id
int64 394
1.89B
| cases
stringlengths 15
383k
| labels
stringlengths 38
1.08k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|---|
137,681,660 |
dated 09.01.2006 in Sessions Case 112/1997 delivered by 1 st::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:46 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 2 Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by and under which, the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month, are convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and are further convicted for offence punishable under section 326 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:46 :::2] The appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") who concededly were 20, 19 and 17 years of age as on the date of the incident faced prosecution along with one Pandurang Kharkar, who however, expired before the commencement of the trial.3] The incident is blurred, and this Court is more than convinced, that the prosecution has not brought before the Court the true and correct factual scenario.Be that as it may, Criminal Revision Application 110/2006 is preferred by appellant 1 who::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:46 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 3 seeks to assail the judgment of acquittal in Sessions Trial 15/2003 in which the injured Vitthal and Suresh, the star witnesses of the prosecution in Sessions Trial 112/1997 are arrayed as accused along with one Nirdosh, who incidentally is also a prosecution witness in the sessions trial from which the present appeal arises.4] I have given my anxious consideration to the evidence on record, the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused Shri S.V. Sirpurkar and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. T.H. Udeshi and the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge, and having done so, I am not persuaded to accept the submission of the learned A.P.P. that the prosecution has proved the offence punishable under section 326 of the IPC much less beyond reasonable doubt.However, for the reasons recorded infra, the judgment to the extent the appellants (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") are convicted for offence punishable under section 341 and 323 of IPC, is unexceptionable.I would, for the reasons recorded infra, set aside the conviction under section 326 of IPC and convict the accused for offence punishable under section 324 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:46 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 4 5] The incident, according to the prosecution, occurred on 09.04.1997 at 03:00 p.m. Vitthal Meshram (P.W.1) and his son Suresh (P.W.5) were transporting fodder in bullock cart from the field of Vitthal Pal.The bullock cart was passing through the field of one Vitthal Kangale when accused Pandurang, Pundlik, Vitthal and Deepak stopped the bullock cart.Accused Pandurang and Pundlik were armed with axes while accused Vitthal and accused Deepak were armed with sticks.Pandurang, the deceased accused, attempted to inflict an axe blow on Suresh and in an attempt to save Suresh the injured Vitthal Meshram (P.W.1) suffered injury to right hand thumb which had to be amputated.The accused assaulted Vitthal who suffered injury on left leg, hand, parietal region while Suresh sustained injuries to his hands and legs.The injured Vitthal Meshram lodged oral report Exh.32 while being treated at the Rural Hospital, Warora.The report was scribed by the Police Sub-Inspector and offence under sections 341, 323, 307 read with section 34 of IPC was registered.6] The completion of investigation culminated in the submission of charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 5 First Class, Warora who committed the proceedings to the Sessions Court.The learned Sessions Judge framed charge vide Exh.22 under sections 341, 323, 326, 307 read with section 34 of IPC, the accused abjured guilt and claimed to be tried in accordance with law.The defence, as is discernible from the trend and tenor of the cross-examination and the statement recorded under section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of total denial and false implication.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::7] The material witnesses are P.W.1 Vitthal Meshram and P.W.5 Suresh, the son of Vitthal Meshram.The evidence of the aforesaid two witnesses is corroborated by P.W.6 Sandip Chaudhari, who however, deposes generally that the accused assaulted Vitthal and no details or particulars of the assault have been elicited by the prosecution from the said witness.8] Vitthal Meshram, concededly, suffered several injuries and at least one injury which resulted in amputation is grievous.P.W.1 Vitthal Meshram has deposed that the deceased accused Pandurang, Vitthal and Pundlik were armed with axes while the::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 6 other two who accosted the injured were armed with sticks.P.W.1 has attributed the injury resulting in amputation to an axe blow inflicted by the deceased accused Pandurang and the deposition is that Suresh was targeted and in an attempt to save Suresh, P.W.1 Vitthal Meshram suffered the injury.P.W.1 has attributed the injury on the leg to an axe blow inflicted by the accused Pundlik while the injury on the head is attributed to a stick blow inflicted by the accused Deepak.The injured witness is subjected to searching examination and while the defence has succeeded in creating some doubt about the genesis of the incident and has ensured that the possibility of free fight cannot be excluded, the cross-examination does not dent the version of the injured witness that he was assaulted in the manner deposed.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::9] In so far as P.W.5 Suresh, is concerned, he states that the accused Pundlik gave a blow of stick on his hand and then deposes that since accused Deepak assaulted the bullocks by stick, the bullock cart driven by him moved on.It is apparent from the evidence of Suresh, that either he has not witnessed the assault thereafter or is suppressing the genesis and the nature of the::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 7 incident or altercation.Be it noted, that the medico legal certificate issued pursuant to the examination of Suresh reveals as many as three injuries.The medical evidence is not consistent with the deposition of Suresh who speaks of having suffered only one stick blow on hand inflicted by accused Pundlik.Suresh concededly took off in bullock cart leaving his father behind, at the mercy of the assailants.His deposition is that when he looked back, he saw the accused assaulting his father Vitthal.The evidence of Vitthal P.W.1 and P.W.5 Suresh is not consistent on which accused was yielding which weapon.P.W.1 Vitthal Meshram states that other than the deceased accused Pandurang both Vitthal and Pundlik were armed with axes while P.W.5 Suresh states that Pundlik was armed not with an axe but with a stick.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::10] I have already noted that there cannot be a demur on the fact that injuries 5 and 6 and in the medico legal certificate Exh.61, is a grievous injury since the right had thumb was required to be amputated.However, the other injuries which are treated by the learned Sessions Judge as grievous are fractures of::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 8 the left leg bones and the left arm bone.The factual scenario, in which the Court may record a finding that the injured deem suffered fracture, even in the absence of radiological evidence, would be rare.Ordinarily, the prosecution must prove that the injured suffered grievous injury within the meaning of section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and if the injury is a fracture, the prosecution must ordinarily prove the fracture by adducing radiological evidence.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::It is seen that the injuries are not proved to be grievous hurt.There cannot be a presumption that the::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 9 grievous hurt was caused without formal proof of the fact of fracture.The fact of existence of fracture cannot be diagnosed and certified in absence of proof of x-ray plates, unless the fact of fractured bones is perceivable barely of perception by naked eyes and sheerly by clinical examination, its being vivid and palpable.Therefore, proof of x-ray plates was necessary particularly, the appellant had made an attempt to retract the admission of medical certificate/discharge summary.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::The only evidence of his participation in the incident at the Bharat Lodge consists of P.W. 1 Prakash and P.W. 16 Vishwanath.So far as P.W. 16 is concerned his evidence has been rejected as he was not able to identify the appellant at a test identification parade.Further more, in view of the evidence of P.W. 16 extracted above, it would appear that he does not mention A-4 as one of the persons who had taken part in removing the cash box from the counter.In these circumstances, therefore, A-4 can only be convicted at the most under Sections 149/425, I.P.C. As this appellant does not appear to have taken any part either in the raid which was made at the Engineering College hostel or at the chawl he can only be responsible for the mischief which was caused at the Bharat Lodge.As his conviction under Sections 395/149 fails, the appellant can only be convicted under Sections 149/425, I.P.C. The other::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 11 convictions and sentences recorded against him are set aside.The Probation of Offenders Act is a social legislation which is meant to reform juvenile offenders so as to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals by providing an educative and reformative treatment to them by the Government.Unfortunately, though the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act are mandatory, the Courts do not appear to make wise use of these provisions which is necessary to protect our younger generation from becoming professional criminals and, therefore, a menace to the society.It may be that the appellant A-4 was not dealt with under the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act because of the charge under Section 395, I.P.C. but that charge having failed, there is no impediment now in his being dealt with under the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In these circumstances, therefore, we would set aside the convictions and sentences imposed on A-4 Musa Khan and direct that he be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties of Rs. 500/- each for a period of one year in order to keep the peace and be of good behavior.The appellant will report to the Probation Officer appointed within the jurisdiction of the place where he resides.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::13] In this view of the matter, while I maintain the::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 ::: apeal43.06.J.odt 12 conviction of the accused under section 341 and 323 of IPC and scale down the conviction from 326 of IPC read with section 324 of IPC, the appellants-accused need not be sentenced.Instead, I direct the accused be released on their entering into a bond to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of six months, and in the meanwhile to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::14] The bail bond of the accused shall stand discharged.::: Uploaded on - 23/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 25/11/2017 01:32:47 :::
|
['Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,685,986 |
A certified copy of this order be immediately made available to the petitioners subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.Abhijit Gangopadhyay, J.) (Sanjib Banerjee, J. ) 2 3 3
|
['Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,688,225 |
M.A.5917/2015 (Exemption) Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,742,122 |
Sangeeta Chandra, Advocate, who is present in Court, is appointed as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellant.Matter was passed over once to enable Ms.Chandra to go through the file.On 30.10.2002, while he was on patrolling duty at about 7.30 P.M at Baba Khadag Singh Marg, near Rivoli Cinema, Cannaught Place he saw two boys were abusing an old man at the top of their voice "Sale Teenso Rupaye Udhar De De Hamay".On refusal by the oldman, one of boy, whose named revealed later as Pradeep S/o Raja Ram, took knife from his another associate saying "Sale Paise Nahi Deta To Tera Kam Tamam Kar Deta Hoon".He stabbed with knife on the stomach of old man and thereafter, both the boys started running towards Hanuman Mandir.But he could overpower Pradeep but his another associate with knife succeeded to run away.The old man whose name revealed as laloo S/o Kalicharan was bleeding from his stomach.In the meantime, PCR van came and removed the injured to the hospital.The further investigation was carried out by SI Crl.A.110/2005 Page 2 of 10 Mohar Singh.During the investigation spot was inspected, site plan was prepared, statement of witnesses were recorded.The blood stained shirt was put in a pulanda which was seized.Finding sufficient proof, accused was arrested.He was interrogated and his disclosure statement was recorded.However, his co-accused Raju could not be arrested.In this case, the appellant was nabbed at the spot by PW-1, Ct.PW-1 has testified that on 30.10.2002 he was posted at Police Station Connaught Place and was on patrolling duty.He deposed that when he reached Baba Khadak Singh Marg near Rivoli Cinema at about 7.30 p.m. he saw two boys were demanding Rs.300/- from an old man in a loud voice for consuming liquor.When the old man declined to give Rs.300/-, one of the boys took a knife from his associate and gave a knife blow on the abdomen of the old man.PW-1 identified the boy, who had given knife blow, in Court.Thereafter the boys ran from the spot.PW-1 chased them and apprehended the appellant while the other person managed to escape with the knife.PW-1 further deposed that in the mean time the injured was taken to RML Hospital by the PCR van.A.110/2005 Page 4 of 10"PW3 ASI CaptanSingh Spl.Cell Chanakya Puri, N.Delhi.On 30.10.02 I was posted at P.S. Connaught Place.On that day after receiving DD no.26A I went to the place of incident i.e. Baba Khadag Singh Marg near Rivoli Cinema Connaught Place, where Ct.Notice issued to the appellant could not be served for one or other reason.On the last date of hearing i.e. 6.10.2010 this Court had observed that notice issued to the appellant had been received back undelivered on account of the fact that he has left the premises where he was residing as a tenant.Present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 13.12.2004 and order on sentence dated 21.12.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and directed to undergo seven years of Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine, RI for six months.It Crl.A.110/2005 Page 1 of 10 was also directed that benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. would be given to the appellant.A.110/2005 Page 1 of 10The necessary facts, to be noticed for disposal of the present appeal, are as under:On 30.10.2002 on receipt of DD No.26A ASI Captan Singh reached at the spot, Rivoli Cinema, Cannaught Place where constable Ramesh Kumar met him and got recorded the statement that he was posted at Cannaught Place as constable.Pradeep and his associate Raju had inflicted knife blow with the intention to commit the murder of the injured.The injured was declared unfit for statement.In view of the statement of Ct.Ramesh Kumar and MLC, he got registered a case U/s 307/34 of IPC through constable Ramesh Kumar.The doctor opined the nature of injury as dangerous.After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was prepared and filed.Accused was committed for trial.A.110/2005 Page 2 of 10On 17.3.2003, a formal charge U/s 307 IPC was framed which was read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.Prosecution was directed to lead its evidence.Prosecution examined PW Ct.Ramesh Kumar, PW 2 Pancham Singh, PW 3 ASI Captan Singh, PW4 Dr. Sanjeev Kumar, PW 5 Dr.Padma and PW 6 SI Mohar Singh."Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is bad in law and the same is based on conjectures and surmises.Counsel further submits that there is no sufficient material to hold the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 IPC and, thus, the findings of the trial court are not sustainable in the eyes of law.It is further contended that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case on account of previous enmity, the appellant was not present at the spot and he did not cause any injury to the victim.It has been strongly argued before this court that no public witness was joined in the proceedings, all the witnesses are police personnel and there are material contradictions in the depositions of PW-1 and PW-3 and, thus, their versions cannot be believed.It has also been contended Crl.A.110/2005 Page 3 of 10 that the weapon of offence has not been recovered and, thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond any shadow of doubt.A.110/2005 Page 3 of 10Mr.Ghazi, learned counsel for the State, submits that the appellant was caught at the spot by PW-1, Ct.Ramesh Kumar, however, nothing on record has been proved to show that there was any quarrel or enmity between PW-1 and the appellant herein.It is further submitted that it is not a general rule that the evidence of police witness cannot be relied upon.Ghazi further submits that PW-1 was on duty at the relevant time and the evidence of the police person, if reliable and trustworthy, can always form the basis of conviction.I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival contentions and also carefully examined the evidence placed on recorded.ASI Captan Singh reached the spot.ASI Captan Singh allowed him to retain the custody of the appellant and himself went to RML Hospital.After some time ASI Captan Singh returned to the spot and handed over rukka to PW- 1 and sent him to the police station for registration of the case.After registration of the case, he came back to the spot with a copy of the FIR and original rukka.Investigation of the case was handed over to SI Mohar Singh.Personal search of the appellant was conducted vide memo, Exhibit PW-1/A, and statement of PW-1 was recorded as PW-1/B. Arrest memo of appellant was also prepared as Exhibit PW-1/C. During cross- examination, PW-1 deposed that no person from the public came forward to give statement.There is nothing in the cross-examination, which would shake the testimony of this witness.On careful reading of the evidence of PW-1 I find the same to be trustworthy and truthful.The evidence of PW-3 reads as under:Ramesh Kumar met me along with one person whose name revealed later on as Pardeep accused present in the court today.Pardeep was in the custody of Ct.Ramesh Kumar.I came to know there that injured was removed to R.M.L. hospital by P.C.R. After that I went to R.M.L. Hospital and collected the M.L.C. of injured Laloo and Dr. Declared injured unfit for statement.After that I came back at the spot.I recorded the statement of Ct.Ramesh Kumar which is Ex.PW1/B and prepared rukka Ex.PW3/A and sent Ct.Ramesh with the rukka to the P.S. for registration of the case.I took the accused in my custody from Ct.Ramesh Kumar.After some time Ct.Ramesh along with S.I. Mohar Singh reached at the Crl.A.110/2005 Page 5 of 10 spot along with rukka and copy of FIR and further investigation was handed over to S.I. Mohar Singh.IO recorded my statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C.A.110/2005 Page 5 of 10xxxxxx by accused.NIL, opp.given."It may be noticed that this witness was not cross-examined.A careful analysis of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-3 would show that the place of incident and the date of the incident has been correctly stated.PW-3 has also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 that he reached the spot and Pradeep (appellant herein) was in custody of PW-1, Ct.Ramesh Kumar.10. PW-1 has also deposed on similar lines.Both witnesses have deposed that the injured was removed to RML Hospital by the PCR and the injured was unfit to make the statement.As per the evidence of PW-4, Dr.Sanjeev Kumar of RML Hospital he has testified that on 30.10.2002 the victim, who was brought to the hospital and he was examined by Dr.As per the MLC the nature of injury was dangerous.The opinion was exhibited as Exhibit PW4/A and PW-4 identified his signatures at point A. PW-4 was also not cross-examined by the counsel for the accused.12. PW-5, Dr.Padma of RML Hospital, has deposed that on 30.10.2002 patient, Lallu Yadav, vagabond, was brought to the hospital at about 8.00 p.m. by ASI Gopal Lal with the alleged history of assault and after examination of the patient she found the following injury on his person:"Incised wound 2cm long with active bleeding on the right hypochontrical region.Depth cannot be measured due to the active bleeding.Patient was referred to surgery for opinion and Crl.A.110/2005 Page 6 of 10 management........."A.110/2005 Page 6 of 10It may be noticed that before the testimony of the victim could be recorded he died.Testimony of PW-6, SI Mohar Singh, would show that the investigation of the case was handed over to him.PW-6 has testified that the appellant, Pradeep, was present at the spot of the incident.PW-6 recorded the statement of ASI Captan Singh, registered a case on the complaint of Ct.Ramesh Kumar and prepared the site plan.He further deposed that he interrogated the appellant, conducted his personal search and recorded the disclosure statement but the weapon of evidence could not be effected as according to the appellant the co-accused had run away with the weapon of offence.Although the statement of the victim was recorded, however, the same is not admissible in evidence, but the MLC, Exhibit PW-4/A, clearly shows that the victim was brought to the hospital.PW-4, Dr.Sanjeev Kumar, and PW-5, Dr.Padma, have given description of the injuries received by the victim.MLC together with the evidence of both the Doctors and PW-1 leaves no room for doubt that the victim was stabbed on 30.10.2002 at 7.30 P.M. in his abdomen, as described by PW- 1, who was present at the spot.The evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 makes it clear that the injury suffered by the victim was dangerous.There is nothing on record to show that PW-1 was inimical to the appellant and there was no reason for him to falsely implicate the appellant.I am unable to agree with the argument of counsel for the appellant that evidence of PW-3, ASI Captan Singh, and PW-6, SI Mohar Singh is unreliable as they are police officers.I see no reason to disbelieve the Crl.A.110/2005 Page 7 of 10 evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 and merely because they are Police officers their evidence is not to be discarded.I find the evidence of PW-3 and P-4 to be trustworthy and reliable.A.110/2005 Page 7 of 10It is settled law that no infirmity can be attached to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to the Police force.Where the evidence of the police officials, after careful scrutiny, inspires confidence and is found to be trustworthy and reliable, it can form basis of conviction and the absence of some independent witness of the locality to lend corroboration to their evidence, does not in any way affect the creditworthiness of the prosecution case."A.110/2005 Page 9 of 10The obvious result of the above discussion is that the statement of a police officer can be relied upon and even form the basis of conviction when it is reliable, trustworthy and preferably corroborated by other evidence on record."
|
['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.
|
137,744,348 |
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE CRA Nos.1379/2014, 1391/2014, 1426/2014 Nihaal Singh, Sanju @ Sanjay and Sunil Versus State of M.P.of the IPC and have been awarded life imprisonment and 5 years RI with fine of Rs.10,000/-and 2,000/- each respectively and in default of payment of fine, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and six months respectively.The prosecution case in brief is that on 20.02.2013 at about 09:30 in the night in village Khatikhedi, District Ujjain near the house of Pope Singh, all the accused persons having battle axe and sticks in their hands constituted an unlawful assembly with intend to beat his son Mahipal on account of some altercation took place between Mahipal and the appellants on the preceding night on the issue of fetching water from the hand pump.They accosted the house, but Mahipal ran away.The appellants chased caught and beat him near Jai Maharaj Ka Bada.Here the accused Karan and Rajesh also joined them.They also beat Mahipal, but Amarsingh PW/3 rescued him.The appellant Nihal Singh also threatened him to kill.Mahipal sustained injuries including a severe injury on the head.Sarpanch Mukesh and Jitendra took him to Dewas for treatment.His father Pope Singh lodged FIR No. 18/2013 at Police Station Kaytha, which was registered under section 452, 323, 294, 506/34 of the IPC.In District Hospital, Dewas, Dr. Narendra Raj PW/13 examined him on 21.02.2013 at about 00:35 in the night and advised X-ray of head.He was immediately taken to the MY Hospital, Indore and was admitted there at about 03:18 a.m. In M.Y. Hospital, Dr.The death was intimated to the Police Station Badganga, Indore (Ex.P/6), who sent it to the concerned Police Station Kaytha, District Ujjain, where Merg Ex.P/25 was registered.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE CRA Nos.1379/2014, 1391/2014, 1426/2014 Nihaal Singh, Sanju @ Sanjay and Sunil Versus State of M.P.He opined that the death of Mahipal was due to injury caused on head and its complications.The police converted the case into one under section 302 IPC and investigated the same.Sub-inspector Madhav Sharma PW/9 investigated the case.He visited the spot, prepared spot maps Ex.P/2 & P/3 of the house and farmland of the deceased, arrested the accused persons vide arrest memo Ex.P/10 to 14, recorded their statements under section 27 of the Evidence Act Ex.P/15 to19, recovered battle axe from appellant Sanju and sticks from other appellants vide seizure memo Ex.P/20 to 24, seized medical papers from Aurobindo Hospital vide seizure memo Ex.P/35 and P/36, seized blood stained and plain soil from the spot, sent all the seized articles to the FSL vide letter Ex.(25/01/2020) Per.:- Justice Virender Singh, J.P/32 and filed charge-sheet after completing the investigation.All the accused persons were charge under section 148, 450, 302 in alternate 302/149, 294 and 506 Part II of the IPC.They abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.After the trial, accused Rajesh and Karan were acquitted from all the charges while accused/appellants Sunil, Sanjay and Nihal Singh were acquitted from the charge under section 148, 294, 506 Part II of the IPC, while they were convicted under section 450 and 302 and 302/34 of the IPC and punished as stated in para 2 above.The appellants have preferred these appeals on several grounds, but during arguments learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he does not want to press merits of the appeal and also does not want to press conviction and imprisonment of the appellants under section 450 of the IPC.rivalry between them.The appellants have no criminal antecedent.There was an insignificant dispute over a petty issue of taking water from common hand pump.Their was no motive to kill the deceased.No deadly weapon was used.They only threatened him to kill and let him go.The offence was not committed brutally.The offence was initially registered only for the offences to cause simple injuries, threat or use of abusive language.In their absence, their families are now on the verge of starvation.Though the learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer but has not controverted the facts stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant.Facts stated by the learned Counsel for the appellants are well supported by the evidence produced by the prosecution and the documents produced and proved by the prosecution.Facts of the case shows that both the parties belong to the same village.HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE CRA Nos.1379/2014, 1391/2014, 1426/2014 Nihaal Singh, Sanju @ Sanjay and Sunil Versus State of M.P.The conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 450 IPC is hereby confirmed.The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 IPC is set aside.The appellants are convicted under Section 304 part II of IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.With the aforesaid, all the appeals stand disposed off.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 450 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,377,447 |
Prosecution version in nutshell is as follows:On the night intervening 4/5 December 1994, on receipt of some information at Police Station Nand Nagri, Delhi, Inspector Suraj Goswami visited the place of incident but found that an injured person, namely, the deceased had been removed to the hospital.He visited Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital but the deceased was not found there.After visiting some neighbouring Nursing Homes, where no trace of the deceased was found, he returned to the Police Station.He was handed over a copy of the daily diary, recorded on the basis of statement of Har Prakash, elder brother of the deceased.On receipt of the said DD, Suraj Goswami and another constable reached the St.Stephens Hospital, where the deceased was found admitted.He collected the MLC wherein the doctor had opined that the patient had sustained dangerous head injury due to assault with a blunt instrument.The deceased was unfit for statement.Har Prakash stated before the Inspector that on 4 December 1994, at about 9:45 PM the convicts, who were reside (sic)ts of D-3 Block, came drunk in front of their house and started abusing him and his younger brother, namely, the deceased and when they objected, the convicts, who were carrying iron rods in their hands, exhorted that they had come to finish both of them and started beating the deceased with iron rods.His younger brother Purshottam telephoned the police.He along with his uncle, Bhagwat Prasad, removed the deceased to the hospital.Supplementary statement of Har Prakash was also recorded, wherein he (sic)amed two other persons, namely, Rattan Lal and Rajesh Kumar, having attacked them.The deceased unfortunately did not survive.JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J.Since both the appeals are interlinked, concerning the same incident, these are being disposed of by this common judgment.The two appellants, namely, Kishan Pal and Bhagwan Dass (hereinafter referred to as the 'convicts') call into question their convictions for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC'), for allegedly causing homicidal death of Dinesh Kumar (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').They have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation of rigorous imprisonment for one month each.Thus the FIR, registered initially under Section 308 of the IPC, was converted into Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.On the basis of secret information received on 10 December 1994 convict Kishan Pal was arrested near Gagan Cinema, Delhi.On the basis of the disclosure statement made by Kishan Pal the iron rod used as weapon of offence was recovered from his house at D-97, Nand Nagri, Delhi.On 2 January 1995, convict Bhagwan Dass surrendered before the Court.He also made a disclosure statement and got recovered an iron rod from under his bed.On completion of investigations chargesheet was filed against the two convicts Kishan Pal and Bhagwan Das, Rattan Lal and Rajesh Kumar.To further its case, the prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses.The convicts examined two witnesses in defense.Placing reliance mainly on the testimony of three eye-witnesses, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, namely, Har Prakash, Deep Chand and Purshottam respectively, the learned Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the two convicts and thus convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid.He, however, gave benefit of do (sic)bt to accused Rattan Pal and Rajesh Kumar on the ground that their names did not find mention in the FIR as well as in the inquest proceeding.The learned Sessions Judge observed that the said two accused seem to have been falsely implicated in the case and their names had been added later in connivance with the police by the complainant party.6.We have heard Ms.Kamna Vohra on behalf of the convict in Crl.It is contended that the said three eye-witnesses are not reliable witnesses in as much as : (i) in his statement to the police on 5 December 1994 PW-2 had named only two persons, namely, Bhagwan Dass and Kishan Pal as accu (sic)ed, whose names figured in the FIR but subsequently in his supplementary statement he added the names of the other two persons, namely, Rajesh and Rattan Pal; (ii) in the MLC, the cause/history for injuries given to the doctor by the victim's attendants as a fall from some height but later on they changed their version by saying that the victim was beaten by rods and stones by some persons but their names were not disclosed, meaning thereby that they did not know the names of the assailants.It is also submitted that the testimony of these three so-called eye witnesses is not worthy of any credence because there are material contradictions in them, namely, PW-2 has deposed before the Court that there was a dispute between the convicts and his uncle Bhagwan Prasad, PW-1, on payment of mess charges amounting to Rs.600/- or Rs.700/-, while PW-4 has deposed that there was a dispute regarding payment of rent; PW-2 has stated before the Court that his statement was recorded by the police at the spot while the investigating officer, Suraj Goswami, PW-16 has stated that the statement of the said witness was recorded in the hospital; PW-3 has stated before the Court that he along with PW-2 went to the Police Station at 5:35 AM where the statement of PW-2 was reorded by the police but there is no statement of PW-2, which was recorded by the police at the Police Station; PW-1 has stated that they had not taken the deceased to the Jyoti Nursing Home, whereas PW-2 has stated that they had also taken the victim to Jyoti Nursing Home and according to PW-2 the incident took place outside his house but as per the testimony of PW-3 it took place outside the house of convict Kishan Pal.It is, thus, urged that these material contradictions in the testimony of the three bye-witnesses raise serious doubts about their presence at the place of occurrence.Learned counsel would also submit that the stand of PW-2 to the effect that he and his other brother Purshottam were present at the place of incident is belied from the f (sic)ct that though in his statement dated 5 December 1994 (Ex. PW-7/A) before the S.I. Suraj Goswami, he had stated that both the convicts started hitting him and his brother with iron rods "forcefully"but not a single mark of injury was found on any part of his body.It is also submitted that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 being close relatives of the deceased and PW-3 being their close friend, all of them are interested witnesses and, therefore, their testimony cannot be believed to be reliable and trustworthy.It is also urged on behalf of the convicts that entire trial is vitiated because the prosecution has failed to explain the delay of 4-5 days in sending report of the incident to the Ilaka Magistrate under Section 157(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure see also argued that the entire case put up by the prosecution is suspicious because no public witness was present at the time of alleged recovery of weapons of offence, which is a mandatory requirement in terms of Section 100(4) CrPC.Ravinder Chadha, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the evidence on record clearly establishes that it is a case of murder and both the convicts have been rightly convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC.It is also urged that the presence of three eye-witnesses was natural as the incident took place outside their house and they had no reason to falsely implicate the convicts.Learned counsel has submitted that Rule 24.5 of their Punjab Police Rules only requires sending of special report to the Magistrate in a case under Section 302 IPC, while the present case was initially registered under Section 308 IPC.In support of the proposition that in the absence of any prejudice to the accused, the delay in submission of special report to the Magistrate does not vitiate the trial, learned counsel has placed strong reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Anil Rai Vs.State of Bihar, and Pala Singh Vs.State of Punjab, .In nutsh(sic)ll, the stand of learned counsel for the State is that there has been no violation of the procedural requirements under the CrPC.9.According to the prosecution the genesis of the incident, in which Dinesh Kumar, the deceased, met with his death, lay in the demand of money (Rs.600-700) by him from the convicts on behalf of PW-1, his uncle, whether by way of rent or mess charges.P W-2 and PW-4 are the real brothers of the deceased and PW-3 is their close friend.Obviously, as such they knew the names of the assailants.It is axiomatic that if they were really the eye-witnesses to the incident, as deposed by them, they knew that he convicts had inflicted the injuries on the deceased which proved fatal, and in that event they were in a position to disclose their names at the earliest opportunity.It is in evidence that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 accompanied the deceased to the hospital on 4 December 1994 at about 11:30 PM.As per the MLC, PW-1 disclosed to the doctor that the deceased was beaten by stones by some "known persons".However, no name was disclosed.It was only in his first statement to the investigating officer, namely, Suraj Goswami (PW-16) on 5 December 1994 that PW-2 named the two convicts as having hit the deceased by iron rods.Significantly in his supplementry statement he named two other persons, who had hit the deceased with stones tied in a cloth.10.Therefore, the first question for consideration is as to what is the effect of non-disclosure of the names of the assailants by PW-1, PW-2 or PW-4 to the doctor at the time of admission of the deceased in St.Stephens Hospital on 4 December 1994 at about 11:30 PM, approximately two hours after the incident.12.In the instant case, it is in evidence that while admitting the deceased in the hospital, PW-1 had stated before the doctor (PW-11) that the deceased had been beaten by stones by some "known persons".It is pertinent to note that this again was a changed version in as much as in the first instance the doctor was told that the deceased had a fall from height.It is also in evidence that Har Prakash (PW-2) had also accompanied the deceased to the hospital but he also did not disclose to the doctor the name of any assailant.It is intriguing that when both these eye-witnesses knew the assailants, who admittedly were the tenants of PW-1, why did they not disclose their names to the doctor.It is only in the early hours of 5 December 1994 that for the first time PW-2 gave the names of the convicts to the police.Significantly PW-2 again changed his version and subsequently gave the names of two more persons to the police, who according to him, had also given beating to the deceased by stones.It is inexplicable as to why PW-2 who claimed to be present at the spot and was also beaten by four assailants, chose to name only two persons in the first instance and withheld the names of other two assassins of his brother, to be disclosed later.All these circumstances, in our view, cast a serious doubt on the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 and the convicts are clearly entitled to benefit of doubt on that score.13.Furthermore, the evidence of PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, on which the conviction of the convicts rests entirely, suffers from various other infirmities and contradictions.Bhagwat Prasad (PW-1), whose name appears in the MLC as the person accompanying the deceased, has stated in his evidence that they had not taken the deceased to Jyoti Nursing Home.On the contrary Har Prakash (PW-2), who in his evidence has stated that he along with his uncle (PW-1) had removed the deceased to hospital, in his cross-examination has denied the suggestion that he had removed his brother to St.Stephens Hospital because doctors at Jyoti Nursing Home had told him that being a medico-legal case they had to call the police, meaning thereby that the deceased was taken to Jyoti Nursing Home.Purshottam (PW-4) has also stated in his evidence that the deceased was taken to Jyoti Nursing Home.Thus, on the one hand, PW-4 corroborates the evidence of PW-2 but on the other contradicts the testimony of PW-1, when all of them claim to have accompanied the deceased to the hospital(s).14.We shall now consider the evidence of Deep Chand (PW-3), adduced by the prosecution as an independent eye-witness to establish their case.PW-3 has stated in his evidence that when he reached the place of incident, 4-5 persons were beating the deceased; he along with Har Prakash (PW-2) and Pushottam (PW-4) tried to escue him from the clutches of the assailants; none of them received any injury as the assailants had told them that their enmity was only with the deceased; nobody had telephoned the police in his presence but later on he learnt that somebody had informed the police; all the assailants were known to him for the last many years as they were his neighbours; though the statement of PW-2 was recorded by the police at the police station but his statement was not recorded on the date of incident; his statement was recorded only on 6 December 1994 and that he was on visiting terms with the family of the deceased for the last several years.Reading his evidence as a whole, in the light of evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, we are of the view that it does not inspire confidence.If not contradictory, it is definitely at variance with the evidence of the other two eye-witnesses.Having considered the evidence of PW-1 to PW-4 as a whole, we have grave doubt on the credibility of the prosecution version that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have witnessed the incident.Their evidence casts a doubt even on the place of incident, namely, whether it was in front of the house of PW-4 or the convict Kishan Pal.Nothing has been pointeout to explain this discrepancy.Our doubt gets further strengthened from the fact that though PW-2 to PW-4 have stated that they tried to save the deceased when he was attacked by 4-5 assailants by iron rods and stones "forcefully"but curiously they did not sustain even a scratch on any part of their bodies.16.Moreover, it has come in the evidence of Purshottam (PW-4) that on 4 December 1994 there was a party at the residence of convict Kishan Pal on the occasion of birth of his son and at about 9:30 PM all the four assailants started abusing and beating the deceased, meaning thereby that they all had been invited at the party despite the fact that there was some dispute over payment of Rs.600-700 by the convicts to his uncle Bhagwat Prasad (PW-1), which according to PW-2 and PW-4 was the root cause of the fight between the assailants and the deceased.Nevertheless, because of the birthday party some other guests must have witnessed the incident but except for PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4, who were closely related known to the deceased, no other private witness as been produced by the prosecution.According to the eye witnesses, the four assailants assaulted the deceased with iron rods and stones covered in cloth.There is no gain saying that if a person is assaulted by four persons from all sides, he is bound to get wounds on all parts of his body, including the head, shoulder etc. However, the evidence of the autopsy surgeon Dr. S.K. Verma (PW-10) shows that the deceased receive injuries only on the right side of the face, just lateral to right eye; over upper and anterior part of right pinna; right side of the forehead above the right eye brow and over right shoulder.The cause of the death is coma due to cranio cerebral injur likely to be produced by blunt force which is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.Thus, the medical evidence also tends to falsify the pattern of assault given out by the eye witnesses.We are, therefore, of the considered view that the ocular account given by these eye witnesses does not inspire confidence and the claim of these witnesses having seen the incident cannot be believed.All these circumstances cast grave doubt on the story of the prosecution and we find it difficult to accept that attack on the deceased took place in the manner alleged by the prosecution and the two appellants herein are responsible for the same.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,746 |
The accused persons then started assaulting the complainant party with lathi, spears and iron rod.The accused Kanai struck Ram Chandra, a brother of complainant Ananda, with the back side of spade on the upper side of his right eye.Ram Chandra fell down bleeding.Gobordhan then hit Ram with iron rod on his back.Nebu Bala tried to rescue her son Ram, but she was also assaulted on her head with iron rod and fell down with bleeding injuries.JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Dutta, J.This Appeal is directed by the Appellant-accused Kanai Mistry (hereinafter referred to as accused) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th April, 1992 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, in S. T. Case No. 2(4)/91 before him.The accused, along with 10 others, stood charged for having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 148, 325/149, and 302/ 149, IPC, on the allegations made in the FIR.Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that on 15th August, 1987 at about 3.00 p.m. the accused Kanai Mistry, who is a cousin of complainant Ananda Mohan Mistry, along with others, were putting up fencing with thorny branches of trees on the ejmali passage at Kumropara Lot No. 25, Hajrar Gheri, Police Station - Malhurapur, when the complainant, his brothers, parents and their children protested; whereupon a quarrel ensued.The injured persons were being taken to Raidighi Hospital for treatment; but on the way Ram Chandra died for which he was not taken to the Hospital, but his mother was taken to the Hospital and was admitted there.On the FIR lodged by the informant Ananda Mohan Mistry on the same day, the relevant case was started against the appellant-accused and 14 others under Sections 148, 149, 325 and 304, IPC.After completion of investigation, the police had submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons under Sections 148, 149, 323, 325 and 304, IPC.During consideration of charge, the learned Trial Judge had, however, framed charges against the appellant-accused and 10 others for offences punishable under Sections 148, 325/149 and 302/149, IPC, to which they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.The learned Trial Judge, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record and upon hearing the submissions of both sides, had found the appellant/ accused Kanai Mistry guilty to the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life by passing the impugned judgment and order.The other 10 accused persons who had also faced trial, along with the Appellant-accused, had been found by the learned Trial Judge not guilty to any of the aforesaid charges framed against them and they all were acquitted from the said charges and released from their respective bail bonds.Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence so passed by the learned Trial Judge against him, the accused Kanai Mistry has come up with the instant Appeal before this Court.No appeal/cross appeal has, however, been filed by the Respondent-State or anybody else against the judgment and order of acquittal in respect of the remaining 10 accused persons, which order stands final and absolute as such.The point for decision here before us is how far the learned Trial Judge was justified in finding the Appellant guilty to the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and convicting him thereunder and sentencing him therefore, the way he did.The learned Trial Judge, as already indicated above, had, upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, together with the relevant Inquest Report, Exhibit 2, read with the evidence of PW20, Dr. Pulin Behari Das, regarding the injuries detected on the dead body of the deceased Ram in terms of the relevant Post-Mortem Report, come to the conclusion that the accused Kanai had hit Ram on the right side of his forehead by the back side of a spade, on that vital part of his body, causing death to him, with the intention of causing such bodily injury to him (deceased) as was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death.The learned Trial Judge had, accordingly, found the accused-appellant guilty to offence punishable under Section 302, IPC, and had convicted him thereunder and sentenced him therefore in terms of the impugned judgment and order.In view of the overwhelming and cumulative evidence, on record, such as they are, we find it difficult to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge for the reasons discussed by him at length, which we do not propose to reiterate.We would like to add that the PW1 Ananda, PW4, Gayaram, PW5, Poornima, PW6, Lakshman, PW14, Nebu Bala and the PW16, Bharat, who are all close relatives of the deceased Ram, as also the PW8, Md. Elai Ali Molla and the PW17, Phani Bhusan, who are undisputedly local persons, had all stated in the same voice that the accused Kanai had hit the deceased Ram by the back side ("aal/ulti/aaltii") of a spade on the upper side of his right eye/forehead over the right eye on the relevant day at the relevant place and at the relevant time, whereupon he (Ram) had fallen down and was bleeding through nose and mouth.The evidence of the aforesaid close relatives could not clearly be discarded for the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court, referred to by him.Ordinarily, a close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person as they would be post reluctant to screen the real assailant and falsely mention the name of another person.The evidence of the aforesaid PWs.1,4,5,6,14 and 16 could not but be relied upon as such.The PWs.8 and 17 also appear to be local non-partisan witnesses, who are also competent and qualified to testify on the point deposed by them.All the aforesaid PWs further appear to have firmly stood the test of cross-examination; and their evidence remained unshaken.There seems little reason for refusing to rely upon their evidence as such.There is neither any such suggestion against any of them so as to render their evidence unworthy of credit.The learned Trial Judge, to our Judgment, was, therefore, perfectly justified in relying upon their evidence and coming to the conclusion, as he did.As held by him, the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses further get support from the Inquest Report, Exhibit 2, read with the evidence of the PW 20, Dr. Pulin Behari Das, who has stated about the injuries found on the dead body of the deceased Ram.We find no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned Trial Judge from the premises discussed by him in the judgment.Even though we are not in a position to differ from the finding of the learned Trial Judge in respect of the accused-Appellant on the evidence on record, we are not in a position to uphold and sustain the order of conviction and sentence passed by him against the accused-Appellant for the reasons we shall presently indicate.The accused-Appellant, along with the other 10 accused persons, had also been charged with two other charges, one for an offence punishable under Section 148, IPC, and the other punishable under Sections 325/149, IPC.According to the learned Trial Judge, the said two offences could not be established by the prosecution; and the 11 accused persons facing trial on the said two charges, including the accused-Appellant Kanai, had been acquitted from the said two charges.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,756,816 |
They are heard.1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6069/2020 (Rohit s/o Dinesh Devale Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 18.02.2020 Mr. Akash Rathi, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.6069/2020 is dismissed as withdrawn.
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
137,767,218 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.This is second bail application filed by the applicant Tulsidas Jojhotiya under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant Tulsidas Jijhotia apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.690/2016, registered at P.S. Govindpura, District Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC.Ward No.59 was reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates.The applicant submitted his nomination paper showing himself as a member of Scheduled Caste community to contest the election.After election Nadeem lodged the report that applicant had Filed forged caste certificate along with his nomination papers.On that report, police investigated the matter.During investigation, it was found that the caste certificate filed by the applicant along with his nomination papers was forged and it had not been issued by the office from which it was said to have been issued.The then SDM Hazoor, Mrs. Urmila Shukla, whose signatures are said to be on that certificate, also denied having signed on it.On that police registered crime number 690 /60 for the offence punishable under section 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC against the applicant Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the crime.The applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community and submitted his nomination form as a member of Scheduled Caste community to contest the election.After the election was held, Shri Fakira Kachke was appointed as Counselor, as he received the highest number of votes from Ward No.59 and the applicant received second highest number of votes.Thereafter, applicant came to know that Shri Fakira Kachke contested the election on the basis of forged and fabricated caste certificate, on which he filed complaints against him and on 20/08/2015 applicant also lodged report at Police Station Govindpura, which was registered as Crime No.687/2015 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 of the IPC against Shri Fakira Kachke.Therefore Shri Fakira Kachke lodged a False report against the applicant alleging that the applicant also contested the election by using false and fabricated caste certificate.The applicant also filed his caste certificate issued by Sub Divisional Officer, Revenue Tehsil-Bandhogarh.Learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the objector opposed the prayer and submitted that from the evidence collected by the prosecution it is clear that caste certificate filed by the applicant along with his nomination paper is forged and it had not been issued by the office by which it is said to have been issued.So he should not be released on anticipatory bail.Hence application is dismissed (Rajeev Kumar Dubey) Judge as/
|
['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.
|
65,043,552 |
Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the complainant.This is first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. The applicants have been arrested in Crime No.07/2017 registered at Police Station Jigna district Datia, for the offences punishable under sections 354D, 506, 34, 305 and 511 of IPC and 11,13 of POCSO Act.According to the prosecution case, on 12.1.2017 at about 7 PM complainant along with her mother and sister were in her house, Monu Chauhan, Deepak Chauhan and Raja Chauhan came in front of their house and Raja Chauhan asked the complainant to talk with complainant on phone but as she did not talk, they chased her and used to stalk her in the way and make indecent acts.It is further alleged that they also threatened her that if she discloses this fact to anybody in the family, they would eliminate her family.Due to the aforesaid threat, she consumed poisonous substance and hence, she was taken to hospital.It is submitted that applicants have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case.It is further submitted that applicant Nikhil has also lodge a report on 15.10.2016 upon which, Crime No.171 of 2016 was registered for the offence under sections 294, 323, 341, 406 and 427 of IPC against uncle of the complainant.There is no possibility of abscontion and the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time.Hence, they prayed for grant of bail.The prayer is opposed by learned PP for the respondent/State as well as by counsel for the complainant.Perused the case-diary.The applicants will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(D.K. PALIWAL) JUDGE Rks
|
['Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,048,198 |
2. Applicant (Shivika Bajpai), is apprehending her arrest in connection with crime no.281/2018, registered at police station Deen Dayal Nagar, Ratlam, for the offence punishable under Sections 306 / 34, IPC.As per dying declaration of the deceased Pappu, the main allegation regarding recovery of the loan amount of Rs.2.50 lac is against Akash.After suicide 161 statements of family members of the deceased were recorded in which allegation has been made against the present applicant and her mother Smt. Vandana Bajpai.4. Learned Senior counsel for the applicant submits that though in the transcript there is allegation against the present applicant from which she was pressurizing the deceased to pay the amount, but looking to his dying declaration and other material there is no prima facie material against the present applicant for registering the case under Section 306 / 34, IPC and prays that application for grant of anticipatory bail be allowed.Learned public prosecutor opposed the prayer and prays for rejection of the bail application.As per case diary, except this case, no other case is Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 25/08/2018 11:58:17 HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE Pg.No.2 pending against the present applicant.On due consideration of the transcript between the applicant and the deceased, so also the other material evidence available, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail because the main allegation is against accused persons Amit and Vandana.Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application for grant of anticipatory bail of applicant - Shivika Bajpai, is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail for a period of two months subject to his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer on the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of Cr.P.C.This order shall be valid for thirty days.Accordingly, M.Cr.C.No.31056/2018, is allowed and stands disposed of.as per rules.(P.K. JAISWAL ) JUDGE ss/-Digitally signed by Shailesh Sukhdev Date: 25/08/2018 11:58:17
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,062,174 |
The factual matrix of the present case is that the marriage of respondent no.2 was solemnized with one Sh.Hanif on 27.07.2000 as per the Muslim rites and customs.Soon after their marriage, the in- laws of the complainant started taunting her for dowry and extended threats to kill her several times.The husband of the complainant died on 10.11.2001 and thereafter the atrocities and cruelties of the in-laws Crl.M.C. 1324/2016 Page 1 of 8 of the complainant increased against her.As per the Settlement, the parties have agreed to settle all their differences with the intervention of their well wishers and relatives out of their free will and volition, without any force, fraud and undue influence.It is agreed between the parties that no claim/FIR/petition/complaint shall be instituted by them against each other or their respective family members in future.As per the settlement, the petitioners have already given the land measuring about 2-1/2 biswas in village Khiluka, Tehsil Hethin, Dist.Palwal, Haryana and the same was mutated in the name of the son of respondent no.2, namely Faizan in the revenue record.It is the case of the complainant that on 29.11.2001, the in-laws of the complainant caught hold of her and beat her brutally.They even tried to strangulate and kill her.Due to such cold and cruel behavior of the accused persons, the complainant came back to her parental home.M.C. 1324/2016 Page 1 of 8Thereafter, the complainant got lodged the complaint following which the FIR in question was registered against the petitioners.All the disputes and differences have been resolved through mutual consent.Now no dispute with petitioners survives and so, the proceedings arising out of the FIR in question be brought to an end.Accordingly, this petition is allowed and FIR No.164/2002 dated 04.04.2002, under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC registered at Police Station New Friends Colony and the proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed against the petitioners.
|
['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.
|
650,789 |
ORDER Rakesh Saksena, J.Applicant has filed this revision against the order dated 28-2-2007, passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in Sessions Trial No. 321/05, allowing the application filed by the Investigating Officer for collecting the standard handwritings of the accused and for sending the same to handwriting expert.Applicant is facing trial under Sections 302/394 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code.Almost all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and on 25-11-2006 the case was fixed only for recording the evidence of Investigating Officer.The evidence of Investigating Officer R. Sharma was partly recorded on 5/6-12-2006, but later on he filed an application praying for time to collect the standard handwritings of the accused and send the same to handwriting expert.During investigation the standard handwriting of the accused was collected and sent to handwriting expert.Report of the handwriting expert was filed in the Court.However, according to the said report, no definite opinion could be given as to whether the questioned documents were in the handwriting of the accused.Investigating Officer moved an application on 24-4-2006 before the Trial Court for again collecting the standard handwriting of accused.The said application was allowed on 2-5-2006 and the accused was directed to give specimen handwriting for examination by the handwriting expert for comparison with the questioned documents.In compliance of the aforesaid order, the specimen of the handwriting of the accused was taken on 8-5-2006 before the Court.The standard documents were sent to handwriting expert and were compared with the questioned document and the report was submitted.According to said report, the supplied standard writing did not provide sufficient data as well as variations in the writing characteristics for thorough comparison.Hence, it was found not possible to express definite opinion on questioned documents on the basis of available data.It was mentioned in the report that for definite opinion, well proved contemporaneous admittedly genuine writings containing voluminous capital English letters of person concerned, were required.In view the said report, Investigating Officer again filed an application on 5-12-2006 seeking time for collection of documents.The said application was allowed by the impugned order.Therefore, the prosecution again moved an application for collecting evidence during pendency of the trial for filling up the lacunae found in the prosecution case.However, that evidence is to be forwarded by way of a further report to Magistrate in respect to such evidence.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 173 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
648,928 |
JUDGMENT Shah, J.At 9.30 P.M. on March 21, 1959, four persons - Rampiari, Hiralal, Shyama Prosad Missir and Surajnath Dubey - all residing within Police Station Golabari in the twon of Howrah suffered incised and punctured injuries and died in consequence thereof.Two bustees in the town of Howrah - No. 7 Madhab Ghosh Road and No. 7 Tikiapara Road - are separated by a common courtyard.Ram Shankar, Bimala, Ramnaryan Singh and Depali lived in No. 7 Madhab Ghosh Road.Ramdeo Ahir, his wife Rampiari and son Hiralal lived in a room in 7 Tikiapara Road and Shyama Prosad Missir lived in another room in that bustee.Surajnath Dubey lived in a room in No. 9 Madhab Ghosh Road.At about 11 A.M. on March 21, 1959 there was an altercation in the common courtyard between Ramnarayan Missir, his wife Depali and Ram Shankar's wife Bimala on the one hand and Ramdeo, his wife Rampiari and his son Hiralal on the other.This attracted the attention of several residents of the locality, and the parties were pacified by Jadunandan Roy and Joy Lal Choudhury and were pursuaded to retire to their respective rooms.At about 7 P.M. on the same day, after Ram Shankar returned home there was another altercation and Jadunandan and others again intervened and pacified the parties, who were quarelling.Hiralal and his mother Rampiari returned to their room and apprehending an assault they chained the door from within.It was the case for the State that at about 9 P.M., 5 to 7 "Hindusthani" came armed with iron rods and knives to 7 Madhab Ghosh Road and joined Ram Shankar, Sudama Singh, Bimala, Ramnarayan Missir and Depali who were also armed with lethal weapons, such as knives, swords and iron-rods.The whole party then proceeded to No. 7 Tikiapara Road and Sudama Singh broke open the door of the room of Ramdeo Ahir.Ram Shankar and his wife Bimala then entered the room, Sudama Singh standing outside.Ram Shankar and Bimala attacked Rampiari and Hiralal and stabbed them to death.The appellants and two others were tried before the Extra Additional Sessions Judge, Howrah with a jury for rioting and causing fatal injuries to these four victims and thereby committing offences punishable under ss. 148, 302 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.The jury brought a unanimous verdict of guilty against appellants Ram Shankar Singh, Bimala and Sudama Singh for offences punishable under ss. 148, 302 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and against Ramnarayan Missir for offences punishable under ss. 148 and 326 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and a verdict of not-guilty against Depali wife of Ramnarayan Missir.The Sessions Judge accepted the verdict and sentenced the appellants, subject to confirmation by the High Court, to suffer the penalty of death and Ramnarayan Missir to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, and acquitted Depali.The reference for confirmation of death sentence and the appeal filed by the appellants and Ramnarayan Missir against the order of conviction and sentence were heard by the High Court of judicature at Calcutta.The High Court held that the verdict of the jury was vitiated on account of misdirection by the Sessions Judge, and after an elaborate examination of the evidence found the appellants Ram Shankar and Bimala guilty of offences under s. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the death of Rampiari and Hiralal.The High Court also found appellant Ram Shankar guilty of murder for causing the death of Surajnath Dubey by stabbing him with a knife, and appellant Sudama Singh for causing the death of Shyama Prosad Missir by stabbing him with a knife, and confirmed the sentence of death passed by the Sessions Judge.The High Court, acquitted Ramnarayan Singh of the offence of grievous hurt of which he was convicted by the trial court.With certificate granted by the High Court this appeal is preferred by the three appellants.On hearing the shrieks of Rampiari and Hiralal, Shyama Prosad Missir proceeded towards the courtyard, but was stabbed by Sudama Singh in the chest with a knife and collapsed on the spot.Sudama Singh was held by Jadunandan Roy, but was rescued by his supporters who best Jadunandan Roy with iron rods.At this juncture Ram Shankar and Bimala came out of Ramdeo's room with their knives and clothes stained with blood.Surajnath Dubey who reached the room of Ramdeo was stabbed by Ram Shankar in his abdomen.Surajnath Dubey ran a short distance pressing his abdomen with his hands and fell down near the dispensary of one Dr. Dhruba Das Pandey wherefrom he was removed to the Howrah General Hospital.Ramnarayan Missir was present in the courtyard at the time of this assault and carried a sword in his hand and his wife Depali carried an iron-rod.After killing Rampiari, Hiralal, Shyama Prosad Missir and causing injuries to Surajnath Dubey, Ram Shankar and his supporters fled along the Madhab Ghosh Road.The sword carried by Ramnarayan was snatched away by Jiban Prosad Sett and in doing so the latter received a slight injury.Ramnarayan and his wife Bimala and others were chased by a large crowd, but many of the miscreants made good their escape.Ramnarayan and his wife Depali took shelter in the house of one Lakshman Mahato.Ram Shankar, Bimala and Sudama Singh entered the godown of Bhola Singh at Sailen Bose Road.In the meantime, the officer incharge of the police station having received information on the telephone proceeded to Bhola Singh's godown and arrested Sudama Singh and Bimala, Ram Shankar having run away from the godown.Sudama Singh and Bimala were brought to the scene of offence and injuries on the dead-bodies of Rampiari, Hiralal Shyama Prosad Missir were examined.Information of the offence was then recorded.At the trial of the appellants and other accused, evidence was led in support of the case for the State that quarrels took place at 11 A.M. and 7 P.M. on the day in question between Rampiari and Hiralal on the one hand and Bimala, Ramnarayan Singh and Depali on the other and that at the quarrel at 7 P.M. Ram Shankar was also present.Evidence was also led to show that shortly after 9 P.M. Ram Shankar, his wife Bimala accompanied by Sudama Singh - Ram Shankar's cousin - Ramnarayan Missir and his wife Depali and five or seven Hindusthani men approached the courtyard in front of No. 7 Tikiapara Road and Sudama Singh broke open the door of the room of Ramdeo Ahir and Ram Shankar and his wife Bimala entered the room armed with knives and emerged from the room sometime later with knives stained with blood.Evidence was also led that Shayama Prosad Missir was stabbed by Sudama Singh and Surajnath Dubey by Ram Shankar in the presence of witnesses.The State also led evidence that the fleeing miscreants were chased by the residents of the locality and that Bimala and Sudama Singh were arrested in the godown of Bhola Singh.Before the High Court the verdict of the jury was successfully assailed by counsel for the appellants.The learned Judges of the High Court held that the verdict was vitiated on account of misdirection on material questions, and they accordingly disregarded the verdict and proceeded to consider the evidence independently of the verdict.They held that appellants Nos. 1 and 2 - Ram Shankar and his wife Bimala - were guilty of offences punishable under s. 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing in furtherance of their common intention death of Rampiari and and Hiralal in the room of Ramdeo Ahir.Hiralal had six injuries on his chest, abdomen and arms - four incised injuries and two punctured.Shyama Prosad Missir had one injury on the chest piercing the thoracic cavity.Surajnath Dubey had an injury in the abdomen.These injuries were in the ordinary course of nature sufficient to cause death.In respect of the first incident which took place in the morning of the fateful day, there is the evidence of Jadunandan Rao which is corroborated by the statement contained in the First Information Report, and also corroborated by the statement of Ramdeo - husband of Rampiari.The second incident, took place at about 7 P.M. The witnesses in connection with that incident are Jadunandan Roy, B. P. Singh and Jangli Bahadur.It appears from the evidence of these witnesses that the parties - Rampiari and Hiralal on the one hand and Ram Shankar, his wife Bimala Devi, Ramnarayan Missir and his wife Depali on the other - were quarrelling and were pacified and Rampiari and Hiralal were persuaded to go back to their room and bolt it from inside.The High Court has believed the evidence relating to these two incidents and we see no reason for not accepting it.The third incident consists of three phases (1) assault upon the room of Ramdeo Ahir, the breaking open of the door and attack on Rampiari and Hiralal resulting in their death; (2) assault on Shyama Prosad Missir by Sudama Singh and (3) assault on Surajnath Dubey.The evidence discloses that the common courtyard between 7 Madhab Ghosh Road and 7 Tikiapara Road was lit up by the light of an electric lamp in the house of Joy Lal Choudhury, two of the windows of the first floor being open.There is also the evidence that in the room of Ramdeo on the occasion in question a kerosene lantern was burning.It is so recited in the First Information Report and the kerosene lantern was seen by the Sub-Inspector of Police when he arrived on the scene of offence.It cannot be disputed, therefore, that the scene of offence was fully lighted at the time of the assault and the witnesses could identify the assailants.About the assault upon the room of Ramdeo Ahir and the entry of appellants Ram Shankar and his wife Bimala Devi into the house after the door was broken open by Sudama Singh, there is the evidence of as many as six eyewitnesses - they are Jadunandan Roy, Ram Chandra Goala, Tribeni Jadab, Sukdeo Majhi, Hosila Jadab and Sundar Jadab.The First Information Report lodged by Jadunandan Roy substantially gives the same story.Jabunandan Roy has deposed to the entire story of the breaking open of the door by Sudama Singh and the entry by Ram Shankar and Bimala into the room, the shrieks of Rampiari and Hiralal and about Ram Shankar and Bimala coming out of the room after stabbing Rampiari and Hiralal.Ram Chandra Goala stated that when he came near the house of Ramdeo he found Ram Shankar and Bimala coming out of the room with knives in their hands.Tribeni Jadab stated that he saw Sudama Singh breaking open the door of Ramdeo Ahir with an iron rod, that thereafter Ram Shankar and Bimala entered the room each carrying a knife, that he heard shrieks of Rampiari and Hiralal and that after some time Ram Shankar and Bimala came out of the room with knives.Sukdeo Majhi stated that he saw Ram Shankar and Bimala coming out of Ramdeo's room with knives in their hands.There is also the evidence of Hosila Jadab who stated that he saw Ram Shankar and Bimala coming out of Ramdeo's room with blood-stained knives.Sundar Jadab has stated that when he reached the courtyard he found Sudama Singh breaking open the door of Ramdeo's room with an iron rod and thereafter Ram Shankar and his wife getting into the room with knives in their hands, and he heard Hiralal and his mother shouting for some time.The High Court has accepted the testimony of these witnesses.It is true that Jadunandan Roy stated that he saw through the open door of the room of Ramdeo Ahir, after it was broken open, Ram Shankar stabbing Rampiari and Bimala stabbing Hiralal and the High Court regarded this part of the story as an embellishment which must be discarded.The mere fact that the witness Jadunandan Roy had improved his story will not by itself be sufficient to disregard his testimony in its entirely.About the assault on Shyama Prosad Missir, when he tried to intervene, there is the evidence of Jadunandan Roy, Tribeni Jadab, Sukdeo Majhi, Hosila Jadab and Sundar Jadab.Each of these witnesses has deposed that Shyama Prosad Missir who intervened was stabbed by Sudama Singh in the abdomen.About the assault on Suraj Dubey by Ram Shankar, there is the evidence of Jadunandan Roy, Tribeni Jadab and Hosila Jadab.In the cross-examination of these witnesses for the prosecution, it was suggested that there was a free fight between some "Hindusthanis" and "goalas", in the course of which injuries may have been suffered by Rampiari, Hiralal, Shyama Prosad Missir and Suraj Dubey.But Rampiari and her son Hiralal were found dead in their own room : the dead bodies were lying on a cot.The body of Shyama Prosad Missir was lying with a single injury at the gate of 7 Tikiapara Road and Surajnath Dubey was stabbed a short distance away.There is no evidence of any serious injury suffered by any other person.If there had been a free fight, some injuries to participants on both the sides may reasonably be expected.It is true that according to the prosecution besides the accused there were present 5 or 7 Hindusthani men, who were also armed.There is no evidence, however, that any of these Hindusthanis took any active part in the assault on Rampiari, Hiralal, Shyama Prosad and Surajnath.The Hindusthanis were not identified and have never been traced; but there is no evidence that they participated in the assault.The story of a free fight between the goalas and the Hindusthani men has been discarded by the High Court and, in our judgment, properly.Certain matters of general criticism of the evidence were also urged by the learned counsel for the appellants.Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure enjoins that a copy of the First Information Report be sent forthwith to the Magistrate having jurisdiction.If, however, it was the case that the copy was not despatched from his office at the time when it was claimed it was despatched, further cross-examination should have been directed, the mere endorsement of 26th March, 1959 as the date on which the First Information reached the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is not in itself sufficient to disregard a mass of direct evidence.It was then urged that the story that Bimala was carrying a knife even when she was arrested was on the ground of utter improbability unreliable.But this argument based on mere improbability would not be sufficient body of disinterested testimony about the knife being in her hand when she was arrested.It was also submitted that the story of Jadunandan Roy that he caught Sudama Singh after the latter had stabbed Shyama Prosad Missir is untrue.It was urged that if Sudama Singh, who was armed with a knife was over-powered by Jadunandan Roy, the story that Sudama Singh ran away with the other assailants could not be true.But Jadunandan in his evidence has deposed that when he caught Sudama Singh he was assaulted by others who accompanied Sudama Singh and was struck on his head and on other parts of body with a rod.This story is corroborated by the medical evidence about injuries on the person of Jadunandan Roy.Learned counsel for the appellants strongly relied upon the fact that even though a large majority of the prosecution witnesses who came near 7 Tikiapara Road deposed to the presence of Ramnarayan Missir and his wife Depali and further deposed that Ramnarayan Missir had a sword in his hand, the Sessions Judge acquitted Depali and the High Court acquitted Ramnarayan.It is urged that if the testimony of these witnesses who deposed to the presence of Depali and Ramnarayan Missir is found to be untrue, the Court should scrutinize the evidence of the other witnesses with care and having regard to the unsatisfactory features disclosed in the cross-examination, the rest of the evidence should also be discarded.But it was not the evidence of any of the witnesses for the prosecution that Depali had taken part in the assault.Her presence with a rod in her hand is deposed to by the witnesses, but it is not alleged that she had taken any part in the assault on any one.Similarly, though there was evidence that Ramnarayan Missir was present carrying a sword, yet the High Court on a consideration of the evidence came to the conclusion that the in absence of reliable evidence that he participated in the assault near 7 Tikiapara Road the case against him was not proved.We do not think that because the High Court held the case against Ramnarayan as not established, the prosecution evidence in its entirety may be disregarded.On a review of the evidence, we hold that the First Information about the commission of the offence was given immediately : in the First Information the names of the three appellants and the part played by them was set out in detail.The police officer who arrived on the scene shortly after the incident found the door of Ramdeo Ahir's room broken and blood marks were found at various places in Ramdeo Ahir's room as well as in the courtyard.Many of the witnesses who supported the case for the State were disinterested and independent.No injuries were fond on any of the party of the accused which could be attributed to a fight between their party men and the goalas.Counsel for the appellants submitted that, in any event, against Sudama Singh the evidence was not strong enough to warrant his conviction.It was contended that Sudama Singh resides not in Madhab Ghosh Road but in the godown in which he was arrested.It is also urged that no extensive blood marks were found on his clothes and the knife alleged to have been used by him is not found.In our opinion, there is a mass of reliable evidence against Sudama Singh which establishes his presence at the scene of the offence and the part played by him.There is the evidence of five eye-witnesses to which we have already referred.His presence at the scene is corroborated by the testimony of Basanta Prosad Singh who had heard Depali shouting shortly before the assault commenced that Sudama Singh had arrived.Then there is the evidence of Jiban Prosad Sett who deposed that he had on the night in question seen Ram Shankar, Sudama Singh, Bimala and Ramnarayan Missir, all coming from Madhab Ghosh Road towards Tikiapara Road and that he had seen Sudama Singh with a knife.Sewdhari Sharma stated that he had seen Sudama Singh and 3 or 4 other persons running away from the scene of offence and at that time he had a knife in his right hand.Sub-Inspector Deepak Das stated that he had arrested Sudama Singh near the godown.Sub-Inspector Z. Haque attached the dhoti from the person of Sudama Singh and that dhoti was sent to the Chemical Analyser and Serologist.According to the Chemical Analyser the dhoti bore blood marks.In the seizure list the dhoti is described as having "slight" blood stains and the Assistant Serologist reported that the blood on the dhoti was so disintegrated that its origin could not be determined.The testimony of Jadunandan Roy, Tribeni Jadab, Sundar Jadab, Jiban Prosad Sett, and Sukdeo Majhi abundantly establishes the presence of Sudama Singh at the scene of the offence and the part played by him.He is also seen running away from the scene of offence.The knife carried by him is not found : blood marks found on his dhoti are also not proved to be human in origin, but, having regard to the evidence of the eye-witnesses, which is both independent and disinterested, we see no reason to disagree with the view of the High Court that Sudama Singh was present at the scene of offence and he broke open the door of Ramdeo Ahir's house to facilitate the entry of Ram Shankar and Bimala to murder Rampiari and Hiralal and that he stabbed Shyama Prosad Missir with a knife.Ram Shankar and Bimala forceably entered the house of Ramdeo Ahir and killed Rampiari and Hiralal.Ram Shankar also stabbed Suraj Dubey when he attempted to protest against his conduct.Sudama Singh, besides breaking open the door of Ramdeo Ahir's room to facilitate the entry by Ram Shankar and Bimala stabbed Shyama Prosad Missir when the latter tried to intervene.The assault upon the members of the family of Ramdeo Ahir was conceived and initiated with deliberation, and with the object of slaughtering a defenceless woman and her young son.Innocent persons who intervened were mercilessly stabbed and killed.Appeal dismissed.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,489,369 |
Heard Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri S. M. Haider Zaidi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, and Sri Ripusudan Yadav, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for direction to the courts below to decide the cross case/revision together/jointly being S.T. No. 483 of 2013 (State Vs.Ram Lal and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 14 of 2013, under Sections 302, 307, 504, 506, IPC & 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Karhal, District Mainpuri, alongwith the Case No. 15 of 2014 (Smt. Munni Devi Vs.
