id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
118,075,039 |
Heard on I.A. No. 17733/2019 for taking additional documents on record.Considering the averments made in the application the same is allowed.Office is directed to place the documents on record.Now, heard on this first application filed by the petitioner under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending her arrest in connection with B.A. No. 453/19 registered at Police Station-Madhavnagar, Distt.-Katni (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Section 420, 406, 294, 506 of IPC.The prosecution case is short is that complainant is the tenant of premises, owned by the petitioner (house in question).After sometime, petitioner requested to complainant for selling of his house in Rs. 55,00,000/-, as he needs money, so if complainant wants to buy the house he can purchase it.In pursuance of offer given by the petitioner, the complainant agreed to buy his house, however, the petitioner told him that he would execute registered sale deed in his favour without first executing any other agreement.A total amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- has already been paid by the complainant party to the petitioner.The petitioner has cheated the complainant party and misappropriated his/her fund also.Later on the petitioner started making excuses and used filthy language against the complainant by threatening him and he did not execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant, where upon complaint was made with the police who initially registered the complaint under Section 155 Cr.P.C. Later on it came on record that the house in question was mortgaged with the State Bank of 2 MCRC-36903-2019 India by virtue of which an FIR was registered and investigation was started which is still going on.The complainant party have not paid outstanding amount to the petitioner-accused despite of that they have lodged a complaint against petitioner-accused only to create undue pressure upon him.The complainant has already filed a suit for specific performance against the petitioner-accused.Notice has been served on the petitioner-accused.On these grounds, he prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Pallavi Digitally signed by PALLAVI SINHA Date: 2019.09.20 13:13:01 +05'30' Adobe Reader version: 11.0.8
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,309,173 |
Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.The applicant has filed this first application u/S 439, Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicant has been arrested on 01.04.2019 by Police Station Joura, District Morena in connection with Crime No.469/2018 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/Ss. 306/34 of IPC.It is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is suffering confinement on false pretext.The allegation of abetment as levelled against him does not find approval in the contents of FIR and in the statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C. The only sustainable allegation against the applicant could have been verbal and physical marpeet with the deceased, but the said cannot constitute abetment so as to compel any individual to commit suicide.He submits that no custodial interrogation of the application is required nor any weapon or article is to be recovered from the applicant.He undertakes to cooperate in the investigation as well as trial and would make himself available on all dates fixed by the trial Court.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection by contending that on the basis of the 2 M.Cr.C. No.15066/2019 (Dhara Singh v. State of MP) allegations and the material available on record, no case for grant of bail is made out.Considering the fact that the applicant is in custody since 01.04.2019 and that the early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and pre-trial detention is anathema to the concept of liberty and the material placed on record does not disclose possibility of the applicant fleeing from justice, this Court is though inclined to extend the benefit of bail to the applicant, but with certain stringent conditions.Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that the applicant be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One lac only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by him;The applicant will cooperate in the investigation/trial, as the case may be;The applicant will not indulge himself in extending inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;C. No.15066/2019 (Dhara Singh v. State of MP) of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant will mark his attendance at the concerned Police Station every Monday between 10.00 AM to 2.00 PM till filing of the chargesheet.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(Anand Pathak) Judge meh/-MEHFOOZ AHMED 2019.05.02 11:17:54 +05'30'
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,309,666 |
No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 3 of 34Jayantilal Kothari R/o E-88, Kirti Nagar, Delhi-110015 submits as under:I live at the aforesaid address with my family and Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain was insisting upon me to invest in his projects and on 20.04.2007 he came to my house and represented that he is constructing a mall cum multiplex "Ripple Mall" at M.G. Road Vijayawada and the price of same is going very high in property market and I can earn very good profit if I purchase some area in his mall.I was not interested in purchasing the property but he assured & represented me that he is my close relative and I must purchase space in his mall.He further represented me that the entire deal is transparent and the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 4 of 34 property/space shall be allotted to me as soon as the construction is completed lie further offered me to allot 5000 sq. ft.(Supper built up) @ Rs.9500/- per sq. ft. amounting to Rs.4,75,000/- (Rs.Four crores and seventy Five lacs only) on the ground floor of the mall.He further offered me to allot 3000 sq. ft.(Super Built up) @ Rs.8,000/- per sq. ft.amounting to Rs.2,40,00,000/- (Rs.two crores and Forty lacs only) on the first floor of the mall.In other words, he represented me to allot total area of 8000 sq. ft. for a total consideration of Rs.7,15,00,000/- (Its seven crores and Fifteen lacs).I further stated to him that I am living at Delhi and it is not possible for me to monitor the project at Vijayavada but on that he again assured me that he is already there and I need not to come to Vijayvada personally and payments can be mace from Delhi from banking channels from time to time.He further assured me that he will keep me informed about the project.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 4 of 34Allured by his presentations and keeping in view the fact that he is my close relative and there was no reason to disbelieve him.I agreed to purchase the space in the mall and entered into an agreement dated 20.04.07 with Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain at my house at Delhi.As per the agreement I also paid him Rs.21,50,000/- (Rs.Twenty One lacs and Fifty Thousands only) vide cheque No.655142 for Rs.11,00,000/- and cheque No.655143 for Rs.10,00,000/- both dated 20.07.2007 and cheque No.655143 for Rs.10,00,000/- both dated 20.07.2007 and drawn on state Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Kirti Nagar Branch in favour of Suraj Constructions.As per the demands of Sh.Champatlal Babulal Jain, I kept paying the money to him from my bank State bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, Kini Nagar Branch Delhi via RIGS.As and when I asked him about the development of the construction and possession of the property, he kept me telling that the construction is going on, and the completion of the Mall would take some time.As per his demands I paid the entire agreement amount of Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 5 of 34 Rs.7,15,00,000/ (Rs.Seven Crore and fifteen lacs) from 20.04.2007 to 03.03.2010 from my bank at Delhi.I further paid him Rs.3,75,000/- on account of transfer fee for the aforesaid area in my favour.Even after the receipt of entire sale consideration and transfer fee.Champatlal did not transfer the property in my name nor he gave possession of the same to me rather he kept the matter pending on one pretext or other.On my persistence Sh.Champatlal told me that he is not having enough money to complete the project and as such he requested me to give Rs.2/2-1/2 crores as loan on interest a short duration so that he can complete the project and transfer the property in my name.He also promised me return the loan shortly along with interest @ 18 p.a.Champaklal sold total 8000 sq. ft. space in Ripple Mall, Vijayavada to me and took more than 7 crores as sale consideration and 2,38,00,000/- as loan (Total more than 9 crores) but after completion of construction, he sold the same space to other persons him and the en tire sale consideration has also been taken.It was in the knowledge of Sh.Champatlal since beginning that he would not allot me any space in Mall but despite that he made fake and frivolous representations to cheat and defraud me to the tune of more than 9 crores.Had the actual position been represented to the me, I would not have given any money to Sh.I have also come to know that he and his other associates are professional Cheaters and they have cheated a larger, number of people to the tune of crores of Rupees by using similar modus operandi.The exact quantum of fraud and other persons who are involved in criminal conspiracy with Sh.Champatlal can only be determined by your good self by conduction details investigation in the matter.Till date, neither the space has been allotted to me in the Mall nor the payment/ money has been returned me by Sh.Payments have been made through proper baning channels from Delhi and I have got all the proofs to support my contentions.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 5 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 6 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 8 of 34Champatlal has failed to protect my interest in the transactions from which he legally bound.Champatlal has cheated me in a planned manner and he has also betrayed my trust and as such he deserves to be punished for his acts."After the complaint, the following events happened from time to time as per the details provided by the parties.Details of dates of events are given as under:21.02.2014 A letter was sent by the Petitioner No.1 to the Investigating Officer in response to the notice dated 20.12.2013 as he was in Rajasthan attending a family wedding, and he had only received the notice upon his arrival on 30.01.2014: Petitioner No.1 provided the true and correct facts in relation to the case and rebutted the allegations made by the Complainant.He informed the IO that the Complainant himself sought cancellation of the allotment space in Ripple Mall and that the Complainant vide his letter dated 22.03.2011 had requested that Rs.9.5 Crores be transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of shares in lieu of the amount paid by him to M/s Suraj Constructions and had also agreed to forfeit Rs.6.75 Lakhs as compensation for cancellation.Accordingly, through its letter dated 20.05.2011, M/s Suraj Constructions cancelled the transaction and an amount of Rs.9.5 Crores was transferred as per the Complainant's request.He further informed the IO that M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. in its letter dated 12.02.2014 confirmed Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.He further noted that all the details of the payments made by alleged persons are a matter of record and all the evidence i.e., bank statements, agreement etc. are within the reach and possession of the Complainant and no field investigation was required in the matter.Further, with regard to the letter dated 20.04.2007, the IO observed that the said agreement seemed to be a letter and as per language of Para(e) and the concluding paragraph, it did not seem to be an agreement.He noted that it has neither been registered nor mentions any plot.28.05.2014 Order passed by Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court changing the Investigating Officer and issuing show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the outgoing IO Kuldip Singh and SHO Kirti Nagar on the allegation of the Complainant that inaction on their part had led to Mr. Champatlal Jain fleeing the country.The Metropolitan Magistrate held that though the FIR was registered within the time frame directed by this Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.18.06.2014 The new Investigating Officer issued a letter dated 18.06.2014 for stopping the sale and purchase of property in Ripple Mall, Vijayawada.19.06.2014 A notice was sent through S.I. Rajpal requiring the attendance of Petitioner No.1 at P.S. Kirti Nagar for investigation.21.06.2014 A letter was sent in response to the notice dated 19.06.2014 stating that Petitioner No.1 had gone to USA to attend a wedding and was likely to return on the first or second week of July.It was also reiterated that all documentation would be produced before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him and that Mr. Champatlal Jain would appear before him and cooperate in the investigation upon his return to India.A reply to the show cause notice under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 was filed by SHO Kirti Nagar wherein it was stated inter alia that the present case was between two relatives and needed a deep and diligent investigation.The SHO was of the opinion that on the basis of mere allegations, arrest, LOC and other coercive steps were not advisable Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 11 of 3424.06.2014 I.O. Kuldip Singh also filed his reply to the show cause notice stating that there was no reasonable ground to arrest the alleged person except the allegations raised by the Complainant in his complaint and the FIR.He further stated that unless and until there are sufficient grounds to arrest a person, there is no need to open the LOC and stop anyone from going abroad and curtail the fundamental right of an individual and there is no untoward urgency to take steps to stay the sale of the mall.Unless and until the authenticity of the Complainant is verified and ascertained, such steps were not advisable.The IO noted that Complainant wanted the police to take steps to prevent Petitioner No.1 from selling property in the mall but also alleged in his Complaint that all the space in the mall had already been sold.It was also stated that Petitioner No.1 was not found when raids were conducted in his office and residence the IO was informed that Petitioner No.1 was abroad and that a notice has been served to the manager of his office with directions to join investigation and to produce relevant documents.It was also stated that the District Registrar, MG Road, Vijaywada has been requested to stop further sale and purchase of property in Ripple Mall till the disposal of the present case.It was further stated that Asst.Director, Bureau of Immigration, New Delhi was asked to provide details of arrival of Petitioner No.1 and the Regional Passport Officer has been requested to provide passport details.In conclusion, it was noted that Petitioner No.1 was evading arrest and was sending his representations through his manager via courier/speed post, despite the fact no warrant for arrest had been issued against him and the fact that through letter dated 21.06.2014, which had been delivered on 24.06.2014, he had been informed that the Applicant was abroad and would join investigation as soon as he returned.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 12 of 3425.06.2014 Additional Sessions Judge passed an order stating that till the next date of hearing, in which time the Investigating Officer would have to verify all the documents filed along with the bail application, Petitioner No.1 would not be arrested.02.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 joined investigation before the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 13 of 34 Investigating Officer at Chennai who recorded his statement.The statement of Petitioner No.5 was also recorded by the I.O. The other Petitioners were also present at their office premises at the time, and offered their cooperation.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 13 of 3403.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 produced several documents, including originals, relating to the transfer of shares of MIS Fuso Glass to the Complainant, which were seized by the investigating officer through two seizure memos.07.07.2014 Status report/further reply was filed by the IO in the bail application of Petitioner No.1 in which it was stated that the documents produced by him had been shown to the Complainant who had denied all signatures and documents as being forged and fabricated.It was stated that the original documents were being sent to the FSL for expert opinion and that other partners of M/s Suraj Constructions were to be interrogated at length.Further, it was requested that Sections 467/468/471 be added to the present case.08.07.2014 Anticipatory bail application filed by Petitioner No.1 was rejected by the ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, since it was a cheating case of more than Rs.9 Crores and the Complainant had denied his signatures on the documents transferring shares and custodial interrogation was required.15.07.2014 Petitioner No.1 produced 47 documents including original documents relating to the transactions of transfer of shares.These documents included the original gift deed executed by the Complainant himself in favour of the Naina and Ashok Jain.These were seized by the Investigating Officer vide a seizure memo.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 14 of 3402.08.2014 The Complainant filed an application on 02.08.2014 for direction for surrender of the passports of the accused persons arraigning the other Petitioners herein as well, despite the fact that only Petitioner No.1 had been named in the FIR.The Complainant sought similar direction against the other Petitioners as well.11.09.2014 The I.O sought issuance of non-bailable warrants against the Petitioners.The Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 11.09.2014, issued non- bailable warrants against the Petitioners despite the fact that no notice or summons were issued.15.09.2014 Status report dated 15.09.2014 stating that the petitioners, were evading arrest and hence non-bailable warrants had been obtained against them.Champatlal Babulal Jain (Partner in M/s Suraj Constructions) is also the Managing Director of addressee No.1 M/s Fuso Glass India Private Ltd.That it is also a matter of fact that during the investigation of aforesaid FIR, a letter dated 21.02.2014 Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 17 of 34 issued by you addressee no.1 to M/s Suraj Constructions and signed by its authorized signatory and a reply has been submitted before the police authorities stating therein that you addressee No.1 (M/s. Fuso Glass India Private Ltd.) has received an amount of Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rs. Nine Crore and Fifty Lacs Only) from M/s. Suraj Constructions on account of my client share application money in Fuso Glass Pvt. Ltd. in the year 2010-11 & 2011-12 and subsequently shares were allotted to my client.That it is a matter of fact that my client has never applied for allotment of shares in addressee No.1 nor any request for transfer of money was made to M/s Suraj Constructions by my client.From the facts and circumstance it is clear that you addressee No.1 has issued a false and fabricated letter dated 12.02.2014 to cover up the illegal misappropriation and cheating by M/s. Suraj Constructions and its partners.Not only this, it is apparent that various false, forged and fabricated documents have been prepared by you addressee No.1 and 2 and other directors/Managing Directors employees etc. of addressee No.1 to cover up illegal acts of misappropriation, cheating and forgery.That it also important to note that the partners of M/s Suraj Constructions and Directions/Managing Director of Fuso Glass India Private Ltd. belongs to the same family.That from the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that you the addressee No.1 company is unable, neglected and failed to pay the total outstanding amount/debt of Rs.9,64,69,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. due and payable to my client, despite it being an admitted amount.Moreover it is clear that the affairs of the company have been conducted in a fraudulent manner and the persons concerned in the management Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 18 of 34 of affairs of addressee no.1 are involved in fraud, cheating and misappropriation.(f) Around the same time, as making payments to Suraj Constructions, the complainant had also made payments of a sum of approx.Rs.9,64,00,000/- to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd.The submission of learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the sum of Rs.19,21,44,000/- was adjusted towards the issuing of shares and the necessary steps by way of Form-2 and annual return under Section 159 were taken and nothing more is due from the petitioners side and all documents referred by them are genuine.The said documents referred by the petitioners and submissions thereto are denied by the complainant by submitting that all those documents are forged documents which are allegedly signed by the complainant.It is further stated that whatever steps have been taken with regard to submitting the Form-2 and Annual Return under Section 159, it was not within the knowledge of the complainant as these actions taken by the petitioners themselves without the consent of the complainant.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Legal notice was issued on 20th July, 2011 for possession and return of the loan amount along with interest.In the month of September, 2013, it has come to the notice of the complainant that the side area of the first floor was allotted to many leading brands and the mall was completely functional.No space was given to the complainant by the petitioners who have cheated the complainant.Therefore, the complainant left with no other option but to file the criminal complaint to EOW on 18th October, 2013 under Section 156(3)Learned APP for the State as well as the learned counsel for the complainant have argued before Court that all the documents produced by the petitioners are forged, fabricated, manipulated and most of them were not in the knowledge of the complainant at the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.By this order, I propose to decide five anticipatory bail applications, filed by Tara Chand Lumbchand Jain, Ramesh Kumar Hazarimal Chouhan, Champatlal Jain, Madanlal Babulal Chowatia, Sharad Babulal Jain, Ashok Babulal Jain, Naina Ashok Jain and Anujkumar Tarachand Jain, under Sections 438 & 482 Cr.P.C. seeking pre-arrest/anticipatory bail with directions to the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer in case FIR No.313/2014, under Sections 420/406 IPC, P.S. Kirti Nagar, Delhi to release the petitioners in the event of their arrest in the said case.With regard to sixth petition, i.e. Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 filed by 8 petitioners under Sections 482 Cr.P.C., the prayer is made for quashing of the order dated 28th May, 2014 as well as for quashing of non-bailable warrants issued against them by order dated 11th Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 3 of 34 September, 2014 and also the orders dated 27th October, 2014 and 3rd December, 2014 issuing process against the petitioners under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and all the proceedings emanating therefrom, passed in the above said FIR No.313/2014 and CC No.72/3 by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.Bail Appl.All the parties have made their submissions.Since the facts are common, all the petitions are being decided by this single order.The complaint was filed by respondent No.2 Hitesh Kothari under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 18th December, 2013 seeking registration of FIR at PS Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.The main contents of the complaint read as under:"I, Hitesh Kothari S/o Sh.Though I was not in a position to pay the said amount at that time but still keeping in view the fact that I had already in vested a lot of money in the project and he is my close relation, I gave him a loan of its.2,38,00,000/- which was also paid from the aforesaid bank at Delhi.On 04.06.2011, I demanded back my loan amount of Rs.2,38,00,000/- from Sh.I also sent him a legal notice on 20.07.2011 which was not replied by him and also raised the issue within my larger family as he was closely related to me.Due to the intervention of family as he was closely related to me.Due to the intervention of family members and friends.After January 20 13, I made several telephone calls to Sh.Champatlal from Delhi and every time he told me that construction is going on at the site and he will keep his words.As the matter had already been raised within the family.I believed his words and did not take any legal action against him.11.09.2013, when I was browsing the internet regarding commercial property prices in India.I immediately went to the office of Sh.Champatlal and asked him to allot my space in the mall and return my 'loan amount.On that Sh.Champatlal induced me to enter into an agreement at my house E-88, Kirti Nagar Delhi on 20.04.2007 by making false representation that he would allot me space as stated above in the Nipple Mall at Vijayavada and also, look 100,000/- at the time of signing Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Right from the beginning.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 7 of 34Bail Appl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 9 of 34 that share certificates for the amount of Rs.9.5 Crores had been issued in the name of the Complainant for the years 2010-11 and 2011-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 10 of 34 court, the investigating agency had still not taken a single step for collection of necessary evidence and to ensure that the accused should not run away or dispose off his belongings and proceeds of cheat.The Metropolitan Magistrate further noted that there is no need to doubt the submission of the Complainant as Petitioner No.l and the Complainant are near relatives.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.18.09.2014 Documents that were sent by the Petitioner No. 1 on 25.08.2014 were seized and a seizure memo was recorded.27.10.2014 The Police sought issuance of coercive steps under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 alleging that the Petitioners were evading arrest.The Metropolitan Magistrate was pleased to issue process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.07.11.2014 The anticipatory bail applications of Petitioner Nos. 2-5 were rejected on the ground that coercive steps had already been issued and they were not cooperating with the Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 15 of 34 investigation.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 15 of 3403.12.2014 Fresh process was issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. as the previous process could not be executed owing to paucity of time.It is the admitted position that after filing of the complaint, the complainant Mr.Hitesh Kothari had also issued the notice dated 20th June, 2014 under Sections 271/272 of the Companies Act, 2013 for winding up the company, to Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. and Mr.Ashok Babulal Chowatia, Director of the said Company.The contents of the said notice read as under:-That my client is a businessman by profession and due to his fair transactions and professional attitude, he has earned excellent goodwill in the national as well as in the international front.That you notice address No.2 being a close relative of my client, approached my client in capacity of Director of addressee No.1 and took total amount of Rs.9,64,69000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Sixty Four Lacs and Sixty Nine Thousands only) as loan from my client on various dates in the name of addressee No.1 with an assurance that the said loan shall be repaid on demand and besides that my client shall be paid interest @18% p.a.Needless to say that the entire amount was paid through proper banking channels and as such the payment of said amount cannot be disputed.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 16 of 34That despite specific demands and requests of my client, you failed to make repayment of loan amount to my client alongwith interest.My client has already issued a separate notice dated 20.07.2011 in this regard.That it is also a matter of fact that my client has also made a separate complaint of cheating and fraud to the tune of more than Rs.9,50,00,000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Fifty lacs only) against M/s Suraj Constructions and its partner Sh.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 17 of 34Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 18 of 34By this legal notice, I herby call upon you to pay the amount of Rs.9,64,69,000/- (Rs.Nine Crore Sixty Four Lacs and Sixty Nine Thousands only) alongwith interest @ 18% p.a., within a period of 14 days from the receipt of this notice, failing which my client shall be constrained to initiate winding up proceedings against you in the competent court of law besides taking other remedies as available under the law, which shall be entirely at your own cost and expense."The petitioners (the petitioners herein refer to all the parties of M/s. Suraj Constructions and Director of the Company M/s. Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd.) during the course of arguments have not denied the fact of entering into the agreement on 20th April, 2007 through Champatlal Jain who is the Managing Partner of M/s Suraj Constructions with the complainant-Hitesh Kothari.It is also not denied that said Champatlal Jain offered to sell 5000 sq. ft. of super built up area on the ground floor at Rs.9500/- per sq. ft. and 3000 sq. ft. of super built up area on the first floor at Rs.8,000/- per sq. ft., i.e. for a total consideration of Rs.7,15,00,000/- to the complainant.The petitioners have not denied the fact that the entire payment of Rs.7,15,00,000/- as sale consideration and Rs.3,75,000/- as transfer Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 19 of 34 fee for the said space has been received from the complainant.It is also not denied by the petitioners that the complainant had further advanced a loan of Rs.2,38,00,000/- to Champatlal Jain, partner of M/s Suraj Constructions.They have also not denied that the said space has not been allotted to the complainant as per the agreement, nor the petitioners have returned the loan amount of Rs.2,38,00,000/Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.(b) In the said letter dated 22nd March, 2011, the complainant had requested that Rs.9.5 crores paid by him to Suraj Constructions be transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. for allotment of shares in his name.(c) The complainant through the aforesaid letter dated 22nd March, 2011 also agreed to forfeit Rs.6.75 lakhs as compensation for the cancellation.The complainant has not claimed this amount, neither has he made any allegations of cheating with respect to this amount.(d) Pursuant to the aforesaid request of the complainant, Suraj Constructions through its letter dated 20th May, 2011 informed the complainant that an amount of Rs.9.5 crores was transferred to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. It was also Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 20 of 34 stated that in the years 2010-11 and 2011-12 share certificates had been issued in the name of Hitesh Kothari.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 22 of 34 time of filing the complaint.The details of the said documents are given as under:-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 22 of 34(i) Cancellation letter dated 22nd March, 2011 filed by Champatlal Jain in his bail application.(ii) The affidavit issued on 24th September, 2011 and 2,60,000 shares applied on the same date and the affidavit also attested on the same date.Affidavit Nos.Affidavit Nos.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.(viii) Shareholders list(ix) Form-2 allotment of shares on 28th February, 2011 to 12 persons on Rs.10/- face value (Premium - Nil) signed by Ashok B. Jain and same date 94400 shares issued to Hitesh Kothari Rs.10/- face value with Premium - Rs.240/- signed by Ashok B. Jain.(x) Form-2 filed by company in ROC, allotted shares 2,60,000 to Hitesh Kothari on 26th September, 2011 signed by Ashok B. Jain.In a nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that the petitioners have cheated him by adjusting Rs.9,64,69,000/- given to M/s Fuso Glass India Pvt. Ltd. as loan amount as well as the total amount of Rs.9,56,75,000/- for the purpose of space in the Mall at Vijaywada.Learned counsel for the complainant submits that as far as the amount of Rs.19,21,44,000/- is concerned, the petitioners cannot deny the factum of the said amount as the petitioners themselves have adjusted the said amount towards the shares allotted to him.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 24 of 34 almost nil against the amount adjusted where the petitioners have shown the value with premium of Rs.240/-.The value with premium on the respective dates was very negligible and actually fraud has been played upon the complainant.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 24 of 34I have been informed by the learned APP for the State that all the documents have been sent to FSL, Rohini, for verification/ comparison of signatures and the reports are likely to be received very shortly.According to the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned APP for the State, on the face of said documents, they are forged and fabricated.Therefore, no relief should be granted to the petitioners unless the amount of Rs.19,21,44,000/- is secured by the petitioners.The law relating to pre-arrest is quite settled.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 25 of 34 him and complainant regarding sale of specific flats, was purely of civil nature and complainant had already filed suit for specific performance.Bail Appl.With regard to the super area in Ripple Mall, they restrict to their suggestion not to dispose of the area in the mall and also to give security of Rs.8,50,00,000/- with the satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court and Rs.1 crore by way of Bank Guarantee.The said suggestions are not acceptable to the learned counsel for the complainant who submits that as regards the 8000 sq. ft. of super built up area in Ripple Mall, Vijayawada, the possession would remain with Suraj Constructions and they will earn the huge rent, out of the said area, without any fault of complainant who is actually entitled thereto.As regards the security of immovable property of Rs.8,50,00,000/- is concerned, similar is the reply of the complainant that against the admitted amount paid to the petitioners, the security Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case, coupled with the fact that the petitioners and the complainant are related to each other and being a family dispute, in view of undertaking given by the petitioners to join the proceedings and to produce all the necessary documents required by the Investigating Agency, without deciding anything on merit, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bails to them in view of peculiar facts and circumstances in the matter; it is directed that in the event of their arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail subject to their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer (IO) and further, the said relief is being given to them, subject to the following conditions:-Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.Subject to the aforesaid compliance, the order dated 28th May, 2014 as well as the order dated 11th September, 2014 issuing thereby non-bailable warrants against them and also the orders dated 27th October, 2014 and 3rd December, 2014 issuing process against Bail Appl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.No.2674/2014 & 4 others & Crl.M.C. No.231/2015 Page 34 of 34
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,312,098 |
The detenu, namely, Vijayakumar, S/o.Page 4 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 898 of 2019 Elumalai, Male, aged 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.Page 4 of 6(M.M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 31.07.2019 Index : Yes / No mmi/ssmPage 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No 898 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.Page 5 of 6and M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.(ssm) H.C.P. No. 898 of 2019 31.07.2019 Page 6 of 6http://www.judis.nic.inPage 6 of 6Elumalai, Male, aged 29 years.The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.Page 2 of 64.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:Vijayakumar has filed a bail application in ground case Thimiri Police Station Cr.No.122/2019, u/s man missing @ 364, 302 IPC before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.1770/2019 and the same is pending before the Court.As far as the ground case is concerned, in a similar case registered at Kanchi Taluk police station crime No.15/2016, under Section 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC@ 120 B, 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC and 149, 109, 114 IPC bail was granted to the accused Tvl.K.Sandhar, S/o.Kuppan and Moses, S/o.Joseph by the Court of Hon'ble Sessions Court – II, Kanchipuram in Crl.M.P.No.600/2016 on 06.04.2016.As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is real possibility of his (Thiru Vijayakumar) coming out on bail, in the above pending bail application, before this Court.If he enlarge himself on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to be maintenance of public order......."Page 3 of 6K.Sandhar, S/o.Kuppan and Moses, S/o.Joseph by the Court of Hon'ble Sessions Court – II, Kanchipuram in Crl.M.P.No.600/2016 on 06.04.201, and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC@ 120 B, 147, 148, 506(ii), 302 IPC and 149, 109, 114 IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 364 and 302 IPC.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C3/D.O.No.30/2019 dated 29.04.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside.1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 0092.District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,313,543 |
The criminal application is allowed.The substantive jail sentence imposed upon the applicant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-3, Yavatmal on 02.04.2019 in Special Case (POCSO) No. 68/2017 convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 354A(1)(i)(2) and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, shall remain suspended during pendency of this appeal.::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2019 04:53:53 :::Applicant - Bharat Kisan Raut be released on bail on he executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one solvent surety of the like amount.Mr. R.D. Hajare, the learned counsel appointed for the applicant is entitled to get the professional charges from the High Court Legal Services Sub-committee, Nagpur for preparing and arguing this application, which is quantified at Rs.1,500/-.With this, the application is allowed and disposed of.JUDGEsrwagh ::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2019 04:53:53 :::::: Uploaded on - 20/11/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 21/11/2019 04:53:53 :::
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,953,138 |
JUDGMENT Sahai, J.By means of this appeal preferred under S. 378(4), Cr.P.C. the appellant (Orig.complainant) has impugned the judgment and order dated 3-3-1983 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kurundwad District Kolhapur, in C.C. No. 224/80, acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under S. 323 r/w. 34, IPC.The gravemen of the allegation of the complainant Kallappa Appanna Bebade, as voiced in his complaint is that, he and his son Bharat while being prosecuted in a case under S. 302 r/w. 34, IPC, were physically assaulted by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were police sub-Inspector and constable respectively during the investigation of the said case.On receiving the said complaint, the predecessor of the Magistrate who passed the impugned order, recorded depositions of the complainant Kallappa Bebade and his son Bharat.The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 appeared in the trial Court and pleaded not guilty.On the date of trial, i.e. 18-2-1983, their counsel submitted an application (Exhibit 41) stating therein that the said respondents were public servants and consequently, permission under S. 197 Cr.P.C. was a condition precedent for their prosecution.The said application was strenuously opposed by counsel for the original complainant.The learned Judicial Magistrate, after hearing the rival contentions, through a well-reasoned judgment concluded that since the acts were performed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the discharge of their official duty, sanction for their prosecution was a condition precedent and since the same was not obtained, the proceedings against the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are liable to be dropped.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
19,531,633 |
These four transfer applications under Section 407 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 have been filed by the applicant (s) for transfer of Sessions Trial No.227/2016 and Sessions Trial No.632/2016 pending before the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore to some other district of the State of Madhya Pradesh.Brief facts of the case are that on 18.11.2015, two unknown persons came on a motorcycle and caused gun shot injury to one Yogesh Garg at Laxminarayan 2 Mandir Sanghi Street, Mhow at around 23.15 PM, who was later on referred to Gokuldas Hospital, Indore and on 19.11.2015, during course of treatment, he died.According to the applicants, due to pressure of the local Bar Association of the lawyers at Mhow, as the incident took place with deceased Shri Yogesh Garg, advocate who was the practicing lawyer and almost at every date the personal safety of the applicant (s) is at stake and even the Court is also under so much pressure to conduct the trial for the reasons of the pressure of the local Bar Association, the present applications have been filed by the applicants to seek transfer of the trial.In Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.430/2017 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1464/2017, the facts of 3 the case according to the prosecution story are that incident occurred on 29.03.2016 when a dumper bearing registration number MP-09 GE-3412 suddenly collided with a car bearing registration number MP-09 CH-3767 behind which two motorcycles bearing registration numbers MP-09 NN-4034 and MP-09 CN- 3767 also collided with the said dumper and the drivers of both the motorcycles died during treatment and the driver of the car and pillion rider were badly injured, after which a written complaint on behalf of one Bane Singh was filed before the police authorities on 31.03.2016 stating the said accident to be a conspiracy to cause death of the car driver namely Jai Singh Thakur.The connection of Sessions Trial No.632/2016 has been fastened to that of the co-accused persons involved in murder of another deceased Yogesh Garg, 4 Advocate from Mhow of which a mere coincident is the fact that the car driver was also a lawyer who also filed numerous cases against one of the co-accused of Yogesh Garg case, who conspired with the applicant to cause death of Jai Singh Thakur.Since both trials are being tried in the same Court i.e. 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore.Learned Senior Counsel for the applicants has submitted that the learned trial Court is under tremendous pressure of the local Bar Association of the advocates and the applicants seek transfer of the matter from the Court of Mhow, District Indore to any other Court of neighbouring district.He also submitted that in Sessions Trial No.227/2016, three eye witnesses are advocates and they supported the case of the prosecution.He has drawn my attention to paragraphs No.19, 20, 28 and other paragraphs of court statement of Smt. Varsha Garg wife of the deceased Yogesh Garg (PW-1); paragraphs No.55, 60, 86, 96 and 117 of Jai Prakash Maharshi (PW-4) and his police statement Ex.D/14 and submitted that the deceased was a practicing lawyer at Mhow and even the family members of the applicant have also not been able to meet the applicant on the date of hearing of the case, as they are also afraid and 5 scared of their lives, looking to the aggression of the lawyer at Mhow.He further submitted that on earlier occasion, an application was filed before the learned trial Court for adjournment in the month of August, 2016, however, the said application, although was dismissed by the learned trial Court, which was subsequently challenged before this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.7493/2016 and this Court was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to adjourn the case; but, despite the directions of this Court, the learned trial Court has imposed cost of Rs.1,50,000/- (rupees one lakh fifty thousand) to be paid to the prosecution witnesses, as the witness came from USA, which again was challenged before this Court.Looking to the pattern and conduct, the applicant does not question the impartial-ness of the learned trial Court but consequently also scared with the pattern of trial.He also pointed out that it is well settled principle of law that unless the guilt is proved every one is innocent, but the group of lawyers at Mhow to whom the applicants has no acquittance is agitating for capital punishment, and therefore, the applicants apprehend that due to pressure of local Bar Association, they may not get justice from the learned Court of 2nd Additional 6 Sessions Judge, Mhow, District Indore and prays for transfer of the case.The stand of the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh is that deceased Yogesh Garg was brutally murdered in Mhow and as per provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, trial is required to be conducted in Mhow.At no point of time, the accused persons had expressed any fear of life or threat from the family of the deceased.On 08.12.2016, this Court in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.9258/2016 directed the learned trial Court to expedite the trial; relevant part of the order reads, as under: -"Taking all the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it appears that no such direction is required to be issued at this stage, however, it is expected from the trial Court that it would make all endeavour to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law."It is not in dispute that originally application was filed for transfer of the sessions trial from Mhow to Indore i.e. within the same sessions division.Later on, the application for amendment was allowed.Shri Sunil Jain, learned Additional Advocate General for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh has submitted that the trial was withheld for a period from 07.11.2016 till 08.12.2016 and it was only when order dated 08.12.2016 passed in Miscellaneous 7 Criminal Case No.9258/2016 by this Court for expeditiously trial, the application for transfer of both the trials has been made.He also submitted that accused persons are duly represented by local advocates viz. Shri Vikram Dubey, Shri Tapan Shrivas and Shri Harish Kaushal and learned Senior Counsel also has been engaged by them.In respect of pressure on the learned trial Court, he submitted that at no point of time, the learned trial Judge has expressed any pressure on him in any of the proceedings of the case.There is no ground for drawing inference with regard the question of impartial-ness of the learned trial Court.He submitted that the applicant has not been able to demonstrate as to how pattern of the trial has affected his interest so as to seek transfer of the case.He lastly drawn my attention to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Transfer Petition (CRL) No.365/2016 (Shallam Khajanchi & others v. Ritesh Inani & others) decided on 18.11.2016, wherein respondent Ritesh Inani was a practicing lawyer and also holder of a post of Bar Association of High Court at Indore and accused persons therein filed petition for transfer, which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court; order dated 18.11.2016 reads, as under: -"Heard learned Senior counsel / counsel appearing for the parties.The Transfer Petition is dismissed.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.430/2017, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.437/2017, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1463/2017 and Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.1464/2017 are dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,317,407 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicants have an apprehension of their arrest in connection with Crime No.238/2016, registered at Police Station Gohad, District Bhind for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 294, 506/34, 459 and 325 of IPC.Thereafter, the prosecution added Sections 459 and 325 of IPC and, therefore, the police is ready to arrest the applicants.The Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad dismissed the application of the applicants though addition of such crime situation does not change.It is clear from the record that offence under Section 325 of IPC is bailable.If FIR is perused, then the incident took place at about 5:00 pm in the evening and door of the house was also opened.Neither any of the applicants committed any offence of house breaking or lurking house trespass nor was any injury caused in doing of such house breaking or lurking house trespass.Prima facie, no offence under Section 459 of IPC shall be made out against the applicants.If the doors of the house of the applicants would have closed at the time of incident then there was no problem to the complainant to mention such fact in the FIR itself.Under these circumstances, the applicants pray for bail of anticipatory nature.After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the order dated 26/10/2016 passed in MCRC No.11397/2016 shall remain in force though offence under Section 459 or 325 of IPC is added by the police and, therefore, there is no need to pass a fresh order in favour of the applicants.The applicant shall not be arrested due to addition of Crime under Section 459 or 325 of IPC.C.C. as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge MKB
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,317,648 |
Both these sentences are to run concurrently.A. 934/2006 Page 1 of 19In brief, the prosecution version is that on 26.04.2004 the prosecutrix along with her relative one Sati Ram (PW9), who incidently is also her boyfriend, arrived from Jalpaiguri in West Bengal at the Old Delhi railway station.At the railway station they were met by the appellant.The appellant, who claimed to have known them, struck up a conversation with them and in a matter of conversation inquired as to the purpose of their visit.On being told that the prosecutrix and Sati Ram (PW9) had come to Delhi for a job, he promised to get them a job.The appellant also promised to get them a place where they could reside.The appellant, evidently, told them that for this purpose they would have to meet up with his friend who will be available at the New Delhi railway station.On this pretext the appellant accompanied the prosecutrix and Sati Ram (PW9) to the New Delhi railway station.On reaching the place the appellant informed them that his friend would arrive late at night, consequently, the prosecutrix and Sati Ram (PW9) slept at the railway station.Sometime, in the early hours of 27.04.2004, the prosecutrix and Sati Ram (PW9) were woken up; the appellant introduced them to his friend Rakesh.After a while they returned back to the Old Delhi railway station.It transpires that at some point in time, the appellant and his friend Rakesh parted company on the pretext of getting Sati Ram (PW9) a job.Rakesh took away Sati Ram (PW9), while the appellant remained with the prosecutrix.However, after some time Rakesh returned and informed the prosecutrix and the appellant that Sati Ram (PW9) has been arrested by the police.On the prosecutrix showing her disinclination, she was slapped.The prosecutrix continued to do, the appellant and his friend Rakesh's bidding as she was assured that they would try Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 2 of 19 and secure the release of Sati Ram (PW9) and for this purpose they would have to involve other friends.It is in this context that the prosecutrix was again put on the train and taken to Ghaziabad.On reaching Ghaziabad she was taken to a nearby field where the prosecutrix was molested, threatened and thereafter raped by Rakesh and the appellant; who took turns at her.Eventhough the prosecutrix resisted and raised an alarm she was not able to prevent herself from being subjected to rape.The assailants' beastiality left the prosecutrix unconscious.She spent the night in the fields.With the break of dawn the assailants realizing the gravity of their dastardly act threatened to kill the prosecutrix and throw her body in the nearby naala.A. 934/2006 Page 2 of 193.1 The appellant's crime came to light when a lady help (sewadar) Paramjit Kaur (PW11), who was tasked with cleaning the rooms, came across the prosecutrix.The lady sewadar (PW11) noticed blood stains on the clothes of the prosecutrix; when asked, the prosecutrix blurtted out the events of the previous night to the sewadar.The appellant, who was in the vicinity, attempted to flee.Shashi Bala (PW6) in her deposition.Advocates who appeared in this case:This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 12.07.2006 passed by the Addl.By virtue of the impugned judgment the appellant has been convicted of offences under Section 376(2)(g) and Section 506, para (ii) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC').Accordingly, the appellant has been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 2000/- in respect of offence under Section 376(2)(g) of the IPC.In default of payment of fine the appellant is required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.As regards the conviction for offence under Section 506, para (ii) of the IPC is concerned, the appellant is required to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and a fine Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 1 of 19 of Rs 1000/-.In default of payment of fine the appellant is required to undergo a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month.The prosecutrix was then told that she would have to be hidden so that the police do not apprehend her.Based on this ruse the appellant and his friend persuaded the prosecutrix to visit a cinema hall.Scared, the prosecutrix promised not to reveal her horrific tale to anyone.She sought shelter at the Sheesganj Gurudwara, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Gurudwara').The assailants complied; the prosecutrix was secured shelter at the Gurudwara, with the appellant for company, while Rakesh went away.He did not succeed and was caught by male helps (sewadars) of the Gurudwara.On being informed the police personnel SI Harivansh Singh (PW5) and Insp.Shashi Bala (PW6) reached the Gurudwara.Upon interrogation of the prosecutrix, it was decided that the incident related to police station R.M.D. The prosecutrix and the appellant were accordingly brought to police station R.M.D. A statement of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW1/A) was recorded.Based on the said statement a FIR (Ex. PW13/B) bearing no. 134/2004 under Sections 363/376/506/34 of the IPC was registered at police station R.M.D. The Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 3 of 19 investigation of the case was handed over to SI Sushila Rana (PW22).On the same day, i.e., 28.04.2004 the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination at Aruna Asaf Ali Govt. Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the 'Hospital').Similarly, the appellant was medically examined on 30.04.2004, and also on 02.05.2004 by Dr. Akash Jhangee (PW17).On 05.05.2004 the prosecutrix's statement (Ex. PW1/B) under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.') was recorded by the Magistrate.On completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the appellant.The co-accused Rakesh, since he had absconded; was declared a proclaimed offender.Proceedings under Sections 82-83 of the Cr.P.C. were commenced against him.The prosecution, in order to prove its case, cited 22 witnesses; while the defence did not lead any evidence.The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded whereby every incriminating evidence collected by the prosecution was put to him.The appellant, in response, has denied routinely each and every incriminating evidence put to him by the trial court.The only plea that the appellant has raised is that he has been falsely implicated in the case by the police.A. 934/2006 Page 3 of 19Ms Saahila Lamba, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the trial court's judgment on the following grounds:-In order to demonstrate the same the learned counsel has referred to the statement of the prosecutrix (Ex. PW1/A) before the police; the statement made by the prosecutrix to the magistrate under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.; and the deposition in court, of the prosecutrix both in examination-in-chief and her cross-examination, thereafter.On reading of the aforesaid versions, it is sought to be demonstrated that there is a contradiction; firstly, in so far as Sati Ram's (PW9) relationship with the prosecutrix is concerned.It is contended at one place that Sati Ram's (PW9) relationship with the prosecutrix is described as that of a relative, i.e., he is her cousin, Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 4 of 19 and at another place his relationship with the prosecutrix is that of a boyfriend, and at third place he is described as her husband;A. 934/2006 Page 4 of 19(ii) the other contradiction pointed out is with regard to the inconsistency in her statements at various stages, as to who between the two, that is, Rakesh or the appellant, in the first instance, accompanied Sati Ram; and therefore who, i.e., the appellant or Rakesh came back and reported that Sati Ram (PW9) had been arrested by the police.In this context the testimony of Sati Ram (PW9) was also relied upon to show the discrepancy in the version set out by the prosecutrix.At one place the prosecutrix seems to have said that it was Rakesh who was accompanied by Sati Ram (PW9), and informed the appellant and prosecutrix, that Sati Ram (PW9) had been arrested; at another place the prosecutrix is stated to have said that it was appellant who accompanied Sati Ram (PW9) and he came back and informed the prosecutrix and Rakesh that Sati Ram (PW9) had been arrested;(iii) the third contradiction, which is pointed out, is that in the first statement made to the police the prosecutrix had not made any reference to the fact that she was forced to visit a cinema hall, whereas in her statement (Ex. PW1/B) under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate, her deposition in the court and in her cross-examination she had alluded to the fact that she was forced to visit the cinema hall;(iv) there is admission on the part of Sati Ram (PW9) in his cross-examination that it is he who raped the prosecutrix;(v) eventhough the incident occurred, according to the prosecutrix, at about 9.00 a.m. in the morning of 28.04.2004, the prosecution's case is that the police had received the information at about 6.00 p.m. while the rukka records time of the incident as 9.30 p.m. The appellant's arrest vide arrest memo (Ex. PW22/C) is shown as 10.30 p.m. The delay needs to be explained by the prosecution;(vi) there are discrepancies with respect to the articles sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (in short the 'FSL').In this connection, it was submitted that: Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 5 of 19A. 934/2006 Page 5 of 19(a) the clothes of the prosecutrix were never seized.What was seized were her undergarments and what was sent to the FSL was the prosecutrix's salwar.(b) what was sent to the FSL was the second undergarment of the prosecutrix, which was purportedly recovered at the behest of the appellant.There is no explanation as to what happened to the first undergarment that the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of her medical examination.(c) the disclosure statement (Ex.PW22/B) of the accused does not refer to any undergarment, therefore, the undergarment which was recovered, cannot be used against the accused.(vii) there are discrepancies with respect to dates on which the case property was sent to FSL and the person who took the case property for analysis to FSL.As against this, Mr Amit Sharma, learned Addl.A. 934/2006 Page 6 of 19 5.2 The learned APP submitted that the relationship of the prosecutrix with Sati Ram (PW9) is that of a distant relative which perhaps had physical overtones, but there was no allegation of the prosecutrix that Sati Ram (PW9) had raped her.The stray sentence in Sati Ram's (PW9) deposition would thus have to be excluded.In this connection he drew my attention to the statement made by the prosecutrix to the effect that when she was taken for medical examination her 'clothes' were seized.The learned APP thus submitted that in the road certificate, which accompanied the samples and packets sent to FSL, there is a clear and separate entry with regard to undergarments which were seized at the site of occurrence at the pointing out of the appellant as well as the undergarments which were seized at the time of the medical examination of the prosecutrix.The only undergarment was the one which was found at the site of the incident.5.5 The learned APP further submitted that it was W/H.C. Rajesh (PW16), who had taken the prosecutrix for medical examination on 28.04.2004 to the hospital and that, Crl. A. 934/2006 Page 7 of 19 there is a reference to the fact, in her deposition that after the prosecutrix was medically examined she was handed over a slide and a pulanda with sample seal by the doctors.The said prosecution witness PW16 proved the recovery memo (Ex. PW16/A).The learned APP also relied upon the testimony of H.C. Lal Chand (PW14) to demonstrate that both at the time of receipt of the sealed parcels on 28.04.2004 as well as on 02.05.2004 and also at the time of their despatch to the FSL and their inward receipt in the malkhana the case property remained intact.5.8 The learned APP referred to the pointing out statement (Ex. PW18/A) as also the disclosure memo (Ex. PW22/B).The said undergarment was shown to the prosecutrix, who identified the same.A. 934/2006 Page 8 of 195.9 The learned APP submitted that the prosecution's case has been established beyond a reasonable doubt and in this regard he referred to the following: testimony of PW1; the MLC of PW1 (Ex. PW4/C) which showed that the prosecutrix had bruises and abrasions on her cheek and back and swelling on the face; the testimony of Dr. Akash Jhangee (PW17) which revealed in great detail the injuries on the person of the appellant and, in particular, indicated the absence of smegma on the penis of the appellant; the semen stains on the undergarments of both the accused as well as the prosecutrix as also the serological report, which showed that both the semen stains on the undergarment of the appellant as well as that of the prosecutrix had a blood group 'B'.I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent-State.The appellant, at that point in time, was with the prosecutrix: On being discovered he attempted to flee.Fortunately, the appellant was caught and brought to trial.The learned counsel for the appellant in order to create a doubt, as regards the prosecution version, has referred to the different versions given by the prosecutrix with regard to her relationship with Sati Ram (PW9) as also with regard to who out of the two, i.e., the appellant or Rakesh was responsible for weaning away Sati Ram (PW9) from her.The learned counsel for the appellant has also referred to the fact that there was no reference to the prosecutrix having visited the cinema hall with the appellant and his friend Rakesh, in her first statement to the police.In my view, these are discrepancies which cannot have any impact on the prosecution's case that the prosecutrix was subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent.The prosecutrix perhaps, was embarrassed about the relationship with Sati Ram (PW9).At one place she claimed him to be her cousin brother, while at another, she claimed that he was her boyfriend.The fact of the matter is; that she did acknowledge that she has had a physical relationship with Sati Ram (PW9).The fact also remains that her physical relationship with Sati Ram (PW9) was consensual.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that Sati Ram (PW9) had admitted in his cross-examination that he had committed rape on her is, according to me, inaccurate description of the relationship that subsisted between Sati Ram (PW9) and the prosecutrix.This is clear from the very next statement which Sati Ram (PW9) made before the Court in his cross-examination wherein he voluntarily made two crucial statements.First, that a consensual sexual relationship obtained between him and the prosecutrix.It was thereafter revealed that police station Kotwali may not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and hence, an intimation was sent to police station, at R.M.D. The case was handed over to SI Sushila Rana (PW22) for investigation.The rukka was sent to the police station at 9.00 p.m. This aspect of the case was brought in the testimony of H.C. Kunji Lal (PW13) who was on duty at police station R.M.D. on 28.04.2004 between 4.00 p.m. and midnight.S.I. Sushila Rana (PW22) in her deposition stated that it took her one and a half hour to record the statement (Ex.Shashi Bala (PW6), H.C. Kunji Lal (PW13) & S.I. Sushila Rana (PW22) with regard to this aspect of the case.They perhaps may have had an explanation.A. 934/2006 Page 11 of 19The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that eventhough the salwar, evidently worn by the prosecutrix, was not seized, but somehow was sent for analysis to the FSL; does not in my view, appear to be correct.As rightly pointed out by the learned APP the prosecutrix has maintained that at the time of her medical examination her 'clothes' were seized.It has been recorded in the MLC (Ex. PW4/C) of the prosecutrix that 'under clothes' had been preserved.A. 934/2006 Page 12 of 19 was sent to FSL for analysis.Constable Arvind Kumar (PW18) in his evidence testified as follows: On 02.05.2004 when he was posted at police station R.M.D.; he alongwith ASI Harjinder Kaur and S.I. Rajesh Rana at the instance of the appellant reached the fields near village Sadulpur near Maripat railway station, Ghaziabad, U.P. It is at that place that the investigation team recovered an undergarment and a water bottle.The said undergarment and the water bottle were seized.Patterned Rail road, bruises 7 X 0.5 cm over inner aspect back of left side chest, upper half over lying scapula, bluish black in colour.Patterned Rail road, bruise 5 X 0.5 cm over back of left side chest, lying 2.5 cm below injury no. 1, bluish black in colour.Patterned Railroad, bruise 7 X 1 cm over back of lower half middle portion of the chest over lying mid line, 1 cm below injury no. 2, bluish black in colour.Patterned Rail road, bruise 6.5 X 1 cm over back of upper half abdomen middle half over lying mid line portion, 4.5 cm below injury no. 3, bluish black in colour.Scabbed separating abrasion 1 X 0.5 cm over outer aspect of right elbow region.Scabbed separating abrasion 1 X 0.5 cm over inner aspect of right elbow region.Scabbed separating abrasion 3 X 1.5 cm over back of right forearm middle half.On genital examination, Pubic hairs well developed, 100% brownish black over outer public region extending onto sides of the thighs, scrotal sac well developed and contained 2 testies, penis adult type Crl.A. 934/2006 Page 15 of 19 with no smegma and no circumcision.No injury present over the scrotal sac and the shaft of the penis."A. 934/2006 Page 15 of 19Similarly, the MLC (Ex. PW4/C) of the prosecutrix would show that she had a three inch bruise on her lower spine, minor bruises scattered around it; swelling on the face; abrasion on the cheek and a ruptured hymen.It is when the testimony of PW17 and PW4 is examined in the light of FSL report wherein it is opined that Exhibit 3d (which was the underwear worn by the appellant) and Exhibit 5 (which was the underwear of the prosecutrix), both had semen stains on it, having the same blood group 'B'; leaves no doubt in my mind about the involvement of the appellant in the rape of the prosecutrix.Therefore, the mere absence of semen on the vaginal swab was not material.Furthermore, the fact that the incident was brought to light by the sewadars of the gurudwara - Paramjit Kaur (PW11), Taranjeet Singh (PW7) and Bagicha Singh (PW12) also reinforces the version of the prosecutrix that she was threatened and subjected to sexual intercourse without her consent.The fact that the appellant attempted to flee and the co-accused Rakesh is absconding does not help the cause of the defence.The defence of the appellant that he was falsely implicated is untenable.There is nothing on record to suggest that there was any animosity or any other motive in the prosecutrix falsely naming the appellant as the perpetrator of this horrific offence.The Court was also persuaded to acquit the accused as crucial witnesses were not examined as also the fact that the medical evidence of the prosecutrix revealed minor injuries such as abrasion on her arm and a contusion on her leg.It was categorically opined that there was no injury on her private parts; even though her hymen was ruptured, the rupture was old.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,320,507 |
Shri Vivek Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants.Shri Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the non-applicant/State.Heard arguments.At the time of execution of arrest warrants upon them, they and co-accused persons opposed their execution and got into altercation with the police personnel.As a result, they could not discharge their official duties properly.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are in custody since 22.06.2015 and the charge-sheet had been filed.It is also submitted by him that the applicants are husband and wife and they do not have any criminal antec edents.Upon these submissions, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer opposes the prayer.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE ac/-
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,321,529 |
(J. P. GUPTA) JUDGE vyThese are first applications filed by the applicants / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 274/17 registered at Police Station Gopalganj, District Sagar, for offences registered under sections 323, 294, 427, 506, 325 & 452 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that all the offences are bailable except U/s 452 of I.P.C. The offence punishable u/s 452 of I.P.C. is not made out as there is no allegation in the F.I.R. with regard to ingredients of the offence U/s 452 of the I.P.C. Therefore, learned counsel for the applicants prays that the applicants be released on anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer on the other hand opposes the bail application and prayed for rejection of the same.The applicants/accused shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Police Officer/Arresting officer as and when required.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,322,313 |
She has been falsely implicated.Her name was surfaced in the statements of the victim recorded u/s 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. to the extent that Radha has called the victim.She has acted as a bridge.The main role of sexual exploitation is against the named accused persons.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 applicantSmt.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
195,322,653 |
However, as there was no reply, he addressed another communication dated 21.02.2012 to the Bank requesting them to furnish statement of account.The petitioners herein have come forward with the present Criminal Original Petition seeking to call for the records of the first respondent in FIR No.560 of 2015 dated 25.06.2015 and Quash the FIR No.560 of 2015 registered against the petitioners for an offence under Section 409 IPC, as being an abuse of process of law, untenable in facts and circumstances.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the second respondent was having 18 loan accounts in the Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, out of which one is a mortgage loan account, one is a business loan account and others are commercial vehicle loan accounts.The second respondent had also deposited the title deeds in lieu of the said loan.While so, the second respondent had issued a letter dated 21.03.2007 expressing his intention to settle the entire amount due to the financial facilities of the agreement in SA118003 and pursuant to the same, the bank has issued a communication to the second respondent stating that the balance outstanding amount is Rs.1,70,00,000/-.Hence, the second respondent issued a Demand Draft to the tune of Rs.1,70,00,000/- for which the Bank has also issued a receipt.The second respondent/defacto complainant had preferred a complaint before the Reserve Bank of India against the Kotak Mahindra Bank stating that the Bank owe a sum of Rs.28,26,294/- to him.Even though he had discharged the entire amount, the Bank had committed fraud and the Bank ought to have refunded a sum of Rs.28,26,294/-.The said application was dismissed and as against the same, the second respondent preferred a Writ Application in which the loan statement has been given and thereafter, he preferred the present complaint.Even then, the case was not registered and hence, the second respondent filed a Crl.O.P for a direction and pursuant to the direction of this Court, a case has been registered for the offences punishable under Section 409 IPC.The learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would putforth his argument in two folds:Only when the second respondent insisted for the second time, the Bank provided the correct statement of account and thereafter, the second respondent became aware of the excess amount paid by him towards the mortgage loan.Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the petition.Considered the rival submissions made by all the parties and perused the typed set of papers.While so, on 21.03.2007, the second respondent expressed his desire to repay the entire loan amount.Consequent to the same, the Bank addressed a letter dated 22.03.2007 stating that pertaining to the loan agreement No.SA118003, a sum of Rs.1,70,00,000/- is due.The relevant portion of the said communication enclosed in page 6 of the typed set of papers is extracted here under:Based on your request letter dated 21st March 2007, you intend to make a settlement to all amounts due to us under the financial facilities of above referred agreement.07.04.2016pgpNote : Issue order copy on 18.04.2016 To2.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Chennai.pgpPre-Delivery Order made inCrl.
