cousin brother of P.W. 1 Sachin and is also his neighbour.His evidence is that on the date of the occurrence at about 7-00 a.m. he came back after fetching milk and at that time he heard P.W.3 crying for help and he asked Shyamal and Kamal, his bhaipos (nephews) to go to the P.O. and enquire what had happened.He further says that he was told by Kamal and Shyamal that the wife of Sachin had been murdered and Fatal and Utpal's father were lying with bleeding injuries and they were still alive.He says that he came out of his room and found the accused (Utpal) trying to flee away with a cycle and he asked him to stop.Fatal, he says, was removed to hospital after he was given some warm milk.Utpal, he says, prayed for saving his life as he had committed the mischief and he was apprehending assault from the villagers for his said act.He further says that Utpal confessed that he murdered his father, boudi and Fatal and he was confined and villagers came and police was informed.The police, he says, came at about 9-00/9-30 a.m. and he narrated everything to the police.It may also be mentioned here that his statement was recorded under section 164 Cr.PC by the Magistrate.In his cross-examination he says that on the day on which his statement was recorded by the Magistrate, the statements of Rabin Polley and Tarapada were also recorded.In his cross-examination he says that they were not taken to the Court by police they were served with a notice to appear before the Magistrate, and they were called as per notice issued by the Magistrate.in our opinion, the question whether summons were issued to the witnesses for recording statements under section 164 Cr.PC.PC were recorded by the Magistrate.But even then such statements are not substantive evidence and we will base our decision not on the statements recorded under section 164 Cr.PC which are not substantive evidence but on the substantive evidence given by the concerned witnesses in Court.PW 4 Susanta Mondal says that he apprehended Utpal when he was Just coming out from the house and he had with him a money bag and cycle.He says that his father and grandfather had a Court case with the predecessor of Utpal.That apart, the predecessor of Utpal is also the predecessor of PW1 Sachin.7. P.W.5 Rabindranath Policy says that his house is about 300/400 yards away from the place where the incident took place.He says that the incident took place on 29.7.91 at about 7-05 a.m. His evidence is that he heard cries from people and came out and found people moving towards the house of Utpal and he followed them and he found the father of Utpal lying with bleeding injuries in the courtyard of their house in front of the house of Himanshu and he was alive at that time.He also found the dead body of the Padmarani Mondal, wife of Sachindra Mondal lying in the dalan with bleeding injuries on her person.He says that Fatal was already removed to hospital.He says that he along with Susanta, Rabin Mondal and others confined Utpal as he had told that he murdered those persons.He says that Utpal confessed before them that he committed murder of those persons and prayed for mercy.In his cross-examination he says that his house is about 5 minutes' walk on the southern side of the P.O. and when he came inside the house of Utpal he found the dead-body of Smt. Padmarani wife of Sachin lying in the dalan with bleeding injuries.In his cross-examination he denies the defence suggestion that they tied Utpal with rope with a tree after assaulting him.He also says that they were served with summons whereby they were asked to go before the learned Magistrate.The learned Advocate for the appellant made a lot of submissions on this.We are however of the opinion that this is inconsequential.8. P.W.6 Rabin Mondal says that while he was returning from the field in the morning at about 6-30 a.m. on 29.7.91 he heard cries from their para and he was told by Kamal that Utpal murdered his boudi and also assaulted his (accused's) father and bhaipo (Fatal).He came inside the house of P.W.1and found dead body of Smt. Padmarani, wife of P.W.1lying with bleeding injuries and also found that the Mastermasal (Sachin's father) and Fatal were still alive with bleeding injuries.They were, he says, removed to hospital and they expired subsequently.He also says that Utpal confessed that he murdered his boudi, father and Bhaipo with wooden tasla.He says that Utpal brought out the said tasla from the tank and handed It over to police and Utpal was also handed over to police.It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellant that there is no evidence of any statement by Utpal regarding the whereabouts of tasla and no statement of Utpal in the matter was introduced under section 27 of the Evidence Act as leading to the recovery of the tasla.Section 27 of the Evidence Act speaks about the admissibility of the statement of an accused leading to recovery of any incriminating material.Here the prosecution have not introduced regarding the statement of the accused leading to such recovery but independent evidence about recovery is not barred.In his cross-examination P.W.6 says that immediately after his arrival Patal was removed to hospital.He also says in his cross-examination that Utpal was not tied but was confined by people by the side of the road.The question whether Utpal was as a matter of fact tied by rope with a tree is not of material consequences.Tied or not tied, there is ample evidence on record that Utpal the author of the crime was detained there by other persons.9. P.W.7 Smt. Mayarani Mondal says that P.W.1Sachin is her cousin debor and so is the accused Utpal.He says that the incident took place about 7 years ago and It was about 7-00 a.m. when she was preparing tiffin for her sons Shyamal and Kama).She says that she heard cries at that time and she sent her two sons lo the house of P.W. 1 wherefrom the cries were coming and then Shyamal came and reported that the father, wife and son of Sachin were tying with bleeding injuries.She says that she went there and Fatal was still alive and she brought Fatal to her house and gave some milk but he could not swallow it, and she took Fatal to Ulubaria Hospital in rickshaw and Fatal died after one day.She says that Utpal confessed before them that he murdered his father, boudi and bhaipo (Fatal) and prayed for saving his life.She also says that Utpal assaulted the victims with wooden tasla.In her cross-examination she says that Gangarani (P.W.3) is her own ja and Susanta is her own debor.She says that they lived in the same viti with Susanta.She also says in her cross-examination that she is disclosing what she has stated, for the first time before the Court.Such sort of omnibus statement in our opinion is of no material consequence for discrediting her evidence in the Court She is a rustic illiterate village woman and even if any specific contradiction or omission with reference to earlier statement is to be taken from her, the same should be put to her in cross-examination and also should be taken specifically from the police officer regarding what she stated earlier during the police investigation.We find no sufficient reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness.10. P.W.8 Shyamal Mondal is the son of Mayarani.His evidence is that the father of Utpal (the accused), wife of Sachin (Padmarani) and son P.W. 1 (Fatal) were murdered by the accused on 29.7.91 at about 7-00 a.m. His evidence also is that he was taking tiffin with his brother Kamal and at that time he heard cries from the house of the accused and his mother and uncle (Susanta) asked them to go to the P.O. and enquire, and then he along with Kamal went to the house of the accused and found the father of Sachin, his wife and son lying there with bleeding injuries.Sachin's wife, he says, was dead but the other two were still alive.He says that Mayarani took Fatal to hospital and they took the father of Sachin to Ulubaria Hospital.He further says that he found Susanta holding Utpal as Utpal was fleeing away.His further evidence is that Utpal threw away the tasla in the tank, and he also identified the material ext.I as that tasla.in his cross-examination he says that he has not seen Utpal assaulting the persons.Rather he saw him coming out from the house after assault.He further says that when he saw him, Utpal had already thrown away the tasla.He also makes in the cross-examination the same omnibus statement that he was disclosing for the first lime before the Court as to what he knew.This is an ombibus statement and does not, in our opinion, constitute any contradiction or any such infirmity so as to discredit his evidence in Court in the absence of any specific contradiction being taken by the defence from him.in his cross-examination he says that Utpal was apprehended by Susanta when he came out from the house and Utpal had a cycle and one bag was kept in the cycle.P.W.9 Manabendra Sana says that he heard cries and immediately rushed to the house of the accused and found the accused being detained by Susanta, Robin Mondal, Rabin Policy and others.He says that he came inside the house of Utpal and found the Mastermasal lying with bleeding injuries but he was still alive.He also found Susanta's wife and Fatal lying in injured condition and Fatal, he says, was alive at that time.He was told by Susanta, Robin Mondal and Robin Polley that Utpal committed the murder, he says.He further says that Utpal also confessed before them that he murdered those persons with a tasla.He identifies the tasla which was seized by the police.In his cross examination he says that ext.1 (wooden tasla) was recovered from the nearby doba.He also says that Utpal was not tied with a coconut tree by the side of the road.He says that it was written at the P.S. and Sachin was not present at that time and It was written as per the instruction of police.Then he says that it may be that Sachin came to the P.S. and signed the complaint.He also says that before going to P.S. he had been to Sachin's house where the incident was narrated to him.He further says that the contents of the complaint is correct as he was told about the same at the P.O. and he does not know anything more.in his cross-examination he says that he want to the P.O. at about 12-00/12-30 p.m. on the day of the incident and he came to P.S. at about 5-00/5-30 p.m. He volunteers that the complaint was written as directed by Sachin and Police.He might have come to the P.O. subsequently again and even might have gone to the P.S. in the afternoon but the fact remains that he wrote the complaint and wrote It under the direction of Sachin was as said by him.May be that police was also present there but that does not take away the recitals in the complaint which was treated as FIR.This complaint was received by the concerned police officer at the P.O. after they had gone there on the basis of information earlier received by them at the P.S. which was noted in the G.D. Entry.There is nothing wrong in the matter.The teamed Advocate for the appellant contends that this FIR cannot be treated as the FIR as the information about the murder was earlier lodged at the P.S. on the basis of which the G.D. Entry was recorded.In our opinion, the G.D. Entry is a very cryptic one and the same is not required to be treated as the FIR.It is only on the basis of that G.D. Entry information that police rushed to the P.O. but the actual FIR giving some details of the occurrence was received by the police after reaching the P.O. and there is nothing wrong in It.P.W.I4 Anil Baran Singh Roy is the S.I. of Police who filled up the formal part of the FIR of receipt of the written complaint of P.W. 1 Sachin.His evidence is that the written complaint was sent by S.I. A.K. Samanta through A.S.I. A. Singha Roy from Moubasia.His cross-examination was declined by the defence.P.W. 15 Ananta Kr.Samanta was attached to Ulubaria P.S. as S.I. of police at the relevant time.He says that on the basis of an information he had been to the village Moubasia at about 9-50 a.m. He further says that he got the information at about 9-05 a.m. it is his evidence that on reaching the village Moubasia he received a written complaint of Sachin Mondal and he sent the same to O.C. Ulubaria P.S. through A.S.I. A., Singha Roy.He proves his endorsement ext.1/3 on the written complaint.His evidence shows that S.I. Jiten Sarkar & A.S.I. A. Singha Roy were with him with force.He found the dead body of Padmarani lying on the dalan with bleeding injuries and he held inquest over the dead body as per instruction of S.I. Jiten Sarkar who, he says, was the first I.O. of this case.From his we got that S.I. Jiten Sarkar is now dead.P.W.15 S.I. Anil Kr.Samanta says that he knows the handwriting and signature of Jiten Sarkar.He Speaks about seizure of certain things including the wooden tasla under the seizure list ext.He says that as per the instruction of Jiten Sarkar he prayed before the Court for recording the statements of three witnesses under section 164 Cr.PC.He proves the sketch map of the P.O. with index (Ext. 12) which was prepared by the first I.O. S.I. Jiten Sarkar, since deceased, whose handwriting he knows.He says that Dipali Mondal (P.W.2) was interrogated by S.I. Jiten Sarkar who recorded her statement.We have already seen that Dipali Mondal was treated as a hostile witness by (he prosecution.P.W.I5 S.I. A.K. Samanta despises as to what was allegedly stated by her to the I.O. S.I. Jiten Sarkar, since deceased, under section 161 Cr.PC.He also proves the inquest reported prepared by S.I. Jiten Sarkar in respect of Sounien Mondal (r) Fatal and also the inquest report prepared in respect of Sudhir Mondal by S.I. Nisit Kr.in his cross-examination he says that he accompanied the first I.O. at the P.S. so long he was there.He also says that some of witnesses were examined by the first I.O, on the first day in his presence.The defence has also taken from him in cross-examination that witness Manabendra Sana was interrogated by I.O. Jiten Sarkar.It may be noted here that no contradiction in respect of any P.W. with reference to any statement under section 161 Cr.PC was however taken by the defence from this witness in respect of any statement recorded by the deceased I.O., S.I. Jiten Sarkar although such contradiction in respect of the hostile witness P.W.2 was taken by prosecution from him, P.W.16 Prabir Das is S.I. of police who submitted charge-sheet after completion of investigation in this case.P.W.I7 Dr. Kumud Ranjan Chatterjee is the Autopsy Surgeon who held post-mortem examination on the three dead-bodies.He found the following injuries on the dead body of Padmarani :Two lacerated wounds each about 1 1/2 " x 1/2 " X bone deep over upper part of left and right side of the frontal bones.One lacerated wound 1" x 1/2 " X bone deep over lateral angle of right eye--surrounding swelling present.One lacerated wound 2" x 1/2 " X bone deep over vault of skill.One lacerated wound 2" x 1/2 " X bone deep over left parietal region of skull.One lacerated would 2 1/2 " x 1/2" bone deep over lower part of left forearm.One diffused scalp haemotama along with linear fracture of the left frontal bone with gross looseness of bony fissures of skull.He also found fresh bleeding over various parts of the body.in his opinion, was due to the effect of the abovementioned injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.His evidence shows that such kind of injuries could have been caused by assault with a wooden mugur like the material ext.I. He also held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Sudhir Mondal and found the following injuries :Left eye-block with one small lacerated wound over upper part of forehead.One transverse stitched wound about 4" long over left side of occipital region of scalp, haematoma present with fracture of occipital bone and haemorrage in the brain tissue.Fracture of sternal bone with fracture of ribs left side 2nd and 3rd with rapture of lung tissue and blood in the chest cavity.The death, in the opinion of the post-mortem doctor, was due to the effect of the above injuries which were homicidal and ante-mortem in nature.The doctor says that said injuries can be caused If one is assaulted with one tasla or mugur like material ext.The post-mortem doctor P.W.I7 also held post-mortem examination on the dead body of Soumen Mondal and found the following injuries :One diffused swelling over left side of the temporal region,One diffused scalp haematoma over whole of skull.Fracture frontal bone with dislocation other bony fissures of skull along with haemorrhage inside brain tissue.Death in the opinion of the post-mortem doctor, was due to the effect of the above mentioned injuries which were homicidal and ante-mortem in nature.The doctor says that the said injuries can be caused If one is assaulted with any wooden tasla or mugur like the material ext.I. He further says that most of the injuries as pointed out by him on the persons of the deceased persons were along sufficient to cause death.in his cross-examination the doctor says that it appears to him from the injuries that the nature of the injuries and the style were more or less same and probably one person was involved.He also further says in his cross-examination that there is every possibility that all the injuries were caused by the same person.He also says that the nature of the injuries may be the same If one instrument is used in all the cases but it depends upon the force applied.In his examination under section 313 Cr.PC the accused Utpal Mondal says that he had not escaped and he was not involved in the occurrence.He also denies that he admitted his guilt.He rather says that he had gone to the field at 6-30 a.m. on 29.7.91 and he told his boudi (Dipali) that he would go to Calcutta after returning from the field and that while he had been returning home an hour he found a gathering of people outside the house and as soon as he arrived there on a cycle he was forcibly brought down from the cycle and was assaulted and kept tied to a tree.He says that he had received the news from the villagers that 'boudi' had died and father and his brother's son had been sent to the hospital.He however says that an occurrence had taken place in the house.He says that he used to respect his father and boudi and that they too were affectionate to him and that Fatal used to stay with him for most of the time and he (accused) was affectionate towards him.Lastly he says that his neighbours had informed the police and had him arrested and he is innocent.We have discussed the evidence on record and we find no reason, as we have already discussed, to discard the evidence of P.W.3 Gangarani Mondal she saw the incident of assault with tasla by the appellant Utpal on the three victims.She has described how she saw the incident after taking position on a stack of bricks and on looking through the window.The criticism made by the learned Advocate for the appellant that it was not possible for her to take the exercise of negotiating height and then see the incident through the window, does not appear convincing.The situation Itself was unusual and Gangarani took up all the exercise on hearing cries and in such a situation It is not unnatural that she would, with effort, take up an exercise which one might not have thought of undertaking in a calm and normal situation.The fact that the witness Gangarani was not required to make any statement under section 164 Cr.who says that when he come out of the room he finds that the accused was trying to flee away with a cycle and he asked him to stop.He is the cousin brother of both P.W.1and the appellant Utpal.Susanta, as we have seen, testifies to the fact that the appellant Utpal confessed that he murdered his father, boudi and Fatal.P.W.5 Rabindranath Policy, P.W.6 Robin Mondal and P.W.7 Mayarani also testify that the appellant confessed that he murdered the three victims and also prayed for saving his life.It has been contended by the learned Advocate for the appellant that some of the witnesses have said that on being asked question the appellant made confessional statement.The evidence of P.W.8 Syamal Mondal also lends support to the prosecution case, as we have seen.A statement may be made sue motu or in answer to some question and in either case the statement may be voluntary.Having regard to facts and circumstances we find no reason to disbelieve the evidence of so many witnesses, namely, P.W.s. 4, 5, 6 & 7 regarding the confession made by the appellant.The prosecution witnesses seem to us rather disinterested witnesses and many of them are related to the accused also and there is no reason why they should speak falsely against the appellant Utpal.They all came to the P.O. either at the time of or soon after the occurrence.The appellant-accused has taken the plea that he was detained there when he came in front of his house after the occurrence on a cycle from the field.He also prayed to them for saving him.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,580,511 |
The complainant, Payal Sachdeva, is present in person.It is stated that out of the total settlement amount of Rs. 4,50,000/-, a sum of Rs. 4 Lacs has already been handed over to the complainant.The remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- has been handed over to the complainant in cash today in Court.The complainant approbates the aforesaid settlement and states that with the receipt of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/-, nothing further is due to her from the petitioners, and that she is no longer interested in proceeding Crl.CRL.M.A. 16647/2014 Exemption, as prayed for, is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.The application stands disposed off.This petition has been moved under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 359/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Bindapur on 07.11.2012 on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties.Issue notice.Counsel for the State enters appearance and accepts notice.The Investigating Officer, Assistant Sub-Inspector Kusum, Police Station Bindapur, who is also present in Court, identifies the petitioners as well as the complainant, Crl.M.C. 4848/2014 Page 1 of 8 who is arrayed as respondent No. 2 in this petition.M.C. 4848/2014 Page 1 of 8The second respondent had also instituted proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act against the petitioners.In terms of the settlement, the first petitioner and the complainant agreed to obtain a divorce by mutual consent.Thereafter, the parties moved a joint petition under Section 13(B)(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce by mutual consent in HMA 138/2014; and on 01.09.2014, the marriage between the complainant and the first petitioner was dissolved.I am of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be given a quietus where the complainant and the petitioners have settled the matter which has arisen out of a domestic and matrimonial dispute on mutually acceptable terms and the complainant is no longer interested in supporting the prosecution thereby reducing its chances of success.Consequently, the petition is allowed and the FIR No. 359/2012 registered under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC at Police Station Bindapur, and Crl.M.C. 4848/2014 Page 7 of 8The petition stands disposed off in the above terms.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,591,143 |
Since the writ petitioner in W.P. No. 27620 of 2003 and the detenu in H.C.P. No. 932 of 2006 are one and the same, viz., Mr.R.Chandra Prakash Gajurel and the contentions in the writ petition and the habeas corpus petition are with regard to the right of the writ petitioner/detenu conferred under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, both the matters are taken up for joint hearing.The admitted facts of the case of the writ petitioner are that he was detained by the Senior Immigration Officer, Chennai Airport on the intervening night of 19.8.2003 on the ground that he attempted to travel out of India to London with a forged passport.Thereafter, he was handed over to the third respondent in the writ petition on 21.8.2003, who registered a case against the writ petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 IPC read with Section 12(1)(b)(d) and (e) of the Indian Passport Act. The said case was concededly tried in C.C. No. 736 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur and the writ petitioner was convicted by order dated 12.6.2006 for the above-said offences, and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.The writ petitioner was however released on 13.6.2006, after giving set off, the period of remand.In the meanwhile, based on a representation made by the writ petitioner to the Registrar, High Court, Madras through the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Chennai, stating that he came to know that Prisoner on Transit Warrant, claimed as P.T. Warrant, was issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling District, West Bengal and apprehending that in execution of the said warrant he might be sent to West Bengal, the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 27.8.2004 made in W.P. No. 27620 of 2003 held as follows:... 3.On going through the representation of the petitioner dated 11.8.2004 and in the light of the apprehension expressed therein, there shall be an order of stay of execution of P.T. Warrant issued by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, Darjeeling District, West Bengal in Cr.No. 753 of 2004 (FIR No. 62 of 2004).ORDER P.D. Dinakaran, J.When the petitioner was released on 18.9.2006 from the Central Prison, Chennai, he was rearrested based on the arrest warrant issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri and thereafter, produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai for issue of transit warrant.On 18.9.2006, when the writ petitioner/detenu was produced before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, objections were made not to issue transit warrant on the grounds that:i.arrest warrant has no counter signature of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai and the procedure contemplated under Sections 78 to 81 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are violated; and ii.arrest memo has no signatures of arrestee and witnesses; the details of arrest not disclosed to the arrestee; the detenu not allowed to contact family members and lawyers and therefore, the directions of the Apex Court in D.K.Basu case were not followed.On the same day, viz., 18.9.2006, a Habeas Corpus Petition in H.C.P. No. 932 of 2006 was also moved before this Court seeking issue of a writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the detenu, Chandra Prakash Gajurel, son of Nageswar Gajurel before the Court and set him at liberty.The Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 19.9.2006, after narrating the facts relating to both writ petition and Habeas Corpus petition referred to above, gave liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate application to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras and permitted the learned Public Prosecutor to raise objections if any before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.Accordingly, the writ petitioner/detenu moved an application in Crl.M.P. No. 3094 of 2006 under Section 437 Cr.P.C. to release the writ petitioner as he is not confined in any crime number.But the said application was objected to by the State on the ground that the petitioner was arrested under a warrant duly issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri with reference to Crime No. 182 of 2004 on the file of the Bakthinagar Police Station for the offences under Section 121, 121(A), 122, 123 and 124(A) IPC, but not on P.T. Warrant.As there was a dispute as to the very existence of P.T. Warrant, we sent for the relevant records from the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.After perusal of the said records, we find that the third respondent in H.C.P., viz., the Inspector of Police, Bakthi Nagar Police Station, new Jalpaiguri Police Station, West Bengal State by his representation dated 18.9.2006 made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai has stated that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri issued warrant of arrest on 16.9.2006 to arrest the writ petitioner/detenu from Chennai and on 18.9.2006, the writ petitioner/detenu was arrested near Central Prison, Chennai and that since Jalpaiguri is located at north of West Bengal at a distance of about 2300 k.m., approximately, the third respondent in the H.C.P. prayed for the issue of transit warrant.On 19.9.2006, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.But, in the meantime, as the petitioner moved H.C.P. this Court, by order dated 19.9.2006, gave liberty to the petitioner to move an application before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai.Accordingly, the petitioner moved the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.M.P.3094 of 2006 who, by order dated 21.9.2006, dismissed the said application.The relevant portion of the order dated 21.9.2006 reads as follows:The petitioner is permitted to make proper application, if the same is permissible.Now, at present, this petition is filed not to extend the confinement and to release the petitioner on bail.As far as the bail is concerned, in the counter filed in H.C.P. No. 932/2006, it is stated that a criminal case is pending against the petitioner Under Section 141, 121(A), 122, 123 and 124(A) IPC in Bakthinagar Police Station in Cr.No. 182/2004 and charge sheet has been filed on 19.8.2004 showing the petitioner name and others as absconding with a prayer to issue warrant of arrest.Inasmuch as the Inspector of Police placed warrant of arrest duly issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalpaiguri, and since Jalpaiguri is approximately 2300 Kms.away from Chennai, he needed Transit Warrant from this Court.The offences mentioned in the above Crime No. are very serious and grave in nature and these offences, i.e. U/s.No. 932/2006, which is pending before the Hon'ble High Court, to release the petitioner on bail or discharge the petitioner from detention.In the result,
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,259,679 |
[Order of the Court was made by S.BASKARAN, J. ] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Ganapathy, son of Manickam, aged about 25 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.M.P.No.32/Goonda/Salem City/2016, dated 29.4.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a Goonda, in the Central Prison, Salem, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends in the similar case relied upon for passing the Detention Order, the provisions are not similar to the ground case against the detenu.It has been pointed out that in the ground case, in Crime No.89 of 2016, on the file of the Salem Town Police Station, and in the adverse case in Crime No.5 of 2016 on the file of the Salem Town Crime Police Station, the provision of Section 395 I.P.C. is found, but in the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority, in Crime No.246 of 2012, on the file of the Salem Town Crime Police Station, the said provision is not found.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor had also conceded the same.But, in the impugned detention order, in the adverse case in Crime No.5 of 2016 and the ground case in Crime No.89 of 2016, the cases had been registered for the offence under Section 395 I.P.C., also.Therefore, the similar case relied on by the detaining authority is not similar to the ground case and the adverse case.In such circumstances, we find that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the detention order.Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 29.04.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside.The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.[M.J.,J.] [S.B.,J.] 02.11.2016 vvkTo1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.M.JAICHANDREN,J.AND S.BASKARAN, J.vvk H.C.P.No.1012 of 201602.11.2016
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
4,270,852 |
( 18 /7/13) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by :B. D. Rathi, J. The sole appellant Gulab Rao has been convicted for an offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") for committing the murder of Roshan on 19/3/2003 at 8 p.m. at Bhim Nagar, Bhopal and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine stipulation, while co-accused Lallu alias Vijay Singh, Guddu alias Ajay Singh and Bachhu alias Rajkumar, were acquitted of the offences charged with.According to the prosecution case, in the wake of a quarrel of Roshan with appellant and Guddu Singh of Bhim Nagar in a marriage ceremony 5-6 days prior to the incident, on 19/3/03 at about 8 p.m., Lallu S/o Chain Singh and appellant came to Roshan's house and asked his mother Shakunbai (PW1) about him, on which Roshan answered that he was outside the house.Thereafter, on the pretext of entering into a compromise they took away Roshan with them.After some time, feeling anxious, Shakun Bai also came 2 Cr.A. No.1424/2004 out followed by her son Kailash and daughter Sushila.In the street of Chokhelal Soni, she saw that some altercation was going on between Roshan, Phool Singh, appellant, Lallu and Bachhu and when they all reached near the house of Chokhelal, Lallu assaulted Roshan by Sword from behind due to which he fell down.Bachhu and two others caught hold of him while appellant repeatedly stabbed Roshan in his stomach by Chhuri (small dagger).Shakun Bai cried for help on which her son and daughter viz. Kailash and Sushila came there, but the assailants, with an intention to cause his death, kept on assaulting Roshan fearlessly and thereafter fled from the spot.Despite the alarm being raised by Shakun Bai, no one from the locality came forward for her help.According to Shakun Bai, at that time electricity was shut off but it was a moonlit night and with Lallu, appellant and Bachhu, there were two more boys of Bhimnagar aged between 20 to 25 years, whom she could identify by face.At that juncture, wife of Chhokhelal, Shivcharan and others came there and in an Autorickshaw of one Irshad, she brought Roshan to 1250 Hospital where he was declared dead.Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) was lodged at the Hospital at 9.45 p.m. by Shakun Bai.Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Ashok Sharma (PW4), who noticed, as many as, 5 incised wounds and 10 stab wounds mainly on the chest and abdomen of Roshan.Cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple stab injuries on the chest and abdomen.Weapons of offence viz. a dagger and a sword were seized from the appellant and Vijay Singh alias Lallu vide seizure memos (Ex.P/5) and (Ex.P/12) respectively.The Director of Medico Legal Institute vide his report (Ex.P/19), on examination of the said weapons of offence, opined that the injuries described in the post mortem report, could be caused by those.During the trial, the appellant and three other co-accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and contended that they had been falsely implicated.The trial court, on the basis of testimony of eye-witnesses Shakun Bai and Ramakant (PW2), has held the appellant guilty of committing the murder of Roshan and acquitted the other three above named co-accused persons.Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant argued that the statements of eye-witnesses are not reliable because the prosecution has failed to prove 3 Cr.A. No.1424/2004 that Shakun Bai and Ramakant were present on the spot.It was also submitted that on the same set of evidence three other co-accused were acquitted by the trial Court, whereas appellant was convicted without taking into consideration that important witnesses Kailash, Sushila, Phool Singh, Shivcharan and Prem Narayan Sharma were not examined by the prosecution.On the contrary, learned Government Advocate, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence on record, submitted that the conviction is well merited.He also argued that it is for the prosecution choice how to prove its case, therefore non examination of certain witnesses would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution.Having regard to the arguments advanced by the parties, we have perused the evidence and material on record.The learned trial Court, after disbelieving the testimony of Shakun Bai and Ramakant, has acquitted co-accused persons on the ground that the corresponding injuries were not found in autopsy report, but at the same time, on the testimony of these two witnesses, has convicted the appellant.Shakun Bai stated in para 2 that her son Roshan was caught hold by Guddu, but in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) name of Guddu has not been mentioned and instead of that it was mentioned that Roshan was caught hold by accused Bachhu and two other unknown persons.In paras 18, 19 and 20, she categorically denied her deposition regarding most of the important facts mentioned in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) and Police Statement (Ex.D/2).Similarly, she also said that before deposing, she had understood very well what to depose in the Court.In para 24 of her evidence, she has deposed that when she reached the Hospital, she had told the names of appellant and Lallu as the assailants to the Doctor, but this fact was neither mentioned in the MLC report nor corroborated by Dr.Ashok Sharma (PW4).Contrary to what has 4 Cr.A. No.1424/2004 been mentioned in the MLC Report (Ex.P/18), she also deposed that Shivcharan had not taken Roshan to Hospital.From para 8 of her evidence, it is clear that Roshan used to quarrel with many persons and had a criminal history.Further, Shakunbai in paragraph 3 of her evidence has deposed that Ramakant had also taken Roshan to the Hospital in the Autorickshaw.It means that Ramakant was also present on the spot, but name of Ramakant has not been mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi.Learned trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of Ramakant only in respect of acquitted co- accused, although his deposition, as eye-witness, should have been totally disbelieved by the trial Court on this ground.Prosecution has not taken any pain to search other two unknown boys who had also committed the crime as per the facts mentioned in Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1).Eye-witnesses, as mentioned in the Dehati Nalishi, Kailash, Sushila and Phool Singh were also not produced by the prosecution.As per MLC (Ex.P/18), Roshan was brought to the Hospital by Shivcharan from the spot, but Shivcharan has not been examined.Wife of Chokhelal who had come on spot was also not examined.Although, it was not necessary, yet looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, where witnesses produced in the Court deposed in an exaggerated manner with omissions and material contradictions, it was essential to examine the aforesaid witnesses to bring home the charge against appellant beyond reasonable doubt.Appellant could not have been convicted on the same set of evidence that formed the basis of acquittal of other co-accused.Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed.Fine amount, if deposited, be refunded.Cr.A. No.1424/2004 Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
427,086 |
Heard both sides.2.This writ petition arose out of O.A.No.3042 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal.3.The petitioner sought for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records connected with Pro.No.2937/Aa2/97, dated 6.1.98 of the Filaria Officer, National Filaria Control Scheme, Vellore, to set aside the same and consequently, to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service, treating the period he was out of employment as duty for all purposes.He was given a charge memo, dated 21.9.93, stating that he has married to one R.Thamilselvi contrary to Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules.But, however it is in the nomination form given to office on 18.1.1982, he had given the name of his wife as R.Valarmathi.Subsequently, it was proved that the petitioner had married to the said Thamilselvi on 14.2.93 and the same was registered at the Marriage Registrar at Pallikonda.On the basis of the materials produced, the department came to the conclusion that it was why he should not be removed from the service.In the departmental enquiry, the said Thamilselvi, who was examined, confirmed her marriage.5.The petitioner in response to the show cause notice stated that he got married to the said Thamilselvi only on the basis of the first wife's compulsion and Thamilselvi having three children, which are maintained by the petitioner.On the basis of these records, the respondents passed an order dated 6.1.98 compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service.The Tribunal, by its order, dated 22.4.1998 granted an interim stay.The Tribunal held that since prima facie the petitioner was informed about the provisional decision to compulsorily retiring even before the enquiry, it amount to pre-judging the issue.The said interim order came to be continued until further orders by the Tribunal.It is not clear as to how the Tribunal granted an interim stay thereby facilitating the continuance of the petitioner in service.In the present case, there is no dispute with reference to the marriage contracted by the petitioner with the Thamilselvi.The petitioner being an Hindu by religion could not have contracted a second marriage when the first wife is still alive.No costs.2.Filaria Officer, National Filaria Control, Vellore, Vellore District
|
['Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
427,095 |
He had immediately complained to her of pain in his stomach.Later he informed his grandfather Mangilal (P. W. 3) about the occurrence and on his father's return to the village had informed to him also about the same.He had also informed Hardayal (P. W. 2).On the following day when Jagdishsingh was being taken to Singoli for treatment, he died on the way.JUDGMENT K.L. Shrivastava, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 12-7-1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Neemuch in Sessions Trial No. 11 of 1984 whereby the appellant was tried for the murder of Jagdishsingh and has been convicted Under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for 2 months.According to the prosecution it was at about 4 p. m. on 2-10-1983 that the appellant Raghuvirsingh aged 25 years resident of village Tokara, had several times kicked his covillager Jagdishsingh aged 10 years on his stomach.On hearing the cries of the victim, his sister Munnibai aged 14 years (P. W. 4) had come out of her residence and had seen the appellant kicking the victim and on being asked to desist from so doing, he had threatened her.It was after the appellant had left the place that Munnibai took Jagdish Singh inside her residence and on being asked he had told her that earlier the same day he was involved in a dispute with Baboo Singh (D. W. 1) aged 12 years, the brother of the appellant and he, in consequence, had injured the said Baboo singh with a stone and it was on being informed of this by Baboosingh that the appellant had indulged in the crime.The occurrence was reported by Sualal (P. W. 1) to Singoli police on 3-10-1983 and a crime Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered.5. Post mortem on the corpse of Jagdish Singh was conducted by Dr. G. D. Sokhiya (P. W. 6) and he opined that the death was as a result of injury to the small intestines.Ex. P-5 dated 4-10-1983 is the connected report.At the conclusion of the.investigation the appellant was tried for murder with the result already stated.The learned counsel for the appellant has not assailed the appellant's conviction which, on the material on record, I find to be on firm foundation.There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of Munnibai (P. W. 4) which is duly supported by the material on record.In the report Ex. P-6-A dated 2-10-1983 lodged by Baboosingh (D. W. 1) there is nothing to indicate that he had kicked Jagdishsingh on his stomach.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,713,332 |
Shri Ajay Shukla, counsel for the appellant.Shri Akhilendra Singh, G.A. for the State.Heard on IA.No.1425/2015, an application for suspension of execution of jail sentence.The appellant is convicted for offence punishable under Section 376(1), 506-B of I.P.C and sentenced with maximum period of 10 years rigorous imprisonment with total fine of Rs.10000/-.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecutrix (PW1) had alleged against the appellant that he committed rape upon her.However, she did not gave any description of "Ganda Kaam".Dr. Abha Sharma (PW6) after examining the prosecutrix gave her report Ex.No external or internal injury was found on her person whereas, hymen was found intact.Under these circumstances, no offence under Section 376 of I.P.C was constituted against the applicant.At the most offence under section 354 of I.P.C may constitute.The appellant remained in the custody for more than 3 months during the trial and he is still in custody during the appeal for more than three months.If the appeal of the appellant is not accepted then the appeal filed by the appellant may turn infructuous.Learned G.A. for the State has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the appellant.Therefore, IA.No.1425/2015, on behalf of appellant is hereby allowed.Thus, the execution of jail sentence imposed on the appellant Ramadhar Vishwakarma is hereby suspended and he be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.35,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one surety bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, to appear before the Registry of this Court on 1.5.2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office from time to time till final adjudication of the appeal.C.C as per rules.(N. K. GUPTA) JUDGE bina
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,716,387 |
C.C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE M.Digitally signed by SANTOSH P MATHEWS Date: 2019.05.17 10:41:03 +05'30'Case diary perused.This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the applicants.The applicants have been arrested in connection with Crime No.262/2019, registered at Police Station Multai, District Betul, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 34 of IPC and section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act.The allegation of prosecution is that on 26.3.2019 at about 11:45 pm the police of police station Multai on the information of some informer stopped the trucks bearing registration No.MP- 09/HF 5567 and MP-09/KC 6905 and found that they have illegally transported 1000 bags of 500 quintals rice, total value Rs.14,26,670/- belonging to Government shop of Public Distribution System by committing the cheating.Therefore the police seized the said rice with trucks and arrested the applicants, who are the drivers of the said trucks and sent them to judicial custody by registering the aforesaid crime against the applicants and other co-accused persons under the above mentioned sections of IPC and Essential Commodities Act.Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent persons and have been falsely implicated in the case.Applicants have also submitted that they were just transporting the said rice on behalf of the co-accused persons as drivers of the trucks.The trial will take a long time to conclude.It is further submitted that there is no likelihood of their absconding or tampering with the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, it is prayed that the applicants be released on bail.The High Court of Madhya Pradesh M.Cr.C.No.15147/2019 (Manmohan & anr Vs.State of M.P. ) 2 Learned counsel for State has opposed the application for bail.The applicants are the drivers of the truck, who are arrested from the spot.It seems that they were working on behalf of co-accused persons who are absconding.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and false implication of the applicants in the crime, I am inclined to grant them bail.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that the applicants - Manmohan and Mohammad Bhai, shall be released on bail on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicants shall abide by the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C. and in the event of breach of condition of bail, the trial Court will be competent to take coercive action against the applicants.This M.Cr.C., stands allowed and disposed of.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,724,516 |