|
['Section 395 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,896,231 |
(Passed on 21.06.2017) This revision petition has been filed under section 397 Cr.P.C against the judgment dated 15.10.2015 passed by IInd A.S.J, Ujjain in Criminal Appeal No.31/2015 whereby the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant and affirmed the judgment dated 14.02.14 passed by JMFC, Ujjain in Criminal Case No.2960/09 whereby learned JMFC convicted accused Ratan under section 325 IPC and accused Mukesh under section 323 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for one year with fine of Rs.500/ and fine of Rs.1000/- respectively with further default stipulation and acquitted -2- the remaining co-accused Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai.Brief facts of the case are that on 02.03.2009 at about 11.30 A.M at village Suliya Dibba, Ujjain when petitioner Basantabai was grazing cattle in the field, non applicant/accused Ratan, Mukesh, Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai and (names of Ratan and Mukesh were deleted from the revision memo by order dated 2/11/16) armed with Darata, Farsi and stick came there and assaulted her and she sustained injuries on her right leg and head.After the incident injured Basantabai was brought to civil hospital, Ujjain where she narrated the incident to Head Constable Kailashchand who in turn entered the information in the daily diary and sent it to Police Station Ghatia, district Ujjain.On the basis of the said information, Police Station, Ghatia registered crime No.85/09 for the offences punishable under sections 147, 148, 149, 323 & 506 IPC against Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai, Ratan and Mukesh.After investigation, Police filed charge sheet before JMFC, Ujjain and on the basis of that report -3- criminal case No.787/14 was registered against Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai, Ratan and Mukesh.Learned JMFC framed charge against them under sections 148, 325 read with section 149 and 323 read with with 149 IPC and tried the case.In trial they abjured their guilt and took the defence that they have been falsely implicated in the case.However, after trial learned JMFC acquitted non applicants Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai from all the charges and accused Ratan from the charges under sections 148, 323/149 and Mukesh from the charges under sections 148 and 325/149 IPC but convicted Ratansingh and Mukesh for the offence punishable under sections 325 and 323 IPC respectively and sentenced them as aforesaid.Being aggrieved by the said judgment, non- applicant Ratan filed criminal appeal No.126/14 and petitioner Basantabai filed criminal appeal No.31/15, however, both the appeals were dismissed by a common judgment dated 15.10.2015 by IInd ASJ, Ujjain, hence this revision by complainant Basantabai.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that both the Courts below without -4- appreciating the evidence wrongly acquitted the co-accused Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai.From the statement of complainant Basantabai (PW/2), which is also corroborated by the statement of Sangeetabai (PW/5), Shyamabai (PW/6) and medical evidence it is clearly proved that accused Ratan, Mukesh, Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai, armed with Darata, Farsi and stick came on the spot and assaulted Basantabai.This Court has gone through the record and the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner.By present revision petition, the petitioner has assailed judgment of learned II ASJ Ujjain on the ground that findings of court below were against the weight of evidence.The grounds raised by the petitioner in the petition show that the petitioner has assailed the order of learned Sessions Judge on merits.The judgment is not to be resorted to as a second appeal.During arguments, counsel for the petitioner had only been agitating that the conclusion arrived at by the trial court as well as by the appellate court was not correct conclusion and he wanted this court to re-appreciate the entire evidence.While this court in view of Section 393 Cr.P.C. cannot re-appreciate the entire evidence to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the appellate Court so revision has no force.Even otherwise although Basantabai (PW/2) deposed that at the time of incident she was -6- grazing cattle in the field and accused Mukesh assaulted her by stick, Ratan by Farsi on her head and thereafter non applicants Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai by sticks and Darata.Her statement is also corroborated by the statement of Sangeetabai (PW/5) who also deposed that accused Mukesh, Ratan, Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai assaulted the complainant by Farsi, Darata and Sticks and she sustained injury on her head in the incident but Ratansingh (PW/1)and Shyamabai (PW/6) did not support the prosecution story.In this regard Ratansingh deposed that he did not see the incident and also denied the fact that he gave the statement Ex.P/1 to the Police regarding the incident.Shyamabai (PW/6) only deposed that she reached the spot after the incident and in her cross examination in para-5 also admitted that she reached the spot only after the assailants fled away from the spot.Likewise statement of Sangeetabai (PW/5) is also contradictory.She in her cross examination clearly admitted that she did not see the incident.Even the statement of -7- Basantabai (PW/2), the injured, is also not corroborated by medical evidence.Basantabai (PW/2) in her statement deposed that Ratan assaulted her by Farsi on her head, Mukesh assaulted her by stick on her legs thereafter Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai assaulted her by sticks and Darata but Dr.Anil Sinha (PW/3) who examined injured Basantabai soon after the incident deposed that he found only one injury on her head.If all the accused have assaulted her then multiple injuries would have been found on her body, therefore, the statement of the complainant lacks trustworthiness regarding non applicants Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai and in the considered opinion of this Court the trial Court as well as appellate Court did not commit any mistake in acquitting Saurambai, Mohanbai, Funtibai and Tammabai from the charge under section 148, 323/149 and 325/149 of IPC.Although applicants earlier also filed revision against accused Ratan and Mukesh also stating that learned trial court wrongly acquitted the accused Mukesh from the charge under section 325/149 of IPC and also not gave adequate punishment to Ratan.But during hearing of this revision by order dated 02.11.2016 this court permitted him to delete their names from revision memo.So there is no need to give any finding regarding them.In the result, the revision petition fails and is hereby dismissed.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) J U D G E hk/
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,901,304 |
Thereafter, he also sent vulgar messages to the prosecutrix on her mobile.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the offence.It is further submitted that the applicant is mentally ill.Even after knowing this fact prosecutrix also gave affidavit in support of applicant's application.The applicant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial.In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer.A copy of this order be sent to the concerned Station House Officer for compliance.Certified copy as per rules.(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE VS Digitally signed by VARSHA SINGH Date: 29/08/2019 18:50:06
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,490,868 |
A.No.821/2007 Page 2 of 9RZB-195, Nihar Vihar where Rohtash was staying.He took along with him one Mukesh son of Mam Chand.Before further noting the testimony of Kailash we wish to make the reader of this decision aware that there is a reference to two persons by the name of Mukesh.The first is Mukesh the accused and the appellant.The other is the reference to Mukesh the stated friend of Kailash who went with Kailash when Kailash responded to the telephone call of Rohtash and was killed.As per Kailash, when he reached house No.RZB-195 Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 4 of 9 Nihar Vihar he found accused Mukesh in presence of Rohtash and he tried to persuade accused Mukesh not to quarrel with Rohtash.Accused Mukesh told him that Rohtash had borrowed Rs.200/- from brother of Mukesh and was not repaying the same.Accused Mukesh picked up a fight with Kailash and tried to hit Mukesh, the friend of Kailash.Kailash intervened to save his friend Mukesh and in the process received an injury on his right hand and the left cheek.Accused Mukesh inflicted a knife blow on the lower portion of the abdomen of Kailash's friend Mukesh who started bleeding profusely.Kailash and Rohtash took Mahesh to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital where police recorded his statement Ex.PW- 11/A. Kailash further deposed that he joined in further investigation and when accused Mukesh was apprehended he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW-9/D and volunteered to get recovered the weapon of offence.He led the police to his house at Laxmi Chowk and from an almirah got recovered the knife Ex.P-1 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-9/G. He also got recovered a pant Ex.P-2 which was seized vide memo Ex.PW-9/H.I saw Mukesh holding collar of Rohtash in the gali and Mukesh was carrying Rohtash with him.I saw Rohtash was being dragged forcibly.At that time they were at a distance of about 20 to 25 ft. from the room.' On being further cross examined he stated: 'When Mukesh i.e. accused left Rohtash the public person also left the spot and I was caught hold by him thereafter.A.No.821/2007 Page 9 of 9A.No.821/2007 Page 9 of 9The appeal has reached for hearing and we find that the Amicus Curiae appointed on behalf of the appellant namely Ms.Poornima Sethi has not appeared at the hearing.2. Ms.Shraddha Bhargava Advocate on the panel of the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee who is present in Court is accordingly appointed as the Amicus Curiae and with assistance of the learned Amicus Curiae and counsel for the State records have been perused.Before noting submissions we place on record our Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 1 of 9 appreciation for learned Amicus Curiae who has read the testimony of PW-11 in Court and has very ably assisted us in pointing out facets of the evidence which have been ignored by the learned Trial Judge.A.No.821/2007 Page 1 of 9We fix the fee of learned counsel in sum of Rs.7,500/- to be paid by the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.With reference to the testimony of Kailash PW-11 and holding that the same is credible; finding further incriminating evidence in the form of the knife Ex.P-1 which was stated to have been got recovered after the appellant was apprehended, which has been opined to be the possible weapon of offence, further evidence being blood being detected on the knife of the same group as that of the deceased, the learned Trial Judge has held that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellant murdered Mukesh and injured Kailash, hence committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and 324 IPC.The MLC Ex.The statement Ex.PW-11/A of Mukesh has been recorded by SI Ravi Shankar PW-19 at the hospital and the Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 2 of 9 endorsement Ex.PW-19/A beneath the statement of Kailash shows that the statement and the endorsement was dispatched from the hospital at 11:10 PM.It may be noted at the outset that during cross- examination Kailash has admitted being an accused in a large number of FIRs.The number of FIRs in which Kailash was an accused has been brought on record through the testimony of HC Ashok Kumar DW-1 who filed a tabular chart Ex.DW-1/H which shows that Kailash is an accused in as many as 19 FIRs.The chart is an interesting reading for the reason it shows that Kailash at whose instance the FIR was registered is an accused in as many as 19 cases with the offences ranging from robbery, attempt to murder, drug peddling, Arms Act and the Goonda Act. Interestingly the instant crime relates to something which happened on 8.1.2004 and only 8 days prior thereto Kailash was released from prison on bail and within 8 Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 3 of 9 days thereafter i.e. on 16.1.2004 became an accused for an offence of attempt to murder.A.No.821/2007 Page 3 of 9It is apparent that Kailash has his roots in the world of crime and hence his testimony has to be viewed with care and caution and only if it is found to be of such high level of credibility, can it be the foundation of a conviction without any corroboration.As deposed to by Kailash on 8.1.2004 at around 7:15 PM he was present at Paschimpuri Chowk and his friend Rohtash contacted him over his mobile phone No.9810499072 and informed him that Mukesh (the accused) brother of Vijay, was harassing Rohtash and was man handling Rohtash.Accordingly, he i.e. Kailash reached House No.A.No.821/2007 Page 4 of 9On being cross-examined, Kailash admitted being an accused in a large number of FIRs and that he was released on bail a week prior.He admitted that the range of cases Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 5 of 9 against him pertained to offences under Arms Act, the Goonda Act, for gambling, for theft and robberies etc. and NDPS.On being cross-examined he had following to depose about the incident: 'I reached the room of incident at about 6:45 PM in the evening.Jamna Dass was not there in the room when I reached there.The room in incident is surrounded by the dwelling houses.No public person was there in the room.There was a minor scuffle between me and the accused for about one and a half minute and thereafter I was set free by the accused.After my reaching the spot the quarrel continue for about half an hour at the spot but with me the dispute lasted for 10-15 minutes only.' On being further cross-examined as to what steps he took to render comfort to his friend, Kailash deposed: 'I took off my shirt and try to stop the blood by wrapping the same around the injury.Mukesh Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 6 of 9 i.e. deceased at that time was wearing shirt and with sleeves sweater'.A.No.821/2007 Page 5 of 9A.No.821/2007 Page 6 of 9We find it strange and indeed something which is not to be missed, that Rohtash the person at whose instance Kailash responded and reached the house of Rohtash, the place where the crime took place, has not even been examined by the prosecution as a witness.We find it worthy of being noted that the shirt which Kailash claims to have wrapped around the waist of the deceased has not even been seized.The mobile phone on which Kailash claims having received a summons to rescue from Rohtash has not been brought before the Court as real evidence.The manner in which Kailash has gone about describing the incident during cross-examination makes it highly suspect whether what is being spoken about by Kailash is worthy of any belief for the reason save and except a single stab wound on the person of the deceased we find no signs of any injury which show a scuffle.It became important to have examined Rohtash for as per Kailash the quarrel continued at the spot for about half an hour.As stated in his cross- examination accused Mukesh was not only holding Rohtash by the collar in the gali but was forcibly dragging Rohtash and if that be so, bruise and contusion wounds would have been on Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 7 of 9 the person of Rohtash.A.No.821/2007 Page 7 of 9Highlighting the fact that the place of the crime is the house of Rohtash whose involvement in the incident has surfaced with considerable degree of substantial measure, it indeed is a serious issue of Rohtash not being examined as a witness.Considering the character of the person of Kailash, who is an accused in as many as 19 crimes, further noting the aforenoted features in the testimony of Kailash, we are of the opinion that it would be unsafe in the instant case, as the facts have emerged, to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the uncorroborated testimony of Kailash.As regards the recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant as also that the pant got recovered by him was stained with human blood, group whereof could not be determined, suffice would it be to state that as held in the decisions reported as JT 2008 (1) SC 191 Mani Vs.State of Tamilnadu, 1999 Crl.LJ 265 Deva Singh Vs.State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 110 Surjit Singh & Anr.State of Punjab, 1977 (9) UJ 226 (SC) Narsinhbhai Haribhai Prajapati Etc. Vs.Chhatrasinh & Ors.and AIR 1963 SC 1113 Prabhu Vs.State of UP, recovery of ordinary object is always treated as a very weak piece of evidence.Unlike firearms, knives etc. are only Crl.A.No.821/2007 Page 8 of 9 capable of being opined as the possible weapon of offence and not the only weapon of offence.A.No.821/2007 Page 8 of 9We give the benefit of doubt to the appellant.The appeal is allowed.Impugned judgment and order dated 5.10.2007 is set aside.The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him.Since the appellant is in jail we direct that a copy of this decision be sent to the Superintendent Central Jail Tihar with a direction that if not required in any other case, the appellant be set free forthwith.(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (SURESH KAIT) JUDGE March 10, 2010 mm Crl.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,913,808 |
The petitioner was, formerly, the Minister for Education and Tourism, in the Union Territory of Puducherry.He is the first accused in C.C.No. 32 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Tindivanam in Tamil Nadu.Altogether, there are three accused in the case.The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-One Adhavan, viz., the second accused in this case, was, then, working as a graduate teacher at the Adi-Dravidar Welfare Higher Secondary School at Singanoor, Tindivanam, in the State of Tamil Nadu.(i) The petitioner has wantonly given a false address in his application submitted to the Department of Government Examinations, Chennai, as though, he was residing at No.22/A, Udhaya Nagar, Chennai Road, Tindivanam, when the fact remains that he never resided in the said address as he was residing only at Karuvadikuppam Village in Puducherry State.(ii) Though, the second accused Adhavan, was not earlier known to the petitioner, his address was chosen by the close associates of the petitioner.(iii) Admittedly, the examination Centre was "Tagore Higher Secondary School" at Tindivanam.The second accused Adhavan was working in a different School at Singanoor Village.His name was not in the list of Invigilators originally.It is further alleged, unfortunately, that attempt failed, because, the person, who was engaged, declined to write the examination by means of impersonation at the last moment.Nextly, in the examination Centre, Adhavan was not originally in the list of Invigilators.As per the proceedings of Mr.Shanmugam, the District Educational Officer, there were only 22 Invigilators.The second accused was no were in the scene.The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 419 r/w.120-B IPC.Seeking to quash the said proceedings, the petitioner has come up with this petition.The third accused was, then, working as an Assistant at the office of District Educational Officer at Tindivanam, in the State of Tamil Nadu.In the Xth standard Government examination held in the year 1995, the petitioner failed in Science and Social Science subjects.Thereafter, for his own reasons, he could not write the said examination in the failed subjects.(ii) The petitioner is admittedly a resident of Karuvadikuppam Village in Puducherry State.But, however, with a view to avoid media attraction, according to him, he decided to write the supplementary examination in an examination Centre in Tamil Nadu, instead of Puducherry.As per the Regulations governing the examination, if only the candidate gives a local address in the State of Tamil Nadu, he will be permitted to write the examination in a Centre in the State of Tamil Nadu.Therefore, with a view to have the examination Centre in Tindivanam in Tamil Nadu, the petitioner was in need of a local address in Tindivanam.(iii) The second accused Adhavan is a permanent resident of No.22/A, Udhaya Nagar, Chennai Road, Tindivanam.Two persons, who were very close to the petitioner, of whom, one is a close relative of the second accused gave the idea that the address of the second accused Adhavan could be given in the application, so as to have the examination Centre in Tindivanam.One Ashokan, a close associate of the petitioner filled up the application giving the address of the petitioner, as though, he was residing at No.22/A, Udhaya Nagar, Chennai Road, Tindivanam, under the care of Mr.Adhavan, the second accused herein.The said application was entertained by the Department of Government Examinations, Government of Tamil Nadu and he was given the Registration No.1077190 and allotted the Centre at "Tagore Higher Secondary School", at Tindivanam.(iv) According to the final report, the petitioner/accused No.1 originally conspired with accused No. 2 to engage a third person, to impersonate him, to write the examination on his behalf.But, unfortunately, the person, who was so arranged by the other accused, at the last moment, did not come forward to write the examination.Based on the said complaints, the Chief Educational Officer, Villupuram, having conducted a detailed enquiry was of the prima facie view that impersonation had been committed.Therefore, he made a complaint by letter in Na.15137/ B1/2011, dated 08.10.2011, to the respondent police.Based on the said complaint, the present case was registered in Cr.74/2011 on 08.10.2011, for the offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 419, 420 r/w.120-B IPC.(vi) During the course of investigation, the answer paper of the petitioner was sent for examination by an expert with the admitted handwriting of the petitioner.The expert gave a report that the answer sheet was in the handwriting of the petitioner.Therefore, the Investigating Officer has concluded that the allegation of impersonation is incorrect.However, the respondent- Inspector of Police has filed the final report alleging that the petitioner has committed the other offences.According to the present allegation, the petitioner has committed an offence of conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B r/w. 419 and 471 IPC.Insofar as the second accused Adhavan is concerned, it is alleged in the final report that he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 417, 120-B r/w. 465, 468 and 419 IPC.As far as the third accused Rajini Kanth is concerned, according to the final report, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 465, 120-B r/w. 471 IPC.To repeat, precisely as against the petitioner, according to the final report, he has committed the offences under Sections 120-B r/w. 419 and 471 IPC.But, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that the offences under Sections 419 and 471 IPC have not been made out against the petitioner.However, there are materials to frame charge against the petitioner and try him for the offence punishable under Section 120-B IPC.According to the case, he went to the office of the District Educational Officer and made a request to include him in the list of Invigilators for the said examination.The learned Public Prosecutor would point out that in the proceedings of the District Educational Officer, dated 16.09.2011, there were only 22 Invigilators and the name of Adhavan, the second accused, was not there.After the proceedings were issued by the District Educational Officer, without his knowledge (vide the statement of Mr.Shanmugam, District Educational Officer) on the request made by the second accused, the third accused inserted the name of the second accused as one of the Invigilators.This interpolation was made in the handwriting of the third accused, whereas, the entire proceeding was a computer print out.(iv) After the coming into being of the above forged letter, according to the final report, on 29.09.2011, in the morning, the petitioner met the second accused at Ariya Hotel, Bye-pass Road, Tindivanam.They had discussion for quite some time and thereafter, the second accused left the hotel.What actually was exchanged between them is not known.However, this meeting, according to the learned Public Prosecutor assumes importance.(v) After leaving the hotel, the second accused went straight to Tagore Higher Secondary School and met the Headmistress.He made a request to the Headmistress Mrs.In the Hall No.14, the petitioner was to write the examination.(vi) Thus, the second accused was the Invigilator in the Hall No.14, where the petitioner wrote the examination.While writing the examination, there are materials to show that the petitioner was found talking to Adhavan frequently.This has been spoken to by the co-students as well as other staff.(vii) The second accused Adhavan was found going out of the hall frequently speaking to some body over cell phone, then, returning to the hall and supplying answers to the petitioner.The petitioner was also allowed to copy.(viii) From the above circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor would submit that there are sufficient materials available to infer that there was conspiracy to commit an illegal act.(ix) The illegal act, which was conspired was to write the examination by getting answers supplied by the second accused from the outside source through cell phone and by copying.Thus, according to the final report and submissions of the learned Public Prosecutor, these materials are sufficient to frame a charge under Section 120-B IPC, against the petitioner.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would stoutly oppose the same.He would raise the following points for consideration.The address of Adhavan was also not chosen by the petitioner.It was chosen only by one Ashokan.The application was also filled up by Ashokan, who is a friend of the petitioner.So, when the application was made, the petitioner was not even aware of the fact that the examination Centre would be at Tagore Higher Secondary School and Adhavan would be an Invigilator.(ii) The proceedings of the District Educational Officer, which is said to have been forged by the third accused to favour the petitioner as well as the second accused cannot be true.It is because of this, one Karthick and second accused offered to be the Invigilators.Therefore, there is no criminal intention behind the offer made by the second accused to be an Invigilator.The letter came into being on 23.09.2011 itself.On that date, the second accused Adhavan had no introduction to the petitioner.A casual meeting between the petitioner and the second accused in the hotel will not go to give rise to any inference of conspiracy.I have considered the above submissions and also carefully perused the records.But, he has given a false address, as though, he was a resident of Tindivanam.In the application in Column No. 6, it was stated as follows:-The residential address need not be a permanent address.A temporary address will do.Thus, the address should be a residential address, either temporary or permanent.Thus, at the time, when the residential address was falsely given in the application, the petitioner had no occasion to meet either Adhavan or to share the common design with Mr.Adhavan, the second accused.Nextly, it is alleged that the petitioner, along with second accused, had made arrangement for engaging a person to impersonate him in the examination.But, on his own, he went to the office of the District Educational Officer and without the knowledge of the District Educational Officer, he made a request to the third accused, who was working as Assistant in the office to include him in the list.The third accused entered the name of Adhavan, the second accused, at the end of the list of Invigilators in his handwriting as 23rd person.After his name was included in the Invigilators list, the second accused had gone to the school.On the next day, viz., on 30.09.2011, the petitioner did not write the Social Science examination.On that day, the second accused made a request to the Headmistress to allot a different room.When the petitioner was writing the examination, according to the fellow students, who also wrote the examination in the same hall, Adhavan, who was the Invigilator, was found frequently talking to the petitioner.He was also found talking to someone else through cellphone.The witnesses have said that Adhavan helped the petitioner to write the examination.It is an illegal act for an Invigilator to help the candidate in the examination Centre, who wrote the examination.This also gives an inference that it is a part of conspiracy.Now, the question is, as to what was conspired.As per Section 120-A IPC, conspiracy means, a common design to commit an illegal act.For immediate reference, let me now reproduce Section 120-A IPC, which reads as follows:-The matter requires a complete trial by the competent Court.In view of all the above, I am inclined only to dismiss the petition.Having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to issue a direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and complete the same, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in any event, not later than six months.1.The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch Villupuram.2.The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam.
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 419 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 465 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
6,493,253 |
The facts of the case, in short, are that, on 17.9.2010, at about 11.30 a.m., the prosecutrix (P.W.1) was coming back from her field, situated at village Pur, Police Station Maharajpur, District Chhatarpur.The respondent came from back and held her hand with bad intention.On her shouting, her brother-in-law Hargovind came to the spot and therefore, the respondent ran away.Heard on admission.The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 12.10.2011 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur in criminal case No.1529/2010, whereby the respondent was acquitted from the charges of offence punishable under sections 354, 506-B, 323 of IPC.The prosecutrix had lodged an FIR on the same day within 3 hours.She was sent for her medico legal examination and thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed.CRA No.1692/2012 The respondent abjured his guilt.No specific plea has been taken by him and therefore, no defence evidence was adduced.After considering the prosecution's evidence, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur acquitted the respondent.After considering the submissions made by the learned Panel Lawyer and evidence adduced before the trial Court, it appears that Hargovind (P.W.4) brother-in-law of the prosecutrix has turned hostile.He has stated that a quarrel took place between the prosecutrix and the respondent because the prosecutrix removed some grass from the field of the respondent.Though it was mentioned in the FIR, Ex.P/1 that Hargovind came to the spot, therefore, the respondent ran away but, the prosecutrix has stated that on her shouting, no one came to the spot.If she was all alone then, she could not be prevented from the respondent.It was not possible for the prosecutrix to rescue herself from the respondent and the respondent would have committed rape upon the prosecutrix, if he had any bad intention.It is alleged by the prosecutrix that the respondent held her hand.Nothing more has been done by the respondent, whereas the prosecutrix complaint about pain in her back before CRA No.1692/2012 Dr.Jagdish Prajapati (P.W.6).She did not make any allegation in the FIR that by holding the hands, some of her bangles were broken or she sustained injury due to broken of such bangles.Doctor found a superficial abrasion on her left wrist.Under such circumstances, the medical report is not according to the facts alleged by the prosecutrix and therefore, looking to the medical report, it appears that a quarrel took place between the respondent and the prosecutrix and therefore, the version as mentioned by the witness Hargovind appears to be correct.Lalli (P.W.2) and Baladeen (P.W.3) were the witnesses to whom the prosecutrix informed about the incident.Baladeen has accepted in his cross-examination that there was a dispute of Mend between the respondent and Baladeen and the prosecutrix was sister-in-law of the prosecutrix.Under such circumstances, prima facie it appears that the respondent was falsely implicated in the matter of offence under section 354 of IPC.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 354 of IPC.CRA No.1692/2012 The prosecutrix did not mention about any threat given by the respondent and therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 506- B of IPC.It is no where alleged by the prosecutrix that the respondent assaulted her in any manner, except her allegation that he held her hand and therefore, if some injuries were found to the prosecutrix then, it cannot be said that such injuries were caused by the respondent.The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the charges of offence punishable under section 323 of IPC.On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal filed by the State cannot be accepted.Consequently, it is hereby dismissed at motion stage.A copy of the order be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information.(N.K.GUPTA) JUDGE Pushpendra
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,934,491 |
And In the matter of: Samiran @ Samir Mitra & Anr.- versus -State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Ramashis Mukherjee For the Petitioners Mr.Rananjoy Chatterjee For the State Mr. Abhijit Kumar Adhya For the Complainant The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Bagnan Police Station Case No.306 of 2013 dated 14.08.2013 under sections 323/379/341/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) 2 (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J) 2
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
64,939,398 |
Jail sentences on both the counts have been directed to run concurrently.In short, the prosecution case is that on 1.7.1995, at about 8-9 O'clock in the night, when complainant Ganpat was going in search of work, accused/appellants confronted him saying that his rates have gone high, he has not earned so much that he may go ahead of them.When complainant replied that there was no question of making his rates high and he did not want to quarrel, accused persons slapped him.On his opposition, accused Badal Singh, who was wielding a Katta, dealt a blow by its butt on his head.He ran away and entered his house.Accused persons also followed him and intimidated his family members.When accused Munna Raja threatened that he would outrage modesty of his wife, his father requested them to spare him.Then they carried away his father outside the house and assaulted him.They also intimidated them of dire consequences, if report of the incident was lodged and told that they should not show their faces in the village in the morning, otherwise they would be killed.On the report made by Ganpat, a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) was recorded.Ganpat and his father Hazari were sent for medical examination.Dr. K.C. Verma, Assistant Surgeon of PHC, Lugasi (PW-2) examined them and found simple injuries on their bodies.Some how he escaped and and entered his house.His parents hid him inside the house.Badal Singh reached there and asked about the wife of Ganpat and said he would dishonour that "Chamariya".His father stopped the accused persons and requested to leave them.(20.10.2011) Despite this case being rolled over since 18.10.2011, none appeared for the appellants.Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 12th July 1996, passed by the Special Judge, Chhatarpur, in Special Case No.94/1995, convicting the appellants under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the 2 Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.500/-, on each count respectively.After investigation charge sheet was filed in the Special Court, Chhatarpur.Learned Special Judge framed the charges under Section 323 of 3 the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xv) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (For brevity 'the Act').Both the accused denied the charges and pleaded false implication due to village rivalry.Prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined eight witnesses viz. Ganpat (PW-1), Dr. K.C. Verma (PW-2), Chatura (PW-3), Mst.Durji Bai (PW-4), Hazari Lal (PW-5), Mst.Munni Bai (PW-6), Santram Singh (PW-7) and Sub Inspector M.R. Kaushal (PW-8).Accused persons also examined Devi Deen (DW-1) in their defence.Learned Special Judge, on trial, after appreciation of evidence on record, held the accused persons guilty of the charges under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, however, finding evidence insufficient for proving the charge under Section 3(1)(xv) of the Act, acquitted them of the said charge.Since the learned counsel for the appellant did not appear, I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record carefully with the Assistance of learned Penal Lawyer Shri Pramod Chourasiya.Ganpat (PW-1) deposed that in the night at about 8.00 O'clock when he came back from Naogaon, put his cycle at his house and proceeded to search the labourers in the village, in front of the house of Devi Deen, accused persons met him.Accused Badal told to him that "Chamra Tumhare Bhav Badh Gaye".When he replied that he was only upbringing his children, accused Munna Raja caught him and Badal Singh slapped him on his face.When he questioned why he was being beaten, 4 Badal put barrel of Katta on his abdomen and assaulted by its butt on his head.Badal Singh carried his father in front of the door of the house of Devi Deen and assaulted him.When police reached village and took them to Police Chowki, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/1) was recorded.He was sent for medical examination.This witness could give no reason for his beating by the accused persons.According to him, accused persons called him and said that "Sale Haro Chamra Haro Tumhare Bahut Bhav Badh Gaye Hain"Hazarilal (PW-5), the father of complainant, though deposed that he saw accused persons assaulting Ganpat by the butt of Katta, but it is revealed from his evidence that only when Ganpat reached home, he informed to him that Badal Singh assaulted him.He stated that Badal Singh asked him to call the wife of Ganpat, but, when he requested them to leave, they caught and carried him towards the field and assaulted.From the evidence of this witness it seems that he did not see the incident of quarrel and assault, which took place between Ganpat and the accused persons.He did not say that accused persons called Ganpat or his wife by uttering words "Chamra" or "Chamariya".Chatura (PW-3) stated that when he heard the shrieks of Hazarilal, he came out of his house and saw accused persons taking away Hazarilal towards a field.They were beating him by Katta and shoes.They were saying that "Sale Chamra Haro Rabdi Banana Hai".The fact that accused persons were 5 assaulting Hazarilal with Katta and shoes and were uttering words "Chamra Haro" was not even stated by Hazarilal himself.Therefore, the evidence of Chatura (PW-3) does not appear trustworthy in that regard.Durji Bai (PW-4), the mother of Ganpat, stated that accused persons beat her son saying that his rates have gone high.However, she admitted that at that time she was in her house and those facts were narrated to her by Ganpat.. She stated that accused persons also reached to her house and told that they would outrage modesty of her daughter-in-law, but, when she requested to leave them, they took away her husband.Similarly, Munnibai (PW-6), the wife of Ganpat stated that accused persons beat and assaulted her husband by Katta.They also told that they would outrage her modesty, but, on the request of her father-in-law, they left them taking away her father-in-law.In cross- examination, Munnibai admitted that she had no talk with her husband, when he came back to home.In the night she was preparing meals inside the house and that she did not see the quarrel.She only heard from her husband.She also admitted that she had no talk with the accused persons.He found an abrasion measuring 1 cm x 1/2 cm over the left temporal region near the left eyebrow of Ganpat and an abrasion measuring 1 x 1 cm over left elbow of Hazarilal.The injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard and blunt object.The injury reports of Ganpat as well as Hazarilal respectively were Ex.P/3 and Ex.On a critical evaluation of the above evidence, it clearly seems established that both the accused persons beat and assaulted Ganpat (PW-1) and Hazarilal (PW-5) by the butt of Katta, as a result of which they suffered simple injuries.But, so far as the question that accused persons assaulted or intimidated Ganpat and Hazarilal with intent to humiliate them because of their being members of scheduled caste is concerned, the evidence in this regard is not clear, cogent and trustworthy.Appeal partly allowed.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,228,787 |
The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 18-09-2019, complainant - Kausabai W/o Pandurang Kirwale, resident of Khambala, rushed to the Police of Kurunda Police Station, Taluka Basmathnagar, District Hingoli and filed the report that on 17-09-2019 at about 9.30 a.m. there was meeting of Gram Sabha in the village.The first informant and her husband as well as other 30 to 35 members from the vicinity attended the meeting.There were near-about 70 to 80 male and female members, President of::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 ::: 3 923-CriAl-1084-19 Dispute Resolution Committee (Tanta Mukti) Sarpanch, Gramsevak of village Khamabala all were present in the meeting.According to first informant, when discussion was going on in respect of construction of public well for drinking water in the vicinity that time the first informant as well as other members of Boudha and Adiwasi Community insisted to have public well nearer to their residence.The appellants - Vasantrao Khanderao and Champatrao assaulted the first informant and others by fist blows etc. and hurled casteist abuses to them.When one Drupadabai came forward to pick up her, the appellant Deelip and Santsoh attempted to jostle her and abused by saying "Maharache Ho, Andhache Ho, Tumhi Majalet ka".1. Heard.The matter is taken up for its finality on merit with the consent of both sides.This appeal takes exception to the impugned Order of rebuffing the relief of pre-arrest bail to the appellants in Crime No. 222 of 2019 registered with Kurunda Police Station, Taluka Basmathnagar, District Hingoli, under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act of 1989").However, the appellant -Champatrao asked to construct the well in his land.There was hot exchange of words between appellants and first informant and others.In the fight the first informant sprawled on the ground.According to first informant, when the persons from her locality asked the reasons for beating to them that time the appellants reprimanded them and hurled casteist abuses with intention to insult and humiliate them on their caste within a public view.They have also given threats of life to the complainant.There are allegations about assault causing hurt and intimidation to the complainant and others.Eventually, the first informant filed the report with Police Station for penal action against the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::Pursuant to FIR, the Police of Kurunda Police Station registered the Crime bearing No. 222 of 2019 and set the penal law in motion.The appellants, apprehending their arrest, filed Criminal::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 ::: 4 923-CriAl-1084-19 Bail Application bearing No. 217 of 2019 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) before the learned Special Judge (Atrocities)/Additional Sessions Judge, Basmathnagar.The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the circumstances on record and rejected the application of the appellants on the ground that there are allegations sufficient to make out the offence under the Act of 1989 and in view of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, the appellants are not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail in this case.The impugned order of rejection of application for anticipatory bail of the appellants is the subject-matter of present appeal.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::The learned counsel for appellants vehemently submits that the appellants are innocent of the charges pitted against them.They have not committed any crime, but they are falsely implicated in this case to wreak vengeance on account of village politics.Therefore, statutory bar under Section 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to preclude the appellants for availing benefit of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., in this case.The learned counsel contends that present complaint is lodged with an ulterior motive to harass the appellants.The learned counsel for appellants submitted that the provisions of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Act of 1989 are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.Therefore, there is no any impediment to entertain::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 ::: 5 923-CriAl-1084-19 the application for relief of pre-arrest bail filed on behalf of appellants.The learned counsel further submitted that there is no any recovery nor custodial interrogation of the appellants are essential for the sake of investigation.Therefore, impugned order rejecting application for bail by learned trial Court be set aside and appeal be allowed.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::There is no propriety to entertain the appeal.The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that respondent No. 2-first informant filed her affidavit- in-reply on record and contended that she has filed complaint out of misunderstanding and nobody has abused on her caste.The first informant further contended that she has no objection to release the appellants on bail.It has also been observed that the application for anticipatory bail could be entertained only on the ground of inapplicability of provisions of Act of 1989 and it would be ascertained only on the basis of recitals of the FIR or complaint and not embarking any sort of roving enquiry as to affirm the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegation made in the FIR.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::In the matter in hand, it has been alleged that appellants hurled abuses in the name of caste of first informant by uttering words "Maharche" or "Adiwasi", etc. If these words "Maharche" or "Adiwasi" are taken out from the conversation shown occurred in the FIR for moment then other utterances "Tumhi Majale ka", etc. perceived from the FIR though indicate "threat" or "intimidation", but it would not sufficient to draw the inference that there was any intent or mens rea to humiliate the complainant and others on their caste within public view.It is to be noted that the entire alleged incident occurred during the course of turmoil in the meeting.In the melee, there were altercations resulted into casteist abuses to first informant and others.The allegations are found omnibus and general in nature.Therefore, prima facie, it would unsafe to draw any adverse inference against appellants for commission of crime under the Act of 1989 as alleged by the prosecution.The allegations in the FIR of threat or intimidation::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 ::: 9 923-CriAl-1084-19 would be at the most constitute offence under the Indian Penal Code.In such circumstances, prima facie, the provision of Section 3(1(r)(s) of the Act of 1989 would not be made applicable to the facts of the present matter, and consequently, would not create statutory embargo as prescribed under Sections 18 and 18-A of the Act of 1989 in this case.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::Moreover, in order to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Act of 1989, it is essential to demonstrate that the appellants committed the present crimes under the Act of 1989, not being a members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.There is also no reference in the FIR that the appellants-accused were aware or they had an knowledge about the caste of first informant.These are the primary ingredients of offence under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1989 for appreciation at this initial stage relating to grant of relief of pre-arrest bail under section 438 of Cr.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::10 923-CriAl-1084-19Taking into consideration all the circumstances discussed above, there is no impediment to conclude that in spite of bar under Section 18 of the Act of 1989, for invocation of powers under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. it is still open to this Court to find out by looking to the recitals of FIR of the case itself, as to whether prima facie case is made out or not by the first informant against present appellants.As referred supra, the scrutiny of factual aspects reveals that there are no sufficient material available on record prima facie to arrive at the conclusion that the allegations nurtured on behalf of prosecution constitute the offence under the Act of 1989 against appellants.Therefore, there is no impediment to entertain the application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for relief of pre-arrest bail on behalf of appellants.However, the appellants has shown inclination to co- operate with Investigating Officer during the course of investigation.It is worth to mention here that in the affidavit-in-reply itself the complainant has stated that she has lodged the FIR out of misunderstanding and now she has no objection for granting the relief of bail in favour of the appellants.In such circumstances, it would justifiable to allow the bail application filed before learned trial Court on behalf of the appellants.::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::11 923-CriAl-1084-19In sequel, the appeal stands allowed.The impugned order dated 10-10-2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Judge (Atrocities), Basmatnagar, District Hingoli, in Criminal Bail Application No. 217 of 2019 is hereby quashed and set aside.The application of the appellants filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for their pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Court is hereby granted.The present appellants be released on bail in the event of their arrest in connection with Crime No. 222 of 2019 registered with Kurunda Police Station, Taluka Basmathnagar, District Hingoli, for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty Thousand) with one solvent surety of like amount each.It is stipulated that appellants-applicants shall not indulged, directly or indirectly, in any kind of activities of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution witness and co-operate the Investigating Officer for the sake of investigation into the crime.Inform the concerned Investigating Officer, accordingly.The present Criminal Appeal stands disposed of in above terms.No order as to costs.[ K. K. SONAWANE ] JUDGE MTK ***::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::::: Uploaded on - 12/12/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 25/04/2020 14:26:17 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,292,949 |
This application under Section 482 of CrPC has been filed for quashment of FIR in Crime No.117/2016 registered at Police Station Sumawali, District Morena for offence under Sections 147, 294, 458, 336, 506 of IPC.According to the prosecution case, respondent No.2/ complainant Awdhesh Tiwari lodged a report on 25/10/2016 on the allegation that on 23/10/2016, at about 09:50 in the night, the applicants came to his house on two different four Wheelers and started abusing the complainant and they demolished the platform and chased the complainant in order to beat him.The applicant No.1- Kallan Yadav fired a gunshot.Stones were pelted and indiscriminate fire was done.Somebody climbed over the wall and came inside the house and opened the door.All the accused persons entered inside the house and took away an amount of Rs.48,000/- which was kept in the Almirah.It is mentioned in the application that the complainant party had compromised their dispute and they do not want to proceed against the present applicants.This Court by order dated 27/03/2018 had directed the parties to appear before the Principal Registrar of this Court.The Principal Registrar of this Court, after recording of the statements of the witnesses, has given the following report:-''After verifying from Complainant/respondent No.2 Awdhesh Tiwari and accused /applicants No.1 to 6 2 that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.
|
['Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,299,689 |
DATE : 23rd JUNE, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :- (PER A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)And to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.5000/- with default clause.The appellant was acquitted of the offence publishable under section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.The appellant and co-accused Sharad were tried in the said sessions Case for the offences punishable under section 307 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and Section section 3 (2) (v) of Scheduled Caste and ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 ::: crapl214.15 -3- Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and under Section 3/25 of the Arms Act.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::It was alleged that on 2.5.2013, the accused took Ramdas to his agricultural field, where both of them assaulted him.The accused No.1 then took out a revolver and fired one shot towards Ramdas which caused injury to his abdomen.Ramdas was taken to the hospital and was operated.The bullet was found in his abdomen.Rather belatedly a complaint was lodged.At the trial stage, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses.Out of them, two witnesses are important.Both supported the prosecution case.They stated that on 2.5.2013 they went to meet accused No.1 at his village Ukkhalgaon for recovery of old dues.Accused No.1, on reaching agriculture field, made a phone call to his brother Sharad -accused No.2 and asked him to bring the amount of Rs.50,000/-.Accused No.2 Sharad then came there.Accused No.1 then asked the complainant Ramdas as to whether he had brought diary (probably containing the account) with him.After going through the diary, accused No.1 slapped Ramdas, due to which Ramdas fell down.Accused No.2 pushed Ramdas further on the ground.Accused No.2 also caught hold of Ramdas's feet.crapl214.15 -4- Thereafter, accused No.1 took out revolver and fired a bullet towards the left side of Ramdas's chest.Ramdas got injured and fell down.His wife came near him, saw the wound and then made phone call to his son Shrirang.His son Shrirang and nephew came there.They took Ramdas to the hospital of Dr. Lad at Kashti.Ramdas was referred to Dr. Hole at Shrigonda and thereafter, was taken to KEM Hospital, at Pune, where the bullet was removed from the abdomen.While Ramdas was in KEM Hospital, police came there and recorded his statement.Ramdas asserted that he was not in proper consciousness when the police recorded his statement in KEM hospital at Pune.He stated that after recovery from illness he went to Belwandi police station and lodged a report on 9.6.2013 (Exh. 29).This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 30.1.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 271 of 2013 thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::The next important witness is Dr. Vinod Naik, Consulting Surgeon, KEM Hospital, Pune.He stated that on 03 rd May,2013, he and one more doctor, performed surgery for removal of foreign body i.e. bullet from the abdomen of P.W.1 Ramdas.Besides giving the detailed report about the injury etc., this witness, in cross-examination admitted that Ramdas was quite conscious after the incident.His blood pressure was normal.Even after surgery, he stated that Ramdas was stable.The prosecution places reliance on letter dated 3.5.2013 signed by police head constable, Samarth police station, Pune and addressed to Police Inspector, Shrigonda police station.In this letter, ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 ::: crapl214.15 -5- it was intimated to the police inspector of Shrigonda police station that since the incident took place within the local limits of his police station he should take further action.It reached to Belwandi police station on 18.5.2013, within whose local limits the incident took place.The station diary entry was taken to that effect but unfortunately no further action was taken by the police of Belwandi police station.Nonetheless, this document clearly establish that the Police Constable of Samarth Police Station, Pune had recorded statement of PW-1 while he was in KEM Hospital at Pune.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::The forensic expert recorded his testimony.He opined in his report which is at Exh.64 that the pallet recovered from the abdomen of Ramdas was a 7.65 mm Pistol bullet having certain mark.He also opined that it could have been fired from a weapon having smooth bored barrel.Based on primarily this material the impugned judgment is based.We have find out whether the prosecution proved its case?Our answer is in negative.We found that the the prosecution case suffer from inordinate delay in lodging the complaint:- It is admitted fact that Ramdas and his wife did not lodge any complaint while Ramdas was taken to the hospital at Kashti and thereafter at other places.Even while the complainant was taking treatment at KEM hospital, Pune the ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 ::: crapl214.15 -6- complainant did not take steps for lodging the complaint.No explanation is given as to why lodging of the complaint got delayed for more than one month though the incident and the injury was quite serious.In the cross examination, Ramdas admitted that while he was in KEM hospital, the police had come to record his statement.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::They were from Samarth police station, Pune.They even recorded certain statements.The testimony of Dr. Vinod Naik would on the other hand clearly established that Ramdas was not unable to make statement while he was in KEM Hospital or even prior thereto.We are aware that this document was not exhibited in the lower court, but we have no hesitation in exhibiting it now because of the following reasons: About this statement, Ramdas has given admission in his cross-examination.This document gets further support from the letter Exh.69, which was sent by Police Head Constable of Samarth Police Station, Pune.This statement was part of the charge sheet.During cross-examination of prosecution witness No.1 Ramdas, the cross-examiner could have easily shown this ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 ::: crapl214.15 -7- statement to Ramdas who could have admitted his thumb mark on it.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::It seems that the cross-examiner went up to asking Ramdas as to whether his statement was recorded while he was in K.E.M. Hospital when the answer came in affirmative.The next question in the cross-examination could have been showing the document to the witness.Once such document was shown, the Court would have exhibited the same.Besides, this document could have been proved through the statement of prosecution witness Dhiraj Patil, the I.O. In the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had seen report of Samarth Police Station and the letter of Samarth Police Station addressed to Shrigonda Police Station along with statement of complainant.The cross-examiner could have easily asked this witness as to whether the statement, which we discussed above, was the same.This witness could not have denied its existence.Besides, the prosecution does not deny the existence of this document or the incident which had occurred between Ramdas and Police Head Constable of Samarth Police Station, Pune.While perusing the original record of the case we located the report of Police Head Constable Mr. Shirke, attached to Samarth Police Station who apparently recorded the statement of Ramdas by visiting him in the hospital.The same also deserves to be read in evidence because it is not a disputed document and it is also relevant.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::As said above, the Investigation Officer Dhiraj Patil admitted having seen these two documents.In view of this, we mark these two documents as Exh.73-A and 73-B.Now, let us examine the contents of document Exh.73-B.Ramdas, in his statement, stated that in order to recover old dues, he went to Ukkhalgaon and met accused No.1, who agreed to settle his dues.Accused No.1 then was accompanied by three more unknown persons.Ramdas stated that thereafter, the unknown persons assaulted him and pushed him, due to which, he fell down.Amongst these three unknown persons, someone fired a bullet at him and caused injury.The prosecution case gets weakened because of inaction on the part of Ramdas as he did not lodge complaint in reasonable time disclosing as to who the perpetrators were.The disclosure made by him in his statement recorded at Pune further weakened the case of prosecution.We are therefore, not inclined to believe the prosecution case that it was accused No.1 who fired the bullet.There is one more serious lapse on the part of investigating officer in this case.As said above, there is a clear allegation that a bullet was shot utilizing a fire arm.Even the assailant's name was ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 ::: crapl214.15 -9- mentioned in the so called F.I.R.. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were arrested and yet the fire arm was not recovered during the investigation.Unless the fire arm and the pallet recovered from the abdomen of the victim were sent for ballistic examination by an expert, the Court could not have found as to whether the fragment of pallet found in the abdomen was actually fired from the fire arm which belonged to or which was recovered from the assailant.The investigating officer did not recover the fire arm from which this bullet was fired.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::The prosecution failed to prove its case.The accused deserves benefit of doubt.Hence, we proceed to pass the following order:ORDER I. Criminal Appeal No. 214 of 2015 is hereby allowed.The judgment and order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.271 of 2013 is hereby quashed and set aside to the extent of accused No.1 Shankar Bhausaheb Walke.::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant/original accused.In light of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 250 of 2015 filed by appellant/original complainant is hereby dismissed.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) ( A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ) rlj/ ::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::::: Uploaded on - 14/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 06:26:51 :::
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,303,619 |
Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan by usingthe very same knife with an intention to murder them.After occurrence, thedefacto complainant by name Sakthivel S/o.External injuries: A stab injury in the right side of abdomen placedobliquely 8 cm above the right iliac crest of size 8 x 2 x 12 cm.Internalorgans small intestine, large intestine, piece of omentum are coming out ofthe injury.Ascending colon punctured.Stools are in the abdominal cavity.Ascending colon punctured.Stools are in the abdominal cavity.In Ex.both Appeals.Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against theconvictions and sentences dated 31.07.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.109 of2005 by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli.For Appellant : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Senior counsel for M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi (Crl.A.No.238/14)^For Appellant : Mr.N.Anantha padmanabhan for Mr.V.Ilanchezhian (Crl.A.No.240/14) For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor (both Appeals) :COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.) The accused, alleged to have involved in a double murder case havechallenged the convictions and sentences imposed against them in SessionsCase No.109 of 2005 by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli by wayof filing these Criminal Appeals.The schema of the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2002 atabout 08.30 pm the deceased Dharmalingam has demanded brandy on credit fromSaravana wine shop which situates in Neithalur colony.The second accused hasinstigated the first accused to murder the said deceased Dharmalingam.Thefirst accused has attacked on the person of the said deceased by using aknife and thereby caused fatal injuries.Likewise, at the instigation of thesecond accused, the first accused has also attacked one Thangavel by usingthe same knife and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to injuriessustained by them, the said Dharmalingam and Thangavel have passed away.During the course of occurrence, the first accused has attacked the personsnamely Sakthivel S/o.On receipt of Ex.P1, the Inspector of Police (PW21) has done initialinvestigation and subsequent investigation has been done by PW22 andnecessary arrangements have been made for conducting post-mortem on the deadbodies of Dharmalingam and Thangavel.The doctor by name Soundararajan (PW8)has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Thangavel and he foundthe following external and internal injuries.Lungs pale.wt.right 475 gms left 450 gms.Hyoid bone intact.Stomachcontains partially digested food wt.400 gms.Head and brainpale.wt.1200 gms.The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.The doctor by nameKarthikeyan (PW13) has conducted autopsy on the body of the deceasedDharmalingam and he found the following internal and external injuries:Wounds: (1) A transverse incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm x bone deep on theleft side of forehead, 1 cm above the medial third of left eyebrow.(2) An incised wound 4 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the coronal plate on theleft side of frontal region of the scalp, 8 cm above the medial third of lefteyebrow.(3) An oblique stab wound 5.5 cm x 3cm x deep to cavity on the sideaspect of left side of chest, in the 9th intercostal space along themidaxillary line.The edges are clean cut.The upper outer end in curved andthe lower front end in acute with a tailing to a length of 4cms, throughwhich the mesentery and coils of intestine are coming out.Detection of fluidblood and clots are present in the peritoneal cavity.A tear on the body ofthe stomach near the lesser curvature, 3cm x 2cm cavity deep, through whichgastric contents are coming out.Edges are irregular.(4) A transverse incised wound 4cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back ofright side of abdomen, at L3 vertebra level, close to the midline.O/E.Theedges are clean out.The left end is curved and the right end is sharp.Theblood vessels nerves and muscles are clean cut.The transverse process of L3vertebra on the right side is partially cut.The blood is found diffused into the around tracks of all the abovementioned wounds.They are all ante-mortem in nature.No other externalinternal or body wound present.The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.The Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Kuzhithalai after perusingrelevant records has come to a conclusion to the effect that the offencesalleged to have been committed by both the accused are triable by SessionsCourt, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karur and the same hasbeen taken on file in Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 and subsequently as perorder passed in Crl.Before transferring Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 from the file of theDistrict and Sessions Court, Karur, the District and Sessions Court, Karurhas framed first charge against the first accused under Section 302 (2counts) of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against the second accusedunder Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, third chargeagainst the first accused under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian PenalCode and fourth charge against the second accused under Section 307 r/w 109(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over andexplained to them.Both the accused have denied the charges and claimed to betried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 22 have been examined andExs.P1 to P33 and M.Os.1 to 9 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials availablein evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.On theside of the accused, DW1 has been examined and Exs.D1 to D3 have been marked.The trial Court after evaluating the available evidence on recordhas found the first accused guilty under section 302 (2 counts) of the IndianPenal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.1000/- for each count.The first accused has also beenfound guilty under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed afine of Rs.1,000/- for each count.The trial Court has found the secondaccused guilty under sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Codeand sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay afine of Rs.1,000/- for each count.In the instant case, two injured witnesses namely SakthivelS/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.In Ex.Criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against theconvictions and sentences dated 31.07.2014 passed in Sessions Case No.109 of2005 by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli.For Appellant : Mr.A.R.L.Sundaresan Senior counsel for M/s.A.L.Gandhimathi (Crl.A.No.238/14) For Appellant : Mr.N.Anantha padmanabhan for Mr.V.Ilanchezhian (Crl.A.No.240/14) For Respondent : Mr.C.Ramesh Addl.Public Prosecutor (both Appeals) COMMON JUDGMENT(Judgment of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.) The accused, alleged to have involved in a double murder case havechallenged the convictions and sentences imposed against them in SessionsCase No.109 of 2005 by the District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli by wayof filing these Criminal Appeals.The schema of the case of the prosecution is that on 03.03.2002 atabout 08.30 pm the deceased Dharmalingam has demanded brandy on credit fromSaravana wine shop which situates in Neithalur colony.The second accused hasinstigated the first accused to murder the said deceased Dharmalingam.Thefirst accused has attacked on the person of the said deceased by using aknife and thereby caused fatal injuries.Likewise, at the instigation of thesecond accused, the first accused has also attacked one Thangavel by usingthe same knife and thereby caused fatal injuries and due to injuriessustained by them, the said Dharmalingam and Thangavel have passed away.During the course of occurrence, the first accused has attacked the personsnamely Sakthivel S/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Kathan by usingthe very same knife with an intention to murder them.After occurrence, thedefacto complainant by name Sakthivel S/o.On receipt of Ex.P1, the Inspector of Police (PW21) has done initialinvestigation and subsequent investigation has been done by PW22 andnecessary arrangements have been made for conducting post-mortem on the deadbodies of Dharmalingam and Thangavel.The doctor by name Soundararajan (PW8)has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of deceased Thangavel and he foundthe following external and internal injuries.External injuries: A stab injury in the right side of abdomen placedobliquely 8 cm above the right iliac crest of size 8 x 2 x 12 cm.Lungs pale.wt.right 475 gms left 450 gms.Hyoid bone intact.Stomachcontains partially digested food wt.400 gms.Head and brainpale.wt.1200 gms.The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.The doctor by nameKarthikeyan (PW13) has conducted autopsy on the body of the deceasedDharmalingam and he found the following internal and external injuries:Wounds: (1) A transverse incised wound 3 cm X 0.5 cm x bone deep on theleft side of forehead, 1 cm above the medial third of left eyebrow.(2) An incised wound 4 cm x 1cm x bone deep on the coronal plate on theleft side of frontal region of the scalp, 8 cm above the medial third of lefteyebrow.(3) An oblique stab wound 5.5 cm x 3cm x deep to cavity on the sideaspect of left side of chest, in the 9th intercostal space along themidaxillary line.The edges are clean cut.The upper outer end in curved andthe lower front end in acute with a tailing to a length of 4cms, throughwhich the mesentery and coils of intestine are coming out.Detection of fluidblood and clots are present in the peritoneal cavity.A tear on the body ofthe stomach near the lesser curvature, 3cm x 2cm cavity deep, through whichgastric contents are coming out.Edges are irregular.(4) A transverse incised wound 4cm x 1 cm x cavity deep on the back ofright side of abdomen, at L3 vertebra level, close to the midline.O/E.Theedges are clean out.The left end is curved and the right end is sharp.Theblood vessels nerves and muscles are clean cut.The transverse process of L3vertebra on the right side is partially cut.The blood is found diffused into the around tracks of all the abovementioned wounds.They are all ante-mortem in nature.No other externalinternal or body wound present.The post-mortem report has been marked as Ex.The Judicial Magistrate Court, No.II, Kuzhithalai after perusingrelevant records has come to a conclusion to the effect that the offencesalleged to have been committed by both the accused are triable by SessionsCourt, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Karur and the same hasbeen taken on file in Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 and subsequently as perorder passed in Crl.Before transferring Sessions Case No.24 of 2004 from the file of theDistrict and Sessions Court, Karur, the District and Sessions Court, Karurhas framed first charge against the first accused under Section 302 (2counts) of the Indian Penal Code, second charge against the second accusedunder Sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, third chargeagainst the first accused under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian PenalCode and fourth charge against the second accused under Section 307 r/w 109(2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code and the same have been read over andexplained to them.Both the accused have denied the charges and claimed to betried.On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 22 have been examined andExs.P1 to P33 and M.Os.1 to 9 have been marked.When the accused have been questioned under Section 313 of the Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973 as respects the incriminating materials availablein evidence against them, they denied their complicity in the crime.On theside of the accused, DW1 has been examined and Exs.D1 to D3 have been marked.The trial Court after evaluating the available evidence on recordhas found the first accused guilty under section 302 (2 counts) of the IndianPenal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and alsoimposed a fine of Rs.1000/- for each count.The first accused has also beenfound guilty under Section 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code andsentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and also imposed afine of Rs.1,000/- for each count.The trial Court has found the secondaccused guilty under sections 302 r/w 109 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Codeand sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and also directed to pay afine of Rs.1,000/- for each count.In the instant case, two injured witnesses namely SakthivelS/o.Muthuveeran and another Sakthivel S/o.Likewise, in Ex.P11 requisition forconducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased Dharmalingam, name of thesecond accused has not been mentioned.As stated earlier, in Exs.P1, P6 and P11 no mention has been madewith regard to role alleged to have been played by the second accused in theplace of occurrence.The main argument put forth on the side of the secondaccused is that his name has not been mentioned in the documents mentionedsupra.The InvestigatingOfficer viz., PW22 has clearly stated that on 05.03.2002 at about 12.00 noon,the second accused has been arrested at bus stop, Pettavaithalai.Therefore,the contention put forth on the side of the second accused is totallyerroneous.The learned counsel appearing for the first accused has raised thefollowing points so as to supplant the convictions and sentences passed bythe trial Court against the first accused.(a) The specific case of the prosecution is that after occurrence, thedefacto complainant viz., M.Sakthivel has been admitted in Seahorse hospital,Tiruchirapalli, where he has undergone surgical treatment and the concerneddoctor has been examined as PW17 and he does not speak about such surgicaltreatment given to PW1 and the occurrence has taken place on 03.03.2002 atabout 08.30 pm, in Neithalur colony and Ex.P1 has come into existence on04.03.2002 and therefore, Ex.P1 is nothing but a concocted document and therole of the alleged injured witnesses namely M.Sakthivel and K.Sakthivel hasbeen falsely procured so as to implicate the first accused in the presentcase.(b) On the side of the first accused, certain documents have beenfiled, wherein it is stated to the effect that he sustained some injuries andthe prosecution has failed to explain the same.The prosecution has adducedplenitude of evidence to the effect that after occurrence the defactocomplainant viz., PW1 has been admitted in Seahorse hospital, Tiruchirapalliand PW17, Dr.Radhakrishnan has admitted him and his specific evidence is thatPW1 has reported him that he has been attacked by one Periyasamy (firstaccused) and subsequently necessary arrangements have been made for givingtreatment and the wound certificate issued by PW17 has been marked as Ex.P19.Considering the fact that during the course of occurrence, the first accusedat the instigation of second accused has attacked the two deceased namelyDharmalingam and Thangavel and also attacked PWs.1 and 2 by using a knife andalso considering that PW1 has been admitted in hospital only on 04.03.2002,Ex.P1 has come into existence on the same day.Further Ex.P1 has reached theCourt on the same day.Since PW1, defacto complainant has himself stated toPW17 that he has been attacked by the first accused in the place ofoccurrence, since Ex.D1 to D3 coupled with the evidence of DW1 thatthe first accused has sustained some injuries.Further PW4, Dr.Victor Josephhas also treated the first accused in Medical College hospital, Tanjore.The contention put forth on the side of the first accused is thateven though he sustained some injuries, the same have not been explained onthe side of the prosecution and that itself would be sufficient to disbelievethe case of the prosecution.In (2002) 7 SCC 91 [Amar Malla and others Vs.State of Tripura],the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that ?it is well settled that merely becausethe prosecution has failed to explain injuries on the accused persons, ipsofacto, the same cannot be taken to be a ground for throwing out theprosecution case, especially when the same has been supported by eyewitnesses including injured ones as well, and their evidence is corroboratedby medical evidence as well as objective finding of the InvestigatingOfficer.?In several places, it is pointed out that PWs.1 and 2 are injuredeye witnesses and both of them have consistently stated in their evidence tothe effect that in the place of occurrence, the first accused has attackedthe deceased namely Dharmalingam and Thangavel and also attacked on theirpersons.Since PWs.1 and 2 are injured witnesses, their testimonies cannot bediscarded mainly on the ground and also as per decision mentioned supra thatthe injuries sustained by the first accused have not been explained by theprosecution.Therefore, the second limb of argument put forth on the side ofthe first accused is of no use.It is an admitted fact that the entire occurrence has taken placein front of Saravana Wine shop which situates in Neithalur colony.But theprosecution has not chosen to examine owner of the said shop.In fact, thisCourt has groped the available evidence on record.No where it is stated thatat the time of occurrence, the owner of the said shop is present.The consistent stand taken on the side of the prosecution is thatin the place of occurrence the first accused at the instigation of secondaccused has attacked the deceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel by using aknife (MO1).In order to sustain the case of the prosecution, PWs.1 to 3 havegiven picturesque evidence and their evidence cannot be discarded noreschewed on any of the grounds urged on the side of the accused.The doctorswho conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased have been examined asPWs.8 and 13 and both of them are of consistent view that the injuriessustained by the deceased would be possible by using MO1, knife.The doctors who treated PWs.1 and 2 have been examined as PWs.16and 17 and they issued wound certificates namely Exs.In bothExs.17 and 19 it has been clearly stated that the injuries sustained by PWs.1and 2 are grievous in nature.The specific evidence given by PWs.1 and 2 is that in the place ofoccurrence the second accused has instigated the first accused to murder thedeceased viz., Dharmalingam and Thangavel and accordingly the first accusedhas attacked them by using MO1, knife.During the course of occurrence, thefirst accused at the instigation of second accused has also attacked them byusing the very same knife with an intention to murder them.It is not an exaggeration to say that in the instant case theprosecution has adduced plenitude of evidence so as to prove the chargesframed against both the accused.In view of the discussion made earlier thisCourt has not found any force in the contentions urged on the side of theaccused.The trial Court after considering the overwhelming evidenceavailable on record has rightly found the first accused guilty under Sections302(2 counts) and 307 (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code.Likewise, thetrial Court has also rightly found the second accused guilty under Sections302 r/w 109 (2 counts) and also under Sections 307 r/w 109 (2 counts) of theIndian Penal Code and this Court has not found any flaw nor illegality in theconvictions and sentences passed by the trial Court against theappellants/accused and therefore, these Criminal appeals are liable to bedismissed.In fine, these Criminal Appeals are dismissed.The convictions andsentences passed in Sessions Case No.109 of 2005 by the Principal Districtand Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli against the appellants/accused 1 and 2 areconfirmed.1.The Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirapalli2.The Inspector of Police, Kulithalai Police Station3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['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.