|
['Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,637,053 |
The petitioner seeks quashing of the F.I.R bearing registration No.286/2013 (P.S. Ambedkar Nagar) dated 1.7.2013 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter called 'Code').Respondent No.2 has lodged aforementioned F.I.R. alleging that a fake deal was made by the petitioner with one Manik Ahuja with respect to house No.108, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi.Pursuant to such a deal, the petitioner filed a civil suit before the civil court for specific performance of contract.The further allegations in the First Information Report is that aforesaid Manik Ahuja had never entered into any deal with the petitioner and the averments made in the plaint regarding receipt of earnest money was W.P.(Crl.) 806/2014 Page 1 of 4 absolutely false.It was, therefore, alleged that a false document was used by the petitioner in a civil suit.The petitioner is also said to be making attempts to sell the aforesaid property to somebody else and in order to show his bonafide claim over the property, he has been repeatedly making endeavours to usurp the property.W.P.(Crl.) 806/2014 Page 1 of 4The respondent has alleged that the property in question was actually purchased by him.In order to defeat the claim of respondent No.2, the petitioner, on two occasions committed trespass and caused damages to the property.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bare reading of the F.I.R. would disclose a civil flavour.There is a dispute over the property which is a residential house and only to project his claim over the property, repeatedly criminal cases are being lodged by the respondent.The civil proceedings instituted at the instance of the petitioner, also does not appear to have been concluded and in case any document, preferred/filed by the petitioner, is found to be forged and fabricated, the law will take its own course.The series of litigation between the parties is sufficient indication of the fact that the petitioner and the respondent are at loggerheads with respect W.P.(Crl.) 806/2014 Page 2 of 4 to a residential house.W.P.(Crl.) 806/2014 Page 2 of 4Mr.Mehra, Standing Counsel, during the course of arguments submitted that pursuant to the filing of the present F.I.R., the petitioner approached the court below for anticipatory bail which was rejected.No steps have been taken by the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail from the higher court.Instead seeking protection, the petitioner has chosen to challenge the institution of the First Information Report.Mr.Mehra, further submits that till date, without there being any protective cover, the petitioner has not been arrested.This indicates the fairness of the investigation.W.P.(Crl.) 806/2014 Page 3 of 4Mr.Mehra, on instructions, submits that the investigation now only pertains to examination of certain documents which have already been taken possession of by the police and have been sent to forensic authorities.The investigation agency is only awaiting the forensic report.Investigating agency is expected to conclude the investigation as expeditiously as possible.With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,686,766 |
offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').As per the prosecution story, on 5.11.2011 at about 8 am Maan Singh Korkoo, had come to the house of one Rayali bai asking for wages and had left after a while.About half an hour thereafter, he was again seeing running towards the house of Rayali Bai while crying for help and was being chased by Kailash Korkoo and Pappu Chowkidar.In front of the house of Rayalibai, Pappu caught hold of Maan Singh by his shirt and Kailash gave 2-3 Paati (wooden plank) blows due to which Maan Singh fell down and died.Kailash and Pappu fled away towards Amla.Rayali Bai shouted but they did not stop.Tej Singh was informed by his nephew on mobile, on which he informed about the incident to Police.Morgue intimation No.22/10 was registered and, after investigation, charge- sheet was filed.After appreciating the evidence and material available on record, the trial Court held that Ramkunwar Bai (PW2), who was the wife of deceased, admitted that she had not seen the incident.She did not even know Pappu.Sarjeet Singh (PW4), son of the deceased, had no knowledge about the incident.Door Singh (PW5), Tej Singh (PW6), Rayalibai (PW7), Surlibai (PW8) and Resham Bai (PW9), deposed that they had not witnessed the incident.There is no other evidence on record to incriminate the respondent.Accordingly, the trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.We agree with the findings recorded by the trial Court.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 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,733,540 |
(Passed on 28th March, 2017) By this revision petition u/S.401/397 of the Cr.P.C, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14/9/2015 passed in ST No.25/2012 framing charge against the petitioner u/Ss.420/34, 467/34, 468/34, 471/34 and 474/34 of the IPC.[2] A complaint was filed by the Manager Dewas Shajapur Regional Gramin Bank against the co-accused Anarsingh S/o Prahlad Singh, Mohansingh S/o Prahlad Singh, Girnarsingh S/o Bapusingh, Omsingh S/o Kumersingh, Ramu Singh S/o Prahlad Singh and Durjan Singh S/o Prahlad Singh alleging that these six co-accused persons had applied for loan and had produced Bhu Adhikar and Rin Pustika, Khasra B/1 and P/2, family identity card etc and search was got done through the authorised Advocate of 2 the bank and after receiving the report, loan was sanctioned to these six co-accused persons, but thereafter it was found that the documents which were submitted by the co-accused persons were fabricated documents, therefore, these six co-accused persons had cheated the bank and had obtained loan by committing fraud.FIR was registered and investigation was done.Since the petitioner had carried out the search and submitted the search report, therefore, he was also made one of the accused and challan has been filed against him also and by the impugned order dated 14/9/2015 charge has been framed against the petitioner along with the other co-accused persons.[3] Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been named in the FIR and he had submitted the report on the basis of the document furnished by the co-accused persons and the search report on the basis of which the petitioner has been implicated does not find place in the charge sheet and that there is no material in the charge sheet to connect the petitioner with the alleged offence.[4] As against this, learned counsel for respondent has supported the impugned order.[5] Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that in the complaint dated 27/1/2007 3 submitted by the Manager of the Bank, no allegations were made against the petitioner nor he was named therein.The petitioner's name does not find place in the FIR.During the course of investigation, the statement of R.M. Naigaonkar, Manager of the Bank has been recorded who has also stated that the verification was done by the petitioner on the basis of the land record submitted by the co-accused persons who had applied for loan as also the document supplied by the concerned Halka Patvari and the ration cared issued by the gram panchayat, Kheda and Panchayat Secretary.The petitioner has been implicated solely on the basis of the verification report submitted by him.It has been pointed out that the verification report was based upon the document submitted by the co-accused persons.Though the sole connecting link of the petitioner with the alleged offence is the search report submitted by the petitioner, but no such search report has been filed by the prosecution before the trial court along with the challan.[6] Counsel for State on 6/2/2017 had sought time to get the original challan examined by the SHO and to file an affidavit clearly stating if the search report was filed along with the challan.The affidavit of the SHO dated 20th February, 2017 is on record clearly stating that neither the original nor photocopy of the search report is enclosed with the challan.[7] In the aforesaid circumstances, there was no material before the learned Addl.No evidence is available in the charge-sheet, copies of which have been filed by the applicant, that when the present applicant conducted search in as around December 2003 such information could have been extracted by the applicant though available record, index etc. There is also no evidence to establish his link or connection with other accused.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,948,633 |
JUDGMENT Vikramajit Sen, J.The Petitioner has prayed inter alia for the issuance of appropriate orders quashing (a) his suspension as well as (b) the Charge Sheet against him, and (c) to restrain the continuance of the Domestic Inquiry instituted against him.However, on 05.02.2002, resumption of these disciplinary proceedings was permitted subject to the condition that the final order passed would not be given effect to against the Petitioner.On 15.03.2004, the Petition was set down for final disposal.The learned counsel for the parties have addressed detailed arguments in the matter.The prayer was granted.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
194,980,396 |
There is no previous enmity between the applicant and complainant.He is a poor farmer and he is a permanent resident of village Pipra District Shivpuri.On these grounds, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of bail to the applicant.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE PRINCEE BARAIYA 2019.02.01 17:39:34 -08'00' Pj'S/-
|
['Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,015,257 |
DATE : 10th DECEMBER, 2019P.C. :1. Rule.With consent of the parties, Rule is madereturnable forthwith.This petition is filed by the petitioner who is a minor girlaged 12 years, through her father, for permission to undergomedical termination of pregnancy at Sassoon Hospital.The victimwas subjected to the offence of rape by the accused who was 1 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 2 58-12493-19.odtrelative of the victim and was residing nearby.As a result of sexualoffence, the victim became pregnant.The petitioner's familyconsulted Doctors as the victim complained of nausea and pain inabdomen.Her medical examination revealed that, she waspregnant and pregnancy was of more than five and half months.Since the pregnancy hadexceeded the statutory period of 20 weeks prescribed under theMedical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (for short, 'MTP Act'),the petitioner is seeking permission from this court to terminate herpregnancy.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a fewjudgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well asdifferent Division Benches of this Court dealing with the issue ofgranting permission for termination of pregnancy even after thestatutory period of twenty weeks provided under the MTP Act wasover.He submitted that the mental trauma that the victim 2 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 3 58-12493-19.odtpetitioner is undergoing because of the pregnancy caused due tothe offence of rape was causing serious injury to her mental health.Besides this, there was inherent risk to her life because ofpregnancy at such a tender age.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::Considering the various directions issued by the Hon'bleSupreme Court, as well as, by different Division Benches of this Court,we had directed the Medical Board at Sassoon Hospital to submit areport regarding victim's health and possible risk involved in the entireprocedure.The envelope is opened in the court.The report of theCommittee reads thus:"The committee examined the girl [Petition No. 12493 of 2019] on 06/12/2019 and necessary investigations were done.If this pregnancy is continued it might cause mental and physical trauma to the patient.The committee feels that the pregnancy may be terminated with kind permission of Hon'ble High Court.3 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 4 58-12493-19.odt However there is substantial risk in termination of pregnancy at this gestation like failure of termination and need of unnecessary caesarean section, and bleeding and all those risks are explained to the woman and her family and they are willing to accept the risk."::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::Section 3 ofthe MTP Act reads thus :When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners.- (1) Notwithstanding anything 4 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 5 58-12493-19.odt contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.In the instant case, this particular circumstanceis clearly existing and there is no doubt that continuance of this 6 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 7 58-12493-19.odtpregnancy is causing a grave injury to the mental health of thepetitioner.Apart from this, of course, considering her tender age of12 years, there is an inherent risk to her life.The only difficulty inthe present case is that the statutory period of 20 weeks is over,more than seven weeks ago.The petitioner has entered into 28 thweek of her pregnancy and, therefore, the MTP Act does notpermit medical termination of pregnancy in such cases.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::It was further held that, this Court, in exercise of itsextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia, can permit medical termination of pregnancy the length ofwhich exceeds 20 weeks, in contingencies set out in clauses (i) and(ii) of Section 3(2)(b) of the MTP Act. The Division Bench haddirected the State to constitute Medical Boards for this purpose.The Division Bench had further held that if medicaltermination of pregnancy was permitted and inspite of that if thechild was born alive, then the registered Medical Practitioner andthe hospital concerned was required to assume full responsibilityto ensure that such child is offered best medical treatmentavailable in the circumstances and in such cases if the parents ofsuch child were not willing to or are not in a position to assumethe responsibility for such child, then, the State and its agencies 10 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 11 58-12493-19.odtwill have to assume full responsibility for such child in the bestinterests of such child and in accordance with the statutoryprovisions of the Juvenile Justice Act.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::It was observed in thatjudgment that since the pregnancy in that case was a result ofphysical abuse and since the FIR was lodged, directions were 11 / 13 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 ::: 12 58-12493-19.odtissued for preservation of the tissue sample, blood sample of thefetus for carrying out necessary medical tests including DNA, fingerprinting/mapping and the Investigating Officer was directed toforward the same to the Regional Forensic Laboratory.The learnedCounsel for the petitioner submitted that similar directions neededto be issued in the instant case as well.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::Considering the above discussion, following order ispassed :i. The petitioner is permitted to undergo medical termination of pregnancy as per Committee's report dated 06/12/2019, at Sassoon Hospital, Pune.The Dean of the Sassoon Hospital shall ensure that the procedure is performed at a place which satisfies all the requirements of the MTP Rules 2003 and the procedure shall be conducted by the Medical Practitioner who satisfies the conditions laid down under those rules.The blood sample and tissue sample of the fetus shall be preserved for the purpose of carrying out necessary medical tests including DNA and other tests.All concerned parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order.Learned A.G.P. is directed to send an authenticated copy of this order to the Investigating Officer who is conducting investigation in the present case.::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/12/2019 22:49:17 :::
|
['Section 4 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,091,113 |
Certified copy/ e-copy as per rules/directions.Heard through Video Conferencing.The applicant has filed this first bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail.Applicant has been arrested on 04.11.2020 by Police Station Veerpur, District Sheopur, in connection with Crime No.87/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 354, 506 and of IPC.It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that false case has been registered against him and he is suffering confinement since 04.11.2020, whereas charge-sheet is likely to be filed soon.He undertakes to cooperate in trial and shall not be a source of embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any manner and shall not move in her vicinity.On these premises, he prayed for bail Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and prayed for dismissal of the bail application.Heard learned counsel for the parties at length through VC and considered the arguments advanced by them.Applicant shall not move in the vicinity of the prosecutrix and shall not cause any embarrassment/harassment to the complainant party in any manner Application stands allowed and disposed of.E- copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance, if possible from the office of this Court.
|
['Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 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.
|
195,223,801 |
2 CRA No. 580/1994The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 19.01.1990, dead bodies of two women identified as Foolbai and Shyambai were found in the field of Rajaram at village Sirpur District Khandwa.They were murdered.On the information, murg No. 01/1990 and 02/1990 were registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. by police Station Moghat Road, Khandwa.Ramesh (PW-1) identified the deceased as his mother Shyambai and his sister Foolbai.It was revealed that due to illicit relation with the appellant, deceased Foolbai was pregnant and the appellant took Foolbai to Khandwa for abortion along with her mother Shyambai.Thereafter, they went to village Sirpur.(31/08/2017) Per : Smt. Anjuli Palo, J :-As both these appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused Mangal Singh being aggrieved by the common conviction order dated 20.05.1994 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Nimad in Session Trial No. 82/1990 and 83/1990, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 of the 2 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, additional R.I for one month (two counts), we propose to deal with the matter analogously and dispose of both the appeals by this common order.At Sirpur, appellant- accused Mangal Singh committed rape with deceased Foolbai and then strangulated her to death with the help of co-accussed Heeralal.Then, both the accused persons committed rape with Shyambai then killed her.Thereafter, they smashed (crushed) their face with stone to conceal the identity of the deceased.3 CRA No. 580/19943 CRA No. 580/1994CRA No. 581/1994After due investigation, police registered offence under Section 376, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant Mangal Singh and co-accused Heeralal.Charge-sheet was filed.Then case was committed to the Trial Court.Learned Trial court framed charges under Section 376, 302 and 201 of IPC against the appellant.The appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded that he was falsely implicated in the case and he is innocent.No defence witness has been examined by him.Learned Trial Court found that no eye-witness was available to prove the offences against the appellant-accused.On the basis of circumstantial evidence the learned Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced the appellants for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 200/- and default stipulations.The appellant has challenged the aforesaid findings before this Court on the ground that the circumstances which were considered by the learned Trial Court did not lead to one and only one conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence.In fact, he was not connected with the crime at all.Learned Trial Court wrongly believed the prosecution story.As per Ramesh (PW-1), his mother Shyambai and sister Foolbai were talking about going to Khandwa with appellant and co-accused 4 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 Heeralal.They did not speak about Mangal Singh.Ramesh (PW-1) did not specify the date and time as to when the deceased went to Khandwa.When the police came to him then he went to his uncle's house to inquire about his mother and sister.The learned Trial Court convicted the appellants on weak and contradictory evidence.Accordingly, the appellant prayed for acquittal from the charge under Section 302 of IPC.4 CRA No. 580/1994Heard learned counsel for the parties.Perused the record.It is not in dispute that no direct evidence is available against the appellant of committing murder of the deceased Foolbai and Shyambai.The case is based on circumstantial evidence.It is settled law that in the case of circumstantial evidence, every circumstance against the accused shall be proved beyond any reasonable doubt to duly establish chain of circumstance.In the present case the deceased were resident of village Udaipur but their bodies were found at Sirpur, District Khandwa.Ramesh is the brother of deceased Foolbai and son of deceased Shyambai.According to him, his father died long ago.The appellant Mangal Singh frequently visited his house.Ramesh (PW-1) stated that his mother and sister had told him that they were going to Khandwa along with co-accused 5 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 Heeralal not with the appellant for treatment of Foolbai who was pregnant at that time.In his cross-examination, he stated that he did not know about the date, day or time when his mother and sister proceeded to Khandwa.Anil (PW-3) deposed that at the request of Foolbai, he went to call appellant-accused Mangal.Mangal told him that he will be coming in the evening and the same was communicated to the deceased Foolbai.These version itself are not sufficient to establish the 'last seen together' theory against the appellant-accused.5 CRA No. 580/1994Bassu Bai (PW-2), Laxman (PW-8), Roop Singh (PW-9, Ganikhan (PW-12) and Jaswant Singh (PW-18) turned hostile.They were examined by the prosecution to establish that the deceased went to Khandwa along with the appellant and at different time, the deceased were seen with the appellant.But those witnesses did not support the prosecution case to prove the aforesaid fact.Basiruddin (PW-23) has stated that the co- accused/Heeralal came to his shop at Khandwa seeking help to provide bicycle.Basiruddin has not deposed any fact which was sufficient to prove the involvement of the appellant- accused with the crime.Thereafter, nobody saw the deceased women going to the spot with the appellant Mangal Singh.The involvement of the 6 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 appellant Mangal Singh is only based on seizure of some incriminating articles from him.It was alleged that those articles were related to the offence and deceased.Panch witness Ismail (PW-13) supported the testimony of Suresh Kumar (PW-34).Further, a shawl (ghussa) and a pair of handgloves has been seized by the police on information of the appellant and co-accused Heeralal by seizure memo (Exh. P/8) from the spot.6 CRA No. 580/1994On that ground, learned Trial Court wrongly held that it can be presumed that rape was committed by the appellant Mangal Singh as he wanted Foolbai 7 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 to do the abortion.They were in physical relationship with employees, officers and contractors of Punasa Dam.7 CRA No. 580/1994In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof.This is for the reason that the mental distance between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof.The large distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution,In the present case, there is no direct evidence, eye- witness available to prove the charges against the appellant, hence, the question for consideration arises as to whether such facts leads to inference of guilt on the part of accused person/appellant.We find so many loopholes in the prosecution evidence with respect to involvement of the appellant.8 CRA No. 580/1994The act of absconding is no doubt relevant piece of evidence to be considered along with other evidence but its value would always depend on the circumstances of each case.Normally the courts are disinclined to attach much importance to the act of absconding, treating it as a very small item in the evidence for sustaining conviction.It can scarcely be 9 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 held as a determining link in completing the chain of circumstantial evidence which must admit of no other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused."9 CRA No. 580/1994Thereafter, Heeralal took a bicycle on rent at Khandwa and stayed at Trimurti hotel along with his friend in the fake name of Ramsingh.One Ganikhan (PW-12) and Jaswant Singh (PW-18) deposed that two men traveled along with two women in Gani's tonga from Khandwa to Sirpur but learned Trial Court itself specified that they did not identify those four persons.The learned Trial Court itself held no one established that the deceased women along with the appellant and co-accused Heeralal went to the spot.As per the learned Trial Court, only presence of Heeralal (co-accused) at Sirpur, Khandwa and 10 CRA No. 580/1994 CRA No. 581/1994 Udaypur was established.Because the clothes of the appellant and co-accused Heeralal were stained with blood and semen.Therefore in paragraph 33 of the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court presumed that the appellant and co-accused Heeralal were involved in sexual exploitation of the deceased, hence after the pregnancy of Foolbai, the appellant and co- accused Heeralal took the deceased women to Khandwa and after committing rape with them, they were murdered by the appellant and co-accused Heeralal.10 CRA No. 580/1994Accordingly, we find that the present appeals filed by appellant Mangal Singh are liable to be and is hereby allowed.Conviction and punishment of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code is set aside.Let record be sent with the copy of this order to the Trial Court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,308,747 |
Certified copy, as per Rules.(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE Arun/-Digitally signed by ARUN NAIR Date: 2019.01.08 09:52:47 +05'30'2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.52158 OF 2018 (Goverdhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 07.01.2019 Mr. Subodh Choudhary, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Rajesh Mali, learned public prosecutor for the non- applicant/State.Arguments heard.Case diary perused.As per prosecution story, 60 bulk litres of country made liquor was seized from the possession of applicant, for which the applicant is not having any valid licence.Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present crime.He submits that charge-sheet has been filed in this matter.The offence registered against the applicant is triable by Judicial Magistrate First Class.Conclusion of the trial will take long time.Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned public prosecutor for the non-applicant/State opposes the bail application and submits that there are criminal antecedents with ten cases of IPC registered against him.Considered rival contentions.Perused the case diary and the report of SHO and the 2 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT INDORE MISC.CRIMINAL CASE NO.52158 OF 2018 (Goverdhan vs State of Madhya Pradesh) offences registered against him under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC.The applicant is shown to be the resident of State of Rajasthan.However, as per Aadhar Card of applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that he is the resident of State of Madhya Pradesh.He has pointed out the copy of Aadhar Card which shows that the applicant is the resident of Manasa, District-Neemuch (MP).Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the applicant, but without making any opinion on merits of the case, the application filed by the applicant-Goverdhan is allowed.
|
['Section 380 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 457 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,324,396 |
http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 Case of the prosecution is that, on 29.06.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., at Agravaram Pennai Main Road, while deceased was returning to his house, he was hit by a Hero Honda vehicle, driven by the petitioner/accused, which was not registered and the injured fell down and sustained grievous head injuries and when he was taken to Government Hospital, he was reported as dead.Hence, a case was registered against the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Sections, 279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC.3 Before the trial Court, in order to prove case of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 were marked.On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was marked.4 The learned District Musif, after trial, found the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 304(A) with 279 & 337 merged with 279 & 337 of IPC and by judgment dated 21.09.2010,http://www.judis.nic.in 3 convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months.The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both the parties, by judgment dated 31.07.2013, had dismissed the appeal and modified the sentence by adding fine of Rs.2000/-, besides, the simple imprisonment of four months imposed by the trial Court.5 Assailing the judgment of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet dated 31.07.2013, the accused had preferred this present criminal revision before this Court.6 Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side)for the respondent police and perused the materials available on record.7 According to prosecution, on 29.06.2007 at about 7.30 p.m., at Agravaram Pennai Main Road, while deceased was returning to his house, he was hit by a Hero Honda vehicle, driven by the petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner, which was nothttp://www.judis.nic.in 4 registered, and the injured fell down and as a result, sustained grievous head injuries and subsequently died.Hence, the petitioner/accused was charged for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304 (A) of IPC.8 P.W.2 to P.W.5 and P.Ws 7 & 8, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, had clearly spoken about the manner in which the accident had taken place.P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased had stated that death of his son had occurred only due to the injuries, which are grievous in nature, sustained by him at the time of accident.P.W.10, the Doctor, who conducted postmortem, had issued Ex.P4/Postmortem Certificate, which also reveals that the death had occurred only due to the head injuries sustained by the deceased, at the time of accident.All the eye witnesses had stated that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner/accused.The learned Sessions Judge, as a first Appellate Judge, had re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and had come to the conclusion that the death of the child, aged about 11 years, had occurred only due to the negligence of the petitioner/accused and hence, confirmed the conviction made by the trial Court.This Court, as a revision Court, need not re-appreciate entire evidence on record andhttp://www.judis.nic.in 5 this Court has to see, whether there is any perversity in the order of the Courts below.On perusal of the entire evidence on record and the judgments of conviction made by the Courts below, this Court does not find any perversity or infirmity and the judgments of conviction made by the Courts below does not warrants any interference.9 In the result, the criminal revision is dismissed and the judgment dated 31.07.2013 made in Criminal Appeal No.222 of 2013 is hereby confirmed.The trial Court is directed to secure the accused to undergo remaining period of imprisonment, if any.24.10.2018 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order cgi ToThe II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore at Ranipet.The District Munsif, Ranipet.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 P.VELMURUGAN, J., cgi Crl.R.C.No.1035 of 2013
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,475,277 |
The present bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge her on bail in Case Crime No. 1096 of 2017, under Sections- 376DA I.P.C. & 6/17 POCSO Act, Police Station- Kotwali Dehat, District- Bulandshahar.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been enlarged on bail u/s 363, 342, 328, 506, 120B I.P.C. and 6/7 POCSO Act by coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.1.2020, in Criminal Misc.Bail Application No. 45631 of 2018 in the same case crime number.The applicant shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel.In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.Order Date :- 9.11.2020 Vandana
|
['Section 174A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 229A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
195,563,979 |
The victim-girl is aged about 15 years.sm Allowed CRM No. 6002 of 2016 In the matter of an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 25.07.2016 in connection with Haringhata Police Station Case No.109 of 2016 dated 26.03.2016 under sections 363/366/370of the Indian Penal Code and added section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.And In Re:- Ashis Biswas .. Petitioner.Mrs.Minoti Gomes ... for the petitioner Mr.Pradipta Ganguly .for the State.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.According to her statement recorded under section 164 CrPC, she left the custody of her guardian at her own volition.The investigation is over and charge sheet has been submitted.Out of four (4) charge sheeted accused persons, three (3) accuseds are on bail.The petitioner is in custody for about 95 days.2 Having regard to above and when no case is made out from the side of the State that if the petitioner is released on bail, he is likely to abscond, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is allowed.Let the petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nadia at Kalyani upon furnishing a Bond of Rs.10,000/-, with two sureties of Rs.5,000/- each, one of whom must be local. .Accordingly, this application is disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
195,585,376 |
ap C.R.M. 6503 of 2016 In the matter of: an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 11.08.2016 in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 155 of 2016 dated 30.06.2016 under Sections 363/366/370/370A/120B of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3/4/5/6/7 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)Ms. Suman Schenabis (Mondal).The petitioner is the manager of a hotel from where allegedly brothel was running.Total nine girls were recovered and admittedly each of them are adult.We have gone through their statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC.Let the petitioner be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties of Rs.10,000/- each, one of whom 2 must be local, to the satisfaction of the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Medinipur subject to the condition that that after release, the petitioner shall not enter within the jurisdiction of Tamluk Sub-Division except for the purpose of attending the court's proceedings and before release, he must intimate the Officer-in- charge of Chandipur Police Station as also the court concerned where he shall reside and also meet the Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station thrice in every week, until further orders.The application for bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,793,578 |
On 6th July, 2013, when he reported for his training, he was not allowed to join the same and was sent back in the context of a W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 1 of 6 criminal case in which he had been involved.The petitioner had submitted the relevant documents by post on 3rd September, 2013 but by the impugned order, his appointment was cancelled.W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 1 of 63) In reply, Mr. Hashmat Nabi, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner concealed the factum of his involvement in the criminal case when he filled up the application form on 21st August, 2012 for being considered for appointment to the W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 2 of 6 aforesaid post; that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case when he was required to file the verification documents after his selection.He has drawn our attention to the fact that the petitioner was constrained to disclose his involvement in a criminal case only when the character and antecedent certificates from the local Station House Officer was required to be filed by him, at the time of his reporting to the Principal of the aforesaid CISF Training Centre, RTC, at Durg.However, the said negative answer had been scratched out and 'yes' had been written, evidently after the receipt of the character certificate from the local police.The learned counsel also relied upon the policy guidelines for considering cases of candidates for appointment in CAPFs, pending criminal cases against them and the effect thereof which reads inter-alia: - W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 3 of 6However, case in which the criminal Court, while acquitting, has categorically mentioned that the criminal case would not be a bar on appointment in Government services, the candidate shall be considered for appointment in the concerned CAPF."4) He further relies upon Annexure A of the said guidelines which lists out offences under the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') and other Acts concerning serious offences/offences involving moral turpitude.7) A para military force could hardly place any confidence in a person who chose to suppress relevant material, which would show his involvement in a criminal case.As regards the acquittal of the petitioner in the criminal case, this Court is of the view that the same was on the basis of the benefit of doubt in-so-far the relevant witnesses had turned hostile.The SSC's decision cannot be faulted because it had taken into consideration the involvement of the petitioner in a serious offence/or offences involving moral turpitude.The petitioner inter alia was prosecuted under Section 452 of the IPC, which is covered under W.P. (C) No. 5710/2014 Page 5 of 6 Annexure 'A' of the policy guidelines which deals with serious offences/offences involving moral turpitude.
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
617,956 |
HARJIT SINGH BEDI,J.1. Leave granted.These appeals by special leave arise out of the followingfacts:On the morning of 3rd December 1975, one ShekharSingh, resident of Village Moory was assaulted by some of the 2accused.Later on information was conveyed to Bhagwati Devithat her sons-in-law, Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh andher son Nathuni Singh had been surrounded by the accusedin the Khalihan of one Marua Singh with a view to committheir murder.Bhagwati Devi, accompanied by her daughterand son, went to the Khalihan of Marua Singh and when shereached there, she saw the accused persons, 13 in all, armedwith guns, spears, pharsas and lathis etc. standing on theroad outside the Khalihan whereas her two sons-in-law andher son were inside.She also heard accused Chirkut Singhasking them to come out of the Khalihan and he also openedfire hitting Bacha Singh on which, he fell down.LakshmanSingh thereafter opened fire with a country-made gun in selfdefence hitting Kishore Singh, as a result of which, he too felldown on the ground.Thereafter, accused Jang BahadurSingh fired a shot with his weapon hitting Lakshman Singh,and accused Bashishta Singh also fired his weapon hittingNathuni Singh and they both fell on the ground.The otheraccused thereafter gave blows with lathis to Nathuni Singh.In the meanwhile Sachmucha Devi, the father's sister of 3Nathuni Singh covered his body with her own and receivedgun butt/lathi blows given allegedly by accused Jang BahadurSingh.It further appears that the accused persons starteddragging Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh in a southerlydirection and also assaulted them which resulted in theirdeaths on the spot.On hearing the alarm raised by BhagwatiDevi, her co-villagers namely Bajranghi Singh and ChariterSingh reached the place and also witnessed the incident.Theaccused then ran away carrying Nand Kishore Singh withthem.Bhagwati Devi then rushed to the Police Station,Chainpur on which an FIR was registered for offencespunishable under Sections 147,148,149,302,307 and 325 ofIPC and under Section 25(a) of the Arms Act against all thethirteen accused and on completion of the investigation, theywere charged under the aforesaid offences and as theypleaded innocence, they were brought to trial.The trial courtrelying on the statements of PW5 Bhagwati Devi, PW4 JaiPrakash, PW6 Binda Devi, PW7 Sachmucha Devi and PW8Nathuni Singh held that the case stood proved against nine of 4the thirteen accused and accordingly convicted them asunder:-"All the remaining nine accused persons are held guilty of the offence u/s 302/149 IPC because they committed murders of deceased Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh in furtherance of their common object for which they had formed an unlawful assembly and as such they are convicted thereunder.Then, accused Chirkut Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh are held guilty for the substantive charge u/s 302 and 148 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act for which they are convicted thereunder.Then, there is a charge u/s 307 IPC against accused Bashistha Singh, but the Doctor, who is said to have examined injured Nathuni Singh, has not been examined by the prosecution.Therefore, charge u/s 307 IPC fails on this score alone.Accused Badri Singh, Sobhu Singh, Kailash Singh, Kumar Singh, Bashistha Singh and Bacha Singh have been charged for the offence u/s 148 IPC whereas accused Briksh Singh has been charged for the offence u/s 147 IPC.Therefore they are held guilty for the respective charges levelled against them and they are convicted thereunder."Accused Nirmal Singh, Muni Singh, Durga Singh andBramha Singh were acquitted.The High Court in appeal,acquitted Bashistha Singh of all charges.The appeals filed by 5the other accused were dismissed with some cosmetic changesin the nature of the offence.Before we embark on a discussion of the argumentsraised, the details or otherwise of the appeals filed in thisCourt need to be reproduced.It may be mentioned thatChirkut Singh, Badri Singh and Briksh Singh did not file anyappeal in this Court.Mr. R. Sundervardhan, the learned senior counselappearing for the accused appellants has raised severalarguments before us.He has first submitted that the genesisof the occurrence was uncertain and as both sides appearedto have come prepared and determined to fight, injuries hadbeen suffered by members of both groups on this account.Ithas also been pleaded that the trial court had adopted anextra ordinary procedure inasmuch as it had looked into thecase diary to find corroboration for the prosecution evidenceas the investigating officer had not cared to record the 6statements of the prosecution witness and that this procedurewas unknown to law and therefore unacceptable in the light ofthe judgments reported as Habeeb Mohammad vs. State ofHyderabad 1954 SCR 475, Sakal Ahir & Ors.As against this, it has beencontended by the learned counsel for the respondent-Statethat the facts of the case clearly showed that the accused werethe aggressors and in the light of the fact that the incidentpertaining to Shekhar Singh had taken place two or threehours before the present incident, the question of a free fightdid not arise.It has also been pleaded that the animositybetween the parties stood admitted and that in the light of thefact that several injured witnesses had come to depose infavour of the prosecution, some discrepancies were bound tooccur in the ocular evidence recorded after 7 years as noted inthe judgment of the Supreme Court in Leela Ram (Dead)through Duli Chand vs. State of Haryana & Anr.We have considered the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the parties.The facts of the case reveal that the I.O. couldnot be examined, as in the meanwhile he had migrated toPakistan and had died there and it is in this situation that thetrial Judge feeling handicapped on account of the non-examination of the I.O. (though the witnesses had beenconfronted with their previous statements) had a look into thecase diary as an additional factor to test the veracity of thewitnesses.This iswhat the trial court had to say on this aspect: 8P.P. that in spite of his best effortsthe I.O. could not turn up for hisevidence and it was reported that the I.O.Shri M.Mallik Khan, who was a Muslimgentlemen left the country for Pakistanafter his retirement and he died overthere and besides that, on perusal of thestatements of prosecution witnesses Ifind that the attention of PW3 was drawntowards his previous statement beforethe I.O. in Para 15 of his cross-And similarly the attentionof PW4 was drawn towards his earlierstatement made before the police in Para12 of his cross-examination.Likewise theattention of PW6 was drawn toward herearlier statement made before the policein Paras 2 and 9 of her cross-The attention of PW7 wasdrawn towards her earlier statement inPara 4 of her cross-examination and thatof PW8 was drawn towards his earlierstatement in Paras 12 and 14 of hiscross-examination.And I have alsoperused the case diary in order toappreciate the evidence u/s 172 (2) 9 Cr.P.C. and found that even if the I.O.would have been examined no material contradiction could have come out in the statements of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution because on material points all the witnesses examined before the police have stated that accused Chirkut Singh gave a fatal shot to deceased Bacha Singh, whereas accused Jang Bahadur gave a fatal shot to deceased Lakshman Singh.And while describing the alleged P.O. the I.O. has fully corroborated this fact that he had found the trail of dragging of deceased Lakshman Singh and Bacha Singh from the Khalihan of one Marua Singh.It will be clear from a perusal of the aforequoted paragraphthat the prosecution witnesses had been confronted with theirprevious statements and even if we assume that the trial courtwas not justified in looking into the case diary, it could not besaid to be prejudicial to the accused in the peculiar facts ofthe case.It appears to be the admitted case that the deceased andsome members of the accused party were closely related toeach other and that the incident had occurred as Gati 10Kunwar, the widow of Ram Lakhan Singh had executed a deedof relinquishment in respect of her landed property in favourof the father of PW8 Nathuni Singh, though a part of that landwas being cultivated by the accused.The trial court also foundthat PW5 Bhagwati Devi had admitted in her statement thather husband Ram Dev Singh had sent for the deceasedLakshman Singh and Bacha Singh, their sons-in-law beforethe alleged occurrence, and that Lakshman Singh had alsocome to the place armed with a country made weapon.Thecourt has also observed that that it was equally true that theaccused Muni Singh, Brahma Singh and Durga Singhbelonged to village Bakurahan, accused Bashishta Singh tovillage Fakrabad and accused Badri Singh to village Bhadayeewhereas accused Muni Singh and Brahma Singh had admittedin the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that they were relations ofNand Kishore Singh deceased, whereas accused BashisthaSingh was the brother-in-law of Chirkut Singh and JangBahadur Singh and Durga Singh accused was also related toaccused Bachan Singh.The Court has accordingly drawn aninference that both sides had collected their relatives and 11supporters from several villages before the alleged occurrenceand had clashed with each other and that in the exchange offire, two persons from the complainant's side and one from theside of the accused had been killed.It is in this backgroundand the findings of the trial court that we have chosen toexamine the arguments raised.Mr R. Sundarvardhan's primary argument has been thatthe incident was the outcome of a free fight between the twogroups after they had made preparations to settle scores.Wehave examined the statement of PW5 Bhagwati Devi, the firstinformant, who deposed that 5 or 6 days before theoccurrence, Chirkut Singh's crop had been burnt on which acomplaint had been lodged against her sons-in-law (thedeceased), her son and her husband and that Chirkut Singhhad threatened her sons-in-law that they would be beaten.She also stated that Lakshman Singh often carried a country-made gun though he had no licence for it.It is apparent fromher evidence that a free fight between the parties had takenplace during the course of which several shots had been firedresulting in three deaths from both groups.The stand taken 12by Bhagwati Devi has been supported on material points bythe other prosecution witnesses.We are of the opinion in thefacts stated above, that both the parties appeared to be itchingfor a fight and had collected their relatives and supportersfrom far and between to augment their strength.In this viewof the matter, we are disinclined to go into the otherarguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellants.In the light of what has been discussed above, we findthat both groups must share equal responsibility for thisincident.Accused Chirkut Singh who has been attributed thegun shot injury on Bacha Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh whohad likewise given a fatal injury to Lakshman Singh must beheld liable for offences punishable under section 302 IPC andsection 27 of the Arms Act. The trial court acquitted BashisthaSingh charged under section 307 for having caused a gun shotinjury to Nathuni Singh but convicted him for the offenceunder section 148 of the IPC.We have seen from the record that Badri Singh andBriksh Singh have not filed any appeal in this Court.He along with other appellants herein had preferred the criminal appeal before the High Court of Patna which is Crl.A. No. 88/1995 which came to be dismissed by the impugned judgment.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 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.
|
61,796,184 |
Since the parties have arrived at a compromise as stated above these petitions are allowed and the prosecution in C.C.No.460 of 2016 and C.C.No.461 of 2016 are hereby quashed.The petitioner in Crl.OP.No.23404 of 2016 shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.Similarly, the petitioners in Crl.OP.No.23405 of 2016 shall pay each Rs.5,000/- (Total Rs.10,000/-) as costs to the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, Chennai within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.The Metropolitan Magistrate No.XVIII, Saidapet,The Sub-Inspector of Police E-2, Royapattah Police Station, Chennai.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.O.P.Nos.23404 & 23405 of 2016http://www.judis.nic.in
|
['Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
618,046 |
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:(a) On 16.6.1996 at about 0.30 hours the deceased was sleeping in his house.At that time, his Uncle's son Radhakrishnan, and Balaji, Dharman came to the house of the deceased and asked him to come out the house.When the deceased came out of the house Balaji by catching hold of his shirt asked him as to what about the money that has to be given to his brother.At that time, Dharman attacked the deceased on his chest, face by his hands.At the same time, the said Radhakrishnan gave a blow on his head with a casurina wooden stick.By raising an alarm the deceased fell down.On hearing his alarm sound, Nagarajan and Shanmugham came and by hiring an Autorickshaw, they admitted the injured in the Government Hospital at Krishnagiri.P.W.7 Dr. Vallal examined him and noted the following injuries:Lacerated wound right frontal region 8cm x 2 cm x bone deepContusion left frontal regionContusion right foreheadBleeding from nose present.Complaint of sever headache.(b) P.W.7 also gave information to the Police under Ex.On receipt of the same by 2.00 am., P.W.11, Head Constable went to the Hospital and since the injured was under treatment he could not get statement from the injured.Again on 17.6.1996 at 7.30 a.m., he went to the Hospital and recorded a statement from him and based on that registered a case in Crime No. 537 of 1996 under Sections 341, 326, and 323 IPC.(c) By 8.30 a.m., as the condition of the injured became worse as per the advise of the Doctor the injured was taken to the Nimhans Hospital at Bangalore for further treatment.But the injured succumbed to the injuries and died at 12.20 p.m., on the same day.The death intimation was given to the Bangalore Wilson Garden Police Station.He also arranged for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased.During postmortem the following injures were found on the deceased:Blood in nostrils present.P.15 was prepared and sent the same to the Court as well to the higher officials.He also prepared Ex.P.10, Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.14 rough sketch.The Chemical Analyst report is Ex.P.18 and Zerologist report is Ex.Complaint of pain in the left shoulder, not able to move the left upper limbNot able to move the left lower limbComplaint of pain in the back clinically tendons over the lumbar spine present.Abrasion right foot 3 cm x 2 cmLacerated wound 2" in length present horizontally over the vertex in the centre along the midline.Abrasion of 1/2" x 1/2" right leg near medial side of the ankle joint.Fracture of nasal bone present.Sub (N.C.) haemotoma 1/4" thick all over the scalp.Depressed fracture of the right parietal bone underlying the lacerated wound.Multiple fracture of both parietal bones, each fracture measures about 3 to 4 inches starting from the midline.Totally 5 fractures present.Extra dural haemorrhage 2" thickness in biparietal and bitemporal areas.Fracture 1 right temporal bone.Contusion of both parietal lobes.On receipt of the same at 3.15 pm., the FIR was altered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and Express Report Ex.He also seized M.Os 1 to 3 at 6.00 pm.,(e) P.W.15, his successor in office after knowing that the accused have surrendered in the court on 19.7.1996, took steps to enquire the first accused to be taken under Police custody.On 30.7.1996 he recorded the statement from the first accused and as per the confession of the first accused the casurina stick has been seized in the presence of the witnesses from the terrace of the first accused.P.W.16 who investigated the case further arranged to send the materials objects for forensic laboratory for chemical analysation.He also examined the Doctor, Sub Inspector of Police, Had Constable and also P.W.13 who prepared the inquest report.He also examined the Doctor who conducted the postmortem at the Nimhans Hospital, Bangalore.After completing the investigation, he filed the final report on 30.12.1996 under Section 302 r/w.34 IPC against the accused.(f) Before the I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os 1 to 3 were marked.On behalf of the accused no witness was examined and Ex.D.1 was marked.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as against them, they denied the same as false.(f) On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri came to the conclusion that the offence under Sections 304(ii) IPC is proved as against the first accused and sentenced him to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/= in default to undergo two months R.I. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused as the offence has not been made out against them.Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the first accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in this case the appellant has also sustained injuries in the same occurrence and there is no explanation for the same by the prosecution and thus the prosecution has not come out with true case.The only eye witness P.W.8 is an interested witness and his evidence cannot be relied.He also contended that there are contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws 1 to 3 with the dying declaration recorded by P.W.7, the Doctor.As regards the injuries sustained by the appellant in the same occurrence, the appellant has filed a separate written statement under Section 314 Cr.P.C., before the Sessions Judge, wherein he has stated that it is only the deceased in an inebriated mood came to the house of the appellant and picked up a quarrel with him by abusing him in filthy language.Later, with the small aruval inflicted injuries on his left elbow, on his back.With the back of the small aruval the deceased attacked him on his right hand wrist.At that time the surrounding people who gathered there tried to prevent him.The deceased attempted to attack all of them.The appellant went inside his house and after some time along with his brother Balaji went to the Government Hospital for taking treatment.The appellant also stated that there is prior enmity between the deceased and the accused and in fact the appellant has also lodged a complaint against the deceased.To escape from the same, the present case has been falsely foisted against the accused.He also stated that the deceased used to sign as he is educated and it is not correct to state that P.W.11 has obtained his thumb impression from the Hospital.He also stated that P.W.3 is related to the deceased and his statement is false.Likewise the accused have helped the victims of a case filed against P.W.8, and therefore the statement of P.W.8, eye witness cannot be relied upon.He has also stated there are several criminal cases pending against the deceased and thus there are number of enemies to the accused.During trial Ex.D.1, bail bond executed by P.W.1 for the deceased has also been marked by the accused.As regards the injuries sustained by the appellant, P.W.7 has issued Ex.P.7 wound certificate to the appellant.The nature of injures as found in Ex.P.7 are as follows:1) Incised wound over the left elbow lateral aspect of hand 2cm x 1 cm2) Abrasion left side of base of shin 6 cm x 1/2 cm3) Contusion around the right wristIn his deposition, P.W.7, Doctor stated that at about 1.15 am, on the same night he has examined the appellant who has stated before him that he was attacked by a known person at about 12.30 pm., in the same night.As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no explanation forthcoming from the prosecution as to why the appellant sustained three injuries at about the same time in the same transaction.The non explanation of the same is fatal to the prosecution case.To decide as to who wa the aggressor this becomes necessary, particularly when the accused had come forward with a plea that the prosecution party was a the aggressor.The fact that some incised injuries were found on one of the accused itself shows that one of the members of the prosecution party used the sharp edged weapon.In the result, the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant are set aside.He was unable to explain how the two respondents sustained injuries.If we turn to the injuries sustained by the two respondents which have been set out in Paragraph 25 of the trial court judgemnt, we find that he respondent Kishna had sustained as many as six injuries, five of them on the skull region.The respondent Madho too had sustained six injuries, two on the skull region, two on the scapular region, one on the forehead and one on the right index finger.Thus some of the injures were on exposed parts o their bodies and we would expect the prosecution witnesses to explain how the two respondents sustained the said injuries.The defence version has to be evaluated on the basis of the prosecution evidence tendered in the present case.The fact remains that both the respondents had sustained serious injuries, Kishna mainly on the skull whereas Madho on the skull as well as scapular region.If the prosecution witnesses shy away from the reality and do not explain the injuries caused to the respondents herein it casts a doubt on the genesis of the prosecution case since the evidence shows that these injuries were sustained in the course of the same incident.It gives the impression that the witnesses are suppressing some part of the incident.In this case also, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the other accused.The prosecution has not come out with the true story of the genesis of the occurrence as there is no explanation offered for the injuries sustained by the accused.The deceased is also involved in many criminal cases and there is enmity between the accused and the deceased.According to the appellant, P.W.3, P.W.8, the only eye witness, are inimical towards them on various earlier issues.In the inquest report also it is only mentioned as "suspect" and A.1 to A.3 might be the culprit which goes to show that nobody has witnessed occurrence in which the accused allegedly assaulted the deceased in the manner spoken to by the prosecution witnesses.It is also observed by the learned Sessions Judge that according to the evidence of P.W.7 and Ex.P.5 the deceased was conscious but drowsy from 4.30 a.m., till he was taken to Bangalore for further treatment at the request of his parents.But P.W.11 in his evidence mentioned that on 17.6.1996 at about 7.30 a.m., he has obtained the statement from the deceased, in which statement the Doctor has not signed.It is also found out by the learned Sessions Judge that the Head Constable has not filled up the General Diary and it has been kept blank on 17.6.1996 and 18.6.1996 to show his part in the investigation and therefore the learned Sessions Judge rejected Ex.P.11, FIR as it has not been recorded property under the provisions of Section 154 Cr.P.C,.For these reasons, it is not safe to convict the appellant on the evidence of the solitary witness P.W.8 who is also inimical towards the appellant.Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant.The fine paid by the appellant shall be refunded.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,804,681 |
This Criminal appeal arises out of the Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06.02.2012 in S.C.No.243 of 2010, on the file of the Assistant Sessions Court, Nagapattinam, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:(i) On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.16 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 were marked.(ii)P.W.1/Shyamala/victim girl is a resident of Kidamangalam, Thirumarugal and P.W.2/Sakunthala is her mother.P.W.1 was staying at her aunt's house at Mela Oogai near Kodavasal and studying 10th standard in tutorial college.The accused is having two wheeler mechanical shop at Mela Oogai.When she was staying at her aunt's house and going college, the accused used to watch the victim girl/P.W.1 and contacted her over phone and also gave a promise to marry her.P.W.1/victim girl told him that she does not know about him and as to how she would marry him.During 2007, since the accused often told P.W.1 that he wants to marry her, P.W.1 also agreed to marry him.Thereafter, P.W.1 started to talk with him.P.W.1's aunt told her that the conduct of the accused is not good and asked her not to believe him.On account of Theerthangudi festival, after getting permission from her aunt, P.W.1 went to the festival along with her friend.At that time, since the accused promised to marry her, P.W.1 fell into the false promise of accused and they had sexual intercourse.Since P.W.1/Shyamala became pregnant, she asked the accused over phone to come to her home for marriage proposal and the accused asked her to go to her parents home at Kidamangalam.Thereafter, P.W.1 came to her parents home.Her aunt/P.W.5/Susila told her mother through phone that P.W.1 along with the accused went to temple and she does not know what had happened there.When P.W.1's mother scolded and beat her to disclose the fact, P.W.1 told that she was raped by the accused.Then the accused asked P.W.1 to take her 10th standard certificate and Rs.300/- and come to Tiruvarur temple.But P.W.1's parents refused to let her out.Thereafter, the accused stated that he has not committed rape on P.W.1 and hence, he refused to marry her.So P.W.1 lodged Ex.P1 complaint before Nagapattinam All Women Police Station.P.W.1 further deposed that when she was at her aunt's house, the accused had sexual intercourse with her several times by giving false promise to marry her.(iii)P.W.16/Leelavathi, Inspector of Police, received Ex.P1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Crime No.8 of 2009 under Sections 417 and 493 IPC read with Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and prepared Ex.P5 printed F.I.R. and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Nagapattinam.Then she took up the case for investigation and went to the house of P.W.1 and examined P.W.1/Shyamala, P.W.2/Sakunthala and P.W.8/Boopathi and recorded their statements.On 15.08.2009, she went to Mela Oogai and examined P.W.5/Susila, aunt of P.W.1 and P.W.6/Sivasankaran, brother of P.W.1 and recorded their statements.(iv)On 19.08.2009, at about 19.00 hours, P.W.16 arrested the accused near Thittachery Bazaar and brought him to Velippalayam police station for investigation.On 20.08.2009, she gave a requisition for conducting potency test on accused and sent the accused through P.W.11/Pushpalatha, Head Constable to Judicial custody.(v)P.W.10/Dr.Murali Mohan, Nagapattinam Government Hospital, examined the accused and gave Ex.P3 Accident Register copy of accused.He opined that the accused is having potentiality and he is fit for sexual intercourse.(vi)Then P.W.16 gave a requisition for conducting medical examination on victim girl/P.W.1 through P.W.12/Tamilarasi/Head Constable to Government Hospital, Nagapattinam.(vii) P.W.9/Dr.Thilagam, examined the victim girl/P.W.1 and gave Ex.She opined that mouth of the uterus appears enlarge and torn across and no evidence found that the victim girl was not subjected to medical termination.(viii)Then P.W.16 examined P.W.1 and recorded her statement and obtained Ex.P6 Transfer Certificate of P.W.1 from the competent authority.(ix) On 20.08.2009, P.W.16 again went to Kidamangalam and examined P.W.3/Chinnammal, P.W.4/Chellappa, P.W.13/Thamaraikani and P.W.14/Kalyanasundaram and recorded their statements.Then she examined P.W.15/Dr.Mala and recorded her statement, after obtaining Ex.P.W.15 opined that the victim girl was pregnant.(x) On 25.08.2009, P.W.16 went to Mela Oogai and examined P.W.7/Selvi and recorded her statement.On 22.02.2010 again she examined P.W.1, P.W.9/Dr.Thilagam, P.W.10/Dr.Murali Mohan and P.W.15/Dr.(iii) Thereafter, the victim girl came back to her parents' house at Kidamangalam.The appellant/accused is set free.A.No.249 of 2012and M.P.No.1 of 201303.02.2015offence under SectionSentence376 IPCTo undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default in payment to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.376(1) IPCTo undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default in payment to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.376 read with 417 IPCTo undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.The sentence are ordered to be run concurrently.Mala and recorded their statements.Then she examined P.W.11 and P.W.12 and recorded their statements and altered the Sections into 376, 417 and 493 IPC and the alteration report was marked as Ex.After completing investigation, she filed a charge sheet against the accused.3.The Trial Court placed the incriminating evidence before the accused persons under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same in toto.On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence were let in.After considering the oral and documentary evidence on the side of the prosecution, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.4.Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused raised the following points:(i) Since P.W.1 is above 16 years old, she is a consenting party.(ii) P.W.1 has not given the correct date on which she was subjected to first rape.(iv) In the complaint itself, it was stated by P.W.1 that she is three months pregnant, but whereas in her cross-examination, she stated that while she lodging complaint, she was 1 = months pregnant.Further, as per the evidence of P.W.1, she stated that during Theerthangudi festival, the accused by giving false promise to marry her, had sexual intercourse with her.As per the evidence of P.W.15/Dr.Mala, she examined P.W.1 on 20.08.2009 and at that time, she was five months pregnant.So there is contradiction between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.15 as well as averments in Ex.P1 complaint.So the evidence of P.W.1 is not wholly reliable and hence, it needs corroboration.(v) In the complaint, P.W.1 stated that the accused is her relative, but during her cross-examination, she stated that the accused is not her relative, but he belongs to her community.(vi) The evidence of other witnesses are close relatives of P.W.1 and they stated that earlier the accused agreed to marry P.W.1, but subsequently, he denied.(vii) Since P.W.1 was pregnant through some other person, by taking vengeance, the complaint was foisted against the accused.The trial Court without considering the above aspects erroneously convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.5.Resisting the same, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submits that the trial Court has come to the correct conclusion that even though P.W.1 is aged about 16 years, her consent was obtained only by way of giving false promise to marry her and by believing the statement of the accused, P.W.1 had given consent for sexual intercourse.So the trial Court considering all the aspects in proper perspective and rightly convicted the appellant/accused and therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal.6.Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the materials available on record.10.On 24.06.2009, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by P.W.1 and in the complaint, it was stated that the appellant/accused is her relative and she was staying in her aunt's house and studying in tutorial college.A suggestion was posed to P.W.1 that she wantonly suppressed the fact and had given a false evidence against the accused, but she denied the same.In Ex.(ii) On 15th Chitarai 2008 at about 10.00 P.M. at the time of Theerthankudi festival, when Shyamala played with other children, the accused induces her to come back side of the temple and by giving false promise to marry her, the accused compelled her to have sexual intercourse with him in the field and made her to believe that she would be the lawful wife of accused and had sexual intercourse with her several times.The Court ought to have scrutinise the evidence whether it is natural, cogent, trustworthy and reliable.16.As per the evidence of P.W.5/Aunt of P.W.1, when P.W.1 was staying in her house, she is having acquaintance with the accused.It is pertinent to note that the same was spoken by P.W.1 in her evidence that her aunt advised her not to believe the accused, since his conduct is not good.Even though P.W.3/Chinnammal, P.W.4/Chellappa and P.W.8/Boopathi are relatives, they are only hearsay witnesses and they have deposed that the appellant/accused is initially willing to marry P.W.1, but subsequently refused to marry her.17.According to the evidence of P.W.2/mother of P.W.1, her husband died and her daughter P.W.1 was staying in P.W.5/aunt's house and going tutorial college.After P.W.1 came from aunt's house, since P.W.1 was crying, she enquired her at that time, P.W.1 disclosed the fact that she became pregnant, so P.W.2 scolded and beat her for her act, therefore, P.W.1 attempted to commit suicide by consuming poison, which leads to abortion.18.As per the evidence of P.W.5, both P.W.1 and the accused are having intimacy, due to which, P.W.1 has become pregnant.During Theerthangudi festival, P.W.1 went along with the accused and at 5.00 a.m., he dropped P.W.1 in her aunt's house and when the same was questioned by P.W.5, at that time, the accused told that not to beat her and he is going to marry her.Subsequently, the accused refused to marry her.19.Considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5, the appellant/accused had given false promise to marry P.W.1 and had sexual intercourse and subsequently, he refused to marry her.So the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5 clearly proved that the appellant/accused by giving false promise to marry P.W.1 had sexual intercourse with her and subsequently, he refused to marry her.First: - Against her will.Secondly: -without her consent... .. 21.In Ex.P1 complaint itself, it was specifically stated that since the appellant/accused had given promise to marry P.W.1, she consented for sexual intercourse.But whereas in her chief-examination, P.W.1 stated that without obtaining consent from her, the accused had committed rape on her.In the case on hand, since the accused is willing to marry P.W.1, she has given consent for sexual intercourse and the same was also mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint.Since the appellant/accused had already paid the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is taken as the fine amount for offence under Section 417 IPC and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/accused.23.In fine,The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court for offences under Sections 376 read with 417, 376 and 376(i) IPC is hereby set aside.The appellant/accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.The appellant/accused is convicted for offence under Section 417 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default in payment to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment.Since the appellant/accused had already paid the fine amount of Rs.10,000/-, out of which, a sum of Rs.5,000/- is taken as the fine amount for offence under Section 417 IPC and the remaining sum of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be refunded to the appellant/accused.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.03.02.2015Index:Yes/NoInternet:Yes/NokjTo1.The Assistant Sessions Court, Nagapattinam.2.The StateRep.by Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Nagapattinam, Nagapattinam District.3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Chennai.R.MALA,J.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 415 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,805,909 |