This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant in in custody in connection with Crime No.256/2015 registered at police station Dhamnod district Dhar, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young boy and permanent resident of district Dhar.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude and co-accused has already been granted bail by this Hon'ble Court.Thus, on the ground of party also the applicant is entitled for bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only)each with two solvent sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.7012/2015 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing case diary.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.713/2014 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after to weeks for consideration of IA No.3066/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6935/2015 13/08/2015 Shri Peeru Dhakad appears on behalf of Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri RS Partmar, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to cure the defect.Let the matter be fixed after a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5715/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek Sigh, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.105/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 304(B) and 498(A) of IPC, registered at Police Station Suwasra, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant is a house wife and permanent resident of district Mandsaur.After 15 days of the death of her daughter in law,the story came that applicant and other in laws use to harass the deceased,therefore, she committed suicide.All the family members of the applicant are detained in jail.The applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation, therefore, she may be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicant, she shall be released on bail upon of her furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Applicant shall ensure that she would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. Shall be binding on her.In case, the applicant commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicant.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6964/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.26/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is a lady and serving in Aanganwadi Sahayika and applicant No.2 is a Peon in Collector Office, Ratlam.They have no criminal antecedent and the dispute is of civil nature.The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.They are ready to cooperate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer.He submits that in case the applicants are enlarged on bail, the investigation will hamper.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, they shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for their appearance in investigation as and when directed and required, and also made available for their specimen signature.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicants during trial also.In case, final report is filed, then the applicants shall furnish fresh bail bond as per this order before the concerned Court.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall be binding on them.In case, the applicants commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicants.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6964/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the Objector/complainant.This is first application under Section 438 of theCode of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.26/2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471/34 of IPC, registered at Police Station Dindayal Nagar, Ratlam.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant No.1 is a lady and serving in Aanganwadi Sahayika and applicant No.2 is a Peon in Collector Office, Ratlam.They have no criminal antecedent and the dispute is of civil nature.The applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.They are ready to cooperate with the investigation.In such circumstances, the applicants be granted anticipatory bail.Learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Learned counsel for the complainant has also opposed the prayer.He submits that in case the applicants are enlarged on bail, the investigation will hamper.Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Thus, the application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of applicants, they shall be released on bail upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand) with a solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer for their appearance in investigation as and when directed and required, and also made available for their speciman signature.Facility of this bail shall remain available to the applicants during trial also.In case, final report is filed, then the applicants shall furnish fresh bail bond as per this order before the concerned Court.Applicants shall ensure that they would not commit any such offence during currency of bail and rest of the conditions stipulated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. shall be binding on them.In case, the applicants commit breach of any condition, of this order,then this order shall stand automatically cancelled without reference to this Court and the concerned Court will be free to take appropriate action as per law for securing presence of the applicants.It is made clear that in case signatures of the applicants are required, they shall be made available to the Police.C. Stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6495/2015 12/08/2015 Shri M. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that arguing counsel Shri V.Jain, is sick, therefor e, he prays for adjournment.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6980/2015 12/08/2015 Shri P. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.. Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6248/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this repeat application.Thus, the application is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi `MCRC No.6831/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vikas Yadav , learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.107/2015 registered at police station Bajna district Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Ratlam.There is no material to connect the applicant with the crime.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6949/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Vivek, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.193/2015 registered at police station Talen district Rajgarh(Biora), for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 456, 511 of IPC and 3(1)(11) of SC/ST Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an agriculturist and permanent resident of district Rajgarh.The prosecutrix is a married lady aged about 25 years.No mark of resistance found on her body.The applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of the trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.833/2010 12/08/2015 Shri P. Soni, learned counsel for the appellant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Shri Soni seeks one week's time to produce some documents.Let the matter be fixed after one week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.980/2011 12/08/2015 Shri I. Ansari, appears on behalf of Shri Sanjay Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks adjournment.List after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.980/2013 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.1176/2013 12/08/2015 Shri Pathan, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the non applicant.Shri Pathan submits that parties have filed an application for compromise, therefore, any date may be fixed for verification of the compromise.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1474/2013 12/08/2015 Parties through their counse.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.338/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.339/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.733/2014 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.In the meanwhile, Office is directed to call record from SDM Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1744/2014 12/08/2015 Shri Amit Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is a repeat application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C., for suspension of jail sentence during the pendency of this appeal.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 394 read with Section 397 of IPC and sentenced to 7 years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has already suffered three and half years of sentence and in near future there is no chance for final hearing of this appeal, in such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended during the pendency of this appeal.Government Advocate vehemently opposes the prayer.She submits that the conviction is well founded and in case the appellant is released on bail, he will not be available further.She prays for dismissal of the application.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.447/2015 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.515/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Gourav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw the application(IA No.3542/2015) for suspension of sentence.Thus, IA No.3542/2015, is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.594/2015 12/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.638/2015 12/08/2015 Shri ZA Khan, learned senior counsel with Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Government Advocate seeks time to argue the matter.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.705/2015 12/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court record be requisitioned.No notice is necessary as Smt. Shandilya, accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.803/2015 12/08/2015 Shri Rajendra Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on IA No.5916/2015, an application for a direction to the trial Court for depositing the fine amount.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the trial Court has convicted the applicants for the offence punishable under Sections 380 and 454 of IPC and sentenced to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/-each with default clause.The applicants have filed an application for suspension of sentence, but this Court vide earlier order dated 21/07/2015, has dismissed the application for suspension of sentence.Thereafter the applicants gone to trial Court and wish to deposit the fine amount but the learned trial Court refused to accept the fine amount.Therefore, suitable direction be issued to the trial Court.Government Advocate has no objection in allowing the prayer.The application is allowed.The trial Court is directed to receive the fine amount which is deposited by the applicants as per the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, in Cr.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.339/2014 12/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.List after four weeks.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Learned Government Advocate has no objection in allowed the application.Considering the aforesaid, the application is allowed and it is directed that the order passed in MCRC No.5622/2015 on 20/07/2015, applicant Ramkesh father's name be read as Ramphere instead of Ramser.Thus, the petition stands disposed of.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.3504/2015 11/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumwat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5319/2015 11/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.The status report has been called from the Special Judge, Ratlam.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.958/2001 11/08/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Appellant No.1 Chhagan present in person.Heard on IA No.5642/2015, an application for condonation of absence.Thus, the absence is bona fide and it be condoned.For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the absence of appellant No.1 Chhagaon on 25/02/2015 is hereby condoned.Appellant No.1, Chhagan, is directed to remain present before the Registry on 26/10/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R No.986/2015 11/08/2015 Shri Manish Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on IA No.5979/2015, an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the trial Court judgment.After due consideration, the application is allowed.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on IA No.55977/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 34(A) of M.P. Excise Act and sentenced to 6 six months R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the trial the applicant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The applicant has a good case in revision.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicant be suspended till the pendency of this revision and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5977/2015) is allowed.It is directed that subject to the applicant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.912/2009 11/08/2015 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.The appellant present in person.Heard on IA No.4813/2015, an application for condonation of absence of the appellant.The absence is bonafide, therefore, it be condoned.The appellant is directed to remain present before the Registry on 27/10/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.775/2009 11/08/2015 List along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.643/2013 11/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As prayed, list after two weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.339/2014 11/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.List after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.675/2015 11/08/2015 Shri V. Modiwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on IA No.3723/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.Office is directed to list the matter along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1017/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Amit Bhatiya, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5774/2015/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant have been convicted for the offence under Sections 333 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to 2 years R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/0 with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellants were on bail and they have not mis- used the liberty.The trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellants till 28/08/2015.. The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellants be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5774/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellants having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand)each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for theirs appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1033/2015 11/8/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5781/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 452 of IPC and Section 7 and 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offence Act and sentenced to 3 years R.I. And fine of Rs.1,000/-, 3 years RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The trial Court has already suspended the jail sentence of the appellant till 14th of August, 2015.. The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5781/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1036/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Anupan Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5788/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.1,000/- and 6 months R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that during the trial the appellants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellants be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5788/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand)each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1038/2015 11/8/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5801/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 467/34 and 471/34 of IPC and sentenced to 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each offence.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5801/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 27/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1122/2000 11/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks permission to withdraw IA No.5252/2015, an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. and IA No.5253/2015, an application for condonation of basence.Thus, these applications are dismissed as withdrawn.Notice of surety of appellant No.3, Shankar, returned with this report that surety Bhurala, S/o Natha has been died.Non bailable warrant of appellant No.3 Shankar, returned with this report that presently he is not residing at the place shown in the warrant.In such circumstances, permanent warrant of arrest be issued against appellant No.3 Shankar.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.607/2002 11/08/2015 Ms. M.P.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is hospitalized, therefore, he could not remain present before this Court and a date may be fixed for appearance.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.966/2003 11/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has communicated the date of appearance to the appellant, even though the appellant is not present.In such circumstances, non bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1188 /2003 11/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.The report is received from Jivaji Police Station,Ujjain, supported by Tasdik Panchanama and the death certificate.In such circumstances, the appeal is dismissed as abated.Trial Court record be sent back.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1433 /2007 11/08/2015 Shri Ramesh Gangare, learned counsel for the appellants.Smt Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that appellant No.3, Idi Bee, has been died.Government Advocate is directed to call verification report in regard to death of Idi Bee, W/o Ide Khan, R/o village Borband Tehsil Aklera, District Jhalawad, Rajasthan.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6912/2015 10/08/2015 Shri Harish Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri M. Phadke, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with this liberty that he will file fresh application after recording the evidence of Chander Singh.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty, as prayed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1013/2015 10/8/2015 Shri JN Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Smt Shandilya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5700/2015, an application for suspension of jail sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 8 read with 20 (b) (ii) (b) of NDPS Act and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/-.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.He is detained in jail since 24/07/2015.The appellant has good case in appeal.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5700/2015) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 26/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4339/2015 10/08/2015 Smt. Sharmila Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Application of Mohan and Charan has been decided by Cooordinate Bench, Hon'ble Justice Smt. S.R.Wagmare, therefore, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Office is directed to list the matter before the appropriate Bench.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.825/2015 10/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1441/2007 10/08/2015 Ku.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No.281/2011 10/08/2015 Smt. Jyoti Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants.That application has already been decided by the aforesaid order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.207/2012 10/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Service report of non bailable warrant issued against appellant Suraj, is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR.A No.778/2012 10/08/2015 Shri V. Modiwal, learned counsel for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Meanwhile, Government Advocate is directed to verify the fact of death of appellant Bhanupratap, @ Kalu, S/o Mohan Singh Rathore, R/o Abhapuri, police station Chainpur district Khargone.Copy of this order be supplied to Government Advocate.List after three weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.894/2012 10/08/2015 List along with Cr.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.1229/2012 10/08/2015 None for the appellant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As per letter received from IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain, the appellant has already suffered jail sentence and he has been released by the Central Jail, Bherugarh.In such circumstance, non bailable warrant issued against appellant returned unserved.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1259/2012 10/08/2015 Shri KK Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he has no information about his whereabout.In such circumstances, non bailable warrant be issued against applicant No.2, Subhash, and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1609/2012 10/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri B. Parera, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri S.Patwar, learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 andLearned counsel for the appellant further seeks one week's time to verify whether 23/06/2015, has been complied with or not.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1314/2013 10/08/2015 Shri CP Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 received unserved as notices were received after the date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No.1925/2013 10/08/2015 None for the appellant.None for respondents No.3 and 4, though served.Notice of respondent No.5 returned unserved.Trial Court record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No.2635/2013 10/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Notice of respondents No.6 and 7 returned unserved for want of correct address.Appellant's counsel is directed to pay fresh PF with correct address within a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR No. 88/2014 10/08/2015 Shri B.S.Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri KC Yadav, learned counsel for the non applicant.Learned counsel for the non applicant is pressing that he has filed the application for vacating stay IA No.7354/2014, which may be decided first.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 112/2014 10/08/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he could not communicate the date of appearance before this Court, to the appellant.He submits that bailable warrant be issued against the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 10/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 05/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.417/2011 07/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the applicant.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.286/2012 07/08/2015 None for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting this revision.The First Appellate Court in Cr.A.No.241/2011 on 27/02/2014 has affirmed the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 379 of IPC and maintained the conviction up to 2 years and fine of Rs.100/-The trial Court shall take necessary steps for compliance of this order of conviction.The records of the Courts below be sent back immediately with this order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 7975/2013 07/08/2015 Shri I. Ansari, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.23/2014 07/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Non applicant's counsel is directed to supply copy to applicant's counsel positively within two days.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 07/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 257/2013 06/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6533/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.98/2015 registered at police station Nagalwadi district Barwani, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of the Excise Act.As per prosecution case, 60 bulk liter liquor has been seized from the possession of the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Barwani.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6543/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Case diary is available.Learned Government Advocate further seeks time for producing the criminal antecedent of the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6545/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6558/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the Test Identification Report as such report is not attached with the case diary.By way of last indulgence, time is granted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6553/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6561/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4400/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4527/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.72/2015 registered at police station Alirajpur district Alirajpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2), 36 and 46 of the Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants is permanent resident of district Alirajpur.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.No recovery has been made from his possession.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4497/2015 06/08/2015 Shri V.K.Sitole, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Government Advocate is directed to call the complete case diary.He is further directed to produce test identification memo and seizure report of the items seized from the possession of the applicant.After granting so many opportunities, the prosecution is not able to produce the requisite papers.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4866/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.He is also directed to call report of criminal antecedent of the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5028/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate further seeks 3 days time for producing the case diary.He is also directed to call explanation from the concerned Superintendent of Police as to why case diary has not been sent to this Court after granting so many opportunities.Copy of the order be supplied to the Government Advocate.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5332/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Gagan Parashar, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.44/2015 registered at police station Azad Nagar, Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 326, 324, 323, 294 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant is a young person and he is permanent resident of district Indore.He has no criminal antecedent.There was some altercation between the applicant and the victim.The victim was in the state of intoxication.Co-accused has already been granted bail.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Considering over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for granting bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicants is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5676/2015 06/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.8/2014 registered at police station Badwaha district Khargone, for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 398, 450, 452, 455 and 457 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that earlier the applicant was granted bail by the trial Court, subsequently he has jumped the bail on two occasions and ultimately permanent warrant has been issued against him and in compliance of the warrant he was produced before the Additional Sessions Judge on 23/01/2015 and since then he is detained in jail.Learned counsel for the applicant assures that now the applicant will attend the court proceedings regularly, therefore, he be granted bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5683/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time for producing the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5689/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5976/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5741/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Application of co-accused Ramesh has been disposed of by coordinate Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice T.K.Kaushal, therefore, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to produce the evidence recorded during the trial.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5922/2015 06/08/2015 Shri NJ Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Accordingly the application is dismissed as having become infructuous.In such circumstances, this application should have been heard by the same Bench.Office is directed to list this petition before the appropriate Bench (Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6248/2015 06/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6354/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.242/2014 registered at police station Nagalwadi district Barwani, for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) of Excise Act.As per prosecution case 72 bulk litre liquor has been seized from the possession of co-accused Rajesh.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Barwani.He has no criminal antecedent and he has been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only) with tone surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6458/2015 06/08/2015 Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to repeat the application for bail after recording the evidence of Murtja.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5306/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Anupan Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been transferred from Alirajpur to Central Jail, Indore.Government Advocate is directed to call health report and the medical papers of the applicant.Let the matter be fixed in the next week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5887/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in earlier copy of the impugned order bail application number was not mentioned, therefore, he has filed second certified copy of the impugned order in which bail application No.175/2015 has been mentioned.Thus, he has cured the defect.This is first bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are permanent resident of district Rajgarh.They have no criminal antecedent and they have been falsely implicated in this case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicants be enlarged on bail.On the other hand learned Government Advocate opposes the prayer.The applicants are directed to attend each hearing of their trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 5914/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Neelesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Office is directed to place the same on record.In the meanwhile, trial Court record be requisitioned.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defect pointed out by the Office.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time on the ground that he has to file some documents.Let the matter be fixed after two weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6199/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for one week's time for curing the defect.List after a week.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6457/2015 05/08/2015 Shri P.Choubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has already cured the defect.Office to verify and proceed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6475/2015 05/08/2015 Shri Abhijeet Singh Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing the application at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this petition with this liberty that the applicant shall surrender before the competent Court.The petition is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter on the ground that his brief has been mis placed.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this petition.Thus, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.Learned counsel for the applicant prays for an adjournment.On earlier occasion, last opportunity was granted to the counsel to argue the matter, even though the counsel is again seeking adjournment.Let the matter be fixed after four weeks.Notice of non applicant No.1 returned with this report that the applicant is not residing at the place shown in the notice.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 3/2015 05/08/2015 Shri S. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 228/2015 05/08/2015 None for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 541/2015 05/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.634/2015 05/08/2015 Shri P. Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 04/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 676/2014 04/08/2015 Shri VP Saraf, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.None for respondents No. 3 to 7, though served.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1116/2014 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify the contents of the affidavit which is supplied by the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 1191/2014 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to verify the contents of the affidavit which is supplied by the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.5298/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant.Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.Learned counsel for the parties seek time to produce the status report of the case.In the meanwhile, Office is directed to call status report from the trial Court.Government Advocate is directed to call the case diary.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 6085/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Navneet Kishore, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that till date final report has not been filed by the concerned police station.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to verify whether final report has been filed or not.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment on the ground that his senior Shri Z.A.Khan, is not available today.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.18/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the non applicant further seeks time to file reply of application for condonation of delay.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 559/2015 04/08/2015 Shri S. Patidar, learned counsel for the applicant.Ms. Seema Maheshwari, learned counsel for the non applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 312/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 582/2015 04/08/2015 Shri A.Solanki, learned counsel for the appellants.Respondent present in person.Respondent submits that he has also filed an appeal, but inadvertently appeal No.740/2015, has been dismissed in non compliance of the order, therefore, he will file an application for restoring the appeal, during the course of the day.In such circumstances, the appeal is adjourned.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 885/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Vinay Zelawat, learned senior counsel with Shri AS Parihar, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.913/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to file copy of impugned order along with copy of final report.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 5854/2015 04/08/2015 Shri Nitin Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing at length, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw this second bail application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C..The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6566/2015 04/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri MA Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Case diary is available.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4106/2014 04/08/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is possibility of compromise, therefore, he prays for adjournment.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.7496/2014 04/08/2015 Shri S.Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.2/State.Learned counsel for the applicants seeks adjournment on the ground that his senior Shri AS Garg shall argue the matter and today he is not available.In the meanwhile ,Government Advocate is directed to call the case diary.Interim relief to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 260/2015 04/08/2015 None for the applicant.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 338/2015 04/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 484/2015 04/08/2015 Shri AK Saraswat, learned counsel for the applicants.Smt. Mamta Shandilya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw the petition with this liberty that the applicants shall raise all the defence before the trial Court.Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC.No. 6478/2015 03/08/2015 Shri I.A.Ansari learned counsel for the applicant.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.232/2013 registered at police station Biora district Rajgarh for the offence punishable under Sections 382, 460 and 412 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is permanent resident of district Guna.He has no criminal antecedents.He has been implicated in this case on the basis of memorandum of co-accused.The recovery itself is suspicious as after more than 2 years, iron rod has been recovered from the possession of the applicant.The trial will take time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant be granted bail.Government Advocate opposes the prayer.After due consideration, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case for granting the bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand) with two local sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 655/2003 03/08/2015 Shri Ravi Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.As per report of police station Mahakal, Ujjain, appellant Dharmendra has been died and in support of this report photocopy of death certificate is attached.Considering this fact, the appeal against appellant No.1 is abated.Appellant's counsel is directed to delete the name of appellant No.1 from the cause title of the memo of appeal.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 963/2003 03/08/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Counsel for the appellant prays for time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 362/2010 03/08/2015 None for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Service report of non bailable warrant and notice to surety is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 103/2011 03/08/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for 10 days time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1248/2010 03/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for 15 days time for producing the appellant.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.648/2012 03/08/2015 Shri I. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Now the appellant is directed to furnish the bail in compliance of the earlier order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 12/2012 03/08/2015 Parties through their counsel.It is submitted by the parties that they have entered into compromise but, they seek time for depositing the compounding fees before the Legal Service Authority.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 1266/2012 03/08/2015 Shri P. Newalkar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that any date may be fixed for the appearance of the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.50/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Mehta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.Applicant Mohan Singh is produced by G.S.Tiwari, Head Constable from police station Shujalpur.He be sent back to jail to suffer remaining part of jail sentence.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 804/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.Respondent/Shyamlal present in person.Heard on IA No.5746/2015, an application for condonation of absence.After due consideration, the application is allowed.The respondent is directed to appear before the Registry on 08/09/2015 and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.1663/2013 03/08/2015 None for the appellants.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that as per report of police station Vijay Nagar, Indore, appellant No.1 Rakesh @ Shankarlal, S/o Ramnarayan Sisodiya, has committed suicide and Merg No.27/2014, has been registered.Learned counsel for the respondent is directed to file this report during the course of the day.In such circumstances, the appeal against appellant No.1 is abated.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 449/2014 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant.None for the respondent.As per office report bailable warrant of the respondent has been served.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 604/2014 03/08/2015 None for the applicant.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the non applicant/State.His counsel is also absent.Non bailable warrant be issued against the applicant and also issue notice to his surety as to why his bail bond be not forfeited.Notice be made returnable within four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 698/2014 03/08/2015 Shri Mukesh Kumawat, learned Panel Lawyer for the appellant/State.This report is supported by the photocopy of the death certificate.Considering this fact, as the respondent No.2, has been died, therefore, his appeal abates.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 921/2014 03/08/2015 Shri S. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri RP Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.Respondent/Aabid Khan, present in person.Aabind Khan is directed to furnish bail bond of Rs.25,000/- for securing his presence before this Court/Registry.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant shall positively furnish the bail bond before the trial Court.The respondent is directed to appear before this Court/Registry on 3rd of September, 2015, and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No. 1815/2014 03/08/2015 None for the appellant.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that respondent has already furnished the bail bond for appearance before the trial Court.The respondent is directed to mark his presence before the Registry on 7th of September, 2015, and on all subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal to the respondent's counsel.Let the matter be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No. 547/2015 03/08/2015 Shri SS Garg, learned counsel for the applicants.None for the non applicant.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that counsel of the non applicant is absent therefore no adjournment shall be allowed and the trial may be stayed.Considering the facts of this case, the case is adjourned with this direction that in case nobody will represent the non applicant on the next date, the Court will pass the appropriate order.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 4339/2015 03/08/2015 None for the applicants.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned Government Advocate further seeks time for producing the criminal record of the applicants.The State has also not complied the direction of this Court for keeping the Investigating Officer present before this Court.Government Advocate is directed to keep present Investigating Officer on the next date along with the record.No further adjournment shall be allowed.A copy of the order be supplied to the Government Advocate.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6167/2015 03/08/2015 None for the applicants.Shri M.A.Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Case diary is available.This is second bail application and the counsel for the applicants is absent, therefore, the case is adjourned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6734/2015 03/08/2015 Shri Ritesh Inani, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri M.A. Mansoori, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant No.1/State.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that non applicant No.2 has filed a private complaint 156(3) of the Cr.P.C and on this basis the Magistrate has registered a complaint and directed for investigation to police station Rajendra Nagar, Indore.In this case the coordinate Bench of this Court has stayed the execution of the order for other co- accused.Appellant No.2 Keru present in person.He is directed to mark his presence before the Registry today and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA No. 257/2013 03/08/2015 Shri Vismit Panot, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 127/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 585/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 395/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.As prayed, list after four weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6299/2015 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to verify the marriage certificate and Ossification Test report filed along with the application by the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No. 422/2013 22/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Manoj Soni, learned counsel for the respondent.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No.1358/2014 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.744/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Harshwardhan Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant.Government Advocate further seeks two weeks time to file Probation Officer's report.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No.798/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Kunal Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.4959/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 354 and 324 of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.500/- and six months R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the trial the appellant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the appeal will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the appellant be suspended till the pendency of this appeal and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the appellant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.4959/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the appellant having deposited the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the appellant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this appeal shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the appeal be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 860/2015 22/07/2015 Shri N.J.Dave, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5243/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicant has been convicted for the offence under Section 498(A) of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.300/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the trial the applicant was on bail and he has not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicant be suspended till the pendency of this revision and he be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicant has made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5243/2015) is allowed.It is hereby directed that subject to the applicant having deposited the fine amount and furnishing a personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicant be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 871/2015 22/07/2015 Shri R.R.Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5276/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325/34 of the IPC and sentence to six month's R.I.. and fine of Rs.500/- each/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the trial the applicants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicants be suspended till the pendency of this revision and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5276/2015) is allowed.It is directed that subject to the applicants having deposited the fine amount and furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.R. No. 874/2015 22/07/2015 Shri T.C.Jain, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The revision is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State.Also heard on IA No.5283/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.The applicants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 454 and 380 of the IPC and sentence to one year R.I. and fine of Rs.2,000/- and one year R.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that during the trial the applicants were on bail and they have not mis-used the liberty.The applicants have already deposited the fine amount.The disposal of the revision will take time.In such circumstances, the jail sentence of the applicants be suspended till the pendency of this revision and they be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has no objection in allowing the application.After due consideration, I am of the view that the applicants have made out a case for suspension of jail sentence.Thus, the application (IA No.5283/2015) is allowed.It is directed that on furnishing personal bond of Rs.25,000/-(Rs.Twenty Five Thousand) each with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for their appearance before this Court/Registry on 07/10/2015 and on such subsequent dates as may be fixed by the office, the applicants be released on bail and the jail sentence under this revision shall remain suspended.Record of the Courts below be requisitioned.Let the revision be fixed for final hearing in due course.CC as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A No.892/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.896/2015 22/07/2015 Shri Manoj Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Shri Sisodiya accepts notice on behalf of respondent/State.Trial Court record be requisitioned and immediately thereafter list the matter for orders on IA No.5131/2015, an application for suspension of sentence.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.728/2002 22/07/2015 Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellants.Shri Yogesh Mittal, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on IA No.4305/2015, an application for condonation of absence of appellant No.2, Pawan.Considering the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.Absence of appellant No.2, Pawan, is hereby condoned.Registry is directed to issue production warrant of appellant No.2, Pawan, S/o Chunnilal, who is detained in Khargone jail.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.1128/2007 22/07/2015 None for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Again two weeks time is granted for carrying out the correction.Let the matter be fixed after three weeks.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi Cr.A. No.512/2011 22/07/2015 Smt. Poornima Kanoongo, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to heavy rains the appellant is not present today.She submits that other date may be fixed for his appearance.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1297/2011 22/07/2015 Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the applicant/State.Bailable warrants of non applicants returned unserved with a note that they have not been resided at the place shown in the warrant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.709/2012 22/07/2015 Shri H. Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Applicant Tejram present in person.Heard on IA No.2124/2015, an application for condonation of absence of the applicant.The applicant is directed to mark his presence before the Registry on 11/08/2015 and on subsequent dates as may be fixed in this behalf by the Registry.Let the matter be fixed for final hearing in due course.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC No.6349/2013 22/07/2015 Petitioner in person.A copy of the order be sent immediately to the trial Court.Let the matter be fixed on 12/08/2015 (Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No. 583/2014 22/07/2015 Parties through their counsel.Learned counsel for the respondents submits that due to heavy rains the respondents could not present today.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRA No.1018/2014 22/07/2015 None for the appellant.Shri A.S.Sisodiya, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.The case is listed for the presence of the appellant, but appellant's counsel is absent, in such circumstances non bailable warrant be issued against the appellant and also sent a notice to his surety as to why bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1021/2014 22/07/2015 Shri Bhagwan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Issue fresh non bailable warrant against the applicant and also sent a notice to his surety as to why bail bond be not forfeited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CRR No.1466/2014 22/07/2015 Shri Vinay Puranik, learned counsel for the applicant.Let the record of the Courts below be requisitioned and thereafter list the matter for admission.Learned counsel for the non applicant further seeks three months time to pay remaining amount.At this juncture learned counsel for the applicant vehemently opposes the prayer.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 5341/2013 15/04/2015 Shri A. Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondent No.2, though served.Heard on IA No.1390/2015, an application under Order XLI Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that respondent No.1 has filed written statement and subsequently he proceeded ex-parte before the Tribunal, therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.After due consideration, the application is allowed and the service of notice of this appeal on respondent No.1 is dispensed with at the risk of the appellant.Office to verify and proceed.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 669/2013 15/04/2015 Shri JM Punegar, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents on IA No.2115/2014, an application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 776/2013 15/04/2015 None for the appellant.None for respondent No.6 though served.Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the appellant has not deposited the requisite amount, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 933/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.2 and 3 though served.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 not returned served or unserved.Let the matter be fixed on 29/04/2015, for consideration of application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1087/2013 15/04/2015 Shri None for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served.Office to verify whether the appellant has paid requisite court fee, if so then the matter be listed for consideration of IA No.3310/2013, application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi FA No. 1145/2013 15/04/2015 Shri MK Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1434/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Amit Singh Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Today the case is listed for consideration of IA No.9306/2014, an application under Section 149 of CPC.Learned counsel for the appellant further seeks time to pay deficit court fee.Ten days' time is granted to pay the deficit court fee.Failing which, this appeal shall be dismissed without reference to the Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 1983/2013 15/04/2015 Shri Atul Jaiswal,, learned counsel for the appellant.Notices of respondents No.1 to 5 returned unserved.On payment of fresh PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi CR No. 88/2014 15/04/2015 Shri BS Gandhi, learned counsel for the applicant.None for the non applicant.The case is adjourned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCC No. 317/2014 15/04/2015 Shri VS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.None for non applicant No.1 though served.Notice on non applicant No.2 not received served or unserved.Service report awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 349/2014 15/04/2015 Shri I. Ahmad, learned counsel for the appellant.He prays one week's time to file an application for reducing the valuation of appeal.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCC No. 407/2014 15/04/2015 Shri SS Chouhan, learned counsel for the applicant.Notices sent to non applicants returned unserved.On payment of fresh PF within a week, issue notice to the non applicants.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 440/2014 15/04/2015 Shri Jafar Qureshi, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.2 and 3 though served.Notice of respondent No.1 returned unserved for want of correct address.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the service on respondent No.1 cannot be effected by ordinary mode, therefore, substituted service by way of affixture may be permitted.After duce consideration, the application is allowed.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondent No.1 with a direction that if service by ordinary mode is not possible then it be effected by affixture.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA No. 19/2014 15/04/2015 Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Manipriya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.NO.7442/2014 08/04/2015 Shri Kamal Aeran, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri Mukesh Kumawat, PL for the respondent/State.Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for two weeks time.Prayer is accepted.List after two weeks.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.27/2014, registered at Police Station Kasravad District Khargone for offence punishable under Section 302, 307, 324, 323, 506/34, 294, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC.According to prosecution on 17/08/2014, petitioner and co-accused assaulted Parubai and cause head injury.Learned counsel submits that co-accused persona have been released on bail by this Court and present petitioner is in custody since more than six months and all material witnesses have been examined.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner submitting that the petitioner is responsible for causing head injury to the deceased.Considering the material available on record and in view of the fact that the petitioner is sole accused who is responsible for causing injury on vital part.No case is made out to release the petitioner on bail.The petition is dismissed.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC No. 2413/2015 09/04/2015 Shri G. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Bais, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is an application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No.44/2015 registered by Police Station Petlawad District Jhabua for the offence punishable under Section 34(2) 36 and 46 of M.P. Excise Act.According to prosecution case on 09/02/2015 police Petlawad arrested three persons with 216 liters of liquor.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of information furnished by co accused persons.He was not present in the seen of occurrence.He has no link and relation with the liquor in question.Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that sufficient evidence is available to show the involvement of the petitioner with the liquor.In response learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is a regular shop keeper in Village Sarangi and he has been implicated on the basis of information furnished by co- accused persons that too without any independent evidence.Considering overall facts and totality of the circumstances, the application is allowed and direct that the petitioner shall join the investigation/trial immediately and in the event of arrest of the petitioner in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.This order shall be governed by the conditions No.1 to 3 of Sub section (2) of Section 438 Cr.P.C.C.C.on payment of usual charges.