|
323,047 |
JUDGMENT C.R. Rahim, J.The accused-appellant went to the medical store of Jagdish Kumar Agarwal P.W. 3 to purchase medicines.After purchasing one tube he made over one fifty rupees currency note (Ext. 1) to the shopkeeper.The said Jagdish Kumar suspected as regards the genuineness of the said note and he went to the neighbouring shop M/s. Tula Rani Raja Ram and showed it to one Ganeshji of that shop who also confirmed that it was a counterfeit note.Crowd assembled there and thereafter a constable arrived.The accused was found standing there and he was arrested.A case under Sections 420/467, I.P.C. was started and during investigation the case having been established, according to the prosecution, charge-sheet was submitted.Charge under Section 489B and 489C, I.P.C. was framed.Accused pleaded not guilty and trial started.During trial the prosecution has examined six witnesses,out of which P.W. 1 is the expert.He corroborated his report to the effect that it was a counterfeit note.The Upper half is a part of genuine currency note of Rs. 50/-denomjnation while lower half comprises of a crudely drawn replica of the complementary part of the said note.P.W. 2 Virendra Kumar Agarwal is the brother of the informant, who has corroborated the prosecution story stating that his brother Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to him and asked if the currency, note which was with him was genuine., He was not sure and then he and Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Tula Ram Raja Ram.In cross-examination he has stated that after both the brothers inspected the note Jagdish Kumar Agarwal went to the shop of Raja Ram and when he also went there and at that time he found the accused standing in his, shop.P.W. 3 Jagdish Kumar has corroborated the story depicted in the first information report.P.W. 4 Ganeshi Lal also corroborated the statement of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that they brought the note to him to verify whether it was genuine or not.P.W. 5 is the Constable, who went to the place of the occurrence after seeing the crowd.He seized the currency note and took the accused to the police station.P.W. 6 is the Investigating Officer.In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused admitted the possession of the note but expressed innocence.After considering the evidence on record the learned Judge convicted the accused under Sections 489B and 489C and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/- for the offence under Section 489B and one year for the offence under Section 489C, I.P.C.Sri Kamal Krishna appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge has erred in holding that the accused appellant had knowledge that the said currency note was forged.he has slated that the conduct of the accused shows that he was innocent and had no knowledge that the said note was forged.In the first information report it was stated that he was arrested from the spot.P.W. 5 constable has also stated that he took the accused to the police station after preparing recovery memo of the counter-feit note.P.W. 3 Jagdish Kumar Agarwal has stated when he was in doubt about the genuineness of the currency note and he went to the contiguous shop of his brother P.W. 2, who was a medical practitioner to varify whether the said currency note was genuine.He has also stated that when his brother expressed doubt he went to the shop of M/ s. Tula Ram Raja Ram to get confirmation.In cross-examination He has stated that during the period the accused was standing in the shop.
|
['Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,307,344 |
CC as per rules.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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to the Police Officer, as the case may be;The applicant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence 5 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC.No.22256/2020 (Harikant Gurjar Vs.State of M.P.) of which he is accused.The applicant will not seek unnecessary adjournments during the trial; andThe applicant will not leave India without previous permission of the trial Court/Investigating Officer, as the case may be.The applicant shall deposit Rs.10,000/-- in PM CARE Fund having Account Number : 2121PM20202, IFSC Code: SBIN0000691, SWIFT Code : SBININBB104, Name of Bank & Branch : State Bank of India, New Delhi Main Branch within seven days from today.The applicant will inform the concerned S.H.O. of concerned Police Station about his residential address in the said area and it would be the duty of the Public Prosecutor to send E-copy of this order to SHO of concerned police station as well as Superintendent of Police, District Datia who shall inform the concerned SHO regarding the same.Application stands allowed.The applicant shall install Arogya Setu App in his mobile immediately and would intimate his place of residence to the SHO of concerned Police Station; where he reside.State of M.P.) Central Government, State Government as well as Local Administration for maintaining social distancing, hygiene etc to avoid Novel Corona Virus (COVIC-19) pandemic.E-copy of this order be provided to the applicant and E-copy of this order be sent to the trial Court concerned for compliance.It is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
32,316,133 |
The respondents herein are the accused in Crime No.27 of 2011, on thefile of the Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, City Crime Branch, Trichy, foroffences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 365, 307, 427, 294(b) and 506(ii)IPC r/w Section 3 of PPDL Act. Apart from the same, they have been arrayed asaccused in two other cases, in Crime Nos.24 of 2011 and 26 of 2011, on the fileof the very same police.In the cases, in Crime Nos.24 of 2011 and 26 of 2011,the respondents were arrested and on the orders of remand passed by the learnedJudicial Magistrate No.IV, Trichy, they were detained in the prisons inCuddalore, Palayamkottai and Salem, respectively.While so, in connection with Crime No.27 of 2011, thepetitioner/Investigating Officer effected "formal arrest" of the firstrespondent, on 03.10.2011, at 9.00 a.m. in the prison.Similarly, he effectedformal arrest of the respondents 2 and 3, on 03.10.2011, at 3.15 p.m. and 4.55p.m., respectively.Thereafter, the petitioner rushed to Trichy and on04.10.2011 made a request to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V to issuewarrant [hereinafter referred to as "P.T warrant" - Prisoner Transit warrant],as per Section 267 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.On considering the same,the learned Magistrate issued warrants directing the respective jail authoritiesto produce the respondents, on 07.10.2011, obviously, because 05.10.2011 and06.10.2011 were holidays.But the learned Magistrate No.V was on casual leave onthat day and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, [hereinafter referred to as"in- charge Magistrate"], was in full charge of the said Court.The learned incharge Magistrate, heard the representation of the accused, as well as thePublic Prosecutor and passed the following order:-"ORDER: 07.10.2011 at 02.30 P.M.Requisition for P.T. Warrant given on4.10.11 in view of holidays concerned Magistrate directed to produced theaccused on 7.10.11 on P.T. Warrant.Hence accused produced on P.T.Warrant.Grounds of arrest explained.Right of Legal Aid Explained.Considering thecircumstance of the Court holiday on 5.10.11 & 6.10.11 as well as Casual Leaveof regular Magistrate on 7.10.11 this court not inclined to remand the accusedon Judicial custody in view of available records.Produce the accused beforeconcerned Magistrate on 10.10.11 for further suitable Order in this regard.Hence accused to be produced before regular Magistrate on 10.10.2011."The said order was not challenged by any party to the proceedings.At that time, again thepetitioner submitted a request to the learned Magistrate to pass an order ofremand to all the three respondents, as provided under Section 167 Cr.P.C.Allegingthat such detention of the respondents in prison without any authorisation fromthe Court amounts to illegal detention, the wife of the second respondent hereinfiled H.C.P.(MD)No.913 of 2011 before this Court, on 10.10.2011, to set all therespondents herein at liberty and the same is pending.Reverting back to the proceedings before the Magistrate on 10.10.2011,when the respondents were produced before the Magistrate, the learned Magistrateconsidered the request of the petitioner for remanding the accused to judicialcustody.The same was opposed by the State itself (petitioner herein) on theground that in view of the pendency of the H.C.P(MD).No.913 of 2011, theMagistrate should not pass any order on the remand request made by thepetitioner.The learned Magistrate, admittedly, heard the counsel for therespondents as well.Mr.N.R.Elango, the learned Senior Counsel, who appeared for the accusedbefore the Magistrate, had submitted that the learned Magistrate lackedjurisdiction to remand the accused, since the accused were in the illegaldetention of the police in violation of Article 22(2) of the Constitution ofIndia.It appears from the order of the learned Magistrate that the learnedSenior Counsel Mr.N.R.Elango placed reliance on the order of this Court made inCrl.O.P.(MD)No.1182 of 2009, wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court hadtaken the view that in the event the accused is not produced before theMagistrate within 24 hours of the arrest, the said detention, beyond 24 hoursfrom the time of arrest, is illegal, and thereafter, if the accused is producedbefore the Magistrate with a request for remand, the Magistrate cannot remand asper law, and if any such remand is made, the same would be illegal.The learnedJudicial Magistrate No.V, after having considered the submissions made on eitherside and following the dictum stated in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1182 of 2009, passed anorder on the same day thereby, negativing the request of the petitioner forremanding the accused to custody.Thus, the State has come up with Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13683 of 2011 before this Courtchallenging the said order.When this Crl.O.P.(MD)No.1182 of 2009 and had referred thematter to a Division Bench for considering the correctness of the dictum statedin Crl.Accordingly, as directed by the Hon'ble the ChiefJustice, both the matters, viz. Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.4420 of 2010 and 13683 of 2011,have been placed before this Division Bench for considering the said legalquestion.Thereafter, the Investigating Officer approached theJurisdictional Magistrate for issuance of P.T.Warrants for production of theaccused.Accordingly, P.T.Warrants were issued and the accused were producedbefore the Jurisdictional Magistrate.This process took a few days.Thus, theaccused could not be produced before the learned Magistrate concerned within 24hours from the time of formal arrest.But, the learned Magistrate remanded theaccused to judicial custody.A copy of the said order was sent to the Chief MetropolitanMagistrate, Egmore, Chennai, on 14.02.2006, and the order, dated 13.02.2006,passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, was brought to the noticeof the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.On such request, afterfollowing the procedure indicated above, the Magistrate shall pass appropriateorders either remanding the accused either to judicial custody or police custodyunder Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure or dismissing the requestafter recording the reasons.In the said order, thelearned Judicial Magistrate has concluded as follows:-Hence accused to be produced before regular Magistrate on10.10.2011."From the order of the learned Magistrate, we fail to understand as tohow it is relevant that 05.10.2011 and 06.10.2011 were holidays.Having said so, the learned Judicial Magistrate further proceeded to direct theproduction of the accused, on 10.10.2011, for "suitable order" in this regard.But, the learned JudicialMagistrate No.V, relying on the view expressed by a learned Single Judge of thisCourt, dated 24.03.2009, made in Crl.In the result, the impugned order dated 10.10.2011 passed by the learned Judicial MagistrateNo.V, Trichy, is set aside and Criminal Original Petition (MD).No.13683 of 2011is allowed.The matter is remitted back to the said Magistrate for passing appropriateorders, under Section 167(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after affordingopportunity to the prosecution as well as to the accused.The respondents are directed to surrender before the learned JudicialMagistrate, on 09.11.2011, at 10.30 AM and if they fail to appear, the learnedMagistrate shall secure their custody by issuing non - bailable warrants.We further direct that the Magistrate shall not adjourn the proceeding, at anycost and shall pass appropriate orders on the same day of thesurrender/production of the accused.1.The Judicial Magistrate No.5, Trichy City.2.The Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell, City Crime Branch, Trichy.3.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.Copy to:1.The Registrar Genera1, High Court of Madras, Madras.2.The Registrar Judicial, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.3.The Section Officer, "F" Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,425,871 |
This is second bail application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The first bail application was dismissed by this court vide order dated 21.03.2017 passed in M.Cr.2782/2017 with liberty to renew the prayer after recording of the statement of prosecutrix.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is an innocent and has been falsely implicated in the matter.The applicant has not committed any offence.The statement of the prosecutrix has been recorded on 10.08.2017 before the trial court in which she has not made any allegation against the applicant that he caught her hand with intent to molest her.There is bleak possibility of early conclusion of the trial.There is no likelihood of absconsion of the applicant.In these circumstances, he 2 M.Cr.C. No.9688/2017 prays for bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/ State opposed the application and prayed for its rejection.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 application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant may be accepted.A copy of this order be sent for compliance to the Court concerned.Certified copy as per rules.
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,474,064 |
He was again sent to Excise Department and was posted as District Excise Officer and then came on deputation to Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, MP where on the post of deputation itself he was promoted as Deputy Secretary.Ultimately he promoted up to the post of Additional Secretary.All these incidents of postings, deputations and promotions of co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma were made during the tenure of applicant Shriniwas Tiwari, the then Speaker of Legislative Assembly, MP from 1993-2003 and co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma was beneficiary and thereby the applicant and co-accused committed the offences in furtherance of the conspiracy as mentioned hereinabove.Shri P.K. Kaurav, learned counsel for the complainant/Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, M.P.This is the first application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail.The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No. 153/2015 registered at Police Station Jahangirabad, District Bhopal for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPc and Section 13(1)(D) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.About 18 persons were illegally appointed by applicant Shriniwas Tiwari (the then Speaker).It is further alleged that co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma was not having prescribed qualification for being appointed as LDC.Despite this fact co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma was appointed on the post of LDC as Temporary Clerk vide order dated 31/12/1993 with the condition that he will pass Hindi Typing within the prescribed period.It is further alleged that in aforesaid appointment and promotions of applicant, Rules in regard to deputation as well as reservation were not followed.It is alleged that applicant Shriniwas Tiwari used to pressurize the Government and employees of other Government Departments for making easy way for co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma.It is further found that co- accused Satyanarayan Sharma was posted as Revenue Inspector (Class III Officer) from where he could not be absorbed as Undersecretary therefore, he sent to the Commercial Tax Department from where he has been sent on deputation to Secretariat of Legislative Assembly, MP on the post of Undersecretary.His absorption and confirmation on the post of Undersecretary was also illegal and against the Rules.All the documents pertaining to the alleged offence have already been seized.Nothing is required to be recovered from the possession of the applicant.The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest his reputation will be tarnished as well as he will have to face lot of health problems, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.They served for a short period of 1 year to the applicant and thereafter the applicant, being the Speaker of M.P. Legislative Assembly pressurized the officials of other departments and sent co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma and other co-accused persons on deputation to other departments with intention that they would be absorbed in the said departments and within the short period of aforesaid absorption more than once they were taken to the Secretariat, M.P. Legislative Assembly whereby ignoring the relevant rules of promotions as well as reservation, they were promoted to the post of Additional Secretary and that too within the span of only 10 years.This has been demonstrated by (Annexure R-1) wherein co-accused Satyanarayan Sharma was initially appointed on 31.12.1993 that too one day before his approval of appointment i.e. on 1.1.1994 and that too without having prescribed qualification having passing the Higher Secondary Examination along with Hindi typing examination from a recognized Board.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the case diary and other material produced by the counsel for the parties during the course of arguments.
|
['Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,585,947 |
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.This application has been filed for quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.12.2018 as well as summoning order dated 05.07.2019 passed by Special Judge (POCSO Act)/Additional Sessions Judge, VIII, District Bahraich in Case No. 38 of 2019 (State Vs.Sabir @ Kallu) arising out of Case Crime No. 217 of 2018, under Sections 354, 504, 506 and 354B I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, P.S. Jarwal Road, District Bahraich.After the investigation, charge sheet dated 7th December, 2018 was filed under Sections 354, 354B, 504 and 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act and Section 7/8 of POCSO Act. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the trial court may be directed to accept the bail bonds in the additional sections.The application is, accordingly, disposed of.Order Date :- 25.7.2019
|
['Section 354 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.
|
307,378 |
In pursuance of the said, conspiracy, the accused S.K. Jain, allured certain influential public servants, political leaders of high status including some Ministers and Government organisations in the power and steel sectors of the Government of India to award contracts to different foreign bidders with the motive of getting illegal kickbacks from them.During the aforesaid period, the accused S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain and N.K. Jain received huge amounts, major portion of which came from foreign countries through Hawala channels as kickbacks.An account of receipts and disbursements of the tainted monies was maintained by the accused J.K. Jain in the diaries.The accused J.K. Jain was an employee of the said Jain brothers.On 3.5.1991, the CBI searched the premises of J.K. Jain at G-36, Saket, New Delhi in connection with the investigation R.C. Case No. 5(S)/91, SIU (B)/CBI/New Delhi and recovered besides other articles and documents, two diaries, two small note books and two files containing details of receipts of various amounts from different sources recorded in abbreviated forms of digits and initials and details of payment to various persons recorded in similar fashion.JUDGMENT M.S.A. Siddiqui, J.The present revision petitions are directed against the order dated 1.8.1997 passed by Shri V.B. Gupta, Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 44/96 directing to frame charges under Section 120-B, IPC and under Sections 7/11/12/13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the petitioners.By this order, I propose to dispose of these revision petitions.A short conspectus of the case is that during the years 1988 to 1991, three brothers namely the accused S.K. Jain, B.R. Jain and N.K. Jain entered into a criminal conspiracy among themselves, the object of which was to receive unaccounted money and to disburse the same to their companies, friends, close relatives, highly placed officials and prominent political leaders of the country.According to the prosecution case, the Jain brothers and their employee J.K. Jain had acted as middlemen in the award of certain big projects in the power and steel sectors of the Government of India to different bidders; that they had surreptitious dealings with politicians and influential public servants whose names were recorded in the diaries and the files and that some of them had accepted illegal gratification from Jains brothers as reward for giving them and the companies they own and manage various contracts.The petitioner Shri Sharad Yadav, who was a member of Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha from 5.7.1986 to 13.3.1991 and a Union Minister from 6.12.1989 to 10.11.1990, also received Rs. 5 lacs from Jain brothers by way of illegal gratification.On such revelation, the CBI registered a case R.C-1(A)/25-4 CU (vi).In the said interview Shri Sharad Yadav had admitted having received a sum of Rs. 3 lacs from one Jain.Similarly, on 19.2.1995, Shri Sharad Yadav had also admitted the said fact in an interview recorded by Shri Vikram Aditya Chandra, Special Correspondence New Delhi Television.
|
['Section 13 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,782,441 |
Item No. 76And In the matter of: Ayan Kanti Das & Anr.- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Amitabha Karmakar Miss Sutanuka Chowdhury For the Petitioners Mr. Arijit Ganguly For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Nandigram Police Station Case No. 232 of 2012 dated 04.10.2012 under Sections 363/366/120B of the Indian Penal Code, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties.We have seen the case diary and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. She has stated that she voluntarily eloped with the principal accused.She has not implicated the Petitioners at all.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Ranjit Kumar Bag, J)
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
30,908,380 |
The girl was eventually recovered on 30.01.2019 i.e., after almost three months of the alleged incident.In both her statements recorded under sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. she conceded that on her own volition she left her home and joined the company of the applicant - Vittu Yadav.and remained with him for quite six months in Assam.It is next submitted that the victim girl refused to her herself internally medically examined, which proves that she was a consenting party.Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail.Let the applicant Vittu Yadav alias Vittu Rai, involved in Case Crime No. 363 of 2018, under sections 363, 366, 504, 507 and 376 IPC and 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Actat P.S. Badhalganj, District Gorakhpur be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 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.
|
30,958,211 |
The complaint was lodged by one Vinay TarachandChawla with Lonavla Police Station.It revolves around SurveyNo.98, area 14.5 acres situated in Taluka Maval, Lonavla,District Pune.The crux of the complaint is to the followingeffect.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::The complainant is a resident of Mumbai and he alongwith his father had formed two firms in the name of ChinmayAssociate and Chinmay Estate.The said firms deal with the saleand purchase of land.His father Tarachand Chawla is a partnerin Chinmay Estate along with one Gautam T Jasnani, son of thecomplainant's sister.It was informed by him that one SmtBabhabhai Landge, Nirmala Machindra Tavare, Ranjana RameshSathe are the owners of the said agricultural land and oneKishore G Lalwani (accused No.3) and Kishor Mandyani(accused No.5) are in possession of the said land.Ram Awasthiand Sharada Mahesh Alimchandani (accused No.6) were statedto be the agricultural tenants in the said property.Thecomplainant and his father were informed that on 23 rd February2013, Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Mandyani had entered into aMemorandum of Understanding with the three original ownersfor consideration of Rs.Two Crores and it was a notarizeddocument in which Ram Awassthi and Sharda were shown asTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 4/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docagricultural tenants.It is alleged by the complainant that TulsiJasnani informed his father that he had fixed a deal with KishorLalwani and Kishor Madiani for Rs.27 crores.He also informedthat Kishor Lalwani and Kishor Madyani would help them inclearing the impediments for conversion of the land for non-agricultural purpose and for completing the transaction.Thefather of the complainant was assured that they are acquiring theland at a very cheap rate and when developed, it would yieldhuge returns.The assurance given was subject to stipulationthat certain amount would shell out and paid to the originalowners as well as the tenants and a Memorandum ofUnderstanding would have to be executed.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::5. Being projected in this manner, the complainant along withhis father visited the said land and were satisfied about itslocation.The complainant paid an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- bycheque to the co-owners Smt.Bababai Landge, Smt.NirmalaMachhindra Tavare and Smt.Ranjana Sathe.Thus, after makingthe payment of Rs.7,50,000/-, on 5 th October 2013, aMemorandum of Understanding was executed in the office ofVinod Mistry.By this Memorandum of Understanding, theoriginal owners agreed to accept the amount of Rs.Two crores ascompensation for the land and to relinquish the rights therein.At the say of Tulsi, the complainant also paid anamount of Rs.16,00,000/- plus Rs.10,00,000/- plusRs.15,00,000/- to Mahesh Alim Chandani (accused No.2),husband of Sharda.Thereafter, it is alleged that Mahesh assuredthe complainant to render all his assistance in development ofthe property, for which the complainant paid an amount ofRs.2,68,00,000/- by RTGS/cheque.The complainant thusalleged that from the personal account as well as the account ofChinmay Estate, for the purpose of purchasing the subjectproperty, he parted with an amount of Rs.7,26,50,000/- bymaking payments from time to time.However, since there wasno progress in spite of parting of the amount when he inquiredwith Tulsi Jasnani, another agreement came to be executedwhich was prepared by Advocate Vinod Mistry on a 500 rupeesstamp paper.When the transaction did not finalise, the complainant andhis father became anxious and when the inquired from Tulsi,they were informed that in respect of the said property, the StateGovernment has passed an order and the deal would be finalizedvery soon.The complainant became suspicious and through athird person, he discovered that the subject plot at Survey No.98,Mauje Pune name, Lonavla, Taluka Maval, is a Government landand the Landge Family and others are simple tenants and on thesaid plot, apart from the Landge family, no one else is inpossession.The complainant then confronted this fact with Tulsibut he gave evasive answers.The complainant ran from post topillar making inquiries with the other accused persons but theyalso avoided the quieries.Tulsi then promised the complainantthat Mahesh Alim Chandani is going to sell one of his propertyin Mumbai from which he is expecting a huge return andthereafter the amount would be returned back to thecomplainant.On 26th february 2019, photo copy of the chequeof Rs.7,28,50,000/- and one photo copy of RTGS form wasgiven to them and they were assured of return of their amountsoon.The recital of the said MOUstate that the vendors are seized and possessed of or otherwisesufficiently entitled to land bearing Survey No.98, Village Pune,Taluka Maval, District Pune, admeasuring 14.5 acres.Description of the agricultural plot is given in the schedule.Thesaid agreement state that the vendors have inducted twoagricultural tenants i.e. Ram Awasthi and Sharada Alimchandaniby virtue of two separate agreements in the year 2000 and theyare cultivating the agricultural products on the said property.Rupees Three lakhs have been shown to be paid by theTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 8/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docpurchasers to the vendors and received by them.Balancepayment to be made within 10 days from the vendors causingclear and marketable title and removing all defects relating totitle of the said property.On execution, the vendors authorizedM/s.Vinod Mistry and Co, the Solicitors for the purchaser toissue a public notice in newspaper inviting claims and/orobjections of any person towards sale and assignment of theproperty.The MOU contain a clause for handing over of vacantand peaceful possession of the property upon execution of thedocuments.The purchasers were cast a responsibility to settlethe agricultural tenants at their own cost.The said documentswas signed by the vendors and Kishor Lalwani as purchaser.The owners acknowledged receipt of Rs.(b) On 5th October 2013, the three owners of the saidproperty again execute a Memorandum of Understanding withthe complainant, the partner of M/s.By the said MOU, the vendors agreed to sell, transfer and assigntheir right, title and interest in the property to the complainantfor consideration of Rs.Two crores out of which an amount ofRs.10,50,000/- has been paid by the purchaser to the vendorswhich they have acknowledged and balance payment isTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 9/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docunderstood to be paid within 10 days from the vendor causingclear and marketable title to the property and after removing allthe defects relating to the property.The vendors make an assertion that they aresufficiently entitled to the said property and save and except theagricultural tenants, they have not created any third party rightsand title of the said property is clear and marketable.Itrecord that the owners are seized and possessed of theagricultural land at Survey No.98, Village Pune, Taluka Maval,district Pune, admeasuring 14.5 acres and the owners requireservice of the agricultural tenant who is well versed withagricultural activities and knowledge about farming andtherefore, he is inducted as tenant with share of 40%.(d) The compilation produced by the learned APPcontain an agreement on a 500 Rupees stamp paper executedbetween Mahesh Alim Chandani, Kishor Lalwani referrred to asfacilitator on one hand and Gautam Jasnani, partner of ChinmayTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 10/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docEstate referred to as purchaser.This agreement is executed inthe backdrop that the owners who were owning and possessingthe agricultural land in Survey No.98 and village form no.7/12reflect the name of the owners concerning the said property,facilitators have informed the purchasers that they can procurethe said property with clear and marketable title and thepurchasers have shown their willingness to acquire and purchasethe same through the facilitator subject to the terms andconditions recorded.The agreement record that the facilitatorshave provided to the purchasers the relevant mutation entries,village form, revenue record, MOU dated 23/2/2013 executedbetween the owners and the facilitators for verification and afterconfirming the same, and after actually having inspection of thesite, they have agreed to purchase the property from the originalowners against the payment of full consideration.(f) The complainant has further alleged that accused Tulsi alsoasked him to arrange an amount for Mrs.Sharda Alimchandani(applicant), who was the agricultural tenant in the said propertyand, therefore, he parted with an amount of Rs.16,00,000/-,Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- by RTGS.This amount,according to the complainant, is given to Mahesh Alimchandani.(g) The complainant has further alleged that for the purposesof development of the property, Mahesh Alimchandani renderedhis co-operation and he paid huge amounts approximating toTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 12/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docRs.2,68,00,000/- to Mahesh Alimchandani for the said purpose.According to the complainant, as per the say of Tulsi, he and hisfather expended Rs.7,26,50,000/-, but he did not receive anybenefit of the property in question.In 2017, it dawned that thesaid land was the Government land and one Landge family was anormal tenant and there was no possession on the subject land ofany other person than the tenant.She has stated thaton 29th April 1993, her father expired.Thereafter, her elderuncle Maruti was cultivating the land.She has disclosed in her statement as tohow she was persuaded to sign some documents dealing with her1/4th share by removing the Government entry and transferringit in the name of her mother and sister.She has referred to themeeting with Mahesh Alim Chandani and for her share, she wasassured an amount of Rs.Two crores.Then, she was taken toMumbai and made to sign some documents.She acknowledgedreceipt of cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- and cash amount of Rs.She has also stated that she had paid some amount to thebrokers after the cheque was encashed.However, she make agrievance that the documents which she had signed had not beenreceived by her nor was she thereafter contacted by any person.Nirmala's statement is also on the similar line.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Pertinent to note that during the course of investigation, theInvestigating Officer has collected the revenue record in respectof the subject land.RESERVED ON : 21st OCTOBER, 2020 PRONOUNCED ON : 29th OCTOBER, 2020P.C:-The applicant has filed this application anticipating hisarrest in C.R.No.435 of 2020 registered at Lonavala PoliceStation, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120-B read with 34 of IPC.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Heard learned senior counsel Mr.Ponda for the applicantand learned APP Mrs.Deshmukh for the State.The applicant's case is that he has assignedthe right over the said laid by Deed of Assignment dated 13 thNovember, 2013 for consideration of Rs.1,85,00,000/- andthereafter he has nothing to do with any other transaction.TheAssignment Deed did is dated 13 th December, 2013 and placedon record by the applicant.In order to consider the submissions of the learned counsel,the case of the prosecution require to be mentioned briefly :The sister of the complainant is oneKanchan Tulsi Jasnani and her husband is Tulsi ParmanandJasnani (accused No.1) against whom various allegations havebeen levelled.In September 2013, Tulsi Parmanand Jasnani approachedthe complainant's father in respect of a piece of land situate inMauje, Pune nama, Lonavla, Taluka Maval, district Pune withdescription of Survey No.98, admeasuring 14.5 acres.Heputforth a proposal for purchase of the said agricultural land andfor its development.As directed by Tulsi Jasnani, the agricultural tenant Ram Awasthiwas paid an amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- for relinquishing hisrights.Kishor Lalwani who was alleged to be in possession ofTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 5/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docthe said land was also paid an amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/-through various cheque and bank transaction (RTGS).Duringthis time, since it surfaced that in the said land, apart from thetwo agricultural tenants, Bombay Mission Superior Trust, anNGO also had some interest and the two trustees of the saidSociety would relinquish their right only on receipt ofconsideration.The complainant therefore, parted with anamount of Rs.1,15,00,000/- in favour of Smt.Mishclle Briganzaand Smt.Brigette Briganza.The complainant signed on a paperand was assured a Relinquishment Deed by Bombay MissionSuperior Trust.On 26th May, 2015, a photostat of which washanded over to the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::However, the patience of the complainant did not yield anyfruitful result, ultimately on 16th August 2020, the complainantapproached the police station alleging that all the accusedpersons through a conspiracy had swindled amount ofRs.7,26,50,000/- and had tricked him.The learned APP Mrs.Deshmukh has placed on record aTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 7/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doccompilation of documents.These are the documents which havebeen also included by the applicants in their respectivecompilations including the counsel for intervenor Shri Marwadi.These are the common documents which are relied upon, I deemit fit to refer from the compilation submitted by the learned APP.From the reading of the documents, following glaring facts canbe discerned.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::(a) A Memorandum of Understanding is executed on23rd February 2013 between the owners of the subject land Smt.Bababai, Nirmala and Smt.Ranjana (referred to as 'vendors') andone Kishor Mandiani, resident of Khar West and one KishorLalwani referred to as 'purchasers'.One Lakh each bycheque number mentioned therein.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Thevendors acknowledge receipt of Rs.10,50,000/- collectively.Thecovenant no.8 of the agreement refer to handing over of vacantand peaceful possession to the purchasers who would settle theagricultural tenants at their own cost.The agreement bears thesignature of the three owners and the complainant.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::(c) Another agreement on record is the agriculturaltenancy agreement executed between the three owners of theproperty and Mr.Inconsideration of the facilitator procuring the property for thepurchasers, the purchasers agreed to pay consideration of Rs.14crore, Rs.7 crore to Mahesh Alim Chandani, Rs.3 crore to KishorMandiani and Rs.3 crore to Kishor Lalwani.The facilitatorsundertake to complete the transaction within a period of 9months and before completion of transaction, purchaser agreedto pay Rs.14 crores to them.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::(e) Another document dated 22nd October, 2013 is aDeed of Assignment made and entered between BombayTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 11/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docMission Trust Superior through Mrs.Brigette Briganza and thecomplainant, Partner of Chinmay Estate.By the said document,the assigner has depicted to have assailed possessory rights, title,interest and physical possession in piece and portion ofagricultural land bearing Survey No. 98, Taluka Maval, DistrictPune admeasuring 18.5 acres.The assignor has declared her tobe in possession of the said land since 1960 without anyinterruption and disturbance from Smt.Bababai, Smt.Nirmalaand Smt.Ranjana, whose names stand in the revenue record.Shehas represented that her name as Kabjedar has not been updatedin the record of right and other revenue records as she had notpaid the revenue nazrana.The assignee agreed to bear allexpenses to be incurred in the Court of Law, office of theCollector or before Revenue Authorities for obtaining necessarypermission and its conversion to non-agricultural land.Theconsideration fixed is Rs.1,15,00,000/- towards full and finalsettlement.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::When attempts were madethereafter to obtain the amounts spent, Mahesh Alimchandaniassured to return the amount and in fact, had also drawn acheque on 26th February, 2019 for an amount of Rs.7,28,50,000/-and handed over a photostat copy of the same alongwith thecopy of RTGS form by assuring that as soon as his deal would befinalised in respect of other property, he would return theamount.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Based on these allegations, C.R. has been registeredwherein all the persons involved in the transaction, described bythe complainant, were arraigned as an accused.Total 10 persons have been implicatedas accused.When the investigation was set into motion on thecomplaint filed, apart from these documents being collatedduring the course of inquiry, the statements of the originalowners Ranjana, Smt.Nirmala - husband of Ranjana arerecorded.The owners reveal that Gut No.98 was recorded asTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 13/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.doc'kul' in the name of their grand father Sonu Annaji Landge.Afterhis death, the land was cultivated by his sons Maruti, Baban,Rama and Sakharam.The yield was equally distributed amongstthe four.Ranjana is daughter of Sakharam.The record reveals that vide Mutation EntryNo.256 dated 15/02/1938, the name of Reverent Father E.R.Padri was removed and in his place, the name of BombayMission Superior S.J. Xavier College, Mumbai was recorded.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Vide Entry No.351 dated 15th May, 1949, the name of SonuAnnaji Landge was recorded as protected tenant in terms ofSection 3(a) of the Tenancy Act. On 5 th November 1955, videmutation entry no.478, the Talathi removed the name of SonuAnnaji Landge on the ground of the land not being cultivated byhim.On 25th January 1972, vide Mutation Entry No.827, thename of Social Welfare Centre, Pune was mutated by theTahsildar on an application preferred by Bombay MissionSuperior S.J. Xavier College, Bombay.Vide Mutation EntryNo.928 dated 15th February 1980, Tahsildar Maval, vide hisorder dated 4th February 1980 directed the subject land to beshown as 'Sarkar Jama' and the name of the Government cameto be entered in Land Record.Vide mutation entry No.3682recorded on 27th September 2017, in terms of the order passed bythe Hon'ble Revenue Minister in Appeal NO. RTS 3416/PN53/J-5, the Appeal of Ramdas Suresh Landge was allowed andthe earlier mutation entry no.478 and 928 were struck down.Resultantly, in the 7/12 extracts, the name of Sonu AnnajiLandge and Social Welfare Centre has been restored.In terms ofSection 32(9G) of the Tenancy Act, matter has been forwardedto the concerned Tahsildar.Ramdas who has filed appealbefore the Revenue Minister is the son of Rama.His grand-father Sonu Annaji has been described to be a 'kul'.He speakTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 15/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docabout the different mutation entries and that on 4 th February1980, by order of Tahsildar, the land in question stood in thename of State Government.He has stated that his cousin grandfather Maruti Sonu Landge challenged the said order beforeTahsildar and he prayed for inquiry under Section 17B and forrestoration of tenancy.On 24th March 2015, Maruti SonuLandge expired and therefore, Ramdas preferred an applicationto the Additional Collector, Pune for recording the name of theheirs in respect of the said property.His application came to berejected and he approached the Hon'ble Minister, Revenue byfiling proceedings.The proceedings came to be decided in hisfavour by order dated 17th April 2017, deleting the entries,removing the names of Sonu Annaji Landge.By the orderpassed by the Minister, mutation entry no. 3682, name of SonuAnnaji Landge has been re-introduced in the column of rights asprotected tenant and social welfare centre, Pune is recorded as'Kabjedar'.In his statement, he has admitted that Smt. BababaiSakharam Landge is his cousin grand-mother and Nirmala andRanjana are her daughters.He state that her son Ganesh hadexpired.In2017, he had received call from Tulsi Jasnani whom he had ameeting, where inquiries were made with him about the saidland.Ramdas also state that Sonu Annaji Landge had four sonsand he has given the details of the heirs of Sonu Annaji and statethat in the said property at Survey No.98, area 14.5 acres, thereTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 16/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docare 18 legal heirs.However, name of the legal heirs are notmutated and the proceedings under 32(g) are not complete.Afterthe decision of the Hon'ble Minsiter, he had preferred anapplication for mutating the name of all the legal heirs and theproceedings are going on.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::Thestatement of Ramdas, however, make the position clear thatSonu Annaji Landge has 18 legal heirs and the three land ownerswho had executed the agreement, two Memorandum ofUnderstanding could not have claimed the exclusive ownershipof the property and were not competent to deal with the same.By the said agreement,Ram Awasthi is inducted as a tenant.The learned APP raise astrong doubt about the said agreement and she point out thatRam Awasthi is a resident of Mumbai and it is surprising that heis inducted as an agricultural tenant being verse with agriculturalactivities and knowledge about farming.According to thelearned APP, this agreement is fraudulent and Mr.Ponda hastraversed the submission of Shri Marwadi by advancing a legalsubmission that by amendment to Section 464 of IPC, with effectfrom 17th October 2000, the Section has undergone a change andmaking a document backdated is not more an offence.ThoughI am not holding the said documents against Mr.Ponda, primafacie it can be very well discerned from the material collectedduring the course of investigation that the three women whoexecuted this agreement had no right to deal with the land inquestion as they were not the exclusive owners, particularly onthe day on which the agreement is alleged to have been executedand the applicant inducted as agricultural tenant and to beprecise on 29th April 2000, the land was already standing in thename of the State Government.In the detailed statement ofSmt.Ranjana and Smt. Nirmala as well as Ramesh Sathe,husband of Ranjana, they do not speak of the applicant being anTilak ::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 ::: 18/19 3 ABAST-2427-20.docagricultural tenant in the said land.On the other hand, Nirmalaand Ranjana state that all the four sons of Sonu were cultivatingthe land and sharing the yield.Nirmala and Ranjana both statethat their parents would come to Khandala and look after theland.After the death of their father, they have stated that theircousin uncle Maruti was looking after the land and was takingthe crop.Ranjana got married to Ramesh in the year 2003 andshe was residing in old Khandala along with her family is thestatement of Nirmala.Nirmala has categorically revealed thather brother Ganesh expired in 2008 and thereafter Ramesh Sathewas looking after the land but neither these two sisters norRamesh Sathe speak of the agricultural tenant.The applicant hasreceived the amount of Rs.1,85,00,000/- as a price for histenancy for relinquishing his rights.The allegations require athorough custodial interrogation as it is of serious nature.Theproperty which was dealt with by executing different agreementswas standing in the name of Government at the time it was beingdealt with and the complainant who hoodwinked by asking tomake payments for settlement of the claims of those inpossession of the land and the agricultural tenants.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::At present, the offence isregistered under Section 406, 420, 423, 467, 468, 471, 120B readwith Section 34 of the IPC.To unearth the modus operandi andthe conspiracy as alleged, the custodial interrogation of theapplicant is very much necessary.The applicant, in myconsidered opinion, therefore do not deserve any protection fromarrest.::: Uploaded on - 29/10/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 30/10/2020 05:24:23 :::
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,058,613 |
For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: ''5. ... I am aware that Thiru.Further, Thiru.(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the friend of the detenu.The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:-Police Station and Crime No. Sections of LawThe ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station in Crime No.1451/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392, 394, 397, 427, 506(ii) IPC.Besides several grounds, learned for the petitioner would contend that when the detaining authority has stated about the pendency of the bail application in the ground case in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013, his inference that the detenu will come out on bail by filing bail application in the said case before the higher court, is without application of mind and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.Nanda @ Nandakumar has filed bail application in ground case Crime No.1451/2013 before the Sessions Court, Vellore in Crl.Further, Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar filed another bail application in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ground case and the same is pending.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nanda @ Nandakumar made in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated 08.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 397 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,167,381 |
pk CRM No. 3374 of 2015 In Re:- An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 7.4.15 in connection with English Bazar P.S. Case No. 960/14 dated 12.11.14 under Sections 406/417/420/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 417 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
31,245,570 |
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 06/2016 registered at Police Station Dodar, District Sheopur for the offence punishable under Sections 294, 323, 336/34, 427, 452 & 506-B and added section 307, 120-B of IPC and section 30 of Arms Act.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, who has no criminal past alleged against him.Though named FIR was lodged, but name of the applicant was not mentioned in the FIR.It is alleged against the applicant that the co-accused took gun of the applicant and fired with the gun.At the most offence under section 30 of Arms Act my constitute against the applicant, whereas, no offence under section 307 of IPC is made out against the applicant either directly or with the aid of section 120-B or 34 of IPC.Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant.However, the applicant is ready to produce his licensee gun along with the license before the police.Under these circumstances, applicant prays for anticipatory bail.
|
['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.
|
31,447,026 |
It is also submitted that, in fact, the fourth petitioner/accused Purshotam Dass, who is the father of the petitioner No.1 Vikas, is a jeweller and has a jewellery shop in the vicinity of the shop of the complainant.Issue notice.3. Counsel for State, as well as counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, accept notice.At the time of incident, the second petitioner, namely, Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh, was arrested the same evening and he was enlarged on bail by the court below on 13.04.2014 and continues to remain on bail.Counsel for the petitioners submits that the incident arose out of an altercation in connection with the repair of a Samsung mobile phone belonging to third petitioner, namely, Smt. Pooja, which had been given to the complainant, Shiv Nath, at his shop.It is also alleged that the first petitioner, Vikas, who is main accused, left the shop and again returned CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 1 of 7 with his elder brother Ahhand Pratap Singh and sister Ms. Pooja, who are arrayed as petitioner Nos. 2 and 3; and assaulted the shop owner and his employees, as well as damaged the shop with a baseball bat.It is also alleged that the fourth petitioner, Mr. Purshotam Dass, who is father of the first petitioner, Vikas, then came to the shop and further threatened and tried to intimidate the shop owner and his employees.CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 1 of 7All the four petitioners as well as respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are present in Court.They are all identified by their counsel, as well as the Investigating Officer.Counsel for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, on instructions from the said respondents, also submits that the matter has been amicably settled; and that with a view to maintain peace and harmony in the community, the respondents have been persuaded to compromise the matter and to put a closure to the same.9. Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, from his clients, and particularly, Mr. Purshotam Dass, the fourth petitioner has also agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the second respondent, Shiv Nath, by way of compensation; and to also deposit another sum of Rs.10,000/- with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi.The aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- has been handed over to Shri Shiv Nath, respondent No. 2/complainant in Court today.Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states that the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall be duly deposited with the Indigent and Disabled Lawyers' Fund of the Bar Council of Delhi within two days from today.Let the same be done.FIR No.4/2005 registered against the petitioners under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC with Police station Samay Pur Badli is quashed and all CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 6 of 7 consequent proceedings pursuant thereto are also ordered to be dropped."CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 6 of 7Keeping in view the overall circumstances and the fact that the parties are also carrying on their businesses in close proximity to each other, and appear to have settled the matter with a view to maintaining peace and harmony; and keeping in view the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, as well as of this Court, I am satisfied that no useful purpose would be served in continuing with the proceedings and the matter deserves to be given a quietus.Accordingly, the petition is allowed and FIR No. 256/2014 under Section 427/452/323/506/34 IPC, stated to have been registered on 11.04.2014 at Police Station Dabri, and all proceedings emanating therefrom, are hereby quashed.The petition stands disposed off.SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (Judge) JULY 22, 2014 rd CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 7 of 7CRL.M.C. 3172/2014 Page 7 of 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,014,399 |
The petitioner-Tariq Ali Khan in the present writ petition impugns the order dated 11.09.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 747/2008 rejecting the plea of double jeopardy as untenable.The petitioner, a Sub-Inspector in the Delhi Police, was posted in the departure wing of the International Airport on 11 th September, 1998, the date on which the incident leading to the present controversy took place.FIR No. 433/1998 was registered against the petitioner at the Police Station, Indira Gandhi International Airport.By judgment dated 12th February, 2007, the petitioner was convicted under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC, for short).This judgment refers to the statement of Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta, who had W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 1 of 17 deposed as PW-2 and PW-3, respectively.Era Gupta and her husband Deepak Gupta were travelling to Mauritius, and after collecting the boarding passes from the Airline's counter and filling up the embarkation form, had proceeded for immigration check.The petitioner, who was stationed at the immigration desk, had questioned Deepak Gupta as to the number of dollars he was carrying and had told them that they cannot travel to Mauritius and Singapore for they did not have the visa to go to Singapore.The petitioner had taken their passports, and had threatened that a case would be foisted against them.Era Gupta professed that under threat, her husband had parted and paid US$ 500 to the petitioner.Thereafter, Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta were off- loaded and allowed to leave the airport.Era Gupta and Deepak Gupta returned to home and informed their parents.On examining the passports, they noticed that the page, on which the visa for Singapore was stamped, had been torn.Rajiv Bajaj (PW-4), who was working as the Station Manager at the Airport, affirmed that two passengers were unable to travel because of some problem and their baggage was returned.There is no documentary or oral evidence of extorting 500 US Dollars from them or to have torn visa page from her passport.The torn out page was also not recovered from his person, seat, drawer or from his house.Other witnesses too corroborated the versions given by Era and Deepak Gupta.The judgment, however, had acquitted the petitioner from the charge that he had torn the page with the Singapore visa from the passport, as it was not proved beyond doubt who had torn the said page.The page, undoubtedly, was torn.Prosecution under the Passport Act, 1967 failed for want of sanction.The order on sentence dated 2nd June, 2007, noting that the prosecution had continued for 9 years, sentenced the petitioner to imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs.50,000/-, which was to W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 2 of 17 be paid as compensation to Era Gupta (PW-2) for the harassment suffered by her.W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 1 of 17W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 2 of 17The conviction was maintained by the High Court and the Special Leave to Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.Consequent to the said conviction, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Special Branch passed an order dated 9th January, 2008 recording that the petitioner had been convicted under Section 384 IPC in the aforesaid FIR on 26th February, 2007 and sentenced to imprisonment till the rising of the court and fine of Rs.50,000/-, which was to be paid as compensation, and the fact that the first appeal preferred by the petitioner had been dismissed.Considering the conduct of the petitioner, which has led to his conviction, the order holds that the petitioner's further retention in police service was undesirable.In exercise of power conferred under Rule 11(1) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 read with Article 311(2)(a) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect.The petitioner had preferred an appeal, which met with an order of rejection vide order dated 26th March, 2008 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Branch.One of the contentions raised and rejected by the Appellate Authority was of double jeopardy.The petitioner had earlier faced departmental proceedings for misconduct and the disciplinary authority vide order dated 30th August, 1999 had imposed penalty of dismissal from service, albeit, on appeal the Joint Commissioner of W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 3 of 17 Police vide order dated 18th January, 2000 had modified and reduced punishment to that of forfeiture of two years approved service.OA No. 747/2008 is restored for adjudication before the Tribunal.The order does not even note the legal issue which was to be decided.The Tribunal will keep into mind the legal issue which arises for consideration and as noted by us in the present decision and thereafter would decide the matter........"W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 4 of 17Pertinent here would also be reference to the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Police dated 18th January, 2000 by which he had reduced the punishment of dismissal in the disciplinary proceedings to one for forfeiture of service of two years, which are to the following effect:-It also refers to the harassment suffered by Era Gupta and the fact that the petitioner was convicted under Section 384 IPC and the appeal filed had been dismissed.The order records that considering the conduct of the petitioner, which had led to his conviction, his further retention in the public service as a police officer was undesirable.The departmental appeal preferred by him was dismissed by the Joint Commissioner of Police, who has observed that he had thoroughly examined the judgment of conviction as affirmed by the first Appellate Court.(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (CHANDER SHEKHAR) JUDGE February 16th, 2017 VKR/ssn W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 17 of 17W.P. (C) No. 1921/2015 Page 17 of 17
|
['Section 384 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,018,359 |
[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH,J.] The petitioner herein is the brother of the detenu, namely, Naresh @ Naresh Kumar, aged about 26 years, has filed this petition, challenging the order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.556/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 29.08.2019, branding him as a "Bootlegger" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.404 of 2019 on the file of M5 Ennore Police Station for offenceshttp://www.judis.nic.in 2/6 H.C.P.No.2492 of 2019 under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) r/w 302 IPC.Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents.Perused the materials on record.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the bail application filed by the detenu is pending, the detaining authority has informed a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application since in a similar case bail was granted by learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No17395 of 2014 in respect of Crime No.809 of 2014 on the file of F1 Chintadripet Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 302 IPC.Learned counsel submits that in the case cited as similar, the offences alleged under Indian Penal Code are different from that of the offences alleged in the ground case.The non-consideration of such aspect reflects non-application of mind.http://www.judis.nic.in 3/6 H.C.P.No.2492 of 2019We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner, in the similar case, relied on by the detaining authority in arriving at a subjective satisfaction, the offences alleged under Indian Penal Code are different from that of the offences alleged in the ground case.Hence, we find that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the second respondent against the detenu viz., Naresh @ Naresh Kumar, aged about 26 years, in No.556/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 29.08.2019, is set aside.The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.[R.P.S., J] [G.K.I., J] 26.02.2020 Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes / No Internet : Yeshttp://www.judis.nic.in 4/6 H.C.P.No.2492 of 2019 sri To4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,035,334 |
Dr. (Smt.) Anjali Gyanani, Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2/ State.By order dated 14/12/2016, it was directed that no direct appeal is maintainable.Hence, since leave is granted the appeal is maintainable.The order dated 14/12/2016, is hereby recalled.Also, heard on IA No.1146/2016, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.It appears that the appeal has been filed with delay of one year.However, such points should be objected at the time of grant of leave in the matter.When leave is granted, then the appeal shall be registered after the order of grant of leave.Hence, it shall be presumed that the Single Bench of this Court who considered the leave application, has impliedly condoned the delay in filing the leave application.In the present matter IA No.1145/2016 an application for condonation of delay was granted by the Single Bench.Under these circumstances, IA 1146/2016 is hereby disposed off, with a direction that delay has already been condoned vide order dated 13/07/2016 and, therefore, no further order is required for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.Further, heard on admission of the appeal.The appellant has preferred the present appeal against the judgment dated 29/06/2015, passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No.141/2012, whereby the respondent No.1 has been acquitted from the charges of Sections 498-A, 323 and 506 of IPC, whereas a lesser sentence was passed for offence under Section 377 of IPC.So far as the scope of appeal against the judgment of acquittal is concerned, it cannot be filed by private party for enhancement of sentence.It is for the appellant to file separate revision relating to enhancement of sentence and, therefore, that relief cannot be granted in the present appeal.So far as the acquittal of charges under Sections 323 and 506 of IPC is concerned, it appears that the complaint was registered only of the offences under Sections 498-A and 377 of IPC.In this connection, if the judgment of the trial Court is perused, then it would be apparent that there was no charge against the respondent No.1 relating to offences under Sections 323 and 506 (II) of IPC.Hence, when there was no such charge upon the respondent No.1, it cannot be presumed that the respondent No.1 was acquitted from such charges.Hence, the appeal is not maintainable for consideration of any of offence under Section 323 or 506(II) of IPC.So far as the offence under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned, the trial Court has observed that the complainant Archana (PW-1)has accepted in paragraph 3 of her statement that before 4/8/2010 she did not lodge any FIR against the respondent No.1 relating to demand of dowry or harassment.Vivek Kumar (PW-2) brother of the complainant has accepted that when he visited the house of respondent No.1 on 15/01/2010, the complainant did not inform about her harassment on the basis of dowry demand.Consequently, the appeal filed by appellant- Smt. Archana is hereby dismissed at motion stage.(N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE MKB
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,038,315 |
Case diary is perused.Learned counsel for the parties are heard.This is the first bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.The applicants were arrested on 10.05.2018 in connection with Crime No. 38/2018 registered by Police Station Nagra District Morena in relation to the offence punishable under Sections 323, 294, 506B, 36and 325 and 307 of IPC.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that there is allegation of beating Rekha, however, no life threatening injury is found, which has been caused to Rekha.It is further submitted that the applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case and they are in custody since 10.5.2018 and on all these grounds he prays for grant of bail.Learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State opposes the bail.Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the applicants are in custody since 10.5.2018, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is allowed and it is directed that on their furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each alongwith two solvent sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/committal court concerned, the applicants shall be released on bail, with a direction that they will remain present on each and every date of the trial before the trial court/committal court concerned and shall abide by all the terms and conditions enumerated under Section 437 (3) of Cr.P.C.Their single non-appearance shall cancel their bail automatically by the trial court concerned, without any further order of this court.Certified copy as per rules.(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE shanu* SHANU RAIKWAR 2018.08.13 17:34:16 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 437 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
3,304,039 |
It is not necessary to set out the facts in detail.Suffice itto say that Shaileshbhai Mohanbhai Patel, respondent no. 1, filed acriminal complaint on 15.5.2004 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,Surat (for short ‘CJM’) against Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia and PareshLavjibhai Patel, appellants, alleging that they had pre-planned aconspiracy; created forged documents bearing signatures of the complainant,his father and uncle, two sons of his uncle and his elder brother and haveused the said documents as true and genuine by producing the same beforethe District Registrar, Cooperative Society, Nanpura, and by making falserepresentation obtained registration of Indoregency Cooperative HousingSociety Limited and by doing so the accused (appellants) have causedfinancial loss and physical and mental agony to the complainant and hisfamily members and have deceived the complainant and his family members byobtaining huge financial advantage by taking possession of thecomplainant’s property.R.M. Lodha, J.Leave granted.The sole question for consideration is, whether a suspect isentitled to hearing by the revisional court in a revision preferred by thecomplainant challenging an order of the Magistrate dismissing thecomplaint under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short‘Code’).It was, thus, alleged that the appellants havecommitted offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B,IPC.The CJM in exercise of his power under Section 202 of the Codeby his order dated 18.6.2004 directed the enquiry to be made by the PoliceInspector, Umra Police Station, into the allegations made in the complaintand submit his report within thirty days therefrom.The Investigating Officer investigated into the matter andsubmitted ‘C’ Summary Report.In the opinion of the Investigating Officer,the disputes between the parties were of civil nature and no offence wasmade out.The CJM on 16.4.2005 accepted the ‘C’ Summary Report submittedby the Investigating Officer.That order has been challenged by theComplainant in a criminal revision application filed under Section 397 readwith Section 401 of the Code in the Gujarat High Court.The appellants having come to know of the above criminalrevision application made an application for joining them as partyrespondents so that they can be heard in the matter.On 5.8.2005, the Single Judge of the Gujarat High Courtdismissed the application made by the appellants.It is from this orderthat present appeal has arisen.The order records, “on perusingthe complaint and the accompanying documents, in the said matter it isnecessary to take into custody the documents mentioned in the complaint.Itis necessary to find out the persons who have forged signatures on suchdocuments, and record their statements, and to compare the said signatureswith the signatures of the family members of the complainant, and in thisregard obtain the opinion from the Handwriting Expert, in view of all thissuch investigations cannot be done by the Court, in view of this fact belowSection 156(3) of Cr.P.C. in the matter of the said complaint for policeinvestigations it is hereby ordered to send the said inquiry to the P.I.,Umra, Police Station.That was a case where the police did not initiate anyinvestigation for quite some time in respect of an offence registered withthe police station.The complainant approached the CJM wherein directionfor investigation by the police was made.The police after investigationsubmitted report and sought ‘C’ Summary.The complainant objected to thereport submitted by the police as to ‘C’ Summary.The Magistrate allowedthe suspects to be heard against which the complainant filed the criminalrevision before the Sessions Judge.The Sessions Judge agreed with thecomplainant and overruled the order of the Magistrate allowing the accusedto make submission.There were seven accused in the complaint and two ofthem approached the High Court against the order of the Sessions Judge.The Single Judge of the High Court confirmed the order of Sessions Judge.The Magistrate thereafter heard the complainant and granted ‘C’ Summary.Against that order, the complainant filed a revision before the SessionsJudge.Two accused who had earlier challenged the order of the SessionsJudge before the High Court applied to the Sessions Judge for permission tomake submission in support of the order of the Magistrate.The SessionsJudge allowed the application made by the accused against which order thecomplainant filed criminal revision before the High Court.State of Delhi and another [Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 2626/2009decided on February 5, 2010].Against the order of dismissal of thecomplaint, the complainant preferred revision petition before the HighCourt.The High Court was of the view that no notice was necessary to thesuspects for disposal of the revision and set aside the order of theMagistrate and directed the Magistrate to proceed with the complaint afreshin accordance with law.We have, therefore, no hesitation in allowing this appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment and remanding the matter to the High Court to issue proper notice to the appellant herein who is the respondent in the criminal revision petition before it and afford him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to pass appropriate orders.The appeal is allowed.”In Raghu Raj Singh Rousha2, a two-Judge Bench of this Court wasfaced with a question whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case,the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401of the Code was justified in passing an order in the absence of theaccused persons.That was a case where a complaint was filed under Section200 of the Code in respect of offences punishable under Sections 323, 382,420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 and 34 of IPC.Along with the complaint, anapplication under Section 156(3) was also made.The MetropolitanMagistrate passed an order refusing to direct investigation under Section156(3) and the complainant was asked to lead pre-summoning evidence.Thecomplainant aggrieved by the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate filed arevision petition before the High Court.He had applied his mind.The High Court shall implead the appellant as a party in the criminal revision application, hear the matter afresh and pass an appropriate order.”The appellants’ application for impleadment in the criminalrevision petition stands allowed.