Similarly, such compoundable charges against the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu were also turned into acquittal due to compromise, but the revision is still pending for the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu for offence under section 452 of IPC only.3. Facts of the case, in short, are that on 08/10/2003 at about 8.30 Pm, the victim Maniram (PW-1) was present in his STD shop situated at Genda Wali Road, Lashkar, Gwalior.The applicants who were armed with sticks, farsa, saria and knife surrounded the shop.The applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu went inside the shop and pulled the victim Maniram (PW-1) out of his shop and thereafter the applicants assaulted him with various weapons.On shouting of Munnidevi (PW-2) wife of the Maniram, some persons came and saved the victim Maniram.The victim Maniram was taken to Dubey Nursing Home at Shinde Ki Chaoni, 3 Cr.R. No. 98/2012 Gwalior and thereafter Munnidevi (PW-2) went to the police station Janakganj, Dist.(Delivered on this Day of 1st March, 2016) Vide judgment dated 20/07/2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior in criminal case No. 8725/2006, each of the applicants has been convicted of offence under section 148, 325 r/w section 149 of IPC and sentenced to suffer one year RI with fine of Rs. 300/, two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/- respectively.The applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu was also convicted of offence under section 452 of IPC and sentenced to two years RI with fine of Rs. 500/-.Thereafter, the appeal was preferred and vide judgment dated 31/01/2012 passed by 1st Additional Judge to First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Cr.R. No. 447/2011, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal.Being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgments, 2 Cr.R. No. 98/2012 the applicants have preferred the present revision.On 22/02/2016, the main victim Maniram appeared before this court and entered into a compromise with the applicants.Consequently, each of the applicants was acquitted from the charge of section 325 r/w section 149 and 148 of IPC due to acceptance of compromise and, hence, applicants No. 1, 2 & 3 have been acquitted from all the charges appended against them and their conviction as well as sentence was set aside.The medico legal examination of the victim was done and radiological examination was also done.It was found that the victim Maniram sustained stab wound on his left thigh and fracture in his right leg.After due investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the trial court and the trial court after recording the prosecution evidence convicted and sentenced the applicants as mentioned above, though the applicants have examined Laxman Singh (DW-1) as defence witness.The appeal filed by the applicants was also dismissed.I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length.In the present case, the main offence under section 325 of IPC along with offence relating to constitution of unlawful assembly with section 148 of IPC was compounded and therefore, it would not be necessary to discuss about the overt act of the various accused persons relating to the aforesaid offences, however, for consideration the offence under section 452 of IPC relating to the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu, some portion of factual position of the aforesaid offence may be considered.The victim Maniram (PW-1) and his wife complainant Munnidevi (PW-2) have stated that the applicants surrounded the STD shop and thereafter the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu entered into 4 Cr.R. No. 98/2012 the shop and gave a slap to the victim and thereafter he pulled the victim Maniram out of his shop and thereafter the victim Maniram was beaten by all the accused persons.It would be apparent that it was alleged against the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu that he entered in the shop and pulled the victim Maniram out of shop.He gave a slap because Maniram was resisting to come out of the shop.It is true that the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu gave a slap inside the shop of Maniram.For offence of criminal house trespass, if a person goes inside the shop to commit an offence then such overt act amounts to house trespass or after entering in the house/shop he continued to remain there and commits any crime then still that offence comes within the purview of house trespass.The testimony of the victim was duly corroborated by statement of complainant-Munnidevi (PW-2), timely lodged FIR Ex. P-1 and various medical reports by which such injuries were found to the victim.Hence, it is proved beyond doubt that the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu had entered in the shop of the victim Maniram, where movable property, etc. were kept inside the shop and it was a house in eyes of law, hence, when his purpose of entry was not lawful, he had committed the offence of house trespass.The category of offence of various house trespass starts from section 448 to various other provisions in the IPC.For 5 Cr.R. No. 98/2012 commitment of offence under section 452 of IPC, it was for the prosecution to prove that the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu entered in the house with preparation to commit the assault, etc. It would be apparent that each of the applicant was armed with weapon, whereas, it is not alleged by Maniram (PW-1) or Munnidevi (PW-2) that the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu had entered in the shop with any weapon and, therefore, it would be said that he entered into the premises with preparation to cause assault.He gave a slap to victim Maniram because he was resisting in coming out of the shop.None of the applicants had damaged any property of the shop, on the contrary, the victim Maniram was pulled outside of the shop and thereafter he was assaulted, hence, it could not be said that the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu entered in the shop with preparation to assault and, therefore, the house trespass was done by the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu which falls within the purview of section 451 of IPC and not within the purview of section 452 of IPC.Under these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to interfere in 6 Cr.R. No. 98/2012 the conviction of offence under section 452 of IPC of applicant No. 4- Jayant Kumar @ Pappu.If any perverse judgment has been passed by the courts below then the revisional court may reverse the judgment of the courts below, but in the present case, if the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu is found guilty of offence under section 451 of IPC then still the order of sentence is to be passed for that offence and, therefore, it makes no much difference to the applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu, if he is acquitted from the charge of section 452 of IPC and convicted of offence under section 451 of IPC because he remained in the custody during the revision for approximately more than a month and looking to his sentence, it is possible that his sentence either for offence under section 452 of IPC or section 451 of IPC would remain same in the present case and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to interfere in the concurrent findings of the courts below of conviction under section 452 of IPC.R. No. 98/2012 he remained in custody for more than a month during revision and therefore, in the light of compromise which took place between the parties, it would be appropriate to reduce the sentence of offence under section 452 of IPC of applicant No. 4-Jayant Kumar @ Pappu to the period for which he remained in custody.On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the revision filed by the applicants is hereby partly allowed.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE (01/03/2016) Durgekar*
|
['Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
61,807,802 |
05.09.13 Item No. 46 Court No.17 A.B.Item No. 46And In the matter of: Sikha Ghosh & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Asraf Mandal For the Petitioners Ms. Sanjida Sultana For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Murutia Police Station Case No. 160 of 2013 dated 03.08.2013 under Sections 498A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.We have seen the case diary and other relevant material on record.There is an illicit relation between the complainant's husband and the Petitioner No. 1 about which the complainant quarreled with her husband.Hence, her application for anticipatory bail is rejected.Rejected 1 As regards the Petitioner No. 2, there is no need for the custodial interrogation in this case.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
473,175 |
a)P.Ws.1,2,3 and 4 are all residents of Achankulam Village.During 1996,a community well was entrusted to be done by accused No.3, the PanchayatPresident of the said place.He dug the same in his patta land.Thereafter, the election inthe said place was also conducted.In that election, A-3 and one Murugancontested for the post of President of the Panchayat, in which the witnessesP.Ws.1, 2 and others supported the said Murugan.Thereafter, the community wellwas handed over to the Government.Even then, the water was distributed in sucha manner that A-3 and his supporters got the benefit of it and on those reasons,both the parties were on inimical terms.On 15.03.1999, a meeting was convenedin the Panchayat Office by P.W.6, the Additional Block Development Officer,during which P.W.5, the Chairman of the Thirupppuvanam Panchayat Union, P.W.1,P.W.4, the said Murugan and others were also present.The Panchayat was aboutto take a decision, but it could not, since a human cry was heard from outsidethe Panchayat Office, during which the occurrence in question had taken place.During the occurrence, A-1 caught hold of Sekar and A-2 stabbed him in thestomach with a knife.He fell down; that A-3 and A-4 caught hold of P.W.2 andA-5 stabbed him with a knife; that A-6 caught hold of P.W.2 and accused Ilangostabbed him on his head by using knife; that A-7 and A-8 assaulted P.W.2 withcentering reapers; that when P.W.1 went to the rescue of P.W.2, at that time, A-9 stabbed him with knife; that A-7 and A-8 assaulted with sticks and A-10 and A-11 pelted stones on P.W.3 and thus the injuries were sustained by them.In thecourse of the said transaction, the said Sekar, who was stabbed by A-2 fell downand dead.P.W.1, P.W.2, along with the dead body Sekar were taken to GovernmentRajaji Hospital, Madurai.P.W.9, the Doctor examined them and declared Sekardead.He examined P.W.2 at 19.00 hours and the Accident Register copy wasmarked as Ex.P-13 and case sheet was marked as Ex.He examined P.W.1 andthe copy of the Accident Register was marked as Ex.P.15 and the case sheet wasmarked as Ex.X-rays on P.W.2 were taken, which were marked as M.O.7series.b) Intimation was sent to P.W.12, the Sub Inspector of Police, whoactually, on receipt of information from the District Special Branch Office,went over to Government Rajaji Hospital, where he recorded the statement ofP.W.1 at 22.45 hours and came back to the Police Station and on the strength ofEx.P.1 were dispatched to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sivagangaic)On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, tookup the investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and made aninspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P.3, the Observationmahazar and Ex.P.20, the rough sketch.Further, he recorded the statement of thewitnesses.d)The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for the purposeof autopsy.One Dr. Thyagarajan attached to the Madurai Medical College, onreceipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of thedeceased but he subsequently died.Thereafter, P.W.14, Doctor Alavudin hasissued Ex.P.22, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that thedeceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the externalstab injuries and corresponding internal injuries there on.A-9 was treated bythe same Doctor.e)Pending investigation, on 25.03.1999, A-2, A-5, A-7 and A-8 werearrested by the Investigating Officer.In the presence of the witnesses, A-2made confessional statement, the admissible part of which was marked as Ex.P.5.Consequent upon the same, A-5 voluntarily gave confessional statement, which wasrecorded by the same Investigating Officer, the admissible part of which wasmarked as Ex.A-7 voluntarily gave confessional statement, which was markedas Ex.P.9. A-8 voluntarily gave confessional statment, which was marked asEx.Following the confessional statements, the respective accused haveproduced M.Os.1 and 2 Knife, M.Os.3 and 4 reaper woods, which were all recoveredunder the cover of Mahazaars respectively.On 25.03.1999, A-1 was arrested.(The judgment of the court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This appeal has arisen from the Judgment of the learned SessionsJudge, Sivagangai, made in S.C.No.75 of 2003, whereby these appellants alongwith A-6, A-7, A-10 and A-11 stood charged, tried as follows:-appellants were found guilty as detailed below while A-6, A-10 and A-11 wereacquitted of all charges.and thus on being found guilty, they were sentenced to imprisonment as above.Hence, the appellants have broughtforth this appeal.3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could bestated thus:P.1 complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.73 of 1999 under Sections147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 302 and 506(ii) IPC.P.19, the FIR along withEx.He conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased Sekar in thepresence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.21, the inquestreport.Hevoluntarily gave confessional statement. A-3 and A-4 were also arrested,pursuant to which they were all sent for judicial remand.f) All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence, fromthe dead body of the deceased and from the accused were sent for chemicalanalysis on requisition given by the Investigating Officer to the concernedJudicial Magistrate.P.25, the Chemical analyst's report and Ex.P.26, theSerologist's report were received.On completion of the investigation, theInvestigating Officer has filed the final report before the concerned court.g)The case was committed to the court of sessions and necessary chargeswere framed against the accused/appellants along with A-7 and the case was takenup for trial.In order to substantiate the charges, prosecution examined 16witnesses and also relied on 13 exhibits and 12 M.Os.On completion of theevidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned underSection 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidenceof prosecution witnesses.They denied them as false.No defence witness wasexamined.But, they relied on Exs.The lower court, after hearing thearguments of the counsel and considering the materials available on record, tookthe view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt andfound the accused guilty as stated above and awarded the punishment as narratedabove so far as Accused/appellants were concerned and so far as A-6, A-10 and A-11 were concerned, the lower court recorded an order of acquittal.Under thesecircumstances, this criminal appeal has arisen before this court at the instanceof the accused/appellants.Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned seniorcounsel would submit that it is a false and fabricated case against theaccused/appellants.In the instant case, all the family members of A-3 werethe Panchayat President of Achankulam at a different point of time for a numberof years.Thus, all theclose family members of A-3 have been brought into.When the meeting was going on, the Additional Block DevelopmentOfficer P.W.6 was also present and according to him, he immediately came out ofthe office at the end of the meeting, in which no decision could be arrived atand he did not come forward to state any part of the occurrence.This itselfwould indicate that there was a group clash, in which, one could not identify,who were all the assailants and how they were attacked.5.Added further the learned senior counsel that in the said meeting it isquite clear from his evidence, that P.Ws.1,2 and A-5 were not present inside themeeting and thus it would be clear that they were all outside.In the instant case, even according to the Additional BlockDevelopment Officer, immediately when the group clash was found, the matter wasbrought to the notice of the police and the police station is 1/2 Km away fromthe scene of occurrence.If to be so, the police should have got the informationabout the occurrence immediately and further one of the injured according to himwent to the police station and he has narrated the same at about 07.00 p.m. andif it is so, the first FIR has been suppressed to the advantage of theprosecution.Added further, the learned senior counsel that in the instant case,there was a crime No.74 of 1999 registered at the instance of Sister-in-law ofA-3 and it is also an admitted fact that the occurrence had taken place alsojust outside the Panchayat Office.Had it been so, it would be an anotehrincident.At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that once the matter wasbrought to the notice of the police immediately and the police station is alsosituated 1/2 km away, even taking it for granted, if they went to the RajajiGovernment Hospital, which is not far away, but within 10 Kms, they should haveimmediately got the statement and that too in a case where the dead body wasalso found in the place of occurrence.But, the delay caused in registering theFIR was for the purpose of embellishment.Added further, a perusal of the roughsketch would clearly indicate that the blood stains were found inside thePanchayat Office.If to be so, a part of occurrence should have taken placeinside or the dead body of Sekar should have been placed inside the Office.Ifthis was taken as true, then how the blood stains happened to be inside thePanchayat Office remained unexplained till the end of the case.Thus, it wouldbe indicative of the fact that there was a group clash and who assaulted whoremained unknown and the police wanted to book the entire family of A-3 who werethe Panchayat Presidents for 25 years, merely because they were in politicalcareer.Hisevidence also was to the effect that both P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the RajajiGovernment Hospital and P.W.9 Doctor, has examined them at about 19.00 hours andhe has given a certificate that injuries were found on P.W.2, and the AccidentRegister copy was marked as Ex.In so far as P.W.1, the copy of theAccident Register was marked as Ex.According to the prosecution, theAccident Registers would reveal that they were stabbed by some seven knownpersons and the injuries were sustained by them.Thus, it would be quite clearthat thereafter only, FIR came to be registered.The next contention raised by the learned senior counsel is that theoriginal FIR has been suppressed and the FIR is not the original FIR and alsowith an embellishment version, they have come before the Court.In order tosubstantiate the said contention, the learned senior counsel would submit thateven from the evidence of P.W.6, the Additional Block Development Officer, itwould be quite clear that the occurrence had taken place at about 04.00 p.m.outside the Panchayat Office.Immediately, the police was informed and theycame.Insofar as the other accusednamely A3, A4 and A5 are concerned, they were found guilty under Section 326 r/w34 IPC and were awarded 5 years Rigorous imprisonment.Taking intoconsideration of the circumstances above noticed by the Court and as found inthe evidence, their punishment is reduced to 3 years along with fine and so faras A-8 was concerned, his conviction under section 323 is affirmed and in so faras A-9, whose conviction under Section 324 is affirmed.15.In the result, the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A-1and A-2 under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC by the trial Court is modified to one underSection 304(i) IPC and they are sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. and the fineamount imposed by the lower Court under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as thefine amount imposed under Section 304(i) IPC.In so far as A-3, A-4 and A-5 areconcerned, they are convicted under Section 326 r/w 34 and sentenced to undergoRI for 3 years along with fine imposed by the lower Court.The conviction andsentence imposed on A-8 and A-9 are affirmed.The sentence already undergoneby A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 is directed to be given set off.With the abovemodification in conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is disposed of.The Sessions Judge, Sivagangai.The Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police StationThe Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,318,972 |
P.K.BHASIN, J:The complaint made by the respondent no.1/ complainant was that the respondent no. 2 herein owed to it a sum of Rs. 1,39,700/- and in discharge of that liability he gave one demand Crl.M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 1 of 4 draft bearing no. 790547 dated 22.2.07 for Rs. 1,39,700/- issued by State Bank of Patiala, Sanjay Place Branch, Agra.However, when the same was presented by the respondent no.1 complainant for encashment the same was received back unpaid on 6.7.07 with the petitioner bank's remark 'Reported Cancelled in System'.Thereafter, a legal demand notice dated 4.8.07 was sent by the respondent no.1 to the petitioner and the respondent no.2 but none of the them made the payment and, therefore, the respondent no. 1 had to file the aforesaid criminal complaint.Feeling aggrieved by the order of the Magistrate summoning it as an accused the petitioner-bank filed the present petition.M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 1 of 4M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 2 of 4Though respondent no.1-complainant had entered appearance in the matter but when it was taken up for hearing on 6 th November, 2012 none appeared on its behalf and, therefore, only counsel for the petitioner-bank was heard.In this complaint the respondent no.1-complainant after pleading that respondent no.2 was to pay a sum of Rs. 1,39,700/- to it and had accordingly delivered a bank draft for the said amount but the same was not honoured by the petitioner-bank.The relevant averments, as far as petitioner-bank is concerned, were made in para no. 7 of the complaint which is reproduced below;-That the accused no.1, by issuing the aforesaid demand draft in favour of the complainant, despite having the knowledge that the aforesaid demand draft would not be encashed on its presentation, thereby the accused no.1 has committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act and the accused no.2 by giving the aforesaid demand draft to my client with the assurance that the same would not be encahsed hence the accused persons in connivance with each other, have committed the offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act as well as the offence of criminal breach of trust and cheating as prescribed under section 406 and 420 of IPC and hence the accused persons are liable to be prosecuted for the aforesaid."In my view on the basis of averments made in para no. 7 of the complaint no case whatsoever is made out for proceeding Crl.M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 3 of 4 against the petitioner-bank either for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act or under Sections 420 or 406 IPC.No case under Section 406 IPC is made out since respondent no.1- complainant had not entrusted any money to petitioner-bank nor a case under Section 420 is made out against the petitioner-bank since there are no averments in the entire complaint as to how the petitioner-bank had cheated the complainant while not honouring the bank draft which had not been got issued by the complainant from its money.M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 3 of 4This petition is, therefore, allowed and the complaint of the respondent no.1-complainant qua the petitioner-bank or the bank official who had signed the dishonoured bank draft is quashed.P.K. BHASIN, J NOVEMBER 30, 2012 Crl.M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 4 of 4M.C. No. 3841/2011 Page 4 of 4
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,319,223 |
[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J] Petitioner is the Mother of the detenu Munnu Kumar S/o.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- Sl.Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law1. D6 Anna Square Police Station 380 IPC Cr.2. D6 Anna Square Police Station 380 IPC Cr.3. D6 Anna Square Police Station 380 IPC Cr.No.87/2018 The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.89 of 2018 on the file of D-6 Anna Square Police Station for offences under sections 341, 336, 427, 397 & 506(ii) IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present Writ Petition has been filed.Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor.‘5(ii).... The Detaining Authority, according to us, had wrongly entertained an apprehension that the detenu would be released on bail, by adverting to the fact that in similar cases, bail was granted.According to us, this is not have been taken as the basis to come to such a conclusion.In granting bail the Court inter alia takes into account several aspects most of which are casehttp://www.judis.nic.in specific.Those would include the gravity of the offence, the 4 ability to suborn witnesses and the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice.For the said reason, the order under challenge would have to fall.The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu Munnu Kumar S/o.Doman Rajak in No.590/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 26.07.2018 is quashed.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 Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.http://www.judis.nic.in 6 C.T.SELVAM, J and S.RAMATHILAGAM, J gm/rst H.C.P.No.2211 of 2018
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
473,215 |
A-1's sister's husband is A-2. A-3 is A-2's brother's wife.The other accused, who have been acquitted, are closely related to these accused.The first deceased was a resident of Elandakulam, carrying on the business of tree-tapper.PW-1 has been engaged in the manufacture of hand-made beedis.About one month prior to the occurrence, PW-4 Paulsamy purchased some seedlings from Cheellappa viz., the husband of A-3 for which he had paid Rs.22/-.As the said amount only represented part of the sale price, Chellappa asked Paulsamy to pay the remaining amount and that was on a Monday.On the next day, Chellappa had beaten PW-4 Paulsamy in a paddy field at Velakulam.In this regard, there was a panchayat in the village.Chellappa refused to attend the panchayat.On that day, PW-4 Paulsamy had a guest from Pondicherry.On the next day, to give him a 'send-off', Paulsamy went to the bus-stand at about 2.15 P.M. and at that time, Chellappa had beaten Paulsamy.Immediately, Paulsamy complained about this to PW-3, the community leader in the village.Hearing about this incident, the 2nd deceased and PW-5 each armed with aruval ran towards west.Before that, PW-1 and the first deceased requested them not to go, but however, they did not heed to their request.Fearing that something untoward might happen, PW-1 and her husband went to meet PW-4 Paulsamy.But, Paulsamy was not available in his house.Thereafter, PW-1 and the first deceased ran towards west, near the bus-stand.At that time, they saw A-1 running with a velkambu, A-2 & A-3 with palai aruval and A-4 & A-5 with stones.The first deceased asking A-2 not to cut, tried to catch him.At that time, A-1 with velkambu stabbed the first deceased on the chest and thereafter on the left and right hands and the first deceased fell down.Then, A-2 cut the deceased with aruval on the right shoulder.A-1 again with velkambu stabbed the 2nd deceased on his right hand, left hand, head, cheek and other places.While A-2 cut the 2nd deceased on the right hand, A-3 on the hip twice and other parts of the body.Thereafter, A-3 cut the first deceased on the neck, face etc. A-4 and A-5 threw stones aiming at both the deceased.Both the first and second deceased died on the spot. A-3 and A-5 then came to attack PW-1, but she somehow managed to escape, and went to Mukkudal Police Station.At the police station, she gave complaint Ex.P-1 and the same was reduced to writing and her signature was obtained.PW-18, the Sub Inspector of Police registered Cr.No. 223/97 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324 and 302 IPC.and prepared Ex.P-29, the Express FIR.Thereafter, the Express FIR and Ex.P-1 complaint were sent to the court of Judicial Magistrate and copies were sent to his superiors.PW-19 was the Inspector of Police at the relevant time in charge of Mukkudal police station.On 25.12.1997, he received a wireless message about the incident and proceeded to Mukkudal Police Station.After getting copy of the Express FIR, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and reached there at about 5.30 P.M. After inspecting the scene, he prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and sketch Ex.P-30 in the presence of witnesses PW-6 and others.Bloodstained earth MO-1 and ordinary earth MO-2 (in respect of 2nd deceased) were seized by him under Ex.P-3 mahazar in the presence of witnesses.Similarly, bloodstained earth MO-3 and ordinary earth MO-4 (in respect of first deceased) were seized by the Inspector under Ex.P-4 mahazar.Inquest over the body of the first deceased was conducted and Ex.P-31 is the inquest report.Similarly, he conducted inquest over the body of the 2nd deceased and Ex.P-32 is the inquest report.Both the bodies were sent to the Government Hospital, Ambasamudram with necessary requisitions.PW-12 is the Doctor attached to Ambasamudram Government Hospital.On the basis of the requisition Ex.P-23 from the Inspector of Police, she conducted post mortem on the body of the first deceased on 26.12.1997 at 1 P.M.. Ex.P-24 is the post mortem certificate issued by her, wherein she had noted the following:-The Doctor had opined therein that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.The further opinion is that injury No. 1 is fatal and that death would have occurred about 20 to 24 Hours prior to post mortem.PW-10 is the Doctor attached to the same Hospital, who, on the basis of the requisition Ex.P-17 received from the Inspector of Police, conducted post mortem on the body of the 2nd deceased on 26.12.1997 at 11.40 A.M. Ex.P-18 is the post mortem certificate issued by him, wherein, he has noted as under:-Internal Examination:- Heart-empty.Liver, Lungs, Kidneys, Spleen-pale.Bladder-empty.Stomach about 500 gms.partially digested food materials present.Smell of alcohol present.Intestine - bellowed.Brain-pale.Death would appear to have occurred about 18 to 24 hrs.prior to post-mortem examination."The Doctor had opined therein that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him.At about 6.15 P.M. on 27.12.1997, near a bridge close to Singamparai village, the Inspector arrested A-3 to A-5 in the presence of PW-7 and others.All the accused gave separate confession statements.Both A-3 and A-4 took the police party and produced MOs-5 and 6 respectively and the same were recovered under mahazars Exs.P-7 and P-8 respectively in the presence of witnesses.A-1 and A-2 surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and the Inspector secured police custody by moving the Court.They also gave separate confession statements.A-1 offered to produce the weapon velkambu, which he used to attack the deceased and the admissible portion in his confession statement is Ex.The admissible portion in the confession statement of A-2 is Ex.Both the accused took the police party and produced MOs-15 and 16 respectively and the same were recovered under mahazars Exs.The material objects recovered were produced before Court with a requisition to send the same for chemical analysis.JUDGMENT A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy, J.1. A-1 in Sessions Case No. 19 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is the appellant in Cr.Appeal No. 646 of 2000 while A-2 and A-3 are the appellants in Cr.They, along with two other accused, were tried by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge for various charges including one under Section 302 IPC.(2 counts) read with 149 IPC.for causing the murder of one Durai Kutti @ Sowri Raj and Lourdu Micheal at about 3 P.M. on 25.12.1997 at Elandakulam.The Sessions Court, while acquitting the other two accused, found the appellant in C.A. No. 646/2000 guilty under Section 302 IPC.(2 counts) and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.The appellants in C.A. No. 647 of 2000 were found guilty under Section 326 IPC.(2 counts) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.Questioning the correctness of the said Judgment, Criminal Appeal Nos.646 and 647 of 2000 have been filed.The State of Tamil Nadu has filed Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2001, praying the Court to convict A-2 and A-3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC (two counts).As all the above appeals have been filed as against the judgment in Sessions Case No. 19/2000, the same can be disposed of by Common Judgment.3. Duraikutti @ Sowri Raj (hereinafter referred to as "the 1st deceased"), Lourdu Michael (hereinafter referred to as "the 2nd deceased") and PW-4 Paulsamy are brothers.PW-1 is the wife of the first deceased." Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present in all four limbs.Appearances found at the post mortem: A male body lies on its back, moderately nourished, eyes closed.Ear & Nose no discharge, mouth opened, tongue inside.Teeth 8 + 8 8 + 8 External Injuries:-A obliquely placed stab injury of size 10 x 5 x 12 cm.injuring spleen & stomach present in left side of back 8 cm.below vertebra (confirmed on opening the abdomen).An abrasion on lower 1/3rd of left fore arm 3 x 1 cm x 1/2 cm.A cut injury of size 3 x 2 x 2 cm.present on outer aspect of upper 1/3rd of right arm.A cut injury on left side of neck 7 cm.above the collar bone of size 5 x 3 x 3 cm.A cut injury on left side of neck 1 cm.above the 4th injury of size 4 x 2 x 3 cm.A cut injury on lateral aspect of left eye-brow of size 4 x 1 x 3 cm.A cut injury on left fore head 5 cm.above the 6th injury of size 2 x 1 x 1/2 cm.A cut injury below the left eye of size 3 x 2 x 3 cm.A cut injury of size 2 cm.x 1/2 cm.x 2 cm.on middle 3rd of outer aspect on left upper arm.Hyoid bone intact, Heart pale, channel's empty.Lungs pale.Liver pale, Spleen injured size 3 cm.x 1/2 cm.Kidney pale.Stomach injured, partially digested food particles of about 400 gms.expelled to peritoneal cavity through the Rest in stomach by size 10 cm.x 1/2 cm.Intestines distended with gas.Peritoneal cavity contains clots & partially digested food particles.Bladder empty X the rib fractured on left side. "The Inspector of Police proceeded with the investigation and examined the witnesses on various dates.The Inspector, after completing the investigation, filed his final report.When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they pleaded total ignorance and denied having any complicity in the commission of the crime.She, on receiving the requisition Ex.P.23 from the Inspector of Police, conducted post mortem on the body of the first deceased.She commenced post mortem on 26.12.1997 at about 1 P.M. Ex.P-24 is the post mortem certificate.We have already extracted the relevant portion from the post mortem certificate, which would give us an idea about the nature of injuries, which the first deceased suffered.The Doctor, both in the post mortem certificate as well as before court, has opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrahge.It was PW-10 Dr.Arunachalam, who conducted post mortem on the body of the 2nd deceased on 26.12.1997 at 11.40 A.M. and issued Ex.P-18, the post mortem certificate.We have already referred to the nature of injuries sustained by this deceased by extracting relevant portion from the post mortem certificate.The Doctor has opined that the deceased would have died of shock and haemorrhage about 18 to 24 Hours prior to post mortem and that injury Nos.9, 11 and 13 could have been caused by velkambu while the others by aruval.The medical evidence placed before Court would amply prove that both the deceased died only due to homicidal violence.The question for consideration is as to whether, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts?According to PW-1, the wife of the first deceased, her husband's brother PW-4 Paulsamy had purchased seedlings from Chellappa, the husband of A-3 and for which he paid Rs.22/- and that was considered by Chellappa as not the full payment due to him.On that score, there was enmity between them and that on the fateful day, when Paulsamy went to the Bus-stand along with his guest to see him off at about 2.15 P.M., the said Chellappa beat Paulsamy.Hearing about this, the 2nd deceased and PW-5 ran towards the place where such incident took place, taking aruvals with them.The appeal made to them by PW-1 and her husband, the first deceased did not yield any result.Thereafter, PW-1 and her husband went to inform PW-4, but however, he was not available.This made them to proceed towards the place near the Bus-stand where the occurrence took place.According to PW-1, A-1 armed with velkambu; A-2 & A-3 with palai aruval and A-4 & A-5 with stones, attacked both the deceased.The occurrence was witnessed by PWs-2 and 13 also.According to PW-1, when she went near the deceased with tears, A-3 to A-5 came to attack her and somehow, she managed to run away to the police station to give complaint.Complaint was given at 4.30 P.M. and police arrived at the spot at 5.30 P.M. and then investigation started.We may straight away point out that PW-2 by name Manonmani has turned hostile.As far as other witness PW-13 Sebastian is concerned, he has not spoken to anything in his evidence about the occurrence.That being so, the evidence of PWs-2 and 13 is not helpful to this court and the entire case rests upon as to whether the testimony of PW-1 is reliable and can be safely acted upon.We will now proceed to consider the same.10. Deceased-1 and 2 and PW-4 are brothers.On the accused's side, all the three accused are closely related.Admittedly, there has been enmity between these two groups.We have to examine the testimony of PW-1 in this background.Certified copy of the Judgment in the above case is produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and it is seen that PW-4 Paulsamy and PW-5 Chinnadurai have been convicted under Section 324 read with 34 IPC.and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.The occurrence about which we are concerned took place nearly within half an hour from that occurrence.What we are trying to impress upon is that there was bitter enmity between both these groups.According to PW-1 hearing about the incident, the 2nd deceased and PW-5 each armed with aruval ran, saying that they will go and finish off Chellappa.The further evidence is that PW-1 and first deceased's efforts to prevent them failed and hence they went to inform this to Paulsamy.According to PW-1, as Paulsamy was not there, she and the first deceased proceeded to the place where the 2nd deceased and PW-5 rushed ie., to the scene of occurrence.Now, first we have to examine whether this part of evidence of PW-1 is true, since that will answer the question whether PW-1 has satisfactorily explained for her presence at the scene of occurrence.PW-3 Sudan is the leader of the Nadar Community in that village.Though he would say that there was misunderstanding between Chellappa and Paulsamy with reference to sale of seedlings, but he has not spoken to about any complaint lodged by Paulsamy on the fateful day.Secondly, according to PW-1, when the second deceased and PW-5 rushed to attack Chellappa, she and the first deceased followed them.PW-4 has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned hostile.We find that PW-5 has deposed that he was not beaten on the fateful day and thus he has also not supported the prosecution case.Admittedly, the incident took place away from the house of PW-1, somewhere near the bus stand.Thus, As to how PW-1 happened to be there at the scene of occurrence at the relevant time has not been satisfactorily proved.In the complaint Ex.P-1, it is clearly stated that when PW-1 and the first deceased rushed to the scene, PW-2 Manonmani and PW-13 also followed them.We have already pointed out that PWs-2 and 13 have not supported the prosecution case.In the said complaint, it is stated that when they neared the bus stand, the accused attacked the deceased.PW-1, in the cross examination, has clearly admitted that invariably, near the bus stand, there will be 15 to 20 persons standing, probably waiting for bus.When that being so, non-examination of independent witnesses would be a factor, which this Court will take note of.Yet another contradiction this Court finds is that both according to Ex.P-1 and the chief examination of PW-1, PW-1 went to the police station and gave the complaint.But however, in the cross examination, she has stated as under:-@vd;id btl;l tUk;nghJ ehd; XoanghJ 1 fpnyh kPl;lh; J}uj;jpy; nghyprhh; te;jhh;fs;/ nghyprhh; Kd;nd nghf ehd; gpd;dho gpnujk; fple;j ,lj;jpw;F t;eJ tpl;nld; vd;W brhd;dhy; rh;pjhd;/ nghyprhh; gpnujk; fple;j ,lj;jpw;F tUk;nghJ m';F Tl;lk; tutpy;iy/ bfhiy ele;j ,lj;jpy; itj;J ahh; vy;yhk; btl;odhh;fs; vd;W nghyprhh; vd;di nfl;lhh;fs;/ ehd; brhd;d tpgu';fis rg; ,d;!;bgf;lh; vGjpf; bfhz;lhh;fs; vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/ vGjpajpy; ehd; ifbahg;gk; bra;njd;@ This would only suggest that with reference to the earlier incident, police might have been informed and that is how they came there and PW-1 happened to see them on her way to the police station.Now, coming to the occurrence as such, there are some contradictions with reference to the weapons used and injuries caused.According to the complaint Ex.P-1, A-4 was armed with aruval and she cut the first deceased on the left eye and backside of the head.But, in the evidence, this has been given a go-bye and the weapon given to A-4 is only a stone.We also find that only with reference to one weapon, blood group had been detected.Further, the mahazar witnesses for recovery have turned hostile.As to when A-3 was arrested, there is a contradiction.While according to the police she was arrested on 27.12.1997, PW-13 an independent witness has categorically deposed before court that she was arrested on the very same day.On the basis of the above discussion, can it be said that the testimony of PW-1 is reliable and it infuses confidence of the Court and can it be acted upon without any corroboration whatsoever?; and Can it be said that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts? Our answer is emphatically "No".Having come to the above conclusion, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not established its case beyond all reasonable doubts.In the result, Crl.Appeal Nos.646 and 647 of 2000 are allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant in Crl.Appeal 646/2000 (A-1 in S.C. No. 19/99) under Section 302 IPC (2 counts) and on the appellants in Crl.Appeal No. 647/2000 (A-2 and A-3 in S.C. No. 19/99) under Section 326 IPC.The appeal preferred by the State in Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 2001 shall stand dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
47,327,368 |
It is wrong to suggest that at that time Meena rushed to her house and Chand Rani followed her.Pithily put, as per Mohan Lal and Vicky, Mohan Lal was strolling in front of his house after dinner.He was dragged inside their house by Chand Rani, Balvinder and Bittoo, and was beaten.Managing to free himself, as he ran outside their house, Balvinder, Bittoo and Chand Rani chased him and at that point of time Meena came out and tore her clothes.Bittoo was armed with a knife and Chand Rani was armed with an iron rod.They managed to catch hold of Mohan Lal and assaulted him with an iron rod and a knife.As Mohan Lal bent, a blow directed towards him by Bittoo, accidentally hit Balvinder.Hearing the noise Vicky came out to save Mohan Lal and was caught by Balvinder and assaulted with a knife by Bittoo.At that time K reached the spot.Meena picked up a knife and handed over the same to Bittoo who assaulted K. Sensing danger to the life of his grandfather Mohan Lal and uncle Vicky, K snatched the iron rod from Chand Rani and assaulted Meena, who fell down the staircase and became unconscious.K being a juvenile was sent to the Juvenile Justice Board for trial.Mohan Lal and his three sons Vicky, Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish were sent for trial before the Court of Sessions and were charged with the offence of forming an unlawful assembly having common object to kill Meena after trespassing into the house where she lived with her parents and brother, and in furtherance of the common object used iron rods and knives to assault Meena; using criminal force and outraging her modesty, she was stripped and murdered, and in the process injuries were inflicted on Bittoo and Balvinder who intervened to save Meena.The injuries were caused with an intention to kill them.In other words, charges were framed against Mohan Lal and his three sons for offences punishable under Section 148 IPC, Sections 452/149 IPC, 354 and 506-II/149 IPC, Sections 302/149 IPC, CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 4 of 34 308/149 IPC and 324/149 IPC.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 4 of 34The backdrop to the incident which took place at about 10:30 PM on July 30, 2011 in which Meena died, is an FIR Ex.PW-9/A No.119 PS Prashad Nagar dated June 30, 2008 (proved by ASI Puran Chand PW-9) for offences punishable under Section 451/354/323/509/34 IPC lodged by Meena in which she named Mohan Lal and his three sons of entering her house and assaulting her and tearing her clothes with the intention to strip her and during the assault, with a view to further humiliate her, Mohan Lal stripped while making obscene gesticulations directed towards her.Another FIR No.121/2008, Ex.PW-9/B dated July 03, 2008 at PS Prashad Nagar (proved by ASI Puran Chand) was registered at the instance of Pinky S/o Kailash Chand (brother of Meena) as per which Mohan Lal and his three sons had accosted him on July 03, 2008 and had assaulted him.Thus, as per the prosecution the incident which took place on July 30, 2011 was to teach Meena a lesson.July 30, 2011 was the date fixed before Ms.Kiran Gupta, MM, Delhi for recording evidence in FIR No.119/2008, but proceedings were adjourned due to non-availability of the file.The house where Mohan Lal lived with his sons is 16/989E, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh within the jurisdiction of PS Prashad Nagar and the house of Meena where she lived with her parents and brother is 16/984E. The two houses are opposite each other across the public street.The rough site plan Ex.PW-22/C prepared by SI Jai Nath Singh PW-22 and proved by him at the trial and the site plan to scale Ex.PW-18/A proved at the trial by SI Manohar Lal PW-18 evidences said fact.Pooja DW-4, the daughter of Mohan Lal had made the PCR call at around 11:00 PM on July 30, 2011 which was received by Ct.Ravinder Hooda PW-17 who noted the information on the PCR Form Ex.PW-17/A to CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 5 of 34 the effect that a caller had informed of a stabbing taking place at House No.16/989 Sardar Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh.Said information was conveyed to PS Prashad Nagar and was recorded vide DD No.38A, Ex.PW- 8/A that a caller had informed that her brother had been stabbed at House No.16/989, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road.HC Dhanni Rani PW-8 the author of DD No.38A assigned a copy thereof to SI Jai Nath Singh PW-22 who left the police station in the company of Ct.Before the two reached the house disclosed : 16/989, the information given by Pooja to the Police Control Room, being transmitted through the wireless was picked up by HC Rajender Singh PW-21, In-charge of the PCR Van Oscar-59 which was stationed in Karol Bagh area at that time.The PCR Van rushed to the spot and learnt that the persons were injured not in House No.16/989E but in house No.16/984E. They were three in number : Meena, who was grievously injured, and her brothers Balvinder and Bittoo.She administered him an anti-tetanus injection and a voveran injection as also IV fluid and that Bittoo had : (i) a sharp cut wound on right parietal region 10 cm x 0.5 cm, (ii) another sharp cut wound on right parietal region 4 cm x 0.5 cm, (iii) yet another sharp cut CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 6 of 34 wound on the left parietal region 5 cm x 0.5 cm and (iv) a sharp cut wound on left parietal region 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm.Even he was administered an injection of voveran, anti-tetanus injection and administered IV fluid.At same time i.e. 11:40 PM on July 30, 2011, Vicky, K and Mohan Lal on their own reached Lady Harding Medical College where Dr.Sabin Sahoo examined Vicky and authored the MLC Ex.Sorabh proved Ex.DW-1/A and Ex.DW-1/B. K was examined by Dr.Rahul Jaiswal DW-3 at 11:50 PM, who recorded on his MLC Ex.DW-1/D that he had one clear lacerated wound on his right forearm.Mohan Lal was examined by Dr.Ranu Soni who wrote Mohan Lals MLC Ex.DW-1/C recording thereon that Mohan Lal was complaining of pain in the right hand.Said MLC was proved by Dr.Harvinder Kaur.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 6 of 34SI Jai Nath PW-22 left Ct.Murari at House No.16/984E, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road and over the mobile phone requested the Control Room at the Police Station that a crime team be sent to the place of the occurrence.As he was returning from the Court with his sister Meena, Mohan Lal, his three sons, Vicky, Manish and Bunty and their mother Mohan Dai threatened his sister that she would not be spared.He returned to the house with his sister and around 10:30 PM was watching television in the company of his sister Meena, brother Balvinder and mother Chand Rani when all of a sudden armed with an iron rod Mohan Lal, accompanied by Vicky and Manish who were armed with knives and Rajiv @ Bunty and K armed who were armed with iron rods entered their house and immediately launched an assault using the knives and the iron rods; throwing helter-skelter the goods in the room where they were watching television.Balvinder tried to rescue Meena who had been stripped naked.As Mohan Lal held her right hand and K held the left hand, before he and Balvinder could rescue Meena, Rajiv @ Bunty repeatedly hit Meena on her face with an iron rod due to which injuries, Meena fell down.PW- 2/1 to Ex.PW-2/11, negatives whereof are collectively exhibited as Ex.PW- 2/12 and we note that the photograph Ex.PW-2/11 evinces articles lying CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 9 of 34 helter-skelter in a room, having a table in the centre which is splattered with blood and on the two sides whereof is a settee each, and on the third side is a double bed.The photograph Ex.Dinesh when he appeared as PW-2, this was an error.The photographs were taken by him in House No.16/984E.We note that during cross-examination ASI Pawan Kumar was suggested that he picked up the chance prints from House No.16/989E, which suggestion he denied.SI Dhan Singh PW-20, In-charge of the mobile crime team, wrote the report Ex.PW-20/A in which he noted the name of Bittoo against the column Name and address of complainant and allegedly stabbing after entering the house against the column Modus operandi.He recorded the time 2:45 AM to 3:55 AM and the date July 31, 2011 against the column Date and time of examination.After the FIR was registered, further investigation was taken over by Insp.He seized various exhibits and blood sample from the scene of the crime being House No.16/984E. He ensured that the clothes of the injured Bittoo and Balvinder were seized and sealed.He ensured that all exhibits were lodged in the Malkhana.PW-16/B the state of the clothes which Meena was wearing as under:-"The dead body was clothed in a pink and white striped top, pair of pink coloured pajamas, a pair pink coloured panties, brassiere and a white coloured clothe (like a napkin) were found lying loose by the side of the body within the body bag.Multiple longitudinal tears were present in the pajamas.The panties and brassiere were torn and tattered at places."He wrote that the external examination revealed 25 injuries on the person of Meena as under:-Lacerated wound 4.6 cm x 0.5 cm x aponeurosis - bone deep, present on right side of the top of scalp in the parietal region; oriented in the front to back direction, the front end of the wound is situated 10 cm from the middle of right eye brow and is directed backwards and slightly to the right.The edges wee irregular and frayed and the margins were contused.On reflection of the scalp extravasated blood was present in the underlying scalp layers ad splitting of the pericranium measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm.It is directed backwards and slightly to the right.Brain stem haemorrhage was present at the level of Pons.The cerebrospinal fluid was blood stained.Brain weight was 1264 gm.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 14 of 34Neck Subcutaneous tissues were unremarkable.Extravasation of blood was present in the strap muscles of the neck in relation to the thyroid gland.Fluid blood was present in the naso-pharynx.Mucosa of Pharynx, Larynx and trachea was coated with blood.Esophagus was unremarkable.There were no fractures of the hyoid bone or the laryngeal cartilages.Thyroid gland was grossly unremarkable, weight- 16 grams.Vessels were grossly normal in appearance.Chest Collar Bone, Sternum and Ribs showed no fractures.Lungs: Multiple patches of sub-pleural haemorrhages were present in the interlobar fissures of right lung and inner aspect of upper lobe of left lung.She claims that to humiliate her, Mohan CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 32 of 34 Lal did not hesitate to strip and make obscene gestures towards her.It is apparent that Mohan Lal, his three sons and his grandsons were wanting to teach Meena the last lesson of her life, being that, before they would kill her they would humiliate her, which they did.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 32 of 34The reasoning of the learned Trial Judge to hold that the two eye witnesses may have given exaggerated versions is thus overruled by us and as a result we hold that the prosecution has successfully established that Mohan Lal, his three sons Vicky, Bunty and Manish and his grandson K formed an unlawful assembly, the object whereof was to humiliate Meena by stripping her and killing her.With that object in mind the five came armed with knives and iron rods.They targeted Meena.Mohan Lal, Rajiv and K dragged Meena outside.The acquittal of Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish is set aside.Vicky, Mohan Lal, Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish are convicted for the offence of forming an unlawful assembly (the fifth being K, the juvenile accused) having common object to commit mischief of criminal trespass and use criminal force against Meena and cause her death and to overcome any rescue attempt by anybody to save Meena i.e. the offence punishable under Section 143 IPC, and since in furtherance of the common object the five were armed with deadly weapons and used force we convict Vicky, Mohan Lal, Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish for the offence punishable under Section CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 33 of 34 148 IPC.We convict the four for trespassing into the house of Meena where she lived with her parents and brothers after making preparation for causing hurt to her i.e. the offence punishable under Section 452/149 IPC.Holding that the assault on Bittoo and Balvinder was not intended, nor were any injury caused which could possibly be of the kind that likelihood of Bittoo and Balvinder being killed was in the realm of reality, we set aside Mohan Lal and Vickys conviction for the offence punishable under Section 308/34 IPC and we acquit them of the charge for offence punishable under Section 308/149 IPC.We convict all four accused for the offence punishable under Section 324/149 IPC for the injuries caused to Bittoo and Balvinder.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 33 of 34A.No.297/2014 and Crl.Appellants Mohan Lal and his son Vicky do not dispute that an incident took place at around 10:30 PM on July 30, 2011 involving them, the deceased Meena, her brothers Bittoo PW-11, Balvinder PW-12 and their mother Chand Rani PW-13, but not in the manner as claimed by the prosecution is their case.As per the prosecution, the incident involved not only Mohan Lal and his son Vicky but even Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish the other two sons of Mohan Lal and K the grandson of Mohan Lal.The further variation is : as per Mohan Lal and Vicky the incident was triggered by Meena, Bittoo, Balvinder and their mother Chand Rani, compelling Mohan Lal and Vicky to act in discharge of their right to private defence during which Meena, Bittoo and Balvinder were injured; and as per the prosecution, Mohan Lal and his three sons and one grandson attacked Meena to teach her a lesson and when her brothers Bittoo and Balvinder tried to save her, even they were injured.The same is brought out from the undernoted line of cross-examination of Bittoo:-"It is correct that house of accused persons is located just in front of our house.Accused Mohan Lal is an old person having the age of about 58 years.It is wrong to suggest that on 30 July, 2011 at about 10/10.30 PM, accused Mohan Lal was strolling in front of his house after taking dinner.It is wrong to suggest that at that time I alongwith my brother Balvinder and mother Chand Rani had dragged Mohan Lal inside our house.It is wrong to suggest that after dragging him inside the house, CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 2 of 34 we started beating him.It is wrong to suggest that he got rid himself from our clutches and run away outside the house while crying.It is wrong to suggest that we chased him and in the mean time my sister Meena also came out and torn her clothes.It is wrong to suggest that I was carrying knife and my mother was having iron rod while we were chasing to him.It is wrong to suggest that after hearing the noise, accused Vikky came out from his house and tried to save his father Mohan Lal.It is wrong to suggest that when Vikky came out from his house, my brother Balvinder had caught hold him and I assaulted him by the knife and stabbed him.It is wrong to suggest that accused Karan had reached the spot subsequently after hearing the noise (Vol he was one of the assailants).He was one of the assailants).As deposed to by HC Rajender Singh PW-21, he rushed the three to RML Hospital in the PCR Van, where as recorded in the MLC Ex.PW-15/A Meena was declared brought dead at 11:40 PM by Dr.Narender Arya PW-15, who wrote said fact on the MLC.Balvinder and Bittoo were attended to by Dr.Monika PW-14, who authored Balvinders MLC Ex.PW-14/A and Bittoos MLC Ex.PW- 14/B. She recorded therein that at 11:40 PM the two were brought to the hospital and Balvinder had : (i) a lacerated wound on the right side of his forehead : 5 cm x 0.5 cm, (ii) a lacerated wound on left eyebrow 1 cm x 1 cm, (iii) one lacerated wound on left eyelid 1 cm x 0.5 cm and (iv) two sharp cut wounds on the exterior aspect of the left forearm, one of which was 4 cm x 1 cm and the other 2 cm x 1 cm.DW-1/A recording therein that Vicky had the injuries: (i) laceration wound 2 cm x 2 cm left upper lip, (ii) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left temporal region, (iii) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left shoulder, (iv) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left scapular region, and (v) laceration wound 1 cm posterior region.He was referred to the Surgery Department where Dr.Sorabh gave an opinion on the MLC Ex.DW-1/B that the injuries were simple.Harvinder Kaur DW-1 who was familiar with the writing of Dr.Sabin Sahoo and Dr.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 5 of 34He reached RML Hospital and collected the MLCs of Meena, Balvinder and Bittoo.Since Balvinder and Bittoo were fit for statement and Meena was dead, he recorded Bittoos statement Ex.PW-11/A and made an endorsement Ex.PW-11/A beneath the same, and as deposed to by SI Jai Nath Singh he returned to the spot so that he could hand over the rukka to Ct.Murari for FIR to be registered and this was the reason why some delay CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 7 of 34 took place in registration of the FIR.He had two options.The first was to go to the police station and get the FIR registered and then go back to the place of the occurrence or to go to the place of occurrence and send Ct.Murari to the police station for FIR to be registered.He chose the latter because over the telephone he had requested that the mobile crime detection team be sent to the spot, and in our opinion he was rightly advised to go to the place where the crime took place.Bittoos statement Ex.PW-11/B was therefore sent from the place of the crime at 4:30 AM on July 31, 2011 i.e. with a gap of about 5 hours after the incident took place.At the police station, HC Ram Kishan PW-1, as deposed to by him, registered FIR No.133/2011, Ex.PW-1/A at 8:30 AM on July 31, 2011 evidenced by DD No.4A, Ex.PW-1/B in which HC Ram Kishan noted that he had registered the FIR at said time for offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 302, 354, 452, 506/34 IPC.As deposed to by Ct.Raj Kumar PW-4, he delivered copy of the FIR at the residence of Sh.We have perused the writing in original (not the photocopy) and note that the same pen has been used.It is apparent that a mistake of writing PM has been rectified by the author instantly on realizing that the time was just past dawn and thus the PM was converted instantly into AM.Loosely translated, the statement Ex.PW-11/A made by Bittoo, is that CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 8 of 34 he along with his parents was residing at House No.16/984E, Khalsa Nagar, Tank Road, Karol Bagh and that his sister Meena was the complainant of the FIR No.119/2008 in which Mohan Lal and his three sons were accused.Manish and Vicky inflicted injuries on him with a knife.As Balvinder tried to rescue Meena, Rajiv, K and Mohan Lal assaulted Balvinder with iron rods and at that time Manish and Vicky had caught him to prevent him from rescuing his brother.Thereafter the five accused ran away.A PCR Van reached and removed him, Balvinder and Meena to the hospital.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 8 of 34The crime team which had been summoned to the spot reached House No.16/984E. Ct.Dinesh PW-2, a photographer took 11 photographs Ex.PW-2/6 shows articles lying scattered along a passage in the house leading to the main door.ASI Pawan Kumar PW-3, a fingerprint expert lifted chance prints from House No.16/984E, one of which lifted from the dressing table of the room, as per report Ex.He ensured that CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 10 of 34 Meenas dead body was seized and sent to the mortuary for post-mortem.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 10 of 34Sreeniwas PW-16 at Maulana Azad Medical College conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Meena and recorded on the post-mortem report Ex.The edges were irregular and frayed and the margins were contused.On reflection of the scalp extravasated blood was present in the underlying scalp layers and splitting of the pericranium measuring 1.5 cm x 0.7 cm.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 11 of 34Lacerated wound 2.3 cm x 0.7 cm x bone deep present on the face at junction of the nose and forehead just below the glabella.The edges were irregular and frayed and the margins were contused irregular tissue bridges were present in the wound.Fragmented pieces of fractured bone and cartilage were present in the bed of the wound.There is formation of a pocket in the subcutaneous plane with a radius of 1 cm - 1.5 cm.Contusion, reddish brown in colour, 3 cm x 2 cm present over the right side of the forehead just above the outer half of right eyebrow.Contusion, reddish in colour, 4.0 cm x 3.0 cm present on the bridge of nose with fracture of underlying nasal bone.Swelling in an area of 10 cm x 9 cm with contusion, reddish in colour, 6 cm x 7 cm present, on the right cheek.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.Contusion, reddish in colour, 2.5 cm x 2.0 cm present over the right cheek prominence 1.5 cm below the right eye.Extravasated blood was preset in the underlying soft tissues.Contusion, reddish in colour, 2.5 x 2.0 cm present over the right cheek prominence 1.5 cm outer to the right eye.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.9. Split Lacerated wound, 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm of the upper lip, just to the left of midline with corresponding mucosal laceration 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm with the intervening soft tissues pulverized.Split Lacerated wound, 1.0 cm x 0.6 cm x 0.3 cm of the upper lip, 1 cm to the right of midline, with corresponding mucosal laceration 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm, with the intervening soft tissues pulverized.Contusion, reddish in colour, 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm present on the mucosal surface of the middle of upper lip.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 12 of 34Contusion, reddish in colour, 3.0 cm x 2.0 cm present on the mucosal surface of the middle of lower lip, with linear mucosal laceration 2.5 cm long corresponding to the incisal edges of the lower jaw incisors.Contusion, reddish in colour, 2.5cm x 2 cm present over the left cheek 5 cm below the left eye, and 1 cm outer to the left angle of the mouth.Contusion, reddish brown in colour, 3 cm x 2 cm present on the middle and left side of the chin.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.Contusion, reddish brown in colour, 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm present on the right side of chin, overlying the middle of right jaw bone.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.Contused abrasion, reddish brown in colour, 0.8 cm x 1.0 cm, elliptical in shape present over the left side of neck 2 cm below and 1 cm outer to the angle of the left jaw.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.Abrasion, reddish in colour, 4.0 cm x 2.0 cm, present over the right side of the neck 4.5 cm below the angle of the right jaw, going obliquely downward.Contusion, reddish in colour 6 cm x 4 cm present over the top of right shoulder on the external aspect lying in the front to back direction.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying muscles.Contusion, reddish in colour 5 cm x 3 cm present on the back of right arm at the junction of arm and axilla.Contusion, reddish blue in colour, 11 cm x 9 cm present on the front of middle 1/3rd of left arm, 12 cm below the acromion.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying muscle.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 13 of 34Abrasion, reddish in colour 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm present on the back of left hand 2 cm above the knuckle of middle finger.Contusion, reddish in colour 12 cm x 5 cm present on the back of middle 1/3rd right arm.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying soft tissues.Abrasions two in number, reddish in colour, 0.5 cm x 0.3 cm present over the outer aspect of back right elbow, just below the lateral epicondyle, with a gap of 0.7 cm between them.Abrasion, reddish in colour 1.5 cm x 1.0 cm present on the outer aspect of the left hip overlying the iliac bone.Contusion, reddish in colour 9 cm x 9 cm present on the front of upper 1/3rd of right thigh.Extravasated blood was present in the underlying muscles.He noted that the internal examination of the head, neck and chest revealed as under:-Extravasation of blood was present in the scalp layers of left occipital region in an area of 8 cm x 5 cm, and in the scalp layers of right occipital region in an area of 3 cm x 3 cm.Extravasation of blood was present in the temporalis muscles of both sides.Skull: There were fractures of the base of both anterior cranial fossae at the base of the skull.There were multiple fractures involving the bones of the walls of the right orbit.(zygomatic, sphenoid bones), nasal bone, and right maxilla.Extravasation of blood was present at and around the fracture sites.Fluid and clotted blood was present in the maxillary sinus.Brain and Meninges: Subdural haemorrhage was present diffusely over both the cerebral hemispheres.Subarachnoid haemorrhages in patches were present over the CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 14 of 34 convexities of frontal, parietal and temporal lobes of right side; medial aspects of parietal and temporal lobes of both sides; basal aspects of frontal, and temporal lobes of both the sides; and basal aspect of occipital lobe of right side.On cut section petechial haemorrhages were present in the white matter of frontal lobes.Weights were 373 grams and 352 grams of the right and left lung respectively.Lungs were grossly unremarkable.As regards the cause of death he opined that:-Death in this case occurred as a result of Cranio-Cerebral damage, consequent upon blunt force trauma to the head inflicted via injuries 1, 2 and 3; which were produced by forceful impact with heavy blunt object/weapon and are individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 15 of 34 ordinary course of nature.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 15 of 34On being apprehended Mohan Lal, Vicky and Rajiv made disclosure statements and from under a bed in a room of his house Mohan Lal got recovered an iron rod of 24" length having diameter 3" which was seized vide Memo Ex.PW-23/D, proved at the trial by HC Sadhu Ram PW-23 and corroborated by SI Manish PW-25, Vicky got recovered the knife Ex.P-5 from underneath an almirah in his house which was seized vide Memo Ex.PW-24/G, proved at the trial by SI Mangej PW-24 and Bunty @ Rajiv got recovered an iron rod of length 25" and diameter 3" as recorded in the Memo Ex.PW-27/G proved at the trial by Ct.At the trial afore-noted witnesses proved facts which we have noted in the narratives above.But we need to note that in the testimony of Inspector Joginder Singh PW-30 it has been typed that he saw blood inside house No.16/989E and that he seized the various blood-stained articles from said house.It has been typed in his testimony that Mohan Lal got recovered the iron rod from his house No.16/984E, in respect of which an argument was advanced that the testimony of Inspector Joginder Singh would show that the assault took place in Mohan Lals house.The crime team officials to whom we have referred to above while narrating the contemporaneous events relating to the investigation and seizure have clearly deposed that the scene of the crime was the house where the deceased lived with her brothers and parents.The three have deposed, assigning roles to Mohan Lal, his three sons and his grandson as per Bittoos statement Ex.PW-11/A recorded by SI Jai Nath but additionally implicated two ladies of the house, who were CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 16 of 34 not named neither in the said statement nor in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Mohan Dai wife of Mohan Lal and Babli wife of Rajiv were also named as a part of the unlawful assembly and roles were assigned to them of catching hold Meena by her hair and kicking her on the face and hitting her on the head.Save and except said improvement qua Mohan Dai and Babli, the three witnesses have deposed in sync and in conformity with the facts disclosed in Ex.PW-11/A; of course with the usual variations which are natural and are to be formed when three persons depose about the same incident involving five accused.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 16 of 34Examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. accused Mohan Lal claimed that the incident took place in the manner it was suggested to Bittoo, Balvinder and Chand Rani, and as noted by us pithily in paragraph 2 above.Bunty denied everything and claimed that he was in his factory when the incident took place.Manish also denied the incident and claimed to have gone out for his routine after dinner walk.Vicky claimed that the incident took place as stated by Mohan Lal i.e. as per the defence put to the three eye witnesses.It is apparent that since Mohan Lal and Vicky had received injuries, to account for the same, they had to admit their participation at the incident.The third injured in their family i.e. K, as noted above faced trial before the Juvenile Justice Board and thus his version is not before us.The defence witnesses to whom we have made a reference in the narratives above regarding the MLCs of Mohan Lal, Vicky and K proved the same MLCs.Pooja DW-4, Mohan Lals daughter deposed that when she saw Bittoo, Balvinder, Meena and Chand Rani beating her brother mercilessly she made a call to the police.Vide decision dated January 20, 2014 the learned Trial Judge has convicted Mohan Lal and Vicky.Bunty alias Rajiv and Manish have been acquitted.Vide order on sentence dated January 28, 2014 Mohan Lal and Vicky have been sentenced to undergo CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 17 of 34 imprisonment for life and pay fine in sum of 1 lakh; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years for the offence of murdering Meena.To undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine in sum of `10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months concerning the injuries inflicted upon Bittoo and Balvinder, attributing intention or knowledge to the two that by their acts they would have committed an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.The two have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay fine in sum of `2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of fifteen day for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC.From the post- mortem report it is clear that she had sustained as many as 17 injuries on her fact i.e. from scalp to neck portion.It only proves the deadly intention of assailants.Had their intention be only to cause some injuries to the deceased, assailants would not cause as many as 17 injuries on the said vital parts of deceased.Mere fact that no injury was inflicted by the means of knife is not sufficient to hold that assailants had no intention CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 18 of 34 to cause the murder of deceased.Since, two male members i.e. PW-11 and PW-12 were also found in the house, the assailants i.e. Vickey who was armed with knife might be remained busy with them and caused injuries to them by his knife.This fact is proved from the deposition of PW-11 and PW-12 who categorically deposed that Vickey had also assaulted them by his knife.Their deposition is corroborated by their MLC (Ex.PW-14/A and Ex.PW-14/B) wherein it is recited that they sustained injuries by sharp edged weapon.Their MLCs are proved by PW-14 Dr.In her cross-examination, she clarified that it is not possible that injured Bittoo could sustain injury due to pelting stones; nor it is feasible that such injuries could be caused by simple fall.(ii) As accused Vickey also sustained simple injuries on his person by the means of some sharp object, thus it appears that PW-11 and PW-12 might have also assaulted the accused Vickey.Since, Vickey along with his co-accused was assailant, thus PW-11 and PW-12 were justified to cause injury on their assailants in the exercise of their right of private defence.No doubt none of the eye-witnesses uttered even a single word about the injuries inflicted to assailants, but this can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.(iv) From the autopsy report Ex.PW16/B it is established that death was caused due to injuries no. 1 to 3 which were individually and collectively sufficient to cause death in the ordinarily course of nature.Injury no. 1 & 2 were inflicted on the top of scalp in the parietal region whereas injury no. 3 was found on the junction of the nose and forehead just below the glabella.Thus, it is proved that injury no. 1 to 3 were caused on the vital parts of the body.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 20 of 34(v) From the deposition of PW11 and PW12 it is established that two of the assailants i.e. Mohan Lal and Karan were armed with iron pipe.It is also clear from their testimony that the deceased was assaulted repeatedly by the iron pipes.From their deposition, it is also clear that initially deceased was assaulted in the house, thereafter she was dragged out from the house and beaten in the gali.It is further clear from their deposition that while deceased was dragged from the house, PW11 and PW12 were prevented by accused Vickey and he assaulted them by knife so that they could not rescue the deceased, thus there is every possibility that PW11 and PW12 might have not be able to see each and every blow given on the person of deceased, thus mere fact that eye-witnesses failed to state about the approximate number of blows is not sufficient to disbelieve their version particularly when the incident between the parties is not disputed.(vi) Since, all the assailants had common intention while entering the house of complainant party, thus, the assailants who assaulted the deceased by the means of iron pipe shall also be liable for the acts of assailant who assaulted PW11 and PW12 by knife and similarly the assailant who assaulted both the injured by knife shall also be liable for the acts of his companions who assaulted the deceased by iron pipes.In the present facts and circumstances of the case, prosecution is not supposed to prove which assault was given by which accused.It is sufficient to prove that two of the assailants including Mohan Lal were armed with iron pipe and another assailant i.e. Vickey was armed with knife while they committed house trespass and assaulted the complainant party and thereafter they caused injuries to the deceased and both the eyewitnesses.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 21 of 34(vii) Admittedly, the iron pipe allegedly got recovered by accused Mohan Lal was neither sent to FSL nor to the doctor who conducted post-mortem to seek clarification as to whether injuries found on the dead body could be caused by the recovered iron pipe or not.But to my mind, in the facts and circumstances of the case, said lapse is not fatal to the prosecution case in any manner because in the instant case there is overwhelming evidence that accused Mohan Lal had participated in the incident and from the testimony of eye-witnesses it is also proved that Mohan Lal was one of the assailants and he was armed with an iron pipe.Mere fact that prosecution failed to connect the recovered pipe with the incident is not sufficient to discard the prosecution case.(viii) Though as per prosecution version, one knife having blood stains was recovered at the pointing out of accused Vickey, yet during examination, FSL failed to ascertain the grouping of blood detected on the said knife.Since, accused Vickey had also sustained multiple injuries in the incident, it was argued that there is every possibility that blood found on the said knife was of accused Vickey.Besides Vickey, PW11 and PW12 also sustained injuries by sharp edged weapon, thus, the blood found on the said knife could either be of Vickey or of either of injured persons.In the absence of any cogent evidence, it is difficult to hold that the blood found on the knife was any of the injured persons.But the said defect is not sufficient to disbelieve the prosecution version because in the instant case participation of accused Vickey is not in dispute and from the deposition of eye-witnesses it is established that he was armed with a knife and it is also established that PW11 and PW12 sustained injuries by sharp edged weapon and it is also established that Vickey was one of the aggressors.Thus, the testimony of both the eye- witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence available on record.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 22 of 34In the light of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to bring home the guilt of accused Mohan Lal and Vickey beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, thus, I hereby hold them guilty thereunder."Reasons given to acquit Rajiv and Manish are firstly : (i) No call being made by family member of Meena to the police and neither Balvinder nor Bittoo disclosing the names of the accused to the PCR personnel.(ii) Delay in registering the FIR.