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi Election Petition No. 19/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Sunil Jain, learned senior counsel with Shri Manipriya Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri A.K.Sethi, learned senior counsel with Shri Harish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2763/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Mukesh Sinjoniya, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of of bail has been filed by the petitioner.He is implicated in Crime No.725/2015 registered at Excise Department Bambai Bazar Circle, Indore, for offence punishable under Section 34(2) of M.P. Excise Act.Officials of Excise Department seized 90 bulk liters of country made liquor from the house of the petitioner.Conclusion of trial is likely to take time.However, prays for grant of bail to the petitiner.Learned counsel for the state opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that sufficient evidence is available to show the involvement of the petitioner in the matter.Considering the aforesaid, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case for grant of bail.Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.Thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned JMFC/CJM for his appearance before him or trial Court on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this behalf by the Court concerning during trial.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2766/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.1/2015 registered by Police Station Malawar District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C..The petitioner has been arrested in this case on 13/02/2015 for having possession of stolen bike.Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is in custody since last about more than one and half months.Hence prayed for bail.Learned Government Advocate opposed the prayer made by the petitioner stating that petitioner is habitual offender and the case of Mobile Phone and electric motor are also pending against him.In response learned counsel submits that all the cases have been prepared in one row and in none of the cases the petitioner has been convicted.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-( Rupees fifty thousand only) with two sureties in the amount of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the JMFC/CJM for his appearance before the concerned trial Court and on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the petitioner shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2769/2015 09/04/2015 Shri R.S.Parmar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.This is the first application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail by the petitioner, who is in custody in connection with Crime No.34/2015 registered by Police Station Malawar District Rajgarh for offence punishable under Section 376 and 457 of the IPC.According to prosecution on 24/02/2015, petitioner entered in the house of the prosecutrix aged 30 years, a married lay having children and her husband was not present in the house.In response learned counsel submits that it has come on record that children were present in the house and shouted and brother in law of the prosecutrix also came in the room.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, it is a fit case to enlgare the petitioner on bail.Accordingly, this petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the JMFC/CJM for his appearance before the concerned trial Court and on all dates of hearing as may be fixed in this regard during the pendency of trial.It is also directed that the petitioner shall abide by all the conditions as enumerated under Section 437(3) of Cr.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 2772/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Bhaskar Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Case diary is awaited.List in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 767/2013 09/04/2015 Shri K.K.Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.2340/2015, which is repeat application for suspension of sentence.The petitioner has been convicted under Section 31 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and sentenced to six months S.I. with fine Execution of jail sentence was suspended on 25/07/2013, but petitioner has been taken into custody again on 30/03/2015, because he failed to make appearance in the Registry.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is in custody for about 10 days and he undertakes to remain vigilant, sincere and punctual for periodical appearances.Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, this is a fit case for suspension of jail sentence of the petitioner.Accordingly, IA No.2340/2015, is allowed and it stands closed.The custodial sentence awarded to the petitioner shall remain suspended during pendency of this revision.Petitioner shall be released from custody subject to furnishing a personal bond to the tune of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance before this Court/Registry on 15/09/2015 and on all other subsequent dates as may be fixed by the Registry in this behalf.CC as per rules.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRA NO.299/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri RS Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.As prayed, list in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 394/2015 09/04/2015 Shri Neelesh Dave, learned counsel for the petitioner.Heard on IA No.2453/2015, application for condonation of delay.Against the judgment dated 22/07/2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Susner, in Cr.A. No.262/2013, this revision has been filed on 30/03/2015 (with a delay of 159 days).Cause of delay is shown to be communication gap between counsel and the party and petitioner could know about the judgment only after receiving the notice and after his arrest.Considering that the petitioner is in custody since about more than one month and has challenged the conviction and jail sentence of , the application is allowed and delay is condoned.IA No.2453/2015 is allowed and closed.Heard on admission.Issue notice to the respondent on payment of PF within a week by registered as well as ordinary mode.In the meanwhile, record be called.List for suspension of sentence, in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 407/2015 09/04/2015 None for the petitioner.Let default be removed within two weeks.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CRR NO. 413/2015 09/04/2015 Shri S. Abhyankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Let complete set of order sheet from the date of statement of accused till date may be brought to the notice of this Court.As prayed, list in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CR.A. NO. 487/2015 09/04/2015 Shri M.S.Chandel, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Heard on admission.List in the next week.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 09/04/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(T.K.Kaushal) Judge bakshi CR NO.206/2014 01/04/2015 Shri SL Gwaliory, learned counsel for the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 423/2013 01/04/2015 Shri SD Lalwani, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Yashpal Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents.Interim order to continue till the next date of hearing.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 955/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Ravindra Singh Chhabra, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Ranjeet Sen, learned counsel for the respondents.With the consent of the parties, heard finally.Reserved for orders.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1026/2014 01/04/2015 Shri A. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, PF has been paid but notice could not be issued.Office is directed to issue notice positively on PF which has already been paid.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1119/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 3, though served.Notice of respondent No.2 returned unserved for want of incomplete address.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1277/2014 01/04/2015 Shri Romil Malpani, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1754/2014 01/04/2015 None for the appellant.None for the respondent No.3, though served.Notice of respondent No.1 returned unserved for want of correct address whereas notice of respondent No.2 not received served or unserved.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 01/04/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2428 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri Manish Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2493/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Hemant Vaishnav, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent No.3, though served.Notice of respondents No.1 and 2 returned unserved for want of correct address.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi FA NO.234/2015 31/03/2015 Shri RB Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.Shri RB Singh, learned counsel for the appellant prays time to file an appropriate application.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.647/2015 31/03/2015 Shri Tej Kumar Khichi, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week, issued notice to the respondents on IA No. 2665/2015, an application for condonation of delay.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.553 /2001 31/03/2015 Shri Rakesh Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondent, though served.Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that counsel for the respondent comes from Ujjain, therefore, the case may be listed on any Wednesday.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2352 /2011 31/03/2015 Shri Nilesh Joshi learned counsel for the appellant.He submits that he has filed an application on 14/08/2014 for substituted service on respondent No.1 through his local counsel, but the same is not on record.Office is directed to place the same on record.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.141/2013 31/03/2015 Shri Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.Learned counsel for the appellant prays for withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to file a fresh appeal after paying the requisite court fee.Prayer is accepted.The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1757 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri A. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.Service report of respondent No.1 and 2 is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2355/2014 31/03/2015 Shri BS Patel, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents No.1 and 2, though served.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.449/2013 31/03/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri R. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the respondent prays time for arguing the appeal.Appellant's counsel is directed to supply copy of memo of appeal and application(IA No.6549/2013) to the respondent's counsel.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.163/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri Ravi Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.392 /2014 31/03/2015 Shri Vibhash Khedkar, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.3/State.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue the matter.Shri S. Mukati, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.Learned Government Advocate seeks time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 31/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 474/2014 31/03/2015 Shri DD Vayas, learned senior counsel with Shri A. Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.5/State.None for the other respondents.Learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to argue on admission.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi ConC NO.950/2014 31/03/2015 Ms. Riya Ansari, appears on behalf of Shri Kamlesh Mandloi, learned counsel for the applicant.As per office report, PF has been paid, but notice could not have issued.Office is directed to issue notice positively on payment of PF which has already been paid.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.1571/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1720/2014 31/03/2015 Shri PR Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.He submits that he has already paid requisite court fee.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 2020/2014 31/03/2015 Shri Himanshu Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.2/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO.2452/2014 31/03/2015 Shri V.S.Chouhan, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.On payment of process fee within a week, issued notice to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi RP NO. 33/2015 31/03/2015 None for the applicant.Shri LL Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent No.11/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 94/2015 31/03/2015 Smt. Ritu Bhargav, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on IA No.1855/2015, an application for amendment of memorandum of appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that she wants to add some more grounds in memo of appeal.After due consideration, the application is allowed.Appellant's counsel is directed to carry out the amendment in the memo of appeal within a week.Office is directed to call the records of the Courts below positively and list the matter for admission along with the records.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 26/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1477/2014 26/03/2015 None for the appellant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 77/2015 26/03/2015 Shri C.P.Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant.On payment of PF within a week issue notice to the respondents on IA No.127/2015, which is an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 9358/2014 26/03/2015 Shri S. Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri L.L.Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 2463/2006 26/03/2015 Shri V.P.Khare, learned counsel for the appellant.Heard on the question of admission.The appeal is admitted for final hearing.On payment of PF within a week notice be issued to the respondents.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1811/2009 26/03/2015 Shri Nitesh Patidar, learned counsel appears on behalf of Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the appellant.As per office report, PF has been paid, but notice could not be issued.on payment of PF which has already been paid.In the meanwhile, trial Court's record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 27//2015 26/03/2015 Shri Rajesh Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.Shri S.D.Bohra, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO. 235/2011 26/03/2015 Shri G.P.Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.The names of respondents No.2 and 3 has already been deleted.None for respondents No.1,5,6,7 and 8, though served.Learned counsel for respondent No.4 pleads no instructions.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi SA NO.259/2011 26/03/2015 Shri Shailendra Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant.Counsel for the appellant is directed to send a registered letter to the appellant and thereafter file copy thereof within a period of 15 days.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 1605/2011 26/03/2015 Shri N.K.Khokar, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondents No.1 and 1-a, though served.On payment of PF within a week, issue notice to the respondent No.3, Mohd. Juber.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 381/2014 26/03/2015 Shri Mayank Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.None for respondent No.4, though served.Service report of respondents No.1 and 2 is awaited.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MA NO. 379/2014 26/03/2015 Shri Mayank Upadhayay, learned counsel for the appellant.None for the respondents, though served.Heard on IA No.1594/2014, which is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the impugned order.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed certified copy in connected appeals therefore he may be exempted from filing certified copy of the impugned order.After due consideration, the application is allowed.On payment of P.F., within a week issue notice to the respondents on IA No.3589/2014 and 3667/2014, an application for condonation of delay and exemption.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi C.R. NO.141/2013 26/03/2015 Shri R. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 483/2015 09/03/2015 None for the applicant.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1296/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Santosh Khoware, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri R.S.Chouhan, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard on the question of admission.The petition is admitted for final hearing.No notice is necessary as Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent.Trial Court's record be requisitioned.Meanwhile, Government Advocate is directed to apprise the Court whether any appeal against the order of acquittal has been filed before this Court.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1639/2015 09/03/2015 Ms. Sonali Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.912/2013, registered at Police Station Aerodrome District Indore, for the offence punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is brother in law of the prosecutrix.He is permanent resident of Dhar.During the trial prosecutrix and her sister Pramita have been examined and they have not supported the prosecution case and turned hostile.Dr. Pushplata Ajad examined the prosecutrix, but she has not found any injury on the person of the prosecutrix.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/ State opposes the prayer.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1812/2015 09/03/2015 Shri N.S.Karada,.learned counsel for the applicant.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.1351/2014, registered at Police Station Kotwali District Dewas, for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 323 and 147 of the IPC.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a young boy, aged about 18 years.The name of the applicant does not find place in the FIR.There is no motive of the crime.The injuries found on the person of the deceased are simple in nature.There is no identification parade during the investigation.The applicant has been arrested after 12 days of the incident.There is no legal evidence to connect the applicant with the crime.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.Learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/ State opposes the prayer.After due consideration, I am of the view that this is a fit case for granting the bail.Thus, the application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court for his appearance as and when directed.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Any default in attendance in Court would result in cancellation of the bail granted by this Court.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1868/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Heard with the aid of case diary.This is first application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.The accused/applicant is in custody in connection with Crime No.12/2015, registered at Police Station Ambuja District Alirajpur, for the offence punishable under Sections 34(2) and 36 of M.P.Excise Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is labourer and permanent resident of Alirajpur.He has no criminal antecedent.He has been falsely implicated in the case.The trial will take considerable time to conclude.In such circumstances, the applicant may be released on bail.The applicant is directed to attend each hearing of his trial before the trial Court out of which this bail arises.Certified copy as per rules.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1631/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Vikas Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Shri Rawal seeks time to produce the case diary.After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty that he will file fresh application for bail after recording evidence of the prosecutrix.The prayer is accepted.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1836/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Gaurav Verma, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks one week's time to argue the matter.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1846/2015 09/03/2015 Shri B.S.Rathore, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks permission to withdraw the petition.The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1864/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Tarun Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1874/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the applicant.Shri Deepak Rawal, learned Government Advocate for the non applicant/State.Learned counsel for the applicant seeks adjournment.Prayer is accepted.(Jarat Kumar Jain) Judge bakshi MCRC NO. 1883/2015 09/03/2015 Shri Asif Warsi, learned counsel for the applicant seeks ten days time to file documents.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
42,729,928 |
The respondents, in Criminal Appeal (MD).No.594 of 2005, are,undoubtedly, licensed medical professionals, having M.B.B.S., Degrees to theircredit.They were running a hospital under the name and style "Ajit & AshokHospital", at Christopher Colony, Keelaperuvilai in Kanyakumari District.It wasa small hospital, having minimum required equipments for two doctors topractice.He consultedthe respondents/doctors in their hospital.They prescribed certain medicines forthe same.But, the abdominal pain did not recede.The accused advised him to gofor a scan examination and X-ray.Accordingly, Mr.Murugan, [hereinafter referredto as the "deceased"] took X-ray, on 17.06.1999, at "Guru X-ray & Scan Centre",P.W.D.Road, Nagercoil, [vide EX-P3].Similarly, he underwent abdomen ultrasoundexamination at Guru X-ray & Scan Centre, on 16.06.1999, [vide EX-P2].Onreferring to the above reports, the first accused diagnosed that it was a caseof hernia, which required surgery.But, Mr.Murugan did not agree for surgery andinstead, he wanted only medicines.Therefore, the first accused prescribedcertain medicines for the same.PW-1 and the other family members tookhim to the hospital of the respondents/accused.On examining Mr.Murugan, therespondents advised him to undergo surgery as early as possible.But, PW-1 andthe other attenders told the respondents that they would take him to aGovernment Hospital for surgery, as they could not bear the cost for surgery inthe private hospital.The respondents told them that they could perform surgeryat a cost of Rs.5,000/-.Thereafter, on 08.10.2000, at09.00 AM, the deceased accompanied by PW-1, went to the hospital run by therespondents for admission.But, both the respondents turned up in the hospitalonly at 12.00 noon.It is the further case of the prosecution that the respondents told thedeceased - Mr.Murugan and PW-1 that they would conduct some preliminary test intheir hospital, and thereafter, they will take him to the Government Hospitalfor surgery.The deceased and PW-1 believed the same to be true.After sometime,they took him into a room in the said hospital.According to the prosecution, itwas not an equiped operation theatre, but the kitchen of the house.PW-1 and theothers were waiting outside.The deceased alone was there in the kitchen alongwith the respondents.At that time, PW-1 heard the screams of the deceased.Theaccused were consoling the deceased - Mr.Murugan not to weep.Thereafter, thedeceased did not scream.Within ten minutes thereafter, PW-1 heard the sound ofwashing the kitchen.After sometime, both the accused went out of the hospital through theback entrance.Within a few minutes, the father of the respondents came to thehospital.He told PW-1 that an unfortunate and untoward incident had happened.When PW-1 rushed into the room, he found the deceased lying dead.He has finally opined that a person, having congesticcardiac failure, pulmonary venus congestion, bilateral plural effusion,hepatomegaly due to congestic failure and I.V.C congestion, is a high riskperson for any surgery.12. PW-9, Dr.P.Ayyappan, was the former Deputy Director of Kerala HealthServices.During the year 2000, he was the Superintendent of Government Hospitalat Parasala, where the first accused was working as a doctor.According to him,the initial against the name of the first accused - Dr.13. PW-10, Dr.C.Selvaraj, was formerly working as Additional Director ofMedical Services at Nagercoil.According to him, the accused did not apply forpermission to establish an operation theatre in the building in question.Thus,according to him, no permission was granted by the authority for "Ajit & AshokHospital", at Christopher Colony, Keelaperuvilai in Kanyakumari District, forrunning an operation theatre with the required hygienic conditions.14. PW-11, Dr.A.Edwin Joe was the then Professor of Forensic Medicine atTirunelveli Medical College Hospital.On 10.06.2000, during investigation, theInvestigating Officer gave a questionnaire to him, containing as many as fivequestions.He answered the said questions.The crux of the evidence of thiswitness is that a major surgery should not be conducted without administeringanesthesia and without having life saving equipments.PW-12, Dr.K.Santharam, was then working as an Associate Professor inPathology at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.The doctor, [PW-7], whoconducted autopsy, had sent the specimen taken from the heart of the deceasedfor pathological examination.He opined that histo-pathological examinationrevealed that the deceased died due to myocardial infarction.PW-13 to PW-16 arethe Inspectors of Police, who either registered the case or investigated thesame.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused underSection 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false.They did not choose to examine any witness on their side.According to them,08.10.2000 was Sunday and on the said date, both of them were in their home.Around 02.00 PM, the deceased - Mr.Murugan was brought to their hospital and hesat in the sit out of their hospital complaining of severe lower abdominal pain.The lipoma is at the level of subcutaneous tissue.The doctors and nursing homes/hospitals need not beunduly worried about the performance of their functions".This was theobservation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Martin F.D'Souza Vs.Ishfaq [2009 (3) SCC 1, while dealing with a case of alleged medicalnegligence.At a time, when the medical fraternity was under severe attack onaccount of unscrupulous criminal cases and civil cases filed against doctors andhospitals, this observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court came as a sigh ofrelief.But, the case on hand, which is much prior to F.D'Souza's case, whereintwo doctors were prosecuted for murder [punishable under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code], could have, to some extent, shattered the confidence of themedical professionals, who would have heard of the facts of this case and theultimate prosecution levelled against the two fully qualifed doctors, havingM.B.B.S., Degrees to their credit, portraying them as murderers.The Trial Courtacquitted the doctors.But, the State claims to be aggrieved.The deceased and PW-1 agreed for the same.Accordingly,they paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- after few days.There was along suture found on the abdomen indicating surgery.PW-1 raised alarm.Then, heproceeded to the Aasaripallam Police Station and preferred a complaint againstthe respondents.At 05.00 PM, on 08.10.2000, PW-13, the Head Constable, attachedto the said Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.304 of 2000 underSection 304 of the Indian Penal Code.PW-13, handed over the case diaryto PW-14, the then Inspector of Police, attached to the Aasaripallam PoliceStation for investigation.Taking up the case for investigation, PW-14 proceeded to the place ofoccurrence at 05.30 PM and prepared an Observation Mahazer, [EX-P6] in thepresence of PW-5 and another witness.Then, on a request made by PW-14, PW-4took photographs of the dead body, [EX-P4 series].On the same day at 05.45 PMin the presence of PW-5, PW-14 recovered MO-1 to MO-8, which are all hospitalequiptments.Then, he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased between05.30 PM and 08.30 PM.During inquest, he examinedPW-1 to PW-3 and few more witnesses and recorded their statements.Then, heforwarded the dead body for postmortem.PW-7, Dr.A.N.Rajan, conducted autopsy onthe body of the deceased on 09.10.2000 between 01.50 PM and 03.15 PM.He foundthe following injuries:-"1. 8 cm long sutured wound seen near the right groin.On removal of thesutures 15 grams of hematomas [clotted blood] seen.On further exploration thedeep muscles of abdomen are tied together with prolene [suture materials].2. 2 Needle marks seen on the inner aspect of both ankle [medicaltreatment]."EX-P9 is the Postmortem Certificate.He opined that the deceased would appear tohave died of myocardial infarction.Continuing the investigation, PW-14 searched for the accused.However,the accused obtained Anticipatory Bail from the High Court.On completing theinvestigation, he laid charge sheet against the accused under Sections 302, 201and 193, r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed as many as threecharges against the accused.The first charge is under Section 302 of the IndianPenal Code on the allegation that the accused, with a common intention ofcausing the death of the deceased, conducted surgery without having sufficientexpertise knowledge as well as the equipments and with the knowledge that thedeceased was a heart patient, and thus, by conducting surgery, caused the deathof the deceased, which amounts to an offence of murder punishable under Section302 of the Indian Penal Code.The second charge is that they washed thebloodstains found in the room, where surgery was conducted, and thus, they hadcaused the disappearance of evidence.The third charge is under Section 193 ofthe Indian Penal Code against the first accused alone on the allegation that on08.10.2000, he had manipulated the attendance register maintained by theGovernment Parasalai Hospital, where he was working as a doctor.The accused pleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.Inorder to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as sixteenwitnesses were examined and twenty three documents were exhibited, besides eightMaterial Objects.Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 is the brother-in-law of thedeceased and PW-2 is the wife of the deceased.They have, in their evidences,stated that on the crucial date, without obtaining consent and without havingsufficient expertise knowledge and equipments, both the accused conducted herniasurgery without even administering anesthesia, which resulted in the spontaneousdeath of the deceased.PW-6 is the owner of the building, where the allegedoccurrence had taken place.It ishis further evidence that the house is not fit for running any hospital or forconducting any surgery.10. PW-7, Dr.A.N.Rajan, who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased,opined that the deceased died due to "Myocardial infarction".He had furthernoticed that there was no opening of the abdomen and sutures were only at themuscle and skin.PW-8, Dr.S.Chelladurai, was the one, who was running "Guru X-ray andScan Centre", at P.W.D.Road at Nagercoil.It was in his X-ray Centre, on areference made by the first accused on 06.06.1999, the deceased had undergonescan examination.EX-P2 is the Scan Report.According to PW-8, the scan reportshowed that the patient had enlargement of the liver due to hepatic venuscongestion and inferior vena cava [ivc] was dilated due to congestic cardiacfailure.He has further deposed about X-ray taken on 17.06.1999 on a referencemade by the first accused for the deceased - Mr.Murugan.According to PW-8, X-ray showed cardio megaly mitral valvular heart disease; Pulmonary congestiongrade iv; pulmonary hyper tension; pulmonary interstitial edema and bilateralminimal plural effusion.EX-P3 is the X-ray report.According to his opinion,hepatomegaly was due to hepatic veins congestion due to cardiac failure.Liverenlargement was there due to hepatic veins enlargement.If the veins drainingthe liver to heart shows stagnation of blood due to cardiac failure, the liverwill be enlarged.He has further opined that [I.V.C] inferior venacava is amajor vessel draining the lower part of the body.It is his further opinion thatusually enlargement of IVC will occur due to the pulmonary congestion incongestic cardiac failure.Miral valve is the valve between left atrium and leftventricle of the heart and according to him, the valve mal-functioning willproduce X-ray findings like this.From hisevidence, the prosecution has made an attempt to prove the third charge againstthe first accused under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.Their hospital was situated four or five houses away from their house.The wifeof the deceased - Mr.Murugan and the other relatives asked them to retrieve hispain.After they opened the clinic, they made him to lie down on a very goodhospital table in a big room.They examined the deceased and found that he had aswelling in the right groin.According to them, at the instance of his wife andthe other relatives, they decided to remove the swelling to retrieve him fromhis severe pain.They also suggested to the deceased and the relatives to go toany Government Hospital for treatment.But, they forced them and requested themto perform minor surgical procedure.Since they refused to go to any otherhospital, as suggested by them, they obtained consent from his wife and theother relatives and removed the lipoma or neuro fibroma.The swelling was takenout and kept in a bottle for histo-pathological examination to find out as towhether it was neuro fibroma or lipoma [swelling of fat].Thereafter, at 02.45PM, the deceased complained of sudden severe chest pain and started sweatingprofusely.Immediately, they took ECG, which showed that the patient hadsuffered a sudden heart attack or myocardial infarction.In spite ofadministering life saving medicine, at 02.50 PM, he died.According to them, thedeath was due to myocardial infarction, which is a natural death and his death,as per the opinion of the experts, is due to heart attack, which can occur toanybody, both young and old, irrespective of the procedure carried out by them.Thus, according to them, they did not conduct any surgery for hernia.As a matter of fact, according to them, they conducted a small procedure toremove lipoma, after giving local anesthesia.After the patient recovered fromanesthesia, long after the procedure was over, the patient developed chest painand died of sudden heart disease, [heart attack].According to them, the deathwas a natural death.Thus, they pleaded innocence.From the above documents, they submittedthat after the death of the deceased, the entire hospital was ransacked andtheir houses were also set on fire.The medical records pertaining to thetreatment given to the deceased, including the consent letter, were alldestroyed, and so, they could not produce any medical records.Havingconsidered all the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused of allthe charges.PW-1, the brother-in-law of the deceased, has come upwith Crl.RC.(MD).No.439 of 2006, challenging the acquittal of theaccused/respondents.Since both the matters arise out of the same Judgment, we have heardthe same together and we dispose of both the Criminal Appeal and the CriminalRevision Petition by means of this Common Judgment.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing forthe State, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents/accused, thelearned counsel appearing for the Revision Petitioner and we have also perusedthe records carefully.Admittedly, in this case, the deceased was suffering from heartdisease.PW-7 and PW-8 have categorically stated that the deceased was sufferingfrom cardio megaly, mitral valvular heart disease and also Pulmonary congestiongrade iv, pulmonary hyper tension, pulmonary interstitial edema and bilateralminimal plural effusion.These findings were given by PW-7 and PW-8 even in theyear 1999 on the reference made by the first accused.Therefore, it can beinferred that the first accused had known the above condition of the deceased.Now, according to PW-1 and PW-2, on 08.10.2000, the deceased went tothe hospital of the accused for treatment for abdominal pain.This is admittedby the accused.He has further deposedthat the surgery was only at the level of subcutaneous tissue, which means thatit was only for lipoma.During cross-examination, he has further stated thatthere was no surgery conducted for hernia at all.In this regard, we havethoroughly gone through the evidence of PW-7 and the postmortem certificate.Inthis context, we may point out that the well recognized and well establishedprocedure for "Herniorrhaphy" [hernia repair], i.e., surgery for hernia is asfollows:-An incision is made in the skin over the groin about 5 cm lengthobliquely.Per contra, according to them, they removed only lipoma after obtainingconsent from his wife and another relative and after administering localanesthesia.Before going into the further facts of the case, let us have a pauseat this stage to note as to what is lipoma.Lipomas can occuralmost anywhere on the body, but are most commonly found on the trunk,shoulders, neck and armpits.But, in the case on hand, for no faulton the part of the respondents, their professional career has been spoiled bydragging them to the Court and they have been put to intolerable agony.We hopethat in future, the police officers faced with similar situations willinvestigate the case objectively and act according to law going by the truth andnot by emotions.In the result, the Judgment dated 16.08.2003 made in S.C.No.35 of 2003, onthe file of the learned Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, is confirmedand the Criminal Appeal is dismissed.Consequently, Criminal Revision Petitionis also dismissed.1.The Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil.2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Nagercoil.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
427,330 |
The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 7.9.2005 passed by the High Court of judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.11884 of 2005 granting bail to the second respondent-accused.We may at this stage, dispose of one of the arguments of Mr. Vijay Hansaria, learned senior counsel, for the second respondent-accused that the petition itself is not maintainable, as the same is not filed by an aggrieved party.This contention does not survive as by our order dated 30.9.2005 permission to file Special Leave Petition has already been granted.Learned senior counsel on both sides have advanced arguments touching the merits of the case.The offence under which the respondent was charged is Section 302 read with 201 IPC in which the husband was the main accused and the wife was the co-accused.Co-accused's application was rejected by the High Court on 3.6.2005 after a threadbare discussion.The High Court arrived at a finding that the incident had taken place inside the house of the accused, that too in her bedroom itself and that the accused being an advocate would be no mitigating ground to release her on bail.The respondent-husband's application was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Allahabad by an order dated 10.6.2005 after taking into consideration the submission of both sides and various facts and circumstances of the case.The High Court, in our view, seems to have weighed with the tenuous circumstances such as there being no report of ballistic expert to show the alleged fingerprints found on the recovered revolver to be of his own, there being no previous criminal history of the accused who is a practicing advocate of the High Court.He also contended that the principles applicable to cancellation of bail should be applied when considering an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution against an order granting bail.For the reasons aforestated this appeal deserves to be allowed.The order of the High Court dated 7.9.2005 granting bail to the respondent is hereby quashed and set-aside.The respondent is on bail.
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,735,846 |
He has also threatened that if she narrated the incident to anyone, then she would be removed from her job.She was the person, who was helping in making the midday meal to the students.The prosecutrix immediately informed her co-cooks about the incident.Heard on admission.Applicant has filed the present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the proceeding relating to Crime No.270/2010 registered at Police Station Barhi District Katni for commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 506-B of IPC.Brief facts of the case are that on 27.8.2010 at about 8:05 PM the prosecutrix has lodged an FIR against the applicant, who is a teacher in the concerned school that on 26.8.2010 he called her in his office and held her hand and also pressed her breasts.But since her brother was out of station and came on 27.8.2010, therefore she lodged the FIR on 27.8.2010 against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that since one Bala Vishwakarma, brother of the applicant had sent a complaint about the midday meal, an enquiry took place on 27.8.2010 in which some directions were given to the concerned society, who was supplying the midday meals, therefore as a counter blast a false FIR has been lodged against the applicant.The applicant is a teacher and he has submitted the Panchanama to show that his conduct was good and there was no any complaint about his conduct.A false FIR has been lodged against the applicant, and therefore the same may be quashed.According to the document, which is part of Annexure A-1, it would be clear that on inspection no complaint was found about the midday meal, and therefore there was no possibility of false complaint against the applicant.At present the statement given by the prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside, and therefore it is not a case in which the FIR as well as the trial may be quashed.However, the incident took place with the prosecutrix, and therefore she has lodged an FIR and there is no ground for quashing the same.There is no reason established that there was enmity between the prosecutrix and the applicant so that the prosecutrix could lodge a false FIR.At present the statement of the prosecutrix cannot be brushed aside without any substance.It is not at all counter blast of any proceeding because nothing wrong was found in the inspection.On the contrary, it appears that the applicant has not submitted the inspection report.He has also filed a letter sent by the Head Master of that school to CEO, Jila Panchayat Katni showing that there was no any complaint about midday meal, but there is no any document to show that no incident took place on 27.8.2010, and therefore at present it cannot be said that the FIR lodged by the prosecutrix was a counter blast.On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the FIR and the proceeding initiated consequently cannot be set aside at this stage.Consequently, the present application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
69,744,054 |
An employee, a professor in a private college, along with anothercolleague, faces allegations of misconduct.The Chairman of the Trust thatruns the college initiates disciplinary proceedings against that employee andthe other; appoints an inquiry officer and a presenting officer, both advocatesby profession; and concludes the disciplinary proceedings.It results in thedismissal of both the employee and his colleague.The employee challenges hisremoval before a statutory Tribunal.And the Tribunal affirms it.Furtheraggrieved, the employee files a writ petition before this Court--now admittedand pending before a Division Bench.Pending the appeal before the Tribunal, the employee files a privatecomplaint before a Special Court.So, the employee files a privatecomplaint.The Special Court, then, takes cognisance and issues process.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::Crl Appeal No.522 of 2019Now, the accused have filed this appeal under Section 14A of theAtrocities Act.All the three appellants are the accused in crime No. I-439 of 2017 ofManpad PS., registered based on a complaint forwarded under Section 156 (3)of Cr.P.C by the special Judge, Kalyan, Mumbai.The appellants have beenaccused of the offences under sections 465, 467, 468, and 420 of I.P.C., readwith Section 3 (1) (p) of the Atrocities Act. After a few statutory andinvestigative developments, the special Judge, Kalyan, issued process to theappellants under Section 204 of Cr P.C. Aggrieved, the appellants have cometo this Court, invoking Section 14A of the Atrocities Act.The First appellant claims to be the Chairman of an EducationalTrust.The second respondent ("employee") in this appeal is thecomplainant; he was a lecturer in the college run by the Trust.After a full-fledged inquiry, on 2nd August 2013, the collegemanagement dismissed him from service, mentioning that the allegationsagainst him were proved in the departmental disciplinary proceedings.The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 3 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 ::: Crl Appeal No.522 of 201927th January 2016--on merits.A learned Division Bench of this Court admitted the appealon 1st December 2016 but has not interfered with the Tribunal's order--asyet.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::On 9th May 2017 the employee filed a private complaint before theSpecial Judge, Kalyan, alleging that the appellants have been guilty of theoffences under sections 465, 467, 468, and 420, read with Section 34 of I.P.C.,as well as Section 3 (1) (p) of the Atrocities Act. On 26th July 2017, thelearned Special Judge referred the matter under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C tothe Manpet Police Station, which in turn registered C.R. No. I-439 of 2017,for the same offences as alleged by the employee.The Police investigated the crime and, on 8th November 2017, filed afinal report: no offence was made out.As a matter of parallel development,pending the Police investigation into the crime, the appellants, as the accused,secured an anticipatory bail and remained free.In the wake of the FinalReport, on 24th of the same month, the learned Special Judge notified theemployee about that report.Then, in January 2018, assailing the Final Report,the employee filed a protest petition.Based on that protest petition, thelearned Special Judge, in November 2018, issued process: the appellants had toface trial for the alleged offences under sections 465 and 471, read withSection 34 I.P.C., besides Section 3 (1) (p) of the Atrocities Act.Eventually, the appellants invoked Section 14A of the Act and filedthis appeal.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::Crl Appeal No.522 of 2019Submissions:Appellants':Shri Sanjeev P. Kadam, the appellants' counsel, to begin with, hascontended that the employee's complaint is vindictive, aimed at wreakingvengeance against the college and its management, only because they intendedto maintain discipline and protect the academic atmosphere in the college.According to him, acting on the complaint the Special Court forwarded, thePolice only investigated the crime.They examined various witnesses in thecollege, besides inspecting vital documents.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::Then, Shri Kadam has addressed the issue on the merits.Tounderline the falsity of the employee's complaint, he insists on the legitimacyof the first appellant to act as the Chairman of the Trust.He further stressesthat the employee took his dismissal to the University Tribunal, a statutoryappellate forum.And there, too, he maintained that the first appellant was notthe Chairman.In this regard, he has drawn myattention to the proceedings issued by the Assistant Charity Commissioner: hiscondoning the delay and acknowledging the changes in the Trust'scomposition.To add further strength to his submissions, Shri Kadam has alsotaken me to the findings of the Tribunal on the first appellant's entitlement tobe the Chairman.--an interlocutory order.On the definitional dynamics of orders andinterlocutory orders, Shri Panchal has made strenuous efforts to distinguish thejudgments the appellants' counsel cited.Third, Shri Panchal has addressed the issues on the merits.::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::Shri Kadam has taken me to Sections 17, 22 and Section 2(8) of theMaharashtra Public Trust Act. Besides, referring to Rule-5 and Schedule Iunder that rule, he has contended that the Act, in its statutory context,requires a Trust to inform the authority concerned the changes in itscomposition, that is, trusteeship.The Trust's internal changes, such as thedesignations or redesignations of the office bearers are immaterial.Crl Appeal No.522 of 2019Second Question:So the appeal to the SupremeCourt.Initially, he was suspended; later,suspension revoked, he was asked to discharge other functions than what hehad already been discharging.In the disciplinary proceedings, he was chargedwith misconduct.A proprietary concern, with a misnomer of a "Company", dealt intobacco, having a licenced warehouse at Guntur.It was liable to pay duty onthe tobacco received at its warehouse and transported to another dealer.Moving ahead, we may examine another decision: General Officer 32 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 ::: Crl Appeal No.522 of 2019Commanding v. CBI.[23] In a village in Jammu & Kashmir, terrorists killedabout two scores of people.In the combing operations that immediatelyfollowed, five persons, purported to be terrorists, were killed by RashtriyaRifles (RR) personnel in an "encounter".The earlier massacre was attributed tothose five slain terrorists.Then the RR personnel came to face the charge ofstaging a fake encounter.The CBI investigated the crime and filed achargesheet.On CJM's rejecting to entertain that objection, the mattereventually reached the Supreme Court.In Tukaram Annaba Chavan v. Machindra YeshwantPatil[28], the dispute concerns an Educational Trust.The first respondent files aprivate complaint, for the offences of furnishing information on oath, criminalbreach of trust, forgery, conspiracy.This complaintwas filed when the dispute is pending before the Charity Commissioner.The learned magistrate issued process.The appellants, first, filedrevision petition before the Sessions Court, challenging the process.So was the case before the High Court; then, the appellantstook the matter to the Supreme Court.The matter is, as the SupremeCourt found, was pending before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, whowas to determine the validity or otherwise of the change report the appellantssubmitted.The same contention as was raised in the in the private complaintwas also raised before the Assistant Charity Commissioner: forgery andfabrication.Answer: It has.Answer: No. Result:(DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J) L.S.Panjwani, P.S. 44 ::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::::: Uploaded on - 25/06/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 14/07/2019 07:15:56 :::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,190,119 |