|
['Section 420 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', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
330,517 |
JUDGMENT B.K. Chaturvedi, J.This appeal has been preferred by six appellants: (1) Shobha s/o Parana, (2) Halkai s/o Bhure, (3) Bhagirath s/o Dallu (4) Girdhari s/o Nanhe, (5) Bhagirath s/o Pram and (6) Punna alias Puran Lodhi, against their conviction under Section 395, Indian Penal Code, and their sentences to five years' rigorous imprisonment each, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Damoh.The dacoity is alleged to have been committed by these six appellants on the night of 11-10-1956 at the house of Bahrain {P.W. 1) at village Kanora in which cash, silver and gold ornaments were taken away.But it was in connection with investigation of another dacoity that took place on 17-12-1956 at the taparias for hutments) on the suburbs of village Piparia-Mishar that the police officers investigated this offence also and found that the dacoits were from village Kabirpur.On 22-12-1956 the appellants are said to have made some discoveries and on 24-12-1956 they were arrested and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hatta, for recording their confessions.The evidence about the confessions and the discoveries is the same as adduced in Criminal Appeal No. 366 of 1957 (Bhagirath v. The State of M.P.) decided by me on 12-9-1958, arising out of Sessions Trial No. 65 of 1957,The witnesses clearly deposed that appellant Bhagirath s/o Param was the first to be interrogated.It is only appellant Bhagirath s/o Dullu from whose house some property was recovered.Several articles were recovered according to the two witnesses, Ramcharan (P.W. 17) and Babulal (P.W 19) from the house of this appellant: e.g., one gold addha, some Chooras and chhallas (silver), four rupee tharra coins and some tidana.This has been identified to be the stolen property by Bahrain (P.W. 1} and other witnesses.The only evidence is that some ornaments, which were stolen from the house of Baliram (P.W. 1) on the night of 11-10-1956 were recovered from the possession of appellant Bhagirath s/o Dallu.The result is that I allow the appeal of appellants Shobha, Halkai, Girdhari, Bhagirath s/o Param and Punna alias Puran Lodhi, set aside their conviction and the sentences passed on them and Older that they be acquitted in this case.
|
['Section 114 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 411 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
33,057,125 |
Heard on I.A.No.3411/2016, an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of the appellant no.3 Rajaram Kumhar.Appellant no.3 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 304 part-I and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to R.I. for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and one year R.I. respectively.According to the learned counsel for the appellant no.3, the appellant no.3 has now served about 9 years jail sentence.He further submits that the appellant nos.1 and 2 have been granted bail by this Court on the ground that they served the jail sentence about 10 years and 6 months.On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the application.Having regard to the fact that the appellant no.3 has been sentenced for life for commission of offence under Section 304 part-I/34 of the IPC and now he has served the jail sentence about 9 years.There is no likelihood of this appeal of the year 2007 to be heard finally in the near future.We are of the view that the appellant no.3 Rajaram Kumhar has made a good case for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.Accordingly, the application is allowed.On appellant's no.3 furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the CJM, Chhatarpur for his appearance before the Registry of this Court on 21.11.2016 and on such other subsequent dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, his jail sentence shall remain suspended and he be released on bail.C.C. as per rules.
|
['Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,251,650 |
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.In brief the case of prosecution is that on 13-7-1993 at 11.00 a.m. Rajendra Prasad Dubey (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') who was also a physician went to see some patient at Shivrajpur on a bicycle and when he was returning back at 1.00 p.m. along with the appellant at that juncture Vijay Kumar with his labourer Purushottam was planting bushes.When the deceased and appellant reached nearby the field of the deceased at that juncture deceased -made demand from appellant for repayment of loan amount of Rs. 1700/- which was outstanding against the deceased.The appellant told that he will repay the loan amount at that juncture cattle entered in the field of deceased as a result of which the deceased directed his brother Vijay Kumar to ward off the cattle.Thereafter Vijay Kumar started warding off cattle and his labourer Purushottam again started planting bushes.At that juncture appellant picked-up an axe and started giving its blows on the person of the deceased.On seeing the incident, Purushottam raised alarm and called Vijay Kumar who saw that appellant was causing injuries by axe to the deceased who on receiving the injuries fell down.It is further case of prosecution that Vijay Kumar and Purushottam both rushed towards the spot to rescue the deceased, but the appellant gave threat to Purushottam that in case he will give evidence against him he will chop him.On account of fear Purushottam fled from the place of occurrence.When Vijay Kumar arrived at the spot at that juncture appellant picked-up the axe and fled from the place of occurrence.The deceased died on the spot and his dead body was lying there in the field.Thereafter Vijay Kumar came to the village and narrated the incident to Shivsingh, Banshilal, Surendra, Badriprasad, Dev Krishna Dubey, Shivkumar etc. and thereafter he (Vijay) went to Saleemnabad Police Station and lodged the FIR.On the basis of the FIR criminal law was set in motion.The investigating agency in order to investigate the case arrived at the spot; seized the dead body and sent it for post-mortem; seized ordinary and blood stained earth; prepared necessary Panchnama; recorded the statement of the witnesses; arrested the accused and on the basis of his memorandum statement recovered the axe, which was used as weapon in the commission of the offence, from the bushes; seized blood stained towel and a shirt; sent blood stained articles for chemical examination and prepared spot map etc.After completing the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted in the Competent Court, which on its turn committed the case to the Court of Session from where it was received by the Trial Court for its trial.Learned Trial Judge on going through the charge-sheet framed a charge punishable under Section 302, IPC for committing murder of the deceased.Needless to emphasis, accused abjured the guilt.In order to prove its case prosecution examined as many as thirteen witnesses and placed Exhs. P-1 to P-20, the documents on record.The defence of the accused is of maladroit implication.However, he did not choose to examine any witness in support of his defence.Learned Trial Judge on the basis of the evidence placed on record came to hold that the accused/appellant did commit the offence for which he was charged and eventually convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced to suffer life imprisonment.In this manner the appellant has preferred present appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Trial Court.It has been vehemently submitted by Shri Geetesh Singh Thakur, learned Counsel for the appellant that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is considered in proper perspective it would be difficult to uphold the conviction.The contention is that there are serious infirmities, contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses and, therefore, learned Trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant.An alternative submission has also been put-forth by learned Counsel that even if it is held that on account of causing injuries by appellant the deceased had died, since there is no evidence that appellant and deceased were having inimical terms, looking to the peculiar fact that both, appellant and the deceased, came together from Village Shivrajpur and incident had occurred when deceased insisted appellant to repay the loan amount of Rs. 1700/- which was outstanding, thus according to the learned Counsel the case would not rest beyond the ambit and scope of Section 304, Part I, IPC.On the other hand, Shri Modh, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC.The contention of learned Dy.Advocate General is that looking to the nature of injuries which are seven in number and all of them have been caused on head, face and neck region and the blows which were dealt were so severe that on account of which trachea of the deceased was cut, therefore, learned Trial Judge did not commit any error in convicting the appellant under Section 302, IPC.We shall now examine the evidence of these two eye-witnesses one by one.P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar has specifically stated that he was in his field along with his labourer Purushottam and both of them were planting bushes.At that juncture deceased had gone to Shivrajpur to see a patient and he came back from Shivrajpur along with the appellant.The deceased was insisting appellant to repay the loan amount which was still outstanding and this conversation was being taken place at a distance of about fifty feet from him.The appellant was saying that he will repay the loan amount in next week.At that juncture some cattle entered in his field and deceased directed this witness to ward off those cattle.Thereafter this witness became busy in warding off the cattle.At that juncture Purushottam shouted and requested Vijay Kumar to rush because appellant is causing axe blows to the deceased.This witness turned and saw that appellant was causing axe blows to the deceased.Immediately this witness and Purushottam rushed towards the spot in order to save deceased.On seeing these two persons coming to the place of occurrence appellant rushed towards the bushes carrying axe and scolded on Purushottam that if he will give evidence against him he will be chopped.Thereafter appellant ran away from the place of occurrence.Thereafter it has been stated by P.W.2 Vijay Kumar that he went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Exh. P-4).This witness has proved his signature on the FIR.According to him police party arrived at the spot and inspected the dead body.There is nothing in his cross-examination in order to disbelieve him.We do not find any substance in the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that this witness was about 100-150 feet ahead from the place of occurrence and he was unable to see the incident because according to the learned Counsel it has come in the evidence of P.W. 3 Purushottam that crop of Arhar and Soyabeen was standing upto the height of 3-4 feet.Merely because the crop was standing upto the height of 3-4 feet would in itself is not ground to disbelieve the statement of this witness because height of crop was not that much so that a person could not see the incident.This witness has categorically stated that on being screamed by P.W. 3 Purushottam he turned and saw that appellant was causing blows of axe on the person of the deceased.Thereafter this witness along with Purushottam rushed towards the place of occurrence and appellant gave threat not to give any evidence otherwise he will face dire consequences.Thereafter appellant ran away from the place of occurrence.This witness was cross-examined at length but he remained vivid in his version despite there being a roving cross-examination over him.After analyzing the evidence of this witness it can be inferred that appellant has dealt axe blows on the person of the deceased, as a result of which he died.It has come in the evidence of this witness that deceased was insisting appellant to repay the loan amount which was still outstanding and on that account the blows of axe were dealt by the appellant.The other eye-witness is P.W.3 Purushottam who is labourer of the deceased as well as Vijay Kumar (P.W. 2), who is brother of the deceased.He has corroborated the evidence of P.W. 2, Vijay Kumar.According to this witness deceased was insisting appellant for the repayment of loan amount which was still outstanding and thereafter appellant picked-up an axe and dealt its blows on the person of the deceased.There are certain minor omissions and contradictions in his case-diary statement (Exh. D-1) that on being scolded by Rajendra he turned and saw the incident but why the factum of scolding by Rajendra is not mentioned he cannot say.According to us this will be a minor omission and will not dilute the evidence of this witness.After scrutinizing the evidence of this witness it has crept out that he saw the appellant causing injuries by axe on the person of the deceased.The evidence of this witness is clear, cogent and trustworthy.There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve him.On the contrary evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of P.W. 2 Vijay Kumar.The evidence of eye-witnesses has been further corroborated by medical evidence.The post-mortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. N.A. Ansari (P.W. 6).His post-mortem report is Exh. P-5, in which he found the following injuries:(1) Incised wound 3" x 1" x 2" deep left parietal region of head lying on the posteriorly with underlying fracture of left parietal bone and laceration of brain matter underneath.(2) Incised wound 2" x 0.5" x skin deep left side of the face, transversely.(3) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x muscle deep left side neck upper part.(6) Incised wound transverse 3" x 1" x trachea deep front and upper part of neck.(7) Incised wound oblique 2" x 0.5" x skin deep lateral and middle left forearm.The doctor in his post-mortem report has specifically mentioned that these injuries can be caused by axe.In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was shock as a result of head injury.We have already noticed hereinabove that injury No. 1 is on parietal region of the head and the blow was so forcefully dealt on account of which not only the parietal bone was fractured but also brain matter also came out.The autopsy surgeon has further stated that injury No. 1 which was on head was sufficient to cause death "on the spot".After the appellant was arrested at his instance an axe was seized and the same was sent to the doctor and vide Exh. P-6 the doctor after examining the axe gave his opinion that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by the axe.Thus, we are of the view that on account of causing injuries by axe to the deceased he died.We have also given our anxious and bestowed consideration to the reasoning assigned by learned Judge and we find them to be quite cogent as they are based on proper appreciation of evidence.We shall now deal alternative submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that looking to the genesis of the occurrence at the most the case would rest under Section 304, Part I, IPC.On the contrary it has come in the evidence that both of them were coming together from Village Shivrajpur.The argument though at the first blush appears to be quite attractive, however, on deeper scrutiny we find the same to be devoid of any substance.True, there is no evidence on record that there was enmity between the parties.It is equally true that appellant and deceased both came together from Village Shivrajpur, it is also equally true that deceased was insisting appellant for the repayment of loan amount which was outstanding and at that juncture appellant picked-up an axe and dealt its blows on the person of the deceased.According to us, had there been no intention of appellant to kill the deceased, he would not have dealt repeated blows and that too on the vital organs of the body, like head, neck and face of the deceased.The blow on the head was so forceful on account of which not only the bone was cut, but brain matter also came out.Similarly the injury on the neck was also very severe as injury No. 6 was trachea deep.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,168,232 |
The prosecution case in brief is that on 6.4.1992 one Satyaveer Singh, S/o Parveen Singh, R/o village Haripur Milak, Police Station Asmauli, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad had given written complaint to S.P. Vigilance, Bareilly alleging that his and his brothers land is in the area of village Satpura and his Chak No.193 has been allotted and Chakbandi Akar Patra 23 has also been received by him.At the Western side of Chak No.193, Chak No.92 has been allotted to his father and his uncle.The said application was also got received on the same date to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer but till said date, no chak road has been allotted to him between the said two Chaks.The complainant on 6.4.1992 met accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer at his village Hajibeda and requested him to allot chak road to him then the Consolidation Officer demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- from him.The complainant expressed his helpnessess on which the Consolidation Officer told the complainant that he would not take less than Rs.1,000/- and if the said amount is given to him, then the chak road would be given to him failing which the same would not be given to him.The complainant was compelled to promise to pay Rs.1,000/- within 4-5 days to him though he did not want to pay the bribe but he wanted to get the said official caught red-handed.The complainant in his application had mentioned the number of all notes of rupees hundred denomination which is as follows:-The S.P. Vigilance Sri D.K. Sharma noted his comments on 7.4.1992 and sought necessary permission from the Director Vigilance on which the Additional Director, Vigilance on 7.4.1992 recommended the Secretary Vigilance for necessary permission on which the Secretary U.P. Lucknow on 7.4.1992 was granted the requisite permission for the same.In pursuance of which Sri D.K. Sharma, S.P. Vigilance directed the Inspector Vigilance Randhir Singh Chauhan to led down a trap.On 8.4.1992 a sealed envelop was received by Sri Randhir Singh Chauhan from the office of Vigilance Department, Bareilly.The complainant was also present in the said office.The Inspector had talked to the complainant in the office alone about the facts narrated in the complainant's application in which the complainant reiterated the facts.He has shown the notes of rupees hundred denomination to him which would be paid by him on 9.4.1992 to accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer at village Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad on a demand being made by him as a bribe which would be paid by the complainant to him.The Inspector got the number of the said notes tallied which were mentioned in the application of the complainant and the same were found to be correct.The said notes were returned to the complainant with an instruction that he would meet with the trap party in village Achauda Kamboh, police station Asmauli at 11 a.m.Aman Singh, the trap Inspector was also taken from his house who also proceeded with him.The complainant Satyaveer Singh also met with the trap party at the place of destination.The independent witness Jwala Prasad, S/o Ram Dayal and Charan Singh, S/o Bheem Singh, R/o village Haripur Milak, Police Station Asmauli told about the trap who gave their consent.The Inspector also got the number of the notes matched with the particulars mentioned in the application of the complainant which was found to be correct.On the notes Phenolphthalein powder was put and thereafter the same was returned to the complainant.Some water was also arranged through Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi which was poured in a glass and Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed in the said mixture.The Inspector had washed his both the hands in the mixture, the said mixture turned into Pink colour.The said mixture was kept in a bottle and sealed.Again the glass was washed and mixture was prepared and the said mixture, the right hand of the complainant was washed and the said mixture turned into Pink colour which was kept in a bottle which sealed.The said recovery was prepared as Ext. 12.10 p.m and the same was read and explained to the trap party.Thereafter the trap party reached at village Hajibeda.The complainant was sent to trace out the whereabout of Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and after some time, the complainant informed that the Consolidation Officer had gone in the office of Assistant Consolidation Officer and after some time, he would go to his residence for taking lunch.The trap party had hidden near a Primary School in the said village along with witnesses and waited for the Consolidation Officer who came towards North where the trap party was waiting.The complainant on meeting the accused Narendra Pal Singh, reiterated that he had given an application for allowing the Chak Road to him and on conversation, the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- from him and said if he gives the said money, his work would be done.Thereafter the complainant with his right hand gave Rs.1,000/- as a bribe to Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer who also took in his right hand and counted the same and assured the complainant that he should not worry on which the trap party along with the witnesses arrived and saw the incident and heard the conversation and apprehended the accused after giving their identity at 1.30 p.m. and took Rs.1,000/- from him which were notes of rupees hundred denomination.All the said notes were of Indian currency.The number of the notes were matched with the application which were found to be correct.The notes recovered and the accused was taken to the gallery of the house of Mahavir Singh where the trap party, independent witnesses and complainant were present.A glass of water was arranged by Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi in which Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed and the hands of Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer were washed and the said mixture turned into Pink colour and the sample of the said mixture was sealed in a bottle.Similarly after washing the said glass in the fresh water again, Sodium Carbonate powder was mixed and mixture was prepared in which the right hand of the complainant was also washed, the said mixture too turned into Pink colour, the said mixture was also sealed in another bottle.The accused Narendra Pal Singh was personally searched and a wrist watch, some personal belongings were also seized.The accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer of the area Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad was arrested informing about the offence.A fard recovery was prepared which was read to the witnesses, complainant and trap party and when the recovery memo of the recovered notes was asked by the trap party to be received by the accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer, then he refused to take it.Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.The Inspector of the Vigilance department Sri R.P. Mishra, Sri Netrapal Singh, Sri Rajpal Singh, Sri Vijendra Singh, Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Driver Harpal Singh were instructed that they would be present in the Vigilance department on 9.4.1992 at 6.30 a.m.On 9.4.1992, the trap party along with Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Harpal Singh proceeded on a Government Jeep No.9679 U.R.L with necessary items.Vijendra Singh and Rajpal Singh, Inspector were asked to bring the documents of the complainant Satyaveer Singh from the office of the Consolidation Officer, who brought the same and handed over to Inspector Randhir Singh Chauhan and the application dated 4.4.1992 along with an affidavit was found in it.Constable Dushyant Kumar Tyagi and Constable Driver were called for taking the accused.At about 2.45 p.m. in the noon Kamal Singh, S/o Jabar Singh, Mahavir Singh, S/o Umrao Singh, Karan Singh, S/o Umrao Singh, Janam Singh younger brother of Chran Singh, Mahipal Singh, S/o Chajju Singh, Master Peetam Singh, Ram Kumar Singh, village Pradhan, r/o village Hajibeda, Anil Kumar, S/o Peetam Singh, R/o Village Milak Nekpur, Khushiram, S/o Kharjan, R/o Nanadpur Beta, Nempal Singh, S/o Nand Singh, R/o Nekpur and Babu Ram, Kanoongo Chakbandi area Hajibeda and Hariom, S/o Ram Kumar, Village Hajibeda and 17-18 uknown persons gathered and reached at the house of Mahavir Singh came to the trap party and seen the said person.The accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer stated that the Vigilance people have apprehended him and he may be rescued by them as he had helped the said persons on which the said persons informed the trap party that the Consolidation Officer is the man and he may be freed and they would get the matter compromised with the complainant.The Inspector Randhir Singh Chauhan informed the said people that Narendra Pal Singh had caught red-handed while taking bribe of Rs.1,000/-, hence it is not possible for him to free and they would get him released on bail from the court concerned on which the said people became annoyed and started abusing to the trap party and threatened them of their lives and stated that they would see how the Consolation Officer is taken from there.The said persons told the said people not to interfere in the matter and not to take law in their hands as this is criminal offence but they did not pay any heed to the request of the trap party and assaulted them.They forcibly rescued the Narendra Pal Singh from the trap party who also tried to escape from the trap party.As the members of trap party were small in number and the people were in large number, they rescued the accused Narendra Pal Singh from the custody of trap party and he escaped from there.The said incident was witnessed by complainant Satyaveer Singh, witness Charan Singh and Jwala Prasad and other persons of the village Hajibeda.The FIR was registered against Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer under Section 7/13 (2) read with Section 13(1) D of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 224, 353 IPC and against other accused persons under Sections 147, 149, 186, 225, 353, 504, 506 IPC by Randhir Singh, The Vigilance Inspector.The charges were framed against the accused for the said offences by the trial court who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.The prosecution in support of it's case has produced P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan, Inspector, P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh (complainant), P.W.3 Charan Singh, P.W.4 Jwala Prasad, P.W.5 Ramesh Chandra.The accused Narendra Pal Singh in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C and rest accused persons denied the charges against them.The accused Narendra Pal Singh had submitted in his written statement before the trial court that the application given by the complainant against him is fabricated document and the allegation levelled is false, frivolous and baseless.He was neither arrested by the trap party nor he was given any copy of the recovery memo nor he was rescued by any one.The witnesses have falsely deposed against him.He submitted that he was implicated in the present case because of the party politics of the village.In his written statement, he has submitted that between November, 1990 to June, 1992, he was posted on the post of Consolidation Officer in village Hajibeda, Pargana and Tehsil Sambhal, Police Station Asmauli, district Moradabad.The complainant Satyaveer Singh had hatched conspiracy against him by moving a complaint on 6.4.1992 to the Vigilance Department alleging that Chak No.193 was allotted to him and his brother and to the Western side, Chak No.92 was allotted to his father and uncle and he has moved an application on 4.4.1992 in the office of Consolidation Officer, Hajibeda, Tehsil Sambhal with the prayer to allot the Chak Road in between the said two Chak and the said application was received by the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer.In this respect the complainant alleged that on 6.4.1992 he met the Consolidation Officer Narendra Pal Singh at his residence who demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe for allotting the Chak Road and promised to pay the said amount to him within 4-5 days after arranging the same.On the same day, the complainant had given a complaint to S.P. Vigilance on which a trap was arranged by the Vigilance team on 9.4.1992 against him.He submitted that the application dated 4.4.1992 moved by the complainant Satyaveer Singh and got the same received to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer as has been alleged was not moved before him nor he has taken cognizance on the said application and the said application was moved after one year for which there is no explanation for delay nor any affidavit was given along with it.The Chak No.193 and 92 with respect to other Chaks of the said village, publication was done prior 28.6.1991 under Section 23 of U.P. Consolidation Act. He has decided the objections on 28.6.1991 as a Consolidation Officer in which the said two Chaks' were also affected which belong to the complainant, his brother and his father and uncle.In pursuance of the said order, the revised extract was also issued under Section 23(3) of U.P. Consolidation Act, against the order passed by Consolidation Officer, an appeal was also filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation being appeal no.1390 of 1991 which was disposed of on 6.9.1991 in pursuance of which on the same day, the revised extract were issued after which the accused Narendra Pal Singh, the Consolidation Officer had no power to amend/revise the said Chaks.It was stated by him that the place where the Chak Road of Chak No.92 and 193 was allotted by the Assistant Consolidation Officer which is to the Southern side.As per the Consolidation Act and Chak Rules, there is a rule that the Chak Road are to be linked to the main route and as Chak No.92 and 193 were of father and son, both the Chaks' were allotted Chak Road for which the confirmation has also been done under Section 23(1)(3) of the Settlement Officer, Consolidation vide order dated 10.9.1991 and after it's confirmation, there was no power or authority to any Consolidation Officer or to the accused Narendra Pal Singh for making any amendment or give new Chak Road.He further submitted that after this there was no occasion for the accused to give the Chak Road to the complainant nor there was any question of demanding of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for the said purpose.He has denied the trap laid down on 9.4.1992 or his arrest or receiving of any amount from the complainant.The complainant was compelling the accused Narendra Pal Singh for doing an illegal act as he had refused due to which he was annoyed, hence the said illegal proceedings were initiated against him by the Vigilance Department on the application of the complainant.Against the acquittal, the learned trial court after scanning the evidence on record has acquitted the accused-respondents from the charges levelled against them and against the order of acquittal by the trial court, the State has preferred the instant appeal.Heard Sri Vikas Sahai, learned AGA for the State, Sri Ashutosh Pratap Singh and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the accused-appellants and perused the trial Court judgment and record.Learned AGA has argued that the acquittal of the accused-respondents by the trial court suffers from illegality on the ground that though the P.W.1 Randhir Singh Chauhan, the Trap Officer and the complainant P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh have supported the prosecution case against the accused-respondents but simply the independent witness of the trap party i.e. P.W.3 Charan Singh and P.W.4 Jwala Prasad have turned hostile, the prosecution case has been disbelieved by the trial court.He submitted that the defence evidence which has been adduced by accused Narendra Pal Singh in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and in his written submission goes to show that the trap which was led down against him appears to be misuse of process of law which was an illegal one and further the Chak Road which was being claimed by the complainant P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh in between the two Chaks' of his brother, father and uncle who moved an application on 6.4.1992 was not at all maintainable as the Chak which was allotted to them by the Assistant Consolidation Officer prior to 28.6.1991 after publication was made under the Consolidation Act and objections were invited prior to 28.6.1991 u/s 23 of the U.P. Consolidation Act and against the said order, an appeal was also preferred before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation and confirmation was also made by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 6.9.1991 and to say that the accused-respondent Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer has demanded Rs.1,000/- as a bribe for allotting Chak Road in between the two Chaks' of the complainant and his father is absolutely false one and Consolidation Officer had no right after the confirmation by the Settlement Officer, Consolidation on 6.9.1991 and the judgment and order passed by the trial court acquitting the accused-respondent Narendra Pal Singh and other accused persons from the charges levelled against them is absolutely legal and just in the eye of law and impugned judgment of the trial court does not suffer from any perversity which may require any interference by this Court and the present Government Appeal is liable to be dismissed by this Court.After having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it is apparent that the accused-respondent no.1 Narendra Pal Singh was the Consolidation Officer of Village Hajibeda,Tehsil Sambhal, district Moradabad and the allegations which has been levelled against him by P.W.2 Satyaveer Singh (complainant) that he demanded Rs.1,000/- for allotting the Chak Road between the two Chaks' i.e. Chak No.193 and 92 of the complainant, his brother and his father, uncle for which he had moved application on 4.4.1992 and the same was received on the said date to the Bench Secretary of the Consolidation Officer who told him that he would not be allotted the Chak Road for which he made complaint to the S.P. Vigilance, by moving application on 6.6.1992 in pursuance of which a required permission was also taken from the competent authority on 7.4.1992 and trap was laid down by the trap party on 9.4.1992 wherein it has been stated that the appellant was caught red-handed taking Rs.1,000/- as bribe for the said purpose from the complainant and while he was being taken by the trap party, 13 accused persons out of whom, one has died, had interfered in discharging the official duty of the trap party and got rescued the accused Narendra Pal Singh from the custody of the trap party, does not appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.The defence version which has been given by accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C and in his written submission that a publication has already been made prior to 28.6.1991 with respect to two Chaks' and other Chaks' of village Satpura and objections were invited prior to 28.6.1991 and the Consolidation Officer has passed an order on 28.6.1991 under Section 23 of U.P. Consolidation Act and against the said order of the Consolidation Officer, an appeal being appeal no.1390 of 1991 was also filed before the Settlement Officer, Consolidation which was decided on 6.9.1991 in pursuance of which a confirmation has been issued on 10.9.1991 under Section 23(1)(3) of U.P. Consolidation Act by the Settlement Officer with respect to two Chaks' and other Chaks' of the said village.It is further apparent that the two independent witnesses P.W.3 Charan Singh and P.W.4 Jwala Prasad have not supported the prosecution case laying trap against accused Narendra Pal Singh, Consolidation Officer and they have turned hostile.The learned trial judge was perfectly justified in passing the impugned judgment of acquittal.
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 504 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,251,789 |
ORDER Judgement pronounced by N.Dhinakar, J.The appellants are A.1 to A. 3 and A. 6 in S.C.No.125 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.They were tried along with two other accused, namely, A.4 and A.5 before the learned Sessions Judge.In this judgment, appellants A.1 to A.3 and A.6 as well as the acquitted accused A.4 and A.5 will be referred to as A.1 to A.6, as and when the context arises.P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased and P.Ws.6 and 7 are the employees of the deceased in a provision store run by him at Thiravanmiyur.A.1 to A.6 were the residents of Palavakkam Colony.The deceased was running a provision store in the name and style of "Sudha Stores" at Palavakkam Muttukkadu, Mahabalipuram Road.Behind the said shop, P.W.1 was residing with his wife along with his deceased brother.P.Ws.6 and 7 were also residing in the same house.At about 8.30 A.M. on 19.6.1988, the first and the second accused went to the provision store of the deceased and the first accused asked the deceased to lend him 5 kilos of rice.The deceased refused saying that he will not give rice unless he pays the old balance, since the first accused was already in arrears of payment of Rs.50 for the earlier purchase.The first and the second accused shouted at the deceased, pulled the shutter and threw the provisions on the road.P.Ws.1, 6 and 7 and the deceased asked them not to create a scene.They closed the shop and went to the house.The first and the second accused threatened the deceased that they will not allow him to run the shop unless the articles are lent to them.At about 8.30 P.M. on 19.6.1988, A.1 to A.6 rushed towards P.W.1, who was fetching water from a water tank and the first accused while asking P.W.1 as to whether he is the supporter of his brother, pushed him down and fisted on his face.P.W.1 ran towards the field, chased by A.1 to A.6, who could not succeed in catching him.At about 10.00 P.M, when the deceased and P.Ws.6 and 7 reached the Office of the City Water Supply at Palavakkam, A.1 to A.3 went there and the first accused stated "Here comes Jayakumar".Thereafter, the first accused took a casuarina stick which was lying nearby and caught hold of the shirt of the deceased and beat him with the stick.The second accused took an iron pipe from the workshop and similarly, the third accused took casuarina stick which was lying in front of the hotel, and beat him.P.Ws.6 and 7 saw the incident.A.1 to A.3 ran away from the scene.P.W.1 reached the scene and thereafter took the deceased to the police station at Thiruvanmiyur.At the police station, the deceased gave a statement to P.W.10, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station, which was reduced into writing, which standsmarked as Ex.The deceased and P.W.1 were sent to the Government Royapettah Hospital with a memo.On receiving the memo, P.W.9, the duty doctor at Government Royapettah Hospital examined P.W.1 at about 11.10 P.M. When questioned, P.W.1 told him that he was attacked by 20 known persons at about 8.30 PM.The deceased and P.W.1 returned to the house and went back to the hospital on the next day.The deceased was admitted into the hospital on the next day.P.W.10, the sub-Inspector of Police took up investigation in the case and reached the scene of occurrence at about 11.20 P.M. where he prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.14 and drew a rough sketch Ex.He also seized M.Os.5 to 7 under a Mahazar Ex.Margins are irregular.On dissection: contu-sion of left frontalis muscle seen over an area of 3 x 2 cms.On dissection: Sub dural haemorrhage seen all over the brain.Localised subarachnoid haemorrhage seen over the supra lateral surface of left frontal region present.Cut section: Multiple petehial haemorrhages seen within the substance of both hemispheres".He issued Ex.P.4, the Post-mortem Certificate with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to effects of head injuries.P.W.11, who was investigating the case, continued his investigation and questioned the witnesses and recorded their statements.The material objects were sent to the Court with a request to forward them for analysis and the Court by sending them obtained Ex.P.7, the report of the Chemical Analyst and Ex. P. 8, the Serologist's report.When questioned under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the accused have denied their complicity and pleaded innocence.According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 10.00 P.M. and it was witnessed by P.Ws.6 and7, the employees of the deceased Jayakumar.Both have in their evidence stated that when they were returning from the theatre at about 10.00 P.M. along with the deceased, the accused way laid them and attacked.Though the learned Sessions Judge framed four charges, he convicted A.1 and A.6 under charge No.2 for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to suffer rigorousimprisonment for a period of one year for causing simple injury to P.W.I, the brother of the deceased Jayakumar by fisting him on his face.A.1 to A.3 were also convicted for an offence under Section 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. on an allegation that they caused the death of Jayakumar, the brother of P.W. 1, by the fist accused beating him with a casuarina stick, M.O.5 and the second accused assaulting him with an iron pipe and the third accused beating him with a casuarina stick on the back of his chest and right hand.A.1 and A.6 were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence under Section 323, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and A.1 to A.3 were sentenced to imprisonment for life.Hence, the present appeal.On the basis of Ex.He found a contusion with abrasion on the right side of the face.He also examined the deceased Jayakumar and when questioned, the doctor was informed that he was attacked by three known persons with casuarina stick at about 9.30 P.M. On examination, two lacerations on the parietal area and multiple linear contusion on the back of shoulders were noticed.The doctor also noticed multiple contusions with abrasions on both the legs and arms.P.10 is a copy of the accident register in respect of the injuries noted by the doctor, P.W.9 on the deceased.He questioned and recorded the statements of the witnesses.He seized M.Os.1 to 3 under mahazar a Ex.In the meantime, the injured Jayakumar who was undergoing treatment died at 7.20 P.M. on 22.6.1988 and on receipt of the death intimation, Ex.P.2 from the Hospital, the crime was altered to one under Section 302, I.P.C. by preparing express reports.P.18 is the copy of the said express report.On receipt of the registration of a grave crime, P.W.11, the Circle Inspector of Police, took up investigation in the case and he visited the scene of occurrence by 9.30 A.M. He thereafter proceeded to the Government Royapettah Hospital, where he conducted inquest over the body of Jayakumar between 11.15 A.M. and 1.10P.M. on 22.6.1988, in the presence of panchayatdars, during which he questioned and recorded the Statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 6, 7 and others.A requisition was issued to conduct autopsy on the body of Jayakumar.On receipt of the requisition, P.W.4, the doctor attached to the Government Royapettah Hospital, conducted autopsy on the body of Jayakumar and found the following injuries:-Small irregular shaped abrasion over antere-lateral aspect of lower part of right leg 13 cms.above the right medial malleolus 0.5 x 0.4 cms.Small abrasion over lateral aspect of dorsum of root of right middle finger 0.5 x 0.25 cms.Small abrasion 2x1 cms.over dorsum of head of right radius.Small abrasion irregular in shape over lateral aspect of lower end of right arm 2 x 1 cm.Linear abrasion over postere-lateral aspect of right arm 3 cms.above the elbow joint 5 x 1 cm.Two linear paralled abrasions with contusion one below the other over the anterie lateral surface of lower third of left leg 3x2 cms.13 cms above the left ankle joint.On dissection: contusion of subcutaneous tissue seen underneath the abrasion.Irregular abrasion over anterior surface of middle third of left leg 4x3 cms.15 cms.above the left ankle joint.An irregular abrasion over the upper third of left leg 12 cms.below the patella.9. Abrasion over posterior lateral aspect of upper part of left arm 4x2 cms.Contusion over posterio-lateral aspect of upper part of left shoulder joint.On dissection: Bruising of subcutaneous tissue seen over an area of 1 x 2.5 cms.Sutured wound over the middle of right parietal region close to midline.On dissection: contusion of scalp tissue over the inter parietal region present 4x2 cms.Sutured wound over the right frontal region 15 cms above the medial end of right eyebrow.On dissection: contusion of scalp tissue present over an area of 3 x 2cms.Sutured wound over the left frontal region 7 cms.above the middle of left eyebrow 1 cm.It is their further case that immediately after the incident, an information was passed on to P.W.1 and thereafter, the deceased was removed to the police station, where the deceased gave the statement, Ex.A perusal of Ex.P.11 would show that the deceased had come out with a statement, wherein he had stated that when he was returning from the theatre with his employees, accused 1 to 3 beat him with sticks and when he fell down, he was beaten by six others.The deceased was sent to the hospital along with P.W.1 for treatment, since P.W.1 also sustained injuries at the hands of A.1 and A.6 at 8.30 P.M. on the said date.The duty doctor P.W.9 examined the deceased as well as P.W.1 and found the injuries as noted by him in the respective accident registers.Though it is the case of the prosecution that the deceased was attacked by A.1 to A. 3 and fatal injuries were caused by them, we are unable to find from the materials that the said fatal injuries were actually caused by A.1 to A.3, nor are we able to say that the accused had a common intention in causing the death of the deceased Jayakumar.A perusal of Ex.P.11 indicates that when he was returning from the theatre with his employees, the first accused saw him and immediately called A.2 and A.3 and told them "Here comes Jayakumar".It is the case of the deceased as put forth by him in Ex. P. 11 that accused 1 to 3 on seeing him took the casuarina stick which was lying nearby and beat him and when he fell down he was beaten by several others.There is no investigation by the investigating agency as to who are the persons who also joined A.1 to A.3 in beating the deceased.A perusal of Ex.P.11 does not also show that A.1 to A.3 intended to cause the death of the deceased Jayakumar by beating him on the vital parts.All that the deceased in his statement Ex.P.11 has stated is that he was beaten by A.1 to A. 3 and after he fell down, several others also beat him.This statement of course was improved by the prosecution through Ex.P.13, the statement of the deceased under Section 161 which according to the prosecution, came into existence within five minutes of Ex.Apart from the fact that it is impossible for the investigating agency to have recorded the statement of the deceased under Section 161, Cr.P.C. within five minutes of recording Ex.P.11, we are also not able to place any reliance upon Ex.P.13, since it is a an improvement on Ex.The deceased had no case as against A.1 that he beat him on his head.It is impossible for us to hold that within five months he had come out with a version implicating the first accused with the overt act of beating him on the head.We do not place any reliance on Ex.P.13 since the said statement also reached the court belatedly.The statement given in Ex.P.11 is supported by the evidence of the doctor, P.W.9 to whom it was stated that the deceased was beaten by three known persons.The doctor also noted the said statement in Ex.P.10, the copy of the accident register.The fact remains that the deceased was beaten not only by A.1 to A. 3 but also by several others, while he was returning from the theatre and there is no material before us to holdthat the particular injury which resulted in his death was caused by the first accused.There are also no materials on record to claim that the accused had any intention of causing the death of Jayakumar.Even according to the prosecution, the meeting between the accused and the deceased was a chance encounter, since the deceased was returning from the theatre and was seen by the accused on the road, and thereafter, they beat the deceased with sticks which were lying nearby.They did not cause any injury on any of the vital parts, as could be seen from Ex.One of the injuries which caused the death was on the head and there is no evidence as to who caused the said injury.In the case on hand, there is also no material to show that the accused shared a the common intention between themselves, and in the absence of any investigation as regards complicity of other persons mentioned in Ex.P.11, we find that accused 1 to 3 cannot be convicted under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction under the said Section.There is medical evidence to show that the deceased sustained fracture, on account of the beatings and on account of the injuries sustained by him.Therefore, we feel that accused 1 to 3 could only be convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. since they must have had the intention to cause grievous injuries when they beat him with casuarina sticks which were lying there.We accordingly, set aside the conviction of A.1 to A.3 under Section 302, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and, instead, they are convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and for the said conviction, each of them are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.Further, the said charge relates to an incident which took place at about 8.30 P.M. unconnected to the present prosecution case, which had taken place at about 10.00 P.M. This is a misjoinder of not only the charges but also the parties.We accordingly set aside the conviction and sentence of A.1 and A.6, under Section 323, read with Section 34, I.P.C.In the result, A.1 and A.6 are acquitted of the charges under Section 323, read with Section 34, I.P.C. A.1 to A.3 are convicted under Section 326, read with Section 34, I.P.C. and for the said conviction, they are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years.The appeal is disposed of with the modification in the conviction and sentence.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,180,508 |
ECTED In the matter of An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 21st June, 2016 in connection with Sabang Police Station Case No. 60 of 2016 dated 09.04.2016 under Sections 147/149/302/427/120B of the Indian Penal Code.And In the matter of : Uttam Kumar Karan ... Petitioner Mr. Md. Musharof Hossain .. for the Petitioner Mr. Manjit Singh, Learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Subir Banerjee For the State Apprehending arrest in connection with Sabang Police Station Case No. 60 of 2016 dated 09.04.2016 under Sections 147/149/302/427/120B of the Indian Penal Code, this application for anticipatory bail has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Samapti Chatterjee, J. ) 3 4
|
['Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,188,925 |
Item No. 69And In the matter of: Jalil Shaikh & Ors.- versus -State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Partha Pratim Das For the Petitioners Mr. Prantick Bose For the State The Petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Kandi Police Station Case No. 563 of 2012 dated 9.9.2012 under Sections 326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of Explosive Substance Act, have applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned Advocate for the State.In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Petitioner No.5, Dalim Shaikh, does not deserve to be granted anticipatory bail and hence, his prayer stands rejected.ED 5 However, we think that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, Jalil Shaikh, Sattar Shaikh, Sekender Shaikh, Sattar Shaikh, Anwar Shaikh and Sarful Shaikh is not required in this case.In these circumstances in the event of arrest, the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 Jalil Shaikh, Sattar Shaikh, Sekender Shaikh, Sattar Shaikh, Anwar Shaikh and Sarful Shaikh, shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of `5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) each with one surety each of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and on further condition that the Petitioner Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 shall report to the concerned Police Station twice a week until further orders.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J) ALLOWED 1 to 4, 6 & 7
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,192,881 |
This is first bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 25/16 registered under Sections 147, 148, 149-A, 307, 427 & 506 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at P.S. Daloda, Distt.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has not committed any offence.He has falsely been implicated.There is no allegation against the applicant for causing any injury to the injured.Co-accused/ Rinku has already been granted regular bail vide order dated 04/03/16 passed in M.Cr.Cross case under Section 307 of the IPC has also been registered against the complainant party.Compromise has taken place between the parties.There is no likelihood of his absconsion, hence, prayed for anticipatory bail.The prayer is opposed by learned Dy.GA for the respondent/State.Case-diary perused.Considering that there is no allegation against the applicant for causing any injury to the injured, cross case has also been registered against the complainant party, compromise has taken place between the parties, but without commenting on merit, I allow this application and it is directed that in the event of arrest applicant, namely, Mangilal be released on bail for the period of thirty days on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to abiding the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C.Applicant may apply for regular bail within a period of thirty days before the competent court.as per rules.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,251,929 |
420 read with section511 of814the Indian Penal Code and section 109 of the Indian PenalCode.The appellant's contentions are three-fold.First, thesection applies only to Government servants.Second, thewords "anything done or ordered to be done under this Act"in the section do not mean any act in violation of theprovisions of the Act. Third, the protection given toGovernment servants under the section is for actions doneinadvertently or mistakenly but not for acts donedeliberately and maliciously.It was therefore said thatthe prosecution of the respondents was no within themischief of the section.Gobind Das and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant.M. S. Narasimhan, for the respondents.The Judgment of the Court was deliveredRay, J. These two appeals are by special leave from thejudgment dated 21 November, 1968 of the High Court at Madrasdismissing the appeals filed by the appellant against theorder of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 30 November,1965 and the order of the Sessions Judge dated 16 November,1965 acquitting the respondents.The question which falls for consideration in these appealsis the interpretation of section 40(2) of the CentralExcises and Salt Act, 1944 hereinafter referred to forbrevity as the Section and the Act. The section is asfollows "No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall be instituted for anything done or ordered to be done under the Act after the expiration of six months from the accrual of the cause of action or from the date of the act or order complained of".The respondents in both the appeals were prosecuted forviolation of rules 9, 53, 64, 67, 68, 70, 71, 66 and 226 ofthe Central Excise Rules punishable under section 9(b) andThe respondents' contention on the other hand is that thesection applies to prosecution of the respondents forviolation of the provisions of the Rules and the Act. It isfurther said on behalf of the respondents that they wererightly acquitted by the High Court because the prosecutionwere instituted subsequent to the expiry of six months fromthe date of the alleged offences.The complaint was filed against accusedNo.who was the licencee of Paulraj Match Works,Nallichatram and accused No. 2 who was the accountant in thefactory and who had assisted accused No. 1 in themanufacture of matches and maintenance of accounts andrecords of the factory.The complaint against the accusedwho are respondents in this appeal was that on 25 July, 1964the accused being proprietor and accountant respectively ofPaulraj Match Works at Nallichatram were found to haveaffixed cut banderols and torn banderols to the matchesmanufactured in the said Match Factory with a view to evadethe payment of excise duty payable to the Government andthat the accused also attempted to deprive the Central Gov-ernment of Rs. 577.42 by their acts.The complaint againstthe accused was for violation of Rules 53, 64, 67, 68, 70,71, 66 and 226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable undersection 9(b) and (d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act,1944 and also under section 420 of the Indian Penal Coderead with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section109 of the Indian Penal Code.The further details of thecomplaint were that the register R.G.I. was not written outfrom 2 July, 1964 and R.G. 3 register was not correctlymaintained.There was also a shortage of 50 leaves ofbanderols in stock.In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the complaint was againstaccused No. the licencee of Meenachi Match Works andaccused No. 2 husband of accused No.. 1 who was running thefactory and maintaining accounts.The complaint against theaccused was that on 20 June, 1964 the Central Excise staffvisited the factory and found that the factory was workingat night.On inspection it was found that cut banderolsinstead of full banderols had been pasted on certainquantities of match boxes with a view to evade payment ofexcise duty in violation of rules 64, 68 and 70 of theCentral Excise Rules.The further allegations in thecomplaint were that on inspection of lorry despatches andclearances of the factory, it was found that during 1963-64and 1964-.65 upto 20 June, 1964 the licence- had actuallycleared without entry in the official Central Excise Recordsand without payment of duty a quantity of matches in excessof the quantity shown in the records.The complaint wasthat tile accused had attempted to deprive the CentralGovernment of Rs. 2437.50 being the Excise duty calculatedat the standard rate.The accused were alleged to havecommitted violation of Rules 9, 53, 64, 66, 67, 68, 70 and226 of the Central Excise Rules punishable under section9(b) and (d) of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 1944 andalso under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code read withsections 511 and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.In Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1969 the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate on 30 November, 1965 acquitted the accused of thecharges and held that the bar of limitation under thesection applied to the prosecution by the State.The State preferred an appeal to the HighCourt of Madras.The High Court held that the prosecutionmust fail as it was barred by limitation.The presentappeal is from the judgment of the High Court.In Criminal Appeal No. 195 of 1969 the Sub-DivisionalMagistrate on 6 July, 1965 found the respondents guilty.'rite respondents preferred an appeal to the Sessions Courtat Ramanathapuram.The Sessions Judge on 16 November, 1965set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted therespondents.The Sessions Judge held that the bar oflimitation under the section operated against the Statebecause the prosecution was commenced after the expiry ofprescribed period of limitation.The State preferred anappeal to the High Court.The High816Court maintained the judgment of the Sessions Judge.matches were found.Theprovisions of the Act require proper affixing of banderols.Cut or torn banderols were used.Unbanderolled match boxeswere found.These provisions about use of banderols are forcollection and payment of excise duty.The respondents didnot pay the lawful dues which are acts to be done or orderedto be done under the Act.The High Court was right in its conclusion that theprosecution was barred by the provisions of section 40 ofthe Act.The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed.Appeals dismissed.