(iii) With reference to the post-mortem report of Meena and the injuries suffered by Balvinder and Bittoo the learned Trial Judge has opined, and we use the language used by the learned Trial Judge : "it can safely be culled out that a big fight had taken place in which both parties had used weapon of offence particularly iron-pipes and sharp edged weapon.In the incident, all persons except Rajeev @ Bunty and Manish sustained injuries.It is improbable that when all persons sustained injuries, these two accused would not have sustained any injury.Absence of injuries or their body prima-facie indicate that either they were not present at the spot or they did not participate in the alleged incident.The possibility that they might have been impleaded in the incident being the family members of accused Mohan Lal and the fact that they had inimical relations with complainant party cannot be ruled out."It is trite that where an incident is admitted and there are two versions of the same, it is the duty of the Court to find out as to whose version is correct.In the instant case version of the accused is that when Mohan Lal was strolling in front of his house after dinner, Chand Rani, Balvinder and Bittoo started beating him and dragged him insider their house.Managing to free himself, as Mohan Lal ran out, Balvinder, Bittoo and Chand Rani chased CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 23 of 34 him and Meena came out.She tore her clothes.Armed with a knife and an iron rod, Bittoo and Chand Rani respectively, assaulted Mohan Lal who bent and the blow by Bittoo accidentally hit Balvinder.Hearing the shrieks of his father, Vicky came out and was assaulted Bittoo.K reached the spot.Meena picked up a knife and handed over the same to Bittoo who assaulted K. Sensing danger to the life of his grandfather and uncles, K snatched the iron rod from Chand Rani and assaulted Meena who fell down the staircase and got injured.Per contra, the case of the prosecution i.e. Bittoo, Balvinder and Chand Rani is as per Bittoos statement Ex.PW-11/A noted by us in paragraph 11 above.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 23 of 34The learned Trial Judge has believed that Mohan Lal and Vicky were the aggressors.The learned Judge has opined that they were the only two aggressors and has disbelieved the eye witnesses testimony qua Bunty and Manish on the reasoning that in India there was a tendency to rope in all family members of the accused.From the fact that Mohan Lal, Vicky and K were injured and there were no injuries on Rajiv and Manish coupled with the fact that Meena and her brothers Balvinder and Bittoo had received injuries, as noted in paragraph 29 above, the learned Trial Judge has held that it could be safely culled out that a big fight had taken place in which both parties had used weapons of offence.The learned Judge has reasoned that if both sides were armed it was improbable that two persons of one group would not be injured.To the reasoning of the learned Single Judge qua acquitted accused Rajiv and Manish, learned counsel Sh.R.S.Malik added on the reasoning during arguments, that as held in the decisions reported as 1996 (1) SVLR (Cr.) SC 418 Rehmat Vs.State of Haryana, 2003 (1) JCC 280 Cherlopalli Cheliminabi Sahib & Anr.State of A.P., 1 (2008) DLT (Cr.) 848 Babu Ram & Ors.State of Punjab and 2010 AD (Crl.) SC 197 Eknath Ganpat CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 24 of 34 Aher & Ors.State of Maharashtra & Ors.since the prosecution failed to establish the injuries on Mohan Lal, Vicky and K, the benefit of doubt granted by the learned Single Judge to Rajiv and Manish needs to be affirmed qua them and extended to Mohan Lal and Vicky and thus the two should be acquitted.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 24 of 34We need to once again note and thereafter re-emphasize the injuries suffered by Mohan Lal, his son Vicky and his grandson K. We have noted the same in paragraph 7 above and would highlight that as regards Mohan Lal, the MLC Ex.DW-1/C does not record any physical manifestation of any injury on the body.He complained of pain in his right hand and was thus administered a voveran injection.K, as per his MLC Ex.DW-1/D, had only one clean lacerated wound on his right forearm.Vicky as per MLC Ex.DW-1/A, had five injuries being : (i) laceration wound 2 cm x 2 cm left upper lip, (ii) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left temporal region, (iii) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left shoulder, (iv) laceration wound 1 inch x 1 cm left scapular region, and (v) laceration wound 1 cm posterior region.Whereas Mohan Lal has received, at best a slap or two or a fist blow or two, and K has been hit on his right forearm only once with a blunt object, only Vicky has been hit by a blunt object five times, twice the blow being directed towards his head (injury No.ii and iv), the other three towards the lip (injury No.i), shoulder (injury No.iii) and the back (injury No.v).The assault on the three is very weak and as would be explained by us hereinafter is the result of Meena being rescued by her brothers Balvinder and Bittoo, who had received as many as 6 and 5 injuries respectively.Balvinders head was the object of the assault evidenced by injuries No.i, ii and iii as per his MLC Ex.PW-14/A. He received sharp cut wounds on the exterior aspect of his left forearm (injury No.iv collectively).These injuries are most likely to be received when the outstretched arm of a person is rescuing somebody.As CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 25 of 34 regards Bittoo, injuries No.i to iv show that a knife was directed towards his face four times.Meena had received 25 injuries which we have noted in paragraph 18 above and in respect of which injuries we need to highlight that injuries No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 show that her face and all regions of the head were repeatedly hit with a blunt object.Injuries No.18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 show that she was hit on the arm and the back of the hand.This shows that both arms of Meena were held by two persons; one holding on to her left arm and the other the right.Even if one hand was free and Meena was being hit 17 times on her face and the head, the natural instinctive reaction would be to ward off the assault using the palm as the shield.As noted in paragraph 17 above, Meenas clothes were ripped right down to the panty and brassiere which she was wearing, both of which were torn and were in tatters.Obviously, she was the target of the assault.The intention was to humiliate her and kill her.It is in this context that the testimony of the three eye witnesses assumes importance.All of them have said that as Mohan Lal, his three sons Vicky, Manish and Bunty along with his grandson K entered the house, they threw the household articles helter-skelter.Seeing their sister bring stripped and beaten, it would be the natural instinct of Balvinder and Bittoo to rush towards their sister rather than to save themselves.They did so.But Manish and Vicky delayed the two reaching out to their sister.In the process as Mohan Lal held Meenas right hand and K held Meenas left hand, Rajiv managed to repeatedly hit Meena on her face with an iron rod.Thus, injuries on Meena have completely been explained by the three eye witnesses who have also explained injuries on themselves.It may be true that the three witnesses have not said that while rescuing Meena they were able to hit three CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 26 of 34 out of the five assailants, but that does not mean that the eye witnesses are discredited, in that, malice of falsely implicating all male members of the family of Mohan Lal can be attributed to them.CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 25 of 34CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 26 of 34The error committed by the learned Trial Judge is to hold that a big fight had taken place.A malicious big assault had taken place as established by the evidence.Meena was the target.Her brothers were injured when they tried to rescue her.Before non- explanation of the injuries on the person of the accused persons by the prosecution witnesses may affect the CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 27 of 34 prosecution case, the court has to be satisfied of the existence of two conditions : (i) that the injury on the person of the accused was of a serious nature; and (ii) that such injuries must have been caused at the time of the occurrence in question.Non-explanation of injuries assumes greater significance when the evidence consists of interested or partisan witnesses or where the defence gives a version which competes in probability with that of the prosecution.The first appellant received two stab wounds and also an incised wound over the scalp at frontal region.Appellant 2 received deep-cut wound and an incised wound over the scalp left side parietal region.Appellant 3 also received an incised scalp wound over frontal parietal region.It is not denied and disputed that they were in the hospital as indoor patients for a few days.We have furthermore noticed hereinbefore that they were also arrested after a few days."Thus, consequences of failure on part of the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused will vary according to the facts and circumstances of each case.In cases where the genesis of an incident is dubious, if the prosecution witnesses fully explain as to how the accused sustained injuries then the prosecution need not to probe further into the matter.However, no strait jacket formula can be laid down and each case has to be CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 29 of 34 considered on its own facts and circumstances.[2013 Cri LJ 2426 (Del) Radhey Shyam v. State of NCT of Delhi].CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 29 of 34The learned Judge has found something of relevance in the fact that the incident took place at 10:30 PM and information was available with the police when the Police Control Room was informed at 11:00 PM but the rukka was sent at 4:30 AM the next day.There from the learned Judge has formed an opinion of time being available with Bittoo to make a thought over statement.The learned Trial Judge has overlooked the fact that Bittoo and Balvinder were traumatized having seen their sister Meena being stripped nude and assaulted.The trauma of brothers seeing their sister being stripped would take time to settle down.The trauma was accentuated by she being killed in front of them.The trauma got deepened by the fact that two brothers could not save their sister.The feeling of guilt with trauma needed time for the two to regain their composer.Besides, even the two were injured and had to be given medical aid including anti-tetanus and voveran injections.Besides, SI Jainath had a good reason, which we have noted in paragraph 8 above to return to the spot after recording Bittoos statement Ex.PW-11/A and thereafter sending Ct.Murari to the police station for FIR to be registered.It was argued that the fact that Pooja, the daughter of Mohan Lal rang up the police is a fact which needs to be taken into account for the innocence of the accused.Not necessarily.What did Pooja know as to what was happening.Surely, her father, her brothers and her nephew would not tell her that they would go and strip Meena to humiliate her and kill her.As she heard commotion and saw her father, brothers and nephew as a part of a group which was engaged in what even a common person would perceive as an CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 30 of 34 offence, she rang up the police.PW17/A, only first entry whereof has been proved, in a recording that the PCR van has conveyed that as told by Bittoo the neighbours had injured them.Picking on the site plan, both rough and to scale, Ex.PW-22/C and Ex.PW-18/A, and citing the decisions reported as 2005 Crl.L.J. 299 Vijay Singh vs. State of M.P. it was urged that the two site plans do not mark the spot from where the witnesses saw the crime being committed.If he was assaulted he would have suffered injuries which would have left a physical manifestation on his body.The past incidents of two FIRs being registered against Mohan Lal and his son, one at the instance of Meena and the other at the instance of her brother would establish the motive.The FIR Ex.She claims that she was molested by Mohan Lal and his three sons.Rajiv hit her.Balvinder and Bittoo were prevented by Vicky and Manish who engaged one each, the two brothers, to facilitate the common object of the unlawful assembly.The object of the common assembly was therefore to overcome any resistance to give effect to the main object i.e. to humiliate and kill Meena.The acquittal of the four accused for the offence of forming an unlawful assembly (along with juvenile accused K) is thus set aside.We also convict the four for using criminal force intending to outrage Meenas modesty and in fact outraging her modesty by stripping her clothes i.e. the offence punishable under Section 506-II and 354/149 IPC.We also convict the four for the offence of murdering Meena i.e. the offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC.A.No.299/2014 are disposed of in terms of para 51 above.A.No.1303/2014 shall be listed for arguments on sentence on November 21, 2014 on which date Mohan Lal and Vicky who are in custody shall be produced in Court by the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar and Bunty @ Rajiv and Manish shall be present in Court.(PARDEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE NOVEMBER 17, 2014 mamta CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 34 of 34CRL.A.No.297/2014 & conn.matters Page 34 of 34
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,302 |
The occurrence in which one Raj Karan aged about 23years was murdered, took place in Village Siwah near Panipatin the State of Haryana.Report of the occurrence waslodged on the same day at about 10.30 a.m. at the policestation which is 8 kms.away from the place of occurrence.The copy of the said report was sent to the Area Magistrateunder Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. which reached theMagistrate at 11.00 a.m. The deceased along with his 7 other brothers was livingin the said village Siwah where they owned their lands.Doctor 3.5.1989 at 6.35 a.m."Immediately after receipt of ruqa Exhibit PF fromthe Hospital in the police station which isadmittedly at a distance of about 200 yards fromthe Hospital, an entry Exhibit PF/1 in the DailyDiary Register was made in the police stationwhich reads as under:P.S. Sadar Panipat Copy of Rapat District KarnalSI/SHO On receipt of 3.5.1989 Time the ruqa of 6.55 a.m. the Doctor and Departure of ASIAt this time a ruqa of the doctor has beenreceived from G.H. Hospital through the WardServant with following subject.It is for your information that unconsciouspatient Mr.Raj Karan S/o Kehar Singh is admittedin G.H. Panipat alleged to have been beaten up bysomebody.No question wasput to PW1 as to where he was at 7.40 a.m. when AssistantSub-Inspector Bhullan Singh had come in the police station.(With Criminal A.No.58/96)J U D G M E N TSETHI,J.These appeals are directed against the order of theHigh Court acquitting the respondents who, upon trial, werefound guilty and convicted by the trial court for thecommission of the offence punishable under Section 302 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.They weresentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,000/-each to be paid, on realisation, to the widow of thedeceased.It is contended that the judgment of the HighCourt is perverse, based upon assumptions and conjectures,completely ignoring the reliable legal evidence and hasresulted in miscarriage of justice which is sought to be setright.Oneof his brother Sukhchain Singh (PW1) was a practicing lawyerat Panipat while permanently residing in the village.Thedeceased and Sukhchain Singh (PW1) were living jointlywhereas all the remaining brothers lived separately.Intheir neighbourhood lived Hardwari Lal and Suraj Mal whowere in litigation with each other for partition of theland.As Raj Karan was on visiting terms with Suraj Mal,Hardwari Lal's nephew Bishna and his grand-son Balbir, bothaccused, had conceived ill-will against Raj Karan, deceasedwhom they considered as the apple of discord.On the nightintervening 2nd and 3rd of May, 1989, Sukhchain Singh(PW1), Raj Karan, deceased and Jai Karan, cousin of PW1 werecarrying chaff loaded in a trolley from the fields of thevillage.At about 4 a.m. on 3rd May, 1989, the deceasedafter loading the trolley tied it with the tractor and droveit near their house where the chaff was to be stacked in theadjoining rooms.Sukhchain Singh (PW1) and Jai Karan (PW2)were coming to their house on foot by a short-cut passageafter Raj Karan had left the fields.After reaching nearthe house Raj Karan started waiting for his brother andcousin to reach.At that time both the accused persons,armed with lathis (sticks), came out of their house, raiseda lalkara declaring that they will teach a lesson to RajKaran for helping Suraj Mal and finish him.They surroundedthe deceased and inflicted lathi blows on his head.Thecommotion and the noise attracted the attention of SukhchainSingh (PW1) and Jai Karan (PW2) who saw the occurrence.They saw Balbir and Bishna giving blows on the head of RajKaran as a consequence of which the injured becameunconscious and fell down on the ground.When the witnessesraised hue and cry and sought help of the villagers, theaccused persons fled away from the spot with their lathis.Satinder Kumar, another brother of the deceased, alsoreached on the spot.All the persons present on the spotarranged a trolley and removed Raj Karan in an injuredcondition to Civil Hospital, Panipat for treatment but at6.45 p.m. the injured succumbed to his injuries in theHospital.After completing the investigation, the accused weresent for their trial under Section 302 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code.In order to prove its caseprosecution examined Sukhchain Singh (PW1), Jai Karan (PW2),Dr.Mahesh Parkash (PW3), Balak Ram (PW4), Assistant Sub-Inspector Bhullan Singh (PW5), Head Constable Hanu Ram (PW6,Head Constable Chandi Ram (PW7), Head Constable TasveerSingh (PW8), Sub-Inspector Mehar Singh (PW9) and ConstableOm Parkash (PW10).As earlier noticed, Sukhchain Singh (PW1)and Jai Karan (PW2) are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence.Relying upon the testimony of the eye-witnesses, the trialcourt held both the accused guilty of the offence punishableunder Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian PenalCode and sentenced them to life imprisonment.Not relying upon the testimony of PWs1 and 2, the HighCourt acquitted the accused persons vide the judgmentimpugned in these appeals.Feeling aggrieved by thejudgment of the High Court Criminal Appeal No.57 of 1996 wasfiled by the complainant and Criminal Appeal No.58 of 1996by the State of Haryana.To arrive at the conclusion that PWs1 and 2 were notthe eye-witnesses of the occurrence, the High Court noted:"PW1 Sukhchain Singh stated at the trial that hebrought his injured brother Raj Karan to CivilHospital, Panipat in a tractor-trolley.He wasaccompanied by Satinder Kumar, Sukhdarshan aliasSukhdev and Jai Karan; but from the medico-legalreport, it is shown that injured Raj Karan (sincedeceased) was brought to the Hospital bySukhdarshan alias Sukhdev and none else.On themedico-legal report Exhibit PE, in the column"name of relative and friend", the name ofSukhdarshan alias Sukhdev was written.It isagain clear from the medico-legal report ExhibitPE that the certificate to the effect that theinjured was not previously medico-legally examinedwas also signed by Sukhdarshan.At the end of themedico-legal report where it is printed assignatures of thumb-impression of private party,there also the name of Sukhdarshan is written.Date of arrival and medical examination of RajKaran is given as May 3, 1989, 6.30 a.m. by theDoctor.Immediately after the medical examinationof injured Raj Karan the doctor had sent ruqaExhibit PF to the Station House Officer, PoliceStation Sadar, Panipat, which reads as under:"To SHO, Sadar, Panipat It is for your information that anunconscious patient Mr.Raj Karan, S/o Sh.KeharSingh is admitted in G.H. Panipat alleged to havebeen beaten up by somebody.Kindly note and take the necessary action.Kindly note and take the necessaryaction.DOCTOR 3.5.1989 6.30 a.m.FROM THE POLICE STATION:On receipt of the ruqa of the doctor with theabove subject, I the ASI along with H.C. TasvirSingh No.1012 and Davinder Singh No.183, startedtowards G.H. Panipat for recording the statementof injured.P.S. SADAR PANIPAT 3.5.1989."From the evidence mentioned above, one thing is,however, clear that immediately after arrival ofinjured Raj Karan, the Doctor who had conductedmedico-legal examination was informed by Sudarshanthat injured Raj Karan was beaten up by someone.The accused were not named as the assailantsbefore the Doctor.Even PW1 had stated at thetrial that Sukhdarshan alias Sukhdev gaveinformation to the Doctor about the particulars ofthe injured and PW2 Jai Karan had stated at thetrial that Sukhdarshan had made enquiries fromthem as to who had caused injuries to Raj Karanand they had told him as to who had causedinjuries to Raj Karan.It has come in evidence ofPW5 Assistant Sub-Inspector Bhullan Singh thatwhen he reached the Hospital at 7.10 a.m., on May3, 1989 there was none with Raj Karan Injured(deceased) except the Doctor.He had searched forrelations/attendants of Raj Karan, but he couldnot find any.It was only at 8.30 a.m. on thatdate that Sukhchain Singh (PW1) met him in thelawn of the Hospital who was alone at that timeand he recorded his statement.It was only atthat stage that the appellants were named asaccused in this case by PW1 Sukhchain Singh, thereal brother of the deceased.Earlier to that,neither Sukhchain Singh, the first informant norothers including Jai Karan, Satinder Kumar orSukhdarshan alias Sukhdev were available to thepolice in the Hospital nor any one of them hadinformed the police regarding the occurrence,though the police station was hardly 200 yardsfrom the Hospital (the distance of 200 yards fromthe Hospital to Police Station has come in theevidence of PW1 Sukhchain Singh).Again it isclear from the evidence on record that Sukhdarshanmet the Doctor who prepared the medico-legalreport Exhibit PE and he did not name these twoaccused-appellants as the assailants.Learned counsel also justified, onfacts, the conclusions arrived at by the High Court in theimpugned judgment.Omission to mention the names ofother relatives in the said certificate cannot be attributedto any of the prosecution witnesses.No question is shownto have been put to PW1 as to his presence or allegedabsence at the time of preparation of medico-legal reportExh.It was not unusual for a brother to search for some gooddoctor or be busy in arranging better treatment for hisinjured brother.Jai Karan (PW2) had very specificallystated "We reached in the Civil Hospital Panipat at about6.15 a.m.. From 6.15 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. I remained in theHospital but during this period I had also gone for my bloodtesting in the Hospital itself as it was required by theDoctor".After admission of the patient in the Hospital ifhis relations who were none else than brothers and cousinwere not found standing by the side of the injured, itcannot be imagined, by any stretch of imagination, that theyactually had not come to the hospital and were tellinglies.Non reporting and non-mentioning the names of theaccused at the police station before 8.30 a.m. is stated tobe a reason to hold that the witnesses had not seen theoccurrence.Such a finding, apparently, appears to beperverse as it is in the evidence that the doctor hadreported to the police about the admission of the injured inthe hospital in presence of the witnesses which justifiedthem to pay more attention for the treatment of the injuredand wait for the police to come.The investigating officerhad categorically stated that he did not feel the necessityof seizing the tractor trolley or the chaff as the same wasnot considered to be material evidence in the case.PJ wherein, in addition to one room shown inExh.PJ he had seen two more rooms at Point "X" and "X1"marked in the said Exhibit.What persuaded the court tohold that the complainant had no room to stack the chaff isnot borne out from the record.The statement of PW1 could not be rejected only becausea special behaviour was expected of him on account of hisbeing an advocate.Non mentioning of the fact that he hadnot hired a house in the town of Panipat where he wascarrying on practice could not be made a basis for rejectinghis testimony without seeking his explanation.It has comein evidence that Village Siwah was only 8 kms.away fromPanipat and was located on the GT Road and the witness wascommuting every day.Dilgulzar Singh, Medical Superintendent ofCivil Hospital (PW3), who conducted the post-mortem on thedead body of Raj Karan, found the following injuries on hisbody:Stitched wound on the right side of the headstarting 2 inch above the middle of the righteye-brow going upward and medially, 7 c.m.long T. shape from the middle of the wound(stitched extending laterally towards theright ear 7 c.m. long.There was swelling ofthe whole right side of the head up to theeye lid.Clotted blood was present.Stitched wound just lateral to the occipital5 c.m. long with swelling around was present.Clotted blood was present.3. lacerated wound on the left ear posterior ata base 1 cm long.Clotted blood was presentin the left ear.Two lacerated wound on the back of right ear1 c.m. x c.m.each was present.Pinna wasswollen and clotted blood was present.Contusion of the right arm (deltoid region) 4inch x 1-1/2 inch red in colour and swellingwas present.On exploration of the skull, there was a big subcontaneous haematoma present on both side of theskull.On right side of the skull, anteriorly 1-1/4 inch above the right ear, there was adepressed fracture of the skull bone of the sizeof 5 inch x 4 inch.The piece of the skull bonewere fractured in multiple pieces and embedded inthe brain matter.Clotted blood was present.Theposterior part of the depressed fracture wasextending as a leniar fracture upto the occiput 4-1/2 inch in length.Medially the fracture wasextending on left side vertically upto the root ofthe left ear canal.Linear in shape and was halfc.m.wide, clotted blood was present.There was abig sub dural haemotoma on the right side of theskull.The membrance was lacerated at thedepressed fracture sight.Brain matter was alsolacerated.On left side subdural haemotoma waspresent below the fracture sight and the clottedblood was present.It the left middle cranialcavity."According to him the cause of death was injury on the brainleading to shock and haemorrhage.The trial court,therefore, had rightly held the accused guilty for theoffence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC.Weare satisfied that in the instant case the High Courterroneously held that PWs1 and 2 were not the eye-witnessesand that the occurrence had not taken place in the mannerthey had deposed in the court.We are of the opinion thatthe trial court had assigned valid and cogent reasons forconcluding that the accused persons had committed theoffence and were guilty.Both the appeals are allowed and the judgment ofthe High Court is set aside.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,305,237 |
It is the third marriage of said Raju with the victim Laxmibai.Apparently, said Raju has no noticeable avocation and was not earning his livelihood in the usual manner.He was in habit of demanding money from his Pg 3 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::Appellant No. 1 is an ex-serviceman and retired from military after 17 years of service.Mr. Nitin Pradhan i/by Ms. S.D. Khot & Ms. Ameeta Kuttikrishnan .. Advocate for the Appellants Mrs. V.R. Bhonsale, .. APP for the State1. Heard the rival contentions on this appeal preferred by both the appellants challenging the judgment and order of Pg 1 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::The judgment and order of conviction was passed on 30.5.2012 by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of three months each was imposed.Both the appellants/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 504 and 506 r/w Section34 of IPC.State Government did not file any appeal challenging the acquittal for the said offences.Both the appellants/accused have challenged their conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC.Presently, both the appellants are on bail granted by this Court during pendency of the appeal.So far as the case as against the present appellants is concerned, certain factual position is required to be narrated Pg 2 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc in order to have proper perspective of the case and to ascertain what are the allegations / charges against the appellants.The actual incident of setting the victim woman by name Laxmibai on fire occurred in the evening of 2.12.2009 apparently at the house of the present appellants.Present appellants are in-laws of the victim woman The victim woman Laxmibai was the wife of one Raju, the son of the appellants.It was the third marriage of Raju.His first wife had abandoned him.Thereafter, he married second time with one woman who died due to burn injuries and in that matter, Raju was made an accused.Thereafter, he took some another job with medical department of the State.From that job also, he retired and as such was getting pension from two jobs i.e from the defence and also from the State medical department.Raju, the husband of the victim woman was asking for some part of the pension to be given for his livelihood and for his wife Laxmibai.There used to be some quarrel and apparently, in order to avoid more disputes, appellant No. 2 i.e mother of said Raju had arranged for transfer of her owned landed property about 2.5 Acres in the name of said Raju and his wife Laxmibai.This factual position is substantiated by the evidence of PW 2 Asha who is the mother of the victim woman Laxmibai.Her evidence is of much significance as it relates to the alleged motive tried to be established by the prosecution as to demand of dowry to the extent of Rs.50,000/- by the appellants from the victim woman Laxmibai.Pg 4 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).docAs mentioned above, apparently, it was the case of the prosecution that both the appellants were demanding Rs.50,000/- from the victim woman and on that count, they used to assault and torture her.For most of the times after the marriage with Raju, the victim woman stayed at some other place, however, about three years prior to the incident of burning, she and her husband Raju came to Modnimb and started residing in front of the house of the appellants.On the day of the incident, according to the victim woman, she was called by her mother-in-law i.e appellant No. 2 for taking some milk to be given to the children of the victim woman.That time the victim woman entered into the house of the appellant and instead of getting milk, kerosene was poured on her person by appellant No. 2 and appellant No. 1 was ready holding a matchbox and he ignited the matchstick and set the victim woman on fire.The saree that the victim woman was wearing caught fire and as such the victim woman raised hue and cry to rescue herself and in that Pg 5 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc process, ran out of the house of the appellants.Neigbours gathered and tried to extinguish the fire.According to the case of the prosecution and also according to the defence, appellant No. 1 also tried to extinguish the fire and tried to rescue his daughter-in-law but in vain.In that process, appellant No.1 sustained some burn injuries on his arms.After the said incident of burning, the victim woman was taken first to Modnimb Primary Health Centre and was given immediate treatment, however, sensing that the burn injuries were to the extent of about 93% and the condition of the patient was serious, she was removed to the Civil Hospital at Solapur.At Civil Hospital, Solapur, life saving drugs were administered to her and according to the substantive evidence of PW 2 Asha, the mother of the victim, Pg 6 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc various medicines were administered to the victim and that also by way of tubes inserted from mouth/nose reaching upto the stomach.It was probably on account of 93% burn injuries of the victim.According to the case of the prosecution, at the early hours of 3.12.2009, the police officer inquired with attending doctor i.e PW 3 Dr. Vaishali regarding the condition of the victim woman and after the said attending doctor ascertained the condition of the woman, the police officer recorded the statement of the victim woman.The said statement is at Exh. 56 before the Court and it has been taken on record during the trial in view of the provisions of Section 32 of the Evidence Act. Apparently, this statement which is in the form of dying declaration implicated both the appellants/accused as the story has been given by the victim as to on the relevant evening of 2.12.2009, she was called by appellant/accused No. 2 to the house and then, kerosene was poured on her person by accused No. 2 and she was set Pg 7 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::The said dying declaration of the victim woman was treated as F.I.R. and crime was registered mentioning the penal Sections as 307, 498-A, 504 and 506 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC.This time gap in between recording of the dying declaration and registration of the offence is much emphasized by the learned senior counsel for the appellants and it is submitted that this itself creates a doubt and concoction of the story on the part of the prosecution at the behest of the relatives and mainly the mother of the victim woman.While under treatment in the hospital at Solapur, the victim woman succumbed to 93% burn injuries and the cause for death as apparent from the postmortem report is "shock and septicemia due to 93% burns".On the death of the victim, an offence under Section 302 of IPC was inserted in the charge sheet.Pg 8 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).docDuring the trial, total 12 prosecution witnesses were examined.Without going much into the details as to what each prosecution witness mentioned before the Court, suffice it to say that both the panch witnesses for the scene of offence panchanama, which is apparently at or in front of the house of the appellants, turned hostile.These witnesses are PW 6 Uttam Nalavade and PW 8 Sunil Taktode.As such, it must be mentioned that the actual scene of the incident of burning the victim and pouring kerosene on her person has not been established by the prosecution.This is important for the reason that had it been the scene of the offence at the house of the appellants, then definitely there was higher burden on the appellants/accused to come with some sort of explanation as to how the victim woman sustained burn injuries.At this juncture, it must be mentioned that definitely it is the case of the prosecution that the victim woman along with her husband was not staying in the house of the appellants but they were staying in front of the house in some other premises about 6-7 houses beyond.Pg 9 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).docThe main prosecution witnesses out of 12 witnesses are PW 2 Asha Kamble, the mother of the victim woman and PW 3 Dr. Vaishali Nannaware.So far as the substantive evidence of PW 2 Asha is concerned, she has deposed that her daughter i.e the victim used to tell her regarding the demand of Rs. 50,000/- by the appellants towards dowry.On this aspect as to demand of dowry, it is argued on behalf of the appellants that even the exact date of marriage between the victim and Raju has not been brought on record and as such it cannot be ascertained that the death of the victim is within seven years of the marriage so as to attract some presumptions envisaged by the penal sections for which the appellants were charged.On this aspect, though this is not of much significance, suffice it to say that from the contents of the dying declaration given by the victim herself and from the substantive evidence of PW 2 Asha, it is apparent that the marriage took place about six years prior to the episode of burning.However, this aspect would not carry much importance if the case of the prosecution as to authenticity Pg 10 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc of the dying declaration given by the victim woman is shaken in view of the specific circumstances brought on record.So far as the substantive evidence of PW 2 Asha is concerned, again it must be mentioned that she had categorically admitted during her cross-examination that the victim was under treatment in the hospital and various tubes were inserted in her mouth/nose.At the cost of the repetition, it must be mentioned that this is significant to throw light on the actual condition of the victim at the time of the medical treatment and this is more so considering the percentage of burns i.e 93% sustained by the victim.As such, cumulative effect of the substantive evidence of PW 2 Asha goes to show that there was no establishment of motive as alleged against the appellants so far as the demand of dowry of Rs. 50,000/- is concerned.On this Pg 11 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc aspect, in our considered view, the learned Sessions Judge had rightly came with conclusion as to non-establishment of said motive.On this aspect, the substantive evidence of PW 3 Dr. Vaishali is of much importance.At the threshold, it must be mentioned that admittedly the medical papers of actual treatment given to the victim woman when she was under treatment at Solapur Hospital or for that matter at the Primary Health Center at Modnimb are not brought on record by the prosecution.Exh. 12 is the first application dated 18.10.2010 by which the accused persons asked for production of the medical papers as to the Pg 12 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc exact treatment given to the victim while she was hospitalized.The said application was vehemently opposed by the prosecution and it was submitted that the said application is premature and as and when need arises, the prosecution would produce the said documents.On that premise, the said application was rejected by the Sessions Court.Then, the matter was under evidence and two witnesses were already examined.Another application which was preferred at Exh. 44 on 17.9.2011 for similar prayers asking for medical papers was also opposed by the prosecution mentioning that the attending Doctor who was subsequently examined as PW 3 was yet to be examined.Again that application was also rejected by the Sessions Court, thus it is a factual position that the said medical papers were not brought before the Court even during the evidence of PW 3 Dr. Vaishali.In our considered view, this is definitely a mitigating circumstance to the case of the prosecution in order to establish whether the victim woman was in a condition to give her statement, well oriented and Pg 13 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc was able to understand it.Pointing out this factual aspect, it is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the prosecution has failed to establish that the victim woman was conscious enough to give the statement which can be considered a sole basis for the conviction.Needles to mention that if the dying declaration can be accepted as to its authenticity without there being any other corroboration, then, the conviction passed on said dying declaration may not be termed as illegal, however, when a reasonable doubt is created where the victim was in a position to give a statement and whether the said dying declaration can be accepted or not, then definitely there is need for corroboration to the contents of the dying declaration.In the present matter at hand, so far as the substantive evidence of these witnesses is concerned as to PW 1 Laxmibai, PW 2 Asha and PW 3 Dr. Vaishali, in our considered view, there is no such corroboration available, more so when on the another aspect as to the motive, the prosecution has failed to establish that there was a demand of dowry at the hands Pg 14 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc of the appellants.Again, needles to mention that when the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the motive plays vital role and it is required to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.When this is the state of affairs of the main prosecution evidence, no much can be said on the another substantive evidence by way of PW 11 Vinod who is of the acquaintance of the victim woman.PW 11 Vinod has stated that he had overheard the victim stating that she was being harassed by the appellants for the demand of dowry to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- and she was burnt by her in-laws.In view of above, the only evidence that of the dying declaration (Exh. 56) cannot be taken as a sole basis for the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC, more so for the failure of the prosecution to establish the motive and also to establish the actual place of the incident of pouring of kerosene on the victim woman.In any event, it must be said Pg 15 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::cri apeal 976-12 (J).doc that the prosecution has not reached that standard of proof which is required to establish the guilt of the appellants/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and in that event, benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellants, hence, the order:-ORDER i. Criminal Appeal is allowed.Fine amount, if already paid, be refunded back to them.[A.R. JOSHI, J ] [SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J] jfoanz vkacsjdj Pg 16 of 16 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2014 23:48:24 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B 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.
|
923,102 |
The prosecution case is as follows:At about 8.00 A.M. on 06.05.1993, near the public tap in Manapadu Village,there was a dispute between the mother of the third accused and P.W.4, thesister of the deceased.Owing to this, at about 02.00 p.m. the firstaccused instigated and the second accused attacked the deceased with Aruvalcausing injury to his right elbow and left thigh, while the third accusedassaulted the deceased with iron rod on his head and left shoulder.Thedeceased died on the way to hospital.4. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased.P.Ws.2 and 4 are the sisters of thedeceased.P.W.3 is the post-mortem doctor.5. P.W.5 is the witness to the observation mahazar and the arrest of A2,his confessional statement and the recovery of M.O.1 Aruval, pursuant thereto,to in the presence of the V.A.O.6. P.W.6 is the police constable, who took the body of the deceased forpost-mortem and recovered the M.Os.7 (under wear) and 8 (waist thread) worn bythe deceased.7. P.W.7 is the police constable, who delivered the express F.I.R. to theJudicial Magistrate's Court, Tiruchendur.P.Ws.8 and 9 are the investigatingofficers.The accused and the deceased Ravindran belonged to Manapadu Village.P.W.1 and the deceased were married in the year 1981 and they had threechildren.The deceased was a fisherman.1 3/4 months before the fateful day,there was an occurrence, in which some persons belonging to the prosecutionparty suffered cut injuries at the hands of the accused party.A case in thisregard was pending before the Tiruchendur Court.Thereafter, one day when P.W.4went to take water from a well, Antonyammal, Helen, Vennila W/o.A2, Navamani,Sister of Siluvaipitchai entered into an argument with P.W.4. P.W.4 was scoldedby the deceased and taken away.A2 cut the deceased on the rightknee and left thigh and the back portion of the left thigh with an aruval.Thefirst accused instigated and the third accused beat the deceased with an ironrod on the right side of the head and the left shoulder.The accused ran awayfrom the scene of occurrence, carrying their weapons with them.P.Ws.1,2 and 4and another took the deceased, who had fallen down on a coir cot to thehospital.The deceased died near Kulasekarapattinam Pallivasal.P.Ws.1 and 2went to Kulasekarapattinam Police Station and preferred a complaint with the SubInspector of Police.The complaint is Ex.P.Ws.1 and 2 signed thecomplaint.The Sub Inspector of Police, Kulasekarapattinam Police Stationreceived the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.116 of 1993 underSections 109, 324 and 302 I.P.C. The First Information Report is Ex.TheExpress F.I.R. was received by P.W.7 at 05.15 p.m. on 06.05.1993 and handedover to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchendur at 06.00 p.m. The passportis Ex.11. P.W.8, the Inspector of Police received the copy of the FirstInformation Report at 05.30 p.m., took up investigation, conducted inquest inthe presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and others and prepared Inquest Report, Ex.Healso examined the witnesses.He handed over the body of the deceased to P.W.6,Police Constable towards conduct of Post Mortem.P.W.3 Doctor, received therequisition for post mortem, Ex.P2 and conducted Post Mortem over the body ofthe deceased on 07.05.1993 at about 10.00 a.m. The Post Mortem report reads asfollows:"Identification and caste marks:1.ABM over right side of the chest.2.ABM over laternal wall of L1-axilla3.ABM over left cheek.Muscles, Vessels, nerves exposed no bony lesion.No bony lesion.No bony lesion.210 gm Chambers contain 30 ml of blood lungs right 500 gms left 490 gms.Pale stomach contains about 30 ml of fowl smelling fluid, Pale.Liver 1500 gmsPale, Spleen 150 gms Kidney 150 gms Pale, Intestine pale, Bladder empty.Brain1350 gm.Pale, death would appear to have occurred about 14-18 hours prior topost mortem examination.The deceased would appear to have died of heamorrhageand shock due to multiple injuries".12. P.W.3 opined that the deceased would have died of bleeding and shock,14 to 18 hours before the post mortem.P3 is the Post Mortem Report.Healso opined that injuries 1 and 2 could have been caused by aruval, whereasinjuries 3 and 4 could have been caused by iron rod.After post mortem, P.W.6received the body, recovered M.O.7, underwear and M.O.8, waist cord and handedover the body to the relatives of the deceased.His passport is Ex.13. P.W.8, Inspector of Police, recovered blood stained coir portion ofthe cot and blood stained lungi (saram) in the presence of P.W.5, VillageAdministrative Officer and his assistant at 09.00 p.m. on 06.05.1993 underEx.P4, Attakshi.The Inspector of Police inspected the scene ofoccurrence in the presence of P.W.5 and his assistant and prepared observationmahazar, Ex.P5 and Rough Sketch, Ex.Then he recovered blood stained earth,M.O.5 and sample earth, M.O.6 under Attakshi Ex.He arrested the secondaccused at 04.15 p.m. on 08.05.1993, who gave a voluntary confession statement ,which was recorded in the presence of witnesses.The admitted portion thereofis Ex.This appeal is preferred by the third accused in S.C.No.43 of 1996, on thefile of the Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.In such case, three accused stood tried.A2 and A3 were charged under Section302 I.P.C., while A1 was charged with Section 302 r/w.109 I.P.C.2. A1 was acquitted and A2 and A3 were convicted under Section 304(2)I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to paya fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.The first appellant/A2 died during the pendency of this Criminal Appeal.The body was first seen by the undersigned at 10.30 A.M. on 07.05.1993.Its condition thenw as Cold, Rm present in neck, arms and legs.Appearances found at the Post Mortem ofa moderately nourished male likes on its back Arms by the side of the body.Eyelids closed Pupils dilated mouth opened.Tongue inside the mouth.Teeth 8 8Hyoid intact.Injury external:A deeply incised wound over back of left thigh about 16cmx4cmx6cm size.A deeply lacerated wound over front of right elbow 10cmx7cmx3cm size.An abrasion over right frontal cresion 3cmx2cm skin deep.An abrasion over back of left shoulder 7cmx1cmxskin deep.On exploration muscles, vessels and nerves exposed no bony lesion.The same led to the recovery of an aruval at about 05.45 P.M. hiddenin the sand under Ex.When the accused were questioned, they denied the charges.Theprosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 9, marked Exs.The learned counsel for the appellants primarily submits that the actattributed the appellant/A3 is of causing injury to the head of the deceasedwith an iron rod.The Doctor's evidence and the post mortem report would showthat the head such injury was a mere abrasion.The prosecution case sufferedfrom several infirmities and no independent witnesses had been examined.Theoccurrence is said to have taken place at the seashore.The InvestigatingOfficer admitted that for two furlongs from the scene of occurrence, thereabsolutely were no house.Considering that to the east of the alleged scene ofoccurrence, there was only the sea, then, if for two furlongs, there were nohouses, then many persons would have witnessed the occurrence, if the occurrencehad actually taken place at 02.00 p.m. as alleged.Further, the prosecutionwitnesses are all related to the deceased.The likelihood of their presence atthe scene at the time of occurrence is highly doubtful.If indeed they werepresent then, even from a distance, they could have seen the accused and in suchcircumstance, it is natural to expect them to raise a hue and cry, whichaccording to the prosecution, is not the case.P.W.1 in her cross examinationhas admitted that it is on the basis of suspicion that Ex.P1, complaint wasgiven.P.W.2 seeks to improve the prosecution case falsely alleging that theyfirst went to the local hospital and since treatment was refused, they proceededtowards Kulasekarapattinam.From the fact that no blood stained clothes wererecovered either from P.Ws.1 and 2 or from other witnesses, a doubt arises as towhether they witnessed the occurrence or carried the deceased in the mannerstated by them.Admittedly, the iron rod allegedly used by the third accusedhad not been recovered.The learned counsel also submits that the fact that theFirst Information Report had been registered at a time close to the occurrenceand that the same reached the Court without any delay would not carry forwardthe prosecution case, for that is how things would be made to appear, when theFirst Information Report is the product of deliberation.If the case had beenput up together after the body had been found naturally, the time of occurrencewould have been stated to suit the time of filing the First Information Report.I have heard the learned Government Advocate on the submissions of thelearned counsel for the appellant.Eye witnessesto the occurrence had clearly deposed to the occurrence and merely because therewere some minor contradictions in the deposition of witnesses, the prosecutioncase cannot be rejected in toto.He further submits that eye witnesses shouldnot be disbelieved simply because they happen to be the relatives of thedeceased.I have considered the rival submissions.Firstly P.Ws.1,2 and 4, who are the alleged eye witnesses, are thewife and sisters of the deceased.However, they have admitted to the presence of independent witnesses.While so,there is no explanation, why such persons have not been examined.Theoccurrence place is said to be the seashore and at 02.00 p.m. As rightlycontended by the learned counsel for the appellants when there is nothing toimpede the view for a distance of two furlongs from the scene of occurrence,then the accused could not have moved in stealth and suddenly come upon thescene of occurrence.If so, it stands to reason that had P.Ws.1 and 2 seen themmoving towards the deceased, they would have raised a hue and cry.The recoveryof blood stained earth and sample earth at the scene of occurrence i.e., theseashore at about 09.00 p.m. on the night of the occurrence seems farfetched.The absence of recovery of blood stained clothes from persons, who allegedly hadcarried the deceased immediately after the occurrence is telling.When P.W.1has admitted to having preferred the complaint on the basis of suspicion, thenit becomes clear that it is unlikely that anyone had witnessed the occurrence.In these circumstances, this Court is inclined to allow the appeal and set asidethe Judgment of the lower Court.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside theJudgment of the trial Court.The second appellant/A3 is acquitted of theoffence charged against them.Since it is reported that the first appellant/A2is dead, the appeal in respect of him abates.The bail bonds, if any, executedby second appellant/A3, shall stand cancelled and the fine amount, if any, paidby him, is ordered to be refunded forthwith.1.The Additional Sessions Judge and Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin.2.The Inspector of Police, Kulasekaranpattinam Police Station, Tuticorin District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,314,572 |
Heard on the question of admission.Record of the Court below be called for.Appeal is admitted for final hearing.Also heard on I.A. No.15565/2019, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellants-Kishanlal Mewada and Radhabai Mewada.The appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the appellants/accused against judgment dated 14.5.2019 passed by VII Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhopal, District Bhopal (MP), in S.T.No.217/2018, by which the appellant No.1 has been convicted for offence under Section 307/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation and Section 342 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation and the appellant No.2-has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs.5000/- with default stipulation and Section 342 of IPC, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation.The prosecution story in brief is that in the night of 5.12.2017 at about 23:00 hours, husband of injured Kavita (PW/1) solemnised marriage with another lady.She told about this to her father-in-law and mother-in-law, then appellants beat her.Appellant No.1-Father-in-law has caught hold her hands and appellant No.2-mother-in-law forcibly gave some poisonous substance (drugs) to injured Kavita (PW/1).Thereafter, they locked her in a room.In the next morning, i.e. 6.12.2017, her brother Anil (PW/4) came to the house of appellants, heard some voice of his sister Kavita Mewada (PW/1), then he Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 11/09/2019 18:02:56 2 CRA-6024-2019 took her to Mayo Hospital where MLC took place and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) was recorded including her dying declaration (Ex.P/2).Thereafter, the case was committed to Session Court at Bhopal, where charge has been framed against the appellants for the aforesaid offence.Learned counsel for the appellants submits that accused/appellant No.1 is in jail since 6.12.2017 and from 7.12.2017 till now.The accused/appellant No.2 is in jail w.e.f. 7.12.2017 till now.T he accused/appellants have been falsely implicated in this case.Accused/appellant.Injured Kavita (PW/1) is daughter-in-law of accused/appellants.She wants some agricultural land from accused/appellants, when they refused to give the agricultural land, she tried to commit suicide and implicated the appellants falsely in the present case.Evidence of Kavita (PW/1) is not reliable.There are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses as the alleged story is not natural.Although, she denied the suggestion that she demanded two acres of agricultural land from the accused/appellants, but his brother Dharmendra (PW/3) & Anil (PW/4) admitted in the cross- examination that Kavita (PW/1) told him that she demanded two acres of agricultural land from accused/appellants.Anil (PW/4) and Jamir Mansuri (PW/7) are the chance witnesses.According to them, they reached the spot on the next day of the incident.There are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of these witnesses also, so evidence of these witnesses is not reliable.Kailash (PW/2), Dharmendra (PW/3) deposed before the trial Court that appellants have given poisonous substance to injured Kavita (PW/1).Although, Radha (PW/6) deposed before the trial Court that she came to know that her daughter consumed poisonous substance, but later on she deposed that appellants have given poisonous substance to her daughter Kavita (PW/1).Dr. Ashok Kumar (PW/9) and Dr. Prashant Deshpandey (PW/12) examined Kavita (PW/1), but they did not Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 11/09/2019 18:02:56 3 CRA-6024-2019 opine that life of injured Kavita (PW/1) is in danger.So, there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses.Accused/appellants produced Bramh Singh (DW/1) as defence witness.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 11/09/2019 18:02:56 4 CRA-6024-2019 A.Praj.Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 11/09/2019 18:02:56
|
['Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,319,873 |
This petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashment of FIR and consequential proceedings of crime No. 105/12 alleging offence punishable under sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. against the petitioner.Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard.During pendency of this petition filed under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner and Complainant/respondent No.2 have jointly filed application stating that the dispute between the parties has been resolved and they are not inclined to pursue the matter any more.By the rival parties, application has been filed on 17/11/2015 bearing I.A. No. 9909/15 informing about parties having entered into compromise with no intention to pursue the matter further.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,329,829 |
The prosecution case, in nutshell, can be summarized as under:Accused-Madhukar S/o Shankar Margulwar lodged a report at Aheri Police Station on 01.02.2000 stating therein that he was inhabitant of Devalmari and was working as labour.Thus, there was enmity between Vyankati Madavi and the deceased-Vasanta Soyam.Deceased-Vasanta Soyam had once beaten Vyankati Madavi.On 31.01.2020, at about 8 to 9 p.m. while he alongwith his wife Bakkubai were warming themselves by igniting fire in the hearth in the verandah of their house, deceased-Vasanta Soyam alongwith PW6-Shriniwas Telangwar approached to the house of PW5-Shantabai Raut which was adjacent to the house of the accused.Thereafter, they both came to the house of the accused in inebriated condition.Deceased- Vasanta Soyam had burning stick with him and he assaulted::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 3 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt by means of that stick to the accused, and therefore, his wife intervened.On this, deceased-Vasanta Soyam pushed her and therefore the accused got enraged.He took out the knife kept in the verandah and assaulted deceased-Vasanta Soyam, due to which deceased-Vasanta Soyam fell down in the courtyard of PW5-Shantabai Raut.Thereafter, the accused immediately proceeded to Aheri Police Station and reported the matter to the Police.On the basis of his complaint PW4-ASI Agewar registered a crime and referred the papers to the Police Station, Devalmari.ORAL JUDGMENT :-This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 39/2000, convicting the appellant (hereinafter referred to as "the accused" for the sake of brevity) for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code instead of for the offence under Section::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 2 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of three years.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::On receiving those papers, PW9-Addl.S.P. Navinchandra Datta Reddy registered the offence vide Crime No.2/2000 against the informant Madhukar i.e. accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::4. PW9-Addl.S.P. Navinchandra Reddy visited the place of incident and recorded spot panchnama (Exh.22), so also he recorded inquest panchnama (Exh.23).He seized the articles lying on the spot vide seizure memo (Exh.27).He shifted the dead body of deceased-Vasanta Soyam to the Hospital for autopsy.While in custody, the accused showed willingness before panch that he would discover knife from his house vide memorandum panchnama (Exh.24).The accused led the police and panchas to his house and produced the knife::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 4 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt which he had kept below the roof of his house, which was seized under seizure memo (Exh.25).The statement of the witnesses were recorded.After completing the formal investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aheri.The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.The learned trial Judge after recording the evidence and hearing both the sides convicted the accused, as aforesaid.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::I have heard Shri P.J. Mehta, Advocate h/f Shri V.N. Morande, Advocate for the accused and Shri S.D. Sirpurkar, learned APP for the State.With their able assistance, I have gone through the record and proceedings of the case.The learned Advocate P.J. Mehta, vehemently argued that the learned trial court has not assessed the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses in its proper perspective and has erroneously convicted the accused.Per contra, the learned APP supported the judgment passed by the trial court and submitted that the trial court has properly assessed the evidence of the witnesses and has rightly convicted the accused.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::5 APEAL.66-2008The prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses.Although the case of the prosecution is based on the direct evidence, the eye witness PW5-Shantabai Raut as well as PW6- Shriniwas Telangwar did not support the case of the prosecution.Although, they were declared hostile by the prosecution, nothing adverse has been elicited by the learned APP from their cross-examination.Thus, there is absolutely no substantive evidence on the point of incident.So far as the testimony of PW1-Baburao Pochalu Soyam, PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam & PW3- Sau.Chhaya Ramesh Karpe is concerned, it is hearsay in nature.The evidence of PW1-Baburao Soyam shows that during the night hours while he was at home, he came to know that the accused assaulted deceased-Vasanta Soyam by means of knife.The testimony of PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam, who is the wife of deceased-Vasanta Soyam demonstrates that while she was in the field on the day of incident, she heard the cry of one Surekha (not examined) who is the sister of her husband.On hearing the said cry, she rushed towards that place.Surekha was found near the house of PW5-Shantabai Raut.PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam noticed the dead body of her husband at that place.Surekha::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 6 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt informed her that the accused assaulted her husband by means of knife.Her cross-examination shows that there were 10 to 12 houses in between her house and the house of PW5-Shantabai Raut.It further shows that her husband had good relations with the accused.Thus, the testimony of PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam does not throw any light on the aspect of the incident that when she reached at the place of incident on hearing the cries of Surekha, she found the dead body of her husband deceased- Vasanta Soyam near the house of PW5-Shantabai Raut.Thus, the testimony of PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam is hearsay in nature.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::It is worthwhile to note that the prosecution had failed to examine Surekha, who was the sister of deceased- Vasanta Soyam and who was the alleged eye witness to the incident, for the reasons best known to the prosecution.The testimony of Surekha would have certainly thrown light on the aspect of the alleged incident.As stated by PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam, it appears that the relations between the accused and deceased were cordial and good.The witnesses had not supported the case of the prosecution and although they were declared hostile, nothing adverse is elicited from their::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 7 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt cross-examination.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::Even the evidence of PW3- Sau.Chhaya Karpe, indicates that deceased-Vasanta Soyam was her brother-in-law i.e. sister's husband.She was residing in the house of deceased- Vasanta Soyam, as she was unmarried at that time.In the evening, deceased-Vasanta Soyam returned back to home, after attending the labour work.She served meals to him.At that point of time, one PW6-Shriniwas Telangwar visited their house and took away the deceased-Vasanta Soyam with him.After 2 to 3 hours, she left the house and proceeded to the field to inform her sister, who is the wife of the deceased-Vasanta Soyam that deceased-Vasanta Soyam was taken away.At that time, she heard the cry.She then improved her version by saying that while returning from the field, she as well as the wife of deceased PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam heard the cry raised by Surekhabai (not examined) who is the sister of the deceased.When they reached to the place of the incident they found Surekha was crying there.They also found dead body of deceased-Vasanta Soyam.Thus, PW3- Sau.Chhaya Karpe is silent on the aspect of presence of the accused at the place of incident or the manner in which the incident had taken place.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::PW2-Jayabai Vasanta Soyam & PW3- Sau.Chhaya Ramesh Karpe does not throw any light on the aspect of the incident and it shows that they reached to the place of incident after the incident had taken place.As discussed above, PW5-Shantabai Raut and PW6- Shriniwas Telangwar are the hostile eye witnesses and PW4-ASI Mukhru Vistari Agewar & PW7- HC Sanjay Ashokrao Santoshwar are the police witnesses.The testimony of PW8-Girma Durga Talandi shows that police recorded the spot panchnama (Exh.22) in his presence, so also inquest panchnama (Exh.23) was also recorded.The accused-Madhukar showed his willingness to point out the place where he has kept the knife.Accordingly, memorandum panchnama (Exh.24) was drawn.No doubt, the testimony of PW8-Girma Durga Talandi shows that at the instance of accused the knife was::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 9 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt seized from the house of accused.However, such evidence can be treated as corroborative piece of evidence and in the absence of substantive piece of evidence, the said evidence is of no assistance to the prosecution case.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::It is not disputed that the deceased-Vasanta Soyam died homicidal death.With regard to the confession made by the accused vide F.I.R. (Exh.48), an useful reference can be made to the judgment reported in (1994) 2SCC 467 in the case of::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 10 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt Bherusingh vs.State of Rajasthan, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed thus:-::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::The::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 ::: 12 APEAL.66-2008 JUDGMENT.odt other facts disclosed in the FIR are in nature of confession made to the police which cannot be used against the appellant.Thus, the FIR lodged by the accused is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used against the appellant.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::Hence the following order would meet the ends of justice.(2) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.12.2007 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Gadchiroli in Sessions Case No. 39/2000 for the offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed and set aside.::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.( MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, J.) S.D.Bhimte::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 02/03/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 23/03/2020 07:10:09 :::
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
92,332,247 |
Arguments heard upon I.A.No.11630/2019 filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.It is stated that previously the appellant filed M.Cr.C.No.47283/2018 under section 372 of CrPC for grant of leave to file the appeal and the aforesaid MCRC was decided on 8th May, 2019; wherein the Court dismissed the aforesaid leave to file the appeal and liberty was granted to file an appeal under the proviso of Section 372 of CrPC.The State formally opposed the application.Looking to the reasons assigned, the prayer is allowed and the delay is condoned.Also heard upon the admission.By the aforesaid judgment, the learned lower Court acquitted respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 for the offence under section 307 (double count) of IPC, alternatively under section 307/34 (double count) of IPC, 323/34 (double count) of IPC and convicted them for the offence under section 324/34 (double count) of IPC, 324 of IPC and 323 (double count) of IPC and awarded the sentence of 2 years RI, 2 years RI and 1 year RI.respectively with fine of Rs.2000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.1000/-, with default stipulations.As per complainant Santosh Kumar/appellant, the offence was Digitally signed by TRUPTI GUNJAL Date: 31/07/2019 11:16:31 2 CRA-5294-2019 registered under section 307 of IPC and the charge under section 307 of IPC was also framed but the trial court committed mistake by acquitting the respondents for the offence under section 307 of IPC.As per appellant, Shubham sustained grievous injuries on his right hand.Victim Santosh also sustained incised injury on the right elbow.The lower Court erroneously acquitted all the accused persons from the offence under section 307 of IPC.The trial court over-looked the fact that all victims sustained several grievous injuries and as their medical conditions were not good, they were referred to higher center for saving their lives.Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment dated 29.9.2018 be set aside and the respondents be convicted for the offence under section 307 of IPC.We have heard the parties and perused the record.It appears from the record that the medical reports Ex.P.14 to Ex.P.17 have been proved by the prosecution.As per the aforesaid medical reports, victim Naval Singh sustained only one incised wound of 2.5 cm x 1 cm x 3/4 cm size upon his left arm-pit caused by sharp object.Victim Shubham Singh also sustained one incised wound caused by sharp-object upon his index finger measuring 8 mm x 1 mm x 1 mm.The trial court also mentioned the aforesaid fact in Para 12 of the impugned judgment and in Para 13, it is also mentioned that the x-ray plate, which was submitted with the challan, is not related to any victim because the names of Govind and Bahadur Singh are mentioned upon the aforesaid x-ray plate.The "grievous hurt" has been defined in Section 320 of IPC.No any ground is found for admission of the appeal.Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,233,225 |
During the incident, three persons sustained injuries.We make it clear that if the petitioners are not arrested within three weeks from this date, they shall surrender before the proper court, as charge-sheet has been submitted, by the next week thereafter.The application for anticipatory bail, is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,052,794 |
By judgment dated 11.06.2008, the trial Court acquitted the accused 6 to 20 from all the charges, however, convicted the accused 1 to 5 and sentenced them as follows:2.The brief facts of the case, are as follows:-At that time, the accused party A1 to A20 also came to the said Temple for conducting some other marriage.At that time, when A1 objectedhttp://www.judis.nic.in to park the van belonging to P.W.1's party, there was a wordy quarrel arose 3 between them.Due to which, the accused abused P.W.1 by uttering his caste name, and hit on his head with iron bar and also beat P.W.12 with stones on the frontal region of his head and A1 repeatedly beat the deceased Wilson @ Williams on his left cheek, right forearm and also caused swelling injuries on the other parts of his body.(ii)A2 assaulted P.W.12 with iron bar on his left wrist and also on the left eye brow.A3 attacked P.W.14 with stick on his left hand elbow.A4 attacked P.W.14 with stick repeatedly on his chin and other parts of the body.A5 attacked P.W.2 with iron rod on his right ear and left hand.The rest of the accused indiscriminately pelted stones on P.W.1's party repeatedly.The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-72U 5748, which belongs to P.W.1's party was also damaged in the alleged occurrence.P.W.20, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence on 07.09.2003 and inhttp://www.judis.nic.in the presence of witnesses, he prepared Observation Mahazar and 4 Rough Sketch, which are marked as Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.23 respectively.P.W.20 recovered M.O.5 series (9 block stones), examined the witnesses and recorded their statements.After the death of the deceased, the offence has been altered to one under Section 302 IPC along with other offences, which is marked as Ex.P.W.20 conducted inquest on the body of the deceased.P.24 is the inquest report.P.15 is the requisition for conducting postmortem on the body of the deceased.On 09.09.2003, P.W.20 arrested A1 and A3 and recorded their confession statements.Pursuant to their confession statements, P.W.20 recovered one rusted iron rod and stick.Thereafter, sent A1 and A3 to judicial custody.On 10.09.2003, on the basis of confession given by A1 and A3, P.W.20, examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements and came to know that 13 more accused were involved in the case and on 12.09.2003, he arrested rest of the accused and remanded them to judicial custody.Accused Convicted under Sections Punishment A1 304(2) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year A1 325 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.A1 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.A2 324 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months.A2 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.A3 to A5 323 IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this appeal.P.W.1 and other injured witnesses were admitted in Sankarankovil Government Hospital for treatment.The deceased Wilson @ Williams, who was in unconscious condition was admitted in Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital.Based on the said incident, P.W.1 lodged a complaint, which is marked as Ex.(iii)P.W19 Inspector of Sernthamaram Police Station, has registered a case in Crime No.235 of 2003 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323 and 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, which is marked as Ex.After completion of investigation, he filed a final report against all the accused.(iv)P.W.18, Medical Officer, attached to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli, had treated P.W.1 Gunasekaran and found the following injuries:(i)Lacerated injury of 2x1x1 cm on the crown of the head.(ii)Contution of 1x1x1 cm – 4 cm below the first injury and the injury was simple in nature.(v)On the same day, P.W.18 examined P.W.2, who also reported that hehttp://www.judis.nic.in was assaulted in the same manner and on examining him, the following 5 injuries noted:(i)Contusion of 5x4 cm below the right ear.(ii)The injured reported he had pain on the left shoulder and the injuries sustained by him were simple in nature.(vi)On the same day, he also treated P.W.12 and he was in unconscious state and his friend reported that he was assaulted by 10 known persons with stones, rod and stick and on examining him, found the following injuries:(i)A Lacerated injury of 4x2xbone depth on the crown of the head.(ii)A Lacerated injury of 2x1x1 cm – 3 cm below the first injury.(iii)A Lacerated injury of 1x1/2x1 cm – 6 cms below the left hand wrist.(iv)An Abrasion of 1x1 cm on the outer region of left eye brow and a lacerated injury of 2x1x1 cm on the left front head and thereafter he was referred to Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital and issued Ex.P.18 Accident Register-cum- Wound Certificate, as three injuries sustained by him were grievous and others were simple.(vii)P.W.18 further deposed P.W.13 and found the following injuries:(i)An abrasion of 6x4 cm below right eye.(ii)An abrasion of 2x2 cm in the centre of left thigh.(iii)An abrasion of 1x1 cm and right shoulder and the injuries were simple.(viii)P.W.18 also examined P.W.14 and found the following injuries:(i)Contusion of 4x4 cm at the left elbow affecting the movement.(ii)A Lacerated injury of 2x1x1 cm on the lower chin and he reported pain over the body and the injuries were simple in nature.(ix)P.W.5 Dr.Adimoolam is the Doctor of Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased Wilson and found the following injuries:External Injury: Contusion: A diffuse contusion over the back of right forearm – 18x4 cm., in size noted.Upper an lower eyelids of left eye found swollen and black in colour.Abrasions: 1)on the left cheek – 4x3 cm., in size.- just lateral to an and below the level of left eye.2)Horizontally oblique abrasion – 9x1 cm., in size – upper part of outer aspect of right upper arm.Internal Injury: Subscalpal contusion over the left parieto-occipital region – 17x11 cm., in size noted.Extradural haemorrhage with clots weighing 150 gms., noted over the left cerebral hemisphere.Diffuse subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage noted over both cerebral hemispheres.Linear fracture of left sided middle cranial fossa for a length of 7 cm., noted.” The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury.3.Before the Trial Court, on the side of the appellants, as many as 20 witnesses(P.Ws.1 to 20) were examined and 30 documents (Exs.P1 to P30)http://www.judis.nic.in 7 were marked and 5 Material objects (M.Os.1 to 5) were marked.On the side of the respondent/accused, neither a witness nor a document has been filed.4.Though 20 witnesses were put on trial, the trial Court has acquitted A6 to A20 and found that A1 to A5 guilty of charges under Sections 304(2), 325 and 323 IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra.5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the case of the prosecution is highly doubtful and the accused have been implicated at later point of time and after due deliberation, counter case has been registered against the accused and the same has not been investigated by the same Investigating Officer.He further submitted that the accused and the witnesses were not known to each other and when they met together at the time of marriage in the Temple where the alleged occurrence took place.The FIR registered against the accused created a serious doubt about the entire prosecution.However, though the counter case said to have been registered subsequently, the serial number of the FIR in the present case, has been registered subsequent to the counter case and no identification parade has been conducted.Since the entire prosecution is highly doubtful, the accused are entitled to acquittal.http://www.judis.nic.in 8Merely because, identification parade has not been conducted, the same cannot be a ground to acquit the accused.7.It is curious to note that there was a case and counter registered against both the parties.The prosecution party went to conduct the marriage in the Temple and parked their vehicle in blocking the pathway.Similarly, the accused party also came to the same Temple for conducting another marriage and A1 appears to have questioned the prosecution party to remove the vehicle.It is to be noted that though the prosecution has relied upon the witnesses, from the version of P.Ws.1 and 2 and 12 to 20, it could be seen that the entire occurrence has taken place due to the wordy altercation between two groups over parking of the vehicle.Admittedly, there was a case and counter registered against both sides.The said fact is not disputed.The evidence of P.W.1 clearly indicates that for the first time, they saw the accused only in the temple and obviously, they never met the accused before the occurrence took place.When that being the position, the first FIR indicates that the details about the accused with their names given by the prosecution party, which resulted in the deliberation of the above theory of defence is fortified by the fact that though the prosecution claims that counterhttp://www.judis.nic.in case against the accused is registered subsequently, the FIR 9 containing the serial number is B431484, in the counter case, which is not disputed, whereas, the present FIR (Ex.P.21) clearly shows that the serial number is B431485 comes after the serial number, in which, the counter case has been registered.The above facts clearly indicate that Ex.P.20 came to be registered at later point of time, with much deliberation.This fact further fortified the fact that the FIR has been registered with a delay of 9 ½ hours, which has not been properly explained by the prosecution.Though the evidence of P.W.2 indicates that the accused was not known to him.Further indicates that only on the next day, he told the names of the accused to the Deputy Superintendent of Police.In the evidence of P.W.1, it is seen that on enquiry, he told that he knew A1 to A5 and he did not know the other accused.When that being the position, the names of the accused in the FIR (E.P.21) is highly doubtful.The same clearly indicates that the FIR (Ex.P.21) is the result of deliberation.No doubt, the injured viz., Wilson @ William succumbed to injury on the same day.It is also to be noted that the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation has not investigated the counter case and only the Inspector of Police has conducted the investigation.The evidence of P.W.1 about the identification of the accused, is also highly doubtful.They are not known to each other prior to the alleged occurrence.The accused party is from the different village, which is far away from the place of occurrence and the accused party also from different village.Therefore, when there is no identification parade conducted, the witnesses identified the accused is highly doubtful.At anyhttp://www.judis.nic.in event, the very genesis of the occurrence is doubtful, in view of the 10 difference of serial number found between the two FIRs, the possibility of implicating as many as accused in the present FIR at the belated stage cannot be ruled out.8.In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed.The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.29 of 2004 on 11.06.2008 against the appellants/accused is set aside.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