On the basis of a written complaint filed by one Sambhuram Maity, Bhupatinagar P.S. case no. 25/94 dated 09.7.1994 under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code was started against all the FIR named accused persons on allegations that on 08.7.1994 at about 11 P.M. the accused persons in furtherance of common intention murdered his brother, Shibram Maity, on the previous night and concealed his dead body in the house of Sasanka Maity of Goramulda village.It is alleged that some villagers of Kayemgoriya and Goramulda villages were putting pressure on the father and elder brother (deceased) of the de facto complainant to return a property and on that issue four meeting were held during the last five months.In those meetings it was decided that his elder brother Shibram since deceased must pay Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand).Since the de facto complainant and the members of his family are very poor they could not meet the said demand.On that issue on 07.7.1994 at about 5 P.M. when the deceased Shibram left his house by a bi-cycle to go to the house of his maternal uncle at Paunsi village at that time the accused no. 1 Anil Ari took the deceased to the house of Prafulla Maity by applying force.Then a meeting was held in the house of Prafully Maity on that night and the FIR named accused persons threatened the brothers and mother of the deceased that they would physically assault and kill the deceased.They kept waiting at the place of meeting till 1 A.M. on that night and the accused persons forced them to leave the place with warning that deceased would be released only if sum of Rs. 3,000/- was paid to them by 7 A.M. of morning.When brother of the de facto complainant accompanied by Panchayat Member started for the police station to register a case, they were informed that the deceased was found dead lying in the house of the accused Sasanka Maity of Goramulda village.The de facto complainant then lodged written complaint against seventeen accused persons and against many other unknown persons.After completion of the investigation I.O. submitted Charge- sheet against nineteen persons under the aforesaid said sections.So, instead of going to the police station on getting such information from Ramgopal Maity his cousin brother, he went to the place where dead body was found.Obviously, he could not lodge the complaint at that point of time as he was mentally perturbed over the incident.The police came to his house at about 11 P.M. from where they went to the house of Sasanka Maity.This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30th January 01, 2008 and order dated February 01, 2008 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Contai, Purba Medinipur, in Sessions Trial Case No. 112 (March) of 2004 convicting the appellants under Sections 302/342/201 of the Indian Penal Code sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-(Two Thousand) each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another two months under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (One Thousand) each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another one month under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.Out of total nineteen accused persons against whom the charge was submitted, accused Sasanka Maity is still absconding and two other accused persons namely, Prafully Maity and Matangini Maity expired before commencement of the trial.Charges under Sections 302/201/34 of the IPC were framed against the remaining sixteen accused persons who pleaded no guilty and have claimed for trial.To prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses.The written complaint, Inquest report, Post Mortem report, extract of G.D. number, dead body Challan, sketch map with index have been marked exhibits on behalf of the prosecution.The wearing apparels of the deceased is marked Mat.Ext.-I collectively.After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. but they declined to adduce any defence evidence.The defence case as revealed from the trend of the cross-examination of the witnesses is that of total innocence.Being aggrieved by the judgment impugned the appellants have preferred this appeal inter alia, on the grounds that the real FIR has been suppressed and a false, fictitious and concocted FIR has been admitted in evidence.It is contended that the prosecution case being that 30 persons including the said 04 appellants were sitting in the house of Prafulla and the police having omitted the names of 14 persons as accused and the learned Judge having acquitted twelve persons by not placing credence to the prosecution witnesses, the appellants are also entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt.It is also submitted that the prosecution has led no evidence to prove that in the house of Prafulla a 'salisi' was being held when four accused appellants assaulted the victim, Shibram Maity and there is no evidence as to when, how and by whom the victim was removed to Sasanka's house from Prafulla's house at a distance of about 500 feet intervened by a ponds from the alleged place of occurrence.It is also contended that there is no evidence that said appellants inflicted severe injuries to the victim as the doctor did not find any serious injury on the person of the victim.Hyoid bone was also not fractured and there was no evidence of strangulation and further submitted that absence of grievous injury on the victim and non-examination of viscera totally shake the prosecution charge under Section 302 IPC more so, when the injuries on the victim were simple in nature which are not sufficient to cause death.Learned Counsel for the appellants also submitted that in case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays a major part.Matagini Maity, Prafulla Maity and Sasanka Maity might have their interest in the dispute property, but the four appellants are mere villagers and they had no interest for Rs. 3,000/-, to kill a person with the help of other 26 persons.It is contended that on 22nd Ashar 1402 B.S. at 5 P.M. Kartick Maity a non C.S. witness informed prosecution party that Anil Ari forcibly took Shibram to the house of Prafulla Maity at village Goramuda.Next day at 1 A.M. the accused persons asked P.W.-1 and other to bring Rs. 3,000/- by 7 A.M. But at 7 A.M. they did not see Shibram in the house of Prafulla, Prafulla's wife said that Shibram had fled away from their house.On search the dead body of Shibram was found in the house of Sasanka Maity brother of Prafullya Maity but PW1 FIR maker could not say which accused assaulted Shibram by which weapon and did not mention in the FIR names of Anil Ari, Khokan Ari, Prabhuram Laya, Bhriguram Ari having assaulted his brother.According to P.W.-15 A.R. Das he was told by the S.P. that a person has been murdered at Godamulda.He went to the spot and saw ASI, A.N. Das with force guarding the house of Sasanka Maity where the dead body was kept.There he received a written complaint of P.W.-2 Sambhuram Maity, and he sent the same to P.S. Evidence clearly reveals that PW15 was in crime conference of the District chief police when the said information was received by them.We do not find any good reasoning placed by the side of defence for our conclusion that FIR was a concocted and embellished one as the same finds corroboration by its maker.Lastly, it is contended that the charges are defective and lacking in material particulars without any mention of time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence.We do not agree with such contention in view of specific provision under section 464 of Cr.P.C. which enjoins that no finding, sentence or order by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be deemed invalid merely on the ground that no charge was framed or on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the charge including any misjoinder of charges, unless in the opinion of the court of appeal, confirmation or revision, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.In this case 17 (seventeen) persons were arraigned as accused persons in the written complaint lodged by Sambhuram Maity, the brother of the deceased who had complained to this effect that on 07.07.1994 at around 5 O' Clock his elder brother Shibram Maity left his house and he was going to the house of his maternal uncle at Paunsi when accused Anil Ari caught hold of him near the playground of the high school to the southern side of his house and took him by force and heard that he was detained in the house of Prafulla Maity.He along with his mother and younger brother Parsuram Maity went to the house of Prafulla where he saw 30 persons present there but complainant recognized 17 persons whose names are mentioned in the FIR.Out of 17 accused persons Prafulla Maity died and 16 accused persons faced trial and on conclusion of the trial 12 accused persons were acquitted of the Charges levelled against them but the present four appellants were convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid Charges framed against them.The FIR maker Sambhuram Maity P.W.-1 has stated in his examination-in-chief that his nephew Kartick Maity was playing in the ground at that time who had told him that Anil Ari forcibly took his elder brother to the house of Prafulla of Goramulda village and after visiting the house of Prafulla he saw 30 persons assembled in the courtyard in the house of Prafulla and the prosecution witnesses asked them as to why they confined his brother and in reply they pointed out that his brother Shibram has to pay Rs. 3,000/- to them as per salisi held on account of landed dispute and if the sum of Rs. 3,000/- is not paid as required for registration of the property, they would not release his brother and held out threat to kill him.It is true that said Kartick aged seven years was not cited as a prosecution witness.The bi-cycle by which the deceased was riding was also not seized by the police but that is not very fatal to the prosecution case.According to P.W.-2 accused Anil Ari, Khokan Ari, Prabhuram Laya, Bhriguram Ari and Rabin Maity assaulted his elder brother who was detained throughout night.On the following morning, P.W.- 1 and inmates of his family tried their best to collect said money and again visited Prafulla's house in the morning but Basanti wife of Prafulla told that his brother had fled away from their house.The complainant was advised to lodge information with the police but on his way to police station he learnt that dead body of his said brother was kept concealed under firewood in the house of Sasanka Maity.Inquest over which he signed (Exbt.-2).Wearing apparel of his brother was also seized in his presence.The question has been raised that when he saw 30 persons assembled in the house of Prafulla against all of them police did not submit Charge-sheet except against 17 accused persons.The suggestion put to P.W.-1 by the defence during cross- examination of PW1 reflects animosity between the parties.It is true that during cross-examination P.W.-1 could not say who the accused persons had assaulted the deceased by which weapons.It is quite obvious because he was not there at the time of inflicting assault but he deposed that accused Anil Ari, Khokan Arui, Prabhuram Laya, Bhriguram Ari and Rabin Maity did not assault his elder brother but they held out threat in his presence.Parsuram Maity, P.W.-2 younger brother of P.W.-1 has stated on oath that on his way to maternal uncle Anil Ari caught hold of his elder brother in front of his School along with his bi-cycle and brought to the house of Prafulla Maity by applying force on him and Kartick who was playing in the ground at that time, informed them about the said fact.In the light of lantern lit in the veranda of the house of Prafulla Maity, he saw his elder brother Shibram and 30 persons surrounding him but he could not identify all of them but identified some of them namely, Bhriguram Ari, Anil Ari, Prabhuram Laya, Khokan Ari, Kanai Ari, Sambhuram Ari, Mantu Ari, Fokesh Ari, Prafulla Maity, Jugal Pada Maity, Matangini Maity, Rabin Maity, Malay Maity, Basanti, Laxmi and Sasanka Maity and they were also identified by him during trial.According to P.W.-2, they created pressure upon them demanding sum of Rs. 3,000/- in connection with a land for registration of property in favour of Matangini Maity.It is admitted that the land originally belong to Matangini Maity who has transferred the same in favour of her adopted son Manik Maity but the nephews of Matangini Maity claimed the said property.Since the prosecution witnesses were poor they could not pay the said sum of Rs.3,000/- to the accused persons and for that reason the accused persons created pressure on the prosecution party who were in the house of Prafulla Maity up to 1 A.M. but the accused persons did not release the deceased and told that they would not release until payment is made.The accused persons armed with 'lathi' threatened with dire consequences saying that if prosecution party did not make payment by 7 A.M in the following morning, he would not get his elder brother.According to Subhas Maity P.W.-3, he saw that accused persons namely Prafulla, Sasanka Maity and many other were putting pressure on Shibram for demand of Rs. 3,000/- .Nani Gopal Maity, P.W.-4 cousin brother (Jethtuto Bhai) of the deceased also narrated about the occurrence of kidnapping of Shibram from the play ground in front of School and taking him to Prafulla's house where meeting was held.The mother, brother, sister and father of Shibram had been to the house of Prafulla and who saw the deceased being confined in the latter's house and accused persons were requested to release the deceased but of no effect.P.W.-4 was informed by brothers of Shibram that they along with other neighbours had been to Prafulla's house where they found Anil Ari, Bhriguram Ari, Prabhuram Laya, Khokan Ari and many other in the house and Prafulla asked them to bring money first then to get release of Shibram but the prosecution party could not secure the release of Shibram.On the following morning P.W.-4 went there and found no person was found in the house of Sasanka Maity, Prafulla Maity and found only the wife of Sasanka Maity and he also found the house of Sasanka Maity was closed from outside with a pad lock on the entrance door of the house.Aswini Dolui, P.W.-5 has also been to the house of Prafulla on hearing such news of kidnapping and confinement of Shibram in the house of Prafulla but he was not allowed to go Shibram.So he could not say the names of those surrounding Shibram but the fact is proved that Shibram was kidnapped by Anil Arui over dispute relating to money matters and Prafulla Maity and Sasanka Maity told him that they would not release Shibram if the money was not paid to them by Shibram or his brothers.Thus, on appraisal of evidence on record, we find that all the said witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case of abduction and confinement of the deceased Shibram in the house of Prafulla by the persons of Prafulla including the appellants and recovery of his dead body from the house of Sasanka Maity, brother of Prafulla Maity on the following day.P.W.-6 Nikunja Pahari has also corroborated fact of demand of sum of Rs.3000/-by the accused persons.It is urged on behalf of the appellants that as per the prosecution case, 30 persons including the said four appellants were seen in the house of Prafulla but police omitted names of some of them by not citing their names in the charge sheet.The learned Judge also acquitted twelve accused persons after the trial, therefore, the four appellants ought have been given benefit of reasonable doubt.We are unable to agree with such submission because the prosecution witnesses though stated about 30 persons surrounding the deceased in the house of Prafulla but since they could not recognise and disclose the names of all of them and for the reason that there was no iota of evidence as against 14 other persons, they were rightly acquitted by the learned Trial Judge, but this cannot be the just ground for acquittal of four appellants when the evidence of prosecution witnesses are in corroboration to each other in general terms who were duly identified by the prosecution witness having participated in the crime.Mr. Himangshu Dey learned Counsel for the appellants has further submitted adverting to the observation made at page 137- 138 of the paper book in the judgment impugned that the circumstances relied upon by the learned Judge do not unerringly or irresistively point to the guilt of the appellants because actual time of occurrence, the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution inasmuch as the dead body of Shibram was found in the house of Sasanka Maity, bother of Prafulla Maity, whereas the deceased allegedly was confined in the house of Prafulla Maity.The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. "I.O. held inquest over the dead body of the deceased who found bloodied injuries on the eyes, cut mark on the upper lip and blackish circular mark of rope found around the neck of the deceased with bloodied injuries on the chest and blackish mark on the right arm of the deceased and to ascertain the actual cause of death, the dead body of the deceased was sent to Contai Sub- Divisional Hospital by Constable No. 1125 Aswini with dead body challan for post mortem examination.Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Tusar Kanti Maity held post mortem examination and found haematoma 1 length x 1 breadth x depth in the left and right maxillary region of face, (2) haematoma length 2 x breadth and depth in the right side of the chest and bruise length 4 x in breadth around the neck.It is true that there was no ligature mark on the neck but the cause of death according to Autopsy Surgeon, is ante mortem and homicidal in nature due to cardio-respiratory failure out of shock and injuries.In the opinion of the P.M. doctor, bruises might be caused if pressed by any bamboo like instrument.Thus, the prosecution case finds corroboration by medical evidence.Inspector Ramendra Narayan Singh P.W.-14 was officer in charge of Bhupatinagar P.S. on 25.12.1994 and received case diary from S.I. A.B. Paul for further investigation as the first I.O. Ashis Ranjan Das P.W.-15 had left the police station for long training by handing over the case diary to his successor namely, A.B. Paul.But we're not in agreement with the submission of Mr. Dey, because Nikunja P.W.-6 in unequivocal term deposed during cross- examination that he was examined by I.O. on the date when the dead body of the deceased was detected.This piece of evidence goes uncontroverted by the defence.P.W.-7 has also corroborated the prosecution case by saying that he was examined by the investigating officer on the date when they came to take dead body.He has also narrated the incident as seen by him to this effect that the deceased was kidnapped by Anil Ari over some dispute relating to money matters.Prafulla and Sasanka told him that they would not release Shibram if the demanded money was not paid to them by said Shibram or his brothers.He was near the house of Prafulla for about five minutes and then came back as he was not allowed to go near the place.It is quite obvious that prosecution by declaring PW8 hostile and tendering PW9 for cross-examination by defence does not want to rely on those two witnesses.Nevertheless, on evaluating the totality of evidence on record, we find that within the facts and circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that material witnesses for the prosecution were not examined within a reasonable time.Therefore, if there was any latches in examining the witnesses then it was because of S.I. Paul and for that it cannot be held that the aforesaid witnesses who have practically seen the occurrence were planted by the prosecution.We do agree with the proposition that last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time that accused and deceased were last seen alive and the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.It is well settled that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for a proof and the courts shall take utmost precaution in finding an accused guilty only on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.This is what has been done by the learned trial judge who after sifting the chaff from the grain has been able to find the four appellants guilty of the offences committed by them as we find on evidence that the prosecution witnesses mainly, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 have corroborated the prosecution case up to the hilt having seen the deceased being abducted by Anil Ari by force and taking him to the house of Prafulla and the accused persons holding out threat to assault and kill the diseased, if the sum of Rs. 3000/-is not paid to them.On the next morning when the prosecution witnesses visited the house of Prafulla no male member of the family was present except his wife who otherwise pointed out to them that the deceased had fled away from their house but the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused Sasanka,brother of Prafulla who had absconded from their house.The accused persons were duty-bound to lead defence evidence as to how the dead body of the diseased was found in the house of accused Sasanka Maity who along with his brother Praffullya and other accused persons were absent and had absconded from their houses.So it was the legal obligation of the accused persons to dispel the suspense characterised from their acts.Autopsy surgeon P.W.-10 held post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and gave opinion that the death was homicidal and ante mortem in nature.Thus, facts and circumstances are well proved by the prosecution witnesses pointing to the guilt of the accused persons because on appraising the evidence we find firstly, that the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case in general term by deposing that on being informed that the appellant accused Anil Ari had abducted the deceased and took him to the house of Prafulla forcibly, the prosecution witnesses visited his house and found the deceased being confined there by about 30 persons.It is quite natural that in a village after sunset it might not be possible for the prosecution witnesses to identify all 30 persons surrounding the deceased but they could identify FIR named accused persons including the appellants in the light of a lantern lit in the house of the accused Praffulla, who have stated on oath that the accused persons named in the FIR were present amongst them.Secondly, the prosecution witnesses have stated in clear crystal term that Prafulla and the appellants had demanded money of Rs. 3,000/- to be paid as a condition for releasing the deceased from their house.Thirdly, that threat was held out by the accused persons including appellants with dire consequences to wit, that the prosecution witnesses may not see their deceased brother in the next morning if the sum of Rs. 3,000/- was not paid by 7 A.M. Fourthly, these appellants were also seen by the prosecution witnesses inflicting assault on person of the deceased.Fifthly, when the prosecution witnesses came to the house of Prafulla, there was none in the house of Prafulla Maity except his wife and the latter replied on being asked by the prosecution party that Shibram had fled away from their house.Sixthly, Praffula's brother Sasanka Maity was also not in his house wherefrom the dead body of the deceased Shibram was recovered which was kept concealed in the firewood.These are all circumstances which unerringly points towards guilt of the accused appellants with a definite conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused persons and none else.Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,191,658 |
By this petition the petitioner has raised grievance that F.I.R. dated 31.07.2016 registered at his behest under Section 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') has not been registered in terms of facts stated by him or grievance raised at his behest.The petitioner prayed that the directions be given for registration of offence under Section 307 of IPC.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be meet by giving direction to the respondent No.3 the Superintendent of Police, Yeotmal, to investigate into the ::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:15:41 ::: 2 1608wp928.16.odt complaint made by the petitioner by taking into consideration his written complaint dated 16.08.2016 along with the opinion of the Doctor which has come on record during investigation, as also statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating authorities thereafter.::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:15:41 :::In our opinion, this should satisfy the grievance raised by the petitioner in this petition.Hence, disposed of in above terms.::: Uploaded on - 19/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2018 16:15:41 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,195,406 |
Heard on admission.In view of the aforesaid, prayer is made to enlarge the applicant on bail.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State has vehemently opposed the application for grant of bail on the ground that the prosecutrix is a minor girl.It is directed that the applicant-Abdul Aashik be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Committal Court/trial Court to appear before the concerned Court on the dates given by the concerned Court during trial.C.C. as per rules.(SUBHASH KAKADE)
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,203,582 |
CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 1 of 30As per the post mortem report (Ex.PW-12/A), deceased Neelam had third degree burns over her face, neck, chest, abdomen, upper limbs, back of chest and left thigh.Bone deep burns were present on the right thigh, both legs and feet.Left foot had separated from the lower leg due to burns on the leg bones.Smell of kerosene was present in the scalp hair and cloth pieces.No other external injury was visible on the body.He opined that the burn injuries were ante mortem in nature and the entire or 100% of the body surface was burnt.In his cross-examination, PW-12 again affirmed that smell of kerosene was present in the scalp hair and cloth pieces, which were sent CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 2 of 30 for chemical analysis.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 2 of 30We have similar assertions by Amit Singh (PW-2), Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), brothers of the deceased and Parkash Sureshta (PW-3), a neighbour.On the question of demand of dowry, we would begin with the testimony of the mother, Rukmani (PW-1).She asserts that her daughter Neelam was harassed to extract more dowry.Within one or two years of their marriage, the appellant Rajiv had asked for Rs.10,000/- and Neelam was physically beaten for the said reason.PW-1 had then given Rs. 10,000/- to her daughter Neelam, who had handed over the money to the appellant Rajiv.Two years after their marriage, Neelam had lodged a complaint with the Dowry Cell.Thereafter, there was a compromise and Neelam had started residing with her in-laws.However, demands for dowry had continued.At the time of marriage of PW-1s son Manoj, the appellant Rajiv had demanded a scooter.Two-three months prior to her death, Neelam had written a letter marked Ex.PW-1/A to her complaining, CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 3 of 30 that her in-laws were demanding Rs.8,000/- for purchase of a plot.The appellant had then spoken to Rukmani (PW-1) on telephone to arrange for money by 12th August, 1966 warning that if the amount was not paid by the said date, he could harm or kill her daughter.Being scared, PW-1 had sent Rs.8,000/- to Neelam through her son Amit (PW-2).With reference to the occurrence on the date in question, Rukmani (PW-1) has deposed that on 13th August, 1996, at about 7-7.30 P.M., her younger son had received a telephone call from Sanjiv (younger brother of the appellant Rajiv) to the effect that the appellant had met with an accident and they should reach SDN Hospital.Her younger son Ankur had, thereupon, gone to Mayur Vihar and learnt that Neelam was burnt.Thus, as per PW-1, wrong information was deliberately communicated on the date of the occurrence.After receiving the said information, Rukmani (PW-1) had proceeded to the matrimonial home of her daughter Neelam at Mayur Vihar and there she came to know that Neelam had died due to burns.Amit Singh (PW-2) had made a complaint at police station, Kalyanpuri and her statement (Ex.In her cross-examination, Rukmani (PW-1) affirmed that at the time of marriage of Neelam, one FDR of Rs.40,000/-, which had matured, was CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 4 of 30 utilised.In addition, her relatives had contributed.PW-1 reiterated that Rs.10,000/- was paid to the appellant Rajiv one year after the marriage.The appellant Rajiv and the deceased Neelam after the compromise had lived together in Bhajanpura and later on, they had shifted to Mayur Vihar.PW-1 has reiterated that on 12th August, 1996, Rajiv had made a telephone call in the morning and threatened that money should be arranged.PW-1 in her cross examination affirmed that Neelam had written 3-4 letters to PW-1 and the last letter was written 10-12 days before her death.PW-1 denied the suggestion that the letters marked Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/C were drafted by them in the handwriting of Neelam and subsequently posted.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 4 of 30Amit Singh (PW-2) has deposed about the dowry demanded after the marriage which included a scooter, TV and Rs.15,000/- in cash.Neelam had given birth to a baby girl and at that time, the appellant had demanded Rs.10,000/- as expenses for bringing her up.Thereafter, CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 5 of 30 Rs.10,000/- were paid to Neelam.PW-2s elder brother Manoj had got married on 2nd June, 1996 and at that time, Rajiv had demanded a scooter.Neelam was working as a receptionist in an X-ray clinic.Rajiv had demanded Rs.10,000/- from them to be paid by 12th August, 1996 and in case, money was not paid, he would decide and act accordingly.The implication being that adverse consequences would follow.Neelam had earlier written letters marked as Ex.PW-1/A, 2./A, 2/B and 2/C, elaborating on the mistreatment and torture suffered by her at the hand of the appellant.Amit Singh (PW-2) identified handwriting and signatures of Neelam on the said letters.PW-2 has testified that on 13th August, 1996 at about 9.30 A.M., he had handed over Rs.8,000/- to Neelam at her house at Mayur Vihar and had then left for work.On the same day at about 8 P.M., PW-2 had learnt by way of a message that his sister had been burnt to death.He had accordingly proceeded to Mayur Vihar.Neelam had died due to burns and police was present.Earlier, post birth of the baby girl, Neelam had seen increased harassment for she used to be beaten up and demand for dowry had intensified.Fed up, Neelam had filed a complaint with the Dowry Cell, and thereafter there was a compromise.However, the relations between Neelam and the appellant CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 6 of 30 Rajiv did not improve and torment continued unabated.In his cross- examination, PW-2 reiterated that at the time of Neelams marriage, they were all working.Regarding money spent on the marriage, his mother knew full facts and they had borrowed money from others for the marriage.Rs.10,000/- was paid to Rajiv after the marriage.He denied the suggestion that letters Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/C had been fabricated by them.In the last week of July or 1st August, 1996, her mother Rukmani (PW-1) had received a telephone call regarding the demand of Rs.10,000/- . PW-2 in his cross examination affirmed that he had paid Rs.8,000/- in the morning of 13th August, 1996 i.e. the date of the occurrence.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 5 of 30CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 6 of 30Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) has identically deposed about the dowry demands and the factum that they had paid Rs.10,000/- after one or two years of marriage.After the birth of the baby girl, the appellant and others used to ask them for expenses for bringing up the child.Continuously harassed, Neelam had made a complaint with the Dowry Cell at Nanak Pura.The appellant had then assured to improve his conduct and the matter was compromised.Soon thereafter, problems re- surfaced and Neelam was forced to take up a private job and the appellant Rajiv used to take away her entire salary.The appellant had demanded CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 7 of 30 Rs.8,000/- for purchase of land and when they could not pay, Rajiv had threatened that if Rs.8,000/- was not paid by 12th August, 1996, he would decide.Earlier, the appellant had demanded a scooter on the occasion of marriage of Manoj, Neelams elder brother.On 13th August, 1996, they had learnt that Neelam had been burnt.Accordingly, PW-4 had proceeded to Mayur Vihar where they found that Neelam had already expired due to burns.Neelam had written letters in her handwriting which are marked as Ex.PW-1/A, 2/A, 2/B and 2/C. On 13th August, 1996, PW-4 had seen some broken pieces of bangles, plastic can, burnt clothes etc. at Neelams residence.He identified the plastic can as Ex.P-1, burnt hair as Ex.P-3 and broken bangles as Ex.In his cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that the marriage was solemnised through an advertisement, which had proclaimed No dowry.PW-4 affirmed that they had arranged for Rs.8,000/- to be paid to the appellant and that Neelam had written 2-3 or 4-5 letters after her marriage.The last letter was received about one and a half month prior to Neelams death.Two days before Neelams death, Rajiv had warned that in case Rs.10,000/- was not paid, he would do whatever he liked.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 7 of 30Parkash Sureshta (PW-3), a neighbour, has stated that he had CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 8 of 30 attended marriage of Neelam with the appellant Rajiv on 23rd June, 1991 and at that time, dowry articles were given by the family of Neelam commensurate with their capacity.After some time, Neelam started complaining that her in-laws would harass her for dowry and money and she used to be beaten up.Once a letter written by Neelam was shown to PW-3 by Rukmani (PW-1).Demand of Rs.8,000/- was made.PW-3 had learnt that Neelam had suffered burns when she had returned to his house on 13th August, 1996 at about 7 or 7.30 P.M. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has reiterated that Neelams mother had shown him a letter, wherein reference to demand of Rs.8,000/- had been made.Neelam had met him, one and a half month prior to her death.Rukmani (PW-1) suspected that her daughter was burnt by Rajiv.Urmilas (PW-5) claim that she had learnt from Neelams mother that a house/flat was available for sale and, therefore, she had made the visit, exposes perplexity, for Urmila (PW-5) has also accepted that she had no prior conversation with Neelam, regarding her visit.Moreover, her statement that she had heard and seen the appellant-Rajiv, Sanjiv and the deceased Neelam were quarrelling and her version to the cause of the quarrel does not inspire confidence for Urmila (PW-5) did not know Rajiv and Sanjiv and had not interacted with them.In her cross- examination, Urmila (PW-5) had claimed that on 13th August, 1996 she had gone to the flat of Neelam in a three wheeler scooter at about 4.30 P.M. and her husband was owner of a house located in Gandhi Nagar.Further, the main door of the house was slightly open when she had reached and that she CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 10 of 30 had returned to home at 5 P.M. On that day, she did not get in touch with the mother of Neelam or inform her about the quarrel (voluntarily claiming that such quarrels were routine in Neelams house).They have spoken about repeated demands of money and payment of Rs.8,000/- on 13th August, 1996 in the morning.We have corroborative and documentary evidence to show and establish demands for dowry.We begin with the testimony of SI Vikaram Singh (PW-13), who in the year 1993 was posted at Nanak Pura, Women Cell.The said complaint was made by Neelam and is in her handwriting.It refers to instances of cruelty and harassment, including dowry.She had filed a list of stridhan items vide Exhibit PW-13/D. Another statement by deceased Neelam, was marked Exhibit PW-13/B. The appellant-Rajivs statement marked Exhibit PW-13/C was also CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 16 of 30 recorded.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 16 of 30Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) have referred to letters written by the deceased marked Exhibits PW-1/A, PW-2/A, PW-2/B and PW-2/C.The contents of the letter are revealing and show the anguish and plight of Neelam.It refers to an earlier visit by one Toni, which had created discord and strife.The deceased had begged and pleaded and that no one should visit to her house, but they could meet her in the shop.She has referred to an altercation a few days earlier and professed that she survived day by day.She would have died at that night, if she had slept.She had requested her mother to send necklace, coconut, colour, one suit, some sweets and 100 gujias to the shop and not at their house, as her in-laws did not like any one from their family visiting them.On the occasion of Tanus mundan, they should arrange for clothes for her, her husband and Tanu.The letter CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 17 of 30 indicates that the deceaseds mother and her relatives were disliked or rather despised, and the deceased did not want them to visit her matrimonial home.Deceased Neelam was afraid and categorical that the letter should not be revealed to any one, for, she would be beaten up (she would suffer broken bones).It complains that Neelams husband was once again demanding dowry as he wanted Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a house.Neelam was being physically abused and threatened that she would be killed and her family members would not be spared.Exhibit PW-2/C dated 30th June, 1996 is on a plain paper, talks of physical abuse, which Neelam was subjected to and that she had been denied medicines.Her liver problem, she feared would aggravate, for want of treatment and medicines.She was being denied her stridhan and gold, silver ornaments and that her husband had threatened that he would get rid of her.Neelam was confused and does not know what to do.The fourth letter dated 31st July, 1996 is an inland letter and records that Neelam was disturbed, victimised and was being constantly pressed to get Rs.8,000/- for purchasing a house.She was warned that if the money was not arranged, Rajiv would ensure that Neelams brothers go to jail on false CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 18 of 30 allegations or otherwise Rajiv himself would go to jail.Rajiv had warned Neelam that he would disfigure her face so that no one would like her.Neelam felt depressed and stressed.She was living a miserable life and if money was not paid, Rajiv would spoil her life and life of her family members.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 18 of 30On reading the aforesaid letters, we find that the letter dated 1 st March, 1993 Exhibit PW-2/B is normal and natural, the contents and narration in the letter reflects the anguish and the suffering which Neelam was undergoing at that time.The manner, language and details recorded indicate that the letter was written to communicate and express her thoughts and her advice to her family members.It reflects her plight and dilemma as she wanted that her marriage should survive, inspite of extremities and harassment at the hands of Rajiv.Letters dated 28th May, 1996 , 30th June, 1996 and even inland letter dated 31st July, 1996 marked Exhibits PWs-2/A, 2/C and 1/A reflect and show that these letters have been written when the relationship between her and Rajiv was collapsing as the reference is only to demand of money, mental harassment and physical abuse.It is apparent that deceased Neelam was suffering and living in gruelling and oppressive conditions.She was being constantly taunted, warned and threatened for money and dowry.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 19 of 30 These letters and the contents thereof reflect and show that the deceased Neelam possibly knew that her relationship with appellant-Rajiv was heading towards an end and a show down.It does appear that the assertions in these three letters may be for the reason that Neelam had felt the need to write as the letters could serve as evidence.We are, however, certain that the letters do disclose the anxiety, intimidation and torment which Neelam had faced.The abuse and harassment had a strong monetary angle with money being demanded.Appellant-Rajiv and deceased Neelam were staying in a rented accommodation and the letters reflect that the money was being demanded as Rajiv wanted to purchase some property.Charan-sparsh to Mummi Ji and pranam to my younger brother-in-law.Your daughter Neelam."The wordings, contents and manner of writing, reveals a conscious, CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 21 of 30 deliberately and concerted effort at the behest of Neelams in-laws to create evidence for future use, for the letter could be used as an admission or confession against Neelam and her family.It virtually acknowledges false insinuations and accepts misconduct by Neelams family.These two letters do not help or support the contention of the appellant- Rajiv, rather they nail him and reflect on his high handedness and the influence and control he had exercised over Neelam.What do you say about it?A. It is correct.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 25 of 30Q. How and in what manner you sustained the injuries? A. When I returned from duty in the evening I saw many public had gathered around my house, which was on the first floor.On my enquiries, some ladies told me that smoke was emitting out of the door of kitchen of my house.Some persons were trying to approach the kitchen through a wooden stairs placed on the back side, with the kitchen.I also tried to climb the said stairs but fell down and sustained the aforesaid injuries."Our attention was also drawn to MLC of the appellant-Rajiv recorded on 13th August, 1996 at 8.10 P.M., at SDN Hospital Shahdara.The MLC records that the patient, i.e., appellant-Rajiv was brought to the hospital by Head Constable Ram Pal of the PCR.Under the heading "Particulars" "all injuries or symptoms", the doctor on duty has recorded "alleged being duped" and it is also mentioned "with history of fall from rail as given by Head Constable Ram Pal".The aforesaid MLC was not proved or marked Exhibit, but as it is a part of the judicial file and referred to by the appellant- Rajiv, we would not like to ignore the said document and the injuries mentioned therein.The MLC certainly proves and establishes that the appellant-Rajiv had suffered injuries.Impugned judgment dated 30th August, 1999, convicts Rajiv under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).By order on sentence dated 31st August, 1999, Rajiv has been sentenced under section 304B IPC to imprisonment for life, fine of Rs.5,000/- and in CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 1 of 30 default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and under section 498A IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.The sentences are to run concurrently and Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would apply.This suggestion to PW-1, exposits that the accused including the present appellant had not disputed that the letters were written by Neelam, but had questioned the motive why the letters were written or were drafted.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 3 of 30CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 8 of 30Prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Urmila (PW-5), but we would rather not rely on the same.Urmila (PW-5) claims that she had visited the residence of the deceased on 13th August, 1996 and had witnessed the quarrel between appellant-Rajiv, brother-in-law Sanjiv and deceased Neelam.Appellant-Sanjiv was reprimanding deceased Neelam as she had brought less money and that she should have arranged for more.Neelam was scared and on PW-5s query, Neelam had replied that the atmosphere in CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 9 of 30 their house was like that.Neelam had requested PW-5 to go away.After about10-12 days, Urmila (PW-5) came to know from Neelams mother that Neelam had died because of burn injuries caused by her husband and in- laws.There are several reasons why we do not think that the factual narration given by Urmila (PW-5) about her visit to the residence of Neelam on 13th August, 1996 is rather far-fetched and improvised.The purpose of visit as disclosed by Urmila (PW-5) was her desire to see a house/flat, which she wanted to purchase.Urmila (PW-5), is a chance witness and the reason given by her for visiting the residence of deceased Neelam on 13th August, 1996 and her version does not appear to be plausible.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 9 of 30CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 10 of 30Even if we erase and ignore the testimony of Urmila (PW-5), there is sufficient evidence and material to implicate and establish, as discussed above and elucidated subsequently, that the appellant-Rajiv is guilty of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC.We would further examine and deal with the factual contentions raised, when we expand and elucidated on the evidence relied by the prosecution.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 17 of 30Handwritten Letter (Exhibit PW-2/A) dated 28th May, 1996 is on a page torn from a diary.The letters therefore corroborate and support the ocular testimonies of Rukmani (PW-1), Amit (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4).CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 19 of 30The letter dated 6th February, 1995 is on an inland letter addressed to father of the appellant- CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 20 of 30 Rajiv.A rough and ready English translation of the said letter would read:-CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 20 of 30"6/2/95 In your service, Respected Papa Ji, Everyone is hale and healthy over here.I received your letter.Its been nearly 3 years since we got married.But, we couldnt receive your blessings.I know that you are angry with us.I know that our marriage was fixed by our elder nandoi Shri.Jaydev Gupta despite you being alive.After the marriage, I came to my matrimonial house at Shahdara where my husband Rajiv ji used to reside.Since then, you did not have visiting terms with my in- laws.A dispute occurred between me and my husband after my brother-in-law and sister-in-law agitated my mausaji Shri.Vijay Kumar during the marriage.They also got registered a false complaint along with an exaggerated list of marriage gifts in the Nanakpura Police Headquarter.My father had expired.My mother too did not have much to give.She herself is dependent on us.Giving jewellery and clothes is a far cry.My matrimonial house did not have any role to play in my separation.I am staying in a rented house with my own savings voluntarily.I am writing this letter since I have come to know of the factum of agitation.I dont have any grudge against you.I feel sad for the fact that you are thinking of staying in an ashram.I want to serve you and obtain your blessings.I will never go back to my paternal home who have wronged me.My welfare is in my matrimonial home only.I am sending this letter by post since I am incapable of coming down to meet you.Neelam has purportedly confessed that she had made a false complaint and submitted an inflated list of gifts.The language and the manner in which the letter is written is not natural, but rather abnormal, reflecting intimidation and compulsion.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 21 of 30Neelam was coerced to accept that she was involved in an extramarital relationship and also that she had made false allegations against the appellant Rajiv.Appellant-Rajiv knew and was aware that there could be litigation and, therefore, had deemed it appropriate to compel and intimidate Neelam to write these letters.It is CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 22 of 30 apparent to us that Neelam conscious that she had been made to write these letters, had deemed it appropriate to write letters dated 28 th May, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/A), 30th June, 1996 (Exhibit PW-2/C) and 31st July, 1996 (Exhibit PW-1/A) to her mother.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 22 of 30One of the contentions raised before us by the appellant is that the letters Exhibit PW-2/A dated 28th May, 1996, Exhibit PW-2/C dated 30th June, 1996 and Exhibit PW-1/A dated 31st July, 1996 should not have been taken on record and read in evidence without confirmation by a handwriting expert.These letters were proved by Rukmani (PW-1), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), who being the mother and brothers of the deceased were acquainted and could recognise Neelams handwriting.Opinion of the handwriting expert was not necessary and required as under section 47 of The Indian Evidence Act,1872, testimony of any person acquainted with the handwriting and signature of the person by whom it is supposed to be written or signed, that the document was or was not written or signed by that person, is a relevant fact.In the present case, Rukmani (PW-1) has stated in her cross that she could identify writing and signatures of her daughter.PW-1 even accepted that the letter Ex.PW1/DA was written by her daughter with her signatures at point A and that Ex.PW1/DB bears CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 23 of 30 the name of Neelam at point B but she could not state whether the letter written by her daughter or not.Rukmani (PW-1) has denied that the letters Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW2/C were "drafted" in the handwriting of Neelam.The suggestion given reflects that the appellant did not dispute that the two letter were in the handwriting of Neelam.What was contested and challenged was the objective and purpose behind writing the letters.We also reject the contention of the appellant relying upon Vipin Jaiswal versus State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 3 SCC 684 that the trial court or the High Court should seek for expert opinion under Section 45 of the Evidence Act or should compare the handwriting and signatures with other admitted handwriting or signatures of the deceased under Section 73 of the Evidence Act. This was not required and necessary, in view of the statements by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4, though we have seen and it is apparent that the letters Exhibit PW-2/A, 2/B, 2/C and 1/A and also letters relied upon by the appellant-Rajiv marked Exhibit PW-1/DA and 1/DB were written by one person.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 23 of 30Learned counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the contents of letter Exhibit 1/DA in which reference is made to one Harish and admission of the Neelam that she was in a relationship with him."Q. It is in evidence against you that you were medically examined on 13.8.96 at about 8.10 P.M. and following injuries were found on your person:- (1) Abrasion 2x2 cm size, two in number on anterior aspect of left knee.(2) Abrasion with small contusion 1x1 cm right knee.(3) Multiple abrasion dorsen of right foot.(4) Bleeding from nail bed of left foot with loosening of nail.(5) Complaining of pain of back of neck fracture? Cervical spine (6) Lacerated wound 1x2 cm in size in lower lip.CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 26 of 30 Appellant-Rajiv, however claims that he had reached his residence after work and on seeing smoke emitting from the door of the kitchen, he had tried to reach his flat on the first floor, by climbing the wooden ladder placed on the back side.He fell down and had sustained injuries.This plea or contention was not put to any of the police witnesses and Rukmani (PW-CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 26 of 301), Amit Singh (PW-2) and Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4), who had visited the premises after the occurrence.In fact, Amit Singh (PW-2), Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) and Rukmani (PW-1) have deposed that a call had been received from Sanjiv that appellant-Rajiv had met with an accident and was being taken to the hospital at about 7 to 7.30 P.M. ASI Shobrang Singh (PW-14) to whom DD No. 22A dated 13th August, 1996 was marked for investigation had visited the house No. 56, Pocket A-2, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III and he has deposed that the dead body of the Neelam was found in the kitchen.In the first room of the house, he had noticed broken pieces of bangles, which were gathered from the spot.One green colour plastic can with some kerosene, match box containing some match sticks, burnt clothes and hair, were seized vide Exhibit PW-6/A. Pramod Kumar Aggarwal (PW-4) was present at the spot at that time.Photographs were taken.PW-14 had prepared the site plan marked Exhibit CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 27 of 30 PW-14/B, which indicates the place where dead body of Neelam was found in the kitchen, which was on the right side of the main door.The site plan also indicates the place where bangles were found, which was next to the main entrance door.PW-14 has in his deposition testified that the broken pieces of bangles were lying in the first room of the house after the entry gate.None of the witnesses have deposed or stated that they had to break open the entry door or the flat was locked.The witnesses were not cross-examined or suggested that the appellant had tried to climb up from a wooden ladder, on the back side of the flat.The said story is clearly concocted and a sham.On the other hand, the injuries suffered indicate that there was a scuffle and physical violence before the occurrence took place.The appeal is accordingly dismissed.The appellant will surrender within a period of three weeks from today to undergo remaining sentence.In case the appellant does not surrender within the said period, steps in accordance with law will be taken.Copy of this judgment will be sent to the trial court for compliance.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH KUMAR) JUDGE AUGUST 10th, 2015 NA/VKR CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 30 of 30CRL.A. 549/1999 Page 30 of 30
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,208 |
The petitioner was also said to have taken a different attitude and refused to marry her.1. Ravinchandran (petitioner) is the accused in C.C. No. 471 of 1986 on the file of Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sirkali.The succinct facts leading to the filing of the petition are :- Mariyammal, respondent herein, is unmarried.The respondent is living with her parents at Kattunaicken street, Vaitheeswarnkoil.Her father is owing a store dealing with articles required for the purpose of pooja to deities.Opposite to the shop, one Ravinchandran, the petitioner/accused is also owning - a shop transacting the same business.The respondent used to assist her brother in the shop.In that process, she came into contact with the petitioner and in due course of time, a bondage of love got solemnised between them.They were moving like that for about 3 years.It is alleged that the petitioner made persistent efforts to enjoy her blissful company, even prior to their marriage.She appeared to have been evading such request all along.On 18-1-1985 at about 9.00 a.m. the petitioner was said to have made a representation, in the shape of promise that he would marry her in due course and made her accept his request of sharing bed together, at the garden situate behind Samiyar Madam.Only believing on such representation, she is said to have complied with his request.Consequently, she got conceived and the matter became known to one and all.A panchayat was said to have been convened to amicably settle the dispute between them.Thereafter, she lodged a complaint before the police.That was after all a futfile exercise.Consequently; she preferred a complaint before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Sirkali, which was taken on file in the aforesaid Calendar Case, against the petitioner/accused for the alleged offence under S. 417, I.P.C.The averments in the complaint, do prima facie, point out false representation said to have been made by the petitioner, in the sense of himself making a promise to marry her, and believing such a promise, the respondent succumbed to his carnal desire, in the sense of sharing her bed with him at his request.