|
['Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,251,932 |
The relationship of husband and wife between the parties is undisputed.Admittedly, the applicant married the respondent-Sara ma, according to Hindu rites.The case of the petitioner-wife before the learned Magistrate was that the opposite party-husband used to press her for fetching money from her father but her father being a poor man and unable to meet the demand, her husband and her in-laws used to torture her in various ways including physical assault, stoppage of supply of food, etc. At last on 26.9.1954 her husband assaulted her and took off her ornaments and left the house.Thereafter, on 1.11.1994 her in-laws picked up quarrel with her and drove her from her matrimonial house after physically assaulting her.During the investigation of the case by police her husband obtained her signature on a paper on the plea that a mutual settlement would be effected.She has since been living in her father's house with great hardship as she has no income of her own and her father being a poor man has no means to provide her maintenance.Her husband is a solvent person having landed properties and having a monthly income of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) from his engagement as a contractor, she has prayed for an order of maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- every month against the opposite party.The opposite party-husband filed a written petition denying all the material allegations and contending that the petitioner was a woman of loose character and had illicit connection with a young man, named, Aloke Halder of Gopal Nagar Village.On 21st May , 1994 she left her house taking away with him gold ornaments and good quality garments worth Rs. 2,000/-.The opposite party tried to take her back in vain.He then filed a complaint before the Court of S.D.J.M. on 4.6.1994 which was sent to the O.C., Kulpi P.S. under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.During investigation of that case the police officer-in-charge called both the parties to the P.S. on 8.12.1994 and got a deed of settlement executed by them.Both of them put their signatures thereon voluntarily.As per the terms of this compromise deed the opposite party was to provide maintenance to the wife up to 8.1.1995 on which date he would have to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner as maintenance for her whole life and also to return to her the furniture and utensils which her father gave to her as dowry during her marriage whereupon the marital ties between them would come to an end and all litigations filed by both would be withdrawn.JUDGMENT Malay Kumar Basu, J.This revision application is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1998 passed by Shri S. Bhattacharyya, S.D.J.M., Diamond Harbour in Misc.Case No. 46 of 1995/T.R. No. 379/1998 under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. By this order the learned S.D.J.M. allowed a maintenance petition under Section 125, Cr.P.C. filed by Sarama Halder (wife of the present revisional applicant) and directed the revisional applicant (opposite party in that case) to pay maintenance to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 400/- per month.In this revisional application the appellant/husband has prayed for an order setting aside the impugned order of the S.D.J.M. on the ground that the same is illegal and unsustainable.Since then she had been living in her father's house.Thereafter, on 28.12.1994 she filed a complaint against her husband and in-laws under Section 498-A, I.P.C. before the Court of S.D.J.M. who sent it to police under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.Accordingly, the petitioner-wife came to the house of the opposite party to live with him again, but before expiry of the above date, on 31.12.1994, the father of the petitioner took the petitioner from the house of the opposite party after giving a written undertaking.As per the said deed of mutual compromise, the opposite party deposited cash of Rs. 10,000/- and various other articles as per the agreement before the O.C., Kulpi P.S. on 11.1.1995 and the O.C. gave a receipt to the opposite party after receiving the same.But even after this the petitioner-wife filed this false petition for maintenance dated 31.1.1995 and also a criminal case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. The petitioner had no problem regarding her maintenance since she was living with the said Aloke Halder whereas the opposite party's financial condition was not at all good as he used to earn his livelihood as a day labourer and under all these circumstances the maintenance petition was liable to be dismissed.After taking evidence of both the parties and hearing arguments and considering all the materials on record, the learned Magistrate has found that opposite party-husband is not to be blamed alone and both the parties have responsibility in the matter of the differences of opinion and disunion cropping up between the two, but however, according to him since under the law it is the duty of the husband to maintain his legally married wife till she is remarried by any other person after being divorced, the learned Magistrate has held him liable to pay on account of his wife's maintenance a sum of Rs. 400/- every month.Being aggrieved by these findings of the learned Magistrate, the opposite, party-husband has preferred the present revisional application challenging the same as erroneous and liable to be set aside.The learned Advocate for the revisional appellant-husband has contended that the respondent-wife cannot be entitled to get any maintenance on the ground that from the very beginning of their married life she did not maintain the conjugal life properly and without intimating to him she frequently left her matrimonial home, so that the husband became compelled to lodge diaries in the Kulpi P.S. against her (vide diaries dated 10th January 1993; 2nd December, 1993; 2nd May, 1994; 21st May, 1994, and 2nd June, 1994).Secondly, the husband lodged a complaint before the Court of S.D.J.M., Diamond Harbour on4th June, 1994 which was sent to police for investigation report under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and during that investigation a mutual settlement was effected between the parties at the instance of the police officer and in consequence thereof there was an agreement for mutual divorce between them and in consideration of that the husband-applicant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards the life-long maintenance of the wife in addition to other articles like the utensils, etc. and further the father of the respondent-wife gave a letter of promise to the effect that his daughter would leave her matrimonial home for good and in pursuance thereof he took her away from the matrimonial home.Thirdly, according to learned Advocate for the revisional applicant, an affidavit in respect of the said mutual divorce was affirmed before the Notary Public, Diamond Harbour and the wife received a sum of Rs. 15,000/- on account of her life-long maintenance and after accepting that money she cannot be entitled to any further maintenance.Admittedly, the respondent is the legally married wife of the revisional applicant.Admittedly, also she has since been living in her father's house.But, it has to be noted that such allegations of the husband against the wife have not been sustained.In his examination-in-chief he appears to have overzealously stated that his wife was having illicit connection with local boys, although in his written objection it is his definite case that she had such relationship with one particular person named Aloke Halder.This sort of exaggeration highlights his disregard for truth and lack of bona fides.He has further stated in his examination-in-chief that on 21.5.1994 in the morning his wife went away from his house taking cash, gold ornaments, sarees, etc. and he searched for her in many places and finally found her with one Aloke Halder at Atpara under Usti P.S. when he tried to persuade her to come back with him, but the relations of Sarama were about to man-handle him and he henced fled away.From this one is not convinced that the charge of her having illicit connection with Aloke Halder has been brought home in the least.In the first place, to simply find Sarama with Aloke Halder does not necessarily suggest that she was having illicit connection with him.The opposite party-1 has not made any whisper about the manner in which Sarama was found with Aloke Halder or about any further details touching their relationship.The mere fact that the said Aloke Halder was present where Sarama was found along-with her other relations cannot be an index of or cannot lead us to conclude that there was any sexual relationship between the two.It is hard to believe that relations of Sarama who were present there and were about to assault him physically as alleged by him would allow Sarama to develop illicit connections with another man in their presence.Secondly, not a single person either interested or disinterested, is coming to support such a story of the revisional applicant-husband levelling allegations touching the moral character of his wife.Thirdly, it does not seem to be at all probable or likely, regard being had to the ordinary course of human behavior, that being a husband and after seeing his wife having illicit relationship with another / man he would remain so unperturbed as to try to persuade her to come back with him just after he discovered such disconcerting facts as alleged.As per this settlement the husband was to return to her the articles (as listed) which he received as marriage gifts plus cash of rupees ten thousand and also to provide maintenance to her up to 8th January, 1995 and thereupon the marital tie between them would come to an end.In support of this story the husband filed before the learned Magistrate the alleged Deed of Settlement which has been marked as Exbt.-B without any objection.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,193,403 |
The offence is triable by Magistrate.Due to prevailing Covid-19 situation, trial is not likely to conclude early in the near future.Heard through Video Conferencing.His first application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 30.07.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 23205/2020 and his second bail application was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 10.09.2020 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 30733/2020 with liberty to revive the prayer after six weeks.It is also alleged that while officials were performing duties, they were obstructed and the applicant alongwith the co-accused and others had pelted stones and caused damage to the public property viz., police vehicle etc. Accordingly, case has been registered against the applicant as mentioned above.Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated.In the panchnama prepared on 19.06.2020, the name of Vikas Patel, Ritesh Patwari and the driver Raja were mentioned.Under such circumstances the prayer for grant of bail may be considered on such terms and conditions as this Court deems fit and proper.(ii) (a) the applicant shall submit the original demand draft alongwith copy of the order passed today through his counsel before the Principal Registrar of this Bench, for keeping the same in his safe custody.(ii) (b) as and when directed, the Principal Registrar shall seek instructions/directions through PUD from this Court for handing over the demand draft to the concerned authority in that behalf.(ii)(c) the Registry is directed to accept the original demand draft without mentioning the account number therein.The Collector, Indore is also directed to maintain a separate account (for production of the record as and when directed for).(iv) the applicant shall mark his presence before the concerned police station on every 2 n d and 4 th Saturday between 10.00 AM to 12.00 Noon till pendency of the trial.(v) the applicant shall submit an attested photocopy of the receipt before the Principal Registrar of this Bench, for placing the same on record o f this case.The Principal Registrar shall produce the same as and when required by this Court in the form of PUD.If not, the applicant shall be released on bail in terms of the conditions imposed in this order and shall also be given pass or permit for movement to reach his place of residence;(viii) violation of conditions, State is free to apply for cancellation of bail.Learned Panel Lawyer is directed to send an e-copy of this order to all the concerned including the concerned Station House Officer of the Police Station for information and necessary action.Registry is directed to send an e-copy of this order to the Court concerned for necessary compliance.E-certified copy as per rules.(ROHIT ARYA) JUDGE sh SEHAR Digitally signed by SEHAR HASEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH INDORE, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH HASEE INDORE, postalCode=452001, st=Madhya Pradesh, 2.5.4.20=900ec6fc757798eaeb3df7a3286 0bd3298415a4d1c2d91436213f2568c8f2 7da, serialNumber=e7dbba955b262c04b8413 N 251ce7fb6f0b7dba610c57f1559c08bf6c6 f5dd40d4, cn=SEHAR HASEEN Date: 2020.11.03 12:43:14 +05'30'
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 336 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,195,692 |
(a) The plaintiff and defendants 4 to 8 in C.S.No.339 of 1999 were running a partnership firm under the name and style of M/s.The partnership firm is arrayed as the third defendant in the suit.The partnership firm borrowed an amount of Rs.25 lakhs from the first defendant viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., and the first defendant granted the loan.(b) The partnership firm also borrowed a further amount of Rs.4,75,00,000/- from the first defendant.(c) The loan amounts were repayable with interest at 24% p.a., within a period of one year.But, the amount was not repaid.(d) On 12.7.1997, the first defendant issued a lawyer's notice, demanding a sum of Rs.6,34,46,170/-, allegedly due both on the simple mortgage loan and under the second loan agreement.(e) The notice also indicated that if the borrowers failed to repay the money, the first defendant would exercise the power conferred by the deed of simple mortgage to bring the property to sale by public auction.(f) On 14.8.1997, an auction notice was issued by the first defendant (mortgagee) through the second defendant, who are registered auctioneers.(g) Immediately the third firm (borrower) filed a suit through the fifth defendant in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, seeking a declaration that some of the sub-clauses of clause-7 of the deed of simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 were null and void and also for a permanent injunction to restrain the mortgagee and the auctioneer (defendants 1 and 2) from bringing the property to sale.The plaintiff is prepared to pay the said amount of the redemption of the simple mortgage.The plaintiff reserves his right under Order II, Rule 2, CPC, to redeem the equitable mortgage at a later date.(r) In the light of the above averments, the plaintiff A.Arunagiri, who was one of the partners and who allegedly retired under the Deed of Admission-cum-Retirement dated 01.4.1998 has sought the following reliefs in C.S.No.339 of 1999:-The averments contained in the plaint in C.S.No.995 of 1999 in brief, are as follows:-(a) The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the land with superstructures located at No.91, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18, measuring an extent of about 39 grounds.(i) As on date, the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.4.69 crores leaving a balance of Rs.31 lakhs on the principal.But the second defendant claimed a sum of Rs.7 crores.11 persons participated in the auction.Out of them, only 5 persons bid in the auction.(o) Though reputed builders were present, rowdy elements and political personalities prevented them from bidding in the auction.(s) The successful bidder did not deposit 25% of the purchase money on the spot, he gave two cheques which constitute only future payment.Additionally, the plaintiff claimed in the amended plaint that the former Chairman of the second defendant-Society Mr.N.P.V.Ramasamy Udaiyar took a bribe of Rs.10 lakhs for sanctioning the loan amount of Rs.5 crores.(b) On 16.6.1995, the plaintiff firm represented by six of its partners by name K.Balasikhamani, A.Arunagiri, N.Amaravathi, M.K.Ayyanar, A.Muthulingam and B.Sudha, sought a loan of Rs.5 crores, on the mortgage of the suit schedule property.(c) The loan was sanctioned and an agreement was entered into on 01.8.1995 between the plaintiff and the second defendant.(d) At the request of the plaintiff and its partners, the second defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 crores to the third defendant.In the loan agreement dated 01.8.1995, the borrower agreed to execute a demand promissory note, to execute a deed of simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs with power of sale without the intervention of the Court and to create an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the balance loan amount of Rs.4,75,00,000/-.(e) Under the loan agreement, the firm also agreed to execute an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the second defendant enabling them to sell the mortgaged property for the realisation of the dues, in respect of the loan of Rs.4,75,00,000/-.(f) Under Clause 18 of the loan agreement dated 01.8.1995, the plaintiff agreed to redeem the simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs only after satisfaction in full of all the amounts due and outstanding under the equitable mortgage.They are also not made parties to the suit.The second and third defendants, after ascertaining the guideline value, fixed the upset price at Rs.19 crores at the rate of Rs.50 lakhs per ground for 39 grounds.Therefore, the bid actually started from the said amount of Rs.19 crores.But there was no response.Therefore, the rate was reduced to Rs.25 lakhs per ground.Even then there were no offers.Therefore, the rate was gradually reduced and eventually, it touched Rs.10 lakhs per ground.The value came down also on account of the slump in the real estate market at that time.In any case, the guideline valuation is not to be taken as a perfect substitute for the market price.Promissory notes were also executed by the plaintiff and the interest was prescribed as 24% simple interest.(f) The plaintiff also executed a power of attorney dated 01.8.1995 in favour of the first defendant, authorising them to sell the mortgaged property.But it was unregistered.(g) On the same day viz., 01.8.1995, a loan agreement was also entered into, setting out the terms for the grant of a loan of Rs.5 crores.(ah) The defendants 1 and 3 appear to have submitted an application under Section 269-UC of the Income Tax Act, for the grant of a No Objection Certificate.Since the amount fetched in the auction is less than 50% of the guideline value, the Central Government may in all probability purchased the property.(ai) On the basis of the above averments, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:-"(i) To pass an order of redemption of the simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 executed by the plaintiff firm M/s.Ramu & Co., in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., (first defendant herein) for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs.(e) Under the Koorchit, the plaintiffs in these two suits were each allotted the land of an extent of 4 grounds and 1,541 sq. ft.What was so allotted is described in plaint schedule 'B' and also marked 'D' and 'B' respectively in the plan attached to the Koorchit.(f) Ever since the partition, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of their respective holdings of 4 grounds and 1,541 sq. ft.(g) Based on the Koorchit dated 27.5.1989, the plaintiffs made representations to the Competent Authority under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act. The Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax passed assessment orders in Form 5-G on 17.01.1994 and the plaintiffs paid urban land tax for the plaint 'B' schedule properties.At the time of retirement, they had executed a power of attorney in favour of K.Balasikhamani, the then Managing Director.(i) The plaintiffs happened to see a circular dated 02.5.2001 issued by an Advocate by name Sathya Rao, inviting offers for the sale of plaint 'A' schedule property.Since the second defendant did not have the authority to sell the plaint 'A' schedule property, the plaintiffs made enquiries and came to know about the sale made in a public auction by the first defendant as a mortgagee, in favour of the third defendant.The plaintiffs also came to know about the money borrowed and the mortgage created."Tr.C.S.No.2 of 2003:(i) For a declaration to declare that the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 31.7.1995 executed by the second defendant M/s.Ramu & Co., represented by its partners in favour of the first defendant, the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., and registered as Doc.No.1987/1995 with Sub Registrar Office, Mylapore, covering the Plaint Schedule 'A' property unauthorisedly and illegally including therein the plaintiff's property is illegal, null and void and non-enforceable.(ii) For a declaration to declare that the auction sale conducted by the first defendant on 13.12.1999 in favour of the third defendant in respect of the plaint schedule 'A' property illegally and unauthorisedly including the plaintiff's plaint schedule 'B' (marked 'D' in Koorchit) property is illegal and null and void.(7) Whether any bungling has taken place in the auction sale ?(8) Is the alleged partition of the mortgaged property in favour of G.Anbazhagan and A.Thayumanaguru (plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003) is true and valid and if so, does the same affect mortgage interests of the Egmore Benefit Society Limited in that property ?His immediate answer was that he had to verify the records.The plaintiffs are not parties to the loan transaction, as they had retired from the partnership even before.The property became vested with the firm absolutely and they had created a mortgage, which the mortgagee attempted to enforce.The first of them was by the continuing partner and the second was by the firm.The third suit was filed in the year 2001 by the partnership firm.In the first suit, C.S.No.339 of 1999, filed by the continuing partner, he has claimed in paragraph 4 of the plaint that he and the defendants 4 to 8 in C.S.No.339 of 1999 approached the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., for a loan and that the same was sanctioned.A: Yes.Q: Arunagiri is wrong in saying that you do not have power to retire him from the partnership firm, Ramu & Co.?A: Yes.Q: Why did you retire Arunagiri and the other partners from the firm by using Ex.D5-power of attorney?A: It was due to exigency of the business.Q: What was the business exigency that prompted you to retire him?A: It was an arrangement between the remaining partners and the retiring partners.It was signed by five persons, namely, PW1, his wife, his mother and two daughters.The loan was sanctioned and the plaintiffs admittedly executed several documents.It was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar, Mylapore.Paragraph 8 of Ex.The borrower firm also executed a memorandum on 01.8.1995, filed as Ex.When law gives several options to a person, one of which carrying an incidence of tax/duty and another not carrying such an incidence, it is up to that person to choose any one of the two options.(ii) No upset price was fixed in the auction notice Ex.It must be remembered that the public notice dated 3.12.1999/4.12.1999 published in the newspapers, was the third or the fourth successive notice of auction.For Plaintiffs : Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, S.C.For Mr.For Mr.For Mr.K.HarishankarC O M M O N J U D G M E N T C.S.No.339 of 1999 is a suit filed by an individual for redemption of a simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 created by a partnership firm by name M/s.Ramu & Co., which is the third defendant in the suit, in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., which is the first defendant in the suit and for various other reliefs.2. C.S.No.995 of 1999 is a suit filed by the mortgagor, which is a partnership firm by name M/s.Ramu & Co., seeking a declaration that there was no concluded contract of sale between the mortgagee viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., which is the second defendant in the suit and the auction purchaser, who is the first defendant in the suit.3. C.S.No.551 of 2001 is a suit filed by the partnership firm (mortgagor) for redemption of simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 created by the plaintiff firm in favour of the first defendant viz., the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., and for other reliefs.C.S.No.2 of 2003 and Tr.C.S.No.3 of 2003 are suits filed by the erstwhile partners of the mortgagor firm, for declaration that the mortgage created by the partnership firm viz., Ramu & Co., in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., is null and void and for a consequential declaration that the auction sale conducted by the mortgagee on 13.12.1999 also is null and void.In effect, there are actually two suits for redemption of mortgage, one filed by an individual who ceased to be a partner of the mortgagor firm and another filed by the mortgagor firm itself.There is one suit by the mortgagor firm for declaring the auction sale already held, to be null and void.The other two suits are by the erstwhile partners of the firm (mortgagor), seeking a declaration that the very creation of the mortgage by the firm, was null and void.Since two suits are by the borrower partnership firm and the other 3 suits are by the erstwhile partners of the firm, seeking various reliefs that actually revolve around the creation of a mortgage and the sale of the mortgaged property by the mortgagee, all the 5 suits were grouped together for joint trial, one set of issues was framed in common for all the 5 suits, evidence was let in common and hence, all the 5 suits are disposed of together by a common judgment.The first three suits C.S.Nos.339 & 995 of 1999 and 551 of 2001 fall under one category and the other two suits Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 fall under a different category.However, I shall extract the pleadings and the reliefs sought in each of the five suits separately, before plunging into the discussion in common.Pleadings in C.S.No.339 of 1999:The averments contained in the plaint in C.S.No.339 of 1999 in brief, are as follows:-Along with the suit, an application for temporary injunction was also made in I.A.No.16406 of 1997 to stall the auction.(h) On 03.9.1997, the City Civil Court granted an injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from auctioning the property subject to the condition that the firm should deposit Rs.7 lakhs.The condition was complied with and the interim order was extended from time to time.(i) Challenging the extension of the interim order of injunction from time to time, the first defendant (mortgagee) filed a civil revision petition in CRP No.1999 of 1998 on the file of this Court.In the civil revision petition, this Court granted an interim suspension of the order of injunction.When the firm filed a vacate stay petition in the civil revision petition, this Court passed an order on 30.01.1999, directing the firm to deposit a sum of Rs.8.40 crores, on or before 30.4.1999, with a condition that the stay of auction will stand vacated if the condition was not complied with.(j) The borrower firm filed an application for extension of time.(k) The third defendant firm filed a second suit in O.S.No.7480 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that the Power of Attorney allegedly executed on 01.8.1995 was null and void.The undertaking was given by the fourth defendant, fifth defendant and defendants 9 to 11, on the basis of a Deed of Admission-cum-Retirement, dated 01.4.1998, by which the plaintiff and the defendants 6 to 8 retired from the firm and defendants 9 to 11 were inducted in their place.(o) The undertaking given by the erstwhile Managing Partner and the newly inducted Partners was contrary to Sections 19(2)(c) and (e) as well as Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, CPC and Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act."(i) To pass an order of redemption of the simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 executed by the partnership firm M/s.Ramu & Co., (the third defendant) in favour of the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., (first defendant herein) for a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs.(ii) To declare the Admission-cum-Retirement Deed of partnership dated 1.4.1998 is null and void.(iii) To declare the affidavit of undertaking filed in CRP No.1999 of 1998 by the fourth and fifth defendants along with the defendants Nos.9, 10 and 11 and the consent order passed on 30.1.1999 in CRP No.1999 of 1998 based on the above undertaking are not binding on the plaintiff.(iv) To declare that the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., Madras-600 084, the first defendant herein, has no right of alienation by private sale invoking Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act in respect of the loan covered under the equitable mortgage deed dated 1.8.1995 except of recovery of the dues by regular suit in accordance with law.(v) To grant decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2, their men or agents from in any manner bringing the suit schedule property for sale in public auction pursuant to the auction notice dated 10.5.1999 published in the Daily Thanthi and The Hindu news papers on 31.5.1999 or at any time in future by any other means and pass such further or other orders.(vi) Direct the defendants herein to pay the costs of this suit.(vii) Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice."The averments contained therein can be summarised as follows:-(a) At the request of the third defendant firm and its partners, the first defendant sanctioned a loan of Rs.5 crores to the third defendant.In the loan agreement dated 01.8.1995, the borrower agreed to execute a demand promissory note, to execute a deed of simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs with power of sale without the intervention of the Court and to create an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of the balance loan amount of Rs.4,75,00,000/-.(b) Under the loan agreement, the firm also agreed to execute an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the first defendant enabling them to sell the mortgaged property for the realisation of the dues, in respect of the loan of Rs.4,75,00,000/-.(c) Under Clause 18 of the loan agreement dated 01.8.1995, the third defendant agreed to redeem the simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs only after satisfaction in full of all the amounts due and outstanding under the equitable mortgage.Under Clause 17, the first defendant had the right to appropriate all monies paid by the third defendant in the order of priorities to be decided at the sole discretion of the first defendant.(d) Under the loan agreement, it was also agreed that while the loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs secured by the registered mortgage was to be repaid on or before 31.7.1996, the amount due under the equitable mortgage was repayable on demand.(f) The third defendant also deposited on 01.8.1995 at the Office of the first defendant, all title deeds of the suit schedule property with the intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.(g) The third defendant availed the loan amount of Rs.5 crores, but defaulted in payment of the principal as well as interest.Therefore, a legal notice dated 12.7.1997 was issued, calling upon the third defendant to pay an amount of Rs.6,34,46,170/- due as on 30.6.1997 together with future interest.(h) To the said notice, all the partners of the firm, including the plaintiff, sent a reply on 30.7.1997, undertaking to clear the dues and requesting the first defendant to give time.But, they did not make any payment.Therefore, the first defendant engaged an auctioneer, who is the second defendant, to sell the property and the second defendant issued a letter dated 14.8.1997, informing the third defendant of the proposed legal action.(i) Thereafter the third defendant issued a letter dated 22.8.1997, proposing to cancel and revoke the power of attorney dated 01.8.1995 executed by the third defendant, authorising the first defendant to sell the mortgaged property.The first defendant issued a reply on 02.9.1997 pointing out that the power was coupled with interest and that it could not be revoked unilaterally.(j) After the exchange of these notices, the third defendant filed a suit on 01.9.1997 in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause 7 of the mortgage deed was null and void and opposed to public policy.(k) In the suit, the third defendant obtained an interim order of injunction in I.A.No.16406 of 1997 on 03.9.1997, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from proceeding with the auction.(l) After obtaining the injunction, the third defendant issued another letter dated 18.10.1997, taking a contradictory stand to the effect that no power of attorney was executed.This letter was also suitably replied to by the first defendant.(m) Thereafter the third defendant filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.7480 of 1997 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for declaration that the power of attorney was null and void and for a consequential injunction.(n) Since the application for injunction in I.A.No.16406 of 1997 in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 was getting postponed from time to time with the third defendant moving applications for reopening arguments and for amending the plaint and also due to certain unpleasant events that happened, the first defendant moved a civil revision petition in CRP No.1999 of 1998 on the file of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.(o) On 30.7.1998, this Court ordered notice of motion in the civil revision petition and granted the stay of further proceedings in the suit and also summoned the records from the City Civil Court, as there were allegations of tampering of records.(r) There was also a default clause to the effect that if the third defendant defaulted in payment, the first defendant would not only be entitled to proceed with the auction sale, but also with the waiver of over due interest would go.(s) The third defendant filed an affidavit of undertaking on 30.01.1999 to the said effect.On the basis of the said undertaking, this Court disposed of the civil revision petition.(t) When the affidavit of undertaking was filed, the first defendant pointed out that at the time of availing of the loan, the defendants 9 to 11 were not partners and that only the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 8 were the partners.(u) But the third defendant agreed at that time to produce the evidence of reconstitution of the partnership.On the basis of the said assurance, the civil revision petition was disposed of, recording the affidavit of undertaking.(v) After filing an affidavit of undertaking and securing an order, the third defendant filed a special leave petition in SLP(Civil) No.6491 of 1999 on the file of the Supreme Court.(w) After withdrawing the Special Leave Petition, the third defendant filed an application in CMP No.7283 of 1999 in CRP No.1999 of 1998 praying for extension of time by six months to discharge the entire debts.(y) In view of the above, the default clause came into force and the first defendant took steps to bring the property to sale.At that time, the third defendant sent Rs.25 lakhs by way of a demand draft, claiming as though it was in full quits of the simple mortgage loan.Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act, enables the parties to incorporate any condition, to be complied with, before seeking the redemption of a simple mortgage.(aa) The power of attorney executed on 01.8.1995, by the fourth defendant, who was the authorised representative of the third defendant, was validly executed.(ac) As regards the power of attorney, the plaintiff has made contradictory statements.First, he had claimed in O.S.No.7480 of 1997 that the same was executed under threat and undue influence.But, now, he has taken a different stand.(ad) The first defendant has the right to appropriate all amounts paid by the third defendant, towards the loan that was secured by the equitable mortgage.(af) The allegation of collusion between the first defendant and the fourth defendant, to retire the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 from the partnership, is cooked up for the purpose of this case.(aj) Moreover, in the application for extension of time in CMP No.7283 of 1999 in CRP No.1999 of 1998, the third defendant pleaded and produced an agreement dated 28.01.1999 entered into with a foreign investment company.Moreover, that agreement contains the signature of the ninth defendant, confirming thereby that the reconstitution was true and valid.(ak) Order XXIII, Rule 3-A of CPC bars a suit to set aside a decree on the ground that the compromise forming the basis for the decree was not lawful.(an) Since the firm itself had already instituted two suits, in O.S.Nos.6201 and 7480 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court on the same cause of action, without seeking redemption and without obtaining leave under Order II, Rule 2, CPC, the above suit is liable to be dismissed.(ao) In any case, the plaintiff had intentionally omitted to include the portion of the loan secured by equitable mortgage.Therefore, he has forfeited the right to seek the relief in the present suit.(ap) The order dated 30.01.1999 in CRP No.1999 of 1998 had attained finality.Therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek to reopen the very same issue and re-agitate the same.(c) On 01.8.1995, the plaintiff also executed an equitable mortgage by way of a Memorandum of deposit of title deeds in respect of the very same property in favour of the second defendant for a sum of Rs.4.75 crores borrowed by them.(d) On 14.8.1997, the second defendant issued a notice through the third defendant, an auctioneer, threatening to sell the property in public auction, for the default committed in repayment of the loan.(e) Upon receipt of the notice, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court, along with an application in I.A.No.16406 of 1997, seeking an interim injunction.(f) An interim injunction was granted by the City Civil Court on condition that the plaintiff deposits Rs.7 lakhs.The conditional order was complied with.(h) On 30.01.1999, the civil revision petition was disposed of on the basis of an affidavit of undertaking executed by some partners of the plaintiff to the effect that an amount of Rs.8.40 crores would be paid on or before 30.4.1999, failing which the second defendant would be entitled to sell the property.(p) Though the highest bidder was required to deposit 25% of the bid amount on the spot, the representative of the first defendant handed over two cheques, one for Rs.1.50 crores and another for Rs.74 lakhs.(q) These two amounts together with the cash deposit of Rs.1 lakh made before the commencement of the auction, totalled to Rs.2.25 crores.(r) The auction sale held on 13.12.1999 is illegal and liable to be set aside for various reasons viz., (a) genuine bidders were prevented from participating and the advertisements did not contain the upset price or reserve price or estimate price.The plaintiff claimed that out of the said illegal gratification money, a sum of Rs.5 lakhs was received by N.P.V.Ramasamy Udaiyar in cash and that the balance of Rs.5 lakhs was paid by way of cheque to the wife of Mr.The plaintiff claimed that, by a letter dated 11.10.2000, they brought this factum of receipt of illegal gratification to the notice of the second defendant.In response, it was claimed by Mrs.R.Kamalam that the amount received by her was for some other transaction.The second defendant filed a written statement contending as follows:-(a) The plaintiff is not a registered partnership firm ands hence there is a bar for the institution of the suit, as per Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 read with Order XXX, Rules 1 and 2 CPC.Under Clause 17, the second defendant had the right to appropriate all monies paid by the plaintiff in the order of priorities to be decided at the sole discretion of the second defendant.(g) Under the loan agreement, it was also agreed that while the loan amount of Rs.25 lakhs secured by the registered mortgage was to be repaid on or before 31.7.1996, the amount due under the equitable mortgage was repayable on demand.(i) The plaintiff also deposited on 01.8.1995 at the Office of the second defendant, all title deeds of the suit schedule property with the intention to create equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.(j) The plaintiff availed the loan amount of Rs.5 crores, but defaulted in payment of the principal as well as interest.Therefore, a legal notice dated 12.7.1997 was issued, calling upon the plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.6,34,46,170/- due as on 30.6.1997 together with future interest.(k) To the said notice, all the partners of the firm, including the plaintiff, sent a reply on 30.7.1997, undertaking to clear the dues and requesting the second defendant to give time.But they did not make any payment.Therefore, the second defendant engaged an auctioneer, who is the third defendant, to sell the property and the third defendant issued a letter dated 14.8.1997, informing the third defendant of the proposed legal action.(l) Thereafter the third defendant issued a letter dated 22.8.1997, proposing to cancel and revoke the power of attorney dated 31.7.1995 executed by the third defendant, authorising the first defendant to sell the mortgaged property.The first defendant issued a reply on 02.9.1997 pointing out that the power was coupled with interest and that it could not be revoked unilaterally.(m) After the exchange of these notices, the third defendant filed a suit on 01.9.1997 in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for a declaration that sub-clauses (ii) and (iii) of clause 7 of the mortgage deed was null and void and opposed to public policy.(n) In the suit, the third defendant obtained an interim order of injunction in I.A.No.16406 of 1997 on 03.9.199, restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from proceeding with the auction.(o) After obtaining the injunction, the third defendant issued another letter dated 18.10.1997, taking a contradictory stand to the effect that no power of attorney was executed.This letter was also suitably replied to by the first defendant.(p) Thereafter the third defendant filed a fresh suit in O.S.No.7480 of 1997 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, for declaration that the power of attorney was null and void and for a consequential injunction.(q) Since the application for injunction in I.A.No.16406 of 1997 in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 was getting postponed from time to time with the third defendant moving applications for reopening arguments and for amending the plaint and also due to certain unpleasant events that happened, the first defendant moved a civil revision petition in CRP No.1999 of 1998 on the file of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.(r) On 30.7.1998, this Court ordered notice of motion in the civil revision petition and granted the stay of further proceedings in the suit and also summoned the records from the City Civil Court, as there were allegations of tampering of records.(u) There was also a default clause to the effect that if the third defendant defaulted in payment, the first defendant would not only be entitled to proceed with the auction sale, but also that the waiver of over due interest would go.(v) The third defendant filed an affidavit of undertaking on 30.01.1999 to the said effect.On the basis of the said undertaking, this Court disposed of the civil revision petition.(w) When the affidavit of undertaking was filed, the first defendant pointed out that at the time of availing of the loan, the defendants 9 to 11 were not partners and that only the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 8 were the partners.(x) But the third defendant agreed at that time to produce the evidence of reconstitution of the partnership.On the basis of the said assurance, the civil revision petition was disposed of, recording the affidavit of undertaking.(y) After filing an affidavit of undertaking and securing an order, the third defendant filed a special leave petition in SLP(Civil) No.6491 of 1999 on the file of the Supreme Court.(z) After withdrawing the special leave petition, the third defendant filed an application in CMP No.7283 of 1999 in CRP No.1999 of 1998 praying for extension of time by six months to discharge the entire debts.(ab) In view of the above, the default clause came into force and the first defendant took steps to bring the property to sale.At that time, the third defendant sent Rs.25 lakhs by way of a demand draft, claiming as though it was in full quits of the simple mortgage loan.(ac) Thereafter, one A.Arunagiri filed a suit in C.S.No.339 of 1999, questioning the very affidavit of undertaking filed by the plaintiff in the civil revision petition.Along with a suit, the said A.Arunagiri moved an application in O.A.No.317 of 1999 for an injunction.(ad) On 25.5.1999, a conditional order of interim injunction was granted.In the appeal, A.Arunagiri filed an affidavit of undertaking on 17.11.1999 to repay the dues.But he committed a breach of the same and hence he was directed to pay Rs.1 lakh to the High Court Legal Services Authority for atonement of his unpardonable conduct in filing a false affidavit.In the meantime, after the dismissal of the original side appeal filed by A.Arunagiri, an auction was conducted on 13.12.1999 and the sixth defendant became the successful bidder for Rs.9 crores.They deposited Rs.2.25 crores as per the terms and conditions of the auction.(ag) Thereafter, the plaintiff firm came up with the above suit, seeking a declaration that there was no concluded contract pursuant to the auction.(aj) Thereafter the plaintiff instituted yet another suit in C.S.No.551 of 2001, seeking redemption of the simple mortgage of Rs.25,00,000/-.(al) The loan agreement including clauses 17 and 18 are perfectly valid and not opposed to public policy or the provisions of the Contract Act. The plaintiff cannot approbate and reprobate after obtaining a loan and executing an agreement.It was the plaintiff who requested the second defendant to have two different documents, one by way of registered deed of simple mortgage and another by way of mortgage by deposit of title deeds, only with a view to save stamp duty.(am) There is no prohibition in law for the second defendant to incorporate all conditions in the contract.Section 61 of the Transfer of Property Act, enables the second defendant to have such a contract.(an) The allegations made against the former Chairman N.P.V. Ramasamy Udaiyar and his wife R.Kamalam are frivolous.But there were no offers and hence it was decided to invite offers from the participants.One of the participants made an offer of Rs.7,80,00,000/-.Thereafter, the bidding started and the first defendant made the highest bid of Rs.9 crores.Hence, he was declared as the successful bidder.(ap) After the construction of flyover bridge in C.P.Ramasamy Iyer Road, the entrance to the suit property and the road width got drastically reduced.(aq) The defendants 2 and 3 have given wide publicity, by issuing notices in the Hindu and Daily Thanthi, both of which have wide circulation.The advertisements were issued in All India Editions of those newspapers and pamphlets were also issued and there were 11 participants.Some of the participants did not quit on account of the track record of the litigious conduct of the plaintiff and its partners.The other allegations regarding the presence of rowdy elements and the allegations with regard to Mr.V.R.Venkatachalam are denied.(ar) The cheques issued by the first defendant for Rs.2.24 crores were honoured on presentation and hence the first defendant had complied with the conditions.There is no prescription that 25% of the bid amount had to be paid only in cash.Therefore, the suit is without substance.Pleadings in C.S.No.551 of 2001:This suit is filed by the mortgagor-partnership firm praying for a redemption of the simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs.The averments contained in the plaint can be summarised as follows:-(a) On 16.6.1995, the plaintiff firm represented by its then Managing Partner K.Balasikhamani, made an application, on the strength of a power of attorney given by the other partners, to the first defendant-Society for sanction of a loan of Rs.5 crores for business purposes.(b) The then Chairman/President of the first defendant-Society late N.P.V.Ramasamy Udaiyar, who was known to the Managing Partner of the firm, agreed to sanction the loan.The first defendant split up the loan into two components, one for a sum of Rs.25 lakhs to be secured by simple mortgage and another for a sum of Rs.4.75 crores secured by an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds.(c) On 31.7.1995, the deed of simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs was executed by the Managing Partner of the plaintiff, mortgaging the property at old Door No.91, New No.8, C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai-18, measuring an extent of 39 grounds.The mortgage deed was registered on 04.8.1995 with the Office of the Sub Registrar.(e) On 01.8.1995, a memorandum of deposit of title deeds was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant-Society, evidencing the deposit of title deeds for the loan amount of Rs.4.75 crores.Though this agreement contained 20 clauses, clause 8 of the deed of simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 alone empowered the mortgagee to sell the mortgaged property by public or private auction without the intervention of the Court.(h) On 12.7.1997, the first defendant issued a demand notice claiming as though the simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 was in respect of the whole loan amount of Rs.5 crores.(i) The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court for a declaration that the terms of the simple mortgage deed were illegal and null and void.In the interlocutory application in I.A.No.16406 of 1997, the Court granted a conditional order of injunction on 03.9.1997 and the plaintiff complied with the condition.(j) The plaintiff subsequently filed an application for amendment of the plaint to include a prayer for declaration that clause 18 of the loan agreement was illegal and opposed to public policy.The amendment application was allowed.(k) In the meantime, the plaintiff cancelled the power of attorney executed by them on 01.8.1995 in favour of the first defendant and followed it up by a suit in O.S.No.7480 of 1997, seeking to declare the power of attorney as null and void.(l) The first defendant filed a civil revision petition in CRP No.1999 of 1998 under Article 227 of the Constitution, against the interim orders passed in the suit.In the civil revision petition, an interim suspension of the order of injunction was granted.(m) Though the plaintiff wanted to argue the case on merits, they were discouraged from arguing the case on merits, due to the persuasion of the Senior Counsel for the first defendant and the pressure brought to on the counsel for the plaintiff in the guise of a compromise.Thereafter, a settlement was thrust upon the plaintiff by compulsion of circumstances and consequently, the plaintiff filed an affidavit of undertaking on 30.01.1999, agreeing to settle the entire dues under both mortgages on or before 30.4.1999, failing which the first defendant would be permitted to sell the property.At that time, some of the original partners, who were parties to the loan transaction, had retired and some partners had come in.Out of ignorance of law and circumventing to the pressure under the threat of caution, such an affidavit of undertaking was filed.(n) Since the plaintiff was unable to pay the amount by the due date viz., 30.4.1999, they filed an application in CMP No.7283 of 1999 for extension of time.A special leave petition filed against the said order was also dismissed.But it was stalled by a suit filed by one of the ex-partners of the plaintiff by name A.Arunagiri.In this suit, C.S.No.339 of 1999, filed by A.Arunagiri, he remitted a sum of Rs.3 crores, pursuant to an order passed at the interrogatory stage.However, the application for injunction was subsequently dismissed.The special leave petition filed by A.Arunagiri was subsequently withdrawn.The third defendant which was promoted as a company only one year ago with a paid up share capital of Rs.2,000/-, was declared to be the successful bidder for Rs.9 crores.The letters sent to the third defendant to their registered address on 11.6.2001 returned unclaimed.(r) The suit property measuring 39 grounds located in the heart of the City, is worth Rs.19.50 crores as per the guideline value.(s) The plaintiff filed a suit in C.S.No.995 of 1999 for a decree to declare that there is no concluded contract of sale between the auction purchaser and the mortgagee.But it was dismissed.The first defendant filed an application in A.No.144 of 2000 for rejection of plaint, but the same was also dismissed.But the appeal as well as the review filed in Review Application No.113 of 2000 were dismissed by the Division Bench.(ab) The order passed on compromise, cannot go against the statutory provisions.(ii) That an Account may be taken of the amount due to the first defendant for principal and interest due on the simple registered mortgage dated 31.7.1995 executed by plaintiff and in favour of the first defendant.(iii) Upon payment of the said sum by the plaintiff, the first defendant be directed to deliver to the plaintiff the mortgage instrument viz., Simple Registered Mortgage dated 31.7.1995 registered as Doc.No.1987/1995 in the Sub Registrar Office, Mylapore and all related documents in his possession and to executed and register an acknowledgement in writing to the effect that the interest created by the simple registered mortgage dated 31.7.1995 has been extinguished.(iv) For a declaration to declare that the unregistered loan agreement dated 1.8.1995 executed between plaintiff and first defendant is void ab initio, invalid and non-enforceable.(v) For a declaration to declare that the consent order dated 30.1.1999 passed by this Hon'ble Court in CRP No.1999 of 1998 based on an affidavit of undertaking dated 30.1.1999 filed by some partners of the plaintiff firm is non-est in law.(vi) To direct the defendants to pay the costs of this suit andC.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003:Both these suits are filed for identical reliefs by persons similarly placed and on the same cause of action.Therefore, I choose to record the pleadings in both these suits in common.The averments contained in the plaint in both these suits proceed on the following lines:-(a) The second defendant firm viz., M/s.(d) On 27.5.1989, all the 8 partners decided to partition the plaint schedule 'A' property among themselves and a Koorchit (unregistered document of partition) was executed.(j) Since the second defendant firm did not have the right to mortgage the property already borrowed, the plaintiffs had come up with the above suits.(k) The reliefs sought in these two suits are as follows:-(iv) For costs of this suit.C.S.No.3 of 2003:(i) For a declaration to declare that the Registered Mortgage Deed dated 31.7.1995 for Registered Document No.1987/1995 in the Office of Sub Registrar, Mylapore, executed by the second defendant M/s.Ramu & Co., represented by its partners in favour of the first defendant, the Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., in respect of the Plaint Schedule 'A' property unauthorisedly and illegally including therein the plaintiff's Plaint Schedule 'B' property is illegal, invalid, null and void and non-est in law as far as the plaintiff's portion of land is concerned.(ii) For a declaration to declare that the auction sale conducted by the first defendant on 13.12.1999 in favour of the third defendant in respect of the plaint schedule 'A' property illegally and unauthorisedly including the plaintiff's plaint schedule 'B' property is illegal and null and void.(iii) To pass an order of permanent injunction restraining the defendants herein from in any manner dealing with or encumbering the plaint schedule 'B' property owned by the plaintiff either directly or in pursuance of the registered mortgage deed dated 31.7.1995 executed by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant.(iv) For costs of this suit."The first defendant in both these suits viz., The Egmore Benefit Society Ltd., has filed a written statement.The contents of the other written statement in both the suits are one and the same.The written statement of the first defendant in both the suits is on the following lines:-(b) The second defendant partnership firm filed a loan application on 16.6.1995 for a loan of Rs.5 crores on the mortgage of the plaint 'A' schedule property.(c) The firm was represented by six partners by name (1) K.Balasikhamani, (2) A.Arunagiri, (3) N.Amaravathy, (4) M.K.Ayyanar, (5) A.Muthulingam and (6) B.Sudha.(d) A loan agreement dated 01.8.1995 was entered into between defendants 1 and 2, as per which, a sum of Rs.25 lakhs was to be secured by a registered deed of simple mortgage with power under Section 69 to sell the property without the intervention of the Court.(i) The order passed in the civil revision petition was challenged by the second defendant before the Supreme Court, but the special leave petition was later withdrawn.(j) The application for extension of time to make payment as per the affidavit of undertaking, was rejected by the High Court and the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court.(k) Therefore, the auction sale was fixed on 31.5.1999 and at that time, one of the erstwhile partners A.Arunagiri filed the suit C.S.No.339 of 1999 on the file of the High Court of Madras.In the suit, an interim injunction was granted on 25.5.1999 with a condition.(l) The injunction was vacated on 25.10.1999 and the same was confirmed on appeal in O.S.A.No.237 of 1999, imposing cost of Rs.1 lakh upon A.Arunagiri for his unpardonable conduct in filing a false affidavit.The dismissal was challenged before the Supreme Court, but it was later withdrawn.(m) In the meantime, an auction was conducted on 13.12.1999 after due publicity and the third defendant became the highest bidder offering Rs.9 crores.He also deposited Rs.2.25 crores on the same day.(n) The second defendant thereafter filed C.S.No.995 of 1999 and obtained an interim order in O.A.No.812 of 1999 to maintain status-quo.(o) The Supreme Court dismissed SLP (Civil) Nos.1711 and 1712 of 2001 against these orders.(p) Subsequently, another suit in C.S.No.551 of 2001 was filed for redemption of the simple mortgage.While it is pending, the above suit is filed as a collusive one between the plaintiff and the second defendant.(q) There was no partition of suit 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds, by way of Koorchit as alleged by the plaintiff.Even the deed of reconstitution does not disclose any partition.On the other hand, clause 9 provides for continuation of the business with the assets and liabilities of the firm as a running concern.(s) The concept of partition of properties by way of Koorchit is unknown to the properties of partnership firm.Section 17(1)(c) of the Registration Act, is a bar for such documents.(t) Section 3 read with Article 45 of the Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1899 makes stamp duty payable on such instruments.(u) Moreover, the plaintiff is one of the executants to the deed of power of attorney dated 01.8.1989 in favour of K.Balasikhamani.This power was executed after the date of the Koorchit empowering the firm to borrow money on the security of the properties of the firm.Therefore, the Koorchit is a fabricated document.(v) The reliance placed by the plaintiff on the alleged assessment of urban land tax in 1994 is untenable and suspicious.(w) The value of the relief claimed in the suit exceeds the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.The second defendant partnership has filed a very short written statement in both the suits.The averments are identical and hence the substance of the averments contained in the written statement of the second defendant in both the suits are as follows:-At that time, the second defendant owned the plaint 'A' schedule property.(b) The second defendant obtained a loan of Rs.5 crores from the first defendant-Society at the instance of the then Chairman of the first defendant.A simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs and an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for Rs.4.75 crores were executed.(c) At the time of sanction of the loan, the defect in the title was brought to the notice of late N.P.V.Ramasamy Udaiyar, the then Chairman/ President of the first defendant-Society.The then Chairman/President took a commission of Rs.10 lakhs, Rs.5 lakhs in the form of cash and another Rs.5 lakhs paid by way of cheque in favour of his wife.(d) On account of the default in payment of the loan, the first defendant attempted to sell the property.Since another interlocutory proceedings, in this suit, went in favour of the first defendant, they sold the property in an auction held on 13.12.1999 in favour of the third defendant.The third defendant has filed a written statement in both the suits and the averments contained therein are identical.Therefore, they are extracted as follows:-(g) The suit is a collusive one and there is absolutely no basis for the claim of the plaintiff.ISSUES FRAMED:On 19.3.2004, the following issues were framed by this Court, in common for all the 5 suits:-(4) Whether the first defendant Society can advance a loan to the second defendant firm without verifying the title of the property ?(5) Whether any illegal gratification was received by the erstwhile Chairman of the second defendant Society for sanctioning the loan of Rs.5 crores to the plaintiff partnership firm and splitting the loan into two parts viz., Rs.25 lakhs by registered simple mortgage and Rs.4.75 crores by deposit of title deeds of the property ?(6) Whether any proper auction was conducted by the second and third defendants on 13.12.1999 ?Ramu & Co.?(10) Whether M/s.Ramu & Co., or any of its partners, past or present are entitled to redeem the registered simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs alone without discharging the loan secured by equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds for Rs.4,75,00,000/- ?(11) Whether the splitting of the loan of Rs.5 crores into a registered simple mortgage of Rs.25 lakhs and mortgage by deposit of title deeds of the property in violation of the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the first defendant Society is against public policy and amounts to evasion of Stamp Duty?(12) Whether the mortgage contract between the plaintiff partnership firm and first defendant void ab initio under Section 23 of the Contract Act ?(15) Whether any cut-back commission/secret commission/bribery of Rs.10 lakhs was received by the erstwhile Chairman of the first defendant Society for sanctioning the loan of Rs.5 crores to the plaintiff partnership firm in contravention of its own rules and in contravention of the statutes ?(16) Whether the order passed in CRP No.1999 of 1998 based on an affidavit of undertaking filed by some partners of the plaintiffs firm contrary to statutes and without any adjudication by Court is an order "per incurium" ? And such an order is binding on the plaintiff ?(17) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to redeem the registered simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs without complying with the condition imposed or ignoring the clog of redemption created by way of an unregistered agreement ?Since all the suits were tried together and also since issues were framed in common for all the five suits, a joint trial was held.One Mr.Through him, five documents were marked as Ex.One Mr.Therefore, in fine, only one witness was examined on the side of the plaintiff and 40 documents came to be marked as exhibits on the side of the plaintiff.Two witnesses were examined on the side of the defendants and 61 documents came to be marked as exhibits on the side of the defendants.Keeping this in mind, let me take up the issues arising for consideration one by one.Issue No.(8):The eighth issue is as to whether the alleged partition of the mortgaged property in favour of G.Anbazhagan and A.Thayumanaguru plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 is true and valid and if so, whether the same would affect the interests of the Egmore Benefit Society Limited in that property.I am taking up this issue first for consideration, in view of the fact that this is the only issue that is relatable to Tr.Therefore, a finding on Issue No.(8) would actually dispose of two out of 5 suits on hand.Hence, it is taken up first.The claim of the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 is that they were the partners of the borrower firm M/s.The plaint 'A' schedule property, according to the plaintiffs, measuring an extent of 39 grounds, was divided into 8 equal moieties, each measuring about 4 grounds and 1541 sq.ft., and that each of the 8 partners was allotted one such share.But at the outset, the plaintiffs have fought shy on getting into the witness box to prove the above facts.They simply allowed one of the continuing partners by name K.Balasikhamani to depose even on their behalf.But, in the written statement filed by the partnership firm M/s.Though in paragraph 4 of the written statement of M/s.Ramu & Co. (second defendant), it was claimed that there was a decision to divide the property among the partners, the firm did not even confirm that there was actually a partition.In paragraph 3 of the written statement filed by M/s.Ramu & Co., in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003, it is stated that all the allegations contained in the plaint are denied, except those that are specifically admitted.The partnership firm failed to specifically admit the averments regarding partition and the execution of the Koorchit.The plaintiffs also failed to get into the witness box.But, strangely, PW1, who deposed on behalf of the partnership firm and whose testimony was taken to be in common for all the suits, identified the Koorchits as Exx.P36 and P37, when confronted, with the documents filed by the plaintiffs in Tr.It means the partnership firm did not want to be seen apparently as supporting the case of the plaintiffs in Tr.As a matter of fact, A.Thayumanaguru, the plaintiff in Tr.C.S.No.2 of 2003, is the son of one M.K.Ayyanar, who continued to be a partner even after the retirement of the plaintiff.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 during examination in chief.During cross-examination, PW1 admitted that the plaintiff in Tr.C.S.No.2 of 2003 A.Thayumanaguru is his younger sister's husband.The reply of PW1 was that he had to verify the records.PW1 also admitted that except in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003, there was no mention about the partition in any other suit.He admitted that even in Ex.PW1 admitted that Ex.D5 is the power of attorney executed in his favour by all the partners, including the plaintiffs in Tr.It is a registered document.Upon being confronted with this fact, PW1 suddenly came up with a theory that the plaintiffs in Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 cancelled Ex.In chief-examination, he did not make a whisper about the partition and Koorchit.But, he identified the Koorchits and they eventually came to be marked as Exx.As per the averments contained in the plaints in these suits, the partners decided to divide the property by metes and bounds and to have one share allotted.The plaintiffs rely upon an unstamped and unregistered koorchit dated 27.5.1989 in support of their contention that the entire suit property was divided into eight equal shares and one share measuring 4 grounds and 1541 sq.ft. was allotted to each one of the partners.The plaintiffs claim that ever since the date of partition, they are in possession and that the competent authority levied urban land tax.The plaintiffs in these two suits agree that they retired from the partnership in 1992 and that at the time of joining the partnership firm, they gave a power of attorney and that the same was also cancelled at the time of retirement, by sending a communication to K.Balasikhamani.Thus, the plaints in both the suits proceed on the basis of an alleged oral partition and three documents namely, (i) a koorchit dated 27.5.1989, (ii) Form 5-G under Tamil Nadu Urban Land Tax Act dated 17.01.1994, and (iii) a written communication issued at the time of retiring from the partnership, to K.Balasikhamani, cancelling the power given to him earlier.Hence, the least that is expected of the plaintiffs is to get into the witness box, at least to say in formal words that there was an oral partition.But, the plaintiffs in both these suits avoided getting into the witness box.The plaintiffs cannot allow K.Balasikhamani, examined as PW1, to prove oral partition, since Balasikhamani avoided signing and verifying the pleadings, even in the two suits filed by M/s. Ramu & Co. It was his daughter B.Sudha who signed and verified the pleadings in those two suits, but, she shirked the responsibility of getting into the witness box.Therefore, the oral partition pleaded by the plaintiffs will have to fail miserably.Thereafter, the counsel for the first defendant fired an array of questions, as though he was interested in establishing a partition.It was also brought on record that at the time when the alleged partition took place, there was a subsisting loan with the Indian Bank and that no information was passed on to them.A perusal of Ex.D3 dated 01.4.1992 shows that the partnership firm carried on business at the very same schedule mentioned property namely, No.91, Dr.C.P.Ramasamy Road, Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018, by running a hotel called Hotel Kavitha and a Kalyana Mandapam called "Gokul Kalyana Mandapam".Clauses 3 and 4 of Ex.PW1 pleaded ignorance of any public notice of cancellation of the power.To cap it all, PW1 gave two answers, which are sufficient to answer these two issues against the plaintiffs and throw both the suits Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 out.The questions and answers are as follows:Therefore, the question of the contract (loan transaction), entered into between the defendants 1 and 2, binding the plaintiffs does not arise.Issue Nos.(5) & (15):The fifth issue is as to whether any illegal gratification was received by the erstwhile Chairman of the second defendant Society for sanctioning the loan of Rs.5 crores to the plaintiff partnership firm and splitting the loan into two parts viz., Rs.25 lakhs by registered simple mortgage and Rs.4.75 crores by deposit of title deeds of the property.The second suit, C.S.No.995 of 1999, was filed by the partnership firm M/s.Ramu & Co. The pleadings were signed and verified on behalf of the partnership firm by Mrs.B.Sudha, D/o.In the original plaint as it was filed in C.S.No.995 of 1999, there was no averment to the effect that the former Chairman of the Mortgagee took a bribe.After taking up such a plea for the first time in the third suit, wisdom dawned upon the plaintiff and hence they got the plaint in C.S.No.995 of 1999 amended to include certain averments in paragraph 6 of the plaint.Keeping this in mind, let me now look at the evidence on record.Mrs.B.Sudha, who had signed the pleadings in C.S.Nos.995 of 1999 and 551 of 2001, did not choose to go to the witness box.He was not an ordinary person.He was, as seen from his deposition, an employee of the Vysya Bank.He left the Bank and started a Construction Company.He admitted to be a Commerce Graduate with a Diploma in Banking.In response to a question during cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he was the person who was handling and representing the plaintiff firm, at the time of the borrowing.Therefore, one would have expected him to sign and verify the pleadings.But he did not choose to do so.On the contrary, he allowed another partner to sign and verify the pleadings and that partner did not go to the witness box.In the same portion of cross-examination, where PW1 claims to have handled and represented the plaintiff firm before the Mortgagee, he also claims that a part of the loan amount was given to the Chairman of the first defendant.He did not indicate the amount and he did not also say that it was an illegal gratification.What is worse is that when PW1 was confronted with his signature in Ex.P8, which is the affidavit of undertaking filed in CRP No.1999 of 1998, he stated in his cross-examination that though he signed the affidavit, he was not a partner of the firm.Therefore, a question was put to him as to how he was entitled to give evidence on behalf of the firm, when he claims to be not a partner.To this question, he replied that he was entitled to conduct the suit and that he joined as a partner, but did not remember the date and that he had to see the records like the partnership deed.When the same question was repeated subsequently, PW1 said that he rejoined the partnership, but that he has to see the partnership deed to tell the exact date.Though the former Chairman was dead, there was no averment that his wife was also dead.Therefore, the plaintiff should have at least made her a party to the suit.Therefore, the allegations made against the former Chairman are hardly of any significance.In any event, the person who pleaded the same, did not go to the witness box.The person against whom such a pleading was set up, was not made a party and the person who went into the witness box, claimed that he was not a partner.Issue No.(4):The fourth issue is as to whether the first defendant Egmore Benefit Society Limited was entitled to advance a loan to the second defendant firm without verifying the title to the property.The contention that the first defendant Society advanced loan without verifying the title of the firm to the property, is both ill-conceived and ill-explained.The partnership firm as well as the individual partner who have come up before Court claim that the property belongs to the firm absolutely.The story of partition set up by the retired partners has been rejected by me.Therefore, there is no use contending that the Society advanced a loan without verifying the title of the partnership firm to the property.Issue No.(3):The third issue is as to whether the power of attorney given to an agent can be utilised in such a manner as to be detrimental to the interest of the principal.This deed, according to the plaintiff A.Arunagiri, was executed by the fourth defendant K.Balasikhamani, on the basis of a Power of Attorney given to him by all the partners.Unfortunately, the deed of Admission cum Retirement dated 01.4.1998 was not filed as an exhibit.The plaintiff A.Arunagiri also did not get into the witness box.Therefore, the plaintiff assails in paragraphs 21 to 25 of the plaint in C.S.No.339 of 1999, the power of the fourth defendant K.Balasikhamani to retire the plaintiff and defendants 6 to 8 from the partnership and the propriety of the old as well as the newly inducted partners in filing an affidavit of undertaking in CRP No.1999 of 1998 for discharging the loan.But, the plaintiff A.Arunagiri failed to get into the witness box.He also failed to mark the deed of Admission cum Retirement dated 01.4.1998 as an exhibit.K.Balasikhamani, who alone deposed on the side of the plaintiffs as PW1, also failed to mark a copy of the said deed as an exhibit.On the question of retirement of old partners and admission of new partners, PW1 made certain admissions during cross examination.It may be useful to extract all of them, as they would determine the fate of Issue No.(3).The relevant questions and answers are as follows:A: I had the power to retire him.I had the power of attorney from him.D44 was ever cancelled or revoked.P6, which gives a list of documents to be filed along with the loan application.Issue Nos.(9) and (13) actually overlap with each other and hence, they are taken up together.The answer to these issues are to be found partly on facts and partly in law.There are 3 documents which will throw light upon these issues.The first document is Ex.The third document is the Deed of Power of Attorney dated 01.8.1995, filed as Ex.For the present, I am ignoring Ex.Though Arunagiri filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, the Society did not wait for the Special Leave Petition to be decided, but proceeded with the auction sale.However, he claimed that oral instructions were given to the auctioneer to commence the bid at Rs.19 crores.(iii) As per Ex.P6, which incorporates the rules and conditions of the defendant Society for the grant of loan, a loan can be considered only to the extent of 50% of the value of the property offered as security.In 1995, the same property was mortgaged for Rs.5 crores, as the mortgagee found the value of the property to be Rs.10 crores.DW1 admitted that the value of the property kept appreciating and hence the value fixed at Rs.10 crores in 1995 should have gone up in December 1999 when the auction took place.But even according to DW1 the starting price of Rs.19 crores was lowered and the bid started only from Rs.7.80 crores, showing thereby that the property was sold for a song.(iv) The person who became the successful bidder was a company which was floated with a share capital of just Rs.2,000/-.Even the bid amount was paid by another company by name Orient Plastic Limited which was subsequently merged with Indus-E-Solutions.This Indus-E-Solutions was one of the participants and it was represented by one Venkatraman, who was admittedly the Auditor of the highest bidder.Therefore, it is clear that persons who wanted to snatch away this property came in a group, formed into a cartel and knocked away the property for less than half the price.(v) The payment of 25% of the bid amount by way of cheques and the subsequent non-payment of the balance amount of 75% show that the auction lacked bona fides.But, as I have pointed out earlier, the persons, who signed and verified the pleadings in all these suits, stayed away from the witness box.The evidence of PW1 is of no avail at all for four reasons, namely (a) he was not present at the time of auction; (b) he claimed to be not a partner even at the time when the affidavit of undertaking was signed on 30.1.1999; (c) he blinked at every question in cross examination and repeatedly said that he could not answer many of the questions without referring to documents, indicating thereby a tendency not to connect the bat with the ball, but to call every throw as a no ball; and (d) his cross examination itself could not be completed, as he failed to appear for further cross examination after 12.12.2006, forcing this Court to close his evidence on 31.10.2008 for non appearance.Therefore, all averments contained in the plaints, relating to the manner of conduct of auction, have to be assessed, keeping in view the fact that no evidence whatsoever, worth any consideration was let in by the plaintiffs.No one is entitled to expect that a lender like Egmore Benefit Society should have waited for Arunagiri to file a special leave petition against the judgment in O.S.A.No.237 of 1999 and also awaited the outcome of the special leave petition to bring the property to sale.As a matter of fact, the plaintiffs have exhibited such a cantankerous attitude ever since 1997 that any attempt on the part of the Egmore Benefit Society to bring the property to sale, proved to be a nightmare.After making this Court pass an order in C.R.P.No.1999 of 1998, the plaintiff had the audacity and unscrupulous attitude to challenge the order passed in the civil revision petition, by way of a special leave petition before the Supreme Court.For this auction sale, there was 21 days time.But, this time was effectively made use of, by the plaintiff, to set up a retired partner by name A.Arunagiri to come up with C.S.No.339 of 1999 during summer vacation in the last week of May 1999 and stall the auction sale.But, as had become the usual practice of the plaintiff and its partners, this commitment was also not honoured.This conduct on the part of A.Arunagiri invited the wrath of the Division Bench, when O.S.A.No.237 of 1999 came up for hearing.The copy of the order passed by the Division Bench comprising of R.Jayasimha Babu and P.Sathasivam,JJ on 29.11.1999 is filed as Ex.It will be useful to extract the affidavit filed on 17.11.1999 by A.Arunagiri before the Division Bench, which forms part of Ex."1. I am the petitioner herein and the plaintiff in the above suit.I am today making payment of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) by way of two bankers cheques on for a sum of Rs.39,00,000/- (Thirty nine lakhs only) dated 16.11.1999 on Dena Bank and another for a sum of Rs.61,00,000/- (Rupees sixty one lakhs only) dated 17.11.1999 on the Dena Bank in favour of the 1st respondent, Egmore Benefit Society Ltd.I further undertake to pay the entire balance of amount remaining in the loan account of Ramu & Co. with the first respondent society on or before 17.12.1999, failing which, the first respondent society will be entitled to realise the balance remaining due under the loan account of Ramu & Co. by public auction."After the above affidavit of undertaking filed by A.Arunagiri on 17.11.1999 before the Division Bench, followed the same fate as that of the earlier affidavit of undertaking filed on 30.1.1999 by P.W.1 in C.R.P.No.1999 of 1998, the Division Bench imposed costs of Rs.1 lakh upon A.Arunagiri and directed the said amount to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Authority.Thereafter, the appeal O.S.A.No.237 of 1999 itself was dismissed on 29.11.1999 with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the Egmore Benefit Society.It appears that A.Arunagiri was represented by one Senior Counsel, when the affidavit of undertaking was filed before the Division Bench.Subsequently, the counsel was changed and a new Senior Counsel requested the leave of the Division Bench to give a go-by to the affidavit already filed and to argue the appeal afresh.After hearing the arguments, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal by order dated 29.11.1999 filed as Ex.D.24, recording its displeasure at the contumacious conduct on the part of the appellant.Some of the portions of the judgment of the Division Bench are to be extracted, to see whether all the high-sounding principles of law argued before me have any basis or require any consideration."We are shocked and saddened by the conduct of the appellant, who, through a respected Senior Counsel, had submitted before the Bench, when the appeal was taken up for admission on the 17th of November 1999, that all he sought was some breathing time to pay off the amount due to the first respondent society so that the property, which was very valuable one, might be saved.....The learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.T.Gopalan, who had appeared for the appellant on 17.11.1999 and 18.11.1999 was profusely apologetic to the court when he told us that he himself had been taken for a ride by his client, and that was the first time such a thing had happened to him in his 38 years of practice at the bar.He also told the Bench that his client had on that day told him that at least within a day or two the money would be raised and would be paid over....When the matter came up before us today, we must say, we were taken aback when we are told by the learned Senior Counsel Mr.U.N.R.Rao, who appeared for the appellant today, that the appellant was desirous of arguing his appeal and that the affidavit which he had filed on the 17th of November was filed in a hurry and therefore, he had a right to give it a go by.We expressed our displeasure to the learned counsel for the appellant who however persisted in his stand and stated that before we pass any order on the appeal the appellant may be afforded an opportunity even though the appellant is not in the least entitled to any such opportunity, in view of the conduct which had been exhibited by him and which we have referred to in the paragraphs above.....The facts which we have narrated above and which we have set out in some detail, clearly establish beyond any reasonable doubt that Arunagiri is a name lender for Balasikhamani who has been making repeated attempts but which attempts have so far been futile in avoiding the public auction of the mortgaged property.The parties to that agreement are GPS Investment Ltd., a company registered in Mauritius; Mr.Balasikhamani, his wife Smt.Gurubagiam, their daughters Sudha who are together termed as principal shareholders of Ramu and Company Hotels Pvt. Ltd., and Ramu and Company, the partnership firm.D.26, the Supreme Court rejected the prayer for exemption from filing the certified copy and directed the special leave petition to be listed in the normal course.Hence, it was listed on 27.3.2000, after the auction concluded and A.Arunagiri withdrew his special leave petition on that day, as seen from the order dated 27.3.2000 filed as Ex.Though what happened in May 2001 is subsequent to the auction, what happened when the matter was pending before the Division Bench, was before the auction.Therefore, it is clear that the plaintiffs made attempts and failed to bring any buyer for a higher price.Hence the conduct of the plaintiff as well as the unwillingness on the part of the participants in the auction show that an indication about the upset price would have kept all the buyers away.In any case, at the start of the auction, the auctioneer fixed the upset price at Rs.19 crores, as seen from the pleadings and evidence on record.Therefore, I do not think that the property fetched a lesser price only due to the failure to fix an upset price.The auction was conducted on 13.12.1999 at the site.As seen from the bidders list with signatures filed as Ex.D.34 and the auction proceedings recorded by the auctioneer M/s.Sri Raj and Co., and filed as Ex.B.35, there were actually 5 bidders in all viz.,(i) Indus-E-Solutions Ltd., represented by L.S.Venkatraman(ii)D.Surendra Reddy & Surendra EnterprisesIt appears there were actually 31 calls totally.Finally, NMR Investments made the highest offer of Rs.9 crores.After the conduct of the auction, the plaintiffs issued a notice dated 16.12.1999, a copy of which was marked as Ex.It is pertinent to note that the plaintiffs did not choose to mark the document.There is no indication in Ex.D.36 as to whether any of the partners of the plaintiff-firm was present at the time of the auction.On the contrary, the details called for by the plaintiff-firm in their notice Ex.D.36 give an indication that none of the representatives of the plaintiff was present at the time of the auction.Therefore, all allegations made by the plaintiff that goondas were present and that genuine bidders were prevented from participating and that the Directors of the mortgagee acted in collusion with the highest bidder, become hearsay evidence and not direct evidence.P.W.1 himself admitted in cross-examination (towards the closing portion of his cross examination) that he was not present at the time of the auction.There is a specific admission by PW-1 to this effect.This is why the plaintiff did not raise these points in their earliest notice Ex.D.36 and the plaintiff did not even choose to mark this notice on their side as the plaintiff's exhibit.As I have already pointed out, the averments relating to incidents that allegedly happened at the time of the auction, are narrated in the plaint, which is signed and verified by B.Sudha.She did not go to the witness box.Even Ex.D36 notice issued on 16.12.1999, within three days of the auction sale, was signed by another partner by name B.Gurubackiam and not by K.Balasikhamani, who deposed as P.W.1 on behalf of the plaintiffs.Therefore apart from the fact that P.W.1 had no personal knowledge of what actually transpired on the date of the auction, he was also not competent to speak about it and none of these averments was also made at the earliest point of time.Therefore, the allegations that some unlawful elements were present and that genuine bidders were prevented from effective participation and that a few bidders formed themselves into a cartel and acted in collusion with the mortgagee are all cooked up for the purpose of this case and these averments are obviously added as pepper and salt at the time of filing the plaint into Court, presumably on legal (or illegal) advise.The person who was declared as the highest bidder did not have sufficient funds to make the initial deposit of 25%, though the terms and conditions of sale mandated such a payment on the spot.The down payment that should have been made was Rs.3,750/-.But the highest bidder made payment of Rs.1,000/- on the spot and paid Rs.2,000/- at his house, later in the day.The balance of Rs.750/- was paid only on the following day.Thus the spot payment of 25% itself was not made as per the terms of the auction.This failure became aggravated with the auction purchaser failing to pay the balance 75% of the sale consideration also within 15 days as stipulated in the terms of conditions of auction.In the mean time, the mortgagor challenged the auction sale on the ground that the property was sold for 50% of the market value.Since the auction purchaser did not pay 75% of consideration, the mortgagee informed the mortgagor that he was prepared to cancel the sale if the mortgagor brought any one with a higher offer.But the mortgagor could not.In the mean time, the highest bidder sought extension of time and extension of time was granted.After he was granted extension of time, the mortgagor brought a new offer.Hence, the highest bidder filed a suit for specific performance.It is admitted by the plaintiffs that all along, some interim order or the other, had been operating against the mortgagee and the auction purchaser.Even according to Mr.N.Jothi, learned counsel for the plaintiff, there was no interim order only for a period of 77 days from 12.5.2001 to 27.7.2001 and that there was no impediment for the auction purchaser to pay the balance of 75%, during this period of 77 days.There is no dispute about two facts namely (i) that an application was made for the no objection certificate; and (ii) that under Exx.P15 and P16, the counsel for the plaintiff firm requested the Appropriate Authority as well as the Sub-Registrar not to proceed with the grant of a no objection certificate and the registration of the property.The special leave petitions filed by the plaintiff firm against the judgments of this Court dismissing the interim applications for injunction, were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 12.5.2001 as seen from Ex.Immediately, the plaintiff firm sent a letter dated 9.6.2001 marked as Ex.P23 offering to redeem only the loan under the simple mortgage and also enclosing a pay order for an amount of Rs.48,95,695/-.Again the plaintiff sent another letter dated 11.6.2001 under Ex.P24 seeking redemption.After the mortgagee sent a reply under Ex.P25, the plaintiff firm sent a notice dated 13.7.2001 under Ex.P27 to the Appropriate Authority under the Income Tax Act. Simultaneously, telegrams were also sent under Ex.P29 series, to the mortgagee and the auction purchaser as well as the auctioneer and the Appropriate Authority.Again by a notice dated 08.8.2001, filed as Ex.P30, the firm cautioned the Appropriate Authority not to issue the no objection certificate.In the meantime, an order was passed on 6.8.2001 by this Court to maintain status quo.This order of status quo continues till date.There is no doubt that the mortgagee acted as a prudent person, both before and after the conduct of the auction.In fact, I would have considered the mortgagee as imprudent, if he had missed this opportunity to bring this property to sale at that time.Apart from the fact that the allegations contained in the plaints, at the most constitute allegations of irregularities which could not also be established by the plaintiffs, I should also point out that the right of the mortgagee to vary the terms of the contract and to accept payments from the auction purchaser, is now well recognised.It is especially so in the facts and circumstances of the case, where the conduct (or misconduct) of the mortgagor stares at one's face.Therefore, I hold on Issue Nos.(6) and (7) that a proper auction was conducted and that there was no bungling.The allegations made by the plaintiffs about the auction do not either constitute fraud and collusion, nor has the plaintiff led any evidence worth consideration for holding the auction to be fraudulent and collusive.Therefore, Issue Nos.(6) and (7) are also held against the plaintiffs.That would leave me with one incidental question as to whether the mortgagee can now convey the property to the auction purchaser or not.The first defendant in C.S.No.995 of 1999 was the highest bidder who offered Rs.9 crores for the property.There was an attempt to give a goby to this affidavit of undertaking, by filing a special leave petition.Since the attempt failed, an application for extension of time was made, but the same was also rejected.Then came the suit filed by A.Arunagiri.Apart from the fact that the partnership firm did not file any written statement to the two suits Tr. C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003, the firm let in common evidence in all the five suits.Mr. K.Balasikhamani examined himself as PW1 and marked all documents, in common for all the five suits together.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 and sought to mark the koorchits as Exx.(iii) Filing a suit in C.S.No.551 of 2001 for redemption of only the simple mortgage and expressing unwillingness in unequivocal terms to redeem the mortgage by deposit of title deeds.(iv) Setting up two retired partners to file Tr.C.S.Nos.2 and 3 of 2003 for a declaration that even the registered deed of simple mortgage dated 31.7.1995 is null and void.(v) Leading evidence in common in all five suits and supporting the case of the plaintiffs in Tr.(i) The first priority for the mortgagor is to get the property back without paying a single penny, if possible, by having even the deed of simple mortgage declared as null and void.(ii) If they could not achieve the first priority, the next priority for the mortgagor is to take away the property after redeeming only the deed of simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs, so that the loan amount of Rs.4.75 crores mortgaged by deposit of title deeds, need not be paid at all.(iii) The second priority for them, is not merely to redeem the simple mortgage by paying the principal and interest at contractual rate, but to redeem it with a rate of interest as dictated by them.In other words, the desire of the plaintiff is to redeem the simple mortgage alone, by paying the principal together with interest at a rate far below the contractual rate of interest.The danger in passing such a decree is that it will give a handle for the mortgagor to prolong the agony of the mortgagee and the auction purchaser.Issue No.(18):The 18th and the last issue framed for consideration is as to what relief the plaintiff is entitled for.I have already answered all the other issues against the plaintiffs.From the year 1997, the plaintiffs have exhibited a conduct, both inside and outside the Court, which calls for imposition of exemplary costs.By way of recapitulation and easy appreciation, the attitude and conduct of the plaintiffs could be summarised as follows:-(i) On 31.7.1995/1.8.1995, the partnership firm borrows Rs.5 crores and executes a deed of simple mortgage for Rs.25 lakhs and creates another mortgage by deposit of title deeds for Rs.4.75 crores.(ii) When a default was committed and the property is brought to sale by the mortgagee in terms of Section 69(1)(c), the mortgagor does not ask for redemption, but files a simple suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.6201 of 1997 on the file of the City Civil Court and obtained an injunction.(iv) In the civil revision petition, the mortgagor took this Court for a jolly ride, by filing an affidavit of undertaking on 30.1.1999, agreeing to redeem the mortgage in entirety by paying nearly Rs.8.40 crores on or before 30.4.1999 and also agreeing for the sale of the property, if they failed to make payment.(v) The order passed by this Court on the basis of the affidavit of undertaking, is then challenged before the Supreme Court.Later a petition for extension of time beyond 30.4.1999 is filed and the dismissal of the same is again challenged before the Supreme Court.(vii) The interim order enjoyed by A.Arunagiri was short lived and when he went before the Division Bench, he also adopted unscrupulous methods.He filed an affidavit of undertaking on 17.11.1999 and went back on the same, putting the Senior Counsel who appeared on his behalf before the Division Bench to shame.But through another Senior Counsel, he withdrew the affidavit of undertaking and argued the appeal on merits and secured an order of dismissal of appeal, with strictures and costs.As a matter of fact, the reliefs sought by the mortgagor in C.S.No.995 of 1999 is confined only to the auction sale, but without a prayer for setting aside the sale.It is only in the next suit C.S.No.551 of 2001 that the mortgagor made a prayer for redemption.This prayer was also only for redemption of one mortgage and that too with interest at a lesser rate.That they were all stage managed, is made clear by the plaintiffs joining together and leading evidence in common.Even the evidence of PW-1 could not be completed as he deserted the witness box before the conclusion of the cross-examination in full.