9,405,719 |
The simplest way to harass is to get the husbandand his relatives arrested under this provision.Nearly a quarterof those arrested under this provision in 2012 were women i.e. 47,951 whichdepicts that mothers and sisters of the husbands were liberally included intheir arrest net.2.Petitioner happens to be the husband of respondent no. 2 Sweta Kiran.His attempt to secureanticipatory bail has failed and hence he has knocked the door of this Courtby way of this Special Leave Petition.3.Leave granted.4.In sum and substance, allegation levelled by the wife against the appellantis that demand of air-Rupees eight lacs, a maruti car, an conditioner,television set etc. was made by her mother-in-law and father-in-law and whenthis fact was brought to the appellant?s notice, he supported his mother andthreatened to marry another woman.It has been alleged that she was drivenout of the matrimonial home due to non-fulfilment of the demand of dowry.5.Denying these allegations, the appellant preferred an application foranticipatory bail which was earlier rejected by the learned Sessions Judgeand thereafter by the High Court.17.By order dated 31st of October, 2013, this Court had granted provisionalbail to the appellant on certain conditions.We make this order absolute.18.In the result, we allow this appeal, making our aforesaid order dated 31stOctober, 2013 absolute; with the directions aforesaid."2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
940,576 |
1.This is an application in revision against an order of the Sessions Judge, Allahabad, upholding an order of a first class Magistrate lodging a complaint against the applicant under Section 193, Penal Code.2 In 1948, Abdul Hakim filed a complaint under Section 323, Penal Code against the applicant Mohammad Farooq and others.During its pendency, Abdul Hakim, the applicant and the other accused of that case executed an agreement, dated 6th May 1943, referring the dispute between them to Maulvi Tufail Ahmad for arbitration.It is signed by Abdul Hakim, the applicant and the other accused of that case.The award was acted upon and Abdul Hakim got his complaint dismissed.In 1948 the police prosecuted the applicant and six others in a criminal Court.When it comes on the applicant's being put on trial, it will be for the prosecution to consider whether to produce any evidence to prove that the applicant made the deposition as recorded.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,058,776 |
M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19Accordingly, a raiding team was constituted and at the instance of the informer, the premises at Village Pooth Kalan, Delhi was raided.He further disclosed that one Bijender Chikara would be sending the answer key of morning shift examination through SMS.Thereafter, a SMS was received from the mobile of Bijender Chikara containing e-mail and password of the same.Another SMS from mobile No.9310441200 was received by Ajeet son of Devi Singh having email and password in respect of another key.The said mails were accessed on the laptop available in the room and the question paper uploaded on the email was printed out.The attachment consisted of 27 papers having code Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19 011kpo-Part-A on front page containing 200 multiple questions.The said question papers were counter checked and verified from Examination Centre at Govt. Co-Ed Senior Secondary School, Sector 11, Rohini and the same question paper was found which was circulated to the candidates.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 3 of 19The prosecution has taken the printout of the question papers from the printer installed at the spot.Mobile phones, two laptops and one printer of Canon alongwith slips containing names of candidates, etc. were also seized.Thereafter the case was registered at Police Station Crime Branch, Delhi vide FIR No. 73/2013 under Section 120- B read with Sections 408, 420, 468, 471, 201, 511, 34 of IPC and Section 66 of I.T. Act. Nine persons found at the spot were arrested, when they were in the process of receiving question paper and answer keys for solving the paper.Subsequently, specific recoveries were affected from all the nine accused persons.Ashu Sharma, one of the arrested person disclosed about Bijender Chikara working as LDC in MCD Office at Sector 5, Rohini, who can arrange question paper of SSC Combined Graduate level examination to be held on 21.04.2013 for both the shifts and the same can be sent through email at the cost of Rs.3.5 lac.During investigation, it was revealed that Ajit was assigned to manage a place for execution of conspiracy and his friend Sushil was to arrange one house on rent.Ravinder was sent to Sushil for taking house on rent.Thereafter, the rent agreement was executed and all the Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19 accused persons assembled at the rented accommodation in Pooth Kalan, Delhi.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 4 of 19The origin of the paper leak has to be ascertained from the accused.The examination centre, out of the various centres in Delhi, NCR, from where the paper was leaked has to be ascertained and identified.The involvement of the large number of students in the racket who have benefited from the leakage is also to be identified and ascertained at the instance of the accused/respondent.Electronic gadgets of the accused including cell phone, data cards or laptops, computer used etc., are to be recovered which are of utmost evidentiary value.P.S.TEJI, J.The aforesaid four petitions have been preferred by the State primarily for the purpose of cancelling the anticipatory bail granted to the accused - Sushil Kumar, Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar vide order dated 06.08.2013 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.However, petitioner - Vikram Dahiya has been granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 13.11.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Rohini, Delhi.Since the cause of action as well as facts of all the aforesaid four petitions are same and the accused persons have been granted Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 2 of 19 anticipatory bail on the ground of parity with the main accused, who has already been granted bail in the present case, therefore the same were heard together and are being disposed of together.During investigation, it was revealed that the URL logs, as provided by the franchisee Gaurav Bhardwaj were logged into the Gmail accounts at the time of uploading the SSC CGL 2013 question paper by the persons named - Pawan Kumar, Ashish Kumar, Sarvesh Saroha and Ashok Arya.During investigation, it was also revealed that the internet connection of world Phone Internet Connection was being used at his shop for customer complaints and subsequently used by Ashish Kumar, Pawan Kumar and their relative Vikram Dahiya on weekends.The said fact was confirmed on the basis of the frequent cell phone conversation which took place amongst them as detailed in the call detail records of the said accused.The suspect/accused in conspiracy with Vikram Dahiya had facilitated his premises and his internet connection knowingly as to circulate the leaked SSC CGL 2013 question paper for monetary gains.During further investigation, disclosure statement of accused Bijender Chikara, analysis of mobile phone call detail records of arrested accused and Vikram Dahiya, Sushil Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Ashish Kumar (respondents herein) were found to be having direct nexus in conspiracy.While arguing the present petitions, Mr. Vinod Diwakar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended that the offences are not only serious but are targeted towards causing loss to Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19 the public at large as the case relates to the leakage of question paper of Combined Graduate Level Examination 2013, illegal solving of the paper and then supplying the answers through answer keys, to the candidates appearing in the exam.It is further contended that none of the accused have direct relation to exam governing agency i.e. SSC, still the question paper and respective keys came in hands of the accused persons and there is every possibility of such leak with different examination centres where the question papers were supplied by SSC.It is further submitted that the question paper was leaked only after the question paper reached the examination centres and before the actual time of the start of the examination i.e. about 1.5 hours before the examination.Therefore, there is every possibility of involvement of school authorities and their officials, i.e. Principals, teachers, etc. in the said offence.It is further contended that the conspiracy is hatched by a group of several persons divided into several groups acting as an organized gang for the said purpose.Some of them procured the question paper, some arranged the prospective competitors, and some arranged their meeting and some solved the question paper.The racket was well organised in the way that they had even obtained mobile phones on fake and fictious identities.The chain of circumstances in between are turning and are woven in such a manner that tampering at any stage will make the efforts to unearth the conspiracy, almost impossible.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 5 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that till the time of granting the bail by the learned Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19 Additional Sessions Judge, the respondents/accused persons were absconding and non-bailable warrants were also issued qua their arrest but it was not taken into consideration by the concerned Court.Apprehension of respondents in manipulating and tampering with the crucial and sensitive evidence has been raised, and it has been submitted that the respondents were members of a well organized racket involved in leakage of question paper, therefore, they are not entitled to have the benefit of anticipatory bail.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 6 of 19Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further drew attention of this Court to the impugned order in which the respondents were granted anticipatory bail on the ground of parity.In this regard, it is contended that the co-accused persons in the case were not granted anticipatory bail and rather they were given regular bail after remaining in custody for more than 60 days and that too, after filing of the initial charge sheet wherein the factum of the respondents absconding was clearly mentioned which resulted in issuance of NBWs against the respondents by the Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further contended that one of the co-accused namely Vikram Dahiya having been denied anticipatory bail by the District Court had approached this Court for bail, but the same was also denied vide order dated 23.07.2013 passed in Bail Appl.No.1260/2013, wherein this Court had directed the accused to surrender before the concerned Court.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State further Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19 contended that the custodial interrogation of the respondents is necessary for providing the following vital and important information:-M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 7 of 19The call detail records (CDR logs) have to be confronted with the accused for further identification of the person involved in the conspiracy.The IP logs also are required to be confronted with the accused.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 8 of 19Hide outs of the co-accused at Jind, Gannaur, Sonepat and other places are to be visited with the accused in custody.The sustained interrogation of the accused/ respondent is required to be conducted which is necessary to unearth and expose the entire conspiracy behind the racket of leaking the concerned question paper.It has specifically been mentioned in the order of learned Additional Session Judge that the respondent shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer and shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Saturday of English Calendar month.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Sushil Kumar that in view of the directions of learned Additional Session Judge, the respondent remained present at the office of the Investigating Officer on 10th August 2013 from 9AM to 7 PM, but no one in the office entertained the respondent.In this regard, the respondent had sent a written communication regarding his physical Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19 presence to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.It is further contended that the respondent remained physically present at the office of Investigating Officer on 17.8.2013 from 11 AM to 6 PM but he was not entertained and the written communication about his physical presence was conveyed to the Investigating Officer through courier on the same day.Similar was the position on 24th August 2013, when the respondent remained present in the office of Investigating Officer from 10 am to 5.30 pm.Respondent again visited the office of Investigating Officer on 3rd September 2013, 7th September 2013 and 14th September 2013, but he was not entertained.Counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dolat Ram & Others v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) CC Cases 66 (SC) in support of his submissions and submitted that the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during trial.Counsel for the respondent further contended that there is no averment in the petition filed by the State that the respondent has not joined investigation and did not cooperate with the Investigating Officer; or has mentioned that the respondent had tampered with evidence or pressurised or intimidated any witnesses or that the bail order had been obtained fraudulently, therefore, the petition filed by the State deserves to be outrightly dismissal.Counsel for the respondent further contended that the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent cannot be cancelled as the State failed to make out a Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19 case for interference in the order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge under Section 438 of Cr.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 9 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 10 of 19M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19 respondent did not appear before the Investigating Officer in compliance of the directions passed by learned Additional Session Judge, rather it was the Investigating Officer who was not interested in investigation from the respondent and the interest of the State seems to be to somehow take the respondent into custody and to harass him and to ruin his entire life and for such ill motivated and malafide intentions, the petitioner is legally prohibited from seeking cancellation of bail of the respondent.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 11 of 19While arguing the case of the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar, Mr. V. Madhokar, counsel for the respondents contended that in compliance of the directions given by learned Additional Session Judge, the respondents alongwith his surety and advocate visited the office of ACP, Crime Branch, Sector 16, Rohini on 10.08.2013, 17.08.2013 and 24.08.2013 and showed the order of learned Additional Session Judge to mark his presence and allow them to join the investigation, but they were not allowed to join the investigation and they were not even allowed to mark their presence.In support of his contention, counsel for the respondents relied upon the video clipping to show that the respondents had visited the office of the ACP, Crime Branch.Thereafter, the respondents reported the matter of Commissioner of Police and had also apprised the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi as well as to Sessions Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 12 of 19Counsel for the respondents further contended that it is not the seriousness/gravity of the offence only which is to be looked into by the learned Session Judge while entertaining the bail application but the specific role and the involvement of the accused is also to be considered and which the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly looked into and there is no infirmity in the order granting bail to the respondents.Counsel for the respondents further contended that mere issuance of NBWs or filing of charge sheet is no ground to refuse anticipatory bail to the accused.In support of his contention, judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Naturasu and other vs. The State, 1988 CriLJ 1762 and Bharat Choudhary and Anr vs. State of Bihar and Anr, AIR 2003 SC 4662 were relied upon by counsel for the respondents.Counsel for the respondents - Ashish Kumar and Pawan Kumar further contended that the prosecution has given clean chits to the other two accused namely Ashok Arya and Sarvesh Saroha against whom there are almost similar allegations and the prosecution is bent upon to send the respondents in jail.The prosecution has already raided the shop and seized the modem and the computer of the Institute, therefore there is no need of any custodial interrogation to make any recoveries from the respondents.The respondents were granted bail Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19 on parity with the accused who were already granted bail in the case.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 13 of 19On behalf of respondent- Vikram Dahiya, Mr. K.K. Manan, Senior Advocate, apart from the legal principles settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments, contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to the respondent does not call for interference as in compliance thereof, the respondent alongwith his surety and advocate visited the ACP Office, Crime Branch, Sunlight Colony Police Station on 23.11.2013 and the respondent was subjected to sustained and prolonged interrogation by a team consisting of ACP Raja Ram Yadav, Inspector Pawan Kumar, Inspector Surajbhan, one cyber expert and two other officials.The interrogation was conducted in writing and the replies were also given in writing and to a question whether respondent is ready for narco test, it was replied that since he is undergoing treatment for brain tumour, therefore he will consult his doctor.Thereafter the police official left the space blank and obtained the signature of the respondent on the statement.The mobile phone of the respondent was also thoroughly examined by the expert .It is further contended that during the prolonged and sustained interrogation nothing incriminating was Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19 found against the respondent.The learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent - Vikram Dahiya contended that apart from the ground of parity the other main ground of the bail application of the respondent was that no offence under Section 420/468/671/34 of IPC and Section 66 of the IT Act are made out against the respondent even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as its face value and the State has failed to satisfy the learned Additional Session Judge that the offences are made out against the respondent.It is contended on behalf of respondent - Vikram Dahiya that the impugned order is not against proprietary and the learned Additional Session Judge has rightly interpreted and followed the order dated 01.11.2013 passed by this Hon'ble Court.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 14 of 19I have heard the contentions raised by learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as the respective counsel representing the case of the respondents.I have also gone through the impugned order passed by learned Additional Session Judge and also perused the documents placed on record.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 15 of 19The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Abdul Basit Vs.Abdul Kadir Choudhary, (2014)10SCC754 held as under:-Generally the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly, are, (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. These grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive.This Court observes that there is specific averment on behalf of the respondents in their replies to the present petitions that they had approached the Investigating Officer for performing their part of Crl.This Court is of the opinion that at best, the investigating officer should have started the investigation and during investigation, if he would have found any clue of respondents hiding any material information or found some concrete reason for not cooperating the investigation, then it was open for the Investigating Officer to approach the Court passing the order of anticipatory bail in favour of the respondents, for cancellation of the impugned order.The real position is that the State has preferred to take steps to file petition for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondents, rather than to comply with the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge.In view of the aforesaid observations and discussion and in the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Session Judge.Finding no merit in the present petitions filed by the Crl.(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE FEBRUARY 22, 2016 pkb Crl.M.C. No. 4023/2013, 4032/2013, 4033/2013 & 5252/2013 Page 19 of 19
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,063,053 |
In default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.In short the prosecution case is that on 15.11.1995, at about 12.00 O'clock in the day, Geetabai, a young girl of about 14-15 years of age, went to answer the call of nature in the field of Meharban Singh.Hearing her shrieks after some time, her brother Kamal Singh and mother Sumantrabai rushed 2 towards her and saw accused grappling with her with intent to outrage her modesty.When Kamal Singh shouted at accused, he dealt knife blows in the chest and hand of Geetabai due to which she fell down unconscious and accused ran away.Kamal Singh with the help of Mohan Singh and Phool Singh carried Geetabai in a tractor to Police Station, Bankhedi, but near village Umardha she died.Kamal Singh (PW-1), the brother of deceased stated that at about 12.00 O'clock when he, his father and sister Geetabai came back to their house from the field, his sister went to answer the call of nature in the field of Meharban Singh.After some time, he heard her crying.When he and his mother Sumantrabai rushed towards the place from where they heard cries, he saw appellant scuffling with Geetabai.When he shouted as to what he was doing, appellant dealt a knife blow in the abdomen of Geetabai and ran away.Geetabai fell down unconscious.According to this witness, though he tried to nab the appellant, but he escaped.Per: Rakesh Saksena, J.Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 30th June 2004 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sohagpur, district Hoshangabad in Sessions Trial No.213/2003 convicting him under Section 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-.Kamal Singh lodged first information report (Ex.P/1) at Police Station, Bankhedi.Police registered a case under Sections 354 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.After inquest, dead body of Geetabai was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Bankhedi.Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-11) conducted postmortem examination and found stab and incised injuries on her body.4. Accused absconded.Charge sheet was filed in the year 1996 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate in his absence and arrest warrants were issued.On 31.3.2003, after arrest of accused, the case was committed for trial.On framing charges, accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity.According to him, complainant wanted to grab his land, therefore, he involved him in a false case.Learned Additional Sessions Judge, relying mainly on the evidence of eyewitnesses Kamal Singh (PW-1) and Sumantrabai (PW-10) and finding their evidence corroborated by other evidence including the medical evidence of Dr.A.K. Verma (PW-11), held the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, appellant has preferred this appeal.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial judge 3 misappreciated the evidence of eyewitnesses who were close relatives of the deceased.According to her, none of the witnesses, who purported to be the eyewitnesses, saw the incident.In the alternative, learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances it could not be held that appellant intended to commit murder of the deceased.In a sudden commotion, while running away, he inflicted a single blow by knife on the deceased, which resulted in her death.Therefore, at the most, he could be held liable under Section 304-I or 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that from the evidence of eyewitnesses it was clearly established that it was appellant who dealt knife blows to deceased with the intention to cause her death.He justified the finding of conviction of appellant recorded by the trial court.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully.It has not been disputed that Geetabai died of a homicidal death.Kamal Singh (PW-1) and Sumantrabai (PW-10) categorically stated that appellant caused injuries to Geetabai with a knife.Mohan Singh (PW-6), Kallu Singh (PW-7), Phool Singh (PW-3) also stated that immediately after the occurrence they came to know that appellant caused injuries to Geetabai with a knife, as a result of which she died.Investigating officer conducted inquest proceedings before the aforesaid witnesses and sent the body of Geetabai for postmortem examination.Dr. A.K. Verma (PW-11) conducted postmortem examination and found following injuries on the body of Geetabai:Penetrating wound 3 x1/2x1/2" on left side of chest below fifth rib.Incised wound 1x1/2x1/2" on dorsal aspect of left hand.Abrasion 1 x 1/2" on lateral aspect of left knee.Abrasion 1 x 1" on right knee, interior aspect.On internal examination, he found that there was a penetrating wound on the left chest cutting pericardium and heart.Left lung was also injured.The injury on the chest could have been caused by sharp penetrating object.The death of deceased was caused due to shock because of excessive haemorrhage and syncope.The death was homicidal.Postmortem report (Ex.P/15) was signed by him.From the aforesaid evidence, it is established beyond doubt that deceased died a homicidal death.In the meanwhile, Mohan Singh, Phool Singh and Kallu Singh also reached there.They took Geeta to their house and then carried her in a tractor to Bankhedi, but near Umardha she died.He lodged a report at Police Station, Bankhedi.The evidence of this witness stood corroborated by the first information report (Ex.P/1) lodged by him at 4.20 pm.His evidence further stood corroborated by the evidence of Sumantrabai (PW-10), Mohan Singh (PW-5) and Phool Singh (PW-3).Sumantrabai (PW-10) reiterated the same story stating that when she heard cries of her daughter, she and Kamal Singh rushed towards the field of Meharban Singh and saw appellant inflicting injuries to Geetabai with a knife.She also saw appellant running towards Narmada river.Learned counsel for the appellant stated that 5 this witness admitted that when she reached at the spot, Geetabai was lying unconscious.This indicated that she in fact did not see the incident of assault.We are unable to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant since Sumantrabai categorically stated that she saw appellant assaulting Geetabai with knife.There is nothing wrong in her saying that when she reached at the spot she found Geetabai lying unconscious.She categorically stated that she saw appellant from a distance of about 35-40 feet.This witness also accepted the suggestion that there was no past enmity with the appellant.Mohan Singh (PW-6), another brother of deceased, stated that hearing hue and cry at the field, he also reached at the spot and saw appellant running away with a knife.According to him, on the spot Sumantrabai told to him that appellant ran away after assaulting Geetabai.He, however, could not say as to for what reason appellant assaulted Geetabai.He also accompanied Kamal Singh on the tractor while carrying Geetabai to police station.From his evidence, it is apparent that he did not see the actual assault, but he reached at the spot immediately after the occurrence and saw deceased lying unconscious and Sumantrabai and Kamal Singh sitting there.He stated that Sumantrabai and Kamal Singh told to him that appellant caused knife injuries to Geetabai.Phool Singh (PW-3), who was declared hostile, admitted that when he reached at the spot, Kamal Singh and his mother informed him that appellant assaulted deceased with knife.The evidence of Kamal Singh (PW-1) and Sumantrabai (PW-10) appears cogent, consistent and trustworthy.Though some omissions were pointed out in the statement of Kamal Singh (PW-1), but they did not appear to be material.Merely because he mentioned in the first information report that appellant dealt knife injury in the abdomen of deceased whereas the injury 6 was found on the chest of deceased, it did not render the evidence of Kamal Singh unreliable.On perusal of spot map (Ex.P/4) it is apparent that the field of Meharban Singh where the incident occurred is visible from the back side of the house of Kamal Singh.Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the eyewitnesses could not have seen the place of occurrence from their house, cannot be accepted.It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that injuries found on the body of deceased could have been caused by a fall on some sharp and pointed object, therefore, it cannot be held that appellant caused the stab injuries.We find no substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant in the absence of any evidence that deceased fell down on any such object.About the recovery of weapon of offence, it is to be noted that after the occurrence appellant absconded.He could be arrested only on 4.4.2002 i.e. after about six years of the occurrence.Though investigating officer recorded a memorandum under Section 27 of the Evidence Act about the recovery of knife given by appellant, but the knife was not recovered.Therefore, the absence of evidence about the weapon of offence does not affect the prosecution case adversely, rather abscondence of the appellant for so many years gives an indication that appellant, with a view to evade arrest, remained out of reach of police.After critically examining and appreciating the evidence of Kamal Singh (PW-1) and Sumantrabai (PW-10) we find that them trustworthy witnesses.Merely because of their being close relatives of deceased, their testimony cannot be discarded.From their evidence, in our opinion, it has been established beyond doubt that appellant attempted to outrage modesty of deceased and when she resisted and shouted, appellant caused injuries to her 7 with knife and thereby caused her death.Learned counsel for the appellant argued that in the facts and circumstances of the case it did not appear that appellant intended to commit the murder of deceased since the circumstances indicated that he merely intended to molest the deceased, but on her shouting and resisting and seeing witnesses approaching there, in a commotion, on spur of the moment, dealt a knife blow to her and ran away.In these circumstances appellant, at the most, could have been held guilty under Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code.Learned counsel for the State submitted that appellant caused two injuries to deceased with knife; one on chest and another on hand, therefore, it cannot be held that the intention of appellant was not to commit the murder of deceased.On perusal of the evidence of Kamal Singh (PW-1) and Sumantrabai (PW-10) it is apparent that there was no past enmity between appellant and the deceased.According to them, on hearing cries of deceased, when they rushed towards her, they saw appellant scuffling with her.Deceased told nothing to these witnesses, but in that situation it was assumed that appellant outraged modesty of deceased.Appellant had a knife in his hand, which might have been for frightening the deceased to make her submit to his demand, but, on the resistance exerted by the deceased and the hue and cry made by her, appellant got excited and just on the spur of moment stabbed deceased on her chest and ran away.None of the aforesaid witnesses stated that appellant repeated the blow.It is true that besides the stab injury on chest an incised injury on the back side of the hand of deceased was also found by the doctor, but it is quite possible that this injury might have been suffered by her in a bid to ward off the blow with her hand.In these circumstances, in our 8 opinion, it cannot be held that appellant intended to commit murder of deceased.It was something like hit and run.However, since the appellant used a weapon like knife and inflicted injury on a vital part of the body like chest and the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, it can be held with certainty that the appellant either intended to cause death or to cause such bodily injury to deceased as was likely to cause her death making him liable to be punished under Section 304-I of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,066,126 |
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties.Despite service of notice no counter affidavit has been filed by private informant Smt. Sangeeta.Heard Sri Atul Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned AGA for the State and perused the material on record.By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 63 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR of the incident was lodged by the mother of the victim on 30.01.2019 against the applicant which was registered under Section 363 and 366 IPC with the allegation that on the fateful day, the daughter of informant went to attend her duties and meanwhile her daughter sleeked away with the applicant.The girl was eventually recovered on 27.02.2019 after almost a month.The 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are self explanatory indicative of the fact that she is in affair with the applicant and on her own she joined the company of the applicant and married with applicant and remained with him as a married couple.As per medical her age is determined as 18 years.He lastly submitted that the applicant is in jail since 27.02.2019 is entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial.Per contra learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that as per school leaving certificate of Angel Public School and her date of birth is 05.07.2003, which was of the 07.02.2019 after lodging of the FIR.Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it to be a fit case for bail.In view of the above, let the applicant- Ratan Kushwaha be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned in case crime no. 63 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Phase-2, Noida, District Gautam Budh Nagar with the following conditions:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
940,676 |
It is this order which has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards the copy of judgment and order dated 24.5,1993 passed by the Judicial Magistrate.Faizabad in Criminal Case No. 2862 of 1990, State v. Mohd. Qasim and others, in which the petitioner was discharged/acquitted of the criminal charges levelled against him in pursuance of the Case Crime No. 96 of 1985 pertaining to police station Bewana.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,070,643 |
In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 1.4.2019 in connection with Bizpore P.S Case No. 137 of 2019 dated 21.3.2019 under sections 448/323/354B/427/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code And Allowed In Re : Abhijit Mukherjee & Ors. ...... petitioners Mr. S. Das Mahapatra ...... for the petitioners Mr. Binay Panda Ms. Puspita Saha ...... for the State It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that there was a dispute amongst family members and they have been falsely implicated in the instant case.Learned lawyer for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail.Having considered the materials in the case diary and bearing in mind the nature of allegations in the light of the aforesaid submission made on behalf of the petitioners and as injuries appearing from the medical papers do not appear to be grievous, we are inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioners Accordingly, we direct that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- each with two sureties of like amount each, to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and also subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) of the Code of 2 Criminal Procedure, 1973 and petitioners shall appear before the court below and pray for regular bail within a fortnight from date.The application being CRM 3725 of 2019 is disposed of.(Manojit Mandal, 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 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,070,768 |
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:Hence, the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind.We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.As could be evidenced from paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention, the detenu's bail application filed in the ground case before learned District Sessions Judge II, Kancheepuram, in C.M.P.No.634 of 2015 was pending as on the date of passing of the detention order.This order is made only towards setting aside the order of detention passed against the detenu herein.Any bail applications moved by the detenu in the ground case or in the adverse case, necessarily would have to be considered by the Court concerned solely on merits uninfluenced by the order of this Court.The detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu Mathew S/o.Sekar, aged about 25 years, made in BCDFGISSSV No.45 of 2015 dated 20.05.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.S.TAMILVANAN,J.AND C.T.SELVAM, J.gm H.C.P.No.1639 of 201522.09.2015
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
940,710 |
a) P.W.1 Adaikalam, who is belonged to Arunthathiyar community, was aresident of Gopalasamudaram.She was working as Sweeper in a School.P.W.3 Doss, P.W.4 Mariammal, P.W.5Parvathy, P.W.6 Sundaresan, P.W.7 Kannan and P.W.8 Rani were the resident ofGopalasamudaram.The accused/appellant was running a tea stall.P.W.1 cameto know about the relationship of the accused with P.W.2 and she warned herdaughter.On20.9.2000, P.W.1 advised her daughter P.W.2 to come early after her work wasover.They were waiting till 1.30 p.m., but P.W.2 did not come backfrom the place of her employment.PW1 went in search of PW2 and she wasinformed that she left the place long back after settling the account.P.W.1accompanied by her sister came to the police station and gave a complaintunder Ex.P.W.3 informed P.W.1 that accused was carrying P.W.2 in hisbicycle.b) P.W.16 Chinnasamy Inspector of Police, Munneerpallam Policestation, on the strength of the complaint under Ex.P.19was despatched to the concerned Court.P.W.16 took up investigation,proceeded to the site of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar underEx.P.2, which was attested by P.W.7 Kannan and one Velu and Ex.P.20 roughsketch.The Investigating Officer examined the witnesses, namely PW1, PW3 toPW7 and recorded their statements.c) The accused was arrested on 23.9.2000 by PW15 Karunanithi, SubInspector of Police.P.W.10 Doctor Sriramkumar, who isworking as Assistant Professor at Tirunelveli Government Medical CollegeHospital, on receipt of intimation from the Head Constable, enquired P.W.2.She informed that she was having relationship with one person for the pastfive years and on 20.9.2000 she went along with the accused.She furtherinformed to the Doctor that for the past six months she was not havingmenstrual cycle; and that on 20.9.2000 the accused married her and also hadsexual intercourse.Index : YesInternet : YesvvkToThe III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, TirunelveliThe III Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelvelithrough the Principal District and Sessions Judge,TirunelveliThe Superintendent, Central Prison, PalayamkottaiThe Public Prosecutor, High Court, MadrasThe Dy.Inspector General of Police, Chennai-4O.Srinath, Govt. Advocate (Criminal side)High Court, MadrasThe Asst.Superintendent of Police,Munneerpallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District.The sole accused, who stood charged, tried under Section 366 I.P.C.and Section 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act and found guilty under Section 3 66 IPCand sentenced to undergo RI for three years along with a fine of Rs.1000/- indefault to undergo six months RI and acquitted for the offence under Section3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act, has brought forth this appeal.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can bestated thus:P.W.10 has taken samples from vaginal part and sent thesame for chemical analysis.Scan was also taken and it was found that P.W.2was in the stage of 21 weeks pregnancy.P.W.10, after making necessarymedical test, has issued certificates under Exs.d) The accused was also subjected to medical test by P.W.11 Dr.P.W.11 examined the accused, issued certificate as to the stateof mind and body condition and certified that he was fit for sexualintercourse.P.11 was the certificate.The blood group certificate wasmarked as Ex.P.W.16 Inspector of Police came to Arunthathiyar colony on24.9.2000 and he examined the witnesses.He examined the Head Master ofGopalasamudaram Pannai Venkatarama Iyer High School.He obtained thecommunity certificate from P.W.13 Nallasivam, the Tahsildar Ambasamudaram.The said certificate was marked as Ex.P.15, wherein it was certified thatP.W.2 belongs to Hindu Arunthathiyar community.P.W.17 Zonal DeputyTahsildar, Ambasamudaram issued Ex.P.2 2 certificate to the effect that theaccused belongs to Hindu Maravar community.On coming to know that P.W.2belongs to scheduled casts, the case was altered to Section 366 IPC along withSection 3(2)(v) of SC and ST Act. The special report Ex.P.21 was despatchedto the concerned court.The entire records have been forwarded to P.W.18,Arun, Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation.In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused/appellant, the prosecution examined 18 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits.Nomaterial objects were marked.On completion of the evidence on the side ofthe prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 31 3 of Cr.P.C. asto the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecutionwitnesses, which he flatly denied as false.No defence witness was examined.After careful consideration of the rival submissions and the scrutiny of thematerials available, the trial court found the accused guilty under Section366 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment as stated above, but theaccused was acquitted of the charges under Section 3(2)(v) of SC & ST Act.Hence, this appeal.Arguing for the appellant, the learned counsel would submit thatthere was a considerable delay in making complaint; that the complaint waswritten by some known person of P.W.1, who was the author of the complaint;that P.W.1 has categorically deposed that she had no knowledge about thecontents of the same; that in Ex.P.1 complaint, the place of occurrence wasnot mentioned; that P.W.2 victim has deposed that she was not forcibly takenby the appellant; that only on the request of the appellant she went alongwith him, and hence, it cannot be termed as kidnapping as understood by theprovisions of I.P.C. It was a case where the victim voluntarily went alongwith the accused, and thus, no ingredients under Section 366 IPC would beattracted.It is pertinent to note that the accused and the victim had closerelationship for a long time and subsequently, the accused married the victimalso.The medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution.Thetrial court having acquitted the accused under Section 3 (2)(v) of SC & STAct, should have acquitted him under Section 366 of IPC also.In view ofnumber of flaws that were found in the case of prosecution and the infirm anddiscrepant evidence, the trial court should have acquitted the accused of thecharges under Section 366 I. P.C, and hence, he is entitled for an acquittalby this Court.Strongly opposing all the contentions put forth by the appellant'sside, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) with vigour andvehemence would submit that the trial court, only on consideration of theevidence, has properly convicted the accused under Section 3 66 I.P.C; that itis true that the accused/appellant was acquitted under Section 3(2)(v) of SC &ST Act, since the same was not proved; that P.W.2 victim has categoricallyspoken to the fact that on the day when the relatives of bridegroom came overthere to see her, she was taken by the accused with an assurance of marryingher; that the fact that the victim was being carried on by the accused in acycle was spoken to by number of witnesses, and thus, the requisiteingredients under Section 366 IPC was clearly proved.The trial court hasalso correctly found the accused guilty under the said provision, and hence,the appeal has got to be dismissed.On a careful consideration of the rival submissions made and thescrutiny of the materials available would lead to a conclusion that thejudgment of the trial court has got to be sustained.Admittedly, the appellant/accused was already known not only tothe victim, but also to the close relatives, who were all examined.P.W.2victim has categorically deposed to the fact that she had a close relationshipwith the accused for nearly about five years; that on the date of occurrence,the relatives of the bridegroom came over to see her; that when she wasproceeding to her employment, namely rolling beedi, she was intercepted by theaccused and that she was taken by the accused in his cycle with an assuranceof marrying her.This fact that on the assurance of marrying her the accusedtook the victim in his cycle is not shaken in the cross examination, thoughthe victim has deposed that she had close relationship with the accused for along number of years.It would be more appropriate to reproduce Section 366of I.P.C.Kidnapping, abducting or including woman to compel hermarriage, etc. - Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that shemay be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled, tomarry any person against her will, or in order that she may be forced orseduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will beforced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonmentof either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall alsobe liable to fine, and whoever by means of criminal intimidation as defined inthis Code or of abuse of authority or any other method of compulsion, inducesany woman to go from any place with intent that she may be, or knowing that itis likely, that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse withanother person shall also be punishable as aforesaid."In the instant case, there is a clear evidence to show that the appellant onthe assurance of marrying the victim has induced her to move from her place tosome other place.Under thestated circumstances, the ingredients under Section 366 was clearly attractedin this case.The trial court was perfectly correct in finding the accusedguilty under Section 366 I. P.C.Coming to the question of sentence, the trial court has awardedsentence of three years RI along with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default sixmonths RI to the accused.Taking into consideration the fact that the victimhad close relationship with the accused earlier and both were living for along time, the Court is of the view that the sentence awarded by the trialcourt under Section 366 IPC to the accused has got to be reduced to 18 monthsRI, which would meet the ends of justice.Therefore, the sentence of threeyears under Section 366 IPC imposed by the lower court to the accused alone isreduced to 18 months RI.In other respect, the judgment of the trial court isconfirmed.The period already undergone by the accused is ordered to be setoff.With the above modification, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,084,874 |
The present appeals seek to impugn the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.10.2015 passed in Crl.M.A.16774/2013 filed by respondent No.1 under sections 340 Cr.P.C. and Sections 191,192,193,196-200, 468,471 read with section 120B IPC.By the impugned order the application of respondent No.1 was allowed.Proceedings were directed to be initiated LPA 764/2015 & 765/2015 Page 1 of 7 before the concerned Magistrate, Dwarka Court, Delhi under section 195(1)LPA 764/2015 & 765/2015 Page 1 of 7(b) Cr.P.C.For the purpose of convenience the facts of LPA 764/2015 are narrated herein.The background facts are that the plaintiff in the suit/respondent No.1 Shri Sushil Grover filed a suit for cancellation, declaration and perpetual injunction.The suit pertains to a plot situated at Kakrola Village, West District, Delhi.In the meantime, after filing of the present suit it is averred that on the complaint of Respondent No.1/plaintiff, FIR No.129/2013 was registered on 26.4.2013 under section 448/420/468/471/506/34 IPC against the appellant and respondent No.2 in respect of two properties at Police Station Dwarka.Pursuant to the FIR, respondent No.2 was granted anticipatory bail.However, the application of the appellant for anticipatory bail was declined.He was arrested and produced before the concerned MM on 27.6.2013 and was remanded to judicial custody.Subsequently, vide orders dated 2.7.2013 he was released on bail.Based on this averment the present application was filed by respondent No.1 for appropriate directions for an appropriate complaint to be filed before CMM, Tis Hazari Courts under sections 191-193, 196-200, 468, 471 read with section 120B IPC.LPA 764/2015 & 765/2015 Page 2 of 7These were signed by the appellant and respondent No.2 in the presence of their advocate in the last week of June 2013 whereafter the signatures of the appellant and respondent No.2 were identified by their counsel.The impugned order dated 7.10.2015 notes that neither the appellant nor respondent No.2 have denied their signatures on the written statement.The order further notes that the only aspect left for investigation is with regard to the date of attestation of the affidavits in support of the written statement filed in the Court record.Keeping in mind the facts of the case and the fact that the affidavit of Shri Rameshwar, the appellant, in respect of the written statement bears the date 1.7.2013 when he was in judicial custody, the impugned order requested the Magistrate, Dwarka Courts to initiate proceedings under section 195(1)(b) of Cr.PC in accordance with law.The Court clarified that the findings noted are prima facie and no firm conclusion has been drawn on the said findings.No prejudice has been caused to the plaintiff in the suit whatsoever.
|
['Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,652,300 |
(17/11/2014) This writ petition is filed essentially calling in question the order dated 05.11.2013 passed by the District Magistrate, Katni, directing removal of the petitioner from the area of Katni district and adjoining districts for a period of one year in exercise of powers under Section 5 and 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990 (herein after referred to as 'Act').An appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by the Commissioner, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur vide order dated 15.04.2014 and such order is also called in question in the present writ petition.On 17.10.2014 this Court while granting an interim stay, directed the respondents to produce the relevant record to show the material available against the petitioner to justify the action taken by the respondents against him.Though no return is filed but certain documents are obtained by learned Govt. Advocate, which have been shown to the Court.Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.However, thereafter in the year 2011 and 2012 certain offences were registered against the petitioner.Most of the cases were with respect to the threatening.One of the case was for preventive action against the petitioner under Sections 107 and 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.There is no reference in the order of District Magistrate that witnesses named in the Challans filed by the Police are not coming forward to give evidence against the petitioner in Court.Hence, in the absence of any existence of material to show that witnesses are not coming forward by a reason of apprehension to danger to their person or property to give evidence against the petitioner in respect of the alleged offences, an order under section 5(b) of the Act of 1990 cannot be passed by the District Magistrate by merely repeating the language of section 5(b) of the Act of 1990."There shall be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
946,545 |
In the petition in writ petition No. 359/02 Joginder @ Danny son of Late Shri Nathu Ram, resident of C-639-40, Mangol Puri, Delhi, it is alleged that he is a desperate and hardened criminal of the area of Police Station Mangol Puri.He belongs to Sansi tribe and his parents and most of his brothers and sisters are registered BCs (Bad Characters) of Police Station, Mangol Puri, Delhi.He committed his first crime i.e. an offence under the N.D.P.S. Act at the young age of 15 years and since then he has been continuously involved in a number of crimes viz. theft, attempt to murder, snatching, robbery, dacoity, house-trespass, criminal intimidation etc. As may as 18 cases were registered against him between the period 20-12-1999 to 24-11-1999 at different police stations within the territory of Delhi, the last three cases being FIR No. 878 dated 27-10-1999 under Sections 395/397/412 IPC, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, FIR No. 389 dated 23-11-1999 under Sections 379/411 IPC, Police Station Lodhi Colony and FIR No. 998 dated 24-11-1999 under Sections 398/395/397/412/506(II) /468/411/120-B/34 IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar.The trial in respect of these three cases were stated to be pending at the time of passing of the detention order while in rest of the 14 cases the petitioner Joginder is stated to have either been discharged or acquitted after trial.The detaining authority taking note of the above criminal activities of the petitioner more particularly those relatable to the last three criminal cases registered against him concluded that the petitioner Joinder @Danny is a dangerous and desperate criminal, whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and his arrest and prosecution in a number of cases has not deterred him from indulging in criminal activities.yet another factor which has weighed with the detaining authority in passing the impugned order is that the petitioner though was lodged in Tihar Jail in case FIR No. 898/99 Police Station Punjab Bagh, Delhi but had been granted bail in that case by Shri Satnam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and therefore, there was every apprehension that he will be released shortly and keeping in view his past criminal activities there was every likelihood that after release from jail, he will again start indulging in heinous crimes.The facts and circumstances relatable to the detention in respect of the Writ Petition No. 359/02 are that Rajinder@Jinder, s/o Late Shri Nathu Ram, r/o C-639-40, Mangol Puri, Delhi he is an active desperate criminal of the area of Police Station Mangol Puri and has a criminal record of indulging in offences like attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity, obstructing the public servants in discharge of official duties, theft, house trespass, criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint, forgery, drug-peddling and hurt.It is alleged that he belongs to Sansi Tribe and his parents and most of his brothers and sisters are registered Bcs of Police Station Mangol Puri.Whereas in Writ Petition No. 361/02 it is alleged that the Petitioner Vinod Kumar s/o Late Shri Nathu Ram, r/o B-6A, Slum Quarters, F Block, Shivangi Kunj, Madi Pur, Delhi belongs to Sansi Tribe and his parents and most of his brothers and sisters are registered Bcs of Police Station, Mangol Puri, Delhi.It is alleged that he is a notorious gangster and an active criminal and his presence in the area became prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.The general public feels terrorised on account of his criminal activities, which has caused feeling of insecurity among the people of the area.It is alleged that he was first time arrested in the year 1976 at the age of 12 years and was convicted under the provisions of Excise Act. Again in the year 1987 he was arrested and prosecuted under the provisions of NDPS Act. Since then he is continuously involved in a number of cases which include attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity, obstructing the public servants in discharge of official duties, theft, house-trespass, criminal intimidation, forgery and drug-peddling.JUDGMENT R.C. Jain, J.He also remained involved in the cases punishable under the Arms Act. The petitioner Rajinder @ Jinder started his criminal activities in the year 1985 at the age of 15 years.As may as 22 cases were registered against him during the period 30-10-1985 to 24-11-1999 at different police stations within the territory of Delhi.The last four cases being FIR No. 878 dated 27-10-1999 under Sections 395/397/412 IPC, Police Station Punjabi Bagh, FIR No. 998 dated 24-11-1999 under Sections 395/397/398/506(II)/412/468/411/120-B IPC, Police Station Paschim Vihar and FIR No. 1035 dated 13-12-1999 under Section 25 of the Arms Act, Police Station Paschim Vihar.Apart from this he was also involved in DD No. 9 dated 03-07-2000 under Section 103 of the Delhi Police Act, Special Staff(W), Police Station Paschim Vihar.Out of 22 criminal cases registered against him, he has been acquitted in 8 cases, convicted in 3 cases and has been released in 1 case and 10 cases are still pending against him.The detaining authority taking note of the above criminal activities of the petitioner more particularly those relatable to the last four criminal cases registered against him had concluded that the petitioner Rajinder @ Jinder is dangerous and desperate criminal, whose activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and his arrest and prosecution in a number of cases has not deterred him from indulging in criminal activities.Yet another factor which has weighed with the detaining authority in passing the impugned order is that the petitioner though was lodged in Tihar Jail in case FIR 898/99 Police Station Punjabi Bagh, Delhi but had been granted bail in that case by Shri Satnam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and, therefore, there was every likelihood that he will be released shortly and keeping in view his past criminal activities there was every apprehension that after release from jail, he will again start indulging in heinous crimes.yet another factor which has weighed with the detaining authority in passing the impugned order is that the petitioner though was lodge din Tihar Jail in case FIR No. 898/99, Police Station Punjab Bagh, Delhi but had been granted bail in that case by Shri Satnam Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi and, therefore, there was every likelihood that he will be released shortly and keeping in view his past criminal activities there was every apprehension that after release from jail, he will again start indulging in heinous crimes.Though various grounds have been taken up in the writ petitions in order to assail the detention orders but during the course of arguments, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has confined her attack on the following common grounds:-
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
946,566 |
In default of payment of fine he shall undergo R.I. for 7 days.Brief history of the case is that deceased Babulal, (PW 7) Ramgopal and (PW 8) Madan, who are residents of Bachhanpur had gone to jungle (forest) for collecting teak leaves to be used for constructing huts.They were returning at about 3 p.m. They were crossing the rivulet, near village Chor Baodi, the 4 accused persons Naniya, Gulab, Jamiya and Rugga stopped them and asked them that they are being called by accused Rajababu.Madan and Babulal were Carrying the head load of thin sticks of teakwood (Kimdis as it is called in the local dialect).Ramgopal was carrying the bundle of leaves.All the three persons put off their head load.Meanwhile 4 accused persons reached near them.They took out kimdis (thin sticks of teakwood) and began beating them.Babulal fell down because of the beating and became serious, It is alleged that beating was done at the instance of accused-appellant Rajababu.Thereafter Babulal was dragged near Rajababu.Ramgopal and Madan have also sustained injuries.Because of the beating, Babulal had become unconscious.Thereafter Rajababu asked all the three injured persons to be released and asked them not to come to that area.Babulal was brought to village Bachhanpur on a cot and thereafter he was taken to police station, but he died on way.The matter was reported by Ramgopal in police station Nalchha.Madan and Ramgopal both were medically examined and doctor found 4 and 5 injuries respectively on their body.The autopsy on the body of Babulal was conducted by PW 6 Dr. B. C. Puri.We would like to examine the evidence of PW 1 Gulab, PW 2 Badrilal and PW 3 Kamdar first, as they were present on the spot from before the arrival of Babulal, Ramgopal and Madan.PW 1 Gulab has stated that he was present in the hut of one Jhitra and was roasting maize.He also stated about the presence of Jhitra, Nanuram and Kamdar.Meanwhile, Babulal, Gopal and Madan came from jungle and were going to village Bachhanpur.Thereafter, Rajababu asked all the four accused persons to catch hold of them and to bring them before him.He further states that all the three were brought.They were being beaten by kimdis.He, further, states that accused Rugga @ Rughnath and Jamiya caused injuries to Babu, thereafter, Naniya and Gulab also caused injuries.He further states that he asked him, Kamdar and Nanuram to go and save Babulal or else he may be beaten to death.He went to Babulal, he was in severe pain.JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28th October 1986 of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, passed in S.TNo.177/84, whereby the accused-appellants 1 to 4 have been convicted under Sections 302/23, Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of Babulal s/o Narottam, on 6-9-1984, in village Chor Baodi and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life each.Accused Naniya and Gulab have been further convicted under Sections 323/34 for having caused simple injuries to Ramgopal and Madan and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 3 months each.Appellant Rajababu has been acquitted of the offence under Sections 302/34 and 323/34, Indian Penal Code, but has been convicted under Section 341, Indian Penal Code and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 500/- each.He found nearly 11 injuries on his body.There was dislocation of wind pipe and congestion over it; fracture of cervical vertebrae and fracture of 10th rib of the right side of sterno costal region.He further found fracture on the middle of left 10th rib.Lung was also injured because of fracture of right rib.Doctor further opined that the injuries could be caused by kimdis (thin sticks) which were seized during investigation and sent to Medical Officer.The Police Officer Abrar Ahemad (PW 10) prepared the spot map and recorded statements of the witnesses and after completion of the investigation filed challan against the accused persons, which was committed to the Court of Session in due course.The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication.Learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced them, as above.Hence, this appeal.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that PW 1 Gulab, PW 2 Badrilal and PW 3 Kamdar like accomplice, their involvement in the offence was itself suspected and they are, therefore, got up witnesses.PW 7 Ramgopal and PW 8 Madan are though injured persons, but they did not know the accused persons from before and, therefore, identification by them of the accused persons is doubtful.Ramgopal and Madan have sustained injuries during the incident and, therefore, their presence on the spot cannot be doubted.The incident had happened at 3 p.m. and they are the residents of neighbouring village and, therefore, there was no possibility of mistaken identification.It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the State that though there has been compliance of requirement of Section 157, Criminal Procedure Code and the same was not challenged during cross-examination of the witnesses, but even if it is taken that there was no compliance the whole prosecution case cannot be thrown over board, specially in view of the presence of eye-witnesses account by five persons in the case.The injuries found on the body of deceased Babulal has not been disputed during the course of arguments.PW 1 Gulab, PW 2 Badrilal, PW 3 Kamdar, PW 7 Ramgopal and PW 8 Madan have supported the story of prosecution.The credibility of these witnesses has been vehemently attacked by the learned counsel for the defence.He along with other persons tried to save him.Babulal walked few steps and fell down.He has further stated that Kamdar and Nanuram took Babulal to village Bachhanpur on a cot.Similar statements have been given by PW 2 Badrilal and PW 3 Kamdar.All the three witnesses have admitted that they were detained in the police station for few days and were released thereafter.On the basis of this admission, learned counsel for the defence has submitted that since they were themselves suspected as persons involved in the case they cannot be relied on for basing the conviction of the accused persons.6A. Even if as these three witnesses, referred above, were suspected at one stage of investigation, as being persons involved in the incident, their evidence cannot be totally rejected.However, the same will have to be accepted with caution and shall have to be scrutinised closely and further corroboration in the matter may be sought.These three witnesses firstly stand corroborated from the medical evidence as 11 injuries were found on the body of deceased Babulal and 4 to 5 injuries each were found on the body of PW 7 Ramgopal and PW 8 Madan.PW 7 Ramgopal and PW 8 Madan have also given similar story.They have stated that these 4 accused persons caused injuries to Babulal and to them also.They were medically examined.Four to five injuries were found on the body of both these witnesses.Since these two persons were also assaulted and sustained injuries during incident, therefore, their presence on the spot cannot be doubted.Thus, these three witnesses referred above, stand corroborated fully from the evidence of these two witnesses.Learned counsel for the defence has then submitted that even if the presence of these two witnesses Ramgopal and Madan at the place of incident is accepted, they cannot be relied as they did not know the accused persons from before.Learned counsel has tried to support his arguments on the basis of admissions made by PW 1 Gulab in Para-6 of his statement that Ramgopal and Madan had inquired from him in village Bachhanpur as to whether he knows and can identify the assailants and the same was answered in the affirmative by him (PW 1 Gulab).The assailants are residents of neighbouring village and, therefore, it cannot be said that they were totally unknown to these witnesses i.e., Madan and Ramgopal.Secondly, the incident has happened during day time at about 3 p.m. in the sun light and, therefore, there was no possibility of mistaken identification.Since these accused persons have been named in the FIR, test identification parade was not required to be conducted.They were carrying head load of kimdis.He has also stated that all the four caused injuries to Madan, Ramgopal and Babulal.There is absolutely nothing in the cross-examination of this witness, which can render his evidence unreliable.Thus, along with the five eye-witnesses referred above the eye witness account of PW 4 Jhitra is also available in this case.This all goes to prove that the accused persons caused injuries to Ramgopal and Madan and further caused fatal injuries to Babulal, in pursuance of common intention of their all.Rajababu has been convicted for a lesser offence.From the evidence above, it appears that the whole incident happened under the orders and directions of Rajababu (appellant No. 5) and his acquittal in the case does not appear to be justified, but there is no appeal against him by the State and, therefore, we refrain to express further opinion in the matter.Now, so far as the objection as to the nature of offence and punishment for minor offence is concerned, in our opinion, a person charged for murder can be convicted under Section 342 or 341 like offence under Section 411, Indian Penal Code when he is found in possession of some stolen property.As a result, the appeal filed by Rajababu, appellant No. 5 fails and is dismissed.The appeals of accused appellants Nos. 1 to 4 viz. Naniya @ Nanuram, Gulab s/o Gopiya, Jamiya @ Jamsingh and Rugga @ Rughnath are partly accepted.They are acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code i.e., for committing murder of Babulal.However, they are convicted under Section 304(II), Indian Penal Code for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years each, with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each; in default of payment of fine they shall further undergo R.I. for ten months.The fine, if recovered, Rs. 5,000/- be paid to the heirs of deceased Babulal, as compensation.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,662,995 |
This is first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.Arguments heard.According to the prosecution story, the prosecutrix is working as Store Keeper in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Alirajpur, where the present applicant is working as Catering Assistant.It is alleged that the present applicant used to commit obscene acts against the prosecutrix.He used to threaten her also that he would kill her husband and keep her as his wife.The prosecutrix sent a complaint to the National Commission for Scheduled Caste and also to the National Commission for Women.The concerning police-station received a communication from both the Commissions and thereafter the matter was registered.Learned counsel for the respondent - State opposes the prayer on the ground that in this case, the bar created Section 18 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of 2 Atrocities) Act, 1989 and therefore the application for anticipatory bail is not maintainable.(ALOK VERMA) JUDGE Arun/-
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
94,677,086 |
C.R.M. 11438 of 2010 In the matter of : The applications for Anticipatory Bail Under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on July 27, 2010 And In re.: Goffar Beg Mr. Kazi Safiullah Mr. Kazi Abrarullah ...For the petitioner Mr. Abdul Mokim ...For the State This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on behalf of the petitioner who apprehends arrest in connection with Bagnan P.S. Case No. 219 dated 22.9.2009 under Sections 447/333/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.We have heard the submissions of the learned advocates for the petitioner and the State.We have perused the petition as well as petition of complaint made before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is abundantly made clear that our order for grant of anticipatory bail must not preclude the learned Magistrate from considering the prayer for regular bail on his surrender, on the material available to him as on that date.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus disposed of.( Banerjee, J.) ( Raghunath Ray, J.) akb
|
['Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
946,781 |