|
['Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,208,003 |
1 In the High Court At Calcutta Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Appellate Side.The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas.and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Indrajit Chatterjee CRM No.5436 of 2014 Rukumuddin MollaThe State of West Bengal Mr. Kallol Kumar Basu Mr. Debapriya Samanta ... for the petitioner.apprehending arrest in connection with Deganga P.S.Case No.759 of 2013 dated December 20,2013 under ss. 498A/307/34/406 IPC ( s.302 IPC added subsequently) and ss.3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act is seeking bail under s.438 CrPC.Advocate for the petitioner has submitted as follows.The petitioner is the husband of the deceased.This court has granted anticipatory bail to three co-accused in the case.Hence the petitioner is entitled to equality benefit.The deceased naming in her first dying declaration her in-laws who battered her and gave her kerosene for setting her ablaze, stated in her second dying declaration that her in-laws 2 battering her doused her in kerosene and set her ablaze.She, however, said that at the time of the incident the petitioner, who used to torture and would never protest against tortures inflicted by her in-laws, was not present.The statement of the six-year-old girl is very clear that the petitioner and the deceased's other in-laws specifically named battered the deceased, doused her in kerosene and set her ablaze.This court granted anticipatory bail to three co-accused- Kutubuddin Molla, Rojina Bibi alias Laily & Rongila Bibi alias Nazima Bibi.It is to be noted that the three co-accused who were granted anticipatory bail were specifically named by the girl in her s.164 statement.The order of this court dated March 14,2014 in CRM No.1942 of 2014 does not reveal whether attention of the court was drawn to the s.164 statement.The three co-accused were granted anticipatory bail on the grounds that their custodial interrogation was not necessary.After examining the facts and circumstances of the case, the two dying declarations and the s.164 statement, we are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail.The accusations of tortures and non-protest against tortures inflicted by the other accused are supported by the dying declarations and the statement.For these reasons, we dismiss the CRM.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,214,010 |
2. Facts narrated in brief, necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows:Accused 1 and 2 are close friends and the first accused developed acquaintance with Roja, aged about 14 years, who is the daughter of PWs.1 and 4, under the pretext of loving her.PW1 is eking out his livelihood as a painter and PW4 is eking out her livelihood as a construction worker and after finishing their respective work, they came back to their house at 2.10 p.m. on 21.04.2007 to have lunch along with their daughter Roja and thereafter, they went out for their work.At about 4.30 p.m. on 21.04.2007, PWs.1 and 4, heard the alarm raised by public and they went near a pond and saw the body of their daughter/deceased.Immediately, the persons present there contacted Puzhal Police Station through telephone and police personnel attached to the said police station came to the spot.Thereafter, PW1 went to the police station and lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 narrating the above facts and stated that a person put the stone on the head of his daughter and murdered her and he is a known person and prays for appropriate action.PW18, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Puzhal Police Station, on receipt of Ex.P1/complaint given by PW1, had registered a case in Crime No.205/2007 for the offences under Section 302 IPC at 5.30 p.m. Ex.PW19, on receipt of F.I.R., commenced the investigation and went to the scene of occurrence at 18.00 hours and in the presence of PW8 and another, prepared Observation Mahazar, marked as Ex.P6 and Rough Sketch, marked as Ex.PW18 recorded the statement of PW8 and another and in the presence of Panchayatdars, prepared the Inquest Report, marked as Ex.PW19, after obtaining necessary permission, sent the body for postmortem through PW16, Head constable at the Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) The accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.220/2007 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge/FTC, Tiruvallur are the appellants and they were charged for the commission of offences under Sections 376(g) r/w.Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC.The trial Court, vide judgment dated 08.10.2009, has convicted both of them for the offence under Section 376(g) IPC and sentenced them to undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and convicted them for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.PW3 was the Assistant Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Stanley Government Hospital, Chennai, who, on receipt of the body, commenced the postmortem at about 11.45 p.m. on 21.04.2007 and noted the following features: External injuries:1)Brown irregular abrasions:a)Horizontal 1 x 0.1 c.m.on the front of middle third of right leg.b)Vertically oblique 1.7 x 0.1 c.m. on the back on loqwe part of upper third of left leg.c)Vertically oblique 1.7 x 0.1 c.m. on the outer aspect of upper third of left leg.d)1 x 0.5 c.m.on the back of right wrist.e)2 x 0.6 c.m.on the front of left below.f)2 x 1 8-0.5 cm.on the lower part of centre of centre of nect 4.5 cm above the suprasternal notch.right laternal to the midline.on the upper part of the right side of the nect 2.c.m.right lateral to the midline.on the upper part of right side neck.Let lkateral to the middline.on the upper part of left side of the neck, 2.c.m.left lateral to the midline.c.m. left lateral to the midline.x 1.4-0.5 cm on the lower part of right cheekx 6-1.5 cm on the right cheek and the outer half of the upper & lower right eyelids.x 1-0.5 on the back of right shoulderon the lower part of back of right shoulderq)13.x.2-05 cm on the right side of the upper part of the neck and the adjoining right mastold region of the scalp.r)2 x 1.8-0.5 cm on the upper part of right ear lobe.cm on the outer aspect of middle third of right side of the back.cm on the upper part of back of left shoulder.cm on the upper part of left scapular region of the backcm on the middle part of right cheek, 5.c.m.in region front of the lower end of right ear lobe.on the outer third of right upper eyelid.cm on the outer end of right side of the upper lip.Dark red diffuse brusing of the upper and lower lids of right eye.c.m. above the upper end of right ear lobe.On reflection of scalp.Dark red scalp deep diffuse brusing on the right fronto tempara parietal regions of the scalp dark red diffuse brusing of the right and left temporial muscles.12 c.m. oblique fissured fracture on the anterior and upper part of left temporal bone and the outer part of temporo parietal regions of the left parietal bone, on opening the calvarium thin film of dark red extradural haemorrhage on the left cerebral hemisphere of the brain, thin flim of dark red subbural haemorrhage over both the cerabral and the cerebral hemisphere 11 c.m. oblique fissured fracture on the floor of the left antarior cranial fossa, pituitary fossa and the right middle cranial fossa.On dissection of the neck 8 x 1.5-5 x 0.5 x 0.5-02 cm vertically oblique dark red bruising on the subcutaneous soft tissues of the neck overlying the right stemo cliedo mastold muscle is pale 9x2-1x0.05-0.3 cm dark red bruising on the subcutaneous soft tissues on the left side of the neck overlying the outer part of the left sterno cleido Mastoid muscle.On dissection, underlying Sterno Cleido Mastoid muscle is pale.On further dissection Dark red diffuse bruising of the upper part of the right and left sterno thyroid muscles, left lobe of thyroid gland and the lower part of the right lobe of the thyroid gland and the lower part of the right lobe of the thyroid gland; Heart Normal in size c/s All chambers empty Valves, Normal coronaries patent Lungs.Normal in size, C/s congested Larny x & Trachea.Hyod Bone: Intact.Pale Both ovaries.Normal in size, C/s Normal Pelvis & Spinal Column intact.Genmitia, No injuries on the external parts of the genitallia, Hymen.grayish white discharge was found on the vaginal orifice.Vaginal swab, vaginal smear and vaginal wash were sent for forensic analysis.PW3, after conclusion of the postmortem, opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries.PW19, continued with the investigation and recorded the statements of PWs.1, 6,7, 10, 11, 12 and 14 and also seized the blood stained cloth wore by the deceased, marked as M.Os.5 and 6 and sent them for chemical analysis.PW19 also sent the Vaginal swab, Vaginal swear and Vaginal wash for forensic analysis to PW2 to examine the semen and PW2 sent a report under Ex.P2 opining that no semen was detected.PW19 effected arrest of both accused at 16.00 hours on 26.04.2007 in the presence of PW13 and others.Both the accused voluntarily gave confession statements, which were recorded in the presence of independent witnesses.As per the admissible portion of the confession of the first accused, PW19 recovered blood stained light blue colour jeans pant/M.O.8, under Mahazar Ex.P10 and on the admissible portion of the confession statement of the second accused, PW19 recovered blood stained jeans pant/M.O.9, under Mahazar Ex.P11 and thereafter prepared Alteration Report and submitted the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate and also sent both the accused for judicial custody.PW13 also made arrangements to examine the accused and PW17, after examining both the accused, issued certificates regarding sexual offences, marked as Exs.P12 to P15, stating that there is nothing to suggest that both the accused are impotent and their age is around 19 years.PW2, who examined the blood stained cloths of the accused, sent a report under Ex.PW19 also examined PWs.2 and 3 and after obtaining reports under Exs.P19 to P23 and on completion of investigation, filed final report/charge sheet, charge sheeting the accused under Sections 376(g) IPC r/w. 302 r/w.The committal Court having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, has committed the same to the Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, which in-turn made over to the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Thiruvallur, who took it on file in S.C.No.220/2007 and on appearance of the accused, framed charges under Sections 376(g) r/w. 302 r/w.34 IPC and questioned them and all the accused pleaded guilty to the charges framed against them.The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, had examined PWs.1 to 19 and marked Exs.All the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against them in the evidence rendered by the prosecution and they denied it as false.No evidence was let in or documentary evidence was marked on behalf of the accused.The trial Court, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence and other materials, has found both the accused guilty in respect of charges framed against them and sentenced them as stated above and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.(a) The first accused had close acquaintance with the deceased, namely Roja, on the pretext of love.(b) The second accused, being related to the family of the deceased, is also the close friend of the first accused.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that except the testimonies of PWs.9 to 12 regarding Last Seen Theory, no other evidence has been adduced by the prosecution and the prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate their case in the form of any other tenable evidence as to the love affair between the first accused and the deceased and the alleged promise made by the first accused to permit his friend/second accused to have physical relationship with the deceased.Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that PW1 himself has spoken about the accused 1 and 2, in his evidence, as both of them used to come to his house and also identified both of them in the open Court and he was very categorical that both of them raped his daughter and murdered her, which was amply corroborated by the testimony of PW4, mother of the deceased.Moreover, the scientific evidence in the form of Biological Report, Postmortem Certificate and Medical Examination Reports of the accused 1 and 2 and their age certificates coupled with Serological reports have confirmed the fact that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence and the accused 1 and 2 alone are responsible for committing the heinous crime of murder and the trial Court, on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, has rightly reached the conclusion to convict and sentence them and hence, prays for dismissal of this appeal.This Court paid it's best attention and anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also perused the oral and documentary evidence as well as the original documents.The following questions arises for consideration:(1) Whether the prosecution has proved the commission of the offences on the part of the accused under Sections 376(g) r/w.302 r/w. 34 IPC.PW1 is the father of the deceased and he lodged a complaint under Ex.P1 to PW18, who registered the F.I.R under Ex.The contents of Ex.P1 read that he and PW4 begot five children, of which four are male and one female, namely Roja, aged about 14 years and she did not go to school and many male persons residing in that area used to converse with her freely.PW1 would further state that on 21.04.2007, in connection with his occupation, he went out and during lunch hours, he came back and took his food provided by her daughter and thereafter, went back to job and at 14.45 p.m., he heard about the demise of his daughter and went to the spot and found that somebody put stone on her head and committed murder and it would have been committed by known persons.PW1 in the chief examination has deposed that both the accused used to come to his house frequently and also identified them before the Court and his daughter will not venture out with anybody unless they are known to them and both the accused are known to his daughter and both of them came to his house, made false promise and cheated her and raped her and murdered her.In the cross examination, PW1 would depose that he is an illiterate and Ex.P2 was not written by him and would submit that in Ex.P1, names of the accused have not been given.In the cross examination done on behalf of the second accused, PW1 deposed that he has informed over telephone about the incident at about 4.45 p.m. on 21.04.2007 and at about 5.15 p.m. police came to the spot and they were present in the scene of occurrence within 2 hours and thereafter, he went to the police station and stayed in the police station for one day and returned on the next day.He would further depose that his daughter has no friends.PW4, mother of the deceased, would depose that he is a construction worker and knows both the accused and also identified them and during investigation, she told the police that both the accused used to come to her house and had conversation with her daughter and as and when her daughter goes outside, they used to follow them and her daughter will not venture out with any person unless she is having acquaintance or knows them.In the cross examination, PW4 deposed that on the date of occurrence, her husband directly went to the police station and after lodging a complaint, came back about 6.30 p.m. Admittedly in Ex.P1/complaint, PW1 did not reveal the names of the accused, but has stated that the murder was committed by a known person, however, in the chief examination made improvements as pointed out above.In the cross examination, PW1 has deposed that he talked to the police through telephone on 04.45 p.m. on 21.04.2007 and at about 5.15 p.m. police came and went to the scene of occurrence and they were present for about 2 hours and thereafter, he went to the police station and was in the police station for one day and returned on the next day.PW18 was the Sub-Inspector of Police at the Puzhal Police Station at the relevant point of time and according to him, at about 5.30 p.m. on 21.04.2007, PW1 has lodged a written complaint, which was marked as Ex.P1 and in the cross examination, deposed that he was not aware as to the persons who has written Ex.P1 and he was waiting for = an hour in the police station and after registration of the F.I.R., he went out.Admittedly PW1 is an illiterate and it is not clear as to the person who has prepared Ex.P1/complaint.PW19/Investigating Officer would depose that after receipt of F.I.R, he went to the spot at about 18.00 hours and commenced the investigation.PW1 made improvements from that of the complaint/Ex.P1 by naming two persons as the accused who committed the murder and that apart, prior to the lodging of the complaint, already informed over telephone to the police and the fate of the said complaint which was made at the earliest point of time even prior to Ex.P1 is not made known to the prosecution.PW5 would depose that one week prior to the occurrence, both the accused had followed the deceased and teased her.In the cross examination, PW5 would state that in his Company, he has signed the said statement and on 22.04.2007, he was summoned to the police station and he was present there for about one hour and he has also subscribed his signature.It is pertinent to point out at this juncture that even according to the prosecution, the first accused was having close acquaintance with the deceased on the pretext of love affair and the second accused is the relative of the deceased.Therefore, PW5's testimony that both of them had followed her has not lead to the presumption that they have decided to rape and murder her.PWs.6 and 7 are the younger sisters of PW1 and according to PW6, after finishing her construction work, she came back to her house at about 4.00 p.m. on 21.04.2007 and he saw the second accused coming back to his house wearing black colour shirt and jeans pant and thereafter, he changed his cloths and went away and some time thereafter, he became aware that his younger sister's daughter was murdered.Merely because the second accused came back and changed his cloth and the absence of any blood stains etc., in no way supports the case of the prosecution as to the acts of rape and murder.PW6 would depose that both the accused regularly used to follow the deceased and both of them cheated her and murdered her.In the cross examination, he would admit that he did not state during the course of investigation that the first accused raped and murdered his brother's daughter and so also teasing her and admitted that the second accused is also related to him.This Court, while discussing the evidence of PW5, has held that merely because both the accused followed the deceased would not lead to the presumption that both of them had decided to do away with the life of the deceased after raping her.Since PWs.6 and 7 had deposed on similar lines coupled with the improvements made during the course of oral evidence, it is not safe to rely on their evidence.The prosecution had examined PWs.9, 10, 11 and 12 to speak about the fact that the first accused and the deceased/Roja were conversing with each other near a lake and the second accused was standing at some distance.The chemical analysis done on the cloth of the deceased did not revel the presence of Semen and so also the report of PW2 under Exs.Even PW3, who conducted autopsy and issued Ex.P4/postmortem certificate, did not specifically state as to the rape of the deceased prior to her murder and thus the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 376(g) against both the accused.It is the version of the witnesses who spoke about the Last Seen Theory that they loaded the earth in the bullock cart and unloaded the same and while doing so, they have seen the first accused conversing with the deceased.PWs.9 and 10, during investigation, did not say anything about loading of the earth and did not see the place in which earth was unloaded and also number of loads transported by them and would further admit that all the slum dwellers are related to the deceased.In the light of the said admission, the presence of PWs.9 and 10 near the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and therefore, their testimonies cannot be relied upon to substantiate the Last Seen Theory projected by the prosecution.Insofar as PW11 is concerned, he would depose that the accused 1 and 2 were conversing with the deceased near her house and sometime thereafter, the second accused went away and used to paint the barricades used by police.PW12 would depose that he saw the second accused proceeding towards the lake with the company of the deceased and he is also related to the deceased.It is also the case of the prosecution that the first accused had acquaintance with the deceased on the pretext of loving her and used to have physical relationship and he promised the second accused that he can also have physical relationship with her and after having physical relationship, the first accused put a stone on her head and murdered.The place in which the murder was committed is also said to have been on the higher side and admittedly there was no eye witness to the said occurrence.This Court, in the earlier paragraphs, has held that there is absolutely no evidence as to the commission of offence under Section 376(g) IPC as the scientific evidence did not support the case of the prosecution, as it was a case of rape and then murder and since the deceased stated that she would reveal the same in public, she was murdered.In the considered opinion of the Court, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the motive for the commission of the offences.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,220,774 |
-: 1 :- Misc.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH; BENCH AT INDORE Misc.(Rakesh s/o Revsingh v/s State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated : 19.08.2019 :-Shri Nilesh Dave, learned counsel for the applicant - Rakesh.Shri Yogesh Kumar Gupta, learned Public Prosecutor for the Non-applicant/State.Submissions were made on this first application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking bail in connection with Crime No.692/2019 registered at Police Station Jhabua for the offence punishable under Section 34 (2) of the M. P. Excise Act.As per prosecution case, 60 bulk liters of country made liquor has been recovered from the illegal possession of the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the offence.The offence is triable by Judicial Magistrate.The investigation is over and charge-sheet has been filed.The criminal antecedents of the applicant were called in which only one case under Section 379 of IPC is registered against the applicant which is also triable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class.The conclusion of trial would be likely to take time, hence prayed for release of the applicant on bail.Learned counsel for the State was also heard.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the quantity of the contraband alleged to have been recovered from the applicant, but without commenting-: 2 :- Misc.on the merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant is allowed.The applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000-00 [Fifty Thousand Rupees] with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for his regular appearance before the Trial Court during trial with a condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during trial and shall also abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.[ Shailendra Shukla ] JUDGE (AKS) Anil Digitally signed by Anil Kumar Sharma DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench Indore, Kumar postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=753b65d225a9746e99a7 5a441cdc964aa7a158d438793e7f3 Sharma 2467b355745f3ae, cn=Anil Kumar Sharma Date: 2019.08.19 18:41:33 +05'30'
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,128,330 |
In view of the guidelines laid down by this Court, the urgent bail applications have been directed to be heard through Video Conferencing.HeardSriGhan Shyam,counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A through Video Conferencing.Since the application has been filed online.The applicants shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.The applicants shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.In case the applicants has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court their bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.
|
['Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,130,999 |
Heard finally.This is the first application filed by applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 9/09/2014 in connection with Crime No. 74/2014 registered at P.S. Anuppur, District Anuppur for the offence punishable under sections 294, 323, 506-B, 307/34 of IPC, sections 3 (1) 10, 3(2)(5) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and section 25/27 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.As per prosecution, it is alleged that co-accused Nirbhay Sahu made fire on the spot.The only allegation against this applicant is that he was also accompanied the other co-accused persons.Charge sheet has already been filed and trial would take considerable time to dispose of finally therefore, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned counsel for the State opposes the application.Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that applicant shall be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand only) with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of committal Court/trial Court for securing his presence before the said Court on all the dates of hearing fixed in this regard during trial.Certified copy as per rules.(G.S. Solanki) Judge navin
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,134,202 |
Tiwari have been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A & 372 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short) and respondent nos. 4 Ashok Kumar and respondent no. 5 Rajababu Shivhare have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC and respondent no.2 Uttam Shrivastava has been acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 363, 366-A, 372 & 376(2)(g) of the IPC.Prosecution case, in brief, is that respondents Rekha, Usha Tiwari and Uttam, in the month of February, 2010 kidnapped the prosecutrix and for the purpose of prostitution gave her on hire whereas Rajababu, Ashok Kumar and Uttam Shrivastava subjected the prosecutrix to rape one after other.Prosecutrix had submitted an application before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Chhatarpur on which investigation was conducted .After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.Learned Government Advocate submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without proper appreciation of evidence on record and the same deserved to be interfered with.P/5), lodged by her.There were material contradictions in her court statement and police statement.Premlal Barman (PW4), father of the prosecutrix, deposed that he had received the call of the prosecutrix, who had informed him that she was at Chhatarpur and on going to Chhatarpur, he had asked the prosecutrix to return with him, who in turn had denied.Premlal was declared hostile by the prosecution.Dr. Meena Namdeo (PW9), who had examined the prosecutrix and prepared the report (Ex.P/12), did not notice any injury on her private parts and opined that prosecutrix was habitual of sexual intercourse.It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perverse or palpably unsustainable.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,641,345 |
Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 11.4.1998, MahendraVishwasrao Bhatge (PW1), Prashant (deceased) and Uttam Kumar had theirdinner at Maruti Hotel in Laxminpuri.After their dinner, they returned toAzad Chowk.PW -1 and deceased sat on the steps in front of one shop styledas "Shanti Plywood".Meanwhile, Uttam left the spot.Vijay Bapusaheb Piste(PW2) and Bandu @ Vijay Dynandeo Gata (PW3) were sitting inside of onecement godown nearby.Meanwhile, Jagdish Prabhakar Babar (A1), KishoreEknath Nikam (A2) and Arun Hulswar (A3) came from the side of GhateHospital.A1 was on scooter whereas A2 and A3 were on motorcycle.They wereproceeding towards Bindu Chowk.When they saw the deceased and PW1 -complainant sitting on the steps of `Shanti Plywood' they came back towardsthem and A1 gave a call to the deceased asking to come near him.They had a discussion among themselves and thereafter thediscussion turned into exchange of hot words and they started to giveabuses to each other.PW1 tried to separate the quarrel and persuaded notto quarrel with the deceased.A1 tookout a knife from the side of his waist and rushed towards deceased to givehim a blow of the same.To avoid such fatal mishap PW2 and PW3 rescued thedeceased from the attack of the A1 and they could succeed in pushing thedeceased from that place.Then the PW1 rushed to the godown to get somehelp but he found none.He took an electric tube and a piece of bamboo fromthe godown.He came out with the electric tube and piece of bamboo from thegodown.Meanwhile, he found that the quarrel has shifted before the AudiPan Shop.PW1 complainant was about to reach near A1, A1 gave a knife blowin the abdomen of the deceased and A2 and A3 were standing on the spot.When other witnesses tried to intervene A2 took out knife and threatenedthat they should keep away and not to interfere in the incident.Meanwhile,deceased fell down on the ground.PW1 immediately brought rickshaw fromBindu Chowk.Meanwhile, A1 gave a blow of knife in the abdomen of thedeceased and on the other parts of the body.Meanwhile PW2 sought help and on his call one Suryavanshi also cameon the spot.Rickshaw was brought by the PW1- complainant.Thereafter allthe three accused persons ran away from the spot.The deceased was broughtto the C.P.R. Hospital.He was attended by PW 14 - Dr. Nalavade but thedeceased succumbed to the injuries.JUDGMENTA.K. MATHUR, J.Leave granted.This appeal is directed against an order passed by theDivision Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal AppealNo. 727 of 1999 whereby the High Court has confirmed the conviction andsentence of the accused appellant under Section 302 read with 34 of IndianPenal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life each and topay a fine of Rs. 5,0007 each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment -for six months each.He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor three months each and to pay fine of Rs. 5007 each, in default tosuffer simple imprisonment for six months under Sections 504 and 562 readwith 34 of Indian Penal Code.Aggrieved against the order passed by theBombay High Court this appeal was filed.PW1 - complainant a!so gave ablow of electric tube on the head of A1 and also with bamboo on his back.A1 also received injury on his head and other parts of the body.Meanwhile,PW 3 also tried to snatch the knife from A2 who had threatened him not torescue the deceased.He also sustained injury on the middle finger of thehand.Thereafter the report was sent to thepolice.Post mortem of the dead body was done.The case was registeredagainst the accused.The accused were arrested and knives were recoveredfrom their possession.Police after completion of the investigation filedthe challan against the three accused persons.Prosecution produced necessary evidence and the learned Sessions Judgeafter due trial found the accused A1 and A2 guilty of offence punishableunder Sections 302, 504, 562 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code andsentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life as aforesaid.However, thelearned Sessions Judge acquitted A3 - Arun Vilas Hulaswar because he wassimply present on the spot and wss not found guilty.The learned SessionsJudge held that mere presence of this accused is not sufficient to hold himguilty under Sections 302, 504, 506(2) read with 34 I PC.Against this order the appeal .was preferred before the Hon'ble High Court.The learned Division Bench of the Bombay High Court confirmed theconviction and sentence of both the accused persons aforementioned.Hence,the present appeal by A2 only.Learned senior counsel for the appellant submitted that in the present caseSection 302 read with 34 IPC is not attracted so as to hold accusedappellant guilty.Learned senior counsel has assailed the judgment of the Bombay High Courtand took us to the evidence and tried to persuade us that in the presentsituation Section 34 cannot be invoked so as to convict the appellant.Learned counsel submitted that the appellant was only standing and tried toprevent the other persons not to intervene in the matter.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.Weneed not to repeat the detail factual aspect in the matter because both thecourts below have found that the incident did take place and the accusedappellant tried to stop the other witnesses to save the deceased from beingattacked by A1- Jagdish.In the present case as per the statements of PWs1, 2 and 3 it is more than evident that all the three accused were going onscooter and motorcycle when they saw deceased - Parshant and PW1 -complainant sitting at the steps of shop `Shanti Plywood' they came backand A1 - Jagdish called the deceased and then certain exchange of hot wordstook place and ultimately converted into a serious attack by A1 - Jagdishwith the knife on the deceased.Statements of PWs 1, 2 and 3 squarely hold A1 -Jagdish responsible for causing knife blows to -the deceased.But when theaccused appellant and A3 were both present on the spot and when PW 3 triedto intervene in the matter he was prevented and sustained injuries with theknife.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 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.
|
1,641,366 |
JUDGMENT Fazl Ali, J.The only question to be decided in this appeal relates to the sentence imposed on the appellant, and it arises in the following manner.On the whole, however, we are inclined to think that the High Court should not have passed the order radically changing the mode of punishment and seriously affecting the accused, without giving him an opportunity to show cause against it.There is a note dated 21-8-1951, in the Order sheet of the High Court, to the following effect:"Parties request for time to argue on the point of punishment.Put up tomorrow."It appears that before the High Court, two main questions arose for consideration.They were:Presumably, the adjournment was asked for to argue the Second question.
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,139,426 |
whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Nandakumar @ Nanda, S/o.However, he submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.4.We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail [a] by this Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 for the offence under sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC in Cr.No.301/2009 on the file of K.K.Nagar Police Station; and [b] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 for the offence u/s.341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.1960/2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station respectively.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,143,408 |
Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla, Advocate, and Sri Anand Pati Tiwari, Advocate, for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant - Avnish with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No. - 47 of 2020, under Section - 420 I.P.C., Section 52 of the Food Safety Act and Section 207 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Police Station - Bidhuna, District - Auraiya, during pendency of trial.From perusal of the bail application and affidavit filed in support thereof, it appears, at present:The order reads thus:"Looking to impediments in arranging sureties because of lockdown, while invoking powers under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, we deem it appropriate to order that all the accused-applicants whose bail applications came to be allowed on or after 15th March, 2020 but have not been released due to non-availability of sureties as a consequence to lockdown may be released on executing personal bond as ordered by the Court or to the satisfaction of the jail authorities where such accused is imprisoned, provided the accused-applicants undertakes to furnish required sureties within a period of one month from the date of his/her actual release."Order Date :- 8.6.2020 Prakhar
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,145,352 |
Having considered the materials on record and keeping in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the submission relating to false implication, we are of the opinion custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not necessary, however, their movements require to be restricted in order to instill confidence in the mind of the victim.Accordingly, we direct in the event of arrest the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only), with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer and subject to the conditions as laid down under Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the petitioners shall not enter the jurisdiction of Khanakul Police Station until further orders except for the purpose of investigation and attending Court proceedings and shall provide the address to the Court below as well to the investigation officer where he shall be presently residing and shall report to the officer in charge of the Police Station within whose jurisdiction they shall reside once in a week until further orders and shall appear before the Court below and pray for regular bail within four weeks from date.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, allowed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,150,845 |
He has been Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 23/01/2019 23:17:57 2 CRA-9867-2018 falsely implicated in the case.The trial will take time to conclude.There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution witness.C. C. as per rules.(MOHD.FAHIM ANWAR) JUDGE kkc Digitally signed by KRISHAN KUMAR CHOUKSEY Date: 23/01/2019 23:17:57Case diary perused.This is an appeal filed under Section 14-A (1) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 for grant of bail to the appellant, as he has been arrested in connection with Crime No.312/2018, registered at Police Station Badi District Raisen for commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n) of IPC and Sections 3(2)(v) & 3(1)(w) of Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 3, 4, 5 & 6 of POCSO Act.This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.12.2018 passed by the Special Judge, Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Raisen.Prosecution story in short is that in the intervening night of 14-15th September, 2018 the prosecutrix aged about seventeen years and six months was disappeared from her parental house.The report of the incident has been lodged by her mother Gangabai on the next day of the incident.Learned counsel for the respondent/ State opposes the submission made on behalf of the appellant and prayed for dismissal of this appeal.On perusing the case, it seems that prosecutrix was technically minor on the date of the incident but on going through her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr. P. C. shows to a little extent reflects the presence of element of her consent.Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it is a fit case for grant of bail, hence, without commenting on merits, this appeal is allowed and order passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside.I t is directed that the appellant shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) along with one solvent surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court to appear before the court on the dates given by the concerned Court.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,151,199 |
Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.10,000/- with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) 3 (Amitabha Chatterjee, J.)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,152,455 |
The petitioners are accused in S.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge and the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Salem.They stood charged for the offences under Sections 147, 307 r/w.149 IPC.The trial Court, by judgment dated 12.10.2012, convicted the petitioners/accused under Section 147 IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, each in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each and they were also convicted under Section 307 r/w.149 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each.Challenging the same, the present revision has been filed.Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the matter has been settled between the parties and the defacto complainant/injured witness P.W.2, is not willing to continue the case and he has also filed a petition to compound the offence.Today, both the petitioners/accused and injured witness P.W.2, are present before this Court along with their respective counsels.When this Court enquired, the injured witness P.W.2 is submitted that he is willing to compound the offence, as they have settled the matter among themselves.Even though the offence under Section 324 IPC is non-compoundable offence, since both the parties belong to same village and also related, they have also settled the dispute between themselves and wants to live peacefully without any further dispute, the settlement will bring harmony between them and will improve their future relationship, I am inclined to compound the offence.In the above circumstances, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioners by the Courts below is set aside and the offences under Sections 147 and 324 IPC are compounded.With the above observations, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.M.P.No.6574 of 2017 is ordered accordingly.25.04.2017mrpIndex : yes /noInternet : yes/noSpeaking order/Non-speaking orderToThe I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.The learned Assistant Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.M.P.No.6574 of 2014 16.05.2017http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
164,153,837 |
"You have submitted your reply vide letter dated 25.01.2017 in response to the said show cause notice.Your reply has been considered and keeping in view all facts and circumstances in the matter, it is observed that there is no merit in your contentions and therefore it is decided to forfeit full amount of gratuity under Section 4(6)(b) of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972."LPA 291/2018 & CM APPL.The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 9th March 2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the W.P.(C) 2156/2018 whereby the Appellant sought to challenge the order No. ZO:ND:ZVD:17 dated 30th July 2016 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the Bank of LPA 291/2018 Page 1 of 12 Baroda (respondent-Bank) imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement on the Appellant consequent to the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer.LPA 291/2018 Page 1 of 12The inquiry against the Appellant was for as many as seven charges.Two consequential actions followed."A show cause notice dated 07.12.2016 was served on you for forfeiture of full amount of gratuity payable to you."LPA 291/2018 Page 3 of 12
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,032,902 |
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-Sl.Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1.Krishnapuram Police Station Crime No.141 of 20133792.Indur Police StationCrime No.73 of 20143793.Indur Police StationCrime No.74 of 2014379 IPC4.Dharmapuri Police StationCrime No.992 of 20143795.Perumbalai Police StationCrime No.83 of 2014379 IPC @ 120(B), 379 IPC The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu by the Dharmapuri Police Station in Crime No.102 of 2015 for offence under Section 379 IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for petitioner submits that though the detaining authority has considered the position that the bail application of the detenu in the ground case was pending as on the date of passing the detention order, he has gone on to inform that there was a likelihood of the detenu being released on bail since in a similar case, bail was granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dharmapuri in Crl.MP.No.4674/2014 in respect of Crime No.73 of 2014 on the file of the Indur Police Station.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.We find that the order of detention does suffer from non application of mind and for the reasons put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order under challenge would have to fall.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sakthivel, S/o.Govindaraj, aged 24 years, made in S.C.No.10/2015 dated 28.02.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,Dharmapuri District,Dharmapuri.3.The Superintendent,Central Prison,Salem.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.S.TAMILVANAN, J.cseH.C.P.No.1836 of 201514.09.2015
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,037,589 |
Through : Ms. Maninder Acharya, ASC with Sh.P. Bhardwaj, CGSC, Sh.Sahil Sood, Sh.Harshul Choudhary and Sh.Advocate, Ms. Rakhi Ray and Sh.S.S. Haque, Sr. Assistant Director, Mrs. Deepmala Bagri, Assistant Director and Sh.In 1982, the NDMC allotted a plot of land to Sunair for a hotel project.This license was further supplemented with an additional license deed executed in 1988 and possession was subsequently received.In June 1993, pursuant to a joint-venture agreement between Sunair and M/s Aeroflot, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sunair (Sun Aero Ltd) was set up to carry out the hotel project.In 1993 M/s Aeroflot withdrew from the joint venture and consequently Sun Aero Ltd. entered into a management contract with ACCOR Asia PTE Ltd., Singapore.In the interim, there was a dispute between the NDMC and Sunair (along with its subsidiaries) concerning the allotted land.Under the management contract with ACCOR dated 9 th September 1994, Sunair transferred the development rights of the abovementioned land to its subsidiary, for the purpose of constructing the hotel.LPA 390/2017 Page 4 of 41It is also undisputed that further FIRs bearing No.99/2002 (registered at Connaught Place Police Station), No.148/2002 (registered at Defence Colony Police Station) and No. 315/2005 (registered at Naraina Police Station) were registered at the instance of VLS which has made a host of allegations ranging from fraud and misappropriation of funds to stealing government documents from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.The court had issued notice in the petition, which remained pending.In the meanwhile, several fresh complaints were received from diverse informants, by the UOI.These were processed, firstly at the Assistant Directors level; a detailed note was given to the Joint Director and the Director (Investigation) with a request for a special official to be deputed to look into the material, having regard to the past files and reports (noting dated 6.8.2015 and the note of discussions recorded on 10-08-2015).350 shareholders "through other intermediary companies.According to the SFIO report identities from the general public were personated to allot the shares of Sunair in fictitious names; these shares were later transferred to Trans Asia Consultants P Ltd via Bindal Estate Pvt. Ltd.LPA 390/2017 Page 40 of 41Further "Loans were secured from Axis Bank Ltd, which accepts deposits from general public, after using duplicate certificates or share certificates divided from the shares lying as seized property with the Income Tax Department.Dayan Krishnan, Sr.Advocate with Ms. Bina Gupta, Sr.Piyush Kumar, Assistant Director.HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. CHAWLA MR.Sunair is a public limited company incorporated in 1977 under the Companies Act, 1956 ("the Act" hereafter).Sunair is engaged inter alia in the business of establishing and managing hotels; it is not listed on any national stock exchange and is held among 44 of its shareholders.VLS is a non-banking financial company engaged inter alia in the business of leasing and portfolio investments in equity shares, with an expertise in funding projects.It is joined as second respondent in this case.On 11 th March, 1995 VLS and Sunair signed a MOU, according to which VLS was to invest `7 crores as share capital in Sunair and was also to provide a sum of `10 crores as security deposit and the promoters of Sunair were to invest a sum of `22 crores by way of their contribution to the share capital.Under the terms of the MOU, VLS was to arrange a public issue of shares for `10 crore LPA 390/2017 Page 2 of 41 and to mobilize a sum of `85 crore by way of loans.VLS partially fulfilled its obligations under the MOU and in 1995 invested a sum of ` 7 crore and a security deposit of ` 8 crore.LPA 390/2017 Page 2 of 41In 1995, Sunair decided to seek re-transfer of the developmental rights pertaining to the allotted land and accordingly sought to buy back the rights that were valued at ` 21 crores.The manner in which this re-purchase was carried out was through cheques for a sum of ` 1 crore furnished by Sunair in favour of its subsidiary, which was then rotated back to the promoters of Sunair who used that sum to subscribe for additional shares in Sunair.Thus, a sum of `1 crore which was with SUNAIR as share application money paid by VLS was rotated 21 times and was accounted for the share investment of ` 21 crores by Sunair.This transaction was perceived by VLS as fraudulent and one that prejudiced their rights under the MOU as no correspondingly proportionate shares were issued to VLS, thus diluting their shareholding in Sunair.In 1998, VLS, by C.P. No. 45(ND)/98 moved the Company Law Board (hereafter "CLB") alleging that the affairs of the company were mismanaged and that the allotment of 2,09,916.00 shares of Sunair to Shri Vipul Gupta and 23 others to be fraudulent, and praying inter alia that the CLB should cancel the said allotment and direct an investigation into the affairs of the Company.The substance of VLSs allegation in its petition was that Sunair had allotted shares worth about ` 21 Crores without investing any money and the shares were allotted to them by a fraudulent rotation of funds of the company.It was additionally alleged that this was achieved through the fraudulent re-transfer of land between Sunair and one of its LPA 390/2017 Page 3 of 41 wholly-owned subsidiaries.The appeal entitled C.O. Appeal (SB) 11/2001 was heard by a learned single judge of this Court.LPA 390/2017 Page 3 of 41VLS preferred an appeal, challenging the CLBs order [Co.A.(SB) 41/2013]; that is pending adjudication by this court.During the pendency of the above petition with the CLB, VLS elected to simultaneously initiate criminal proceedings, alleging substantially the same circumstances that were before the CLB in deciding the abovementioned petition.In July 2009, VLS filed an application before the concerned criminal court under Section 451 and Section 457 claiming that the allotted shares that were in dispute to be seized and the concerned shareholders not be allowed recourse to exercise the rights that were attached to those shares.The criminal court ordered that the disputed shares to be treated as tainted property until the entire matter could be heard.This court noted that the order seizing the disputed shares was a drastic measure which was taken in the absence of any demonstrable urgency and was further passed by the Trial Court without considering rival contentions and was invalid for a failure to state reasons.Investigations under the Companies Act, 1956 and Companies Act, 2013: Investigation under Section 209A of the Companies Act, 1956:In 1999, few Members of Parliament, namely Mr. Mohan Singh, M.P. (Lok Sabha) (as he was then) and Mr. Dilip Singh, M.P. (Rajya Sabha) (as LPA 390/2017 Page 5 of 41 he was then) submitted complaints to the Department of Corporate Affairs alleging that SUNAIR had engaged in cheating and fraud.Accordingly an investigation under section 209A of the Act, was conducted by the then Joint Director of the Department of Corporate Affairs.Resultantly, the Deputy Registrar of Companies, acting under Section 211 of the Companies Act, 1956, issued a show cause notice dated 16th March 2000, calling upon Sunair to explain the default in the accounts of the Company for the financial years 1994-1995 to 1997-1998 related to the abovementioned disputed shares and the land allotted to Sunair by the NDMC.Accordingly, Sunair, before the matter was proceeded upon by the Metropolitan Magistrate, applied to the CLB for compounding the enumerated offences.It was also observed that the Director shall make payment from his personal account.This order was challenged by VLS in the High Court in Co.The learned Single Judge therein clarified that the CLB did indeed have the power to compound offences under Section 621A of the Companies Act, 2013 and that the order of the CLB dated 9th August, LPA 390/2017 Page 6 of 41 2000 suffered from no infirmities.That judgment was impugned before the Supreme Court in CA 2102 of 2004.The court rejected the special leave petition and affirmed this courts order.The CLB in its order dated 16th May, 2007 dismissed both the petitions.Therein, one of the members of the CLB, after perusing both the petitions noted that the allegations therein were almost identical to each other.The learned Member thereafter exhaustively examining the basis of the petition and concluded that all the allegations were either frivolous or had been considered in a different and more appropriate forum.In VLSs special leave petition, before the Supreme Court, a direction was issued on 22nd January 2016, by the Supreme Court to the Central Government to file an Affidavit, clarifying its position on the issue of the prayed investigation into the affairs of Sunair.An affidavit was accordingly filed (dated 12th February 2016) which stated that after the dismissal of the UOIs petition to investigate Sunairs affairs under Section 237(b) was rejected by the CLB by order dated 16 th May 2007, the UOI elected not to appeal against the order.The dispute, in its opinion, was of a LPA 390/2017 Page 8 of 41 private nature that did not necessitate the involvement of the Central Government.Before the matter came to be heard again by the Supreme Court, on 29th February 2016, the Ministry of Corporate Affairs issued Order No. 03/97/2009 - CL II (NR), dated 29th February 2016 thereby ordering an investigation into the affairs of SUNAIR to be carried out by the SFIO and to submit a report to the Central Government within a period of 6 months.On being appraised of the decision of the Central Government to proceed under Section 212 of the Companies Act, 2013, the Supreme Court on 08 th April 2016 posted the matter to be heard after four weeks therefrom after noting that "the pendency of the special leave petition will not come in the way of the aggrieved parties challenging the said decision i.e., dated 29th February, 2016 before the appropriate Forum, if they are so inclined."During the pendency of the above proceedings, on 06.06.2016, the SFIO conducted a LPA 390/2017 Page 9 of 41 search at the office of Sunair.The Supreme Court, that was still seized of the matter in S.L.P (C) No. 3317/09, directed on 22 nd July 2016 that the investigations, which had already commenced be concluded on or before 31 st October 2016 and that the report be placed before the learned single Judge that was hearing W.P. (C) 3444/2016 concerning the validity of the order of investigation.LPA 390/2017 Page 9 of 41"(ii) The High Court is requested to dispose of the writ petition challenging the order directing the aforesaid investigation by the end of November, 2016 after the report of investigation is placed before it, meaning thereby if the report of investigation is in favour of respondent No.2 (Sunair Hotels Ltd.), the High Court may not have any occasion to go into the merits of the writ petition."The material on the basis of which the investigation was ordered, comprising various complaints addressed to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs ("MCA") concerning the alleged mismanagement of Sunair, were submitted to the court in the Central Governments counter affidavit.The final judgement dismissing the writ was rendered on 26th March 2017 and is impugned in this appeal.Contentions of partiesThis petition was rejected by the CLB in 2006 on account of the allegations being frivolous and already addressed in various forums.This could be a relevant factor, given that the allegations are connected with the use and diversion of those funds.The Bombay High Court in Parmeshwar Das however, took a different view.The SFIOs report of 31st October 2016 is on the record.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,710,382 |