|
['Section 193 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,197,051 |
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per M.G.Giratkar, J) :The Criminal Application is admitted and heard finally with the consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.The applicants have prayed to quash and set aside Regular Criminal Case no.913 of 2017 pending before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur registered on the report of applicant no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::It is submitted that applicant nos. 1 and 2 got married on 10.4.2016 according to Muslim rites and customs at Nagpur.There is no issue out of said wedlock.Applicant no.1 resided with applicant nos. 2 to 4 for some period.There was complete difference of opinion between applicant nos. 1 and 2 for petty reasons.Lastly, she left her matrimonial home and started to reside with her parents.Applicant no.2 and others tried their level best to settle their dispute but the matter was not settled.Crime was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.Charge sheet is filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Corporation Court, Nagpur and it is pending.Applicant no.2 instituted suit for declaration and permanent injunction against applicant no.1 before Family Court at Nagpur.Applicant nos. 1 and 2 thereafter agreed for mutual divorce ::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 ::: 4 apl896.17.odt upon some terms and conditions.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::Heard Mr.In view of the statement made by applicant no.1, Regular Criminal Case No.913 of 2017 pending against applicant nos. 2 to 4 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur is liable to be quashed and set aside.Hence, we pass the following order.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::We quash and set aside Regular Criminal Case No.913 of 2017 pending against applicant nos. 2 to 4 before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Corporation Court No.2, Nagpur.::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::::: Uploaded on - 01/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 02/03/2018 02:09:09 :::
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,198,437 |
The interim anticipatory bail order dated 22.08.2019 stands confirmed with condition that the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner and the applicant shall attend the concerned police station if so required by the investigating officer.Application is disposed of.( V. K. JADHAV, J.) rlj/::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 04:48:03 :::::: Uploaded on - 30/09/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 01/10/2019 04:48:03 :::
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,252,042 |
During trial an alternative charge Under Section 304B of Indian Penal Code was also framed against accused appellant for causing cruelty by demanding dowry and suspicious death of Aishabi but he has been acquitted for the said offence.The prosecution story in brief is that deceased Aishabi was married to accused-appellant on 23-5-1990 i.e. 9-10 months prior to the date of incident.She lived with the accused at Indore for some time but thereafter they came to Dewas and were living in the house of Smt. Bebikhan for last 8-10 days prior to the incident.Accused was demanding Rs. 10,000/- for repaying the money which he had taken during marriage of his sister.Banobi, mother of accused had also demanded money earlier.Smt. Bebikhan got Rs. 5,000/- as Dipawali Bonus which she gave to the accused.On the date of incident Bebikhan had gone on duty.Accused and his wife deceased Aishabi were in the house.House of Smt. Bebikhan is situated by the side of Shafiq Mohd., father of Aishabi.Aishabi was watching Serial "Tipu Sultan" on television along with Sumitrabai and others.She went to the house of Smt. Bebikhan where both of them i.e. accused and Smt, Bebikhan were residing to call the accused for watching Television, but she did not return.Town Inspector Raghuvirsingh (PW 16) came to the house of Shafiq Mohd. along with accused and told that he has committed murder.All of them i.e. Raghuvirsingh, Sumitra Bai, Shafiq Mohd. and other persons entered the house which was bolted from outside and found Aishabi lying dead.P.W. 1 Bebikhan, mother of deceased has stated that accused demanded Rs. 10,000/- for repaying the debt when he incurred in the marriage of his sister.JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J.Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 3-10-1991 of the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Dewas passed in S.T No. 91/91 whereby accused-appellant has been convicted Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code for having committed murder of his wife Aishabi by throttling her on 24-2-1991 at about 2 PM in Shantipura, Dewas and sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine R.I. for six months.The body of Aishabi was lying on the ground.The legs were flexed.There was one Duppatta around the neck.Panchnama Ex. P/4 with the description of body and other things was prepared.Autopsy on the body was conducted at 4 PM the same day by Dr. Yogesh Valimbe (PW 10) along with Dr. K. S. Rajput and Dr. Smt. Velankar and found as follows :-Contusion mark over left side of neck 1/2 cm on mid line just below thyroid bone and above thyroid cartilege extending upto left ear 5 cm.long 2 cm.Fracture of thyroid cartilege with tracheal rings present corresponding to above injury.Injuries found on the body of deceased Aishabi were ante mortem and caused within 4-6 hours.The death was homicidal.The same was signed by two other doctors referred above.Cloths were sent in a sealed bundle.Shri Raghuvirsingh conducted investigation along with S. I. Shri Verma.After investigation accused was prosecuted who denied guilt and pleaded false implication.Learned trial Judge has convicted and sentenced accused as above.Hence this appeal.The possibility of murder having been committed by person other than accused cannot be ruled out.Learned counsel for State conceded as to the inadmissibility of the report lodged by the accused and rightly so but contended that accused and Aishabi were only two occupants of the house.Aishabi met with homicidal death and, therefore, the inference of causing death has rightly been drawn against him.We were taken to the evidence on record.We are aware of the principles of Criminal Jurisprudence that for upholding the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence it is to be seen that chain of circumstances is so complete that it is not only consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused but totally inconsistent with the hypothesis of innocence of the accused.However, this fact i.e. body lying inside the house as stated in the FIR (Ex. P/15) can be admitted.P.W. 2 Sumitrabai, neighbour and P.W. 3 Shafiq Mohd. came to know about the dead body lying inside the house when accused came along with the police-officer.Both these witnesses and Raghuvirsingh have stated that the room was bolted from inside and the body was lying inside the room.Photographs of the dead body Exs. P/11 to P/13 were taken in the presence of Police Officer and the witnesses.These three witnesses found one Duppatta around the neck and therefore, this part of information given by accused would be admissible that dead body of Aishabi was lying inside the house and only that portion of Ex. P/15 (FIR) can be taken into consideration.P.W. 4 Bharatsingh tried to state about the confession made by accused but that was made in the presence of police-officer and, therefore, that part of evidence will not be admissible.However, this witness also states that he went along with Police Officer, found the house bolted from outside and on opening the house the dead body of Aishabi with Dupatta around her neck was found lying on the ground.P.W. 7, Vijay, P.W. 8 Habibkhan and P.W. 9 Santosh have also given similar statements that they came to know about the death and the murder of Aishabi on coming of Police along with accused.It is noteworthy that the room was bolted from outside.Smt. Bebikhan has gone on duty.She was not present in the house and, therefore the FIR about the death and dead body of Aishabi was received from accused and that part of information can be admitted and can be read against accused, and, therefore, we accept that part of the statement that the recovery of dead body was made at the instance of accused.She has further stated that the mother of accused also demanded money but she could not oblige them.She further states that on one day accused came with one hooligan Munna and pressurised her through him (Munna) and thereafter took her daughter forcibly.She also states that she received Bonus during Dipawali Holidays and she paid Rs. 5000/- to accused.Thus, there was motive for murder.There is nothing to disbelieve this part of the statement of Smt. Bebikhan.P.W. 1 Bebikhan has stated that she has gone on duty and received information about the death of her daughter while on duty.Thus, she was not present at the house.P.W. 2 Sumitrabai and P.W. 3 Shafiq Mohd. have stated that they were watching TV.Serial Tipu Sultan'.Aishabi was also present there.She went to her house which is adjacent to the house of Safiq Mohd. for calling her husband and did not return during that period.They have further stated that nearly at the close of serial 'Tipu Sultan' Police came along with accused and thereafter they got the information about the incident.The room was bolted from outside.It was opened and the dead body was found.From the evidence of Smt. Bebikhan in para 11 solicited during cross-examination it is proved that Aishabi had come to the house of Smt. Bebikhan as she was indisposed; accused also came and stayed in her house arid had stated that he will take care of his wife and will go along with her.This goes to show that accused was residing in the house of Smt. Bebikhan at the time of incident.P.W. 3 Shafiq Mohd. has stated that in the morning accused and Aishabi were present in the house of Smt. Bebikhan.He was sitting outside and thereafter carried the breakfast for accused and came back to his house for watching T.V. Serial.This goes to show that accused was in the house along with Aishabi.This further finds corroboration from the statement of two witnesses i.e. Sumitrabai (PW 2) and Shafiq Mohd. (PW 3) who have stated that after start of T.V. Serial Aishabi went back to her house for calling her husband.Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused and Aishabi were the only two occupants of the house at the time of incident.P.W. 8 Habibkhan has also stated that Aishabi went back to her house (i.e. house of Smt. Bebikhan) for calling accused and did not return and thereafter came along with police as referred above.(i) Accused was ill-treating his wife Aishabi and demanding money; (ii) Mother of accused's wife i.e. Smt. Bebikhan could satisfy his demand partially by paying Rs. 5,000/-.Thus, there was motive, (iii) Deceased Aishabi was reluctant in going along with accused (iv) On the date of incident, mother-in-law of accused Smt. Bebikhan had gone on duty and accused and Aishabi were the two occupants of the house of Smt. Bebikhan (v) Shafiq Mohd. himself took breakfast for the accused and Aishabi.This goes to show that these two persons were the only occupants of the house, (vi) Accused gave information about the death and dead body of Aishabi.The same was recovered on his information and (vii) Aishabi had met homicidal death by strangulation.In view of above, the only irresistible conclusion that can be drawn in the case is that accused and accused alone is the person who caused death of Aishabi by strangulation.In our opinion, therefore, learned trial Judge has rightly found him guilty for causing death of Aishabi.The next point that arise for determination is as to what offence is made-out.Though F.I.R. Ex.P/15 being a confessional statement of accused is inadmissible in evidence and only that part of evidence has been accepted which leads to an information about the death and the dead body of Aishabi.In that statement accused has stated that he asked his wife to go along with him but she refused and further made an imputation that his (accused's) sister was 'Chhinal' and a prostitute.This part of statement would amount to statement made in defence and, therefore, despite the inadmissibility of confessional part of accused, the statement made in his defence and which is beneficial to him can be accepted.This would be the first statement in defence made to Police.In our opinion, therefore, this part of the statement can be read in defence of the accused.If a wife, who is reluctant in going back along with her husband and is insisting for residing in her mother's house, makes an imputation in the presence of her husband that her husband's sister is a prostitute and 'Chhinal'; would cause grave provocation.The imputation was made immediately in reply to the request for accompanying him and therefore, this imputation was sudden in time.I of Indian Penal Code Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder.As a result appeal partly succeeds.Accused-appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable Under Section 302, Indian Penal Code but is convicted Under Section 304, Pt.I of Indian Penal Code as he caused death of his wife in a sudden provocation.
|
['Section 300 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,209,330 |
1 Sl No. 35 20.03.2017 dismissed pk C.R.M. 1805 of 2017 In the matter of: An application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed on 02.03.2017 in connection with Burdwan Sadar Women Police Station Case No. 282 of 2016 dated 24.10.2016 under Sections 323/307/354B/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)Sl No. 35Certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.( Patherya, J.) ( Debi Prosad Dey, J. ) 2
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,209,912 |
W.P.16621(W) of 2016 pg (Lipa Mukherjee Chakraborty & Ors.Hence the writ petition is regarded as maintainable at the instance of all the petitioners.By a judgment and order dated May 11, 2016, each of the petitioners has been acquitted by 2 the learned additional sessions judge.Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan in not considering their representations seeking reinstatement as civic police volunteer under Burdwan police line at Burdwan Police Station, the petitioners have presented this joint writ petition.Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be furnished to the parties expeditiously.(DIPANKAR DATTA,J.)
|
['Section 143 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 341 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 308 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 332 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 186 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,210,984 |
17.12.2020 tkm/ct 28 C.R.M. 8919 of 2020 sl no. 89 (via video conference) In Re : An application for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with Uttarpara P.S case 277 of 2020 dated 13.9.2020 under sections 448/323/325/306/354B/427/379/506/34/201 of the IPC Allowed and In Re : Sourab Biswas @ Sourav Sarkar & Anr.(Suvra Ghosh, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)
|
['Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,211,180 |
Shri Paritosh Trivedi, Advocate for the applicant.Smt. Pratibha Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State.This is the second application filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail.Earlier application (M.Cr.C. No.10164/2014) was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to repeat the same after recording the evidence of the prosecutrix.During trial, statement of prosecutrix Roshni (PW-3) has been recorded before the trial Court.She has not supported the prosecution's case and turned hostile.The applicant is in custody and trial would take considerable time to conclude, therefore, he be released on bail.Learned counsel for State has opposed the application.(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB
|
['Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,212,894 |
The petitioners who have been arraigned as accused in connection with a case instituted on a complaint relating to the offence punishable under sections 420/406/408/506 IPC, which is now pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas, being Complaint Case No. 736 of 2013, has approached this court for quashing of the same.Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.Considered their respective submissions.Perused the impugned complaint and other materials on record.Quashing has been sought for on the grounds,(e) There is no material to show that the alleged misappropriated money was payable by Adarsh Paribahan to the complainant and same has been received by the accused persons, i.e., the petitioners herein.(f) There was no outstanding as alleged.(h) The impugned case has been filed by suppressing the real facts.(i) The complainant agreed to settle the matter out of court.He further submitted the petitioners have misappropriated huge amount of money to the tune of Rs. 6.47 lakhs and obtaining payment from the different parties, the same was not paid to the complainant.The grounds on which quashing has been sought, for are all relates to disputed question of facts.Which version of the case is true, whether that is of the complainant or of the accused is required to be tested during the trial on evidence and is the function of the trial court.It is not legally permissible for the High Court, in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction, to adjudicate such issue.Apart from that, those are essentially the defence of the accused and can only be utilized during the trial.Although it is claimed that over the self-same allegations, an FIR has been lodged with the Barasat Police Station, being the Barasat Police Station Case No. 1368 of 2012 and the impugned complaint was filed long thereafter in the year 2013 but no copy of the FIR has been filed along with this criminal revisional application.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,212,895 |
S.NAGAMUTHU.J., The Government of Tamil Nadu, under G.O.Ms.No.217 dated 02.04.2013, sanctioned the constitution of 22 Fast Track Mahila Courts in 22 different districts in the cadre of Additional Sessions Judges to try the cases of offences against women.Subsequently, under G.O.Ms.No.514 dated 16.07.2013, 22 posts of Additional Sessions Judges were sanctioned, known as the Judges of the Fast Track Mahila Courts to preside over these 22 Courts.They exercise all the powers conferred upon them under the Code of Criminal Procedure as Additional Sessions Judges.These Fast Track Mahila Courts were later on specified to be the Special Courts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences, Act (for short the POCSO Act) under G.O.Ms.Thus, these Additional Sessions Judges (Fast Track Mahila Courts) have been functioning as Special Courts under the POCSO Act.The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate was probably under the impression that in view of Section 28 of the POCSO Act, the Special Courts under the POCSO Act have got exclusive jurisdiction to deal with any case under the said Act including the power to remand an accused on being produced after arrest.This Court, after having considered the said request, on the Administrative side, as per the view expressed by the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge, sent a communication in R.O.C.No.640/2014/G4 dated 12.02.2016 wherein, this Court instructed as follows:-The said letter was placed on the Administrative side before the Hon'ble Portfolio Judge, who in turn directed the Registry to place the papers before the Hon'ble The Chief Justice.The Hon'ble Chief Justice by an Administrative Order dated 11.04.2017, directed the above letter of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Tiruchirappalli, to be treated as a Reference under Section 395 of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as to settle the above stated legal issues in their entirety with a view to maintain uniformity among all the Courts.The Hon'ble Chief Justice has accordingly constituted this Division Bench to resolve the above legal issues under Reference.Accordingly, he made submissions.Thus, the Sessions Judge as well as the Additional Sessions Judge exercises jurisdiction in the same Sessions Division.
|
['Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
125,222,828 |
Heard on admission.Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Section 482 of CrPC, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing First Information Report registered at Crime No.163 of 2019 by Police Station Bhitrwar, district Gwalior for the offence punishable under Section 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C with all consequential proceedings.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the parties have amicably settled the dispute and hence, filed I.A.No.9935/2019 under Section 320 (2) of Cr.P.C stating therein that respondent no.2/complainant does not want to further prosecute the criminal case against the petitioners-accused.The petition signed by both the parties, is supported by their affidavits with a THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH MCRC-50878-2019 (KANHAIYA LAL BATHAM AND ORS.Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.) prayer to quash the FIR pertaining to the case as stated herein above with all consequential proceedings.The compromise was verified by the Principal Registrar on 10.12.2019 stating that offences under Sections 307, 147, 148 and 149 of IPC are non-compoundable which is as under;"Present parties have submitted copy of their Adhar cards regarding identification.Parties have filed joint I.A. No.9935/2019 for compromise alongwith affidavit their affidavits.Statement of Complainant/Respondent No.2 Rajesh Batham and Accused/Petitioners are recorded.Matter perused, inquired and heard as to factum of compromise.After verifying from complainant/Respondent No.2 Rajesh Batham and accused/petitioners that they have arrived at compromise voluntarily, without any threat, inducement and coercion.According to Sec.320 of CRPC the offence U/S 307, 147, 148 and 149 of I.P.C. are not compoundable.The counsel for the State formally opposed the prayer.On perusal of the aforesaid facts, it is evident that all the disputes were resolved mutually owing to which, the respondent no.2 does not want to prosecute the petitioners.
|
['Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,138,032 |
L.P.No.257/2010 Page 1 of 12Briefly the case of the petitioner is that the respondent had allegedly kidnapped the prosecutrix Ms.Chandni (changed name) at about 12:00 noon on 26th June, 2006 from her house at Street No.5, Station Block, Prem Nagar-1, Sultanpuri, Delhi.It is alleged that she was given sweets (barfi) laced with some chemical which made her giddy and this was allegedly done with the intention to seduce her and have illicit intercourse and rape her in a park of Mangol Puri.The matter was allegedly reported to the police by the mother of Ms.Chandni, namely, Smt.Shyamo Devi, PW-2 on 28th June, 2006, two days after her daughter was allegedly kidnapped, and on her complaint an FIR Ex.PW-7/A was registered where after the respondent was arrested.In the trial court, eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the mother, Smt. Shyamo Devi, of Ms.The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code where he claimed himself to be innocent and contended that he has been falsely implicated.He deposed that he was having an affair with Ms.Chandni, and consequently, her father Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 2 of 12 objected to it, and thereafter, he was falsely implicated in the present case.The trial court while acquitting the respondent noted that the prosecutrix was minor at the relevant time.Grave and serious contradictions in the depositions of prosecutrix (PW-1), her mother (PW-L.P.No.257/2010 Page 2 of 122) and Investigating Officer ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-7) were noticed and considered.According to the trial court, the contradictions in the statements were very material which went to the root of the matter and in the circumstances it has been held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against the respondent.From the testimony of prosecutrix (PW-1), her allegation was that at about one and a half years back the respondent had come to her house in the absence of her parents and had given her a piece of sweet (barfi) and after eating it she fell giddy.The accused had asked her to sit in a rickshaw on the pretext of taking her to doctor, however, instead of taking her to doctor, he took her at Mangol Puri in a bushy area where she was raped and kept there for the whole night.She further deposed that she was raped again by the respondent on the next day, and for one week she was taken to various places and the accused repeatedly raped her without her consent.Prosecutrix (PW-1), however, in the cross-examination Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 3 of 12 deposed that Pankaj @ Sonu was not known to her and whenever prosecutrix's mother would go way, an old couple residing near her Jhuggi used to take care of her.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 3 of 12According to PW-1, prosecutrix, sweets (barfi) laced with something which made her giddy was given to her at about 3:00 p.m. and she became unconscious and regained conscious at about 5:00 p.m. She stated that during one week when she was with the respondent, she travelled to various places where different persons were present, however, she did not tell anyone about she being raped repeatedly by the respondent on different dates against her consent and wishes, as he had threatened to kill her.She also deposed that the respondent used to go with her even when she used to go for the call of nature.The mother of the prosecutrix (PW-2), however, deposed that about one and one and a half years back she had gone to Bahadurgarh and when she came back she found her daughter Ms.Chandni was missing and her other siblings were alone in the house.She stated that for 2-3 days she tried to trace out the daughter, but she could not succeed and other residents of the locality had reported the matter to the police.She deposed that she was made to put her thumb impression on certain papers and her daughter was recovered from Mangol Puri Railway Station.However, at the time of recovery of her Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 4 of 12 daughter from Mangol Puri Railway Station, she was not present, and she was informed later regarding recovery of her daughter.The mother was declared hostile and was cross-examined in which she denied that she had reported the matter to the police official and also denied that she had expressed any suspicion on the accused Pankaj @ Sonu.She did not admit that accused Pankaj @ Sonu and her daughter were apprehended in her presence at the Mangol Puri Railway Station.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 4 of 12The trial court has considered the deposition of ASI Krishan Kumar (PW-7) which has inherent contradictions with the statement of Smt.Shyamo Devi (PW-2).According to him on 28th June, 2004, the mother had come to the police post and had lodged a missing report, Ex. PW-2/A, regarding her daughter Ms.Chandni and in the report she had expressed her suspicion on the respondent.According to ASI Krishan Kumar, the mother Smt.Shyamo Devi had produced her daughter herself along with the respondent in the police post.When the prosecutrix was produced by her mother herself, recovery was shown vide Memo Ex. PW-7/B and she was taken for medical examination by lady constable Usha (PW4).According to him, the respondent was also medically examined.The said constable deposed that statement of the Crl.* Crl.M.A No.12891/2010 This is an application seeking condonation of delay of 169 days in filing the leave petition.For the reasons stated in the application delay is condoned.The petitioner/state has sought leave to appeal against the order dated 30th October, 2009 in F.I.R.No.1004/2006, under Sections 366, Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 1 of 12 328 & 376 of Indian Penal Code acquitting the respondent of the said charges.According to her, the case was registered against the respondent by certain persons who had enmity with him, and gave a good certificate to the respondent and also deposed that he does not have any bad habits and she had not complained against him.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 5 of 12 prosecutrix was recorded under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code, and on the basis of her statement Sections 328 and 376 of Criminal Procedure Code were also invoked.He also deposed about the disclosure statement made by the respondent, and the statement of prosecutrix under Section 164 of Criminal Procedure Code could not be recorded due to language problem.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 5 of 12From perusal of the trial court record and the testimonies of these witnesses, the learned public prosecutor has asserted that the testimony of the prosecutrix is corroborated by the medical evidence and by the testimony of her mother, and there are no serious and grave contradictions in the depositions of the prosecutrix, her mother and the investigating officer.It is further asserted that since the accused had admitted that he had been having an affair with the prosecutrix, therefore, the testimonies of these witnesses ought to have been believed and in the circumstances, the alleged contradictions on the basis of which, the trial court has acquitted the respondent has to be ignored and are to be treated as minor imperfections.In the circumstances, it is prayed that leave to appeal be granted against the order of the trial court acquitting the respondent from the charges under Sections 366, 328 and 376 of Indian Penal Code.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 6 of 12L.P.No.257/2010 Page 6 of 12This Court has perused the trial court record and has gone through various testimonies and documents on record in details along with the public prosecutor.From the perusal of the testimonies, it is apparent that there are major contradictions between the testimonies of PW-1 Ms.Chandni, her mother Smt.Shyamo Devi (PW2) and ASI Krishan Kumar(PW7).The prosecutrix had stated that she was recovered with Pankaj @ Sonu by the police and her mother from the Mangol Puri Railway Station, whereas the ASI Krishan Kumar had deposed that she was not recovered with the respondent rather PW-2 mother, Smt.Shyamo Devi of the prosecutrix had brought the prosecutrix and the respondent to the police post where after a recovery memo was prepared and the prosecutrix along with the accused was sent for medical examination.Shyamo Devi, on the other hand, stated that the police had recovered her daughter from the Mangol Puri Railway Station, but she was not present at that time.In the circumstances, all the three witnesses have given three different versions.Which version is correct cannot be inferred on the basis of any other evidence or document on record.There are inherent contradictions regarding missing of Ms.Chandni (prosecutrix).Shyamo Devi mother has denied that she had complained to the police about her missing daughter and had expressed any suspicion on the respondent.She has also denied that her daughter with the respondent was apprehended by other relatives Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 7 of 12 from the Mangol Puri Railway Station, and thereafter police had arrested the accused.She has very categorically stated that she did not lodge a complaint but her thumb impression was taken on Ex. PW-2/A and other blank papers which was given to her at the insistence of her neighbour and relatives.This deposition is diametrically contrary to the statement of ASI Krishan Kumar who deposed that Smt.Shyamo Devi, mother of prosecutrix had come to the police post and had lodged a missing person report, Ex. PW-2/A, and the mother herself had produced her daughter on 2nd July, 2006 along with accused respondent where after they had been taken into custody.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 7 of 12Brijesh Singh (PW-5) has deposed that on local examination of the prosecutrix no external injury on the parts of her body was found and even no external injury was found on the body of the accused/ respondent.Manoj Dhingra (PW-6) has deposed that Dr.Meenakshi had opined that hymen of the prosecutrix was torn.Forensic examination report Ex. PW-7/H reveals that semen was not detected on Kameej, Salwar, Dupatta and underwear.The report though opined that Kameej, Salwar and Dupatta had human blood, but the blood group was not detected.From the said report and other evidence, it cannot be inferred that the accused/ respondent had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.In the circumstances, the only evidence of sexual intercourse by the respondent with the prosecutrix is her statement.The statement of Ms.Chandni (PW-1) is also not consistent viz-viz Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 8 of 12 statement of her mother Smt.Shyamo Devi and ASI Krishan Kumar.Her statement that the respondent took her to bushy area near Mangol Puri and there he raped her.Thereafter, he took her to different places and continuously had sexual intercourse with her at different places, against her consent also does not inspire confidence.Though the medical examination had revealed that her hymen was torn, from the evidence of the witnesses and the report of forensic examination, it cannot be inferred that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix.The mother of the prosecutrix has rather deposed that she did not even complain to the police and that it was at the insistence of other relatives, a police complaint was lodged and she was made to thumb mark the papers.The mother says that her daughter was not recovered with the respondent in her presence whereas the Inspector stated that the mother had produced the prosecutrix and the respondent before the police where after the respondent was arrested and the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination.The prosecutrix stated that she is not known to the respondent whereas the respondent deposed that he was having an affair with the prosecutrix.If prosecutrix was not known to the respondent, her version that she was given sweets (barfi) laced with something which made her giddy and she became unconscious and regained conscious after two hours and she was taken to bushy area near Mangol Puri and raped by the respondent cannot be believed.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 8 of 12L.P.No.257/2010 Page 9 of 12On the analysis of facts and circumstances and the evidence of the prosecution, this Court does not differ with the conclusions of the Trial Court acquitting the respondent of the charge under section 376 of IPC and other sections in Crl.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 11 of 12 the facts and circumstances of the case.L.P.No.257/2010 Page 11 of 12
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,144,258 |
Learned 4th A.S.J, Bhopal framed charges as mentioned above.On behalf of the petitioners, it is claimed that the deceased herself is responsible for the entire act.She left a suicide note in which she has mentioned that she is only responsible for her act and she is taking such step on her own will and nobody has forced her to do so.The petitioners are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased.Therefore, they are equally liable for the offence as that of other accused persons.Perused the record.As per the post mortem report dated 25.02.2016, deceased Aruna Saini died due to cardiorespiratory failure as a result of poison.Within seven years of her marriage, she died in suspicious circumstances by consuming poison at her matrimonial home.Therefore, presumption under Section 113-A and 113-B exists against the accused persons.This revision under section 401 of Cr.P.C has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by 4th A.S.J, Bhopal in S.T. No. 476/2016 wherein charges have been framed against the petitioners for offence under Sections 498-A, 304-B in alternative 306 and in alternative 302 of I.P.C and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.Briefly stated the factual matrix of the case is that petitioner No. 2- Savita Saini is the wife of petitioner No. 1-Narbada Prasad Saini.The petitioners and other members of the family including the husband of the deceased Aruna Saini allegedly demanded dowry and harassed the deceased.Therefore, she died by consuming poisonous substance on 25.02.2010 in suspicious circumstances.Sufficient articles and goods were given as dowry.After some days, the demand of 10-12 lac was made to deceased Aruna Saini by her husband Jamna Prasad Saini and his elder brother petitioner No. 1- Narbada Prasad Saini, his wife petitioner No. 2- Savita Saini.They harassed her mentally and physically because of which Aruna consumed poison and died.After due investigation, charge sheet has been filed by Police Station Gandhinagar, Distt.She has never made any complaint against the petitioners.The Court below failed to consider the circumstances.There is no substantive prima facie case against the petitioners.Therefore, the petitioners request to set aside the order dated 22.03.2017 and to discharge the petitioners from the offences.Learned G.A for the respondent/State vehemently opposed the contentions and submitted that the petitioners' name have been mentioned as the perpetrators of crime.In the statement of Sonu Saini (the brother of deceased), Smt. Urmila Bai (the mother of deceased), Shri Amar Saini- (another brother of the deceased), Smt. Janki Saini, (the aunt of the deceased) have clearly stated the role of the petitioners for demanding dowry and harassment caused to Aruna.According to the statements of Sonu Saini, Nathuram Saini, Manish Kumar Saini, Urmila Saini, Ramkishan Saini, Amar Saini, Janki Saini and Jagdish Saini recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, they have named the petitioners alleging demand of dowry.For few days, things were normal.Subsequently, the petitioners again started harassing the deceased and taunted her.Jamna Prasad Saini used to beat Aruna on the instigation of the petitioners.The petitioners further demanded 10-12 lac for the business of Jamna Prasad.Because the demand was not fulfilled, Aruna was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment.Eight days before the incident when Aruna had come to the maternal home, she again informed Sonu Saini about the demand of dowry.Sonu Saini said to her that it will take some time.On 25.02.2016 at about 3-4 am, the petitioner informed him that Aruna has been fallen sick and admitted in L.B.S. Hospital when Sonu Saini accompanied by Manish to L.B.S Hospital.Aruna was admitted in I.C.U. It was informed to him that Aruna passed away.Suicide note allegedly written by Aruna does carry the impression that she died without any cause.But it offends commonsense that why should she end her life without any reason, when she was never a mental patient.He also placed reliance on Ramaiah @ Rama Vs.State of Karnataka, AIR 2014 SC 3388 in which it has been held that "No specific allegation by witnesses for demand of dowry against accused- Even mother of deceased is not stating that her daughter was harassed for not bringing alleged balance dowry amount- Demand of dowry and harassment thus not proved beyond reasonable doubt." This citation is not applicable in the present case for there has been specific allegation against the petitioner.
|
['Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,144,603 |
Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107 and State of Nagaland Vs.Lipok Ao, 2005 (3) SCC 752 holding that sufficient cause should be considered with pragmatism in justice oriented approach rather than a technical defection of sufficient causes for explaining every days delay having regard to considerable delay of procedural red tape in the decision making process of the government, certain amount of latitude is permissible and should be given.The applicant has contended that the State Government is the impersonal machinery working through its officers or servants hence it cannot be put on the same footing as an individual.The case of the prosecution is that on 27th February 2009 the accused Ranjeet had kidnapped the prosecutrix, Sitara from her house and after making her unconscious took her to a room for illicit sexual intercourse with a further intent to sell her to accused Rajender in complicity with Mahender Rana.During investigation of the said FIR, at the instance of Ashok, Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 3 of 16 brother of Mamta, prosecutrix was recovered from village Tonk and was brought to Delhi, where her statement was recorded.On the basis of the statement made by prosecutrix, further investigation was carried out.The statement of prosecutrix under Sectoin 164 of Crl.Procedure Code was recorded where she deposed that she is a resident of the village Tonk in Rajasthan.In her house Ranjeet used to reside as a Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 4 of 16 tenant who had an evil eye on her jewellery.According to her, when she was coming back from the bathroom Ranjeet had placed a cloth on her face, which made her unconscious and when she regained consciousness, she found herself in Delhi.When the prosecutrix expressed desire to go back to her parents, she was threatened and told that henceforth she would not go back to her house otherwise she and her parents would be killed.She also deposed that Ranjit used to beat her and have sexual intercourse, resulting into prosecutrix getting pregnant and he used to kick her on her stomach.She denied that she had married Ranjeet.According to her, she and Ranjeet were at Delhi residing in the house of Rana Mahender who also had an evil eye on her.She was pressurized to marry Rana Mahender Singh or some other person.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 4 of 16According to the prosecutrix, Ranjeet and Rana Mahender Singh afterwards left her in the village Khondla with accused Rajender.She was told that Ranjeet has sold her to Rajender and Ranjeet also tried to rape her and used to beat her.However, later on, the prosecutrix was left at Tonk at a place Pahari and one Ashok left her at the house of her uncle from where she was recovered by the Police.It was also contended on behalf of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was 15 years old.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 5 of 16Charge under Section 323 of IPC was also framed on account of beating the prosecutrix with a belt and causing simple hurt to her from 26th February, 2009 till March, 2009 and under Section 368 of IPC for keeping the prosecutrix at his residence knowing that she had been abducted by Ranjeet for committing illicit sexual intercourse.The accused Rajender pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.The charges were framed against the accused Ranjeet on 6th August, 2009 that 4-5 months prior to 27th February, 2009, he made the prosecutrix unconscious and kidnapped her from the lawful guardianship of her father Mohammudin and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 363 of IPC and wrongfully confined her at Delhi and committed an offence punishable under Section 365 of IPC and under Section 366 for abducting the prosecutrix with the intent or knowledge that she would be forced to have illicit intercourse with the accused Ranjeet and under Section 366A of IPC for inducing the prosecutrix to have illicit intercourse with another accused Rajender and under Sectoin 372 of IPC for selling the prosecutrix to accused Rajender with the intent or Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 6 of 16 knowing that she would be employed for illicit sexual intercourse and that he would also try to rape her.The charges were also framed under Section 376 for raping the prosecutrix for 4-5months prior to 26th February, 2009 and for threatening the prosecutrix that if she would leave, she and her parents would be killed under Section 506 of IPC.In her cross-examination, the prosecutrix admitted that Ranjeet used to leave for work in the morning and used to return back in the evening and she used to be alone and when she used to be alone, she used to visit the house of Mamta and in the circumstances despite having ample opportunity for the prosecutrix to leave or to narrate her tale to nearby residents or go to police, she did not do anything which reflects of her consent and her willingness.Volunteered: it is Mamta, who had compelled me to make such statement.It is incorrect to suggest that Ranjeet had bad intentions towards me or that he used to look towards me with an evil eye or that I complained about this fact to my father or that Ranjeet begged pardon in this regard from my father nor I had stated so before the police.It is incorrect to suggest that accused Rajender told me that he had purchased me Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 1 of 16L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 1 of 16The applicant has contended that he has a prima facie case and the petition seeking leave to appeal has been delayed on account of many factors.According to the applicant, considerable time was taken for procuring the certified copy of the judgment.Thereafter, time was taken in preparing a report recommending the filing of the petition for leave to appeal and perusal of the recommendations by the director of prosecution and by Secretary, Law and Justice.The applicant has contended that 80 days delay occurred on account of various steps taken in finalizing the decision to file the petition seeking leave to appeal and in the circumstances, it is contended that there is sufficient cause in the facts and circumstances to condone the delay in filing the petition for leave to appeal.The applicant has relied on Collector of Land Acquisition Vs.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 2 of 16L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 2 of 16LP No. 385/2010 The petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 19th April, 2010 acquitting the respondents in Sessions Case No. 37/2010 titled as State vs. Rajender & Ors.Believing the statement of the prosecutrix the complaint lodged under FIR No. 89 was abandoned.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 3 of 16The allegations were that Ranjeet had kidnapped the prosecutrix on 27th February, 2009 after making her unconscious and thereafter had taken her to a room with the purpose of seducing her to have illicit intercourse with Rajender.The charge for selling the prosecutrix to accused Rajender was also made besides the charge under Section 506 of IPC for extending threats to her that in case she would leave the place, her parents would be killed.Against accused Rajender, charge under Section 373 for purchasing the prosecutrix from accused Ranjeet and Mahender Rana and under Section 368 for keeping the prosecutrix at his residence knowing that she had been abducted, was also framed.Accused Rajender was also charged under Section 376 of IPC r/w Section 511 of IPC for attempting to commit rape of prosecutrix and under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt with belt to the prosecutrix during her stay with accused Rajender.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 5 of 16The charges were framed against Rajender on 31st July, 2009 that he purchased the prosecutrix Sitara @ Laxmi, who was below 18 years of age on 26th February, 2009 from Ranjeet and Rana Mahender Singh with the intent to employ her for prostitution and illicit intercourse and thus, committed an offence punishable under Section 373 of IPC.He was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC as allegedly on 26th February, 2009 accused Rajender tried to rape the prosecutrix.The accused Ranjeet pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 6 of 16During trial the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and the statements of accused Ranjeet and Rajender under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were also recorded.After the statements were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the Trial Court considered the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C and her deposition before the Court and found them to be totally inconsistent and the two statements could not be reconciled.The deposition of the prosecutrix was found to be unreliable.The Trial Court observed that on the one hand the prosecutrix had taken the stand that she was under the threat of Mamta and Ashok to give a particular statement and that is why she had given the statement before the police as was dictated by Mamta against Mahender Singh Rana, however, when Mamta appeared as PW-8, she was cross-examined on the lines as was deposed by the prosecutrix before the Court.It was also noticed from the cross- examination of Mamta that she was not present at the time of recovery of prosecutrix from the house of her uncle which fact was also corroborated by the prosecutrix deposing that Mamta was not present.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 7 of 16 Thus, it was inferred that the prosecutrix was alone when she was recovered and brought by police from her uncles house, which was found to be contrary to the prosecution version that Mamta and prosecutrix were brought together from the house of the uncle of Mamta.The Trial Court has also relied on the fact that as per the case of prosecution, Ranjeet had stated in his complaint that Mamta had taken away his wife but no investigation was made regarding the allegations made by the accused Ranjeet.The Trial Court also inferred that though the prosecutrix is a Muslim and Ranjeet is Hindu, however, she adopted a Hindu name, which reflects that the stay of the prosecutrix with Ranjeet was in the nature of a permanent stay and that is why she changed her name and used to address Mamta as Mummy, which was also admitted and stated by her in her cross- examination.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 7 of 16The plea of the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a minor was also disbelieved.Though her brother admitted that there is a ration card which includes the name of the prosecutrix, which ration card was neither produced by the brother of the prosecutrix nor was recovered by the Police, which could have proved the age of prosecutrix.As per the bone-age X-ray and the report Ex. PW-1A, her bone age was found to be 15-17 years.If she was more than 16 years of age she was competent to give consent for sexual intercourse.The Trial Court also relied on the cross-examination of PW-1 Dr. L.R. Richhela, who admitted that Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 8 of 16 meeting of proximal end of tibia, which is just fusing, would reflect that the age of the prosecutrix is more than 17 years.It was inferred that if a particular bone is fusing and the process of fusing starts only after 17 years, then, the age is bound to be more than 17 years.Taking into consideration the margin of two years, it has been inferred that the age could be more than 19 years and thus, it was concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the prosecutrix was a minor.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 8 of 16While acquitting the respondents, the Trial Court also relied on the fact that the prosecutrix herself got her pregnancy terminated and while doing so, though she had ample opportunity to lodge complaint, she opted not to do so.The incident of kidnapping her sex was also disbelieved as she had changed her initial version that she was made unconscious to the version that she was put under a spell by Ashok who was engaged in the business of jadu tona.She also deposed that later on she was taken in a bus and despite being in presence of many persons in the bus she did not attempt to attract the attention of others or tried to tell anyone that she has been kidnapped and being taken away against her will and wishes.Though she was shifted from the house of Mamta to another house and then to the house of Mahender Singh Rana, where the prosecutrix stayed for more than six months, however, she did not attempt to intimate anyone or complain to anyone during her stay that she has been kidnapped and being held against her will and wishes.On the basis of testimonies of the witnesses, it has Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 9 of 16 also been noticed that she remained with Rajender for more than 15 days and with Ashok for more than seven days, however, she did not complain to anyone or tried to flee or take help of some one.Reliance was also placed on the testimony of PW-7 Habib-ul-Rehman with whom she was left and from where she was recovered, however, the prosecutrix did not even tell him that she had been kidnapped.Habib-ul-Rehman, who was her uncle, was not told by the prosecutrix about her kidnapping and thus making her version that she was kidnapped and raped against her wishes extremely doubtful.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 9 of 16The prosecutrix herself denied her sale by Ranjeet to Rajender and her purchase by Rajender.Rather she deposed that Rajender did not commit any wrong act with her.She even admitted that Rajender did not know that she had been kidnapped and he had told Ranjeet that he should not keep her at his residence.In the cross-examination of the prosecutrix she denied that Ranjeet and Mahender Singh Rana had colluded and Rajender had tried to rape her.She rather denied that Ranjeet had placed a cloth on her mouth to make her unconscious, instead she stated that she was put under a spell by Ashok.The examination-in-chief of the prosecutrix was found to be completely at variance with the case set up by the prosecution.In the case set up by the prosecution, it is contended that Ranjeet was a tenant and he had an evil eye on her, however in her statement before Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 10 of 16 the Court, she denied that Ranjeet had any evil eye on her and that she had complained about this fact to her parents and that Ranjeet had begged pardon from her father.She also denied Ranjeet had left her at the house of Ashok.Perusal of her MLC, does not show any wound CLW or abrasion on her body.MLC also rules out any forcible sexual intercourse or beatings to the prosecutrix by belt or any other type of beatings.At the time of MLC, no history of rape or the person who allegedly raped the prosecutrix was given.Even if on fresh scrutiny and reappraisal of the evidence and perusal of the material on record, if the High Court is of the opinion that another view is possible or which can be reasonably taken, then the view which favors the accused should be adopted and the view taken by the trial Court which had an advantage of looking at the demeanour of witnesses Crl.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 12 of 16 and observing their conduct in the Court is not to be substituted by another view which may be reasonably possible in the opinion of the High Court.The Courts have held that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused should be adopted.In her cross- examination, she has absolved Rajender of raping or trying to rape her and has also denied that Ranjeet had placed a cloth on her mouth which made her unconscious.Rather she stated that Mamta had compelled her to make such a statement.I have stated before the police that he had tried to commit rape on being compelled to do so by Mamta.It is incorrect to suggest that when I was returning back after attending the call of nature, accused Ranjeet placed a cloth on my mouth or that I became unconscious thereafter.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 14 of 16 from Mahender Rana and Ranjeet nor I had stated so before the police.It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely and not fully supporting the case of the prosecution in order to save accused Ranjeet and accused Rajender from serious charges.L.P. No. 385/2010 Page 14 of 16Court Question: Are you under pressure or threat from anybody? Answer: I am not under any threat, pressure or coercion from anybody and making this statement voluntarily.XXX by Ms. Kanta Rana, Advocate from Legal Aid for accused persons.I used to call Mamta as Mummy as Mamta used to tell me to call her Mummy.Mamta had named me as Laxmi.It is correct that Ranjeet used to leave for work in the morning and used to return back in the evening.It is correct that in the absence of Ranjeet, I used to be alone at the house and Mamta used to call me at her house.At the time I reached Delhi from Tonk, I was wearing earrings (Bali) which were given to me in my engagement at Tonk.The said earrings are now in possession of Mamta, Ashok, Pinnu and Rajender.I have a Ration Card.Volunteered: we both were in the police Lock-Up at that time."Also on perusal of the statement of PW-9 Sh.Mohd. Saeed, who is the elder brother of the prosecutrix the entire case of the prosecution is completely ruled out.If the prosecutrix and her brother have categorically admitted that she was not abducted and she was not made unconscious and that she was not raped nor was there any attempt to rape, the findings of the Trial Court cannot be termed to be unsustainable or perverse in any manner or not based on evidence.