The incident relates to the year 1988 at the time of Diwali festival, to be more specific on 12-11-1988 at about 5-00 p.m. at Mouza Wangi, district Bhandara.The prosecution case is that one Sugandha (P.W. 1), Lilabai (P.W. 4), Parwatabai and Mirabai (PW2) went to village Wangi to attend the fair on that day in the evening at about 5-00 to 6-00 P.M. Sugandha (PW 1) and 3 other ladies went to the General Store which was situated in the fair.Original accused No. 1 Anil Balaji Lade pushed Sugandha (PW 1) and so she abused him.Original accused No. 2 Pandurang Atmaram Dongre caught the blouse of Sugandha (PW 1) and torn the same.Original accused No. 1 Anil caught hold of her hair and bent her down and, therefore, she started weeping.Then all the accused persons, viz, original accused No. I Anil, original accused No. 2 Pandurang and original accused No. 3 Yadav, original accused No. 4 Devidayal, original accused No. 5 Suresh, original accused No. 6 Jagdish, original accused No. 7 Purshottam, original accused No. 8 Baburao and original accused No. 9 Dilip assaulted Dayaram by means of fists, blows and kicks.Some of them assaulted Dayaram by means of shoes and stones.The prosecution case is that Sugandha (PW 1) went to the house of the Sarpanch and when he did not listen to her, she returned to village Bodde.Dayaram died after about two days and the first information report was registered at Police Station, Bhandara, on 13-11-1988 at 8-00 P.M., which was registered at the instance of one Rajesh Chandragupta Mogre and in which original accused Nos. 1 and 2 were shown accused persons.The said first information report is registered under Section 302 read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code (Exh. 92).Thereafter one more first information report has been registered on 14-11-1988 at police station Duggipar, Sub Division Gondia, district Bhandara, vide Crime No. 104/88 for the offence under Section 302, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code at the instance of Police Constable Waman Murkute, in which original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been shown as accused persons.Since the crime was within the jurisdiction of police station Duggipar, Sub Division Gondia, district Bhandara, Pursuant to the first information report dated 14-11-1988 (Exh. 94) the investigation was started by Nivruti Gopal Narkhede, P.S.I. Duggipar police station (P.W. 14).The said Investigating Officer went to the scene of offence at village Wangi and prepared the panchanama of the scene of occurrence (Exh. 58) in the presence of panchas.Original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 14-11-1988 and their clothes were seized under different panchanamas.The blouse of Sugandha (PW 1) was seized vide seizure memo (Exh. 62).Various other articles were also seized.Though no medical examination of Sugandha (PW 1) was conducted, another lady Meera (PW 2) and Shamrao were medically examined.The post mortem of deceased Dayaram, who died on 13-11-1988 at about 3-50 p.m., was conducted on 14-11-1988 in between 1-00 to 2-00 p.m. and following injuries were found on his person -(1) Cut 1"" x 1/2"" x 1"", 4"" above the right ankle joint.Original accused No. 1 Anil, original accused No. 2 Pandurang and original accused No. 3 Yadav have preferred this appeal before this Court, aggrieved by the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, on 30-10-1991, whereby the original accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-.each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months each, and the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 have been also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 354, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.The Additional Sessions Judge has directed the substantive sentences of original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the aforesaid offences to run concurrently.(2) Bruises on abdomen.(3) Multiple bruises on the abdomen.After the investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer submitted the Challan against nine persons, viz, Anil (original accused No. 1), Pandurang (original accused No. 2), Yadav (original accused No. 3), Devidayal (original accused No. 4), Suresh (original accused No. 5), Jagdish (original accused No. 6), Purshottam (original accused No. 7), Baburao (original accused No. 8), and Dilip (original accused No. 9) for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 354, 356 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.Since the said offences were exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, all the accused persons were committed for trial of the aforesaid offences in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1989 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara.In the trial, prosecution examined Sugandha (PW 1), Meerabai (PW 2), Raoji Sakharam Share (PW 3), Lilabai wife of Madhukar Uike (PW 4), Meerabai wife of Dayaram Uike (PW 5), Laldas Pandurang Masram (PW 6), Goma Suka Wadhave (PW 7), Dr. Khushalchand Maniram Meshram (PW 8), Kashiram Tulsiram Waghawe (PW 9), Prabhakar Wamanrao Shesh (PW 10), Dr. Krishnakumar Surendranth Tripathi (PW 11), Sitaram Ganpat Kapgate (PW 12), Namdeo Domaji Ingole (PW 13), and Nivrutti Gopal Narkhede (PW 14).Prosecution also produced and proved the documentary evidence including the post mortem report of deceased Dayaram (Exh. 46), inquest panchanama (Exh. 45), various seizure panchanamas, memorandum of identification parade held at Bhandara on 2-12-1988 and 3-12-1988 respectively (Exhs. 78 and 79).The statements of accused-appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and also of other accused persons, viz, original accused No. 4 to original accused No. 9 and all of them denied of having committed any crime and pleaded not guilty.After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trial Court found that the prosecution has not been able to prove that on or about 12-11-1988 in between 5-00 to 6-00 p.m. at mouza Wangi, accused Nos. 1 to 9 formed an unlawful assembly, having common object to cause injury to deceased Dayaram.The trial Court also held that the prosecution has failed to prove that on or about the above date, time and place accused Nos. 1 to 9 were the members of the unlawful assembly and in prosecution of the common object, committed the offence of rioting and at that time the accused were armed with deadly weapons like stones and shoes as alleged.The learned additional Sessions Judge also held that the prosecution has failed to prove that on or about the above date, time and place, accused Nos. 1 to 9 being the members of the unlawful assembly, having common object as referred to above, did cause hurts to Mirabai wife of Laldas Masram and Dayaram Akharam Uike as alleged.The trial Court further held that the prosecution has failed to prove that on or about the above date, time and place, accused Nos. 1 to 9 in furtherance of their common intention pelted stones rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others as alleged.However, the trial Court came to the conclusion that so far as original accused Nos. 1 to 3 are concerned, prosecution has proved that on or about the above date, time and place, prosecution has proved the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3 for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Dayaram and, therefore, guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code.In view of the aforesaid finding, as stated above, the Additional Sessions Judge convicted the orginal accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for six months, and convicted the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354, of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.The trial Court also directed that the substantive sentences awarded to original accused Nos. 1 and 2 would run concurrently.Shri A. J. Khan, the learned counsel for the original accused Nos. 1 to 3, who have filed this appeal, has strenuously urged that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the offences against the accused-appellants for which they have been convicted by the trial Court.Shri Khan submitted that the prosecution story is not at all believable and on the face of the testimony of P.W. 1 sugandha, PW 2 Meerabai and other depositions it cannot be said that the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 have committed the culpable homicide not amounting to murder of Dayaram and that the original accused Nos. 1 and 2 had used criminal force against PW 1 Sugandha.The argument of Shri Khan is that the prosecution story is highly improbable and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, against the accused-appellants in the impugned judgment deserve to be quashed and set aside.On the other hand, Shri Khamborkar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that the trial Court has already given benefit of doubt to original accused Nos. 4 to 9 and since the offence against original accused Nos. 1 to 3 is specific and the evidence having not been shaken against them, the trial Court was justified in convicting original accused Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and convicting original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354, of the Indian Penal Code.On thoughtful consideration of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-appellants as well as the Additional Public Prosecutor and the reasoning advanced by the trial Court, I find that the impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, convicting the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part II, of the Indian Penal Code and convicting original accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354, of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained.It will be seen from the testimony of P.W. 1 Sugandha that she went to village Wangi on 12-11-1988 at about 5-00 to 6-00 p.m. to attend the fair along with three other ladies, viz, Liabai (PW 4), Parwatabai and Mirabai (PW 2).She has testified that when she along with three other ladies went to the General Store in the fair, original accused No. 1 Anil pushed her and so she abused him, and original accused No. 2 Pandurang caught her blouse and torn the same.She has further deposed that accused No. 1 Anil caught hold of her hair and bent her down and, therefore, she started weeping, and on that her uncle Dayaram rushed towards her to rescue and then all the accused assaulted Dayaram by means of fist blows and kicks and also some of the accused persons by shoes and stones.Then she went to the house of the Sarpanch of village Wangi and when he did not listen to her, she returned to village Bodde.According to her, Dayaram died after two days.When confronted in cross-examination, she has admitted that there were many villagers gathered at the place of fair and policemen were also present at that place for Bandobast duty.She has further admitted that she knew the police patil of village Wangi as well as the Sarpanch of village Wangi, but she stated her ignorance about their presence in the fair on that day.She has also admitted in her cross-examination that she was not in a position to say as to which particular accused assaulted Dayaram by means of fist blows or kick blows or by means of stones.She has also admitted that she was not in a position to say that how many asailants were present at that time.Confronted with the post-incident, she admitted that Dayaram went to the village after the quarrel was over and she went to the house of the Sarpanch.Confronted with her statement under Section 164, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara, P.W. 1 Sugandha stated that she did state before the police and the Special Judicial Magistrate that accused No. 1 Anil pushed her and caught hold of her hair and bent her down and accused No. 2 Pandurang had torn her blouse.She was not in a position to state why there was no mention about this fact in her statement before the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara.She further admitted in her cross-examination that she did not complain about the accused persons before the policemen who were present at the fair nor she lodge and report before them or at the police station.She even did not complain about the alleged incident before anybody at any time till the death of Dayaram.A look at the statement of P.W. 1 Sugandha would show that she is not a witness of a sterling worth and her statement cannot be believed.It is not conceivable that if the said incident had taken place as stated by her examination-in-chief, why she did not state that to the policemen who were already there at that place for Bandobast duty.It is highly improbable that if the said incident had taken place, the policemen who were already there would not have seen the incident.She has not been able to say even whether the Sarpanch and the police patil were there at the fair on that day or not, when in her examination-in-chief she stated that after the incident she went to the house of the Sarpanch of Wangi and when he did not listen to her, she returned to village Godde.It is also doubtful that if the incident would have taken place as deposed by PW 1 Sugandha, she would have kept quiet for two days till the death of Dayaram, because she admitted in cross-examination that she did not complain about the alleged incident before anybody at any time till the death of Dayaram.Her statement recorded in Court suffers from improvements and contradictions when she was confronted with her statement recorded by the police and by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara.The statement of PW 1 Sugandha, therefore, cannot be believed and relied upon.Meerabai wife of Laldas Masram (PW 2), who was one of the ladies with Sugandha (PW 1), has in her examination-in-chief deposed in the manner the statement was given by PW 1 Sugandha.However, confronted with the contradictions and omissions in her statement recorded by the police and her statement before the Court, she stated that before the police she has stated that accused No. 1 Anil had caught hold of the hair of Sugandha and dragged her.However, she could not state why there was no mention about the same in her statement.She admitted that before the Special Judicial Magistrate, she made the same statement, but she was not in a position to say why that statement did not find place in the statement recorded by the Special Judicial Magistrate.Her statement too, therefore, is highly unreliable and cannot be acted upon.Lilabai wife of Madhukar Uike (PW 4) in her deposition before the Court while making the statement about the incident has deposed that one Sunil, resident of Wangi, pushed Sugandha.She further was not in a position to identify as to whether Sunil, referred to by her, was sitting in the Court hall where all the accused persons were sitting.She also stated that she did not know Sunil by face.On the face of such testimony, Lilabai (PW 4) is also an unreliable witness and cannot be acted upon.Meerabai, who is the wife of deceased Dayarram and who has been examined as P.W. 5 by the prosecution, has stated that the villagers from Wangi had beaten her husband in the fair on that day.She tried to rescue her husband by catching his waist.Those persons were beating her husband by means of shoes and Ubharis.However, in cross-examination, she admitted that she did not know the persons who were beating her husband.Confronted with her statement recorded by the police, she deposed that she had stated before the police that those persons had assaulted her husband by means of shoes and Ubharis.But she was not in a position to say why there was not mention about the same in her statement.In cross-examination she further admitted that she knew all the accused persons before the Court in this case.The testimony of P.W. 5 Mirabai is also of no avail to the prosecution, because, she has not been able to with-stand in cross-examination.Laldas Pandurang Masram (PW 6) has deposed that at the time of the incident, accused Nos. 1 and 2 viz, Anil and Pandurang, had pushed Sugandha (PW 1) and so she abused them.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 dragged her.Sugandha shouted for help.Then he and Dayaram went to rescue her.Accused Nos. 1 and 2 took away Dayaram by beating him, and he ran away from that place.PW 1 Sugandha even does not say that when she cried, PW 6 Laldas came to rescue her along with Dayaram.In cross-examination, he has admitted that it was correct that the scuffle was going on between Dayaram and the villagers of Wangi at the time when he reached there.He has deposed that one person wearing red coloured shirt and others assaulting Dayaram on his stomach by means of fist blows and kick blows.Dr. Khushalchand Maniram Meshram (PW 8), who examined Dayaram, has testified that he was not in a position to say about the cause of death of deceased Dayaram.Special Judicial Magistrate, Prabhakar Wamanrao Shesh (PW 10), who had recorded the statement under Section 164, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has deposed in his cross-examination that PW 1, Sugandha did not state before him that accused No. 1 Anil had caught hold of her hair and bent her down and accused No. 2 Pandurang had torn her blouse.He further stated that he recorded the statement of Mirabai wife of Laldas and she did not state that accused No. 1 Anil had caught hold of the hair of Sugandha and dragged her.She also did not state that accused No. 1 Anil had pelted stones towards her.The testimony of Special Judicial Magistrate, Bhandara (PW 10), therefore, shows that PW 1, Sugandha and PW 2 Mirabai have improved their version in the Court.Dr. Krishnakumar Surendranath Tripathi (PW 11), who conducted the post mortem of deceased Dayaram, has stated in his deposition before the Court that the bruises were found on the abdomen, and the internal injuries on the person of deceased Dayaram were -"On opening abdomen haemorrhagic spot on peritonium cavity full of clotted blood and erum and pus, red haemorrhages on stomach, half digested food present in intestine, many small purforation on small intestine wall, on large intestine multiple haemorrhages seen.On liver lacerated wound size 2"" x 1/2"" x 1/2"" on medial lobe.Heart, left chamber of heart empty, right chamber of heart full of blood."In his cross-examination, he has admitted that if a drunken person falls on rough stone and the stone comes in contact with the abdomen, then such injury is possible.The Investigating Officer, Nivrutti Gopal Narkhede (PW 14) has deposed about the details of the investigation.Scan of the aforesaid evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that the prosecution story is not supported by the star witness PW 1, Sugandha.She has sought to improve upon her version in the Court which is duly reflected from the statement recorded by the police and the Special Judicial Magistrate, with which she was confronted.The evidence of PW 2, Mirabai and PW 4, Lilabai was no better and cannot be believed and acted upon PW 6 Laldas appears to be a planted witness since even PW 1 Sugandha in her statement does not say that he came along with Dayaram to rescue her.All in all, the evidence which has been led by the prosecution does not inspire confidence.The prosecution has not come to the Court with true version of the incident, which is apparent and obvious from the statements of various witnesses, referred to hereinabove.On such weak evidence, the conviction of the accused-appellants for the offences under Sections 354 and 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code cannot be based.For the reasons stated above, I find myself unable to agree with the reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, in his judgment dated 30th October 1991, convicting accused-appellant Nos. 1 to 3 for the offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and convicting the accused appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under section 354, of the Indian Penal Code.In the result, this criminal appeal succeeds and the judgment passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara, on 30-10-1991 in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1989 State of Maharashtra v. Anil is set aside.The conviction of the accused-appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the offence under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction of accused-appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence under Section 354, of the Indian Penal Code is set aside.Appeal allowed.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,022,720 |
(26.02.2018) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order of grant of sanction to prosecute the-2- W.P. No.15616/2017 petitioner dated 11.08.2017 under offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 471, 120-B, 34 of Penal Code.The Sub Divisional Officer, Seoni on 30.04.2009 submitted a report at Police Station Bandol, wherein it is alleged that one Patwari Kamta Prasad in connivance with present petitioner and other co-accused persons made false entries in revenue records showing the government land falsely mutated on the name of private persons., Khasra No.354, area 64.70 hect., Khasra No.365/1, area 0.60 hect., Khasra No.327, area 1.82 hect., Khasra No.285, area 0.72 hect., Khasra No.353, area 1.10 hect.These entries are verified and certified by the petitioner.The police registered crime Nos.98/2009, 99/2009 and 100/2009 under Sections 420, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC.and after investigation the matter was referred to Government (GAD) for grant of sanction for prosecution, which later on accorded by impugned order dated 18.08.2017 (Annexure P/1).It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was given a charge sheet dated 04.06.2009 (Annexure P/4) pertaining to the same incident.The charges are relating to fabrication of revenue record Khasra No.391, area 3.94 hect., Khasra No.413, area 30.10 hect.and Khasra No.372, area 1.17 hect.It is further submitted by learned counsel that a regular departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner on above charges by order of Commissioner.On conclusion of departmental inquiry, respondents No.1 and 2 passed the order dated 26.09.2014 (Annexure P/7) and found the charges against the petitioner is not proved and exonerated him and closed the proceedings.Thereafter, petitioner was reinstated after cancellation of suspension by the government vide order dated-3- W.P. No.15616/2017 02.12.2015 (Annexure P/10).It is alleged that working as Tahsildar the petitioner in connivance with Patwari and other co- accused persons falsely verified the manipulated revenue records prepared by Patwari and certified the entries wherein a large number of Government land has been falsely got recorded on the name of private persons.The police after investigation found the involvement of present petitioner in commission of alleged crime.It is vehemently contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner on the same charges, he has been exonerated.Therefore, he cannot be prosecuted for the same charges.From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out :-
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,024,126 |
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.239 of 2019 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi.2.The case of the prosecution is that on 02.11.2016, a complaint was lodged by one S.Krishnakukmar (Assistant Director, Serious Fraud Investigation Office, Ministry of Corporate Affairs) against the petitioner and 11 others before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Chennai for the offence under Sections 68, 628 r/w Section 211, Section 211(3C) and Section 211(1) r/w AS-I, 2, 18, 19, 26 and Schedule VI of the Companies Act, 1956 and Section 629, 253 and 266A of the Companies Act, 1956 along with offences under Sections 34, 227, 233, 403, 405, 406, 409, 420, 464, 465, 471, 120-B of IPC.3.The learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-I, Chennai, after taking cognizance on 11.11.2016 on the complaint of the said Krishnakumar, assigned E.O.C.C.No.173 of 2016 and issued summons to 2/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.32893 of 2019 all the 12 accused persons, wherein the petitioner is arrayed as 1st accused.4.Subsequently on the same set of facts based on a complaint lodged by one Parthasarathy, Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, the respondent Police had registered a case in Crime No.RC 2202016 E0004 against the 5 accused persons for an alleged offence under Sections 120-B r/w 406, 420, 467, 471 of IPC.After completion of the investigation in the above said crime No. the respondent police had filed a final report before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.O.P(SR)No.29404 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2019, dismissed the petition at the SR stage itself on the ground of non-maintainability.The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed a counter on behalf of the respondent police and the same is extracted here under:-“3.The instant Petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole issue of maintainability.12.Earlier the petitioner filed a petition to quash invoking Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Crl.O.P(SR)No.29404 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 19.07.2019, dismissed the petition by differentiating the offences involved in the complaint before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offence-I, Egmore, Chennai is for 8/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.32893 of 2019 contravention of the provisions of the Companies Act and the prosecution before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi is for the offences under the provisions of IPC, which has been rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.13.Hence, without challenging the said order before the appropriate forum in the manner known to law, the petitioner again seeking a remedy by a way of filing a Writ is not maintainable.Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.No costs.22.01.2020 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Index : Yes/No Internet:Yes/No vv2 To1.The Sub-Inspector of Police, CBI, AC-VI/SIT/New Delhi.2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.9/10http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.32893 of 2019 M.DHANDAPANI.,J vv2 W.P.No.32893 of 2019 22.01.2020
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 409 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,026,575 |
In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the government of India, this application has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.Heard learned counsel for the parties.This is second bail application u/S.439 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant for grant of bail.First bail application was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.02.2020 with liberty to repeat the same after filing of charge-sheet.Applicant has been arrested on 01.02.2020 by Police Station Kotwali, District Guna (M.P.) in connection with Crime No.107/2020 registered in relation to the offence punishable u/Ss. 306 and 34 of IPC.The applicant undertakes to abide all the condition, which may be imposed by this Court and there is no possibility of his absconding or tempering with the prosecution case.He has shown willingness to serve the national cause by making contribution in PM Care Fund and install Arogya Setu App.Under these circumstances, he prays for bail.Per contra, learned Panel Lawyer has opposed the application and submits that there are several document and letters of the deceased with the police authorities against the present applicant.(Vishal Mishra) JUDGE LJ* LOKENDRA JAIN 2020.06.15 18:33:56 +05'30'
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,034,617 |
Now mistaken identity has never been suggested.JUDGMENT Dwivedi, J.I.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Aligarh.The Sessions Judge acquitted Mahendra Singh, and convicted and sentenced the remaining two to imprisonment for life.On appeal the High Court of Allahabad acquitted Lakhan Singh and affirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant.Hence this appeal.The deceased Chunni Lal has a tea stall near the Bus Stand in Sasni.He was shot dead on 9-3-1967 at about 10-30 p.m. The First Information Report of the incident was lodged by Sunder Lal, a relation of the deceased.The prosecution examined Sunder Lal, Radhey Shyam, Puran Mal and Devi Prasad to prove its case against the aforesaid accused.The Sessions Judge believed all the witnesses.In a careful and sifting analysis of the entire evidence, the learned Judges of the High Court (S.D. Khare and Jagmohan Lal Sinha JJ.) have winnowed out all evidence which could legitimately be objected to by the appellant and have held that the remaining evidence clearly brought home the guilt to him.Counsel for the appellant could not point out any infirmity in their opinion.We have read the entire evidence, and we are satisfied that they have rightly found the appellant guilty of the murder of Chunni Lal.Counsel for the appellant has, however, strenuously urged before us that after the acquittal of Mahendra Singh and Lakhan Singh, the appellant could not be convicted with the aid of Section 34 I.P.C. The charge framed by the Sessions Judge reads:I, ... Sessions Judge, Aligarh, hereby charge you Sukh Ram S/o Hari Ram, Lakhan Singh s/o Biri Singh and Mahendra Singh s/o Gulab Chand as follows:That you on the 9th day of March, 1967, at about 10.30 p.m. in the town of Sasni near the bus stand at the shop of Chunni Lal in furtherance of your common intention which was to commit the murder of Chunni Lal, did commit the murder of Chunni Lal, did commit his murder by one of you firing at him with a pistol, as a result of which Chunni Lal immediately fell down dead, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and within the cognisance of this Court.Thus the charge specifically mentions that the murder of Chunni Lal was committed by the three accused named therein, namely, Mahendra Singh, Lakhan Singh and the appellant Sukh Ram.It does not mention that any other persons, known or unknown, were concerned in the commission of the offence.But in view of the unambiguous evidence tendered by the prosecution in the Sessions Court, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the appellant by reason of his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code, even though the two other accused specifically named in the charge have been acquitted.Indeed, the very line of defence adopted by the appellant, as reflected in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, discloses an awareness on his part of the substance and true nature of the allegations leveled against him.Though the charge confines participation in the crime to three named individuals, evidence was led to show that Chunni Lal was murdered by the appellant and two other persons, the fatal shot having been fired by one of these two.At the trial, the heart of the issue therefore was whether there was evidence to prove that the appellant and two others bad, in pursuance of their common intention, committed the murder of Chunni Lal.In fact, may be by reason of the variance between the terms of the charge and the trend of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge while examining the appellant under Section 342 Cr.P.C. questioned him in regard to his participation in the crime along with his "companions", not along with the two named co-accused.On the central issue arising in the case, the Sessions Court found : "This direct evidence taken as a whole proves beyond any reasonable doubt that Sukh Ram along with two other companions had gone to Chunni Lal's shop at that time and one of his companions fired at Chunni Lal with a pistol while Chunni Lal was closing his shop."The High Court acquitted Lakhan Singh because it thought it unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of Kunwarji in regard to Lakhan Singh's identification.But the learned Judges of the High Court were certain, and we are in agreement with their view, that there were three culprits, appellant being one of those three.In Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab [1954] S.C.R. 145 four persons were convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They were tried along with three other persons but those three persons were acquitted by the High Court.The argument in this Court was similar to the one before us.The First Information Report had specifically named the four appellants and the three acquitted accused.Accordingly the appellants were acquitted by this Court.While acquitting them, Bose J. took care to observe at a page 151 of the Report :The accused are all men of the same village and the eyewitnesses know them by name.The murder took place in daylight and within a few feet of the two eye-witnesses.If the witnesses had said : "I know there were five assailants and I am certain of A. B. C. I am not certain of the other two but think they were D and E" a conviction of A. B. and C. provided the witnesses are believed, would be proper.In Bharwad Nepa Dana v. State of Bombay persons were tried by the Sessions Judge for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. He acquitted seven of them and convicted the remaining five.The convicted persons appealed to the High Court.The High Court acquitted one of them and affirmed the conviction of the remaining four.On appeal the argument before this Court was similar to the one before us.The High Court had recorded this finding :But he was satisfied that the appellant and two others did participate in the crime.But he could not say as to who those 9 or 10 persons were.The three convicted persons appealed to the High Court.The High Court dismissed the appeal.It was urged before this Court that on the acquittal of the 10 co-accused the remaining three accused could not be convicted with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C. Rejecting the argument, Raghubar Dayal J. observed :It is only when the number of the alleged assailants is definite and all of them are named, and the number of persons found to be proved to have taken part in the incident is less than five, that it cannot be held that the assailants' party must have consisted of five or more persons.The acquittal of the remaining named persons must mean that they were not in the incident.The fact that they were named, excludes the possibility of other persons to be in the appellant's party and especially when there is no occasion to think that the witnesses naming all the accused could have committed mistake in recognising them.The learned Judge added :The witnesses were from village Seel.A good number of the accused were from other villages.Only two of the witnesses had named all the thirteen accused.Other witnesses did not name all of them.None of them named more than seven accused and all of them said that there were thirteen persons in the appellant's party.The learned Judge then observed :In this state of evidence, it is not possible to say that the courts below could not have come to the conclusion that there were more than five persons in the appellant's party.It may be observed that the facts of this case have a close resemblance with the facts in our case.Counsel for the appellant has relied on Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab [1962] Suppl.The appellants along with three others were charged with the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C. They were all named.The Sessions Judge acquitted two of them.He convicted the appellant and one more.On appeal the High Court affirmed their conviction and sentence.The Sessions Judge had taken care to record a finding that the crime must have been committed by more than three or four persons.The High Court affirmed this finding.So that appellant can derive no assistance from this case.It may be observed that Dalip Singh, Bharwad Mepa Dana and Kartar Singh (supra) were noticed in this case and not dissented from.On appeal the High Court convicted the] appellant but maintained the acquittal of the remaining three The appellant challenged his conviction in this Court on a ground identical to the one before us.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', '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.
|
127,037,705 |
The Revision Petitioner/Petitioner (Vehicle Owner)/third party haspreferred the instant Criminal Revision Petition as against the order, dated30.01.2018 in Crl.M.P.No.211 of 2018 passed by the Learned JudicialMagistrate, Uthamapalayam.2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that thepetitioner is the owner of the vehicle bearing No.TN-60-E-4251 (Mahindra PickUp Van) and she derived income through hiring of the above vehicle fortransportation purposes of various agricultural items in and aroundUthamapalayam to other distinctions and while so, on 10.01.2018, therespondent police have registered a case in Crime No.9 of 2018 for thealleged offence under Section 379 IPC against four accused persons, on thebasis of the complaint given by one Thanickachalam, who is a resident of theGudalur Town stating that the accused were illegally loading banana Vaalaitharu belonging to the de-facto complainant on the vehicle of the petitionerand when he chased them, they ran away and based on the confessional statement given by the accused, it was revealed that one of the accused tookthe said vehicle from the petitioner stating he wanted the same for hispersonal and bona fide use.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that inthe FIR or in any statement of accused, the name of the petitioner is not atall mentioned and the petitioner is no way involved in the alleged Crime andnow, the said vehicle is kept at the respondent police station and the sameis exposed to sun and rain and the life of the said vehicle is gettingdeteriorated.Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed petition inCrl.M.P.No.211 of 2018 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayamunder Section 451 of Cr.P.C for interim custody of the vehicle, but thelearned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam without considering the merits ofthe petition, has simply dismissed the petition.M.P.No.211 of 2018 by passing theimpugned order, dated 30.01.2018 and the trial Court had lost sight of thesettled Law that mere pendency of confiscation proceedings before thecompetent authority would not preclude a Court of Law from exercising itsjurisdiction for the return of vehicle in terms of the ingredients of Section457 of Cr.5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.vi)The Petitioner should give an undertaking to produce the vehicle asand when required by the requisite authority/Prohibition Officer dulyauthorised in that behalf by the Government."
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,041,312 |
As per prosecution case, at about 10:00 a.m. on 18-01-2015, accused Dinesh Yadav caught hold of the hands of minor prosecutrix no.1 (PW-2) with intent to outrage her modesty.On the same day, accused Dinesh Yadav offered Rs.30/- to another minor prosecutrix (PW-4) and requested her to play games with him.This action on the part of the accused comprised advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures.After the trial, learned trial Court acquitted the accused of aforesaid charges extending benefit of doubt to him.The accused has been acquitted of the charges allegedly committed in respect of prosecutrix no.1 (PW-2) on the ground that in her statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure recorded before the Magistrate, she had turned totally hostile and had denied that any incident had occurred.Learned trial Court further held that before the date of the incident, the parents of the prosecutrix wanted to get their daughter married to younger brother of the accused.When the proposal was turned down by the parents of the accused there was bad blood between the parties.Therefore, the statement of the first prosecutrix (PW-2) was not relied upon.The statements of 10 years' old second prosecutrix (PW4) was considered to be unreliable on the ground that there were material discrepancies between her statements before the Court and before police.The parents of first prosecutrix and the second prosecutrix are neighbours and have goods relations.In any case, the incident, particularly the one with regard to PW-4, which took place on the same day, appeared to be highly improbable.Thus, no ground has been made out for interfering with the findings of acquittal.Consequently, this miscellaneous criminal case under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for leave to appeal against acquittal is dismissed.(C V SIRPURKAR)
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,049,843 |
Shri Anurag Dubey, learned counsel for the prosecutrix/ objector.As prayed by the learned counsel for the prosecutrix/ objector, the written-objections, marked as I.A. No.25050/2016, is taken on record.Heard arguments.Perused case diary and material on record.This is the first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he apprehends his arrest in Crime No.747/2015 registered at the Government Railway Police Station Bhopal against him for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 354A, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC.According to the prosecution, on 14.7.2015 the prosecutrix with her maternal aunts namely, Minu Rai, Chandravati and Dhananjay, who is the applicant herein and who is the son of said Chandravati, were travelling in Yashwantpur Sampark-Kranti Express from Ambala to Pune.Before the train reached Railway Station Bhopal, the prosecutrix went to toilet.When she was to come out of the toilet, the applicant pushed her inside the toilet and locked its door from inside.Thereafter, he forced the prosecutrix to suck his penis and also touched her private parts inappropriately.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that on account of property disputes, the prosecutrix has lodged the false FIR.He submits that the applicant is a young man of 34 years and that he had been an Ex- Navigating Officer.He submits that the alleged acts of applicant do not constitute an offence under Section 376 IPC.He submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in M.Cr.C. No.20105/2016, Ghanshyam Vs.State of Madhya Pradesh, has granted anticipatory bail to the accused vide order dated 29.11.2016 notwithstanding that the police has initiated the proceedings against the accused of the said case under Section 82 Cr.P.C. He lastly submits that if the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, then he would fully cooperate with the police in the investigation of the case.Upon these submissions, he prays for grant of bail to the applicant.Learned Panel Lawyer submits that the police has already initiated the proceedings against the applicant under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. As a result, this anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Lavesh Vs.State (NCT of Delhi), (2012) 8 SCC 730, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.He submits that in the year 2013 the definition of "rape" as defined under Section 375 IPC is amended and the commission of oral-sex also amounts to rape.Hence, the police has rightly registered the case against the applicant under Section 376 IPC, in addition to other offences.He submits that this is not a case of false implication because at the time of incident the prosecutrix and the applicant both were travelling in the train with their family members.He submits that the case of Ghanshyam Vs.State of M.P. (Supra) is distinguishable on three counts.First, the age of the accused was 81 years, Second, the allegation against him was that he exhorted the main accused to fire a gunshot and Third, the proclamation order was not issued as per the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. whereas in the present case First, the applicant is the main accused, Second, he is a young man of 34 years of age and Third, the proclamation against the applicant is issued strictly following the provisions of Section 82 Cr.P.C. He submits that a co-ordinate Bench of this High Court in the case of Golu Sharma Vs.State of M.P. (2016 SCC Online M.P.90) has held that the commencement of a proceeding under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is sufficient to attract the provision of the said Section and the declaration of an accused as absconder by the court concerned is not necessary at the time of consideration of his anticipatory bail application.He submits that the applicant committed the crime of incest sex because the relation between the applicant and the prosecutrix is of cousin-brother and cousin-sister.Thus, on merits of the case alone, the applicant is not entitled to get anticipatory bail.Upon these submissions, learned Panel Lawyer vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the prosecutrix/objector has adopted the same lines of arguments.He also submits that when the train reached Pune railway station, the applicant made an attempt to kill the prosecutrix by strangulation.Thereupon, she lodged the FIR at MIDC Bhosari Police Station Pune.Her FIR is registered against the applicant at Crime No.186/2015 under Sections 307, 354B, 504 and 506 (Part II) IPC.He submits that the applicant had filed an application for grant of bail before the Pune Court.In that case, his bail was also rejected.Later, the applicant approached the High Court of Bombay for grant of anticipatory bail but the same was dismissed for want of prosecution.On due consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions raised on behalf of the parties by their respective counsel and upon perusal of the aforementioned authorities, but without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that no case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant is made out.Hence, the application is dismissed.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJENDRA MAHAJAN) JUDGE
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,082,824 |
MC 4055/2016 Page 1 of 36 (IPC).The proceedings in the criminal case (No.789/2002) came to an end on 21.08.2013 with the order recorded by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) holding the petitioner guilty and convicting him for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC on the basis of "plea of guilt", this being followed by award of punishment in the form of fine of Rs.500/- on each count, the default sentence being simple imprisonment for five days.Noticeably, the fine was deposited on the same day on behalf of the petitioner (he himself not being present) by his surety.MC 4055/2016 Page 1 of 36DL-8SR- 0502 (hereinafter, the "motorcycle").The car statedly was driven by the petitioner herein (the accused) in a rash (or negligent) manner, it having emerged at the scene on Burari road from the direction of Kingsway Camp.On the other hand, the motorcycle was driven by a boy named Divik Kashyap @ Mikki, then aged 17 years, he carrying along, on the pillion, his tutor Manoj along with his two and a half years old cousin Nikle.The motorcycle had come to the place of collision from the side of Burari as the tutor Manoj was to be dropped at Parmanand colony.It is alleged that on account of rash (or negligent) driving of the car by the petitioner, it collided against the motorcycle as a result of which all the three persons travelling thereon fell down and suffered injuries.The accident statedly was seen by one Pateshwar Prasad who was working as a painter in a private property close to the place of collision.One of the injured persons along with the child were taken to the trauma centre while the other person injured was shifted to another hospital separately.Eventually, both Mikki and Manoj were brought to the casualty of Lok Nayak hospital Crl.They only note the submission of "both parties" that there was a possibility of some settlement.The petitioner herein was brought before the court of Metropolitan Magistrate to face trial as an accused on the basis of report ("charge sheet") under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), presented on 03.07.2002, upon conclusion of investigation into first information report (FIR) No.560/2001 of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar on allegations of his involvement in certain acts of commission and omission constituting offences punishable under sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Crl.The petitioner challenged the legality, correctness and propriety of the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2013 in the court of sessions invoking its revisional jurisdiction by filing a petition (Criminal Revision No.24/2015).The Additional Sessions Judge, however, was not impressed.He concluded that there was no error committed by the trial court, the order passed leading to conviction and sentencing as above being reasoned and speaking, there being no grounds for any interference.The petition at hand was filed invoking the inherent power of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to assail the legality and propriety of the above mentioned proceedings of the ACMM and the view taken by decision dated 12.07.2016 of the revisional court.MC 4055/2016 Page 2 of 36Before coming to the issues that arise for consideration, it is necessary to take note, albeit briefly, of the background facts.It appears that on 03.11.2001, a motor vehicular accident occurred at about 11:10 a.m. in the vicinity of Kali Mandir, Dheerpur, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan within the jurisdiction of Police Station Mukherjee Nagar.The incident involved two motor vehicles, one a car bearing registration No.DL-1CG-4764 (hereinafter, "the car") and, the other, a motorcycle bearing registration No.MC 4055/2016 Page 3 of 36 at about 12:05 p.m. on 03.11.2001 and were medically examined against medico-legal certificate (MLC) nos.24411 and 24412 respectively.The injuries of each of them were opined to be grievous in nature.MC 4055/2016 Page 3 of 36The FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Pateshwar Prasad, the eye witness, initially for offences under sections 279 and 337 IPC.Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet which was laid before the Metropolitan Magistrate, however, sought prosecution for offences under sections 279 and 338 IPC, there being no clarity as to the nature of injuries suffered by the child who was also a passenger on the pillion on the motorcycle.The Metropolitan Magistrate who had issued the process put the petitioner on trial by serving a notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. on him on 12.09.2002, the relevant part thereof reading thus:-"That on 3-11-2001, at about 1:40 AM at Kali Mandir, Dheerpur, near Radha Swami Satsang Bhawan, Delhi you were found driving vehicle No.Maruti car No.DL-1C-G-4764 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and personal safety to others and thus you thereby committed offence punishable u/s 279 IPC and within the cognizance of this court.Secondly, on the above mentioned date, time and place while driving in aforesaid manner you caused simple/grievous injuries on the person of Mikki and thus you thereby committed offence punishable u/s. 337/338 IPC and within the cognizance of this court."MC 4055/2016 Page 4 of 36It may be mentioned here that the above notice was issued on a pre-prepared format, the portions underlined being the ones filled in by hand, reference to section 337 in the printed format having been scored off also by hand.It is pertinent to note here that in the notice of accusations section 251 Cr.P.C., as quoted above, reference to injuries suffered by Manoj, or for that matter the child, were conspicuously missing.This, and the subsequent proceedings recorded till the conclusion by the impugned order dated 21.08.2013 reflects non-application of mind, the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate apparently not having gone through the charge sheet to ascertain as to who all were the victims of the offences which had been committed.The effect of failure to take stock of the case from such perspective would, as subsequent discussion shall show, add to the confusion and delay, leading to rudderless judicial process.The petitioner pleaded not guilty to above notice under Section 251 Cr. PC and claimed trial, his plea having been duly recorded and the case thereafter taken to the stage of the prosecution evidence.The order sheets (on the trial court record), in the wake of direction for production of prosecution evidence by order dated 12.09.2002 (on which date the notice under section 251 Cr.P.C. was served), reveal not only callous and casual approach by the concerned criminal court but also lack of interest on the part of the investigating/prosecution agency, the petitioner clearly also adding to the reasons for delay on account of absence on several occasions.No Crl.MC 4055/2016 Page 5 of 36 witness was examined, rather the presence of the material witnesses not even secured, for seven years till 27.11.2009, some of the proceedings recorded in-between reflecting that the magistrate did not even ensure issuance of summons to the witnesses on a number of dates.MC 4055/2016 Page 5 of 36On 27.11.2009, Vijay Kumar Kashyap (father of Divik Kashyap, one of the injured persons) appeared.The proceedings do not indicate as to why Divik Kashyap himself was not present.The Metropolitan Magistrate issued notice to the "other injured" (Manoj Kumar), to be served through investigating officer (IO) for the next date.The case thereafter got derailed, firstly on account of presiding officer being on leave and later on account of absence of the petitioner this leading to issuance of non-bailable warrants against him on numerous dates.On 26.04.2013, the eye-witness Pateshwar Prasad and Divik Kashyap (one of the victims) eventually appeared as witnesses before the trial Magistrate.The petitioner, however, was absent but granted exemption through counsel.Things moved with some alacrity on the said date, this being reflected by three order-sheets which were recorded on 26.04.2013, they reading as under:-"26.4.2013 Present: Ld.APP for State Accused absent.Cl. for the accused is present.MC 4055/2016 Page 6 of 36Complainant Pateshwar and victim Divik Kshyap are present.At oral request, accused is exempted for today from personal appearance though his cl.Both complainant and victim seeks adjournment on the ground that there is possibility of settlement.Today, accused is absent.ACMM At 02.10 PM Present : Ld.APP for state Sh.Manoj Tiwari, cl. for accused Injured Divik Kshyap with cl. Sh.Gurbachan Singh.Manoj Tiwari, cl for the accused has submitted that his vakalatnama is on record and he has instructions from his client to appear before the mediation centre and prays that matter be referred to mediation centre today itself.Injured has no objection to this effect.The offence punishable u/s 338 IPC is compoundable.Let the matter be referred to mediation centre for today itself at 02:45 pm.Parties are directed to reappear before this court thereafter.ACMM 26.4.2013 File taken up today on the receipt of settlement/ agreement arrived at Mediation Centre, Rohini District Courts, Delhi.Present : Ld. APP for State Cl. for the accused is present.Complainant Pateshwar and injured Divik Kashyap in person.MC 4055/2016 Page 7 of 36Record of the file reveals that there is one more injured viz. Manoj in the present case.As far as the injured Divik Kashyap is concerned, the offence punishable u/s 338 IPC stands compounded vide Ex.P1 and statement of injured Divik Kashyap.Injured Manoj be summoned through IO of the case.Date pronounced earlier stands cancelled.The settlement agreement (Ex.P1) to which reference is made in the third order-sheet (quoted above) reflected that the parties, i.e., (the petitioner being the accused through counsel, on one hand, and injured Divik Kashyap with his father, on the other) had "agreed to settle/compound" the offence under section 338 IPC, subject to payment of Rs.2 lacs (by the former to the latter) by pay order No.532033 dated 25.04.2013 drawn on Karnataka Bank in his favour.The statement of Divik Kashyap affirming the compounding by him of the offence under section 338 IPC was separately recorded on 26.04.2013 (at page 67 of the trial court record), he also having acknowledged the receipt of the aforementioned instrument (referred to as "DD").Clearly, the parleys leading to the compromise between Divik Kashyap and the petitioner (the accused) had already taken place before the parties came before the court on 26.04.2013, the submission that there was a "possibility of settlement" being not entirely truthful, this being reflected by the settlement followed by the tender and Crl.MC 4055/2016 Page 8 of 36 acceptance of the demand draft which had been issued on the previous date.MC 4055/2016 Page 8 of 36Be that as it may, in the proceedings of 26.04.2013 recorded by the ACMM, there is no explanation as to why statement of complainant Pateshwar Prasad (who had come before the court for the first time after the trial had commenced on 12.09.2002) was not recorded.The said person Pateshwar Prasad (described as complainant) had no personal stake in the matter.He was an eye- witness who was unconnected with the accused and the injured persons.It is not understood as to why he was also sent for the process of mediation and made a party to the settlement agreement (Ex.P1).It is only after the offence under section 338 IPC had been compounded by one of the victims (Divik Kashyap @ Mikki) that the ACMM realized that the case involved another victim as well.On the request of the petitioner (through counsel), summons were issued to the said other victim Manoj, not for his evidence, but for "exploring the possibility of settlement".The proceedings are totally silent as to whether Pateshwar Prasad had been given up or his evidence had been abandoned or as to why he remained unexamined.The ACMM forgot that the petitioner was on trial for two offences one punishable under section 279 IPC and the other under section 338 IPC (which concerned more than one victim).Divik Kashyap @ Mikki, one of the victims, may have compounded the offence under section 338 IPC in so far as it concerned him.But, he remained a crucial witness for the Crl.MC 4055/2016 Page 9 of 36 trial for the offence under section 279 IPC as indeed in respect of offence under section 338 IPC qua the other victim(s).MC 4055/2016 Page 9 of 36On 12.07.2013, the summons issued to Manoj returned unserved.On the next date, i.e., 21.08.2013 things again moved, the following proceedings being recorded at the instance of the counsel for the petitioner:-"21.08.2013 Present: Ld.APP for state Accused is absent.However, Ld. Counsel sh.Manoj Tiwari for the accused is present and moved an application for exemption of the accused from personal appearance for today only.In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, accused is exempted from personal appearance for today only.The summons issued to another injured namely Manoj have been returned back unserved despite being routed through IO.However, at this stage, Ld. Counsel Sh.Manoj Tiwari has submitted that he has instructions on behalf of accused for pleading guilty for the offence u/s 279/338 IPC.The consequences of plea of guilty has been explained to the Ld. Counsel for accused but Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the plea of guilt of the accused is voluntarily and without any force or undue influence.Counsel further submits that since accused has been exempted for today, he has instructions to make statement on behalf of accused for pleading guilty.Separate statement of Ld. Counsel for the accused Crl.MC 4055/2016 Page 10 of 36 recorded to this effect at bar.In view of the plea of guilt, the accused Gaurav Aggarwal stands convicted for the offence punishable u/s 279/338 IPC.MC 4055/2016 Page 10 of 36Heard on the point of sentence.Ld. APP for the state prays for passing an appropriate sentence.On the other hand Ld. Counsel for the convict Gaurav prays for a lenient view as the convict has already compensated one of the victim in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and further on the ground that the second victim is not traceable.Counsel further prays for a lenient view on the ground that the convict is the sole bread earner for the family and is the first time offender.I have heard the rival submissions.In my considered opinion considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the ends of justice shall meet if the convict is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 5 days for offence punishable u/s 279 IPC and the convict is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 5 day for offence punishable u/s 338 IPC.Fine deposited on behalf of convict by surety Dinesh Sharma present in the court today.Surety bond discharged.Bail bond cancelled.Documents if any be returned to the rightful owner.Superdarinama if any is also cancelled.File be consigned to record room after due compliance."It may be added that the separate statement of the counsel for the petitioner referred to in the above proceedings reads thus:-"21.08.2013 Statement of Sh.Manoj Tiwari, Adv.for the accused Gaurav Aggarwal At bar I am an Advocate for the accused Gaurav Aggarwal in the present case and my Vakalatnama is on record.I have instructions on behalf of accused Gaurav Crl.MC 4055/2016 Page 11 of 36 Aggarwal to plead guilty for offence u/s 279/338 IPC for accused.The plea of guilty of accused is without any force or undue influence.The accused has already compensated the other injured in Mediation and has already paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the injured and I pray a lenient view for the accused in the present case."The Ld. Counsel for the revisionist had not filed any written document authorizing him to plead guilty on behalf of the revisionist.That the Ld. Trial Court ought not to have taken into consideration the oral plea of guilt which was not even unqualified of the counsel for the revisionist and Ld.Trial court could not have considered or acted upon the same.That Ld. Trial Court has committed grave irregularity by not taking into consideration that Divik who was driving the two wheeler was per se negligent being 16 years in age, and in the challan his age to cover up, was wrongly mentioned as 19 years.MC 4055/2016 Page 13 of 36That Ld. Trial Court instead of recording plea of guilt of counsel for revisionist, ought to have acquitted the revisionist as the injured person and the complainant were not interested to appear as a witness and face consequences for deposing falsely.The orders Crl.A copy of the petition with accompanying documents and a copy of this order shall also be served with the said notice."Mr. Manoj Tiwari Advocate, who represented the petitioner before the trial Court as the defence counsel, has filed his response dated 16.04.2019 which has come on record.He would, inter alia, state that the petitioner is a well qualified person, earning his livelihood as a businessman, who had had some reasons on several dates to be absent, exemption having been sought on his behalf, instructions having been received through Mr. Dinesh Sharma who had stood surety for him, a person who was not only an employee of the petitioner but also his pairokar.He would explain the submissions made leading to the plea of guilty being entered on 21.08.2013 as pursuant to the "instructions"The criminal trial procedure invariably also includes a stage when the accused is called upon to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, the trial court having been empowered to examine him in such regard "at any stage" and "without previous warning", particularly "after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined" and before he is called upon to adduce evidence in his defence, if any (Section 313 Cr.P.C.).Though sub-section (3) of Section 313 Cr.P.C. makes it clear that refusal to answer the questions by giving "false answers" to them at the stage of such examination by the court does not expose the accused to liability for punishment, sub-section (4) permits that the answers given by him "may be taken into consideration" in such trial.P.C.. The fact remains, however, that in both cases, conviction was recorded not on the basis of such admissions but on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution bringing home the guilt, not the least on a revised plea of guilty.The revision petition was allowed and the order of conviction set aside, the case directed to be retried, the court observing thus :-Section 244 says that if the accused does not admit the offence, the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the complainant if any and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take evidence in his defence.The factual matrix was slightly different.PC, he opting not to plead guilty and thus claiming to be tried.It appears that after recording the plea, the prosecution was called upon to lead evidence and the complainant (the victim) was examined (as PW1).Before other witnesses could be examined, the court deemed it fit to alter the charge, in exercise of its powers under Section 216 Cr. PC.The charge was modified from one for the offence under Section 326 IPC to that for the offence under Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means).In answer to this altered charge, the accused entered the plea of guilty.The above procedure was challenged by the victim (PW1) before the Madras High Court.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,083,293 |
The relevant facts are as follows :The applicant had been working in the Indian Forest Services and was allotted to Maharashtra cadre.By the order dated 19-03-1991, the applicant was directed to assume additional charge of the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur and he accordingly held the additional charge for the period from 23-03-1991 till 22-08-During this period, the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests was given the target for implementing the afforestation programme during rainy season of 1991 and according to the programme, plantation was to be done at Gorewada and Ambazari ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 3 revn181.14 areas of city of Nagpur.To implement the programme, the seedlings/saplings were to be transported and for the transportation the applicant had worked out the rates and had sent the proposal to the office of the Conservator of Forests, which were sanctioned and approved.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::Some irregularities were noticed in the work of plantation and an open enquiry was suggested.Heard S.P. Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri R.K. Joshi, Advocate for the applicant and Shri ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 2 revn181.14 A.D. Sonak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::2. Rule.Rule made returnable forthwith.The applicant has filed this revision application challenging the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge rejecting the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he be discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.On 02-04-1998, First Information Report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Bureau (Forest Cell), Nagpur and as the charges under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were levelled against the applicant, proposal was sent to obtain sanction.The charge-sheet included charges in respect of offences under the Indian Penal Code also.A departmental enquiry was conducted.The advice of Union Public Service Commission was sought.The Commission sent the communication dated 23-09-2004 advising that ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 4 revn181.14 the proceedings be dropped and the Government of Maharashtra, by the order dated 03-04-2012, accepted the advice of the Commission and exonerated the applicant in departmental proceedings.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::In the meantime, on 31-03-2010 the Anti-Corruption Bureau filed charge-sheet against the applicant and co-accused.The applicant had filed an application before this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 vide Criminal Application (APL) No.659/2011 praying that the proceedings against the applicant be quashed.This Court, by the judgment dated 23-07-2012, partly allowed the application, quashed the charge against the applicant for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, however, concluded that the prosecution against the applicant for the offences under the Indian Penal Code to proceed in accordance with law.The applicant filed an application before the Special Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that he be discharged of the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Special Judge, by the order dated 04-09-2013, rejected the application.This Court, by the judgment dated ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 5 revn181.14 04-04-2014, allowed the revision application, set aside the order passed by the learned Special Judge on 04-09-2013 and remitted the matter for deciding the application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, again.The learned Special Judge has rejected the application by the impugned order.The applicant, being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this revision application.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has raised preliminary objection urging that the prayer made by the applicant for quashing the proceedings against him was partly accepted by this Court while disposing the Criminal Application (APL) No.659/2011, that this Court had quashed the charge in so far as it related to the offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the prayer made by the applicant for quashing the charges relating to the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code was not accepted and the Special Court was directed to proceed with the prosecution and therefore, it was not open for the applicant to file the application before the Special Court under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.It is submitted that the prayer made by the applicant for discharge of the offences punishable under Sections ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 6 revn181.14 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code be rejected.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::It is submitted that this Court directed the Special Court to proceed in the matter according to law and the applicant is entitled in law to file ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 7 revn181.14 application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and accordingly it was filed.It is argued that the non-applicant cannot now again raise the same objection.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::The submission made on behalf of the applicant on the above point has to be accepted.The non-applicant had raised the same objection about maintainability of application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to oppose the Criminal Revision Application No.199/2013 and the objection is repelled by this Court.It is submitted that the documentary evidence on record shows that the transportation rates proposed by the applicant were sanctioned by the then Conservator of Forests and the job of plantation including the work of transport of plants/saplings on sanctioned rates was entrusted to the Range Forest Officer-Brijbhushan Tiwari (accused No.2) as per the Bombay Forest Manual who undertook certain independent correspondences without knowledge of the applicant and the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur.It is submitted that the documentary evidence on record, on the basis of which the offences under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code are alleged against the applicant, does not show any endorsement of the applicant or his office and the quotations relating to transportation rates were addressed to Range Forest Officer and those documents were not routed through the office of the applicant and it was not the duty of the applicant to look into those quotations.It is alleged that the accusations in the charge-sheet attribute overt acts to the accused Nos.2 to 4 and the applicant is not ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 9 revn181.14 connected with those activities.It is submitted that there is nothing on the record to show that the applicant had sanctioned any bills.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::According to the applicant, this Court quashed the charges levelled against the applicant for offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which charge was based on the accusation that the applicant has conspired and gained monetarily and therefore, the charges levelled against the applicant for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code, which are also based on same accusations, cannot survive.It is submitted that the learned Special Judge has not considered all these aspects and therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside and the application filed by the applicant under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has to be allowed and the applicant has to be discharged from the prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the charge-sheet contains sufficient material which show that the applicant is connected with the activities which constitute the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 10 revn181.14 Indian Penal Code.It is submitted that, on the applicant's own showing, involvement of the office of Deputy Conservator of Forests and the applicant in the implementation of plantation programme is there and the charge-sheet reveals that accused Nos.2 to 4 are involved in criminal conspiracy and for forging documents for monetary gains.It is argued that, in the circumstances, it cannot be said that there is no material against the applicant for prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 465, 468, 471 and 477-A of the Indian Penal Code in respect of which accused Nos.2 to 4 are also being prosecuted.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the learned Special Judge has properly considered these aspects and has rightly rejected the application filed by the applicant.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::It is prayed that the impugned order be maintained and the criminal revision application filed by the applicant be dismissed.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::With the assistance of the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the non-applicant, I have examined the documents placed on the record of the revision application.It is on record that the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur was given the work of implementation of afforestation programme in the rainy season of 1991 and plantation work was to be undertaken at several places including Gorewada and Ambazari areas.It is undisputed that at the relevant time, the applicant was holding the additional charge of the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur.It is undisputed that the applicant had sent the communication dated 28-06-1991 proposing the rates of transport of plants/saplings.Though it is the contention of the applicant that the rates proposed by him were approved by the Conservator of Forests, at this stage, there cannot be an enquiry regarding these aspects.The above facts, prima-facie, show that the office of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur was connected with the work in which loss is caused to the Government and at the time of commission of offence as alleged, undisputedly the applicant was holding the additional charge of the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::The submission made on behalf of the applicant relying on the communication issued by the Joint Secretary requesting that the order according sanction for prosecution of the applicant be withdrawn in view of the fact that the applicant is exonerated in the departmental enquiry, cannot be accepted at this stage.The revision application is dismissed.Considering the fact that the trial is pending since 2010 and the applicant has retired on 31-07-2015, in my view, the interests ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 ::: 13 revn181.14 of justice would be sub-served by directing the Special Court to dispose the trial within six months.::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::JUDGE pma ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 00:00:27 :::
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,270,862 |
Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 29.1.2007 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Vellore, in C.A.No.147 of 2006 confirming the judgment dated 28.8.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyattam, in C.C.No.133 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.A 'resume' of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case would run thus:(a) The police laid the police report under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the revision petitioners herein for the offence under Sections 326, 324, 323, 294 r/w.34 of IPC.Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was conducted.(b) During enquiry,on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined, Exs.P1 to P10 and M.O.1 were marked.On the accused's side, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.(c) Ultimately, the Magistrate acquitted A3 and recorded the convictions and imposed the sentences as against A1 and A2 as under:Case No.OffencePunishableC.C.No.133 of 2004Sec.326 IPC A1One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, one month rigorous imporisonmentSec.294-B IPC-A1 and A2Fine of Rs.500/-, in default, two weeks rigorous imprisonmentSec.323 IPC-A2Fine of Rs.500/-, indefault, two weeks rigorous imprisonment.(d) Animadverting upon such convictions and sentences, the appeal in C.A.147 of 2006 was filed before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Vellore, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court, confirming the judgment of the trial Court.(e) Being disconcerted and dissatisfied with the judgments of both the Courts below, this criminal revision case is focussed by A1 and A2 on various grounds, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:The evidence of I.O. was quite unsatisfactory, even then, the Magistrate over looking the same, simply recorded the conviction under Section 326 IPC.The judgment of both the Courts below are not based on proper analysis of evidence.3. Heard both sides.A1 and A2 were charged under Section 294-B IPC and the very same A1 and A2 were also charged for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, in connection with they having attacked with stone the injured, namely, Dhanabal and A3 was charged with the offence under Section 326 of IPC on the ground that he, with stone, pierced the right eye of Dhanabal and caused deprivation of his eye sight.Ultimately, A3 was acquitted and the fact also remains that in the FIR, there was no reference to A3 at all.