JUDGMENT Vishnu Sahai, J.Vide Judgment and Order dated 22-11-1993 passed in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1993, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicted and sentenced each of the Appellants in the manner stated hereinafter :-The prosecution case in brief runs a follows :-The informant Jagannath-P.W. 3 was the real younger brother of the deceased Prakash.On 25-12-1992 at about 3.00 p.m. while he and Prakash were present in Hannur Chowk, the three Appellants, all real brothers, came there and demanded money from Prakash for consuming liquor.Prakash replied that he had no money.On that the Appellants threatening to see him went away.At about 8.00 p.m. he informant and Prakash were proceeding to bus stand.When they had reached Hannur Chowk Prakash asked the informant to purchase bidi and himself went to urinate.At that time the three Appellants came from the side of garden.Appellant Raja was armed with an axe; Appellant Sanjay with a knife; and Appellant Dilip was empty handed.At that very time, Prakash came out after urinating.Then Dilip caught hold of his hands and Raja and Sanjay started assaulting him with axe and knife.The allegation is that Raja gave two axe blows, one each on the ribs and head of Prakash and Sanjay gave 5 to 6 blows with knife on the stomach of Prakash.Blood started oozing out from the injuries of Prakash.He fell down as a consequence of receiving them.He is said to have succumbed to those injuries on the spot.After the incident the assailants are said to have run away.Thereafter they went to police station, Akkalkot where they reached at about 8.15 p.m. At that time P.S.I. Anant Yeshwantrao Rajeshirke P.W. 21 was present at the police station.The informant informed him that his brother had been done to death as a consequence of the axe and knife blows inflicted by the Appellants.Head Constable Satpute who was incharge of the station diary made an entry in the station diary and reported the incident to him.Thereafter, he went to the spot along with police personnel and P.W. 3-Jagannath.On reaching the place of the incident, P.S.I. Anant Rajeshirke found that the body of Prakash was lying near the urinal.He arranged for a guard to look after the same and himself left with P.W. 3-Jagannath for the police station.The same day i.e. on 25-12-1992 at 10.05 p.m. the F.I.R. of the incident was lodged by P.W. 3-Jagannath at Police Station Akkalkot.The F.I.R. is Exh. 22 and bears both signatures of the informant a well as those of P.S.I. Anant Rajeshirke.On the basis of the F.I.R. C.R. No. 70 of 1992 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act was registered.After the lodging of the F.I.R., P.S.I. Anant Rajeshirke went to the place of incident with panchas and prepared inquest panchanama of the dead body.He thereafter launched a search for the Appellants.From the place of the incident he seized blood-stained earth, simple earth, slippers and broken wooden rod of an axe under panchanama.P.S.I. Gaikawad P.W. 15 who had arrested Appellant Sanjay while on patrol duty on 26-12-1992 at about 6.30 a.m. with a knife in the right side pocket of his pyjama and who was wearing blood stained clothes at that time produced the aforesaid Appellant with the aforesaid articles before him.On 26-12-1992 P.W. 21-Anant Rajeshirke handed over the investigation to P.W. 20 S.D.P.O. Mutyal who in turn, the following day handed over the investigation back to him.It appears that on 29-12-1992 Appellants Raja and Dilip were arrested.(i) Under Sec. 302 read with 34 I.P.C. to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default to further undergo one month R.I. each; and(ii) Under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. to suffer R.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- each, in default, to further undergo one month R.I.The sentences on both the counts were ordered to run concurrently.Aggrieved by the aforesaid convictions and sentences, the Appellants have preferred the present Appeal.On 1-1-1993, the Appellant Raja showed willingness to produce the weapon of assault viz., the axe.Two panchas including P.W. 19-Babruwan Surwase were called.On a jeep, they, Appellant Raja and the police party pursuant to information given by Raja reached a public lavotary.Thereafter Appellant Raja took out an axe from the bushes of Babhul situated nearby.After completion of the investigation the chargesheet in the instant case was submitted.Going backwards the autopsy of the dead body of the deceased Prakash was conducted on 26-12-1992 by P.W. 11-Dr.Manohar More.On the dead body the doctor found as many as 11 incised wounds.The bulk of them were situated on vital parts of the body and at many places the vital organs were ruptured.According to Dr. Manohar More, the deceased died on account of shock due to punctured wounds on vital organs i.e. heart and lungs.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions in the usual manner.In the trial Court, charges under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and under Section 506 read with Section 34 I.P.C. were framed against the Appellants to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.In the trial Court apart from tendering some documentary evidence, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses.Out of them four witnesses viz., Jagannath-P.W. 3, Babu Chikalge P.W. 9, Machhindra Dandawalkar-P.W. 10 and Raja alias Motilal-P.W. 12 were examined as eye-witnesses.The remaining witnesses included the Investigating Officers, the public panchas in support of recoveries and Dr. More-P.W. 11 who had performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased.In defence no witness was examined by the appellants.The learned Trial Judge believed the evidence produced by the prosecution, rejected the defence of the appellants and passed the impugned judgment.Hence this Appeal.We have heard Mr. D. B. Bhosale, for the Appellants and Smt. S. J. Pingulkar, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State of Maharashtra at considerable length.We have also perused the material exhibits, the deposition of the witnesses and the impugned judgment.After giving our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be partly allowed.In our view, the Appellant Dilip Sharnappa Zinge deserves the benefit of doubt on all counts and although the conviction and sentence of Appellants Raja Sharanappa Zinge and Sanjay Sharnappa Zinge deserves to be confirmed under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. they deserve to be acquitted under Section 506 read with 34 I.P.C. The crucial question in this Appeal is whether the evidence of the four eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution inspires confidence or not ? We now propose answering the same.The informant Jagannath-P.W. 3 in his statement in the trial Court has described extensively as to why and how the incident took place.The manner of assault deposed to by him viz., of Appellants Raja and Sanjay assaulting the deceased with axe and knife respectively is corroborated by the nature of the ante mortem injuries suffered by the deceased.P.W. 11-Dr.Manohar More who performed the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased clearly stated that these injuries could be caused by the knife and axe which were shown to him while he was deposing the trial Court.So far as other witnesses are concerned, we find that P.W. 9-Babu Chikalgi only fixes the date, time, place of incident and the presence of Jagannath.He in a general manner stated that the accused persons assaulted Prakash.He does not even say that they are the same persons who are present in the Court.Thus, in our view, his evidence corroborates the presence of Jagannath on the date, time and place of incident and fixes the date, time and place of incident.As regards P.W. 10-Machhindra we find that we cannot place any reliance on his testimony because in his cross-examination he admitted that he was deposing falsely at the instance of the police.For reasons best known to it, the prosecution has not chosen to get this witness declared hostile.In such a situation we are left with no other option but to eliminate his evidence.This brings us to the statement of eye-witness P.W. 12-Raja alias Motilal.He too like Jagannath stated that Appellant Dilip had caught hold of the hands of the deceased-Prakash while Appellants Raja and Sanjay were assaulting him with axe and knife respectively.The witness tried to explain this delay in his interrogation by alleging that he had gone to Latur but there is no mention of this fact in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and when he was confronted with this omission all what he could say was that he could not say as to why the police had not mentioned it in his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.In our view this inordinate delay in his interrogation during investigation is itself a sufficient ground for excluding his testimony in considering the question of involvement of the appellants in the instant crime.He further urged that on the date of the incident itself there was a quarrel between this Appellant along with the other two Appellants and the deceased on the refusal of the latter to give money for liquor.Against appellants Raja Zinge and Sanjay Zinge there is not only the statement of Jagannath-P.W. 3 which is corroborated by medical evidence inasmuch as injuries attributable to axe and knife, the weapons wielded by these appellants, were found on the dead body of the deceased but there is also other corroborative evidence.In respect of appellant-Sanjay we find that he was arrested on 26-12-1992 at about 6.30 a.m. by P.W. 15-P.S.I. Gaikawad along with the blood stained knife and blood stained clothes.The aforesaid articles were seized in the presence of a public panch-P.W. 13 Mallinath Gaikawad under a panchanama.The learned Counsel for the Appellants could not point out any convincing reason as to why the aforesaid corroborative evidence should not be relied upon against the Appellant Sanjay Zinge.We find the evidence of both these witnesses to be free from any blemish.Again we find that the appellant's Counsel has not been able to assign any plausible reason for rejecting the testimony of the aforesaid two witnesses.It would be pertinent to point out that the knife and axe were sent to the Chemical Analyst and he found human blood on them of blood group A, the blood group of the deceased.This is a very clinching piece of evidence which goes against these two appellants.In our view, the ocular account furnished by P.W. 3-Jagannath corroborated by the medical evidence and the recovery of blood stained knife and clothes from the person of appellant Sanjay and the recovery of axe at the instance of Appellant Raja amply clinches the involvement of these two Appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. In our view the learned trial Judge rightly convicted them on that count.We, however feel that the learned Additional Sessions Judge having once convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. should not have convicted them under Section 506 read with 34 I.P.C. particularly because the charge under Section 506 read with 34 I.P.C. is with respect to the appellants threatening the deceased.Consequently we acquit these appellants under Section 506 read with 34 I.P.C. and set aside their sentences on that count.Before parting with the Judgment, it would be only fair to adjudicate upon the principal submission canvassed by Mr. Bhosale, the learned Counsel for the Appellants namely, that on account of the highly tainted nature of the investigation, it would be extremely hazardous and unsafe for us to sustain the conviction of the Appellants Raja Zinge and Sanjay Zinge on the ocular account furnished by the informant Jagannath-P.W. 3 and the corroborative evidence referred to by us.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,710,467 |
The facts are simple.One Shri Mohinder Nath Bhalla was the manager of DaisySewing Machine Co. Ltd., Bhopal.On January 11, 1955,between 12 and 1 p. m., he contacted the Sub-Inspector ofPolice, Special Police Establishment, Gwalior, and gave himthe following information: The company had opened theirstall in the Gwalior Mela and he (Shri Bhalla) had tobook empty wooden cases of machine and machine parts fromGwalior Mela, to Now Delhi.When lie went to the station toenquire for booking the said cases, the Station Masterdemanded annas ten for each case as illegal gratification,but he did not agree to it.On thisallegation lie requested the police to take action " to stopthe said sort of204corruption ".The police officer went along with theinformant to his stall at Gwalior Mela and saw the twentywooden cases-twelve big and eight small-ready for booking.The said Shri Bhalla gave the police officer a typedcomplaint signed by him and duly attested by two witnesses.With the assistance of the police officer, a trap was laid.The numbers of the rupee notes intended to be given as bribeto the Assistant Station Master were entered in a memorandumwhich was attested by witnesses.The said rupee notes weregiven to Shri Bhalla in the presence of the witnesses.ShriBhalla was instructed to pay the amount to the AssistantStation Master when demanded by him in such a manner thatthe witnesses could overhear the conversation and also seethe Assistant Station Master taking the bribe.He was alsotold that on his giving a signal, the police would come onthe scene.The plan was carried out in detail as agreed.The Assistant Station Master, after some bargaining, tookthe bribe, and after the act of bribery was completed, ShriBhalla gave the prearranged signal.The Sub-Inspector thenwent to the Station Office and disclosed his identity to theAssistant Station Master in the presence of witnesses andasked him to produce the money taken by him as bribe.TheAssistant Station Master, when questioned by the Sub-Inspector, gave him his name and also produced the noteswhich he had kept in his pocket.The police officer tookthose notes and counted them.The numbers on those notestallied with those noted in the memorandum.He thensearched the person of the Assistant Station Master andsecured the articles found on him.He also searched theperson of Shri Bhalla and took from his shirt two currencynotes, which he did not give to the Assistant StationMaster, as the bargain was struck at a smaller amount, andsecured the same.Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order datedNovember 28, 1957, of the Madhya Pradesh High Court inCriminal Revision No. 78 of 1957, arising out of thejudgment and order dated August 21, 1957, of the Court ofSpecial Judge at Gwalior in File No. 2/57 Special Case.G. C. Mathur and R. H. Dhebar, for the appellant.The respondent did not appear.The Judgment of the Court was deliveredbySUBBA RAO, J.-This is an appeal by special leave againstthe, Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh atJabalpur directing the Special Judge, Indore, to order theDeputy Superintendent of Police to carry on theinvestigation afresh.The numbers of those notes also talliedwith the corresponding numbers noted in the memorandum.Thereafter, a memorandum of the articles recovered wasprepared in the presence of the witnesses and was dulyattested by them.The forwarding note, together with therecord copy of the 205R/R prepared in respect of the booking of the twenty woodencases to New Delhi, was taken possession of and anothermemorandum was prepared in regard to them.An inventory ofthe twenty wooden cases lying on the platform near theweighing machine as booked by the Assistant Station Masterwas also prepared and the same was attested by thewitnesses.The Sub-Inspector, having regard to theaforesaid facts, came to the conclusion that the factsdisclosed offences punishable under ss. 120-B and 161 of theIndian Penal Code and s. 5(2) of the Prevention ofCorruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947), had been committed by theAssistant Station Master, Shri Mubarak Ali, and thepointsman, Shri Mool Chand, of Golakamandir railway station.On the same day he sent a report of the aforesaid facts tothe Special Police Establishment Office, Madhya Bharat.Theoffice registered it on January 14, 1955, in its register.Seven days thereafter, on January 21, 1955, the Sub-Inspector filed an application before the AdditionalDistrict Magistrate (Judicial), Gwalior, asking forpermission to investigate the offence under the aforesaidsections.The record does not disclose what further stepswere taken by the Sub-Inspector after he obtained the saidpermission from the Additional District Magistrate.OnOctober 1, 1955, a charge-sheet was filed before the SpecialJudge, Anti-Corruption, Indore.It appears from the recordthat soon after the case was taken up for trial, therespondent filed objections questioning, inter alia, thevalidity of the order of the Additional District Magistrategiving permission to the Sub-Inspector to make theinvestigation.But the scope of the objections is not clearas they have not been placed before us.It appears that theSpecial Judge intended to take evidence on the question ofdelegation of power of investigation, but the prosecutionapplied for adjournment on the ground that an appeal hadbeen filed in the High Court against a similar orderdirecting the prosecution to give evidence on the saidquestion and the same was pending there.The learnedSpecial Judge, though inclined not to give the adjournment,made an order giving an adjournment206of three weeks on December 3, 1955, on the ground that " theSpecial Police Establishment Office might not have anygrievance on that account ".OnAugust 21, 1957, the learned Special Judge made an orderdischarging Shri Mool Chand, the pointsman, and chargingShri Mubarak Ali, the Assistant Station Master, under s. 161of the Indian Penal Code.By the said order the learnedJudge, presumably an officer different from the one who gavethe adjournment in 1955, disallowed the objection of theaccused on the ground that on the date when the Magistrategave the sanction, there were many papers in connection witha case against the accused, on observing which the Magi-strate could have satisfied himself whether-there was aprima facie case or not against the accused and that therewas no reason to believe that at the time of giving thesanction, the Magistrate did not peruse the papers.Theaccused preferred a Revision against the said order to theHigh Court of Madhya Pradesh.The High Court came to theconclusion that the Sub-Inspector applied for permission tendays after investigation had started and that the Magistratedid not satisfy himself that there were good and sufficientreasons for authorising the officer of a lower- rank toconduct the investigation but had given the permission as amere matter of routine.In the result, the High Court setaside the order of the Special Judge with a direction thatin order to rectify the defects and cure the illegality heshould order the Deputy Superintendent of Police to carry onthe investigation himself while the case remains pending onhis file ".The State, preferred the present appeal againstthe said order of the High Court.In this view no other question arises for consideration.But as the learned Counsel appearing for the State contendedthat the observations of the learned Judge of the High Courtthat permission of the Magistrate was obtained ten daysafter the investigation was started was wrong, it would beas well that we considered the argument briefly.Section4(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure defines "investigation as to include all the proceedings under thatCode for the collection of evidence conducted by the policeofficer or other persons other than a Magistrate who isauthorised by the Magistrate in this behalf.Chapter XIV ofthe Code prescribes the procedure for investigation.Investigation starts after the police officer receivesinformation in regard to an offence.Under the Code "investigation consists generally of the following steps: (i)proceeding to the spot; (ii) ascertainment of the facts andcircumstances of the case; (iii) discovery and arrest of thesuspected offender; (iv) collection of evidence relating tothe commission of the offence which may consist of (a) theexamination of various persons (including the accused) andthe reduction of their statements into writing, if212the officer thinks fit, (b) the search of places of seizureof things considered necessary for the investigation and tobe produced at the trial; and (v) formation of the opinionas to whether on the material collected there is a case toplace the accused before a Magistrate for trial and if sotaking the necessary steps for the same by the filing of acharge-sheet under s. 173."See H. N. Rishbud and Inder Singhv.The State of Delhi (1).From the narration of factsgiven supra, it would be seen that in the present case ShriBhalla gave information to the Sub-Inspector on January 11,1955, as regards the attempt by the Station Master as wellas the Assistant Station Master to take bribe from him.Under s. 5 of the Act, attempt to obtain from any person forhimself or for any other person any gratification is initself an offence and therefore the information certainlyrelated to an offence.Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector, afterassisting Shri Bhalla to trap the accused, came on thescene, questioned the accused, searched his person andrecovered the marked notes and other articles from him ; hesearched the person of the informant and recovered the othernotes marked but not given to the accused ; he tookpossession of the twenty wooden boxes intended to be bookedand the forwarding note together with the record copy of theR/R; he got prepared relevant memoranda for the aforesaidrecoveries and got them duly attested by witnesses; andthereafter on the basis of his investigation he sent areport to the Special Police Establishment Office, Indore.We do not know on the material placed before us what furtherthings he did in the matter of investigation between the14th and 21st when be obtained the permission of theDistrict Magistrate.In the circumstances, we must hold,agreeing with the High Court that the investigation in thiscase was started by the Sub-Inspector on the 11th, i.e., tendays prior to his obtaining permission of the Magistrate.The appeal fails and is dismissed.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,048 |
JUDGMENT K.N. Ojha, J.Instant application has been moved under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash the charge sheet dated 15.8.2003 filed against applicants in Crime No. 270 of 2003 under Section 323/506/498A,IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act in Criminal Case No. 1707 of 2002 (State v. Jahiruddin and Ors.), Police Station Orai, Sant Ravidas Nagar.Heard Sri Haridwar Singh learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for opposite party No. 2 and Sri A.K.Verma learned AGA and have gone through the record.Applicants are Jahiruddin his brother Aniruddin, Nizamuddin father of Jahiruddin, Smt. Kamrunisha mother of Jahiruddin and Sajia sister of Jahiruddin.According to prosecution opposite party No. 2 Abdul hakim married his daughter Sahnaz Bano with applicant No. 1 Jahiruddin on 18.3.2001 according to Muslim custom and she went to the house of her father-in-law.Her father had given gift and spent money in her marriage and there were no demand of dowry at that time.But later on when Sahnaz Bano started to live at the residence of the applicants, the husband Jahiruddin demanded Rs. 2 Lakhs and Television.FIR was lodged on 22.7.2003 at 5 p.m. against the applicants by opposite party No. 2 Abdul Hakim bearing Crime No. 270/2003 under section 323/506/498A IPC and section 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act containing the fact that these persons used to cause torture to her.Panchayat was called for still they turned her out of the house because their demand for dowry was not satisfied and uptil now Sahnaz Bano is living at the residence of her father.During investigation applicant Jahiruddin filed Criminal Writ Petition No. 4182 of 2003 in this Court and on 6.8.2003 it was directed that till further orders applicants shall not be arrested in Crime No. 270 of 2003 under section 323/506/498A IPC and 3 /4 Dowry Prohibition Act subject to the condition that applicants cooperate with investigation and shall make themselves available to the investigating officer whenever required.After investigation when charge sheet has been submitted instant application under Section 482 Cr.Jahiruddin was called for from Kerala and Panchayat was called for and Jahiruddin confirmed the divorce (Talaak) in the Panchayat, which did take place at Madhao Singh, district Sant Ravi Das Nagar.When opposite party No. 2 made effort to lodge FIR against applicants FIR was not written then he moved an application under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC but after the charge sheet has been submitted the order passed on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.According to the applicants since divorce (Talaak) was made on 22.5.2003 therefore FIR was lodged by the father of Smt. Sahnaz Bano on 22.7.2003 i.e. two months after divorce (Talaak).
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,048,765 |
Washim in Criminal Revision No. 24/2014 dated 22-6-2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.JUDGEwasnik ::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 23:14:12 :::::: Uploaded on - 08/02/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2019 23:14:12 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
171,053,990 |
At about 2:00 pm, the appellants visited the spot and tried to drag her so that she could be sexually abused.On her shouting, the witnesses Matadin (PW-2) and Mishrilal (PW-4) tried to save her but when the appellants gave a threat they refrained from interfering.When deceased Ramsakhi resisted and the appellants could not take her, all the appellants assaulted her with kicks and fists.Appellant- Dilip alias Ballabh gave a blow of sabbal (a thick and heavy iron rod) on her head and thereafter she fell down on the bottom of the dry river.Witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal immediately went to the village and informed Laxminarayan (PW-1) husband of deceased Ramsakhi.Laxminarayan went to the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased and immediately rushed to the Police Station Gopalpur where he lodged the FIR Ex.P1 at 04:30 pm.The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan (PW-6) after completing the formalities sent the dead body of the deceased for its postmortem.On 06/02/2006 Dr.AP Singh (PW-8) performed the postmortem on the body of the deceased and gave a report Ex.He found two injuries to the deceased; one was lacerated wound on right back of head and second was a contusion on occipital region of her head.The clothes of the deceased were not found torn and no other injury was found but the bones below the injuries were found broken at two places and there was subdural haemorrhage on the brain.He also found subarachnoid haemorrhage to the deceased.Dr. AP Singh opined that the deceased died due to head injuries, her death was homicidal in nature and occurred 18- 36 hours before the postmortem.(4) Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan (PW-6) went to the spot and collected plain and bloodstained soil from the spot and prepared a seizure memo Ex.He recorded the statements of various witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC.The appellants were arrested and seizure memos Ex.P13 to Ex.P16 were prepared.Appellant Dilip alias Ballabh was arrested and a memo Ex.P6 was prepared.On (3) 20/02/2006 appellant- Dilip alias Ballabh was interrogated and he told about sabbal kept below the bag of wheat and a memo Ex.P7 under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was prepared.Thereafter, one iron sabbal was recovered and a seizure memo Ex.P8 was prepared.(Delivered on 22/02/2017) Per Justice N. K. Gupta:-All the appeals are connected with the common judgment dated 07/09/2006, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri in Sessions Trial No.63/2006 and, therefore, they are decided by the present common judgment.(2) The appellants have preferred the present appeals against the judgment dated 07/09/2006, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Shvipuri (MP) in Sessions Trial No.63/2006, whereby each of them has been convicted of offence under Section 302/149 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment.The clothes of the deceased, bloodstained soil taken from the spot and weapon recovered from the appellant Dilip alias Ballabh were sent for forensic science examination with a letter Ex.However, the report of Forensic Science Laboratory was Ex.P21 produced on record in which the report of bloodstains and semen particles was given but no report was given relating to the iron sabbal recovered from appellant Dilip alias Ballabh.After due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the JMFC, Shivpuri who committed the case to the Court of Session and ultimately it was transferred to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri.The appellants abjured their guilt.They took a plea that they were falsely implicated in the matter.In defence, Virendra (DW1) and Ramcharan (DW2) were examined.Ramcharan (DW2) was examined to prove the plea of alibi of Kalyan whereas Virendra (DW1) was examined to prove the enmity between Laxminarayan,father of the deceased and appellant Nand Kishore.(3)(5) The trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties,acquitted all the appellants except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh from the charge of Section 148 of IPC but convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above.(6) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.(7) First point which is to be considered in the present matter is about the death of the deceased whether it is a homicidal in nature or not? In this connection, the evidence given by Dr. AP Singh (PW-8) is important.Dr. AP Singh performed the postmortem on the body of deceased Ramsakhi and gave a report Ex.He found following injuries:-A lacerated wound size of 3x2x 2cm on right side of her head.A contusion size of 4 x 4cm on occipital region i.e. back side of her head.'' There was no injury or discharge from her vagina etc. However, as (4) requested by the Investigating Officer, Dr.AP Singh (PW-8) took the vaginal swab and prepared a slide.On opening of the body he found a fracture of occipital bone and right parietal bone.Subdural haemorrhage and subarachnoid haemorrhage were found on the brain whereas meninges were found to be congested.Various other vital organs of the body were congested but intact.Clothes of the deceased were also intact.AP Singh provided clothes of the deceased and slide prepared of vaginal swab to the concerned Constable after sealing them so that Forensic Science examination of such articles be done.According to Dr. Singh, the deceased died due to head injury and she went in comma.Death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and it could be caused 18- 36 hours prior to the postmortem.If the entire report given by Dr. AP Singh (PW-8) is considered then there is no reason to discard the same.The injuries found on the head of the deceased were sufficient to cause death in natural course of her life and hence the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature.(8) The prosecution has examined two eye-witnesses, mainly, Matadin (PW2) and Mishrilal (PW4).According to these witnesses, they were working in their respective fields and at about 2:00 pm they heard the shouts of deceased Ramsakhi.Therefore, they immediately rushed towards the spot.According to these witnesses, the dry river was 10 ft. deep and, therefore, they could not reach near the deceased or the appellants but from edges of their fields they could see the activity of the appellants.All the appellants had given kicks and fists to the deceased while trying to drag her from that place.Ultimately, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave a blow of sabbal on her head.When Matadin and Mishrilal told the appellants not to assault the deceased then they challenged the witnesses that they would also be killed and thereafter they tried to hide themselves in the crops grown on the fields.The appellants had hidden the body of the deceased in the bottom of the dry river and thereafter, the witnesses went to the village Maheshpur Padarkheda and intimated about the incident to witness Laxminarayan (PW-1).Laxminarayan (PW-1), husband of the deceased went to the spot and saw the dead body of (5) his wife.Thereafter, he went to the police station Gopalpur and lodged an FIR Ex.P1 which was recorded by Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan (PW-6).(5)(9) Evidence of the eye-witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal is duly corroborated by evidence of Laxminarayan (PW1), timely lodged FIR Ex.P1 and medical evidence as given by Dr. AP Singh (PW-8).Hence, prima facie, it appears that appellant- Dilip alias Ballabh gave blows of sabbal on the head of deceased Ramsakhi and killed her.However, the evidence of eye-witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal is to be considered against the remaining appellants.It would be apparent that the allegations made against the appellants that they assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists while she was being dragged.However, Dr. AP Singh (PW8) did not find any injury of kicks and fists on the body of the deceased.It would be apparent that from the evidence of Matadin and Mishrilal that except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh no appellant was armed with any weapon.It is not alleged by the witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal that when appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave a blow of sabbal on the head of the deceased, any of the remaining appellants assaulted deceased Ramsakhi thereafter.Under these circumstances, in absence of medical evidence, evidence of Matadin and Mishrilal cannot be accepted that the appellants gave kicks and fists to the deceased Ramsakhi.Also, it is possible that the appellants would have tried to drag deceased Ramsakhi for a particular purpose.The purpose is not known to the witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal.They thought that the appellants wanted to abuse her sexually.It is not clear from the record that what was the purpose of the appellants and where they were dragging the deceased.It is possible that the purpose of the appellants was different from the purpose which was presumed by witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal.(10) Whatsoever purpose of the appellants might have been, it is apparent that the claim of witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal that the remaining appellants assaulted the deceased with kicks and fists was not proved beyond doubt.If the deceased would have assaulted by kicks and fists then she would have sustained some injuries.The (6) deceased was a woman whereas the appellants were stout persons.The story of Matadin and Mishrilal about the motive of the appellants cannot be accepted.In this connection, the spot map Ex.P2 may be considered.He found the dead body of deceased Ramsakhi at place "A" which was 300 meters away from her field of lauki (bottle gourd).Sub Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan had shown the field of the deceased at Serial No.3 in the spot map.In that field crop of wheat and mustard was sown by Laxminarayan in two portions and in third portion bottle gourd was sown and according to information of Laxminarayan the deceased was irrigating her crop of bottle gourd.The dry river had bifurcated the lands of villagers at the spot.On one bank of that dry river, there was field of Laxminarayan at serial no.3, field of Matadin was at serial no.4 and field of Mishrilal was at serial no.5 whereas the dead body of the deceased was lying on opposite bank of that dry river near the field of one Chhiga Yadav and hence, the deceased was already dragged for 300 meters from the place where she was working or she was already there at the spot due to some reason.It is possible that deceased Raksakhi went to the bottom of dry River for some purpose where she was held by the appellants.Hence, if the appellants were dragging the deceased Ramsakhi then their purpose should be different to kill her and, therefore, by dragging of deceased Ramsakhi overt act of appellants Kalyan, Dangal, Vishram and Nand Kishore cannot be presumed that they intended to kill the deceased Ramsakhi.It is not proved beyond doubt that the remaining appellants except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave kicks and fists to the deceased Ramsakhi otherwise she would have sustained the injuries of such assault.Being a woman when four stout persons were giving kicks and fists she would have fallen down on the ground and thereafter it was not possible for appellant Dilip alias Ballabh to give a blow of sabbal on her head.Possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased Ramsakhi went to the spot due to any reason and (7) thereafter the appellants surrounded her.Looking to the evidence of Matadin and Mishrilal, it is possible that when the witnesses heard the shouts of the deceased Ramsakhi and they went to the core of their fields to see the incident, then they could see only the activity of appellant Dilip alias Ballabh and they would have presumed that deceased Ramsakhi would have assaulted by the remaining appellants by kicks and fists but it is confirmed by witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal that deceased Ramsakhi was standing when appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave a blow of sabbal on her head.If any accused is acquitted from the charge of using criminal force in furtherance of his common object or being a member of unlawful assembly then such accused could not be convicted of any main offence with the help of Section 149 of IPC whereas the trial Court has convicted these appellants of offence under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC.It was the duty of the trial Court to record the common object of the appellants in the judgment and to establish that the appellants were the members of unlawful assembly who participated in the crime.If the remaining appellants did not have any deadly weapon then while acquitting them from the charge of Section 148 of IPC they should have been convicted of offence under Section 147 of IPC otherwise in absence of their common intention or common object or when they were not found to be members of unlawful assembly, none of them could be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC with the help of Section 149 of IPC.However, in the present case, when the witnesses could not prove that the remaining appellants except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh have assaulted deceased Ramsakhi in any manner, then it cannot be said that they formed an unlawful assembly to kill deceased Ramsakhi and, therefore, when they were not the members of unlawful (8) assembly to kill deceased Ramsakhi then they could not be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC or any inferior offence of similar nature with help of Section 149 of IPC.(12) When it is not proved beyond doubt that the appellants have constituted an unlawful assembly for a particular crime then they could not be convicted of offence under Section 148 or 147 of IPC.Since the trial Court has already acquitted the remaining appellants of the charge of Section 148 of IPC, then there is no need to acquit them separately for offence under Section 147 of IPC because they were not convicted by the trial Court for that offence.However, when unlawful assembly was not constituted then the appellant Dilip alias Ballabh could not be convicted of offence under Section 148 of IPC and the trial Court has committed an error in doing so.When it is not proved beyond doubt that any unlawful assembly was constituted or any other appellants except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh had done any overt act to show his common intention with appellant Dilip alias Ballabh then none of the remaining appellants can be convicted of offence under Section 302 with the help of Section 34 of IPC.The trial Court has committed an error in convicting the remaining appellants of offence under Section 302 of IPC with the help of Section 149 of IPC.(13) Now, the crime of appellant Dilip alias Ballabh is to be considered separately.According to witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave a blow of iron sabbal on the head of the deceased and therefore, she fell down on the bottom of the dry river and succumbed to the injuries.Learned counsel for appellant Dilip alias Ballabh has submitted that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh is falsely implicated due to enmity.However, if evidence of the defence witnesses Virendra (DW1) and Ramcharan (DW2) is considered, then Ramcharan (DW2) has tried to prove the alibi of appellant Kalyan and Virendra (DW1) has stated that Laxminarayan brought Baba Nand Kishore as a priest of temple and Baba Nand Kishore was residing in the house of Laxminarayan.Thereafter, it was noticed that appellant Baba Nand Kishore was of Jatav community and, therefore, a dispute took place between Laxminarayan and Baba Nand Kishore.Virendra (9) (DW1) has further stated that in the dispute enmity was created between his brothers and Laxminarayan, husband of the deceased.However, Virendra did not state that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh was his brother or what was the role of Dilip alias Ballabh in that quarrel of Baba Nand Kishore and witness Laxminarayan.It is true that witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal were the field-neighbourers of witness Laxminarayan, husband of deceased Ramsakhi and they could state in favour of witness Laxminarayan who lodged the FIR Ex.P1 but no suggestion was given either to Matadin or Mishrilal that they had any enmity with appellant Dilip alias Ballabh.So many suggestions were given to these witnesses to create a doubt in the case.For example, it was suggested to the witnesses that deceased Ramsakhi was involved in digging the treasure and it was also suggested that she had relations with Baba Nand Kishore but such suggestions have no meaning to prove enmity between appellant Dilip alias Ballabh and Laxminarayan.Witness Matadin has categorically stated in para 14 that there was no enmity between appellant Dilip alias Ballabh and Laxminarayan but they were dealing with each other like brothers.Matadin has also denied the suggestion that cows of appellant Dilip alias Ballabh entered the field of Laxminarayan.However, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh could not adduce the defence evidence according to the suggestion given to these witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal to show his enmity with Laxminarayan or witnesses Matadin or Mishrilal.Hence, there was no possibility that the witnesses would have falsely implicated appellant Dilip alias Ballabh.(9)(14) The learned counsel for appellant Dilip alias Ballabh has submitted that in sport map Ex.P/2 Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan (PW-6) had shown the place where Matadin and Mishrilal were standing.According to the spot map, distance of spot was 100 meters away from where the witnesses were standing and since the dry river was 10 feet deep and the spot was at the bottom, therefore, it was not possible for the witnesses to see the incident.It is true that from a distant place no one can see the things happening in a ditch but it is clearly stated by witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal that after hearing (10) the shouts of deceased Ramsakhi they rushed to the spot and they saw the incident when they were standing on the core of their fields on the bank of the dry river, hence at that time their distance from the spot was hardly 15 feet, because the dry river was 15 feet wide.According to Sub-Inspector Ajit Singh Chauhan, he mentioned such a distance in the spot map Ex.P2 and, therefore, from a distance of 15 feet where they saw the incident from the core of their fields it was possible for them to see the incident.(10)(15) Learned counsel for appellant Dilip alias Ballabh has submitted that according to the witnesses, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave a single blow of sabbal to the deceased Ramsakhi but Dr.AP Singh (PW8) found two injuries on the head of the deceased Ramsakhi and hence the witnesses are not reliable but such contention cannot be accepted because they could see that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh raised sabbal to give a blow but when the deceased was surrounded by so many persons, then it is possible that the witnesses could not see the second blow given by Dilip alias Ballabh.Similarly, learned counsel for appellant Dilip alias Ballabh has submitted that according to the witnesses they saw the incident but thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found to be partially hidden by bushes and the witnesses did not state as to who placed the bushes on her body and, therefore, witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal were not the eyewitnesses.However, it is apparent from the statements of Matadin and Mishrilal that soon after the incident they went to inform Laxminarayan about the incident and when on being threatened witnesses Matadin and Mishrilal had hidden themselves in their crops.It is possible that the accused persons would have thought that the witnesses have left the spot and thereafter when the witnesses would have visited the house of Laxminarayan the body of the deceased was partially covered by bushes by some of the appellants.However, the trial Court did not append any charge under Section 201 of IPC against any of the appellants and it is not clear that out of four- five appellants who placed the bushes on the body of the deceased.(16) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, it would be apparent that eyewitnesses Matadin and Mishrilal are believable.Their evidence (11) was duly corroborated by timely lodged FIR Ex.P1 and medical evidence given by Dr.AP Singh (PW8).It is proved beyond doubt that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh had given two blows of heavy iron sabbal on the head of deceased Ramsakhi and caused her death.The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that if witnesses have stated about the single blow given by appellant Dilip alias Ballabh then due to single blow, it cannot be presumed that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh had intended to kill the deceased and, therefore, he may not be convicted of offence under Section 302 of IPC but he could be convicted of offence under Section 304 of IPC.However, such submission cannot be accepted.If witnesses could not see the second blow given by appellant Dilip alias Ballabh then it cannot be said that he did not give two blows.When except appellant Dilip alias Ballabh there was nobody having any weapon then on information of two injuries which could be caused by heavy weapon, it shall be presumed that a person who gave the first blow, had repeated the assault.Dr. AP Singh (PW8) has denied the suggestion given by the defence counsel that the injuries found on the head of the deceased could be caused by falling on stone etc. It is not proved beyond doubt that dead body of the deceased was lying at the place in the bottom of the dry river where stones were lying.Hence, it is clear from the circumstances that appellant Dilip alias Ballabh gave two blows on the head of the deceased which was a vital part of the body and by each blow he caused fracture on the head and in consequence thereof deceased Ramsakhi died.Under these circumstances, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh was intended to kill the deceased Ramsakhi and the trial Court has rightly convicted him for offence under Section 302 of IPC.(11)(17) So far as the sentence is concerned, the trial Court has recorded the minimum sentence against appellant Dilip alias Ballabh relating to offence under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, no further dilution can be done.(18) On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by appellant Dilip alias Ballabh cannot be accepted against conviction of offence under Section 302 of IPC.However, since it was not proved that an unlawful assembly was constituted to kill deceased Ramsakhi (12) and, therefore, appellant Dilip alias Ballabh can be acquitted from the charge of Section 148 of IPC.In the result, the appeal filed by appellant Dilip alias Ballabh is hereby partly allowed.His conviction and sentence of offence under Section 148 of IPC is hereby set aside.Appeals filed by the remaining appellants are acceptable.It could not be established that they formed any unlawful assembly to kill the deceased Ramsakhi and, therefore, they cannot be convicted of offence under Section 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC.Hence, appeals filed by remaining appellants- Kalyan, Dangal, Vishram and Nirman Nityananda Baba alias Nandkishore is hereby allowed.Their conviction as well as the sentence recorded by the trial Court for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 of IPC is hereby set aside.They are acquitted from the aforesaid charge.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,710,591 |
In response to an advertisement emanating from the petitioner-accused, one Tarsem Goyal came in contact with the petitioner-accused who claimed himself to be the proprietor of M/s. Viva Vision , E-224, Sanik Farm, New Delhi.Misrepresenting himself as an agent of a USA based buyer and also as consultant and agent of certain London based companies, the petitioner-accused promised to secure orders for export of carpet, durries, bed covers, worth Rs.1.2 crores to USA based buyer in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh, General Manager of M/s. International Trade Factors Limited(ITFL), New Delhi.He got letters of credit opened with an intent to make said Tarsem Goyal(complainant) believe that he was there to help him in supply of his goods and in securing his payments.He is alleged to have cheated the complainant of Rs.31 lakhs on the pretext of arranging letters of credit for export of aforesaid goods.The complainant, on execution of memoranda of understanding and receipt of Lcs, undertook production by investing a huge sum to the extent of Rs.70 lakhs.Before shipment of the goods, the same were to be inspected.The petitioner-accused got an inspection carried out in April, 2001, on repeated requests, of the complainant by an unauthorised person and in the course of that inspection, a bulk potion of the goods were rejected.Later, the petitioner-accused got an inspection report on the letterhead of City Europe London but the same was found to be a forged one.However, no goods could be exported.To assure the complainant that there was no foul-play, the petitioner-accused provided the complainant with fake E-mail messages of the so called buyer and fabricated a cheque of 80,000/- UK Pounds to show transfer of payment.On failing to export the goods, the complainant made enquiries about the so called US based buyer and the other foreign based companies and found that there was actually no buyer company, as named by the petitioner-accused, in existence at the given address.The LCs were opened by ITFL acting as agent of City Europe after charging commission to the tune of approximately 3% of the LC amount from the petitioner-accused.His co-accused Kirpal Singh had accepted the proposal of the petitioner-accused without verifying the genuineness of the orders and existence of the buyer at the given address.LCs were opened by M/s. City Europe, a leading company in London.According to the prosecution, in the course of investigation, it was gathered that the petitioner-accused was a notorious cheat involved in various cases of cheating in connivance with his co-accused Kirpal Singh.The applicant-accused was arrested on 13th of July, 2002 and several incriminating documents relating to the present case as well as other cases of cheating, are claimed to have been recovered from his possession.The complainant-Tarsem Goyal eventually lodged a complaint with the police against the petitioner-accused for having cheated him of Rs.31 lakhs.On investigation, it was gathered that the petitioner-accused was appointed as consultant by his co-accused Kirpal Singh, General Manager of ITFL for providing financial services to his exporters.Several LCs were arranged by ITFL for him through which, barring one LC, the goods were to be sent to M/s. Hillcrest International, USA.In terms of conditions of LCs, the goods were to be inspected by one Manek Deboo of M/s. First Discount Limited, London.He is alleged to have had forged the letterhead of the City Europe and ITFL and fabricated fake E-male messages of the non-existent buyers as well as their cheques.The incriminating documents/articles recovered from his possession included false inspection reports and rubber stamps of inspecting agencies.Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused, referring to the order dated 13.12.2002 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, New Delhi rejecting the bail application of the petitioner-accused, pointed out that even the learned Additional Sessions Judge noted that the Lcs opened in favor of the complainant were found to be authenticated.One of the requisite conditions for shipment was to get an inspection certificate in duplicate issued by M/s. First Discount Limited, Morrell House, 98 Curtain Road, London, Manek Deboo, whose signature was to be authenticated by their bank.This was, however, never done.As a result, there could be no shipment of the goods manufactured by the complainant on the basis of fake orders supplied to him by the petitioner-accused.The investigation reveals that it was the petitioner-accused who had to approach the First Discount Limited for inspection of goods and issuance of an inspection certificate in duplicate.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
11,802,490 |
as (Allowed)....for the Petitioners......for the State.Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.This application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Manojit Mandal,J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 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.
|
1,180,253 |
The Petitioners, who are arrayed as A1 to A3 and A5 to A10 in all these Criminal Original Petitions seek to quash the complaint in CC.NO.429/2006 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, AmbatturThe Respondent/complainant has filed the private complaint against the Petitioners/A1 to A3 and A5 to A10 and one C.R.Rao, Director of M/s.Rane Brake Linings Limited, who is arrayed as A4, under Section 500 of IPC.The Respondent was working as an Operator in M/s.Rane Brake Linings Limited (herein after referred to as the Company) and its Factory is situated at No.30, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai-58 and the said Company manufactures brake linings for all automobiles and trucks, brake blocks for railways and clutch facings.The said notice/circular was signed by A10 and in the said notice/circular it is stated that the concession granted to the complainant was abused and he along with other section of the employees had been indulging in the trade union activities of other Companies and have taken positions as office bearers in various other Companies.The said interim application is said to have been closed on 28.2.2006 as against which, CMA.Nos.20 and 21/2006 were filed before the Sub Court, Poonamallee.According to the complainant, A10 again coerced the complainant to opt for voluntary retirement on 28.8.2006 and thereafter started creating several problems to the complainant.It is also alleged in the complaint that on 4.10.2006 at about 3.45 p.m., A10 at the instance of A1 to A9 displayed a notice in the notice board of the Company at Plot NO.30, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai-58, which contained defamatory material as against the complainant.In the instant case, on a perusal of the complaint, the relevant allegations against the Petitioners/Accused are that A10 at the instance of A1 to A9 created several problems to the complainant and that on 4.10.2006 at about 3.45 p.m., A10 at the instance of A1 to A9, had displayed a notice in the notice board of the Company, containing defamatory matters as against the complainant.The Magistrate has to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused."