|
['Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 366A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 363 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 365 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 511 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,157,212 |
1 High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench at Indore Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39881/2019 (Ajay Bhuriya s/o Ansingh Bhuriya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh) Indore, Dated 01.10.2019 Mr. Shashank Shrivastava, learned counsel for the applicant.Mr. Gaurav Kumar Verma, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh.They are heard.As per prosecution case, on the basis of the allegations made by minor girl, offence under Sections 363 and 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and also under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 has been registered against the applicant.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted 2 that the applicant is a young boy aged about 18 years and he has not committed any offence.It is further submitted that the present applicant is ready to cooperate with the investigation and there is no possibility of his / her absconsion or tampering with the evidence, if enlarged on anticipatory bail.Under these circumstance, learned counsel for the applicant prays for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor for the non-applicant / State of Madhya Pradesh opposes the application and prays for rejection of the anticipatory bail application.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the matter, I deem it proper to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.Accordingly, this application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest, applicant Ajay Bhuriya s/o Ansingh Bhuriya shall be released on 3 bail, upon his / her executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (rupees fifth thousand only) and furnishing one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer).The applicant shall make himself / herself available for interrogation by a Police Officer, as and when required.Accordingly, Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.39881/2019 stands allowed.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Awasthi) Judge Pithawe RC Digitally signed by Ramesh Chandra Pithawe Date: 2019.10.01 16:57:42 +05'30'
|
['Section 3 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,415,309 |
3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/defacto complainant submitted that now, both the petitioners and the second respondent/defacto complainant have settled the dispute between themselves amicably and now, the dispute has been resolved between themselves and they are living in harmony and there is no problem between themselves and the second respondent/de-facto complainant is not willing to proceed further with the criminal case.http://www.judis.nic.in 2/12 Crl.O.P.(MD) No.10098 of 2019This petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.115 of 2013 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tirunelveli.2.The petitioners are A1 to A3 in Crime No.1744 of 2012 registered for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 294(b), 323, 506(ii) of IPC., @ 279, 337, 294(b), 352 and 506(ii) of IPC., based on the complaint given by the second respondent/de-facto complainant.The aforesaid complaint has been given on the ground that the petitioners have threatened the defacto complainant and uttered filthy language.After completing the investigation, the respondent police has filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.Now, to quash the above criminal proceedings, the present petition has been filed.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 337 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 320 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,234,262 |
Respondent filed an application for divorce on the ground of cruelty alleging that because of the acts of cruelty on several occasions perpetuated by the appellant, the respondent-husband was under apprehension that it would not be desirable and safe to stay with the appellant and to continue their marital relationships.It was, inter-alia, stated in the divorce petition as follows:The appellant's father was an employee in the Railway department and the appellant used to make demands for money frequently and used to quarrel when money was not paid.She did not even provide food to her husband or the children and used to threaten the husband to falsely implicate him in a case of dowry demand and to kill the children and to put the blame on the respondent-husband and his family members.On 23.10.1999 she took Rs.1,05,000/- from the respondent and acknowledged the receipt of the money in the diary of the respondent-husband.She used to borrow money from time to time at the behest of her parents.From the wedlock four children were borne namely, Neha, Anu, Khemraj and Vishnu Sagar.The appellant used to keep the children tied by ropes and she attempted to throw them down from the rooftop and used to physically torture them.She was temperamentally very cruel and used to behave cruelly with the children also.She always used to threaten that she will destroy the whole family of the respondent and that there would be no successor left in the family.On 5.4.2002 at about 12.00 noon she left her parental home alongwith three children namely, Neha, Anu and Khemraj on the pretext that she was going to her parental house which was located in the same village.Since she did not return till evening as was told to the respondent-husband, he started searching for her.She did not know as to how the children fell into the well.She was herself unconscious and recovered after about four days.J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 3686 OF 2006)Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.Leave granted.Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the 'Act').During course of search the garments and slippers of the children and the appellant were found lying near the well of Ramialji.Police was informed and on search dead bodies of the three children were recovered from the well and appellant was also taken out of the well.A criminal case was instituted and she was convicted for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC').She was pregnant at that time and subsequently delivered a child.She filed an application for bail.While on bail, she filed a false case alleging dowry demand against the respondent-husband and his family members.Final report was given by police and it was observed that a false case had been lodged.The appellant filed her response to the petition for divorce and contended that no amount was borrowed by her father or any of her family members.The respondent-husband used to threaten her for dowry and she had never perpetuated any cruelty so far as the children and the husband are concerned.The husband, in fact, turned her out of matrimonial home on 5.4.2002 alongwith their three children.Unfortunately, she and the three children fell into the well.The appeal is pending against her conviction.The trial Court found that the allegation of cruelty was established.Several instances were noted.One of them related to her behaviour on the date of judgment in the criminal case.After the judgment of conviction was pronounced, she threatened to kill the husband and prosecute him.It was also noted by the trial Court that the allegation made by her alleging for dowry demand was dis-believed and the police gave final report stating that the case was falsely lodged.The trial Court granted the decree of divorce which was, as noted above, confirmed by the High Court in appeal by dismissing appellant appeal.There will be no order as to costs.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,428,643 |
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.126/2018 under Sections 354/354A/356/379/34 IPC, Police Station Amar Colony.As per the allegations in the FIR, the complainant was walking on the street and was threatened by three boys who misbehaved with her and also snatched a gold chain.It is alleged that she has named two of the boys in the FIR and contended that they were calling each BAIL APPLN.1424/2018 Page 1 of 3 other by name.BAIL APPLN.1424/2018 Page 1 of 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated.He submits that the subject FIR has been lodged at the behest of a cousin brother of the petitioner with whom the petitioner is having a dispute and who is also the landlord of the complainant.By order dated 26.07.2018, petitioner was granted interim protection subject to joining investigation.5. Learned APP for the State confirms that the petitioner had joined investigation and the investigation is nearly complete and chargesheet is in the process of being finalised for being filed.He submits that there is no further requirement of the petitioner to join investigation.Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view of the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail.Accordingly, it is directed that in the event of arrest, the arresting officer/IO/SHO shall release the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer/SHO concerned.Petitioner shall not do anything which may BAIL APPLN.1424/2018 Page 2 of 3 prejudice the investigation, trial or prosecution witnesses.BAIL APPLN.1424/2018 Page 2 of 3The petition is allowed in the above terms.BAIL APPLN.1424/2018 Page 3 of 3
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 354 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,432,132 |
Learned A.G.A 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.Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT.IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HER COUNSEL.IN CASE OF HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.(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., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST HIM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith.Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the counsel of the party concerned.The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.Order Date :- 29.9.2020 Sumit S
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,234,363 |
The case of the prosecution is that appellant Shama Parveen was married to deceased Mohd. Shameem.Out of their wedlock three sons were CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 2 of 32 born.All were minor at the time of alleged incident.They were all residing at N-169, Sunder Nagri, Delhi.The appellant Tauhid Raza @ Guddu was a neighbour of the appellant Shama Parveen.It is alleged that Tauhid Raza @ Guddu used to visit the house of Shama Parveen and they were having a love affair.It is alleged that appellant Shama Parveen was having extra- marital relations with him.It is alleged that both the appellants hatched a conspiracy with co-accused Khalil to kill the deceased and in pursuance of aforesaid criminal conspiracy they, on the night intervening 13th and 14th February, 2002, murdered deceased Mohd. Shameem, while he was sleeping in his house and after murdering, the appellant Tauhid Raza @ Guddu and the co-accused Mohd. Khalil took the dead body in a three wheeler scooter bearing no. DL1RG7324 and had thrown the same at bus terminal of bus route no. 212 at 100 ft.Road in the jurisdiction of police station Nand Nagri.Appellant Tauhid Raza had also parked the two wheeler scooter bearing no. DL7SG5486 of the deceased near the dead body and left the key therein in order to conceal the real facts and to give the alleged murder the shape of an accident.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 2 of 32On 14th February, 2002 Constable Vijay Pal PW-16, posted at Police Station Dilshad Garden was patrolling along with Constable Bijender in the area.They informed the PCR which in turn informed police station Nand Nagri wherein DD No. 2A Ex. PW5/A was got recorded.The aforesaid DD report i.e., Ex.PW5/A was marked to SI Tanvir Ashraf PW-17 who along with Constable Yashvir went to the spot where the dead body of a male aged about 40 years having some injuries on the head and cut marks on the shoulder was lying.A scooter (Bajaj Chetak) bearing CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 3 of 32 no. DL 7SQ 5486 seized vide memo Ex. PW17/article 12 was parked at some distance from the dead body.A pair of shoes with blood stained socks were also lying near the dead body.A jacket made of rexine was also lying there.There was a key in the scooter.With the said key, dickey of the scooter was opened and driving licence, pollution certificate, insurance policy and other documents were taken out.The driving licence was in the name of Shamim Ahmed, R/o N-169, Sunder Nagri.In the meantime, Inspector Iqbal Mohd PW 18A had also reached the spot.One Abdul Karim (PW1) also reached there and had identified the dead body as that of his relative, namely Shamim Ahmed.The crime team including a photographer was called at the spot.Inspector Iqbal Mohd PW-18A made endorsement Ex. PW18/A on the copy of DD 2A Ex. PW5/A and sent the same to police station through Constable Hitender PW 14 and got the FIR Ex.PW5/B registered.The Photographer took photos Ex. PW6/16 to Ex.PW6/30 of the spot.The Site Plan Ex.PW18/B was prepared.The blood from the spot was picked up with the help of a cotton gauze as well as earth control and blood stained earth.Three separate pulandas (bundles) were prepared in this regard and the same were sealed with the seal of IMK and seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW14/D. The jacket, shoes and socks lying at the spot were kept in a pullanda which was also sealed with the seal of IMK and were seized vide memo Ex.PW14/A. The documents recovered from the dickey of scooter were also seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B. The scooter along with the key was also seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/C. Inspector Iqbal Mohd PW-18A filled up the inquest form.The statement of Abdul Karim PW-1 and that of son of the deceased Afsar Karim PW4 were recorded about identification of dead body.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 3 of 32CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 4 of 32Thereafter, Inspector Iqbal Mohd PW-18A along with SI Tanvir Ashraf PW17 and Constable Manoj went to the house of deceased at N-169, Sunder Nagri where his wife appellant Shama Parveen had met them.A lady constable Kamini PW13 was also called there.The appellant Shama Parveen was interrogated by Inspector PW-18A. Her personal search was conducted by lady Constable Kamini PW13 vide memo Ex. PW13/A. Appellant Shama Parveen had made disclosure statement Ex.Appellant Shama Parveen also produced over 21 similar sheets of paper after taking out the same from an iron trunk.The used as well as unused paper were seized in two different pullandas vide Seizure memo Ex.PW13/E. Appellant Shama Parveen also produced one broken wicket which was lying behind a refrigerator kept in the same room.The same was kept in a polythene bag and then put in a pulanda which was sealed with the seal of IMK.The IO PW18A had found hair struck on the wall which was blood stained.He seized the same by completing necessary formalities.Some portion of concrete from the wall which was blood stained was also seized.There was also some blood on a cot made of iron pipes (folding) in the room which was picked up by him and kept in a pullanda.The same was sealed with the seal of IMK.All the above three sealed pullandas were seized vide memo Ex. PW 13/D. Thereafter, appellant Shama Praveen took them to the roof of her house and had shown one drum containing fresh paint which was also seized after completing CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 5 of 32 necessary formalities in this regard vide seizure memo Ex.PW 13/F. The videographer along with photographer were called at the spot.The entire proceedings were got videographed.PW17/A. On interrogation, he made a disclosure statement Ex.PW 17/C. Appellant-Tauhid Raza led the police party to his house bearing No. N-162 in the same gali and opened the door of his house with a key and produced one sword lying on the ledge, the blade of which was blood stained.The sketch Ex. PW17/D of sword was prepared.The same was seized by IO PW18A vide memo Ex.PW 17/D after completing necessary formalities.The lock and key were also seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW17/E.Thereafter, appellant Tauhid Raza took the police party to Tahidpur main road near cremation ground and pointed out a place in nala and got recovered 12 clothes i.e., pillow covers, bed sheets, shirt, muffler etc and one big broken cricket wicket.All these clothes/broken wicket were seized by the IO by completing the formalities vide memo Ex.PW 11/A. Appellant Tauhid Raza again took the IO PW18A and other police officials to his house and produced one photograph Ex.PW 13/A which was seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW 17/F. All the proceedings were videographed.Both the appellants were brought to the police station and were put up in the lock up.On that very day, Shri Shravan Kumar (PW9), owner of TSR bearing no. DL IRG-7324 produced the TSR Ex. P1 in the police station.The right side curtain of TSR had blood stains.A piece of curtain having blood stains CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 6 of 32 was seized after cutting it from the curtain vide seizure memo Ex.PW8/DA after completing necessary formalities.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 6 of 32On 15th February, 2002, co-accused Mohd.Khalil was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/G. On interrogation, he also made a disclosure statement Ex.PW17/I and his personal search was taken vide memo Ex.PW17/H. On the same day, postmortem examination of the dead body was conducted.He is alleged to have seen the occurrence.The statement of other witnesses was also recorded in the course of investigation.The prosecution in all had examined 21 witnesses, out of which Afsar Karim, PW-4, the son of deceased and appellant, is the eye witness to the alleged occurrence.He was about 9 years old at the time of occurrence.PW-2 Dr Gaurav Jain had conducted postmortem examination on the deceased.Ms Geeta Bhatacharya, PW-16 and Sh.It is contended that Constable Ram Pal PW-11 was at the relevant time a Videographer posted in Distt.Line North East.As per his deposition he was called by the SHO of P.S Nand Nagri on 14.02.2002 and thereupon he had gone to Sunder Nagri with the motor cycle rider of said police station at the house of appellant where ACP, SHO PW18A, SI Tanvir Ahmed PW17 were present.Blood stained hair of deceased was also seized from the place of occurrence.No explanation was given as to why there were blood stains on the wall of the house.His mother i.e., appellant Shama Parveen had told him not to disclose the said fact to his father otherwise he would get angry.He has further deposed that during the presence of Tauhid Raza in his house he used to go to school and when he used to return from the school in the noon time he used to find appellant Tauhid Raza at his house.Her mother used to send him and his brother separately for purchasing one or the other things from the market.On 13.02.2002 at about 9.30 p.m. appellant Tauhid Raza @ Guddu borrowed scooter from his father and went away.He went to sleep at about 10.30 p.m. He and his elder brother slept on a cot in the verandah.His mother and younger brother slept on another cot in the room.His father slept on the third cot in the room.At about 1/2 a.m. in the night, he heard the shrieks of his father who was saying "ALLAH ALLAH".He woke up and went inside the room.He saw appellant Guddu was hitting a wicket on the head of his father.When he got up, he found his younger brother sleeping with him on his cot.When his father tried to stand up from the cot, his mother pulled his leg, sat on his chest and pressed his mouth with a pillow.He was frightened to see the same and wanted to go downstairs to urinate but appellant Tauhid Raza prohibited him from doing so and asked him to urinate in the verandah itself.He also saw a sword lying beneath the cot of his father.He urinated in the verandah.When he returned, appellant Tauhid Raza told him not to tell anything to anyone failing which he would face the same thing.Thereafter, appellant Tauhid Raza and his mother took the dead body downstairs.Her mother covered the blood stains on CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 15 of 32 the wall with the help of water colour of pink colour lying in the house.His mother also pasted colour papers near almirah where lot of blood was there.His mother also told him and his brothers that if anybody would ask about their father, they should tell them that he had gone away after taking `10,000/-.Her brothers had woken up but out of fear they continued lying on the cot.Next day i.e. on 14.02.2002, he had gone with his Khalu (Mausa) Abdul Karim PW1 to the bus stop where he identified the dead body of his father vide statement Ex.The postmortem report Ex.PW2/A shows that dead body was sent for postmortem examination on 15th February, 2002 at 10.45 am and autopsy started at 10.50 am on the said date.The cause of death is as under:-"Shock due to hemorrhage produced by antemortem injuries to the blood vessel (5 & 6) by a sharp edged weapon.Injury 21 causing craniocudral damage and produced by a long cylindrical weapon was sufficient cause death in the ordinary course of nature like injury 5 and 6."As per evidence of Dr.Gaurav Vinod Jain PW-2 who has deposed having conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased on 15.02.2002 vide report Ex.PW2/A, the cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage produced by ante-mortem injury to the blood vessels by the sharp edged weapon.The fact that the postmortem report Ex.PW2/A shows that injury no. 21 was caused by long cylindrical weapon, which was also sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, supports the deposition of Afsar Karim, PW4 that he had seen Tauhid Raza hitting a cricket wicket on the head of his father.Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A has also deposed that personal search of appellant Shama Parveen was conducted by Constable Kamini PW13 and appellant Shama Parveen was arrested by him vide arrest memo Ex.PW 13/B. Their deposition as regards arrest of appellant vide memo Ex.PW 13/B is not shaken in cross-examination.Time of arrest is not mentioned in Ex.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 22 of 32Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A has also deposed that appellant Shama Parveen led them to a room on the first floor of her house and pointed out the place of occurrence vide memo Ex.PW13/E. Appellant Shama Parveen also produced five sheets of fancy paper which were pasted on the wall of that room and same were pasted after the wall was painted.On the removal of sheets by her, some blood stains were seen on the wall.Thereafter, appellant Shama Parveen also handed over 21 similar sheets of unused papers after bringing out the same from an iron trunk and the same were seized in two different pulandas and were sealed with the seal of IMK vide seizure memo Ex.PW 13/E. The appellant also produced one broken cricket wicket from behind a refrigerator kept in the same room.The wicket Ex. P- 6 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.The evidence of police officials as discussed above inspires confidence.Under these circumstances, no adverse inference can be drawn in the non-joining of public witnesses.From the evidence discussed above, it stands established that blood stains were found on the wall of the room in the house of deceased which were covered with five paper sheets seized vide memo Ex. PW13/E and before covering, the wall was painted with paint seized vide memo Ex. PW13/F. Five sheets of fancy papers Ex. P-5 which were pasted on the wall of the room to hide blood stains, broken wicket Ex.P-6, hair stuck on the wall, sample of concrete from the wall having blood stains which were seized vide seizure memo Ex. PW13/D were sent to CFSL for examination.As per experts report Ex.We have also seen some of the proceedings of the videotape Ex.P-1 in court.The tapes show that the wall in the room i.e., place of occurrence was covered with papers and papers were being removed by appellant Shama Parveen and the blood stains were noticed on the wall.As per evidence on record that appellant Tauhid Raza was apprehended on the pointing out of appellant Shama Parveen on 14th February, 2002 from a gali outside the house of appellant Shama Parveem.It has also come on record that both of them were neighbours.The personal search of Tauhid Raza was conducted by Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A vide memo Ex.PW17/B in the presence of SI Tanvir Aashraf PW-17 and Head Constable Manoj and was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW17/A by Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A in the presence of aforesaid witnesses.The further case of the prosecution is that appellant Tauhid Raza had led IO PW18A SI Tanvir Ashraf and HC Manoj to Tahir Pur Nala and had CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 28 of 32 pointed out a spot from where 12 articles which include pillow covers, bed sheet, shirt, muffler, broken wicket etc. All the articles, except broken wicket, were seized and kept in a jute bag and which was sealed with the seal of IMK.SI Tanvir Ashraf has also deposed in the same manner as has been deposed by IO PW-18A. The recovery proceedings were got videographed vide video tape Ex.Videotape Ex.P.1 was displayed in the court.The same shows that Nala is in a crowded place and clothes are lying superficially in it.The alleged place of recovery is an open place and is accessible to all.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 28 of 32Further evidence of prosecution is that Sharavan Kumar PW-9 owner of TSR No. DL-IR 7324 Ex. P1 deposed that he had been living at F-2/377, Sunder Nagri since 1990 where both the appellants were also living.As per his evidence, appellant Tauhid Raza @ Guddu came to him on 10.02.2002 and had taken TSR Ex.P1 on rent in the morning.On that very day, he returned the same at 6 pm.On 11th February, 2002, he again took the TSR and returned the same in the evening.On 12th February, 2002, he again took the TSR but did not return in the evening and returned the same on the next morning and also paid the rent.He told that his uncle was admitted in hospital.On 13.02.2002, appellant Tauhid Raza @ Guddu came with co- accused Khalil and took TSR Ex.P1 at about 6.00 p.m. and returned in the next morning and paid rent of ` 100/- and on that day he was perturbed.On enquiry he told that his uncle had died.After about two hours, he noticed that there were blood spots on the plastic curtain of TSR.He thought that Tauhid Raza might have carried meat.On that very day, he came to know that one Shamim r/o N-block, Sunder Nagri had been murdered and Tauhid CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 29 of 32 Raza @ Guddu had been apprehended.Thereafter, he took the TSR Ex.P1 to the police station along with his brother PW-8, Vikram Yadav and handed over the same to the police and had shown them blood stain curtain.He further deposed that police officials had cut the piece of curtain having blood stains and seized the same vide memo Ex.PW8/DA.He has also deposed having accompanied his brother PW-9 to the police station with TSR and where they had shown blood stains on the curtain of the TSR Ex.In his presence police had seized TSR Ex.P1 as well as curtain Ex.2. CRL.A. No.562/2009 TAUHID RAZA @ GUDDU ..... Appellant versus STATE(NCT) OF DELHI ..... Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case:-For the Appellant : Mr S.P.Singh Chaudhary with Mr Y.R.Sharma in Crl.Mr Virender Pratap Singh Charak in Crl.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 1 of 32 VEENA BIRBAL, JCRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 1 of 32These two appeals are filed against the common judgment dated 28th January, 2009 passed in Sessions case no.37/08 by the Addl.Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi arising out of FIR No.51/2002 registered at Police Station Nand Nagri under Sections 302/201/120-B IPC wherein both the appellants namely Tauhid Raza @ Guddu and Shama Parveen are convicted for the offence under Sections 302/201 IPC read with section 120- B IPC.Co-accused Mohd. Khalil is convicted for the offence u/s 201 IPC read with section 120-B IPC.The appeals are also directed against the order of sentence dated 31st January, 2009 whereby both the appellants are sentenced to life imprisonment with fine in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each for the offence u/s 302 IPC read with section 120-B IPC and in default of payment of fine, both of them are to further undergo SI for a period of three months.Both the appellants are further sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence u/s 201 read with section 120-B IPC with a fine of Rs.10000/- each and in default of payment of fine, each shall further undergo SI for a period of three months.Co-accused Mohd. Khalil is sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years for the offence u/s 201 IPC read with section 120-B IPC with a fine in the sum of Rs.10000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three months.Co-accused Mohd. Khalil has deposited the fine and has not preferred appeal against his conviction and sentence.The appellants were given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. It was also ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently.PW13/C. She was arrested vide memo Ex.PW13/B. She led them to a room on first floor of her house and pointed out the place of occurrence on the basis of which a pointing out Memo Ex.PW 13/E was prepared.She also removed five sheets of fancy papers which were pasted on the wall of that room and before pasting, the said wall was painted.On removal of sheets by her, blood stains were observed on the wall.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 5 of 32Thereafter, on the pointing of appellant Shama Praveen, co- accused/appellant Tauhid Raza was apprehended who was standing in a gali outside her home.His personal search was conducted vide memo Ex.PW17/B and was arrested vide memo Ex.After completion of investigation, a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed against both the appellants and the co-accused before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi.Thereafter, it was assigned to the court of learned Addl.Sessions Judge.The charges were framed against both the appellants and the co-accused for having entered into unlawful conspiracy to kill the deceased Shamim Ahmad and thereby committing the offence punishable u/s 120-B IPC.They were further charged that on the night intervening 13th and 14th February, 2002 in pursuance to the aforesaid criminal conspiracy they intentionally caused death of Shamim Ahmad in the house of Shama Parveen and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 302/120-B IPC.They were further charged that on the aforesaid date, time and place, in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, they caused disappearance of evidence of offence by removing and putting the dead body in the roadside in order to save themselves from punishment and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201/120-B IPC.Both the appellants as well as co-accused pleaded not guilty in respect of charges framed against them and claimed trial.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 7 of 32B. Munna, PW-17 are the Junior Scientific Officers from CFSL, Calcutta.They have proved on record the reports in respect of the exhibits sent there for examination.Mr B.C. Purkait, PW-18 is the Junior Scientific Officer who has also proved on record report Ex. PW18/A. Karim Khan PW-1 is the relative of appellant who has identified the dead body of deceased.Madan Singh, PW-3 is the photographer who has proved on record the photograph of both the appellants.Kalim Khan, PW-7 is the other elder brother of the deceased who had received the dead body after the postmortem examination.Sharvan Kumar PW-9 is the owner of TSR Ex.P1 from whom appellant Tauhid Raza had taken the said TSR on rent on the relevant date as well as prior to that.Remaining evidence is of police witnesses.Both the appellants in their respective statements u/s 313 Cr.P.C have denied incriminating evidence against them and stated that they were innocent persons and were falsely implicated.Appellant Shama Parveen had stated that the brother of deceased was having some property dispute with the deceased in his native village.She had also stated that deceased was involved in property dealing business.The brother of deceased in connivance with police had implicated her in the present case so as to prevent her from taking any share in the property of the deceased in the native village.She has further stated that the murder of her husband had been committed by his brothers at some other place.She has CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 8 of 32 also stated that no recovery was effected at her instance.She has further stated that her husband was not a transporter but was having property dealing business.No evidence in defence was led by the accused.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 8 of 32The learned trial court relying upon ocular evidence of Master Afsar Karim, PW-4 son of deceased, circumstantial evidence and medical evidence/CFSL reports on record has held that both the appellants had hatched a conspiracy to commit murder of deceased and that they were having extra marital affairs and had removed the evidence of murder in an attempt to avoid being caught.The learned trial court further held that co- accused Mohd. Khalil also assisted them in removing the evidence of murder.Accordingly, both the appellants were held guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302/201 read with section 120-B IPC and the co-accused Mohd. Khalil was convicted for the offence u/s 201 read with section 120-B IPC and sentenced them vide order dated 31.01.2009 as is stated above.Shri S.P.Singh Chaudhary, Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Shama Parveen has contended that Afsar Karim, PW-4 is a child witness aged about 10 years.Afsar Karim PW-4 had met the police on 14.02.2002 at the time of identification of dead body at the spot where it was found.It is contended that at that time he did not reveal anything to the police about the case.Thereafter also he had met the police at the time when his mother was interrogated on 14.02.2002 after the police had gone to his house after completion of proceedings at the place of recovery of body.It is alleged that he had made a statement to the police implicating the appellants and co- accused Khalil only on 15.02.2002 at 12.00 noon.Thereafter he remained with him.Under these circumstances, the trial court ought not to have relied upon his testimony in convicting the appellants.He has deposed that his mother had pressed the mouth of his father with a pillow at the time of incident whereas he had not stated so to the police in Ex.PW4/DA.It is further contended that Dr. Gaurav Vinod Jain PW-2 found about 22 injuries on the body of the deceased and most of the injuries were incised wounds whereas Afsar Karim PW-4 had deposed that appellant Tauhid Raza was hitting his father with a wicket.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 9 of 32It is contended that said witness was not allowed to be cross-examined by learned counsel for appellant as such his evidence cant be read against the appellant.It is contended that Constable Sunder Lal PW-6 did not say in his examination-in-chief that he took the photographs of the house of deceased also where it is alleged that the incident had taken place.Under these circumstances, photograph Ex. PW6/16 to 30 wherein there are alleged photographs of house of deceased also cannot be read against the appellant.It is further contended that in the arrest memo Ex.PW 13/A of appellant Shama Parveen time of arrest is not mentioned as such arrest of appellant Shama Parveen is not proved.It is further contended that no public witness was joined at the time of CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 10 of 32 investigation at the house of appellant i.e., pointing out by her of papers (5 in no.) affixed on the wall and on removal by her blood stains were seen on the wall, production of 21 unused sheets by her which were seized vide memo Ex.PW13/E, seizure of broken wicket vide memo Ex.PW13/D, seizing of blood stained hair, blood lying on the cot, etc. vide memo Ex.PW13/D, seizing of drum containing fresh paint at the instance of appellant vide memo Ex. 13/F. It is contended that in these circumstances articles seized above does not inspire confidence and cant be read against appellant.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 10 of 32The said witness has deposed having done the videography of proceedings at the house of appellant Shama Parveen vide videotape Ex.P1 i.e., making disclosure statement by her to IO, pointing out place of occurrence, pointing out blood stains in the wall of room after removal of paper sheets, etc. It is contended that the evidence of Ram Pal PW-11 is not believable as in his cross-examination, he has stated that videography of aforesaid proceedings was done in the morning at about 10/10.30 am whereas as per prosecution, police officials had remained at the spot where dead body was found uptil 11 am and thereafter they had come to the house of appellant Shama Parveen.It is further contended that Constable Kamini PW-13 has deposed that appellant Shama Parveens disclosure statement was recorded at 4-5 pm whereas as per IO, it was recorded much earlier.It is contended that there are serious contradictions in the evidence CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 11 of 32 of police witnesses about timings of proceedings at the house of appellant, as such, the same are not believable.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 11 of 32It is further contended that substantive charge under Section 120-B of IPC was framed against the appellant for hatching conspiracy with co- accused persons to kill the deceased, however, the trial court has not held her guilty separately u/s 120-B IPC, as such, the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/201 with the aid of section 120-B IPC, as such appellant deserves acquittal in the present case.It is contended that as per evidence of SI Tanvir Ashraf PW-17 after the arrest of appellant Tauhid Raza, he led the police party to his house and opened the door of his house with a key after taking out the same from the pocket of his pant.It is contended that when Tauhid Raza had already been arrested and his search was conducted vide Ex.PW17/B, question of having key in his pant does not arise, as such alleged recovery of sword Ex. PW17/E, photographs Ex. PW17/F at his instance is not believable.It is contended that even alleged recovery of clothes vide Memo Ex. PW11/A is also not believable.It is contended that alleged place of recovery of clothes is open and accessible to all as such recovery of clothes at his instance is not believable.There is no evidence of extra marital relations between Tauhid Raza with Shama Parveen.From the photograph Ex. PW3/A, inference cannot be drawn that they were having extra marital relations.It is CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 12 of 32 contended that appellant Tauhid Raza was a neighbour of the deceased and in that connection, he used to visit his house.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 12 of 32Ms Richa Kapur, learned APP for State has argued that accused persons i.e., appellants have been rightly convicted by the learned ASJ.Master Afsar Karim PW4, the son of deceased and appellant Shama Parveen, is an eye witness to the occurrence.His testimony is reliable and trustworthy.He has categorically deposed having seen the occurrence.It is further contended that there is only one days delay in making the statement to the police and clear explanation has been given by Afsar Karim PW4 as to why he did not make his statement to the police earlier.It is contended that the said witness has given full narration of the incident.There was no explanation as to why the same were covered with printed papers.It is contended that burden was on the inmate of the house to explain as to how there were blood stains on the wall of the room and as to why the same were covered with wall paper but, appellant Shama Parveen had failed to explain.It is contended that the same is highly incriminating evidence against the appellant-Shama Parveen.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 13 of 32It is contended that as per evidence of Sharawan Kumar PW9, there were blood stains on the plastic curtain of the TSR Ex. P1 which was taken on rent from him by appellant Tauhid Raza.The blood on the curtain Ex. PW8/A of TSR Ex. P1 matches with that of deceased.It is contended that evidence on record establishes all the charges levelled against the appellants beyond any reasonable doubt, as such, both the appellants have rightly been convicted by the learned trial court.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record.The evidence of PW-4 was recorded in court on 3rd April, 2003 after about one year and two months of the incident.His age at the time of deposition was about 10 years.Master Afsar Karim, PW-4 has deposed that till 15th February, 2002, he was residing at N-159, Sunder Nagri, Delhi along with parents i.e., deceased Mohd Shameem and appellant Shama Parveen, his elder brother Ansar Karim and younger brother Anwar Karim.The deceased was his father and was a transporter who used to leave the house between 6 am to 8 am and used to return from business at about 8 pm/9 pm on all week days except Sunday.On Sunday, he used to return in the noon time.Appellant Tauhid Raza was living in their neighbourhood and was friendly with his father for the past since three years.He has deposed that during the period his father used to go for business, appellant Tauhid Raza used to come to their house to meet his mother.He used to come soon after his father used to leave the house and used to go back on the return of his father from work.Appellant Tauhid CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 14 of 32 Raza used to take lunch in his house and used to tell him to address him as Papa.The co-accused Khalil who resides in their neighbourhood was standing outside the house.He and appellant Tauhid Raza took the dead body of his father in a TSR.They also took the clothes with which the blood was cleaned.PW4/A. Police had met him there but out of fear he did not disclose the incident to anyone.When his mother i.e., appellant told the entire thing to the police on 14.02.2002, he became free from fear and on the next date gave the statement to the police in which he narrated the entire things to the police.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 14 of 32CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 15 of 32On being cross-examined on behalf of appellants and co-accused Khalil, he has stated that his native place is Village Darya Bagh, Distt.Barabanki, U.P. He has denied that he was living in village at the time of incident and had come to Delhi only after the incident.He has also stated as to who was residing on the right side of his house.He has stated that neighbours did not come at the spot.Mohalla people came on the next morning when they had come to know of the incident.He has deposed having reached the spot where dead body was lying for identification on 14.02.2002 at about 10.30 a.m. He has denied the suggestion that he did not go to the place of dead body of his father.He has denied the suggestion that his father had left the house of his own after taking ` 10,000/-.He has also denied that someone else had killed his father.The police came to his house on 14.02.2002 at about 9.00 a.m. and remained there till 4-5 p.m. He has denied that he was living with his Chacha (paternal uncle).He has denied that there was any property dispute with his Chacha in Barabanki or that his CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 16 of 32 mother used to interfere or that his Chacha had threatened his mother not to interfere.He has also stated in cross-examination that the incident continued for 10-20 minutes in his presence.He did not try to save his father because he was frightened.On the next day, he did not go out uptil 1 a.m. He had only gone out when his Khalu PW1 had come and taken him to the spot.After the incident, he did not go to the school as he had gone to the village.He has denied that incident had not taken place inside the house or that the dead body was not taken away from there.He has further stated that on the day of incident his father took meals at 8.30 p.m. He has further stated that he did not like the visits of appellant Tauhid Raza to his house and he wished that he did not come to their house.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 16 of 32The material deposition of aforesaid witness as regards having seen the occurrence i.e., appellant Tauhid Raza having hit his father with a wicket and when his father tried to get up from the cot, his mother pulled his leg and sat on his chest is not shaken in the cross-examination.The witness has also stated that his mother had pressed the mouth of his father with a pillow.On being confronted with statement Ex.There is slight improvement in his statement before the court.However, it must not be forgotten that his evidence was recorded after a gap of one year and two months from the date of incident and that his testimony on material points is in consonance with the statement made before the police and is also not shaken in cross- examination.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 17 of 32The contention of the counsel for the appellants that Afsar Karim, PW-4 was a tutored witness as there is delay in making his statement to police, as such appellants are falsely implicated has also been examined by us.The contention raised has no force.The witness has clearly stated that he had identified the dead body at Bus stop vide statement Ex.He has categorically deposed that he did not state to the police on the earlier occasion i.e., at the time of identification of dead body on 14.02.2002 due to fear and but, when the police had met his mother i.e., appellant on 14.02.2002 and interrogated her, he came out of his fear and he gave the statement to the police on 15.02.2002 at 12.00 noon in GTB Hospital.Justified reasons have been given by the witness in not narrating the incident earlier to the police.Further, his mother was involved in the case.He must have thought a number of times to reveal the truth to the police and when he gained courage, he narrated the incident.The child has deposed against his mother.There is a ring of truth in it.The incident is of midnight of 13/14.02.2002 and he has stated to the police on 15.02.2002 at 12.00 noon at the mortuary.The contention of the appellants that he was tutored in the meanwhile by his Khalu PW1 Adbul Karim is also not believable.Abdul Karim PW1 is the husband of appellant Shama Parveens sister."The evidence of the child witness cannot be rejected per se, but the court, as a rule of prudence, is required to consider such evidence with close scrutiny and only on being convinced about the quality of the statements and its reliability, base conviction by accepting the statement of the child witness."In Dattu Ramrao Sakhare and others v. State of Maharashtra : (1997) 5 Supreme Court Cases 341, it was held as under:-"The entire prosecution case rested upon the evidence of Sarubai (P.W. 2) a child witness aged about 10 years.Only bald allegations have been leveled in this regard.It is also not believable that on the alleged tutoring of his uncle i.e., Abdul Karim PW1 he will depose against his mother.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 21 of 32Further, as per the prosecution case, after completing the proceedings at the spot where dead body was found, SHO Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A, SI Tanvir Aashraf PW-17 and Head Constable Manoj went to the house of deceased i.e., N-169, Sunder Nagri where a lady Constable Kamini PW-13 was called by Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A. The said witness has deposed that Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A had interrogated Shama Parveen and thereafter arrested her vide memo Ex.PW 13/B. Her personal search was conducted by her vide memo Ex. PW 13/A. Appellant had made disclosure statement Ex. PW13/C. The said witness has proved her signature on personal search memo Ex.PW13/A and arrest memo Ex.PW13/B and disclosure statement Ex.PW13/C of appellant Shama Parveen.PW13/B which is a lacuna on the part of Investigating Officer.PW13/D. Inspector Iqbal Mohd PW18 deposed having found hair stuck on the wall which was blood stained.He seized the same vide memo Ex.PW13/D after completing necessary formalities.He had also seized concrete from the wall which was blood stained as well as some portion of concrete vide aforesaid memo.Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A has deposed that he also observed some blood lying on a cot made of iron pipes (folding) which was picked.The same was picked up by him and kept in a pullanda which was also sealed with the seal of IMK vide seizure memo Ex.PW 13/D.Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A has further deposed that thereafter appellant Shama Parveen took them to the roof of her house and produced one drum containing fresh paint.The same was seized after sealing with the seal of IMK vide seizure memo Ex.PW 13/F. Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A further deposed that a videographer was also called and video recording of all the aforesaid proceedings was done and a photographer was also called who had taken the photographs of the place of occurrence.Thereafter on the CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 23 of 32 pointing of appellant Shama Parveen, appellant Tauhid Raza was apprehended who was standing in the gali outside that house.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 23 of 32SI Tanvir Ashraf PW-17 has also deposed in the same manner as has been deposed by Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A. He has proved his signatures on the disclosure statement of appellant Shama Parveen Ex.PW13/C, Seizure memos Ex.PW 13/D and 13/F and arrest memo of appellant Shama Parveen Ex.PW13/B. The aforesaid witness was cross- examined by counsel for appellant at length but nothing relevant has come out in the cross-examination which makes the seizure of broken wicket, hair stuck on the wall, blood stained concrete as well as some portion of concrete as sample, cot made of iron pipes seized vide aforesaid memos, unbelievable.The above evidence cannot be rejected on the ground that no public witnesses were joined at the time of investigation at the house of Shama Parveen.It is a matter of common knowledge that public persons are not usually prepared to join the police proceedings out of fear that they would be made to attend the court repeatedly.Of course, if any such statement leads to recovery of any article it is open to the Investigating Officer to take the signatures of any person present at that time, on the document prepared for such recovery.But if no witness was present or if no person had agreed to affix his signature on the document, it is difficult to lay down, as a proposition of law, that the document so prepared by the police officer must be treated as tainted and the recovery evidence unreliable.The court has to consider the evidence of the Investigating Officer who deposed to the fact of recovery based on the statement elicited from the accused on its own worth."CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 24 of 32PW 18/A which is proved on record by Mr.B.C.Purkait, PW-18, Junior Scientific Officer, CFSL, the same gave CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 25 of 32 positive tests for human blood.The CFSL report Ex. PW18/C-1 of blood stained hair found on the wall of the room of Shama Parveen and scalp hair which were handed over to SI Tanvir Ashraf PW17 by Dr.Gaurav Vinod Jain PW2, were found to be of the same origin and also shows presence of blood group `B which was the blood group of deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 25 of 32The entire evidence discussed above categorically shows that incident had taken place in the house of the deceased.The above evidence also corroborates the evidence of child witness Afsar Karim PW4 that the incident had taken place in the house who has also deposed in detail the role of appellants in the murder of his father.There is no explanation by appellant Shama Parveen as to how blood stains were there on the wall of the room and as to why the same were covered with papers seized vide memo Ex.13/E. In view of the judgment in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2006(10) SCC 681, burden was on the appellant to explain the same.Non-explanation by her makes it a highly incriminating piece of evidence against her.The investigation, as discussed above was partly videographed by calling Constable Ram Pal PW11 at the spot.He has proved on record the videotape Ex.The said witness in cross-examination has deposed that he was free by 10 a.m. Learned counsel for appellant has contended that videotape Ex.P1 is manipulated as SI Tanvir Ashraf PW17, Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A have stated that they had reached the house of the deceased between 11.45-12.00 noon where appellant Shama Parveen was interrogated and thereafter she was arrested.Thereafter, further investigation was done.The discrepancy of time in the statement of Ram Pal PW11 has come due to lapse of time.The videography was done on 14th February, 2002 whereas evidence of this witness was recorded in the court on 29th July, 2004 i.e., after a gap of more than 2 years.The IO PW18A and SI Ashraf PW17 who were present at the spot have categorically deposed that they had reached the spot between 11.45-12.00 noon, thereafter, a videographer was called.Considering the overall evidence on record, it cannot be said that the videotape Ex.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 26 of 32It may also be mentioned that Constable Ram Pal PW11 has also deposed that after video recording of present case, some other Constable had done the video recording on 17th February, 2002 in a programme in DCP Office and by mistake covered some of the portion recorded by him relating to appellant Shama Parveen was destroyed.Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A and SI Tanvir Aashraf PW-17 have been CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 27 of 32 cross-examined at length but their testimony in this regard is not demolished in cross-examination.Particular time of arrest is not mentioned in the arrest memo.In cross-examination, IO PW18A has stated that appellant Tauhid Raza was arrested at about 2-2.15 p.m. SI Tanvir Ashraf PW-17 has also stated in cross-examination that appellant Tauhid Raza was arrested at about 2.00 or 2.30 p.m. Under these circumstances, time of arrest is proved.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 27 of 32Further case of the prosecution is that appellant Tauhid Raza had made a disclosure statement Ex.PW17/C to IO Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A in the presence of SI Tanvir Ashraf PW17 and Head Constable Manoj and took them to his house bearing no. 162 in the same gali and opened the lock on the door with a key and took them to a room and brought a sword Ex. P-2 lying on the ledge which had blood stains.The same was measured by IO Inspector Iqbal Mohd. PW 18A who prepared its sketch.Thereafter, he kept the sword Ex. P-2 in a pulanda and sealed the pulanda with a seal IMK and seized vide memo Ex.PW17/E.It may be noticed that as per personal search of appellant Tauhid Raza conducted vide Ex.PW17/B, a wrist watch make Ricoh having white chain and a driving licence were recovered.No key is alleged to have been recovered from him on his personal search.Then, how was a key taken out of his pant pocket with which he had opened the door of his house to get the sword Ex. P-2 recovered.The prosecution has failed to explain the same.In these circumstances, the recovery of sword Ex.P-2 at the instance of Tauhid Raza does not inspire confidence as such the same is not taken into consideration.After seeing the display of proceedings vide videotape Ex.P1, the alleged recoveries at the instance of appellant Tauhid Raza also do not inspire confidence.Nothing relevant has come on record in the cross- examination of the aforesaid witnesses by which it can be said that TSR was not taken by appellant and that there were no blood stains on the curtain of TSR.As per CFSL report Ex. PW18/C-1 blood group B was detected on piece of curtain Ex. PX of TSR Ex.P1 which is the blood group of deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 29 of 32The prosecution has produced Madan Singh PW-3 to prove the joint photograph Ex.PW3/A of the appellants.Perusal of record shows that learned counsel for appellants have not been given opportunity to cross-examine the said witnesses.Accordingly, the photograph Ex. PW3/A is not taken as a piece of evidence against appellants.Ignoring the said evidence, the evidence of Master Afsar Karim PW4 clearly shows that appellant Tauhid Raza used to visit his house to meet his mother.He has categorically deposed that Tauhid Raza used to come soon after his father left the house and used to leave shortly before his father was about to return.He has also deposed that his father used to leave between 6.00 a.m. to 8.00 a.m. and used to return at about 8.00 p.m./9.00 p.m. Appellant Tauhid Raza used to take lunch in his house and used to tell him to address him as papa.His mother also used to tell him not to tell CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 30 of 32 his father about visits of Tauhid Raza.On his return from school, his mother used to send them for purchasing goods from market.All this shows that both the appellants had an intimate relationship with each other.The same constitutes motive of the crime also.The evidence on record also shows that prior to incident accused Tauhid Raza had taken scooter seized vide memo Ex. PW17/article 12 of deceased from him which was found parked near dead body.The above evidence on record including the evidence showing the manner in which the murder was committed and thereafter the body was removed from the place of occurrence by keeping it in a TSR Ex. P-1 with the help of Shama Parveen clearly shows that there was there was conspiracy between both the appellants to commit the murder of deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 30 of 32In the present case, as discussed above, the evidence on record clearly establishes that there was a criminal conspiracy between appellant Tauhid Raza and Shama Parveen to commit the murder of deceased.CRL.A. Nos. 385/2009 & 562/2009 Page 31 of 32
|
['Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 201 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
123,447,794 |
Item No. 90And In the matter of: Abhishek Shukla Petitioner- versus -The State of West Bengal Opposite Party Mr. Sandipan Ganguly Mr. Sagnik Basu For the Petitioner Mr. Saibal Bapuli Mr. Soumik Ganguly For the State The Petitioner, apprehending arrest in connection with Hare Street Police Station Case No. 928 dated 15.12.2011 under sections 120B/420/406 of the Indian Penal Code, has applied for anticipatory bail.We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner and the learned Advocate for the State.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Nishita Mhatre, J) (Kanchan Chakraborty, J)
|
['Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,107,907 |
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner under under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order passed in Crl.
|
['Section 161 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,108,801 |
Singh and Bhura alias Ravi respectively have been acquitted from the charges under Sections 353, 307/34 (two counts) of the IPC and respondent No.2 Randhir under Section 353, 307/34 (two counts) IPC and Section 25 (1-b) A of the Arms Act.Learned Public Prosecutor submits that there were serious charges against the respondents to the effect that on 17.4.2013, when constable Lokesh Kumar, SHO Rathore, ASI Baijnath Singh and constable Upendra Singh along with driver Ravikant had gone for surveillance in government vehicle No.MP03-7617 to check history-sheeter.During said checking, Bhura alias Ravi got excited on seeing constable Lokesh Kumar and said that he got him arrested twice at Morena and Sabalgarh, but today, he will settle the scores and thereafter, called Randhir S/o Mahendra Singh and Gajendra Singh S/o Ramautar Singh Tomar who were inside his house.Thereafter, Bhura had fired from illegal Katta at Lokesh with a view to kill him but he saved himself by deflecting himself and then another fire was made over Randhir Singh Tomar T.I who also saved himself.Thereafter, all the three accused persons ran away taking advantage of darkness.Thus, the application seeking leave to appeal fails and is dismissed.
|
['Section 353 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,921,105 |
J U D G M E N T Raju, J. The appellant, who was ableto escape from the long arm of law due to his acquittal bythe trial court was soon made to realise that the sword inthe hands of justice never fails to vindicate itself inpreserving ultimately law and order in the society when hewas indicted for offences under Sections 376, 392 and 302,IPC, and imposed with punishments of imprisonment for lifeunder Section 302, IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for sevenyears each on the other counts, to run concurrently.Thecase of the prosecution is that on 16.09.94 at about 5.30p.m., the appellant, representing himself to be the husbandof one of the sisters of Gracy the deceased went to St.Marys Convent, Vandoor, where she was employed as Kitchenmaiden and on a false pretext that her mother was illseriously and had been admitted to Medical Trust Hospital,Ernakulam, took her away with the permission of PW-5, theSister incharge of the Convent at the relevant time.Thefurther case is that the appellant after taking the victimout of the Convent, had her walk along with him by the sideof the Railway Line in Koratty and thereafter at a desolateplace not only raped and robbed her of her ornaments, butlaid her on the Rail track to be run over by the passingtrain.On 17.09.94, PW-2, the key man attached to KarukuttyRailway Station, found the dead body of a female on the uptrack railway line and informed PW-1, the Station Master,who, in turn, brought it to the notice of Koratty PoliceStation as per Ex.P1, on which PW-28, the Head Constable,registered an FIR in Crime No.166/1994 under the captionunnatural death.An inquest was held over the dead bodyand along with the findings in the inquest report, a brownblouse, a white brassier, a brown polyester sari with blueand green design and two under skirts, one blue in colourand the other green were also seized, besides takingphotographs of the dead body.While matter stoodthus, it appears that PW-7, the mother superior and inchargeof the Convent, was informed on 18.09.94 over telephone by aperson claiming to be one Joseph that Gracy would return tothe Convent in a few days since her mother had recovered.Finding that she did not so return on 05.10.94, PW-8,another Sister and inmate of the Convent, went to the houseof the victim and learnt that the mother of Gracy wasneither ill nor was admitted in any Hospital and that shedid not at all return home thereafter.PW-9, the brother ofdeceased, went and made enquiries in the Convent and when hewas asked to come the next day, on 06.10.94 PW-9, PW-26(Member of the Panchayat), the accused and two otherrelatives of the deceased went and got other details andeven at that stage the accused was said to have beenidentified by PW-5 as the person who took Gracy from theConvent.PW-9 thereafter lodged a complaint, Ext. P18,with the Circle Inspector of Police, Pudukkad, and an FIR inCrime No.281/94 was registered under the caption manmissing.During the course of investigation, PWs-5 to 7and 9 were asked to meet PW-29, the Sub-Inspector, KorattyPolice Station, when they seem to have also identified thephotographs to be that of Gracy and that the clothes shownalso belonged to her.Statements were also recorded fromthem.On 09.10.94, PW-30, the Circle Inspector of Police,Chalakkudy, took up the investigation, visited the scene ofoccurrence, prepared a Mahazar, Ex.P22, and arrested theaccused on the same day.As per the statement of theaccused, PW-30 seized M04-diary and Ex.P7, a slip from theaccused under Ex.P6 Mahazar.MOs 1 to 3 were also seizedthereafter under Ex.P5, as per statement Ex.P5(a).Thevaginal swab and smear, collected during the course ofautopsy as also the clothes taken from the dead body and thedhoti recovered at the instance of the accused were all sentfor chemical examination and reports in Ex.P20 and 21 wereobtained.PW-30 questioned the witnesses, recorded theirstatements and completed the investigation, though hissuccessor in office PW-31 verified the records andultimately laid the charge sheet before Court.The learnedMagistrate, who took cognisance of the case, on finding theoffences to be such, exclusively triable by a Court ofSessions, committed the case to Sessions Court, Trissur, andthereby the case stood transferred to trial before the FirstAdditional Sessions Judge.After preliminary hearing andframing of charges under Sections 376, 392 and 302, IPC, theaccused having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried,the prosecution let in evidence by examining PWs-1 to 31,besides marking Ex.P1 to P22 and MOs 1 to 4 were gotidentified and also marked.Though there was no oralevidence let in for the defence, Exs.D1 to D13 - markedportions of statement of some of the PWs, were marked forthe defence.The accused when questioned under Section 313of the Criminal Procedure Code, denied bluntly all theincriminating circumstances brought out against him andreiterated about he being innocent.The learned SessionsJudge, on the evidence on record, came to the conclusionthat the body found on the railway track was that ofdeceased Gracy, who was working at St. Marys Convent atVandoor,; that she met her death as a result of being runover by a train; that there is clinching evidence to showthat it was the accused who had taken Gracy at 5.30 p.m. on16.09.94 on the pretext that her mother was seriously illand that the said circumstance stand fully established.The prosecution was able to, in the view ofthe Sessions Judge, establish only a strong suspicion andsince it cannot take the place of proof, the accused wasentitled to the benefit of doubt and, therefore, acquittedhim of all the charges.The State pursued the matter onappeal before the High Court and a Division Bench of theKerala High Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence onrecord, differed from the findings recorded by the SessionsCourt on the guilt or innocence of the accused and found himguilty of the charges levelled against him.The High Courtafter specifically noticing the several incriminating factswhich inevitably and necessarily led to an hypothesis of theaccused being guilty of the charges levelled against himconvicted him of the offences, charged with.It was also contendedthat the deceased had not been taken away from the Conventby the accused as alleged and even if that be so, the natureof injuries found on the body, the probable time of deathand the other materials on record, if at all may only createa suspicion as observed by the trial judge and that toobased upon surmises against the appellant, but those at anyrate are not sufficient to prove the guilt beyond reasonabledoubt.The learned counsel for the respondent-Statesubmitted that the trial court had not only over simplifiedthe cumulative effect of every vital circumstances leadingtowards the guilt of the accused but the analysis andconsideration of evidence proceeded on too technical linesin a superficial manner and, therefore, the High Court wasright and justified in reversing the findings of the trialcourt.Argued the learned counsel for the respondentfurther that the failure on the part of the appellant togive any acceptable explanation as to what happened to thedeceased who was not only last seen alive together with theappellant but also not seen thereafter alive anywhere itselfis sufficient to indict the appellant in this case.TheHigh Courts being a verdict of reversal of the acquittal,the learned counsel on either side also took us through theevidence and other materials on record, at length, tosubstantiate their respective stand.So far as the case onhand is concerned, there is direct evidence of the Sistersof the Convent where the deceased was working, PWs-5 and 6to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellantwho had taken the appellant from the Convent at about 5.30p.m., on 16.09.94 on the pretext that her mother wasseriously ill and hospitalised.
|
['Section 376 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,120,166 |
[Order of the Court was delivered by T.RAJA, J.] The petitioner is the brohter of the detenu viz., Sathiyagiri, S/o.Sivakumar, aged about 25 years.The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 29.07.2019, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as “GOONDA”.Challenging the same, the petititoner is before this Court in this Habeas Corpus Petition.2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 29.07.2019, passed by the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu, viz.,Sathiyagiri, came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-Tiruchirappalli, Srirangam U/s.294(b), 323, 307 IPC @ 294(b), 341, 302 IPC Police Station, Cr.Tiruchirappalli, Srirangam U/s.294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC r/w. 4 of TNPHW Act Police Station, Cr.Tiruchirappalli, Srirangam U/s.294(b), 323, 506(ii) IPC Police Station, Cr.229/2019 It is further stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu was involved in a case for the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 307 IPC in Srirangam Police Station in Crime No.306 of 2019 (ground case).The detenu was arrested on 23.06.2019 and produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tiruchirappalli on the same day and remanded to Judicial custody.Based on the same, the learned counsel would plead for setting aside the detention order.Resultantly, the impugned order is quashed.Consequently, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.The detenu, namely Sathiyagiri, S/o.Sivakumar, aged about 25 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.The Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Tiruchirappalli.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.http://www.judis.nic.in 5/6 H.C.P.(MD) No.845 of 2019 T.RAJA, J.
|
['Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294(b) in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,921,231 |
Mr. Ahaluwalia, learned Govt. Advocate, combating the aforesaid conceptual-liberty oriented argument has proponed that Section 438 of the Code does provide an umbrella protecting the liberty of an individual but that does not necessarily mean that it confers an immunity to the accused and the parade of anticipatory bail would continue covering all stages till trial is concluded.The debate, in detail.ORDER Dipak Misra, J.Yogendra, the applicant in MCrC No. 5921/99 was arrested for an offence punishable under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code (in short the 'IPC').He was admitted to bail and thereafter, he faced trial in Criminal Case No. 397/88 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagod in the Distt.of Satna.As averred in the petition he used to appear on each date when the case was posted for hearing.However, due to his ill health he could not appear on 4-7-1998 and through his counsel an application for condonation of his absence and for representation was filed.The said application was rejected and a non-bailable warrant of arrest was issued.In this backdrop he moved the learned Additional Sessions Judge for grant of anticipatory bail who negatived the prayer.Being dissatisfied he has approached this Court for grant of said relief.Many a justification has been enumerated explaining the absence of the petitioner on 4-7-1998 and number of grounds have been put forth for grant of anticipatory bail.The petitioner remained absent on 12-4-1996 and he instructed his counsel to file an application for exemption from appearance.It is averred that the petitioner had met with an accident and was in a state of coma for nine days.It is also putforth that his wife was ailing for the last four years and hence, the petitioner could not attend the Court.In this background he filed applications under Section 438 of the Code on two occasions which have been rejected by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Betul.His prayer for grant of anticipatory bail having been negatived he has visited this Court for grant of said privilege.Mr. G.S. Ahaluwalia, learned Govt. Advocate has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the applications on the ground that an accused who has jumped bail is not entitled in law to prefer an application under Section 438 of the Code inasmuch as he has already been arrested and released on bail.The accused persons were released on bail.
|
['Section 438 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 326 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 394 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,124,141 |
Presently to the factual exposition.On a perusal of the charge sheet, it is evincible that there are allegations to the effect that Vikram Doshi, A 1, Vineet Doshi, A 2, and Sanjay J. Shah, A 3, made number of applications to the Bank of Baroda for sanction of various credit facilities, stating that they wanted to induct the said bank as a new consortium member to replace the existing members, namely, the UTI Bank and the Federal Bank.They requested the said Bank to sanction 15% of the total Working Capital facility sanctioned by the consortium of Banks, so that, that much amount could be transferred to the UTI bank and Federal Bank to take over the existing liabilities with the said two banks.It was revealed during investigation that the account of the company, with the consortium of banks as well as the finance institutions, was highly irregular and in the said condition the accused persons approached the Bank for sanction of loan.In the application to the Bank, the accused persons concealed the fact relating to the dues outstanding against them.Thereafter, when asked for the outstanding position with the existing consortium members, the accused persons willfully and with the criminal intent to mislead the Bank of Baroda, furnished wrong statements about the outstanding position by giving considerably lesser amount as outstanding than the actual.As further alleged, the amount of loan sought was sanctioned on 24.01.2003 by one Mr. K.K. Aggarwal, General Manager and communicated to the branch.As per the terms and conditions of the said Term Loan, the primary security for the same was the first charge to be created on the fixed assets of the company ranking pari passu with the existing Term Lending Institutions.The primary charge for the cash credit and working capital demand loan was the hypothecation of current assets such as stocks, stocks in trade, raw materials and book debts, and, that apart, one of the important terms and conditions was that the CC, WCDL and Term Loan amounts were to be directly paid to the company’s account with the UTI Bank and Federal Bank so as to take over the liabilities as well as the securities mortgaged with the two banks.Despite the said situation, the Bank on 29.01.2003 intimated the sanction to ATCOM, the company in question.It is further demonstrable from the chargesheet that A-1 and A-2, with the intention to escape personal liabilities, made A-3 and one Mr. Chirag Gandhi directors in ATCOM and got all the loan documents including the Demand Promissory Note (DPN) signed by the said persons.The terms and conditions of the sanction was that the entire Working Capital of Rs.570.00 lakhs (Rs.114.00 lakhs + Rs.456.00 lakhs) and the Term Loan of Rs.360.00 lakhs were to be directly paid to the UTI Bank and Federal Bank.Consequently, the Term Loan was released and paid as per the sanction terms and conditions.As alleged, A-1 induced the Bank to release the sanctioned Working Capital Funds to the Current Account and from the said account money was dishonestly diverted to his own accounts with SBI and Dena Bank, to bring down the outstanding liabilities in those accounts.Thus, the total funds released into the Current Account was Rs.560.00 lakhs out of which A-1 dishonestly transferred Rs.352.00 lakhs to SBI and about Rs.200.00 lakhs to Dena Bank, which amounted to diversion of concerned Bank’s funds dishonestly and caused wrongful loss to the said Bank.As is evident from the chargesheet the transfer of funds of CC and DL to the current account was with a dishonest intention to further divert the funds from the current account, and for transfer of the said funds of CC and WCDL.A-1 used the cheque leaf available with him for the Current Account and substituted out the words “Current Account” and substituted them with “Cash Credit”.It has come out in the investigation that in order to further divert the funds from the Current Account, A-3 used to issue “Pay Yourself cheques” by obtaining Banker’s Cheque favouring their account with SBI and Dena Bank.It is also perceivable from the chargesheet that though the accused A-1 and A-3 knew that the said Working Capital was sanctioned only for the purpose of taking over the liabilities of UTI Bank and Federal Bank yet they dishonestly diverted the funds to SBI and Dena Bank.The said diversion of funds by A-1 and A-3 deprived the Bank of its security and the entire loan became unsecured.The investigation further revealed that A-1 got letter of credits (hereinafter referred as “LCs”) issued from SBI and Dena Bank in favour of fictitious companies propped by the accused and used the said LCs to siphon the funds from these Banks.The LCs beneficiary firms, favoring whom the A-2 and A-3 had requested the LCs to be issued, were companies existing only on paper without any commercial activity.The said fictitious companies got the LCs discounted by attaching their bogus bills and portion of these discount proceeds were used for personal benefits of A-1 and a certain portion was routed back to ATCOM.On the due dates, ATCOM did not discharge its liabilities with SBI and Dena Bank.In the chargesheet, the particulars of the names of fictitious companies have been given.The said list covers 10 companies.It has been further mentioned in the chargesheet that the Proprietors/Directors of these fictitious companies had issued false bills under their signatures and discounted these false bills backed by the LCs, with the discounting Banks, at the instance of one Kanakranjan Jain.Some of these Proprietors/Directors are the employees and domestic servants of said Kanakrajan Jain.After so stating the chargesheet proceeds as follows:“That, in two of these fictitious companies, viz., M/s Anew Electronics & M/s Covet Securities, Sh.Vikram Doshi (A-1) and Sh.Vineet Joshi, (A-2) were Directors for some period of time.These two companies were maintaining their accounts at United Western Bank.Vikaram Doshi (A-1) was also having his personal account in the same bank.From these two Accounts Sh.Vikram Doshi had received a sum of Rs. 1, 48,50,000/-.This amount was utilized by him towards purchase of residential flat.Thus it is clear that the accused persons under the garb of business requirements had obtained credit facilities from the bank but had utilized the funds for acquiring immovable property for personal use.In order to clear the liability generated because of such illegal acts, they had induced the Bank of Baroda to sanction the credit facilities, which facility was dishonestly used by them.The entire amount sanctioned and released by the Bank of Baroda is outstanding and nothing has been repaid.The accused, Vikram Doshi, settled the disputes and paid Rs.42 lacs for settling the dispute.On that basis, Kotak Mahindra Bank issued a “no due certificate” to M/s Atcom Technology Limited stating that on receipt of Rs.42 lacs, there was no amount outstanding and payable by them in respect of facility advanced by Bank of Baroda.The said bank also confirmed that the guarantees issued by Vikram Doshi stood discharged.After the receipt of such “No dues certificate” the respondent preferred a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. bearing Criminal Application No. 2239 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the learned Single Judge vide order dated 24.2.2010 quashed the criminal proceedings pending before the learned Addl.Metropolitan Magistrate.The learned Single Judge referred to one of its earlier orders and came to hold as follows:-To arrive at the same conclusion the High Court relied on the decision in Madan Mohan Abbot v. State of Punjab[1] and distinguished the pronouncement in A. Ravishanker Prasad (supra).We have heard Ms. Pinky Anand, learned ASG and Mr. P.K. Dey, learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation and Arunabh Chowdhury and Mr. Anupam Lal Das for the respondents.
|
['Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 471 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 468 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 467 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,125,439 |
A.No.975/2009 Page 6 of 6A.No.975/2009 Page 6 of 6AJIT BHARIHOKE, J. MAY 12 , 2010 pst Crl.
|
['Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 313 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,126,257 |
This Writ Appeal has been filed by the petitioners/appellants under Section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the "Adhiniyam") challenging the order dated 12.02.2019 passed in M.Cr.Brief facts which led to filing of said M.Cr.