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,089,506 |
The petitioner will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial;The petitioner will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be,The petitioner shall mark his presence at the concerned police station once a week, till conclusion of the investigation.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,270,944 |
(Delivered by R.REGUPATHI,J.) The appellant is the sole accused in Sessions Case No.164 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, whereunder the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 392 r/w 397 I.P.C. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Hon'ble Court.As per the charge, the appellant on 21.7.2003 at 4.00 p.m. entered into the residence of the deceased and P.W.1 and demanded payment of money for his expenses and since it was refused, caused injury on P.W.1, who is the uncle of the appellant aged about 70 years at the time of occurrence and also the deceased, who is the wife of P.W.1, and in the result, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and in the course of the same transaction, the appellant committed robbery of gold necklace, four bangles and two silver key bunches and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307 and 392 r/w 397 I.P.C.When the appellant was initially questioned, he denied the complicity of committing such offences and therefore, trial of the case was taken up.The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 17 and marked Exs.P1 to P30 along with M.Os.1 to 14 to substantiate its case.5.1. P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased.Both of them were staying alone on 21.7.2003 at 3.30 p.m. at their residence at Door No.18/A, Kalyanasundaram Street, Muthulakshmi Nagar, Chitlapakkam.P.Ws.2 to 4 went out of the residence at 9 a.m. to attend their job.When the appellant demanded money from P.W.1, it was refused.Thereafter, the appellant assaulted P.W.1 with M.O.1 cricket bat on his head and at that time, the deceased rushed to prevent the assault.The appellant assaulted the deceased also on her head, chest, leg and other parts with M.O.1 bat and the deceased fell down.Even thereafter, the appellant assaulted P.W.1 and he also fell down.The appellant thereafter entered into the room where a bureau was kept and opened the same.P.W.1 thereafter became unconscious.5.2. P.W.3, the wife of P.W.2 and daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W.1, returned from her school at 4.30 p.m. and found the house locked from outside.However, the noise of the TV was loudly audible and when she peeped through the window, she found the deceased and P.W.1 were lying with bleeding injuries.She raised noise and in the presence of the neighbours, break open the back door and entered into the house.The deceased with injuries on the head, chest, leg and other places found dead and P.W.1 was found with bleeding injuries on his ears and chin and found M.O.1 cricket bat nearby.The bureau was opened and her jewels, bangles and silver key bunch were found missing.Since P.W.1 was in a critical condition, she rang up to P.W.5, her uncle.An auto rickshaw driven by P.W.14 was arranged and P.W.1 was sent to the hospital for treatment.She has also made an attempt to inform the occurrence to her husband P.W.2, but she could not do so.5.3. P.W.2, son of the deceased and P.W.1, in his evidence has stated that on 21.7.2003 at 3.15 p.m. he has seen the appellant when he returned from his office and when questioned, the appellant stated that he came to the residence to meet him.At that time, the deceased and P.W.1 were present in the residence.When he came back from the office at 6.00 p.m., he saw a crowd collected in front of his house and he was informed by P.W.3 that the deceased and P.W.1 were assaulted and since the condition of P.W.1 was critical, he was sent to the hospital.She has also informed that the bureau in the house had been broken and jewels were found missing.5.4. P.W.1, who was initially admitted in the Government Hospital, Chrompet, on the advice of the Doctor, was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chennai. P.W.4, another son of the deceased and P.W.1 and younger brother of P.W.2, corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and stated that he came to the residence after receiving a telephone call from P.W.3, his sister-in-law and reached the Government Hospital, Chrompet.It is his further evidence that M.O.1 was kept in his room and the room was locked.The key of the lock was kept in a hook and it will be known only to persons who are frequently visiting the residence.He has also stated that the appellant used to stay at the residence on his own on previous occasions.Seeing the critical condition of P.W.1, he has taken him to the Government Hospital, Chrompet with the help of P.W.14, auto driver.Since the condition of P.W.1 was critical, soon after the arrival of P.W.4 to the Government Hospital, Chrompet, P.W.1 was shifted to the Government Hospital, Chennai.Thereafter, he returned back to the residence of the deceased.At that time, the Investigating Officer prepared observation mahazar and he attested the same.P.W.17, Inspector of Police, Chitlapakkam Police Station, on receipt of information, reached Government Hospital, Chennai at 6.40 p.m. on 21.7.2003, reduced into writing the complaint Ex.P19 is the printed FIR.Thereafter, at 9.30 p.m. he reached the scene of occurrence and caused the photographs to be taken through P.W.6, Photographer.M.Os.9 and 10 are the photographs and negatives.He also prepared Ex.P2 observation mahazar and Ex.P20 rough sketch and recovered M.O.1 cricket bat, M.O.6 bloodstained mosaic tile pieces, M.O.7 sample mosaic tile pieces and M.O.8 bloodstained white pillow cover under Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.5 and Sivanandham.He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 11.00 p.m. and 1.30 a.m. and prepared Ex.P21 inquest report in the presence of panchayatdars and also examined P.Ws.2, 3 and other witnesses and despatched the dead body for conducting post-mortem and further examined P.Ws.5, 6 and 14 and recorded their statements.In the hospital, he has examined P.Ws.1 and 4 and recorded their statements.He has also examined P.Ws.5, 6 and 14 and recorded their statements.5.7. P.W.6 Dr.Bloody discharge from the nose present.(1) Lacerated injury behind the right ear 5cm x 4cm x bone deep.(2) Lacerated injury over the right side chin 5cm x 1cm x 3 cm.(3) Contusion over the left cheek and occipital region.Liver pale.Lungs pale.Right side and left side posteriorly congested.Stomach contains blood clots and blackish undigested food particles.Intestine, spleen, kidneys pale.Trachea pale.Hyoid bone intact.Bladder contain 100ml urine.Skull bone left side occipital bone fractured.Membranes lacerated and hematoma seen over the left occipital region and anterior lobe of the brain.She issued Ex.P9 post-mortem certificate.She has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained.She has further opined that the injuries would have been caused by M.O.1 cricket bat.On completion of the post-mortem, P.W.17 recovered M.O.13 bloodstained saree pieces and M.O.14 bloodstained petticoat of the deceased under Form 95 from Police Head Constable along with Ex.P22 Special Report.P26 is the Court's covering letter.On 24.7.2003, P.W.17 has examined P.Ws.7 and 8 and recorded their statements.It is the statement of P.W.7 that he is working as Conductor in the Transport Corporation and he knows the appellant as he used to travel in his bus.It is his evidence that on 21.7.2003 at about 8.30 a.m. when he was in the bus depot, Ayanavaram, the appellant met him and sought his assistance to go to the residence of the deceased.Since the appellant was not having money, P.W.7 paid Rs.10/- and when questioned, the appellant answered that he is going to meet P.W.1 and the deceased for receiving money.In the evening at 6.30 p.m., the appellant telephoned him and accordingly, they met near Noor Hotel, Ayanavaram and at the request of P.W.7, P.W.8, who is related to P.W.7 and working as car driver in a private concern, also joined for a party.with M.O.1 cricket bat.The deceased succumbed to those injuries and P.W.1 was lying unconscious.Further, it was stated that he has brought a gold necklace, four bangles and two silver key bunches and since he has no money, he requested P.W.7 to help him to pledge them and to get money.P.W.7 took the appellant to P.W.15, Pawn Broker and pledged the gold necklace and received Rs.5,000/-.Thereafter, at the request of the appellant, he arranged for the purchase of clothes for the appellant and two days later, he realised the blunder committed by him in helping the appellant and since he worried, on 24.7.2003 he went to the police station and gave a statement.Thereafter, on 5.8.2003, he has also given a statement before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur.P.W.17 during the course of his investigation arrested the appellant on 26.7.2003 at 7.30 a.m. and recorded his voluntary statement in the presence of P.W.9 and Shanmughanantham.He has also recovered M.Os.3 and 4, silver key chains, M.O.5, covering bangles, M.O.11, bloodstained T shirt and M.O.12, jeans pant under Ex.P24 is the Court's covering letter.He has examined P.W.15, Pawn Broker and recovered M.O.2 necklace under Ex.P16 and P17 are the pledge receipts.Thereafter, the appellant was remanded to judicial custody.Statements of P.Ws.9 and 15 have also been recorded.P.W.17 sent Exs.Umeshwari attached to Government Hospital, Tambaram at Chrompet, on receipt of requisition from P.W.17, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased and noticed the following injuries:A female body lies on the back with arms by the sides.On Dissection of Thorax:Pelvis right side fractured 3rd and 4th pelvis sternum fractured in the centre.Heart pale and contain 5ml blood.P10 and P13 requisitions to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for recording statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and for conducting test identification parade respectively.P.W.12, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, on receipt of requisition, Ex.P11, forwarded by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalapttu, recorded statements of P.Ws.2, 7 and 8 and Rajaraman under Section 164 Cr.P.C on 5.8.2003 and Exs.P4, 5 and 12 are the said statements.P.W.13, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, on receipt of Ex.P14, order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, conducted test identification parade on 4.8.2003 at Central Jail, Puzhal, Chennai.P.W.2 correctly identified the appellant and Ex.P.W.4 was found along with P.W.1 and it was stated by P.W.1 that some unknown assailant assaulted him.He has noted down the following injuries found on P.W.1 and issued Ex.P18, Accident Register."Injuries dressed wound neck and ear.Patient conscious H/o LOC present and oriented.Patient admitted in Ward (1)."P.W.10 is the Medical Officer, who continued treatment to P.W.1 and noted the injuries as per Ex.P8 casuality opinion form."X-ray opinion : x-ray Skull-AP Lat X-ray findings : X-ray PNAS x-ray soft tissue neck x-ray cervical spine-AP Lat (Nc) with fracture Mandible."On 28.7.2003, P.W.4 voluntarily discharged P.W.1 and admitted him in the private hospital.P27 and 28 are the chemical analysis reports and Exs.P29 and 30 are the serologist's reports.P.W.17, after examination of the witnesses and after receipt of reports from the Serologist and Medical Officers, filed the final report on 29.9.2004 against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 397, 307 and 302 I.P.C.When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, he denied the same and claimed innocence.On the side of the defence, D.W.1, Medical Officer attached to Government Hospital, Chrompet, has been examined.He has stated that P.W.1 was brought by P.W.5 on 21.7.2003 at 5.30 p.m. and P.W.1 was conscious and stated that he was assaulted with M.O.1 by some unknown person.D1 is the wound certificate issued by him.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, on conclusion of the trial and after hearing the arguments advanced by both the sides, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid.Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has filed the present appeal.The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the case has been taken on file for investigation after receiving a complaint from P.W.1 wherein it is positively stated that the deceased and P.W.1 were assaulted by an unknown person.While so, in the evidence, it is stated that the appellant, known person, who is closely related, entered into the residence, spoken to them and thereafter, brought M.O.1 and assaulted them.Even in the Court at the time of trial, P.W.1 could not identify for want of clear eye sight.P.W.1 was aged 70 years at the time of occurrence.The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken as true in view of the reason that the earlier information given in the form of complaint he has clearly stated that he was assaulted by unknown assailant.Under such circumstances, the evidence before the Court cannot be taken as true.The extra judicial confession allegedly given by P.Ws.7 and 8 cannot be accepted since their evidence is artificial and unnatural.Two days later, it is their statement that realising the blunder committed alleged to have went to the police station and gave a statement.Their conduct cannot be taken as natural and the extra judicial confession allegedly given by the appellant cannot be treated as a material to connect the appellant with the crime.It is further submitted that the information regarding theft of the jewels has already been divulged through the evidence of P.W.7 on 24.7.2003 itself and under such circumstances, the arrest and recovery subsequently made on 26.7.2003 become inadmissible and the same cannot be taken as corroborative material for convicting the appellant.8.4. P.W.2, son of the deceased, would not have visited his residence prior to the time of occurrence and the prosecution has not marked the out-pass for coming out from his office and under such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be taken as true.The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be taken as true since he has given contradictory version in Ex.P1 as well as in his evidence and under such circumstances, the material put forth by the prosecution is not sufficient to foist conviction on the appellant.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that it is the categorical evidence of P.W.2 that he has seen the appellant at the residence viz., the scene of occurrence at the time when he came back from his office to get a file from his residence.Leaving the appellant, he went back to his house and when he returned back to his residence in the evening, he found that the deceased is dead.The appellant had free access to his residence since he is closely related.The evidence of P.W.1 cannot be easily brush aside because of the reason that he has initially stated that the assailant is unknown.It is the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 5 that P.W.1 was unconscious and regained conscious only at the time when he was admitted to the hospital.Though the Medical Officers have stated that he was conscious, he was not sufficiently fit enough to fix the assailant.That is the reason why the information that the assailant was not known was referred to in Ex.P18 accident register.Moreover, P.Ws.4 and 5 were present at the side of P.W.1 when the Doctor questioned P.W.1 and it is those witnesses who do not have knowledge at all about the occurrence have given such information to the Medical Officers.After fully regaining conscious after three days, P.W.1 came to know that the unknown assailant is no other than the appellant and at the time when he gave evidence before the trial Court, he positively fixed the assailant as the appellant.The extra judicial confession given by the appellant to P.Ws.7 and 8 cannot be brush aside and it is also corroborated by P.W.15, Pawn Broker.M.O.2 gold necklace was initially pledged in the name of P.W.7 on 21.7.2003 and subsequently the appellant visited again P.W.15 on 24.7.2003 for receiving Rs.5,000/- more and therefore, the entries found in Exs.The appellant was arrested subsequently on 26.7.2003 and though the information about the pledging of the jewels has already been known to the Investigating Officer divulged from P.Ws.7 and 8, such statement has not been taken into account during the course of the trial since it was submitted to be inadmissible.However, the arrest of the accused and the production of the bangles and bloodstained clothes cannot be rejected from taking into account for the purpose of corroboration.The bloodstained in the bangles as well as in the clothes of the accused were sent for chemical analysis and it was found to contain the blood group of the deceased.We have perused the materials available on record and heard the submissions made by both sides.However, the Medical Officers, who treated P.W.1, have given opinion that he was conscious, but he was not in a position to ascertain as to the person who has committed the crime.Regaining conscious after three days, when information about the assailant and his visit was divulged, he has confirmed the identity of the appellant.It is the evidence of P.W.4 that he used to keep M.O.1 under lock and key at his residence and only known persons will be knowing the place where the key of the room is kept.Under such circumstances, coupled with the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4, we can safely presume the presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence.Even if we disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1, because of the contradiction in Ex.P1 and his evidence and giving diverge to his age and the critical condition at the time of occurrence, the presence of the appellant last seen in the company of the deceased cannot be easily brush aside.The extra judicial confession made by the appellant to P.Ws.7 and 8 forms a corroboration to the commission of the crime by the appellant.Initially, the jewels were pledged for Rs.5,000/- in the name of P.W.7 accompanied by the appellant.Subsequently, on 24.7.2003, the appellant approached P.W.15 on his own and received Rs.5,000/- more and for both the parties entry has been made in the form of Exs.Though the pledging of the jewels were known to the Investigating Officer on 24.7.2003 itself, the production of the material objects viz., the bangles and the bloodstained clothes of the appellant is admissible in evidence and the same can be taken as corroborative materials to substantiate the offence.The blood group found in the clothes of the appellant tallied with the blood group of the deceased and thereby connected the appellant with the crime.Failure to offer any explanation for the presence of the bloodstains in his clothes will be a lending assurance to the case put forth by the prosecution.Admittedly, P.W.1 was critical soon after the occurrence and he was not in a good condition to divulge about the assailant and that is the reason why in Ex.P1 it has been stated as unknown assailant, which was recorded at 8.15 p.m. on 21.7.2003 and later inquest was conducted on the same day between 11.00 p.m. and 1.30 a.m. and at that time, through examination of P.W.2 and other witnesses, the identity of the appellant was known.Later on, this was informed to P.W.1, who during the course of his evidence before the trial Court, has positively stated that it was the appellant who had committed the offence.Under such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has substantiated its case against the appellant through uncontroverted materials oral and documentary and therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion reached by the trial Court and the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court are confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed.Index : yesInternet:The Principal Sessions Judge Chengalpattu.The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
127,097,785 |
Page No.2 of 202. Prosecution case in brief:The appellant/A3 in Crl.A.No.724 of 2017 was the wife of the deceased -Senthil.A1 was running mineral water company in the same compound.The deceased, while having relationship with P.W.15-Pappathi, borrowed a sum of Rs.3.5 lakhs Page No.3 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 from her.P.W.15 was insisting for the repayment.All the accused on 08.09.2016 at about 4.00p.m., conspired together and decided to do away the deceased.The conspiracy was known to P.W.14-Sathish, who is the close relative of the deceased, and he over heard it.Page No.3 of 20On 16.09.2016, A1 and A2 promised to get the money to the deceased and took him in a Bolero Green car bearing Registration No.They gave sleeping pills to the deceased by mixing it with soft drink.Thereafter, A1 who was driving the vehicle, stopped it, while A2 strangulated the deceased with a piece of wire, A1 pressed his face.Later, the body of the deceased was thrown away.P.W.1-Jeyabalan, who is the Village Administrative Officer, on 17.09.2016 at 8.00a.m., heard that a body was lying on the road.Immediately, he along with P.W.2-Kamarajan, the Village Assistant, went to the scene and saw the dead body of the deceased.They proceeded to Keelakuppam Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.On receipt of Page No.4 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 the complaint, P.W.28-Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C., in Crime No.197/2016 and Ex.P12 was the First Information Report.Page No.4 of 20P.W.32-Karthikeyan was the Inspector of Police, who on receipt of Ex.P12-First Information Report, took up the investigation.He prepared rough sketch under Ex.P2 and observation mahazar under Ex.P18 is the Inquest Report.On 21.09.2016 at about 8.00a.m., A1 and A2 were arrested and in the presence of P.W.13-Village Administrative Officer, Koogaiyur, under Exs.P5 and P7, confession statements of A1 and A2 respectively, were recorded and Ex.P6 is the Seizure mahazar.Material Objects, such as, Bolero car and sim card were seized from A1 under M.Os.3 and 4 respectively.Recoveries have also been made under Ex.Under Ex.P9, further recoveries were made and marked as M.Os.8 to 11 viz., bank card, pharmacy card, discount card and electrical wire.Thereafter, A3 has been arrested.3.3. P.W.5 is the mother of the deceased.She deposed that on 17.09.2016 some one talked to her from her son's mobile phone.We are not in a position to appreciate the evidence of P.W.14 for one more reason.D.W.1 is the Labour Inspector, who has deposed that no such petrol bunk is in existence in that place.Page No.9 of 20P.W.15 is the witness, who had relationship with the deceased as per the evidence relied upon by the prosecution.This witness has also stated that the deceased borrowed the loan from her.The appellants/A1 and A2 viz., Samsudheen and Manikandan, in Crl.A.No.673 of 2017 are directed to be released forthwith, unless their custody is required in connection with any other case.Page No.18 of 20Page No.19 of 20Page No.20 of 20The appellants 1 to 3 have been convicted forthe offence punishable under Section 120-B read with 302 IPC and Page No.2 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- each, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment and appellants 1 and 2 have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 364, 328, 302, 404 and 201 read with 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Sections 364 and 302 IPC (each); 10 years RI(each) under Section 328 IPC; 3 years (each) under Section 404 IPC and 7 years(each) u/s 201 r/w302 IPC IPC and pay a total fine of Rs.5,000/- each ( each sentence Rs.1000/-) and in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment on each sentence; and the third accused has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 364 r/w 109 and 302 r/w 109 IPC and sentenced to undergo life in both the offences and imposed a fine of Rs.1000/- in both the sections (total Rs.2000/-)and in default to undergo one month S.I., in both the offences.After completing the investigation, P.W.32- Investigating Officer, filed a final Report.Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses in total to substantiate their case while marking Exs.On the part of the defence, only one witness has been examined as D.W.1 to show that there was no such petrol bunk as projected by the prosecution.Page No.5 of 20After framing charges, the appellants were placed with the incriminating materials and questioned under Section 313-A of the Criminal Procedure Code.There was denial by the appellants.The trial Court, placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with the recoveries M.Os.7 to 11, accordingly convicted the appellants and sentenced them as aforesaid.Challenging the same, the present criminal appeals have been filed.3. Evidence of Witnesses:-P.W.2 is the Village Assistant.However, in his cross examination, he had stated that when both, he and P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence, police was already there.P.W.3 is the sister of Page No.6 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 the deceased.It is her evidence that A3 did not show any remorse on the death of the deceased.This witness had stated about the illicit relationship between P.W.15-Pappathi and the deceased-Senthil.According to this witness, P.W.15 used to quarrel with the deceased compelling him to marry her, failing which, her money should be returned.P.W.15 has threatened A3 that she would be done away with.She further deposed that when she was examined by the police on 24.09.2016, the accused were present in the police station.It is her further evidence that after the death of the deceased, P.W.14-Sathish and one Ranjith had informed about overhearing the conspiracy by the accused near the Supermarket.She further stated in her cross examination that it is not correct to state that P.W.14 has not stated about the conspiracy by the accused earlier.Page No.6 of 203.2. P.W.4 is the father of the deceased, who also speaks about the illicit relationship of the deceased with P.W.15 and borrowal of the money.He deposed that the deceased left home on 16.09.2016 at about 7.30p.m., stating that he was leaving to Chennai for the purchase of Mixture machine.Thus, P.W.4 has stated about the character of the deceased and his relationship with P.W.15 and their money transaction.In fact, this witness has spoken about the fact that the deceased has borrowed money from several persons.As she was having doubt over the voice, the call was cut.We may note that P.W.18, who stated to have called P.W.5 on 17.09.2016, has turned hostile.P.Ws.9 and 10 are the Medical Shop owners from whom sleeping pills were allegedly purchased, but both the witnesses turned hostile.P.W.13 is the Village Administrative Officer, who speaks about the confession statement made by A1 and A2 after arrest on 21.09.2016 followed by recoveries.According to this witness, the material objects were found on the Tractor tyre.He also conscious of the difference Page No.8 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 between Tractor and Trailor.He admitted that no such reference has been made in Ex.P7 about the seized objects from the Tractor tyre.He has further acknowledged in his statement given under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that the recovery has also been made on the front tyre of the Trailor.Page No.8 of 20P.W.14 is the main witness in this case.As stated, he is a close relative of the deceased.According to this witness, he and one Ranjith saw all the accused at the Supermarket talking with each other.It was over heard by them.However, they do not reveal it to anyone else.Again the very same persons saw the deceased, A1 and A2 going in A1's car.He was also present at the time of inquest.However, in his cross examination, he had stated that he did not inform anybody including P.W.3, which is contrary to her statement.He had further stated that such a statement has been made by him in the Court for the first time.He admitted that the car was covered with Sun light paper and no one could see from outside.From the aforesaid evidence, we could see that P.W.14 strangely deposed that he did not inform about Page No.9 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 either of the two incidents even after knowing the death of the deceased.Apart from the same, he has seen the deceased at about 8.00p.m., from the Petrol bunk along with A1 and A2 going in a Bolero car, in which the persons travelling inside cannot be seen due to the sun light paper.Therefore, the occurrence was at night and the vehicle in which they travelled was covered with sun light paper.We may note that there is no explanation by the prosecution for non examining the other person viz.,Ranjith, who was along with P.W.14 on both the occasions.She also made demand for repayment.The deceased agreed to repay the money on Saturday, wherein the occurrence took place on Friday.She has further stated that she was kept in the police station on 17.09.2016 till Page No.10 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 the deceased was cremated and was sent thereafter.The further evidence let in by her was that the deceased threatened P.W.16-Ramu @ Ramachandiran, who was supposed to marry her.This witness also speaks about the relationship between him and the deceased.Page No.10 of 20P.W.19 is the witness, who signed Exs.P2-rough sketch and P3-observation mahazar, turned hostile.P.W.20, though turned hostile, however, has deposed in his cross examination that he and the deceased were having liquor on 16.09.2016 at about 5.00p.m.P.W.22 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem and issued Ex.P10-post mortem certificate.The post mortem certificate would reveal the presence of Ethyl Alcohol and Alprazolam.It is his further evidence that his view was sought for by the prosecution while showing the wire, which was allegedly used for strangulation.P.W.24-Palanivel is the one who is running maize business.He had installed CCTV camera within and outside his office.When the Page No.11 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 police enquired to see the CCTV footage, he had taken the CCTV recording through pendrive and handed over the CD to the police.He had stated that he did not see the number of the vehicle clearly.Page No.11 of 203.11.P.W.25 is the police officer, who took a copy of the recording from the control room.She was also present at the time of recoveries.She had clearly deposed that the registration number was not visible.P.W.27 is the Special Sub Inspector, who accompanied the investigating officer.He had stated that the recoveries have been made from the Tractor Trailor tyre.P.W.32 is the Investigating Officer.He has also deposed that the Bolero car was covered with sun light paper and it was not feasible to see from outside with the glass, if they were closed.He has further deposed that there is no evidence to show that the mobile phone was used by A3 and there is no recovery from her.The details about tower location was also not collected by him.He has not examined the owner of the Bolero vehicle.He was quite conscious of the fact that the Tractor was Page No.12 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 different from the Trailor.There was no document to find out the Registration number of the vehicle which is seen in the CCTV footage.Page No.12 of 20The trial Court, as stated, accepted the case of the prosecution and accordingly convicted the appellants as aforesaid.5.Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants: There is absolutely no link to the events projected by the prosecution.The evidence of P.W.14 ought not to have been accepted by the trial Court.The recoveries are not in accordance with law.The Mobile Phones recovered were not used admittedly.There is no evidence to show that A1 gave mobile phone to A3 and they were used between them.The last seen theory as propounded by the prosecution has not been proved.If the accused could destroy the mobile phones used, they could have destroyed the other materials used as well, particularly, when the body of the deceased was thrown away by removing the identity of the deceased.The vehicle used as alleged by the prosecution could not be identified.There may be many such vehicles.The prosecution was not clear as to who committed the offence.It was not known as to how liquor was found in the body of the deceased.Recovered mobile phones were not used in the commission of crime.The trial Court has placed wrong reliance in the evidence of P.W.14 coupled with the recovery.Therefore, the appeals have to be allowed by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.Page No.13 of 20Submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the recordings in the CDs would clearly show the movement of the Bolero car and the colour of the car is clearly identified.Minor discrepancies per se cannot be the sole factor.Witnesses speak about the recoveries including the belongings of the deceased.The trial Court considered the entire matter in extenso while convicting the accused.Thus, the criminal appeals require to be dismissed.7. DISCUSSION:-Admittedly, the prosecution was not able to fix the accused at the earlier point of time.This is for the reason, the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the illicit relationship between P.W.15 and the deceased coupled with the money transaction.They also speak about the strained relationship.That is the reason why she was kept in custody for some time.He neither informed anybody about the occurrence on 08.09.2016 nor whispered about it later.This unexplained silence on the part of P.W.14 shakes the credibility of the witness.There is absolutely no whisper about the non examination of the other person, by name, Ranjith, who was said to have been present on both the occasions.Though he had stated that he received a bill for filling the petrol, the same has not been marked.We are dealing with the vehicle abducting the accused, travelling during the night time, covered with sun light paper.P.W.14 himself has stated that the windows were covered with sun light papers.If that is the case, then in all probability, P.W.14 Page No.15 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 would not have seen the presence of the deceased and accused in the vehicle, as spoken by him, when the windows are admittedly covered with sun light papers.Thus, viewing from any angle, the version of P.W.14 appears to be totally unreliable.Page No.14 of 20Page No.15 of 20Merely because, there was a suspicion against A3, she cannot be implicated on surmise alone.No Mobile phone has been recovered from her nor any other material object, which has got any ioto of evidence to the crime.The very basis of the prosecution is that the accused 1 and 2 administered the sleeping pills and other prohibited substance on the deceased and thereafter strangulated him.Both the medical shop owners from whom, alleged to have been purchased, tuned hostile.Therefore, it is not known as to who gave the pills to the deceased.Besides, the deceased was also found to be under the influence of alcohol.The prosecution has not explained the circumstance under which alcohol was found in the body of the deceased.Much reliance has been made on the recoveries.If A1 and A2 were quite conscious of throwing the body after committing the offence Page No.16 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017 in a different place, it would only defy the logic with the material object belonging to the deceased along with the wire being found in open.Even here, there is a discrepancy between the place from which it was recovered.Though the prosecution has stated that the mobile phones used were destroyed, there is no material to substantiate the same nor any effort was made to trace them after the confession statement given.Admittedly, the CDs marked do not indicate the registration number of the vehicle.There may be many such vehicles passing by at the relevant point of time.After all, we are indeed dealing with the case involving circumstantial evidence.Suspicion however strong can never be a substitute for the evidence.Page No.17 of 20http://www.judis.nic.in Criminal Appeal Nos.673 and 724 of 2017Page No.17 of 208. Conclusion:-The trial Court, in our considered view, has not taken into consideration the relevant issues.Once we hold that the evidence of P.W.14 and the so called recovery cannot be sustained in the eye of law, the case of the prosecution loses its steam.Therefore, we have no other option except to reverse the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants in S.C.No.346 of 2016 dated 16.09.2017 on the file of III Additional District and Sessions Court, Kallakurichi, stand set aside and the criminal appeals are allowed.The appellants/A1 to A3 are acquitted of the charges framed against them and the fine amounts if any paid, shall be refunded to them.The appellant/A3 viz., Kavitha, in Crl.A.No.724 of 2017 is concerned, the bail bond, if any, executed by her shall stand cancelled.Consequently, Connected criminal miscellaneous petition stands closed.
|
['Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,747,221 |
Present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) against the judgment dated 10.07.2014 and the order on sentence dated 06.08.2014 passed by the learned Trial Court, arising out of FIR No.405/2010, under Sections 307/120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, by virtue of which the appellant stands convicted under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.The appellant also stands convicted under Section 25 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and a fine Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 1 of 22 of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for three months.The appellant also stands convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.A. No.1577/2014 Page 1 of 22The case of the prosecution unfolds as under:-Briefly stated the present case was registered on the basis of the statement of complainant Shilpa Goyal D/o Sh.Nageshwar Goyal.According to the complainant she used to give aerobics training to the ladies by going to their homes.Two years before the date of the incident she used to work in a company at Gurgaon where a boy by the name of Arun Kumar Mishra used to come.According to the complainant after seeing her, Arun Kumar Mishra started forcing her to have friendship with him, otherwise he would kill her and her family.According to the complainant due to fear she left the job of the said company and started giving aerobics training to the ladies near her house.But from somewhere Arun Kumar Mishra got her address and he again started stalking and threatening her almost daily.According to the complainant finding no way out, she disclosed all these things to her family and one and a half month prior to the date of the incident she lodged a complaint against Arun Kumar Mishra with PS Miya Wali.According to the complainant on 15-12-2010, at about 10:45 a.m. she was going to the house of her maternal uncle (Mama) Neeraj Jain at Sector 3 Rohini on her scooty.When she stopped her scooty at a red light on Ring Road suddenly Arun Kumar Mishra came from behind and forcefully sat behind her on the scooty.He asked the complainant to listen to him and drive the scooty.A. No.1577/2014 Page 2 of 22According to the complainant after the green light she started driving the scooty and on reaching near Jaipur Golden Hospital, Arun Kumar Mishra started saying to complainant that if she would marry him, he would not disturb her and if she did not agree to this, he would shoot her then and there.Due to fear complainant stopped her scooty there.She requested Arun Kumar Mishra to stop chasing her and let her go.On this, Arun Kumar Mishra took out a pistol type object and pointed on the back of complainant and said that "Tu To Manegi Nahi, Le Me Tera Kam Tamam Hi Kar Deta Hoo and saying this, he fired a gun shot on the lower part of her back.Complainant fell there with the scooty.Many public persons gathered there and some of the persons apprehended Arun Kumar Mishra and one or two persons lifted her and started taking her to Jaipur Golden Hospital and remaining persons started beating Arun Kumar Mishra.The complainant was got admitted in Jaipur Golden Hospital.PCR reached at the spot and Arun Kumar Mishra was handed over to the PCR officials alongwith the pistol, who took him to police station.F.I.R. bearing No. 405/2010, was registered at P.S. South Rohini and investigation went underway.At Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 5 of 22 about 2 years prior to the incident, she was working in Gurgaon with Spenco Reliance GSM and the appellant Arun Kumar Mishra, duly identified by her in the Court, used to stalk her.The appellant used to go to her office and to her house and also used to force her to become friends with him.As a result of the harassment by the appellant, she left the job at Gurgaon and started taking aerobic classes.She further deposed that the appellant somehow procured her address and mobile number and started threatening her on telephone.The appellant also used to threaten her that he would kill her father and made her life hell.When things became unbearable, she informed her father.The father of PW1 made two complaints to the police.She further deposed that on 15.12.10, at about 10:45 a.m., she was going on her scooty to the house of her maternal uncle in Rohini where she used to teach aerobics.When she stopped her scooty at a red light, the appellant who had a gun in his hand came from somewhere and sat on her scooty.The appellant threatened to shoot her if she would make noise and instructed her to drive her scooty.The appellant was talking to someone on his mobile and was giving instructions to keep the vehicle near her scooty.PW1 further deposed that the appellant kept on insisting her for friendship and when they reached near Jaipur Golden Hospital, the appellant directed her to stop scooty and started pressurizing her to marry him.PW1 refused his offer and on her refusal, the appellant threatened her and asked her to take the scooty in a lonely place.PW1 begged the appellant to leave her alone but he put gun on her back and started pressurizing her to marry him.After her refusal, the appellant shot in her back as a result of which she fell down and when the appellant again tried to shoot her, his gun misfired.She fell unconscious and was admitted to Jaipur Golden Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 6 of 22 Hospital where her statement Ex.PW1/A was recorded.The appellant was apprehended at the spot by the public.PW1 further deposed that in the opinion of the doctor, she would not be able to walk in her entire life.PW1 identified her clothes which she was wearing at the time of the incident.A. No.1577/2014 Page 5 of 22A. No.1577/2014 Page 6 of 22In her cross examination, PW1 stated that she came to know about the appellant when he started stalking her.She further stated that the appellant was harassing her for about 2 years prior to the incident.PW1 admitted the suggestion given by the counsel for the appellant in the Trial Court that while she was working in Gurgaon she had not lodged any complaint against the appellant to the police.She further admitted that the appellant used to send bouquet to her house but denied the suggestion that she used to accept the same.She also denied the suggestion that there were any talks of marriage between them.To a specific Court question, PW1 answered that she had to resign from her job in Gurgaon because of the appellant Arun.She stated that the red light on which the appellant sat on her scooty was at a distance of about 5-7 minutes from her house and she could not tell the distance travelled by her along with the appellant.She further stated that she had not raised any alarm, though the road on which she was travelling was a busy road.Another relevant witness is PW2 Ajay Aggarwal who deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.10.12, he was present at his chemist shop situated at B-6/187, Sector 3 Rohini, Delhi.He further deposed that at about 10:30/11:00 a.m. he saw one young girl sitting on a scooty and one young boy was standing besides that young girl and they both were talking.Suddenly, PW2 heard the shrieks of the girl and saw her falling down.He immediately rushed towards them and saw that the girl had fallen down and the boy was trying to shoot himself with the gun but it misfired.PW2 duly identified the appellant in Court as the boy who was present at the spot with the girl and was caught at the spot by the public.The site plan was prepared at his instance.In his cross examination, PW2 stated that one boy had shot a girl and also tried to shoot himself.PW2 further stated that he could not tell if the girl was bleeding but she informed him that her lower part of the body was not responding.It was further stated by PW2 that his clothes were not blood stained and could not tell as to whether there were blood stains at the spot or not.PW2 denied the suggestion that on the day of incident, he was not present at his shop.On careful reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW2, there is no contradiction which go to the root of the matter and does not falsify the case of prosecution.PW18 Dr. Manoj Sharma, Chairman, Department of Orthopaedics and Spine, Jaipur Golden Hospital deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.12.10, he examined one patient Shilpa Goel with the alleged history of gunshot injury at her dorsal spine.After examination, he found the patient to be completely paraplegic in lower half of her body with total loss of control over stool and urine.PW18 further deposed that on the same day the bullet which caused spinal cord injury to the patient was removed and was handed over to the authorities.The patient was discharged from the hospital on 30.12.2010 and a discharge summary was prepared by Dr. Sanjay Chawra and was proved by PW18 as Ex.PW18/A. The operation notes dated 15.12.2010 written by Dr. Ishwar Bohra was further proved as Ex.PW18/B. In his cross-examination, the following question was put to him which reads as under:"Question : I put it to you that after going through the condition of injured, can you say about the fact that from how much range, the bullet received by the patient was fired? Ans.From very close range probably from within inches from the body."As per the MLC, Ex.PW38/A, the nature of the injury sustained by her was declared as grievous.A. No.1577/2014 Page 9 of 22PW36 Dr. Gurdeep, Medical Superintendent, Jaipur Golden Hospital deposed that on 21.12.10, he handed over one plastic container containing bullet led which was sealed with the seal of JGH and was taken by the police into possession vide seizure memo Ex. PW 36/A. The bullets were taken out by Dr. Manoj Sharma after surgery of the injured Shilpa Goel.As to the examination of the clothes of the injured, the testimony of PW11 Dr. Manoj Dhingra assumes importance who had examined one blood stained white neckless T shirt; one blood stained grey neckless thermal upper and one blood stained black jacket.After examining all the clothes, PW11 opined that the defects in the 3 clothes corresponded with each other and the defects were present at the backside of all the three clothes.FSL RESULTS:PW28 Puneet Puri, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballistic), FSL, Delhi.His detailed report is Ex. PW 28/A whereby he opined that on examination he found that the country made pistol marked Ex.F1 was in working order.Test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridge marked Ex.A1 and Ex.The cartridge Mark Ex.A3 was misfired one.The improvised pistol Mark Ex.F2 was in working Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 10 of 22 order.Test fire was conducted successfully by using the cartridges Ex.A4 and Ex.The cartridge mark Ex.EC1 was fired empty cartridge and no further opinion could be possible due to insufficient data.The bullet mark Ex.EB1 was corresponding to the bullet of 7.65 mm cartridge and had been discharged through the improvised pistol mark Ex.F2 as the individual characteristics of striations present on evidence bullet Ex.EB1 and test fired bullet mark Ex.TB1 and TB2 were found identical when examined under the comparison microscope.C1 due to insufficient data.Besides the above public witnesses, to decide the appeal in hand, it would be necessary to discuss the testimonies of formal witnesses.PW34 HC Ashwani deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.12.10, at about 11:10 a.m, he was going towards Jaipur Golden Hospital on patrolling from the picket side and reached near MTNL office.He heard the noise as well as sound of firing from the side of Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 11 of 22 Green Vales Public School.He saw crowd gathered there and the public persons were trying to apprehend one person who was carrying a pistol in his hand.The said person was beaten and apprehended by the public and in the meanwhile PCR van reached there.PW34 further deposed that the said person was handed over to the PCR alongwith the pistol who was taken to P.S. South Rohini.PW34 identified the appellant Arun Kumar Mishra in Court as the same person who was apprehended and beaten by the public on the fateful day.PW12 SI Roop Chand was the in-charge, PCR Van, outer zone deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.12.10, on the receipt of a call from Police control Room, PHQ at about 11:13 a.m. with regard to shooting of one girl by one boy near Jaipur Golden Hospital in front of Green Vales Public School.PW12 reached the spot alongwith the staff and found that the appellant Arun Mishra was present there and the public persons were beating him.The appellant was carrying one pistol in his hand and one bag in another hand.PW12 further deposed that to save the appellant from public, he made the appellant sit in the PCR van and took the pistol and bag from the appellant and brought him to PS South Rohini.The bag was having one country made pistol and three live rounds and the same was also handed over to SI Praveen along with the appellant.A. No.1577/2014 Page 12 of 22PW4 SI Praveen deposed in his examination-in-chief that on 15.12.2010, he was posted at PS South Rohini and on receipt of DD No. 13A; he along with Const.Naresh reached at the spot i.e. in front of Green Vales Public School, Sector-3, Rohini.On reaching there, he found that the injured was already removed to Jaipur Golden Hospital.The person who had fired on the injured was apprehended at the spot and was beaten by the public.The PCR personnel had taken away that person to the police station.It was further deposed by PW4 that Insp.Vijay Kumar Rastogi alongwith HC Ashwani also reached the spot.He alongwith Insp.Rastogi went to the hospital leaving HC Ashwani at the spot.On reaching there, they collected the MLC of the injured namely Shilpa Goel with the alleged history of gunshot injury wherein the nature of injury was described as grievous.The statement of the injured was recorded.Thereafter, PW4 was sent to the police station for the safe custody of the appellant.It was further deposed by PW4 that he went to the police station where ASI Roop Chand, Incharge PCR van met him and handed over the appellant Arun Kumar Mishra alongwith one loaded pistol and a grey colour bag and also stated that the same weapon has been recovered from the appellant.PW4 further deposed that he handed over the pistol and grey colour bag to Insp.Rastogi and explained all the circumstances to him and produced the appellant before him.Rastogi inspected the pistol and found that one cartridge was stuck in its Chamber and also eight live cartridges.PW 4 further deposed that on checking the grey colour bag, it found to contain one country made pistol and three live rounds.The seizure memo of the pistol and nine live rounds was proved as Ex. PW4/A and the seizure memo of country made pistol and three live rounds alongwith grey bag was proved as Ex.PW4/C. The rukka was prepared Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 13 of 22 by Insp.Rastogi and handed over the same to the duty officer of PS South Rohini.During the course of investigation the appellant persons were arrested.After completion of investigation final report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and was filed in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate who after completing all the formalities committed the case to the court of sessions for trial."No witness was examined by the appellant in his defence.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the allegations levelled by PW1 and PW2 are false and frivolous.A reading of the testimony of PW2 shows that the presence of the appellant at the spot is doubtful.It is also the case of the appellant that there is no independent witness who would establish that the appellant was apprehended at the spot and the evidence of the witnesses at the spot of arrest is contrary to each other.Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the residue of gun powder was not found at the hands of the appellant whereas it is the story of the prosecution that the appellant fired at the spot from where he was apprehended while he had the pistol in his hand.In view thereof, in the absence of residue of gun powder on his hands, the appellant could not have been convicted.It is also the case of the appellant that in fact, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case by the family members of PW1 (victim) and she has been pressurized and forced to depose against him, as her family members were against Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 4 of 22 their relationship.Per contra, learned APP for the State submits that there is no infirmity in the judgment and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court.Having regard to the evidence on record, the Trial Court has correctly analysed the evidence and convicted the appellant.Counsel submits that PW1 is the victim and she has fully supported the case of the prosecution and given a vivid description as to how she was shot in a mindless manner.She further stated that she had not seen the gun in the hand of the appellant initially but she saw the gun in the hand of the appellant when she fell down and when the appellant tried to shoot in her head which was misfired.She further stated that she had not raised any alarm because the appellant had threatened her to Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 7 of 22 shoot.She denied the suggestion that she was having an affair with the appellant or that she was deposing falsely.A. No.1577/2014 Page 7 of 22In fact, the testimony of PW2, who was an independent witness in the instant case duly corroborates the version Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 8 of 22 of the injured witness PW1 with regard to the incident which took place on the fateful day of 15.12.2010 and further shows the presence of the appellant at the spot.Both the witnesses were cross examined by the counsel for the appellant and both the witnesses withstood the test of cross-examination.A. No.1577/2014 Page 8 of 22Medical Evidence:C2, H2 on the left lower portion of back side of T-shirt Mark C3 and H3 on the left lower portion of back side of inner mark Ex.C4 had been caused by a bullet discharged through a firearm.No opinion could be given on swab mark S1 and shirt mark Ex.The country made pistol mark Ex.F1 and improvised pistol mark Ex.F2 were firearms and the cartridges mark Ex.A1 to A12, the cartridge case mark Ex.EC1 and the bullet mark Ex.However, in his cross-examination PW34 stated that he had not noticed blood stains at the spot and had remained at the spot for about two and half hours.PW34 denied the suggestion given by the counsel for the appellant that at the spot nothing was recovered from the appellant.A. No.1577/2014 Page 11 of 22The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW4/E. PW4 admitted his signature on the arrest memo of the appellant.In his cross-examination, PW4 stated that when he reached the spot, he did not find crime team there and also there were no blood stains present at the spot.A. No.1577/2014 Page 13 of 22PW38 Insp.Vijay Kumar, the Investigating Officer, in the present case, deposed the sequence of investigation done by him and preparing of the rukka which was proved as Ex.PW38/A; site plan prepared at the instance of public witness Ajay Aggarwal (PW2) was proved as Ex.PW38/D; seizure memo of the plastic jar containing one bullet led taken out form the body of the injured Shilpa was proved as Ex.PW38/H; seizure memo of the clothes of the injured Shilpa Goel was proved as Ex.PW38/I; seizure memo of the record of previous complaints lodged by Nageshwar Dayal Goel, father of the injured Shilpa against the appellant in PS Miyawali Nagar was proved as Ex.PW38/J.Reading of the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses would show that there are no material contradictions which go to the root of the matter and their testimonies remain consistent on all material particulars.The testimony of PW38 would show that rukka was prepared by him on the basis of the statement of the victim which was proved as Ex. PW1/A. Also, the testimony of PW 12 SI Roop Chand has gone unrebutted and unchallenged with regard to the fact that the appellant was present at the spot and was carrying one pistol in his hand and one bag in another hand.The appellant was apprehended and beaten by the public at the spot and to save him from public PW12 Crl.A. No.1577/2014 Page 14 of 22 made the appellant sit in the PCR van and took the pistol and bag from the appellant and took him to PS South Rohini.A. No.1577/2014 Page 14 of 22It is noteworthy to mention that the appellant was apprehended at the spot by the public persons and was taken by the PCR van to the Police Station South Rohini.The arrest memo shows that the appellant was arrested from the Police Station South Rohini on the same day of the incident and PW4 SI Parveen Kumar is a witness to the arrest memo and was proved by him as Ex.PW4/E. In this background, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that the presence of the appellant at the spot was doubtful is without any force and is thus liable to be rejected.Furthermore, reading of the testimony of PW1 is duly corroborated by the testimony of PW2 Ajay Agarwal, who was an independent and an eyewitness to the incident, leaving no room for doubt that it was none other than the appellant, who committed the said offence.The swab recovered from the left hand of the appellant was handed over by the Doctor and was seized vide Ex.PW7/A. When the swab was sent to the FSL for examination (marked as exhib it 'S1'), the FSL opined as under (Ex.PW28/A):"No opinion can be given on the swab marked exhibit 'S1' and the shirt marked exhibit 'C1' due to insufficient data"A. No.1577/2014 Page 15 of 22(Emphasis Supplied)Neither can it come to show the innocence of the appellant nor his guilt.More particularly the evidence of PW1, PW2 and the fact that he was beaten by the public at the spot, apprehended and taken to the police station where he was formally arrested.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,748,709 |
V.P.S. Mann, the then Head Assistant (Estate)/NDMC, New Delhi, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd, Shaheed Bhagat Singh Marg and unknown officials of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and others alleging therein that Mr.V.P.S. Mann while working as Head Assistant (Estate) in NDMC, New Delhi during the year 1991-1994 entered into a criminal conspiracy with M/s Prominent Hotels and in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, Mr.V.P.S. Mann falsified the books of accounts by making false/forged and bogus entries dated 23rd January, 1991, 14th February, 1991 and on 22nd February, 1991 amounting to Rs 4 lakh and Rs 3 lakh two times with the intent to cause undue pecuniary benefit to the said Prominent Hotels Ltd.After finalization of the agreement between the company and NDMC the concerned file was to be sent to the account section of Estate Branch for making necessary entries in the demand and collection register with respect to the licence fee and other terms and conditions mentioned in agreement for the purpose of recovery of payment.The said file was not sent to the account section after finalization of the agreement and even after the finalization of supplementary agreement made afterwards.Hence, the mode of payments and the amount of installments, as agreed upon by both the parties, were not recorded in the Demand and Collection Register maintained in the account section, due to which the entries of amount received from M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd were not entered under proper head and all the amount was shown to have been received under head EXCESS.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 5 of 236.4 R. Venkatesh, petitioner No.2/Company Secretary, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd, Ramesh Kakkar, Managing Director, M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and Mr.V.P.S. Mann agreed to do an illegal act of obtaining credit of Rs.10 lac in this account of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd maintained in the account section of Estt.Sh Ramesh Kakkar is the ultimate beneficiary.The current status of trial that many witnesses have already been examined.Admitted position is that the petitioners have been named in the FIR/Challan as conspirators alongwith Mr. V.P.S. Mann.It is submitted by the petitioner that the petitioner and deceased as per the case of CBI are jointly in connivance and conspiracy with each other by attempting to cause wrongful loss to NDMC, but even no case was also at all made out against Mr. V.P.S. Mann, hence the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 23 of 23MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 23 of 23By this judgment, I shall decide the above mentioned three petitions.a) The petition, being Crl.M.C. No.225/2011, is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 18th May, 2011 passed by the Special Judge, CBI in the FIR bearing no.RC- DA1-1998-A-0025 dated 15th April, 1998 registered under Sections 477-A I.P.C. read with Section 13(1)(d)/15 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is pending adjudication before the court of Special Judge, CBI whereby the applications of the petitioners for transfer of the matter to the court of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, was dismissed.b) The second petition, being Crl.M.C. No.1068/2014, is filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 21st February, 2014 whereby the application of the petitioner seeking the similar prayer was dismissed despite of Supreme Court judgment.c) The third petition, being Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 2 of 23 petitioners application rather the issue raised by the petitioners was postponed at the stage of final arguments.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 2 of 23At the time when the incident in question is alleged to have taken place, the petitioner No.1 was the Company Secretary of M/s. Prominent Hotels Limited and the status of the Petitioner No.2 was the same i.e. M.D. of Prominent Hotels Pvt. Ltd.It was alleged in the FIR that Mr.V.P.S. Mann also did an illegal act of calculating the incorrect arrears of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 3 of 23 with the intention to give undue pecuniary advantage to the company and corresponding loss to NDMC but the same was detected.As per respondent, the investigation revealed that M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd and NDMC entered into an agreement dated 16th July, 1982 for construction, furnishing, providing facilities and commissioning/management of Youth Hostel by 30th April, 1984 in full and in all respect for the purpose of running the Youth Hostel to cater to low income group student community both within and outside India.MC No.4153/2014 Page 3 of 23MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 4 of 236.1 Mr. V.P.S. Mann in criminal conspiracy with R. Venketesh, Company Secretary to M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd obtained letter dated 28th February, 1994 from him in which the company secretary made the request that a statement showing the payment made by M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd to NDMC for the period from 1988-89 to 1991-1992 be supplied upto 18th March, 1994 as the same is required for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Income Tax Department.This letter was sent to the account section with the signature of Asst Director.During cross checking with D&C register and Daily Cash register, General Allocation register, the accountant observed that all these three entries were false and bogus and he confirmed from the record that no such payment was made by M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd to NDMC.M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd produced the original statement dated 18th March, 1994 which shows that this statement was not used for the purpose of filing an appeal in the Income Tax Department as requested by the party.6.3 Mr.It is also established that V.P.S. Mann and R. Venkatesh were known to each other and Mr. Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 5 of 23 Mann used to deposit the payments of M/s Prominent Hotels Ltd in the cash branch.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.CBI re-filed the challan where after notices were issued to the petitioners as also Mr. V.P.S. Mann who all were summoned by the Court of the Special Judge, CBI.On appearing before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI, the petitioners were admitted on bail whereafter the petitioners were supplied with the copies of the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 6 of 23 challan.The Challan as filed by the CBI.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 6 of 23The petitioners submit that a perusal of the aforesaid statements read with the documents filed on record the following points are clear:a. That in the year 1990-91, as per the books of accounts of the CBI nothing was payable by the applicants towards interest;b. That the statement of payments made only, was asked in the year 1994, so as to file the same with the IT department, which fact is substantiated by the own statement of PW-12, as also from the perusal of the documents filed and relied upon by the CBI, which includes a copy of the Appeal filed by the hotel, with the IT department;c. That the entries were pertaining to the year 1990-91, whereas the request was made in the year 1994 and after receipt of the statement no claim at all was lodged by the hotel with the NDMC, claiming the credit of Rs.10 lakhs;d. That the very clause under which the hotel was liable to pay the amount of the license fees, had already been represented/challenged against by the hotel in the year 1988 itself;e. That the register was not under any lock and key and was always kept in open, thus any person trying to malign the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 7 of 23 name of the hotel or frame the hotel in any allegation could have done so easily;MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 7 of 23f. The allegation of the applicants working in connivance with Mr. Mann, is solely based on assumptions and presumptions, which presumptions are totally without any basis;g. The hotel never made any payment in cash, the payments were always made by the hotel by cheque, which cheque was always with a covering letter and which payments were made to whomsoever who was available in the department and not only to Mr. Mann.Before the charge was framed, the accused (Al) V.P.S. Mann expired on 24th September, 2010 as the Court of Spl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 8 of 23 petitioners could not be named in the challan for having connived and conspired with the deceased to commit the alleged offences.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 8 of 23The aforesaid order dated 18th May, 2011 was challenged by the petitioners by way of Criminal Misc.(Main) being numbered as 2254/2011 titled as ''Prominent Hotels and Anr.CBI".After the pleadings in the aforesaid matter were complete, the aforesaid matter came up for hearing before this Court on 24th October, 2013 when this Court was pleased to pass the following order:The Crl.(Main) Petition No.2254/2011 was listed before this Court on 24th October, 2013 along with the Criminal Writ petition No.1018/2011 titled as "Prominent Hotels Ltd. & Anr.State through CBI" which was filed by the petitioners on the grounds of the Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.State through CBI", wherein the petitioners had challenged the order dated 17th July, 2012, whereby the charges against the petitioner had been framed.The Criminal Writ Petition No. 1617/2012 had been filed by the petitioners against the order of charge framed by the Trial Court.The aforesaid writ petition No.1617 of 2012 on 24th October, 2013 was adjourned to 19th December, 2013, when the same was dismissed by the following orders:Liberty is granted to petitioners to urge the pleas taken herein before trial court at the appropriate stage.This petition and the application are accordingly disposed of.The petitioners did not take any step for restoration even when the matter came up before court from the Regular Matters, list was not checked up by the petitioner.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.The contention of the petitioners is that once Supreme Court having pronounced the judgment on 5th February, 2014 and the said fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner on 8th February, 2014 the order dated 30th January, 2014 passed by this Court dismissing the Criminal Misc.The petitioner thereafter filed a Crl.M.A No.2726/2014 for setting aside the order dated 30th January, 2014 and which criminal Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 13 of 23The petitioner in the meanwhile also filed two applications before the Court of the Special Judge, CBI.The First application was moved by the petitioner on 18th February, 2014 when the court of the Special Judge CBI had listed the application on 21st February, 2014 when the matter was already listed for recording of evidence of the witnesses.On 21st February, 2014 the petitioners moved another application in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 5th February, 2014 inter alia praying that in terms of the judgment dated 5th February, 2014 the matter be remanded to the Court of CMM for marking it to the court of the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate.The following reliefs were prayed for by the Petitioners in the said two applications are as under :1st Application :Appeal No. 161/2011 as the only public servant Mr.V.P.S. Mann had expired on 18th September, 2010, but the trial court after hearing the parties passed Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.MC No.4153/2014 Page 14 of 23 the order on 21st February, 2014 that the question as sought to be raised in the application for trial of the case by the court of CMM to be considered at the time of final disposal.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.Aggrieved by the order dated 21st February, 2014 passed by the Trial court petitioners preferred Crl.M.C. No 1068/2014 before this court.The petitioners had also filed Crl.The competent Court to which the Special Case No.88 of 2001 is forwarded, is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months.The prayer made in the applications of the petitioners for transfer of the present Crl.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.It is directed that the FIR bearing No. RC-DA1-1998-A-0025 dated 15th April, 1998 are remanded back/transferred to the Court of CMM for onward forwarding the same to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate.MC No.2254/2011, Crl.MC No.1068/2014 & Crl.All the three petitions and all the pending applications are disposed of.No costs.(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JUNE 5, 2015 Crl.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,756,891 |
Instant appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 01.02.2010, whereby ld.Tribunal has awarded compensation for a sum of Rs.8,87,710/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realization of the amount.Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued the present appeal on the ground that the driver and owner of the offending vehicle failed to produce the driving licence.The police had also filed a Criminal case under Section 279/304A IPC read with Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Despite that ld.Tribunal has neither exonerated the appellant from the liability nor granted recovery rights in its favour.343/2010 Page 1 of 3Counsel further submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle died during the pendency of the Claim Petition, however, his son respondent no. 2 Sh.Bhurey Singh deposed that his father was the owner of the Tractor.Deceased Shreepal was not employed on the said Tractor, but had come from the village on that day.Respondent no. 7 had joined only on the date of accident as driver of Tractor.Counsel further submits that though the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle has been placed on record, however, the police after investigation had filed a charge sheet under Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act along with other offences punishable under Indian Penal Code.Thus, it proves that there was no valid driving licence on record.I note, ld.Moreover, despite opportunities, the appellant failed to verify the driving licence.343/2010 Page 2 of 3SURESH KAIT, J.
|
['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.
|
114,758,464 |
However, the said 2nd respondent had an occasion to file an FIR in Crime No.The father of the petitioner was convicted and sentenced.He filed an appeal before the XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai wherein his conviction was confirmed.2/6http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.34255 of 2019The father of the petitioner has filed a Criminal Revision petition in Crl.R.C.No.386 of 2018 which is pending before this Court.However, the 1 st respondent appears to have made remarks as against the petitioner in his passport.To clarify this situation, the 2nd respondent was directed to file a counter affidavit wherein it had been stated as follows:With regard to the averments stated in paragraph 10, it is to submitted that this respondent No.2 sent a letter addressed to the Regional Passport Officer, Anna Salai, Chennai in No.Hence, this Respondent No.2 has taken appropriate step at his end.The learned Standing counsel for the 1st respondent has produced the internal communication from the Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, by the Regional Passport officer, Chennai addressed to the counsel for respondents Mr.S.Janarthanam, wherein it had been stated as follows:“The SP, CBI (SCB), Chennai, vide report dated 29.01.2020, has intimated this office that the petitioner Shri.Shankar S/o.Ramachandran is not an accused in the criminal case and hence processing of GEP application may be done as per rules.On receipt of replies (through interface) from Ministry of Home Affairs and Ministry of Finance, this Office will review the petitioner's GEP application in the PSP system and the status will be directly shared with Global online enrollment system (GOES) through interface.”In view of all the fact that the Regional Passport officer would review the petitioner's GEP in the PSP system and it would be directly sharing the same with Global Online enrollment System (GOES) through interface, it would only be appropriate that this Court does not pass any further orders and leave it to the authorities concerned to pass necessary orders .With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of.No costs.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,763,218 |
Appellant No.1 Mahendra Malviya and appellant No.2 Rajni Malviya filed I.A. No.3370/2020 second application under Section 389(1) of CrPC for suspension of jail sentence.
|
['Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
114,769,930 |
Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time to conclude.There is no likelihood of applicant absconding and tampering with the prosecution evidence and her further custody is not required in this case.On the aforesaid grounds, prayer is made to release the applicant on bail.Learned Government Advocate has opposed the submissions made on behalf of the applicant and prayed for rejection of the bail application.This order will remain operative subject to compliance of the following conditions by the applicant :-The applicant will comply with all the terms and conditions of the bond executed by her;The applicant will cooperate in the trial;The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court.Certified Copy on payment of usual charges.(AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE navin Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAGDEVE Date: 12/05/2019 23:14:20
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,220 |
This revisional application is directed against the criminal proceeding being G.R. Case No. 110/79 pending before the 2nd Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore arising out of Chandernagore P.S. Case No. 13/79 dated 14th February, 1979 under Sections 468/420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and also against the order dated 2nd March, 1994 passed by the said Judicial Magistrate in the said case.That case was filed against the petitioner on the basis of a written complaint to the fact that one Shri Ramayan Rout, Insurance No. 7886691 submitted Hospital Certificate along with a Regulation Certificate on 14th February, 1979 before the Insurance Company and claimed sickness benefit from 19th January, 1979 to 9th February, 1979, The said Hospital Certificate bore Serial No. 153 and Registration No. 162 of the Hospital named Employees' State Insurance, Gourhati, Hooghly.As the Hospital authority grew suspicious over that certificate they made an enquiry and it was confirmed that no such patient was admitted into the Hospital during the relevant period i.e. from 19th January, 1979 to 9th February, 1979 and no such Discharge Certificate was issued by the Hospital.Thereafter on further enquiry the Hospital authority came to know that the said Shri Rout had taken such certificate from one doctor Shri Mukherjee who was not a doctor of that Hospital, and who took his seat in an outside chamber.Thus on the basis of this forged certificate the said employee Shri Rout was trying to make wrongful gain.Under such circumstances, this complaint was lodged against the accused doctor Shri Pranab Kumar Mukherjee under the abovementioned sections of the Indian Penal Code.On the basis of this complaint the police of Chandernagore P.S. started the abovementioned case and investigated into the same and after investigation was over submitted a charge sheet on 14th January, 1980 under Sections 468/420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code before the 2nd Court, Judicial Magistrate, Chandernagore against the said Shri Ramayan Rout and doctor Shri Pranab Mukherjee.On the basis of the materials on record the learned Magistrate framed charge against the said two accused.
|
['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.
|
56,225,566 |
Complainant Jamna Bai and her husband Parma are present in person identified by Shri Rajiv Jain, Advocate.Appellants have preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.06.2010 passed in Special Sessions Trial No46/2007 by Special Judge Guna, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323/34 and 341 of IPC on two counts and sentenced to suffer 6 months RI under Section 323/34 and till rising of the Court with fine of rupees 500 under Section 341 of IPC on each count The complainant submits that she has compromised the matter with the appellants at her own will without fear, undue influence and coercion and does not want to proceed further.The compromise is not against the public policy or provisions of law, hence, it is accepted.Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.The appellants are acquitted from the charge under Section s 323/34 and 341 of IPC.
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,226,212 |
Pursuant to an application filed by the de facto complainant / P.W.1 under Section 156 (3) of the Code filed on 23.6.2012, a First Information Report was registered on 26.09.2012 against the accused/appellant and another under Sections 324, 325, 341, 376, 379 read with Sections 511 and Section 34 of the Penal Code.It was alleged by the informant that on 8.4.2012 at about 9 p.m. when the informant was serving food to her cattle, the appellant, finding her alone, undressed her and gagged her mouth, threw her on the floor and tried to ravish her.After trying heard, the victim/informant could somehow extricate herself from the clutches of the appellant and fled away.On the next morning i.e., on 9.4.2012 this news spread amongst the neighbours.Consequently, the appellant attacked the informant's house and thrashed her with fists, blows and kicks.He even took away the earring of the victim that had fallen off in the process.After getting information about the altercation, the petitioner's brother P.W. 4 came.But, the accused surrounded them with axes in their hands.The accused no.2 injured the hand of the informant/brother in the process.As a result of the damage caused by the accused, the informant suffered a loss of about Rs. 15,000/-.Earlier also the accused no.1, who happened to the informant's brother-in-law, gave her indecent proposal.He tortured her on several occasions.The appellant was her brother-in-law.She deposed that on 08.04.2012 at night the appellant tried to rape her in a cowshed.She somehow rescued herself and fled away and then told her mother-in-law and her husband about the incident.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.12.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uluberia, Howrah in Sessions Trial No.35 of 2013, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 354 of the Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two years more.The police did not take any steps.The informant was constrained to approach a Court of law.Charges were framed under sections 325, 376 read with sections 511 and 34 of the Penal Code.The appellant claimed to be innocent and the trial began.During trial the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses.From a careful perusal of the evidence on record, it appears that PW1 was the victim and the de facto complainant in this case.Her husband told her not to disclose the facts to others for the prestige of the family.In the meantime, this news spread and the neighbours informed about the incident to the victim's brother.The victim's brother (PW 4) tried to take her to a hospital on the next morning, but the victim's mother-in-law bit his finger in order to prevent them from going to the hospital.A statement of the victim was recorder under section 164 of the Code.The victim identified the appellant in the dock.In her cross-examination, PW1 admitted that prior to the incident she had filed several cases against the appellant and her other in-laws.After filing of a case against the husband, there was, in fact, good relation between her husband and herself.At the time of deposing in Court, PW 1 was staying with her husband and children.The appellant bit the finger of the victim.Reference to the previous nights' account as given by PW2 was hearsay in nature.PW4 was the brother of the victim who had come to her on the next day.He was told about the incident of the last night.He directly supported the contentions of the victim so far as the incidents of the second day were concerned.PW5 was another neighbour of the victim.He deposed that the appellant used to assault the victim quite often.On the last day there was a 'marpit' between the two.The victim's earring was taken away by the appellant and in the process the victim fractured her hand.PW 6 was the police officer who recorded the First Information Report.PW7 was a neighbour of the victim.He was a Panchayat member.He deposed that during the assault the victim's earring was taken away by the appellant.Earlier, quarrels used to take place between the parties.PW 8 was the Investigating Officer of the case.In his cross-examination, he admitted that PW 7 did not tell him that he witnessed the incident.During the examination of the case under section 313 of the Code, the accused/appellant denied all the allegations made against him.Mr. Ashis Sanyal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted as follows.The appellant was convicted for a lesser charge of section 354 of the Code than the charge under section 376 read with section 511 of the Penal Code without there being any alteration of the charge.Although, it was the case of the informant that the neighbours were told about the incident of alleged attempt to rape, yet the application under section 156(3) of the Code was lodged after about 106 days from the date of the incident.The immediate neighbours were not examined.It has come out in evidence that there were quarrels and disputes between two sides and the victim had earlier lodged several cases against the appellant and other in-laws.PWs 2 and 3 only give out hearsay accounts.PW 5, a neighbour who stated only about 'marpit' and removal of earring was not declared hostile.From the cross-examination of PW 7, it appears that he was interrogated by police 3 to 4 days after the incident.This is inconsistent with the factum of filing of the application under section 156(3) of the Code after about 106 days from the date of incident.The general diary entry mentioned in the complaint was not exhibited.Incidentally, the Investigating Officer of the case could not be examined as he had passed away in the meantime.The Learned Magistrate who recorded the statement under section 164 of the Code was also not examined during trial.The appellant was in custody for about 70 days.The prosecution case suffered from inherent lacuna in view of the numerous contradictions in the evidence of witnesses and the prior animosity between the parties.The appellant was entitled to an acquittal in this case.Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, submitted as follows.A prima facie case was clearly made out against the appellant as would be evident from the First Information Report, supported by the statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code and the evidence adduced by PW1, the victim in Court.The victim had vividly narrated the facts whenever she got an opportunity to do so.The prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.I heard the submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant and the State and perused the evidence adduced in the case and the other materials on record.It has come out in evidence, as adduced by PW 1 herself, that she had lodged numerous cases against her husband and other in-laws.In fact, as per her deposition, the relationship between the husband and wife became better after the lodging of a complaint against the husband.Therefore, admittedly there was an animus between the victim and the accused/appellant.As such, the evidence and the other materials on record and the attending circumstances have to be assayed in the light of such previous animosity.The de facto complainant/victim alleged that previously also the accused/appellant had given indecent proposals and sexually harassed her.However, although there is a mention about lodging of other cases against the in- laws, the informant could not bring out any material to show that she had earlier told others or filed complaints in respect of such alleged previous sexual misconduct by the accused/appellant.The allegations made in the present case broadly comprise of two parts.First, in the night of 08.04.2012 the appellant tried to ravish the informant finding her alone in a cowshed.There are a few witnesses available for this incident although some of such evidence was hearsay in nature.The independent witnesses did hint at a scuffle that took place between the parties.PW 7, an eye- witness for the next day's incident, who was not declared hostile, clearly stated that there was a 'marpit' between the parties.As a result, the victim's earring had fallen off.The witnesses also deposed about previous enmity between the parties.Moreover, there is another divergence between the statement and the evidence of the victim.While in her statement under Section 164 of the Code, the victim stated that the appellant bit her brother's finger, in her evidence she stated that the appellant's mother did so.Taking into consideration all the different aspects including the evidence of independent witnesses vis--vis' the deposition of the victim lady and her relatives, it appears that in the morning of 09.04.2012 indeed there was an altercation and scuffle between the parties.However, even from such altercation one does not get any clue about what happened on the previous night.PW 7 was not declared hostile.The evidence adduced by the victim PW 1 as regards the incidents of 08.04.2012 is not quite convincing, especially when juxtaposed with the previous animosity between the parties and the inordinate delay in lodging of the First Information Report.Moreover, the evidence suffers from some contradictions vis- -vis' her previous statement recorded by a Learned Magistrate.In view of the above discussions, I am of the view that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt and as such, the appellant is entitled to a benefit of doubt.Accordingly, I allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.(Jay Sengupta, J.) sb.
|
['Section 164 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,226,971 |
Applicants have filed this criminal revision under section 397/401 of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 9.1.2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, District Jabalpur in S.T. No.456/2007, whereby the charges have been framed against the applicants under sections 306/34 of I.P.C.This revision is meritless and deserves to be dismissed.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,240,704 |
are borrowed from M.Cr.Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is alleged to THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-7702-2017, M.Cr.C No.7142/2017 & M.Cr.C No. 7388/2018 be title holder of residential house situate at Survey No.633/02, plot No. 105 (present Survey No. 862) situate at village Badhera ad measuring area 900 Sq.ft. situate at Gram Panchayat, Kalamad, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri.C No. 7702/2018 for clarity purpose.The present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashment of criminal proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 65/2016 pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri and FIR in connection with Crime No. 400/2015 under Sections 419, 420, 448, 468, 467 and 471 of IPC registered at Police Station Bairad, Tehsil Pohari, District Shivpuri.Respondent-Devendra Kumar Shrivastava (brother of respondent No.2) filed a civil suit for eviction against present petitioner-Shambhu Dayal, restoration of possession, mesne profit and compensation in which issue regarding relationship of landlord and tenant was framed along with other issues.Meanwhile, during the pendency of the suit, a private complaint was preferred by the same plaintiff Devendra Kumar Shrivastava against the petitioner in which direction was given by the trial Court for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C and after investigation, a report was submitted and considering the said report and facts of the case, vide order dated 04.03.2011 trial Court i.e. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pohri, District Shivpuri rejected the complaint.Thereafter, same fellow Devendra Kumar Shrivastava, again filed a police complaint against the petitioner for the same allegations in respect of alleged commission of offences under Sections 420, 467, THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-7702-2017, M.Cr.C No.7142/2017 & M.Cr.C No. 7388/2018 468 and 471 of IPC at Police Station, Bairad, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri.The petitioner vide M.Cr.C No.9121/2011 filed the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and sought quashment of FIR.Vide order dated 07.11.2012, this court had allowed the petition and FIR registered against the petitioner at Crime No. 134/2011 stood quashed.Spree of the litigations at the instance of respondents did not stop here.He again filed a police complaint on almost same set of facts, but now the complainant is Vivek Kumar Shrivastava and narration of events and nature of offences indicate that allegations are in respect of same property and almost same conduct of the petitioners.Thereafter, charge-sheet has been filed.Trial is pending before the II Additional Sessions Judge, Shivpuri vide Sessions Trial No. 65/2016 i.e. under challenge in M.Cr.Similarly, petitioner-Shambhu Dayal Rawat also challenged (by way of M.Cr.C No. 7142/2017), the criminal proceedings and trial is pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri vide Case No. 423/2016 registered in respect of Crime No. 66/2016 at Police Station Bairad, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri for alleged offences under Sections 448, 294, 506 and 34 of IPC.C No.7142/2017 & M.Cr.C No. 7388/2018 which is the case at the instance of complainant-Devendra Kumar Shrivastava whereby, quashment of FIR and all the consequential proceedings in respect of Crime No. 23/2018 registered at Bairad, Tehsil Pohri, District Shivpuri have been challenged in which alleged offences under Sections 448 and 427 of IPC.The same arguments have been reiterated by the counsel for petitioner in this case also.The civil suit which referred by the petitioners does not decide the controversy THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH M.Cr.C-7702-2017, M.Cr.C No.7142/2017 & M.Cr.C-7702-2017, M.Cr.C No.7142/2017 & M.Cr.C No. 7388/2018 out.