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,026,296 |
Mithilesh, daughter of Munesh (PW-10), was married to Rakesh Kumar @ Bobby (A-1), he being the son of Mange Ram (A-2) and Sona Devi (A-3), all of them indisputably being residents of Jhuggi no. 244/173, Balmiki Camp, East of Kailash, New Delhi, falling within the jurisdiction of police station Lajpat Nagar.There is sufficient evidence available on record to show, and it is not disputed, that Mithilesh gave birth to a son ten months after the marriage, the said child having later died.The incident which became the subject-matter of the sessions Crl.It was the day of the Deepawali festival.There is evidence available that Mithilesh suffered burn injuries, opined to be 100 %, she being discovered in such state by two neighbours viz. Babu Lal (PW-1) and Anil (PW-2).The door of the jhuggi required to be broken open, to put out the fire and take Mithilesh to the hospital.Mithilesh died in the hospital sometime around 11.30 p.m. on 08.11.1999, she not being able to make any statement before Sub- Divisional Magistrate (SDM) Mr. Rajesh Kumar (PW-15).Appeal No.738/2002 Page 1 of 6Though there was some evidence gathered and presented before the trial court indicating that a statement (Ex.PW-12/B) had been given by the victim (Mithilesh) to Head Constable Surender Mohan (PW-12) in the presence of two doctors attending on her in the hospital, it indicating the fire incident to be accidental, such theory was rejected by the trial court.The case against the afore-mentioned three persons (A-1 to A-3) and two others namely Samay Singh (A-4) and appellant Sikkan (A-5) was founded essentially on the statement of Munesh (PW-10) and Sheela (PW-13), the father and mother respectively of the deceased, on the premise that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty for dowry in the matrimonial home, the appellant herein also being privy to and complicit in the said cruelty, he being the mediator through whom the marriage had been arranged.Appeal No.738/2002 Page 2 of 6The charge against the afore-mentioned five persons was brought on the strength of presumption under Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the trial having been held in the court of sessions for offences under Sections 498A/304 B/34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).The additional sessions judge, by his judgment dated 26.08.2002, held all the five persons mentioned earlier guilty as charged.By order dated 04.09.2002, A-1 was sentenced to ten years imprisonment on the charge under Section 304 B IPC, the others were awarded imprisonment for seven years for offence under Section 304 B IPC.Each of them was awarded imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- for offence under Section 498A IPC.A-3 Sona Devi, on the other hand, filed her own independent appeal (Crl.Appeal no. 972/2002), while A-1 Rakesh @ Bobby and A-2 Mange Ram filed separate joint appeal (Crl.Appeal No. 421/2003).7. A-3 Sona Devi and A-4 Samay Singh died before their appeals could be heard.The said appeals were, thus, found to have abated and the proceedings therein were closed by orders dated 18.02.2015 and 12.02.2019 respectively.Appeal No.738/2002 Page 3 of 6The copy of the said judgment dated 08.05.2014 reflects that the learned single judge dealing with the said part of the case found substance in the contentions of A-2 Mange Ram that there was no evidence showing his involvement in cruelty for dowry.In this view, the conviction in his case was modified, he being held guilty and convicted on the charge for offence under Section 306 IPC, his sentence having been suitably modified on that account.The sentence of A-1 Rakesh @ Bobby was reduced by said very judgment, to the period of detention already undergone, the jail having reported that he had served the minimum period of incarceration prescribed in law.Thus, the matter survives only qua appellant Sikkan.The learned counsel for the appellant and the additional public prosecutor for the State have been heard.It is noted that the original trial court record has gone missing from the registry, rendered not traceable.However, the record has been re-constructed and it is fairly conceded by both sides that the appeal can be decided on its basis.PW-13, mother of the deceased, did not name the appellant Sikkan in her testimony.Her version is primarily based on what she would have learnt from her husband (PW-10) as to how her daughter was being ill-treated in the matrimonial home.Though she would also state that her daughter during her visit had also confided in her about ill-treatment, the statement given by her in this regard is attributed Crl.Appeal No.738/2002 Page 4 of 6 more to the husband (A-1) Rakesh.PW-3, vaguely stated that chacha and Phoopa also used to make demands.She would not clarify as to which particular individuals were the said relatives.The vague statement attributing certain acts of commission collectively to the persons accused cannot be accepted as good evidence to prove the complicity of the appellant.Appeal No.738/2002 Page 4 of 6On the other hand, PW-10 did speak about the role of the appellant Sikkan as the mediator.13. PW-10, the father of the deceased, also spoke generally that his daughter was tortured at the instance of the appellant.It is not clarified as to how and on what occasion or in what context or, for that matter, with what objective the appellant would instigate the close relatives in the matrimonial home to torture the deceased.Reference to certain exchanges about laddoos (sweets) is too petty to be treated as an instigation leading to torture of the victim for dowry.In the above facts and circumstances, this Court finds it unsafe to confirm the finding of guilty against the appellant on the sole word of PW-10 to the above affect.Appeal No.738/2002 Page 5 of 6
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,029,387 |
And In Re:-Sandhya Ghosh @ Sandhya Middya ... Petitioner Ms. Koyeli Bhattacharyya, Advocate ..for the Petitioner Mr. S.G. Mukherjee, Ld. P.P.Mr. Rudradipta Nandy, Advocate .. for the State The petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in connection with Domjur P.S. Case No. 579 of 2017 dated 6.7.2017 arising out of G.R. Case No.4185 of 2017 under Sections 498A/304B/34 adding Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.The State produces the case diary and says that the petitioner was as culpable as the husband in the incident leading to the death of the victim within six years of her marriage.The petition for anticipatory bail is allowed subject to the conditions as indicated above.2 3 A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioner subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.(Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 3
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,180,389 |
On 13.7.1998 information was received from Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar that Reema Aggarwal the appellant had been admitted on having consumed poisonous substance.On reaching hospital, ASI Charanjit Singh obtained opinion of the doctor regarding her fitness to make a statement.Appellant stated before Investigating Officer that she was married to Anupam the respondent no.1 on 25.1.1998 and after the marriage, she was harassed by her husband-respondent no.1, mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law (respondents 2, 3 and 4) respectively for not bringing sufficient and more dowry.J U D G M E N T(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3169 of 2003ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Parties to a marriage tying nuptial knot are supposed to bring about the union of souls.It creates a new relationship of love, affection, care and concern between the husband and wife.According to Hindu Vedic philosophy it is sanskar a sacrament; one of the sixteen important sacraments essential to be taken during one's lifetime.There may be physical union as a result of marriage for procreation to perpetuate the lineal progeny for ensuring spiritual salvation and performance of religious rites, but what is essentially contemplated is union of two souls.Marriage is considered to be a junction of three important duties i.e. social, religious and spiritual.A question of intricate complexity arises in this appeal where factual scenario has very little role to play.Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual position is as follows:On the date of incident at about 5.00 p.m. all the four accused persons forced her to take something to put an end her life and forcibly put some acidic substance in her mouth.She started vomiting and was taken to the hospital in an unconscious state.The first information report was registered accordingly and on completion of investigation the charge sheet was placed and charges were framed for offences punishable under Sections 307 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the 'IPC').Accused persons pleaded innocence.Seven witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version.Before the trial Court the accused persons put the plea that charge under Section 498-A was thoroughly misconceived as both Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC pre-suppose valid marriage of the alleged victim-woman with the offender-husband.It was required to be shown that the victim-woman was the legally married wife of the accused.Since it was admitted that the appellant had married during the lifetime of the wife of respondent no.1, what happened to his first marriage remained a mystery.Prosecution has failed to establish that it stood dissolved legally.Prosecution having failed to bring any material record in that regard, Section 498-A had no application.Reliance was placed on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Ramnarayan & Ors.v. State of M.P. (1998 (3) Crimes 147 M.P.) The Trial Court held that the accusations, so far as Section 307 is concerned, were not established and in view of the legal position highlighted by the accused persons vis-`-vis Section 498-A the charge in that regard was also not established.Accordingly the accused persons were acquitted.The State of Punjab filed an application for grant of leave to appeal which was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court with the following order:"We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and with his assistance, have gone through the finding recorded by the learned trial Court.Leave to appeal declined.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,042,543 |
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:(a) The complainant Shivaji Krishna Chavan is a resident of village Vatphali, Tq.He was residing at his vasti (farm house) at village Vatphali.His brothers Hiralal Chavan and Tanaji Chavan (deceased) were also residing in the said village along with their family members.(b) The complainant sells milk to dairy.The accused Namdeo Zurale (accused No.6) was the Chairman of Dharmavir Milk Dairy.Accused No.6 and others had assaulted the complainant earlier and caused hurt to him since he did not sell milk to Dharmvir Dairy.Since then the relations between the accused and the complainant were strained.The accused were also suspecting that Tanaji Chavan was giving information to the police against them.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::(c) On 14/07/1994 the accused had formed an unlawful assembly, they were armed with weapons like swords, axes and stick.Tanaji Chavan was supposed to take his nephew Bapu Hiralal Chavan to Akluj for treatment.The accused threatened him not to come forward.The brother of the complainant Hiralal followed him to the spot.He is the brother of the deceased.PW No.5 is the nephew of the deceased and PW No.6 is also the brother of the deceased.PW No.7 is the resident of Malshiras who has purportedly seen the accused with weapons at the relevant time.PW No.4 has deposed that accused Tukaram Zurale is the Chairman of Dharmavir Milk Society.Four years ago, Tukaram Zurale (accused No.7) and one Laxman Zurale had assaulted him since he was not selling milk to Dharmavir Milk Society.He had lodged the complaint, however, the police had not taken cognizance of the same and hence, he had made complaint to various authorities and since then he is not in good terms with the Shridhar Sutar 9 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 10 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc accused persons.On 14/07/1994 he along with Tanaji (deceased) and Bapu (PW No.5) were going to fetch water from hand pump.Tanaji told him that he is going to Akluj as Bapu has to be injected.Tanaji then went towards Malshiras to Akluj road for going to Akluj.He was accompanied by Bapu.He was at the water hand pump and heard the voice of Tanaji shouting "Aai Melo Melo".He, then rushed towards the road.Accused No.1, accused No.6, accused No.3, accused No.2, accused No.4 and accused No.5 were standing to the South of the road at a distance of 10 to 15 feet.Accused No.1 and accused No.6 were inflicting blows of swords to Tanaji.They had encircled around him.Accused Bhagwan and Pandurang were inflicting axe blows to Tanaji.Accused Tanaji Bandalkar had inflicted stick blows to Tanaji.Tanaji was lying on the ground and was facing upwards.He was at the distance of 50 feet from the spot.Bapu was also at the distance of 50 feet from the spot.The accused threatened him and told not to come forward.Due to threat he did not move.After assaulting the deceased, the accused went towards Zurale vasti.Hiralal (PW No.6) also came to the spot.Nandiwales are dangerous people.He and his nephew were present at the spot where the incident took place and his brother Hira had followed them.PW No.5 Bapu Chavan is the nephew of deceased.He stated that he along with Tanaji started at about 8.00 a.m. on the day of incident after taking meals.In the meanwhile, one Changedeo Gaikwad (PW No.7) also came at the spot.He further deposed that the distance between the hand pump and the place where he was standing was 100 feet.In the cross-examination, he deposed that he tend buffaloes.The deceased was lying in supine condition.The accused persons encircled him and inflictied blows.The persons from the adjoining houses did not come out to watch the incident.He also deposed that his son is a friend of the deceased.He acted as a panch to the inquest panchnama.PW No.3 Laxman Pawar was also called to act as a panch.He was called near poultry of Namdeo Wagh.He had seen a pair of chappal and a bicycle at the spot as well as blood lying at the spot.The police seized pair of chappal, bicycle and earth stained with blood.PW No.8 Dr. Swapnil Lale is Medical Officer at Primary Health Centre, Akluj.He conducted the post-mortem examination on 14/07/1994 at 12.30 noon which was over by 1.30 p.m. On external examination of the deceased, he noticed about 25 injuries.All the injuries were contesed lacerated wounds.He also noticed internal injuries on the person Shridhar Sutar 15 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 16 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc of the deceased, such as fracture on the right radius etc. He also deposed that the stomach of the deceased was containing semi digested food of 400 cc.The food was consumed by the deceased three hours prior to his death.Injury by hard sharp object would cause incised wound.A pointed rough stone can cause contused lacerated wound.The post- mortem report was exhibited in evidence at his instance.PW No.9 Suresh Patil was serving at Akluj Police station at the relevant time.He referred to the recovery of clothes of the deceased.PW No.10 Rajendra Savant was serving at Akluj Police station as Police Constable.He was directed to take muddemal property to Chemical Analyser at Pune.PW No.11 Madhukar Bhosale acted as panch for various panchnamas.He did not read the panchnama and could not depose about its contents.He acted as Shridhar Sutar 16 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 17 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc panch for recovery of clothes and the weapons.He stated that on 07/07/1994 the people from complainant's group had taken him to the police station and had asked him to file complaint.He had lodged the complaint as he was pressurised by the complainant's group.PW No.12 Ratan Kambale acted as panch.He stated that police have obtained his signature on a plain paper.He was declared hostile by the prosecution.PW No.13 Dr. Gautam Jagtap was working as a Medical Superintendent at Rural Hospital, Akluj.He had examined the accused persons and collected their blood samples and handed over the same to the concerned constable with a letter addressed to Chemical Analyser.He obtained the report from Chemical Analyser.The blood group of Tanaji Bandalkar (accused No.3) is 'A' and the blood group of other accused could not be determined.PW No.14 Rahimbaksha Shaikh was serving at Akluj Police station.He referred to the order of District Magistrate, Solapur, which was promulgated under Section 37(A).PW No.16 Shridhar Sutar 17 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 18 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc Vithal Jadhav was attached to Akluj Police station.He stated that PW No.5 had approached him and informed that six persons had murdered his brother.He, then registered the offence and proceeded to the spot.The First Information Report is signed by the complainant.The offences were registered.He had drawn the inquest panchnama.He had investigated the crime.He arrested the accused.He recorded the statement of the witnesses.PW No.18 Gopalkrishna Bhalerao was serving at Akluj Police station.He conducted investigation.He obtained blood sample of the accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The defence had examined DW No.1 Vilas Patil.He stated that he knows accused No.6 Namdeo Zurale.He also knows Vithoba Pawar.On 13/07/1994 the accused No.6 had visited him.They proceeded to Chikhalgothan on a motorcycle.They reached at the said place at about 9.00 a.m. for attending the marriage.The time of the marriage was 12.35 p.m. They returned to the village in the evening and the said accused was at his place for two days.Thereafter, they returned to Jyotiba.He was cross examined at the instance of the prosecution.He stated that he knows accused Namdeo Zurale.(e) The evidence of PW No.7 Changdeo also did not inspire confidence.According to this witness, he had reached at the spot, after the incident and prior to that he had seen the accused armed with weapons.PW No.5 has not referred to his presence in his statement before the police.According to him he was accompanied by Chandrakant Jagtap and they were suppose to meet his advocate at Malshiras and were proceeding by motorcycle.RESERVED ON : 23rd MARCH, 2018 PRONOUNCED ON : 18 APRIL, 2018 JUDGMENT [ Per : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.]:The Criminal Revision Application has been preferred by the original complainant who is the brother of the deceased challenging the aforesaid Judgment and order of acquittal.The respondent No.1 - Mahadeo Dnyanoba Zurale has expired during the pendency of this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The respondents were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and Section 212 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Tanaji had asked Bapu to wait at the road and he proceeded to bring his motor-bike which was parked near the poultry farm of Namdeo Wagh.(d) The accused were armed with deadly weapons and in prosecution of common object of their unlawful assembly assaulted Tanaji by inflicting blows of weapons on him.Tanaji had raised cries to save him.On hearing the same, the complainant reached the spot.The accused then left the spot along with weapons.Tanaji Chavan died at the spot.(e) The police conducted investigation and filed charge- sheet against the respondents accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The accused were tried before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pandharpur.Charge was framed on 08/06/1995 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 212 r/w 34 IPC.The prosecution examined 18 witnesses in support of its case.PW No.4, PW No.5 and PW No.6 are the allegedly eye witnesses to the incident.On completing the evidence of witnesses, the defence examined two defence witnesses.The statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.For the reasons stated in the impugned judgment, the accused Nos. 1 to 8 were acquitted of the said offences.The State and the original complainant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal and therefore, approached this Court by preferring the aforesaid appeal and the revision application.We have to examine whether the impugned judgment of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court suffers from any legal infirmity or is based upon erroneous appreciation of evidence.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The evidence of witnesses suffers from serious infirmities, their testimonies are suspicious and after thought.The deposition of eye witnesses and the medical evidence Shridhar Sutar 8 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 9 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc is contradictory.The Trial Court has taken into consideration several factors for disbelieving the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The prosecution is primarily relying upon the evidence of four witnesses viz; PW No.4 - Shivaji Krishna Chavan (complainant), PW No.5-Bapu Hiralal Chavan, PW No.6-Hiralal Krishna Chavan and PW No.7-Changdeo Tukaram Gaikwad.PW Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were examined as eye witnesses to the incident.PW No.4 has lodged the First Information Report.Tanaji told him that he was assaulted by the accused as he was giving information to the Shridhar Sutar 10 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 11 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc police against them.Tanaji's left leg was separated and right leg was also cut.There were blows on his right thigh.There were injuries over the left and right wrists of Tanaji.PW No.4 lodged the First Information Report.In the cross examination, he has deposed that the spot is situated on the left side of the road of Akluj to Malshiras.The houses of some of the persons are situated on the right of the said road at a distance of 200 to 300 feet.The house of one Bhivaji Kharat is also situated near the spot.He also referred to the houses of some other persons situated near the place of incident.He also deposed that there are two groups at village Vatphali and one group is led by accused No.6 and other is led by Advocate Ghule.Advocate Ghule resides at village Vatphali.He also stated that a case is filed against him by his neighbour wherein he was impleaded as accused.One Narayan, Yellappa and Maruti Nandiwale were the complainant.Nandiwale had also filed a complaint against Tanaji (deceased).They did not call Police Patil or Sarpanch of village Vatphali.He denied Shridhar Sutar 11 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 12 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc the suggestion that Nandiwales were also threatening to kill his brother and that on the night of 13 th July his brother had gone out on his usual night errands.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::Tanaji (deceased) told him to wait as he would bring motorcycle from the poultry farm of Wagh.Accused Nos. 1 to 6 came from the side of poultry farm.Accused Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 were armed with axes and accused No.3 was having stick with him.They asked his uncle as to why he is giving information to the police.All of them inflicted blows on the deceased with weapons.The deceased and the witnesses raised cries to save them.PW No.4 then came to the spot who was threatened by the accused and thereafter, PW No.6 also reached the spot.On a date prior to the incident and on the date of incident he did not go to tend buffaloes.He Shridhar Sutar 12 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 13 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc used to tend buffaloes daily till 5.00 p.m. He was not well on the date of incident.He had stated before the police that he and his uncle have taken meals and then started from their house.He did not go to the persons from adjoining houses to inform them about the incident nor he went to milk dairy for informing the people about the incident.He did not run towards vasti when his uncle was attacked.The persons from adjoining vasti did not assemble at the spot.He stated before police that accused Nos. 1 to 6 came from the side of poultry farm.He informed the police that the deceased had stated that the accused had assaulted him because he was giving information to police and that the accused fell the deceased on the ground but the said facts are not appearing in his statement recorded by the police.He also stated that PW No.7 had come to the spot and that a jeep had come from Malshiras and his father and uncle had gone in that jeep, but the same version is not appearing in his statement Shridhar Sutar 13 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 14 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc recorded by police.PW No.6 is the brother of deceased.He heard Tanaji's voice and rushed to the spot.He was at a distance of 50 feet from the spot.Tanaji was lying towards the poultry.Accused were inflicting blows of swords and axes to Tanaji.The accused threatened the witnesses not to come forward at the time of assault.They approached Tanaji after the accused left the scene of offence.The injured was taken to the hospital.He further deposed that the families of washerman are residing at their vasti along with their children.The vasti is at the distance of 50 feet from the hand pump.The distance between the poultry farm and the hand pump is about 200 to 250 feet.One of the person from Washerman's family had followed him to the spot.The incident lasted for about 5 minutes.He and his brother did not intervene and separate the accused persons.They did not go to the dairy farm to inform the people as no one was there.He did not go to the Police-Patil or the Sarpanch.PW No.7 is purportedly the witness who had seen the accused around with weapons.He stated that he along with Chandrakant Jagtap were going to Malshiras to meet his advocate.They had reached the dairy at village Vatphali, he noticed that accused Nos. 1 to 6 were going Shridhar Sutar 14 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 15 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc towards East.They were holding weapons in their hands.He then noticed that Tanaji was assaulted and was in injured condition.He, then proceeded to meet his advocate.On the relevant day, there was no date in the matter which is pending in the Court.He did not take injured to the hospital and did not inform the police about the incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::He was declared hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined by learned APP.The omissions which were brought on record through the cross examination of the witnesses were proved through him.He did not record the statement of any family members.Nothing was found in the search of the house of Mahadeo Zurale.He produced the accused before the Court on 16/07/1994 for obtaining their remand.It is mentioned in the remand papers that Bapu Chavan had gone to Vatphali to bring clothes.It is nowhere mentioned in the remand papers that Bapu was indisposed and therefore, Bapu and Tanaji were going to Akluj.PW No.17 Dr. Rajesh Gotekar was serving at Medical Officer at Rural Hospital, Akluj.He obtained Shridhar Sutar 18 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 19 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc the blood sample of the accused No.6 and handed over the same for Chemical Analysis.He had recorded the statement of Changdeo Gaikwad (PW No.7).He also recorded the statement of other witnesses.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::Accused Namdeo and DW No.1 Vilas had come to his place for attending the marriage.Both Shridhar Sutar 19 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 20 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc these witnesses were examined at the instance of accused Namdeo Zurale to establish alibi.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The results of Chemical Analysis reflected in Exhibit-102, indicates that the earth Exhibit-1 is mixed with blood.Exhibit Nos. 3, 4 and 6 were soaked with blood.The weapon at Exhibit Nos. 9 and 10 (axes) were stained with blood.The sword at Exhibit Nos. 11, 12 and 26 were stained with blood.The clothes at Exhibit Nos. 14, 17 and 20 have moderate number of blood stains.The other clothes at Exhibit Nos.18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 had blood stains.The blood detected on the Exhibits was human and the blood detected on the clothes was 'B' group.The blood group of the blood detected on Exhibit Nos.1, 7, 18, 24 and 25 could not be determined as the results are inconclusive.The blood group of Exhibit-8 (Tanaji Krishna Chavan) cannot be determined as the results are inconclusive.The blood in file labelled as Namdeo Zurale was of blood group 'A'.In the circumstances, there was no Shridhar Sutar 20 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 21 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc corroborative evidence against the accused in the form of Chemical Analyser report to establish their involvement in the crime.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::Learned APP Shri.The learned Judge has given importance to minor discrepancies and overlooked the evidence on record.The said witnesses have corroborated the prosecution case and established the involvement of all the accused in the crime.PW Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were consistent in attributing the overt act to the accused.Their evidence is further corroborated by PW No.7 who had seen the accused armed with weapons while proceeding towards the place of incident at the relevant time.He would submit that there is Shridhar Sutar 21 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 22 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc recovery of deadly weapons having blood stains at the instance of the accused which were used while committing the crime.The motive for committing crime was also established.The accused were armed with deadly weapons and have mercilessly assaulted the deceased by inflicting blows by the weapons.The victim had sustained several serious injuries on his person as a result of the assault by the accused.The Trial Court has ignored the evidence for no reason.The witnesses through their evidence had established the presence of the accused at the scene of offence and participation in crime.The evidence putforth by the witnesses could not be demolished in any manner by the defence in their cross examination.The evidence of the witnesses, more particularly the eye witnesses to the incident inspires confidence and the same ought to have been accepted by the Trial Court.Although, the eye witnesses were related to deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that they are partisan witnesses, more particularly, when they have given ocular account of the crime and involvement of the accused in the said crime.All the witnesses have attributed specific overt act to the accused.Their presence at the scene of offence cannot be doubted.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::Since the complainant could not prefer an appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal, he has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::The Trial Court appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and has given a finding that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge against the accused.The three eye witnesses to the alleged incident were related to the deceased.The oral evidence and medical evidence is contradictory to each other.The presence of the witnesses at the place of incident is doubtful.The alleged motive is weak as the alleged incident of assault had occurred four years prior to the present incident.The theory of assault due to belief that the deceased was giving information to Police is concocted.He further submitted that there is no perversity in the judgment of the Trial Court.Therefore, the appellate Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal.The evidence of eye witnesses is not consistent with each other.Their evidence suffers from serious infirmities like contradictions and omissions.The time of incident as depicted by the eye witnesses is itself under the clouds of suspicion which belies the prosecution case.The evidence of PW Nos. 4, 5 and 6 is not inspiring confidence and Shridhar Sutar 24 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 25 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc there is no reason to interfere in the order of acquittal.It is further submitted that statement of PW No.7 was recorded belatedly which creates doubt about its genuineness.The prosecution did not examine independent witnesses.There is every possibility that the deceased was done to death by some other persons and that the accused are falsely implicated in the crime.There is absolutely no evidence of whatsoever nature against the accused Nos. 7 and::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::Mr. Savant, appearing for the respondents in the revision application adopted the arguments of Shri Patil.We have gone through the entire evidence.The prosecution is strongly relying upon the evidence of PW Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who were the alleged eye witnesses to the incident.The prosecution is also relying upon the evidence of recovery of weapons and clothes.The incident in question had allegedly occurred in the morning at about 8.00 a.m. PW No.4 and 6 are the brothers of the deceased.According to them, the accused came at the spot armed with weapons and assaulted deceased Tanaji Chavan.Although there Shridhar Sutar 25 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 ::: 26 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc are houses of villagers near the scene of offence, the prosecution could not putforth any independent witness to corroborate the version of the eye witnesses.Only alleged independent witness who was examined by the prosecution witness PW No.7 who has not seen the actual incident, but had seen according to him the accused armed with weapons proceeding towards the place of incident.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:21 :::It is brought on record through the evidence of the medical officer that semi-digested food is found in the stomach of the deceased and the last meal was consumed three hours before the death of the deceased.The defence had therefore submitted that the incident of assault resulting in death of the deceased could not have occurred at 8.00 a.m. on 14/07/1994 as alleged by the prosecution.The Chemical Analyser's report does not conclusively establish that the accused had used the alleged weapons in commission of crime.The blood group of the deceased was found to be inconclusive.It is also brought on record through the evidence of the medical officer that the CLW is not possible by Shridhar Sutar 26 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 ::: 27 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc the sharp weapon and the use of sharp weapon would in result incised wounds.The trial Court has taken into consideration several such infirmities and has thereby given benefit of doubt to the accused.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::We have minutely considered the evidence of witnesses.PW No.4 has referred to incident of assault which had occurred four years ago on account of not selling milk to Dharmvir dairy.He did not produce any evidence to support the said fact.This motive is thereby weak and cannot be believed.He heard cries of injured from hand pump and then proceeded to that place.In examination in chief he stated that PW No.6 had come to the spot.However, there is no reference to the fact that PW No.6 was present right from beginning while the deceased was being assaulted.He did not refer to presence of PW No.7 Changdeo.In the cross examination he stated that he and PW No.5 were only present at the spot.PW No.5 has deposed that he proceeded with deceased.He stated that his father (PW No.6) had also come at place of incident.He did not state Shridhar Sutar 27 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 ::: 28 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc whether PW No.6 was present when the incident of assault on deceased was in progress.The deposition that deceased had stated that he was assaulted for giving information to police is not reflected in his statement before police.He did not refer to any statement being made by deceased at the time of assault.Thus, the instant motive to assault has not been established by prosecution.He has referred to washermen following him at the spot.The other witnesses has not referred to such person being present at the place of incident.Although he claims to be eye witness.The evidence of PW No.4 and PW No.5 does not establish that he was eye witness to assault.He is the father of PW No.5, but he did not state that PW No.5 was not keeping well and he proceeded with deceased to Akluj.He did not raise cries.He did not intervene and separate accused.He and other witnesses did not go to dairy to inform the people.He did not go to Police Patil or Sarpanch.There are several houses near the spot of incident, but prosecution has not brought any independent eye witness to the alleged incident occurred at Shridhar Sutar 28 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 ::: 29 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc around 8.00 a.m. PW No.7 is got up witness.His statement was recorded belatedly.Thus, there is no consistency in the version of the prosecution witnesses and their evidence raises enough doubt.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::(b) It appears from the cross examination of the investigating officer that the remand papers upto 29/07/1994 reveal that PW No.5 Bapu had gone to village Vatphali to bring clothes.The said witness (PW No.16) has stated that on 16/07/1994 he had produced the accused before the judicial magistrate for obtaining their remand and in the remand papers it was mentioned that Bapu Chavan had gone to Vatphali to bring clothes.It is nowhere mentioned in the remand papers that PW No.5 was indisposed and that he was suppose to go with Tanaji to Akluj for treatment.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::Tanaji to Akluj on the relevant day.On the contrary, the FIR mentions that PW No.5 was with the complainant (PW No.4).Presence of PW No.5 at the place of incident is therefore doubtful.His evidence is suspicious and cannot be accepted.(d) PW No.6 has stated that at the relevant time he had gone to the house of washerman, because he was not having any work.He heard cries of Tanaji and rushed to the spot.He has also stated that one person from washerman's family had followed him to the spot.Such person was not examined by the prosecution nor the other witnesses have referred to the presence of any other persons at the scene of offence.PW Nos. 4, 5 and 6 has not referred to the presence of Chandrakant Jagtap at the spot.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::some of the accused were armed with swords.Accused Hanmant, Pandurang and Bhagwan were armed with axes and accused Tanaji Bandalkar was having stick with him, whereas accused Namdeo and Mahadeo were armed with swords.In short, accused were armed with two swords, three axes and one stick.However, there was recovery of three swords, two axes and one stick.The panchas to the recovery panchnama did not support the prosecution.The recovery of the weapons is not consistent with the oral version of eye witnesses.(g) The incident had taken place near a road leading from Akluj to Malshiras.The poultry farm of Mr. Wagh, Milk dairy and several houses situated near the spot, which is evident from the evidence on record.The incident had occurred between 8.00 to 8.30 a.m. This is a time when most of the villagers are present in their houses.But, curiously, none of the persons from the said houses appear to have come to the spot.Although, independent witnesses were available, they were not examined by the prosecution.(h) The evidence of the witnesses suggested that there was animosity between the family of the deceased and the accused.The prosecution is relying on the ocular version of interested witnesses.In these circumstances, the possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::had inflicted blows with swords, axes and stick over the person of the deceased.Medical evidence reveals that out of nearly 25 injuries, 22 are contused lacerated wounds.Taking into consideration the nature of weapons used in the crime there could have been incised wounds and lacerated wounds.The deceased had sustained injuries on the frontal portion of his body as well as on the backside.However, the witnesses had deposed that the deceased fell down and thereafter he was inflicted with the blows by weapons.(k) The evidence of medical officer PW No.8 discloses that the stomach of the deceased contained semi-digested food of 400 cc.As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased might have taken his last meal three hours before his death.The postmortem examination was conducted on 14/07/1994 at about 12.30 noon.The theory that the deceased had taken meal at around 7.00 a.m. on 14/07/1994 was introduced by PW No.5 for the first time.The said version was not reflected in his statement.According to prosecution the incident had occurred after 8.00 a.m. which is difficult to believe in view of the opinion of doctor.The theory of the Shridhar Sutar 32 of 38::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 ::: 33 Cr-Apeal-591-95-w-Rev-235-95.doc attack occurring at the time alleged is therefore concocted by the witness.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::(l) There is every possibility that the incident did not occur at the spot as alleged by the prosecution.The version of the witnesses is falsified by the evidence of the medical officer who conducted postmortem examination.It is for this reason that there is no other independent eye witness to the incident.(m) During the cross examination of PW No.4, it was brought on record that the neighbour of the said witness had filed a case against him and he was accused in that case at Malshiras.Narayan, Yellappa and Maruti Nandiwale were the complainant.Nandiwale had also filed a complaint against Tanaji (deceased).Nandiwales are dangerous persons.It was also brought on record in cross examination that there are two groups at village Vatphali and one group is led by Namdeo Zurale and the other by Advocate Ghule.The accused belong to Namdeo Zurale group.(n) The motive for the crime is weak.The alleged incident of assaulting the complainant had occurred two years prior to the present incident.The witnesses have not produced any evidence to establish the said motive.(o) The FIR was forwarded to the court belatedly.The delay in sending the FIR is not explained which creates suspicion about the prosecution case.The prosecution story is not free from suspicion and the evidence of witnesses is not consistent with each other and the same is not corroborated by medical officer.The prosecution has failed in establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::(p) The prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had violated the prohibitory order of District Magistrate Solapur under Section 37(1) of Bombay Police Act.(q) Except the evidence of investigating officer, there is no evidence to connect accused Nos. 7 and 8 with the crime.There is no independent witness examined by the prosecution to establish that the accused Nos. 7 and 8 had harboured accused No.1 Namdeo Zurale knowing that he had committed the offence of murder.(s) The blood group of the deceased could not be determined.The blood group of accused No.2 was inconclusive and the blood group of accused No.3 was 'A'.Similarly, the blood group of accused Nos. 1 and 4 was inconclusive.::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::::: Uploaded on - 18/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 19/04/2018 02:31:22 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,052,949 |
(i) Criminal Bail Application No.1911 of 2018 is allowed;(ii) The applicants are directed to be released on bail inconnection with CR No.446 of 2017 registered with Kandivali PoliceStation, on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each withone or more sureties in the like amount;4 of 4 13.BA.1911.2018.doc(iii) The applicants shall report the investigating officer ofKandivali Police Station once in a month on first Friday between 10am and 12 noon till further orders;(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence.(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,057,703 |
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Let the applicant Rahul Kumar, be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-i. THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,060,674 |
2 CRA No.425/2009The case was called for number of times, but no one appeared on the behalf of the appellant.The appellant was never granted bail.Shri Rishikesh Bohare, Advocate, who is in the panel of High Court Legal Aid Committee and has a vast experience of arguing criminal matters, is present in the Court.He was requested to go through the record and argue on behalf of the appellant.Shri Bohare, Advocate, graciously accepted the request made by the Court.He went through the record for near about 2 hours and argued the matter at length on behalf of the appellant.The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 30.3.2006 at about 7:30 PM, near Talaiya Baba, along with other co-accused persons who were total seven in number looted the complainant Brijesh Lodhi and his brother Shailendra Singh and took away their gold ring, gold chain, an amount of Rs.1,53,000/-,three pass books of the banks, Bills of Medicine Point and while doing so, they caused injuries to the victims by lathi, sticks etc.As the bank hours were over and the bank was closed, therefore, he could not deposit the amount and came back to village Sihod.At about 7:00 P.M., he along with Shailendra, went towards Vidisha on their Bullet Motor Cycle.When they reached near Talaiya Baba, all of a sudden 10-12 miscreants came in front of them.2 miscreants started assaulting them by lathis as a result of which, they fell down.The remaining miscreants, also started assaulting 3 CRA No.425/2009 them.They dragged them towards the agricultural fields.A threat to their life was extended.One person took the gold ring, gold chain, and an amount of Rs.10,000/-, and another person took out the documents and an amount of Rs.1,53,000/- kept in the bag.The hands and legs of the complainant and his brother were tied.In the meanwhile, another motorcycle came near the place of incident, as a result of which all the accused persons except two, went towards the road and stopped the said motorcycle.Two accused persons were standing there in order to keep a watch over them.As the attention of the accused had diverted, therefore, taking advantage of the situation, the complainant and his brother, somehow got themselves free after opening their hands and legs and ran away.They reached near a temple and sent an information to the police station.By that time, Ajay Sharma also came there as he and his father were also beaten by the miscreants.The complainant had seen two accused persons.On the report of the complainant, the police registered the F.I.R. The victims were sent for medical treatment.Their M.L.C.s were received.The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the spot map was prepared.The appellant and another were arrested and their confessional statements under Section 27 of Evidence Act were recorded.A gold ring was recovered from the possession of the appellant which was got identified from the complainant.The appellant was arrested and the police after completing the investigation filed a charge sheet against the appellant.Remaining accused persons remained absconding.Shailendra Lodhi (P.W.8), and Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9), have stated in their evidence that on 30-3-2006, they had gone to deposit the amount in the bank and they reached the bank at about 2:30-3:00 P.M. As it was a half day, therefore, the amount could not be deposited in the bank.Thereafter, they went to village Sihod and after leaving their younger brother came to Vidisha.At a place in between Palaki and Tharra, 10-11 persons were standing along with lathi and sticks.They assaulted them by lathis, as a result 5 CRA No.425/2009 of which, they fell down.They were dragged towards the agricultural fields and snatched the bag which was containing Rs. 1,50,000/-.Shailendra was having Rs. 3000/- and Brijesh was having Rs. 5000/-, that too was taken away.The gold ring of Brijesh was also taken away.Their hands and legs were tied.At that time, they noticed one more motor cycle coming on the road, therefore, after leaving two persons with them, the remaining persons went towards the road.As the attention of the accused got diverted, therefore, taking advantage of the position, the victims ran away from the spot after getting themselves free.The motor cycle which was coming was also attacked.Shailendra and Brijesh reached near a temple and some how informed the police.(11/01/2018) Per Justice G.S. AhluwaliaThis Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and sentence dated 27-5-2009 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 203/2006 by which the appellant and the co-accused Diwan Singh have been convicted under Section 395 read with Section 397 of I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, with default imprisonment.An application was filed by the co-accused Diwan Singh seeking permission to withdraw the appeal, accordingly, this Court by order dated 27.11.2017 permitted the appellant Diwan Singh to withdraw the appeal and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.The co-accused Divan Singh was arrested at a later stage, therefore, a supplementary charge sheet was filed against Divan Singh.3 CRA No.425/20094 CRA No.425/2009The Trial Court framed charges under Section 395 read with Section 397 of I.P.C. The appellant and co-accused abjured their guilt and pleaded not guilty.The Trial Court, after recording evidence, convicted the appellant and the co-accused Diwan Singh for offence under Section 395 read with 397 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default imprisonment.Shailendra remained admitted in the hospital for near about 20-22 days.Thereafter, they came to know that an accused has been arrested.They were called in a jail for identifying the accused.They identified the appellant Bhagwan Singh.These witnesses were cross examined in detail, however, nothing could be elicited from their evidence, which may make their evidence unreliable or suspicious.5 CRA No.425/2009Uma Shanker (P.W.5) and Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W.6) are the two persons who were coming on a motor cycle.They have also narrated the incident.However, the appellant was not got identified from these witnesses by the police, but Uma Shanker (P.W.5) and Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W.6), identified by the appellant in the Court.Chandrabhan Raghuvanshi (P.W.2) is a seizure witness, who has stated that the appellant Bhagwan Singh had made a confessional statement, Ex. P.1 and vide seizure memo Ex. P.2, a gold ring was recovered at his instance.6 CRA No.425/2009The test identification parade of the gold ring was conducted by Jitendra Tiwari (P.W.11), who was the elected Councillor.This witness has stated that the complainant Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) had identified his gold ring.Smt. Saroj Singh Parihar (P.W.3), was working on the post of Naib Tahsildar, Vidisha and had conducted the test identification parade of the appellant Bhagwan Singh.The complainant Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) and Shailendra Lodhi (P.W.8) had correctly identified the appellant Bhagwan Singh.Dr. R.L. Singh (P.W.4) had medically examined the injured witnesses.Three injuries were found on the body of Uma shanker (P.W.5) and his M.L.C. report is Ex. P.8 and 4 injuries were found on the body of Ajay (P.W.6) and his M.L.C. report is Ex.One Deendayal was also medically examined and as many as 5 injuries were found on his body and his M.L.C. report is Ex.This witness vide Ex.P.5 and P.6 had given an information to the police regarding the fact that injured persons have been brought to the hospital who have stated about the marpeet.Thus, it is clear that victims Uma Shanker (P.W.5), Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W.6), Shailendra (P.W.8) and Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) were looted by the accused persons and were caused injuries.Shailendra (P.W.8) and Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) had identified the appellant Bhagwan in the test identification parade, Ex.7 CRA No.425/2009"Dock identification: Submissions and discussionIn any event, there were two other witnesses to the shooting, namely, PW 11 Narendra Kumawat and PW 19 Suraj Mal who were local residents and knew Nand Singh and Daud Khan and could easily identify them.We see no reason to disbelieve any of them, 8 CRA No.425/2009 particularly since they have all given a consistent statement of the events.Thus, the recovery of gold ring from the appellant, couple with the fact that the said gold ring was duly identified by Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) as well as the fact that Shailendra (P.W.8) and Brijesh Lodhi (P.W.9) had not only identified the appellant in the test identification parade conducted by the police but the appellant was identified by Uma Shanker (P.W.5), Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi (P.W.6), Shailendra (P.W.8) and Brijesh Lodhi (P.W. 9) in the Court also.The appellant has not claimed that the gold ring recovered from him, belongs to him.Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant for offence under Sections 395/397 of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.Accordingly, the appellant Bhagwan Singh is held guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 395/397 of I.P.C.So far as the question of sentence is concerned, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default imprisonment.The appellant was arrested on 7-7- 2006 and during trial, he was not granted bail.Even after 9 CRA No.425/2009 conviction, the appellant Bhagwan Singh was not granted bail by this Court.Thus, it appears, that Bhagwan Singh must have undergone the entire jail sentence.Thus, the judgment and sentence dated 27-5-2009 passed by 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Vidisha in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2006 is hereby affirmed.9 CRA No.425/2009The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.