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 2 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 447 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,127,791 |
Allegations against the applicant, in short, are that he along with co-accused Sunil @ Kallu Raghuvanshi and Batan alias Shivendra Raghuvanshi while chasing Bablu alias Pahalwan Singh Raghuvanshi, son of the deceased entered into her house and pushed her.They also opened fire and the deceased getting terrified, died due to cardiac arrest.Shri M.L. Tomar, Advocate for complainant.I.A No. 24667/2017, an application under section 301 (2) of Cr.P.C. for assisting learned Public Prosecutor for the State is taken up, considered and allowed for the reasons mentioned therein.Learned counsel for the complainant is permitted to assist learned Public Prosecutor for the State during final hearing.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 by Police Station Cantt, District Guna in connection with Crime No. 549/2017 registered in relation to the offences punishable u/S. 304, 452/34 of IPC.The applicant shall appear and mark his attendance before the trial/committal court concerned once every month till conclusion of the trial, failing which, this bail order shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to this Court.A copy of this order be sent to the Court concerned for compliance.as per rules.(S.A. Dharmadhikari) Judge Digitally signed by SANJAY N.2.5.4.20=afa4701a2661e1fb7720c 022ffc277608ce55ba67f3594a641 R 181b9ae8448e58, cn=SANJAY N.DURGEKAR Date: 2017.12.21 18:12:00 +05'30'
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
192,129,353 |
(11-08-2017)This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 20.08.2015 passed by the Court of Third Additional Sessions Judge, Khandwa in Sessions Trial No. 157/2015, whereby a charge under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the IPC has been framed against the accused persons/petitioners Lav, Ajay, Narendra, Rahul, Sevak, Deepesh, Narsingh, Bharat, Nitin and Mahesh.The prosecution case before the trial Court may briefly stated thus: A day before the date of the incident, there was a dispute between Nemichand, Fufa (maternal aunt's husband) of first informant, Lalit and his neighbour Raju on account of construction of a wall; whereon, victim Lalit had interceded in the matter and had tried to pacify Raju.On account of aforesaid dispute, at about 11:00 a.m. on 21.10.2014, accused persons/petitioners got together and went to the house of victim Lalit, they called him to come out; whereon, the victim went to the premises of the Temple.Raju said that Lalit was supporting his Fufa.Thereafter, Deepesh struck a blow with an iron pipe upon the head of the victim Lalit with an intent to kill him.As a 3 Cr.R.No.443/2016 result, he started bleeding from his head.At the same time, Raju also struck him with an iron pipe on the head resulting in bleeding.As a result, victim Lalit became unconscious.He regained consciousness in the hospital.He sustained two injuries to his head and other injuries to his hands and legs.No overt acts have been ascribed to the petitioners other than Deepesh and Raju.Other accused persons are said to have beaten the victim by sticks and kicks but no such injury was found on his person.Medico-legal report does not mention that any of the injuries sustained by the victim were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.On the basis of First Information Report or the statements of the victim under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. offences under Sections 147, 148 and 307 read with section 149 of the IPC are not constituted.At worst, a charge under Section 323 of the IPC may be framed and that too only against petitioner Deepesh.Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of the Court to the following authorities:-(iv) Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of Maharashtra and others.Both of them are said to have struck one blow each to the head of the victim with iron pipes.But now by virtue of the impugned judgment of the High Court even if in the course of the trial the Magistrate were to come to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to charge the respondent for a more serious offence than the 7 Cr.R.No.443/2016 one punishable under Section 304-A, it will not be possible for it to pass appropriate order.In these circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or impropriety warranting interference under the revisionary jurisdiction of the High Court.Consequently, this criminal revision deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed.
|
['Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
1,919,674 |
He with hismeritorious efforts helped us considerably in the task.The bridewas Tanima, whose marriage with the appellant was solemnizedonly a few months prior to her tragic end.It appears thatTanimas father had died much earlier.A certain amount,not much, was given to the bridegroom at the time of themarriage, though the expenses of the wedding were borne bythe brides people.After marriage Tanima lived in thehouse of her husband for a couple of months.But when shepaid her first visit to her natal home she reported to hermother and brothers that she was being subjected topressures and harassment by her husband and by the other twoaccused for wangling a further amount of Rupees twentythousand from her people.She complained to her brotherthat she was threatened that if the amount was not broughtshe would be asked to leave the nuptial home once and forall.On completion of her furlough at her parental housethe appellant went to take her back.Then her brother (PW1-Mahaboobsab Ammarngi) gave a sum of rupees five thousand tothe appellant and pleaded with him to be satisfied with it.L.....I.........T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J J U D G M E N T THOMAS, J. A bride in her incipienttwenties was whacked to death at her nuptial home.Aftergagging her mouth the assailants treated her for some timeas a football by kicking her incessantly and thereafter as ahockey puck by lambasting her with truncheons until she diedof bilateral tension haemothorax.Her husband and hisbrother and father were indicted for her murder.But whenall the material witnesses turned hostile to the prosecutionthe trial court, being foreclosed against all options,acquitted them.Undeterred by the said acquittal the Stateof Karnataka made a venture by filing an appeal before theHigh Court of Karnataka.A Division Bench of the HighCourt, looking at the factual matrix of the case, lamentedO Tempora O Mores as the learned judges said by way ofprologue that it is virtually a matter of shame that inthis day and date, indiscriminate attacks and abnormallyhigh degree of violence are directed against married womenin certain quarters and that the law is doing little to curbthis type of utterly obnoxious and anti-social activities.Learned Judges after reaching a cul de sac, swerved over toa different offence i.e. dowry death and convicted one ofthem (the husband) under section 304B of the Indian penalCode and awarded the maximum sentence of life imprisonmentprescribed thereunder on him besides Section 498A IPC.However, the High court found helpless to bring the othertwo accused to the dragnet of any offence.During the course of arguments a question of lawcropped up as the appellant was not charged under Section304B, IPC.The question raised is this: Whether an accusedwho was charged under Section 302 IPC could be convictedalternatively under Section 304-B IPC, without the saidoffence being specifically put in the charge.The answerappeared, at the first blush, ingenuous particularly in thelight of Section 221 of the Code.To assist us in this matter we appointed Sri UdayUmesh Lalit, advocate as amicus curiae.Though with displeasure, as the amount was insufficient,appellant collected it and allowed Tanima to escort him tohis house.A few days later Tanima conveyed to her motherthat she was again persecuted for not making up the wholeamount demanded.Once again appellant brought her back toher parental home after subjecting her to physical assaults.PW1-Mahboobsab Ammarngi, on being told that the assaultswere meant for meeting the demand for dowry, pleaded withthe appellant to desist from torturing his young sister.After some haggling PW1 was able to pay a sum of rupees twothousand more.At that time also appellant, though notfully satisfied with the pelf given, took her back to hishouse.Within two months thereafter Tanima was killed.Onhearing the news on 17.10.1992 PW1 along with some of hisclose relatives set out to the house of the appellant.Onthe way they met the appellant.When they tried to confronthim with what they heard he skirted the subject and slippedaway.When they reached the house of the appellant they sawthe mangled dead body of Tanima.Dr. Tawaraj (PW7) conducted the autopsy on the deadbody of Tanima.Though externally there were only a fewabrasions and contusions the inside was found very badlymauled.The rib on the right side was fractured, both thelungs were collapsed, the thorasic cavity contained 200 ml.of blood.The peritoneum was soaked in blood, liver andspleen were massively lacerated and ruptured at threeplaces.Though prosecution examined PW3 and PW4 who wereneighbours to say that they saw the three accused inflictingincessant assaults on Tanima and PW6 was examined to saythat appellant made an extra-judicial confession to him,they all turned hostile and did not speak as prosecutionexpected.The remaining evidence was not sufficient toestablish that all or any of the accused had inflicted theinjuries on Tanima.Consequently, prosecution failed toprove that the accused caused the death of the deceased.The trial court did not make any other endeavour and hencefound the accused not guilty and acquitted them.Learned Judges of the High Court found that there isno evidence against A-2 Meerasaheb Karim Saheb and A-3Mahaboom Meerasaheb.The order of acquittalpassed in favour of original accused Nos.2 and 3 standsconfirmed.
|
['Section 304B in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 306 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,971,193 |
Therefore, the objection raisedby the Registry with regard to the maintainability of the Writ Petition isupheld and the Writ Petition is closed with liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedies in the manner known to law.No costs.1.The Principal Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, St. George Fort, Chennai.2.The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram.3.The Superintendent of Police, Ramanathapuram.The petitioner was the Investigating Officer in R.S.Mangalam PoliceStation Crime No.60 of 2010 and had filed the charge sheet against oneSelvaraj and Kannan for offences under Sections 302 and 379 of the IndianPenal Code.In the said judgment, the Judge has referred to the remiss in investigation of the case by thepetitioner and had acquitted the accused.Now, since the petitioner is facingdepartmental action, he has approached this Court by way of Writ Petition forexpunge of remarks, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.In the considered opinion of this Court, the remedy to thepetitioner is not a Writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whenthere is already a remedy provided under the Code, inasmuch as the petitionercould have easily filed a Criminal Revision Case against the judgment ofacquittal in S.C.No.67 of 2011 and could have assailed the findings thereon.A Writ of Certiorari cannot be used for quashing or expunging the remarksmade by the Trial Court in a Sessions Case.
|
['Section 379 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,971,194 |
In reply to the said summons, on 16th June, 2006 the Petitioner sent the authorized representative on behalf of the company.In response to the summons, it was replied on behalf of the company that they were surprised and shocked to receive the summons as the company held one Star status and the summons were without any basis and non-speaking.This Finance Act came into force on 10th May, 2008 however the amendment was made Crl.Consequently, the criminal complaint No. 8/1 of 2008 under Sections 174/175 IPC titled as "Shri R.K. Chibber Vs.Rakesh Kumar Goyal" pending with the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi and the order dated 15th January, 2008 summoning the Petitioner for offences under Sections 174/175 IPC are hereby quashed.
|
['Section 228 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 482 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 155 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 156 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,971,806 |
The petitioners have also prayed for setting aside the order dated April 16, 2015 passed in connection with the above mentioned proceedings.The brief facts giving rise to the present application are as follows:- On 17.03.2015, the opposite party no.2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioners including one Ashima Ganguly for commission of alleged offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code before the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, with a prayer to send the petition of complaint to the Officer-in-charge, Jorasanko Police Station for investigation.After considering the averments of the petition of complaint and the materials placed on record, the Learned Magistrate rejected the prayer of the complainant to treat the same as an F.I.R. and registered the petition of complaint as a complaint case.Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the alleged offences.Both the complainant and the accused no.1 entered into an agreement dated October 7, 2013 regarding the purchase of the said premises at a consideration of Rs.20 Lakhs.Pursuant to that agreement the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.3 Lakhs to the accused by issuing a cheque bearing no.780372 dated October 7, 2013 for Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) drawn on Indian Bank, Strand Road Branch, Kolkata and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) in cash towards consideration money of Rs.20 Lakhs.It was agreed between the parties that the balance consideration money would be paid at the time of execution of the deed of conveyance.The cheque of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Fifty Thousand) was duly encashed by the accused.In terms of the agreement for sale, the deed of conveyance in respect of the premises was to be executed by the accused in favour of the complainant or her nominee/nominees within 6 months from the date of the agreement.Form No.J(1) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Present:The Hon'ble Justice Madhumati Mitra C.R.R. 2608 of 2015 With CRAN 2745 of 2018 Dilip Kumar Ganguly @ Dilip Ganguly & Ors.The State of West Bengal & Anr.Thereafter, Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate transferred the case to the file of the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 19th Court, Calcutta, for disposal.Learned Magistrate examined the complainant and her witness under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and observed that there was sufficient ground to proceed with the case against the petitioners for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code.Accordingly, the Learned Magistrate issued process against the present petitioners along with other accused to face trial for commission of the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420/406/120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2The petition of compliant has been annexed to the application for quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.From the averments of the said petition of complaint, it appears that accused no.1 who is not a petitioner before this Court had represented herself to be the owner of Premises No.111/1, Grand Trunk Road (South),Police Station & District - Howrah under Howrah Municipal Ward No.30 and the accused had represented that they were in urgent need of money.It has been alleged in the said petition of complaint that the accused persons induced the complainant to purchase that premises.Being induced by the false representation made by the accused persons, the complainant believed that the accused no.1 was the owner of the premises and agreed to purchase the same at a consideration of Rs.20 Lakhs.On the request of the complainant, the accused had duly handed 3 over the Xerox copies of the title deed in respect of the said property to the complainant.Thereafter, the accused did not execute the deed of conveyance within the time stipulated in the agreement in spite of several requests on the part of the complainant.Accused had requested the complainant to extend the time till April 30, 2014 for execution of the deed of conveyance and said request had been accepted by the complainant.On May 13, 2014, the accused had again requested the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- and accordingly the complainant had paid Rs.50,000/- to the accused vide cheque no.449224 dated May 13, 2014 drawn on Indian Bank, Strand Road Branch, Kolkata.On May 27, 2014 accused had requested the complainant to pay Rs.1 Lakh and accordingly, the complainant had paid Rs.1 Lakh to the accused vide cheque no.449226 dated May 27, 2014 drawn on Indian Bank, Strand Road Branch, Kolkata.It has been alleged by the complainant that the accused 4 was avoiding the execution of the deed of conveyance on various pretexts.Thereafter, following several requests the accused became ready to execute the deed of conveyance and the complainant prepared the bankers cheque drawn for payment of balance consideration amount and made the payment of the stamp duty through e-payment.But the accused did not execute the deed of conveyance and was trying to enter into an agreement in favour of a third party and to deliver possession of the premises in question to the third party.It has been alleged by the complainant that she has been cheated by the dishonest and fraudulent act of the accused and that the accused had entered into the agreement with the complainant to take money from her fraudulently and committed an offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust by way of conspiracy amongst the accused themselves.Annexure 'P5' at page 70 is the alleged agreement for sale executed between Smt.Ashima Ganguly wife of Dilip Ganguly as vendor and Sunita Agarwal daughter of Late Hariprasad Agarwal purchaser/second party.Smt. Ashima Ganguly the vendor of the sale agreement has been projected as accused no.1 in the petition of complaint.The accused no.1 is not the petitioner before this Court in respect of the application for quashing of the proceedings.From the recitals of the agreement, it appears that Smt. Ashima Ganguly is the absolute owner of the property as described in the schedule of the agreement.The recitals of the agreement disclose that the complainant agreed to purchase the said property at a consideration of Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs).It also appears that the purchaser had paid Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs) by way of an earnest money to the vendor/owner of the property and the 5 balance consideration money was scheduled be paid on or before the execution of the deed of conveyance.From Clause 3 of the said agreement, it appears that in the premises in question there were 21 tenants.Clause 8 of the said agreement speaks about the purchase to be completed within six months and the time should be deemed to be the essence of contract.The agreement bears the signature of the vendors Smt. Ashima Ganguly and the complainant Smt. Sunita Agarwal.It was also signed by Sudipto Ganguly, son of Dilip Kumar Ganguly and Narendra Bhai Rupda son of Nagindar Rupda as witnesses.From the cause title of the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it appears that present petitioner no.2, the son of the vendor was one of the witnesses to the deed.During the course of argument, the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the continuance of the proceedings pending against the petitioner would be an abuse of process of law.He has forcefully submitted that the agreement was entered into between the accused no.1 and the complainant.Other accused had no role to play so far as the agreement for sale is concerned.According to his contention the names of the other accused have been incorporated in the petition of complaint without any basis and in absence of specific allegation the other accused cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offences.That order was extended from time to time.Only present petitioner no.2 was one of the witnesses to the said agreement to sell.
|
['Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,972,465 |
Heard SriSudheer Kumar Singh, counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State.This bail application has been preferred by the accused-applicant,Vipin Ben Vanshi @ Vipul, who is involved in Case Crime No.98 of 2019, under Sections- 392, 411/34 IPC, Police Station- Mehnajpur, District- Azamgarh.Co-accused,Rahul Pandey @ Baba, has already been granted bail vide order dated1.6.2020passed in Criminal Misc.The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.In case the applicant has been enlarged on short term bail as per the order of committee constituted under the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court his bail shall be effective after the period of short term bail comes to an end.The applicant shall be enlarged on bail on execution of personal bond without sureties till normal functioning of the courts is restored.Order Date :- 6.8.2020 Rohit
|
['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.
|
191,972,558 |
The Criminal Appeal has been preferred under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by the appellants / A1 and A2 against the judgment of conviction, dated 28.06.2006 made in S.C.No.43 of 2006 on the file of the Sessions Judge of The Nilgiris at Uthagamandalam.2.The appellants / A1 and A2 stand convicted and sentenced by the learned Judge thus:-AccusedConviction under sectionSentence awardedA1Section 302 IPCLife imprisonment Section 452 IPC1 year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonmentA2Section 302 r/w.34 IPCLife imprisonment Section 452 IPC1 year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonmentAll the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.3.The case of the prosecution, in nut shell, is as follows:-PW1, Pushpa is the mother of deceased Shanthi.PW2, Mayilsamy is an Auto Driver, PW3, Kannan is the father of deceased Shanthi.PW9, Shakila was residing in another portion of the said Bombay Castle.On the fateful day, 08.04.2006, at about 10.30 a.m., the said Shanthi was sitting in front of her house.The second accused abused her by stating "gpuhj;jy; nfrpy; b$apYf;F nghdt jhnd eP. eP m';F Rk;kh ,Ue;jpUg;gpah vtd; Tl nghdpnah**. for which the deceased Shanthi replied "cd; ngj;jp ,g;gjhnd taRf;F te;jpUf;fh mt vd;d gd;whd;D ghU**.Then, immediately, A1 trespassed into the house of Shanthi and tore her nighty, A2 brought kerosene-can and poured kerosene on Shanthi and A1 set fire on her.When Shanthi was in flame, the accused poured water on her and fled from the scene of crime.PW2, Auto Driver at ATC Auto Stand, on hearing the scream of the deceased, ran towards the place.P.W.1, after completion of work, while returning to her house at about 10.00 a.m., could hear the scream of the deceased nearby her house and at that time, both the accused were found running out from her house.Thereafter, the deceased informed PW1 that A2 had poured kerosene and A1 set fire on her.PW1 and PW2 took her to the hospital and on the way, PW9, Shakila, also accompanied them.PW6, Mr.However, said Shanthi died only on 15.04.2006, nearly 7 days after giving her dying declaration.[b] Dr.Gowthaman, PW7 examined the victim Shanthi at about 12.45 p.m. on 08.04.2006 and he noted the smell of kerosene emanated from the body of the deceased Shanthi.The Doctor has assessed 80% burn injuries, Ex.PW14, Sub-Inspector of Police recorded the statement of the deceased.[c] It is seen that the prosecution witnesses, by their statements and evidence have implicated the accused persons in this case and the material documents have also been furnished to that effect.[d] In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 15, marked Exs.When the accused were questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied each and every circumstance as contrary to the facts and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case.Learned counsel for the appellants, though raised many grounds in the appeal, he submits that it is a fit case, restrict to the question of modifying the conviction and sentence alone.On hearing the words of the second accused, the deceased allegedly said that the grand daughter of the second accused Kannammal would also commit the very same offence of prostitution and hence, being grand mother / A2 and being the father / A1, the appellants said to have harassed the deceased.According to the learned counsel for the appellants, A1 and A2 would have no motive to commit murder of the deceased, in order to punish them under Section 302 IPC, even as per the prosecution case.Having considered the facts and circumstances, arguments and the evidence available on record, we are of the view that it is a fit case to modify the conviction and sentence, for which there is no tenable objection from the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.It is seen that the alleged offence could be an act of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, as per Section 299 IPC and we are of the view that the same would fall under the penal provision of Section 304 Part II IPC and it is also not in dispute that the appellants / A1 and A2 have already undergone each 9 years imprisonment, on account of the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
|
['Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 304 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 452 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,973,395 |
In Re:- Phanindra Saren @ Soren & Ors. .. Petitioners.Navanil De .. for the petitioners.Mr.Aniket Mitra .. for the State.The petitioners, apprehending arrest in connection with Dantan P.S. Case No.121 dated 02.08.2015 under sections 147/148/448/323/325/307/354A/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have approached this Court for anticipatory bail.Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the parties.The application for anticipatory bail is, thus, disposed of.(Ashim Kumar Roy, J.) (Malay Marut Banerjee, J.)
|
['Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 448 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.
|
1,919,737 |
P.W.1, Rajapandi Naicker, was a resident of Perivovanpatti.He wasrunning a petty shop therein.The second deceased, Annaveluthai, was given inmarriage to one Muthiah Naicker, who had a daughter and four sons.The firstson on marriage, was living separately.He hadillicit intimacy with the daughter of the accused.Third son was the firstdeceased, Seeniraj.P.W.2 was the daughter of Muthiah Naicker.The fifth sonwas P.W.3, who was studying in an elementary school.A few months prior to theoccurrence, on coming to know about the illicit intimacy between P.W.5 and thedaughter of the accused, P.W.1 made a suggestion to the accused to give hisdaughter in marriage to P.W.5, to which course the accused was not amenablestating that it would not be befitting his status.The accused became enraged over thesame and was looking for an occasion to finish off the entire family.On29.6.1998 at about 11.45 A.M., when the first deceased, Seeniraj, was going on apath leading to Kumarasubramaniyapuram, the accused came with an aruval andattacked him twice on his neck.P.W.1, who was on his way, which was nearby hishouse, witnessed the occurrence.The first deceased, Seeniraj, fell down andmet with his death instantaneously.P.W.1 rushed over to the house of P.W.2.At about 12.00 P.M., the accused went over there and attacked the mother ofP.W.2, namely the second deceased, Annaveluthai.P.Ws.1 to 3 went to therescue; but, despite the same, the accused caught her tuft and attacked on herneck, and she also met with her death.In the said transaction, the accusedattacked P.Ws.1 and 2, and thereby, they also sustained injuries.Due to hugecry, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.3.P.W.1 with injuries, rushed over to Ettayapuram Police Station, whereP.W.15, the Head Constable, who was in additional charge, on a report given byP.W.1 and marked as Ex.P1, registered a case in Crime No.134/98 under Sections302 and 307 of I.P.C. Printed First Information Report, Ex.P23, along withEx.P1, the complaint, was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate, Kovilpatti,which reached the Court at 3.35 P.M.4.P.W.16, the Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station, on receiptof the copy of the F.I.R., took up investigation, proceeded to the spot of thefirst occurrence, made an inspection in the presence of P.W.7 and another andprepared Ex.P3, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P24, the rough sketch.He made inquest on the dead body of Seeniraj in the presence ofwitnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P25, the inquest report.Followingthe same, he went over to the place of the second occurrence namely theresidence of P.W.2, where he made an inspection in the presence of two witnessesand prepared Ex.P5, the observation mahazar, and Ex.P26, the rough sketch.Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Annaveluthai in thepresence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P27, the inquest report.3)A cut injury just above the left elbow measuring 7 cm x 3 cm upto bone depth.Lacerating muscles, blood vesssels and Fracture of the bone underneath."The Doctor has issued Ex.P11, the postmortem certificate, with his opinion thatthe deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock andhaemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.7.P.W.9, the Doctor, medically examined P.W.2 at 4.45 P.M. On 29.6.1998,and the injuries found on her person, are noted in Ex.P13, the woundcertificate, issued by him.During furtherinvestigation, P.W.16, the Investigating Officer, arrested the accused on30.6.1998 at about 6.30 A.M. at Mudhalipatti bus stop.The accused volunteeredto give a confessional statement, which was recorded by the InvestigatingOfficer in the presence of P.W.7, the Village Administrative Officer, andanother.Pursuant to the confessional statement, he produced M.O.5, aruval,which was also recovered under a cover of mahazar, Ex.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The sole accused in a case of double murder along with a charge forattempt to murder (two counts) in S.C.No.172/1999, on the file of the AdditionalSessions Court, Tuticorin, wherein he stood charged, tried, found guilty as perall the charges and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-and a default sentence of 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment under Charge Nos.1 and2 framed under Sec.302 of I.P.C., and 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment alongwith a fine of Rs.500/- and a default sentence of 3 months Rigorous Imprisonmentunder Charge No.3 framed under Sec.307 of I.P.C. (two counts), has brought forththis appeal.2.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be statedthus:Following the same, both the dead bodies were sent to the Government Hospitalalong with the requisitions, Exs.P8 and P10 respectively, for the purpose ofautopsy.5.P.W.8, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Ettayapuram, on receipt of the said requisition, Ex.P8, conducted autopsy on thedead body of Annaveluthai and found the following injuries."1)A cut injury on Left palm about 7 cm x 2 cm upto bone depth fracturing thebones underneath and laceration of tendons, blood vessels.2)A cut injury on Left side of neck starting 1" above the medical end ofclavicle.Left extending to the back of neck transversely about 15 cm x 7 cm x7 cm lacerating the major blood vessels, nerves and muscles underneath."The Doctor has issued Ex.P9, the postmortem certificate, with her opinion thatthe deceased would appear to have died of the cumulative effect of shock andhaemorrhage due to the injuries sustained.6.P.W.9, the Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital,Ettayapuram, on receipt of the said requisition, Ex.P10, conducted autopsy onthe dead body of Seeniraj and found the following injuries."1)A cut injury over left side of face starts 2 cms below from the left earextends to the back measuring 7 cms x 5 cms x 5 cms lacerating the muscles,nerves and blood vessels underneath.Fracture of bone present.2)A cut injury on left Side of neck 1 cm below the injury No.1 starts from themiddle of neck extends to the back measuring 20 cm x 10 cm Lacerating muscles,major blood vessels and nerves.Fracture cervical vertebrae and spinal cord atc5 level.Laceration of trachea present.The accused was sentto the hospital along with a police memo for treatment.P.W.8, the Doctor, onthe very day at about 4.00 P.M., medically examined the accused, and theinjuries found on his person, are noted in the copy of the accident registermarked as Ex.Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand.Allthe material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the deadbodies were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Departmenton a requisition given by the concerned Judicial Magistrate, which resulted inEx.P18, the Chemical Analyst's report, and Ex.P19, the Serologist's report.Oncompletion of investigation, the final report was filed by the InvestigatingOfficer.9.The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges wereframed against the appellant/accused.10.In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, theprosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied on 27 exhibits and 15 materialobjects.On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, theaccused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., as to the incriminatingcircumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.He deniedthem as false.No defence witnesses were examined.The learned trial Judge,after hearing the arguments advanced and on scrutiny of the materials available,found the appellant/accused guilty as per the charges and awarded the punishmentreferred to above.Aggrieved, the accused has brought forth this appeal.11.The learned Counsel in his sincere attempt while assailing the judgmentof the Court below, made the following submissions:(a) In the instant case, according to the prosecution, two persons werekilled by the appellant/accused on the date of occurrence namely 29.6.1998, at11.45 A.M. and 12.00 Noon respectively, and apart from that, at the time of theoccurrence at 12.00 Noon, the accused also attempted at the lives of two personsnamely P.Ws.1 and 2, and they were also injured.In order to substantiate thecase, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 as eyewitnesses.P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case and has turned hostile.(b) As far as P.W.1 was concerned, he could not have seen the occurrenceat all.Even as per his evidence, he has witnessed only one occurrence.(c) So far as P.W.3 was concerned, he is a school going boy aged 15 years,and it was also a school day.Thus, he would have, in all probability, attendedthe school that day, and hence, he could have been planted as an eyewitness tosupport the prosecution case.The evidence of P.W.1 should have been rejected by the lower Court.First of all, he was the maternal uncle of the deceased, and he could not haveseen the occurrence at all.According to the prosecution, he was a chancewitness.He did not even speak as to how he happened to be in the place ofoccurrence, and further he did not speak about the presence of P.W.4, whoaccording to the prosecution was available at the place of occurrence.Further,while P.W.1 has come forward to state, at the time of examination by the PoliceOfficer, that he witnessed the second occurrence at 12.00 Noon, he has given upthe second occurrence while giving evidence in Court.So far as the first occurrence in whichSeeniraj was killed, is concerned, there is no evidence for the prosecution atall, and hence, the evidence of P.W.1 has got to be rejected.So far as P.W.2 is concerned, though sheclaimed to be an injured eyewitness, she could not have been present in theplace of occurrence.According to P.W.2, she went to the Police Station alongwith P.W.1, and thereafter, she was sent to Ettayapuram Government Hospital.According to P.W.9, the Doctor, P.W.2 came over to the hospital, and at 4.45P.M., medical treatment was given to her, and it was he, who gave intimation tothe police, and the police officials came over there.Thus, the evidence ofP.W.2 that she went along with P.W.1 to the Police Station cannot be accepted.In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that she was injured in the manner,in which the prosecution has come forward with its case.The same has also reached the Judicial Magistrate's Court only aftera period of two months.This would indicate that P.W.2 could not have been aneyewitness and could not have sustained injuries in the way in which theprosecution comes with its case.Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 has got to berejected.(g) As far as P.W.3 was concerned, he was a school going boy with propermaturity.Apart from that, it was also a school day, and he could not have beenpresent at the time and place of occurrence, and hence, his evidence is liableto be rejected.(h) In the instant case, according to P.W.3, number of persons were alsopresent there, who witnessed the occurrence; but, no one has been examined.Noexplanation was forthcoming from the prosecution side in this regard.No one ofthe prosecution witnesses has spoken about the injuries sustained by theaccused, and it has fatally affected the prosecution case.(j) According to the prosecution, the accused was arrested on 30.6.1998 atabout 6.30 A.M. in a bus stop in the presence of P.W.7, the V.A.O., and M.O.5,aruval, has also been recovered from him.Apart from that, theevidence that was adduced through P.W.7, the V.A.O., is highly improbable andartificial, and thus, the recovery of weapon of crime could not have been made.(k) It is pertinent to point out that M.O.5, aruval, was not subjected tochemical analysis.What was the reason therefor, the prosecution did not adduceany explanation.After the inquest was conducted by the Investigating Officer, both the deadbodies were subjected to postmortem by the Doctors, P.Ws.8 and 9 respectively.Both the Doctors have also been examined, and the postmortem certificates issuedby them, have also been marked, from which it could be seen that both thedeceased died of shock and haemorrhage.P.Ws.1 and 4,according to the prosecution, were eyewitnesses.Apart from that, P.W.4 has turned hostile.P.W.1 hasgiven a categorical and graphic narration of the entire incident.16.P.W.1 would say that on the day of occurrence, when he was going out ofhis house, which is situate nearby, he found the accused coming with an aruvalin his hand and attacking the first deceased, Seeniraj, on his neck, and becauseof fear, he could not come forward to the rescue.They have given theiropinion that both the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage.21.The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the appellantis that so far as the recovery of the weapon of crime is concerned, it could nothave been recovered on 30.6.1998 at about 6.30 A.M. at the bus stop.Theevidence of P.W.7, when perused, remained intact.In the instantcase, the prosecution has brought forth necessary and sufficient evidence to beaccepted by the Court.22.The further contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant thatP.W.2 in her evidence would state that she went along with P.W.1 to the PoliceStation, and a complaint was given; that according to P.W.9, the Doctor, P.W.2came to the hospital at 4.45 P.M., and she was given medical treatment; thatthere is discrepancy in her evidence; and that on that ground, P.W.2's evidencehas to be rejected has got to be stated for the purpose of rejection.2)The Inspector of Police, Ettayapuram Police Station Thoothukudi District, (Crime No.134/98)3)The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.
|
['Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
191,975,188 |
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.1.2018 passed by Additional Judge to the First Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in Special Case No. 25/2017 whereby the learned Additional Judge framed charges under Sections 363, 366 and 344 of Indian Penal Code; after the Police Station, Waidhan filed the challan after investigation.Prosecution story in brief is that the applicant had committed abducting or inducing women to compel her marriage with wrongful confinement to the complainant punishable under Sections 363, 366 of 344 Indian Penal Code.It is alleged that complainant lodged an F.I.R on 16.5.2017 against the accused persons regarding incident.The petitioner herein filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the charges.The learned Lower Court vide order dated 17.1.2018 has framed the charges.The appeal is allowed."
|
['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.
|
65,928,636 |
This is first application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. filed by the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.Previously Crime No.386/2020 was registered against the applicants at Police Station Mada, District Singrouli for offence punishable under Sections 342, 294, 323, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were released on bail by way of Muchalka and personal bond.Thereafter, trial Court took cognizance against the applicants under Sections 364, 294, 323, 506-II and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and arrest warrants were issued.Learned counsel for the applicants submits that they have neither caused any injury nor any act of kidnapping has been done.The entire dispute is regarding salary and applicants have been falsely implicated in the c as e to create pressure over poor employees.Applicants have also filed counter complaint before the concerned Police Station.Copy of the same is annexed with the application.It is further submitted that similarly placed co- accused persons have already been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2021 passed in M.Cr.Hence, prayer is made to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants.Learned Panel Lawyer for the State opposed the application for grant of bail.Heard learned counsel for the parties.On perusal of the documents annexed with the application, it appears that there is some dispute between the parties regarding wages.Counter report has also been lodged by the accused persons.Hence, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the principle of 2 MCRC-6971-2021 parity, without commenting on merits, this application is allowed.It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicants namely- applicant No.1- Krishnaram; applicant No.2- Dinesh; and applicant No.3- Krishna by the Police in the aforesaid crime, they shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand Only) each with a solvent surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer (Investigating Officer) for their regular appearance before the Police during the investigation or before the Court during trial.It is directed that the applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of Cr.P.C. It is made clear that the applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when they are so directed and cooperate with the investigation and shall also appear before the trial Court, failing which this bail order shall automatically stand cancelled without further reference to the Court.Accordingly, the M.Cr.C. stands allowed and disposed of (SMT.ANJULI PALO) JUDGE ks Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by KOUSHLENDRA SHARAN SHUKLA Date: 2021.02.23 18:08:58
|
['Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 294 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 364 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 342 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,935,472 |
Heard on I.A. No.8661/2013, an application under Section 389 (1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and released on bail.On behalf of the appellant, it is submitted that during the course of trial, the appellant has spent almost 477 days.The appellant is in custody since 27.06.2013 and the period of custody is about three years.The appellant allegedly abducted the minor prosecutrix took her to different places and during their stay together, he committed sexual intercourse with her.No mark of injury was found.Counsel for the appellant claimed that the prosecutrix has also stated that she went to different places with the appellant, however she has expressed in her cross- examination that she did not raise any alarm nor protested because she was afraid of the appellant, who was carrying a knife.State of MP) 3 Cr.A. No.777/2013 the statement (Ex.D-1) of the prosecutrix.Thus prayer for rejection of the application.The appellant be released on bail on his (Sunil Vs.State of MP) 4 Cr.A. No.777/2013 furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court for regular appearance before the Principal Registrar of this Court on 21.07.2015 and thereafter on such dates as may be fixed by the office for his presence during the pendency of this appeal.Certified copy as per rules.(S.K. Palo) Judge Rashid
|
['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.
|
65,937,805 |
Shri Vivek Mishra, Govt. Adv.for the respondent no.2/State.e ad It appears from the record that this appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated Pr 17/11/2017 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal in a S.T. no.573/14 (Anand Tiwari Vs.K.K. Mishra) whereby learned ASJ hy found appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 500 of ad IPC and sentenced him two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25000/- with default stipulation.M Also it appears from the record that on 24th June, 2014 the then of Public Prosecutor of Bhopal had filed a complaint before the Sessions Judge, Bhopal against the appellant under Section 199(2) of Cr.P.C.rt alleging the commission of offences under Sections 499 and 500 of the ou IPC.On that complaint, ST No. 573/ 14 was registered against the C appellant.He challenged the maintainability of that complainant before this Court which was rejected against which appellant filed h ig Special Leave Petition (criminal) No. 6064/17 before the Hon.During pendency of that appeal, learned ASJ passed the judgement in ST No. 573/14, whereby learned ASJ found appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 500 of IPC and sentenced him two years simple imprisonment and fine of Rs 25000/- with default stipulation.Hon'ble Apex court allowed the Criminal appeal No.(s) 547/18 by order dated 13.04.18 observing as thus:-"Consequently, we allow this appeal; quash the impugned prosecution/proceedings registered and numbered as Sessions Trial no.573/2014; and set aside the order dated 17th November, 2017 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bhopal, Madhya pradesh in Sessions Trial no.573/2014 convicting the accused appellant under Section 500 IPC and sentencing him as aforesaid.Pr(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) a JUDGE hy ad M m/-of Digitally signed by MONIKA CHOURASIA Date: 2018.05.21 16:27:57 +05'30' rt ou C h ig H
|
['Section 500 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
65,943,114 |
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran J) We have heard Sri Viresh Mishra and Sri Amit Mishra for the appellants, and Sri Akhilesh Singh, learned Government Advocate, and Sri Anand Tiwari for the State of U.P., and perused the written submissions filed by the appellants and the State.This Capital Appeal along with the connected Criminal Reference under section 366 Cr.P.C. arises from the judgement passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Chandauli dated 01.10.2012 awarding a sentence of death to the three appellants under section 302 read with 34 IPC.The prosecution case as mentioned in the F.I.R. lodged on 18.06.2005 at 10 p.m. by P.W. 1 Onkar Nath Tiwari, P.W. 1, son of the deceased Raj Kumari Devi, aged 70 years was that Ram Ashish Gond had become mentally unstable and he used to roam about in the village.Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari had told his brother the appellant Ram Dheeraj Gond that if they made a sacrifice of some Brahmin, then his brother Ram Ashish would recover.P.W. 7 Geeta Devi, daughter-in-law of the deceased and P.W. 5 Chandrama Chauhan had over heard this conversation.On 18.06.2005 the appellants Ram Ashish, Ram Dheeraj, Chandra Dev Tiwari, alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari sent Mangari, the mother of Ram Ashish and Ram Dheeraj to call the deceased Raj Kumari Devi and they killed her in their house at 6.30 p.m. Vimla, P.W. 3 saw Mangri taking away Raj Kumari Devi with her.Raj Kumari Devi's corpse was found in the house of Ram Ashish.On the basis of the informant's report at P.S. Dheena, a case was registered by P.W. 11 Head Moharrir Kislay Mishra against the present three appellants Ram Ashish Gond, Ram Dheeraj Gond and Smt. Mangari Devi and the co-accused Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari.P.W. 6 Phagoo, who is the father of Aarti is also a hostile witness.His daughter Aarti was married to Ram Ashish.He was in jail in connection with a murder case.About one week before the incident, his daughter Aarti was staying with him and only one week prior to this incident, she had gone to Ram Ashish's house.His son Jagjivan had accompanied Aarti to her sasural His son had told him on his return that Ram Ashish was under the spell of Durga Maa.After one week of the incident, he learnt that his daughter was admitted in Kabir Chaura Hospital.He had visited her there and had seen that she was lying on the bed with injuries on both of her hands.No one from her sasural was present.He did not know how she had received the injuries.When his daughter had come home, she had informed him that she did not know how she had received the injuries, because she had fainted and when she became conscious, she found herself in the hospital.His daughter had not told him that on 18.6.2005 Ram Ashish's mother Mangari Devi had called Raj Kumari Panditain to her house or that Ram Ashish had put a garland on her neck and after beating her to death made a sacrifice of her.She denied giving any statement under 161 Cr. P. C. to the investigating officer.P.W. 7 Smt. Geeta Devi, who is the daughter-in-law of Raj Kumari deposed that on the date of incident her mother-in-law Raj Kumari was at her home.At 12-1 O' clock she was present in the osara with her mother-in-law.Her co villager, the appellant Mangari Devi had come and talked with her mother-in-law under the neem tree near their door.At that time one Munna Pathak asked her for water.At that time Mangari asked the deceased to accompany her.When Geeta asked her mother-in-law where she is going, then Mangari had stopped, but after sometime, she had left.At about 3-4 p.m. Mangari Devi again came to her house and took her mother-in-law with her.On that day, her mother-in-law had kept the fast of 'Ekadasi'.When she did not return up to 6 p.m. then the people of the house made enquiries about her in the village and made a search for her.Then they went to the house of Mangari.The house was bolted from inside.Her elder brother-in-law Onkar Nath Tiwari opened the door.She saw that in the house a mud worship place had been made and that there was a rope and a garland on her neck and there were some other flowers, sweets and other prayer items near her mother-in-law who was lying dead on the floor.Her mother-in-law had been murdered by Mangari Devi, Ram Ashish and Ram Dheeraj.The I.O. had interrogated her about the incident.She denied the the suggestion that during the anushthan Raj Kumari Devi had climbed up the bamboo ladder for placing the prayer material on the roof for propitiating the gods and while climbing down from the ladder, her legs slipped from the top rungs of the ladder and she fell on the courtyard and died as a result of the injuries received.According to the appellant Ram Dheeraj, he was in Alopur, Sultanpur Lodhi, Jalandhar, Punjab, where he along with his father has taken some fields on lease for growing vegetables.After the incident, the co-villagers had arrived at their house and had beaten her because of which she fainted.The kind of planning that took place for this offence, the fact that prayers were taking place in the house of the appellants for the past 7 days as deposed to by P.W. 7 Geeta Devi and from the number of injuries that the deceased had received, the said injuries could not be caused only by Managri Devi and Ram Ashish and we think that there is sufficient reason to hold that Ram Dheeraj was also fully involved in this crime, who has been nominated for this crime in the FIR and by the witnesses to the exclusion of his brother Ram Ashish's wife Aarti, sister and nephew who were also admittedly residents of the same house at that time.Also DW 1 Aarti has admitted in her cross-examination, that Ram Dheeraj used to reside and work in the village at that time and had never gone outside to work, hence his claim that he was working at Punjab at that time appears to be false.P.W. 8 S.I. Ram Prasad Yadav started investigation of this case.He proceeded to the village of incident, Sisaura.As light could not be arranged, the inquest could not be carried out in the night.The dead body was seen in the morning in the room in the house where the inquest was then conducted.After sealing the dead body it was handed over to the Constables Raj Kumar Yadav and Kalika Singh for carrying it for post-mortem.P.W. 10 Dr. Arvind Singh conducted the post mortem on the body of Raj Kumari Devi on 19.06.2005 at 4.40 p.m. He found the following ante-mortem injuries:-1.Lacerated wound 2 cm x ½ cm x bone deep over the outer aspect of right side forehead between the right eye and ear.On opening the temporal bone was found fractured.2.Lacerated wound 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep on the mid part of nose and right lower eyes on opening nasal bone was fractured.3.Multiple contusions in an area of 18 cm x 16 cm on both side forehead and face.4.Multiple contusions on the top of left shoulder, arm, elbow and hand on the back and outer aspect.5.Multiple contusions in an area of 18 cm x 12 cm on the outer and post aspect of left side chest.6.Multiple contusion all over the outer aspect of left upper hand.The Investigating Officer also collected a blood stained wooden patari and blood stained and plain mud from the spot and sealed the items and prepared the recovery memos.He prepared the site plan (Ext. Ka-6).He also sent Ram Ashish Gond, Aarti Devi and Mangari on 19.6.2005 for medical examination.The appellants Ram Ashish Gond, Aarti Devi and Smt. Mangari were medically examined on the same day at 4.30 a.m., 4 a.m. and 4.45 a.m. respectively.The injuries of Ram Ashish Gond were as follows:-1.Lacerated wound 1.5 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the back of the head.It is 7 cm below the right shoulder blade.4.Contusion of 5 cm x 1.5 cm upper back of right chest.It was 10 cm below the right shoulder blade.Red in colour.5.Abrasion of 3cm x 1 cm upper back of right foot.The injuries of Smt. Aarti Devi were as follows:-1.Lacerated would of 8 cm x 3 cm x bone deep upper right side of the scalp of the head.It is 11 cm above the right ear 3 cm above the right eye brow.2.Lacerated wound of 4 cm x 1 cm x bone deep upper right side of the head.It is 6 cm above the right ear and reaching up to hair margin.3.Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x bone deep upper right side of the face 2 cm below the right lower eye lid.4.Contusion of 6 cm x 2.5 cm upon outer part of right forearm.Deformity of the lines evident.5.Contusion of 16 cm x 2.5 cm upon outer part of left arm.6.Contusion of 5 cm x 3 cm upon outer part of (back of) left forearm in its middle.7.Contusion of 3 cm x 1 cm upon back of left hand.8.Contusion of 20 cm x 4 cm upon outer part of the shoulder and chest wall.Red in colour.9.Lacerated wound of 2 cm x 1 cm x muscle deep, 1 cm x 0.5 cm x skin deep upon back of right index and middle (10) Lacerated wound of 1 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep upon front of right leg in its middle.(11) Lacerated wound of 3 cm x 1 cm x bone deep upon front of right leg in its middle.The injuries of Smt. Mangari were as follows:-(1) Contusion of 5 cm x 1.5 cm upon back of right forearm.It was 5 cm above the right wrist.Red in colour.(2) Lacerated would of 2 cm x 0.5 cm x muscle deep upon outer surface of left wrist.(3) Contusion of 3 cm x 2 cm upon the prominence of the right cheek.Red in colour.On 9.9.2005 he submitted the charge sheet against the accused Ram Ashish Gond, Ram Dheeraj Gond and Mangari Devi under section 302 IPC.He did not find any material against Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari and excluded their names from the charge sheet.The witnesses of fact in this case are P.W. 1 Onkar Nath Tiwari, P.W. 2, Ram Lakshan Tiwari, P.W. 3 Vimla Devi, P.W. 4 Pancham Gond, P.W. 5 Chandrama, P.W. 6 Phagu and P.W. 7 Geeta.P.W. 1 Onkar Nath Tiwari is the informant and son of the deceased Smt. Raj Kumari Devi.He used to know the appellants Ram Ashish Gond, Ram Dheeraj Gond and their mother Mangari Devi because they used to reside at a distance of 50 paces from his house.The incident took place on 18.6.2005 at 7.30 p.m. Ram Ashish Gond had recently returned from Punjab and he used to roam about in the village saying that he had become a worshipper of Durga Maa and was her carrier.This upset his brother Ram Dheeraj Gond.The co-villagers Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengri Tiwari, Paramanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari had told him that if he made a sacrifice of some Brahmin, then his brother would recover.He learnt this fact from Geeta Devi and Chandrama Chauhan.On the date and time of incident the six above named accused persons had called Raj Kumari Devi through Mangari Devi to their house, where they beat her and caused her death.Vimla Devi had seen Mangari Devi taking away his mother to their house.P.W. 2 Ram Lakshan Tiwari, the husband of Raj Kumari deposed that Mangari Devi had called his wife from his house for the purpose of making a sacrifice of her and had committed her murder.The inquest of the dead body was conducted in his presence.There were a number of injuries on the dead body.P.W. 3 Vimla Devi has turned hostile and has not supported her earlier version.She denied that in her 161 Cr.P.C. statement she had stated that she had met Raj Kumari Devi at 2 p.m. and Raj Kumari had told her that she would go to the house of Ram Ashish Gond and that she had not seen Raj Kumari going away with Mangari Devi.She could not say as to how the Investigating Officer had written these facts in her 161 Cr. P. C. statement.She denied colluding with the accused.She stated in her examination-in-chief that she used to put on a "ghooghat," when she used to go out and that she had heard the name of Ram Ashish and her mother Mangari Devi only sometimes when she visited their house.P.W. 4 Pancham Gond, was a relation of the accused whose niece Aarti Devi had married the appellant Ram Ashish.He has also turned hostile and disclaimed any knowledge of the incident or of visiting the house of the accused on the date of the incident.He denies giving any 161 Cr. P. C. statement to the Investigating Officer.He also denies having given any such statement that he had gone to meet his niece Aarti Devi in Kabir Chaura Hospital and she had told him that on 18.6.2005 Ram Ashish's mother had brought the panditain "Raj Kumari" and that Ram Ashish had put a garland on the neck of Raj Kumari and then murdered her.P.W. 5 Chandrama has again turned hostile and claimed that his house is at a considerable distance from the house of the informant.He claims that 2½ months before the date of incident, he had met with an accident because of which his left and right legs were fractured and he was bed ridden.He denies having over heard Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari telling Ram Dheeraj Gond that if he would make a sacrifice of some Brahmin, then his brother, who had become mentally deranged and who roamed about hither and thither, would become all right.He denied making any such disclosure to Onkar Nath Tiwari.After the incident, his father had returned and learnt that the local police were searching for him.Then he returned back and surrendered in Court.He had no information about the incident.In his 313 Cr. P. C. statement, the appellant Ram Ashish has denied the allegation against him and has pleaded that there was enmity between the other named co-accused Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari and the informant's family over a land dispute and litigation was pending.Ram Dheeraj also denied the allegations and pleaded ignorance in his 313 Cr. P. C. statement.Smt. Mangari Devi aged 70 years also denied the allegations in her 313 Cr. P. C. statement.She mentions that her son Ram Ashish was ailing for quite sometime.The deceased Raj Kumari had told them they should get prayers arranged, then there would be happiness, peace and prosperity in the house.The deceased had joined the prayers and on her directions, prayers and havans were being conducted.On the completion of the prayers, she climbed up the roof carrying a mug (lota with water) on the ladder.When climbing down the top rungs, her legs slipped and she fell down, because of which she received a number of injuries and died of the same.She has deposed that she married Ram Ashish 3-6 years earlier.She admits the presence of her husband Ram Ashish, her mother-in-law Mangari Devi, at the time and place of incident.In her examination-in-chief she stated that her Jeth Ram Dheeraj was not present and he was in Punjab.But in her cross-examination by the prosecution she contradicted this fact and stated that Ram Dheeraj had never gone outside the village for the purpose of work.Her husband Ram Ashish was not keeping well and he had been advised by the deceased Panditain Raj Kumari to get a prayer ceremony conducted in her house.After the prayer was completed, Raj Kumari Devi climbed up on a wooden ladder along with a mug with water and prayer materials.When she was climbing down the upper rungs of the ladder, she slipped and fell on the courtyard and died as a result of the injuries received by the fall.When she regained consciousness she found herself at the Varanasi Hospital.She did not know, who had beaten her and she did not know the names of the people because she was a home staying daughter-in-law of the house.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the injuries on the deceased, which were mainly contusions and lacerated wounds, and were not the typical injuries that are received when a superstitious sacrifice of a person is made, rather those injuries were due to a fall, which were caused to the deceased whilst she was climbing down the bamboo ladder.There were injuries on the appellants Ram Ashish Gond, Smt. Mangari and the defence witness Aarti Devi.These injuries have not been explained in the prosecution version.No exclusive liability could be assigned to the appellants for this offence, as according to the initial prosecution case, there were six accused persons viz. Chandradev Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, who were excluded from the charge sheet after conclusion of the investigation.Even the application under section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning these accused persons was rejected.Also from the evidence, it appears that there were three other persons who resided in the house, i.e. Ram Ashish's wife Aarti Devi, one sister and one nephew of the appellants Ram Ashish and Ram Dheeraj, who might have committed this crime, but have not been implicated.Admittedly the informant Onkar Nath Tiwari was not even a witness of last-seen and Vimla Devi an aunt of the informant who was shown as a witness of last seing the deceased along with the appellant Mangari Devi has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case.Likewise P.W.4 Pancham Gond, who was a relation of the accused has denied that Aarti Devi wife of Ram Ashish had disclosed to him at the Kabir Chaura Hospital, where she was admitted on 18.6.2005, that the appellants had murdered the deceased.P.W. 5, Chandrama, who is said to have overheard the conversation of the deceased with the other accused Chandradev Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari regarding their exhortation to the appellants to sacrifice some Brahmin for freeing Ram Ashish from the clutches of the spirit and for facilitating his recovery has also turned hostile as he claims to have fractured his legs and to being bed ridden at that time.The deceased, who was on visiting terms in the house of the appellants could have gone to their house of her own.There was no reliable evidence of last seen or any evidence of over hearing the suggestion of sacrificing the deceased, who was a brahmin for propitiating the gods for enabling the appellant Ram Ashish Gond overcome his mental obsession, that he was the carrier of "Durga Maa".The evidence of P.W. 7 Geeta Devi, whose 161 Cr. P. C. statement was recorded after 15 days, also fails to provide any cogent evidence regarding the deceased having gone along with the appellant Mangari Devi to her house for the purpose of prayers.There was no evidence of the presence of the appellant Ram Dheeraj.The record of this case had got burnt out and the new record has not been properly reconstructed and it consisted of fabricated documents.The alleged motive of this case has not been substantiated.Learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, argued that there is no such universal rule that only a particular kind of injuries such as beheading the deceased would be caused at the time of a superstitious sacrifice.From their nature, it needs to be ruled out that the injuries on the deceased could be due to a fall as there were a large number of injuries on all sides of the body of the deceased including multiple contusions, which could not have been caused by a fall.The dead body was also not lying in the courtyard, but it was found lying in a room, where prayers were being conducted.There was a wooden plank lying at the spot, which also had some blood on it, which was inconsistent with the deceased having received injuries by a fall.So far as the injuries of Ram Ashish Gond, Smt. Mangari and Aarti Devi are concerned, no plea was taken that the injuries had been received in self defence.In fact no argument had even been advanced by the counsel for the accused before the lower Court that the origin of the incident was shrouded in mystery, as the injuries on the appellants and on Aarti Devi were unexplained.Furthermore, the defence witness Aarti Devi has admitted that the injuries were caused to her by the villagers, who had assembled after the incident because of which she had even fainted and was taken to the hospital.The site plan does not show any ladder, but in fact there was a pacca staircase, which has been indicated in the site plan itself.There was no need for the 70 year old lady Smt. Rajkumari to have climbed up the stairs carrying water in the mug and prayer materials to the roof.The three other accused persons named in the F.I.R. were excluded from the charge sheet because no evidence was gathered against them.This was noted by the Investigating Officer.Even the application under section 319 Cr. P. C. for summoning these non-charge sheeted accused was dismissed by the Trial Court for this reason.Even if, some witnesses have turned hostile, the informant P.W. 1 Onkar Nath Tiwari, P.W. 2 R.L. Tiwari, the husband of the deceased and P.W. 7 Geeta Devi have spoken of the proposed sacrifice.The fact was that the deceased was done to death for carrying out a sacrifice by the appellants.So far as the other family members of the appellants are concerned, as no one has furnished any evidence against them, hence they have not been implicated in this crime.But so far as the three appellants are concerned, cogent evidence was available against them right from the initial stage.This crime could not have been committed only by the 70 year old lady Mangari Devi, the mother of the appellants Ram Ashish Gond and Ram Dheeraj and also Ram Ashish Gond is said to have been mentally disturbed.In such circumstances Ram Dheeraj Gond must also have had a role in the crime.Because there was no evidence against three other persons i.e. Ram Ashish's wife, sister, and nephew of the appellants Ram Ashish and Ram Dheeraj, they were not made accused and their exclusion would not confer any benefit on the present appellants.Even if, for the sake of arguments, it was accepted that the motive for the crime was not established, as some of witnesses for proving motive have not been produced, but this fact was undeniable that the deceased had died a homicidal death in the house of the appellants and the onus lay on them to explain as to how the deceased had died in their house.Failure to discharge this onus, or offering a patently false explanation was an important circumstance for connecting the appellants with this crime.Evidence has been led that Mangari Devi had taken away the deceased Raj Kumari to her house.Geeta Devi, P.W.7, Raj Kumari's daughter-in-law would have knowledge of this fact and if the house was only 20-30 paces away, it would have been apparent to her and the other witnesses, and the informant that the deceased had gone to that house.In any case, even if, there was some inconsistency about the time, when the deceased had left for that house, or even if it is presumed that there was absence of last seen evidence of the deceased going along with appellant Mangari Devi to her house, at least this fact was indisputable that the deceased appears to have voluntarily gone to the house of the appellants, purportedly for carrying out prayers and thereafter, her dead body had been found in that house with homicidal injuries, hence the appellants could not have been absolved of the liability for the crime.The chain of circumstances is clear and complete for showing that the appellants were responsible for the crime of murdering the deceased in their house.After the record was burnt, an order was passed by this Court in a Bail Application to expedite the trial.Consequently, the record was reconstructed and so far as other documents are concerned, it is pointed out by the learned G.A., no objection was made questioning the genuineness of the said documents by the counsel for the accused before the trial Court and in fact he has admitted to their genuineness.The said documents have been properly reconstructed and proved.The witnesses have thereafter been re-examined.In these circumstances it is submitted that the crime of killing of an old woman for carrying out her sacrifice after inviting her to their house under false pretexts, calls for the death penalty and the other option of awarding life sentences to the appellants was unquestionably foreclosed on the facts of this case.On an analysis of the evidence and on examination of the post-mortem report, we find that there was a lacerated wound on the left side of the forehead of the deceased between the right eye and ear under which the temporal bone was fractured.There was also a lacerated wound on the middle of the nose fracturing the nasal bone.More significantly, there were multiple contusions on both sides of the forehead and face.In these circumstances in our view it has rightly been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that such multiple contusions could not be caused by a fall, but were in all probability the result of blows by some blunt object.Again, there were multiple contusions on the right side on the shoulder and the hand and also on the back on the outer aspect and multiple contusions in an area of 18 x 12 cm on the outer and posterior aspect of the left side chest.There were multiple contusions all over the outer aspect of the left upper hand.Such injuries were on the opposite sides of the dead body of the deceased and the presence of multiple contusions could never be caused due to fall and therefore it appears that the said injuries were caused homicidally by assaulting the deceased with some blunt object.Furthermore, if the deceased had fallen down from the ladder, the body would not have been lying inside the room along side the prayer material.The presence of a wooden plank i.e. a patari, which was stained with human blood as per the report dated 10.5.2010 of the Forensic Science Laboratory was also wholly inconsistent with the case of the defence that the deceased had received injuries, while falling from the ladder in the courtyard.According to the site plan blood was seen only in the kothari, where the prayers were being conducted and the dead body was lying.The wooden plank containing human blood was also seen there.No blood was seen in the courtyard.The site plan also indicates that no wooden bamboo ladder was seen anywhere, but a stair way going upstairs has been shown in the site plan.The witness Geeta PW 7 may have been confused when she mentioned in her cross-examination that there were no stairs, and there was a bamboo ladder in the house of the appellants, as this fact is inconsistent with the site plan.There was also no rational reason why the old deceased lady would have wanted to climb a bamboo ladder for putting the prayer water or prayer material on top of the roof.The contention that in matters of human sacrifice, usually the neck is amputated or sacrifices are made in a particular manner appears to be a speculative argument.If the deceased has died as a result of homicidal injuries in a house, then whether the death was due to a superstitious sacrifice or for any other reason, under section 106 of the Evidence Act the onus lay on the appellants who are owners of the house, and who alone have special knowledge of the facts, to explain the circumstances of the death of Smt. Raj Kumari.It appears that the plea was not raised, because the injured Aarti Devi, D.W. 1 herself stated that these injuries were caused to her by the villagers after the incident.In these circumstances we can easily appreciate that the villagers would naturally feel enraged if the 70 year old lady with whom there was no enmity, would be invited to the appellants' house and belaboured there probably for the purpose of some irrational sacrifice.That is why no plea, whatsoever of trying to seek any benefit from the injuries to the accused, had been raised before the Trial Court by the appellants.We are therefore of the view that the said plea, which has now been raised, is devoid of any substance, and must be immediately rejected.From the mere fact that three of the accused persons, Chandradev Tiwari alias Tengari Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari, who were named in the F.I.R. by PW 1 Onkar Nath Tiwari, and against whom PW 1 also gave evidence of their involvement in Court, but no charge sheets were submitted, and the application for summoning them under section 319 Cr.P.C. was also rejected by the Trial Judge (on account of the fact that the Investigating Officer had found absolutely no evidence against them).Also P.W.7 Geeta Devi has denied overhearing this conversation between the non-charge sheeted accused and Ram Dhiraj, and thus there was unsatisfactory proof by evidence led at the trial for establishing the motive for this crime.But this fact in itself will not help exonerate the appellants from this crime.The fact of the matter is that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants probably to attend some religious ceremony (anushthan) for improving the health of the deceased, as was mentioned by the supporting witnesses, and even the appellant Mangari Devi in her 313 Cr.P.C. statement and in the evidence of DW 1 Smt. Aarti wife of Ram Ashish.This failure to give any explanation as to how the deceased had received homicidal injuries in their house and then furnishing a false explanation that the deceased had died accidentally by falling off a ladder were the most important circumstances for connecting the appellants with this crime.In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 where there were some demands for money and the wife had died due to strangulation, in her marital home, but it was falsely claimed by the inmates that she had died due to snake bite, the Apex Court held that in such cases it is well nigh impossible for the prosecution to furnish evidence as to how the crime had been committed, and as these are facts within the special knowledge of the accused, it was the burden of the accused to explain how the deceased had died in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act. Pargraphs 14 and 15 of the law report may be usefully perused:If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts.Even so far as the last seen evidence of the deceased having been taken to the house of the appellants by the appellant Mangari Devi is based only on the testimony of P.W. 7 Geeta Devi and some minor inconsistencies about the time when the deceased left with the appellant Mangari Devi for the house of the appellant are pointed out in the testimony of P.W. 7 Geeta Devi as to whether the deceased had gone at 3 or 4 p.m. with Mangari Devi as mentioned in the examination-in-chief of Geeta Devi or whether as the informant Onkar Nath Tiwari, informant has stated in the F.I.R. that the deceased Raj Kumari had gone at about 6.30 p.m. with Mangari Devi to her house when Vimla Devi, P.W. 3 had seen the deceased and Mangari departing together.Even though Vimla Devi has turned hostile and disclaims having seen the deceased Raj Kumari and Mangari going together and even denies freely roaming around in the village as she says that she used to wear a ghooghat (veil).The fact of the matter is that as the deceased was residing hardly a few paces from the house of the appellants, and the witness Geet Devi, who is the wife of Anil Tiwari and the daughter-in-law of the deceased and resident of the same house would certainly be having knowledge about the movements of her old mother-in-law Raj Kumari.At any rate, as it cannot be denied that Geeta Devi's mother-in-law had gone to the house of the appellants as her dead body was found in that house, hence these minor discrepancies, regarding the persons who had seen the deceased going to the appellants' house and the time of her departure and whether at that time she had gone with Mangari Devi or by herself to that house loses any importance.It is not disputed that the record of this case had got burnt, but on a close perusal of the documents and records, we find that the documents could be retrieved only after orders were passed by the High Court on 22.4.2010 in a bail application for concluding the trial in six months and directing the District Judge to take steps for reconstruction of the records as soon as possible.Thereafter efforts were made for reconstructing the record.The documents, which were available from the police station were placed on the record and on those documents, no objections to their reception have been endorsed on behalf of the accused.We have carefully perused the endorsement and also noted that the charge was again framed and the witnesses were examined.Even when the charge under section 302/34 IPC was framed on 27.9.2012, full opportunity was given to the accused for cross examining the witnesses, but they declined to avail of the opportunity.All the necessary papers (16 Ka) are on record.Learned counsel submitted that the record could only be reconstructed if a separate order was passed pursuant to some High Court Circular.Much less can there be any objection to the admissibility of a record that was reconstructed pursuant to the High Court's directions in a bail application which also called for concluding the trial expeditiously.We also find that the accused through their counsel have admitted the genuineness of the papers.The I.O. had found no such bamboo ladder in their house, but a brick staircase.There was also no reason for the old deceased lady to climb up any ladder for taking prayer materials to the roof.A blood stained patari, which contained human blood as per the forensic science laboratory report was found in the prayer room.The body of the deceased was not found in the courtyard, nor was any blood found there which might have lend some assurance to the defence version.Even if, some witnesses have been won over by the defence and have not supported the conversation between the other accused Chandradev Tiwari, Parmanand Tiwari and Chandra Shekhar Tiwari with the appellant Ram Dheeraj that they should make a sacrifice of a Brahmin, so that his brother Ram Ashish could be exorcised of the spirit which had afflicted him, and had caused his apparently mentally unbalanced behaviour.It is germane to note that none of the children were abducted or killed for ransom or for vengeance or for committing robbery.It was due to utter ignorance that these accused became so gullible to such superstitious thinking.Of course, such thinking was also motivated by greed for gold.Even so, we persuade ourselves to choose the normal punishment prescribed for murder as for these accused.
|
['Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code', 'Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code']
|
Analyze the legal case and identify the corresponding section it comes under.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.