|
['Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
562,446 |
The complainant's attorneys also asked the Trustees "please also give us an appointment for inspection of the securities in which the trust funds are invested by you as Trustees." This letter was signed by the complainant's attorneys.(6) On behalf of the accused and the Trustees of the Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., a reply was sent on the 18th of April, 1959 to the complainant's on the 18th of April, 1959 to the complainant's letter, wherein the company and the Trustees declined to give inspection as required and, on the other hand, they took the stand that "Since your client was dismissed from the service of the company on account of misconduct, he is entitled to his contribution to Provident Fund only.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,249,317 |
This is the first bail application of the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.183/2019 registered at Police Station M.P.Nagar District Bhopal(M.P.), for the offence punishable under Sections 147,148,294,323,326,307 and 177 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on 09/03/2019 at about 2:00 P.M in the night complainant and one Mohd.Shad went to the house of the present applicants in drunken condition and started abusing them then applicants made a call to the Police.Police went to the spot and caught the complainant and his friend.Thereafter, on 12th March 2019 a report was lodged against the present applicants by the complainant saying that on 09/03/2019 in the night at about 2:00 P.M. present applicants along with some other persons assaulted them, due to which they sustained fracture and injuries in spinal cord.Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that false complaint has been made against the present applicants as the complainant has actually sustained injury when he was running away from the police.It is further submitted that FIR has been lodged after a delay of three days but no sufficient explanation has been given as to why immediately after sustaining the injuries the same has not been lodged.He further submits that the present applicants are students and there are no criminal antecedents against them.On these grounds, the present applicants deserve grant of anticipatory bail.Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposed the bail Signature Not Verified SAN application and submits that considering the injuries sustained to the complainant by Digitally signed by SMT SUSHMA KUSHWAHA Date: 2020.11.24 12:47:32 IST 2 MCRC-45632-2020 the present applicants they are not entitled to be granted bail.Considering the aforesaid, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I am inclined to consider the bail application.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
562,592 |
Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that some bills regarding medical reimbursement to the tune of about Rs.3 lakhs have yet not been reimbursed.He, however, could not give details of those bills.Rohtagi fairly submitted that any pending bill shall be promptly processed and reimbursed according to rules within two weeks from today.Rohtagi further assured this court that even her future bills regarding medical treatment would be reimbursed promptly in accordance with rules.The Director General of Civil Aviation directed an inquiry into the incident conducted by Mr.M.Rajendran, Senior Air Safety Officer.At this moment aircraft pitched down.(v) Due to above contrary inputs induced within seconds the aircrafts pitched up and down thrice and due to load on the control column which was in excess of the permissible limits, the autopilot, got tripped.(vi) As a result of negative `g' during the maneuver, three cabin crew and an infant passenger sustained injuries.(vii) At this moment the commander had taken over aircraft control and re-engaged the autopilot.He mentioned that auto pilot tripped due to induced inputs on the control column, in excess of permissible limits when the speed brake was deployed to the full position."With reference to this office Memo No.I-2949/85-L(2) dated 28.2.2000 and subsequent letter of even number dated 3.5.2000 regarding the incident to Air India flight No.You are hereby advised to be more careful in future and should keep a close watch on Co-pilot's action when you allow them to handle the controls.You are also advised to give thorough briefing for proper use of flight controls and its effects to the Co-pilots flying under your supervision."Immediately after the incident for a period of four months both Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi were kept-off flying duties.It is also mentioned that both the operating crew were briefed for planning of Top of Descent (TOD), Approach, Landing and use of speed brake.They were also given simulator refreshers followed by simulators checks by a qualified flight instructor which was done in the following manner:a) one hour lecture by Capt.V.Y.Bhadsavle on planning of TOD, approach, landing and use of speed brakes for Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi.Immediately after the incident both respondent No.2 (Capt. S.C.Chaturvedi) and respondent No.3 (Capt.R.K.Bishnoi) were kept away from flying duties for a period of four months.In the affidavit it is also mentioned that the Director General of Civil Aviation after having satisfied itself that there was no fault of the pilots, did not recommend any punitive action against the pilots.It is also stated in the affidavit that respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not negligent as alleged by the petitioner.The deponent in this affidavit has specifically denied that the officials of respondent No.1 company were negligent in performance of their duties.It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the respondent were neither negligent nor careless.Mukul Rohtagi submitted that Air India has not left any stone unturned to ensure that the petitioner gets proper and adequate medical treatment.Rohtagi further submitted that respondent No.1 is prepared to ratain the petitioner in service till her normal age of retirement.He submitted that if the petitioner desires Air India is prepared to give her benefit of `annuity' in which the petitioner would get lumpsum benefits.Rohtagi also submitted that Air India has already provided to the petitioner residential accommodation in Vasant Vihar which is in the possession of the petitioner.The respondent Air India is further prepared to offer posting of petitioner's choice anywhere in India.The parties are directed to bear their own costs.JUDGMENT Dalveer Bhandari, J.Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:On 19.4.1999 an air accident occurred at Mumbai while landing of an Air India's aircraft No.AI-411 returning from Singapore to Mumbai.Severe jerky movements while landing resulted in serious injuries to the petitioner and three others.The pilot/co-pilot applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements leading to the aircraft going into a sharp drop, ultimately resulting serious injuries to four persons including the petitioner.It is alleged in the petition that due to sudden dive of the aircraft and severe jerky movements, the petitioner who was doing her duties nose-dived and in fact went up and down and hit the ceiling of the aircraft thrice and injured herself seriously.The factum of this unfortunate incident is not disputed.The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:a) issue directions to respondent No.4, Commissioner of Police, to register a criminal case under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') against the respondent No.2, Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi & respondent No.3, Capt.R.K.Bishnoi for their rash and negligent act.c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs by way of exemplary damages for her physical ailments and mental harassment.(d) issue directions to the respondent No.1 organization to reimburse the medical expenses of the petitioner incurred by her subsequent to Air India's refusal to do so and further to continue to bear the future medical expenses arising out of her physical ailments caused due to the air accident.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Air India at the outset submitted that all the medical bills which were submitted by the petitioner have been reimbursed.The respondent Air India has spent about Rs.30 lakhs on petitioner's treatment in India and abroad.He had submitted a comprehensive report.(i) The descent was initiated in profile mode on Auto pilot # 1 by the first officer.The aircraft at the time of incident was flown by the First Officer Capt.Bishnoi and the aircraft has commenced descent late and was high on slot.(ii) In order to put the aircraft on the correct slot, increase in rate of descent was required and to achieve that employment of speed brakes was planned by flight crew.(iii) The co-pilot flying the aircraft deployed the speed brakes by moving the speed brake lever to full position and rather rapidly at a rate which was higher than the normal.As a result, the aircraft experienced negative `g' leading to the injuries to the persons.He also recommended that appropriate action be taken against the flight crew.In pursuance to the inquiry report, a show cause notice was given to Capt.R.K.Bishnoi on 28.2.2000 and a similar notice was issued to Capt.The order is reproduced as under:"With reference to this office Memo No.1-164/87/L(2) dated 28.2.2000 and your subsequent reply dated 9.3.2000 to the above referred Memo regarding incident to Air India Flight No.AI-411 dated 19.4.1999 You are hereby warned to be more careful in future while flying under the supervision of the Pilot-in-command for proper use of flying controls and its effects."The relevant portion of the order reads as under:b) two session of simulator refresher with Capt.Bhadsavle/Capt.N.T.Lobo (corrective training)c) simulator test of Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi by Capt.V.K.Khosla.In pursuance to the show cause notice issued by this court respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit of Srinivasan Vasu, General Manager, Inflight Services Department.At the outset he mentioned that the incident was unfortunate but such incidents are hazards of flying and on occurrence of this incident, the Director General of Civil Aviation which is the appropriate authority and also has the requisite technical expertise, conducted a thorough inquiry on the basis of records available and tried to find out the probable cause of the incident.The petitioner has placed the medical report of Dr. Med.Patrick Kluger, U.K. on record.According to the certificate issued by him the petitioner sustained 40% partial permanent disability.The petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the respondent Air India consisting of 5 leading doctors who had examined the petitioner closely and according to them the petitioner sustained 20% partial permanent disability of functional ability.Rohtagi also submitted that respondent No.1 has no grudge, prejudice, or ill will against the petitioner despite petitioner's dragging the respondent Air India in court.On behalf of the respondent Air India it is submitted that on humanitarian consideration the petitioner has been paid full salary without her attending the office of respondent No.1 for about three years.He also assured the court that her future medical bills will also be reimbursed promptly in accordance with the rules.In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, respondent No.2, Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi, in his separate counter affidavit stated that he is working as a Joint General Manager and has been flying various types of aircrafts for the last 35 years, having more than 11400 hours of flying experience.It is also mentioned that he was one of the "Master Green Pilot" which is considered the highest flying rating in the Indian Air Force and Air India had selected the deponent out of such Master Green Pilots eligible for such selection.It is also mentioned that during his 11400 hours of flying he has flown different types of aircrafts with and without speed brakes.In his affidavit he submitted that such accidents are normal hazards of flying and have been occurring all over the world.He also submitted that the incident occurred within a span of 2-3 seconds and deponent took all appropriate measures to prevent any mishap.He submitted that there has been no negligence on his part.In the affidavit he also mentioned that in the aviation industry nothing is left to chance and all reasonable precautions are taken even where there is the slightest doubt with regard to flight safety.Similarly, respondent No.3, Capt.R.K.Bishnoi, has also filed a separate counter affidavit.In the affidavit it is mentioned that he has 38 years of experience and has more than 7000 flying hours to his credit.It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that he has received Gallantry Award for exhibiting his skill, presence of mind during the 1971 war.It is also stated that he has a very rich, unblemished and meritorious flying record.He also stated that there has been no negligence on his part.He also gave an explanation for the incident.We do not deem it appropriate to give details at this stage.A.P.Jain, Senior Manager (Cabin Crew), Air India filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 Air India.This affidavit contained false statement which led to the filing of the contempt petition by the petitioner.The application was supported with an affidavit of A.P.Jain, Senior Manager (Cabin Crew), Air India.It is mentioned in the application that inadvertently incorrect statement has been recorded in para 2 of order dated 11.1.2002 "respondent Nos.2 & 3 were found guilty of negligence in Independent Enquiry and thrown out of service".It is mentioned in the application that this statement has been made inadvertently without any wrong intention or ulterior motive and A.P.Jain tendered his unconditional apology for signing the said counter affidavit.It may be pertinent to mention that in the contempt petition, the Managing Director of Air India himself has filed affidavit giving the details of circumstances which led to the filing of erroneous affidavit which we would deal is detail while dealing with the contempt petition.They have also provided her residential accommodation in Vasant Vihar.On behalf of respondent No.4, Commissioner of Police, a counter affidavit has been filed by Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, SHO, I.G.I.Airport.In the affidavit it is mentioned that about 20 minutes before landing at Mumbai, the aircraft encountered jerky movements and suddenly went into a sharp drop.
|
['Section 338 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,261,580 |
O.P(MD)No.4882 of 2020 19.03.2020http://www.judis.nic.in8/8The petitioner is figuring as accused in Crime No.254 of 2019 registered on the file of the first respondent for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.To quash the same, this petition has been filed.2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side).3.Crime No.254 of 2019 was registered under Section 174 of Cr.P.C., based on the complaint given by the second respondent Anna Lakshmi.Later, FIR has been altered and the offence under Section 306 of IPC was added based on the alteration report submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Theni Division.4.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the deceased Ramaraj had proposed to a relative of the petitioner and the same was questioned by the petitioner.There arose a wordy altercation between the petitioner and the deceased.The deceased had actually attacked the petitioner and hence, the petitioner lodged a police case against the deceased.It appears that later, the deceased had committed suicide.The petitioner had nohttp://www.judis.nic.in2/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020 intention whatsoever that the deceased Ramaraj should commit suicide or he should die.The petitioner cannot be blamed for the subsequent occurrence.5.The petitioner's counsel placed reliance on the two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, namely (2010) 8 Supreme Court 628 (Madan Mohan Singh Vs.State of Gujarat) and the order dated 17.05.2018 made in Crl.A.No.765 of 2018 (Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs.State of Maharastra and another).6.The learned Counsel pointed out that in both the cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after holding that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of IPC are absent, quashed the FIR.The learned Counsel called upon this Court to follow the ratio laid down in those two decisions and quash the impugned FIRs also.7.I am not persuaded by the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.8.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) pointed out that the final report in this case has since been made ready.A mere perusal of the materials on record indicates that the petitioner Selvaraj and the defacto complainant Anna Lakshmi hailhttp://www.judis.nic.in3/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020 from the same community.They are also relatives.Anna Lakshmi had a son by name Ramaraj.He had proposed to one Mathumitha who is also said to be a relative of the petitioner.The petitioner herein had questioned the relationship between Ramaraj and Mathumitha.9.The specific case of the prosecution is that the petitioner lodged criminal case against Ramaraj, leading to registration of Crime No.227 of 2019 registered on the file of the Palanisettipatti Police Station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 506(2) of iPC.Ramaraj was arrested and remanded to custody.Ramaraj was granted bail.When he was complying with the bail conditions, the petitioner is said to have spread rumours about Ramaraj in the Village.In the statement of Anna Lakshmi recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C, it has been mentioned that Selvaraj was spreading all kind of misinformation about Ramaraj and that, as a result of the activities of the petitioner, Ramaraj was pushed to the extent of committing suicide.Anna Lakshmi in her statement states that she had counselled her son not to feel depressed on account of the activities of the petitioner.In this back ground, on 23.05.2019, at about 06.00 a.m., Ramaraj was found to have consumed poison.http://www.judis.nic.in4/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020 He was admitted to the Hospital.But he succumbed later.After carefully going through the materials on record, I am of the view that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner herein attracting the offence under Section 306 of IPC.In any event, it is not for this Court to appreciate the defence version at the time of considering the challenge to the version to the FIR.The Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 13.02.2020, in Crl.A.No.20 of 2010 (Padma Mishra Vs.State of Uttarkhand and another) held that the High Court ought not to adjudicate the correctness of the allegation in an FIR.Of-course, in exceptional cases, the High Court can intervene if the allegations made in the FIR ex facie do not disclose any offence at all.In the case on hand, the defacto complainant has specifically alleged that on account of the acts committed by the petitioner herein, her son Ramaraj was driven to commit suicide.11.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also drew my attention to the order dated 28.11.2018 made in Crl.A.No.7933 of 2018 (Narayan Malhari Thorat Versus Vinayak Dearao Bhagat Vs.State).That was an appeal filed by the State challenging the order passed by the High Court quashing an FIR.The Hon'blehttp://www.judis.nic.in5/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020 Supreme Court held that when the investigation was yet to be completed and charge sheet was yet to be filed, the High Court ought not to have gone into the aspect whether there was requisite mental element or intention on the part of the accused.That was also a case arising under Section 306 of IPC.12.Respectfully following the aforesaid recent decisions of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that it is premature on the part of the petitioner herein to move this Court for quashing.I find no merit.The Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.19.03.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No rmihttp://www.judis.nic.in6/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020The Inspector of Police, Palanichettipatti Police Station, Cr.No.254/2019, Theni District2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.http://www.judis.nic.in7/8 Crl.O.P.(MD)No.4882 of 2020 G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.rmi Crl.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,263,125 |
( 03/4/2018) Per Justice Vivek Agarwal Appellant has filed this Criminal Appeal being aggrieved by judgment dated 9.7.2008 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior, in Sessions Trial No.103/2007, whereby he has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of fine, six months Additional R.I.2. Prosecution story in short is that on 8.11.2016 Dr. O.P.S.Chauhan, Casualty Ward, JAH Hospital, Gwalior, informed the police that today at 16.15 hours Patiram Mahor has admitted his daughter-in-law Kusum wife of Mukesh Mohore, aged 20 years, in burnt condition.She was about 35-40% burnt.After registering this information at Rojnamacha Sanha No.450, enquiry was conducted.During enquiry, deceased Kusum died on 18.11.2006 at 3.15 hours.During enquiry, dying declaration (Ex.P/17) of the deceased was recorded by Naib Tahsildar Smt. Pushpa Pusham (PW-13) in which she has stated that her father- in-law after pouring kerosene put her on fire and her father-in-law and mother-in-law were harassing her in connection with demand-( 2 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09 of dowry.Thereafter, FIR at Crime No.553/2006 was registered against the applicant, father-in-law, and co-accused, mother-in- law, under Sections 304-B and 302 of IPC and matter was investigated.During investigation, police prepared the spot map (Ex.P/14), seized certain articles from the place of incident and also recorded the statements of the witnesses.After investigation, police filed the charge-sheet before the Court of CJM, Gwalior, which committed the case to the Court of Session and from where the case was received by the trial Court for trial.The learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B or 302 of IPC against the appellant and under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC against the co-accused, which they denied and requested for trial.In the trial, learned trial Court examined Ratanlal (PW-1) neighbourer of the appellant; Meena (PW-2), aunt of the deceased; Laxman (PW-3), uncle of the deceased; Sunna Mahor (PW-4) who was also neighbourer of the appellant; Head Constable Jagdish Sharma (PW-5); Pushpa (PW-6), mother of the deceased; Mahesh (PW-7), step-father of the deceased; Constable Babulal (PW-8); Dr. Nikhil Agrawal (PW-9) who performed the autopsy of the deceased; Dr. Dinesh Sharma (PW-10) Senior Scientist of Forensic Science Laboratory, Mobile Unit, Gwalior; Constable Ashok Singh Bhadauria (PW-11); Rajkishore (PW-12) who was the witness of spot map and seizure memo; Smt. Pushpa Pusham (PW-13) Naib Tahsildar who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased; Constable Ram Bhuwan Singh (PW14); Dr.O.P.S.Chauhan (PW-15), Medical Officer (CMO) who examined the deceased at the time of admission; Dr.Madan Mohan Mudgal (PW-16), Assistant Professor, JAH, Gwalior, Neeraj Pandey (PW-17), Investigating Officer; R.S.Sengar (PW-18), ASI and Dr. Sumitra Raj (PW-19), R.S.O. Surgery, who made the note on the dying declaration that patient is well conscious & oriented to time, place and person and not under effect of any-( 3 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09 drug.However, no witness was examined by the accused in their defence.The learned trial Court after going through the evidence available on record, acquitted the appellant and co-accused from the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B of IPC, however, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court has ignored the evidence of Sunna Mahore (PW-4) who is the neighbourer of the appellant and who has categorically deposed in his examination-in-chief that when he had reached to the place of incident, then deceased Kusum had informed that she does not wish to stay at her in-laws place and her parents are not willing to keep her with them.This witness has mentioned in his cross-examination that he had not given statement to the police that Patiram had drawn kerosene from the stove and put her on fire.Placing reliance on such statement of Sunna Mahore (PW-4) and the statement of another neighbourer Ratanlal (PW-1), who has categorically deposed that Patiram was shouting for help saying that his daughter-in-law has put herself on fire, it is submitted that if these statements are taken into consideration, then it is apparent that the deceased had put herself on fire as she was being forced to stay at the place of her in-laws against her own will.It is also submitted that Mahesh (PW-7), step father of the deceased, did not make any statement regarding demand of dowry and the conviction is solely based on the dying declaration (Ex.P/17).It is further submitted that Ex.P/7 which is a requisition sent to the FLS, it is mentioned that on 8.11.2006 Dr. O.P.S.Chauhan, Casualty Ward, JAH Hospital, Gwalior, had informed that at 16.15 hours Patiram Mahor had admitted his daughter-in-law Kusum wife of Mukesh Mohore.-( 4 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09 of the appellant should be converted from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part II of IPC.Accordingly the offence would be one falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC.Learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submits that Sunna Mahore (PW-4) has improved his case diary statement and in the case diary statement (Ex.P/5) he had categorically deposed that deceased Kusum had informed him that her father- in-law had put her on fire.The appellant has not examined any witness in defence, nonetheless his own son to point out his own innocence.It is also submitted that intention of the deceased cannot be doubted inasmuch as if she would have wanted to falsely implicate somebody, then she could have implicated whole family but she has stuck to her statement that she was put on fire by her father-in-law.It is also submitted that in fact the first MLC was drawn by Dr. O.P.S.Chauhan (PW-15) at 4 pm and even to Dr. Chauhan the-( 5 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09 deceased had narrated that her father-in-law had put her on fire after pouring kerosene.P/19 and the dying declaration, Ex.P/17 which was taken at 5.35 pm.It is also submitted that at the time of recording of the history in Ex.P/19 and taking of the dying declaration, Ex.P/17, there was no such intervening circumstance which can point out towards tutoring of the deceased.In view of such facts, he prays for maintaining the conviction and dismissing the appeal.The whole case of the prosecution revolves around the dying declaration (Ex.P/17) of the deceased in which she has stated that she was watching television and her father-in-law after pouring kerosene, put her on fire.Executive Magistrate Pushpa Pusham (PW-13) and Dr. Sumitra Raj (PW-19) in whose presence dying declaration was recorded have categorically stated that deceased was in fit mental condition to give statement.Before recording of dying declaration, at the time of admission the deceased was examined by Dr. O.P.S.Chauhan (PW-15) and he also stated that the deceased had informed him that her father-in- law had put her on fire.Pushpa (PW-6), mother of the deceased, and Mahesh (PW-7), step-father of the deceased, have also categorically mentioned in their statements that when they visited the hospital to see their daughter, she informed that her father-in- law had put her on fire.As per Dr. Nikhil Agrawal (PW-9), who performed the postmortem of the deceased alongwith another Dr. Ajay Gupta, the death was due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of burn and its complications.The Apex Court in the case of Kusa and others v. State of Orissa as reported in AIR 1980 SC 559 has held as under :--( 6 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09 the truth of the statement made by a dying person regarding the causes or circumstances leading to his death which are absolutely fresh in his mind and is untainted or discoloured by any other consideration except speaking the truth.It is for these reasons that the Statute (The Evidence Act) attaches a special sanctity to a dying declaration.Thus, if the statement of a dying person passes the test of careful scrutiny applied by the Courts, it becomes a most reliable piece of evidence which does not require any corroboration.In the present case, dying declaration (Ex.P/17) of the deceased is supported by the statement of MLC Dr. O.P.S.Chauhan (PW-15) who examined the deceased at the time of admission as well as oral dying declaration made to her parents and also the case diary statement of Sunna (PW-4) who has categorically deposed that deceased had informed him that her father-in-law had put her on fire and no evidence has been led by the appellant as to why deceased will falsely implicate him leaving his wife.Even in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. he has only stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the.-( 7 )- Criminal Appeal No.38/09So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that in view of the fact that appellant had admitted the deceased in the hospital, conviction of the appellant be converted from Section 302 of IPC to Section 304 Part II of IPC is concerned, in the dying declaration the deceased has mentioned that her mother-in-law brought her to the hospital.The deceased had refused to accede to their request.Thereafter, in a huff the appellant and Rajan Mani went away with a dire threat to the deceased and his father, Ved Prakash (PW-1), who remonstrated against the threat.One hour thereafter the appellant came holding a Gupti in his right hand to the shop by which time the deceased was closing the shop.Rajan Mani took the deceased in his arms and held him back.The appellant inflicted a fatal blow near the neck and also gave other minor injuries.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
56,264,079 |
No.1/State.The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of the FIR lodged by the complainant (respondent No.2) against the petitioner at crime No.107/2018 at Police Station Cyber Cell, Gwalior, for the offence under Sections 292, 354-D, 509 of IPC and Sections 66(C) and 67(A) of Information Technology Act.Heard on I.A.No.5498/2018, application under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C. seeking permission to compound the offence.The Principal Registrar of this Court has duly verified the parties, contents of the application, intent and signatures.Report dated 23-07- 2018 is attached and perused.Compromise has been reached between the parties voluntarily without any threat, inducement and coercion.Learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance over the order dated 01.05.2018 passed in CRM-M No. 6056-2018 (Sukhbir Singh and ors.State of Punjab and Anr.) as well as order dated 02.02.2016 passed in W.P. (CRL) 223/2016, (Tarun Rana & ors.
|
['Section 509 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,376,542 |
It is denied that the petitioner has been absconding in that case as stated by the Inspector Ayyanar in his affidavit.The petitioner was taken into custody in the N.D.P.S. case and was released on bail on 29.8.1996 which fact was known to the same police officer who got the bail granted to the petitioner in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 canceled by filing affidavits containing false averments.The petitioner being an illiterate agriculturist was not aware of any conditions imposed in Crl.It is further submitted by the petitioner and his father-in-law that subsequent to the order dated 6.1.1997 made by This court in Crl.ORDER Shivaraj Patil, J.1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Public Prosecutor for respondent No. 1 and the learned counsel for the second respondent.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed to order an enquiry as required Under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) against respondents for the offences punishable Under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is filed by the petitioner Under Section 389, Cr.P.C. praying to suspend the sentence imposed on him in Sessions Case No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to release him on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl.A. No. 20 of 1991 in this Court.Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of these two petitions, are the following:The petitioner was an accused in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.On trial he was found guilty Under Section 302, I.P.C. Accordingly he was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life.In the said appeal he filed Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991 seeking suspension of sentence and his release on bail pending disposal of the appeal.This court passed an order on 18.3.1991 in the aforementioned Crl.M.P. 982 of 1991 granting bail to the petitioner subject to the conditions viz., (i) the petitioner executing a bond for Rs. 5,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Madurai, and (ii) the petitioner should stay within the limits of Trichy Town and report at the Containment Police Station daily at 10.00 A.M. until further orders.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 was filed by the State through the Inspector of Police, Z-1 Ommachikulam Police Station, Madurai District, to cancel the bail granted to the petitioner on 18.3.1991 in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991, stating that the petitioner did not comply with the condition attached to the bail order in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991; while he was so on bail, the petitioner got himself involved in a murder case concerned in Crime No. 261 of 1995 on the file of Othakadai Police Station for alleged offences Under Sections 147, 148, 452, 302 and 149 I.P.C.; the petitioner got involved in a case in Alanganallur Police Station Crime No. 226 of 1996 for alleged offences Under Sections 4(1)(a) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act in which case he was released on bail by the learned Special Judge for E.C. Act and N.D.P.S. Act cases, Madurai in Crl.M.P. No. 1445 of 1996 on 29.8.1996 with a condition that he should appear before the Inspector of Police, Alanganallur Police Station twice a day.It was alleged that the petitioner did not report to the police station even for a single day.A Division Bench of this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, allowed Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 and cancelled the bail granted in Crl.It is thereafter Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 was filed as already stated above, to hold enquiry against the respondents in the petition Under Section 340, Cr.P.C. for the offences said to have been committed Under Sections 193 and 195, I.P.C. Crl.M.P. No. 2274 of 1997 is filed Under Section 389, Cr.P.C. to suspend the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 by the learned Sessions Judge, Madurai, and to release him on bail pending disposal of the appeal in Crl.Appeal No. 20 of 1991 on the file of this Court.These are the two petitions which are to be considered and disposed of now.We may also mention here itself that Crl.The said Application Crl.The petitioner and his father-in-law, viz., S. Paramasami have filed affidavits in support of Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1997 in C.A.20 of 1997, stating that the counter affidavit filed in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 may be read together along with the affidavits filed in this petition.In short and substance they stated that the petitioner was falsely implicated in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station Under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act; so also he was falsely implicated in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, copies of relevant documents filed in Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakadai Police Station from the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur, Madurai District were obtained which will establish the ill-will borne by the respondents against the petitioner and their consequent mala-field action to foist false case against the petitioner, and use the same for swearing to false affidavits in proceedings before this court for cancellation of his bail.In the first affidavit filed by the father-in-law of the petitioner in Crl.of Ganja said to have been seized in the said case on 26.7.1995 have not yet been received in that court, though the accused were produced and remanded to Judicial custody eight months ago.In Crime No. 261 of 1995 of Othakkadai Police Station, copy of the affidavit of M. Nataraja Nadar father of the deceased Muniappan, filed in Crl.M.P. No. 436 of 1995 in the C.M.M. Court, Madurai on 21.8.1995, is obtained in which it is prayed for taking action regarding false implication of persons from Madurai leaving out the real culprits who were residents of Gandhi Nagar, Othakadai.Thus the respondents, knowing about the fabricated F.I.R. in Cr. No. 261 of 1995 in Othakadai Police Station and also foisting of the case in Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanaglannur Police Station, and consequent action against the police officers suspending them, have not hesitated to make use of the fabricated records by swearing to false affidavits in the proceedings in Crl.M.P. No. 370 of 1996 before this Court.Thus, on the basis of these statements Crl.M.P. No. 1840 of 1997 is filed for taking action, as stated above.The respondent No. 1 has filed common counter affidavit in Crl.M.P. Nos. 1389 and 1840 of 1997 stating that he was the Inspector of Police, Ommachikulam Police Station, and now he is working at the District Crime Branch, Madurai District; he had filed affidavit in support of Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 filed for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner and as such he is well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case; hence the counter affidavit is filed.In the said common counter-affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions of bail imposed by this court in Crl.M.P. No. 982 of 1991; and that the petitioners was subsequently involved in Alanganallur Police Station Crime No. 226 of 1996 Under Section 20(b) of N.D.P.S. Act and Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. Hence he (respondent No. 1) approached this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.In addition to his affidavit, Ayyanar Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station filed an additional affidavit stating that the petitioner committed an offence on 16.7.1995 concerned in Cr.After hearing both sides, this court was pleased to observe that the factum of the accused getting himself involved in the aforesaid criminal cases has been particularly admitted by the accused/petitioner in the counter affidavit filed on his behalf, and cancelled the bail earlier granted to the petitioner.It is denied that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the aforesaid cases registered in Othakadai Police Station ad Alanganallur Police Station.The respondent No. 1 has further stated in his affidavit that he has perused the case diary of Othakadai Police Station in Crime No. 261 of 1995; it is seen from the F.I.R. in that case that the case was lodged by one Natarajan Nadar father of the deceased in that case; both in his complaint as well as in the statement recorded Under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the said Natarajan has implicated the petitioner, and after investigation the Inspector of Police, Othakadai Police Station has filed final report on 27.7.1996 which is now pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Melur in P.R.C. No. 2 of 1997; the petitioner was arrested on 27.7.1996 in connection with Crime No. 226 of 1996 of Alanganallur Police Station, and that till the filing of the affidavit on 3.10.1996 the petitioner had not complied with the conditions imposed by the Special Court.M.P. 1840 of 1997 may be allowed, and the sentence imposed on the petitioner in S.C. No. 259 of 1989 on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Madurai be suspended and be be enlarged on bail as prayed for in Crl.The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on some decisions in support of his submissions.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996 on the basis of the available material to cancel the bail; after hearing both the parties the said petition was allowed and the bail was cancelled on 6.1.1997; consequently the petitioner was arrested again on 23.2.1997 at Dindigul; Crl.He also submitted that the respondent No. 1 could file the affidavit based on the documents and the information available to him; merely because he filed affidavit in regard to other crimes registered in other police stations based on the records and informations, it cannot be said that the respondent has made false statements or fabricated evidence so as to take action Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It may be open to the petitioner to take all defences available to him during trial of the cases pending against him.If the Courts come to the conclusion in regard to the other two crimes mentioned above, during the course of the trial, that the respondents made false statements or fabricated evidence in a judicial proceedings, or that the petitioner makes out such a case, action could be taken appropriately at that stage.Reacting to this submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that action can be taken Under Section 340, Cr.P.C. at any stage of the proceedings and it is not necessary that one should wait for completion of trial or termination of the proceedings.We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.As can be seen from the order dated 6.1.1997 made by the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.M.P. No. 3750 of 1996, bail was cancelled on the grounds that the petitioner did not comply with the conditions imposed for enlarging him on bail in Crl.It is open to the petitioner to take the available defence to him in the cases filed against him and to establish, if so desired at a subsequent stage, that the respondents are guilty of giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence in the proceedings.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,376,601 |
Kamalam is the deceased in this case.She is the daughter of P.W.2.P.Ws 1, 5 and 6 are the sons of P.W.2 and incidentally, they are the brothersof Kamalam.The accused is the husband of Kamalam.Even prior to theirmarriage, on account of their acquaintance, Kamalam conceived.Thereafter,their marriage took place.Six months after their marriage, Kamalam gave birth toa child.The accused had developed an illicit intimacy with a lady calledParvathi.Since Kamalam objected to it, there were quarrels between theaccused and Kamalam often.Around 10.00 a.m. on 12.9.1990, P.W.2 was inher house.She came to know that her daughter was in flames.Immediately,P.W.2 went to the house of Kamalam.At that time, P.W.2 found some burninjuries above the hip of her daughter.Kamalam was made to rest on thepial of her house.PWs.1 and 5 are masons by profession.On that day, theywere working in the house of the brother in law of the accused.P.W.2 sentword to them about the incident.Immediately, P.Ws 1, 5, 6 and anotherperson went to the house of Kamalam, where they found Kamalam lying on 2 the pial with burn injuries.The accused was also by her side at that time.When Kamalam was asked as to how she came to sustain the burn injuries,she replied that, "She objected to her husband's relationship with Parvathi;the accused asserted that he would continue to have such relationship.Whenever she objected to her husband's relationship with Parvathi, theaccused used to threaten her stating that, he would pour kerosene and setfire to her; she told her husband that she is prepared even to die for the sakeof her husband severing his relationship with Parvathi; immediately theaccused picked up a kerosene tin; poured kerosene on her head and set fireto her".P.W. 3 & 4 did not support the prosecution.A taxi was arranged forand in that taxi, Kamalam was transported to the Government Hospital atPalayamkottai.P.Ws 1, 2 and others accompanied Kamalam to the hospital.P.W.8 is the Medical Officer in the Government Hospital at Tirunelveli.P.W.12, over telephone, sent an intimation regarding the crime tothe Investigating Police Station.Accordingly, a Head Constable from theInvestigating Police Station came to the police out-post; collected Exs.P.W.15 is the Sub-Inspectorof Police.He collected Exs.On receipt ofEx.P.6, the police out-post at Tirunelveli, passed on that message to the 4 Investigating Police Station over telephone.P.13 is the death intimation,which was handed over at the Investigating Police Station.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench ofthe Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafterreferred to as the `accused').Learned Sessions Judge Tirunelveli, hadfound the accused guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the `IPC') and sentenced him toimprisonment for life.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:At12.50 p.m. on 12.9.1990, Kamalam was brought before him and he wasinformed that she had come to sustain the burn injuries at the hands of herhusband, by his pouring kerosene and setting fire to her.Kamalam wasadmitted as an inpatient in the hospital.PW 8 found extensive burn injurieson the person of Kamalam.He sent Ex.P4 to the police.P5 is theintimation sent by him to the Magistrate to record the dying declaration ofKamalam.P.W.11 is the Trainee Magistrate, who reached the said hospital 3 at 2.00 p.m. on that day.Doctor Kanchana was by the side of Kamalam atthat time.She certified that Kamalam was conscious and oriented to give astatement.He examined Kamalam and recorded her statement.P11 is thedying declaration of Kamalam.In Ex.P.11, Kamalam had put her left thumbimpression.P.W.12, on receipt of Ex.P.4/intimation, went to the hospital,examined Kamalam and recorded a statement from her.The statement sorecorded from Kamalam was read over to her and after she affirmed thesame, her left thumb impression was obtained on it.P.1 is thatcomplaint.P.1 and P.4 from P.W.13 and registered it inCrime No.400/90 for the offence punishable under Section 307 I.P.C. Hesent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials.Ex.P.12 is the F.I.R. He handed over the material records to the Inspector ofPolice personally.P.W.9 is the Medical Officer, who sent Ex.P.6 tothe police outpost at Tirunelveli.At 9.00 p.m. on12.9.1990, after receiving a copy of Ex.P.12, P.W.17 went to the scene; at10.00 p.m. on that day, in the presence of P.W.7 and another, he preparedEx.P.2/observation mahazar and Ex.P.17/plan.At 10.30 p.m. on that day,from the scene of occurrence, P.W.17 recovered a plastic can containingkerosene; a match box and a partly burnt turkey towel (M.Os 1 to 3), underEx.P.3 attested by witnesses.P.W.17 examined P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7 andrecorded their statements.Further witnesses were examined by him on13.9.1990 and their statements were recorded.On receipt of the deathintimation at 7.50 p.m. on 15.9.1990 from P.W.15, P.W.17 altered thesection of offence into one under Section 302 I.P.C. and prepared the alteredprinted F.I.R. Ex.P.18 is the altered F.I.R. It was sent to the Court as well asto the higher officials.As death had taken place within 1-1/2 years after themarriage of the accused with the deceased/Kamalam, a copy of the F.I.R.was sent to the Revenue Divisional Officer, having jurisdiction.During inquest, P.W.16 examined P.Ws. 1, 5, 6 and another 5 and recorded their statements.The Doctor who conducted post mortem report was of the opinionthat the deceased died due to burn injuries.After completion ofinvestigation charge sheet was filed.The accused pleaded innocence and,therefore, the trial was held.In his examination under Section 313 of theCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the `Code') the accused took thestand that he was not in the house when the occurrence took place.When hereturned from work place he found his wife with burn injuries andimmediately he rushed her to the hospital.The prosecution relied on twosets of evidence; one related to the oral evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 & 6.Admittedly they were not eye witnesses.They have been examined to provewhat the deceased declared when she was alive and was fighting for a life,about the cause of her death.The next set of evidence is primarily the dyingdeclaration Ex.P.11 recorded by (PW 11), the Magistrate.The Doctor whowas attending the deceased as an indoor patient was by the side of thepatient all through.PW 11's evidence indicated that she was conscious,oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement.Relying on theaforesaid evidence the Trial Court found the accused guilty.6 In appeal the High Court was of the view that PW 11 should haveinquired from the deceased as to whether she was in a fit condition to makethe statement.The doctor has not been examined but at the foot of thedying declaration her opinion was recorded.High Court found that theevidence of PWs.2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 about the dying declaration was notbelievable.It also discarded evidence of PW 1 on the ground that he wasone of the brothers of the deceased.The Doctor, PW8 had recorded that thedeceased's condition was dexterous and the level of consciousness woulddepend upon several factors.Reference was made to the evidence of PW 9to conclude that the evidence of PW 8 was not free from doubt.The HighCourt noted that, the FIR (Exh.P12) disclosed that the husband brought theintimation from the hospital to the police.Because of the aforesaid factors,the High Court considered the prosecution version to be full of suspiciouscircumstances and, as noted above, the acquittal was directed.In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submittedthat the analysis made by the High Court is clearly erroneous.No reasonhas been assigned to discard the dying declaration.There arecertain other factual erroneous conclusions also.The respondent has not appeared in spite of service of notice.The conclusions of the High Court that PW 11 should not have goneby what the doctor i.e. Dr. Kanchana said and should have madeindependent enquiries, is to say the least an absurd conclusion.The HighCourt has recorded as follows:"His evidence shows that Doctor Kanchana certified that Kamalam was conscious oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement.Doctor Kanchana was present by the side of PW 11 throughout.It appears from the evidence of PW 11 that he was totally carried away by the opinion of doctor Kanchana.His evidence in chief does not show that he enquired Kamalam to find out as to whether she was conscious oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement."It is not understood as to what the High Court meant by observingthat PW 11 should have found out from the deceased as to whether she wasconscious, oriented and was in a fit condition to give the statement.Thedoctor who was attending to the deceased has clearly certified that she was 8 in a fit condition to make the statement.The Doctor has made the followingobservation:"Certified that the patient Smt. Kamalam was conscious at the time of taking the dying declaration and taken in my presence."The High Court was of the view that the evidence of PW 11 showsthat her satisfaction was a subjective satisfaction solely on the basis of theopinion of the Doctor.There is nothing wrong in such a satisfaction beingarrived at because the doctor is an appropriate person to certify on thataspect.In addition, we find that the High Court recorded the finding that theaccused brought the intimation from the hospital to the police station whichis Ex.P 12, the FIR.The factual position is clearly to the contrary.Theaccused did not take the intimation because PW 12 who was working asGrade I constable at the out post police station attached to the medicalcollege hospital received Ex. P 4 intimation from the hospital on 12.9.1990at 1.15 PM.According to PW 12, after receiving the intimation he went to thehospital, examined the deceased who was undergoing treatment for burn 9 injuries.The deceased gave the statement regarding the occurrence whichwas recorded as Ex. P 1 and he sent the intimation through the phone to thepolice regarding the substance of the statement.The High Court has also notassigned any reason as to why the declaration made before PWs 1, 2, 4, 5 &6 was unreliable.The Trial Court had analysed their evidence and come tothe conclusion that the deceased made statement before them as to the causeof death clearly implicating the accused.Similarly the evidence of thedoctor, PW 8 has been discarded without even indicating reason for doingso.Above being the position the High Court's judgment is clearlyunsustainable and is set aside.The respondent shall surrender to custodyforthwith to serve the remainder of sentence.The appeal is allowed..................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) ...............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)New Delhi,November 20, 2008 10
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,666,131 |
Record of the Courts below have been received.Heard on the question of admission.Revision is admitted for hearing.Also heard on I.A.No.16297/2019 an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the applicants.The revision has been preferred by the applicants against judgment dated 27.08.2019 passed by the learned IV Additional Sessions Judge, Ti kamgar h District-Tikamgarh in Criminal Appeal No.130/2019, whereby the learned Appellate Court has affirmed the judgment and conviction order dated 31.05.2019 passed in Criminal Case No.1681/2015 passed by Presiding Judge, JMFC Tikamgarh, District-Applicants stand convicted for an offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC with fine of Rs.200/- each in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 10 days, under Section 323 read with Section 149 (two counts) of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 06 months with fine of Rs.300/- each in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 10 days each and under Section 325 read with Section 149 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 01 year with fine of Rs.500/- each in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 10 days each.A s per prosecution case, on 22.08.2015 at about 09:00 p.m. present applicants came on the door of the complainant, abused filthily 2 CRR-4313-2019 and threatened to dire consequences and they assaulted the complainant and injured mother of the complainant with kicks, fists and sticks, resultantly they sustained injuries.Thereafter, on the report of the complainant, a case has been registered against the present applicants.He also submits that applicants have been falsely implicated in this case.He also submits that applicants are neighbour of the complainant and dispute was occurred on trivial matter.He also submits that there are many contradictions, omissions and improvements in the version of the prosecution witnesses.There are no criminal antecedents against the present applicants.Apart from that there is possibility to get benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act. He further submits that there are fair chance to succeed in the case.The final hearing of this revision will take time.If the applicants are not released on bail, purpose of filing this application will be futile.There is no possibility of their absconding or tampering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.Therefore, the application filed on behalf of the applicants may be allowed and the period of their remaining jail sentence may be suspended and they may be released on bail.Learned P.L. for the respondent/State opposes the said application.After having heard rival submissions at length, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this revision is of the year 2019 and it will take time for final disposal, there are no criminal antecedents against the present applicants, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be appropriate to suspend the custodial sentence awarded to the applicants and grant bail to them.Consequently, I.A. No.16297/2019 i s allowed subject to deposit of fine amount, if not already deposited.The custodial sentence awarded to the applicants shall remain suspended 3 CRR-4313-2019 during the pendency of this revision.Applicants Azad Khan, Abdul Rahman, Mustkeen Khan and Golu @ Sahzad be released from custody subject to their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.The applicants shall appear and mark their presence before the trial Court on 11.12.2019 and shall continue to do so on all such future dates as may be given in this behalf, during pendency of the matter.List the revision for final hearing in due course.C.C. as per rules.(RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA) JUDGE sp SAVITRI PATEL 2019.09.19 14:59:23 +05'30'
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,667,639 |
Under such circumstances, they pray for bail.Learned P.L opposes the application.Certified copy as per rules.(N.K. Gupta) Judge bina
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,671,985 |
M.C. No.5020 /2015 Page 1 of 9Respondents No.2 to 5 are personally present in the Court.For their identification, they have produced their original identity cards bearing Nos. NCJ1368794 of respondent No.2, DL\03\029\240496 of respondent No.3, DL\03\029\240483 of respondent No.4 and ZIP0542746 of respondent No.5 issued by the Election Commission of India (Originals seen and returned).Vide the present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, petitioners seek quashing of FIR No.286/2003 registered at Police Station Janakpuri, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/451/506/427 IPC and the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom against them.Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the aforesaid case was registered on the complaint of respondent No.2, Faiz Ahmad due to scuffle took place on 18.05.2003, wherein respondent Crl.M.C. No.5020 /2015 Page 1 of 9 No.2 alongwith respondents No. 3 to 5 had received minor injuries.Meanwhile, the police filed the chargesheet, charges have been framed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.Thus, the respondents do not want to pursue this case further against the petitioners.They submit that the matter has already been compromised with the petitioners and they have no complaint whatsoever against them.The respondents No. 2 to 5 affirm the contents of the aforesaid settlement and of their affidavits all dated 26.09.2015 filed in support of the present petition.Thus, they do not wish to pursue this petition further against the petitioners and have no objection if the instant petition is allowed.Consequently, FIR No.286/2003 registered at Police Station Janakpuri, New Delhi, for the offences punishable under Sections 147/148/451/506/427 IPC and all proceedings emanating therefrom are hereby quashed against the petitioners.Before parting with this order, I find force in the submission of learned APP for State regarding putting the petitioners to some terms.However, petitioners have come forward and agreed to pay some amount for welfare purposes.Accordingly, the petitioner No.1 is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- and petitioners No. 2 to 4 are directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- each with the Bar Council of Delhi Indigent & Disabled Lawyers Account within two weeks from today.Proof thereof shall be furnished to the learned Trial Court under intimation to the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.M.C. No.5020 /2015 Page 8 of 9Accordingly, the present petition is allowed.A copy of this order be given dasti to the learned counsel for the parties.M.A. No.18113/2015 (for stay) With the disposal of the petition itself, the present application has become infructuous.The same is dismissed accordingly.SURESH KAIT (JUDGE) DECEMBER 17, 2015 sb Crl.M.C. No.5020 /2015 Page 9 of 9M.C. No.5020 /2015 Page 9 of 9
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,678,101 |
P.M. he heard due and cry and came out of the house and saw the appellants were chasing Bablu and Kamal with deadly weapons like henso etc. Out of fear he could not resist.On that date, there was rain.On the next day, he along with P.W.1 Habibur Rahaman went to the local police station and lodged complaint.He had been to the place of occurrence where the dead bodies of Bablu and Kamal lying with severe injuries on their persons.In cross-examination, he stated that there was no Talak between his sister and Wajed.At the time of incident, there was no relation between Maharma and Wajed.Maharma used to reside at Dasturhat with her mother.Soon after the incident, rain started.P.W.5, Ujala Bibi deposed that on the date of the incident at around 3/3.30 P.M. she saw the appellants were chasing Bablu and Kamal with deadly weapons like henso, kati, farsha, iron rod.Thereafter, Bablu and Kamal could not be found in the night.On the next morning dead bodies were recovered.She had gone to the place where the dead bodies were lying.P.W.6 and P.W.7 deposed that they found two dead bodies.They put their signatures in the inquest report as well as the seizure lists prepared at the spot.In cross-examination, he stated that Kamal was his nephew.He heard sound of bomb blast on the date of incident.Tikordanga and Tokordanga are two different villages.P.W.9, Rajesh Sk, P.W.10, Arman Sheikh and P.W.12, Anowara Bewa have also corroborated the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses that they had seen the appellants armed with deadly weapons chasing Bablu and Kamal, in the evening on the fateful day and on the next day the dead bodies of the victims were recovered.P.W.13, Nabirul Islam was the Police Officer attached to Sagardighi Police Station as Constable.On 16.5.1995 he went to the place of occurrence.He found two dead bodies were lying there.In cross-examination, he stated that the injuries could be caused by sharp cutting weapons like henso and vojali.He deposed that rigor mortis starts 1 / 2 hours in Calcutta region and it develops after six hours depending on climatic conditions.It is maintained upto 6 hours.Thereafter rigor mortis disappears.In both the cases rigor mortis was present in the bodies.Death may have been caused 12 hours prior to the Post Mortem.He found undigested food in the stomach of the victims.P.W.16, K. P. Biswas was the Investigating Officer of the instant case.He arrested the accused persons.As he was under order of transfer, he handed over the case diary to the Officer-in-charge.In cross-examination, he stated that he received information at police station regarding maramari going on at Tokordanga.He came to the place of occurrence by train.He returned to Sagardighi Police Station on 17.5.1995 at about 19.30 hours.He held inquest over the two dead bodies in presence of witnesses.He received written complaint from Kalu Sk.at 8.15 a.m. and sent it to Officer-in-charge through Constable.The said complaint was remitted from PS to him at 9.40 a.m. He arrested the accused persons Sujjammel, Arman and Hikmot from Hospital.They were in hospital as they were injured.He did not collect their injury reports.Remnants of bomb were lying at different places at the place of occurrence.D.W.1, Josef Hemrom was a teacher as Donbosco Kurush Phar Mission within the jurisdiction of Farakka P.S. He worked as a Manager of the school.On 17.6.95 he issued a certificate to appellant no.4 Abdur Rajjak.He was personally acquainted with him.He proved the certificate (Ext. C).He, however, could not bring the Admission Register as the Register has been destroyed.In cross-examination, he stated that there was no seal below his signature on the certificate.He had not maintained any register with regard to the issuance of certificates.He did not have any Attendance Register at the place of work.He helped the Officer-in-charge in preparing papers relating to the said dead bodies.P.W.14, Alakesh Sk was a Home-guard attached to Sagardighi Police Station.He went to the place of occurrence and found two dead bodies were lying there.Second Officer prepared papers relating to the said dead bodies.P.W.15, Dr. Abdul Latif is the Medical officer who was attached to Gangipur S.D. Hospital.He held post mortem report on 17.5.1995 over the dead bodies of the victims and found the various injuries on them He opined that the death of the victims was due to injuries which were ante-mortem and homicidal in nature.Subsequently charge sheet was filed through Siddheswar Pramanik.D.W.2, Tarun Kumar Sarkar deposed that he was attached to the Records Section of Berhampore New General Hospital as Group-D staff.On 16.5.95 he was posted in the said capacity.On that date, four persons, including, Sujammel Haque, Hikmot Sk and Arman Sk. were admitted at the hospital as referred by Sagardighi B.P.H.C. Sujammel Hoque was admitted at Berhampore New General Hospital at 9.50 P.M., Hikmot Sk.was admitted at Berhampore New General Hospital at 9.57 P.M. and Arman Sk.Hikmot Sk.was discharged on 03.06.95 and Arman Sk. was discharged on 07.06.95 as appearing from the discharge certificates.It appears from the discharge certificate that Arman sustained bomb blast injuries.Another person Gopen Tudu was also admitted at the hospital at Berhampore New General Hospital at 9.55 P.M. He proved the injury reports written by Dr. Debasish Bhattacharjee and Dr. J. N. Pal (Ext. A series).He also proved the Admission Register (Ext. B.).The evidence on record particularly that of P.W.s 1, 5, 8 to 10 and 12 unequivocally show that on 16.5.95 in the afternoon around 3/3.30 P.M., appellants were seen chasing the victims Bablu and Kamal with deadly weapons.Out of fear the witnesses did not intervene.Thereafter rain fell in the locality and on the next day the dead bodies of the victims were recovered from a nearby place with numerous incised wounds.P.W.15, post-mortem doctor has noted a large number of incised wounds which were caused by sharp cutting weapons like hensua or vojali.It has been argued that none of the witnesses, however, were present at the place of occurrence and had seen the victims being assaulted by the said appellants.Nonetheless, it is evident from their depositions that the appellants chased the victims with sharp cutting weapons and thereafter the victims were found dead on the next date with incised wounds caused by sharp cutting weapons.There is nothing on record to prababilise the fact that the incised wounds suffered by the victims were caused by anyone other than the appellants.I have examined the deposition of P.W. 15 as a whole.Doctor himself admitted that setting of rigor mortis varies due to various climatic conditions.Hence, the opinion of the post-mortem doctor with regard to the time of death founded on the onset of rigor mortis is based on vague estimation and cannot be taken to be sacrosanct.On the other hand, the appellants had been seen chasing the victims with sharp cutting weapons in the early afternoon of 16.5.95 around 3.30 P.M. and, thereafter, they were found dead on the next day.Undigested food was found in the stomach of the victims.Such circumstance actually probabilises the fact that the victims had been chased by the appellants and were murdered around 3.30/4 P.M. of 16.05.1995, soon after they had lunch in the afternoon.This rules out the possibility of snap in the chain of circumstances that the victim died soon after they were seen being chased by the appellants with deadly weapons.Hence, I am of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.15 does not militate against the ocular version of the prosecution witness so as to render the prosecution case unreliable.Thus, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellants had chased the victims with deadly weapons and thereafter had assaulted them resulting in their death.However, one is required to assess the other facts and circumstances leading to the death of the victim in order to assess the legality of the conviction of the appellants under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code Evidence of the prosecution witnesses show that there was hostile relationship between the one Wazed Sk, a relation of the appellants on the one hand and his wife Maharma Bibi on the other hand.There is evidence that Wazed Sk had assaulted Maharma and Bablu, the son of the couple, was agitated over such issue.On the date of occurrence Bablu along with Kamal had gone to the house of Wazed Sk to attack him.In fact, the said appellants had suffered serious injuries and were hospitalised.P.W.16, Investigating Officer found remnants of bomb at the place of occurrence.P.W.16, however, did not investigate the circumstances in which appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 had suffered injuries.On the other hand, D.W.2 an employee of Berhampore State General Hospital produced the injury reports of the said appellants wherefrom it appears that appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 suffered bomb blast and sharp cutting injuries and were hospitalised for a considerable period of time.Hence it cannot be said that the injuries suffered by the appellants were minor and may be ignored.Prosecution has failed to explain away such injuries on the appellants.Prosecution has also not brought on record any evidence with regard to the fate of Wazed Sk who was alleged to be injured in the incident.Remnants of bombs were found around the place of occurrence probabilising the defence plea.In order to rebut such sudden attack by the victims, the appellants, presumably in exercise of private defence chased and assaulted the victims resulting in their deaths.In course of the incident, appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 also suffered severe incised injures as well as bomb blast injuries resulting in hospitalization for a considerable period of time The aforesaid facts persuade me to hold that the victims were, in fact, the aggressors in the instant case.They had thrown bombs at the house of Wazed Sk.and as a result appellant no. 3, Arman Sk.suffered bomb blast injuries.In course of the transaction, appellant nos.1 and 2 also suffered incised injuries.Under such circumstances, the victims were chased by the appellants for a distance and brutally assaulted with sharp cutting weapons resulting in their deaths.Although the appellants may have initially chased away the victims in exercise of private defence but the way they thereafter assaulted the victims resulting in extensive injuries and ultimate death, I have no doubt in my mind that the appellants had exceeded such right and cannot be wholly absolved from the responsibility of causing death of the victims.However, in view of the fact that the victims were the aggressors and appellant nos.1, 2 and 3 had suffered grievous injuries resulting in hospitalisation of a protracted period of time, in the course of the transaction.Period of detention suffered by the appellants during investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive sentence imposed upon them in terms of 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,681,367 |
Brijesh Kumar Gupta (the petitioner) seeks quashing of FIR No. 355/2011 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC registered at PS Model Town, Delhi on the complaint of respondent No.2 - Shikha Gupta.She has contested the petition.I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent No.2 and have examined the record.The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 29.10.2009 and after CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 1 of 8 marriage, they lived together at matrimonial home, FU-40, Pitam Pura, Delhi in a joint family.Relations became strained and on 01.04.2011 respondent No.2 left the matrimonial home.CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 1 of 8CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 2 of 8CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 3 of 83. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 urged that there are specific and definite allegations against the petitioner and his parents for subjecting the complainant with cruelty and harassment for and on account of dowry demands.The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as charge-sheet has already been filed in the Court and the Trial Court is to make up mind to frame charges.The dowry articles were entrusted to the petitioner and his family members.Major chunk of the articles is still in their custody.He further urged that during reconciliation proceedings, the petitioner had agreed to take the complainant for a trip outside Delhi.However, it was a pre-planned and well executed conspiracy to create evidence.There was no change in the conduct and behaviour of the petitioner after return from the trip.The photographs CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 4 of 8 placed on record exhibit a pre-planned venture to have specific poses for use at later stage.The contents of the complaint dated 02.04.2011 are correct.The authorities cited and relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 4 of 8On 02.04.2011, the complainant lodged a complaint with CAW Cell against the petitioner and his parents.She alleged that after marriage, her in-laws especially her mother-in-law and father-in-law started harassing and taunting her and her family members for dowry and cash.The petitioner also joined them.The harassment gradually escalated to the level of physical assaults on many occasions.She was not permitted to visit her parents and was physically confined at the matrimonial home.The mental and physical torture by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and husband continued and she suffered miscarriage on CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 5 of 8 21.09.2010 at Ganga Ram Hospital.After physical assault on 19.03.2011, she wrote a mail to her father.Again, she was scolded by her husband and after his departure, she informed her parents that it was unbearable and impossible to live in such a bad atmosphere.She was pushed badly and was given beating thereafter.She ran away with her wearing clothes and went to PS Model Town Enclave, Pitam Pura and lodged DD No. 58B at 07.30 P.M. Contents of the complaint, prima facie, disclose commission of cognizable offence and attract the provisions of 498A/406 IPC if read as a whole.She lodged complaint dated 02.04.2011 in Crime Against Women Cell (CAW Cell).After attempts to reconcile the differences did not materialize on the recommendations of CAW Cell, FIR was registered against the petitioner and his parents on 29.08.2011 under Sections 498A/406/34 IPC.The matter was investigated and a charge-sheet was submitted in the Court without effecting arrest of the petitioner and his parents.Learned Senior Counsel argued that the FIR has been lodged with ulterior motive and the allegations levelled therein do not make out any case under Sections 406/498A IPC.The criminal proceedings have been initiated to harass the petitioner and his family members.In the complaint dated 02.04.2011, there are no allegation of demand of dowry and entrustment of it to the petitioner.The complainant never lodged any complaint with the police about the conduct and CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 2 of 8 behaviour of the petitioner, though she was having two mobile phones with her and also the facility to send E-mail.The complainant did not intend to live in a joint family and always insisted the petitioner to live separate from his parents to enjoy a free life without family restrictions.In the proceedings before CAW Cell, she categorically expressed her desire to live separate with the petitioner only to which he did not agree.It was further pointed out that the complainant voluntarily accompanied the petitioner on 29.10.2011 on a fun making trip out of Delhi to celebrate second marriage anniversary.Apparently, the complaint dated 02.04.2011 was motivated and the allegations levelled therein were false.Reliance was placed on authorities, 'State of Haryana vs. Bhajanlal', 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335; 'Ashok Chaturvedi & ors.Shitul H Chanchani & anr.', JT 1998 (5) SC 452; 'R.Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors.', (2009) 1 SCC 516; 'Raj Kumar Khanna vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & ors.', 95 (2002) DLT 147 (DB); 'Geeta Mehrotra & anr.State of Uttar Pradesh & anr.', (2012) 10 SCC 741; 'Rishi Anand & anr.Govt. Of NCT of Delhi & ors.', (2002) 4 SCC 72; 'Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. State of Punjab and ors.', 2011 (8) SCC 438; 'Sobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi', AIR 1988 SC 121; 'Smt. Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 3 of 8 vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.', 1990 Crl.L.J. 407; 'Chandralekha and ors.State of Rajasthan and anr.', MANU/SC/1107/2012; 'Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & ors.State & anr.', 2007 (4) JCC 3074; 'Neelu Chopra & anr.Bharti', (2009) 10 SCC 184; 'Maksud Saiyed vs. State of Gujarat & ors.', (2008) SCC 668; 'S.K.Alagh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors.', (2008) 5 SCC 662; 'Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal & ors.At the time of tikka ceremony, her father had given ` 2.51 lacs cash and ornaments.At the time of marriage, demand was made for Honda City and her father paid a cash of ` 7 lacs to them as per their demand.She sent E-mail dated 21.11.2010 to her father and sisters informing sorry state of affairs.On 28.11.2010, her sister Ruchika Gupta was maltreated when she visited the matrimonial home.Status report filed by respondent No.1 reveals that the matter was referred to Mediation Centre several times but no settlement or compromise could arrive at.It further discloses that statements of complainant's parents, Pushpa Devi and Amarnath Gupta and her cousin Ashish were recorded and they supported the complaint's version under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Status report further reveals that the gold articles of the complainant could not be recovered.CAW Cell's report recommending FIR records that the petitioner did not attend the counselling.The complainant had sent a fax to her father from the matrimonial home that her in-laws had scolded her due to which she suffered injury and the prescription from the hospital was placed on the file.CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 5 of 8For the said purpose, the Court, save and except in very exceptional circumstances, would not look to any document relied upon by the defence.Such a power should be exercised very sparingly.If the allegations made in the FIR disclose commission of an offence, the Court shall not go beyond the same and pass an order in favour of the accused to hold absence of any mens rea or actus reus.CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 7 of 8CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 7 of 8In the instant case, 'prima facie' there are specific allegations against the petitioner for harassment on account of dowry demands.The complainant did not implicate her brothers-in-law.She had accompanied the petitioner for a trip during reconciliation proceedings before CAW Cell in an attempt to resolve the differences.The allegations in the complaint were investigated and statements of various witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court.It is informed that the Trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence and the case is now listed for consideration on charge.The petition is un-merited and is dismissed.Pending application also stands disposed of.CRL.M.C. 1496/2013 Page 8 of 8
|
['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.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.