|
['Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,180,614 |
The brief matrix of the prosecution case are as under :-(A) Prior to three years of the incident, appellant married Savita d/o Kisan Tupe.Out of the wedlock they got a daughter, namely, Pinti.Before 5-6 months of the incident, the appellant was working in the field of one Shri Mangate at village Mitmita, District Aurangabad.He had taken Savita and Pinti for cohabitation with him.On Diwali festival, when Sarita came to her parental home, she complained that the appellant is insisting her to bring Rs.50,000/- for business and on that count, is ill-treating her.The members of paternal home of Savita, therefore, asked her to stay with them.(B) On 17.11.2006, the appellant on telephone assured parents of Savita that he will behave properly and will not ill-treat her.On his assurance, it was decided to send Savita to him.Appellant also asked them to reach Savita and his daughter to Farshi fata at 12.00 to 12.30 noon, as he will collect both of them from the said spot.At about 2.00 p.m. appellant arrived at the spot and Savita and her daughter were sent with him by a Black-Yellow Jeep for Aurangabad.(C) On 29.11.2006, father in law of Savita, namely, Bhagwanta ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 3 came to village Jatwa, Taluka Fulambri to the house of parents of Savita and inquired about her.It was informed to him that Savita has not come there.Without telling anything Bhagwanta left them.The complainant -::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Sheshrao and other family members suspected some foul play since Savita was ill-treated since last six months by the appellant on account of demand of Rs.50,000/-.(D) On 30.11.2006, complainant, his brother Rambhau and nephew Mukunda went to village Jatwa to trace Savita.Father-in-law of Savita did not give any satisfactory information to them.They felt that the information given by him was suspicious.Therefore, they asked Shrirang - brother of appellant - to bring the appellant to them.They again went to village Jatwa on 1.12.2006 to the house of accused and inquired about Savita with the accused.However, he gave evasive answers.They suspected some foul play.(E) Thereafter, the complainant along with his brother and nephew came to Vadod-Bazar Police Station.In the meantime appellant also reached the police station.PSI Shinde of the said police station inquired with the appellant about Savita and her daughter.At that time, it is alleged that the appellant made a confessional statement that on starting from Farshi fata, on that day, they first came to Aurangabad, thereafter, took a bus to Dhule and alighted at Chalisgaon.While going to Pachora from Chalisgaon by a jeep, they dropped at village Anturli fata at about 11.00 p.m. It is further alleged that, the appellant took wife Savita ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 4 and daughter Pinti in one field in Anturli Shiwar and then dragged them in the well in the field and thereafter, went to his native place.Police Patil Rohidas had informed this fact to Pachora Police Station.A.D.No.74 of 2006 was accordingly registered.ASI Rama Vasatkar of Pachora Police Station inquired into the matter of accidental death.He visited the spot, recorded spot panchanama so also inquest panchanama.He arranged for post mortem of the dead bodies from the Rural Hospital, Pachora and also performed funeral of the dead bodies.The clothes on the persons of victim were seized under a seizure panchanama.(H) After lodging of the complaint, API Rajendra Lokhande ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 5 investigated into the matter.He arrested the appellant on 2.12.2006 and recorded his statement so also statements of necessary witnesses.(1) Marital discord amongst the appellant and deceased Sarita on account of alleged demand of Rs.50,000/-, non fulfillment of the same, resulting into stay of deceased Savita with her daughter before the date of incident at her parental house.(3) Handing over of custody of deceased Savita and Pinti by PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo to appellant on 18.11.2006 at about 2.00 PM.(4) Deceased last seen alive in the company of appellant.To substantiate circumstances Nos.1 to 3 above, evidence of three prosecution witnesses is relied upon i.e. evidence of PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo.PW 7 Rambhau and PW 8 Sheshrao are uncles of deceased Savita and PW 11 is cousin of deceased Savita.According to these three witnesses, after marriage of Savita, she was residing at her in-laws place in a joint family.Marriage was blissed for the period of two and half years.Thereafter, demand of Rs.50,000/- was made to deceased Savita, to be brought from her parents.According to the witnesses, this demand was disclosed to them by deceased Savita when she visited her parents' place.The reason for disclosure of demand to these witnesses, according to them, was obvious since undisputedly, father of Savita was no more.This demand was also disclosed by Savita to her mother.These witnesses in their evidence have also testified that assurance was given to meet the demand after making some arrangement after the cotton season.It is also disclosed in the evidence of these witnesses that since they could not fulfill the demand of the appellant, they advised Savita to stay at the parent's house for sometime.Thus, according to the prosecution witnesses, before the incident, Savita and her daughter were staying at her parent's house.Reserved on : April 7, 2010 Pronounced on : April 19, 2010 JUDGMENT : (Per S.B.Deshmukh, J.) :-The appellant (accused) aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jalgaon, in Sessions Case No.55 of 2007, dated 11.4.2008 has preferred the present appeal.By the impugned judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offense punishable under section 302 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC") and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to suffer rigorous ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 2 imprisonment for one month.The appellant, however, was acquitted of the another charges under sections 498-A and 201 of IPC by the learned trial Judge.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::He also arranged to publish a news in the news paper about receipt of the unclaimed bodies.(G) It is alleged that thereafter, the complainant, along with his relatives and appellant came to police station Pachora, accompanied by Vadod Bazar Police.There they saw some clothes and photographs of victim and identified them as of Savita and Pinti.201, 498-A of IPC so also sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act came to be registered against the accused.On 4.12.2006, during police custody, the appellant made a disclosure statement and showed his readiness to show the spot where he has concealed the bag of clothes of deceased.They were seized by the police under a seizure panchanama.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::(I) On completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Pachora, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Jalgaon, since it was triable by the court of Sessions.(J) Based on the prosecution case, the learned trial Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offenses punishable under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of IPC.The plea of the appellant was recorded.He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.To bring home the guilt, prosecution examined seventeen witnesses.PW 1 is Police Patil Rohidas, who had informed Pachora Police about the dead bodies (Exhibit 9), PW 2 is Namdeo Patil, who took out the dead bodies out of the well along with others so also a panch (Exhibit21), PW 3 is Pradip Eknath Pawar, a panch (Exhibit 15), who was declared hostile, PW 4 is Walmik Prabhakar More, panch of seizure of wedding card so also photographs of the victim and appellant (Exhibit 16), PW 5 is Kishor Dodhu More, a panch witness, who was declared hostile (Exhibit 19), PW 6 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 6 is Chudaman Raghunath Patil, another panch witness, who was also declared hostile and cross examined by the prosecution (Exhibit 20), PW 7 is Rambhau, uncle of deceased (Exhibit 21), PW 8 is Sheshrao, complainant and uncle of deceased (Exhibit 23), PW 9 is Narayan Govind Patil, an eye witness, (Exhibit 26), PW 10 is Nitin Shamrao Jathar, a panch witness to the disclosure made by the appellant to show the place where clothes of victims were hidden by him (Exhibit 29), PW 11 is Namdeo, cousin of deceased Savita (Exhibit 33), PW 12 is Daga Dhudku Pagare, a witness (Exhibit 35), PW 13 is Vijay Murlidhar Jagtap, a municipal hospital employee, who buried the dead bodies (Exhibit 37), PW 14 is Shamrao Mahadu Patil, who helped in taking out the dead bodies out of well (Exhibit 38), PW 15 is Sampat Sakharam Shinde, Investigating Officer - API, Police Station Vadod Bazar (Exhibit 40), PW 16 is ASI Rama Vasatkar, Police Head Constable Pachora Police Station, who has registered the A.D.case (Exhibit 42), and PW 17 is Rajendra Radhakurshna Lokhande, Investigating Officer and API of Accidental Case registered with Pachora Police Station Exhibit 50).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, taking into consideration the statement of the appellant / accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and after hearing counsel for the respective parties, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused for the offenses as said in the opening paragraph of this judgment.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Before adverting to the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we shall proceed to list un-controversial facts amongst the parties.Daga Pagare (PW 12) in the vicinity of village Anjurli on 19.11.2006 and beat of drum was given on 21.11.2006 to identify the dead bodies kept in the Municipal Council Hospital, Pachora.Exhibit 18 is the document dt. 21.11.2006 showing drum beats admitted by the appellant.(iii) Post mortem reports Exhibits 45 and 46 were also admitted by the appellant and cause of death is shown as due to drowning in relation of death of Savita and Pinti.Appellant has, however, strongly contended that death of Savita and Pinti is homicidal.(iv) The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.The Supreme Court has laid down guidelines from time to time in regard to the finding of guilt solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence in number of cases.Leading judgment is in the matter of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343] wherein the law was laid down in the following terms :::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::We have heard learned counsel for the parties.Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted that the trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.According to him, the circumstantial evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient to bring home guilt to the appellant.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::(5) Conduct of the appellant in not reporting the missing or whereabouts of deceased Savita and Pinti to parents of deceased Savita or to the police authorities.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::(6) Discovery of the bag containing articles of the deceased at the instance of the appellant.(7) Denial or non explanation by the appellant in relation to incriminating circumstances.According to these witnesses, on 17.11.2006, appellant ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 12 requested reaching of deceased Savita and Pinti for cohabitation.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Message of the appellant was accordingly acted upon.From the evidence of these witnesses, it reveals that appellant asked to reach deceased Savita and Pinti at Farshi fata on 18.11.2006 at about 12.00 to 12.30 PM.We have considered the cross examination of these witnesses.Their evidence remained unshattered.Thus, circumstance Nos.1 and 2 have been proved.On 18.11.2006, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo reached Savita and Pinti to the appellant at Farshi fata.The appellant came there.He took Savita and daughter Pinti along with him and left the place by Black and Yellow Jeep towards Aurangabad.PW8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo returned their home from Farshi fata.Thus, custody or deceased Savita and Pinti was handed over to the appellant by these prosecution witnesses.After this time, Savita and Pinti could not be seen alive.Circumstance Nos. 3 and 4, as alleged by the prosecution, thus stand established in the evidence of these three witnesses.(Emphasis supplied).In the cross examination of these witnesses, it is significant to note that there is even no suggestion given to them that custody of deceased was not handed over to appellant as claimed.However, in the cross examination of these witnesses, it is tried to be suggested that these witnesses have not lodged the report with the police.We have noticed ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 ::: 13 that in the cross examination of PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo, suggestion has been given that Savita and Pinti had died at the parental home.It seems to be an attempt on behalf of the appellant to say that death of Savita and Pinti might have taken place when they were staying at the parental house of deceased Savita.However, there is no specific and clear suggestion that custody of Savita and Pinti was not handed over to the appellant by PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Appellant took deceased Savita and Pinti in a Black and Yellow Jeep on 18.11.2006 from Farshi fata and travelled towards Aurangabad.In the meantime, Police Station Vadod Bazar has received a report from PW 1 Rohidas, Police Patil of village Anturli that there are two dead bodies in the well of PW 12 Daga.His report was received by ASI Rama (PW 16).Based on the said report, AD case No.74 of 2006 was registered.Dead bodies were taken out from the well.Inquest panchanamas (Exhibits 12 and 13) were carried out by ASI Rama (PW 12).Spot panchanama was also recorded and established in the evidence of PW 16 Rama (Exhibit 14).Panch witnesses have also been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove these panchanamas.Dead bodies were sent to Municipal Hospital, Pachora for post mortem.Till this date, there was no missing report lodged on behalf of the appellant with any of the Police Stations, either Fulambri or Vadod Bazar.This conduct of the appellant from 18.11.2006 i.e. the date when he had alleged to have taken custody of deceased Savita and Pinti till the date of reporting the matter by PW 8 Sheshrao is the incriminating circumstance.This incriminating conduct has been proved by the prosecution.ig Thus, circumstance No.5 is proved by the prosecution.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:38 :::Therein, the appellant and deceased were last seen together.Deceased was missing.C.R. 736].In this case the allegations were of rape and murder of a child.The case was based on the circumstantial evidence.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::This is the case where accused is the only person who can either explain as to how else he came to know of such concealment and if he chooses to refrain from telling the Court as to how else he came to know of it, the presumption is well justified course to be adopted by the criminal court that the concealment was made by himself.To substantiate ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 18 such allegations, the prosecution has examined PW 10 Nitin - a panch witness.The appellant had made voluntary disclosure statement (Exhibit::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::This statement is produced on record and established by examining the relevant witnesses on behalf of the prosecution From the evidence of PW 10 Nitin, it appears that he was present along with another witness on 4.12.2006 at Police Station Pachora.According to him, disclosure statement was made by the appellant in the presence of himself and another panch witness.Nothing could be elicited in the cross examination of this witness to disbelieve his testimony.In the cross examination he states that the spot of incident is a open place accessible to anybody.He denied the suggestion that the appellant did not make any disclosure statement.This memorandum of panchanama is also established by PW 10 Nitin.Articles, which were found in the bag have been mentioned in this memorandum of panchanama.On behalf of the prosecution, evidence of PW 17 Rajendra -Investigating Officer is also pointed out to us by learned Additional Public Prosecutor.Thus, the memorandum of panchanama and/or disclosure statement - Exhibits 29 and 30 - are established by the evidence of PW 10 Nitin and PW 17 Rajendra.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that memorandum Exhibit 29 and Exhibit 30 are not genuine.For this proposition, time of these two documents was pointed to us.Exhibit 30 - discovery panchanama was started at 12.50 p.m. and completed at 13.45 p.m. From the evidence of PW 10 Nitin and PW 17 Rajendra, it has been pointed out that the distance in between the Pachora Police Station and place where from the alleged recovery was made is around 5-7 kms.According to learned counsel for the appellant, it was not possible to discover the incriminating articles after alleged voluntary disclosure statement.In the memorandum Exhibit 29, in our opinion, the information supplied by the appellant is recorded.The text of which reads as; "...The bag containing clothes of wife and daughter is concealed at the place.I will take it out and produce the same.Come with me...."This is the admissible portion from the text of memorandum Exhibit 29 proved in the evidence of PW 10 Nitin and PW 17 Rajendra.This much limited admissible evidence which led to the discovery of the bag containing clothes of deceased Savita and Pinti, incriminating articles, is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 ::: 20 admissible in the evidence.Thus, we have to appreciate the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court, interpreting section 27, which is discussed herein above.Submission of learned counsel for the appellant pertaining to the timings of memorandum Exhibit 29 and panchanama Exhibit 30, in our view, is not material to discard Exhibits 29 and 30 and evidence of PW 10 Nitin and PW 17 Rajendra.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the bag was not mentioned by PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo in their oral evidence, in our opinion, is simply to be recorded for the rejection because when Savita leaves the house of her parents along with her daughter, she is bound to leave along with apparels of her own and her daughter.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::In our opinion, portion of this statement, which reads; ".... Wife was carrying daughter Pinti on her hip has been pushed in the well ...." is clearly in-admissible in the evidence.The learned trial Judge did not consider the admissibility of alleged confessional statement of the appellant Exhibit 41 and has considered the said statement as a whole.According to him, the spot panchanama Exhibit 14 gives the description of the well.According to him, this well was not in use and dead body of Pinti was floating on the water.One footwear out of the pair was near the electric pole adjoining to the well and another was in the well water.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::In-disputably, appellant is resident of village Jatwa, Taluka Fulambri, District Aurangabad.PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo are residents of village Narala, Taluka Fulambri, District Aurangabad.It is pertinent to note that the dead bodies of Savita and Pinti were found in a well within the vicinity of village Anturli, District Jalgaon.Learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that the well where at dead bodies were found is around 130 kms.away from the place of residence of the appellant and PW 7 Rambhau, PW 8 Sheshrao and PW 11 Namdeo.In our view, there is no occasion for deceased Savita and Pinti to go to the well within the vicinity of village Anturli - a far away place.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::It stands dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the trial Court.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 15:51:39 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,062,515 |
The Appellant has been convicted for having committed the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to pay the fine, to undergo R.I. for six months.In brief, the prosecution's case is that on 12.07.2006 at 10.41 PM an information was received at PS Mandir Marg that a person was lying unconscious near Nehru Chowk, RPF Office, Panchkuian Road, Delhi.The information was recorded vide DD No.23-A Ex.PW10/A CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 1 of 13 and assigned to SI Rajwant who visited the spot and found one person lying at the spot with injuries on his head.One half filled liquor bottle alongwith empty tumbler, one plastic mug, one boiled egg and some salt (on a piece of newspaper) were also found lying nearby.CAT Ambulance A-11 was at the spot and Mr.Anil Aggarwal, Incharge of Ambulance, RML Hospital, on checking, found the injured to be dead.The injured was taken to Lady Hardinge Medical College/Smt.S.K.Hospital, New Delhi where he was declared 'Brought Dead'.Identity of the injured remained 'Unknown'.SHO Inspector Ram Kishan also reached the spot, conducted necessary investigation there and after obtaining MLC from the hospital, he sent rukka Ex.10. PW-2 Charan Singh @ Chunva stated that he used to sell 'chaat' at Panchkuian Road.Appellant Rakesh Kumar Shukla was working at the Tea Shop of Ramu.He knew deceased Babloo who used to visit his 'Chaat' shop.The Appellant and deceased being known to him, all of them also used to sit, eat and drink together.While narrating the incident wherein Babloo lost his life, PW-2 Charan Singh stated that on 12.07.2006 at about 10.00 pm while he alongwith Babloo - the deceased was taking liquor on the pavement by roadside, PW-3 'R' was also sitting with them.At that time, Appellant was seen coming there with wooden support hidden by him behind his back.The Appellant started hitting Babloo with that wooden support.At that time, the Appellant also asked him (PW-2) to run away from there.PW-2 ran away from there but stopped at some distance to witness the occurrence.Appellant hit twice on the back of Babloo and then hit on his head.He further stated that next day, he was taken to police station where he narrated the incident to the police.PW14/A through Ct.Satish for registration of the case on the basis of which FIR No.282/2006 was registered at PS Mandir Marg.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 1 of 13During investigation, two eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Charan Singh @ Chunva and PW-3 'R' (name of the witness withheld being minor) surfaced and they disclosed the identity of the offender to be Rakesh Kumar Shukla i.e. the Appellant and of the deceased as Babloo.The IO made efforts to ascertain the complete identity of the deceased.Various search operations were conducted to apprehend the offender.Ultimately on 17.07.2006 the Appellant was arrested from House No.23, Chander Vihar, IIIrd Floor, Mandawali, Delhi and from there, at his behest, one T-shirt used by him to wipe out the blood from his pant, was seized.The wooden support with which he hit the deceased was also got recovered by him from the bushes inside the LHMC Boundary Wall, opposite Block No.112 LHMC staff quarters.He was sent for medical examination where the clothes which he was wearing CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 2 of 13 at that time, were also seized as they were also having some blood stains.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 2 of 13On 04.08.2006, opinion of the doctor was also obtained as to whether the injury could be caused with the wooden support.The opinion confirmed that the injury suffered by the deceased could be caused by the wooden support which was got recovered by the Appellant.The postmortem report summarised the cause of death as :"Cranio cerebral damage as a result of blunt force impact.On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the Appellant Rakesh Kumar Shukla for committing the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.Subsequently CFSL result was also obtained and filed in the Court.Prosecution examined 15 witnesses in support of its case.Statement of Appellant was recorded under Section 313 CrPC.On appreciation of entire evidence and believing the testimony of the two eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-3, the Appellant was convicted for committing the murder of deceased Surya Prakash @ Babloo and sentenced in the manner stated to above.We have heard Mr.K.B.Andley, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant as well as Mr.Narender Choudhary, learned APP for the State.We have also examined the testimony of material prosecution CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 3 of 13 witnesses as well the documentary evidence.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 3 of 13Mr.K.B.Andley, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that as per prosecution, the deceased acquired the knowledge of the Appellant having relations with the wife of his employer who was a Tea-Vendor at Panchkuian Road.He submitted that at the time of occurrence, the deceased as well the Appellant were taking liquor on the roadside pavement in close vicinity when all of a sudden the Appellant is stated to have lifted a wooden support from a nearby rickshaw and hit 4-5 times on the head of Surya Prakash @ Babloo - the deceased.The Appellant used to prepare tea at the Tea Shop of Ramu and PW-3 'R'- another employee of Ramu used to supply tea to the nearby customers in the market.The deceased Babloo as well as PW-2 Charan Singh 'Chaat Wala' also used to buy tea from the same shop.Thus all of them were well known to each other.PW-2 Charan Singh and PW-3 'R' have stated that they were not aware of any enmity between the deceased and the Appellant.Learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant submitted that though both the eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Charan Singh and PW-3 'R' have stated that they were detained in the police station for many days till the Appellant was arrested in this case which raises serious question mark on the veracity of their version but without entering into this controversy, even if the incident is accepted, it cannot be a case of murder.At the most, an offence under Section 304 IPC can be said to have been committed by the Appellant.Learned Senior Advocate Mr.K.B.Andley submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court, after considering the submissions of the State, may CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 4 of 13 examine all the facts and circumstances to the limited extent whether it is a case punishable under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 IPC.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 4 of 13The opinion of the Doctor Ex.PW-16/C dated 04.08.2006 is sufficient to hold that the fatal injuries were caused with the wooden support Ex.P1 which has been got recovered by the Appellant from the bushes inside the LHMC Boundary Wall, opposite Block No.112 LHMC staff quarters.While referring to the testimony of two eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 Charan Singh and PW-3 'R', learned APP for the State submitted that they have given every minute details as to how the Appellant approached the deceased and started attacking him repeatedly with the wooden support thereby causing injuries which resulted into his death.He emphasised that the testimony of two witnesses being natural and creditworthy, the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.He urged that once the incident is admitted by the Appellant, in view of the postmortem report, this Court, in appellate jurisdiction, should not interfere with the finding of conviction of the Appellant under Section 302 IPC.Learned APP for the State prayed for dismissal of the present CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 5 of 13 appeal.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 5 of 13Before adverting to the rival contentions, we would like to refer to the testimonies of PW-2 Charan Singh and PW-3 'R' who have been examined by the prosecution as eye witnesses.PW-2 Charan Singh stated that in the police station, his statement was recorded and his thumb impressions were taken on four papers.He further stated that he remained in the police station till accused was arrested i.e. for about 8 days.PW-3 'R' was also with him in the police station during this period and they were kept in the CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 6 of 13 police station so that Shukla (Appellant) could be arrested.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 6 of 13PW-3 'R', who is a minor witness, aged about 13 years at that time, has been examined on oath by learned Addl.Session Judge without putting questions to him to test his capability to understand the questions and answer them or whether he understood the sanctity of oath.PW-3 deposed that when he alongwith deceased Babloo and Chunva (PW-2) was sitting on the 'patri', Babloo and Chunva were consuming liquor when he saw the Appellant Rakesh Kumar Shukla coming there with the wooden support Ex.P1 and hit Babloo (deceased) on his head.He stated that he got frightened and fled from the spot.PW-3 also stated about his detention in the police station for about 1-2 days.The MLC Ex.PW13/A pertains to 'Unknown', s/o 'Unknown' aged 30 years brought by HC Ashwini Kumar, No.696/ND to RML Hospital at 12.31 am.The 'Unknown' person (later on identified as Babloo) was declared as 'Brought Dead'.At this stage, we note that the distance between the place of occurrence and RML Hospital is so short that it could not have taken about one-and-a-half hour to take the injured to hospital especially when CAT Ambulance had already arrived at the spot by the time SI Rajwant reached the spot on receipt of DD No.23-A.The post-mortem was conducted on 18.07.2006 after the recovery of weapon of offence Ex.No reason is forthcoming as to why the opinion of the doctor was not taken about weapon of offence on the day of post-mortem or immediately CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 7 of 13 thereafter.The request for giving the opinion about the weapon of offence was made only on 04.08.2006 and the opinion has been given on the same day on the reverse of letter of request.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 7 of 13From the testimony of PW-2 and PW-3, it is proved that the Appellant and the deceased were well known to each other and prior to the occurrence, they used to eat and drink together.On the day of occurrence also the Appellant and the deceased were taking liquor on the road side but in close proximity to each other.The category under which the incident falls has to be determined on the basis of narration of the incident given by two eye witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 as to the manner in which the occurrence has taken place.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 11 of 13He left the spot after hitting the deceased 4-5 times and in the given facts and circumstances we feel that the Appellant can be attributed with the knowledge that such act was likely to cause death.Having regard to the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Appellant succeeds partially to the extent of alteration of his conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (Part-II) IPC.Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.The conviction of the Appellant is altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 (Part-II) IPC.The sentence awarded to the Appellant under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment is hereby set aside.The Appellant is sentenced under Section 304 (Part-II) IPC to undergo RI for seven years with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default, to undergo SI for one month.CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 12 of 13PRATIBHA RANI (JUDGE) REVA KHETRAPAL (JUDGE) OCTOBER 07, 2013 'st' CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 13 of 13CRL.A.1380/2010 Page 13 of 13
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,064,869 |
The purchaser Beemaraja/2nd respondent visited the property.The petitioner/accused Krishnan claimed that the property is in his possession and belonged to him and he had obtained power connection and put up construction.Further, the patta issued in the name of Yashodammal and 2/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 Premila were cancelled at the instance of the petitioner and the petitioner is presently holding patta in his name.The land is a Government poramboke land and it is under his continuous, enjoyment for decades.During investigation LW1 to LW9 were examined and several documents from the registration authorities, revenue authorities, TNEB and from Land and Survey Authorities were obtained and thereafter, charge sheet came to be filed.LW7 is the Accounts Officer of TNEB, who states about execution of deed of indemnity dated 25.04.1992, in which the petitioner had knowingly given false particulars as though the land is a government poramboke land.The petitioner in one breadth states that he paid substantial amount of sale consideration to Ethiraj and was put in possession, on the other hand claims right being in continuous possession of Government poramboke land.Thereafter by creating forged document and by deception, obtained the electricity connection.LW8 is the Sub Registrar of Velacherry, who had spoken about the execution of documents by Ethiraj LW4 to LW3 Yashodammal.All these documents are genuine.The petitioner by creating forged documents, claimed that he is the owner of the property.The initiation of the civil suit will not absolve the petitioner from criminal liability.The petitioner in a well concerted manner had created forged documents, made false claim as though he owned the land in his own right, created revenue records to substantiate the claim.The documents pertaining to insurance, telephones, ration shop and of 15/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.In the ration card which is at page No.164 it is mentioned as door No.4, 100 feet road, Velacherry.In Election commission ID Card it is mentioned door No.4, TANSI Nagar, 100 feet road, Velacherry.To the bank viz., United Commercial Bank, Nayanapuram Branch and Madras Central Co-operative Bank, Velacherry Branch and in E.S.I Corporation Identity Card, the petitioner has given his address as plot No.7, 100 feet road, TANSI Nagar, Velacherry.In such circumstances, it is seen that the petitioner was interchanging and using the door No.4 and plot No.7 to his convenience.The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.6526 of 2010 pending trial on the file of the XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai for the offence under Sections 447 r/w 420, 465, 467, 468 r/w 471 of IPC, has filed this quash petition.2.The case of the prosecution is that one Yashodammal and Premila purchased plot No.4 in survey No.241/1C in TANSI Nagar, Taramani Road, Velacherry through document No.2181/01 and 2182/01, dated 01.06.2001 of 2187 and 2062 sq.ft, totally 4249 sq.ft from Ethiraj and Ramamurthy sons of Narashimalu Naicker.The said property was conveyed by way of sale deed to one Beemaraja by document No.3648/07 and 3649/07, dated 23.08.2007 for total sale consideration for Rs.63,74,259/-.Further claimed that Ethiraj son of Narashimalu Naicker, who is vendor to Yashodammal and Beemaraja had executed an agreement for sale of plot to his wife Rani on 07.08.1978 and a substantial amount of sale consideration was already paid.During investigation, it was found that the petitioner had given false particulars, made false claim and created forged documents as though the land is a government poramboke land and executed a forged indemnity bond and made representation to the authorities knowingly he is not the owner or got any right over the property.Hence, a case came to be registered.The said Yashodammal and Premila earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.2152 of 2004 before the VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.The 2nd respondent Beemaraj was aware of the background and litigations in the property, purchased the property from 4/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 Yashodammal and Premila to perfect the title and to get possession thereby a civil dispute has been given a criminal cloak by the above case.5.The basic ingredient to substantiate forgery, there should be a false document being created.The petitioner's act would not constitute offence of making false documents.The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner as authorized person executed the indemnity bond for getting electricity service connection.The indemnity bond discloses the fact that the house is situated in a Poromboke land.Providing wrong or false information will not and would not make the document as false document as per Section 464 Of IPC.Once, the main and basic ingredient of false document is not established by the prosecution, the offence of using forged documents defined under Sections 465, 467, 468 r/w 471 IPC is not made out.7.Further for offence of cheating, the underlining concept is deception.In this case there is no iota of particulars that the petitioner had made any representation to the complainant and induced him to deliver any property.The first and foremost ingredient of false representation for offence of cheating at the inception is not there.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 past of vacant land.11.He further submitted that the defacto complainant filed a civil suit in C.S.No.586 of 2013 (In page No.214) which is pending before this Court.The petitioner filed his written statement (In page No.234) along with 62 documents of unimpeachable character which would prove the fact that the petitioner was in continuous possession of the property.By giving criminal cloak to a civil dispute, the above case has been foisted against him.Earlier, the vendor LW2 viz., Yashodammal and Premila filed O.S.No.2152 of 2004 (In page No.190) against the petitioner and others seeking permanent injunction, restraining the petitioner from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property and from creating obstruction by petitioner/defendant against plaintiff/Yashodammal and Premila in putting up a compound wall, the petitioner had filed written statement (In page No.198) in the said suit.12.The learned counsel further submitted that the said Narashimalu Naicker on 25.04.1994 had executed a sale deed to one Gunasekaran vide document No.829 of 1994, in which the petitioner's possession of the disputed property is mentioned.In the extract of Town Survey Register (at page No.172) the petitioner's name finds place.Despite receiving the sale consideration the said Ethiraj failed to execute the sale deed 10/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 in favour of the petitioner's wife, on the other hand suppressing the same had sold the property to Yashodammal and Premila, who thereafter had sold the property to LW2 and had given a criminal cloak for civil dispute.14.It is submitted that earlier there were two police complaints which were enquired and closed as civil in nature and directed parties to approach the civil Court.Further, now a civil suit is pending for the same property.In view of the same, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of process of law.Hence, he prayed for quashing the proceedings.The authorities on verification of the genuineness and transactions had registered the documents.Further LW5 and LW6 have stated 14/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 other authorities were created on the false representation of the petitioner.Hence, the contention of the petitioner has to be decided during the trial.17.Further, the petitioner's claim of impeachable character of 62 documents is not true and they are disputed documents.The petitioner has to produce and prove the documents in the manner known to law during trial.The prosecution on statement of witnesses and the collection of documents during investigation from the Registration Department, Revenue Department, Land and Survey Department and Electricity Department clearly proved the complicity and involvement of the petitioner in creating forged documents and using the same, madeclaim over the property and usurping and squatting over the property without any right on the basis of forged documents.The statutory and Government records have been forged and prayed for dismissal of the petition.18.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the plot No.4 in survey No.241/1C at Taramani Road, TANSI Nagar, Velacherry 16/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 orginally belong to one Krishnaswamy Naicker.Both Krishnaswamy Naicker and Narashimalu Naicker were in the absolute possession and enjoyment of the property.The patta and revenue records stands in the name of Yashodammal and Premila.The petitioner a political bigwig in the area, who has muscle power, connected to person in power, being active in the leading political party in power, got himself nominated to various committees and in all these committee communication, the address was given as plot No.4, Taramani, TANSI Nagar, Velacherry to create records.Further for insurance, Telephone Department and other authorities, the petitioner in a deceitful manner knowingly has given this address to create documents.The petitioner's 17/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 contention that Ethiraj received the money for sale consideration and put him in possession with the property is false.This claim is now made in the civil suit as a defence.Further, the sale agreement entered with Ethiraj on 07.08.1978 is disputed.That is the reason the petitioner has not filed any specific performance suit.The petitioner proximate to the plot, using his clout and connection created false documents.Earlier the complaint to the local police and to the Commissioner of Police was not acted upon and no action was taken.Thereafter, the 2nd respondent approached the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C and thereafter, a case in Crime No.115 of 2009 came to be registered.For the past ten years the petitioner successfully stalled the progress of the trial and the petitioner's contention that due to the pendency of the civil case, the criminal case cannot be proceeded cannot be countenanced on the facts of the case.The documents produced by the petitioner are not of impeccable character which are disputed documents to be 18/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 proved in the manner known to law during the trial.The petitioner’s admission that at his instance and on his representation the patta issued to vendor of the defacto complainant was cancelled would prove that the petitioner with criminal intend created forged documents made false representation to the authorities concerned.The petitioner knowingly created false documents and used the same as genuine.The petitioner’s claim that he had not created any documents with false particulars cannot be sustained on the facts of the above case.19.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submitted that the trial is pending for the past ten years without any progress and prayed this Court to direct the trial Court to dispose of the trial within a time frame.21.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.22.The petitioner has filed a consolidated typed set, annexing several documents.The petitioner admits about executing indemnity bond to TNEB on 25.04.1992 (at page No.80), obtaining electricity connection No.210:21:405 on 12.10.1992 (at Page No.123), Chennai Corporation Tax Notice dated 17.11.1994 at page No.127, Tax receipt dated 01.12.1994 (at page No.128), unauthorized Construction Notice of Corporation dated 01.11.1996 (in page No.131), unauthorized Construction Notice dated 04.11.1996 (at page No.133), demolition notice dated 07.11.1996 (in page No.134), property tax receipt dated 20.02.1997 (in page No.135), TNEB meter changing slip dated 22/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 04.10.1997 (in page No.138), letter of the petitioner to Assistant Commissioner Civil Supplies dated 20.03.2018, Ration Card application form dated 10.02.1997 (in page Nos.143 and 144).23.From all these documents it is seen that the petitioner has been making claim that he is a resident of plot No.4, 100 feet Taramani road, TANSI Nagar, Velacherry.The sale agreement dated 07.08.1978 through which the petitioner claims his possession of the property.Owned by the Revenue Department for the purpose of getting electricity connection has applied of a service connection in the above premises in his/her name for his purpose of getting electricity supply”.24.The indemnity bond has been signed/executed/delivered/handed 23/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 over by the petitioner.Further though the indemnity bond was for plot No.6, in the EB receipts and bills it is mentioned as Krishnan 4, 100 Taramani Road, Tansi Nagar.In the letter of the petitioner dated 25.08.1986 addressed to the Assistant Revenue Officer-XV, Corporation of Madras, Ripon Building, Madras, it is mentioned that he is the owner of the premises viz., No.7, 100 feet road, TANSI Nagar, Velacherry and he had purchased the land on 07.08.1978 and immediately put up construction.In the Electricity Consumer Card as well as in the Corporation ID Card, it is plainly mentioned as No.4 Taramani Road, Velacherry and whether it is plot number or door number is not properly mentioned.It is to be seen in page No.131, Unauthorized Construction Notice of Corporation of Madras dated 01.11.1996, the JE of the concerned Corporation Division had made a note that “During inspection it is noticed that you have commenced construction and it is an unauthorized one.You are hereby directed to stop the construction or otherwise your watchmen and materials will be removed from the site as per Section 256A of Madras City Municipal Corporation Act IV, 1919 and further, legal action will be taken 24/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 against you”.26.Further, the petitioner had entered into an agreement with Ethiraj on 07.08.1978 is for plot No.2 and not for plot No.7, as could be seen from (page No.184).On 25.08.1986 the petitioner submitted a letter to the Assistant Revenue Officer-XV, Corporation of Madras, Ripon Buildings, Madras as seen from (page No.118) referring the purchase of land on 07.08.1978 for plot 25/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.The area of plot No.4 as well the boundaries are not the same with variations as could be seen from (page No.54, page No.77 with page No.185).The petitioner had addressed a letter on 20.06.2018 to Assistant Commissioner Civil Supplies, in which he mentioned that he is residing at door No.4, plot No.7, as could be seen from the (page Nos.142 and144).Not stopping with it, 26/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 he makes a claim that patta No.9909 which was issued in the name of Yashodammal and Premila was cancelled for which petitioner produced a letter of Tahsildar, Mambalam, Guindy dated 14.09.2004, which is at (page No.155).This letter, as per revenue authorities and records was not issued by them and it is a forged one.28.Thus the petitioner in one breadth claims to be in possession on the strength of sale agreement dated 07.08.1978 with Ethiraj son of Narashimalu Naicker and on the other hand claims right being in continuous possession of Government poramboke land.Thus looking at any angle the petitioner's contention are not tenable and acceptable both legally and factually.The citations relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the above case.30.In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.Having regard to the fact that the charge sheet was filed ten years ago, this court directs the trial Court to complete the trial within a period of six months.27/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 201031.It is made clear that the observations and findings recorded in this order are only for the purpose of disposal of this quash petition arising out of application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. It is open for the trial Court to decide the case pending trial on its own merits, uninfluenced by this order.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.03.06.2020 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To1.The XI Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Saidapet, Chennai.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.28/29http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.vv2 PRE-DELIVERY ORDER IN Crl.O.P.No.14190 of 2010 and Crl.M.P.No.1 of 2010 03.06.2020
|
['Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,068,268 |
stm/gsi` Crl.O.P.Nos.15676 to 15682 of 2012 30.07.2018
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
118,071,067 |
This is third application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 21.05.2017, in connection with Crime No.140/2017, registered at Police Station Indergarh, District Datia(MP) for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 294, 327, 329, 506-B of IPC.The counsel for the applicant seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this application.It is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.